The Ballad of Jesus' genealogy

The Gospel of Matthew is the first in the New Testament; it begins with 18 verses of the so-called genealogy of Jesus (21 verses in the Luke) that may serve to scare away the beginners of the Bible readings. Gandhi got completely bogged down in all the “begats” when he first tried to read the Bible that Harvey Cox (the author of When Jesus Came to Harvard) calls it Gandhi syndrome.

Matthew 1

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac;and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and A begat minadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Bozo begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

.

.

.

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

These seemingly endless incomprehensible “begats” cannot be a historical fact. The two versions of Jesus' genealogy are not identical. It says Jesus is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but he is also descended from the great king David.

It is of interest that one reads in Verse 16, “Joseph the husband of Mary,” instead of “father of Jesus.”

Four women are mentioned : Tamar, Rahab (these two are not even Israelites), Ruth (a Moabite) and Bathsheba, story of whom is replete with juicy, seductive, sexual irregularity and deception that rival the modern tabloid stuff.

I am anxious to read what Pope Benedict XVI says why the genealogy of Jesus was so made by Matthew and Luke. I haven't come to that yet.

At present I am receptive to Harvey Cox's explanation that Matthew's version of Jesus' genealogy is for singing like a Ballad, not for reading like a historical biography. He asks the students in his class (Jesus and the Moral Life) at Harvard to sing it, and not to read it.

This reminds me of a Taiwanese saying of “唸書歌 ” which means “If one is like singing while reading, one doesn't comprehend what one reads,” that is exactly what Harvey Cox's approach of Jesus' genealogy: Sing it like a beautiful Ballad and not read it.”

Christian ethics and morality: Jesus, Gandhi and Churchill

Thomas Jefferson admires Jesus as a great moralist. Jesus's public activity begins with his Baptism by John the Baptist, at which time he was about 30 years of age. We know little about him prior to that; such as how he became a rabbi and an expert on Torah. Reading the Sermon on the Mount, I wonder from whom he got all these ideas (ethics and morality). I am hoping to find the answers by reading theology; this is why I am reading the work of Pope Benedict XVI, who is a great intellectual scholar/theologian.

Fighting Hitlerism is to save Christian civilization

A powerful man without morality is a very dangerous thing, Hitler is a case in point; there is no God in his life and his world. He was worshiped as a god. Before becoming a war-time Prime Minister, Churchill said of Hitler, “a haunted, morbid being, who, to their eternal shame, the German people in their bewilderment have worshiped as a god.”

Churchill uses Christian Ethics to fight Hitlerism to ensure the survival of the Christianity which is the essence of western civilization.

In June 1940 when England stood alone, Churchill said in Commons, “I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin, upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.”

In 1941 Churchill told Harry Hopkins (FDR's closest advisor and confidant), “We can find nothing better than Christian Ethics as which to build, and the more closely we follow the Sermon on the Mount, the more likely we are to succeed in our endeavor.”

“The book gave pith and marrow to our English tongue, from majesty of its pronouncements comes our moral code.” I forgot who said about the Great Book; it sounds like a Churchillian language.

Gandhi is inspired and influenced by Jesus' teachings and actions

Gandhi never became a Christian, but he was greatly influenced by Jesus, especially by the Sermon on the Mount, which inspired his non-violent resistance. Gandhi once wrote,

“Jesus put in a picturesque and yelling manner the great doctrine of non-violent non-cooperation. Your non-cooperation with your opponent is violent when you give a blow for a blow, and is ineffective in the long run. Your non-cooperation is nonviolent when you give your opponent all in place of what he needs. You have disarmed him once and for all by your apparent cooperation, which in effect is complete non-cooperation.”

When Gandhi's biographer Louis Fisher visited him in his tiny cottage in 1942, he noticed the only picture on the all is Jesus with the words “He is Our Peace” underneath.

Ephesians 2:14

“ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;”

After visiting India in 1931, Bishop McConnell said Gandhi was “fundamentally Christian in spirit in certain respects and was Christiainizing Hinduism in spots, he was a Hindu through and through. . . They look forward to Hinduism as the predominant religion of a Hindu Empire in India,...with Christianity doing service by holding up ideals to Hinduism.”

