Thursday, December 21, 2017

Review and Analysis of Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi

“No one’s ever really gone.”
- Luke Skywaker

I will start out by saying, I liked The Last Jedi. I gave it ten stars on most movie review aggregator websites, but that was mostly due to my excitement from having seen another Star Wars movie in the theaters. Now that my initial excitement has subsided, I would probably give it an 8 or 9 out of ten stars. I’ll shoot the gap and give it an 8.5/10. It’s not a perfect movie, but it is an excellent film.

SPOILER ALERT: There will be many spoilers to follow, so if you haven’t seen the film yet and you care about it not being spoiled, stop reading right now.

The plot of the film is available on just about every fan site, Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, and others, so I’m not going to rehash the entire plot, but I am going to dig deep into some of the plot points, the themes, and analyze to an extent why this film is the way it is. So, let me skip to the theme. The overarching theme of the film is “The Past” and what importance does it play in our lives, if any. The past determines who we are, but not who we will become. How we react to the past does.

Rey has been dwelling on her past and letting it hold her back. Like Annie who rejected being adopted by Daddy Warbucks, Rey turned down every opportunity to get off Jakku. Even after she left, she was trying to get back. For Star Wars fans, we assume that her parents must have been somebody because of how powerful she is with the Force. For those who complained that Episode VII was too much like Episode IV, they were hoping for a big reveal that Rey’s parents were some big deal and that she was hidden on Jakku for her protection. Sound familiar? The same fans who complained about Force Awakens’ similarity to A New Hope were hoping that The Last Jedi would reuse the same plot point from the original trilogy. I was not one of the people who complained about the similarities between Episodes IV and VII because it actually kind of made sense in light of George Lucas’ feeling that the films rhyme. I was one of the fans that hoped for Rey’s parents to be somebody.

Unfortunately for the fanboys who all feel they should be in charge, Rey is actually a nobody from nowhere. She’s more of an everyman character than many characters in most franchises of late have been. She’s not the orphaned child of parents who were important people in their world and were betrayed by a close friend, she’s not the child of a great warrior who was raised by an aunt and uncle, and she’s not the child of a great Jedi-turned-Sith who was being hidden for her own safety. No. Rey is the child of alcoholic junk traders who sold her for drinking money. Just like Annie, Rey actually has long known they were dead, but she was letting the possibility that they may return hold her back.

Even though I was disappointed that Rey doesn’t have some major pedigree like Luke, it actually liberates her as a character in the franchise. Accepting that her parents are dead allows her to take up her mantle as The Last Jedi which is passed to her by Luke Skywalker. Her realization frees her up to live her life and move into a greater future than any she could have envisioned on Jakku. She can move on and people who were disappointed that Rey doesn’t have some amazing pedigree should move on too.

The theme of The Past holding one back is also part of Luke Skywalker’s story. After his failure with Ben Solo/Kylo Ren, he went into hiding in “the most unfindable place in the galaxy” and shut himself off from the Force. Luke focuses on failure—the failure of Jedi to prevent the rise of the Empire under Darth Sidious as well as his own failure to train the next generation of Jedi. He ascribes the failure of the Jedi and his own failure to hubris. Luke felt that the power of the Jedi led to their being mythologized and deified and that, in turn, led to the pride of the Jedi order that caused their own downfall. This is why he feels the Jedi must come to an end.

Luke still has a lesson to learn, so he is given a student that must be taught the ways of the Force, and he is also given a teacher in Yoda, who returns to remind him of the training that he received. Yoda’s last words to Luke before he transformed into the Force were, “Pass on what you have learned.” Yoda returns from the Force to remind Luke that passing on what you have learned includes the lessons that failure can teach. Every successful person in history has only become successful through failure. Yoda’s lesson to Luke is perseverance.

Then there is Ben Solo/Kylo Ren. For Kylo Ren, the past is something that must be escaped. He fights with it through both movies. He wants to take up his grandfather’s mantle, but he also has to come to terms with the fact that his father, Han Solo and his uncle, Luke Skywalker were both enemies of the Empire and Luke was a Jedi and user of the light side of the Force. He also has to come to grips with the fact that Darth Vader turned to the light and once again became Anakin Skywalker before dying. He wants to rule the galaxy with Supreme Leader Snoke and to do so, he must reject all of his connections to the light side and yet the conflict tears him apart. He tells Snoke that he killed Han Solo without hesitation and yet those of us who watched The Force Awakens know that he not only hesitated, he had a whole conversation where he admitted to the conflict he was dealing with.

The problem with Kylo Ren is that his method of dealing with the past is to destroy it. He tells Rey, regarding her past, “Kill it if you have to.” Rather than learn from his past, Kylo Ren sees his failures as weakness and that weakness holds him back. He thinks that by destroying or killing all of his connections to the past, he will also destroy memories of his failures which he sees as signs of weakness. In fact, his overarching desire to destroy the past is his weakness and it causes him to fail.

Personality problems aside, Kylo Ren is still an interesting character. After The Force Awakens came out, there were many people who had a problem with how easily he was defeated by Rey and this same criticism is leveled against him by Snoke in The Last Jedi. Something that I think too many fans failed to notice is that Kylo Ren faced Rey after getting shot by Chewbacca’s bowcaster. When anyone else gets hit by Chewbacca’s bow caster they are sent flying. Kylo Ren, on the other hand simply takes a knee. He had to be in the most extreme pain. Proving this point was the fact that he didn’t simply put Finn into a Force hold and Finn was able to hold his own against Kylo Ren, though eventually he was almost killed. Kylo Ren also said that Rey was just becoming aware of her Force abilities and she was growing stronger by the minute. A severely weakened Kylo Ren had to fight against Rey whose power in the Force had strengthened to the point that she could Jedi mind trick Storm Trooper James Bond to let her go and leave his F-11D blaster rifle and she could Force pull Anakin Skywalker’s lightsaber to fight with Kylo Ren.

