Read through the Bible in one-year, reflections part VII

In a typical read through the Bible plan, I know I struggle with the big chunk of material in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers that are filled with various minute details of the tabernacle, the garments, the sacrifices, and the numerous codes of conduct. 

#1

I think one perspective to keep in mind as we wade through these sections is the holiness of God. God is perfectly holy, and we are not. The laws are there to hold up a mirror to us to show us we are not holy. We not only fail to keep the letter of the law we fail to even uphold a fraction of the spirit of the law. These laws are in regard to our relationship to God. These laws are in regard to our relationship to each other. And we fall short on both fronts.

#2

Mixed in with all these laws that are a megaphone announcing the holiness of God are the provisions for us to be made right before God. We can’t be made right using our own methods, we need to follow the way set forth by God. Thus, the over-arching theme is God is holy, we are not, God has made a way to be restored, and we need to trust and obey God’s way of restoration. 

#3 

As such, we need to be careful as New Testament Christians how we talk about the Old Covenant. We should not talk down upon the Old Covenant. The stories of God's people who lived and walked in the Old Covenant like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others are illustrative of the human condition. They stumbled around a lot (we do to) and it was God's mercy and grace that picks them (and us) up!

So yes, the Old Covenant was well ... a certain way at a particular time. And, yes, the New Covenant is well … new! But the message is still the same: God is holy, we are not, God has made a way to be restored, and we need to trust and obey God’s way of restoration. In the New Covenant, the way is through trust and obedience to our Lord and King Jesus! The grace of God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. Abraham needed grace. We need grace.

Jesus’ critique of the religious leaders of the time was that they missed the point of the Old Covenant. These religious leaders thought they kept the letter of the Law and that their birthright as the children of Abraham was enough. Regarding the letter of the Law, they under-estimated just how holy God actually is and thought more highly of their own holiness than actually warranted. As such, they also missed the spirit of the law:  God is holy, we are not, God has made a way to be restored, and we need to trust and obey God’s way of restoration. 

Anyway, these handholds have been a helpful 30,000 feet perspective for me. 

Keep reading!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Homelessness and Hunger in Los Angeles

The Los Angeles Times recently ran a series of editorials on the issue of homelessness in Los Angeles.

Excerpts:
Homelessness burst its traditional borders several years ago, spreading first to gloomy underpasses and dim side streets, and then to public parks and library reading rooms and subway platforms. No matter where you live in L.A. County, from Long Beach to Beverly Hills to Lancaster, you cannot credibly claim today to be unaware of the squalid tent cities, the sprawling encampments, or the despair and misery on display there.
[.....]
Today, we are paying the price: The economically homeless are now estimated to make up more than half of L.A.’s unhoused — and it is their rising numbers that are fueling the unprecedented growth in that population. More than half of the people surveyed by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority last year said they were homeless because of an eviction, foreclosure, unemployment or “financial reasons.”
[.....]
Until the mayor and the members of the City Council treat the building of these 10,000 units of housing with the kind of extraordinary urgency this crisis requires — the kind that the federal and state governments bestowed upon, for example, the rebuilding of the broken Santa Monica Freeway after the Northridge earthquake — they simply will not be built. And they must be built. Supportive housing in particular — which offers not just a place to live but also access to job counseling and mental health and substance abuse treatment, among other things — is the best long-term solution for the chronically homeless, whose cases are the most difficult to solve. A substantial number of these housing units must be located in every single council district. They cannot just be concentrated in poor areas or in neighborhoods with less political clout. Already, a new report shows that even more housing will be needed than was estimated at the time HHH was passed.
[.....]
The largest psychiatric institutions in the United States are the Los Angeles County jails, the Cook County Jail in Chicago and Rikers Island in New York. L.A. County incarcerates thousands of mentally ill people. The Sheriff’s Department reports that more than 70% of inmates who enter jail report a serious illness, either mental or physical. The county is moving forward with a $2-billion-plus plan to replace the aging Men’s Central Jail with a new facility specifically geared toward mental health treatment — but still a jail. We’re back where we started, but this time even more literally than before: Mentally ill people are prisoners. It’s not that jailers want the new business. It’s a population, L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell recently told ABC7, “that I would argue should not be treated in a jail facility.”
[.....]
Across the city, drivers exiting freeways routinely encounter homeless people on the off-ramps shuffling from window to window requesting money. Libraries, train stations and public parks have become refuges for homeless people. In many residential neighborhoods and commercial districts, encampments have become a seemingly immutable fact of life. As homelessness spreads across Los Angeles County — the official tally shows a 46% increase from 2013 to 2017 — it is drawing two conflicting responses, at times from the same people. There’s sympathy and a desire to help, but there’s also a sense of being invaded and perhaps even endangered — in terms of both physical safety and public health
[.....]
Yet such a czar would only be as powerful as the mayor who appointed him or her. And in L.A., the mayor lacks legal authority to override City Council members, who can and do frequently say “no” to proposed housing and mental health facilities in their districts. And neither the mayor nor the czar would have control over the county, which supplies the services, or the region’s other 87 cities. Czar-like powers would be possible only if council members were to relinquish some land-use and budget authority through something like an emergency declaration. And remember, they never did that. They gathered together and said they were going to do it, and much of the world’s media mistook that cleverly phrased promise to do it as actually doing it. You’ll find news stories saying they did it. But they did not.

As an individual, there is little one can do against such massive needs. But we can be faithful to what we can do. Like most Angelinos, I voted for Measure H and HHH. I also donate to Union Rescue Mission and Salvation Army and Venice Family Clinic, three organizations that have been providing help for many years.

I'm a research scientist not a social worker. I'd have no idea how to help the people in these situations. Each person and family has a story and hats off to people who have the heart, knowledge, and skills to help them. And so I support the three organizations mentioned above. I'd encourage you to find a group or two to support. And maybe all of us together helping in some small way can begin to help turn the tide of this crisis.

The role of preaching the Bible in the life of the church

Over the years I've attended and visited a variety of churches. And, not surprisingly, there is quite a variety of ways preaching is embedded in the Sunday gathering.

How much time devoted to the sermon?

