When were the gospels written?

[Asyncritus]

The scriptures do not tell us and I'm sure that it's not important because of the facts already mentioned..

It makes not even one iota of difference if a person tells me that there were written early or late.. because both are simply specualtions of men and have no bearing whatsoever concerning their content.

What would concern me is if any professing Christian started to tell me that this does matter..

You haven't been reading the words of the enemy, Eventide. Go back and look at the quotes from the 'theologians'.

 

[smaller]

I agree.
But how, precisely, does this truth demonstrate the believing historians cannot come to the conclusion that the gospels were written late in the 1st century

I take the word of the witnesses as being from the witnesses. That makes the words of the witnesses required to be penned during their lifetime. How they came into codification is an interesting process. It will remain a fact for present historians as prior observed to never be able to factually conclude X penman and X date in time.

I am grateful for Orthodoxy to have deliberated and codified these matters when they did. That does not mean however that 'they' got it 'all' right. If you study the matters many texts were eliminated. I have studied some of the 'extra biblical' works and there are quantifiable SPIRITUAL FACTS in many of them. The 'RCC' bible has some of these books. Revelation was still being debated at the time of Luther for example and was not officially codified til approx. 4 centuries a.d. It would be interesting if the early orthodox didn't DESTROY anything that disagreed with their views. I also believe that some documents as we have them were slightly altered in meanings. When one steps into that whole arena it's very interesting. However the Word in the NT was largely taken from the OT in any case.

New testament is about witnesses and understandings of the Old Testament fulfillment in Christ. If we as Christians were more coherent about our own understandings we would probably find a very sympathetic ear in the Jews.

I probably share your view that the "Word" refers to this mysterious means by which the truth of God are communicated to us. It is indeed not appropriate to try to "divide" the Word from the Spirit of God.

I am glad we find agreement from time to time...:yes

But, of course, this is entirely beside the point. The question is this: Do you have any actual case that the gospels were not written late in the 1st century?

I think we'd all agree that there are no actual provable first hand writings of ANY of the accepted text. Not one bit. It is technically NON existing.

Do you have any actual case that believing (or even unbelieving) historians have erred in their consensus that the gospels were written late in the 1st century?

As noted prior, most view that the accepted N.T. was written during the lifetimes of the witnesses, and had to be 'after' many of the events actually written of [happened], and then handed down through the membership.

In reality, the witnesses witness TO LIFE. When they happened to pen it is kind of a side point. I 'received' the witness. The Witness is The Holy Spirit. When I happen to write about it would be after the fact, no different then them or with any of us today. Some future generations in cyberspace may be grappling with these same matters reading about 'Gods Activity' in our own lives. I might hope so anyway.

s

 

[Eventide]

You haven't been reading the words of the enemy, Eventide. Go back and look at the quotes from the 'theologians'.

I enjoy reading commentary from various people, although I certainly wouldn't give the opinions of men the same level of respect as the holy scriptures. IMO it doesn't take too long to see whether or not the Lord Jesus Christ is being glorified through the Spirit of God.

 

[Free]

Free

You cannot have read the OPs.

I did.

The reasons given were

1 It is in the highest degree improbable that men who could write did not or would not have written the events down as and when they happened, because of their importance

Presumption.

2 Luke's prologue shows that other gospels had been written before his. It also supports the idea that he was present when at least some of the events happened

Verses 1 and 2 give us no idea of a date but verse 3 states " 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you." In English, that seems to indicate that a fair bit of time had already passed. Although he could have used other sources, he clearly was also going by memory.

In the end, this gives us absolutely no indication of an early date.

3 Those gospels were most likely to have been Matthew, Mark and John. Mark and John's focus on 'the beginning' is a strong indicator that they were the first ones written

There is no mention that they were Gospels:

Luke 1:1, Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us (ESV)

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, (KJV)

Again, absolutely no indication of when they were written and it is presumption that the writings were the other three Gospels.