The same fans who wondered how Kylo Ren who was so easily defeated by Rey now wonder how Kylo Ren was able to so easily kill Snoke. Just like the fans who seemingly didn’t notice Kylo Ren’s injury prevented his defeat of Rey in The Force Awakens, Snoke also seems to miss or ignore the same fact. He berates Kylo Ren who has shown nothing but loyalty. While Snoke is monologuing about what a great guy he is and how well he knows his apprentice, his pride causes him to show his hand, that he was able to connect Kylo and Rey’s minds through the Force. During the following shots, we can see Kylo’s anger, but also his concentration. He has partitioned his mind to prevent Snoke from seeing his true intentions. Snoke represents everything wrong with the men in Kylo Ren’s life. He was left with Luke Skywalker to be trained, but he felt betrayed when he thought Luke was going to kill him. His sense of betrayal extended to both of his parents, especially his father.

With the death of Snoke, the Star Wars universe is left with a truly terrifying villain in Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren has demonstrated how powerful with the Force he has become, but he is also struggling with his father issues and hasn’t quite grown up. He already had anger issues and turned them against his subordinates who are terrified to even be in his presence. Rather than learning from the mistake of Snoke whose leadership style of abuse and rule by fear led to his assassination at the hands of his apprentice, Kylo Ren chooses to lead in the same way, but without experience or the cold calculation that helped Snoke rise to power. He immediately builds resentment in General Hux who we can see is mentally plotting how he will betray Kylo Ren.

Another theme in the film is failure. Rey fails to turn Kylo Ren to the light side, Luke fails to teach a new generation of Jedi, and Kylo Ren fails to crush the resistance because of his obsession with killing Luke Skywalker, which he also fails to do.

Three other characters that learn the lessons of failure are Poe Dameron, Finn, and new character Rose Tico, played by actress Kellie Marie Tran.

When the Resistance fleet attempts to escape the First Order by jumping to hyperspace, the First Order appears right on their heels. The Resistance leaders realize that they are being tracked through hyperspace, something that was impossible until then. Sharp viewers will note that this is technology that the Empire/First Order has been working on since before the Battle of Yavin as Jyn Erso discovers a data disc with research regarding “hyperspace tracking” in the data bank on Scarif in Rogue One.

To combat the new tracking technology, Rey, Finn, and Rose hatch a plan to sneak aboard the lead star destroyer, The Supremacy, to disarm the tracking device. Once on board, Finn knows how to get to the tracking device and Rose has the technical expertise to shut it down. In order to get aboard, they will need a code breaker to get through the First Order’s security shields. They contact Maz Kanata who tells them to go to the Casino on Canto Bight and find the Master Codebreaker who is also a high stakes gambler. Poe stays behind while Finn and Rose go to Canto Bight.

Finn and Rose get to Canto Bight and find the Master Codebreaker, but before they can make contact, they are thrown in prison for illegal parking. They failed at securing the Master Codebreaker, but their odd cell mate, DJ, played Benicio Del Toro, tells them he is also a codebreaker and can help them get aboard the Supremacy. The sequence on Canto Bight was one of my first major disappointments in the movie. I wished they had spent more time there exploring more of that world, its denizens and morally grey patrons. I also wished they had developed the relationship between Rose and Finn more as well.

Upon reaching the Supremacy, DJ helps Rose and Finn get aboard and Finn gets them to the tracking system, but they are caught by stormtroopers and sentenced to death. One of the main criticisms of the Rose/Finn subplot is that it doesn’t serve the larger story. If their whole story was cut out entirely, the movie would have ended exactly the same way. That is true, but many good stories are the same way. A good example is Raiders of the Lost Ark. If Indiana Jones had stayed home instead of going off looking for the Ark of the Covenant, the Nazis would still have had their faces melted off and the Ark would probably still be collecting dust on the island. Either way, the bad guys die. So, what is the purpose of the Rose/Finn subplot? Growth for Finn as a character before the final act in Episode IX.

Rey has to learn about the Force, deal with her family issues, and take up the mantle of the Last Jedi. Poe has to learn the hard lessons of leadership which I’ll discuss in a bit. Finn, one third of the new Star Wars trio has to have a story to show how he grows. Remember, Finn was on the run and wanted to still be on the run. He only helped the resistance in The Force Awakens because he wanted to help his friend, Rey. He fought Kylo Ren out of necessity. He probably thought he was going to die anyway, so he might as well have gone down fighting.

After recovering from his wounds, he packs his bags and is getting ready to run again when he’s discovered by Rose Tico who has already stunned three people attempting desertion and Finn turns out to be her fourth victim that day. Rose begins by idolizing Finn. She doesn’t even notice that Finn is attempting to desert the fleet because she is too busy fangirling about meeting Finn in person. She put him up on a pedestal, but once she realizes that he is attempting to desert, her disappointment is palpable, but she is still willing to trust that Finn may be the hero she wants him to be. She’s willing to give him another chance. She has to learn the hard lesson that our heroes are humans too. They have weakness as well as strength, they make mistakes, and they fail us.

While we get to learn about a new character, the point of the Finn/Rose subplot is Finn’s growth. During the course of his adventure with Rose, Finn finds out that the galaxy isn’t a clear-cut black and white place. There are people who are attempting to profit off the war between the Resistance and the First Order, he learns that there are people who are being oppressed not only by the First Order, but the profiteers as well, he learns that people who come from ordinary environments can rise up to become great leaders, even those who lived under that kind of oppression, and he learns that fighting for the weak as part of the Resistance is a worthy endeavor, even when all seems hopeless. Finn goes from fighting for selfish reasons and fighting out of necessity to being willing to sacrifice his life to save the Resistance.

