If the Catholic Church and her sister Church, Eastern Orthodox are the original Christian Church, how come we do not have the original text of the Bib

[Mannyfit75]

I have always been wondering this, If the Catholic Church and her sister Church, Eastern Orthodox are the original Christian Church, how come we do not have the original text of the Bible?

What happen to the original text or manuscript of the Bible? I also like to know some historical books how the Church lost the copies of the Bible?

Was it burn in the Library in Alexandria, Egypt?

 

[LilyM]

Firstly - how do we know we don’t? We DO have plenty of very old manuscripts of them. Some NT manuscripts have been dated to well after Apostolic times so we can, for example, rule those out as being originals.

But how about the OT manuscripts? We don’t necessarily know when some of those books were written, so we could very well be actually looking right at the originals for at least some of 'em.

Secondly - we know we have the original WORDS if not the original PAPER. Scholars have found an pretty well insignificant (unusually so for an ancient text) amount of change across the centuries of manuscripts, meaning the copies can be trusted to be quite faithful to the originals.

 

[mattwcu]

Sister Churches?

Schism doesn’t produce “sisters”. Therefore we are not “schism sisters.”

There is only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. The reason we don’t have the original text of the Bible is less clear. There were many manuscripts and copies because there were no printing presses. Copy errors happen, heretics take parts out to suit their beliefs (and then scholars receive their copies and use them as legit), and eventually the originals were lost.

I recommend you read “Where we got the Bible” published by TAN Books. It is a classic, an easy read, and a good overview.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have always been wondering this, If the Catholic Church and her sister Church, Eastern Orthodox are the original Christian Church, how come we do not have the original text of the Bible?

What happen to the original text or manuscript of the Bible? I also like to know some historical books how the Church lost the copies of the Bible?

Was it burn in the Library in Alexandria, Egypt?

The Original parts of the OT were written on what you might call “vegetable” paper. Writing material made of plant matter, which over time would have molded and rotted away. Which is one reason why they needed to be copied over and over. Many of the book of both Testaments were most likely found during the persecutions and destroyed by the Romans.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Sister Churches?

Schism doesn’t produce “sisters”. Therefore we are not “schism sisters.”

There is only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. The reason we don’t have the original text of the Bible is less clear. There were many manuscripts and copies because there were no printing presses. Copy errors happen, heretics take parts out to suit their beliefs (and then scholars receive their copies and use them as legit), and eventually the originals were lost.

I recommend you read “Where we got the Bible” published by TAN Books. It is a classic, an easy read, and a good overview.

The Orthodox Church is a Sister Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I love Scripture and I firmly believe it is inerrant and inspired.

But there are two major points:

Point one: The Old Testament ‘originals’ we couldn’t have (again, the ‘age’ of those Scriptures, the fact that they are also authentic Jewish scriptures, the nature of ‘writing materials’ etc. So we would never have been able to have that PART of Scripture as an original.)

Point two: Christ established a Church, not a ‘Bible’. While I’m sure the people receiving say, St. Paul’s letters, must have treasured them, St. Paul was not only having to work with the ‘normal’ materials (themselves liable to disintegration as noted), he was also working in an atmosphere of persecution. IOW, he was not perhaps able to afford (either with time or money) the ‘preservative treatments’ to keep the documents more ‘secure’, and the people to whom the documents were sent were likewise probably not able to ‘preserve’ those documents the way they might have had they not been in danger of capture and death. The ‘importance’ of having a document ‘written from the hand of St. Paul’ would not have been so felt–what would have been most important was getting that information IN the document OUT to as many people as possible–making as many ‘copies’ and preaching to as many people–in widely scattered areas, in very difficult situations–as possible.

Also, IF somehow all the ‘original’ materials had somehow been preserved, which “Church” would have held them in say AD 500? The Western Church, which had been ‘sacked’. . .or the ‘more stable’ Eastern Church? And then can you imagine as the two were already undergoing ‘internal’ difficulties the ‘fighting’ over WHICH Church should ‘ultimately’ have those precious documents? And should Rome have ‘won’ and ‘taken’ them, imagine that the already ‘deep’ schism with the East would have been near irreparable. And then, imagine how the Protestants would have fought to ‘capture’ those documents so as to ‘claim’ that as their ‘owner’ THEY were the true Church, etc.

But God is good. He would have foreseen all that.

Further, it makes yet another good Catholic paradox. Scripture is inerrant and God-breathed. . .but we don’t even have the ‘originals’. We must take even God’s word ON FAITH. It isn’t easy. . .but it was never meant to be.

