Subject:

            Accurate sources??

       Date:

            Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:58:24 -0500

      From:

            Brian Lucero <luce0016@tc.umn.edu>

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Bilal,

 

You said that we could forward our questions to you and that

you would see that they reach Mr. Hisham Mahmoud.  Thanks.

 

Question:

 

Mr. HIsham Mahmoud, first I want to applaud such a well done

lecture.  Unlike what you said about your joke, your

delivery overall was great - it seemed to be very effective.

 

I really have questions on many of the points you brought

up, but in this first mail I will only ask you about the

more tangible evidences, i.e. your sources.

 

1. Jay Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible - You used this

source to say that Teman was an oasis just north of Medina,

and so went on convincing the audience that every reference

to Teman was a direct prophecy relating to Muhammed in

Arabian Medina.  But reviewing the Hasting's dictionary we

see that either you got this quote from another Muslim

apologist who did not check his sources, or you forgot to

tell the audience that there are TWO different and very

similar entries in the Hasting's Dictionary that you

supposedly quoted.  Here are the real and full quotes (both

on page 897, which makes it even harder to miss):

 

"Teman.- A tribe (and district) of Edom,

 

Tema.- a son of Ishmael.  The country and people meant are

still represented by the same name - the modern Taima, a

large oasis about 200 miles S.E. of the head of the Gulf of

'Akabah, and the same distance due N. of Medina in W.

Arabia."

 

The entry that you meant to link to Medinah was that of Tema

(a city about 400 km north of Medinah which is still

populated and so named in Arabia to this day).  However, the

verses you quoted to us from the Bible were about Teman

(which is a very well known district in Edom, nowhere near

Medina, approximately 800 km from Medina!)

 

Either way, even if you got the entry right, both cities

could never be mistaken with Medina - both are very far

away, not a stroll distance of an oasis "just north".

 

The same type of poor scholarchip and geography and

misquotes is done also with Paran and Seir (and of

consequence, Kedar), although you did not clearly give the

sources during your talk (or I missed them or forgot to

right them down).  But if they are the same sources that

many other big Muslim apologists use, i.e. <Dictionary of

the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 783>, and <Jacut's

Geographisches Worterbuch aus den Handschriften zu Berlin,

St. Petersburg, Paris, London und Oxford, auf Kosten der

Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft hrsg. von Ferdinand

Wustenfeld.", Leipzig, 1866.>, then you are in the same boat

as with the problem with Tema.

 

So far this invalidates almost all of the texts that you

used on friday from the Old Testament to show Muhammed as a

coming prophet.

 

2. Scofield Study Bible - you quoted Isaiah 21:13 here and

then asked the audience what they thought "burden" meant.

To help them out you suggested we ask Scofield, which you

quoted as saying "prophetic oracle" being another

translation of ["burden" upon Arabia].

 

The actual text says:

 

"...which also means an oracle is a word sometimes used in

the prophetical writings to indicate a divine message of

judgment" Scofield Study Bible New King James Version, note

1, p. 792

 

It is an oracle of prophetic connotation.  But you left out

the rest of the quote - "...of judgment."  Again you either

skim over this part of the passage on accident, or you

forget to check your sources.

 

You also must have forgotten to read the context of the

passage.  The Scofield Bible study notes does not have to

help us with this part.  All of the chapters around this one

(chapters 13-24) is God's pronouncement of punishment on all

sorts of nations that are in geographical proximity to

Israel.  Nations personally named also with Arabia are

Egypt, Cush (Ethiopia), Damascus (Syria), Moab (Jordan),

Assyria, Philistine Jerusalem, Tyre, etc.  Arabia is just

another nation being judged in this set of chapters.  How

can you turn around and convince us that this is a blessing,

a good oracle?  Maybe by not quoting the whole source.