At one end of the scale, I've seen 10 minute sermons where there might be one or two key points of reflection. On the other, I have heard 45 minute deep dives into a topic or passage with three or four key points and explanations and defenses of each point. And of course, have heard pastors speak for anywhere and everywhere between 10 to 45 minutes.

How does one decide how much emphasis (in terms of tangible percentage of minutes) to place of the ministry of the word in communal Sunday gatherings?

What about the content of the sermon?

Some teaching pastors preach through the Gospel of John (or some other book in the Bible) and they do so for however many weeks or months are needed to cover the text they are teaching from.

There are pastors who teach through a series of sermons lasting anywhere from 4 to 12 weeks. In the case of a shorter book of the Bible, they can preach the entire book. For instance, Paul's letter to the Philippians is just four chapters. A sermon series can touch upon every verse in every chapter of that book. But in the situation where the book is much longer, they may hit highlights of that book. If you were planning to preach the Book of Acts, which parts of the 28 chapters would you preach on if you do not plan to preach through every chapter?

In some churches, the pastor will teach topically. I'm sure we have all had the experience of seeing the church bulletin that contains a three or four point outline and under each point is two or three verses pertaining to the point thus yielding a topical sermon. I think Rick Warren is a well known example of this kind of preaching.

There are some churches, usually of the more liturgical variety, a lectionary guides the preaching schedule. For instance, the Revised Common Lectionary has a cycle of readings set over a three-year period. Supporters of this approach say that this allows the community to be exposed to a wider swath of God's wisdom found in the Bible because that is the intent of the lectionary. If the pastor can pick and choose the passages for preaching, they might gravitate toward favorite passages or favorite portions of the Bible and miss out on gems in lesser known or less popular parts of the Bible.

In the few times I've visited a Catholic mass, the readings in the service follow the lectionary but the sermon always seems to be drawn upon the Gospel reading. I suppose this could be due to the fact that the sermon leads into the administration of the Lord's supper, the culmination of the mass.

Lastly, I have encountered some churches where the pastor prays for a message for the upcoming Sunday. Thus, the message could be a text exposition or it could be a topic explanation or some combination of the two. And week-to-week, the text or topic will be different and unrelated.

The merit of the "pray for a message" approach is that when Paul and the other apostles wrote their epistles they were addressing a "problem" in the churches they were ministering to. They responded to the Spirit's inspiration to write to them something that will help them re-orient themselves to God's ways in light of their need or problem.

On the other hand, I have noticed the "preach to the need" approach can become "limiting" because of the experiences and personality of the preacher. A carpenter will always see nails to be hammered. A firefighter will see fires to be put out. A surgeon will see somebody to open up and operate upon. And so whatever background a pastor has, he/she might wind up preaching toward their "strengths" to the neglect of other matters?

Anyway, all of this to wonder aloud, if you are a preaching pastor and you happen on this blog post, how do you approach your preaching? What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach you take?

May God bless the feet and words of those who proclaim Good News to the flock entrusted into your care and feeding!

Larry Shapiro and John Lennox in conversation "Is there truth beyond science?"

A lively, honest, and friendly conversation between a classical Christian (Lennox) and an atheist (Shapiro) held at the University of Wisconsin.

People engaged in our current political discourse could learn a lot from these two gentleman and scholars about how to talk about things where there is disagreement.

In our 21st century world, there are people who don't think there is even such a thing as truth. On this point, they both agree that there is such a thing.

On the question of whether truth can be found outside of science, I think they would both agree on that point as well. They both point out that science as a method is very good for understanding the natural world. However, our lives have aspects that are more than just the natural world - morality, purpose, meaning, etc.

Where they do part company is whether or not God is in the equation of our grasping of truth. Shapiro does not think there is enough (or perhaps even any) evidence for the existence of God. In an interesting segment, he asks how would one distinguish "god" from a powerful alien from another planet or a "flying spaghetti monster."

Lennox's response was that the claims of Christianity exist within a long historical narrative framework that can be assessed by human reason.

The podcast is about 90 minutes and a worthwhile listen if you are interested in such things.

P.S. If you find these types of conversations interesting, be sure to check out Bishop Robert Barron (Catholic Christian) and Professor William Lane Craig (Protestant Christian) discuss faith, science, and society. In this discussion there was much more agreement between the two speakers (compared to Lennox and Shapiro) but the same friendly honest approach. There was a short segment on the differences between Protestant and Catholics but both emphasized that the common ground is so large. One could also see some differences in emphasis and style but the centrality of Christ was the guiding light in their presentations.

Update: found the video for embedding (1/25/2018)

Philemon - a small story of the big difference Jesus makes in life

What do Christians believe?

How do we see and describe how God is at work in the lives of human beings?

At one level, we can go to the theologically rich descriptions that can be found in St. Paul's writings in Romans and Galatians and other places. And there is definitely a place for that.

However, sometimes, it is just as powerful and perhaps even more so when we look at the "small" stories that reveal the big impact of what God means to people's lives.

In the New Testament, I think of the one chapter book of Philemon. It is the story of three men: Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon. These three me all want to follow Jesus. In 25 verses, we read their story in all its humanity and their wrestling with what it truly means to follow the Christ!

In the video below, noted Bible scholar NT Wright offers some of his reflections of the grandeur of what God was doing in Christ in the lives of these three believers. Their example of Jesus' reconciling work 21 centuries ago is just as relevant today.

Temple Destruction in AD 70 In Context

As someone sitting in the 21st Century, reading that Jesus forecasted (in ~ AD 33) the destruction of the Temple (see Olivet Discourse Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) probably doesn't conjure up the full impact of the event that took place in AD 70.

The picture in my head would be of a temple for any number of Asian Eastern Religions found in Chinatowns in any large city in the USA. These buildings can be quite well built but they probably don't match up to the size and grandeur of the Temple of Jerusalem. Additionally, for the Jews of the ancient world, beyond the sheer size and grandeur of the Temple of Jerusalem, it was a singular structure, truly at the center of their religious beliefs and practices and identity as a people.

Of course, if one extends the search for religious structures worldwide, one can find some pretty spectacular structures. A Google search for Buddhist temples yields this tourism web page that has wonderful photos of what they consider the 10 most spectacular Buddhist temples. While at it, the same tourism web page has fantastic photos of the 10 most notable Hindu temples.  An architect offers his opinion of the 10 cathedrals you should see before you die and here is a list of 10 mosques.

