Historical Criteria: Gospels Waited Too Long

  • Thread starter Thread starter atheos_sum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

atheos_sum

Guest
Why were the Gospels written so long—30 to 50 years—after Jesus’ death?

This is an obvious problem.

As an event gets discussed, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be skewed. The less time that has elapsed, the less likely there will be alteration and exaggeration. Would we trust someone to give an account of a car accident and their back pains 20 years after the fact? What could possibly be the reason for waiting so long?
 
Certainly in this age of Writing, we are prone to distrust oral sources. The pejorative “hearsay” comes to mind. Nevertheless, there are reasons to trust the writing of the gospels, even if they were written after this supposed length of time, though I personally think they were written much earlier:
  1. Oral cultures, especially those in the Near East, demanded a measure of accuracy. The speaker was expected to tell the exact same story, albeit with some slight variation in style. These stories were told repeatedly. If the speaker got it wrong, someone would shout out “That’s not how it happened!”
  2. Thirty to fifty years after the events, living witnesses would still exist. Not only the Twelve, but the five hundred others who witnessed the resurrection, including the disciples on the road to Emmaus, the Blessed Virgin, Mary Magdalene, and many others. It’s not simply the case that the Evangelists simply wrote a nice story without regarding these many witnesses.
  3. The vividness of profound events. Like remembering 9/11, or any important event in our lives, we can remember it vividly. In this case, it’s not simply back pain from a car accident, but someone returning from the dead. Frankly, I’d be able to remember that happening until my dying breath.
  4. Insufficient time for myth-making. It takes hundreds of years for a myth to be created around a person. Take Siddartha Gotama, for example, who evolved into the Buddha: it took at least a several centuries for his character to evolve into the mythological figure that he is regarded in certain sects of Buddhism, especially Pure Land Buddhism.
  5. The Church, which, unlike Buddhism, is much stricter in its definitions and not apt to let mythological drift occur. Now, it could be said that the Church simply invented the whole story in an effort to control their followers. However, on the face of it the Resurrection, Incarnation, and all that seems to be absurd on the face of it. It can be much easier to believe in Gnosticism and other heresies without having to face the oddity of God-become-man. So, it seems an odd story to invent.
There are many more reasons to believe that we can trust the veracity of these records. Quite convincing is the fact that unlike the pseudo-Gospel of Thomas and other apocrypha the Four Gospels were cited by even the earliest Fathers of the Church, and that they closest dated to the actual events.

So, we have a choice. We can believe that four men, who wrote four books for four different audiences, likely at four different times, collaborated to invent perhaps the Greatest Story Ever Told (even if it was just a story) or just maybe we can trust the veracity of the gospels?
 
The Augustinian:
Certainly in this age of Writing, we are prone to distrust oral sources. The pejorative “hearsay” comes to mind. Nevertheless, there are reasons to trust the writing of the gospels, even if they were written after this supposed length of time, though I personally think they were written much earlier:
  1. Oral cultures, especially those in the Near East, demanded a measure of accuracy. The speaker was expected to tell the exact same story, albeit with some slight variation in style. These stories were told repeatedly. If the speaker got it wrong, someone would shout out “That’s not how it happened!”
  2. Thirty to fifty years after the events, living witnesses would still exist. Not only the Twelve, but the five hundred others who witnessed the resurrection, including the disciples on the road to Emmaus, the Blessed Virgin, Mary Magdalene, and many others. It’s not simply the case that the Evangelists simply wrote a nice story without regarding these many witnesses.
  3. The vividness of profound events. Like remembering 9/11, or any important event in our lives, we can remember it vividly. In this case, it’s not simply back pain from a car accident, but someone returning from the dead. Frankly, I’d be able to remember that happening until my dying breath.
  4. Insufficient time for myth-making. It takes hundreds of years for a myth to be created around a person. Take Siddartha Gotama, for example, who evolved into the Buddha: it took at least a several centuries for his character to evolve into the mythological figure that he is regarded in certain sects of Buddhism, especially Pure Land Buddhism.
  5. The Church, which, unlike Buddhism, is much stricter in its definitions and not apt to let mythological drift occur. Now, it could be said that the Church simply invented the whole story in an effort to control their followers. However, on the face of it the Resurrection, Incarnation, and all that seems to be absurd on the face of it. It can be much easier to believe in Gnosticism and other heresies without having to face the oddity of God-become-man. So, it seems an odd story to invent.
There are many more reasons to believe that we can trust the veracity of these records. Quite convincing is the fact that unlike the pseudo-Gospel of Thomas and other apocrypha the Four Gospels were cited by even the earliest Fathers of the Church, and that they closest dated to the actual events.