In April, 1931 Rev. E.J. Graefe called Gandhi a “devout follower of Christ, . . . though not a Christian, lived the ideas of Christianity in a way to shame most Christians.” Due to his

absorption of the moral values of Christianity, Gandhi was able to win the following of the masses and the intelligentsia as well.

Comparison of Gandhi and Jesus 
In his “When Jesus Came to Harvard”, Harvey Cox compares Gandhi to Jesus, “Both grew up on the outskirts of an overtaxed and mistreated empire. Both drew on the classical sources of their own religious traditions—Jesus the Torah, Gandhi on the Bhagavad Gita—but reinterpreted them in the light of current challenges. . . Both were accused from the radical wings of their respective nations of being either an irresponsible rabble-rouser or a spineless compromiser. . . Both died violently in the attempt to fulfill their vision.”

The Jefferson Bible and the Sabbath that Daniel Webster spent with Thomas Jefferson at Monticello

I am reading “The Jefferson Bible”, which is the excerpt of the Bible (mainly the four Gospels) with Jefferson’s comments.  There are four languages (English, French, Latin and Greek) listed side by side.  He completed in 1803, distributing it to his family and friends, but refused it to be published for a very obvious reason.

In “The Jefferson Bible” the stories of the miracles Jesus performed are nowhere to be found, but “Heavenly Kingdoms” are mentioned.  Critic said Jefferson admired Jesus as a great moralist, but didn’t accept him as Christ.

Jefferson has been considered having “little religion” and ‘had no very good opinion of the Bible or the institutions of religion.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Thomas Jefferson is a real Christian                                                                    
Jefferson advocated the separation of state and religion and religious freedom. He is talented and well versed in all fields of knowledge, but he is not a theologian or an evangelist; he considered himself a real Christian.

Jefferson once said ”Say nothing of my religion.  It is known to my god and myself alone,” and “I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public.”

In his letter to his old friend, Charles Thompson (Secretary of the Continental Congress) on Jan. 19, 1816, Jefferson talked about this book,

“. . . I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same material (The Gospels) which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. . . .A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who called ME infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the Gospel,...”

The Jefferson Bible reveals his religious views Upon completion of his version of Bible, Jefferson sent Dr. Benjamin Rush a letter on April 21, 1803,

“Dear Sir, in some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, . . . Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other, I would give you my views of it.  They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that Anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be, sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.”

The Jefferson Bible was published in 1911 by US government. The fresh congressmen or congress women receive a copy as a gift.

The Sabbath that Daniel Webster spent with Thomas Jefferson at Monticello 

In response to the inquiry of the Sabbath School in New York city, Daniel Webster wrote a letter to Prof Pease on June 15, 1852, in which he described a Sabbath he spent with Jefferson in Monticello.  It sheds further light on Jefferson’s religious view.

“. . . Many years ago I spent a Sabbath with Thomas Jefferson, at his residence in Virginia.  It was in the month of June, and the weather was delightful.  While engaged in discussing the beauties of the Bible, the sound of a bell broke upon . . . [one line was obliterated upon scanning by NY Times] our ears, when, turning to the sage of Monticello, I remarked, “How sweetly, how very sweetly sounds that Sabbath bell” The distinguished statesman for a moment seemed lost in thought, and then replied: “Yes, my dear Webster, yes, it melts the heart, it calms our passion, and makes us boys again.”  Here I observed that man was only an animal formed for religious worship, and that notwithstanding all the sophistry of Epicurus, Lucretius and Voltaire, the Scriptures stood upon a rock as firm, as unmovable as truth itself; that man in his purer, loftier breathings, turned the mental eyes toward immortality, and that the poet only echoed the general sentiment of our nature in saying that “the soul, secure in her existence, smiles at the drawn dagger, and defies its point.”

Mr.Jefferson fully agreed in this opinion, and observed that the tendency of the American mind was in different direction; and that Sunday-school (he did not use our more correct term, Sabbath) presented the only legitimate means, under the Constitution, of avoiding the rock on which the French Republic was wreaked, “BURKE,” said he, “never uttered a more important truth than when he exclaimed that ‘a religious education was the cheap defence of nations.’” “RAIKES,” said Mr. Jefferson, “has done more for our country than the present generation will acknowledge: perhaps, when I am cold [?], he will obtain his reward; I hope so, earnestly hope so; I am considered by man; Mr. Webster, to have little religion, but now is not the time to correct errors of this sort. I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands. . .”

