[157] Now NOBODY can say that these stories are well-documented. They have no high degree of probability---most of them, at least---and it is not a matter of faith to find out the degrees of probability or of improbability of any of these special stories. Some are VERY WELL documented, but this is a matter of research and of nothing else. And it HAS to be done with all the tools of a solid philological^a and historical method. No one should judge about one verse of the New Testament which tells a story, who has not gone through an iron philological discipline. And I would like that this would be taken as seriously as it was done 100 years ago, when philology was really philos, namely "friend," of everybody who wanted to go into the study of the meaning of existence, as it is given in the documents of the past. Without such philological work, nothing historically probable can be said. And no intensity of faith can replace this work of philological exactitude and preciseness. And I can tell you---l had to learn that myself as a student---philological method can be VERY precise; it isn't vague; and conjectures can be very solid, and MANY of these conjectures which have been made about texts of the past have been proved to be true by later discovery of original texts. This is not vague, , [sic.] as scientists often think it is, but it is a precise method which can lead to a high degree of probability---never BEYOND that, never to certainty, but to a high degree of probability. And so l would say: it isn’t a matter of faith to decide whether the presently used edition of the Muslim Koran is identical with the original text, although this is the fervent belief of most