4 There is a considerable amount of internal evidence that shows without doubt that they were written when the events were taking place. Ihaven't posted this evidence, but will do so if requested.

It's up to you.

5 The absence of manuscripts that early (AD 33 or thereabouts) is no proof that they did not exist.

No one has claimed otherwise.

6 Jesus must have been doing something during the 40 days after the resurrection. He was equipping the disciples for the task of preaching - and he knew that the written word was going to be one of the most powerful tools they could have.

He therefore oversaw the writing task, which accounts for their vast literary superiority over any other writings ever produced. It also accounts for why He did no writing of His own.

And you know all this how? Again, presumption.

7 Mark's opening words are: 1 ¶ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

This could mean ABOUT Him, or BY Him which would fit very nicely into my theory. It's His work, not somebody else's. But that's a suggestion.

By who? Jesus? And then he decided to put Mark's name at the top? Not likely.

So, I stand by my statement that there has been no support or substantial reason given to believe an early date for the Gospels and that scholars are wrong on the matter. It's been unsupported opinion. And for what reason, I do not know.

 

[Drew]

I take the word of the witnesses as being from the witnesses. That makes the words of the witnesses required to be penned during their lifetime.

Incorrect. There is no requirement for this whatsoever. The oral tradition allows for the faithful transmssion of the content of the history until someone actually writes is down later.

How they came into codification is an interesting process. It will remain a fact for present historians as prior observed to never be able to factually conclude X penman and X date in time.

Misleading and question-begging. Misleading because no one is suggesting that the historian's estimates are "factual" - they are instead "best estimates". Question-begging because you are presuming that historians cannot come up with solid estimates.

 

[Drew]

I think we'd all agree that there are no actual provable first hand writings of ANY of the accepted text. Not one bit. It is technically NON existing.

Strawman - no one is suggesting anything like this.

 

[Drew]

1 It is in the highest degree improbable that men who could write did not or would not have written the events down as and when they happened, because of their importance

Speculation - you give the reader no reason to believe this, especially in light of a strong oral tradition among the people of first century Palestine.

4 There is a considerable amount of internal evidence that shows without doubt that they were written when the events were taking place. Ihaven't posted this evidence, but will do so if requested.

Please do so.

5 The absence of manuscripts that early (AD 33 or thereabouts) is no proof that they did not exist.

I believe no is suggesting otherwise.

6 Jesus must have been doing something during the 40 days after the resurrection. He was equipping the disciples for the task of preaching - and he knew that the written word was going to be one of the most powerful tools they could have.

Begs the question - no case here.

 

[Free]

I take the word of the witnesses as being from the witnesses. That makes the words of the witnesses required to be penned during their lifetime.

Incorrect. There is no requirement for this whatsoever. The oral tradition allows for the faithful transmssion of the content of the history until someone actually writes is down later.

Oral transmission of the ancients could be very accurate and hence there is no reason to doubt any oral tradition regarding the events surrounding the life of Jesus if they were written down many years later.

I'm sure you would agree that at least one of the gospels was written by an eyewitness and one, arguably, written by an Apostle himself (some doubt John was written by John but I see no reason to believe it wasn't him). So it is plausible that many eyewitnesses were still alive at a late writing of the Gospels and were able to give their own accounts. This does not, of course, mean that every eyewitness was interviewed.

 

[smaller]

Incorrect. There is no requirement for this whatsoever. The oral tradition allows for the faithful transmssion of the content of the history until someone actually writes is down later.

I was speaking to the 'fact' that there are no known first hand written docs that I know of for either Old or New testament.

Misleading and question-begging. Misleading because no one is suggesting that the historian's estimates are "factual" - they are instead "best estimates". Question-begging because you are presuming that historians cannot come up with solid estimates.

Please refer to the prior factual statement if you believe it not to be a fact.

s

 

[smaller]

Strawman - no one is suggesting anything like this.

Again< I was referring to the fact that as far as historians determinations go there are exactly zero known first hand written documents from any of the writers of the Old or New Testaments.

