The Turks are good at it; just take a look at Turkish history. The Sun language theory: all languages areÂ descendantÂ from an ancient Turkic language. The Turkish history thesis: all people are descendant from ancient Turkic people. Also included is that the Ottomans weren’t Turks, and that the Young Turks overthrew the evil non-Turkish Ottoman Empire. So, we shouldn’t really beÂ surprisedÂ to hear statements from Turkey doing it again. This time, though, it’s about us. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is quoted as having said that Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs â€œwere not and never will be Jewish sites, but Islamic sites.â€ What? I can comprehend an argument that says that they shouldn’t have been included in Israel’s heritage trail, as the sites are located in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), which will likely be a part of a Palestinian state. However, to argue that they are not now, nor ever were, Jewish? How so? This negates thousands of years of religious belief and dogma, by multiple religions, to the contrary. But Islamic sites? How so? If Abraham is the father of the Arabs and the Muslims, through Ishmael, I can understand wanting to share the Cave of the Patriarchs, since Abraham, according to tradition, was laid to rest there. However, the Tomb of Rachel? Why? Rachel has no connection to Islamic history or even Islamic dogma. So, please, Erdogan, explicate for those of us who like logical statements, in what way were these sites never Jewish, and more so, Islamic?
- ilea×¨n - 10/16/2010
- Wrap Up - 9/16/2010
- ICT Conference Summary of New Media Session - 9/16/2010
I ask the same questions of the radical muslim students at UCI — many say more or less the same thing.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their wives were all Muslims.
Yup – they were all Muslims. Sure Mohammed didn’t show up for another few thousand years, but in the twisted warped mind of the Islamic extremists that populate UCI – all of Jewish history is actually — get this — Muslim history.
So how can you even ask if Rachel’s tomb is Muslim – OF COURSE!
Not only do these students I meet at UCI want to control and usurp Jewish land, and the entire region, they usurp Jewish history.
But of course – there is no anti-Semitism at UCI!
Moses is considered the founder of Judaism; from then on, you can talk about “Jewish” or not. It’s just as much revisionist (and seriously lousy) theology to label Abraham Jewish as it is to label him Muslim. Neither religion existed at the time Abraham is said to have lived.
True, but for the Muslims to claim Isaac, Jacob, and especially Rachel as their own comes across as cultural theft, especially when their own writings make no mention of them (but rather Ishmael).
I dare say Erdogan doesn’t represent all Muslims (as little as he actually represents all Turks or Turkish citizens). It’s not cultural theft but rather a weird interpretation done by an individual politician in a nominally laicistic state. The historicity and theology of that claim are just as way-off as it is to claim that Abraham was Jewish. That kind of reasoning doesn’t get anyone anywhere. Also, does anybody cry theft over all those elements Judaism incorporated from previous systems of belief? Clue: there’s only one people that so far has managed to preserve its culture for millennia without significant cultural exchange.
Israel should treat Turkish diplomats like shit whenever possible. With this government Turkey has to be considered an enemy state. “Strategic alliance”, my ass. Turkey got Israeli high-tech weapons, Israeli tourists, Israeli rescue teams when the Istanbul earthquake happened, probably Kurdish terrorist Ocalan with the help of Israel. What does Israel get in return? Insults, anti-semitic propaganda and overprized water.
Abraham is called “Ivri” in the Torah and Jacob was called “Israel” after his famous wrestling match. Of course the Patriarchs are Hebrew/Israelite = Jewish, even if the term “Jewish” and much of what makes up the religion came up later; much later than Moses, btw, the term wasn’t used before around 500 BCE to describe Bnei Israel, just like much of Jewish religion was shaped in that era and then later in the rabbinical time. So Moses and basically everybody until the time of Ezra wasn’t “Jewish” either if you want to make that kind of historical distinctions, and Ezra must be considered the true founder of “Judaism”. Also, the term “Jew”/”Jewish” is mentioned for the first time in the book of Esther which was most probably not written before the 3rd century BCE. So, if the Patriarchs aren’t “Jewish” enough for you, most of the Tanach won’t be either.