It is of interest to note that Webster said Jefferson used the term 'Sunday School', instead of the correct term 'Sabbath School'. Jefferson was apparently ahead of his time. I wonder when did the term 'Sunday School' become more popular?

When we first visited the Union restaurant in Boston in 1976; we saw a sign saying Daniel Webster and JFK frequented this restaurant. That was the time I began to pay attention to this Congressman, Senator and the Secretary of State from Massachusetts whose rhetorical flourish Lincoln imitated or borrowed.

Take no thought for the morrow

Reading the Scripture is at times not as easy as one thinks; this is why we need good preachers or theologians. In Matthew 6: 34, we read, (This is part of Sermon on the Mount.)

Sermon on the Mount by Carl Block 1877

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

The New Testament is all about the stories Jesus told and the stories told about Jesus. The number of people fortunate enough to hear Jesus' teaching, telling his parables, is probably in the thousands only at most. Jesus never wrote any book. We have no records that any hearers asked the question why there is no need to think about tomorrow; Jesus never elaborated.

How could the rabbi of Nazareth preached us not to think about tomorrow? It doesn’t make sense.  Isn't it true what we do today is hopefully for a better tomorrow? Some thought this is another way to express Carpe Diem. But my interpretation is that here Jesus acts as a psychiatrist and more.

We may not have control of what’s in store tomorrow, therefore, we should live the fullest for today, making the best of it, and not to worry about tomorrow, as Jesus said, tomorrow will take care of itself or work things out itself. If one reads Matthew 6: 25-34, Jesus clearly said the heavenly Father will be in hand to help one whatever it may come tomorrow.

“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”, it seems puzzling why there is “evil” for today; I think it is the issue of translation from Hebrew; it probably means the “trouble” or “dread” in the daily life.  Most people in history, including people in Jesus’ time, had a rough life.

Six years before Jesus was born there was a Palestine-wide rebellion and guerrilla war that was especially fierce in Galilee.  The uprising headquarter was four miles from Nazareth.  The Roman governor of Syria called the Roman troops to quell the rebellion, and the 2,000 insurgent troops were crucified.  It was said that the boy Jesus might have seen the crosses.

I, like Sally (Charlie Brown's sister), often feel sorry for the people while reading the history, although may be with somewhat different reason.  There were more dark ages than enlightened ones in history.  It was hard to get through a day for ordinary people; whether struggling to feed the mouths of the family or worrying about the sons taken away to fight the endless wars.

Jesus must have felt there were enough troubles, dreads and miseries to deal with for the day; he wanted his hearers/followers not to worry about tomorrow, not even to think about it.  Tomorrow will be anxious for itself.  We read the same message from Peter 5:7, “Casting all your anxiety upon him, for he careth for you”

So do not carry anxiety or worry, casting it upon someone who loves you, cares about you.

Holy men are only human

I read in Vanity Fair when the Trumps had an audience with Pope Francis who asked Melania if she fed Trump potica, a Slovenian nut bread—possibly referring to Trump's widening girth.

I like to see a holy man being human. Reading New Testaments one will find the human nature of Jesus on many occasions. Matthew 27, 46 and Mark 15, 34 say exactly the same thing, describing Jesus, on the cross, crying out loud that he was being forgotten and forsaken by God.

Matthew 27

45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabach thani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15

33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach thani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?

This post is simply to show Jesus suffering a betrayal by a friend, public humiliation (by the Roman soldiers) and excruciating physical pain inevitably thinking where is God when he needs him the most. This is a perfectly normal human nature.

I am not ready to discuss “Where was God at Auschwitz?” yet.

How can a rational medicine man accept the miracles performed by Jesus: a philosophical approach

Being a history buff and biography or autobiography reader, I always try to find out the “belief” of the scientists while reading their work and their life.  Stories of the “miracles” performed by Jesus obviously turn away many people in science and medicine and those so-called the educated or intellectuals.