However, relative to the Temple of Jerusalem which was the HEART of the people of Israel's faith, these don't compare. They may compare in terms of beauty and the grand scale of a structure but in terms of significance to an entire group of people there would be no comparison.

What did the Temple look like?

Since it was destroyed, one can only attempt to recreate it based on Biblical and historical documents that described it. And a model was built that resides at the Israel Museum. See photo below from Wikipedia.



Does all this context help us understand how traumatic Jesus' prediction of the Temple destruction would be to those who heard it?

However, it was more than just the destruction of a building. The events surrounding it also meant the ending of the Jewish nation of that time and was accompanied by deaths that may have exceed one million.

Oldest Copy of Koran Found In UK

A couple of days ago, there was the startling headline of the oldest copy of the Koran found in the collections at the University of Birmingham in the UK.

The carbon dating of the item placed the date somewhere in the range of 568 and 645. This puts the document within a couple of decades of when Muhammad lived. Call me a nerd, but I think it is always exciting to hear about ancient documents!

In the article, Prof. Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam, said, "These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed."

It would be interesting to hear if his view is shared by other scholars. However, it isn't a surprising assertion as the same conclusion was made about the Jewish Scriptures after finding the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is also the conclusion from comparing the voluminous copies of the Christian Scriptures found over the centuries.

People assume that textual transmission is going to result in gibberish like the "telephone" game where a message is passed from person-to-person and the end result is nothing like the beginning message.

However, experience has shown that religious texts are preserved fairly well all things considered.

First, it is highly likely that people who copy religious texts are going to be highly motivated to be accurate as they have a great commitment to the beliefs described by those texts.

Second, if the work is done in a community setting, there are more than one pair of eyes checking the texts. Thus, texts that make large errors will almost certainly be identified and pulled from circulation.

Association and separation?

In life, we rarely find ourselves in 100% agreement with people. We may share similar faith perspectives but disagree on some political matters. We might side with one political party in most issues but not all issues. We might hold certain doctrines of the Christian faith with greater firmness and less on others. On lighter concerns, like sporting matters, a Dodger fan probably could not root for the SF Giants with the possible exception of the Giants vs. NY Yankees!

We face the social dimensions of this question on the bigger issues: when do we associate even if we might disagree? When do we separate because the issue of disagreement is too large.

How do we provide a framework of choosing?

In USA political life, there are two major parties and though one can be a member of the myriad of small parties, realistically, the only candidates getting elected come from the two major parties. Thus, one chooses a party based on which is most inline with one's views. No party matches us 100% so we live with this association but separate on particular issues.

The same would be true for aspects of the Christian community.

A simple example is the divide over infant vs. adult baptism. Some Christians feel very strongly on this point and would use that as one factor in selecting a church to be a part of. While others don't feel so strongly and it isn't a consideration in the choice of a church to associate with.

I am still working out frames to analyze the issue trying to balance ideals and practical realities.

Here is where I am at right now.....

On issues of broad social interest I think the net of association should be pretty broad. As an example, the battle against human traffic draws people from many points-of-view. On this issue, Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, secularists, feminists, liberals, and conservatives can all work together to fight this.

When it comes to the overall peace and prosperity of our city and nation, I would support the capable candidate regardless of their individual faith/non-faith. Thus, I'd rather vote for a capable atheist than a sincere but in-over-their-head Christian to be mayor of my town or whatever the post might be.

If the audience and concern is a bit more narrow then I would cast a narrower net. For example, a group of Christians are gathering together to have a conference on how to communicate the value of faith to youth. On this matter, my filter for association might be as broad as does the group and individuals in the group subscribe to the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed. I might add that I would want participants to hold that the Scriptures are a trustworthy and authoritative guide to doctrine and practice. Beyond that we might have differences in points-of-view on other more specific areas of Christian faith and practice.

Where I am beginning to see some clouds in this analysis in that there are Christians who would probably affirm the Nicene/Apostle's Creed but demure on the high view of the Scriptures. Additionally, there are a number of "denominationally distinctive" issues. In some cases, disagreement on one issue might be discomforting to me personally but not a cause to break association. As an example, I think adult baptism makes the most Scriptural sense but I would not separate from a church that practices infant baptism over that issue. But what happens when there are a multitude of issues? At what point is there too many disagreements leading to a need for separation?

Religion: What is a cult?

There are a number of definitions offered at Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.

In recent news, a pastor was criticized for calling Mormonism a cult.

Cult in typical American English usage is definition number 5 in MW:
great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement or work (as a film or book)

For example, the film Blade Runner is considered a cult classic.  In this case, there are fans of the film who really like the film a lot and will buy the "director's cut" of the film and have collector's items associated with the movie and know many details about the film and the making of the film.

Certain musical bands garner a cult following.

Some libertarians would be described as very devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand and that devotion seems cultic to non-devotees.

In these contexts, the term cult is somewhat descriptive and depending on tone of voice may or may not be a disparaging.

Cult in a religious context tends to be disparaging as it usually describes a religious group where usually one leader (or small number) has a charismatic hold over his/her followers and the peer pressure of the group makes it hard for anyone to leave the group.

However, there is a descriptive definition of cult as described by definition number 3 in MW:
a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious 

There are groups within the major world religions.

For example, in Judaism, there are orthodox, conservative and reform congregations.  The three groups are not identical but they share much in common.

In Christianity, there are Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant denominations.  Thus, on many (most) doctrinal matters there would be agreement.  Yet, there would be some areas of distinctive.

And so within a given religion, there can be and are groups that hold beliefs that would be considered unorthodox or spurious to the vast majority of the adherents of the orthodox/historical form of that given religion.

This would be the case with Mormonism which is also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS).  Mormons use much the same language of traditional Christianity.  However, they call themselves the Latter-Day Saints because they believe that the historic forms of Christianity lost the true message which the LDS believes they have recovered.

Objectively speaking there are three possibilities:  the Mormon claims are correct, the Mormon claims are incorrect or both the Mormon and traditional Christian claims are incorrect.