So, we have a choice. We can believe that four men, who wrote four books for four different audiences, likely at four different times, collaborated to invent perhaps the Greatest Story Ever Told (even if it was just a story) or just maybe we can trust the veracity of the gospels?
Click to expand...
When i finished that i was like this 😃 WOW. Keep up the good work.
 
30-50 years is a very short amount of time when we are talking about ancient cultures and when they wrote biographies and historical acounts. For example, Alexander the Great’s biography was not written for several hundred years after his life.

The letters of Paul were written years before the gosples, but the things Paul reveals about christian beliefs before the gosples are the same beliefs christians had after the gosples.
 
Oral transmission of knowledge has been shown to be extremely accurate in certain circumstances. Use the search terms “Milman Parry” and “oral history” for the start of some Google research.

Also, there may have been some intermediary documents which the inspired authors relied on. A collection of Jesus’ quotes for example.

These are two examples of how the events of Jesus’ ministry could be accurately transmitted.
 
40.png
atheos_sum:
Why were the Gospels written so long—30 to 50 years—after Jesus’ death?

This is an obvious problem.

As an event gets discussed, there are greater and greater opportunities for it to be skewed. The less time that has elapsed, the less likely there will be alteration and exaggeration. Would we trust someone to give an account of a car accident and their back pains 20 years after the fact? What could possibly be the reason for waiting so long?
Click to expand...
If, as evidence suggests, the Gospels were written before 70 AD, I just don’t think that represents a very long period of time. Considering the persecution of Christians going on, and the illiteracy that was prevalent, I just don’t see why it would be priority #1—and the Church was there to pass on the teaching. The culture back then was a culture of oral tradition, not of writing. It is a mistake to judge the memorizational ability of an oral tradition culture by the standard of our ability in our written one. I recently heard a scholar at a conference mention this in regards to just this question. He pointed out that our experience of written tradition and thus memory is very, very different from a culture in which memorization of the traditions of a culture were passed on orally. People today might not be trusted to give an account of a car accident that occurred 40 years ago, it is true. However, if they lived in a society where memorization of events was extremely important, the ability to memorize events would be far more developed. Traditional cultures passed on their important cultural treasures with exactitude----messing with the story was not permitted, as it was, in effect, messing with the culture. (The conference speaker pointed out that most of us in the audience could not have reliably remembered the schedule of talks for the several-days’-long conference if it had been given to us verbally just once at the beginning—after all, we would have expected that written materials would be given out, and we would memorize—or not—accordingly. But, if we were in a culture where few people read, and we knew that no written schedule was forthcoming, we probably would remember it!!) Also, to equate the meeting and experiencing of Jesus, the Word made flesh, to a car accident is laughable. I’m sure that for the people there, meeting Jesus was the most important thing that had ever happened to them—I don’t think it would have faded into dim memory, but would have been refelcted upon for the rest of those people’s lives. This is not the same as a car accident.
 
40.png
atheos_sum:
Why were the Gospels written so long—30 to 50 years—after Jesus’ death?
Click to expand...
That’s kind of laughable, really. What ancient documents do you have in mind that were written significantly closer to the events they describe and hence are more reliable? This wasn’t the 21st century, where people write books about things that happened a few weeks ago.

The Gospels weren’t written down because oral proclamation was primary. Until it became clear that Jesus wasn’t coming back right away, there was no reason to write anything down. And since the early Christians basically thought that their faith was contained in the existing Jewish Scriptures, the idea of writing new “Scriptures” wouldn’t occur to them for a while.

Of course this time lag allows you to cast doubt on the reliability of the Gospels. That’s fine. I have no interest in trying to prove to you that the Gospels must be reliable. But I see no reason for rejecting them out of hand either.

Edwin
 
What could possibly be the reason for waiting so long?

Dear Friend in Christ,

Several reasons come to mind:
  1. most people in that time were illiterate - truths were passes along orally (it’s sometimes hard for us to remember that when the ability to read is almost a given in our society)
  2. Christians were being persecuted and martyred for their faith - it was easier and safer to pass along truths orally than to have the incriminating evidence of being in possession of the written Scripture
But we don’t need to worry - the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and even much later after the fact, authors would correctly be able to pass along the truths of Jesus in written form because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Kate
 
The Augustinian:
  1. Oral cultures, especially those in the Near East, demanded a measure of accuracy. The speaker was expected to tell the exact same story, albeit with some slight variation in style. These stories were told repeatedly. If the speaker got it wrong, someone would shout out “That’s not how it happened!”
Click to expand...
we could spin it the other way as well: what if Jesus’ followers shouted “That’s not the way it happened!” every time someone left out the disciples’ biased versions of the story?
The Augustinian:
  1. Thirty to fifty years after the events, living witnesses would still exist. Not only the Twelve, but the five hundred others who witnessed the resurrection, including the disciples on the road to Emmaus, the Blessed Virgin, Mary Magdalene, and many others. It’s not simply the case that the Evangelists simply wrote a nice story without regarding these many witnesses.
Click to expand...
Whether living witnesses still lived 30—50 years after is not in question. But why should a witness count so much? If all we needed were witnesses, then why do we moderns bother even having trials?

Also, almost all the scholars agree that the discipless–matthew mark luke and john–weren’t the actual authors of the Gospels. These were compiled by other authors.
The Augustinian:
  1. The vividness of profound events. Like remembering 9/11, or any important event in our lives, we can remember it vividly. In this case, it’s not simply back pain from a car accident, but someone returning from the dead. Frankly, I’d be able to remember that happening until my dying breath.
Click to expand...
profound events can also change the content substantially. Have you ever seen those faith-healers or psychic-healers on television? Uri Geller, the psychic, etc. people see angels in dreams, people float off into another dimension they say, UFOs invade their homes and molest them at night. Etc. etc.
The Augustinian:
  1. Insufficient time for myth-making. It takes hundreds of years for a myth to be created around a person. Take Siddartha Gotama, for example, who evolved into the Buddha: it took at least a several centuries for his character to evolve into the mythological figure that he is regarded in certain sects of Buddhism, especially Pure Land Buddhism.
Click to expand...
I live next to a Jodo Shinshu (pureland) temple, and they don’t mythologize Buddha. They don’t worship him either. you might be thinking of mahayana.

But anyway, the gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic, so most of the people would not have been able to read the accounts and say whether or not that’s what they remembered. And myth-making doesn’t take centuries. Joseph Smith had followers within his own lifetime, just to point out one example. There are some pretty absurd happenings in the book of mormon as well.
The Augustinian:
  1. The Church, which, unlike Buddhism, is much stricter in its definitions and not apt to let mythological drift occur. Now, it could be said that the Church simply invented the whole story in an effort to control their followers. However, on the face of it the Resurrection, Incarnation, and all that seems to be absurd on the face of it. It can be much easier to believe in Gnosticism and other heresies without having to face the oddity of God-become-man. So, it seems an odd story to invent.
Click to expand...
of course, the argument goes the other way too. Because it is absurd, that is why some want to believe. Tertullian, I believe, said this.
The Augustinian:
There are many more reasons to believe that we can trust the veracity of these records. Quite convincing is the fact that unlike the pseudo-Gospel of Thomas and other apocrypha the Four Gospels were cited by even the earliest Fathers of the Church, and that they closest dated to the actual events.
Click to expand...
The Augustinian:
So, we have a choice. We can believe that four men, who wrote four books for four different audiences, likely at four different times, collaborated to invent perhaps the Greatest Story Ever Told (even if it was just a story) or just maybe we can trust the veracity of the gospels?
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, however, won’t you admit that it would have been better if the Gospels were written as soon as possible after Jesus’ death and resurrection?
 
