Thank you for your comments on behalf of my article after Mrs. Doubravsky's criticisms. Please allow me to complement your response.
Normally, name-calling and invective in analyses are in bad taste, at best, and often counterproductive. Occasionally, however, a situation calls for a stronger response than simple, cold analysis. The main problems of the biblical numbers for Israel's armies cross that line. They remind me of a saying: "Don't urinate on my shoes and try to tell me it's raining." The Bible's figures are such obvious lies that anyone who insists they are accurate must have such utter contempt for me as to think I'm a complete idiot.
The reasons are simple: Israel was not big enough to provide anywhere near that many troops. If it somehow raised that number, its economy could not have supported them in the field, and such an army could not have been supplied by any means available to any society in the pre-mechanized era.
Even the Roman Empire, at the height of its size and power, fielded at most 200,000 troops for regular duty. This number increased during the civil wars but was reduced as soon as the wars ended because of the strain on the empire's economy. Similar situations can be found in the Persian, Seleucid, and other great empires of that era. Rarely do we find mention of even 100,000 troops in an army.
When historians confront a figure of one million troops -- such as Herodotus' account of the Persian army that invaded Greece in 480 B.C.E. -- they scoff for the reasons cited two paragraphs above. The Persian empire possibly had one million men of military age within its borders, but it could never have called more than a fraction of them to arms at any one time and probably could not have supported 100,000 troops in one army for more than a very short period. Read Donald W. Engels' study Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army for a thorough review of ancient military supply systems.
I know that some people will argue that not everyone has the time or resources to research historical material. But if you're going to insist upon the accuracy of historically verifiable claims in the Bible, you have an obligation to make at least a minimum effort to check the facts. This is not like an analysis of the Bible's miracle claims, which in theory at least are extraordinary events beyond ordinary methods of verification. I cannot prove that Jesus did not walk on water or raise the dead. Of course, the burden of proof remains upon the claimants, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I am not required to accept such claims without the appropriate level of proof.
If someone wrote an article claiming that the ancient Romans won their empire because they had tanks and bombers, I am free to call that person a liar. Historians have ample material available showing that the Romans did not have the level of technology or industry to produce tanks and aircraft, no remains of such equipment have ever been found in Roman sites, and the surviving literature and artwork show nothing remotely like tanks or aircraft. Such things simply did not exist in the Roman world, and it would be an insult to my intelligence to try to convince me they did.
The musters are flat out impossible. The wildly fluctuating, contradictory numbers over time, as listed in the Hebrew scriptures, simply add to the evidence that these figures are pure propaganda or the exaggerations of oral legends. They're blatant falsehoods.
So my response to anyone who tries to defend these figures as correct is, "My shoes are wet; the sky is dry. What you've done is very dirty and disgusting, and don't lie to me about your action. I'm not that stupid."
(William Sierichs, 316 Apartment Court Drive, Apt 44, Baton Rouge, LA 70806.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: A frequent contributor to TSR, William Sierichs has another article on page 8 of this issue. If Mrs. Doubravsky would like to respond to this letter, we will publish it.
I just wanted to thank you for the prompt reply to my inquiry regarding The Skeptical Review. I devoured the first two issues of 1996, so now I need more freethought brain food. Enclosed, you'll find a check for the 25 back issues and the booklet Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled.
Keep up the good work. We need people like you on the front lines to battle that mental disease of irrational, illogical, relativistic thinking that passes for religious faith, which seems to be spreading like a cancer across our nation. I am a former "born-again, evangelical Christian." Now I guess I'm an agnostic (I can't as yet rule out the possibility of a supreme being), and I am against all organized religion because of its horrible history. I pray to whatever god there may be that the U. S. never becomes a "Christian Republic." The two examples of history's theocracies are the Old Testament's Israel and the dark ages' "Holy Roman Empire." Both were inhumane and intolerant, causing untold suffering of multiple millions of people, despite the prevalence of "the word of God" and its teachings (in places) on love, mercy, forgiveness, etc.
