Multiple Originals

I have not seen this topic brought up since I've been around here (but it is also possible that I somehow missed it).

Typically, when I have an important written document that I want to share, I make myself a copy before I relinquish the work to the recipient. I may give them the 'copy' or I may give them the 'original'; it hardly matters with modern copying technology (sometimes I get them mixed-up).

The 'copy' and the 'original' should both be exactly the same in content, although they make differ superficially in other ways (the color or texture of the paper, for example). Actually, I may reproduce several copies for distribution if I wanted all the recipients to read the same content. In many circumstances, I would consider, treat, and accept all these documents as 'originals' (clearly, I'm no lawyer).

And sometimes when I write something specifically for some one, I later realize that the information might also benefit some one else, especially if I make just a few small edits to customize it for the person, but without changing the bulk of information. If I don't have the 'original' handy, I might work from the last draft, or my memory if its very recent. It may be as little as changing the salutation; or it may require the deletion of some confidential detail; or I might catch a typo and fix it. Although each document is minutely unique, in the end, I feel that I have sent all parties the same message.

I have presented some unremarkable actions common to documents: that important ones are often copied before they distributed, and that the writer might authorize some small changes between 'copies', and occasionally something slightly unintended might get published.

There is much discussion on this board around which original language text is closest to the original, and that where ancient manuscripts are different one or the other must be corrupted. Should we entertain the possibility of multiple "originals" in some cases?

 

How do we understand the circumstances and methods these first century writers used to compose their work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Were they wholly different than the way in which other writers opperated?

Did they shut themselves up in a room for days without eating until the work was complete?
Did they interview eyewitnesses and review public records over a period of weeks, months, or years?
Did they make drafts, then edit them, and rewrite again and again?
Did they pull elements of personal correspondance and memoirs into a single cohesive chronicle?​

As a non-professional writer and artist, I know that sometimes I feel that my pieces are not really finished, and therefore I dabble, experiment, and make improvements. Occassionally, I realize that some of my recent edits are not at all satisfactory, and I resort to previous manifestations. In light of the whole creative process, could you define at what point the work becomes the original? Did the Holy Spirit somehow limit the NT authors' spontaneity, expressive processes, or originality?

In many art galleries hang sketches and artist's "studies" that are works of art in themselves; some books are known in earlier manuscripts or drafts and are considered better than the published work.

 

YES! Verbal, plenary inspiration.

That is your opinion, and I disagree. What you imply sounds very much like mechanical dictation. Are you saying that drafts could not have been God-breathed? Did the perfection only endure while the pen was pressed onto parchment the very first time? Later you used this example --

Yes it is dictator's message, however the transcription may not be verbatim; I know that many executives expect that their assistant will 'tighten up' the grammer and make other slight alterations from the originally spoken message.

It is my view (shared with others) that 'inspiration' does not mean 'dictation'. Although, there are a couple of occurrences of direct dictation from God to the writer (Jeremiah 26:2 and Revelation 2:1,8) that is not the way I understand that most scripture was secured. God did not obliterate the personality, literary style, vocabulary, or cultural background of his men. Acts 1:16 states --

Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.​

It seems clear that God did not direct their hand or their mouth. Do you remember that Paul did very little of the pen manipulation on his own letters?

 

The purpose was for the king to learn; for him to become intimately familar with the "law" (the actual scope of which is unclear) by absorbing it into his memory while personally transcribing it. Perhaps the "law" he was required to copy was simply those instructions in the immediate preceding text concerning the expected behavior of an Israelite king. But here is a small portion of what Matthew Henry wrote --

(1.) He must write himself a copy of the law out of the original, which was in the custody of the priests that attended the sanctuary, v. 18. Some think that he was to write only this book of Deuteronomy, which is an abstract of the law, and the precepts of which, being mostly moral and judicial, concerned the king more than the laws in Leviticus and Numbers, which, being ceremonial, concerned chiefly the priests. Others think that he was to transcribe all the five books of Moses, which are called the law, and which were preserved together as the foundation of their religion.​

This was to be a public display, something that would stay in that place. The stones were not a surface for support, but the medium to be engraved. See Deuteronomy 27:1-3 --

And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying,
Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.
And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee,
that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister:
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee. ​

Here is a little sample of what Matthew Henry thought --

1. The law of the ten commandments was written upon stones in the presence of all Israel, as an abridgment of the whole, v. 32. This copy was not graven in the stone, as that which was reserved in the ark: That was to be done only by the finger of God; it is his prerogative to write the law in the heart. But the stones were plastered, and it was written upon the plaster, Deu. 27:4, 8. It was written, that all might see what it was that they consented to, and that it might be a standing remaining testimony to posterity of God’s goodness in giving them such good laws, and a testimony against them if they were disobedient to them. It is a great mercy to any people to have the law of God in writing, and it is fit that the written law should be exposed to common view in a known tongue, that it may be seen and read of all men.​

In context it can be seen that the main purpose of the "copy" in each of these passages are not only different from each other, but in neither case is the primary purpose that of preservation (in the sense of a duplicate for future replacement of the written original). I have no doubt that the Hebrews made faithful copies (that is evident), but these passages do not really support your assertion that "God decreed" that His Word would be preserved in copies; and by "preserved" I would also assume you intended that it would be both perfect (unlikely in a lengthy personal copy by a king's hand), and complete (unlikely in plastered stone).