I'd also agree with Async, that even though we don't have them it doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. If they do exist they are not in the 'proof' realm that I know of. Which means they are either undiscovered and may remain so or lost permanently.

And even if they were found it would remain very problematic from a scientific standpoint to actually 'prove' them to be originals.

Older actual texts are very hard to come by and even more difficult to prove

s

 

[Drew]

I was speaking to the 'fact' that there are no known first hand written docs that I know of for either Old or New testament.

This may be true, but it it does not bear on the timing of the writing of the gospels.

Bottom line: To this point, there is no case here against a "late" writing of the gospels. Likewise, there has been no case for a "late" writing of the gospels.

This does not mean that such cases do not exist, but they have not been presented in this thread. If I missed something - some actual argument for either a late or early writing - please advise.

And, no, statements like "of course they would have written it down as it happened" do not "count" as a case.

 

[francisdesales]

Historians can search all they want. More power to 'em. I hope they make this discovery!

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

This truth is based upon faith, which by itself, it not subject to empirical evidence. History and science rely on empirical evidence. This is not to say that "unless we have empirical proof, it cannot be so"; However, one must RECOGNIZE that history can only do so much - and faith must take over. Even in historical study, there comes a point where one must extrapolate, predict, presume, fill in the blanks - or utilize faith. There is no need to consider faith and history in opposition, as long as we understand how they work.

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God because we trust who told us this. Clearly, you are aware of other books that make such claims? The Koran makes the same claim, more vividly then the NT does. In of themselves, the claims are not self-authenticating. The individual books of the Bible - each book - is not self-authenticating, esp. the NT books and letters. The Gospels do not claim to be the Word of God! We must rely on historical tradition to determine WHO even wrote them! Perhaps only the Book of Revelation is the only book in the NT that one could consider to make such a claim for itself - a vision given by God to the author.

I have a background in history. One does not begin with the claim "book X" is from God merely on internal evidence. We do not presume that ALL books and utterances are from God merely because "they" say they are.

Clearly, that was not the intent of Paul, et al. He PRESUMED that the communities that read his letters BELIEVED that he spoke for God, whether orally or through writings. There was no need to "self-authenticate" for the recipients of the letters. And there is the rub - men are trusting Paul, by faith, that God speaks through him and the Apostles...

The Bible, as an entire whole, does not call itself the "Word of God". Men do. So it comes down to whether you trust the men who make the claim. The entire premise is based upon faith.

As to the premise of the thread, there is practically no evidence of a 2nd century or later writing of Sacred Scriptures. For the time being, the idea of Scriptures begin written in the decades following Christ's resurrection remains secure.

Regards

 

[smaller]

This may be true, but it it does not bear on the timing of the writing of the gospels.

I was speaking from the point of actual scientific fact. I'm not saying that the texts weren't originally penned by the witnesses or their attendant scribes, as they say in the texts (copies) that they were. Timing then would have to be during the lifetimes of the writers, even though the determinations that they were are not in actual provable form, but derived from copy comparisons and compilations. Sections of Mark for example were 'added' later from compilations.

Bottom line: To this point, there is no case here against a "late" writing of the gospels. Likewise, there has been no case for a "late" writing of the gospels.

It is only logic to me as noted prior, that IF Jesus Himself taught the disciples/Apostles it would be most unlikely if they were not immediately written and shared POST resurrection, but that is just a reasoned observation with NO proof whatsoever except a bit of common sense. As noted prior of Jesus rose from the dead and taught you from the Old Testament, you would more than like want to take a few notes.

This does not mean that such cases do not exist, but they have not been presented in this thread. If I missed something - some actual argument for either a late or early writing - please advise.