I hope that the internet will be a tool for spreading the "good news" of humans having the ability to be autonomous, rational, moral, ethical, good people based upon a philosophy of empathy, social response, ability and accountability to our fellow man. I believe in personal freedom to believe anything one wants, but it should be kept private and discussed only when invited to. I feel that militant proselytizing of any religion (or political cause) is offensive.
(Jeff A. Schmura, 808 Apple Lane, Shoemakersville, PA 19555.)
I cannot speak for others, but I am one Christian who looks forward to receiving each issue of The Skeptical Review. Obviously, I disagree with much of your material, but I respect your scholarship. I find TSR to be very interesting, thought provoking, and challenging.
In your article, "The Historicity of Jesus" ( Autumn 1995, p. 3), you said this about the 3 hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus: "The fact that no such records exist is reason to believe that this midday darkness was simply another part of the legends and myths that evolved as Christianity grew." But in his book The Day Christ Died, Jim Bishop said there were historical records of this darkness. Enclosed are photo copies of the title page and the page where he has an interesting footnote on the darkness. Please respond to Bishop's information in a future issue of TSR. Thank you.
(Paragraph ordering debate tapes deleted.)
I am a former member of the Church of Christ. I received "the right foot of fellowship" (my term) because of doctrinal differences, such as, a nontrinitarian view of the godhead and conditional immortality. (There are some Christian Freethinkers.)
(Don Robertson, 644 Walnut Street, Rock Hill, SC 29730.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The pages from Jim Bishop's book that accompanied Mr. Robertson's letter contained the same references to secular historians that Josh McDowell included in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, so the front-page article of this issue is an adequate response to Bishop's claim that secular history contains references to the alleged midday darkness when Jesus was crucified.
I appreciate Mr. Robertson's interest in TSR and hope that he continues to read it. As a former Church-of-Christ preacher, I can certainly understand why the doctrinal beliefs that Mr. Robertson mentioned in his letter would have earned him "the right foot of fellowship" from the Church of Christ. (See Galatians 2:9 for an explanation of the pun.)
Your article "The Editor Goes to Church" is terrific. I have always had those exact thoughts about the ridiculous substitutionary explanation of Jesus's death on the cross. You should know that there are others, even actual ministers, who feel the way you do about this. I'm sure you have read Bishop John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality? If not, you should. His Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism is also highly recommended. I myself do not believe in a literal interpretation of the stories of Jesus's virgin birth or resurrection, or many of the other miraculous tales. Do you think at all that these stories could have been myths, in the tradition of the Greeks, designed to draw the world into the revolutionary message of a man called Jesus? I have come to view these gospels in the light of such mythology and come away with much more applicable meanings: that his virgin birth most likely symbolizes that his message was unique, that his resurrection most likely symbolizes that his message rose after his death, that his walking on the water most likely symbolizes that he is the master of spiritual knowledge, that his healing of the blind man is most likely symbolic of his teaching that opens the eyes to important truths (what John called the Logos) of Judaism.
We've been blessed, if I can use this term, in recent years with new translations of the Bible, translations that will ultimately transform Christian doctrine. We all know by heart the traditional King James reading of John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." But read the Jesus Seminar translation of this famously out-of-context verse (the "Scholar's Version" found in the book The Complete Gospels) and you get a whole new, more believable (even to agnostics) sense of the text. Jesus is teaching about God's love for the world -- that is, everyone -- equating that love to that of a father and an only son. He's not at all referring to himself: "This is how God loved the world: God gave up an only son, so that everyone who believes in him will not be lost but have real life." [It's] not a belief in the figurative son, but in the literal God, of whom we are all sons and daughters.
In this same book, it is easier to understand the first chapter of John. The KJV gives the impression that the writer of the fourth gospel believes that Jesus the man or spirit was preeminent, existing since the dawn of time, indeed, creating time and the world and universe. Now, with the help of the Scholar's Version, I understand that this writer is saying that Jesus's teaching -- his divine truth, wisdom and understanding (the Logos) -- had always been alive in the Jewish tradition, but that the man known as Jesus brought the teaching to life in a unique way, in a way these young followers of Jesus had never seen before.
