The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[guanophore]

Thanks for your responses.

Just wanted to let you know how helpful it is that you are color coding your posts.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I have read quite a few of Pelikan’s books, all of them from before he quit Lutheranism, and I am not aware of any comment like what you have described. If you could, I would appreciate it if you could tell us which Pelikan book you are referring to here.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hi Tim,
Apparently from, Luther, The Expositer, though I do not have access to it.

[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Tim,
Apparently from, Luther, The Expositer, though I do not have access to it.

[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

Jon

The source of your quote appears to be an article on the anti-Catholic blog “Beggars All”, specifically from the article: Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture, By James Swan. The whole of the quote that you copied from this article follows. The text that you cited is in red. The sentence before it, in blue, you failed to include.

“[Luther] did not pretend that the church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha. From his own experience he could testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.” Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 87-88.

Jon, that sentence (in blue) that you omitted from this article about Luther, that he constructed a ‘private miniature canon’, is precisely the point that I have been making. In addition, there are other quotes from other Lutheran theologians which make the same point, many of them being much more pointed (as we will see) than what Pelikan said (during the period when he was still a Lutheran).

One of the issues at hand is that, in Lutheranism, the canon is only ‘relatively closed’, which of course is a difficult concept to understand. Honesly, the canon is either closed or its not. The idea of it being ‘relatively closed’ appears to be nonsensical. Does every Christian, or maybe every Lutheran, have the right or authority to ‘construct their own private minature canon’ as Pelikan says of Luther?

BTW, providing the reference to secondary source for your quote would have allowed us to know the nature of that secondary source.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12438343]
The source of your quote appears to be an article on the anti-Catholic blog “Beggars All”,

Somehow, Tim, your accusation of someone being anti-something is reminiscent of the idiomatic pot and kettle.

Jon, that sentence (in blue) that you omitted from this article about Luther

I omitted nothing!

My comment was: ** I read a comment by Jaroslav Pelikan somewhere that Luther was smart enough to know that he had to operate within the canon passed down through history. **

Your question was: ** If you could, I would appreciate it if you could tell us which Pelikan book you are referring to here. **

I answered your question: Apparently from, Luther, The Expositer, though I do not have access to it.

Then, I added the germane quote:
[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

But your response here is a good reminder as to why I choose not to pursue this, or any topic with you.

I have provided sources for you to investigate your original OP. Assuming your OP question was sincere, and not polemical bait, I wish you good luck in finding the answer.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

The reason Martin Luther put the 7 disputed books of Scripture into an appendix is because they did not suit his new doctrines. He arrived at the principle of private judgment of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whatever any book such as Maccabee’s taught a doctrine contrary to his taste, he rejected it overboard because it said: 2 Mach.xii 46, “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins.”

Martin Luther not only cast out certain books of Scripture, but mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul's doctrine "we are justified by faith," Luther added the word alone to make the sentence read; "We are justified by faith alone." his explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word alone is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough."

It sure sounds to me that Martin Luther a University degree, a doctorate that he had the authority to interpret and decide what Scripture was and was not. It was Luther alone who decided as to what he considered to be canon and what books in Scripture are or were canon and which ones were not. While Luther did not remove the books per say, he did put them into a appendix, with his own comments as to their value in relationship to the rest of Scripture.

Martin Luther by his words left no doubt that he had the authority to do as he did. In reality he gave himself that authority basing it on that fact that he held a doctorate from the university, which he believed gave him that authority, and that authority was not to be questioned by anyone, period. In effect the CC authority that he so violently contested and disputed he gave to himself.

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;12439674]The reason Martin Luther put the 7 disputed books of Scripture into an appendix is because they did not suit his new doctrines. He arrived at the principle of private judgment of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whatever any book such as Maccabee’s taught a doctrine contrary to his taste, he rejected it overboard because it said: 2 Mach.xii 46, “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins.”

Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that this is true. It should be easy, then, to identify writings by Luther about the specific doctrines of each of these seven books that he rejected.
So, for example, there must be a doctrine in 1 Maccabees he disapproved of.
From his preface of 1 Maccabees (yes, he not only translated and included books he rejected, but he wrote prefaces for each one.)

Preface to the First Book of Maccabees 1533

This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in that chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described—namely, Antiochus Epiphanes—and in much the same way that Daniel [11:29–35] speaks of it: a little help and great persecution by the Gentiles and by false Jews, which is what took place at the time of the Maccabees. **This is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know. **

Why would he translate, include, write a preface for, and say it is worthy of a spot in the canon and is good for us to read, regarding a book that is opposed to his “new doctrines”?

My point, Spina, is that Luther in his prefaces gives specific reasons for his opinion about their not being equal to the attested books.