Felix, it’s not a historical but a theological category. Moses is the founder of the religion now called Judaism. Revisionist interpretations assuming what the patriarchs should have believed are nothing but, mildly put, wishful thinking, confusing ethnicity with religion and very, very, very bad theology (not even naive, just really bad). Apart from that, even in a historical category such claims lack historicity.
Sigh…of course the Patriarchs didn’t have the Torah. But they are considered the fathers of the people of Israel, and Abraham was the one who made the initial deal with God, who told him his descendants would inherit Canaan and demanded that all boys shall be circumcized on the eighth day. Thus, God gave Abraham one of the essential Mitzvot of Judaism that is considered so important that even Shabbat may be violated to perform it. Sure, Moses received the Torah and was the greatest prophet and leader, but theologically Abraham is still clearly regarded as the founder of Judaism, and the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb are without the slightest doubt important Jewish sites.
Both Christianity and Islam are based on the respective Christian and Muslim theft of Israel’s sacred history. They are both, in their essence, supercessionist religions. Christianity has backed off this recently, but it was originally founded to replace Judaism.
The Muslims are just more blatant and high-handed than the Christians dare to be nowadays, that’s all.
The problem with both Christianity and Islam is that while they profess to believe in “the G-d of Abraham”, they cannot accept the Torah of the Jews as is, since if they did they would have to accept the primacy of Judaism amd the people of Israel and face the fact that they are Johnny-come-latelies. Therefore they have to either say that the Jews didn’t understand their own Torah (Christianity) or deliberately falsified it to hide the fact the Avraham Avinu was really a proto-Muslim rather than a proto-Jew (Islam). This allows both Christians and Muslims to claim that they have inherited the promises made to Avraham Avinu and that the Jews have been disinherited, making them the new “first-born son” of G-d.
As usual, froylein takes the unbeliever’s approach to the Torah. Yes, it is anachronistic to say that Avraham Avinu was “Jewish”. However, the Torah obviously and clearly traces the spiritual inheritance of Avraham Avinu through Isaac, Jacob, and then the twelve sons of Jacob, one of whom was the father of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of Moshe Rabbenu. The Torah is, partially at least, the story of the passing on of the spiritual inheritance of Abraham to his descendants through Moshe Rabbenu. Ishmael was the father of many nations by virtue of the fact that he was Avraham’s son. But the spiritual inheritance went to us.
We don’t need goysishe “historicity” to prove that.
Theologically, Abraham is NOT considered the founder of Judaism. You won’t find any reputable theological reference work that states so. That’s not goyishe historicity but common sense. As usual, making up a revisionist line of reasoning does not substitute for sound theology.
BTW, Felix, Kings David and Salomon never saw a Torah scroll during their lifetime either.
in all our liturgy (davening) which dates back to Ezra and anshei knesses hagdolah at the time of the building of the second temple approx 400BCE we pray to the G-d of Abraham Issac and Jacob. Abraham was the first beleiver and any convert to Judaism adopts the name son of Abraham.
at the time of writing the megillat Esther the surviving Jews from the first exile were predominantly from the tribe of Judah since the 10 tribes had been exiled and dispersed by sancheriv a number of years earlier and they were mostly lost to the Jewish people. hence the term yehudim. untill this day we pray that G-d should have mercy on us in the merit of the patriarchs.
this is not a theological discussion at all and isnt up for negotiation.
Hebron has always been termed the city of our fathers i.e. the fathers of the hebrew nation, and until 1948 there was an uninterupted jewish presence there. it declined after the unprovoked Hebron massacre where yeshiva students were mercilessly butchered by our peaceful arab cousins.
Rabbi, just one small correction. It was actually 1929 when the connection and constant Jewish presence in Hebron was ended, after the Arab riots there and other parts of the region.
Rebbele, this is a theological discussion. All the above “reasoning” leaves out of the equation that religions native to the Middle East and Northern Africa that predate Judaism by millennia know similar narrative; such content of belief is not exclusive to Judaism, is not unique and not novelty either. Even the decalogue and following instructions were predated by a similar set of rules in Ancient Egyptian religion. Judaism did not hatch out of an isolated egg somewhere in the desert.
So what? That’s historical research, and no news now. Archaelogists dug out Egyptian and Hittite texts that sound similiar to the decalogue, An eye for an eye is already known from Hammurabi, Judaism was massively influenced by Zoroastrism, matrilineal descent was possibly inspired by Roman law etc etc etc.