I don't think there is any question that the book of Acts for example was written AFTER the actual events transpired. It is only a GUESS that Acts was written by Luke, being addressed the same way the preamble of Luke starts, but we have no 'proof' other than that connection that says Luke. Revelation could only have been written AFTER John's actually experiencing the vision in which he was instructed to WRITE IT DOWN. It was even during a stay on Patmos, meaning ISLE OF MY KILLING. How cool is THAT? There in and of itself is ONLY a spiritual note made to verify a spiritual matter. You know, like DYING DAILY noted by Paul. These types of notes are quite imbedded into the text and also VERIFY the Truth of their statements. There are MANY and VAST numbers of these types of similarities in the texts themselves from cover to cover that are repeating. I could put up several hundreds of such similarities from the O.T. to the New THAT are very detailed and precise, and in a way are VALIDATIONS of the Spiritual Workings of the Writers.

And, no, statements like "of course they would have written it down as it happened" do not "count" as a case.

I have my doubts that any of them during the time that they, with Jesus prior to the resurrection, went scurrying back to write. After the Resurrection however I believe ALL of them wrote THE WITNESS of their accounts in various ways. And I believe some of the accounts of the Gospels may have been derived from the writers visits with Mary or some of the believing Priests, etc etc. who may have witnessed the events with say, the father of John the Baptist and his mother. The writers were not so sloppy as to pull those writings out of no actual events or statements. So even in 'their' writings is contained non-directly witnessed statements and events.

s

 

[francisdesales]

1 It is in the highest degree improbable that men who could write did not or would not have written the events down as and when they happened, because of their importance

Hardly so. People do not necessarily write down anything as such. Did you write a page or two about your wedding, your first child, your first job, etc.? Very few keep such extensive "diaries".

What we have here is not being able to appreciate that people of the first century were able to operate quite well through oral tellings of stories. Homer's Iliad was memorized and retold. No doubt, important events could be remembered and retold countless times (like to people of Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica, Ephesus and other myriad places) before getting actually written down when the author wanted this information to be passed on.

3 Those gospels were most likely to have been Matthew, Mark and John. Mark and John's focus on 'the beginning' is a strong indicator that they were the first ones written

According to oral tradition of the Church, these are the writers.

The focus on "the beginning" has nothing to do with which was written chronologically first. The first 'theologian' does not need to write about 'the beginning', but may prefer to focus on "the Good News"... In addition, Mark didn't write about "the beginning", since Christ was alive for some 30 years that go unaccounted for in his Gospel.

4 There is a considerable amount of internal evidence that shows without doubt that they were written when the events were taking place. Ihaven't posted this evidence, but will do so if requested.

I also would like to see this "considerable amount of internal evidence". I have a feeling that your source is not taking into account that people could have something imprinted on their memories from long ago if it was a life-changing event. I remember USMC bootcamp quite well, albeit nearly 30 years ago and taking no written notes about it! (As if I had the time or inclination...)

In addition, the Scriptures themselves tell us that the Spirit would enable the Apostles to REMEMBER what happened in the past and relate to others the past (John's Gospel during the Last Supper Discourse). If they were dictating what Jesus said at the time - there would be no need to send the Spirit to fulfill such a role.

He therefore oversaw the writing task, which accounts for their vast literary superiority over any other writings ever produced. It also accounts for why He did no writing of His own.

He oversaw the task of the Church preaching to the world, not just in writing.

7 Mark's opening words are: 1 ¶ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

This could mean ABOUT Him, or BY Him which would fit very nicely into my theory. It's His work, not somebody else's. But that's a suggestion.

I fail to see how this opening means anything about who wrote it...

Regards

 

[smaller]

[/B]

This truth is based upon faith, which by itself, it not subject to empirical evidence. History and science rely on empirical evidence. This is not to say that "unless we have empirical proof, it cannot be so"; However, one must RECOGNIZE that history can only do so much - and faith must take over. Even in historical study, there comes a point where one must extrapolate, predict, presume, fill in the blanks - or utilize faith. There is no need to consider faith and history in opposition, as long as we understand how they work.

I totally agree! Imagine that?

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God because we trust who told us this. Clearly, you are aware of other books that make such claims? The Koran makes the same claim, more vividly then the NT does.

