The Mysteries of the Kingdom

I had a student who raised a question when studying the Gospel of Judas—whether or not Judas had any relation to Secret Mark.  The reason is that they both turn a distinctive phrase:  “mystery/mysteries of the kingdom.” 

I appreciated the thought, and I had no answer at the moment, except that most scholars shy away from using Secret Mark in their reconstructions these days, given all of the speculation about it possibly being a modern forgery perpetrated by its discoverer, Morton Smith. 

I, nonetheless, had an itch in the back of my head to look back into the synoptic Gospels—if for no other reason than Secret Mark’s vocabulary and phrasing is rarely, if ever, distinctive (indeed, one of the arguments for it being forged is that it overuses typical vocabulary of Mark). 

So, I turned to the synoptics, and, interestingly, they rarely use the phrase.  “Mystery” and “Mysteries” may show up, and “kingdom” is all over the place, but the entire phrase “mysteries of the kingdom” is rarer; nonetheless, it appears in a conspicuous place:  the meditation on the nature of parables after the parable of the sower.

Mark 4:11:  “When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret/mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables.’” (4:10-11)

Matt 13:11:  “Then the disciples came and asked him, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’  He answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets/mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.’” (13:10-11)

Luke 8:10:  “Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant.  He said, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets/mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables.”

Secret Mark:  “And when it was evening the young man came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body.  He stayed with him that night, for Jesus was teaching him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.” (Secret Mark; Trans. Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 88)

Judas:  Jesus says to Judas:  “Separate from them.  I shall tell you the mysteries of the Kingdom.” (35.24-25; Trans. April DeConick) 

If I am missing other places, please forward them to me.  I have not double-checked, for example, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., for this phrasing. 

A couple things of note:  Mark and Secret Mark prefer the singular “mystery” (also translated as “secret”).  Matthew, Luke, and Judas all prefer the plural.  Matthew has the characteristic shift to “kingdom of heaven.”

The phrasing and framing of the rest of the passage has been most significantly reworked in Matthew, while Luke stays relatively close to mark. 

In all of the texts, it seems, this rare, conspicuous phrase works to define insiders from outsiders, who understands the mysteries and who doesn’t.  I don’t think this is a revelation to anyone, but it might be instructional to trace this delineation throughout different works to see what it means, or how this line may shift or even get lost.

The irony of Mark’s version is that just as Jesus defines the difference between insider and outsider—insiders are given the mystery/mysteries of the kingdom; outsiders get parables—is that immediately the difference is effaced.  With the key of understanding the mystery, they still do not understand the parable of the sower and Jesus has to explain it to them:

“And he said to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable?  Then how will you understand all the parables?” (Mark 4:13)

The point is that they don’t understand all the parables, prompting Jesus’ explanation to them.  They are no better than the outsiders, until, for whatever reasons, the line that Jesus “explained everything in private to his disciples” (4:34), finally alleviates some of this effacement of the division of insider and outsider caused by the disciples’ failure of comprehension.

This is immediately alleviated in Matthew, however.  In the parallel to Mark 4:13, Matthew makes quite a shift:

“But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.  Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.” (Matt. 13:16-17)

Gone is the whiff of the disciples’ lack of understanding; Matthew turns it into its complete opposite:  they actually DO get it.  He then explains the parable not because of their lack of understanding, but their greater ability to apprehend.

Luke, also perhaps uncomfortable with Mark, drops the verse altogether instead of turning it into a positive affirmation as in Matthew, moving directly into the explanation of the parable. 

If in the synoptics, the “mystery/mysteries of the kingdom” delineates insiders from outsiders in understanding, Secret Mark is not far off from this meaning (whether you think it is an ancient texts—or how ancient—or a modern forgery).  There it still delineates insiders from outsiders in what appears to be an initiation, a very private audience with Jesus.  Is it an explanation of parables?  Perhaps it is impossible to tell.  Is it related to the fact that the figure has been resurrected, encoding, foreshadowing Jesus’ own resurrection (much like Lazarus does in John)?  Is it sexual?  We may not know the nature of the mystery, but its function is quite clear.

Finally, in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus relates this phrase just after Judas himself demonstrates his greater perspicacity than the other disciples through a confessional scene.

Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and from what place you have come.  You came from the immortal Aeon of Barbelo, and the one who sent you is he whose name I am not worthy to speak.” (35.14-20; Deconick Translation)           

This, I think, is a brilliant repurposing of two traditions:  the mysteries of the kingdom tradition and the confession of Jesus’ identity tradition.  Firstly, how does the scene of revelation of mysteries work here?  I think it has a similar function as in the Gospels, but the line has moved.  Firstly, it separates Judas from the other disciples:  he gets it and they don’t.  On the one hand, the line still separates those who understand from those who don’t, but one the other hand instead of separating the inner core of disciples from everyone else, it is only one disciple who gets it and the most infamous one. 