However, as a matter of intellectually honesty, regardless of the correctness of the claims of either group, is there significant divergence in beliefs between the LDS church and the historic Christian church?

A Catholic priest, Protestant minister and Mormon elder go to have breakfast at a local diner and write down the beliefs of their churches on paper.  What would happen?

The lists would not be identical. 

The Catholic list would have more similarities to the Protestant list than to the Mormon list.

Thus, under MW definition #3, Mormonism is a cult.

However, given that much of the American public has in their minds that cult is definition #5, it is not useful to call Mormonism a cult.

A more precise way to describe the LDS church would be, a religious group that holds some aspects of Christian doctrine yet differs with historic Christan beliefs in a number of key areas.

I heard one Protestant pastor describe his relationship with Mormon friends this way, we have significant theological differences but we work together on issues that matter to our communities and our country.

Religion: Who are the Metzger's and Ehrman's of Koranic Textual Scholarship?

Cool thing about being a blogger is that sometimes you post something that appears to have continuing interest. Around five years ago, I attended a lecture on Islam given by Jay Smith and I posted a summary and periodically someone will comment.

Some recent activity in the comments section and my recent reading of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and the 3rd Edition (borrowed from library) of Bruce Metzger's NT Text: Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (now in 4th edition) has caused me to do some googling about the topic of scholarship on textual criticism of the Koran.

Here are some items I found. I'll give the link and excerpt a few lines.

New York Times item from 2002.

Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today.
.......
Christoph Luxenberg, however, is a pseudonym, and his scholarly tome "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran" had trouble finding a publisher, although it is considered a major new work by several leading scholars in the field. Verlag Das Arabische Buch in Berlin ultimately published the book.
........
The touchiness about questioning the Koran predates the latest rise of Islamic militancy. As long ago as 1977, John Wansbrough of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London wrote that subjecting the Koran to "analysis by the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism is virtually unknown."
........
In 1977 two other scholars from the School for Oriental and African Studies at London University -- Patricia Crone (a professor of history at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton) and Michael Cook (a professor of Near Eastern history at Princeton University) -- suggested a radically new approach in their book "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World."
........
The idea that Jewish messianism animated the early followers of the Prophet is not widely accepted in the field, but "Hagarism" is credited with opening up the field. "Crone and Cook came up with some very interesting revisionist ideas," says Fred M. Donner of the University of Chicago and author of the recent book "Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing." "I think in trying to reconstruct what happened, they went off the deep end, but they were asking the right questions."
........
Scholars like Mr. Luxenberg and Gerd-R. Puin, who teaches at Saarland University in Germany, have returned to the earliest known copies of the Koran in order to grasp what it says about the document's origins and composition.
.......
Mr. Puin points out that in the early archaic copies of the Koran, it is impossible to distinguish between the words "to fight" and "to kill." In many cases, he said, Islamic exegetes added diacritical marks that yielded the harsher meaning, perhaps reflecting a period in which the Islamic Empire was often at war.

A return to the earliest Koran, Mr. Puin and others suggest, might lead to a more tolerant brand of Islam, as well as one that is more conscious of its close ties to both Judaism and Christianity.

"It is serious and exciting work," Ms. Crone said of Mr. Luxenberg's work. Jane McAuliffe, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, has asked Mr. Luxenberg to contribute an essay to the Encyclopedia of the Koran, which she is editing.

Mr. Puin would love to see a "critical edition" of the Koran produced, one based on recent philological work, but, he says, "the word critical is misunderstood in the Islamic world -- it is seen as criticizing or attacking the text."

There was this item in the Lebanonwire.com ...

Moncef Ben Abdeljelil is a small academic, presently pinned between two large journalists. Back to the wall, he is ruminating on alternative readings of the Koran.
"Details I will leave to future study," says Abdeljelil. "But I think some of the different readings we find will affect the female condition, tolerance vis-a-vis Jews and Christians. Another will effect legislation ... "
He reaches for his pipe, then puts it back in the ashtray.
"This is the exciting thing about these alternative readings. We need to rethink the whole legal aspect of what can be drawn from the Koran. I believe this critical edition will enlarge our thinking about women’s condition, religious tolerance, what we call human rights."
A professor of literature and human science at Sousse University in Tunis, Abdeljelil heads a team of scholars compiling a critical edition of the Koran. The book will publish a number of alternative readings found in a collection of Koranic mashaf (mas-Haf, or manuscripts) some dating from the first Islamic century that had been stockpiled in the Grand Mosque in Sanaa and uncovered three decades ago.
..........
Abdeljelil speculates that, were his small team bolstered with more scholars, the edition could be published in as soon as 10 years. He is cautiously enthusiastic about the project. He has good reason to be cautious.
Since its revelation, the central scripture of the Muslim community has been kept outside history in a way that has no equivalent in the Christian tradition. The Old and New Testaments have been scrutinized by textual critics since the 19th century peeling back the several, often dissonant, voices from various eras that were cobbled together to form the Christian scripture.
For devout Muslims, treating the Koran in this manner is inconceivable. Where Christians generally concede that the Bible was written by men, the Koran is believed to have been handed down from God to the Prophet Mohammed, without human intervention, in Arabic perfect, immutable in message, language, style, and form. The oneness of the Koran stands as a metaphor for Islam’s conception of the oneness of God.
By applying the same techniques of textual criticism that have been used with the Bible, Abdeljelil and his colleagues are giving the Koran a history.
Abdeljelil is quick to note that this project is not the first of its kind European scholars have been looking at the Yemeni mashaf for years now. He would point out that within Islamic heritage there are different readings of the Koranic text. But the impact of the critical edition will be profound.
............
The Luxenberg thesis is quite separate from Abdeljelil’s critical work on the Koran. Luxenberg worked not with old mashaf but the 1923 Egyptian edition of the Koran. The Tunisians are skeptical of Luxenberg’s conclusions but they support his method.
"As an approach we are not bothered by what Luxenberg has proposed, nor with his premise that there are languages that had an impact upon Arabic. In fact we would go so far as to encourage it."
Abdeljelil and his colleagues have problems with Luxenberg drawing conclusions drawn from the 1923 text rather than the mashaf.
............
The scholars agree that their fiddling with the Koran will likely not be well received.
"The popular response will never be positive," says Abdeljelil. "Even if our project were done by true Muslims in a very Islamic country, people would never accept it because the popular imagination is manipulated by different trends. The massive number of population ... believe this text is a divine work that cannot be touched."
Abdeljelil advocates a sort of intellectual trickle-down theory of Koranic criticism.
"I think this project should first be initiated within academic circles. After that you could bring it to workshops, theses and dissertations. Then, after 10 or 15 years, you can bring it to a broader segment of society."

