We Don't Have the Original Manuscripts

[Zooey]

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

So, the Gospels being eyewitness accounts is quite unlikely, unless the authors were inordinately long-lived and died of an implausibly old age, and not in martyrdom at the height of their ministry (when they would still be young enough to be able to perform it) as tradition has it.

Not that old…Even if we accept those dates…Which I think some or all, are rather late, but let’s take them:
Mark doesn’t claim to be an eyewitness, only to have the testimonies of eyewitnesses, so his date doesn’t matter that much really. Its in the right ballpark.
Matthew: Let’s say that we take that date. That is for the Greek translation of Matthew Aramaic, & Matthew Aramaic could then, be the earliset Gospel. (I believe it is, on the basis of my reading, but even if not…still possible). Call Matthew Aramaic [by an eyewitness] 10 years earlier than that date? Off the top of my head. OK. Jesus’ crucfixion & resurrection were only 25 or 30 years before that. A man who was young–say, 22 for fun–at that time, would still be only 45 or 50 when he wrote his Gospel.
Luke…again, no claim to be an eyewitness. He’s giving the testimony of eyewitnesses. But they could be very old, and he very young, & working to preserve their memories in writing before they passed. By the time he collates his material, & it begins to circulate, that’s not an unreasonable date.
John: John was the “baby”, by all accounts, of the Apostles. He’s also the one who lived into old age. He wasn’t yet of age, by all indications, when he followed Christ. Even if you take 110 as the date, he’s old, but he could very well be alive.That doesn’t make him impossibly old, though. But his writing, in the letters/epistles, is very much the writing of an elderly person. He isn’t 110 years old, remember; he old enough to have run off from home to follow Someone Who was born 110 years before. He’s what? 90, 95. Even 100 isn’t unheard of.

What’s the problem??

 

[Hellisreal]

Hmmmmm…By the logic of “no original manuscripts=things have been invemted, changed, made-up,etc”, if we don’t have the original sheets of paper on which Shakespeare wrote his plays, can I claim I wrote Macbeth, and collect all those royalties?

See, I think its funny, how its only the Bible that gets this kind of scrutiny. Nobody has any problem believeing that Julius Caesar lived when & where he did, and that he conquered Gaul…but of course, Julius Caesar doesn’t make any difference when it comes to somebody maybe having to break down & admit that they need a Saviour…

:twocents:

Zooey, I mostly agree with you but, to be fair no one’s faith is hanging on Caesar (any of them) or Shakespeare or Macbeth.

The bible rightfully gets scrutiny because its such an important book, the most important book of all time IMHO. Even if one were atheist or agnostic it is still a masterpiece and most educated people attempt to be familliar with it that do so for no religious reasons.

But, even if its riddled with tons of mistakes it does not change beliefs or faith (For many Christians) so, I dont see why we shouldnt examine the mistakes. They are there. We can hide our head in the sand but they are there.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

I wouldn’t call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DERISIVELY “Sunday School”–they were real people and the Catholic Church has always taught that they were real people who yes wrote real gospels.

I wasn’t calling them “sunday school”. I was calling laymen’s knowledge sunday school. Any problem with considering experts more knowledgeable than laymen? Any problem with considering even Catholic theologians and historians more knowledgeable than the next Joe in the hood?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

See, I think its funny, how its only the Bible that gets this kind of scrutiny. Nobody has any problem believeing that Julius Caesar lived when & where he did, and that he conquered Gaul…but of course, Julius Caesar doesn’t make any difference when it comes to somebody maybe having to break down & admit that they need a Saviour…

:twocents:

The difference is that the ancient resources about Julius Cæsar don’t have him walking on water, zapping dead people back to life, presenting him as the son of a god, turning water into alcoholic beverage, etc.

The Roman Empire of the time was teeming with sons of gods, who were saviors born in caves, born on December 25th, having virgin births and doing miracles… and no one believes in them. Actually modern people have an unavoidable feeling tales with such extraordinary elements contrary to the creditable, may not be trustworthy. That’s what makes the difference between Cæsar and Christ IMO, and that’s maybe why so many are asking questions.

Also, Christians don’t agree amng themselves on many. many things, so that makes great motivation for detailed and painstaking apologetic taking apart, putting back together, etc. I mean, if many people don’t believe, and if you wanted them to believe, wouldn’t you want to dig up and put together whatever demonstration you can find? I’d say yes.

…but of course, Julius Caesar doesn’t make any difference when it comes to somebody maybe having to break down & admit that they need a Saviour…

Only believers in Christ think so. People of other religions (for instance, islam doesn’t require one, a direct relation with Allah is all that’s required for them, no atonement needed in that context) or no religion at all, don’t see a reason why. It’s like Helena Rubinstein trying to convince men they need make-up.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi
It is quite obvious that we don’t have the original manuscripts. We have lost the Revealed Word of GodAllahYHWH which JesusYeshuaIssa received from God and he used to read that.
We have only translated versions, from a translated source, nothing in the original language, in my opinion.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[porthos11]

Hi
It is quite obvious that we don’t have the original manuscripts. We have lost the Revealed Word of GodAllahYHWH which JesusYeshuaIssa received from God and he used to read that.
We have only translated versions, from a translated source, nothing in the original language, in my opinion.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

We may have lost the originals but we have thousands of copies in the original and other ancient languages, especially of the New Testament. There may have been problems in transmission but these can be reconstructed to a reasonable degree by looking at other ancient sources.

 

[patg]

We may have lost the originals but we have thousands of copies in the original and other ancient languages, especially of the New Testament. There may have been problems in transmission but these can be reconstructed to a reasonable degree by looking at other ancient sources.

It is interesting to think that God inspired the authors but didn’t think of inspiring someone to preserve what they wrote. One is forced to assume that the current various copies have been inspired throughout their evolution.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is interesting to think that God inspired the authors but didn’t think of inspiring someone to **preserve what they wrote. **One is forced to assume that the current various copies have been inspired throughout their evolution.

Hi
It is interesting and strange indeed!
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[paarsurrey]

but these can be reconstructed to a reasonable degree by looking at other ancient sources.

Hi
Why not for certainty, it is such an important issue, it should not have been left to doubt reasonably? This is my opinion.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[Hellisreal]

This is why the Church was established guys. The Church has preserved the word. If one thinks otherwise they are left to doubt.

 

[richardeekw]

I was wondering if anyone has ever heard a sound rebuttal or reply in defense of the faith to the charge that we don’t have the original manuscripts of the gospels and letters of the New Testament. I was made aware of this by reading Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus; as far as I know its basically undisputed historical information. None of the critical book reviews I’ve read of Ehrman’s book take him to task for stating that we don’t have the originals. In your view, does this seroiusly undermine the reliability of the Bible and the Catholic faith? Anyone’s thoughts would be appreciated.

Yes, no one has the “Original” manuscripts - only copies in piecemeal form. Yet, the Bible can be trusted, when correctly interpreted because unlike any writing, the books contained therein are DIVINELY Inspired.

A good book, now availble for free via internet is
WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE.

• written by a Protestant turned Catholic and a Bishop.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html

 

[whowantsumadebo]

It is interesting to think that God inspired the authors but didn’t think of inspiring someone to preserve what they wrote. One is forced to assume that the current various copies have been inspired throughout their evolution.

Mr.G,
are you suggesting that the very ink and papyri used by the evangelists should be considered inspired? You and I know very well that the words themselves aren’t inspired. Is there a better way to discuss this issue?