The mystic view of Jesus is that he was a man of conviction who embodied the spirit of truth, threatened the existing Roman empire by condemning the tax on atonement, and was crucified. It would be preposterous to think he came into the world any other way than what is normal. A virgin birth [What is a virgin birth anyway? Did God have sex with this teenage girl named Mary? How silly!] is not really implied in the scriptures. Mary was pregnant, Joseph didn't know how she got that way, but had a dream that told him to marry her, and that the boy was a gift from God. People have such dreams all the time.
It would be preposterous to think Jesus transcended death. Even though these stories are in the gospels, the details of the resurrection differ greatly from gospel to gospel. [It's] better to look at them as allegory. His message transcended death.
But it would be equally preposterous to think his life is to be ignored. The stories of Jesus's life and his message brought the soul of Judaism (the Logos) to pagans, the Greeks and Romans, and--mixed with the best of all religions and philosophies--have given the world so much in terms of what we call freedom and democracy. Do mystics praise Jesus? In a way, but as the man who revolutionized the world, not as a God. We celebrate his life as the Master of wisdom and are encouraged to behave as he did, with compassion, with conviction, with courage in the face of adversity.
Christian tradition tells us, "In Him there is no sin," and, "He took away the sins of the world." Mystic understanding is that Jesus's message was one that destroyed the concept of guilt, sin, and shame. He only shamed the pious religious leaders whose job it was to keep the masses feeling like wretches, and the political leaders who capitalized on such guilt.
Christian tradition tells us Jesus was the only son of God. Mystic understanding is that we are all children of the most high and that Jesus is important for cluing us in to this knowledge.
(Gary E. Headley, 1814 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Apt. 204, Miami, FL 33179.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: With a great deal of reluctance, I have published Mr. Headley's letter in its entirety. I appreciate his interest in The Skeptical Review, and I hope he continues to read it. I'm certainly glad he recognizes the unlikeliness that miraculous events like the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, but I regret that he still seems to think that there is some "mystical" importance to these stories that transcends the literal interpretations that most Christians believe in. In saying this, I don't mean to imply that the New Testament has no importance at all, because there is always value to be found in considering the philosophical ideas of others. I suspect, however, that Mr. Headley sees far more importance in Christian philosophy than in Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist philosophy, and this is an arbitrary position that I find hard to understand.
Quite honestly, I have never understood the person whose intellectual growth leads him to see the legendary and mythological bases of the Christian religion but who can't quite grow tall enough to reject it entirely. Leaders in the controversial Jesus Seminar are examples of what I mean. They have publicly proclaimed, for instance, that the resurrection of Jesus never happened "except in the hearts and minds of early Christians." On the resurrection issue, they have even said that if Jesus was really crucified, his body was probably thrown into a garbage dump and later eaten by dogs. If that is true, then I can see no reason at all to cling to Christianity, for, like Paul, I would have to say that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Christian faith is vain and those who believe in it are "of all men most miserable" (1 Cor. 15:17-19). Liberal Christians, however, will deny the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and his resurrection but still contend that these stories have a "spiritual" importance in that they symbolize the hopes and aspirations of people.
I see this kind of thinking in Mr. Headley's letter, and I find it hard to understand. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then I have no reason to hope that I will. Personally, I find much more satisfaction in facing reality, accepting the fact that this life is probably all that I have and ever will have, and living my life accordingly.
Mr. Headley publishes The Mystic and Gnostic Newsletter, which has some good ideas in it sometimes, but most of it is the kind of material suggested by the title. Anyone interested in reading more of what he has to say may contact him at his address listed above.
[May 26, 2001, INTERNET INFIDELS NOTE: Mr. Headley has contacted us and requested that we link to Mr. Headley's web site by way of reply to Mr. Till, above. Mr. Headley may also be reached by e-mail.]
I once had a professor who often piously cited St. Paul's dictum that "faith is the evidence of things unseen" as unimpeachable wisdom. He was a pantheist and mystic, who still clung to the carapace of Christianity. At the time, I accepted the professor's words without challenge. It was a time when one did not dispute professors with impunity.