But if you want to take this approach, your claim that Moses is the founder of Judaism is rather shaky as well, as there’s not the slightest historical or archaeological hint that this good man even existed or if he bore any resemblance to the person depicted or if he actually played such a central role in establishing Jewish laws, just like there’s no hint whether King David existed, or if he was just the little chieftain of an unremarkable small town in the hills who got blown out of proportion later for political reasons.
But all this is not the question, anyway.
The question is: Does Judaism consider the Patriarchs fathers and founders of the Jewish people and faith? And the answer throughout the entire Jewish literature and tradition is always: Yes!
As usual, froylein resorts to quibbling and proofs from extra-Judaic sources.
I know that you don’t believe in the Torah, froylein, but our tradition traces our spiritual heritage back to Avraham Avinu, and as the Roaming Rabbis says, we pray to the G-d of Abraham Issac and Jacob.
Whether you want to call him a Jew or something else is really beside the point.
Anyway, you say that “theologically” Avraham Avinu is not considered the founder of Judaism. By whom? You and your apikores buddies at the university? Why should any Yid care what they think about our religion?
And what are all of these red herrings about Hammurabi and Egyptians and whatnot that you’re dragging out? So some other people had religions that seem to the untrained eye to be vaguely similar to ours. So what? What’s your point?
Ephraim, you’ll find that kind of information in Jewish history books by Jewish authors, both general as well popular history. But you won’t find it in history books that cater to a certain audience that is en par theologically with the likes of Erdogan.
BTW, to my trained eye and that of many more far more trained eyes than anybody on this thread has got, Judaism borrowed elements you might consider “genuinely Jewish” from religions that predated them. To whinge about other religions borrowing elements of Judaism is, well, either hypocritical or ignorant.
You don’t have to care what others think about Judaism, but as soon as your children’s belief-like theology is used to justify politics and policies that extend beyond the sphere of your particular denomination, expect to be called out on the flaws and their lack of historicity.
Besides, you guys should read up on the difference between Hebrews, Israelites and Jews.
My point is that what Avraham Avinu called himself, or what others called him, is irrelevant. We trace our spiritual heritage back to him, and what goyim and apikorsim have to say about it doesn’t mean much to me, particularly.
I assume by what you’re saying that you do not believe that the Jews of today have any right to a state in Israel because they aren’t the Hebrews/Israelites of the Bible? If you believe there is no connection, who or what are we?
If people can complain about “theology being used to justify politics and policies that extend beyond the sphere of your particular denomination”, or “whinge(ing) about other religions borrowing elements of Judaism”, we can complain about others doing the same thing.
In any case, Christianity and Islam did not “borrow elements of Judaism” to create their religions, sort of like a Buddhist or a Hindu deciding to, say, make their own version of teffilin to use in their religious services because they think its cool, and you know (or should know) that quite well. Christianity and Islam do not see themselves as religions separate from Judaism in the sense that they believe in gods other than the one Avraham Avinu believed in; they see themselves as the true inheritors of the promise made to Avraham Avinu and their religions as one proper way to worship the one true G-d. And they believe this because they believe that we do not understand Torah or deliberately falsified it to hide the “truth” of Christianity or Islam. That is, they believe that they have the one true version of the one true religion that has replaced ours. That is completely different from “borrowing” elements of a religion.
And as far as “theology being used to justify politics and policies that extend beyond the sphere of your particular denomination”, what is that if not the entire history of Christianity and Islam, where they have gone around causing untold suffering and carnage in their attempts to and make everyone bend the knee to them?
Why don’t you call them out for their “flaws and their lack of historicity”?
Or do you reserve that particular criticism only for the Jews?
Eh, Ephraim, first of all, wrongdoings of individuals are not representative of the dogma of a religion.
Secondly, holding wrongdoings by individuals of the past against the entirety of adherents to that religion now does not actually make sense.
Thirdly, had you been following the developments in theology over the past forty years on a non-tabloid level of information, you’d know that there has been much progress also in understanding and admitting to the errors that have been made in the name of religion.
