A Refutation of Acharya S. by Mike Likona

Posted on July 9, 2005 by Dr. John Oakes wrote in Apologetics.

A Refutation of Acharya S’s book, The Christ Conspiracy

By Mike Licona

Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book
entitled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. This book presents
an hypothesis of how Christianity came into being. Although it has received
no attention from scholarship, with the lone exception of a negative book review
and that from an atheist scholar,(1) The Christ Conspiracy has nonetheless gained
support from a number of laypersons. The occasion for this paper is to assess
Murdock?s major claims in a brief manner in terms of their accuracy and whether
her book is a worthwhile contribution on the origin of Christianity. The paper
will sample some of her major claims. No attempts will be made to defend the
Christian worldview.

Acharya means "guru" or "teacher." Her actual name is D. Murdock.(2) Throughout
the remainder of this paper, this author will be referred to as Ms. Murdock.
The thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons
from the first and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus
and his disciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve
as a one-world religion for the Roman empire. This religion would be a collage
of all of the other world religions and combined with astrology.

This, of course, is a radical and unorthodox picture of Christianity. However,
being radical and unorthodox does not invalidate a view. Notwithstanding, if
Ms. Murdock?s picture of Christianity is to be believed as correct, she has
to be accurate in her assessment of the details of the other religions she cites
in terms of their similarities with Christianity, correct in her assessment
of ancient astrology, correct in her peculiar datings of the Gospels, and correct
concerning the Masons. If she is incorrect on any one of these, her hypothesis must
be altered or abandoned. It is when we look at the areas of astrology, comparative
religion, New Testament higher criticism, Freemasonry, and other issues, we
find her to be incorrect in every one of these areas.

1. Astrology

Ms. Murdock claims that as myth developed, "it took the form of a play, with
a cast of characters, including the 12 divisions of the sky called the signs
or constellations of the zodiac. The symbols that typified these 12 celestial
sections of 300 each were not based on what the constellations actually look like
but represent aspects of earthly life. Thus, the ancient peoples were able to
incorporate these earthly aspects into the mythos and project them onto the
all-important celestial screen."(3) Based on this understanding, she claims
that the mythical Jesus recognized the coming of the age of Pisces; thus, the
Christian fish.(4)

Is it true that astrology played a large part in the formation of Christianity
as Ms. Murdock asserts? Noel Swerdlow is Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics
at the Universityof Chicago. He has specialized in the study of the practice
of astronomy in antiquity through the 17th century. I emailed Dr. Swerdlow on
this matter. Here is what he had to say on Ms. Murdock?s view:

In antiquity, constellations were just groups of stars, and there were no borders
separating the region of one from the region of another. In astrology, for computational
purposes the zodiacal signs were taken as twelve arcs of 30 degrees measured
from the vernal equinox. Because of the slow westward motion of the equinoxes
and solstices, what we call the precession of the equinoxes, these did not correspond
to the constellations with the same names. But . . . within which group of stars
the vernal equinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all. The modern
ideas about the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon the location
of the vernal equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But
the regions, the borders between, those constellations are a completely modern
convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping
. . . and never had any astrological significance. I hope this is helpful although
in truth what this woman is claiming is so wacky that it is hardly worth answering.(5)
So when this woman says that the Christian fish was a symbol of the ‘coming
age of Pisces’, she is saying something that no one would have thought of in
antiquity because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal equinox
was located, was of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe
twentieth-century, astrology.(6)

In other words, the ancient "Christ conspirators" could not have recognized
the 12 celestial sections in order to incorporate them into a Christian myth
and announce the ushering in of the Age of Pisces as Murdock claims, because
the division into the celestial sections did not occur until a meeting of the International
Astronomical Union in the 20th century!(7) Therefore, her claim is without any
merit.

