What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

[William]

The original manuscripts of the gospels are not known to have survived, so there is no way to verify if the gospels contained in the bible are true copies of said originals, or even if there actually existed originals and that what is presented as the gospels were simply fictitious creations of the early priesthood of Christianity, which eventually formalized them into a book, which was touted as being "The Word of God".

Q: Why were the original manuscripts allowed to perish if the bible is such a holy relic Christianity touts it to be?

Word of God - the sacred writings of the Christian religions; "he went to carry the Word to the heathen" Christian Bible, Good Book, Holy Scripture, Holy Writ, Scripture, Bible, Book, ...

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]

My guess is that there was little or no way to preserve them, and that after time they simply crumbled to dust. But to preserve the message before disappearing they were copied, and that copy recopied, and that recopy rerecopied, and so forth, as each previous copy turned into illegible scraps.

Therefore could we say that the Christian bible is no more 'The Word of God" than any other manuscript which likewise suffered the fate of decay?

Of course as an atheist I don't buy any claim that the Bible is the word of god, but as far as Christianity goes, I agree.

Unfortunately, along the way copying errors and purposeful changes (made to fit the current theology of the copier) continued to accumulate giving us a less than accurate version of the original.

Which we cannot say for sure is what happened, since we do not know what the originals said, or even if there were any originals.

Bingo! Very little is for sure, with a lot being speculation.

Copying errors and adjustments could also have been carried out upon manuscripts which were invented rather than which spoke of actual events which occurred.

Absolutely. Simply look at all the versions of the Bible now on the market. Take Philippians 3:8, where out of the 55 versions I checked we have 12 different translations of the word σκύβαλον:

"refuse" 4 times
"dung" 11 times
"garbage" 10 times
"rubbish" 13 times
"filth" 2 times
"trash" 6 times
"worthless" 2 times
"less than nothing" 3 times
"manure" 1 time
"waste" 1 time
"dirt" 1 time
"sewer trash" 1 time.



.

[William]

Can you name some of those books so one can better ascertain why you are trying to connect these with the bible being viable/credible?

Yes, I can.

Consider this..

https://truthfaithandreason.com/case-ma ... documents/

Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.

If all of the Gospels (besides John) was written 70 CE or earlier...and P52 was written no later than 150 CE, that is less than 100 years after the fact.

Compare that to what you are about to see in the link...again....NEWSFLASH.

New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The original editor proposed a date range of 100–150 CE,[4] while a recent exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-4th century, has proposed a date for 𝔅52 of 125–175 CE.[1] A few scholars say that considering the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows the possibility of dates outside these range estimates, such that "any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries."[5] Source

IF I am understanding the argument correctly, John would have been a very old man at the time of writing.

The thing that I am arguing is that without original manuscripts, the authenticity of the gospels becomes - naturally - suspect.

Whereas, if there were actual originals, we can at least argue from that point.

That wouldn't be a problem if other works of antiquity was held to the same standard..which doesn't appear to be the case.

My point being that I do not know of any other works of antiquity which boast of being 'the word of god' so the standard for such a claim would naturally be expected to be much higher re the Christian bible.

You would be incorrect.

We would know because there would be history attached to them as evident to how they were preserved, when they were written, who they were written by etc...

We can get all of that good info without the origs.

My point remains. There are no 'originals' therefore we cannot assume that to be the case.

What questions we might have about the content would depend upon what the content was.

What we have instead are manuscripts which could very well be inventions of the early priesthood of the newly forming religion.

Umm, Tacitus was talking about early Christianity before the priesthood..and based on what he stated, Christianity can be traced back to the first century 60's CE.

And, since Jesus was crucified in the 30's CE...

NEWSFLASH.
[/quote]

What is this "NEWSFLASH"?



You don't say...

Talking about Christianity before the formation of the priesthood is irrelevant re the idea that the stories were invented by the early Christian priesthood.

Are any of the manuscripts dated prior to the first century 60's CE?

[Overcomer]

We don't have the original manuscripts because manuscripts at that time were written on perishable materials such as papyrus or parchment.

And some of the originals would have been purposely destroyed. Jewish scribes copying Old Testament texts would often bury the worn out texts rather than have someone get their hands on them and defile them by using them inappropriately or incorrectly.