Here is a digest of The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1998)

That item is quite lengthy and I haven't yet plowed through it. There is more to be found with these items from Jay Smith with Muslim responses.

Thus, it would appear that there is the beginnings of scholarship investigating the Koran in a manner like Biblical text critical scholarship.

In the case of Biblical textual studies, the age of some of the Greek manuscripts, the number of them, their geographic distribution and remarkable consistency give text scholars the perspective that transmission though imperfect was pretty good. Also, encouraging was the comparison between the Hebrew Scriptures of the Dead Sea Scrolls (really ancient) and the Masoretic Texts (not as ancient) showing that the scribes were pretty good at their jobs.

It will be interesting to see to what extent Islamic scholarship is willing to put their documents through the same kind of analysis. This item from Rod Dreher reflects the uphill nature of such a quest.

P.J. Williams points to this item in the Boston Globe describing the work of producing the first ever critical edition of the Koran.

The work of text scholars is obscure and it takes some skill to make it accessible to the lay audience. Will there be that kind of effort made as the project continues? What will be the results of the project? What will be the reactions?

Politics: A video from Catholicvote.com

When we consider supporting a candidate, we ask ourselves: does this person represent, more often than not, the values I hold?

Though I am not Catholic (I am in the evangelical Protestant category), I appreciate the part where the video points out that some issues are more important than others.



HT: Hugh Hewitt.

Politics: The Pastor Jeremiah Wright Controversy

Have been sick as a dog the last two days with a nasty cold. As such, the radio is on as I nap on and off through the day and I hear about the news about the Pastor Jeremiah Wright controversy.

As a follower of US politics, I watched the rise of Sen. Obama with interest. He appeared on the scene and became the bearer of the hopes of many Americans for a different kind of politics.

This is what I wrote about Obama after his win in Iowa. Excerpt:

Unless Obama has some scandal hidden that comes out of the woodworks or if he totally bungles debate performances that shows he isn't ready for prime time, he may well be the Democrat nominee and the next president.
......
What worries me is that Obama is a blank slate and people are stampeding to him. People are investing all this hope for the future on what is essentially an unknown quantity.

Obama is backtracking on his long association with Pastor Wright. This association reflects a connection to an old style of politics: the politics of grievance, anger and conspiracy.

The claim coming from the defenders of Pastor Wright is that he is being taken out of context. Here is an attempt at some context with audio files of larger swatches of his sermons and transcripts.

My early years in my Christian faith was in a Southern Baptist church founded to serve Chinese immigrants to Los Angeles. Being good Southern Baptists, we had some "fire and brimstone" style preaching! Yes, indeed, Chinese preachers could peel the paint off the walls with their oratory with the best of them!

However, I found Pastor Wright's approach to be far beyond anything I ever experienced in my ethnic church community upbringing in terms of sheer volume of decibels, levels of anger and wildness of assertions.

Pastor Wright makes some good points on social justice issues but they are overwhelmed by his other remarks.

Though I spent much of my early Christian journey in an ethnic congregations, we were consistently reminded about Gal. 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

As such, I have never been fond of looking at life through a race-based filter. However, I understand the need for ethnic congregations for outreach to immigrant populations as a practical matter. I also understand that racial background is part of who we are but I've been taught to make a conscious attempt to see people as individuals.

There is no question that America has had and still has racism.

The historic Chinese immigrant experience in America though not comparable to slavery had its share of injustice. Every immigrant group had to "swim upstream" against discrimination of both flagrant and subtle varieties. These facts of life should be acknowledged but do they reflect the situation today? Do we continue to hold "a grudge" against past injustice?

I have never felt the USA is the kingdom of God, nor do I believe the view that the USA is the greatest source of evil in the world. In regards to race relations, we can and must do better. However, to my knowledge (perhaps my knowledge is incomplete) there is no analogous politics of grievance within the Chinese or Asian-American community that would find common ground with Pastor Wright.

Here is a snippet from Pastor Wright's church about us page.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Can one imagine writing a mission statement like this but substituting some other ethnic group? How would it sound to you?

Religion: Koran reading, Sura 2

Religions have some features in common. For instance, there is usually some attempt to explain how things got to be where they are now. You might say that is the religion's "cosmology" or "worldview."

Religions vary on the degree to which god (of whatever type) is involved. Even atheism, a world view where there is no god, has a way to explain how things got to be where they are now. Their explanation is that evolution explains everything even religion itself. Am not going to debate the strengths and weaknesses of evolution in this blog post but I will state that atheism necessitates evolution. Simply put, if an atheists does not believe in evolution, then they are stuck with no ability to explain reality.

Aside from attempting to establish some narrative to explain the world as it is today, religions offer rules to live by and the Koran appears to offer that as well in the chapter I've been looking at.

The second chapter of the Koran is pretty long, 286 verses.

Sprinkled throughout the second Surah but mostly toward the end of the chapter are various admonitions on how to live: prayer, charity, Ramadan, the Pilgrimage, money and marriage/divorce.

In the second Surah, from verses 1-30, there is much about the right and wrong path and to God being the creator. Koran 2:2, "This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah." Then in Koran 2:29, "It is He who created for you all things that are on the earth."

Interestingly, we meet Adam! Just like in Genesis of the Hebrew Scriptures, we meet Adam and Adam falls, Koran 2:36, "Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been."

Other figures familiar to Jews and Christians make their appearances in this chapter of the Koran. For instance, Koran 2:87, "We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride? - Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!"

Whoa!

Doesn't this sound a lot like Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God' messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me."

It is really interesting to see that the Children of Israel are mentioned so explicitly in the Koran. See Koran 2:40, 47, 122, "O Children of Israel! Call to mind the special favor which I bestowed upon you."