Agreed again, but they apart from Christ are similar to the Jews, apart from the UNveiling of the matters. The unveiling is a Spiritual Working. But even as the RCC notes, the Word was also delivered to them both, and I appreciate the RCC in several scholarly spiritual and accurate observations of these FACTS.

If the Gospel was delivered in VEILED form, it was so delivered nevertheless (excluding of course the 'prophet' Mohammad.) But apart from The Spirit of God in Christ there will be NO complete picture for them, which we should ALL seek to show in ourselves and share in a PEACEABLE manner, amen?

In of themselves, the claims are not self-authenticating. The individual books of the Bible - each book - is not self-authenticating, esp. the NT books and letters.

We take it that the Spirit of God in Christ Himself SPOKE through the Law and the Prophets and appeared in various 'Christophanies' pre Incarnation recorded in the O.T.

The Gospels do not claim to be the Word of God! We must rely on historical tradition to determine WHO even wrote them! Perhaps only the Book of Revelation is the only book in the NT that one could consider to make such a claim for itself - a vision given by God to the author.

Well, that is a difficulty. We do take it that the witnesses of the Words of God in Christ were recorded, and as such, Word of God where stated as such. The same in the O.T. where are statements such as 'Thus saith the Lord' we take as GODS WORDS, even though coming through men.

I have a background in history. One does not begin with the claim "book X" is from God merely on internal evidence. We do not presume that ALL books and utterances are from God merely because "they" say they are.

Again I would agree.

Clearly, that was not the intent of Paul, et al. He PRESUMED that the communities that read his letters BELIEVED that he spoke for God, whether orally or through writings. There was no need to "self-authenticate" for the recipients of the letters. And there is the rub - men are trusting Paul, by faith, that God speaks through him and the Apostles...

Again agreed. How easy is this? Even with Paul however there are very FEW actual Quotes from God in Christ. They are more along the lines of teaching and building spiritual matters, principles, deeper learnings in allegories, etc.

These are all inevitably though matters of deliberations spiritual. And as we know there are many deliberated 'spiritual conclusions' that I part way with from my own deliberations with myself and an abundance of information in the arena, general.

The Bible, as an entire whole, does not call itself the "Word of God". Men do. So it comes down to whether you trust the men who make the claim. The entire premise is based upon faith.

Again true. And even in the accepted text not 'every word' therein is a THUS SAYS GOD. A 'Red Letter' Bible for example makes that type of distinction.

As to the premise of the thread, there is practically no evidence of a 2nd century or later writing of Sacred Scriptures. For the time being, the idea of Scriptures begin written in the decades following Christ's resurrection remains secure.
Regards

I don't know if I could logically extend that to decades, personally. It might seem to me that post Ressurection, if God in Christ Himself reasoned and taught with the disciples, which HE DID, that they would have immediately wrote it down and shared it, and not waited for decades to do so. But that is just my opinion. Certainly not one to argue about or try to prove.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

Speculation

It may be speculation - but it's reverent speculation, in marked contrast to the irreverent and positively damaging speculation the critics indulge themselves in.

... especially in light of a strong oral tradition among the people of first century Palestine.

If there was a strong oral tradition in AD33, then it must have been just as strong in AD 70 or whenever the 'critics' claim the gospels were written.

The point is irrelevant to the issue.

There is the additional point that the disciples probably expected to be executed - Jesus told them so. (Jn 15.2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.)

Some are recorded as having been killed in the Acts.

That being so, it furnishes grave and serious reason for the writing of the gospels to be done as a matter of considerable urgency, immediacy and speed.

Since they were going to be scattered, it is reasonable to assume that the gospels were produced and spread abroad with the refugees.

Please do so.

I'll put the material in a separate thread, as it is quite detailed.

Begs the question - no case here.

I'm sorry you take this view. What do you think He was doing?

 

[Asyncritus]

Free

You keep saying you haven't seen any evidence. I keep saying it's there in the OPs.

