Where are the original scriptures

[jerryinbaok]

or do they still exist in their original form?

 

[1newcatholic]

or do they still exist in their original form?

The originals have been lost.

The oldest thing I think we have is a fragment from John’s Gospel that dates approximately to the third century.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The originals have been lost.

The oldest thing I think we have is a fragment from John’s Gospel that dates approximately to the third century.

And not lost in the sense of, “Say, Cletus, I thought YOU had the copy of the Bible.”
“No, Suetonius, I thought YOU had it.”
“Oh snap, it could be anywhere. We’ll never find it. It’s like looking for a pin in the Sahara.”

Lost in the sense of, “Parchment/papyrus/skins are fragile materials and in time disintegrate.”

 

[jerryinbaok]

The originals have been lost.

The oldest thing I think we have is a fragment from John’s Gospel that dates approximately to the third century.

I see, does the church have the fragments from John’s?

Thanks for responding btw. I don’t know why this has became a point of interest to me today.

 

[jerryinbaok]

And not lost in the sense of, “Say, Cletus, I thought YOU had the copy of the Bible.”
“No, Suetonius, I thought YOU had it.”
“Oh snap, it could be anywhere. We’ll never find it. It’s like looking for a pin in the Sahara.”

Lost in the sense of, “Parchment/papyrus/skins are fragile materials and in time disintegrate.”

Funny

 

[1newcatholic]

I see, does the church have the fragments from John’s?

Thanks for responding btw. I don’t know why this has became a point of interest to me today.

I found this on google: bustedhalo.com/questionbox/what-is-the-oldest-known-manuscript-of-the-bible-that-has-been-found-to-date

“The oldest known manuscripts of the entire Christian Bible are the Codex Sinaiticus, so named because it was found at a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and the Codex Vaticanus, which takes its name from the Vatican library where it now resides. Both are dated to approximately 350 A.D. Biblical scholars have discovered older fragments of the Bible of varying size and condition. The oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.”

So SECOND century, not third. I stand corrected.

 

[1newcatholic]

And not lost in the sense of, “Say, Cletus, I thought YOU had the copy of the Bible.”
“No, Suetonius, I thought YOU had it.”
“Oh snap, it could be anywhere. We’ll never find it. It’s like looking for a pin in the Sahara.”

Lost in the sense of, “Parchment/papyrus/skins are fragile materials and in time disintegrate.”

Yes, exactly

 

[jerryinbaok]

I found this on google: bustedhalo.com/questionbox/what-is-the-oldest-known-manuscript-of-the-bible-that-has-been-found-to-date

“The oldest known manuscripts of the entire Christian Bible are the Codex Sinaiticus, so named because it was found at a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and the Codex Vaticanus, which takes its name from the Vatican library where it now resides. Both are dated to approximately 350 A.D. Biblical scholars have discovered older fragments of the Bible of varying size and condition. The oldest known fragment we have from the New Testament is a tiny section of John’s gospel that contains part of only seven lines in Greek. This fragment is dated to about 125 AD.”

So SECOND century, not third. I stand corrected.

Thanks! Lets keep my interest entertained this evening - where can I find a nice read on the earliest compilation of the bible?

 

[1newcatholic]

Thanks! Lets keep my interest entertained this evening - where can I find a nice read on the earliest compilation of the bible?

Well, the compilation history of the Bible is complex, and took centuries to be finalized, but Amazon has a number of cheap books on the issue. This one is free: amazon.com/OT-Manuscript-History-Michael-Findley-ebook/dp/B007RH5ZRM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413943644&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+bible

I think, technically, the first compilation of the Bible by Christians was done by Marcion, a notorious heretic who tried to discount much of the New Testament and the entirety of the Old. This forced the church to formally declare a canon. St. Athanasius’ list of canonical books eventually became authoritative.

 

[jerryinbaok]

Well, the compilation history of the Bible is complex, and took centuries to be finalized, but Amazon has a number of cheap books on the issue. This one is free: amazon.com/OT-Manuscript-History-Michael-Findley-ebook/dp/B007RH5ZRM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413943644&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+bible

I think, technically, the first compilation of the Bible by Christians was done by Marcion, a notorious heretic who tried to discount much of the New Testament and the entirety of the Old. This forced the church to formally declare a canon. St. Athanasius’ list of canonical books eventually became authoritative.

thanks so much and God Bless!

 

[catholictiger]

never in the history of the Church have we had the original manuscripts that Matthew for example wrote. usually we have copies of what was written or something along those lines.

Keep in mind many of the church fathers held that the Septuagint as divinely inspired. A translation of the jewish canon into greek from hebrew. One of the most interesting things about this is that depending if you read a translation of the greek or the translation of the hebrew you will have differences in their translation, so much so the meaning changes drastically. The best example of this is Isaiah 7:14-17. The NRSV says young women, the D_R says Virgin. No young women in Hebrew doesn’t mean Virigin.

most of the early Fathers held that the septuagint was divinely inspired, but there are plenty of examples where we see the translators deliberately change up text.

You may think this is problematic, but compare chronicles to Samuel and Kings. The exact same thing happens. You will even see some parts of of those histories taken almost word for word and than changed to make David look more holy.

My whole point is we don’t need the original manuscripts. We don’t have to believe that the exact words Matthew wrote are the divinely inspired words.

The best example of why this doesn’t have to be the case if you look at Isaiah 7:14, the words that “Isaiah” apparently wrote, didn’t profess the birth of Jesus to Mary, but the Gospel writers quoted the greek of that passage that actually changes what was said in hebrew.

