Why didn't Jesus write anything down?

[tonyrey]

I think it’s important to remember that we’re not talking about a 2,000 year old game of telephone. These were devout followers, the first Christians, many of them martyrs who died for the faith. The would want to accurately preserve what their Messiah had said. So I find it very unlikely that a 2,000 year old version of the telephone game is what transpired here. It’s hard to make a comparison, but I suppose if you try to remember the most important thing anyone ever said to you, a mentor/teacher/parents/relative, or whatnot, obviously that is embedded in your memory and you’re not likely to forget it, they are transformative encounters and events that leave a mark on you, I think that is a more likely comparison than the telephone game.

Also, the disagreement between Paul and Peter is one of the favorites of anti-Catholics or non-Catholics to point out, and has been discussed ad nauseum on many different occasions so if you’re looking for more information on that particular situation, I would suggest searching for it on the forum and finding a thorough discussion of it that has already taken place (rather than rehashing it all here).

In any case, as I said, it comes down to faith as many things do and thus anything I say may or may not be helpful. The best thing to do and what I always tell everyone else is to look for the answers. The Catholic Church doesn’t hide from anything, all the answers are there for one who searches with a humble heart.

God bless.

-Paul

“who died for the faith” is the key phrase…

 

[tonyrey]

I used to wonder that too…

But then I said I would follow Christ. And then I saw how busy He and the Apostles were!

I believe everything happens for a reason through God’s Will.

I wish it would’ve stayed oral. Then there wouldn’t be so much confusion with language. But then again. Maybe Deus wanted it that way.
Pax

The written word had led to thousands of Christian sects!

 

[tonyrey]

He was too busy preaching and teaching! The main message was recorded by others for posterity.

Jesus knew He would soon be put to death…

 

[miguel]

The written word had led to thousands of Christian sects!

Didn’t one of your guys say “the devil can cite scripture for his purpose”?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why did Jesus need to write anything in the form of a gospel when his own words are recorded in the gospels and written down?

Maybe I am wrong, but I think that people in the time of Jesus did not often write down their own words but had a scribe that would write down for them

 

[D_Martin]

Yes, I know all about early Christian oral tradition. Yes, I know the vast majority of people during the time of Christ were illiterate. That being said, I’m wondering about a few things.

Since Jesus was both wholly God and wholly man, wouldn’t he have knowledge of how to write, because of his divinity?

If not, why didn’t he choose a literate scribe to be one of his disciples? They (literate persons) may have been in the minority, but there were scribes and historians who could have recorded Jesus’ teachings as he said them.

Part of the reason why I’m wondering about this is I’m confused as to why Jesus would leave his message to such chance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we understand that the Bible was written at least a couple decades after Jesus had died and been resurrected. I’ve often heard the description “eye-witnesses” or “near eye-witnesses.” What I can’t wrap my head around is why God would leave his word up to the interpretation of men. Assuming that it was feasible (and by all accounts it should have been) it would have been logical to record Jesus’ words as they were spoken, so as to avoid corruption.

Another way to pose my question might be why animating the writers of the Bible with the Holy Spirit was a better way of preserving the teachings of Christ than actually having someone write down what he said as he said them.

A fair question indeed, the only places where the Lord wrote, by his own hand, was the Ten Commandments, twice because the first set was broken, and when they brought the adulterous woman before Him to see what He would say, He wrote on the ground. There is also the hand writing on the wall in Daniel but not sure it applies to what your asking here.

Essentially God speaks His will into creation, with the expectation of a response that He Judges. (Gen:1), and Jesus being the Word of God in the Presence of God in the flesh would most definitely do the same. Hence God doesn’t forget what He says. He has no need to write it down. And it was John, I do believe, that mentioned that after Pentecost the Holy Spirit brought everything that Jesus said and done to memory. The Holy Spirit doesn’t forget the Word of God. So if one is born of the Holy Spirit then all that God has said to man could be known. Moses being in the presence of God in the tabernacle might have taken dictation, or wrote down what the Lord God said, as He said it to Moses about law and offerings. That is not impossible, unless there is scripture that says Moses didn’t.

Basically the work in the flesh is man’s to do. The work that is of God is Spirit, which takes the Power of God to do. I don’t think the Lord sees wisdom in doing for man what He has given man the ability to do. Jesus came and did what He did in the flesh, dying and rasing Himself up from the grave, because we could not, therefore He did it for us.

 

[_Abyssinia]

One answer I’ve heard re why Jesus and/or the others didn’t write the words down as they were happening is…that they all assumed (because Jesus told them) that the end was coming soon, ASAP–during their lifetime, he told them.

From what I recall, the first gospel to be written–the one called “Mark”–was written 30-40 years or so after Jesus died, say scholars, and the last one, called “John”, was about 60 years after Jesus died…most likely because by that point, the followers realized the end might not be so imminent as Jesus said, so they better get stuff written down. And by then, the stories passed along verbally had taken shape.

You are correct, from what I’ve read no one can be certain who wrote the gospels. The earliest manuscripts of the gospels don’t have any names attached to them…none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses and the names of John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke were added about a century after they were all written. Since then, it has become tradition to say those four wrote it.

Who wrote the gospels?

