Why wait 40 years or more to write about Jesus?

[itullian]

I mean if you were there with him, the Son of God, wouldn’t you write it down right away?

during his life, or at least immediately after the resurrection.

with as much detail and passion as you could.

why do the Gospels start so much later?

just seems a little strange, no?

 

[MarcoPolo]

If the written word was the only form God intended for the transmission of the faith, then maybe they should have written sooner. But the Holy Spirit worked through their lives quite profoundly in the meanwhile, not limited by pen & ink. Also, I think the number of years may well be lower than you suggest. For instance, the Navarre study Bible puts 1 & 2 Thessalonians in the year 50-52 A.D.

 

[wiggbuggie]

like the poster said above if pauls letters were written before the gospels around 50-56 AD targeted towards already established and thriving churches means that within 15 years or so after Jesus ascension the apostles were too busy spreading the gospel orally and building churches.

 

[gilbs72]

For me 40 years isn’t such a long time. Today, it’s so easy with printing press and the information technologies available. But back then, we have no way of knowing how much was written but were being suppressed and destroyed, their authors killed. Others got scared for their families. So, half a century then isn’t the same as half a century today. Reading and writing then may not even have been seen the way we see it today–specially for the poor peasants, farmers and fishermen who comprised the underground Christian community. Oral tradition could have eclipsed written literature since it was much much more accessible.

 

[andremiguel]

I mean if you were there with him, the Son of God, wouldn’t you write it down right away?

during his life, or at least immediately after the resurrection.

with as much detail and passion as you could.

why do the Gospels start so much later?

just seems a little strange, no?

Look at now: no book is written but after a person dies.
Do you know how many books are written about people who died 20,30,50,100,400 years ago?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I mean if you were there with him, the Son of God, wouldn’t you write it down right away?

during his life, or at least immediately after the resurrection.

with as much detail and passion as you could.

why do the Gospels start so much later?

just seems a little strange, no?

Because after the Resurrection there was no need to write down what happened. The Gospel spread through word of mouth in Jerusalem, and the witnesses to what had happened were all around in the Jerusalem area.

When the Gospel spread to beyond Jerusalem to other places, the eyewitnesses were not there so the Gospels were written (perhaps, and I am guessing, because they wanted the truth in book form so people couldn’t spread lies and the eyewitnesses were not there to refute them). Most scholars date the Gospels having been written to between 30 - 60 years after Jesus’ death. The Gospels were written within the lives of the original witnesses.

A.N. Sherwin Wright, a historian who wrote ‘Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament’ says Roman and Greek histories are generally biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries after the events they record. Yet he says historians reconstruct with confidence Greek and Roman history. For example the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great written by Arrian and Plutarch were written 400 years after Alexander’s death, yet classical historians still consider them trustworthy.

Jewish oral tradition is very reliable.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 says of how important oral instruction was. New Testament scholar Darrell Bock says Jewish culture was ‘a culture of memory’ in ‘Jesus Under Fire’ by Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland.

This is not a Catholic website but it offers some information on Jewish oral tradition, regarding the gap of time between Jesus’ resurrection and the writing of the Gospels: were the events accurately memorized and passed on accurately:

Rainer Reisner presents six key reasons why oral tradition accurately preserved Jesus’ teachings.{6

} First, Jesus used the Old Testament prophets’ practice of proclaiming the word of God which demanded accurate preservation of inspired teaching. Second, Jesus’ presentations of Himself as Messiah would reinforce among His followers the need to preserve His words accurately. Third, ninety percent of Jesus’ teachings and sayings use mnemonic methods similar to those used in Hebrew poetry. Fourth, Jesus trained His disciples to teach His lessons even while He was on earth. Fifth, Jewish boys were educated until they were twelve, so the disciples likely knew how to read and write. Finally, just as Jewish and Greek teachers gathered disciples, Jesus gathered and trained His to carry on after His death.

When one studies the teachings of Jesus, one realizes that His teachings and illustrations are easy to memorize. People throughout the world recognize immediately the story of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Lord’s Prayer.

We also know that the church preserved the teachings of Christ in the form of hymns which were likewise easy to memorize. Paul’s summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is a good example of this.

We can have confidence then that the oral tradition accurately preserved the teachings and the events of Jesus’ life till they were written down just a few years later.

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4225535/k.1274/The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm#text6

 

[Hokomai]

The probably were written down, in documents now lost which formed part of the basis of scripture.

 

[Todd_Easton]

At first, there was no compelling reason to write about Jesus because the first Christians were under the impression that His Second Coming was imminent, based on some of the things Jesus had said:

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
(Matthew 12:23)

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:34)

Only after many years had gone by and that generation of eye-witnesses started to pass away, did they see the advantage of having eye-witness accounts about Jesus written down.

 

[patrick457]

At first, there was no compelling reason to write about Jesus because the first Christians were under the impression that His Second Coming was imminent, based on some of the things Jesus had said:

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
(Matthew 12:23)

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:34)

Only after many years had gone by and that generation of eye-witnesses started to pass away, did they see the advantage of having eye-witness accounts about Jesus written down.