Then there is Koran 2:116-117:

They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.

I am not clear on what it is saying here. Perhaps the English translation and its word order is very murky.

It seems to be saying, "God begot a son, glory be to the son. No. To God belongs all that is in heaven and on earth ...."

I have no idea if this passage is a rebuke to Christians who hold that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity?

Another verse that caught my eye was Koran 2:136-137

Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." So if they believe as ye believe, they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back, it is they who are in schism; but Allah will suffice thee as against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

All very interesting! It sounds as if all three theistic religions with their roots in Abraham are valid in Islam's theology?

I realize that I may well be mis-reading this verse. The Koran probably (?) has other verse that are much less open to other faiths. That issue aside, my other question is this: if in Judaism the blessing came through Isaac and in Islam, the blessing came through Ishmael, then why is Jacob and Moses and Jesus (all descendants of Isaac) mentioned in the above mentioned passage?

Also, when it makes reference to "the Tribes," are they referring to the descendants of Ishmael?

Perhaps Islam believes that god worked on parallel tracks through both lines?

If so, then why the hostility toward Judaism and Christianity?

By the way, I define hostility in a very narrow sense. I don't think it is hostile if someone tells me I'm going to hell because I believe in Jesus or the wrong conception of Jesus. However, I think it is hostile if someone will try to kill me because I believe in Jesus. My thinking on this has been influenced by Dennis Prager who is a Jewish radio talk show host in Los Angeles. Prager often talks about religion on his program and people have asked him, how do you feel when people of other religions tell him, you are going to hell?

Prager responds by saying, that maybe so and people are free to believe it is so but they don't have the right to send me there prematurely!

Religion: Why the idea of reincarnation bugs me?

In the abstract, we can come up with a number of scenarios for the afterlife.
(1) There isn't one!
(2) There is the immortality of the soul but the destruction of the body... think Star Wars.
(3) There is the transmigration of the soul into a different body which is the reincarnation idea.
(4) There is the immortality of the soul and the renewal of the body which is the resurrection idea.

"Scientifically" I don't know if any of these ideas are "provable" in any strong sense.

I suppose if an immortal soul can come back and visit us, like in Star Wars when Luke would see Yoda, Ben Kenobi and his father and if such an interaction could be recored for others to see, I think that would constitute some kind of proof.

As for transmigration of the soul, if a person living today were to somehow know in great detail the life of a prior person (in a previous incarnation) without having ever researched that person's life that would be a measure of proof. I suppose the Dalai Lama would be an example of the reincarnation idea at work.

The resurrection idea would be "provable" if someone who got resurrected visited people in that new body. The Christian faith makes that claim. Alas, Jesus didn't live in an era of video cameras and such! Does the eyewitness testimony of his followers and their transformed life constitute "proof?" For some yes, for others it isn't enough.

But back to the title of this post: why the idea of reincarnation bugs me?

I've always felt uneasy about the idea. I really didn't know why but it just didn't sit well with me.

Well, thanks to Skye Puppy I now have a reason for that discomfort. She heard Dennis Prager who is Jewish talking on the radio about the reincarnation idea which is the basis of most Eastern religious traditions and why he is troubled by it. See the item here. Excerpt:

One caller said his position is that even the "bad" stuff that happens is, in fact, good. So Dennis offered him a hypothetical. "Let's say a family is burned to death in their home by some monster of a human being, that would be good?"

The guy said, "Yes, because they pay in this life for their sins of their previous life." He believes in reincarnation.

Dennis suggested that this perspective would prevent people from being sympathetic to human suffering ...

This guy's point of view is, as Prager said, an excuse for a lack of compassion. We can look the other way when people suffer, because it's forging better things for their future, and the more they suffer now, the better off they'll be in the long run.

Theology matters in this case!

Sometimes, theology seems like nothing more than figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But in this case, a foundational idea has incredible consequences!

Here in the USA, Christian and Jewish organizations set up hospitals, schools, orphanages and other social services.

Would a society built entirely around reincarnation have the motivation to do such things?

Religion: A Christian reading the Koran

Religions do share some similarities. In most cases, there is a concern about the choice of how to live: the right way (God's way) or the way of wickedness (our selfish way).

When I read the first Sura of the Koran, I found myself thinking of Psalm 1; hence, the side-by-side presentation below.

(1) AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING) In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Psalm 1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

As I continue to explore the Koran, my plan is to note similarities to the Christian faith I'm a part of and I'll also point out differences and pose questions of things that I don't understand.

Religion: Taking a look at the Koran

Like most Americans, I know next to nothing about Islam. I must say even though I live in the cultural melting pot of Los Angeles, I don't know any Muslims personally. I've attended one presentation about Islam which I blogged about and I hear what is in the popular media on television.

As a Christian, I do have a religious perspective to begin with. Nonethess, as a thinking person living in this world at this moment in history, I decided it was time to try to understand Islam a little bit better. I went to Amazon and ordered up a copy of the Koran.

Since the Koran is in Arabic, I have to have an English translation in order to read it.

In Christianity, the Bible's original language is Hebrew and Greek; thus, there are many options for English translations.

I chose the Koran prepared by Abdullah Yusuf Ali because one of the Amazon reviews said this, "This translation is considered the most authentic by Muslim scholars. It is the one that is supported by the government of Saudi Arabia and is most widely read by English-speaking Muslims."

I took his word for it and ordered it up.

In the table of content, one finds that the Koran is divided into 114 Suras.

A visit to the University of Southern California Muslim Student's Association gives the following introduction to the Koran:

The Qur'an is a Message from Allah to humanity. It was transmitted to us in a chain starting from the Almighty Himself to the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. This message was given to the Prophet in pieces over a period spanning approximately 23 years (610 CE to 622 CE). The Prophet was 40 years old when the Qur'an began to be revealed to him, and he was 63 when the revelation was completed. The language of the original message was Arabic, but it has been translated into many other languages.