Accepting the ontological argument that "things" can be immaterial, I gather that the "things" meant by Paul are, among others, love, kindness, compassion, truth, honesty. etc. In Paul's context, however, it appears that faith is belief in the Pauline version of Christianity. Other theologies (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) would not be evidence of things unseen within the narrow scope of Paul's Christian orthodoxy. However, divorced from human conduct, the virtues of love, kindness, etc. are meaningless abstractions. Kindness, for example, cannot exist qua kindness, like some platonically ideal chair, existing only in the philosopher's brain. The deed is nonexistent, absent the doer. One must then ask the believer if an atheist or agnostic is capable of love, kindness, compassion, truth, and honesty. The answer is apparent. If the believer answers that the atheist or agnostic is incapable of any of these virtues, he or she is singularly lacking in the last of the series.
In short, "faith" is entirely unnecessary to validate the presumed virtues adduced by Paul. But if "faith" extends to belief in angels, devils, possessed swine, virgin birth, human gods raising the dead, changing water to wine, walking on water, and other hocus-pocus, then Martin Luther's favorite "whore," i.e., reason, must intervene. Reason tells us that faith in the aforementioned beliefs of many Christians is gullibility chasing after chimera.
(Fred L. Ehrstein, 9 Westwood Drive, Belleville, IL 62223-6407.)
Care to hear from another grateful, recovering ex-fundamentalist? I strongly identified with the writer of the anonymous letter in the March/April issue. You may forward her a copy of this letter if you'd like; and she may feel free to correspond with me if desired. Apparently, there are a lot more of us out there than I ever expected. I've often considered starting a new organization, "Fundamentalists Anonymous," if only I had more free time. (I'm graduating from medical school in May 1996, and beginning residency training in psychiatry.)
My evolution into a free-thinking "Jeffersonian Deist," if you will, began at the end of my first year of medical school, when faced with a life-threatening cancer diagnosis. I was forced to reevaluate my priorities in life and reexamine my whole way of thinking. Well, I'm healthy as a horse now and much better off mentally for having gone through the experience!
I'm amazed now at what a sick religious addict I was. You know, fundamentalist Pharisees don't actually read their "Holy Word of God." It was only a short time ago that I realized that the contradictions begin on page one. The first two chapters of Genesis contain contradictory creation myths. One clearly states that plants and animals were created before man, and the next one says man was created first.
In reality, fundamentalists are idolaters; they blindly worship a book. Not "a book," per se but a 2000- to 4000-year-old collection of books, written by various authors to various diverse cultures, far removed from our own, that contradicts itself on every other page. To "literally interpret" such an ancient collection of literature as "absolute truth" is clearly delusional and borders on psychotic.
One good thing about being an ex-fundamentalist, I can proof-text with the best of them. I'm always happy to point out that they are condemned by their own "Holy Word of God." Matthew 7:22-23 says, "Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name... cast out demons in your name... do many miracles in your name?' And I will declare to them solemnly, `Depart from me you evil doers, I never knew you.'" Red letter print and all! Now, who is it today who claims to prophesy, cast out demons, and do miracles "in the name of Jesus"? Why, the fundamentalist "church," of course!
See how the religious-hate game works? Delve into that wicked, self-contradictory book, and you can proof-text to condemn anyone. "God's Word" is truly an equal-opportunity offender.
(Dr. Woodrow Coppedge, P. O. Box 691021, San Antonio, TX 78269.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Coppedge's letter was forwarded to the anonymous letter-writer as he requested. When I read letters like his, I recall my own experiences and wonder how people who read the Bible can keep from seeing the contradictions that Dr. Coppedge referred to. They are so obvious that I can't believe there was a time when I didn't see them, but there was. Religion has a remarkable power to blind believers to obvious truths and realities. As Dr. Coppedge noted, to believe that literature as ancient as the Bible could possibly be "absolute truth" is clearly delusional and borders on psychotic, but there are millions of people who have been deluded into believing it. And people actually ask me why I do what I do. Could there be a better reason than this?
Sorry I lapsed it. Please renew my subscription, starting with the March/ April 1996 issue.
You're welcome to join the TFE [The Freethought Exchange] fray. Otherwise, your silence to my comments is telling. Where are the minds that can grapple with the unheard other facts?
