Josephus and Dating Pilate

[DCHindley]

Well,

Take it from someone who went to High School with BOTH Pilate and Josephus (my dad kept getting promoted so we moved a lot), they never dated one another. Joe was a manly man type guy, you know, all hairy and sweaty, while Pilate was a high flying dude. How do you think he got his name "Pilate"?

Actually, that makes me wonder something. What if "Pontius" is a geographical marker for Pontus, and "Pilate" is a reference to "ship captain"? If so, then PP is actually .... <drum roll> ... MARCION!

Mr Huler, get your ever running brain over here to spin out pages upon pages of quotations from obscure Church fathers.

Now that we have established that Joe was a manly man and Pilate's feet "never touched the ground" then what was Pilate's sexual orientation? It is simple. In Japanese, Angie-san" means "honourable ship captain" and this told me that Pilate's nickname was undoubtedly "Angie."

Heck, who needs Stephan when I can babble away myself just fine ... !

DCH

[steve43]

Mayhelen has always had a "thing" for Pilate.

It shows.

[MrMacSon]

The existence of Josephus's writings is a testament to Christians thinking they were worth preserving -- not how accurate and important they were. Livy's History of Rome was a very important work that the Christians didn't bother to preserve. It was too long, and it didn't support their theology. (Of course, Josephus didn't either, but they thought he did, if read a certain way.)

If I'm not mistaken, the only source we have that "many other accounts" of the war were written is Josephus himself. So it may or may not be true, since historians routinely invented "sources"/books that didn't exist to bolster credibility.

Good points.

Wow. Some folks here are really aiming to shoot down Josephus.

or, seek to understand his writings in context of the times.

If he didn't have the two references to Jesus, would you be so quick to pull the trigger on this great man?

Josephus had references to 19/20 different Jesuses; never a Jesus of Nazareth.

Are you referring to the widely agreed interpolated Antiquities 18.3.3; and to Antiquities 20.9.1, which referred to Jesus ben Damneus?
.

[neilgodfrey]

Mary, you have misunderstood Robert Gnuse, Robert Hall and Josephus himself.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "interpretation" or "interpretive". It does not mean Josephus was "making up history" or writing historical events that only he knew about because he believed had been somehow revealed to him as a prophet. It simply means that he explained what everyone knew had happened as the will of God. He is explaining why things happened the way they did as God's will. That's what "interpretative history" means and what Gnuse and Hall mean by the expression. Perhaps you are confusing "interpretation" with "inspiration" or "revelation"?

That should be clear from the paragraphs they point to by Josephus himself in Against Apion. See sections 6 to 10.

Josephus believed that "prophetic history" in the sense you are using the term applied to the history of Moses about the pre-Flood era, for example. Since no-one today has records of eyewitnesses of that time the only way that history could be written was through divine inspiration. The Greeks sometimes said the same of Homer with his knowledge of the events of the Trojan War. He asked for the inspiration (not "interpretation") of the Muses to learn and tell others what happened back then.

But what both Gnuse and Hall say and what you can read for yourself by Josephus in Against Apion in translation is that Josephus said that the history since Bible times was diligently entrusted for recording by priests and prophets. Josephus sees himself in their line when he writes his history as a result of direct experience and information from others who had experienced or recorded these things.

The days of Bible history of times long gone are over. That history is not written anymore. Instead, true history is based upon the first hand records entrusted to priests and prophets. The only other type of history is that of the charlatans whom Josephus says write on the basis of rumour and fabrication.

Josephus always and only boasted that he wrote what he himself experienced and could vouch for or what other reliable sources could vouch for from experience and eyewitness. Read those sections 6 to 10 in Against Apion.

Yes, you are quite correct that Josephus really did sometimes fabricate things. But this was because what historians professed to do was not always consistent with what they really did do. In this Josephus was no different from the "father of scientific history" Thucydides.

Josephus at no point hints that he was "inspired" to reveal historical events unknown to anyone else to have happened in the past because of his inspiration as a prophet. He says that that sort of very archaic history ended in effect with Genesis (Section 7).

In section 10 Josephus says he used "both" sources of knowledge in writing his histories: "both", he explains, were knowledge from his own experience (not "revelation") of the events and knowledge from others who knew about events. In section 10 Josephus explains he used both sources for both his historical works.