Secondly, this is a scene clearly reminiscent of Peter’s confession in the synoptics and Thomas’s in the Gospel of Thomas.  In the synoptics, while others speculation who Jesus may be, Peter is the only one who grasps that Jesus is the “Messiah” (Mark 8:27-30; Matt 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-20).  In both Mark and Luke, this is passed over without comment; in Matthew, Peter is greatly praised, is given the “keys to the kingdom of heaven,” and we learn that Peter did not learn this from humans, but from the Father—it is a revelation.  In the Gospel of Thomas, Thomas confesses that “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like” (13; Marvin, Nag Hammadi Scriptures: International Edition).  Jesus responds, “I am not your teacher.”  The point is likely that Jesus is divine, either because he is ineffable, or more likely that it would be blasphemy to say who Jesus is as the rest of the passage indicates.  Moreover, the point that “I am not your teacher,” again illustrates the Thomas received his knowledge and understanding from a higher source, like Peter in Matthew.

Likewise, in Judas, Judas shows greater understanding than the other disciples before Jesus reveals anything to him.  He receives it from a different source.  But, likely, it is his “star.”  The lines have shifted in potentially two ways:  firstly, the “mysteries of the kingdom” tradition that used to separate the disciples from everyone else now keeps the disciples themselves as outsiders, and Judas does this through the “super-perceptive disciple’s confessional” tradition.  Secondly, if one follows April DeConick’s interpretation (The Thirteenth Apostle), perception, understanding for Judas is not salvation.  His fate is tragic, full of pathos as who fully comprehends his own terrible fate, dictated by his star.  Here the line of knowing and ignorance does not indicate fully insider and outsider, since, if one follows the DeConick interpretation, Judas is a knowing outsider.  Mark may have jump-roped the boundary of insider and outsider, Matthew and Luke solidified it more clearly, but Judas resituates it to the point that there is no surrogate for the reader in the text itself; everyone is outside.

Did God Mean that Literally?

James McGrath has a great posting of a cartoon, which he in turn picked up from someone else. I just had to repost it here, let it make its way through the blogosphere.



This gets back to my posts from last year on Luke and Biblical Redistribution of Wealth. Just hit the tag on "Socialism and the Bible" to revisit those posts.

Kingdom of Heaven Here, Among, Within

"The Kingdom Of Heaven"

A suffering soul on the way to the Kingdom of Heaven
Held up a sign that says "God hates America"
A child has been lost
A mother is shocked and is grieving
And turning away, turning away

He said there is a love that is so hideous and destructive
We must drive it from Earth to save all of our children
He must know it well
In the night it's the hell that he speaks of
It keeps him awake, keeps him awake

My God is love
My God is peace
My God loves you
My God loves me

A suffering soul on the way to the Kingdom of Heaven
Prayed in the dark, "Death to the infidel"
He strapped all his desperate pain and his faith to his body
And blew them away, blew them away

A suffering soul on the way to the Kingdom of Heaven
Shouts on the news, "They are the godless ones"
The anger inside and the fear that it hides
never leave her
When the cameras are gone, when the cameras move on

Oh, people, c'mon? tell me where is your Kingdom of Heaven?
Where is your faith?
Where do you put your fear?
Do you have a price for truth and a price for believing?
And heaven is here, heaven is here

My God is love
My God is peace
My God is you
And my God is me

(Melissa Etheridge)

Being asked asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21)

Reading Luke's Economic Absences and Alterations (Part 10)

In the previous post, having established a trajectory of economic redistribution in Luke-Acts (John the Baptist-->Jesus-->early Jerusalem community), some of Luke's alterations and absences make more sense. Although reading absences is often dangerous, having Luke's source (Mark) and comparing alternative versions of the same saying (Matthew) puts us on a bit safer methodological grounds. Although many out there like to read absences anyway.

One of the most famous alterations of shifts is in Luke's version of the Beatitudes. So, while Matthew has Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3) Luke has Jesus say, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). Matthew follows the contemporary Jewish circumlocution in order to avoid saying "God" and instead says "heaven." But the more important shift, for the present purposes, is that Matthew writes "poor in spirit" and keeps the discourse in the third person. Luke's Jesus jumps out at you, speaking to YOU, in the second person plural. And this Jesus keeps things on a more material level, instead of escaping into a spiritual discourse, of poor in spirit (although this may have some emotional or psychological undertones). Instead, in Luke, it is just the poor, you poor, who will enter the Kingdom of God (like Lazarus in 16:19-31).

Something Luke has that Matthew does not discuss is the series of "woe's." So, while the poor (and not just poor in spirit, but the materially poor) shall enter the kingdom of God, "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation" (Luke 6:24). As a whole, the rich do not come off very well throughout Luke.

Another absence that I never noticed until someone objected to part of my analysis of "render unto Caesar," is that unlike the rest of the gospels, no one in Jesus' group actually carries money. That's right, there is NO MENTION in Luke that Judas keeps the money. I looked and looked and looked and could not find it. But it makes sense, for how could Jesus tell everyone else to give ALL their money to the poor and hold back some? Yet, he is not personally holding back some in the OTHER gospels, but the group has money. So, again, there is a communitarian ethic in the other gospels that reemerges in Acts, but in Luke, Jesus has no money. The usual passage that mentions Judas as the moneykeeper may have been removed for another purpose however.

First let's take a look at one of Luke's purported sources: Mark 14:3-8:

And while he as at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her. But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing for me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenver you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me."