It is at the point that Finn is about to sacrifice himself that he is prevented by Rose Tico and we find out that she has fallen in love with him. She tells him that the war won’t be won by “fighting what we hate, but by saving what we love.” At that point, the failures of the protagonists end. But first, let’s talk about Poe.

Poe Dameron was nothing more than a hotshot pilot in The Force Awakens. He’s a wise-cracking rogue, much like Han Solo. Other than that, unless you read the extended universe novels and comic books, you won’t find out much about him. So, for those who won’t dig into the extended universe, Poe needs to have a story where he grows as well. His story is about leadership and growth as a leader. Having been in the military, his story really resonates with me. I’ve been in some hairy situations where I didn’t know exactly what we were doing and why. Just because you are part of a military unit in a combat situation doesn’t mean you have access to all the intelligence, and plans related to the operation. You can ask and ask and ask, but unless you have the need to know, you will probably never find out the reason why a mission is being carried out the way it is. That is the situation with Poe and it frustrates him to no end.

As a commander in the Resistance, he had access to all kinds of information and had a close relationship with General Leia Organa who kept him in the loop. Unfortunately, Poe disobeys Leia’s orders at the very beginning of the film and it results in the deaths of dozens of Resistance fighters and all their bombers. Leia demotes Poe as soon as he returns to the ship. Leia tells Poe that the sacrifice of Resistance bombers and their pilots served no purpose because they need all the help they can get to fight another day. That’s Poe’s first lesson.

Minutes after coming out of hyperspace, General Organa is incapacitated during a battle with the First Order and a new leader, Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo, played by Laura Dern is put in charge of the fleet. She tells Poe nothing, she refuses to share her plan with the crew or even tell the crew that there is a plan. Because of her apparent inaction, the Resistance fleet is slowly whittled away by the First Order. Poe suspects her of being a traitor, has her arrested, and assumes command of the only remaining ship, the Raddus, which Rogue One fans will recognize as the name of the Mon Calamari admiral who led the Rebel forces against the Empire at the Battle of Scarif. After Poe and his fellow mutineers take the bridge, General Organa breaks in and stuns Poe. He wakes up in a transport heading for an uncharted planet called Crait which was an old Rebel base. Leia tells him that as soon as they realized they were being tracked, this had been the Resistance plan all along.

While the death of Admiral Ackbar was disturbing to some fans and Leia being incapacitated for half the film was also annoying, they could not have been in charge for Poe to learn the lessons that he needed to learn. Because Holdo was completely unknown to most film goers, it was easier to see her as a possible traitor and even those of us who know her background could easily suspect that she might turn to the First Order. That added tension would not have worked with Leia or Ackbar in charge. We would automatically give them the benefit of the doubt. From a storytelling perspective, Vice Admiral Holdo’s character makes perfect sense, but only if you realize that she is a supporting character in Poe’s story arc.

Even though it is Poe’s story arc, Vice Admiral Holdo and General Organa have a touching moment together that was actually written by Carrie Fisher and Laura Dern. Fisher and Dern found out that Amilyn Holdo and Leia Organa had been friends since they were girls, so when Holdo decides to remain aboard the Raddus as the other survivors escape, there is a touching and bitter-sweet moment between friends.

We see that Poe has learned his lessons during the Battle of Crait. When he realizes that the attack on the First Order is hopeless and sacrificing his remaining pilots would serve no purpose, he calls off the attack and orders a general retreat. With his lesson learned, he is able to retake his mantle of leadership and leads the Resistance to safety. Even Leia says, “What are you looking at me for? Follow him.”

When all the protagonists have grown by learning the lessons of their story arc, the failures end. Poe recognizes the folly of needless sacrifice, Finn learns the value of individual sacrifice and serving something bigger than yourself, Rose realizes the importance of saving what we love, and Rey takes up the mantle of the Jedi. At that moment, Luke arrives on Crait to face Kylo Ren. Deus ex machina? Yes, but not in the normally contrived way. In fact, Luke’s arrival demonstrates just how powerful a Jedi he has become, but also that he has learned the lesson that he needed to learn. The Jedi must go on and Rey is the Last Jedi. A fact that he relates to Kylo Ren when Luke faces off with him. Luke’s arrival distracts Kylo and the First Order long enough for the remnants of the Resistance to escape aboard the Millennium Falcon. Luke has also learned that the success of the resistance won’t come from fighting what we hate, but saving what we love, and he loves his nephew, Ben Solo. So, Luke does not physically come to Crait, he manifests as a Force projection strong enough to appear real and allows Kylo Ren to waste time and energy attacking him. Once the remaining Resistance fighters have gotten to safety, Luke tells Kylo Ren that Rey is the Last Jedi and his Force projection fades away.

Carrie Fisher was also responsible for some of the dialogue between Luke and Leia when she sees his Force projection, "I know what you're going to say," she says. "I changed my hair." Rian Johnson also provides my favorite line of the film. Luke hands Han Solo’s dice from the Millennium Falcon to Leia (which we later find out are also part of the Force projection) and tells Leia, “No one’s ever really gone.” When Rian wrote that line, Carrie Fisher was still alive and of course Luke’s line was both referring to the death of Han and possibly hinting at Luke transforming into the Force, but with Carrie Fisher’s death last December (which I heard about in the middle of my first screening of Rogue One), Luke’s line carries an extra sentiment that I am sure most fans of Carrie Fisher share.

We also find out that Rey has taken the Jedi texts aboard the Millennium Falcon and Yoda says she has everything she needs to become a Jedi which is why Luke is able to fully pass the mantle to Rey and transforms into the Force.

