Lazarus part 2: the Gospel

Its amazing what one small doubt can lead to. A couple of days ago I posted an article about Lazarus, and someone called Jim replied. But his blogspot ID had a link to a web page, a web page about Lazarus. And it turns out that he's written a book, a book about Lazarus. And the web page and the book both contain one fantastic doubt, so I simply have to blog about it here.

Before I summarise this big doubt, I'll state up-front that this is one of those fantastic doubts that it really doesn't matter what you end up believing on the issue. If conventional belief is wrong on this point, nothing changes, nobody loses salvation and we don't really get any new revelation of understanding about God or Jesus. But maybe we get an interesting bit of detective work and a little bit more truth than we had before. But anyway, on with the doubting...

Who wrote the gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John? Where does it say?

Nowhere does it say that Matthew wrote the gospel that we attribute to him, although the character of Matthew does feature more in that book than in any other.

The gospel of Mark makes no mention of anyone called Mark. Indeed, he only appears briefly in Acts chapters 12 and 15.

We know that both the books of Luke and Acts were written for someone called Theophilus, but they don't say who wrote them (although the narrative in Acts occasionally switches from 'them' into 'us' language, so it is clear that the author of Acts was one of Paul's companions at some points, and so Luke, who he names in a few epistles, is a pretty good guess).

And nowhere does it say that the gospel of John was written by John. All we know is that it was written by 'the disciple whom Jesus loved', whoever that may be.

Does it matter who wrote each of the gospels? Well, yes and no. It matters because we need to have some assurance that whoever wrote these books had some connection to Jesus and to the events they describe. If the books were simply made up by someone who knew very little about Jesus a long time after the events, then they would be of little value. But it doesn't matter if the books were written by someone named in the story, they could have been written by someone who was there on the periphery, who saw things but never really played a role. That would be fine.

Convention has it that the second gospel (which may have been the first to be written) is, essentially, the Gospel of Peter. But as Peter was mostly illiterate, it was written through his young friend John, also called Mark. But then again, maybe 'Mark' was just a pure guess and named thus because Mark (or Marcus) was simply the most common name in that part of the world at that time. Oddly enough, Luke was the second most common name, so maybe that was a guess too. Maybe these were named this way to be 'everyman' gospels - the gospel according to Joe Bloggs or John Smith. But anyway, I digress, this post concerns the gospel commonly attributed to John.

Why do we think this was written by John? Well, we have three epistles by John, and the dominant theme of these epistles is love. God is love. They really sell the love angle. And what is one of the main features of the 4th gospel? It was written by someone whom Jesus loved. It really sells the love angle. So, unless other evidence is presented, it is not unreasonable to believe that John wrote the 4th gospel. (By the way, the argument that the John who wrote Revelation is the same John who wrote the epistles is les compelling. Revelation never claims to be written by any particular John, and the style is quite different from the gospel or the epistles, but I digress again...)

So, who wrote the 4th gospel? Who is the disciple whom Jesus loved?

Well, only two characters in the 4th gospel are referred to as being 'loved' by Jesus. Guess who? Yes, its the author of the book and Lazarus. And furthermore, the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' isn't mentioned in the narrative until the chapter after Lazarus is raised from the dead. He wasn't part of the story until then. And, oddly enough, Lazarus is never mentioned from there on in either. You'd think he might hang around with Jesus after being resurrected wouldn't you, I mean, he literally owed his life to Jesus. And that's not all. This 'disciple' whom Jesus loved is occasionally referred to as 'the other disciple', not part of 'the twelve', but John was clearly one of the twelve.

The web page and the book (which you can read in its entirety online) both go into this in far more detail than I have done here. They make a compelling case. It could be that Lazarus wrote the 4th gospel. Of course, that doesn't change my faith in any way, the gospel istelf is still the same, but its an interesting idea.

But one final question (which I don't think is adequately answered by the book; although I only skimmed it and didn't read the whole thing in detail) remains:

Why is the story of the raising of Lazarus not in the three other gospels?

Surely this is one of the most amazing miracles? Yet Matthew, Mark and Luke (or whoever) make no mention of it at all. Why?