Ms. Murdock also holds that when we see 12 figures in the Bible that these are
representative of the 12 zodiacal signs. She writes, "In reality, it is no accident
that there are 12 patriarchs, 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples, 12 being
the number of the astrological signs . . ."(8) If we want to accept her thoughts
on this, we also need to accept that Dunkin Donuts is owned by an astrologer
since they give a discount when you buy a dozen donuts. Grocery stores are also
run by astrologers, since you buy eggs by the dozen. Even our legal system must
have been influenced by astrology, since there are 12 jurors. When you want
to see astrology in something, you see it, even when it requires that you read
in foreign meanings into the texts.

But there are further problems with her thesis. Were the 12 tribes of Israe
lrepresentative of the 12 signs of the zodiac as she claims?(9) She asserts that
Simeon and Levi are Gemini. Judahis Leo. And the list goes on. She also claims
that when Jacob set up 12 stones representing the tribes that they were really
representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.(10) But this is impossible. Genesis
was written approximately 1,000 B.C. and contains the story of the 12 tribes of
Israel which would have occurred even earlier.(11) The division into the 12
zodiacal signs did not occur until the Babylonians made the divisions in the
fifth century B.C.(12) Therefore, reading astrology into the twelve tribes
is anachronistic.

She also claims that "[t]he Hebrews were ?moon-worshippers,? since many of their
feasts and holidays revolved around the movements and phases of the moon. Such
moon-worship is found repeatedly in the Old Testament (Ps. 8:13[sic], 104:19;
Is. 66:23), and to this day Jews celebrate holidays based on the lunar calendar.
At Isaiah 47, these moon-worshippers are equated with astrologers, i.e., ?. . .
those who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons predi
ct what shall befall you.?"(13)

Were the Hebrews moon-worshippers? This seems unlikely for a couple of reasons:
(A) Just because the Jews operated under a lunar calendar, does not mean that
they were moon worshippers. (B) When you look at the three biblical references
she provides to support
her claim that moon worship is found repeatedly in the
Old Testament, it is readily seen that these has been taken out of context.
Let us look briefly at these. The verses before and after have also been included,
in order to provide you with their context. The verses Ms. Murdock appeals to
have been italicized.

From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your
enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider your heavens, the
work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what
is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm
8:2-4, NIV) The high mountains belong to the wild goats; the crags are a refuge
for the coneys. The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go
down. You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. The sun rises, and
they steal away; they return and lie down in their dens. Then man goes out to
his work, to his labor until evening. (Psalm 104:18-23, NIV)

As we read these verses, we discover that they have nothing at all to do with
moon worship. The third reference is from Isaiah where God is supposed to be
speaking and says:

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares
the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another
and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,"
says the LORD. "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who
rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched,
and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Psalm 66:22-24)

These verses do not speak of moon-worship. Rather the psalmist says that as
time goes on, all mankind with worship the Lord. Let us now look at the final
verse Ms. Murdock appeals to in support of her thesis that the Hebrews were
involved in moon-worship.

Disaster will come upon you, and you will not know how to conjure it away. A
calamity will fall upon you that you cannot ward off with a ransom; a catastrophe
you cannot foresee will suddenly come upon you. Keep on, then, with your magic
spells and with your many sorceries, which you have labored at since childhood.
Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror. All the counsel you
have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those
stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming
upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot
even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals to warm
anyone; here is no fire to sit by. That is all they can do for you– these you
have labored with and trafficked with since childhood. Each of them goes on
in his error; there is not one that can save you. (Isaiah 47:11-15, NIV)

In this passage, the moon-worshippers and astrologers are clearly not the Hebrews,
but the Babylonians whom God is saying He is about to destroy! So we have seen
that the three passages Ms. Murdock appeals to in support of her thesis that
the Hebrews were involved in moon-worship do not support her view in the least.
Rather they have been taken out of context, a practice referred to a "proof-texting."
Unfortunately, average readers will not look up her references and see this
for themselves.

This is not to say that there was not a single Hebrew who worshipped the moon.
But her absurd interpretations indicate that she has not supported her view
that the Hebrews as a nation had a practice of moon-worship. This is further
confirmed by the fact that the worship of anyone or anything other than God was
prohibited. Whenever this practice is mentioned in the Bible, there is correction
or strong condemnation.(14) Contrary to Ms. Murdock, the Bible is not friendly
towards astrology. There is not a single verse that approves of sun worship, moon
worship or astrology.

