What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #1

Post by 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, ...

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #21

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:16 pm
You implied it was a book:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:45 pm
Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.
<bolding added>

Not surprisingly you cut this out of your quotation.


Tcg
You are right, I did. What I meant was; other WORKS of antiquity.

I had been using books/works throughout the discourse of this subject depending on the context, and simply misspoke.

Hey, I am human.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #22

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:20 pm
How does that change the content of the O.P.?
It doesn't change the "context". We are now discussing a sub-topic within the context.

One conversation leads to another.

Such is life.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:20 pm It is seems to me that William is still addressing the gospels.
Of course, but at this point, is it only the Gospels.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:20 pm If I am incorrect I trust he will correct me.

Tcg
I wouldn't count on it. You guys don't do enough correcting of each other on it.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #23

Post by Tcg »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:32 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:16 pm
You implied it was a book:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:45 pm
Again, P52 is a newsflash compared to other books of antiquity.
<bolding added>

Not surprisingly you cut this out of your quotation.


Tcg
You are right, I did. What I meant was; other WORKS of antiquity.

I had been using books/works throughout the discourse of this subject depending on the context, and simply misspoke.

Hey, I am human.
You also earlier referred to P52 as a copy of the gospels:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 12:54 pm
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).
So, as can be clearly seen, my reply was not a Straw Man as you claimed.

More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John. In light of that, its date is of very little import.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #24

Post by Tcg »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:39 pm
I wouldn't count on it. You guys don't do enough correcting of each other on it.
I'm not sure who the "You guys" you refer to are, but William corrects me plenty. In any case, the topic concerns the original copies of the gospels which quite clearly leaves the writings attributed to Paul irrelevant.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #25

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:43 pm
You also earlier referred to P52 as a copy of the gospels:
Yeah, and I am also saying I misspoke on that too.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:43 pm So, as can be clearly seen, my reply was not a Straw Man as you claimed.
My bad.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:43 pm More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John. In light of that, its date is of very little import.
When it comes to dating the earliest fragment of a Gospel, it is very important. It may not mean anything to you, but to us (believers, scholars, historians), it is important.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #26

Post by Tcg »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:43 pm
You also earlier referred to P52 as a copy of the gospels:
Yeah, and I am also saying I misspoke on that too.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:43 pm So, as can be clearly seen, my reply was not a Straw Man as you claimed.
My bad.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:43 pm More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John. In light of that, its date is of very little import.
When it comes to dating the earliest fragment of a Gospel, it is very important. It may not mean anything to you, but to us (believers, scholars, historians), it is important.
How does that change the fact that:

"More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John."

Great, so you have a date of this fragment. The issue is its value regrading the content of gospel John.

Oh, and nice ad hominem.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #27

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:45 pm
How does that change the fact that:

"More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John."

Great, so you have a date of this fragment. The issue is its value regrading the content of gospel John.
And what is the content of John as it relates to this fragment...is the issue?
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:45 pm Oh, and nice ad hominem.


Tcg
I see no ad hominem.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #28

Post by Tcg »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:03 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:45 pm
How does that change the fact that:

"More importantly, a fragment such as P52 clearly can't be used to verify anything other than a tiny fraction of the contents of gospel John."

Great, so you have a date of this fragment. The issue is its value regrading the content of gospel John.
And what is the content of John as it relates to this fragment...is the issue?
I have no idea what this is asking.
Tcg wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:45 pm Oh, and nice ad hominem.


Tcg

I see no ad hominem.
Check out your last sentence. You'll see it.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #29

Post by William »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #15]
IF I am understanding the argument correctly, John would have been a very old man at the time of writing.
Point?
If I am understanding the P52 argument, a fragment which may have come from what John originally wrote, is the oldest and only surviving remnant of anything which might have existed as original?

Given we also have Matt, Marky and Luke, all writing their individual account over a time period which they each saw their lives out into old age, we can also assume that they wrote about their lives after all that stuff recorded in the bible - so why is it that all we have are the part of their story which is an account of their immature days, and we have nothing at all about the deeper spiritual things Jesus told them they would have access to - principle The Fathers Kingdom.

Why wouldn't those writings also have been copied and preserved and available to the world at large?
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.
I disagree with such expectations.
Sentiments aside, can you support why you disagree in a debating fashion?
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.
I am sensing a disturbance in 'the force' - such sentiment alone comes over as a kind of sulking and I am looking for maturity in relation to my standards hereabouts. I come here to discuss, argue, point out things and have things pointed out to me.

