The written records of Jesus..why so long after the fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter laocmo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

laocmo

Guest
Why did no one write down all the important facts about Jesus, during his life or in the first 100 or so years after his death. It seems someone got the idea to record the gospels way after the fact. What caused the original writers to wait so long that their memories might have been clouded? I should think those around him who thought his teachings worthy of belief would immediately before they got too old to remember everything write many volumes to hand down to their children and grandchildren. Also why did the Romans who kept meticulous records not document via their scribes everything that they knew about Jesus, his trial, crucifixion ,etc. I was told once by a non-believing Protestant friend that all the Roman records exist, but are hidden deep in the Vatican archives. Probably not true but I do find it odd that no immediate record of all his wonderful teachings exist. Almost a century is a long time for the truth to undergo a lot of stretching.
 
I think it was more like 20-30 years. Also, just because we don’t have them doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. I’m not sure when Q is surmised to have been written.
 
My dad told great stories from his past. Even well into Alzheimer’s, he was consistent with his history. Though we knew them well, we loved to listen to his experiences.

Everyone has a memory that doesn’t leave them, pending an outside force, like a disease.

For many in the US they remember not just where they were on 9/11, but all kinds of details about the day for them. That will hang with us for our lifetime.

For those who witnessed Jesus at work, I don’t find it tough to believe they remembered.

Why they waited to write - perhaps they were busy doing as instructed, which never entailed ‘write this down’, at least to my knowledge.

Perhaps culture comes into play.

Take care,

Mike
 
Jesus was handed down with oral tradition, also.
The truth was guarded by the Holy Spirit, and oral tradition
back then was very good; and the ones who did it made sure
it was correct.
Even though he isn’t Catholic, I recommend Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ.’
He researched for 2 years as an agnostic, non Biblical accounts of Christ.
He finally said to himself, The Biblical account of Jesus must be true.

Please google it, it is very interesting.
 
Oral history was the accepted way of passing information down through the generations.

I will add, particularly in the middle east.

There were bazaars in which oral historians had their shops and they would memorize information.
 
I have never written down my 9/11 experience but I have shared it many times. I have heard many as well.

Maybe my experience didn’t really happen because it’s not on paper.

Or- is it too late, putting it on paper now would have an effect on history’s reality, but writing in yester-year, not?

Can you imagine if we held ourselves to the standards we want to see to ‘believe’?

We would have to facetwitpostgramspaceblog every moment to prove the moment happened.

How does it go? #illogical
 
Why did no one write down all the important facts about Jesus, during his life or in the first 100 or so years after his death. It seems someone got the idea to record the gospels way after the fact. What caused the original writers to wait so long that their memories might have been clouded? I should think those around him who thought his teachings worthy of belief would immediately before they got too old to remember everything write many volumes to hand down to their children and grandchildren. Also why did the Romans who kept meticulous records not document via their scribes everything that they knew about Jesus, his trial, crucifixion ,etc. I was told once by a non-believing Protestant friend that all the Roman records exist, but are hidden deep in the Vatican archives. Probably not true but I do find it odd that no immediate record of all his wonderful teachings exist. Almost a century is a long time for the truth to undergo a lot of stretching.
Consider only this: those who typically write memoirs tend to do so during the later years of their life as a means of reflecting over all they have seen.

Further, if the accounts might be considered at face value, many were apparently of the opinion at the time that Jesus was due to return at any time, rendering the considered need to laboriously record all that they may have seen as largely unnecessary…
 
Premise is wrong. The records we have today are the only surviving records. According to some within 1 year of Jesus death we have a Christian statement of faith, which is recorded in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which was written obviously before Paul died in about AD 54 or so. Luke writes his gospel saying he has undertaken a study of what was written about Jesus. So things were written. Not everything written survives to the present day. Also, given the fact the written medium was not as well used as it is today. Many people were illiterate. So it would do no good to hand them a book. They never had the Internet or even a printing press. The gospel was largely spread by word of mouth.

youtu.be/ay_Db4RwZ_M
 
Why did no one write down all the important facts about Jesus, during his life or in the first 100 or so years after his death.
The New Testament books were all written within the lifetimes of those who knew Christ on earth. Most information was oral at that time as most people could not read. Many of the early Christians hoped for Christ’s early return, within their lifetimes and did not imagine that the Church would last many centuries.
Also why did the Romans who kept meticulous records not document via their scribes everything that they knew about Jesus, his trial, crucifixion ,etc. I was told once by a non-believing Protestant friend that all the Roman records exist, but are hidden deep in the Vatican archives.
The Romans certainly did not keep records of all the many people they crucified. The pagan Romans generally did not realize the significance of Christ until the Church had spread.
 