 

[mattwcu]

I guess you can call them Sister Churches, but not in the sense that BOTH were the original. I think that is a misapplication of the term. There was and still is ONE holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that church is and subsists in the Catholic Church.

Regardless, I don’t think that was the main part of the OP’s question.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sister Churches?

Schism doesn’t produce “sisters”. Therefore we are not “schism sisters.”

Pope John Paul II,said that Eastern Christians to include Eastern Orthodox are consider our sister Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Orthodox Church is a Sister Church.

I agree and second, I say that the Orthodox Church is also one of the original Church as much as the Catholic Church because there were four Patriarchiate Churches. Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria.

Second, Eastern Orthodox also refer to themselves as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Yes, there was a Schism in 1054 AD. They have valid Sacraments and Apostolic Successions. If the Catholic Church does not recognized that our sister Church, EO have valid sacraments, why bother denying the fact that it is not one of the original Church.

Yes in the beginning there was One Church. In those days, EO and CC are ONE but the Church was called the Catholic Church.

 

[mattwcu]

There is still only one Church. It is the first of the 4 Marks of the Church. This is basic catechesis.

The difference here is the confusion regarding the word Church. If you apply it to “particular Churches” then yes, there are many. However there is only ONE Church, properly understood.

 

[RobbyS]

Firstly - how do we know we don’t? We DO have plenty of very old manuscripts of them. Some NT manuscripts have been dated to well after Apostolic times so we can, for example, rule those out as being originals.

But how about the OT manuscripts? We don’t necessarily know when some of those books were written, so we could very well be actually looking right at the originals for at least some of 'em.

Secondly - we know we have the original WORDS if not the original PAPER. Scholars have found an pretty well insignificant (unusually so for an ancient text) amount of change across the centuries of manuscripts, meaning the copies can be trusted to be quite faithful to the originals.

The Masoretic Bible used by Orthodox Jews, the oldest copy of which is “only” about a thousands years, turned out to be remarkably consistent with the wording of the Dead Sea Scrolls found about sixty years ago. . Likewise the earliest “Christian Bible” we have, like the Sinai Bible. Sacred Scriptures tend to be copied carefully. In the copying, of course, there is a natural “drift” no matter how carefully the copyist is, That’s natural. Copy a CD and over the years, the electrons drift, so that one has to go to the master to correct it. So copyists will often go to older copies to correct themselves. One may assume the translators, such as Jerome, had older copies before them.

 

[Nickkname]

I have always been wondering this, If the Catholic Church and her sister Church, Eastern Orthodox are the original Christian Church, how come we do not have the original text of the Bible?

What happen to the original text or manuscript of the Bible? I also like to know some historical books how the Church lost the copies of the Bible?

Was it burn in the Library in Alexandria, Egypt?

As has been stated, the old copies were destroyed. But we do have the Truth, and to quote your signature: Truth is not a something, Truth is a somebody. His name is Jesus Christ.

 

[tobinatorstark]

material decomposing overtime

 

[grandfather]

A friend saw in a museum in Europe what was supposed to be the oldest copy of the Bible. It was about 1100 years old and looked in pretty good condition, but was carefully preserved in a glass climate controlled chamber. It can not be used or handled.

We can be sure that the copies of the Bible that we have are accurate, faithful to the original, and that those who copied them over the centuries were careful to not change anything.

As the faith went into different areas and regions scripture went with it and was copied again and again in areas that were isolated from one another for centuries. When the versions of scripture from these isolated regions are compared all these centruies later they are virtually identical.

We probably have more to worry about with the many modern translations of scripture we have today. Modern translators can have an agenda. This started with Luther in his translation into German and he added the word allein or alone after the word faith to prove his doctrine of sola fide, and his attempt to remove books from the Bible. If we were to collect as many English translations as possible and read them side by side we get very different slants or flavors or meanings. They are similar, but can be very different also.

 

[Spirithound]

Secondly - we know we have the original WORDS if not the original PAPER. Scholars have found an pretty well insignificant (unusually so for an ancient text) amount of change across the centuries of manuscripts, meaning the copies can be trusted to be quite faithful to the originals.

99.5%, most sources say, and mostly in spelling errors, dropped or doubled words, but nothing that changes doctrine. Given how many letters are in the NT, that’s quite a remarkable number.

 

[Ignatius]

I have always been wondering this, If the Catholic Church and her sister Church, Eastern Orthodox are the original Christian Church, how come we do not have the original text of the Bible?

Because papyrus doesn’t last that long.