What is the aim of the Gospels?

[sneezebag]

I'm curious as to what everybody thinks the aim of the gospel writers are. To provide an objective account of what happened? To produce a masterful piece of religious dogma?

Atheist opinions? Christian opinions? any other religious or non-religious opinions? i'd love to hear them!

[Peter Kirby]

Two of the canonical gospels make a direct statement of intent.

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31)

"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." (Luke 1:1-4)

What do you think?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Bernard Muller]

I think the main intent of the gospels was to address contemporary issues existing then in the community of origin.
Issues about what to believe, family splits due to conversion, how to interpret the fall of Jerusalem, how to deal with foes, how to explain the delay in the arrival of the Kingdom and the tribulations of the Christians waiting for it, why not everybody were being converted, etc.
Best regards, Bernard

[Vinnie]

"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." (Luke 1:1-4)

I think Luke is slamming the Gospel of Mark with that. One canonical author slamming another one? Oh my :)

Vinnie

[sneezebag]

From a historical perspective if their intention was to advocate Christianity then the Gospels could be a form of ancient religious dogma with virtually zero credibility.

On the other hand, if their aim was to record Jesus' life as it actually happened as eyewitnesses then they are far more credible.

Nonetheless their aims as recorded in the Gospel (presuming they haven't been altered throughout the ages) can not necessarily be taken at face value. Thucydides, the "father of objective history" claimed to be the first empirical historian and said he was colourless and used a huge volume of different sources to back up his infereces. In reality there is little evidence of him doing so. In fact he appears to have made up sources or altered existing ones to support his argument.

Therefore we end up back at sqaure one. Even if we can find stated aims in the gospels we cannot necessarily swallow them whole. Haha...

Cheers,

Matt