Lazarus

A stray thought occurred to me the other day. There is a pervasive belief in modern evangelical Christian circles that this life is kind of insignificant compared to 'eternal life in heaven' - the bit of life which starts after we die. This bit of life is really just to give us the chance to get to know Jesus so that we can be saved and then go to heaven when we die. Then the fun begins.

If that's the case, the story of Lazarus raises two problems.

1. Why does Jesus cry?
2. Why does Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead?

I mean, clearly Lazarus had the thing which modern evangelicals believe to be required for salvation, he had a personal relationship with Jesus. The text makes it absolutely clear, Jesus loved Lazarus (John 11v3&5). If anyone's salvation was assured it was this friend of Jesus's!

But Jesus cries at the news and then goes on to raise Lazarus from the dead. Why would Jesus cry if Lazarus going to heaven was an entirely good thing? Why would Jesus choose to pull Lazarus back out of eternal life into this fallen world?

OK, so some would say that the point is that Jesus is here demonstrating his power over death, but why restore someone destined for heaven? Why not give life back to someone who had died in their sins and give them a second chance? I'm sure there are countless ways Jesus could have demonstrated his power over death without pulling his friend out of paradise and back into this fallen world.

Or are we missing the point? Is life in this world more important than we have been led to believe? Did Jesus bring Lazarus back to this life because this life is good?

Perhaps we should focus more on this life than we sometimes do?

Doubtful fame...

Its not often I get named and quoted by preachers in their sermons. And I don't think this blog has ever been advertised in a sermon before. But last Sunday my friend Dave Meldrum (that's him on the right there), who is Associate Minister at St Michaels Southfields in London did both in a sermon entitled 'Living with Doubt'.

You can download it here or subscribe to their podcast.

Very good, well worth a listen.

And it does contain some great insight from Dave's 'friend with a blog' - whoever that is ;o)

The Westminster Confession of Faith

I was raised in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This and a few other denominations hold the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) as their basis. I just read through the thing online. Its longer than I remember from my youth.

And I certainly don't base my faith on it anymore.

I went to the document with an agenda. I have been listening a lot lately to teaching from The Meeting House church in Canada. They are an Anabaptist church and consider themselves neither Catholic nor Protestant. They have a different perspective. And I must say, the more I hear, the more closely aligned to my perspective their views seem (except the actual baptism issue, but maybe we'll get there in the end). Anyway, they as Christians point primarily to the teachings of Christ as a basis for faith and lifestyle. They had previously pointed out (and I blogged about) that many of the Creeds of the church jump straight from the (virgin) birth of Jesus directly to his death and resurrection, completely missing the things that he said during his ministry. I wanted to see if the WCoF did the same thing.

It does. As far as this confession of faith is concerned, Jesus may as well not have had a ministry at all. His only role on this planet was to die.

I can't subscribe to that. The message of the gospels is that the one eternal God somehow incarnated himself as a man and walked among us for years. He had a 'gospel' to share - good news for all men.

Wow. Just think about that. This wasn't some prophet bringing the message of God to us second-hand. This was God himself speaking. And we have four different accounts of the things he said and did - a pretty good account of his teaching. Should we not listen primarily to what he had to say? Apparently not, for many who claim to follow him, his words have become something secondary. Indeed, if the WCoF is to be taken at face value then the words of Paul carry so much more weight than the words of Jesus - the majority of citations in there are from the epistles, not from the gospels.

A Christian should follow Christ... right? That's what the word means. So why don't we follow his teachings?

There were plenty of other issues raied by my reading of the WCoF, but I'll hold the rest back for another posting. That's enough for now.

Faith that kills trees...

Probably best if you read the previous post 'faith that moves mountains' first...

Mark 11v12-19
[12] The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. [13] Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. [14] Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

[15] On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, [16] and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. [17] And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

[18] The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. [19] When evening came, they went out of the city.

So here we have two things that appear out of character for Jesus

1. An act of senseless cursing against a tree, and
2. An apparent act of violence against people.

What's going on here?