What do you mean by 'evidence'?

 

[francisdesales]

The unveiling is a Spiritual Working. But even as the RCC notes, the Word was also delivered to them both, and I appreciate the RCC in several scholarly spiritual and accurate observations of these FACTS.

Yes, the unveiling is a spiritual work...

So we believe by faith.

If the Gospel was delivered in VEILED form, it was so delivered nevertheless (excluding of course the 'prophet' Mohammad.)

What led you to that conclusion, the "of course" exception?

The thought process that leads one to reject Mohammed as the voice of God is part of the historical process, part of the faith process. One "senses" that Mohammed's life would lead one to think that his "self-pronouncements" might be subject to critical thinking and scepticism, especially when one compares the life of the Apostles and the means of evangelization. However, history ALONE cannot prove that "conversion by the sword" is NOT the means by which God converts. Again, this would be more an article of faith of Whom God is...

But apart from The Spirit of God in Christ there will be NO complete picture for them, which we should ALL seek to show in ourselves and share in a PEACEABLE manner, amen?

Amen...

But again, this is more an article of faith that rests upon the presumption that "God is Love" and shares of Himself in peacable manners. True?

We take it that the Spirit of God in Christ Himself SPOKE through the Law and the Prophets and appeared in various 'Christophanies' pre Incarnation recorded in the O.T. Well, that is a difficulty. We do take it that the witnesses of the Words of God in Christ were recorded, and as such, Word of God where stated as such. The same in the O.T. where are statements such as 'Thus saith the Lord' we take as GODS WORDS, even though coming through men.

Naturally, another article of faith.

...Even in the accepted text not 'every word' therein is a THUS SAYS GOD. A 'Red Letter' Bible for example makes that type of distinction.

Yes. My point is that we are relying on men to tell us what is the Word of God, rather than the "letters" themselves.

Thus, we must turn to "faith" as the means by which we perceive the Bible as the Word of God. In other words, it is not historically self-authenticating. We rely on a past community to sort things out - and that subsequent generations vouched for those selections (table of contents) to this day.

I don't know if I could logically extend that to decades, personally. It might seem to me that post Ressurection, if God in Christ Himself reasoned and taught with the disciples, which HE DID, that they would have immediately wrote it down and shared it, and not waited for decades to do so.

Why? What leads you to make that presumption? When considering, try not to be anachronistic, taking a 21st century point of view. Think of the historical situation and context. There was no "requirement" to write anything down while the Apostles remained alive and the parousia was expected very soon. Nowhere do we find the Apostles writing because it was their duty to compile A writing for future compilation. Epistles were meant for the current community who received it. It was only after later decades, when Apostles began to die off and the legacy of the Church continuing into the future was at stake that led some of the writings to be constructed, such as the Pastorals. Other motives were to answer community questions WITHOUT the INTENT of being "Sacred Scriptures" for 2000 years.

I don't agree that there was some overwhelming need to write anything but "sayings" for the purpose of basic catechetical/liturgical needs during the first few decades of Christianity.

Regards

 

[Free]

Free

You keep saying you haven't seen any evidence. I keep saying it's there in the OPs.

What do you mean by 'evidence'?

I don't think I've used the word 'evidence.' Your argument in the OP to an early date has no support. At least three of us have shown why your reasons for believing an early date are your personal, unsubstantiated opinions and nothing more.

 

[smaller]

What led you to that conclusion, the "of course" exception?

I'm not here to discuss Islam nor is it appropriate to this thread. I do believe that they suffer a similar problem to the current day Jews however i.e. the Law showing lawlessness 'within' and they all thinking it to be an outside matter rather than the 'internal condition' that JESUS shows lawlessness to be.

It is THERE within the heart that we encounter our Heavenly Cleaner. So, I'll leave it at that.

