Why were the gospels written down?

Answer 1

Those who were eyewitnesses, or personally knew them, wanted to record the important events and details of the Christian message. They also wanted to assist those who were involved in spreading the Gospel message, that others might also believe, as well as to give an account of the details of Jesus' life and teaching to assist new converts to have a better understanding of the faith. The verses below explain this.

1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. There's no proofs that the Evangelists wrote the Books attributed to their names.

Search your favorite encyclopedia.

Answer 2

The gospels were written down to preserve the teachings and life events of Jesus Christ for future reference and to spread his message to a wider audience. They were also written to provide guidance and inspiration to early Christian communities.

Answer 3

The spirit of God inspired four faithful men to write independent accounts, thus providing a fourfold witness that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Seed and King, and giving the details of his life, his ministry, his death, and his resurrection. These accounts are called Gospels, the word "gospel" meaning "good news." While the four are parallel and often cover the same incidents, they are by no means mere copies of one another. The first three Gospels are often called synoptic, meaning "like view," since they take a similar approach in recounting Jesus' life on earth. But each one of the four writers-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-tells his own story of the Christ. Each one has his own particular theme and objective, reflects his own personality, and keeps in mind his immediate readers. The more we search their writings, the more we appreciate the distinctive features of each and that these four inspired Bible books form independent, complementary, and harmonious accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.

Answer 4

Another answer from our community: It is often thought that John's Gospel was written in order to correct factual errors that the apostle John was aware of in the earlier gospels, but scholars say that all the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and were only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear later in the second century. They also say that none of the gospels could have really been written by an eyewitness to the events the gospels describe. So, we need to look more carefully to find the more likely reason that John's Gospel was actually written.

Scholars have demonstrated that the authors of Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel relied on Mark's Gospel for everything they knew about the life and mission of Jesus, as well as some sayings material they both took from the hypothetical 'Q' document. They also say that John's Gospel was inspired by Luke's Gospel, with some material taken direct from Mark's Gospel. This tells us that in the community for which John was written, there were already copies of Mark and Luke. Clearly the community was in some way dissatisfied with the two earlier gospels and saw the need for an improved account.

John was written in the first half of the second century, and Christianity had had time to develop and split over the years since its inception. Some scholars see evidence that John's Gospel was written in a mildly Gnostic community, very different from the environment in which Luke was written. Furthermore, Luke focuses on the poor, whereas John focuses on the rich and powerful as the friends and acquaintances of Jesus and has him reserve his best miracles for these wealthy friends. The Johannine community might well have included some well-to-do people who could have been uncomfortable with Luke.

Elaine Pagels sees two well-disguised themes in John's Gospel, that were important in the second-century milieu in which the book was written. She believes these themes point to the reasons that John's Gospel was written.

Throughout the Gospel, there is a theme of a 'doubting Thomas', most famously when he was absent when Jesus met the other disciples at a meal in the upper room and he expressed his doubts that it was Jesus that the others had seen. Pagels believes that the author of John's Gospel was responding to the Christians who believed they were followers of Thomas, and who were in some way a matter of concern for the the Johannine community.

A second theme is the primacy of the unnamed 'disciple whom Jesus loved' over Peter. The disciple is repeatedly compared to Peter and somehow always bests him. Whereas Luke had Peter go alone to the tomb and become the first disciple to see it empty, John has the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' accompany Peter to the tomb and, outrunning Peter, arrive first and look inside to see it empty. However, John usually does not directly contradict Luke, so when Peter arrived, he was the first to actually enter the tomb. It is in John's Gospel that Jesus asked Peter whether he loved him. The first time, Jesus asked Peter about unconditional love (Greek: agape) and the question was comparative: "Do you love me more than these [the other disciples]?" Peter answered that he loves him, but only using the Greek word for friendly or brotherly love (philia). Not satisfied, Jesus again asked Peter, "Do you love me?" Again, Jesus asked about sacred love (agape) but this time did not ask whether Peter loved Jesus more than the others. Again, Peter replied with the Greek word for brotherly love (philia). In the third questioning, Jesus asked only whether Peter had brotherly love for him (philia) - he accepted that this was the most that Peter would give. Chapter 21 also demonstrates that Jesus loved the unknown disciple more than Peter, further bringing Peter back to parity with the other disciples. These examples suggest that the author was concerned with that there was excessive veneration of St Peter and that a purpose of the Gospel was to diminish that veneration.