John's gospel records Jesus clearing the temple at the start of his ministry (just after the water into wine incident):

John 2v13-16
[13] When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. [14] In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. [15] So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. [16] To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

I have heard people commenting on Jesus's use of violence before. Especially the bit about the whip. But look at the text, the whip was used exclusively on the sheep & cattle, not on people. And when it came to the people he scattered their coins and overturned their tables. There is no record of violence against people. Yes, he was angry. Yes, he took action. But he didn't hurt or attack anyone.

So even in his anger, he is still the Prince of Peace. Whew!

But its the bit about the fig tree that still bothers me. Matthew tells it like this:

Matthew 21v18-22
[18] Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. [19] Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

[20] When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

[21] Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. [22]If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

If Jesus wanted to prove a point about the power of faith and prayer, couldn't he have done something good to demonstrate what faith can achieve? Instead he uses faith to destroy a perfectly innocent tree. Mark goes as far as to note that it wasn't even the time of year for fig trees to be bearing fruit. (I've heard some folk say that it wasn't unusual for some fig trees to have some fruit at this time of year, but I think that's really clutching at straws - according to the text itself there was no good reason to expect the tree to have any fruit, but Jesus curses it anyway).

I've heard it said how this tree is a kind of living parable of the temple as it is in the same part of the story - looks healthy, but was actually bearing no fruit - and it was really about the temple which Jesus declared 'may you never bear fruit again'; sure enough, in a few decades time, the temple was to be destroyed. It really did never bear fruit again.

But that still doesn't explain why Jesus should kill a perfectly innocent tree. He is never recorded as having killed anything else in any gospel, so why do it now?

I'm afraid I have a very human explanation to propose. I believe Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine. Being divine, he knew what he was about to have to go through in the days ahead. Being human, his emotions must have been all over the place, I believe that this act of violence against the tree was just a way of releasing some tension. In Matthew 26v38 Jesus says "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death" he even prayed for the cup to be taken from him - for God to change his plans. Simply, he did not want to be crucified and it was affecting him. Eventually the divine won over the human and he said "but not my will..." but that can't have been an easy choice. Indeed, I fully believe that he did have the choice to go on or go back, and he chose the way of death. Not an easy choice to make. And along the way he had to let off some steam. Some of this he channeled into clearing the temple, and some of it got unleashed on a poor tree.

I believe the gospel writers record this incident primarily because it happened. Also because it gives a good visual parable of the temple. But also because it shows just how human Jesus was.

Faith that moves mountains...

(Wow. Post number 100. I must have too much spare time on my hands...)

Mark 11v12-14 & 20-25

[12] The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. [13] Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. [14] Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

[20] In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. [21] Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" [22] "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. [23] "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. [24] Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [25] And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

This is a familiar passage. We've all heard it used and abused and taken totally out of context. This is the passage (in parallel to one in Matthew) which speaks of moving mountains... Except it doesn't. It speaks of 'moving this mountain' - one specific mountain, not a general principle.

I mean, Christian history isn't full of stories of people moving geography by faith, is it? I can't actually think of any instances of people moving mountains or even hills without some serious earth-moving equipment. So what's Jesus talking about here?

Which mountain?

In the context of the story, the only mountain that Jesus could be referring to is the Temple Mount - just across the valley from where the fig tree stood. The in-between verses in that story (which I missed out above) are about the clearing of the temple.

Now contextualise things and think about what the Temple Mount meant to the disciples. The temple was the very home of God, the place where God's Spirit rested and the place where the people could get close to their God. It was also the place of sacrifice and atonement. What Jesus says here is actually far more earth-shattering than simply moving geography about. The Jewish disciples were probably comfortable with the idea that God could move mountains about, but this mountain? It was probably the only immovable object in their world view.

Now think about what Jesus says - "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him." - where does the 'action' take place here? With the person, 'in his heart'. Might the actual meaning of this statement be something more like this?:

"...not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done in him."

I think Jesus is saying that the only way to get rid of the mountain of religious baggage that the disciples were carrying is to live by faith; faith in Him. His way is the only way to be free of religion and actually live the unfettered life that God intended for them.

I'm sure for some, the idea of being totally free from all that was far more impressive than merely the ability to move geography about.

Before creation...

Genesis 1v1-5

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (KJV)

I came back to these verses the other day and something that I had never noticed before jumped out at me. The first day of creation is the creation of light. After that he creates the 'firmament' (day 2), which he calls 'heaven', then he creates 'earth' (day 3). So verse 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" is the preface to what follows on the 2nd and 3rd days of creation. Creation starts in verse 3 with the creation of light.