I have heard lots of complaints about the writing in this film. I have heard it called lazy and cliché. I frankly don’t understand the accusation of cliché because I literally could not have predicted any of it. The twists in the film, especially the surprise death of Snoke, were worthy of Alfred Hitchcock. Finn and Rose’s story seemed rushed and I am sure that some of the material that ended up on the editing room floor would have helped their story along, but probably would have mired the film’s fast-moving pace. The tone of the film was very dark and without the humor balancing it out, the film could have been downright depressing. The humor was not slapstick and most of it was in line with what we have come to expect from the characters. The only unexpected humor came from Luke who most of us probably expected to be more serious after thirty years as a Jedi, which I am sure disappointed many Star Wars fans. However, the humor from his character made sense for the character that Luke has become in this story.

I have also seen some criticisms of the acting in The Last Jedi. Again, I don’t really understand that. I don’t think anybody went into this film expecting to see a great performance worthy of a Shakespearean actor or high drama. We did get a lot of high drama, but I don’t think that anybody is going to get any Oscar nominations. That being said, the acting was better than anything from the prequels and pretty much in line with the original trilogy, but maybe not as good as Empire Strikes Back.

The special effects are mostly impeccable. Unlike George Lucas in the prequels who seemed more concerned about what he could do with special effects, often to the point of distraction, Rian Johnson effectively uses CGI and other effects as a tool to tell a great story. The only place where the special effects were kind of lacking were in Rose and Finn’s escape from Canto Bight. The scene has Finn and Rose wrecking Canto Bight on the back of animals called Fathiers. The animals were computer animated and Boyega and Tran were not well integrated into the effects shots. On the other hand, Admiral Holdo sacrifices herself by aiming the Raddus at the Supremacy and then jumping to hyperspace destroying most of the First Order fleet at Crait. The design of that scene and its execution were simply breathtaking. In both screenings that I attended, the audience reaction reflected just how amazing it was. It was art.

As for the music. John Williams is amazing. He weaves the themes of the old characters with the new characters. Yoda’s theme is back, the Luke and Leia theme from Return of the Jedi is back. We also get some new cantina music from the Canto Bight sequence. Frankly, this is my favorite part of the Canto Bight sequence. It retains that sort of Tin Pan Alley feel of the original Cantina music with a little Gershwin glitz and glamor thrown in to remind us that this isn’t a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but rather the Monaco of the galaxy far, far awaythe playground of the rich and successful, the haven of the galactic one percent. The main theme has steel drums and kazoos and a samba section that feels like Aquarelo do Brasil then shifts into that 1920s swing Tin Pan Alley style with sliding clarinets and wa-wa muted brass that made the original Cantina music so much fun.


There’s probably a lot more I could say and I definitely will say eventually, but I ought to tie this up and summarize for the too-long-didn’t-read crowd. This is a great entry into the Star Wars cannon. It makes a mostly clean break from the original characters and sets up the new characters quite nicely. It has its foibles, but it is, overall, a great film that I was happy to see twice in the theaters. It’s definitely worth full price and I’m looking forward to owning it on BluRay. The critics don’t always get it right, but this time, I believe they did. As far as the poor audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and other review aggregators, don’t worry about them. It turns out that those results are not the actual sentiments of most audiences. Rather, there is a concerted effort by a few fans whose theories didn’t come true who have created fake accounts to give multiple bad ratings to the film. By contrast, in-person theater polls conducted by Cinemascore.com resulted in an A rating for The Last Jedi. Both of the screenings I attended confirmed this. Most people liked the film.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

The Café Conversation: An Apologetic of Christianity versus Islam


This post is going to be a little different. For my final project in my World Religions class, my professor gave us a choice of possible topics. The topic I chose had the following description:

"Imagine that you are in a coffee shop and you meet the following three characters: (i) Adbul, a dedicated Muslim, (ii) Peter, a dedicated Christian, and (iii) an agnostic seeker or group of agnostic seekers. As you enter into conversation with these individuals, the seeker asks whether or Christianity or Islam--and the Bible or the Qur'an--is true, and whether the Christians or the Muslims have a more accurate interpretation of Jesus. Then research this topic so that you can create a dialogue that accurately represents what Abdul and Peter would say to this question."

In order to create the “dialogue” in a way that made sense to me, I completed the project in the form of a play, but using MLA8 style for the works cited page. I don’t know how much of the format will translate to the blog, so if anyone would like their own copy of the play to read, or if you get crazy and want to perform it at church, feel free to send me a note and I will more than happily send you a copy.
Without further ado, I present, The Café Conversation (I spent probably all of ten seconds thinking up that title, so I apologize if it doesn’t draw you in.)

The Café Conversation
__________________________

A Dialogue about Christianity and Islam in one scene.
by 
Robert Dietrich

Cast of Characters

Abdul bin Muhammad:                                  A dedicated Muslim

Peter Jonasson:                                               A dedicated Christian

Michael Wendell:                                           An agnostic seeker

Rob Dietrich:                                                  A mature Christian






























Scene

A coffeehouse.

Time

The Present.
ACT I

Scene 1

SETTING:                                          We are in a coffeehouse typical of college areas and arts districts. There are an eclectic mixture of furniture including couches, loveseats, chairs, lamps, and tables that, while mismatched, seem to go together and give the café a comfortable homey feel that says, “stay awhile, talk, and enjoy your coffee.” On the walls are a likewise eclectic collection of prints, recreations of famous art, original paintings by local artists, and various photography. The windows look out on a quiet street with historic buildings. The view is somewhat obscured by flyers advertising local events—everything from political rallies to performing arts events. There is also a giant corkboard adjacent to the entrance with a printed banner that reads, “Place Notices Here.” The rest of the corkboard is covered business cards, advertisements, and other examples of the patrons taking the banner’s advice.