(Willard Small, P. O. Box 705, Picabo, ID 83348-0705.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The "TFE fray" that Mr. Small alluded to is an issue that he raised in The Freethought Exchange and tried to get TSR involved in through an article he submitted. It was the kind of article that leaves the reader scratching his head and wondering, "What the hell is this guy trying to say?" Unfortunately, I get articles like this much too often, almost always accompanied with I-dare-you-to-publish-this comments. The first one I received came from a man in Belize (formerly British Honduras), who had determined from a far-fetched interpretation of scripture that Jesus was skinned alive before he was nailed to the cross. He sent me long, rambling incoherent articles that I finally stopped even trying to read, but the mailing of each issue of TSR was sure to bring a letter from him gloating over my fear to publish the truth that he had discovered and that the world at large seemed afraid of. He would stuff the envelopes with copies of challenges that he had sent to popular televangelists and talk-show hosts daring them to put him on the air. I guess the guy actually thought that he had confounded me with arguments that I couldn't refute, and in a sense I suppose he was right. How does one refute sheer stupidity?
Now comes Mr. Small with startling insights that he dares me to publish. The best I can tell, he has determined that Jesus was the reincarnation of King David and that a third incarnation of David is supposed to occur. He bases his peculiar belief on Matthew 16:21 where Jesus said that he would be killed and raised on the third day. Small argues that the Greek word aion, which could mean day in the sense of a 24-hour period, most often meant age in the sense of an eon or long period of time. Hence, Mr. Small has concluded that David was destined to be reincarnated a third time at an age distant from the second incarnation and that this time has at last arrived, so David (Jesus) is here again. Guess who this third incarnation is? That's right. None other than Willard Small himself, and he has even sent computer-scanned pictures of himself to The Freethought Exchange to prove his resemblance to Jesus. Has no one ever told this fellow that we have no pictures or portraits of David or Jesus, and so there is no way to know if the resemblance is real? (And this guy wonders why I didn't publish his article?)
I also have some very bad news for him. Someone in the very county I live in has beaten him to the draw. King David lives here, and as a matter of fact, he was once married to my daughter-in-law's grandmother. This "David" even proclaimed his "kingship" on his checks, which listed his name as King David with no other identifying moniker. As indicated above, my daughter-in-law's grandmother is no longer married to him. I have never bothered to ask why. At any rate, what's a guy like me supposed to do? Here is someone right under my nose proclaiming himself to be King David, and then comes an announcement from Idaho that the real incarnation of King David lives there. What to believe? It's a real dilemma.
An even bigger problem for Mr. Small (King David? Jesus?) is the fact that the Greek word aion was not used in Matthew 16:21 when Jesus said that he would be raised up on the third day. The actual word was hemera, which meant "the time space between dawn and dark" (see Strong # 2250). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if Mr. Small will check in a concordance, I think he will find that this is the case. Perhaps he would like to tell us what this (if anything) does to his belief that he is the reincarnated Messiah.
When Mr. Small sent the letter published above, I had to pay the post office three cents in postage due, because he had put only a 29-cent stamp on the letter. I don't really mind the three cents I had to pay, but I just couldn't help thinking that a reincarnated Messiah should know what it costs to mail a first-class letter. Also I have to wonder about some of the spelling and grammatical mistakes in the article he sent to TSR and The Freethought Exchange. Wouldn't an omniscient, omnipotent deity know better than to make such mistakes? Maybe not, because he couldn't keep mistakes out of his "inspired word" either.
I have now joined "the fray," and this is my way of informing Mr. Small that I will devote no more space to his Messianic-reincarnation claims. The purpose of The Skeptical Review is to publish competently written articles either for or against the inerrancy doctrine, not to give a forum to every nutty religious idea that comes along.
I received a free subscription to The Skeptical Review in 1995, and I'm so impressed. Professor Till's logical arguments are strong to ignore. Please add my name to your list of subscribers. Also, please send me the following materials. (Order deleted.)
