What was their motive?

[tosca1]

It's common knowledge.

NAMING THE GOSPELS

This is a long detailed article, so I'd only pasted some of it.


When were the gospels written and by whom?


Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. , Luke and Acts

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.


Matthew
The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2-4). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel.
The debate is far from over.


Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.


Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."

When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry



Since the debate on the dating is far from over, does this therefore serves to prove the Gospels could be historically unreliable? Of course not.

Out of the approx 138,000 words in the New Testament, only about 1,400 are being doubted.

 

[RGacky3]

Well Jesus for one could read and write, yet he didn't write anything down. It's curious that his contemporaries who all could presumably read and write did not do so.

It's actually more likely that he couldn't Write, he could read though.

Also it isn't strange that he didn't Write anything Down given that he started his ministry 3 years before he died.

 

[Ben K.]

It's actually more likely that he couldn't Write, he could read though.

Also it isn't strange that he didn't Write anything Down given that he started his ministry 3 years before he died.

John 8:6-8 (ESV)
6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.

Unless they meant drawing (another reason to write something yourself, for clarity's sake), the fact that he could definitely read with the above makes it likely he could write. And why wouldn't one write anything before they started their ministry along with that 3 year period? The written Word ended up being quite important.

 

[RGacky3]

Unless they meant drawing (another reason to write something yourself, for clarity's sake), the fact that he could definitely read with the above makes it likely he could write. And why wouldn't one write anything before they started their ministry along with that 3 year period? The written Word ended up being quite important.

That verse wasn't actually in John, it's a later addittion as noted in most bibles and in many it's omited as such .... It's not origionally in John.

The written Word wasn't that important in those times, oral tradition was much more important. One would'nt Write anything before they started their 3 year ministry because one would have been too busy being a carpenter, and in the 3 year ministry one would have been to busy DOING the ministry.

 

[Ben K.]

That verse wasn't actually in John, it's a later addittion as noted in most bibles and in many it's omited as such .... It's not origionally in John.

The written Word wasn't that important in those times, oral tradition was much more important. One would'nt Write anything before they started their 3 year ministry because one would have been too busy being a carpenter, and in the 3 year ministry one would have been to busy DOING the ministry.

So he should have written himself to avoid confusion like this. The written word was about to take off and the Son of God was behind the curve?

 

[RGacky3]

So he should have written himself to avoid confusion like this. The written word was about to take off and the Son of God was behind the curve?

What confusion .... There is no confusion, everyone that knows the bible knows that those verses are later additions.

The Son of God wasn't behind the curve ... he did what he came here to do, and it was recorded by his disciples.

 

[tosca1]

So he should have written himself to avoid confusion like this. The written word was about to take off and the Son of God was behind the curve?

That's your take on how you'll do it if you were Jesus. But you're not Jesus.

However Jesus decided to do it, obviously it's quite effective. 2000 years later, here you are pondering about it........ and Christianity is more popular than ever.

 

[Ben K.]

That's your take on how you'll do it if you were Jesus. But you're not Jesus.

However Jesus decided to do it, obviously it's quite effective. 2000 years later, here you are pondering about it........ and Christianity is more popular than ever.

Fragmented into multiple churches and doctrines.

 

[Ben K.]

What confusion .... There is no confusion, everyone that knows the bible knows that those verses are later additions.

The Son of God wasn't behind the curve ... he did what he came here to do, and it was recorded by his disciples.

Many Christians believe Christ could write. That's the confusion.

None of this "added passages" nonsense would occur if he wrote it himself.

 

[tosca1]

Fragmented into multiple churches and doctrines.

That too, had been prophesied numerous times - warning us about false teachings. Deceivers. False prophets.


Jesus warned about false prophets, deceivers and deception
He said that many would be deceived

ho09.htm - Jesus warned about false prophets, deceivers and deception.


There is a purpose that is only known to God.
He does not think or do things the way we do. We probably are mere idiots compared to His wisdom. He does not owe us any explanation, and most certainly doesn't need our validation.

 

[RGacky3]

Many Christians believe Christ could write. That's the confusion.

None of this "added passages" nonsense would occur if he wrote it himself.

Ok ... but most scholars don't ...

those added passages are not a problem to anyone that knows anything about the bible .... and even if he did, People could still add to it ....

 

[Del Zeppnile]

That isn't anything special. There are legions of people being persecuted for their faith in every religion.

Good point. The Westboro Baptist Church people, David Koresh, Jim Jones, the Hale-Bop comet folks and many others believe they were or are being persecuted for their faith. Many of them even died to prove it.

I don't think the OP question could be exclusive to Christianity. There has to be another answer to the question.