Wikipedia offers these items about the Koran:

There are numerous traditions, and many conflicting academic theories, as to the provenance of the Qur'anic verses that were eventually assembled into a single volume. Most Muslims accept the account recorded in several hadith, which state that Abu Bakr, The First Caliph, ordered his personal secretary Zayd ibn Thabit to collect and record all the authentic verses of the Qur'an, as preserved in written form or oral tradition. Zayd's written collection, privately treasured by Muhammad's wife Hafsa bint Umar, was, according to Muslim sources, later used by Uthman and is thus the basis of today's Qur'an.

Uthman's version, organized the suras roughly in order of length (excepting the brief opening surah Al-Fatiha), with the longest suras at the start of the Qur'an and the shortest ones at the end. More conservative views state that the order of most suras was divinely set. Later scholars have struggled to put the suras in chronological order, and at least among Muslim commentators, there is a rough consensus as to which suras were revealed in Mecca and which at Medina, with distinctive characteristics observed within these two subgroups. Some suras (e.g. surat Iqra) are thought to have been revealed in parts at separate times.

Religion: Some thoughts on Islam and the Koran

Almost a year and a half ago, I had the chance to hear Jay Smith give an overview on Islam and I posted about that lecture.

This blog item gets found a few times a month and I'm really curious who is reading it.

Is it Christians who hear about Jay Smith and want to know more? Or is it Muslims wondering who this guy is who likes to debate Muslims?

Recently, that blog post got a comment!

I'm always happy to receive comments as long as they are on point and respectful. Indeed, reader George wrote in such manner the following:

I saw Jay Smith speaking a while ago. As an atheist student in London, reading Islamic studies, I would be interested to know what your reaction to what he had to say was. How accurately you think he represented the Qur'an, for example. You raised doubts about his characterising religious behaviour in terms of radical/liberal/nominal depending on reading of the text, could you elaborate on this perhaps. Finally, where do you see al-Qaeda fitting into worldwide Islam and how representative would you consider the views of the likes of bin Laden to be of the views of most Muslims around the world? I hope you find time to respond to my comment.
Thanks
George

I responded in the comments section by saying:

Thanks for dropping by this blog outpost and sharing some observations. It seems each day I get a hit via a google search for Jay Smith.

Thanks for your questions. I promise to write a blog post sharing about them. Alas, I've been under the weather the last several days and only now heading back to normal.

My first reaction is that since you are in London, I would really like to hear *your* impressions of Islam. Here in Los Angeles, I have relatively little contact with Muslim people and so what I know is limited to what I hear in the popular media and my modest knowledge from what I have read and heard in personal research. Since it sounds like you may have met actual followers of Islam, your observations could be enlightening.

Thus, tonight, I thought I'd share a few more thoughts on Islam and the Koran from my limited perspective.

I found Jay Smith's presentation to be informative. I haven't gone to Islamic web sites to confirm the things he said. Of the many research projects I could undertake, I haven't taken that one up at this time.

I did buy a copy of an English translation of the Koran and tried to read it. I read the first three chapters but found it slow sledding. Muslims believe that the Koran is best read in Arabic so there hasn't been many efforts at translation into English. My copy might be a translation that is not so easy to read.

Additionally, of the parts I read, I found the text to be somewhat episodic. Being a Christian, I'm familiar with the Bible and the literary style of the Bible which is mostly narrative (many of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels of the Christian Scriptures) and didactic (the letters of Paul and other letters). These two genres tend to read with an easy flow and the Bible has many English translations of which some tip the balance toward readability over literalism in translation.

George asked about the radical/liberal/nominal categorization. That question came from my blog post where I wrote:

The serious readers of the Koran were considered radical. (ed. note - I think this is unfortunate terminology because I don't think of Christians who are serious readers of the Bible should be considered radical). The nominal Muslims were generally non-readers of the Koran. The liberal Muslims were the one who proclaim that Islam is a "religion of peace."

If I had the chance to speak to Jay Smith, I'd ask him what percentage of serious readers of the Koran become radicalized in terms of participation or approval of terrorist activity? Likewise, I'd also ask if any of the Muslims whom he called liberal who say Islam is a "religion of peace" are serious readers of the Koran?

What I wonder is whether the issue is taking the Koran seriously or is it what people claim to do in the name of Islam regardless of their view of the Koran?

Within Christianity, there are definitely "nominals" who might show up at church on Easter or Christmas and have Bibles with pristine pages and dusty covers. Of the Christians who read their Bibles, there are those who hold a "high" view of the Bible in that they regard the Bible as authoritative for morality and theology and those who hold a lesser view of the Bible where they regard it as a book that contains wisdom. Within those who hold a "high" view there are some Christians who take a larger percentage of the Scriptures literally while there are others who are more cautious in interpreting literally. Liberals in the context of Christianity would be those who think of the Bible as containing wisdom but not necessarily authoritative. I suppose those who hold a "high" view and take more things literally will consider as liberal those who hold a "high" view but take less things literally.

In any case, what is troubling for Islam is that there is a significant number who believe terrorism is justified. Within Christianity, there is no analogous group who holds such views. The question from a virtue epistemology perspective would be: is Islamic terrorism something imposed by people upon the Koran, derived from a correct reading of the Koran or derived from a mis-reading of the Koran?

George's final question was in regard to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. From my reading of the news, Islam's two major denominations are Sunni and Shia with the Sunni being the more numerous. The Sunnis are considerably more numerous if this web page is accurate. They report that Shia only account for 7.5 to 11% of the Muslims in the world.

This web page gives a quick explanation of the difference between Sunni and Shia and places the number of Shia at 15%.

I have no idea what UBL and Al-Qaeda's theological views are in reference to typical Sunni beliefs. I think of UBL as a terrorist and Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization and not in theological terms. What I really wonder is whether UBL starts with hostility toward the West and then appropriates Koranic terminology to justify his beliefs. Or did UBL start from reading the Koran and arrived at his views. The end result is the same but clearly if the latter is true then we are truly faced with a clash of civilizations.

I hope UBL and Al-Qaeda is not the future of Islam.

If any Muslim readers happen to stumble on this blog post, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on these matters.

I freely acknowledge that my perspective is very limited.

Religion: How many types of god could there be?

Just typing off the cuff here ...

(1) God doesn't exist, i.e. atheism. Thus, all conceptions of god (listed below) are false.