AT RISE:                                            ABDUL BIN MUHAMMAD, PETER JONASSON, and MICHAEL WENDELL are sitting at a café table in the middle of the coffee house engaged in a spirited, but friendly conversation. ROB DIETRICH is at the counter waiting for his order. ABDUL is dressed in the traditional Islamic garb consisting of a grey kurta worn over loose fitting cotton pants and a black and grey embroidered kufi. He has a short haircut and a scraggly young man’s beard. PETER, a Christian, advertises his faith with a black NOT OF THIS WORLD T-shirt which he wears untucked over denim pants and flipflops. MICHAEL, a little more serious westerner, wears an oxford style button-down shirt, khaki slacks and Sperry Topsiders. ROB is dressed unassumingly, in a Mexican guayabera over khaki cargo pants and gently worn sneakers.

                                                            PETER
(slightly exasperated)
How can you say that?

                                                            MICHAEL
Hey, guys. We’ve been having a friendly conversation so far, let’s try and keep it that way.

                                                            PETER
You’re right.
(To ABDUL)
We’ve had this conversation before. I know what you are going to say, I guess I just get frustrated.

(ROB has gotten his order and seeing ABDUL and PETER walks to their table)

                                                            ROB
(sitting)
What’s up, guys?

                                                            PETER
I was talking to Michael after our philosophy class today because the subject of God came up.

                                                            ROB
(shakes MICHAEL’S hand)
Nice to meet you Michael.

                                                            MICHAEL
You too. So, Peter said some interesting things in class I had never considered before and I wanted to ask him some questions.

                                                            ABDUL
And I overheard Peter inviting Michael to coffee to talk about Christianity and thought that Michael could use another perspective.

                                                            ROB
So, what’s the problem. It looked like you were having a nice conversation when I came in, but it looked like things were about to get a bit heated just now.

                                                            MICHAEL
Well, I have always had this sort of undefined belief that God could exist and if he did, all religions are essentially just different ways of trying to figure out who he is, but Peter said something to the effect of “If God exists and wanted us to worship Him, why would He just let us flounder about in uncertainty? If God is good, He would want us to know about Him and if He is all powerful, He would let us know the Truth.” Then he said that he thought that truth was in the Bible.

                                                            ABDUL
And of course, I disagree with that premise.

                                                           
                                                            PETER
(rolling eyes)
Of course, you do.

                                                            MICHAEL
(to PETER, calmly pleading)
Come on man.

                                                            PETER
Rob. You’ve been a Christian a while, taught Sunday school and stuff what do you think?

                                                            ROB
I agree with your premise that God would want us to know about Him, that He would provide us with a revelation of who He is and how He wants us to relate to Him, and that He has done that in two ways: Through His Word in the Bible, and in the person of Jesus Christ.

                                                            ABDUL
How do you support your position?

                                                            ROB
If you’ll allow me.
(reaches into his backpack and pulls out a tablet and taps the screen)
I would like to read you a verse from the book of Acts—Acts 1:8, “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.” The Bible is our best source of information about the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and it even says there are proofs for this.

ABDUL
How can you trust the Bible? It has been retranslated and changed so many times over the years. The Qur’an, on the other hand, is pure. The Prophet, peace be upon him, has stated in Sura 18:1, “Praise to Allah, who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance.” All current copies have been translated from the original so that the Qur’an today is the preserved form of the original. The Prophet, peace be upon him, also stated at the end of Sura 85, “But this is an honored Qur’an, inscribed in a Preserved Slate.” So, the Qur’an clearly has the more reliable record regarding the Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him.



                                                            PETER
The Bible has its claims of preservation too. Psalm 12:6-7 for instance says, “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.”

                                                            MICHAEL
But just saying that they’re preserved doesn’t mean they are.

                                                            ROB
Michael brings up a good point. It’s not enough to just say the Bible or the Qur’an are preserved, we must look at the evidence of preservation and what methods have been used to preserve these books. There is a branch of scholarship called textual criticism that examines ancient works of literature to attempt to determine what the original works were like to the highest level of accuracy.

                                                            MICHAEL
How do textual critics determine the accuracy of ancient works?

                                                            ROB
Well, they examine all the available ancient copies, paying particular attention to the oldest copies available. In the case of the New Testament, there are almost 6,000 manuscripts in Greek, the language the New Testament was written in and many of those manuscripts were written in the second century (Taylor). Just a few years ago, a Greek manuscript fragment of the gospel of Mark was discovered that dates to the first century (Wallace). In addition to the Greek manuscripts, there are around 20,000 manuscripts in other languages, hundreds of which date to the early second century (McDowell 34-38). The next thing that textual critics do is they compare all the texts, which is a big job when you realize that there are nearly 26,000 ancient texts to look at, and try to figure out what the original said (“Textual”). The current consensus among biblical textual critics is better than 99% certainty about the accuracy of the New Testament text with none of the variations being of any real significance to theology (Weldon).

                                                            ABDUL
Ah, but the Qur’an is 100% accurate.

                                                            ROB
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. After Muhammad’s death, even Muslim scholars will tell you that there was no single copy of the Qur’an. The first Caliph, Abu-Bakr charged Zayd to collect all the chapters and verses of the Qur’an to create a single book. By the time of Caliph Uthman, just twenty years later, there were multiple variants of the Qur’an being used, so Uthman ordered the Qur’an to be standardized. The problem is that when early manuscripts of the Qur’an are compared, there are thousands of variant readings. There are 150 variant readings in the second Sura alone. Not to mention, there are also records of verses from early manuscripts that are not contained in modern versions. This is a point of contention between many sects. The Sunni believe the modern version of the Qur’an is the most correct. Shi’a Muslims use the modern version but accuse Caliph Uthman of removing verses that refer to Ali as the successor of Muhammad (Geisler and Saleeb 191-194). One of the difficulties facing the Qur’an is that until recently, no critical edition of the Qur’an has ever been attempted (Small 3).

