Is Not Having the Original Manuscripts a Serious Problem?

by Terry Wane Benton

It is not a problem at all. Unless all the copies and quotes are so contradictory and diverse that we need the original documents to settle the matter, the numerous quotes and copies provide enough certainty that we do not need the original autographs. In comparing what you do have, you see a consistency of the testimony that reduces the need for the originals. Jesus did not find it disturbing at all that Moses’ handwritten copies had worn out and been replaced with copies. Such was very much expected. The importance of the originals being copied, worn out, and copied over and over only demonstrates that no one was seeing a different testimony coming forth as new copies were made. That means there was carefulness in copying with accuracy, lest your new copy be exposed as fraudulent.

In view of the numerous copies and quotes of the US Constitution, would it matter one iota if someone destroyed the original autograph copy, penned by the original writers and signed by the witnesses? Would the absence of the original matter at all, and cause us to lose all confidence in our remaining copies? I would venture to say that it would not matter at all! The only way it would matter would be if every copy told an entirely different story from the others. Since all copies are the same and tell the same story, there is no alarm at all in not possessing the original autograph.

But turning the argument around on the Bible skeptic, where is even one original witness that can verify that the apostles of Jesus all colluded in making up a lie about Jesus being a miracle worker that was raised from the dead? I’d venture to say there were never any valid witnesses that would stand the tests of early and later scrutiny. The apostle’s testimony not only survived Jerusalem but also flourished from there into all the world, the narrative of testimony never even slowing down in 2000 years. That is worth taking note of!