Why did it take so long to write the Gospels?
The Apostles were a little busy starting up this thing we call The Catholic Church. Can you imagine how much effort that took, even if you overlook the martyrdom they risked?

Did they lose veracity after 50 years? When you consider that the Gospels were written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (where 50 years isn’t even a blink - I know, I know God exists out of time), then I wouldn’t doubt their veracity even if they were written today.

Incidentally, in regards to memorization, I understand the average Jew during this time could listen to the Sermon on the Mount and be able to repeat it almost verbatim when they got home.

Notworthy
 
I apologize for any factual inaccuracies in my reply, which was written extempore and without any sources on hand.

With that said, let’s talk about the nature of a book. Books, by their nature, are usually the work of one author. Any so-called “expert” who claims that the gospel of St. John or St. Matthew is a “patchwork” is a fool. Books don’t arise from the ground like spontaneous evolution. While certainly they can go through revisions by others, at the source it is written by one or two authors.

And books do not exist in a vacuum. These four gospels were, from the beginning, read to audiences, especially during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries. Outside sources such as the Didache and the epistles of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius of Antioch refer obliquely to these gospels, not to mention the fourteen letters of St. Paul!

The life of the Church, the writings of Doctors and Saints, and the Evangelists themselves testify to this: Christ is risen, alleluia, alleluia!

Now, you may complain, that is no proof. Such-and-such occurred and it can all be explained by conspiracy, mass-delusion, and the religious genius that touches certain souls every few centuries. After all, Jesus Christ may not even have existed!

It seems that someone needs a straight shave from William of Ockham.
 
Do you remember where you were when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded?

Of course you do.

If you were to write your account 40 years after the fact, you’d get the essential facts right because the event was emotionally significant. It’s already been 20 years, and I remember details. For example, I remember the name of the teacher was Christie McAuliffe, and the day of the launch she said to a reporter: “it’s going to go today.” I remember that the flight had been delayed several times in previous days due to mechanical issues, one of them being that an engineer couldn’t find a screwdriver to fix a simple problem. I remember the explosion happened just after the commander said “roger go at throttle up.” I remember that several seconds after the explosion, a voice over the public speaker said “we have no downlink” and “obviously a major malfunction.”

And I’m not particularly a space afficionado. I just remember what I saw after 20 years.

So while you say the late writing of the gospels is an obvious problem, I say forty years after the fact makes for pretty obvious reliability for recording the essential facts, even plenty of detail, about an emotionally charged event.
 
Setting aside the fact that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit… I believe on the contrary that it was better to wait sometime, and let the theology settle in.

I somehow doubt that John, in the following days after ressurection, had such a rich and full theological understanding of what had just occured.

Same goes for Matthew in adapting his gospel for the Jews he was preaching to.

The Gospels are not so important for their factual relevences (in the journalistic sense) but mostly as Gods revelation to men.

Your thoughts?
 
The Augustinian:
With that said, let’s talk about the nature of a book. Books, by their nature, are usually the work of one author. Any so-called “expert” who claims that the gospel of St. John or St. Matthew is a “patchwork” is a fool. Books don’t arise from the ground like spontaneous evolution. While certainly they can go through revisions by others, at the source it is written by one or two authors.
Click to expand...
by “patchwork” you mean that Matthew did not write “The Gospel According to Matthew”?

i would have to read exactly why almost every scholar accepts this, but two objections come to mind (i too, am writing ex tempore)

– why is it called the “Gospel According to Matthew”. If Matthew wrote it, it would have been called “The Gospel Of Our Lord” or something of that sort. Name me one other book in the world that the original author calls it “According to [the author]”. Did Josephus title his book “The Antiquities According to Josephus”? No.