He did not use -- and he nowhere hints that he ever used -- prophetic revelation from God to inform him of events in the same way Moses, say, had been informed about pre-Flood times.

This is also what Gnuse and Hall are saying. I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the word "interpretation", perhaps confusing it with "inspiration" or "revelation".

Prophetic gifts allowed Josephus to interpret Jewish history. i.e. interpret history through a prophetic lens. What he then wrote, his prophetic interpretation, placed him within a prophetic framework. The Josephan writer, re the scholars quoted, was a prophet. Being a prophet enabled Josephus not just to write history but to write prophetic history i.e. history viewed, interpreted, through a prophetic lens.

Perhaps re-read this quote from Robert Kark Gnuse: Notice how he distinguishes between two types of prophetic history - and places the Josephan writer in the second of those categories. i.e. Josephus wrote "interpretive prophetic 'histories".

Page 23/24

Robert Hall observes that in Ap 1.37-42 Josephus seems to distinguish between two types of prophetic history. There are ‘inspired prophetic histories,” accounts of the distant past in which the memory of earlier events and interpretation must come to prophets by divine inspiration or revelation. This describes biblical literature. There are also “interpretive prophetic ‘histories,” which relate events experiences by the historian but which he interprets by the aid of divine inspiration. Josephus writes this form of historiography. For Josephus both types are authentic prophetic histories, but the best historians were the prophets who interpreted events under divine inspiration, and only the Jews could claim such historians. Greek historians, by way of contrast, wrote their personal opinions according to their own free will. The broken succession of the prophets does not imply that inspired histories could no longer be written; Jewish historians still could generate such literature. The Jewish War fulfils the mandate of Josephus’ prophetic calling at Jotapata. Hence, the canonical prophets were inspired to write literature which was itself revelation; Josephus was inspired to write literature which was not revelation, but rather the product of a revelatory experience. Josephus had inspired insight into the past enabling him to write an “interpretative history.” Jewish War was prophetic because it was based on the experience of inspiration, but it was not revelation in itself. Thus, inspiration for Josephus has not ceased, but inspired canonical literature is no longer produced, and that is why the succession of the prophets has been broke.

Regardless of how various scholars understand Josephus’ referenced to the broken prophetic succession, they all agree that Josephus attributes prophetic skill to himself and contemporaries.

<snip>

In conclusion, the self-attribution of inspiration, scripture learning, and dream interpretation all imply that Josephus views himself as a prophet.

Neil, that you don't care for the term 'prophetic historian' is neither here nor there. It's use by Gnuse demonstrates that that is how he views the Josephan writer. Josephus did not simply write history. Josephus interpreted history. It is up to the readers of Josephus to identify where he is writing history and where he is writing his own interpretations of history. In other words, its up to the reader to identify where Josephus is wearing his historian's hat and where he is wearing his prophetic historian's hat.

It's not simply a question of Josephus making stuff up. The stuff he makes up is his prophetic interpretations of Jewish history. i.e. his made up stuff relates to his interpretation of Jewish history. It has a focus. It is not pie in the sky.

Why did Josephus make up stuff regarding AgrippaI I ? Entertaining story with parallels to the OT Joseph. Is that the end of it? Or did Josephus have other prophetic interests in mind when applying the Joseph story to Agrippa I. Was Josephus' interest in Agrippa I simply of historical interest - or is he indicating a prophetic interest? Acknowledging the Josephan writer as a prophetic historian allows such questions to be raised. What were the prophetic interests of the Josephan writer and how have these prophetic interests shaped his historical work. Proposing that Josephus simply made stuff up is to undercut the underlying prophetic thrust of his work. The Josephan writer is acknowledged by a number of scholars as a prophet. If it's early christian origins that we are seeking then we surely need to take on board the whole of Josephus - warts and all.

[maryhelena]

Mary, you have misunderstood Robert Gnuse, Robert Hall and Josephus himself.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "interpretation" or "interpretive". It does not mean Josephus was "making up history" or writing historical events that only he knew about because he believed had been somehow revealed to him as a prophet. It simply means that he explained what everyone knew had happened as the will of God. He is explaining why things happened the way they did as God's will.