The higher we can elevate our standard of critical thinking, the more likely it is we can get through life within the expanding bubble of truthfulness.
30 years after the fact compared to hundreds of years after the fact. That is a newsflash from where I'm sitting.
A lot can be achieve in 30 years. A novice disciple would have matured greatly and shared their journey with the rest of us. The absence of that material is questionable. It makes what material is available, questionable as well.
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.
No. You did, in the context and from the position that you are arguing this. Anyone who mentioned Christianity before the formation of the Christian priesthood, could well have been referring to something else.

I see no reason to take off the table the possibility that the Christian bible is a work of fiction created by the Priesthood. I am not necessarily arguing that is actually the case, but that it is very possibly the case...

I have seen no argument that positively shows that we can remove that possibility from the list.
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.
Woo-woo aside, the idea is still very much on the table.
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.
Are you saying that Paul's original writings still exist?

Now there we have something of a more mature personality than what we have been offered re the disciples aforementioned...but he is awfully Roman about most everything and even though Paul is the one explaining what Christianity is to us, we hear nothing from those who apparently actually spent time with biblical Jesus and nothing noteworthy of the mysticism they would/should have naturally evolved into over the years as they matured.

What does Paul direct us toward? Mysticism or religious conformity?

To boot, we also don't have anything official from any of the others like Thomas and Mary and etc...it is almost as if a few schisms happened which have largely been kept under wraps by the prevailing branch which did surface come the advent of the official priesthood.

All very sus I think...

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: What happened to the original copies of the Gospels?

Post #30

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm
If I am understanding the P52 argument, a fragment which may have come from what John originally wrote, is the oldest and only surviving remnant of anything which might have existed as original?
I don't know about the "as original" part...but yeah.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm Given we also have Matt, Marky and Luke, all writing their individual account over a time period which they each saw their lives out into old age, we can also assume that they wrote about their lives after all that stuff recorded in the bible - so why is it that all we have are the part of their story which is an account of their immature days, and we have nothing at all about the deeper spiritual things Jesus told them they would have access to - principle The Fathers Kingdom.
Deeper spiritual things? Jesus was already gone by the time they reached old age. They wrote about what Jesus did/said when he was THERE WITH THEM.

Cmon now.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm Why wouldn't those writings also have been copied and preserved and available to the world at large?
This question is the result of a faulty assumption, and can be discarded.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm
Sentiments aside, can you support why you disagree in a debating fashion?
I disagree with the notion of your higher standard, which is that original manuscripts must be at our fingertips.

Not only doesn't it necessarily follow, but again, even if we had the originals, I doubt you would be any closer to Christ.

So, these are all just dead points and sensationalizing.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm I am sensing a disturbance in 'the force' - such sentiment alone comes over as a kind of sulking and I am looking for maturity in relation to my standards hereabouts. I come here to discuss, argue, point out things and have things pointed out to me. The higher we can elevate our standard of critical thinking, the more likely it is we can get through life within the expanding bubble of truthfulness.
Um, I pointed out to you that we don't have the originals of practically anything as it pertains to ancient works of literature.

So, Gospels are no different in any other book in that regard. You responded by implying, "Yeah but, since those books are the alleged word of God, I expect originals".

Well, I disagree with your expectations. I believe that God will see to his word being preserved, but you don't have to have the originals in order for the word to be preserved.

You disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm A lot can be achieve in 30 years. A novice disciple would have matured greatly and shared their journey with the rest of us. The absence of that material is questionable. It makes what material is available, questionable as well.
Hey, if that is the way you feel.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm No. You did, in the context and from the position that you are arguing this. Anyone who mentioned Christianity before the formation of the Christian priesthood, could well have been referring to something else.

I see no reason to take off the table the possibility that the Christian bible is a work of fiction created by the Priesthood. I am not necessarily arguing that is actually the case, but that it is very possibly the case...

I have seen no argument that positively shows that we can remove that possibility from the list.
Cool. Jesus never existed, and Christianity was just some cockamanie fiction created by the priesthood.

Gotcha.
William wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm
Are you saying that Paul's original writings still exist?

Now there we have something of a more mature personality than what we have been offered re the disciples aforementioned...but he is awfully Roman about most everything and even though Paul is the one explaining what Christianity is to us, we hear nothing from those who apparently actually spent time with biblical Jesus and nothing noteworthy of the mysticism they would/should have naturally evolved into over the years as they matured.

What does Paul direct us toward? Mysticism or religious conformity?

To boot, we also don't have anything official from any of the others like Thomas and Mary and etc...it is almost as if a few schisms happened which have largely been kept under wraps by the prevailing branch which did surface come the advent of the official priesthood.

All very sus I think...
Everything but what actually occurred, eh.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply