The Brotherhood is not an Iranian-style extreme Islamic movement, contrary to alarms being spread by neocons and the often poorly-informed US media.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has long eschewed politics to concentrate on social, religious and educational issues. If anything, it has been ultra-conservative, even stodgy and timid. But it also represents the [sic] Washington’s best potential ally if Egypt’s military regime falls. We should not be misled by self-serving warnings about Islamic bogeymen.

– The Mideast Burns

Egypt’s venerable Muslim Brotherhood won some 48% of the vote, confirming it as the primary voice of 81 million Egyptians. In North America, the Brotherhood has long been wrongly branded an extremist, even terrorist organization by the seriously misinformed. This view is not only wrong, but harmful to US Mideast policy.

The Muslim Brotherhood is made up primarily of middle class, middle-aged professionals: doctors, engineers, lawyers. It is seriously stodgy and conservative. Many younger Egyptians derided it as “your grandfather’s party.” It sits squarely in the middle of Egypt’s political spectrum.

The Brotherhood’s political arm, its new Freedom and Justice Party, was patterned on Turkey’s highly successful, Islamic-lite AK Party of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. Like Turkey’s AK, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily concerned with social justice, education, health and welfare, areas almost totally neglected by the former Mubarak dictatorship.

– Democracy or Dictatorship

Of course, we also face the problem that Iran is most definitely not what the paranoid (like Santorum, who ludicrously called them “the equivalent of Al Qaeda” Monday night) think it to be. But that’s a whole ‘nother story.

According to the IMF, the year 1981, when Hosni Mubarak took power, the average Egyptian citizen lived on $587 per year (measured in 2011 US dollars). Ten years later, in 1991, I was born and the average Egyptian lived on $869 per year. Ten years later, that number had grown to $1461, and the last year for which the IMF has data is 2007, with a per capita income of $1604 dollars per year. If we extend the average growth rate of 3.94% per annum to the present, the best estimate I can figure of the GDP today is about $1872 per capita. The long and short of this is that monetary standard of living has more than tripled under Mubarak.

According to the Egypt State Information Service, male life expectancy in Egypt has risen steadily, from 58.1 years in 1981, to 69.2 years in 2005. In the same time period, female life expectancy has risen from 60.6 to 73.6 years. If you don’t want to take data from the Egyptian government, tradingeconomics.com has a data set which is only trivially different, registering a male rise in life expectancy from 56.03 years to 67.84 years in 2005 and 68.41 in 2008 — figures which, while a year or two lower, still indicate that lifespans in Egypt were raised by more than a dozen years during the Mubarak regime(s).

And Google-compiled data from the World Bank shows that Hosni Mubarak took over when the infant mortality rate was 120 per 1000 live births, while the infant mortality rate two years ago — the latest data available on the graph — is 18 per 1000 live birth. Less than one-sixth as many babies are dying at the end of Mubarak’s reign than at the beginning.

Whatever one has to say about Hosni Mubarak, let no one say that Egypt stagnated in poverty under him.

While the protests are not anti-American per se, we must not forget that the repressive Mubarak regime, long known for its abuse of dissidents, is armed by the US. Indirectly, it is the American Empire that has oppressed Egyptians, and it is the American government against which the protesters are indirectly rebelling. It is not without significance that the tear gas cans thrown into the crowds are marked “Made in the USA.” This is why Lew Rockwell is spot on when he entitles his thoughts on the recent perturbation A People’s Uprising Against the Empire.

And this leads us to Joel Watts’ recent note Maybe the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t behind the Egyptian Protests, in which he presents a document which might suggest that the US government could be involved in promoting the Egyptian protest movement. While I’ve got my doubts — the protests seem too spontaneous, among other things, it certainly isn’t outside of the realm of possibility that the good old US of A is involved in simultaneously backing two sides of a conflict in a Muslim world. It was only a few months ago that we all found out the US is simultaneously arming and fighting the Taliban. Indirectly, of course. We’re all too fond of hiding behind foreign governments to cover our tracks.

While we’re on the subject of Joel, he also shares two links to authors who see the conflict as indicative of real positive change in the Middle East. The first is CNN Paul Cruikshank correspondent who explains how the emerging popular protest movement has nothing to do with any desire on the part of Muslims to install hard-line Muslim government. Indeed, he explains that Al Qaeda has an Egypt Problem, because the current protest movement is full of secularized, middle-class youth who will have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. What Cruikshank fails to appreciate is that these young folk are marginalizing Al Qaeda partially because they offer a peaceful and secular anti-US movement. His failure to understand this is why he expects Obama to make strong statements of sympathy with the protesters. If we consider the fact that the protesters are threatening the continued existence of a US-backed tin-pot dictatorial tyrant, we shouldn’t be expecting any sympathy for them from the US government. Unless the US government decides that the protests in Egypt are becoming fashionable and could be good for poll numbers. Then suddenly the US will jump to their defense and celebrate their democratic spirit.

The second link, however is by far the most interesting. By Rabbi Michael Lerner, Jewish prayers for Egypt’s uprising is a fascinating op-ed which straddles the realms of theology and politics by working out a fascinating comparison between the Exodus and the current protests movements as two different forms of rebellion against Pharaoh. Other than Lerner’s irrational and nearly worshipful yen for democracy, which is basically an Orwellian failure to distinguish personal freedom from mob rule, his comments on Egypt are an insightful and helpful step towards understanding, and perhaps toward a world where Jews and Muslims can respect each other and live in peace.

Are ye not to me as the sons of the Kushites?  O Sons of Israel, says Jehovah, Did I not bring Israel up out of the Land of Egypt?  And the Philistines from Caftor?  And Aram from Kir?  (9:7)

If, as a Christian viewpoint claims, God has been involved in the migrations not only of Israel, but also of other peoples, then the study of ancient history is a study, at least in part, of the works of God.

1.  Contrary to what some say, the Byzantine Text is not the Textus Receptus, and relies on manuscript evidence, not early and unreliable printed texts such as those underlying the KJV.  Thus any arguments along those lines against clinging to the Textus Receptus or KJV, however valid they may be, are useless against the KJV Byzantine Text.

2.  The sort of text produced by modern eclecticism contains a series of readings which cannot be found in any extant manuscript or tradition, a series of readings which cannot be explained by any theory of textual transmission.  “Modern eclecticism creates a text which, within repeated short sequences, rapidly degenerates into one possessing no support among manuscript, versional, or patristic witnesses.”

3.  There is no reason to suppose that transmissional normality did not characterise the history of the NT text.  The Byzantine text of the New Testament, according to the preserved evidence, dominated throughout the Greek-speaking world for at least sixteen hundred years, and the only explanation for this which is compatible with the historical record is that the Byzantine text reflects the character of the original autographs.

4.  The method underlying Modern Eclecticism is incompatible with textual criticism practiced for other ancient documents such as the works of Homer.  However, the approach used by the Byzantine priorists is more compatible with the sort of textual criticism considered acceptable for non-biblical MSS., such as Hippocrates and Homer.

5.  The localised nature of the oldest extant documents (they’re generally Egyptian), would tend to suggest that they likely represent a local text, and that the evidence of a handful of such documents should not be allowed to overrule the combined testimony of the overwhelming majority of texts, scattered throughout the Greek-speaking world and reaching back to at least 350 AD.

6.  The historical evidence concerning alleged manuscript destructions which are said by some to have resulted in the replacement of an early non-Byzantine text with a later Byzantine text gives us no reason to suppose that this actually occurred.  Destructions of biblical texts by non-Christians were not as severe as some have alleged, nor would such destructions have deliberately selected a particular sort of text (in this case Byzantine) for special preservation.

7.  Despite the accusations that the Byzantine text was a deliberate revision of the original New Testament text, there is no historical evidence that such a revision occurred, nor does any trace remain of the wide-spread and massive effort that would have been necessary for such a change to have occurred.

8.  The “process model” which some believe created the Byzantine text without any central authority controlling the process, is simply not consistent with the nature of the preserved evidence regarding scribal tendencies.

9.  Some of the accusations made against the integrity of the Byzantine textform involve easily demonstrated inaccurate or just plain false claims.  This happens with disturbing frequency, even among people who possess doctorates in biblical fields.  I won’t repeat the inaccuracies which the essay debunks, but a pretty good example of how all too many scholars approach the Byzantine text may be found here, where the king of biblioblogging, Jim West, horribly mischaracterizes the Byzantine-priority position in accord with the prejudices he and all too many others have been taught.

If you want more, go read the essay.  Or if you want to talk about it, fire away.  I’m more than happy to talk through the issues involved with anybody who’s open to the idea of Byzantine priority.

Except for Eved Melek.  Eved Melek was black, and for this reason my young mind immediately took notice when he showed up.  He also seemed to me a very powerful guy with great connections.  Here’s what Eved Melek did that immortalized him in cartoon form:

Jer 38:1-13

Then Shefatiyah ben-Mattan, and Gedalyahu ben-Pashkor, and Yucal ben-Shelemyahu, and Pashkor ben-Malkiyah, heard the words that Jeremiah had spoken to all the people, when he had said, “So says Yahweh:  Whoever stays in this city will be killed by warfare, hunger, and disease.  But whoever goes out with the Chaldeans will live, for he will have his life for a prey, and will live.  So says Yahweh:  this city will surely be handed over to the king of Babylon’s army, which will take it.”

So the rulers said to the king, “Please, have this man put to death.  For by speaking this way he is undermining the will of the soldiers in this city, and of the people.  This man is not looking out for the good of this city, but for its hurt.”

Then Zedekiah the king said, “Look:  he’s in your hands.  The king can do nothing against you.”  Then they took Jeremiah and threw him in the dungeon of Malkiyahu ben-HaMelek.  And in the dungeon there was no water, but only mud, so Jeremiah sank into the mud.

Now Eved-Melek the Kushite, one of the eunuchs who was in the king’s house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon.  (The king was sitting in the Gate of Benjamin.)  Eved-Melek went out from the king’s house and spoke to the king, saying, “My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they’ve done to Jeremiah the Prophet.  They have thrown him in the dungeon, and he may die of hunger where he is because there is no more bread in the city.”

Then the king commanded Eved-Melek the Kushite, saying, “Take thirty men from here with you, and take up Jeremiah the Prophet out of the dungeon, before he dies.”

So Eved-Melek took the men with him and went to the house of the king under the treasury, and took from there old worn-out garments and old rotten rags, and lowered them by cords into the dungeon to Jeremiah.  And Eved-Melek the Kushite said to Jeremiah, “Put these old worn-out garments and rotten rags under your armpits under the cords.  And Jeremiah did this.  So they hauled Jeremiah up with cords, and took him out of the dungeon, and Jeremiah stayed in the prison courtyard.

It may seem dry to you, but the story still excites me.  We have here a king who feels powerless to oppose his ruling class in their desire to kill God’s prophet.  Out of nowhere this foreigner named Eved-Melek walks up to the king, states his case, gets some guys together and some cloths, and rescues Jeremiah from certain death by thirst or hunger in a muddy pit.  Who is this Eved-Malek?  How could a castrato command such power as to turn a powerless king’s decision against the ruling class?  Amazing.

Eved-Melek was doubtless a fascinating fellow.  But this week, in my Jewish History 597 BC to 70 AD class, I’ve been learning a bit more about the situation with Jeremiah.  Turns out, Jeremiah was, from a Babylonian standpoint, pro-Babylonian.  That is, he taught that Judah should simply submit to the Babylonian invaders and not fight against them.  Now, the rulers of Judah knew that they weren’t powerful enough to take on the Babylonians alone, and so they wanted to team up with the Babylonians’  Egyptian enemies to fend off Nebuchadnezzar’s armies.  Jeremiah was famous for denouncing all alliance with Egypt as futile.

This, of course, made him appear quite unpatriotic, and his fellow Judahites believed his prophecies of destruction amounted to a treasonous attack on the authority of the Judahite State.  Now, Egypt did, for a little while before the Babylonian captivity, appear favorable toward Judah.  Egypt ceased aggression against its northern Judahite and Philistine neighbors, seeing them as a valuable buffer zone for holding back the growing power of Babylon.  And so Egypt channeled its aggression southward, against the Nubians, also called Kushites in Hebrew, or Ethiopians in the KJV.

So when the anti-Egyptian Jeremiah was in trouble for his anti-Egyptians prophecies, who was going to intercede on his behalf.  A Kushite, a man who worked in Israel but whose nation had recently been attacked by Egypt.  Eved-Melek was doing the logical thing for a Kushite politician to do:  helping to support anti-Egyptian factions within Judah, with the hope that a decrease in Egyptian power would lead to greater political self-determination for the Nubians/Kushites/Ethiopians.

This knowledge that Eved-Melek was almost certainly politically motivated in helping Jeremiah has deepened my appreciation for the guy.  It has underscored a few important points for me:  (1) that foreigners’ experiences help us gain a truer picture in looking at international situations,  (2) that an individual with personal courage can, simply by talking and lending a helping hand, save someone even against the will of the powerful elites of a nation, and that (3) God’s concerns for the world and for his people are international in scope and not limited to any particular chosen nation.

Often, people attempt to use what they call science to disprove the history in the Bible. One of the accusations concerns the rapid population growth recorded in the Bible during the Israelite sojourn in Exodus. This is the accusation: that to start with 70 Israelite men going into Egypt and end with over 2,000,000 people leaving in just 430 years is an impossible rate of population growth. But a close examination of the Biblical account, human reproduction rates, and math will show that there is really no scientific problem with this passage.

Firstly, let me acknowledge that at first glance, the math does seem to create a problem. The current world population growth rate is about one percent per year. Let’s call this the average Israelite annual population growth rate. Also, let’s suppose that the seventy men whom Exodus tells us went down into Egypt each had an average of one wife and two children at their arrival a population of 280 immigrants in total. If we apply a 1% annual growth rate per year, after 430 years this population would have grown to 20,200 people, far short of the population of 600,000 men plus women and children as indicated in Numbers.

But this math reflects today’s situation. The fact is that population growth can be much faster, and has been in the past. Let’s look at the year 1960. In that year the global population growth rate was 2.53% — quite a bit higher than today. Let’s suppose the Israelites were growing at 1960 rates. Starting, again, with 280 immigrants, we arrive after 430 years at a total of 12,973,875 people, about seven times the number required by the Biblical account.

So what looks like a scientific disproof of the Bible is nothing more than an ignorant first impression that someone had based on the Biblical text. It is exactly just this sort of thinking that caused the apostle Paul to warn his young student Timothy:

²⁰Timothy, keep what has been committed to your care, avoiding unholy pointless babblings, and oppositions from what is falsely called science, ²¹which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21