michaelsherlock
Member
Ahh! Now you are back! So which source should we begin discussing first?
I will let you choose your favorite and we can go from there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To The Jesus Myth Theorist
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
Ahh! Now you are back! So which source should we begin discussing first?
I will let you choose your favorite and we can go from there.
Let's start with methodology, because I suspect that yours will render further discussion useless. What, in your view, is the role of 'inference to best explanation' [IBE] in constructing a history of the period and how would you respond to the following comment by Kirby ....
michaelsherlock
Member
Nice serve! Ok, I am assuming Kirby is talking about the "Jesus the brother of James" (who was called Christ) reference. If so, then yes, I would dispute the application of IBE for the following three reasons:
1. Jesus was a name used to describe 20 or so different people within Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews; Jesus the son of Sapphias, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Phabet, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Fabus, Jesus the son of Thias, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the brother of Onias, Jesus the brother of John, Jesus the Galilean, who was a great military commander and many others.This fact, coupled with the various references to Joshua/Yeshua, and the derrogatory Yeshu in various other Hebrew literary sources, shows that the name Jesus, was very common, like Michael, or John is today. James was also another very common name.
So, is IBE really applicable in a situation where we have a reference to a Tom the brother of Harry, simply because those 2 very common names also appear in the Gospels? Is such an inference, the best explanation? No, I do not think so!
2. Further, we need to factor in the situation with regards to the violence done by Christian forgers to Josephus' Antiquities, re; Testamonium Flavium. This forgery, whether it be entire or partial, weakens the application of such an inference and therefore renders it less than the best!
3. There also seems to be some confusion surrounding the "shorter reference" to Yeshua in Josephus. Origen was the first to use this shorter reference in Josephus, in his commentary on Matthew and he later repeated it in his contra Celsum. In the three passages written by Origen, he asserts that Josephus claimed that the fall of Jerusalem was punishment for a Jewish mob, who murdered the Just James, the brother of Jesus called Christ.Josephus, on the other hand, in Book 20, says nothing more than that James, with some companions, was unjustly executed by the high priest through an illegal calling of judges; the point of Josephuss story is to describe reasons for the fall and replacement of a wicked high priest, and there is no linkage to the destruction of Jerusalem.
So there seems to be a discrepancy which, if we look at one particular Church father's track record of forgery, i.e, Eusebius, we have grounds for suspecting that He, or another of his associates added to, or forged this passage as well! This suspicion, is also grounds for undermining the application of IBE with regards to the "shorter passage" in Josephus.
In W.H. Newton-Smith (ed) A Companion to the Philosophy of Science
(Blackwell, 2000) 184-193.
Peter Lipton says regarding IBE:
"In the great majority of cases, however, the connection
between evidence and hypothesis is non-demonstrative or inductive. In
particular, this is so whenever a general hypothesis is inferred to be correct on the basis of the available data, since the truth of the data will not deductively entail the truth of the hypothesis. It always remains possible that the hypothesis is false even though the data are correct."
This is also another factor which we should not ignore. If we are working from the hypothesis that Jesus of the Gospels, existed as an historical person and such an hypothesis is flawed, then even if the Josephus reference is actually referring to a Jesus the brother of James, then the reference may be legit, but not applicable to Your Jesus, just a Jesus!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oh yes, that work is known for its historical integrity.
So what other "scholars," comic books, or plumbers have argued that Hey-soos lived at about 100BCE?
He only wrote one book on the historical Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium published in 1999.
I read Ehrman and other before "my days in University." The reason I don't tend to count these is that it was only after studying Greek, German, and French (and Latin, but that I already knew) that I was able to actually read Plato and the NT, not translations.
For exampe?
What we see is a historical-critical undertaken which began as an attempt to undermine christianity 200+ years ago. And coming from a background in classics, the skepticism applied to the NT is beyond what most historians apply to such documents.