The thought process that leads one to reject Mohammed as the voice of God is part of the historical process, part of the faith process. One "senses" that Mohammed's life would lead one to think that his "self-pronouncements" might be subject to critical thinking and scepticism, especially when one compares the life of the Apostles and the means of evangelization. However, history ALONE cannot prove that "conversion by the sword" is NOT the means by which God converts. Again, this would be more an article of faith of Whom God is...

This will probably end up being trashed, but I can't fault, nor do I believe the RCC or you as a member CAN fault any person who confronts the facts of their own sin and bows their head unto God to bring understanding and good works. In this way too I am an ally of the RCC and with any person who does so approach God as this is A GODLY WORKING in them imho. A spiritual working.

But again, this is more an article of faith that rests upon the presumption that "God is Love" and shares of Himself in peacable manners. True?

Well, that is where things of the Word always tend to get a little dicey. I may view the Word dramatically differently than you. And of course in many ways we'll see the same. When we are Perfect or if we were, there would be no disputes. The issues then with any matter of theology to me revolve around the issues of WHY we are not perfect and what can we do to do better.

Yes. My point is that we are relying on men to tell us what is the Word of God, rather than the "letters" themselves.

God reaches those He reaches however He reaches them. The sad part is that many or most don't care or have a clue, and that too is part of what Word teaches us i.e. 'why' that is.

Thus, we must turn to "faith" as the means by which we perceive the Bible as the Word of God. In other words, it is not historically self-authenticating. We rely on a past community to sort things out - and that subsequent generations vouched for those selections (table of contents) to this day.

Well, unfortunately and fortunately. The only fact that christian history will bring us is the fact of how pathetically divided we all have been, almost from the start. Yes, there are PART TRUTHS in every sect, but there also remains severe divisions. That is part and parcel of what God Shows us. Ultimately Gods Words and His Spirit will bring us the bad news of our internal conditions to personally confront. No man can bring us the facts nor eradicate the facts.

For example I fully accept the due diligence of early church fathers in debates of the nature of God in Christ i.e. the Trinity. It took years of study for myself to come to grips with those determinations and their variants and I landed in exactly the same place they did. But to some those matters are irrelevant and only spouted because they are 'told to do so' to justify themselves and their positions. I say that just because they spout it, doesn't mean it means anything 'personally' to them. They just know if they don't that their church will condemn them. Kinda weird to me but whatever.

Why? What leads you to make that presumption? When considering, try not to be anachronistic, taking a 21st century point of view. Think of the historical situation and context.

Well my friend, history should tell us that any given set of sinners is not going to have perfect produce and determinations. It's just not possible. And those who make such claims to me are deceptive. I avoid deception whenever I can.

There was no "requirement" to write anything down while the Apostles remained alive and the parousia was expected very soon.

Like I said on this thread, it is likely that if God in Christ came to you and taught you out of the O.T. Law and Prophets you would have 'more than likely' wrote it down, and quickly if it was POST resurrection. And you would have also shared the information verbally. At the end of John for example John notes that the 'whole world' could not contain the books written about Jesus. (my brief paraphrase)

Nowhere do we find the Apostles writing because it was their duty to compile A writing for future compilation. Epistles were meant for the current community who received it. It was only after later decades, when Apostles began to die off and the legacy of the Church continuing into the future was at stake that led some of the writings to be constructed, such as the Pastorals. Other motives were to answer community questions WITHOUT the INTENT of being "Sacred Scriptures" for 2000 years.

Having personal scribes was not uncommon or unusual during those times. Israel itself was well practiced in both writings and recitations that were required of 'all' their memberships. Those who were good at it went on to be Priests and official temple/local scribes.

There was also the practice of 'contracts' in writing. It was not like they were illiterate.

I don't agree that there was some overwhelming need to write anything but "sayings" for the purpose of basic catechetical/liturgical needs during the first few decades of Christianity.

Regards

We are fortunate to have the matters we have in writing. How one views those will vary dramatically. I moved away from rote repetition long ago based on the direct advice of Jesus, that is, by His Words.

I also think a degree of spiritual common sense given from above however would have produced the same conclusion for me.

s