Again this may sound problematic but it happens all the time in the scriptures. We as Catholics should be ok with this, but we’ve allowed the error of sola-scriptua cloud our interpretation of scripture far to much.

 

[gus]

never in the history of the Church have we had the original manuscripts that Matthew for example wrote. usually we have copies of what was written or something along those lines.

Keep in mind many of the church fathers held that the Septuagint as divinely inspired. A translation of the jewish canon into greek from hebrew. One of the most interesting things about this is that depending if you read a translation of the greek or the translation of the hebrew you will have differences in their translation, so much so the meaning changes drastically. The best example of this is Isaiah 7:14-17. The NRSV says young women, the D_R says Virgin. No young women in Hebrew doesn’t mean Virigin.

most of the early Fathers held that the septuagint was divinely inspired, but there are plenty of examples where we see the translators deliberately change up text.

You may think this is problematic, but compare chronicles to Samuel and Kings. The
same thing happens. You will even see some parts of of those histories taken almost word
for word and than changed to make David look more
My whole point is we don’t need the original manuscripts. We don’t have to believe that the exact words Matthew wrote are the divinely inspired words.
The best example of why this doesn’t have to be the case if you look at Isaiah 7:14, the words that “Isaiah” apparently wrote, didn’t profess the birth of Jesus to Mary, but the Gospel writers quoted the greek of that passage that actually changes what was said in hebrew.
Again this may sound problematic but it happens all the time in the scriptures. We as Catholics should be ok with this, but we’ve allowed the error of sola-scriptua cloud our interpretation of scripture far to much.

Why would you make the assumption the Septuigent is the faithful translation of the most ancient Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls have examples of Hebrew translations identical with the Septuigent Text.It might be that later Hebrew Texts were changed.
Also: Depending on the word used for Young women virginity would be a given.
Maiden or Maid ,for example mean young women ,but in every generation maidenhood and Virginity were synonymous. Almost every word used to describe an unmarried women has that built in assumption. Word meanings have literlly changed in my life time.

 

[Estevao]

No young women in Hebrew doesn’t mean Virigin.

Given the context, virgin is just as plausible a translation. The assumption given the cultural context and the other instances is that an “almah” is a virgin unless shown otherwise.

 

[catholictiger]

Why would you make the assumption the Septuigent is the faithful translation of the most ancient Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls have examples of Hebrew translations identical with the Septuigent Text.It might be that later Hebrew Texts were changed.
Also: Depending on the word used for Young women virginity would be a given.
Maiden or Maid ,for example mean young women ,but in every generation maidenhood and Virginity were synonymous. Almost every word used to describe an unmarried women has that built in assumption. Word meanings have literlly changed in my life time.

I do take this from my scripture scholar I have trust in him.

But let me go deeper into my example

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;* the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel. 15 Curds and honey[j] he will eat so that he may learn to reject evil and choose good; 16 for before the child learns to reject evil and choose good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted.*

From the NABRE ( I use the revised addition because it is a more accurate translation of the hebrew than the NAB and the RSVCE) It also proves a point.

Right before this is a war that happened in Israel and Judah. Assyria and the Northern Kingdom was trying to force Judah to join in war against the Babylonians I think. I have to clarify this. But the Hebrew to the best of my knowledge is actually talking about a women who was already pregnant and about to conceive a child. In the Hebrew the translation has to with the kings pressuring the Southern Kingdom to join in war. Not with a future women who is about to conceive a child. The Hebrew is most accurately translated as young women not virgin.

Now let’s look at

the DRA

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

either the DRA is way off, or there is a difference in translation source. I think this is from the Latin Vulgate which I think is from the greek, meaning the septuagint.

Let’s even look into scripture.

Jump to Matthew 1:23

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”

that is almost a direct quote of the greek of Isiaha 7, but not the Hebrew. Matthew read the Greek version of the Prophets.

You can clearly see here how there is a change in the hebrew scriptures. Either Matthew Changed the wording of Isaiah to make a point, which would cause it to lose it’s sting to us and to those he said it to, or these are the actual words of the Greek that he is quoting. Meaning the Septuagint interpreted the passage to mean virgin and that she will conceive a child.

Don’t get trapped by the protestant view of scripture, that it is word for word of the original language and author that is divinely inspired, or that we are stuck to one interpretation of a passage.

This passage is a prophecy of the Kings of the North lifting the pressure before the boy who is currently in a young women’s womb knows good from evil.

it is also a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, Christ born of a virgin. Both are the literal meaning of the passage.

Note: yes the Hebrew could have changed that is very possible. I kinda read into that post that you were critical. But I think this is an example that the Hebrew that is used to translate the old testament has a stark contrast to the Greek used to translate the Old Testament aka the Septuagint.

 

[RBushlow]

or do they still exist in their original form?

does the church have fragments . . . .

The original autographa are no longer extant.
The Tanakh at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) are as old as 150 BC and the Samaritan Pentateuch around 100 BC.
The Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Old and New Testament, The Codex has been held in conservation in the Vatican Library. It has been dated palaeographicallyto the early 300’s AD. Current scholarship considers the Codex Vaticanus to be one of the best Greek texts of the Bible.
The Masoretic text, some incomplete New Testament texts, dates from as early as 100 AD.

 

[catholictiger]

I’m pulling this off topic last post.

We will never find the original scriptures, and that doesn’t matter because we believe that through divine providence that the copies are still divinely inspired, and even if things changed or things were lost from the scripture, through divine providence what we have now is what God will for us to have as the divinely inspired scriptures.

God can inspire the losing or changes of original text and it still be the Word of God.