Yes, Vermes, Neusner, Ehrman, Mack, Morton Smith, etc., were all just christians influenced by biblical studies to confirm the historical Jesus "myth." Oh wait...
Still waiting to hear what "current" academic works you used to based you knowledge of the field on.
Renan was ridiculously UNcritical. That was the whole problem with the "liberal lives" of Jesus, Renan's being the most famous. As for Cline, you took a line about archaeology and assumed it said anything about the historical Jesus. But neither Cline nor any other historian think that this is so. Most of history comes from textual evidence.
He only wrote one book on the historical Jesus. Most of what I've read by him concerns textual criticism. And the sensationalist stuff like "Misquoting Jesus" is contradicted in his own work (the academic works).
They are. But they, like even earlier authors, provided important foundations: steps forward.
The books you mention are not scholarly contributions. They are sensationalist stuff intended for the public. His scholarly contributions I've read include several journal articles, the fourth edition of Metzger's Texts of the New Testament and Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Junk like Misquoting Jesus is just for making money.
I haven't tried. I'm still waiting for you to give me a starting point. You claim to have looked into this for decades. Yet so far, you haven't given any indication of any recent scholarship you have read.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
There was only one Jesus that was ever referenced as Christ (whether it be the so called Christ, or who was called Christ).
Whether or not Jesus and James were common names really makes no difference since we have something that clearly shows who this Jesus and thus James is. And that is the reference to Jesus being called Christ. So there is no doubt who is being talked about here.
One forgery (or interpolations) does not mean that is the case in other areas. That simply doesn't work.
In fact, since this passage (the shorter one) is accepted by virtually everyone as authentic, and there is no reason to assume it isn't, it actually strengthens the idea that the larger passage, the Testamonium Flavium is at least in part authentic. The reason being that in the shorter passage, Jesus seems to be important enough to differentiate this James from all other James. Thus, it is probably safe to assume that Josephus had also spent some time writing about Jesus.
Origen wasn't directly quoting anything though. And it wouldn't be too surprising that Origen was exaggerating to a point, or finding and twisting information to support his idea.
The shorter passage was quoted before Eusebius though. So there is no reason to assume that it is forged. The longer passage really doesn't look that Christian, so if Eusebius forged it, he did it horribly, and there is no reason to think that he would make such a shoddy forgery.
And whether or not the longer passage is forged says nothing for the shorter passage. You can't rule out one section simply because another was forged. That isn't logical. More so, we have no evidence that Eusebius forged anything anyway. Just because Eusebius was supposedly a forger, doesn't mean anything here. Unless one can find evidence of a forgery, and there simply isn't, whatever Eusebius is known for really is irrelevant.
No scholar really argues that the Jesus of the Gospels is exactly how Jesus was. Historical Jesus scholarship and research treat the Gospels as other ancient works. They admit there is mythical elements added to it (just like Alexander the Great or Augustus), and they get beyond that.
Jesus was just one more human. The difference with him is that he was a religious leader that a religious movement started around.
Yes I own this book too. Did you read the last line? More Importantly, while Blackwell and Oxford "Companion" books are great if one is just starting to look at a field or wants a sort of reference guide (as each paper will address a topic and give a number of important works on the subject), the point of the actual papers is just to talk in brief about the issue (as I'm sure you know). Sometimes the author won't take a side at all, sometimes they do. But the point is sort of like a wikipedia page written by a specialist. It's a quick overview, not a comprehensive analysis. Additionally, you're using the "wrong" Blackwell companion book. The more relevant on is Blackwell's A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography.
Fallingblood already addressed this but although I completely agree with him I think some elaboration is important just to be safe.
Jewish names were no different than Greek or Roman names in that many many people shared the same "first" name. However, where today the English speaking world (among others) uses last names, the Greeks, Romans, and Jews (among others) used other means of identification. The most frequent was the use of patronyms, but other things like geography, occupation, etc. were also frequent. So how does this come into play with Josephus?