In Matthew the disciples as a whole are indignant (Matt. 26:6-13); in John, Judas is the only one (12:1-8). Also in John, the scene occurs at Mary and Lazarus' house. But in Luke a huge shift occurs:

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and took his place at table. And behold a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears,a nd wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he woudl have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." (Luke 7:36-39)

So the whole thing about you will always have the poor with you but not have me with you does not fly in Luke. Luke omits it ocmpletely. It is there that Judas is shown as having money (in John). For Luke, such a saying seems to fly completely in the face of everything else he is trying to portray as Jesus' economic message of giving all to the poor without holding back. Instead, in Luke, this situation becomes a commentary on Jesus reaching out to outcasts in society and those outcasts reaching to him in return. He goes for the lepers, the poor, the tax collectors, women, prostitutes, and "sinners" and general. These are the ones for whom he has come. So, in short, Luke has dropped an episode that potentially threatens his portrait of Jesus. Is this part of his more "orderly account"?

One last thing for we are approaching Christmas. The birth story. It is clear that Matthew and Luke present very two different birth stories that are harmonized for the Christmas holidays. The biggest difference, with regard to the current discussion, is who visits Jesus? In Matthew, wise men or magi from the East follow a star and give Jesus great, expensive gifts of gold, frankinsense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:1-12). This does not seem like it would work in Luke, unless Mary and Joseph immediately sold the gifts and gave the proceeds to the poor! Instead, we have a bit of a more lowly visitation in Luke of shepherds tending their flocks nearby (Luke 2:8-20). These are the ones who see the child in a manger who later declares that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

I think this shall end my series, now in ten parts, on the economic redistribution program in Luke-Acts. If there is anything I missed in these ten sessions that you think is pertinent to discuss, please, by all means, drop a note!

A True Communitarian Attempt: Acts 2:44-46 (Part 9)

When reading Luke-Acts as a whole, one begins to see a certain trajectory. We begin with John the Baptist saying:

He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise." Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, "Teacher what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Collect no more than is appointed you." (Luke 3:11-13)

You can see some of these same issues unfold with Jesus. The first part can be found in Jesus' commands to his disciples when he sends them out:

Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. (Luke 9:3)

In addition to keeping only one garment, the tax collector issue also shows up throughout. Jesus mingles with tax ocllectors, but more poignantly, the passage concerning Zacchaeus, the tax collector who does not cheat anyone and does not make them pay more than appointed, stands out as a good example (19:1-10). For the almost impossibility of this, see this post.

But Jesus also radicalizes John's message of giving extra cloaks and not cheating people. He goes so far as to say that one cannot enter the Kingdom of God and/or follow him without selling everything and giving it to the poor! This is best illustrated, perhaps, by the rich young ruler who is perfect in every other way, but will not sell everything and give it to the poor, and, therefore, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God (18:18-25). Or think of the story of Lazarus and the rich man (16:19-31). Yet the disciples too must sell everything and give it to the poor (12:32-34).

Acts takes this logic and applies it inwardly. Not just to the poor, but to the community. So, in Acts 3:44-46:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common;a nd they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

So, from selling all one's possesions and giving the proceeds to the poor, this passage turns this action into a distinctly communitarian effort: selling one's possessions and giving the proceeds to the community. Then, the community redistributes as any have need. This appears to be some form of incipient communism (I'll stick with lowercase "c"). Almost like a Kibbutz mentality, yet one in the city, since they stay in Jerusalem and meet in the temple, the most sacred place. If one does not give to the community and one belongs to the group, if one witholds, then the consequence is death (5:1-11).

Ultimately, we see two mutations in the model, two distinct developments from John the Baptist to Jesus, and then again from Jesus to the Jerusalem community. This is probably not an easy Jesus to follow, not an easy message. But, it seems to me, most Christians sanitize or just plain ignore these parts of the Bible, reinterpreting them to a nicer, friendlier, Buddy Jesus.

Giving out of Poverty: Lukan Economics (Part 8)

It has been a long time since I have posted on Lukan economics; you know, the whole redistribution of wealth in which one must sell everything one owns and give the proceeds to the poor in order to enter the Kingdom of God and/or to follow Jesus.

One difficulty (although not the only one) that was raised when speaking of this to others at Columbia, whether other instructors, my students, or in general, is that it gives a certain authority to the rich nonetheless. In other words, only the rich have the opportunity to sell all they own and give the proceeds to the poor. This observation may be counteracted with the discussion of Lazarus and the rich man, in which Lazarus who has nothing, at death goes to Abraham's bosom, while the rich man suffers torment. Another rebuttal might be the following passage in Luke 21:1-4:

He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

So, the poor woman, who has only two coins, nonetheless, can follow Jesus' commands to give all one owns away, while the rich, who give out of their riches, do not put in as much as she does. You either give everything or not give everything, no matter how much that everything is. This levels the playing field a bit. Yet, there is a difference with all of the other economic issues in Luke. Everywhere else, one gives money to the poor. Here, the poor woman does not give her coppers to the poor, but to the temple treasury, and, presumably, by extension to God. Although, really, to the priests.

Interestingly enough, this passage directly precedes the prediction of the destruction of the temple: "there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (21:6). I personally do not know what to make of this juxtaposition of praising the poor woman for giving all she owns to the temple and subsequently predicting the temple's demise, shifting into rather apocalyptic language until chapter 22. So, perhaps while one economic objection is settled, a new issue arises.