Ms. Murdock also claims that the Bible is favorable towards divination. She
writes, "In the earliest parts of the Bible, divination is praised as a way
to commune with God or divine the future (Genesis 30:27). Indeed, the word ?divination?
comes from the word ?divine,? which is a demonstration that divination was originally
considered godly and not evil."(15) This too is an incorrect understanding of
the text. Genesis 30:27 records Laban telling Jacob that he has learned through
divination that God has blessed him on Jacob?s account. But Laban was known to
worship other gods.(16) This verse does not praise divination and God has said
elsewhere that divination is evil. For example in Leviticus 19:26, it is written,
"Do not practice divination or sorcery." Likewise, in Deuteronomy 18:10-12 it
is written, "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter
in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages
in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults
the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because
of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations
before you."

She claims that the Bible teaches the signs found in the stars and quotes Genesis
1:14 in the old KJV: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of
the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and
for seasons, and for days, and years . . ." She says that this verse "basically
describes the zodiac."(17) However, modern translations present a more accurate
translation: "And God said, ?Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons
and days and years?" (NIV). This is also how prominent Hebrew dictionaries understand
it.(18)

Dr. Richard Patterson is an Old Testament scholar who has specialized in ancient
Semitic languages during his career. He was involved in the translations of
the New Living Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and is currently
working on the revision for the New International Version. He has written close
to 150 journal articles, critical reviews, and Hebrew dictionary entries. Concerning
Genesis 1:14, Dr. Patterson comments, "The KJV translates this verse in a wooden
sense. However, if we want to understand the original sense of the Hebrew, the
NIV and NLT provide a more accurate rendering. Moreover, a look at the occurrences
of this word throughout the Old Testament reveals that it is not used in the
sense of astrological signs even one time outside of our verse in question."(19)

It is interesting to note that the equivalent Greek word (shmeion) is never
used in the sense of an astrological sign in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek
translation of the Old Testament which was popular among the Hebrews and the
early Christians, although it appears 123 times.(20)

Ms. Murdock says a lot more in reference to astrology and the Bible which this
short paper cannot address. However, it is hoped that these few samples are
adequate to demonstrate that she is terribly inaccurate in her understanding
of the practice of astrology among the ancients as well as her ineptness in using
the Bible to support her view.

2. Comparative Religion Studies

a. Similarities to Krishna

Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed from
other religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with
Krishna, the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha
and Christ Unveiled" expounds on this position.(21)

What about Ms. Murdock?s claim that Krishnais so similar to Jesus that Christianity
must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at
Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper,
he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Peguine World Classics
and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna
had been crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There
is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."(22) He also
added that Krishnawas killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot
him in the heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages
who came there for him could not really see it.(23)

Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article "Krishna, Crucified?"
an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ
Unveiled.(24) In it she states, "it appears that Krishnais not the first Indian
god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the
avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna."
To this Bryant responded, "She doesn?t know what she?s talking about! Vithoba
?was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely
no Indian gods portrayed as crucified." Then he became indignant and said, "If
someone is going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition,
they should at least read a religion 101 course."(25)

Later I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the
reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy.(26) He stated that 14 of her 24 comparisons
are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong.(27) What about her 9 _ that are correct;
especially Krishna?s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had thousands of infants
killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna?s bodily ascension? Benjamin Walker
in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an
answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity
of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India,
"[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity],
but not the name."(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the
Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to be prior
to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to
be 11 century AD."(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts.
Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources
seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again
hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.(30) An
?earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin,
who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but
that it may be as early as the second century.(31) Even if this early date is
accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock?s thesis requires.