What I’m saying is that you guys are confusing Hebrews, Israelites and Jews when classifying what Abraham was or supposedly was. I can stick a “raspberry jam” label onto a jar full of pickled gherkins (hey, both come in a jar), but if that’s your fancy, enjoy.
I’d like to add that highlighting what separates religions from one another or assumedly does and digging deep ideological trenches in lieu of a confident, positively defined, autonomous religious self-concept as opposed to a self-concept based on exclusion in the actual sense of the word is just what you tried to criticise about Christianity and Islam – Medieval pettiness.
Funny how Jews have now surpassed Christians as the ones most anxious to distinguish the two faiths from one another.
Well, for a while there it was easy with the circumcision and all. Now we need Ephraim.
I’m not talking about individuals and whether the Christians of today are responsible for what their ancestors may or may not have done. They aren’t. I’m talking about who and what Avraham Avinu was, regardless of what labels people want to put on him. And since you were the one who brought up how “whingey” it was to use theology “to justify politics and policies that extend beyond the sphere of your particular denominationâ€, I just thought I would tell you that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want to complain about the Jews doing it, the least you could do is be even-handed in your criticism. If Avraham Avinu wasn’t a proto-Jew, he certainly wasn’t a proto-Christian or a proto-Muslim either, which is precisely how many Christians and Muslims view him. So, I ask again: can we expect you any time soon to call out the Christians and the Muslims on their “flaws and their lack of historicity”?
The Jews see Avraham Avinu as our spiritual ancestor, and we trace our belief system back to him. The Torah is, as I said, and as someone of your ineffable erudition should know, primarily about how the promises made to Avraham Avinu were passed on to Moses and, through him, to us. Who and what other people call Avraham Avinu is a sophist’s point, something you are very good at.
Like I said: if that connection is not there, who and what are we? Answer me and spare me all of your raspberry jam metaphors.
Tom, I have no particular or personal antipathy towards Christians, and I hope that I haven’t hurt your feelings. This is not a personal thing at all. I’m asking what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable theological question: do Christianity and Islam see themselves as worshiping a different god than the one Avraham Avinu worshiped? I’m pretty certain that the answer is no. If so, then Christians and Muslims must see their religions as the proper version of the only true religion.
I am aware that certain denominations of Christianity, the Catholics foremost among them, have repudiated their original supercessionsim and have accepted the validity of the cntinuing covenant between the Jews an G-d. I am very happy that this progress has been made. However, I’m pretty sure that the Muslims haven’t gotten to that point yet.
As far as distinguishing the two faiths from one another, is there a problem with this? It seems to me that they are quite different. Is this assertion seen as an insult nowadays, in light of froylein’s vaunted “developments in theology over the past forty years on a non-tabloid level”?
I don’t know what you are, but I, for one, am a human being.
If you had cared to read above, you’d have seen that I consented that Erdogan was just as wrong in his assessment of the matriarch’s religious affiliation as it is wrong of those trying to bend history by claiming a patriarch’s adherence to a religion that did not yet exist at the time he is supposed to have existed.
I’ve never claimed that Judaism hasn’t got any connection to Abraham, but Abraham wasn’t the founder of Judaism. It’s as clean-cut as that. So much for sophistry.
Ephraim, I’m not sure that it follows from your premise that Christians see theirs as “the proper version of the only true religion.”
As I understand Catholic theology anyway, God is not to be construed to have broken His promise, His Covenant made with Abraham and Abraham’s descendents. Jesus didn’t purport to delegitimize the faith of his countrymen; instead, per NT accounts, He took pains to underline that He intended to consolidate and fulfill the Law of Moses, rather than somehow reject or supersede it. (Being a Christian anti-semite is a terribly difficult business.)
Again, from a Catholic perspective– we borrowed wholesale from Judaism, including the Torah, of course. ‘Borrow’ understates it considerably, actually.
So– we wish Jews well swimming your own lane, and if you want to come over to our side, great– but fundamentally, your relationship with God is, as always, something for you and not us to figure out. I think that’s a fair statement of where the Catholic Church stands on the matter, anyway.
“Abraham wasnâ€™t the founder of Judaism. Itâ€™s as clean-cut as that. So much for sophistry.”
It’s really getting boring now…
You are wrong. Utterly, completely and absolutely wrong, your reasoning is poor, and at the same time you are arrogant as hell.