The author already knew the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and seems to have believed they were not theologically powerful enough. Mark said that Jesus was the adopted Son of God, while Luke said that he was the Son of God from his conception in Mary's womb. John's Gospel changes both these accounts to say repeatedly that Jesus was divine and pre-existing. The synoptic gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the day after the Passover feast, making a mild reference to Jesus as the paschal lamb. By changing the date of the crucifixion to fall on the day ogf preparation for the Passover feast, the author was able to develop a quite strong parallel between Jesus and the paschal lamb. The Gospel was also written to meet the needs of a mildly Gnostic Christian community.

Another Answer:

John's gospel contains a direct "statement of purpose," found in chapter 20, verses 30 and 31:

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

In other words, John wrote it to prove that Jesus is God, and so that people would be saved by believing in Him.

Another Answer:

Because the Gospel of John was eventually attributed to the apostle John, we tend to assume that he wrote the Gospel as his personal recollection of the mission of Jesus. And because it frequently contradicts the synoptic gospels, some say it was written to correct their accounts.

John's Gospel was actually written early in the second century, loosely based on Luke's Gospel, although some material is taken direct from Mark. New Testament scholars have examined John and say that it was written to address issues that had arisen as Christianity emerged through the latter part of the first century and into the second century.

Mark had portrayed Jesus as human, adopted by God at his baptism. Both Matthew and Luke had portrayed him as the son of Mary and the Holy Spirit, who had impregnated Mary. John portrays Jesus as fully divine and pre-existing. This was a major leap in the theology of Christianity.

Answer 5

A:The assumption here is that the gospels could have been written soon after the crucifixion of Jesus but that this process was for some reason delayed, being eventually written by disciples of Jesus or close associates of the Apostle Paul. If this was the case, we can say that the disciples, becoming older, felt it wise to write down the gospels before their own knowledge was lost to future generations.

However, the gospels were originally anonymous and when we look at them, we find that not one actually claims to have been written by any of the earliest apostles. The attribution to the apostles whose names they now bear only came later in the second century. Modern biblical scholars say that the gospels could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events they portray. In fact, the earliest New Testament gospel, that now attributed to Mark, was written approximately 70 CE, much too late for it to be prudent for the early apostles to wait before writing down their stories. We have to look for different reasons for the delay and for the decision then to write down the gospels.

The date Mark's Gospel was written, approximately 70 CE coincides with the end of the First Roman-Jewish War, so it is plausible that the War was the reason for the first evangelist writing his gospel. It could be that the traumatic events leading up to the time of writing really did seem as if the world was about to end, just as Mark says in chapter 13. It could be that the Christians, who were still regarded very much as Jews, wanted to show the Romans that Christians bore them no ill-will and would be no threat to the Roman peace. Or it could be that the disarray in which Judaism now found itself created a potential for converting some of the Jews.

Answer 6

Because the Gospel of John differs so much from the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), some conservative scholars once thought that the purpose of the Gospel was to correct errors that John found in the other gospels.
Elaine Pagels points out two interesting reasons for John's Gospel:

1. There is a thread of anti-Thomas narrative in John's Gospel, resulting in the famous "doubting Thomas" tradition. Pagels believes that the author of John was attempting to counteract the influence of Thomas' Gospel. The introduction of 'doubting Thomas' deflated the competing community that venerated Thomas as its patron saint.
   
2. The Gospel compares Peter unfavourably with 'the disciple whom Jesus loved', and it may have been intended to counteract a developing tendency to worship or venerate Peter to excess.
   
   Elaine Pagels says that the purpose of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' was to show that there was a more worthy disciple, closer to Jesus' heart, than was Peter. Whenever the beloved disciple appears in the Gospel, he is compared favourably to Peter.
   
   Three times, Jesus asked Peter whether he loved him (using agape, the Greek word for unconditional love), but all Peter could offer was brotherly love. The meaning is lost in English translation, as is the meaning of Jesus' frustrated response, "Feed my sheep!" The author was probably concerned at the excessive veneration of Peter in some Christian communities. In a similar way,