But what about verse 2? Before the creative process starts, there is something; 'the deep', 'the waters' - these seem to pre-exist before creation. The bible does not tell us that God creates these.

So where did they come from?

The Trinity

OK. Time for a big doubt. The Trinity.

God the Father is God.
God the Son is God.
God the Spirit is God.

But why do we assume that they are three persons?

The language in the bible is quite confusing. I can see where the idea of the Trinity came from, but the idea itself is not to be found in the bible. It is a derived theology - a concept used to explain some of the confusions in the bible. Why do we try to subdivide God in some way?

If someone was to talk about my spirit, we would understand that they weren't talking about some separate person, but rather they would be talking about something that was part of me, something that was integral to my being. Indeed, they would probably mean the essence that makes me me.

So why when we talk about the 'Spirit of God' (e.g. Philippians 3v3) or the 'Spirit of Jesus' (e.g. Philippians 1v9) do we seem to assume that this Spirit is in some way distinct from God or Jesus?

Surely the Spirit of Jesus is actually Jesus!

And what about Jesus himself? He said quite clearly "I and the Father are one" (John 10v30) and never at any point in the bible does Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of God" (although his disciples and even accusers do use these words about him). But Jesus prefers to describe himself as the "Son of Man" - emphasising his humanity. But what if Jesus was/is the one true God?

Chapter 1 of John says some astounding things:

• v1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God's message to the world is a person. That person is God himself. Not two people, one.
• v14: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only [Son], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Notice what they did there? ('they' being the translators of the TNIV, in this case) They inserted the word 'son' into the text so that it says what they think it means. But the original just speaks of "the one and only", not "the one and only son". Maybe it means the one and only God? Maybe Jesus is the one and only God?
• v18: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." They've done it again! And they did it a long time ago. Most of the early manuscripts for this passage (from the 3rd and 4th centuries) speak of the "only begotten Son", but the earliest fragments of this passage - from the 2nd century - speak of the "only begotten God".

How could the infinite and eternal one true God become a finite and temporal man? I have no idea. Nobody can grasp it. We have no words to even begin to explain it. But we can understand the idea of parenthood and the relationship between a Father and a Son. Perhaps this is why it is spoken of in this way - its perhaps the closest we can get to grasping the idea. But it is an imperfect picture, not the whole reality. The reality is too big and complex for us to fathom.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to go and baptise people in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... and his disciples went and baptised people in the name of Jesus. They didn't forget about the Father and the Spirit, the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit (collectively) is Jesus.

What if there is no Trinity, there is only Jesus, the only God?

Baptism (various interconnected thoughts)

I've been thinking about Baptism on and off for a while now. What follows is me 'thinking out loud' rather than making a case for some point or other. But please do comment anyway.

We tend not to think of it in these terms, but baptism is one of the most divisive issues in the church today. Evangelical Baptists and Evangelical Presbyterians (for example) often work quite happily together on various projects, missions, etc. and seem to get on fine, and then the issue of baptism comes up and all of a sudden one will strongly declare to the other that they are wrong. In my life I have been part of two Baptist churches for significant periods of time. The first used to have a 'mantra' regarding Baptism that really used to annoy me: "You do it your way, we'll do it His way..." My time in the second church led me to the point of realising that I, fundamentally, am not a Baptist.

The main issue facing me now is regarding my new baby, expected in about 9 weeks. I have two kids so far, we had them both baptised as infants. But now we attend a church (Almond Vineyard) which practices believers baptism and dedicates infants. But I don't really want to treat the third any different from the first two.

Interestingly enough, my wife's sister & brother-in-law have just faced the same issue the other way around: whilst attending a baptist church they had their first baby dedicated, but they now attend a Presbyterian church. They resolved this one by having a dedication 'service' in their home with the baby's uncle (a Baptist pastor) officiating. But I'm not sure I want to have a baptism service in my home...

What is baptism anyway?