Neil, I doubt very much that it required Josephus to tell the Jews that what was befalling them was the will of God for their past failings towards their God. This surely is a most simplistic and naive way to read Josephus. This approach serves to castrate from Josephus any prophetic role whatsoever.

That's what "interpretative history" means and what Gnuse and Hall mean by the expression. Perhaps you are confusing "interpretation" with "inspiration" or "revelation"?

That's not "interpretative history". That's plain common sense. i.e. bad stuff happens to God's people therefore their God is punishing them for their failing to abide by his commands etc.


Neil, I don't think you read this quote:

Page 23/24

Robert Hall observes that in Ap 1.37-42 Josephus seems to distinguish between two types of prophetic history. There are ‘inspired prophetic histories,” accounts of the distant past in which the memory of earlier events and interpretation must come to prophets by divine inspiration or revelation. This describes biblical literature. There are also “interpretive prophetic ‘histories,” which relate events experiences by the historian but which he interprets by the aid of divine inspiration. Josephus writes this form of historiography. For Josephus both types are authentic prophetic histories, but the best historians were the prophets who interpreted events under divine inspiration, and only the Jews could claim such historians. Greek historians, by way of contrast, wrote their personal opinions according to their own free will. The broken succession of the prophets does not imply that inspired histories could no longer be written; Jewish historians still could generate such literature. The Jewish War fulfils the mandate of Josephus’ prophetic calling at Jotapata. Hence, the canonical prophets were inspired to write literature which was itself revelation; Josephus was inspired to write literature which was not revelation, but rather the product of a revelatory experience. Josephus had inspired insight into the past enabling him to write an “interpretative history.” Jewish War was prophetic because it was based on the experience of inspiration, but it was not revelation in itself. Thus, inspiration for Josephus has not ceased, but inspired canonical literature is no longer produced, and that is why the succession of the prophets has been broke.

Regardless of how various scholars understand Josephus’ referenced to the broken prophetic succession, they all agree that Josephus attributes prophetic skill to himself and contemporaries.

<snip>

In conclusion, the self-attribution of inspiration, scripture learning, and dream interpretation all imply that Josephus views himself as a prophet.

"inspiration", "dream interpretation" - “interpretive prophetic ‘histories,” which relate events experiences by the historian but which he interprets by the aid of divine inspiration. Josephus writes this form of historiography".

There is nothing naive or simplistic as bad stuff happened to the Jews therefore their God is punishing them, in the thrust of these terms that Gnuse is using to characterize the Josephan writer's role as a prophet.

That should be clear from the paragraphs they point to by Josephus himself in Against Apion. See sections 6 to 10.

What is clear is that the Josephan writer wrote one thing and did another. Evidenced by his own contradiction re dating Pilate.

Pursuing these avenues of research will contribute to our certainty as to when Pilate became governor of Judea. Some will care about this, other might not. What is clear, however, is that even those who don’t want ‘merely’ to ‘mine’ Josephus for ‘facts’ should realize that it was only the external pressure, of Tactius, that forced scholars to read Josephus with eyes that allowed them to see all there is to see. Those who read Josephus all by himself will never know, for example, that Germanicus died in 19 CE (a point that is quite clear in Tactius’ annalistic narrative but not at all indicated by Josephus), hence never have the occasion to wonder why Josephus juxtaposed that death with the beginning of Pilate’s tenure, something that apparently contradicts Josephus’ dating of that tenure - a point which we may pursue as we like, whether to learn more about Pilate, or, rather, more about Josephus.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century. On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History
of the First Century. Page 144.

Josephus believed that "prophetic history" in the sense you are using the term applied to the history of Moses about the pre-Flood era, for example. Since no-one today has records of eyewitnesses of that time the only way that history could be written was through divine inspiration. The Greeks sometimes said the same of Homer with his knowledge of the events of the Trojan War. He asked for the inspiration (not "interpretation") of the Muses to learn and tell others what happened back then.

But what both Gnuse and Hall say and what you can read for yourself by Josephus in Against Apion in translation is that Josephus said that the history since Bible times was diligently entrusted for recording by priests and prophets. Josephus sees himself in their line when he writes his history as a result of direct experience and information from others who had experienced or recorded these things.