The apostles were expecting Jesus to come back within their lifetimes. John 16:16 says “In a little while you will see Me no longer, and then after a little while you will see Me”. So they went about spreading the good news as he instructed them, but didn’t see the need right away to write down the stories.
 
Oral history was the accepted way of passing information down through the generations.
And we all know how accurate that is…

How many times have you stood around the barbie and heard someone relate a story which involved you and which contains facts that you know didn’t happen.

A friend of mine was telling a tale about himself and me going to a big game a few years previously. We did this, we did that, and Bradski, do you remember what you said to that guy in the bar? What a laugh…

Except I never went to the game. He went with someone else. He was mixing up some facts from another game to which we both went.

And I have heard my wife, a woman as honest as the day is long, tell an anecdote which sounds a lot better in the telling because she’s added a few flourishes here and tweaked a fact there.

Are you saying that the gospels are the result of this kind of accuracy?
 
Apol/Phil]
laocmo #1
Why did no one write down all the important facts about Jesus, during his life or in the first 100 or so years after his death.
How could a Catholic be so misinformed?

The New Testament was written in the years between 50 AD and 100 AD.

You can see the chart giving the dates for each NT book, taken from the
from the Navarre Bible, “Introduction to the Books of the New Testament”.
beginningcatholic.com/when-was-the-bible-written.html
 
Why did no one write down all the important facts about Jesus, during his life or in the first 100 or so years after his death.
Ignoring that this statement is false anyway, why write it down when you have traditions (rituals, songs, stories, philosophies) to carry down the information. Oh, and it also helps when eyewitnesses are alive still, as well as their immediate successors.
It seems someone got the idea to record the gospels way after the fact.
Greek culture at the time valued consulting eyewitnesses before writings. Once the eyewitnesses started to die out, Christians thought writing down the information would be the next best thing.
What caused the original writers to wait so long that their memories might have been clouded? I should think those around him who thought his teachings worthy of belief would immediately before they got too old to remember everything write many volumes to hand down to their children and grandchildren.
Memory might be misty when it comes to minor details, but major points tend to be more easily remembered, especially when you see such information as the most meaningful thing in your life, you have deep emotional attachment to it, you meditate on it all day, you teach it constantly, and you live in a culture that promotes oral history, among other circumstances.
Also why did the Romans who kept meticulous records not document via their scribes everything that they knew about Jesus, his trial, crucifixion ,etc. I was told once by a non-believing Protestant friend that all the Roman records exist, but are hidden deep in the Vatican archives. Probably not true but I do find it odd that no immediate record of all his wonderful teachings exist.
The Gospels are some of the best examples of “immediate records” that we are going to get when it comes to antiquity. Most things we accept much more easily come from a records of records, which are then themselves recorded a couple hundred years after the fact, and recopied a few times by monks in the monasteries, before being published in the Printer Press.

Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand the concept of the shipwreck of history. Most records don’t survive: they decay, are lost in fires, are thrown away by accident, etc., etc. I would bet that Pilate had something record about Jesus, but it was lost when the city was leveled in AD 70.
Almost a century is a long time for the truth to undergo a lot of stretching.
Actually, it is rather short. Oral histories usually only start to decay about after a hundred years, and even then it is only on immaterial details: the major information last much longer. And, as I pointed out before, and others have here as well, that it was more like a decade or two, in which most eyewitnesses were probably still alive.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
And we all know how accurate that is…

How many times have you stood around the barbie and heard someone relate a story which involved you and which contains facts that you know didn’t happen.



Are you saying that the gospels are the result of this kind of accuracy?
No. The Jewish people at that time were accustomed to an oral tradition of teaching. Think about it: most people weren’t literate and even if they were writing tools were prohibitively expensive. Instead they memorized vast quantities of scripture spoken to them by their rabbis.
 