Well, its one of the very few words in the new testament that the translators (for whatever reason) have never translated. The word we use is simply an anglicised form of the word βαπτίζω (baptizō). In the original Greek, this word does not have any particular spiritual significance, it simply means to immerse. A ship that is sunk has been 'baptizō', in order to pickle a vegetable you 'baptizō' it in vinegar, and so on. (NB there is a difference between 'baptizō' and 'baptō' which is used in the NT a few times and is generally translated 'dip', the difference seems to be that something which is 'baptizō' spends longer in the fluid, or possibly that some change takes place while in the fluid, e.g. when pickling). But obviously, over the centuries between the new testament times and the time when the bible was first translated into other languages, the secular Greek word 'baptizō' had become associated completely with the Christian ritual involving water, so no translation was ever required.

The problem with that is that we gain little understanding of what people thought of baptism in the early days of Christianity. Was it sacramental, essential, special, or simply a normal event?

John the baptizō, who I often think of as the last of the old testament prophets, had a clear message of repent and be baptised - which he did in the river. Apparently (thanks to an old sermon from Liquid Church) there was an old Jewish ritual of public immersion which people would do as part of their conversion to Judaism, but John's baptism was the first instance of someone baptising people, before you would immerse yourself. John's baptism therefore implies a bit of submission to someone or something which had been absent up until then. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, a symbolic act to mark a change of heart. While there is no record of anyone being baptised multiple times, there is also no teaching which says that this was a once-for-all act. But it is clearly a symbol, not an act essential to salvation.

By the time of the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that baptism had become a Christian symbol. On believing in (receiving) Jesus, people were baptised as a sign of their new start. But not just individuals, there are several instances in Acts of one person coming to faith and having their entire household baptised (presumably including spouses, children and servants). So part of the act of a believer making a new start is to echo the words of Joshua (24v15) "As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord", and the whole household makes a new start, kids and all.

Of course, what isn't in the bible is the story of someone who was baptised many years before presenting their newborn infant for baptism. Maybe baptism of infants is only 'OK' if it is done at the same time as baptism of the parent(s)?

There are some early Christian writings which give instructions on how to do baptism: "Concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water [i.e. running water, a river]. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Interestingly, as far as historians can tell (primarily on the basis of early Christian art), the baptised person generally stood in the water and had a vessel of water poured over them, rather than being dunked into the water as is favoured by most Baptist churches today. The early christian writings seem to endorse the 'three sprinkles' method frequently used when baptising infants, although apparently using a river is still preferable.

What is certain is that from a hundred years or so after the time of Christ until the 16th century, infant baptism was practiced throughout the entire church. Only at the time of the reformation was the practice questioned and then rejected by a subset of the reformers. Almost all of the 1st and 2nd century Christian writers mention infant baptism as being simply the way things were done. This wasn't an evolved ritual of the Church in the Middle Ages which had little connection to the way the early church behaved, this is clearly the way the early church behaved.

And of course, beyond that, there are plenty of theological arguments for infant baptism.

But what to do with our new baby? I still don't know. I'm in favour of infant baptism, but there are practicalities...

One final thought. The great commission in Matthew 28 reads thus: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” The text probably does mean 'dunk them in water in the name of...' but when I read those words the other day I noticed that water is not mentioned and saw an alternative reading of those words, could it mean 'immerse the disciples in the name of...'? In other words is it Jesus himself that we are to be immersed in? Do we need to be up to our eyeballs in his Spirit and totally found in him... or am I taking it too far?

Thanks for reading this far. What do you think?

The death of Samson and the omniscient narrator...

Sorry for the ridiculously long title for this posting, but something struck me when I was thinking about the story of Samson the other day. This is how the book of Judges records the death of Samson:

Judges 16v25-30

While they were in high spirits, they shouted, "Bring out Samson to entertain us." So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them. When they stood him among the pillars, Samson said to the servant who held his hand, "Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them." Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.

What I found myself wondering was how anyone knew exactly what had happened, what Samson prayed and what he said. According to the story, he destroyed the temple and everyone in it, presumably including the servant who led him to the pillars and anyone who might have heard what he said.

We have the situation of an omniscient narrator here - someone who apparently knows what happened, even though they couldn't have been there. Unless there was direct revelation from God to the author of Judges, this must be pure speculation...