That’s a common theory. Because the very first Christians thought that Jesus would come back within a generation anyway, the question of how best to preserve knowledge of His life for future generations did not rise. Instead, different sayings and episodes from His life were passed down in an oral fashion (this was, after all, an oral culture), apparently usually as a way to win new converts, as instruction for the faithful, and as an arsenal against opponents. As years and decades passed, there was still no sign of the Lord: some of the original disciples are by now dead, while others are engaged in missions in faraway lands. It was at this time that it was decided that Christians after all might need connected accounts of Jesus.

 

[Bezant]

I mean if you were there with him, the Son of God, wouldn’t you write it down right away?

You would – but assuming you would have considered it necessary, at the time. If you didn’t consider it necessary, reliable oral traditions and testimony might have sufficed – as it did for other ancient texts.

 

[Publisher]

I mean if you were there with him, the Son of God, wouldn’t you write it down right away?

during his life, or at least immediately after the resurrection.

with as much detail and passion as you could.

why do the Gospels start so much later?

just seems a little strange, no?

The first followers of Jesus was expecting his immediate return. This is evidenced in some of Paul’s early letters…when it was realized Jesus was not returning as soon as thought…it is believed by many scholars that the gospels were then written to assist in the liturgical life of the community.

 

[joeNJ]

I mean if you were there with him, the Son of God, wouldn’t you write it down right away?

during his life, or at least immediately after the resurrection.

with as much detail and passion as you could.

why do the Gospels start so much later?

just seems a little strange, no?

I have read the reasons people give for waiting, but I have to believe the Apostles knew the importance of their words and the sense of history. They themselves studied scrolls that were written hundreds of years prior to their time. For that reason I have to believe they must have written it down. But maybe as notes that were lost?

 

[Angelsflight]

That’s a common theory. Because the very first Christians thought that Jesus would come back within a generation anyway, the question of how best to preserve knowledge of His life for future generations did not rise. Instead, different sayings and episodes from His life were passed down in an oral fashion (this was, after all, an oral culture), apparently usually as a way to win new converts, as instruction for the faithful, and as an arsenal against opponents. As years and decades passed, there was still no sign of the Lord: some of the original disciples are by now dead, while others are engaged in missions in faraway lands. It was at this time that it was decided that Christians after all might need connected accounts of Jesus.

That makes sense. I have always wondered about this question myself…thank you for your answer.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Good question! But i think they did what we all would have done, that is go out and tell everyone you can and teach it in the power of the Holy Spirit. They were performing miracles, preaching, establishing churches, appointing bishops, suffering persecutions, etc etc. Im just thankful that eye witnesses and some of the 12 actually did write. The writings were more beneficial to following generations, but the preaching and ministry to the growing churches and oral teachings with the ability to explain were much more needed early on than a written account. If you lived during that time would you have rather heard the teachings from the Apostles or for them to write it down?

 

[patrick457]

Good question! But i think they did what we all would have done, that is go out and tell everyone you can and teach it in the power of the Holy Spirit. They were performing miracles, preaching, establishing churches, appointing bishops, suffering persecutions, etc etc. Im just thankful that eye witnesses and some of the 12 actually did write. The writings were more beneficial to following generations, but the preaching and ministry to the growing churches and oral teachings with the ability to explain were much more needed early on than a written account. If you lived during that time would you have rather heard the teachings from the Apostles or for them to write it down?

You’ve pointed out something here. In a world where not too many people could read (much less write), many scrolls and books were more like secondary aids for the spoken word. The written word at that time was not designed to be just taken off the shelf and read silently, they were meant to be read aloud, sometimes in the presence of other people. (As late as the 4th-5th century, St. Augustine actually found St. Ambrose’s being a silent reader rather odd and at the same time fascinating. ) Literature such as the gospels wasn’t meant for private enjoyment, but is meant to be a public affair, something shared to the community at large by divulging its contents orally (for the benefit of those who were illiterate of course).

 

[buffalo]

THE UNFOLDING OF EVENTS
Undisputed dates in the list below are in bold type. The sequence of events concerning the Christian Community have been inserted, some tentatively, within this framework.

Year AD ** Event** The Resurrection. The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians. Saul/Paul is converted. Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine. Matthew`s gospel is translated into Greek. King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine.

                                                  **44**                     **King Herod Agrippa dies.**                                                       **

49** Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots. Luke writes his gospel for the Gentiles, partly based on Matthews gospel. First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthew`s gospel. Paul imprisoned by Romans. A copy of Matthew’s Gospel taken to India. **

54** Nero becomes emperor. The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning. The Christians are expelled from the Temple. Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles. Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain. Paul released from prison. Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops. Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks. Peter approves Marks transcript. Used as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel. Acts issued with the authorisation of Paul and Peter. John writes twenty chapters of his Gospel. **

64** July Rome devastated by fire.

 

[patrick457]

This website you are copying/pasting from doesn’t look to be completely reliable or hard fact-checked…

It’s mostly speculation. The tradition ever since Papias in the early 2nd century was that Matthew wrote a document, which he calls the Logia, “in the Hebrew language” (which does not necessarily denote the language we call today Hebrew, but could also mean the tongue in common use amongst many Palestinian Jews at the time: Aramaic), and that “each one interpreted them as best he could.”