"Render unto Caesar": Socialist Impulses in Luke-Acts (Part 7)

It has been a while since I have posted in this ongoing series on the biblical socialism of Jesus and the Jerusalem Church as presented by or produced by Luke-Acts. Yet now I want to look at a slight digression. While Zacchaeus seemed a departure, but ended up being more of a compromise to illustrate a larger point as well as a clear breakdown in logical consequences of Zacchaeus's actions--that he could not become rich by the actions he took--today I would like to look at a another passage about taxes that may present a challenge: the "render unto Caesar" passage of Luke 20:21-26.

So they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you are right in what you say and teach, and you show deference to no one, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? But he perceived their craftiness and said to them, "Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?" They said, "The emperor's." HE said to them, "Then give to the emperor the thigns that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were not able in the presence of the peopel to trap him by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent. (NRSV)

This is one of a series of "entrapment" questions. The next one is by Sadducees trying to find a logical problem in the resurrection based upon levirate marriage. But this current passage on the denarius is often discussed in terms of whether Christians should pay taxes or not, and they read it as a ringing endorsement. I am not so sure. The most interesting part of this passage to me is that Jesus had to ask for a denarius. Did he not have one himself? In the progression of the story of Luke-Acts, probably not! Jesus, we have seen time and again, has insisted that to become his follower, you must sell all that you own and give the proceeds to the poor. In that instance, they have nothing to "render unto Caesar." In fact, only his opponents have the coin with the figure of the emperor on it. This, in fact, is double-trouble. 1) as noted, as a follower of Jesus, you wouldn't have any money, you cannot follow Jesus and keep your property, you cannot serve both God and Mammon, but 2) it has an IMAGE on it. Images of human (and animate) figures are prohibited in this period as an "engraved image." Jews at different times and places have interpreted this strictly and loosely. In a few hundred years from Jesus' time, synagogues would pop up with clear figural representations of biblical figures and even a Helios (sun-god) image in zodiacal mosaics! But in Jesus' time, it seems this was more strictly kept. Even Herod's palaces keep to geometric and floral designs and does not have any engraved images of animate figures. To be carrying around engraved images (on coins) may have been a problem. Even so, Jesus doesn't make a big deal over this point so much in Luke-Acts (perhaps because Luke's largely Greek audience wouldn't care), but the emphasis is placed upon not having a coin to pay to the emperor.

But this does return us to the serving God versus Mammon. This Mammon, this money, has a face, the face of an emperor. In the eastern Mediterranean, more so than the western portion, emperor worship was prevalent. It was not "enforced" as it was in later centuries, but present nonetheless. In the "emperor cult" would one offer worship, perhaps light some incense, or whatever, to an image of the emperor and a female goddess, Roma, the representation of Rome.

Jesus, however, does not have this coin. Or ANY coin for that matter. Jesus and his followers will not be paying taxes to the emperor, because they do not have anything with his image. This passage, it seems, is meant to complicate, or confuse the question posed. He shifts the grounds of debate, throws the issue right back at his questioners. The result is amazement. In short, much like Socratic method, he has reduced his interlocutor to aporia. They are without recourse. Indeed, for shame! They actually have a coin to give as taxes! Instead, Jesus has recused himself from the entire economic apparatus of the imperium. Just imagine if everyone did that? Perhaps the kingdom of God would break through.

Marxist Criticism of the Bible

I have really enjoyed reading the comments to my series about the Socialism of the Bible, particularly focusing on Luke-Acts. In fact, I usually just do not receive this much attention...perhaps that's why I have continued to post on it. Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity. Anyway, I am hoping all of this posting will lay the preliminary study to something more systematic in the future.

I do not really think, at least in these posts, that I am saying anything new or original. Perhaps something lost or intermittently forgotten. In fact, it is interesting to note among the more positive responses to my postings, the backgrounds of people who have posted have ranged quite a bit: youth pastor in what seems to be a more conservative or at least moderate church (correct me if I'm wrong), a Christian who is trying to create the communist vision of Jesus on earth, and, although not responding here, I have been pointed to other scholars saying similar things in these passages and other passages of the Bible.

This gets me to the title of this post. I do not really claim to be doing a Marxist reading of Luke-Acts. Why not? I have only hinted at issues of modes of production, ideological relations (Althusser), or anything like hegemony (Gramsci). I just have not read enough Marxist critical theory, at least not yet (or I do not feel I have). I do think there is room to think about these issues in terms of Jesus' Kingdom of God vis-a-vis a certain utopian vision/critique found in Marxist studies. That Jesus' call to radical wealth redistribution, although it is hardly a call for "workers of the world unite," does undermine the current reigning ideology with an alternate economic vision that has religious and political implications (and literary since Luke-Acts is itself an ideological product promoting a communalist ethic). And perhaps reading more carefully in these forms of critique is what is necessary before doing something more with these preliminary observations. Indeed, it is one thing to say Jesus was socialist (or sort of), and quite another thing to do a thorough Marxist critique of Luke-Acts of Jesus' economic vision in terms of issues of ideological relations. I think, though, there is a lot of room in spatial theory in conjunction with utopianism to discuss these issues as well. That would fold quite well in my current interests in "space-time" of holiness and heavenliness (itself a type of utopianism).