Why did no one write down all the important facts about Jesus, during his life or in the first 100 or so years after his death. It seems someone got the idea to record the gospels way after the fact. What caused the original writers to wait so long that their memories might have been clouded? I should think those around him who thought his teachings worthy of belief would immediately before they got too old to remember everything write many volumes to hand down to their children and grandchildren. Also why did the Romans who kept meticulous records not document via their scribes everything that they knew about Jesus, his trial, crucifixion ,etc. I was told once by a non-believing Protestant friend that all the Roman records exist, but are hidden deep in the Vatican archives. Probably not true but I do find it odd that no immediate record of all his wonderful teachings exist. Almost a century is a long time for the truth to undergo a lot of stretching.
When were the gospels written?

In order to establish the historical reliability of the New Testament, one key question to be addressed is whether the authors were actual eyewitnesses or had access to those who were. This process begins by establishing the dates that the books were written as accurately as possible.

A. Traditional Dating

Many people who are skeptical of the claims of Christianity argue that the books which record the life of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written decades or even a century or more after Jesus. Because of this time gap, they argue that the gospels cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts of the events which occurred in Jesus’ lifetime because it would not be possible for the author or the author’s sources to have been alive during Jesus’ lifetime.

For the sake of this discussion, assume that Jesus was crucified in AD 30. The closer the books of the New Testament were written to that date, the easier it is to accept the possibility that they are accurate records of the events that took place during His time on earth. So, when were the Gospels written? Although estimates vary (with skeptics typically arguing for a later dating), mainstream scholars conservatively date the authorship of the four gospels as follows:

Matthew AD 65-85
Mark AD 60-75
Luke AD 65-95
John AD 95-100

Additionally, it is generally believed that the gospels (with the exception of John) were based upon oral tradition as well as written source materials known to scholars by names such as “M” and “Q”, etc. Like the autographs of the gospels, these documents are no longer in existence, but they would have pre-dated the gospels themselves by as much as decade or more.

B. How low can we go?

In addition to this written pre-gospel material, the oral tradition and the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were still alive and able to speak about what they had seen and heard were available to the authors of the gospels. The existence of these two sources could push the dating of the gospel message back by many years – even to the days of the events themselves.

There are numerous pieces of evidence to support an early dating of the gospels.

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

The New Testament fails to mention the siege of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke’s accounts were written prior to AD 64.

(cont.)
 
Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martyrdoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the “brother” of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.

Luke’s Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:

Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

This suggests that Luke’s Gospel was written prior to AD 62.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:

Luke 10:6-7
6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

1 Timothy 5:17-18
17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Paul quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, and refers to it as scripture! But there’s more. In his letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 53), Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” From these examples, we can conclude that Paul was quoting from Luke’s gospel repeatedly. The dating of Paul’s epistles (accepted by even skeptical scholars) and the fact that what he is writing is a reminder of that which he had taught them in person previously suggest that Luke was written prior to AD 53.

Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew 250 and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke wrote around AD 53.

In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. The first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second 14 years after his conversion (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul – following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition – had memorized and passed along verbatim:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he stated explicitly that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony that can be dated to within 10 years of the event itself!

The bottom line?

Given that as few as 10 years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible but highly improbable that the central facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.
 
And we all know how accurate that is…

How many times have you stood around the barbie and heard someone relate a story which involved you and which contains facts that you know didn’t happen.

A friend of mine was telling a tale about himself and me going to a big game a few years previously. We did this, we did that, and Bradski, do you remember what you said to that guy in the bar? What a laugh…

Except I never went to the game. He went with someone else. He was mixing up some facts from another game to which we both went.

And I have heard my wife, a woman as honest as the day is long, tell an anecdote which sounds a lot better in the telling because she’s added a few flourishes here and tweaked a fact there.

Are you saying that the gospels are the result of this kind of accuracy?
People are able to train their minds.

We don’t do that.

But you can develop memory skills and you can develop math skills.

Back then, they relied on memory and on passing down accurate representations of information worth recording.

If you relied on paper records, it would disappear from deterioration within a few years.

Besides paper was very expensive. Sheepskin was even more expensive.

Memories and oral tradition was easier and cheaper.

This was serious business.

Not just standing around the barbie with a brewski.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top