Miracle is defined as things happen that defy the natural laws, which are themselves expressions of God’s will, so theoretically there cannot be any miracle; even God needs to abide His own laws.

I am a medicine man, a true believer in science.  Medicine is an exact science; life process is a bunch of chemical reactions that follow physical laws—an ultimate ‘truth’ that no one can claim its ownership except God Almighty.  I have never seen any miracle in my entire medical career, which has been long.  I did see some patients with positive attitude fared much better than medically expected, nevertheless, there were not miracles.

Then how can I accept Jesus and accept the concept of the existence of God, which is the essence of Christian belief as a medicine man?  This is why I read Lin Yutang’s From Pagan to Christen, Francis Collins’ The Language of God, Harvey Cox’s When Jesus Came to Harvard and read about C.S. Lewis.  This is my way of getting reconciliation and reassurance.

When Harvey Cox was giving a class (“Jesus and the moral life”) at Harvard, the enrollment went over 1,000 and the school had to limit the class size, according to a 5/22/1988 NY Times article.  He said in his first years of teaching he never mentioned the miracle stories that were performed by Jesus and recorded in the gospels, as he was afraid to mention it in a venerable institution that takes pride in its first-rate scientific research.  When students asked him about this omission, he would just say one cannot cover everything.  He knew he just didn’t know how to talk about it.

He began to talk about “miracle” after Dr. Herbert Benson (a cardiologist, founder of Mind/Body Medical Institute at MGH) approached him and after NIH established National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Department, although he emphasize Jesus was not practicing alternative or complementary medicine.

John Polkinghorne

Harvey Cox said the people most likely went to Jesus for his healing (“miracles”), not for his teaching or elucidation of Hebrew Torah.  He discussed a specific case described in Mark 5:24-42, saying Jesus teaching and healing is integrated into one thing. Nevertheless I found no satisfactory answer in his book.  I turned to Dr. Francis Collins, who quoted John Polkinghorne (Cambridge U theoretical physicist, theologian and an ordained Anglican priest) and C.S. Lewis, from whom, I go along with their explanations.

John Polkinghorne said in his Science and Theology, “miracles are not to be interpreted as divine acts against the laws of nature, but as more profound revelations of the character of the divine relationship to creation. To be credible, miracles must convey a deeper understanding than could have been obtained without them.”

C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis told us not to perceive miracle in line of political or social history that may be beyond us to comprehend. He wrote in his Miracle: A Preliminary Study, “God does not shake miracles into nature at random as if from pepper-caster. They come on great occasions: they are found at the great ganglions of history—not of political or social history, but of that spiritual history which cannot be fully known by men. If your own life does not happen to be near one of those great ganglions, how should you expect to see one?”

Let me digress to mention the original shield/motto of Harvard University VERITAS (Latin for Truth). The top two books on the shield are face up (open) whereas the bottom book is face down, suggesting certain knowledge is beyond our reach, such as understanding miracles.

One can be a Christian on account of one being religious, pious and having faith, although studying Bible is still essential. Another path is through reading, thinking/meditating, seeking truth or even philosophical. C.S. Lewis said of his “from pagan to Christian”,

“I gave up Christianity at about 14, came back to it when getting on for 30. Not an emotional conversion; almost purely philosophical. I didn't want to, I'm not inn the least the religious type, I want to be let alone, to feel I'm my own master, but since the facts seem to be just the opposite, I had to give in.”

In another post, I have mentioned, using words of Will Durant, that Jesus did not claim omniscience; he could be surprised by events, that he refused to believe in his unusual powers. He was reluctant to attempt them, forbade his followers to advertise them. Christ himself attributed his cures to the “faith” of those whom he healed; but this was not so obvious in every case.

The role Pontius Pilate played in the trial of Jesus

Of the many paintings of “Ecce homo” (behold the man or here is the man), the one I like most is by Antonio Ciseri (a Swiss-Italian from Tuscany), painted in 1871.

Ecce homo by Antonio Ciseri

Is the collect guilt of Jewish people unfairly attributed?