The days of Bible history of times long gone are over. That history is not written anymore. Instead, true history is based upon the first hand records entrusted to priests and prophets. The only other type of history is that of the charlatans whom Josephus says write on the basis of rumour and fabrication.

Josephus always and only boasted that he wrote what he himself experienced and could vouch for or what other reliable sources could vouch for from experience and eyewitness. Read those sections 6 to 10 in Against Apion.

Yes, you are quite correct that Josephus really did sometimes fabricate things. But this was because what historians professed to do was not always consistent with what they really did do. In this Josephus was no different from the "father of scientific history" Thucydides.

Josephus at no point hints that he was "inspired" to reveal historical events unknown to anyone else to have happened in the past because of his inspiration as a prophet. He says that that sort of very archaic history ended in effect with Genesis (Section 7).

In section 10 Josephus says he used "both" sources of knowledge in writing his histories: "both", he explains, were knowledge from his own experience (not "revelation") of the events and knowledge from others who knew about events. In section 10 Josephus explains he used both sources for both his historical works.

He did not use -- and he nowhere hints that he ever used -- prophetic revelation from God to inform him of events in the same way Moses, say, had been informed about pre-Flood times.

This is also what Gnuse and Hall are saying. I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the word "interpretation", perhaps confusing it with "inspiration" or "revelation".

'interpretation':

in·ter·pre·ta·tion
[in-tur-pri-tey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer's work demands interpretation.
2.
an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation: an interpretation of a poem.
3.
a conception of another's behavior: a charitable interpretation of his tactlessness.
4.
a way of interpreting.
5.
the rendering of a dramatic part, music, etc., so as to bring out the meaning, or to indicate one's particular conception of it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation

Interpretation, Neil, is anyone's game - as I have repeatedly said over and over.....What the Carrier-Doherty supporters interpret from the Pauline writing is one thing.....what the JC historicists interpret from those same Pauline writings is something else. So, too with the writing of Josephus. If all you seek to interpret from his writing is something along the lines of 'bad things happened to the Jews therefore their God must be angry with them' - and it fell upon the one writer, Josephus to tell them so - then, Neil, so be it. I don't find that interpretation of Josephus in the least bit interesting or satisfactory. It's a dead-end.

As is this exchange. You are upholding a sanitized version of Josephus. A version that cannot do any harm to the Carrier-Doherty theory. I don't, and have never done so, upheld the Carrier-Doherty theory regarding a historicized celestial Pauline christ figure. That theory is also a dead-end. Interpreting the Pauline writings has not produced any forward movement towards the search for early christian origins. The writings of Josephan scholars such as Gnuse and Rebecca Gray, the writings of Daniel Schwartz, do provide a way forward. That you are seeking to question my understanding of what Gnuse and Gray have written about Josephus - so be it, that is your right to do so. Your objections don't detract from my aim - which is to understand the Josephan writer whatever 'hat' he happens to be wearing.

War Book 111 ch.V111 sect. 3

“...he called to mind the dreams which he had dreamed in the night-time, whereby God had signified to him beforehand both the future calamities of the Jews, and the event that concerned the Roman Emperors. Now Josephus was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretations of such dreams as have been ambiguously delivered by God. Moreover, he was not unacquainted with the prophecies contained in the sacred books, as being a priest himself, and of the posterity of priests; and just then he is in ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, ......he put up a secret prayer to God..........And I protest openly, that I do not go over to the Romans as a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee”.

Prophetic gifts allowed Josephus to interpret Jewish history. i.e. interpret history through a prophetic lens. What he then wrote, his prophetic interpretation, placed him within a prophetic framework. The Josephan writer, re the scholars quoted, was a prophet. Being a prophet enabled Josephus not just to write history but to write prophetic history i.e. history viewed, interpreted, through a prophetic lens.

Perhaps re-read this quote from Robert Kark Gnuse: Notice how he distinguishes between two types of prophetic history - and places the Josephan writer in the second of those categories. i.e. Josephus wrote "interpretive prophetic 'histories".