The reference to James and Jesus is the "shorter" undisputed reference to Jesus in Josephus. By that I mean while the majority of specialists believe the longer passage originally did talk about Jesus but it has been "edited" or redacted by later authors, a minority argue that the whole thing is an interpolation. However, that isn't the case for this shorter reference. In surveys of the rather large amount of literature on Josephus by Jewish scholars (both scholars of Judaism and scholars of biblical studies or Judaism who are Jewish), biblical scholars, etc., one is hard-pressed to find a single study which concludes the line is likely an interpolation. In other words, it's not just a majority view, it's virtually unanimous among Josphus specialists.
James is identified by his familial connection to his much more well-known brother, Jesus. Jesus, in turn, is identified by what he is known as/called by his followers: the Christ. Josephus (whether is tone is neutral, skeptical, or derisive) deliberately does not do what christian authors do. He doesn't call Jesus "the christ" or "christ," but states he is called that. Josephus therefore identifies which Jesus he is talking about, and makes sure he doesn't imply that Jesus actually is "the christ."
michaelsherlock
Member
Ok, Ill give you a few.
1.Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman: Why I am a Christian
2.Norman Geisler: When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties
3.Robin R. Meyers: Saving Jesus from the Church
4.John Polkinghorne: Exploring Reality
5.James M. Robinson: The Gospel of Jesus
6.Lee Strobel: The Case for the Real Jesus
7.Karen Armstrong: The Case for God
8.Emil Schurer: History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
I have left out the more dated scholarship I have studied, even though I am fully aware that you see those dated theological perspectives as being important to your belief in an historical Jesus.
This may be the case however, scholars like Herman Reimarus and Strauss, Bauer, Vermes and other opponents of Christianity have not escaped entirely from the influence of the last 2 thousand years with regards to societal traditions, which in the West, have been determined and at the very least, influenced by Christian beliefs and foundations.
Jesus as an historical person is one such tradition, a tradition which many scholars, even though you cringe when I apply that term to people outside of traditional scholarship, but minds nonetheless who have contributed to the upheaval of tradition, have given evidence toward disproving. Even scholars who have been less critical, like Cline and Renan for example, have given us nuggets that those of us with open minds, occasionally chew on, realising that the dish they prepared as a whole, supports the traditional menu.
I have supplied references for you to read, but as they do not conform to your narrow paradigm of accepted modern scholarship, you refuse to even look at them, so I see little point in giving you more until you at least open your mind at least a little. Again a contradiction seems to be apparent between your love of Schweitzer and Wrede versus Ehrman. In the field relevant to our discussions, your playing field is rather limited and as I have spoken about the various psychological pressures associated with your tiny group of accepted scholars, I do not see the point of trying to persuade you to look beyond the fences of your small field of play.
Perhaps though, Dr. Richard Carrier, having fancy initials before his name and being a modern scholar, blessed with those initials that weaken your knees and send shivers up your spine, will interest you. His book is due to be released in April. Check it out!
Yet his work in undermining the Gospel of Luke as an historically acurate source, serves to form a piece of the equation, in my opinion. Again, we need to realize, as you have admitted on a number of occaisions, that not many within the bible scholar community support the ahistoricity of Jesus. In my opinion, we need more balance in this field.
As for Cline, again, those of us who are seeking to add some balance to the arguments for and against an historical Jesus, are left to sift through the biased scraps of "scholars," who, for the most part, do not even consider the possiblity of an ahistorical Jesus, even though statements they make based upon thier own scientific analysis, forces them to admit uncertainty with regards to some aspects of the issue.
You can think of me and those researchers and scholars who are seeking to add balance to this field as, bowerbirds, collecting various shining things to build our nest in a hostile environment. We are not popular at present, but neither were those who initially claimed that the earth was round, or those who dared to question the established authorities of thier day. As Shopenhauer once said;
All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.
