Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman

The contents of the book did not surprised me that much since I've been reading books on the history of the Bible. It also summarizes what I have wondered before in not-too-academic ways and backs it up with supporting evidences and theories although mostly by examples.

I've heard that Mr. Ehrman is closer to a gnostic (that a knowledge will bring enlightenments). So, I thought there were some parts where his theological/political views were stressed. If you can get past that, the basic fact that the Bible that most of the Christians are reading is not exactly the same as the original books from the first century (hand-copying errors, translations).

Before the invention of the printing press, if you want a copy of a book, it had to be done by hand. Copying by hand is an arduous work and the probability of errors are relatively high (especially when the literacy rate was low and the definition of literacy was very loose). This can be seen in the many versions of the surviving manuscripts. Also the fact that the earliest surviving copies of the manuscripts only go back to the 4th century means that there is at least a 200 year gap between the original writings.

Another big question for me is that most of us are reading the translation. Since English has become a dominant world language, we may falsely assume that the English version is the original, but the fact is that the most of the New Testaments were originally written in Greek (not even Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic). If you ever attempted translating a relatively long and complicated piece of writings, you know that literal translation often does not work.

The book mentioned that the current "Only on the Bible" theology/doctrine you see that most of the Protestant Christian Churches originated from the arguments that the Protestant Fathers used to separate from the Catholic Church. They were trying to lessen/ignore the huge (and often corrupt) power that the Church had. Interestingly the argument that the Catholic Church used against the emerging Protestant movement was the very fact that the surviving manuscripts have variations and thus we may never know the "original" words and that some texts contain what seems to be inconsistencies. The Catholic Church was arguing that because of these "problems" in the Bible, people need a consistent guidance from the Church which existed even before these scriptures were ever written.

I am beginning to agree with the Catholic Church's argument. I've always wondered (and have been worried) that what I thought I understood from reading the Bible myself would be "correct". With my limited knowledge of God and the Christian theologies, how can I be sure that what I understand is what God intended by these inspired writings? What if I am totally getting it wrong? Come to think of it, without any guidance, the individual "interpretations" would be as many as there are individuals! We all might be reading the same (well, an English translation), but we might as well be reading different ones...

Not only that, but if one relaxes and say that some textual translation differences are okay as long as the overall meanings are the same, how much differences are okay? I think the "Only on the Bible" arguments just cannot hold.

I think the Church is important: the pastors and the members that make it up. They are the ones who glue the whole group based on the Bible because most may not know the "truth" even if they see it.