Jewish scribes copying the New Testament texts may have imitated their forerunners by doing the same. All previous copies would be destroyed only after the new manuscripts were deemed to be 100 per cent accurate.

Some of God's enemies destroyed the Old Testament texts. See Jeremiah 36. King Jehoiakim destroyed scrolls of God's Word. The good news is that Baruch rewrote them.

New Testament texts were also destroyed by those who persecuted the early Christians as noted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (8.2.1)

And given people's tendency to worship objects, it's probably just as well that we don't have the originals because somebody somewhere would worship them.

The good news is that the texts have been accurately transmitted down through the centuries. See here:

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/ ... -reliable/

https://bible.org/article/historical-re ... ty-gospels

And see here for more on why we don't have the original manuscripts:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... -bible.cfm

Here is a discussion re: the existence of original manuscripts in the second century A.D.:

https://bible.org/article/did-original- ... -century-0

And here is one scholar's statement about Biblical manuscripts:

"Textual criticism attempts to recover the originals, as much as humanly possible. Have textual critics succeeded? By any reckoning, we have 95% of the inspired words, and some scholars place the number as high as 99%. That is a remarkable achievement for any text coming out of the Greco-Roman world. Web readers need to know this, so they can be reassured about their Bible when they hear its critics misleading the public about the complete trustworthiness of Scripture."

From: https://bible.org/seriespage/4-manuscri ... t-reliable

[Tcg]

Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.

Here's another newsflash, P52 is far from a complete copy of gospel John. It is a fragment, and a very small one at that, not a book.



It is about the size of a credit card.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

IF I am understanding the argument correctly, John would have been a very old man at the time of writing.

Point?

My point being that I do not know of any other works of antiquity which boast of being 'the word of god' so the standard for such a claim would naturally be expected to be much higher re the Christian bible.

"If it is truly God's words, I expect original manuscripts".

I disagree with such expectations.

My point remains. There are no 'originals' therefore we cannot assume that to be the case.

Well, you have your standards, and we have ours.

What is this "NEWSFLASH"?

30 years after the fact compared to hundreds of years after the fact. That is a newsflash from where I'm sitting.

You don't say...

Talking about Christianity before the formation of the priesthood is irrelevant

Right, it is so irrelevant that you brought it up in the first place.

re the idea that the stories were invented by the early Christian priesthood.

Believe that if you must, amigo. Anything that will keep you from salvation, believe it.

Are any of the manuscripts dated prior to the first century 60's CE?

Originals? No. But some of Paul's writings are dated to the 50's CE.

Let me guess, you need some earlier than that?

Moving the goalposts

[Tcg]

Originals? No. But some of Paul's writings are dated to the 50's CE.

Let me guess, you need some earlier than that?

Moving the goalposts

The O.P. asks this:

"What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?"
<bolding added>

Are you suggesting Paul wrote one of the gospels?


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

Here's another newsflash, P52 is far from a complete copy of gospel John.

Straw man. No one has said nor implied that P52 is a complete copy of John's Gospel.

It is a fragment

So is the Rosetta Stone.

, and a very small one at that, not a book.

We acknowledge what it is, and it is what it is.

It is about the size of a credit card.

Good things come in very small packages.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The O.P. asks this:

"What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?"
<bolding added>

Are you suggesting Paul wrote one of the gospels?


Tcg

Um, no.

Had you been following our conversation more closely, you would have discovered that we had transitioned from solely the Gospels, and are now on the formulation (or invention) of Christianity from early priesthood...which is why I gave Paul and honorable mention.

[Tcg]

Here's another newsflash, P52 is far from a complete copy of gospel John.

Straw man. No one has said nor implied that P52 is a complete copy of John's Gospel.

You implied it was a book:

Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.

<bolding added>

Not surprisingly you cut this out of your quotation.


Tcg

[Tcg]

The O.P. asks this:

"What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?"
<bolding added>

Are you suggesting Paul wrote one of the gospels?


Tcg

Um, no.

Had you been following our conversation more closely, you would have discovered that we had transitioned from solely the Gospels, and are now on the formulation (or invention) of Christianity from early priesthood...which is why I gave Paul and honorable mention.

How does that change the content of the O.P.?

It is seems to me that William is still addressing the gospels. If I am incorrect I trust he will correct me.


Tcg