It portrays Pontius Pilate (in white garment with stunning light effect) presenting the scourged Jesus Christ and Barabbas to the Jewish crowds below the balcony of the palace. The scene depicted vividly in the four gospels comes into view. The crowd is without individuality telling us we do not know who these people are individually. The indistinct image of the crowds may hint the Jewish people collectively may not be as guilty as the gospels say (post about this will come later).

We do not see the face of Pontius Pilate, and that doesn't surprise me as I have difficulty knowing who this Roman governor really is or his true character. Pontius Pilate's wife is also there as she did play a minor, yet not insignificant role in this affair.

This painting depicts the scene described in John 18, that Pilate offered to release Jesus according to the Jewish custom that one prisoner is released during Passover, but the crowds shouted not to release Jesus.

John 18 (Jesus condemned to die; Barabbas released)

38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again onto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

39. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the Passover; will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of Jews?

40. Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. . . .

Pontius Pilate washes hands

The hesitating Pilate tried to wash off his responsibility

There is no argument that Pilate is the one condemned and sent Jesus to Roman soldiers for crucifixion. But why Pilate and his wife were canonized by the Christian Coptic Orthodox Church as the most repentant of saints?

Pontius Pilate may not be a good guy with admirable character. But he seems to be just a wrong person to be in a wrong position at a wrong time. Various gospels clearly show his hesitation to condemn Jesus.

We read in Luke 23 that the Pilate repeatedly (3 times) says “what evil hath he done? I have found him no cause of death in him; I will therefore chastise him and let him go.”

Of course we know that the Pilate eventually gave in to the high priests, the Jewish religious hierarchy and the frenzy Passover crowd and condemned Jesus. When the Pilate knew he no longer could prevail, Matthew 27 tells us, “he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it.”

The true character of the complex Pontius Pilate

He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong; but this petulant, self-serving Roman official was too eager to please the Romans and meet their demand. (As far as I can tell, Jesus' crucifixion was not recorded in the Roman Annual, to them crucify Jesus is just get rid of one of the many that might make a stir against the state.)

The following is what Will Durant said of Pontius Pilate, who was later called to Rome and lost his job (and may be his life, too), seems to be harsher than I thought.

“. . . whether suicide or execution, his death is hold to have been violent. . according to a contemporary, the Roman official was notoriously detested on account of his corruption, his acts of insolence, his rapine, his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, his never-ending gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.”

When Jesus came to Harvard

Jesus' response in his trial

Harvey Cox (author of When Jesus Came to Harvard) gave a class of Jesus and the Moral Life at Harvard. He once had a re-enactment of the trial of Jesus. He invited Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz as a defense counsel; Allen Callahan (a Divinity School faculty) as the prosecuting attorney and he himself as Pontius Pilate, Students and spectators the Jewish crowds.

The history tells us that if the accused readily admitted his guilt, the heroic effort of a superb defense counsel will be an exercise in futile. When asked whether he is King of Jews by Pilate or high priest, Jesus' response sounded ambiguous, but it was actually affirmative.

Luke 23,

3. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

4. Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Matthew 26

63. . . thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: . . .

65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy.

Mark 14

61 . . . Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62. And Jesus said, I am [or I am he] and ye shall see the Son of the man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Pilate Stone

The Pilate Stone: The authentic historicity of Pontius Pilate

In addition to the four canonical gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Pontius Pilate was mentioned by the credible historians, almost his contemporary, the likes of Tacitus, Philo and Josephus. “Killing Jesus” by Bill O'Reilly is not included. The discovery of the Pilate Stone in 1961 lends further credibility to what we have known through the ages.

The Pilate Stone is now displayed in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Its inscription says, translated from Latin,

To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum

...Pontius Pilate

...prefect of Judea

...has dedicated [this] 

Scene of Garden of Gethsemane: In my Father's house are many mansions

While writing “Who're guilty of killing Jesus?”, I was reading the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane (where Jesus was arrested), I came across Elvis Presley's “In My Father's House”. We tend to forget this King of the Rock and Roll is also a very good gospel music singer.

As we know Jesus went to Jerusalem and had a Passover supper at a friend's home. Knowing the arrest was imminent, His apostles hoped Jesus to free himself by his miraculous powers. It is our understanding that Jesus perhaps hoped that His death would be received by God as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of His people. Feast of Passover involves offering sacrifice in the Temple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeihHdD3e38

In my father's house are many mansions
If it were not true he would have told me so
He has gone away to live in that bright city
He's preparing me a mansion there I know.