Now, those of us who are standing against the giants of our day, who do not cower in the face of overwhelming adversity and who do not march in rank and file, may not have the truth, nor even the semblance of it, yet it is our responsibility as individuals, to think for ouselves and protect our freedom to arrive at conclusions, as temperary as they might well be.
michaelsherlock
Member
I have also read his academic works and 2 books by Bruce Metzgers, one featuring both of them, and I did not find any contradictions, but perhaps I was not seeking contradictions. Please give me some examples of contradictions between Ehrmans academic versus his sensationalist work.
I agree with you here. Dated as they might be in some regards, they are still very valuable.
So whose word do I take? Do I follow the scholar Ehrman or the Layman Legion?? I know what my friend Legion would do! But perhaps I should rise above Legions close minded approach to following information and ask him, why? Why do you consider Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus and other popular works, to be Junk? I guess we can take it from there.
Once again, I have dealt with issue and provided you with references. If you do not like them then that must be because you have read them. Or else, we might profit from a quote from Albert Einstein; Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance!
So if you like you may go straight to the direct sources for the historical Jesus and we can take it from there if you like? Why follow the leaders, cant we look at the historical sources ourselves, or must we march in rank and file and follow what the theologians and historians have been saying, to quote Einstein once again; He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.
Surely, we can discuss the sources without the security and approval of our parents, right?
Misquoting Jesus is a deliberately misleading book. For example, Ehrman spends a lot of time talking about copying errors, variations, changes, etc., but deliberately doesn't put this in context. For example, on page 89 he states: "Scholars differ significantly in their estimates- some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 and more!" He follows this (p. 90) with the very misleading comment "There are more variants among are manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
However, in his academic (rather than sensationalist) book Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Ehrman (writing more for other specialists rather than a wider and more easily decieved audience) puts this in context (p. 309): "There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the NT. As one might expect, however, these raw numbers are somewhat deceptive. For the vast majority of these textual differences are easily recognized as simple scribal mistakes...The single largest category of mistake is orthographic; an examination of almost any of our oldest Greek manuscripts will show that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today."
In fact, the number of texts we have make the task of the NT textual critic a joke compared to textual criticisms in classics. In the 4th edition of The Texts of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman , we find: "the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millenium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant that were copied within a century or so after the composition of the original documents."
I respected Ehrman a lot more before I read Misquoting Jesus, and I stopped reading his popular works after that.
When it comes to the historical Jesus, apparently you ignore both. Ehrman states that no serious historian doubts Jesus existed and that we have more evidence for him than just about anybody else from his time.
michaelsherlock
Member
Are you a fan of Kenneth W. Clark by chance?
The reason "you aren't popular at present" among historians is because this issue is old news. The idea was broached over a century ago (see in particular Bauer). Reimarus' work was significant not because his was the first critical historical view, but because it was the most comprehensive. It more or less sparked the historical-critical analysis of the gospels, which evolved a great deal in the 19th century, first with responses to Reimarus, than with the famous work of Strauss who showed how inadequate these were, then with the liberal lives (the most well-known, again, being Renan's), then with the work of the form-critics (esp. the founders, Dibelius and Bultmann) and even more so the work of Schweitzer which showed how problematic these "liberal lives" were because they were not critical enough. And that just brings us into the first half of the 20th century. You are acting like historical Jesus research is blind to this idea, but one need only take a look at the volumes of believing christian scholars, even the more uncritical ones (e.g., N.T. Wright) to know that they are quite aware of the arguments that we have no good evidence for a historical Jesus, and know how these were addressed when they were broached. Something like the first half of Wright's second volume on the historical Jesus is devoted to the history of historical Jesus scholarship. Same with Dunn's Jesus Remembered.