                                                            ABDUL
So the Uthmanic recension isn’t a critical edition?

                                                            ROB
According to textual critics, no. Right now, the first attempt at creating a critical edition is underway and scholars are hoping to finish by 2019, but it could take longer (Schnöpf).

MICHAEL
Are you saying that the Qur’an is completely unreliable?

ROB
I wouldn’t say that, no. As a record of what Muhammad taught and believed, it is definitely a good source, but it fails the test of accuracy and preservation.

ABDUL
But the fact that the Qur’an has survived to this day should be an indicator of God’s divine preservation.

                                                            ROB
It could be, but think about how the Bible and Qur’an have been preserved. Both Islam and Christianity have zealous followers who want to preserve God’s Word. Christianity and Islam both have strong traditions of scholarship that has resulted in carefully copying and transmitting the Bible and Qur’an respectively over time. Despite that, only the Bible can claim 99 percent accuracy and the Qur’an can’t claim any level of accuracy. Even when the critical edition is released, how receptive will the current world Muslim community be? If God had preserved the Qur’an we would expect some measurable level of accuracy.

                                                            ABDUL
That’s where faith comes in. One must accept the validity and accuracy of the Qur’an on faith.

                                                            MICHAEL
Isn’t that the case with all religion? Isn’t it all just a matter of faith?

                                                            ROB
That depends on what your definition of “faith” is.

                                                            MICHAEL
(thinking)
I guess my definition is, “Believing in something you can’t explain.”

                                                            PETER
I agree with that. The Bible says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).

                                                            ROB
Having “conviction of things not seen” is not the same as believing in things without evidence. Faith must have an object and there must be evidence supporting the object’s existence if we can’t see it. None of us have met George Washington, but we don’t blindly believe in his existence because we can examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that George Washington actually existed. We can apply that same kind of thinking to determining if we should put our faith in the Bible or the Qur’an. Paul actually wrote something that applies to both this discussion and whether or not there is any validity to the entire Christian faith. He said in I Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” If we put our faith in something that isn’t true, then our faith has no value. It’s foolish.

                                                            ABDUL
Are you saying I’m a fool for believing in the Qur’an?

                                                            ROB
I’m not trying to be offensive, but I have to admit that it doesn’t make any sense to believe in something that the evidence doesn’t support.

                                                            ABDUL
But the Qur’an still has the more reliable account of the life of Christ. I mean the resurrection is just patently ridiculous.

                                                            ROB
And the virgin birth is more believable?

                                                            ABDUL
What do you mean?

                                                            ROB
Suras three and nineteen both affirm the virgin birth of Christ. Sura nineteen is almost an exact retelling of the annunciation in Luke 2. The Qur’an also affirms that Jesus lived a sinless life. If we’re going to reject the resurrection on the basis of logic, why not reject the virgin birth and the sinless life of Christ, two other things that are humanly impossible?

                                                            ABDUL
So you think the Bible is more accurate describing the life of Christ?




                                                            ROB
Of course I do. The Bible has a better evidence for accuracy and therefore better evidence for divine preservation. Even if the neither the Bible or the Qur’an claimed divine origin, I would still trust the Bible more because it was written just a few years after the ministry of Christ, whereas the Qur’an was written almost 600 years later and there are some pretty serious deviations between what the Bible says and what the Qur’an says, namely that Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected.

                                                            MICHAEL
Whoa, what? I thought the crucifixion was pretty well established fact.

                                                            ABDUL
It’s not an established fact and it’s not just the Qur’an that says it either. There are Christian writings that the church has kept hidden from Christians that prove that Jesus was not crucified, but Judas.

                                                            PETER
(scoffs)
Where do you get that from?

                                                            ABDUL
There is a gospel that was purposefully kept secret from early Christians precisely because it tells the true story of Jesus. It is called the Gospel of Barnabas. In it, it tells that when Judas attempted to betray Jesus, he was transformed into the likeness of Jesus. Jesus was then carried away by four angels who took him to heaven. Judas was crucified in Jesus’ place and the disciples, thinking he really had died, stole him from the tomb which made many people believe that Jesus had risen from the grave. Then Jesus returned and revealed that he had not died. He commanded Barnabas to write an account of his life, but false disciples, like Paul perverted his teaching even teaching the heresy of the death and resurrection of Christ (Gospel of Barnabas).

                                                            PETER
That’s nonsense. There is no such thing.

                                                            ROB
Actually, what Abdul says is true. There is a work called the Gospel of Barnabas.

                                                            PETER
(aghast)
What? Are you agreeing with Abdul? Are you saying Jesus didn’t rise from the grave?

                                                            ROB
I’m not agreeing with Abdul’s theology, just affirming that there is a work that claims to have been written by Barnabas.


                                                            ABDUL
I’m surprised you are aware of it as the Church has gone to great lengths to hide it from Christians.

                                                            ROB
If the Church is trying to hide it, they’re not doing a very good job. I learned about it in a class I took in Bible college. Plus, since it’s in the public domain, you can probably download a copy from the internet.

                                                            PETER
I’ve never heard of it, but it’s a real thing?

                                                            MICHAEL
Yeah. That’s news to me too.

                                                            ROB
It is a real document, but it’s not an authentic gospel.

                                                            MICHAEL
What is it then?

                                                            ROB
It is essentially a compilation of biblical gospel stories with a few anachronisms thrown in. The main deviation is the end, which Abdul has already described where Judas is crucified instead of Jesus.

                                                            MICHAEL
Is any of it true?

                                                            ROB
The parts that retell the biblical gospel stories are, but like I said, there are some anachronisms and the ending is way off.