Page 23/24

Robert Hall observes that in Ap 1.37-42 Josephus seems to distinguish between two types of prophetic history. There are ‘inspired prophetic histories,” accounts of the distant past in which the memory of earlier events and interpretation must come to prophets by divine inspiration or revelation. This describes biblical literature. There are also “interpretive prophetic ‘histories,” which relate events experiences by the historian but which he interprets by the aid of divine inspiration. Josephus writes this form of historiography. For Josephus both types are authentic prophetic histories, but the best historians were the prophets who interpreted events under divine inspiration, and only the Jews could claim such historians. Greek historians, by way of contrast, wrote their personal opinions according to their own free will. The broken succession of the prophets does not imply that inspired histories could no longer be written; Jewish historians still could generate such literature. The Jewish War fulfils the mandate of Josephus’ prophetic calling at Jotapata. Hence, the canonical prophets were inspired to write literature which was itself revelation; Josephus was inspired to write literature which was not revelation, but rather the product of a revelatory experience. Josephus had inspired insight into the past enabling him to write an “interpretative history.” Jewish War was prophetic because it was based on the experience of inspiration, but it was not revelation in itself. Thus, inspiration for Josephus has not ceased, but inspired canonical literature is no longer produced, and that is why the succession of the prophets has been broke.

Regardless of how various scholars understand Josephus’ referenced to the broken prophetic succession, they all agree that Josephus attributes prophetic skill to himself and contemporaries.

<snip>

In conclusion, the self-attribution of inspiration, scripture learning, and dream interpretation all imply that Josephus views himself as a prophet.

Neil, that you don't care for the term 'prophetic historian' is neither here nor there. It's use by Gnuse demonstrates that that is how he views the Josephan writer. Josephus did not simply write history. Josephus interpreted history. It is up to the readers of Josephus to identify where he is writing history and where he is writing his own interpretations of history. In other words, its up to the reader to identify where Josephus is wearing his historian's hat and where he is wearing his prophetic historian's hat.

It's not simply a question of Josephus making stuff up. The stuff he makes up is his prophetic interpretations of Jewish history. i.e. his made up stuff relates to his interpretation of Jewish history. It has a focus. It is not pie in the sky.

Why did Josephus make up stuff regarding AgrippaI I ? Entertaining story with parallels to the OT Joseph. Is that the end of it? Or did Josephus have other prophetic interests in mind when applying the Joseph story to Agrippa I. Was Josephus' interest in Agrippa I simply of historical interest - or is he indicating a prophetic interest? Acknowledging the Josephan writer as a prophetic historian allows such questions to be raised. What were the prophetic interests of the Josephan writer and how have these prophetic interests shaped his historical work. Proposing that Josephus simply made stuff up is to undercut the underlying prophetic thrust of his work. The Josephan writer is acknowledged by a number of scholars as a prophet. If it's early christian origins that we are seeking then we surely need to take on board the whole of Josephus - warts and all.

[Blood]

How do you know that the Christians didn't think they were accurate?

Now YOU are making the assumptions.

Just because it fit a Christian "agenda" doesn't mean that the works were necessarily inaccurate or biased.

If anything, Josephus was AGAINST the cult-like Christian group.

You stated that "the simple existence of Josephus' voluminous writings is a testament to his accuracy and importance." There was no agency in that sentence.

Who preserved Josephus? Christians. They undoubtedly thought his works were accurate, but that was beside the point I was making.

[maryhelena]

Interesting review by Daniel Schwartz re Rebecca Gray's book:

This is a well-researched, well-structured, and well-written discussion of a topic which, as Gray points out, many have thought a ‘nonstarter.” That is, before one can begin discussing Jewish prophets of the late Second Temple period and Josephus’ views of them one must first show that despite rabbinic tradition that claims prophecy ended in the Persian period, there were indeed Jewish prophets in this period. Moreover, one must also deal with a modern scholarly prejudice that tends to limit the dignified epithet “prophet’ to those who, as the great classical prophets, were vocal in the social and moral spheres and were not ‘mere’ prognosticators. Thus the first chapter of Gray’s volume is devoted to showing both that the rabbinic tradition is neither unambiguous (even the rabbis left room for later voices from heaven, and who is to say that we should not call those who heard them ‘prophets’?) nor unchallenged, and to arguing that if Josephus called prognosticators ‘prophets’, using the same terms which he used for Isaiah and Jeremiah, then we should do the same if we want to understand his view of prophecy.