The bigger issue is that it seems hard to belive you've actually read them. The one thing you quote from Cline is a popular quote available from a brief internet search. You cite Renan, whom I have read, and whose view (like that of Cline) is that there absolutely is enough evidence to conclude not just that the historical Jesus existed, but that we can know things about him. And I've read Frazer, Dawkins, etc. I haven't read all the names from your list, but so far you have a history of referring to sources which completely contradict/undermine the point you are trying to make. Not just Renan or the other authors in your lists, but the post you linked to. It was written to point out the complete lack of intellectual or historical integrity of those who argue we don't have enough evidence for Jesus. Then there's Ehrman, whom you cited, but who thinks (as he says in the clip I provided) we have more evidence for Jesus' existence than for just about anybody from his day and he doesn't know of any serious historian who doubts Jesus' existence.
Again, how can you add to a field you don't know about? I've asked you for what you are basing your view of the field on, but you have yet to cite even a survey of the field written either for the non-specialist or specialist (or both, in the case of Meier's four-volume work).
First, you didn't leave out "the more dated scholarship." Schürer wrote his Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi over a century ago. Second, I asked you about historical Jesus scholarship. Not a bunch of names of popular works, most of which have nothing to do with the historical Jesus. Is this the same Polkinghorne who is a (if memory serves) a physicist? I recall reading some book about belief in god in an age of science. And Lee Strobel? Seriously?
Let me ask again, only this time I'll be more specific. When I ask about historical Jesus scholarship, I mean at the very least works written on that subject by people who are specialists in some field related to it. Even better would be academic works (papers from conference proceedings, edited series, peer-reviewed journals, or books which are published by companies like Brill or a university press).
I don't have a "love" for Schweitzer (or Wrede or Strauss or Reimarus). I read them because they were important works in their day. It's like reading Gibbon on the history of the roman empire or Skinner on psychology. They wrote influential works, but they are dated. One reads them not to understand the field today, but to put modern scholarship in historical context. As for Ehrman, I loved his article in the Journal of Early Christian Studies on the so-called "secret gospel of mark." I appreciate a lot of other academic work he's done. But his book on the historical Jesus was more or less just a rehash of Schweitzer, and as I demonstrated in my last post, what he says in his sensationalist work is quite different from what he says in his academic work. But it's a moot point. Ehrman is quite certain we have enough evidence to conclude Jesus is a historical figure.
I intend to.
You have yet to demonstrate what you know about "this field." Renan has nothing compared to the critical views of some modern scholars (compare Renan to Burton Mack, for example). Yet they too, like Renan, believe we have enough evidence to conclude Jesus was a historical figure.
Sort through? What you did was take a quote which has no relevance and act like it did. Cline was talking about direct archaeological evidence, such as the tomb of Jesus or Peter or James. Some argue we have such evidence, but I find it unlikely and apparently so does Cline. We don't have direct archaeological evidence for virtually anybody in ancient history. And for most we do have evidence for, we know nothing about them (they are just things names on ossuaries or signed inscriptions in brothels).
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
michaelsherlock
Member
You cite Renan, whom I have read, and whose view (like that of Cline) is that
This is a good opportunity for me to teach you about the dangers of certainty.
The following is part 1 of the contents of Cline's Book; Biblical Archaeology; A very Short Introduction:
Introduction
1
Part I
The evolution of the discipline 11
1
The nineteenth century: the earliest explorers 13
2
Before the Great War: from theology to stratigraphy 21
3
The interwar period: square holes in round tells 30
4
After 1948: biblical veracity and nationalism 40
5
Beyond the Six-Day War: new surveys and strategies 50
6
The 1990s and beyond: from nihilism to the present 59
Please test me on any of these chapters! As I own this book.
Further, Renan, undercuts the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Luke, and the pseudopigraphical nature of John which is what I use him for. (see the Life of Jesus) Another book I own and have read!
If you are simply out to slander me, then go ahead, your overconfidence and constant posturing tells me alot about you, coupled with your desire for a surrogate father figure in the form of "official" "scholars"!
I would love to have the luxury of sitting on the internet all day and responding to your crass attempts to attack my credibility, but I have a rather full life, complete with a family, job, books and research.
I have read quite alot on the historicity issue and yet it is a mere fragment of my overall research, which will be available for purchace in various physical and online bookstores from autumn this year.