Regarding Judith:

“If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and** should properly be in the Bible.** Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Jeremiah and Ezra. For these show how Jerusalem and the whole country were destroyed, and were thereafter laboriously rebuilt during the time of the monarchy of the Persians who occupied the land.”

and

"Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them.

Having read Luther’s prefaces, and considering the illogical idea that he translated, etc. all seven books because he rejected them, the argument you present simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Martin Luther not only cast out certain books of Scripture, but mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul's doctrine "we are justified by faith," Luther added the word alone to make the sentence read; "We are justified by faith alone." his explanation of this insertion is found in his own words, "I know very well that the word alone is not in the Latin and Greek texts; but Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough."

I and other have responded often enough regarding this that, simply because you repeat is again here, isn’t going to make it more correct.

continued

 

[JonNC]

It sure sounds to me that Martin Luther a University degree, a doctorate that he had the authority to interpret and decide what Scripture was and was not. It was Luther alone who decided as to what he considered to be canon and what books in Scripture are or were canon and which ones were not. While Luther did not remove the books per say, he did put them into a appendix, with his own comments as to their value in relationship to the rest of Scripture.

Historically and factually incorrect.

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” - Cardinal Cajetan

Martin Luther by his words left no doubt that he had the authority to do as he did. In reality he gave himself that authority basing it on that fact that he held a doctorate from the university, which he believed gave him that authority, and that authority was not to be questioned by anyone, period. In effect the CC authority that he so violently contested and disputed he gave to himself.

Luther’s opinion of the canon does not even appear in the Lutheran confessions. Luther goes out of his way often to express that he is offering his own opinions.
Authority implies that power and ability to enforce. Luther had neither, and he knew it.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Jon, I’m thankful you’re answering these peuso-questions with your typical collectedness. I doubt I could be so patient.

 

[spina1953]

Historically and factually incorrect.

Luther’s opinion of the canon does not even appear in the Lutheran confessions. Luther goes out of his way often to express that he is offering his own opinions.
Authority implies that power and ability to enforce. Luther had neither, and he knew it.

Jon

This has nothing to do with the Lutheran Confessions, and I did not even consider them, it is only what Luther was saying and or doing at the time. Whether or not modern Lutheran’s accept Luther’s opinions is not something I 'm asking any Lutheran to defend. I know this has been talked about before and I am well aware of the Lutheran position when it comes to Luther and his opinions, which is the reason I do not ask it to be defended by any Lutheran.

 

[pablope]

S

I answered your question: Apparently from, Luther, The Expositer, though I do not have access to it.

Then, I added the germane quote:
[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

Jon

You have the patience of Job, my friend…

Anyway, can you explain more the bolded part ( since I am not sure what it is speaking of):

Then, I added the germane quote:
[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

And second question…".was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition…so which tradition and which canon is being referred to here?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jon, I’m thankful you’re answering these peuso-questions with your typical collectedness. I doubt I could be so patient.

Amen!

One day, one day I hope to be gifted in charity and patience like Jon is.

 

[JonNC]

This has nothing to do with the Lutheran Confessions, and I did not even consider them, it is only what Luther was saying and or doing at the time. Whether or not modern Lutheran’s accept Luther’s opinions is not something I 'm asking any Lutheran to defend. I know this has been talked about before and I am well aware of the Lutheran position when it comes to Luther and his opinions, which is the reason I do not ask it to be defended by any Lutheran.

Sure it does, as your accusation is that Luther claimed some authority. If he had authority, one would expect it to be reflected in the Augsburg Confession, or in his own catechisms.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

Authority: the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. Authority implies that one is in a position to enforce. I see no evidence that Luther felt he had such power. In fact, I think he knew he did not. I read a comment by Jaroslav Pelikan somewhere that Luther was smart enough to know that he had to operate within the canon passed down through history. Note that Luther never excluded James. He never even excluded the DC’s, regardless of his feelings for them. He knew he had no authority to do so.

Hi Jon, I have read quite a few of Pelikan’s books, all of them from before he quit Lutheranism, and I am not aware of any comment like what you have described. If you could, I would appreciate it if you could tell us which Pelikan book you are referring to here.

Hi Tim,
Apparently from, Luther, The Expositer, though I do not have access to it.[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

Hi Jon,Thanks for your response. The source of your quote appears to be an article on the anti-Catholic blog “Beggars All”, specifically from the article: Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture, By James Swan.

Jon, that sentence (in blue) that you omitted from this article about Luther, that he constructed a ‘private miniature canon’, is precisely the point that I have been making.

Whatever point you think you’re making by highlighting something “in blue” is irrelevant to what Pelikan is saying. Before you make your point by utilizing Pelikan, contextual integrity demands exegeting Pelikan’s point. That is- having a firm understanding of what he’s saying. JonNC has the gist of what Pelikan said- that without highlighting anything in blue. Words mean things in context, not by highlighting a few of the words at the expense of the other words.