Ms. Murdock further claims that Christianity has failed in India because "the
Brahmans have recognized Christianity as a relatively recent imitation of their
much older traditions."(32) To this, Dr. Bryant simply commented, "Stupid comment."(33)

Ms. Murdock?s claim that Christianity has borrowed substantially from Hinduism
is without merit. Her claims are false, unsupported, and exhibit a lack of understanding
of the Hindu faith.

b. Similarities to Buddha

In addition to Krishna, Ms. Murdock cites similarities between the Buddha and
Jesus as an example of how Christianity has borrowed from Buddhism. As with Kris
hna, she lists 18 similarities Jesus shares with Buddha in The Christ Conspiracy.(34)
Regarding these, I emailed Professor Chun-fang Yu, Chair of the Department of
Religion at Rutgers. Dr. Yu has specialized in Buddhist studies. I listed the
18 similarities recorded by Ms. Murdock and asked if these were actual traditions
of the Buddha. She replied writing, "None of the 18 [are] correct. A few, however,
have some semblance of correctness but are badly distorted." She then listed a total
of eight that had some similarities and provided details.(35)
Dr. Yu ended by writing, "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism.
It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor
[Ms. Murdock] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic
course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things
she does not know."

It is appropriate to mention here that Ms. Murdock claims to have mastered several
religions. Her book, The Christ Conspiracy claims a mastery of Christianity
and her new book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, with excerpts
found on her web site also indicate that she believes Hinduism and Buddhism to
be two other religions which she has mastered in terms of her knowledge of them.
However, as we have seen, she is terribly ignorant of the actual traditions
of Hinduism and Buddhism. And as we are about to see, she is likewise mistaken
when it comes to her understanding of Christianity.

3. Christianity

We saw in section one (i.e., "Astrology") that Ms. Murdock does not use biblical
texts in an accurate manner to support her views. In this section we will notice
that she also possesses some peculiar views when it comes to New Testament higher
criticism. Can these views be supported?

a. Very Late Datings of the Gospels

Ms. Murdock holds that the Gospels were not penned until after A. D. 150, a
view held by no major New Testament scholar, irrespective of their theological
perspective. She supports her position by quoting John Remsburg who wrote: "The
Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most
eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century.
His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels,
had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books
of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the
New Testament; but none from the four Gospels."(36)

But this is false. In Justin?s First Apology [i.e., First Defense], he writes,
"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,
have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread,
and when He had given thanks, said, ?This do in remembrance of Me, this is My
body;? and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks,
He said, ?This is My blood;? and gave it to them alone."(37) So Justin calls
the Gospels the "memoirs" of the apostles and then quotes from them.(38) In his
Dialogue With Trypho, Justin makes mention of the "memoirs" another 13 times.(39)
In every instance
he either quotes from a Gospel or relates a story from them.

Why is it that Justin does not cite the Gospels when defending the deity of
Christ? He is dialoguing with a Jew and wants to use the Old Testament Scriptures
to defend his position, since he shares these in common with Trypho. This was
also the practice of Paul: "Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and
Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned
with them from the Scriptures . . ."(40)

As further support she cites Charles Waite: "At the very threshold of the subject,
we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he
once so much as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of
their supposed authors, except John."(41) It is true that Justin never says who wrote
them. However, contrary to Murdock?s sources, we know that they existed because
Justin referred to them and quoted them as just demonstrated above. Ms. Murdock
could claim that the Gospels Justin referred to were different than the four we now
have. But if this is the case, what data can she provide to support her view?
She must also adequately explain why there is a complete absence of manuscripts
for these while we have an abundant number of manuscripts for the four Gospels we
now have. Moreover, the Gospels Justin appeals to seem to have precisely the
same content as the four we now have. So she will have difficulty demonstrating
that multiple layers of legend were added from Justin?s time until the latter
part of the second century, since the early sources with which Justin was familiar
and from which the four gospels supposedly borrowed said precisely the same
things!

