Why were the Gospels written down?

[BigRed]

if angellous said so then its pretty close, I have found close to the same ratio.

remember you would have one person reading these tales to groups of people for entertainment and religious purpose to spread the word.

Oral tradition is said to be very accurate at that time as they had allot of practice.

much of the OT was told for hundreds of years before being written down.

The NT was told for decades orally before unknown authors wrote the early books down

Look at this......
John 19:19-20 (New American Standard Bible)



19Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." 20Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek

It says many of the Jews read this inscription. Means they could read.
Now I'll agree that Jesus' disciples may have been illiterate.

BigRed

 

[outhouse]

Look at this......
John 19:19-20 (New American Standard Bible)



19Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." 20Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek

It says many of the Jews read this inscription. Means they could read.
Now I'll agree that Jesus' disciples may have been illiterate.

BigRed

you cannot read the bible as historically accurate, it is not. Nor has it even ment to be a history book

 

[outhouse]

JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS."

that statement also brings up a can of worms with the fact many people believe jesus of nazareth is a misinterpretation of just what you wrote "jesus the nazarene"

 

[BigRed]

you cannot read the bible as historically accurate, it is not. Nor has it even ment to be a history book

I understand you. You say you are "Atheisticity" so you don't believe. [that's fine with me]
But most Christians believe every word is the Gospel truth.

So if the Gospel says "they read" ,,,they read....if one is a fundamentalist believer.

BigRed

 

[BigRed]

that statement also brings up a can of worms with the fact many people believe jesus of nazareth is a misinterpretation of just what you wrote "jesus the nazarene"

My quote was from the NASB. It says NAZARENE. [John 19:19]
Matthew 2:23 (New American Standard Bible)


23and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."

You have to realize that John's gospel was written much later and the redactors tried to "clean up" problems in the other gospels. After all, we all know that there isn't any OT Scripture in the prophets calling Jesus a Nazarene. But now they have one.

BigRed

 

[Pegg]

This popped into my head the other day. I wonder if anyone here can shed light on it:
Apparently, the Gospels were handed down through an oral tradition for decades and decades. Then, they were written down. But why were they written down? And why then?

It seems that oral tradition was working for them (or was it?); why the decision to change things?

you can only teach people orally for so long... if the people teaching it are eyewitnesses then the oral teaching will likely be accurate because it comes from the mouth of one who knows, but the further you get from an actual eyewitness the more likely it is that the story will become corrupted. So it was absolutely necessary for the early christians to put the events down in writing before those eyewitnesses were no longer around....and thats what the gospels are...they are the events of Jesus life from those who witnessed it.

And we can see the purpose of the gospels was to convince people of Jesus identity. John says he recorded Jesus’ life story “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.” John 20:31.

Luke opens his gospel with this statement to the a man named Theophilus. Its obvious from Lukes words that he learned the message about Christ orally by 'eye witnesses' and then himself wrote an account of it.
"Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The‧oph′i‧lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally"

the Apostle Matthew and Mark wrote their accounts for different audiences. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, while Mark, under the Apostle Peters guidance, wrote primarily for the Romans as is seen by the way he explains jewish customs and teachings that his audience would be unfamiliar with.

 

[Pegg]

that statement also brings up a can of worms with the fact many people believe jesus of nazareth is a misinterpretation of just what you wrote "jesus the nazarene"

there is a perfectly good explanation for this and it has to do with confusing the hebrew word 'nazarene' with Nazirite. They are spelled similarly in English but they come from different Hebrew words with different meanings. Nazarene is from the Hebrew word ne′tser which means sprout.

So Matthew was referring to Isaiah 11:1 “There must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout [we‧ne′tser] will be fruitful.”
And Jeremiah wrote about the “righteous sprout” as an offshoot of David in reference to the messiah. (Jer 23:5; 33:15) Zechariah describes a king-priest “whose name is Sprout”

So the gospels are not wrong in calling Jesus a Nazarene as spoken through the prophets.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not disappointed. When I refered to "anyone and everyone" I thought you understood I was speaking of Jews being literate. I will try and be careful not to be ambiguous in the future.

