Why did the disciples wait so long to write the gospels?

Answer 1

First of all, we need to establish when the gospels were actually written. It is traditionally accepted that the first of the gospels, whichever that was, was likely written in the fifties of the first century and that the last, almost unanimously agreed to be John, was written in the eighties or nineties. Scholars, by general consensus, strongly dispute those assumptions. They say that the fist gospel to be written was Mark's Gospel, written approximately 70 CE, followed by Matthew, written in the eighties (although Raymond E. Brown suggests allowing a few years either side of that decade), Luke was written in the nineties or quite early in the second century, and John was definitely written early in the second century.

Even if Matthew's Gospel was written as early as the fifties, one would wonder why the disciple waited twenty years before writing the Gospel, with the risk that he would die and there be no written record of what Jesus taught. If we think the disciple wrote in the 80s, we should be surprised he lived to such a great age at a time when few commoners lived beyond their fifties, and surprised he risked the likelihood of dying before he ever wrote the Gospel. The same concerns apply to each of the other gospels.

In fact, the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and only attributed by the early Church Fathers to the apostles whose names they now bear later in the second century. Scholars say there is no good reason to accept those attributions, and that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events described. We do not know who wrote the gospels, but the authors were not disciples of Jesus.

By the end of the second century, the Church Fathers had formed the opinion that Matthew was written first, and that Markand Luke were derived by copying Matthew's Gospel. Modern scholars agree there is a clear literary dependency, but have demonstrated that Mark was first and that the authors of Matthewand Luke relied on Mark for thir knowledge of the life and mission of Jesus. They could not have written their gospels until Mark was published and circulating widely. John's Gospel was, in turn, inspired by Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark.

So, it all comes down to why Mark's Gospel was not written until approximately 70 CE. Its authorship may have been prompted in some way by the savage end to the First Roman-Jewish War and the Civil War in Jerusalem, described vividly in chapter 13.

Answer 2

There are primarily 2 schools of thought on this matter. The most popular dates the 4 Gospels and Acts to have been written either in the early to late 60s or mid-70s to late 80s. These seem to give Luke the 2nd in chronology and still discuss whether Mark or Matthew were 1st. The less popular and by no means does this mean it is probably incorrect, date the Gospels and Acts to as early as the 50s to the late 60s.

Neither of these who argue their points of view are decisive and therefore to this writer, a basic futile use of time where it could be better served in the 'meat' of the Gospel message. There is no reason to believe or assume that it took a decade or more for a major Gospel to get into circulation. The Apostles were still all grouped in Jerusalem at that time and had not begun to go to their eventual areas outside of Israel. My NKJV Study Bible composed by a vast group of 'scholars' has Matthew as being the 1st written and dated to between 50-60 A.D..

Answer 3

not only did the disiciples write The Bible, and whoever all did write it.... it is because God told them to.