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, ...

[1213]

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

Maybe because the copies are good enough for those who love truth?

[William]

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

Maybe because the copies are good enough for those who love truth?

Never once has the bible ever been proven to be a work of fact.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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".

That would be a great point, until you realize that we don't have the original manuscripts of ANY ancient text (of significance).

And even though we don't have the original manuscripts of the Gospels, what we have are a plethora of copies of the Gospels, with the earliest copy (P52) dating around 150 CE (which is the latest date given for it).

That 150 CE dating is early, considering the fact that the copies of other ancient literature is normally dated hundreds of years after their original manuscripts.

So the earliest copy (P52) is like a newsflash compared to other works of antiquity.

Not only that, but we have the early church fathers quoting the New Testament, with Ignatius of Antioch quoting various books of the New Testament.

And guess what, Ignatius died around 107 CE.

Hmmm.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #4]

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".

That would be a great point, until you realize that we don't have the original manuscripts of ANY ancient text (of significance).

On the contrary, every other ancient manuscript (of significance is besides the point) which there are no original manuscripts need be treated the same way as the bible need be treated.

Re "significance" as is noted, the bible has a special claim attached to it, which not all ancient manuscripts have. That is why the question is being asked. IF it were actually "The Word of God" as Christianity claims, why wasn't care taken to ensure that the originals were preserved?

That is a great point, considering...

Do you have an answer to that question?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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".

Again, there are no original manuscripts of practically any book of antiquity, and some of those books of antiquity are still accepted by historians and scholars as viable/credible.

Obviously, the criteria of whether or not a piece of literature can be considered viable isn't based upon whether or not there are original manuscripts to be found...because if that were the case, then practically no piece of ancient literature would be considered viable, and the whole genre of history would be flushed down the toilet at that point.

Thankfully, that isn't the criteria that historians use.

On the contrary, every other ancient manuscript (of significance is besides the point) which there are no original manuscripts need be treated the same way as the bible need be treated.

I agree.

Re "significance" as is noted, the bible has a special claim attached to it, which not all ancient manuscripts have.

Yeah, I get it. Because "miracles" are stapled to the text, that automatically places the text in its own little category.

That is why the question is being asked. IF it were actually "The Word of God" as Christianity claims, why wasn't care taken to ensure that the originals were preserved?

That is a great point, considering...

Do you have an answer to that question?

I do.

First off, I sincerely doubt that even if we had the original manuscripts of the Gospels, that there would be any person out there who would become a believer based on the fun fact of "we have the original manuscripts".

I am of the opinion that this question is only asked as a ploy to justify ones continual and persistent state of unbelief.

If we had the originals, I predict the question would be..

"But how do we know that these are the original manuscripts."

The goalposts will continue to be moved back further and further.

And as I stated before..

1. We have numerous works of antiquity that we DON'T have the originals for, and of whom were written much later than the events in question...and despite all that, these works are still considered reliable pieces of history by scholars.

2. If that is the case, then the Bible should be considered even more reliable...since it is superior in the amounts of copies from the originals, and also the earliest manuscript is was written wayyyy earlier to the events in question than its competitors.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #6]

Again, there are no original manuscripts of practically any book of antiquity, and some of those books of antiquity are still accepted by historians and scholars as viable/credible.

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?

First off, I sincerely doubt that even if we had the original manuscripts of the Gospels, that there would be any person out there who would become a believer based on the fun fact of "we have the original manuscripts".

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.

If we had the originals, I predict the question would be..

"But how do we know that these are the original manuscripts."

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...

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.

[Miles]

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, ...

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. 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.


.

[William]

[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?

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.

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

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

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.

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.

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.