Jesus died upon the cross to bear my sorrow

Freely died that soul like you might have new life

But I know that soon there'll come a bright tomorrow

When the world will all be free from sin and strife

In my Father's house are many mansions

If you're true then to this land you'll surely go.

The following is from Will Durant's The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ,

In accord with Jewish ritual Jesus blessed the wine that he gave the apostles to drink, and then they sang together the Jewish ritual song Hallel. He told them, says John, that he would be with them “only a little longer. . . Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God and believe in me. In my Father's house are many mansions. . . I go to prepare a place for you.”

In my previous post I have mentioned that Churchill quoted John 14:1 in a correspondence to FDR, and didn't even write down the quote, as he was sure FDR always had a Bible at hand. As Edward Murrow said of Churchill, who “mobilizes the English language and sends it into battle.” Some of the languages come from Scripture.

John 14:1

Let let not your heart be troubled” ye believe in God, believe also in me.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you onto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Cairo Conference

After attending the Cairo Conference in Nov. 1943, General Eisenhower took a “vacation trip” to Luxor to visit the Valley of the Kings, the Pyramids, and the great temple of Karnak. Kay Summersby [Ike's war time driver] recalled “a stroll in the Garden of Gethsemane was the high point of the visit.”

My hesitation to say the Scripture is a great literary work, but it is

Lin Yutang

Lin Yutang's father is a Christian minister; in his youth he at times would give a sermon when his father was away. He once said to the congregation that he approached the Bible as a literary work. His father was not pleased as a minister reads the Bible with a pious heart, not with an enlightening mind.

Lin Yutang's father is right, but few can argue that the Scripture is in and of itself a great literary work. A bit over 400 years ago James I convened about 50 most distinguished scholars, many of them may be men of letters, in his days to translate the Bible into English for the Church of England, now known as King James Bible.

After being exposed to the intellectual academic world in Shanghai and Peking, Lin turned away from Christianity, only to return to it in his 50s. The journey of the heart and mind (心路歷程) is told in his book of From Pagan to Christian, which I read earlier this year. I believe there is nothing wrong to study religion with a rigor as we would other scholarly and intellectual subjects.

Let there be light: and there was light

Professor Roy Glauber

Upon hearing the news of Roy Glauber's (Harvard professor) Nobel award (in physics) in October 2005, I wrote an article, in which I said, “Let there be light: and there was light.” I am pleased to note, about 2 months later, on December 8, 2005, when he gave the Nobel Lecture, he also began with something like this: Our good Lord said, “Let it be quantum electrodynamics.” . . . that was the modern translation of the Hebrew. We quote the same Scripture, but he said it in a more poetic, aesthetic, subtle, and dynamic way, no doubt.

He also quoted Shakespeare's way of using 'light' in a splendid way,

“These dark days in Stockholm emphasize the importance of light in our lives. It is equally important in our literature. The word, "light", has vastly many meanings. Shakespeare, in Love's Labours Lost, has one of his cleverer characters make fun of that by speaking the line, ‘Light, seeking light, doth light of light beguile ...’ Loosely translated, that means: Intellect, seeking understanding, easily fools reason. - Or perhaps it's the other way around.”

Bible quotations in Churchill's speeches

Churchill often quoted Bible in his speech. We heard the following in his first speech to the Joint Session of Congress on December 26, 1941, a bit over one year before Madame Chiang Kai-Shek did.

As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable will-power, salvation will not be denied us. In the words of the Psalmist, “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord.” [Psalm 112:7 King James Bible] Not all the tidings will be evil.

Churchill was hesitated to quote the Scripture in the speech and mentioned his concern to FDR, who gave his approval; at which time Churchill was living in the White House.

While Cairo Conference was being planned, FDR cabled Churchill that their “meeting place is known to enemy” and suggested moving to Khartoum. Churchill thought Cairo well protected and cabled FDR, “See St. John, Chapter 14, Verses 1 to 4”; the passages are

Let not your heart be troubled:

Ye believe in God,

Believe also in me. . .

I go to prepare a place for you.