And so, while I am working through Luke-Acts (I am currently predicting a total of 10 posts on it, to keep the posts at a short, readable length), I am reading with great intellectual pleasure Roland Boer's book, Marxist Criticism of the Bible. Boer blogs at Stalin's Moustache. His book focuses on reading passages of the Hebrew Bible in conjunction with a particular Marxist theorist. It has been quite illuminating and enjoyable. I have read the first two chapters, at least, with great interest. And I am highly looking forward to the chapter on Henri Lefebvre and the production of space in 1 Samuel (since space, or space-time, production is a lot of what I do). I do not currently plan to review the book here, but I do highly recommend it. It, in fact, is a good primer of different intellectual currents in Marxist studies and the types of critique they open up or allow. It would be nice to have a book like this for New Testament / Early Christian Studies.

Biblical Socialism Continued! Luke-Acts (part 6): Zacchaeus

So...now were are up to the sixth installment of biblical socialism, or, to be more accurate, the question of biblical socialism in Luke-Acts.

Until now, we have seen a rather radical redistribution of wealth by Jesus (and in Acts) in which to follow Jesus and ultimately enter into the kingdom of God (or to create the kingdom of God), one must sell everything and give all of the proceeds to the poor. In Acts, this shifts to giving all the proceeds to the community, a clearer version of communalism rather than merely radical redistribution of Jesus (which presumably included any poor person, whether an insider or outsider).

But now we come to a different story, the story of the tax collector Zacchaeus in Luke 19:2-10:

And there was a man named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector, and rich. And he sought to see who Jesus was, but could not, on account of the crowd, because he was small of stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for I must stay at your house today." So he made haste and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they saw it they all murmured, "He has gone in to be a guest of a man who is a sinner." And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half o fmy goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."

This account appears to depart greatly from Jesus' previous pronouncements of selling ALL you own and giving it to the poor. Why does he not ask the same of Zacchaeus, who, like the rich young ruler (from the preceding chapter!) or the rich man who died and went to Hades, should have sold everything and given everything to the poor? Zacchaeus is, as the passage points out right at the beginning, very rich.

Much hinges upon Zacchaeus' position as a tax collector. It is this position that makes him a "sinner." Tax systems in antiquity worked differently than today. Political leaders would "farm" out the tax collection to "tax farmers." These farmers would compete for the ability to collect taxes by saying they could collect so much. The winner got to collect the taxes. Any additional amounts the collector got over and above the amount promised, he could keep. If he came up short, he would have to pay out of his own pocket. Thus, you can see how gouging, or in terms of the passage defrauding, could occur. Even though the tax collector was of the same background (in terms of ethnicity, religion, etc.) of the people he would extort, this position and the tendency to gouge, built into the system itself, would lead people to think he was not on their side, was a lackey for the government (in Jesus' time, the Romans), and, thus, a sinner.

Jesus says he has come to reach the sinners rather than those who do not need extra assistance. His is a message for outsiders. Yet, the shock of this passage is that, although Zacchaeus is rich, he is already, on his own, starting the way down Jesus' economic distribution program. The startling reversal of expectations is Zacchaeus' fair dealing! It would be more shocking than an honest politician! Zacchaeus, without Jesus asking him to do so, already gives HALF of everthing to the poor. And instead of extortion, if he has dealt with anyone unfairly, he gives them four times the amount he over-taxed. This is, in fact, quite startling. If anyone was the greedy money-hungry capitalist in antiquity, it would be these tax collectors. That such a person gives away half his money and is so honest is quite shocking for an ancient audience, a shock perhaps lost on modern audiences. Another question arises, though. How capitalist is Zacchaeus? How, in fact, does he make money? If he collects taxes, and his revenue is based upon collecting more than promised, and he never collects more than expected, he cannot make any money! His giving half of everything to the poor and paying back four-fold any defrauding holds the system in tension: it reinforces the system by participating in its taxation policies, but undermines its logic of tax farming to gain a profit at the same time.

Be that as it may, by only giving HALF of everything to the poor and doing the reverse of extortion (meaning not only will he not make money, but he may lose some by giving back four times the amount of extortion or defrauding), he still is not as radical as Jesus is earlier. That Jesus announces that salvation has come to Zacchaeus' house for this on the one hand seems a slight departure, or at least variation, on his earlier message of selling everything and giving it to the poor. Indeed, the mention of "son of Abraham" immediately evokes the earlier story of the rich man who went to Hades while the poor Lazarus went to the bosom of Abraham. Has Zacchaeus taken (only?) the first steps toward Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God? Or does Jesus compromise his earlier vision for some reason? On the other hand, what terminology is missing here? Precisely the terminology of the kingdom of God, which picks up again in the subsequent parable. Yet he receives, or his house receives, salvation nonetheless.

Is this a departure of the earlier message of giving up everything, or is giving half of everything just another variation of the theme of the radical economic redistribution program of the Lukan Jesus? In fact, how might Zacchaeus square up to Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5, who sold their land and held back part of the proceeds from the community, and died for it? Inconsistency in the Lukan narrative? Or is something else at work here...a commonality of redistribution in general and disrupting the logic of the economic system itself?