One of the issues at hand is that, in Lutheranism, the canon is only ‘relatively closed’, which of course is a difficult concept to understand. Honesly, the canon is either closed or its not.

Now that’s interesting. What is the canonical status of the Septuagint book of 1 Esdras (or what the Council of Trent called, 3 Esdras) according to the Catholic Church? See:
Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Anyway, can you explain more the bolded part ( since I am not sure what it is speaking of)

Luther the Expositor is a compendium volume to Luther’s Works, English addition. It was designed to look exactly like one of the volumes in Luther’s Works

From Concordia Publishing:

“Luther the Expositor is an introduction to Luther’s writings dealing with his exegetical principles and practices, illustrated by a case study of texts on the Lord’s Supper. It is an overview of Luther’s theology underlining the importance of exegesis in the life and thought of the church.”

From Amazon:
Luther the Expositor Hardcover – June 1, 1959
by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan (Author)
ISBN-13: 978-0570064312 ISBN-10: 0570064317

WorldCat entry.

 

[JonNC]

Amen!

One day, one day I hope to be gifted in charity and patience like Jon is.

I would not wish people to see what I write, then delete, prior to hitting “submit”.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would not wish people to see what I write, then delete, prior to hitting “submit”.

Jon

No worries. Can you email me the link for that filter app?

 

[spina1953]

In reading history of the reformation and the writings of Martin Luther, there is no doubt that Luther rejected all authority but his own in regards to Scripture and doctrine, in that his doctrines were the only ones to be accepted. Luther according to his own words said that his teachings and doctrines were not to be questioned, which implies authority. His having a doctorate form the university in theology also in his thinking gave him the authority and the right to decide doctrines and what was to be taught.

There is also no doubt that Luther influenced a great many people to his cause, thereby causing a revolt against the CC. Luther wrote far more than anyone else in promoting his teachings and doctrines during the Reformation. When the CC refused to agree with his teachings and doctrines he went off into a rage and a tangent  with all who opposed him, his teachings and his doctrines. Why all? Because the CC would not accept his teachings and doctrines. While there certainly abuses by those within the CC, Luther went far beyond that and questioned all of the teachings and doctrines of the CC and the authority of the CC to do so.

They may have been Luther’s opinions but they had weight and influenced many people, whether or not they really understood his teachings and doctrines and the CC teachings and doctrines. Luther used propaganda in order to influence, promote and promulgate his teachings and doctrines over that of what the CC taught. Luther was recognized as a authority among those who agreed with him and what he taught and was teaching. To say that Luther did not have authority or did not claim authority seems a little far fetched since, people listened to him and went along with him and why would they do that if they did not think he had some sort of authority and Luther used the authority he claimed from his being a doctorate of theology to imposes his beliefs as to his theology on to others. There are those of course that say he never claimed authority, but history say otherwise.

 

[Topper17]

Somehow, Tim, your accusation of someone being anti-something is reminiscent of the idiomatic pot and kettle.

I omitted nothing!

My comment was: ** I read a comment by Jaroslav Pelikan somewhere that Luther was smart enough to know that he had to operate within the canon passed down through history. **

Your question was: ** If you could, I would appreciate it if you could tell us which Pelikan book you are referring to here. **

I answered your question: Apparently from, Luther, The Expositer, though I do not have access to it.

Then, I added the germane quote:
[Luther] “…was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

But your response here is a good reminder as to why I choose not to pursue this, or any topic with you.

I have provided sources for you to investigate your original OP. Assuming your OP question was sincere, and not polemical bait, I wish you good luck in finding the answer.

Jon

Jon, I am not trying to make a federal case out of this and I am not going to belabor it. The Pelikan quote in question is as follows:

“Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he **was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 87-88.

You posted the part in red, which portrays a relatively positive view of Luther. The part that you didn’t include, the part in blue, makes Luther look much worse, at least to those people who believe that ‘constructing a private miniature canon’ is something that Christians should not do.

The red portion of the quote without the blue gives people the wrong impression about Pelikan’s whole statement, with that impression being of course, much more positive (about Luther) than the whole quote.

That being said, this thread began with the text from an article by an LCMS Pastor. The following (in black and red) are the final installment of that article.

“One final thing. While it is in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that the battle is being fought, no Christian is free from its implications**. Either the reader must place himself completely under the authority of a New Testament that was written or commended by apostles, and of an Old Testament that was approved by the testimony of such a New Testament, both Old and New Testaments being the inspired and utterly trustworthy Word of God. or, he must begin to choose on the basis of his own scholarship or that of others such truths as he thinks the Holy Spirit (is there really a Holy Spirit, or is He the creation of the second century Christian community?) is leading him to believe.** **There is no middle ground of “substantial trustworthiness of Scripture” with an admixture of untrustworthy elements. Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scriptures are actually made up of these kind of untrustworthy books? **Does the “Gospel” really come to us from God, or from man?