My areas of research include, but are not limited to:
*Sociology
*Social Psychology
*Jungian Psychology
*Environmental Psychology
*Neuroscience
*Hypnosis
*Neuro-Linguistic Programming
*Rhetoric
*Symbolism
*Ancient Mythology
*Comparitive Mythology
*Philosophy
*Anthropology
*Astrology
*Theology
*Astro-theology
*Biblical Criticism
*History and Politics.
*Social Psychology
*Jungian Psychology
*Environmental Psychology
*Neuroscience
*Hypnosis
*Neuro-Linguistic Programming
*Rhetoric
*Symbolism
*Ancient Mythology
*Comparitive Mythology
*Philosophy
*Anthropology
*Astrology
*Theology
*Astro-theology
*Biblical Criticism
*History and Politics.
As I mentioned, I take pieces from these authors, i.e from Renan, Luke's lack of historical accuracy, true authorship of John, Cline's honest statement regarding a lack of archaeological evidence for Jesus, which does not disprove his existence it merely adds to the uncertainty.
Again, how can you add to a field you don't know about?
I know enough to be uncertain about the evidence and can demonstrate that we do not have enough evidence to conclude Jesus was an historical figure.
Michael's Position: We do not have enough evidence to say with certainty that Jesus existed, let alone as a magician.
Legion's Position: The evidence for Jesus is "overwhelming!"
Michael's avenues of investigation: All
Legion's Avenues: A select few scholars tied to either religious and or academic traditions.
Let me ask again, only this time I'll be more specific. When I ask about historical Jesus scholarship, I mean at the very least works written on that subject by people who are specialists in some field related to it. Even better would be academic works (papers from conference proceedings, edited series, peer-reviewed journals, or books which are published by companies like Brill or a university press).
would an article by Dr Richard Carrier be acceptable? Or is he not within your narrow field of accepted scholars?
Anyway if he is acceptable, here is a good article by Richard Carrier:
It is quite a good article and was published in 2002.
P.S I have read all of the original sources of evidence (in English) for an historical Jesus and none convinces me that he actually existed.
I know such evidence has convinced many "scholars" but I am not in the habit of following what someone says and believes, just because they have pretty letters before their name, or belong to a given "Orthodox" institution. I have never really made a good follower, I think it may be because I had a very good father, so I lack the desire to substitute an absent (either emotionally, or physically) father, with a surrogate one!
I know such evidence has convinced many "scholars" but I am not in the habit of following what someone says and believes, just because they have pretty letters before their name, or belong to a given "Orthodox" institution. I have never really made a good follower, I think it may be because I had a very good father, so I lack the desire to substitute an absent (either emotionally, or physically) father, with a surrogate one!
Good luck in the future, and if you would like to continue this particular discourse, I suggest you leave out the personal attacks and slander.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Have you studied:
Trite Arrogance
Offensive Self-flattery
Obstinate Ignorance
Crude Artlessness
Illogical Nonsense
Spam Rant
Popcorn fart in hell
Nursery Rhymes
Toe Fungus
Heroin
Bird Flu
Butt Mucus
You appear to have mastered these topics, and maybe read three books on the others?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Glad to do it.
Just randomly pick a topic, pretend to have studied it, and just make up whatever you want. And arrogantly refuse to even consider actual knowledge in the field based on your false claims.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Take two and call me in the morning.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oh and I'm ordained as Mickey M. Mouse in the Unity Rainbow Frog-leg Church of the Screwed Butterfly.
I can print off any degree that you'd like.
I can print off any degree that you'd like.
michaelsherlock
Member
Firstly, please explain why or how I have offended you that you would come out with such a horrible thing to say to a fellow human being!
Secondly, I have actually studied these areas and they are all included in my three volume series which is actually a real 3 volume series coming out in Autumn.
Thirdly, allow me to be the first to apologize in this little argument, as I would prefer to have a clean conscience about life in general, rather than embroil myself in someting I will regret in the future.