I was formerly a strong fundamentalist Christian. I still consider myself a Christian, but with your magazine's help, I'm studying whether the Bible truly is inerrant. My biggest question is whether it is logically sound to believe that God let only unimportant errors creep into the Bible, the kind of errors that won't affect any of the foundations of Christianity (salvation, baptism, heaven, hell, afterlife, loving one another, etc.).
Keep up the good work you're doing.
(Timothy J. Jones, 41 Robie Street, Bath, NY 14810.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The doctrine of verbal inspiration states that God was responsible for the very words that the biblical writers used, so its logical consequence would be absolute inerrancy in everything contained in the Bible. There can't be even insignificant errors, because an omniscient, omnipotent deity would be incapable of error of any kind. Most Christian fundamentalists will avow that they believe in this doctrine. Nevertheless, I am happy to see that Mr. Jones is reexamining his beliefs. If only more Christians would do the same....
Thank you for the samples of your publication. I liked them very much and would like to be a subscriber.
I wonder if some inerrantist in one of your future debates could clear up something for me that I asked when I was beginning to be an errantist. This was when I was 10 years old; I am now 68.
When Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane, he went away from his companions, who promptly fell asleep, and while away from them, he prayed to his father to take the cup away from him. What I want to know is, who was there to hear this prayer, an owl? A squirrel? How does anyone know what he prayed? Not even his "Father" was listening.
(Sonia Coble, 3737 SW 117th, Apt. 13, Beaverton, OR 97005.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I've never heard an inerrantist address this particular issue, but I suspect that inerrantists would say that the gospel writers were divinely inspired, and so God told them what to write. If this is their "explanation" of the problem, I would respond by telling them that they can't have it both ways. When significant (even inconsistent) variations in parallel accounts of the same event (which occur many times in the synoptic gospels) are presented as reasons to believe that the writing of the Bible was not directed by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, inerrantists will argue that even though God inspired the writers, he left them free to express their individual personalities in the way that they wrote. So which way was it? Did God decide on the very words that the writers used (as inerrantists will argue when advancing an argument that depends on the meaning of a particular word), and so that is how the gospel writers knew what Jesus said in a prayer that was spoken when he was alone, or did God leave the writers free to express their individual personalities in what they wrote? If the latter, then how could they have known anything that they didn't personally witness or hear? I think Ms. Coble's letter raises a legitimate issue.
In two recent issues of The Skeptical Review, we discussed Israel's 430-year sojourn in Egypt. I think that we have adequately described both sides of the issue, but you and I disagree on key points. It seems obvious that neither of us is going to move the other from his position. From my perspective, you are being unreasonable and wrong in requiring that the Aaronic genealogy in Exodus 6 describe a father to son to grandson to great-grandson descent. You reject my arguments against your position, in my opinion, more because you disagree with them than because they are illogical. Each of us believes that we have made a case to prove our position. You believe that this case offers an obvious example of Biblical discrepancy. I see these scriptures providing us with a timetable for historical events and I see no discrepancy. If there were an obvious example of Biblical inerrancy, it is not this one. The only additional action we might take now would be to find an impartial observer to review the arguments and determine which are valid and which need further support.
At the very least, we have shown how two different people can interpret the scriptures in two entirely different ways. Others can read the arguments we presented and decide for themselves what they will believe. I think we have shown that genealogies do not have to be dry and boring. I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you put into this effort, both in researching the issues and writing your articles.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Springs, MD 20902, e-mail rhutchin@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I have often said that it is difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to be completely objective, so I'm sure that I am no exception to this human weakness. However, I would like to remind Mr. Hutchinson, as I have said to him before on the internet, that I was once a stubborn Bible fundamentalist like him. The fact that I changed dramatically in my thinking is proof that I am not a person who is entirely unobjective. Can Mr. Hutchinson point to anything in his personal life that would indicate a comparable willingness to consider ideologies that are in conflict with his own?
As for finding a disinterested party to decide the issue, I'm
sure that
that would not work. Both of us would probably be unwilling to accept a
decision that disagrees with our respective positions. I'm afraid that
we will have to leave the decision up to the individual readers, and I
am perfectly willing to do that. In fact, what else can we do?