                                                            ABDUL
Of course you would say that. Why do you continue to lead people astray when you know the truth?

                                                            ROB
We need to look at the evidence again. The earliest copies of the Gospel of Barnabas are from the 17th century (Wiegers). While I will concede that there may have been an earlier Gospel of Barnabas, the one in circulation today could not have been written any earlier than the 7th Century CE and Barnabas died in the first century. So, I believe, as do most scholars familiar with the Gospel of Barnabas including prominent Islamic scholars, that the work was written in the medieval era and is not an authentic work of Christianity (Leirvik).

                                                            MICHAEL
Okay. I think you have convinced me that the Bible is accurate and that it accurately portrays what the first Christians believed, but I still have a hard time reconciling the resurrection with reality.

                                                            PETER
Well that one you have to accept on faith.

                                                            ABDUL
The apostles could have stolen the body.

                                                            ROB
They could have, in fact there are a lot of theories about Jesus’ resurrection conspiracy theories. The Bible tells us that the Jewish religious leaders promoted the idea that the disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:13). More recently, scholars have promoted other ideas about the resurrection of Jesus. The first is that Jesus was crucified, but didn’t actually die; He merely lost consciousness on the cross and the Roman guards thought he was actually dead.

                                                            MICHAEL
Jesus passing out is a possibility.

                                                            ROB
Not really.

                                                            MICHAEL
Why not?

                                                            ROB
A lot of research has been done by medical experts on this issue. There have even been books and peer reviewed papers published on the subject. The description of the process of Christ’s trial and crucifixion is historically accurate when it comes to how people who were condemned to crucifixion. The bible says Jesus was scourged which was done with a device called a flagellum which is several leather straps embedded with nails, glass, sharp bone, and any other combination of sharp objects. The subject is whipped across the back, buttocks, and thighs, and skin is literally ripped from the body. Often, victims of Roman scourging were disemboweled because the straps would wrap around the front of the body and even when that didn’t happen, many people died from scourging alone, possibly by hypovolemic shock or cardiac arrest (Retief and Cilliers).

                                                            MICHAEL
That’s horrific.

                                                            ROB
Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. The subject of crucifixion was required to carry the crossbar of the cross, called the patibulum to the place of crucifixion. Once at the crucifixion site, the subject would be nailed to the cross with large, square spikes that might not break a person’s bones, but would definitely spread the wrist bones apart and damage the median nerve which of course is painful in itself. The feet were then nailed to a podium called the sedile which was affixed to the upright portion called the stipes. The subject would grow tired and would hang from their hands, but that would make it hard to breathe, so they would lift themselves up by the feet to take a breath. That would get tiring and eventually, they wouldn’t be able to lift themselves up anymore and death, if not caused by shock or cardiac arrest, would be caused by asphyxiation. Depending on how badly a person was scourged, this process could last for days (Retief and Cilliers). The description of Jesus’ scourging is pretty extreme and even if he didn’t die in the process, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear to verify if he was dead the Bible describes “blood and water” coming out (John 19:34). When a person slowly asphyxiates, pericardial fluid, which is clear, builds up around the lungs and heart. If enough builds up to differentiante two fluids, it is clear that the subject most likely died of heart failure. Even if by some miracle Jesus wasn’t dead at that point, the wound from the spear would have been fatal (Thompson).

(The four men sit quietly for a moment. Even Abdul is touched by the description of the crucifixion)

                                                            MICHAEL
How does a person come back from that?

                                                            ROB
Humanly speaking, you don’t. But we can’t forget that there is an element of the supernatural involved.

                                                            MICHAEL
I can’t wrap my head around the supernatural, though. There has to be other explanations.

                                                            ROB

Most of the rest of the theories involve Jesus actually dying. One theory from the last century was by Kirsopp Lake who said that the women who went to visit Jesus tomb went to the wrong tomb, but this theory never really gained a following (Strobel 221). And yet another theory is that the post-resurrection stories were nothing but mass hallucinations (McDowell 272-279). With very few exceptions, most scholars throughout history do not deny that the tomb was actually empty (Perman).

                                                            ABDUL
What about the theory that Jesus’ disciples stole the body from the tomb?

                                                            ROB
There are a few problems with that theory. In fact, there are problems with any theory that results in an empty tomb, but doesn’t result in a resurrected Christ. Some people believe that the watch that was set at Jesus’ tomb were Roman soldiers. Those guys were highly trained and armed and the disciples, while armed, did not have the training to defeat the Roman soldiers without taking their own casualties (Gabriel and Metz). If the guard was made up of temple guards, they would still be more highly trained than the disciples. The second, and biggest problem with any theory that doesn’t result in a physical resurrection of Jesus is how the lives of the disciples were changed. Ten of the original twelve apostles died for their faith (McDowell). Now we know that there are people who will die for what they believe to be true, but only a very mentally disturbed person would die for what they know to be a lie. The same would be true if Jesus had merely swooned, somehow got out of his burial cloth, rolled away the sealed stone of the tomb, fought his way past the guards, and then stumbled his way back to where the apostles were. He wouldn’t have inspired much and definitely wouldn’t have changed the apostles lives to be willing to die for their beliefs.

                                                            MICHAEL
Okay, so the tomb was empty. That still doesn’t prove the Jesus rose from the grave.

                                                            ROB
By itself it doesn’t, no.

                                                            PETER
If the tomb doesn’t prove Jesus rose from the grave, what does?

                                                            ROB
There’s actually a lot of evidence. First, you have the gospel witnesses themselves. Matthew and John were both eyewitnesses. Luke wrote his gospel based on a variety of evidence and was very careful to place his account in a historical context. Sir William Ramsay who was a professor of archaeology at Oxford University in the late 19th and early 20th century said, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians” (Ramsay 222). By the way, Ramsay was raised as an atheist and actually entered the archaeological field to disprove Christianity. He was so impressed by the evidence in favor of Christianity, that he converted and remained a faithful Christian his entire life.