Either you argue by Jewish tradition, then Abraham and the Patriarchs were the physical and spiritual founders of Judaism and the Jewish people, and THIS is what’s really absolutely SELF-EVIDENT. And distinctions between “Hebrew”/”Israelite”/”Jewish” can be made but don’t mean there’s no continuity or that the former and the latter don’t belong together within the frame of Jewish religion and history.
Or you argue by the view of historical research and analysis. But then you cannot claim Moses either because there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence or hint, not the slightest tiny bit, that anything the Bible tells about Moses is corresponding to reality. Even the historicity of Ezra (who can be called the founder of Judaism as we know it) is not established, and the details of religious development before this era get more and more blurry and speculative the further back you go in time. Thus, given the complete lack of any evidence, historical research considers Exodus and all events connected to it (including the conquest of Canaan and of course Moses) as largely or entirely ficticious.
Rejecting Jewish tradition using arguments of secular research on the one thing (status of Patriarchs) but accepting Jewish tradition on another thing (the status of Moses), only because this helps to support your personal beliefs, is just very poor reasoning, as you thoughtlessly mingle two completly different modes of viewing Jewish history. But I guess this is one of the characteristics of Reform Judaism: Anything goes as long as it makes you happy.
And of course Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are considered important prophets in Islam, just like Moses and Jesus, and thus Muslims may actually have a right to claim the Hebron sites as important Muslim sites, as well. Unfortunately, Muslims also generally agree with you that Jews are the followers of Moses, and thus deny the Jewish status of the Patriarchs, although Isaac is also considered the Father of the Hebrews.
And this is what I find particularly funny: Your “theological” view on the status of the Patriarchs and Moses is neither one of religious-historical research nor of Jewish theology – instead you are promoting Islamic theology.
Felix, that’s lots of empty babble for saying you don’t know a thing on a profound level, confuse categories as you go, and apply the same kind of thinking Erdogan applied because it conveniences you.
BTW, you’re not in a position to tell me to shut up. If you guys have got nothing more substantial than a “say no more”, I suggest you get back to your study books before you open your mouths in public again.
Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I appreciate it.
I think Felix’s question is pretty reasonable, and it’s basically the one I’ve been asking: whose yardstick do you use to measure who Avraham Avinu was? If you use a secular yardstick, Felix is quite correct: there is as much historical evidence for Moses as there is for Avraham: that is to say, bupkes. So claiming that Moses, who may or may not have existed, was the founder of Judaism rather than Avraham, who may or may not have existed, seems a bit silly.
If you want to say that Avraham wasn’t the founder of Judaism according to your university definition of what Judaism is, fine, have it your way. But that is simply a matter of what label you want to attach to him and is, in the end, nothing but semantics.
At least you have agreed that he is the progenitor of the people that eventually became the Jewish people, which is the only thing that is really important.
Ephraim, I used the same “yardstick” that is used in the post above and explained why it doesn’t measure up.
Abraham isn’t the founder of Judaism only by my university definition but by general understanding in Jewish literature as well. The question is not and never has been whether Abraham existed but what religion he adhered to if he existed (I would appreciate if people actually read what I write), and Judaism it was not for it merely saw a beginning in the person “Moses” (whose historicity is more likely because of his actually Egyptian name); as the Jewish Encyclopaedia notes:
It is clear from the different representations of three of the great Pentateuchal documents that some allowance must be made for traditional accretion in the narratives of the life of Moses. But modern scholars with much unanimity of opinion regard Moses as a great historical character, the emancipator of Israel, the mediator of the covenant with Yhwh, and the real founder of the Israelitish nation. Though few of the laws can be traced back to him, it is believed that he gave to Israel, by his covenant with Yhwh, and by his legal decisions at Kadesh, the beginnings of religious law, and so became the founder of the legal system which prophets and priests developed as time passed on. It is true that Winckler (“Gesch. Israels,” ii. 86 et seq., Leipsic, 1900) regards Moses as a Yhwh-Tammuz myth, that Cheyne (“Encyc. Bibl.”) regards him as a