Joshua 1:8
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

How would it be possible to meditate and observe the Law without being able to read and write?
Do you remember everything that is in your Bible? I doubt it. You could never know all the nuances of Scripture from just hearing it and relying on your memory to know the Bible. You have to be able to read so you can review and refresh your memory.


I think the evidence points to the Jews being literate.
That 97% illiterate figure is not accurate IMO.
BigRed

Joshua 1:8 was written after the exile in Babylon, when literacy was very high, and the New Covenant had been established, according to Jeremiah 31:31,34, when no one needed to teach us how to know the Lord, because the Scriptures had been composed and organized by Ezra, the most famous Scribe in the History of Israel. So, it had become available to everyone, in our own heart. We had only to reach for it and do what we were supposed to do. (Deut. 30:11-14)

 

[BigRed]

Joshua 1:8 was written after the exile in Babylon, when literacy was very high, and the New Covenant had been established, according to Jeremiah 31:31,34, when no one needed to teach us how to know the Lord, because the Scriptures had been composed and organized by Ezra, the most famous Scribe in the History of Israel. So, it had become available to everyone, in our own heart. We had only to reach for it and do what we were supposed to do. (Deut. 30:11-14)

If literacy was high after the exile in Babylon, would it have been even higher 500 years later when Jesus was around?
Or do you think it may have been lower? Why?

BigRed

 

[ninerbuff]

Cause god didn't have spray paint yet to spell it out on a mountain.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If we accept your interpretation, then Jesus' message was not announced to everyone and anyone, but to a very narrow select group of people.
I don't think that's true.
Are you arguing from knowledge gained from evidence....or are you just trying to support your religious beliefs?

BigRed

Well, I'm arguing from knowledge gained from evidence, of course.

I did not say that Jesus' message was not announced to everyone and anyone, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would think that I said that.

What I am saying is that few people in the ancient world could read - including Jews - and that is reflected in the NT. Being illiterate does not hinder the proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

1) THERE ARE NO EXTANT COPIES OF JOSEPHUS THAT EXIST THAT ARE DATED BEFORE THE FOURTH CENTURY
2) LUKE-ACTS APPEARS IN CHRISTIAN TEXTS EXTANT A HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THIS TIME. NOT QUOTES. FULL TEXTS.

Does shouting make it sounds more relevant?

Because the date of our extant copies has nothing to do with whether Luke could have had access to Josephus back then. (Do you think it does ?)

We know Josephus wrote in the 90s.
So, regardless of our extant copies NOW, copies of Josephus MUST have existed from the 90s on.

Or are you somehow claiming that MSS of Josephus were not available to anyone before the 4th century?


Iasion

 

[Pegg]

It says many of the Jews read this inscription. Means they could read.
Now I'll agree that Jesus' disciples may have been illiterate.

BigRed

you just agreed that many of the jews could read, but then immediately after say about Jesus disciples, mabye not???

there is plenty of evidence in the NT that the early christians could read. The early christians were Jews. Jesus could read and did so publicly ....and he was considered 'uneducated'

The gospel writers could certainly read and write. John, James, Jude and Paul could all read and write. The young man Timothy could read and write because Paul sent him 2 letters.

I have no idea where this wrong idea that they were all illiterate comes from

 

[Pegg]

Well, there you go. Jesus never said that to a group of Jews that he was preaching to. He never said it to his disciples. He only said it to a specific group of people who were zealous about the law and probably some of them could read it.

Acts 17:10 "Paul and Silas out to Be‧roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them became believers

The Ethiopian eunuch was “sitting in his chariot and reading aloud the prophet Isaiah” when the disciple Philip met him on the road to Gaza. Acts 8:26-30

Paul asked Timothy to bring “the scrolls, especially the parchments.” 2 Timothy 4:13

And what about the great libraries that existed in ancient times? Thousands of pieces of writing have been unearthed from such libraries. King Hammurabi built a library in the Babylonian city of Borsippa, Rameses II founded a famous library in the Egyptian city of Thebes. Ashurbanipal had the greatest known library in the ancient world. Who wrote all the works found in those ancient libraries? Illiterate people?