Among the 1000s of manuscripts of gospel in Greek and other translated languages, no names are given as to the authorship apart from the traditional authors

Irenaeus of Gaul, Papias of Asia Minor, Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea and Pantaenus attribute the gospel of Matthew being written by Matthew

Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome of Palestine and Clement of Alexandria attribute Mark’s gospel to Mark

Athanasius, Nazianze, Gregory, and Jerome, Irenaeus, Muratorian Canon, Eusebius Clement attribute Luke’s gospel to Luke

Polycarp according to Eusebius, Irenaeus, attribute John’s gospel to John

Who has been put forward that could of written the gospels if not the 4 who are attributed to have written them? If there were 1 or more other authors who wrote 1 or more of the gospels who are not traditionally attributed, it is unlikely their names would of been lost in history

Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson’s research pointed too John’s gospel being written the earliest but all gospels being written between 40 AD and 65 AD. Jesuit Fr Jose O’Callaghan looked at Gospel of Mark fragments and dated them to 50 AD. Dr Carsten Thiede and Fr Reginald Fuller looked at 3 fragments of papyrus from the Dead sea scrolls of the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, and dated them to 40 AD

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALWROT.HTM

There are good reasons to believe that all of the authors of the gospels lived during the time Jesus was alive and that the traditional attributed authors were the authors

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abyssinia

**There are good reasons to believe that all of the authors of the gospels lived during the time Jesus was alive and that the traditional attributed authors were the authors **

It never ceases to amaze me that the enemies of Christ insist there is no proof he ever lived. If the four gospels are not proof, that could only be because they are all fraudulent. That requires the people who wrote them to be liars all. But when you read the Gospels, you get the sense not of liars but of truth tellers, people willing to die for what they believed in. I’ve never heard of frauds willing to die for a bunch of lies.

The report is that Peter and Paul died with lots of other martyrs in Rome.

 

[PJD1987]

Who wrote the gospels?

Among the 1000s of manuscripts of gospel in Greek and other translated languages, no names are given as to the authorship apart from the traditional authors

Irenaeus of Gaul, Papias of Asia Minor, Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea and Pantaenus attribute the gospel of Matthew being written by Matthew

Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome of Palestine and Clement of Alexandria attribute Mark’s gospel to Mark

Athanasius, Nazianze, Gregory, and Jerome, Irenaeus, Muratorian Canon, Eusebius Clement attribute Luke’s gospel to Luke

Polycarp according to Eusebius, Irenaeus, attribute John’s gospel to John

Who has been put forward that could of written the gospels if not the 4 who are attributed to have written them? If there were 1 or more other authors who wrote 1 or more of the gospels who are not traditionally attributed, it is unlikely their names would of been lost in history

Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson’s research pointed too John’s gospel being written the earliest but all gospels being written between 40 AD and 65 AD. Jesuit Fr Jose O’Callaghan looked at Gospel of Mark fragments and dated them to 50 AD. Dr Carsten Thiede and Fr Reginald Fuller looked at 3 fragments of papyrus from the Dead sea scrolls of the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, and dated them to 40 AD

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALWROT.HTM

There are good reasons to believe that all of the authors of the gospels lived during the time Jesus was alive and that the traditional attributed authors were the authors

Yes! Thank you. This is the type of stuff I would have liked to include in my response, but didn’t have time to gather the links.

But to the OP, these are exactly the type of sources for authorship I was alluding to.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[tonyrey]

Didn’t one of your guys say “the devil can cite scripture for his purpose”?

Who are my guys?

 

[miguel]

Who are my guys?

Sorry. William Shakespeare is one of your guys, isn’t he?

 

[JM3]

He wrote on the ground once and everyone left.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry. William Shakespeare is one of your guys, isn’t he?

Yes! No need to apologise. I mistakenly thought it was more sinister than that.

 

[JM3]

Another way to pose my question might be why animating the writers of the Bible with the Holy Spirit was a better way of preserving the teachings of Christ than actually having someone write down what he said as he said them.

John 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Faith is not about a book, it’s about God.

 

[TEPO]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but these posts do little to satiate my desire for understanding.

So some of the disciples may have been literate; why were none of them staked to write down transcripts of Jesus’ sermons as he gave them? Also, I’m not sure that Matthew the disciple is the author of the book of Matthew. Please provide a source for this claim, if you are to maintain that it is true.

Why was oral tradition enough, especially considering the facts that a) Jesus had divine knowledge and was therefore literate, and b) Jesus had access to those who could scribe his words for him (really, it would have been for us).

He chose not to have things written down because the Pharisees would have seen that and would have confiscated the writings and put all the Apostles to death immediately. It was an ‘underground’ movement.

Also, the writings would have become worshiped as a false idol.

What Jesus did was give the Church full authority to bind and loosen, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must believe that the Holy Spirit is with our Church today, just the way Jesus promised us it would be.

 

[tonyrey]

He chose not to have things written down because the Pharisees would have seen that and would have confiscated the writings and put all the disciples to death immediately. It was an ‘underground’ movement…

Irrefutable!

 

[LilyM]

Hmm, this is interesting, you make good points. But I’m still struggling. He could have had someone else record his words for him. I mean, this is God incarnate we speak of, he could have snapped his fingers and had the book done in an instant (much less miraculous, I would imagine, than raising his friend from the dead), and left the book to his disciples.

Can someone provide me with sources for the claims that some of the apostles were actual writers of the gospels? I may certainly be wrong (I am often) but it was always my understanding that we only have vague ideas and much uncertainty about the authors of the Bible, and that it may have been a collaborative effort, etc.

Because shoving a book of sermons at someone is not an ideal way to teach them. And it wouldn’t prevent arguments and misinterpretations by any means - remember how people misunderstood Him in John 6 even as they heard Him speak directly to them?

Paul wrote extensively, and his writings are important, but he spent far more time travelling to distant parts to teach and preach in person. Because the written word is only one method of conveying information, and not an especially effective one even these days when we have very high literacy rates, much less in those days when literacy was very low.