She quotes Waite again: "No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other
part of the New Testament. . . ."(42) He goes on to say that there is no other
evidence of a Gospel until the latter part of the second century. But this is
false as well. Paul appears to quote from Luke?s Gospel (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Lk
10:7). The oldest manuscript we have is a fragment from the Gospel of John and
dates to around A. D. 125 (labeled p52 and kept at the John Rylands Library
in Manchester, England). The early Church father, Ignatius (c. A. D. 110), who
either knew the apostles or was close to those who did, seems very familiar
with the Gospel of Matthew, because of the numerous parallels and apparent quotations
from Matthew. Clement (c. A. D. 95) and Polycarp (c. A. D. 110), who knew the
apostles, also make use of Matthew. 2 Clement (c. A. D. 120-140) employs numerous
sayings from Matthew, Luke and a few from Mark. The author of the Shepherd of
Hermas (c. A. D. 90-150) almost certainly knew some or all of the four gospels
. All of these early Christian writers were from the latter part of the first
century through no later than the middle part of the second century.(43) Therefore,
her claim that the Gospels were not composed until the latter part of the second
century is without support. And there are no respected New Testament critical
scholars who embrace her datings.

Murdock quotes from The Woman?s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets: "No extant
manuscript can be dated earlier than the 4th century A. D."(44) This shows no
knowledge of the manuscripts that we have. The p52 papyrus mentioned a moment
ago dates to around 125. p75 dates to between 175-225. p46 and p66 are slightly
earlier and both date to around 200. p45, the first of the Chester Beatty Biblical
papyri dates to the first half of the third century. p47 dates to the latter
part of the third century. p72 dates to the third century.(45) In summary, we have
seven manuscripts, which predate the fourth century.

b. Marcion?s Gospel came first?

In the middle part of the second century, there was a fellow named Marcion,
who was considered by many in the early Church as a heretic. His view was that
the God of the Jews was evil and that Jesus was a good God who came along to
save the world from this evil God. During His crucifixion, Jesus merely appeared
to have suffered. But He really did not according to Marcion, since he did not
believe that Jesus as God could suffer. Marcion is the first person known to
have made a list of the Christian books and letters which he believed were inspired.
He did this between A. D. 180-200. Because of his beliefs, he rejected all of
the Gospels accept Luke which he in turn changed substantially to fit his beliefs.
He also accepted ten of Paul?s letters. Amazingly, Ms. Murdock says that Marcion?s Gospel
preceded Luke?s, a view no serious scholar takes. Why does she think this? Because
Luke said that he was writing to Theophilus in Luke 1:3 and that Theophilus
was the bishop of Antiochfrom A. D. 169-177.(46) But this is absurd. Why are
we to believe that this is the same Theophilus? If she is going to use verse
3 of the first chapter of Luke to establish that Luke was writing to Theophilus,
would it not be wise to also read verse 2 where Luke says that he received his
information from the "eyewitnesses" of Jesus and "ministers of the word"? This
"buffet line" approach to biblical texts where she takes what she wants and
simply ignores what is not convenient is an extreme case of hermeneutical gymnastics.

She also thinks that the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark was an associate
of Marcion. Where does she get this? She quotes a passage from Eusebius who
mentions a Mark who associated with Marcion.(47) However, Eusebius never says
or even implies that this was the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark and Mark was
a common name. There is no reason at all to believe that these are the same
Marks.

c. Paul?s Letters

She believes that all of Paul?s letters are forgeries. In support of this position
she quotes Joseph Wheless: "The entire ?Pauline group? is the same forged class
. . . says E. B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . ?With respect to the canonical
Pauline Epistles, . . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen,
nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long "universally" regarded as unassailable.
They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries).
. .?"(48) She also quotes Hayyim ben Yehoshua who writes, "we are left with
the conclusion that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic" and he also
refers to Paul as a "semi-mythical" figure.(49) Again, this is a position that
no major scholar takes.

Polycarp (c. A. D. 110), who knew the apostles, quotes 1 Corinthians 6:2 and
assigns it as the words of Paul (Philippians 11:2). Three of the earliest apostolic
fathers, two of whom probably knew the apostles, mention Paul in their writings
(Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius). They mention several things about Paul
including his sufferings and martyrdom,(50) his position as an apostle,(51)
and that he "accurately and reliably taught the word."(52) Moreover, the apostolic
fathers site several of Paul?s letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy.
Therefore, there are good reasons to believe that Paul was an historical person
who authored several letters, which are contained in the New Testament. No serious scholar
takes the position of Ms. Murdock and there are good reasons why.

d. Genre