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (part 5)

When I first made some notes regarding Jesus' economic redistribution program, I never thought I would continue to post on it. And, after four posts, I STILL have not discussed the story of the rich young ruler, which is perhaps the place where most people would start. It shows just how much material there is, just how radical this redistribution policy is...and, in fact, to a large degree how consistent:

And a ruler said to him, "Good Teacher, waht shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said, "All these I have observed from youth." And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. Jesus looking at him said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through teh eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:18-25)

Once again, Jesus, as he consistently says, tells the rich young ruler to sell everything he owns and give the proceeds to the poor. This is the prerequisite for him to have treasure in heaven--the very thing we spoke about in an earlier post regarding Luke 16:1-13 (I think it was part 3) in which one extricates oneself from the monetary system of borrowing and lending altogether in order to have treasure (and friends) in heaven. This also highly resembles the story of the rich man and Lazarus (part 4). The reason the rich man ended up in Hades was that he was rich in this life. What his brothers needed to repent of was their wealth...not merely failing to give scraps from their table--that was my interpretation at least. That interpretation, in fact, falls into place quite well with these verses. The rich man may be a good guy . He may follow all the commandments well. He may do everything else well. BUT he has no place in the kingdom of God unless he sells everything he owns and redistributes it to the poor. Perhaps this is harder for him to do than for Jesus' immediate disciples, who were commanded to do the same, because they were poorer. But Jesus demands this redistribution of everyone for the kingdom of God. Perhaps that is the kingdom of heaven: when everyone sells everything they own (doing away with private property) and redistributes it to the poor so that none are without need. It is a hard sell...that's why the kingdom of God as a whole has never broken out into the world and remains only within individuals.

Oh, and once again, perhaps an ironic theological comment that undermines later Christian message. I am curious about how post-Nicene Christians dealt with Jesus saying he was not Good and that only God is Good, which, of course, suggests Jesus is not God from Jesus' own perspective! In Christological parlance, a very low Christology. This line also, incidently, reminds me of the purported origins of the term "philosopher" with Pythagoras. The story goes that someone referred to Pythagoras as "sophos" (or "wise") and he said that none is "wise" except God alone, but he was merely a "philosophos" (a lover of wisdom / lover of the wise).

Quote of the Day: Luke 17:20-21

Again, I'm all about the Gospel of Luke lately. And not for the reason I am using it on the blog to discuss Jesus' or Luke's economic radicalism. My reasons lie elsewhere. But, it should be little surprise that my quote of the day also derives from Luke:

Being asked asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

That last bit can also be understood "in the midst of you," but I tend toward "within you." It fits, I think, the undermining of expectations. First Jesus undermines the expectation of when. It is not a when. It is not imminent. It is not in the future (or the past). Although we might say it is in the present. But neither is it a where. It is not here nor is it there. That is why I don't like "midst." I like it inside. You carry it with you all the time. Is it possibly a who? Or a collection of who's? If the kingdom of God is IN you, is it a part of you? Is it something that only you can activate, create, call into being? If it is in your midst, it is because it is inside you and you have allowed it to break forth. Or it gains strength with a collection of who's who have gathered together, each with the kingdom inside.

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (Part 4)

This is still the same chapter as "part 3," but that post was getting long, so I thought I would be nice and break things up a bit. The second half of Luke 16, in fact, deals with economic issues. One might begin to think that Jesus (or Luke) is obsessed with relations between rich and poor, wealth, and, well, giving it all away.

So, here is a famous story by Jesus about the rich man and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom:

"There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. At at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may corss from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Ok...I know that was long. And this is a famous story. By the way, this is not the same Lazarus that Jesus rose from the dead...although the coincidence of resurrection language and the name Lazarus is suspect! But here the point is that Lazarus will NOT be raised from the dead, because it would be pointless.

But let's see what is going on in the dynamics of this story. The first thing I noted was that the rich man wore purple. Purple was a luxury item, and in this period is highly associated with the imperial regime--the emperor wore the most purple. Senators next, and so on. This detail, at least, narratively evokes that imperial apparatus. This man lived well and ate sumptuously in stark contrast to Lazarus, the beggar outside, who wishes for just a scrap, but, it seems, does not receive it. Both die, and we have the literary technique of reversal: the first becomes last and the last first. The rich man is taken to Hades in torment, Lazarus receives comfort. In a nice inverse parallel, just like Lazarus wanting a scrap from the rich man's table and evidently not receiving it, the rich man wishes for just a bit of water from Lazarus, but cannot receive it. Just as he refused to give in this life, he will not receive in the next. In the end, the rich man wishes to send warning to his five brothers through Lazarus. But Abraham notes that they already have warning by Moses and the prophets. If they cannot learn by Moses and the prophets, what good would a guy rising from the dead do? Let me pass over briefly the obvious theological irony here with regard to Jesus' own resurrection. The rich man wants to send Lazarus so that his brothers will repent. Repent of what? Why, exactly, is the rich man in Hades? My first inclination is to say that he is there because he failed to let Lazarus eat from his table. He should have given his scraps to the poor, right? But, if the afterlife is an inversion of this life, and getting what you gave, the inversion would be that he would be in Hades and get some relief from time to time. How does Abraham explain why they are in their respective positions? He says: "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received good thigns, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." You get the opposite in the afterlife that you get in this life. So, what should his brothers repent of? If they want to ascend to Abraham's bosom and not be in Hades, they need to repent of their wealth. This, in fact, is very consistent with Jesus' earlier pronouncements of one not being able to serve God and mammon. It also is consistent with his command to sell everything you own and to give the proceeds to the poor. It is, I think, the understanding that keeps true to the story itself: comfort in the next life is the luxury for those who have none in this life. Luke's Jesus, indeed, is a radical one. Whether Jesus' economic vision is one you think is viable is a different matter.