– Why aren’t the Gospels written in first person? Why doesn’t matthew say, “Then our Lord fed the five thousand and people asked if this could be the Prophet and I, Matthew, believed him to be the Prophet.” It is all in third person, except some of the Nag Hamati gospels, such as Peter’s Gospel which speaks in first person.
The Augustinian:
Now, you may complain, that is no proof. Such-and-such occurred and it can all be explained by conspiracy, mass-delusion, and the religious genius that touches certain souls every few centuries. After all, Jesus Christ may not even have existed!
Click to expand...
Rather than demonize it, explain to me what is wrong with this explanation [mass delusion, conspiracy…]
The Augustinian:
It seems that someone needs a straight shave from William of Ockham.
Click to expand...
You think that ambivalent razor is on the side of the Gospels? A simpler explanation be that they waited so long for conspiratorial and myth-making purposes, rather than to let the “theology set in” as another poster has commented.
 
atheos_sum,

I’m not sure what your beef is. You wrote: “At the end of the day, however, won’t you admit that it would have been better if the Gospels were written as soon as possible after Jesus’ death and resurrection?”, without giving me any evidence that would suggest that the Gospels weren’t written as soon as possible. Frankly, applying your particular modern timetable leaves me to ask: what is your expertise in this field? I have heard and spoken to a number of NTand OT scholars, and so have come to understand the difficulties in applying modern ideas to ancient texts. You seem inclined to be skeptical, or even dismissive----fine, that’s your modern perspective, but I am left wondering what expertise, what scholarship you bring to the table, what understanding of ancient cultures that you can shed light upon, that would lend credence to your position. Or is this just an irrational and petty mood on your part? What I do see is the same sarcastic tone I easily adopted myself when I was an atheist—it’s just so-o-o-o easy, eh? Kinda makes you seem real intellectual-like, eh? Been there, done that…when you want to engage in a real discussion of ideas, be sure to let me know. So far, you’ve just indulged in the usual dreary and utterly predictable jabbing at believers without having much depth yourself. Boring…can’t you guys come up with anything new? I mean, hey, it’s been 2000 years—when are you coming out with new material?
 
40.png
Sherlock:
atheos_sum,

I’m not sure what your beef is. You wrote: “At the end of the day, however, won’t you admit that it would have been better if the Gospels were written as soon as possible after Jesus’ death and resurrection?”, without giving me any evidence that would suggest that the Gospels weren’t written as soon as possible. Frankly, applying your particular modern timetable leaves me to ask: what is your expertise in this field? I have heard and spoken to a number of NTand OT scholars, and so have come to understand the difficulties in applying modern ideas to ancient texts. You seem inclined to be skeptical, or even dismissive----fine, that’s your modern perspective, but I am left wondering what expertise, what scholarship you bring to the table, what understanding of ancient cultures that you can shed light upon, that would lend credence to your position. Or is this just an irrational and petty mood on your part? What I do see is the same sarcastic tone I easily adopted myself when I was an atheist—it’s just so-o-o-o easy, eh? Kinda makes you seem real intellectual-like, eh? Been there, done that…when you want to engage in a real discussion of ideas, be sure to let me know. So far, you’ve just indulged in the usual dreary and utterly predictable jabbing at believers without having much depth yourself. Boring…can’t you guys come up with anything new? I mean, hey, it’s been 2000 years—when are you coming out with new material?
Click to expand...
— you claim that i have not given evidence that to write an account 30–50 years after an incident has occurred is not “as soon as possible”? If 30–50 years is not a long time to pass before writing such an account, then what is?