personified clan, and that two other scholars, Renan (“Hist. of the People of Israel,” i. 135 et seq.) and Stade (“Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” pp. 129 et seq.), regard his historicity as possible only. The great majority of modern scholars, however, though differing in details, hold not only to the reality of Moses as a historical character, but to the reality of his magnificent work as stated. This is the position of Wellhausen (“I. J. G.” pp. 13 et seq.), W. R. Smith (“Old Test. in the Jewish Church,” 2d ed., pp. 333 et seq.), Kittel (“Hist. of the Hebrews,” i. 238 et seq.), Cornill (“Hist. of the People of Israel,” pp. 41 et seq.), Budde (“Religion of Israel to the Exile,” pp. 12 et seq.), Guthe (“Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” pp. 19 et seq.), A. B. Davidson (“Theology of the Old Test.” p. 110), McCurdy (“History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,” ii. 92 et seq.), Kent (“Hist. of the Hebrew People,” i. 36 et seq.), Barton (“Sketch of Semitic Origins,” pp. 272, 291 et seq.), J. P. Peters (“The Old Test. and the New Scholarship,” pp. 116 et seq., and “The Religion of Moses,” in “Jour. Bib. Lit.” 1901, xx. 101 et seq.), Paton (“Early Hist. of Syria and Palestine,” pp. 137 et seq.), and H. P. Smith (“Old Test. History,” pp. 55-65). Such a consensus of opinion is significant.
You cannot simply replace factual knowledge by wishful thinking and call it a different yardstick.
A thing Judaism and Catholicism share is the bindingness of three elements: scripture, teachings, tradition.
In popular Jewish history, Moses authored the Pentateuch (it wasn’t codified until the 3rd century BCE; the first “complete” book was the Book of Psalms, but the premise for this is the popular history, so whether Moses or later editors, there was no scripture around at the time Abraham supposedly existed), teachings as in elaborate theology (alas, steadily on the decline these days where “instruction” has come to replace “teaching” among Orthodox circles), and “tradition” as in accepting that educated amendments were made to the scriptures, which eventually became part of the religious tradition. A notion found in Orthodoxy from its inception has been that such amendments can supersede religious scripture; this was a major point of concern in the early days of Orthodoxy, which started off rejecting the practice of basing decisions on biblical scripture as opposed to contradictory later teachings.
But the question that begged to be asked considering the post and all comments but Tom’s and mine is whether Judaism can afford applying random theology, revisionist and popular history on the stage of world politics and also denying others the same right. My take is that such practice will make Jewish leaders laughing stock, sitting on the same shelf as Erdogan. That doesn’t mean that anybody denies Jews certain emotions and sentiments in connection with certain areas or places in the Middle East, but pulling up a fictional story to prove another fictional story wrong is just a story-telling contest, not sound politics.
AFAIK, there is no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Moshe Rabbenu. And a number of the scholars you cite believe he was ficitonal, even though it may be a minority opinion.
Why do some scholars believe that Moshe Rabbenu existed? Just because they think it’s somewhat plausible or because he has an Egyptian name? That sounds rather cavalier. On what basis do these scholars you cite determine what parts of the Bible are “true” and which are “false”? I suppose it’s something like “Well, Judaism must have come from from somehere. I guess Moses makes as much sense as anything else.” But, in believing this, I assume most of the scholars also believe that most of the story of Moses is a fiction. AFAIK, most scholars dismiss the idea that there ever was an Exodus, at least the one presented in the Bible.
In any case, I assume that what you’re saying is that it is stupid for the Jews to insist that Hebron is imporant to Jews because any educated person knows that Avraham Avinu didn’t exist, obviously. You know where this argument leads, don’t you?
I thnk it is much easier to debunk the Muslim claims: their religion is only 1400 years old and Mohammed, who was an illiterate, clearly stole everything from us, therefore it is obvious we are right and they are full of shit.
Eh, Ephraim. Get an introductory book to biblical exegesis. You might learn a few things that are basic knowledge if you want to discuss religion. E.g. most scholars don’t dismiss an exodus of some sort (the Egyptian influence on early Jewish concepts is strong), but they question the details and you’d also learn that there are elements of such late origin that King David would have been surprised to hear about them as they became part of the tradition long after his reign.
Then re-read what I wrote above and see if you will still make such insinuations. If your beliefs may not be challenged, I dare say you’re not a firm believer.