 

[BigRed]

you just agreed that many of the jews could read, but then immediately after say about Jesus disciples, mabye not???

there is plenty of evidence in the NT that the early christians could read. The early christians were Jews. Jesus could read and did so publicly ....and he was considered 'uneducated'

The gospel writers could certainly read and write. John, James, Jude and Paul could all read and write. The young man Timothy could read and write because Paul sent him 2 letters.

I have no idea where this wrong idea that they were all illiterate comes from

Someone else on this thread wrote that the Apostles were unlettered men. I was agreeing tongue in cheek.

I think that the Jews of Jesus day were literate just as they are today.

BigRed

 

[BigRed]

Acts 17:10 "Paul and Silas out to Be‧roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them became believers

The Ethiopian eunuch was “sitting in his chariot and reading aloud the prophet Isaiah” when the disciple Philip met him on the road to Gaza. Acts 8:26-30

Paul asked Timothy to bring “the scrolls, especially the parchments.” 2 Timothy 4:13

And what about the great libraries that existed in ancient times? Thousands of pieces of writing have been unearthed from such libraries. King Hammurabi built a library in the Babylonian city of Borsippa, Rameses II founded a famous library in the Egyptian city of Thebes. Ashurbanipal had the greatest known library in the ancient world. Who wrote all the works found in those ancient libraries? Illiterate people?

Who burned all the great libraries of the Pagan world?

BigRed

 

[Ben Masada]

Why were the gospels written down? With the intent to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Have you ever heard of it?

 

[melissalee2003]

But why were they written down? And why then?

I am a High School religion teacher and accoring to the text book I use with the kids there were two main reasons the Gospels were finally written down:

1. The end of the world was not coming as quickly as the early apostles thought. It's likely that after Jesus' death and Resurrection, the apostles thought the end of the world/second coming of Christ, would be in the lifetimes. As they were instructed to go and spread the good news to the people, it really wouldn't make sense to sit down and write a Gospel. In their minds there would be no reason to have a written account. Why when there wasn't much time left? They likely believed they could reach a whole lot more people by going out and preaching than by taking what was likely a long time to write that Gospel down. It wasn't until they realized that many people were dying and this whole end of the world thing wasn't happening like they thought that they came to the realization that a written account would be necessary and beneficial.

2. Distortions were beginning to set in. Whether because people's memories were only so good or because heretics were deliberately making distortions - things were getting messed up. It was important to get a written accoung while reliable sources (eye-witness accounts or the next best thing - those who heard directly from eye-witnesses) were still alive.

That's my text books account and not my own but I think it makes a lot of sense for why these Gospels were written when they were.

 

[outhouse]

But why were they written down? And why then?

I am a High School religion teacher and accoring to the text book I use with the kids there were two main reasons the Gospels were finally written down:

1. The end of the world was not coming as quickly as the early apostles thought. It's likely that after Jesus' death and Resurrection, the apostles thought the end of the world/second coming of Christ, would be in the lifetimes. As they were instructed to go and spread the good news to the people, it really wouldn't make sense to sit down and write a Gospel. In their minds there would be no reason to have a written account. Why when there wasn't much time left? They likely believed they could reach a whole lot more people by going out and preaching than by taking what was likely a long time to write that Gospel down. It wasn't until they realized that many people were dying and this whole end of the world thing wasn't happening like they thought that they came to the realization that a written account would be necessary and beneficial.

2. Distortions were beginning to set in. Whether because people's memories were only so good or because heretics were deliberately making distortions - things were getting messed up. It was important to get a written accoung while reliable sources (eye-witness accounts or the next best thing - those who heard directly from eye-witnesses) were still alive.

That's my text books account and not my own but I think it makes a lot of sense for why these Gospels were written when they were.

excellent post frubals for you sir.

makes sense.


Sad fact is there could have been early writings that didnt make it to mainstream and were simple burned after the council of nicea. Marcion gives us a glimpse of Paul and Luke were common in 150 AD as we know the others were there as well as Nag Hammadi. I wish we had more of the stuff floating around from the first century.


Another reason is after the fall of the temple proto christians had to regroup.

More then anything I find the illiteracy rate in the area they key feature. yeshuas movement snowballed but in that time it took a while to spread. It wasnt really large enough for that first generation to make it known and popular enough to get to scribes.