                                                            PETER
Wow!

                                                            ROB
And there’s still more. Mark wrote his gospel account based on information he learned from Paul who in turn learned it from the eyewitnesses themselves. He even discusses the witness evidence in his first letter to the Corinthians. He says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Cor. 15:3-8).

                                                            MICHAEL
So what’s the point?

                                                            ROB
The point is that there were people in the church who believed and were teaching that Jesus hadn’t risen from the dead (1 Cor. 15:12). Paul wrote to the Corinthians to address a lot of problems, but this was one of the main ones. Corinth was a very wealthy city (Cartwright). Many of the members of the church in Corinth were wealthy people and had the means to travel, if they weren’t traders who traveled regularly already (1 Cor. 1). When Paul tells the Corinthians about all the witnesses, he knows that there are members in the church who could easily verify what he is saying. Nobody in their right mind would mention witness testimony if they weren’t sure their story was going to be backed up. So, when you look at the empty tomb, the changed lives of the disciples, and the witness testimony, it’s very hard to deny the resurrection of Christ.

                                                            MICHAEL
I’ve never heard any of this before.

                                                            PETER
I have to admit, some of this is new to me too.

                                                            ABDUL
I would also like to hear more.

                                                            MICHAEL
Abdul! Are you saying you’re going to convert to Christianity?

                                                            ABDUL
What Rob has said is very compelling. I’m not ready to be baptized and join a church, but I think I would like to look at Rob’s evidence a little more closely. If what he can show me documentation that what he is saying is true, then I must admit, I will have to take the idea of converting very seriously.

                                                            PETER
Rob. Aren’t you going to say anything?

                                                            ROB
(slowly, shocked)
I’m kind of surprised. We’ve had so many conversations Abdul…

                                                            ABDUL
I’ve never really given you time to defend your position. I think if Michael wasn’t so open to hearing both sides, I wouldn’t have let you talk so much today.

                                                            ROB
Well, maybe we should have a more formal bible study. I have lots of resources at home and I can recommend some good books.

                                                            MICHAEL
I have to admit, this is all pretty powerful stuff. I mean, it really seems that the Bible presents Christ in a much more accurate way than the Qur’an and if you can show me the studies about Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, I would be a fool not to take Christianity seriously.

                                                            ROB
(clearly excited)
Would you be willing to come over tonight?

                                                            PETER
I’m down for that. I’ll bring snacks.

(ABDUL and MICHAEL look at each other, shrug, and nod their heads)

                                                            ABDUL
I have no objection to that.

                                                            MICHAEL
Yeah. I have nothing going on.

                                                            ROB
(with outstretched hands)
Can I pray with you guys?

(the four men grasp hands, bow their heads and ROB begins whispering in prayer)

                                                            (BLACKOUT)

                                                            (THE END)


Works Cited
Cartwright, Mark. “Trade in Ancient Greece.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, Ltd., 2017, www.ancient.eu/article/115. Accessed 15 April 2017.
Gabriel, Richard A. and Karen S. Metz. “The Military Revolution.” A Short History of War. U.S. Army War College, 1992.
Geisler, Norman L. and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross. Baker Books, 1993.
The Gospel of Barnabas. trans. Londale and Laura Ragg. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1907
The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001.
Leirvik, Oddbjørn. "History as a Literary Weapon: The Gospel of Barnabas in Muslim-Christian Polemics." Studia Theologica, vol. 56, no. 1, June 2002, pp. 4-26.
McDowell, Joshua. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.
McDowell, Sean. “Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith?” Biola Magazine. Biola University, 2017, magazine.biola.edu/article/13-fall/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f. Accessed 15 April 2017
The Noble Qur’an. Quran.com, 2016, quran.com. Accessed 8 April 2017.
Perman, Matt. “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection.” Desiring God. Desiring God, 12 Sept. 2017, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection. Accessed 15 April 2017
Ramsay, William. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Hodder and Stoughton, 1915.
Retief, F.P. and L Cilliers. “The history and pathology of crucifixion.” South African Medical Journal. vol. 93, no. 12, 2003.
Schnöpf, Markus. “Corpus Coranicum: A digital landscape for the study of the Qu’ran.” Digital Humanities. University of Hamburg, 2012, www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/conference/programme/abstracts/corpus-coranicum-a-digital-landscape-for-the-study-of-the-quran. Accessed 8 April 2017.
Small, Keith. Textual Criticism and Qur'an Manuscripts. Lexington Books, 2011
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Zondervan, 1998.
Taylor, Justin. “An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts.” The Gospel Coalition. The Gospel Coalition, Inc., 2017. blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts. Accessed 8 April 2017.
“Textual Criticism – What is it?” GotQuestions.org. Got Questions Ministries, 2002-2017, www.gotquestions.org/textual-criticism.html. Accessed 8 April 2017.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub. “An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Christ.” Apologetics Press. Apologetics Press, 2017, apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=145. Accessed 15 April 2017.
Wallace, Daniel B. “Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?” Dallas Theological Seminary. 9 Feb. 2012, www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century. Accessed 8 April 2017.
Weldon, John G. “The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.” The John Ankerberg Show. Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2001, www.jashow.org/articles/bible/the-textual-reliability-of-the-new-testament. Accessed 8 April 2017.
Wiegers, Gerard A. "Muhammad as the Messiah: A comparison of the polemical works of Juan Alonso with the Gospel of Barnabas". Biblitheca Orientalis. vol. 52, The Netherlands Institute for the Near East, April-June 1995.