Now, apart from these economic issues, what about the theological, or christological point: "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neitehr will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead." Does this completely undermine Jesus' own resurrection as in any way meaningful? Lazarus does not come back to life because the Law and the Prophets should be enough. Does this, therefore, pass the criterion of dissimilarity--meaning, we can be confident Jesus said it because it is not in the interest of the early Christian movement? It might explain why, in fact, some early Christians were having trouble getting people to believe their message. On the other hand, it suggests that there is no need of a new message--it is all there in the Law and the Prophets. All you need is Moses...or, the Lukan Jesus' interpretation of Moses.

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (Part 3)

Today's readings of Luke are a bit less clear. It may contravene the earlier statements by Jesus to sell everything and give to the poor, or, perhaps, the ambiguity in the passage itself may be illuminated or clarified by these earlier principles.

First we begin with the story of the bad steward in Luke 16:1-13.

"There was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were brought to him that htis man was wasting his goods. And he called him and said to him, 'What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.' And the steward said to himself, 'What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that people may receive me into their houses when I am put out of the stewardship.' So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, 'How mcuh do you owe my master?' He said, 'A hundred measures of oil.' And he said to him, 'Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.' Then he said to another, 'And how much do you owe?' He said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.' He said to him, "Take yoiur bill, and write eighty.' The master commended the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; fo rhte sons of theis world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations." (Luke 16:1-9)

First, I fully admit bafflement with this story. The steward goes from bad to dishonest. In short, he is doing the opposite of interest by forgiving part of the loan in order to have a place to go, to have some popularity among these debtors, after he is fired. The master, evidently realizing what the dishonest steward has done, commends him for it. That is odd. He recognized the shrewdness of his actions and commends him for the shrewdness (even though the master is getting the short end of the stick). But, all of this involves the actions of "the sons of this world" as opposed to the non-shrewdness of the "sons of light." So, sons of this world=shrewd; sons of light=not shrewd. In some ways, perhaps all this makes sense, showing people of this world to be slick money-dealing folk only out for their own self-interest. BUT the last sentence interrupts such an interpretation: "make friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations." What does that mean?

The labeling of "mammon" consistently as "unrighteous" may be a clue. Money is unrighteous. It is inextricably related to unrighteous. Unrighteous is one of its qualities. But Jesus is telling this story to his disciples, but, at the same time, is being overheard by the Pharisees. How might this dual-audience affect our interpretation? I think a key is the assumption that the money, the mammon, will fail. It is evanescent. It will not sustain itself. So, if mammon is unrighteous and it fails, why would Jesus tell his disciples to make friends by it? Perhaps they are in parallel to the bad, but shrewd, steward, oddly enough. He made money through mammon by forgiving part of debt. Instead of repaying everything or even adding interest, now they only have to pay a portion back. This costs the rich man, who nonetheless recognizes its shrewdness, while it helps the poor. Is this socialist? Not really. Not even close. But its complete distaste of money and riches is still evident.

I have a feeling I am missing something--perhaps an element of lost sarcasm? It just is so odd, and the next section is also unclear:

"He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and desipise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:10-13)

After telling the disciples to make friends by unrighteous mammon, which, based upon the story, seems to mean to make friends by mammon by relinquishing mammon owed to you or your master, to then have this section seems contradictory. The steward was, in fact, dishonest in the way he acted shrewdly. But commended as well. Was he faithful? Or unfaithful? I would think his dishonesty would demonstrate him being unfaithful with the little, unfaithful with the unrighteous mammon. So, what does this have to do with that? Moreover, the last portion seems to undermine the entire conversation: "No servant can serve two masters." But perhaps this undermining IS the point of the story and the subsequent explanation. When stuck in the story and in the interrelationships developed by money, of owing, debt, and lending, you will be judged by how well you maintain that money. You should be honest, yes, but shrewdness is definitely what is valued. But even though you are being honest with unrighteous mammon, or perhaps dishonest and shrewd (which are evidently prized as well), you are serving unrighteous mammon. You cannot serve two masters. As a steward you cannot serve both your master and his debtors. You will always be stuck in between them and will never win. But you also cannot serve mammon and God. Indeed, as a child of light, you may not be shrewd with money, but that is because you are not a servant of mammon at all. You extricate yourself from the system of lending and borrowing, of debt and credit.

Why do I think this is the case? The result:

The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. (Luke 16:14).

Pharisees, of course, are just straw men to provide the antithesis of Luke's point. But, if you are someone who serves money, you should, evidently, be appalled by what Jesus is saying. In fact, the story and all else are meant to make this final point: it is not just a matter of being a good or bad steward with your money (or someone else's money), it is a matter of being a part of the monetary system at all. The system will fail, and if you have given your portion away, you will have friends in the eternal habitations.