 

3. Anchor Bible Dictionary - You quote a passage for the

audience from, "The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company, Inc,

Garden City, N.Y. 1970, Volume 29A, p. 1135," telling them

that this dictionary is one of the most respected and renown

in the wold on Biblical commentary.  You are right.  But

what you fail to tell us is that this quote was not from the

commentary section, but from the appendix, where Dr. Brown

devotes this space to deal with opposing views (which are

not the majority of the scholars and are not backed up with

reputable evidence - that's why it's in the appendix).  It

is important to know that this quote does not represent the

opinion of the Anchor Bible Dictionary team, but an opposing

view that they are arguing against in the pages following

the quote.  (This is just as bad as attributing Hitler's

beliefs to the teacher that is lecturing about WWII who is

only conveying to the students what the opposing tyrant

believed).  It is the highest form of misquote, attibuting

the credibility of someone's reputation (Anchor Bible) to

someone else's ideas (Spitta, Delafosses, etc.).

 

Here is the quote that you gave, saying it was the opinion

of the Anchor Bible:

 

"... but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse,

Bultmann and Betz have doubted whether this identification

is true to the original picture and have suggested that the

Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later

confused with the Holy Spirit. To test this claim, we shall

begin by .... "

 

But you fogot to quote the rest of it, the conclusion of the

real opinion of the Anchor Bible, after detailed analysis

and expunging all shortcoming evidence, starting on page

1139:

 

"It is our contention that John presents the Paraclete as

the Holy Spirit in a special role, namely, as the personal

presence of Jesus in the Christian while Jesus is with the

Father."

 

And on page 1140:

 

"..., we would stress that the identification of the

Paraclete as the Holy Spirit in 14:26 is not an editorial

mistake, for the similarities between the Paraclete and the

Spirit are found in all the Paraclete passages.

The peculiarity of the Johannine portrait of the

Paraclete/Spirit, and this is our second point, centers

around the resemblance of the Spirit to Jesus. Virtually

everything that has been said about the Paraclete has been

said elsewhere in the Gospel about Jesus."

 

If you base your whole argument on the fact that the Anchor

Bible is a reputable source, then believe the conclusion

just quoted above, that the Paraclete is Jesus' (God's)

spirit in the believer.

 

Conclusion:

 

I have more to say on many of your other points as well.

But this should give a a launching board from which to

discuss further details which you kept from the audience.

But after knowing the true opinions about the sources

discussed above, we have yet to discuss only your

passages from the books of Deuteronomy and Genesis.  All of

the other prophecies used hinged on these sources above.  I

look forward to talking with you more.

 

With respect,

Brian Lucero

 

p.s.   Some constructive criticism on the lecture:

 

1. Use maps so the audience can get a visual on what places

are what and what places are where, according to the

definitions outlined in dozens of passages in the Bible.  It

would be very helpful.

 

2. Have on hand a Bibliography and Sources Cited list for

enquirers who are interested in studying the sources where

you got your material from.  That's why I suggested that you

publish your material, so there is given an opportunity for

your evidence to either be established as true or falsified

in an organized and academic manner.

 

Otherwise, you really did a good job.  It was very fun and

informing.  Thanks a lot.

 

Subject:

            Re: hello Hisham

       Date:

            Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:36:27 -0700

      From:

            Hisham Mahmoud <alghazali@gmail.com>

        To:

            Brian Lucero <luce0016@tc.umn.edu>

 References:

            1 , 2 , 3

 

 

 

 

Thank you immensely, Brian, for your observations. I am trying to bring some academic integrity to this discourse and, for this

reason, I am cutting out more and more of the Muslim apologetic. It is definitely a work-in-progress and I'm learning more and more

with every exchange like yours. It is very much appreciated, and I am considering lately not to present this material until after I've

received feedback from my own professors at UCLA. I am researching this topic more this year than ever before and hope to go

beyond what Muslim apologists have concluded. I differ with many of their points, but I am not willing to throw the baby out with the

bathwater at all. There is much more to research, and the discourse cannot stop at what I've found or at what you've stated. Thank

you again.

 

Hisham