(2) God exists and created the known universe but hasn't been heard from since. This sounds a lot like the deist god.

(3) God exists, created the known universe and will judge our lives at death but other than that won't be heard from until after death. Historically, this description might be applicable to some deists but I suspect some would be more in the #2 camp.

(4) God exists, created the known universe, will judge our lives at death and has made some effort to communicate.

What do you believe?

Is that belief based on reason, faith or some combination of the two?

As a Christian, I would be in catagory four. The basis for that belief would be some combination of reason and faith. Though people in catagory #1 would say people in #2-4 are engaged in faith without reason.

What do you think?

Religion: The Exodus, did it really happen?

As a Christian, I commemorate Good Friday and celebrate Easter Sunday.

In my part of town, there are a good number of Jewish Los Angelinos and they celebrate Passover.

I have to say that if I wasn't a Protestant Christian, I think I would like to be Jewish because the Passover Seder sounds like such an interesting way to remember God and His work in the world. The Seder is a powerful teaching device. It uses words to communicate Jewish beliefs but because it is set in a meal, there are visual, tactile, aromatic and taste sensations to emphasize the wonder of the Exodus story.

Because the Exodus happened so long ago, there is a debate as to whether it really happened.

This rabbi says, no. Excerpts of his reasoning:

Three years ago on Passover, I explained to my congregation that according to archeologists, there was no reliable evidence that the Exodus took place--and that it almost certainly did not take place the way the Bible recounts it. Finally, I emphasized: It didn't matter.

Some argue that there is no evidence to back my assertion. Endlessly reiterated is the mantra "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." In other words, the fact that we have never found a single shred of evidence in the Sinai does not mean the Israelites were not there.

This is nominally true. We have found Sinai evidence of other people who predated the Israelites, and while it is improbable that 600,000 men crossed the desert 2,500 years ago without leaving a shard of pottery or a Hebrew carving, it is not impossible.
....................
The probability is, given the traditions, that there were some enslaved Israelites who left Egypt and joined up with their brethren in Canaan. This seems the likeliest scenario, a beautiful one that accords with the deeper currents of biblical tradition. The Exodus was a very small-scale event with a large, world-changing trail of consequences.

Dennis Prager thinks it did happen. Excerpts from his argument:

For thousands of years Jews have been retelling this story. It is possible that it is all a 3,000-year-old fairy tale, but do logic and common sense suggest this? Why would a people make up such an ignoble history? Why would a people fabricate a myth of its origins in which it is depicted so negatively?

There is no parallel in human history to the Hebrew Bible’s negative depiction of the Jews’ national origins. The Torah’s depiction of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt to Canaan portrays the Jews as ingrates, rebels and chronic complainers, undeserving of the freedom G-d and Moses brought them. Moreover, aside from Moses, the heroes of the story are nearly all non-Jews. It is the daughter of Pharaoh who saves and rears Moses (later Jewish tradition actually holds her to be his mother); it is a Midianite priest, Jethro, who tells Moses how to govern the Jewish people; and the two midwives who refuse the pharaoh’s order to kill all male Jewish babies are almost certainly Egyptians. As for Moses himself, he is depicted as being raised an Egyptian.

That is one of the three reasons I am certain of the Jews’ slavery and exodus. Any people that makes up a history for itself makes sure to depict itself as heroic and other peoples as villains. That the Torah’s story does the very opposite is for me an unassailable argument on behalf of its honesty.

Second, I do not believe that a nation tells a story for 3,000 years that has no experiential basis. Moreover, the text has allusions to Egypt that only contemporaries could know. Even the name Moses is Egyptian (compare the pharaohs’ names Thutmose, Ahmose and Ahmosis).

Third, I choose to believe the story despite the archaeologists’ (subjective) claim of no evidence just as, despite the powerful arguments of history and of archaeologists of the past generation, some archaeologists - and those who trust archaeologists more than the biblical narrative — choose to believe the exodus never happened.

As for the argument of some Jews that they do not depend on the veracity of the Exodus for their faith, from a Jewish standpoint this is destructive nonsense. If the Exodus did not occur, there is no Judaism. Judaism stands on two pillars — creation and exodus. Judaism no more survives the denial of the Exodus than it does the denial of the Creator. Creation and Exodus are coequal Jewish claims. A creator G-d who never intervened in human affairs is Aristotle’s unmoved mover, not the G-d the Jews introduced to the world. Moreover, any Jews who believe the Exodus did not occur should have the intellectual honesty to stop observing Passover. They should spend the week studying the truths of archaeology — that is their haggadah — rather than what they regard as the fairy tales of the haggadah and Torah.

I find that Prager's points are reasonable.

In the field of archaeology and the Bible, one can assume the Bible is false until archaeology gives us some evidence it is true. However, since archaeology has often found things the Bible describes we don't need to take such an extreme position. Thus, when archaeological data is silent, we don't have to automatically assume the Bible is wrong.

As a Christian, I also believe in the Passover because Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples. Of course critics will say, well, the Jesus you believe in is as much a fairy tale as the Exodus!

When it comes to saying something historical is true, we can only operate in probabilities. We can't jump in a time machine and go check it out. We can't roll the videotape and see what happened. Rather, what we do is gather the available circumstantial evidence.

If one takes the collective memory and existence of the Jewish people as circumstantial evidence for the reality of the Exodus then one would take the persistence and expansion of Christianity as circumstantial evidence for the reality of Jesus.

We also have the Christian Scriptures as evidence.

Some argue that Christian writers fabricated the story of Jesus out of bias. However, is it possible that Christian writers would want to accurately preserve the story of Jesus because they believe it is so valuable and life changing?

Once one chooses to invoke fabrication as an explanation then one will have to question all ancient documents. I suppose there are some scholars who doubt the writings of ancient Greek and Roman historians. Do we assume that Greeks writing about Greek history would fabricate all (most) of their history? If that view were widely held, we would have to shutter all the history departments in the universities.

Interestingly, there is also evidence outside of Christian Scriptures that point to the reality of Jesus. A Google search with the terms, "Jesus extra-biblical history" yields lots of web pages.

Certainly, these sources are not as voluminous or contain as much detail as the Christian Scriptures but they are consistent with them.