**
A theology which thus leaves seekers after God and His Truth hanging in mid-air does not have what it takes to give modern man something solid to live and die by. **What the Christian church had in the first place is the only resource available to fallen man to answer the human need with truth and hope.” LCMS Pastor Elmer J. Moeller, “Missouri’s Critical Issue”, 1974

Pastor Moeller points honestly points to the problem caused by Luther’s (and Lutheranism’s) antilegomena. If the Holy Scriptures are not actually closed, as taught by Lutheranism, then each individual must determine for themselves, following Luther’s example, what Scripture should be trusted as being ‘fully inspired’. As Moeller puts it: “Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scripture are actually made up of these kinds of untrustworthy books?”

By arbitrarily and subjectively ‘demoting’ 4 books of the NT to a ‘class’ which is “not used to establish doctrine in the church”, the Lutheran Church set itself up for the problems which Moeller so honestly admits. Infallible doctrine cannot be determined from a Scripture where the canon is still in question. This appears to be a huge problem at the foundation of Lutheranism. What is the Lutheran response to the problems brought up by this LCMS Pastor?

If anyone is interested in reading the whole article, it can be found at the following web address and is the last article in the chain of several articles on the same subject.

scribd.com/doc/106130276/…ethod-Bartling

• File from WELSNET (Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod) BBS: (414)475-7514

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I am not trying to make a federal case out of this and I am not going to belabor it. The Pelikan quote in question is as follows:

“Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he **was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 87-88.

You posted the part in red, which portrays a relatively positive view of Luther. The part that you didn’t include, the part in blue, makes Luther look much worse, at least to those people who believe that ‘constructing a private miniature canon’ is something that Christians should not do.

The red portion of the quote without the blue gives people the wrong impression about Pelikan’s whole statement, with that impression being of course, much more positive (about Luther) than the whole quote.

That being said, this thread began with the text from an article by an LCMS Pastor. The following (in black and red) are the final installment of that article.

“One final thing. While it is in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that the battle is being fought, no Christian is free from its implications**. Either the reader must place himself completely under the authority of a New Testament that was written or commended by apostles, and of an Old Testament that was approved by the testimony of such a New Testament, both Old and New Testaments being the inspired and utterly trustworthy Word of God. or, he must begin to choose on the basis of his own scholarship or that of others such truths as he thinks the Holy Spirit (is there really a Holy Spirit, or is He the creation of the second century Christian community?) is leading him to believe.** **There is no middle ground of “substantial trustworthiness of Scripture” with an admixture of untrustworthy elements. Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scriptures are actually made up of these kind of untrustworthy books? **Does the “Gospel” really come to us from God, or from man?

**
A theology which thus leaves seekers after God and His Truth hanging in mid-air does not have what it takes to give modern man something solid to live and die by. **What the Christian church had in the first place is the only resource available to fallen man to answer the human need with truth and hope.” LCMS Pastor Elmer J. Moeller, “Missouri’s Critical Issue”, 1974

Pastor Moeller points honestly points to the problem caused by Luther’s (and Lutheranism’s) antilegomena. If the Holy Scriptures are not actually closed, as taught by Lutheranism, then each individual must determine for themselves, following Luther’s example, what Scripture should be trusted as being ‘fully inspired’. As Moeller puts it: “Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scripture are actually made up of these kinds of untrustworthy books?”

By arbitrarily and subjectively ‘demoting’ 4 books of the NT to a ‘class’ which is “not used to establish doctrine in the church”, the Lutheran Church set itself up for the problems which Moeller so honestly admits. Infallible doctrine cannot be determined from a Scripture where the canon is still in question. This appears to be a huge problem at the foundation of Lutheranism. What is the Lutheran response to the problems brought up by this LCMS Pastor?

If anyone is interested in reading the whole article, it can be found at the following web address and is the last article in the chain of several articles on the same subject.

scribd.com/doc/106130276/…ethod-Bartling

• File from WELSNET (Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod) BBS: (414)475-7514

God Bless You Jon, Topper

I hope you make use of the resources I provided.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

This has nothing to do with the Lutheran Confessions, and I did not even consider them, it is only what Luther was saying and or doing at the time. Whether or not modern Lutheran’s accept Luther’s opinions is not something I 'm asking any Lutheran to defend. I know this has been talked about before and I am well aware of the Lutheran position when it comes to Luther and his opinions, which is the reason I do not ask it to be defended by any Lutheran.

You have to admit, the thread topic does seem to lend itself to going down that road yet again.