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.

Very, very long and detailed. Too scholastic for me. I think the book is very comprehensive in its scope and details on how the canon of the Bible came to be.

I managed to get through till the end (well, the last few chapters I gleaned over), but I felt like I haven’t even absorbed 5% of the contents. I think that the book was out of my league and that I was unprepared although I did get an overview of the history of the Bible.

I was expecting a bit more scholastic reading. However, this turned about to be an essay trying to explain that the Roman Catholic Church is the only authority on the Bible.

His logic seems to be that even before the words were written down the teachings were done by the church, starting with the first disciples. He continues that the church (i.e, Roman Catholic Church being the “heir” to the first church) decided which books to include in the Bible and how it should be interpreted and translated into other languages (from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts). So, he says that it is absurd to claim that only the Bible is the truth because without the church to guide it is very easy to wrong interpretations.

Anyway, the essay was written more than a century ago, and I think this was a part of things he did to explain his transition from a Scottish protestant priesthood to a Roman Catholic one. I thought the basic argument was basically that, but he was going on and on about it. Not that informative.

I bought this over 2 years ago out of curiosity. I’ve heard about “other” gospels. I knew that the current 66 books in the Bible was collected by the Roman Church. There must have been other books and I am sure they acted as editors to deliver coherent messages.

Anyway, this short book contains translated text of what is believed to be the Gospel of Thomas (collection of writings by Thomas of what Jesus said) which is a part of the Nag Hammadi collection. It also includes rather bland writings of how the discovery came about and the history of the scroll since.

First things first. I don’t know how valid this gospel is. It could be real or not. Just because a book was not included in the 66 books does not mean that it is not genuine.

But I can say this about the actual text in there: the collection of sayings weren’t that impressive. Maybe it is to biblical scholars. But to me, it seems to be a very random collection which is difficult for me to find a common message. I guess I had too high an expectation. I thought it would be something truly “secret” and amazing.

Anyway, this did peaked my interests in other Nag Hammadi scrolls and other Gnostic scriptures because I just can’t believe this is it.

The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago’s 2002 survey noted Americans who say that they belong to one of Protestant denominations are only 52%, down from 62% around 1993. A controversial thing is that this number included Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), which accounted for 2%, as protestants. Among immigrants, only 25% were protestants.

On the other hand, the proportions of Roman Catholics and Jews stayed about the same, 25% and 2% respectively. Other religious groups, including Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Buddhists and Hindus rosed to 7%.

Also, another interesting trend was that 27% of those born in 1980 or later claim they have “no religion”.

I was kind of shocked that it was that low among immigrants because I see Korean protestants all the time. So, it’s obvious that Koreans aren’t even close to making a dent in the big picture.

So, the growth of secularism in the U.S. (and the world) and the increasing fanaticism among some religious fundamentalists do have bases in the statistics, and the trend is telling me that it will get worse.

After that incident, while thinking about it, I came up with another term “Personalized Religion”. I never liked organized religions. And frankly, I think that concept doesn’t make much sense these days. If you think about the relationship of the availability and the accessibility of information and the diversity in thinking and preference, over time, you will see that this concept of a “monolithic” organized religion seems to be not only archaic, but also very deceiving.

The next time you go to church (or cathedral or temple), ask the next person what her/his idea of “god” is. I am sure it will be as diverse as the individual who answers it. I am sure they share some common grounds, just as most of us share common physical features. However, we are also different. As our psychic structures change, our thoughts and belief change as well. That’s why I believe (yes, I do believe in something) that a belief (I don’t want to use the term “religion” here) is and should be personal (or put it differently, individual). You can communicate your own belief to others, but you cannot or should not force it onto others. It’s like a brain-washing and that’s not right.

The first group is basically limiting their thoughts because they cling so much to what they think this “world” is. Also, they are creating more conflict (external or internal) because they are refusing to interact with the “world” and to see it as what it is (that is).

The second group, on the other hand, is just like saying, “Since we will get hungry again, why bother with eating at all?” They are also refusing to see deeper into the nature of this “world.”

As always, I am taking the middle ground. My belief is that it’s essential to realize that there is a limit to the idealistic goal we set out to, and at the same time, to still try to achieve that goal nonetheless. I mean both are important, the realization and the effort.

One of its most fundamental example would be our own existence. That is, we live on although we know that our existence has a time-limit and that not all the experience we go through is pleasant. But that doesn’t mean that we should just stop living all together. Our imperfect existence is given, it’s the ground rule that we have to work with. I didn’t realize what “coming to terms with one’s own life” that I heard often meant until now. But I think it means to realize what you are, what your ground rule is, and work from there.

I guess this is how most religion starts…