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts (Part 2)

I should clarify that I think there is no single position in the Bible on economics...or anything else for that matter that I can think of off-hand. Unless ambivalence is a consistent position.

Nonetheless, I was giving a midterm today and continued reading Luke while my students wrote their essays. And, again working through Luke, we this gospel's portrayal of Jesus' economic positions. Anticipating the communal living situation in Acts that I noted in my earlier post, which was made possible by everyone selling their property and giving it to the group so that everyone's needs would be met, we find this statement from Jesus:

"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For wherever your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:32-4)

Perhaps to update this passage a bit, we might say, "where no market nosedives, where no banking systems fail." This is a passage that defers enjoyment of riches until the kingdom, or reign, of God / Heaven. But until then (or, in a different reading, to create the kingdom or allow the kingdom to break through), one sells everything and gives the money to the poor. This, in fact, comes just after the famous passage that one should not worry about your life, what you eat, your clothing--you know, your most basic needs--because God knows you need these things. This statement against being anxious for your basic needs is then sandwiched between the above-quoted passage about selling all of your possessions and giving the money to the poor and a parable against hoarding wealth:

And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' And he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepeared, whose will they be?' So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:16-21)

Indeed, the rich are not coming off very well in any of Jesus' stories. So, we move from a parable against the long-term pointlessness of hoarding, of storing up treasures here, to a passage of not worrying about anything, to a passage of selling everything you own and giving it to the poor. We might ask what exactly it means to be "rich toward God" or to have "treasure in the heavens"? One answer here is just to "trust God" with everything. But this is not the prosperity gospel message of believe it, achieve it and God will give you that car. If it is to trust in God, it is to trust that God will provide your needs when you sell all of your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor.

Systematically, Jesus, in this portrayal, has broken down the economic policy that encourages "growing your portfolio." Not only should one not hoard or build bigger barns, but one should not have possessions at all! Again, WHOA! Socialist? Perhaps, indeed, that is an anachronism, since these are stories and exhortations and not a systematic philosophical proposition. Nonetheless, we see the abolishment of private property and a very radical "redistribution" from selling everything and giving it to the poor.

There may be some pockets of Christians throughout history who have lived this way--at least in hagiography...and perhaps some monastic organizations--but it is rare and has never been the dominant position in Christian movements, despite it being so prominent in the accounts of the purported founder's message. Perhaps different forms of Christianity have been so concerned about who Jesus is for so long that they have forgotten what he said (or reportedly said).

Is the Bible Socialist? Luke-Acts as an Example

Here's a nice quote for today from a statement attributed to John the Baptist:

"He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise" (Luke 3:11; RSV).

John the Baptist must be a socialist, at least by John McCain's loose definition, since he wants to redistribute the wealth!

In fact, Luke-Acts (the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostle were written by the same author) shows a lot of instances of communal living. See, for example, Acts 4:32-5:5:

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought hte proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus JOseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it waws sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died.

Sapphira dies subsequently. I am sure that most Christians who promote free-market capitalism, as many evangelicals do, skim through these passages, overlook them, or ignore their message. With the passage from Luke, many people might see this as giving change to the guy on the street...which is a very little help, instead of seeing it as a lifestyle change and challenge that it is meant to be. The passage from Acts is more difficult to ignore. While some people will focus on the issue of obedience, which is clearly there, they ignore the social implications of the passage and merely spiritualize it. But that would be the miss the larger impact of a cohering community that holds all things in common. Here the communal lifestyle of redistributing wealth to those who need it is presented as the ideal and, uh, godly. Holding back property, maintaining one's private property and not giving it to the community, is portrayed as Satanic! Unfortunately, we tend to tame the radicalism of the Bible and the implications of many of its social positions...something important for those who claim to live a "biblical lifestyle." Ultimately, if redistribution of wealth is un-American, so is living a "biblical lifestyle," if a biblical lifestyle is remotely related to the social organizations illustrated by the earliest Christians, the redistribution of land in the year of Jubilee, etc.

Quote of the Day: Luke 9:51-6

For today, one text I'm toying with for the New Testament Mysticism Seminar:

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them. Then they went on to another village. (Luke 9:51-6; RSV)

I don't know how many times I must have just read over this passage without stopping to realize that James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Sons of "Thunder"), say that they can bring down fire from heaven..."just as Elijah did" (as the most common ancient variant on this passage says). In the synoptic tradition, this passage has NO parallel. Later variants and commentators, such as Tertullian, subtly shifted the passage to say that Jesus, rather than James and John, could bring down fire from heaven. Why, I might ask? Just an issue of memory? Or is there something troubling for a disciple to have such destructive power? But there is a proliferation of miracles performed by disciples/apostles after Jesus' resurrection and ascension to heaven--in the canonical and apocryphal acts of the apostles. So, is there a particular theological position at stake, perhaps, that when Jesus walked around, he would perform the miracles, and then, after the resurrection, that power passed on to the disciples--in Acts 2 for Luke-Acts perspective, or when Jesus breathed on his disciples at the end of John? If so, did this Lukan passage threaten this? Or does it reflect or nod toward a different position in which the disciples/apostles always had such power--or, the Sons of Zebedee, at least?