— It is never convincing when people tell me that they used to be athiests. You used to be an athiest. What does this prove?

— you think atheism is something people do only to seem “intellectual-like”? why is that? Do you not like intellectuals?

— let you know when i want to discus real ideas? If this isn’t a real idea, what is a real idea? Who decides what a real idea is?

— i don’t have much depth myself? this is an unusual setting for you to make such a claim. how did you establish that? How much depth do you have to yourself?
 
“You claim that i have not given evidence that to write an account 30–50 years after an incident has occurred is not “as soon as possible”? If 30–50 years is not a long time to pass before writing such an account, then what is?”

The key word here is “possible”. What is your expertise in ancient writing and ancient cultures that allows you to determine what is and is not possible in a given period of time? Do you have extensive knowledge of this period in history?

“It is never convincing when people tell me that they used to be athiests. You used to be an athiest. What does this prove?”

That at least I have some experience in that particular area—which is more than could be said for your foray here into ancient cultures and writing.

“you think atheism is something people do only to seem “intellectual-like”? why is that? Do you not like intellectuals?”

I love intellectuals who don’t take leave of their common sense (Chesterton, of course, being a prime example). But from my own experience when I was younger, and my experience of friends who are atheists, I do see that there is often an underlying desire to be thought of as an intellectual. This desire is stronger, frankly, then the intellect itself in many cases.

“let you know when i want to discus real ideas? If this isn’t a real idea, what is a real idea? Who decides what a real idea is?”

The question isn’t whether your topic is “real” or not, it’s whether or not you have any expertise and scholarship in this area. I don’t think much of people who take stances who don’t have a background that lends their positions credibility.

“i don’t have much depth myself? this is an unusual setting for you to make such a claim. how did you establish that? How much depth do you have to yourself?”

Enough to recognize intellectual posturing when I see it. Having “been there, done that”, it’s easy to see the signs.
 
Could it be that the apostles and disciples believed that they would witness the second coming? That they thought that Jesus would return during their lifetimes, and writing an account of His life and teachings wasn’t really necessary?
 
Sherlock said:
“You claim that i have not given evidence that to write an account 30–50 years after an incident has occurred is not “as soon as possible”? If 30–50 years is not a long time to pass before writing such an account, then what is?”

The key word here is “possible”. What is your expertise in ancient writing and ancient cultures that allows you to determine what is and is not possible in a given period of time? Do you have extensive knowledge of this period in history?

“It is never convincing when people tell me that they used to be athiests. You used to be an athiest. What does this prove?”

That at least I have some experience in that particular area—which is more than could be said for your foray here into ancient cultures and writing.

“you think atheism is something people do only to seem “intellectual-like”? why is that? Do you not like intellectuals?”

I love intellectuals who don’t take leave of their common sense (Chesterton, of course, being a prime example). But from my own experience when I was younger, and my experience of friends who are atheists, I do see that there is often an underlying desire to be thought of as an intellectual. This desire is stronger, frankly, then the intellect itself in many cases.

“let you know when i want to discus real ideas? If this isn’t a real idea, what is a real idea? Who decides what a real idea is?”

The question isn’t whether your topic is “real” or not, it’s whether or not you have any expertise and scholarship in this area. I don’t think much of people who take stances who don’t have a background that lends their positions credibility.

“i don’t have much depth myself? this is an unusual setting for you to make such a claim. how did you establish that? How much depth do you have to yourself?”

Enough to recognize intellectual posturing when I see it. Having “been there, done that”, it’s easy to see the signs.
Click to expand...

Very well said. I have noticed his tone in other threads is arrogant and condescending towards those who believe in God. It’s typical of most atheists to be condescending, as they believe they are “enlightened” and the rest of us are fools for believing in myths. Yet I’ve never heard an atheist give a logical or reasonable explanation of creation if there is no first cause, which is God. I suppose atheists tend to be arrogant and condescending to avoid having to answer how something comes from nothing. This is the most illogical position to take, yet atheists take this absurd position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top