It is from Papias’ information that the Fathers derive the idea of Matthew writing the so-called “Gospel of the Hebrews”. He is usually spoken of as being the first to write down a gospel, but this is usually in the context of this ‘Hebrew’ work (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen, Commentary on Matthew, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3-6; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24-6-7; St. Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessaron; St. Jerome, Prologue of the Four Gospels & Letter to Pope Damasus; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis of Sacred Scripture). Many of them are silent as to exactly how the canonical Matthew (in Greek) came to be, although some hold it as a translation of the Hebrew (Pseudo-Athanasius proposes that James the Just, the ‘brother of the Lord’ and head of the Church in Jerusalem, was the translator).

We have no clear indication from Papias as to when Matthew was supposed to have written these ‘Oracles’ down, although St. Irenaeus holds that it was written when “Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Other authors add that it was penned in Judaea, more specifically in Jerusalem, for Jewish Christians. If Irenaeus’ information is correct, this would put the writing of Matthew’s ‘Hebrew’ Logia around the mid-to-late 50s up to the 60s (if we follow the traditional reckoning).

I might say that the chronology has a very early date for the death of James the Just (AD 54). While Nero did become emperor in 54 after the death of Claudius, James’ death, based on what the Jewish historian Josephus says (Antiquities 20.9), is usually placed somewhere around AD 62, after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus yet before Lucceius Albinus took office. Some scholars would even opine - based on the use of other sources (usually later ones) such as Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus - that James’ death occurred much later, during the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 69).

 

[andremiguel]

I think, tho, if someone rose from the dead.…and offered salvation for all, etc, that would be Such Big News, they’d want to write it down right away.
As a journalist and writer, I sure would. I’d run to the first piece of papyrus I could find, and pull together a bunch of copyists immediately!!!

I also think that the two Marys–Magdalene and Mother–who were by his side so closely, would have written (or had someone write) their perspectives on it all.
Who would know more about a son than his mother, yes? And she was there from Day One.

(Thus…IMO, that found Gospel of Mary, not included in the official canon when they decided what to include and what to exclude, makes perfect sense)

Oh! Now, I understand your question! You are a journalist …
Look, you are talking after Gutenberg, 400 years after. The rotating machines in Japan can deliver 6 million newspapers overnight.
Now, come back to pre-Gutenberg times. A Bible would take 1 year to copy. A Bible would weigh 10 pounds and a horse would carry maybe 5/6 books. You would have a nice library if you had 20 books at home and you would need to be an aristocrat. The commoner would have zero books and most people were illiterate. There were the scribae, the people who wrote, for not everyone would write.
Now, remember, you do not write about your life, because you do not feel it is relevant. God knows whether, 2000 years from now, people would think why you did not write such and such things for they will want to know. But you do not think it worthwhile. But maybe they will think it even you do not.
Now, what happened to the Apostles were thought by them extraordinary but they did not know how to write. So, they preached.
Only their disciples, seeing that their stories were being lost, started to write.
I have a project to record on tape old stories of old people so that they would not be lost. But not everyone has these worries…

 

[steve53]

It’s mostly speculation. The tradition ever since Papias in the early 2nd century was that Matthew wrote a document, which he calls the Logia, “in the Hebrew language” (which does not necessarily denote the language we call today Hebrew, but could also mean the tongue in common use amongst many Palestinian Jews at the time: Aramaic), and that “each one interpreted them as best he could.”

It is from Papias’ information that the Fathers derive the idea of Matthew writing the so-called “Gospel of the Hebrews”. He is usually spoken of as being the first to write down a gospel, but this is usually in the context of this ‘Hebrew’ work (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen, Commentary on Matthew, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3-6; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24-6-7; St. Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessaron; St. Jerome, Prologue of the Four Gospels & Letter to Pope Damasus; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis of Sacred Scripture). Many of them are silent as to exactly how the canonical Matthew (in Greek) came to be, although some hold it as a translation of the Hebrew (Pseudo-Athanasius proposes that James the Just, the ‘brother of the Lord’ and head of the Church in Jerusalem, was the translator).

We have no clear indication from Papias as to when Matthew was supposed to have written these ‘Oracles’ down, although St. Irenaeus holds that it was written when “Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Other authors add that it was penned in Judaea, more specifically in Jerusalem, for Jewish Christians. If Irenaeus’ information is correct, this would put the writing of Matthew’s ‘Hebrew’ Logia around the mid-to-late 50s up to the 60s (if we follow the traditional reckoning).

I might say that the chronology has a very early date for the death of James the Just (AD 54). While Nero did become emperor in 54 after the death of Claudius, James’ death, based on what the Jewish historian Josephus says (Antiquities 20.9), is usually placed somewhere around AD 62, after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus yet before Lucceius Albinus took office. Some scholars would even opine - based on the use of other sources (usually later ones) such as Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus - that James’ death occurred much later, during the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 69).

Tacitus and Josephus should easily trump and dates suggested by the early church fathers.