The two major Josephan obstacles to the notion that were was still prophecy in his day are Against Apion 1.41 and Antiquities 3.218, so the first chapter offers a detailed analysis of both. Gray argues that neither source really excludes continued prophecy; rather, they indicate only that Josephus rather nostalgically though earlier prophets were on a higher level, just as he assumed in general that older means better. .....

<snip>

Having thus cleared the way, it is those other texts Gray turns to in the remaining four chapters of the book, which deal with those Second Temple individuals to whom Josephus ascribes prophecy or the title “prophet’. Himself, Essenes, various ‘sign prophets’ of the decades that preceded the Destruction, and a few other individuals. .......Josephus, she argues, did indeed think that prophecy existed in his day (and he associated it especially with priests, such as himself); but on the other hand he included in it oracular phenomena, which modern scholars would not deign to include, and on the other hand, as noted, he nevertheless saw a qualitative difference between the prophets and prophecy of his own day and the great prophets and prophecy of the biblical past.

<snip>

It should henceforth be very difficult to claim that this first-centuty Jewish writer who referred so often to contemporary prophets and prophecy did not mean it, to ignore the fact that he did, or to refuse to draw the relevant conclusions for ancient Judaism and Christianity.

Daniel Schwartz review of Rebecca Gray’s book: Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus.
(The Jewish Quarterly Review: New Series, Vol. 87, No.1/2)

[steve43]

How do you know that the Christians didn't think they were accurate?

Now YOU are making the assumptions.

Just because it fit a Christian "agenda" doesn't mean that the works were necessarily inaccurate or biased.

If anything, Josephus was AGAINST the cult-like Christian group.

You stated that "the simple existence of Josephus' voluminous writings is a testament to his accuracy and importance." There was no agency in that sentence.

Who preserved Josephus? Christians. They undoubtedly thought his works weren't accurate, but that was beside the point I was making.

If Josephus wrote complete blarney, the Christians would not bother to have saved his works. Like the Apocrypha, which was so obviously bad all copies were ordered destroyed even though Jesus was mentioned in them a lot. Who is to say that there were not other Jewish histories that mentioned Jesus but were otherwise so inferior no one bothered to save them?

You don't know and I don't know.

And just because a copy survived in a Christian Monastery doesn't mean that copies were saved and treasured initially by Jews themselves, or Romans interested in history. Titus originally ordered "Wars" placed in all the Imperial Libraries.

But it is a sad commentary on the state of "scholarship" today that Josephus' entire set of works is pilloried by some because of the TF and his reference to the death of Jesus' brother.

[neilgodfrey]

If Josephus wrote complete blarney, the Christians would not bother to have saved his works. Like the Apocrypha, which was so obviously bad all copies were ordered destroyed even though Jesus was mentioned in them a lot. Who is to say that there were not other Jewish histories that mentioned Jesus but were otherwise so inferior no one bothered to save them?

But the Christians saved works about Jesus that had him walking on water and rising from the dead and paying taxes with fish he ordered caught from the nearby lake etc etc.

A more consistent thesis is that Christians saved works that supported their beliefs and sought to sideline and eventually destroy works that taught beliefs or preserved information that undermined their status as safeguards of "Truth".

[The Crow]

If Josephus wrote complete blarney, the Christians would not bother to have saved his works. Like the Apocrypha, which was so obviously bad all copies were ordered destroyed even though Jesus was mentioned in them a lot. Who is to say that there were not other Jewish histories that mentioned Jesus but were otherwise so inferior no one bothered to save them?

But the Christians saved works about Jesus that had him walking on water and rising from the dead and paying taxes with fish he ordered caught from the nearby lake etc etc.

A more consistent thesis is that Christians saved works that supported their beliefs and sought to sideline and eventually destroy works that taught beliefs or preserved information that undermined their status as safeguards of "Truth".

A more consistent thesis is that Christians saved works that supported their beliefs and sought to sideline and eventually destroy works that taught beliefs or preserved information that undermined their status as safeguards of "Truth"

Agreed. And you have to wonder of those documents that were destroyed or never found what they revealed about their cover up. Picking and choosing what supports their belief. Not much as changed as it?