| The chapter also reflects standard Jewish motifs, such as the unity of God " s people, their love for God, God " s glory, obedience to God " s message, the election and setting apart of God " s people, and the importance of obeying God " s agent (Moses in Jewish tradition). One writer links such motifs specifically to the Cairo Geniza manuscript of the Palestinian Targum to Exod 19–20, 9387 another points to parallels with a hymn from Qumran; 9388 in short, most of the motifs reflect common Judaism, yet reinterpreted in a christocentric manner and reapplied to the christologically defined community. Further, to whatever degree John has adapted the discourse and prayer to encourage his audience in their particular situation, 9389 it is clear that a prayer of Jesus before his passion already stands in the passion tradition ( Mark 14:36 ). 9390 But whereas, in Mark, Jesus prays for the Father to spare him from the passion if possible ( Mark 14:36 ), here he recognizes and accedes to the Father " s purpose, requesting the hour of glorification (17:1). 9391 John does not deny Jesus» reluctance to face the cross (12:27) but places heavier emphasis on Jesus» obedience. 9392 Traditionally some have viewed Jesus» intercession in this passage in terms of the OT role of high priest 9393 (Jesus» role in some early Christian traditions; Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11); the chapter title «Jesus» High-Priestly Prayer» has circulated since the theologian David Chyträus (1531–1600). 9394 But Jewish tradition also emphasized the intercessory role of prophets; 9395 more significantly, the probably testamentary character of the final discourse might point to patriarchal blessings, 9396 particularly the prayer and blessing of Moses ( Deut 32–33 ), 9397 as background. But because the content of these blessings does not parallel John 17 very closely, 9398 » one may need to look to the experience of John " s audience for more of the content. A variety of backgrounds are possible, but most important within the context of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus becomes, before his exaltation, the first Paraclete, or intercessor ( Rom 8:26; 1 John 2:1 ; see extended comment on 14:16). 9399 This suggests that John 17 models part of the ministry of the Paraclete who would come after Jesus» departure (14:16) and of those who share his ministry (15:26–27). 9400 The Fourth Gospel presents the Paraclete especially as an advocate or prosecutor in the disciples» conflict with the world, but Jesus has also been promising them more direct access to the Father in prayer once he goes to the Father (14:13–14; 15:7, 16; 16:26–27). |
| The disciples respond in purely natural terms (6:7, 9). 5984 In this period two hundred denarii would represent a single worker " s wages for about two hundred (or possibly greater or fewer) 5985 days» work. 5986 Since in times of food shortages a day " s wages might provide little more than food for a poor family (and even under normal circumstances it would not provide ten times that amount), 5987 two hundred denarii could not begin to feed five thousand men plus some women and children (6:10), 5988 and five barley loaves (6:9) would do even less. 5989 As in John 2:5–9 , the silent protagonist allied with the disciples is one of the people without significant social influence, with whom some Johannine Christians could perhaps identify, a «lad» (6:9). 5990 Though the text does not emphasize this, that the lad shared his food (it can be safely assumed that the disciples did not force him to give it up) probably would have been seen as meritorious, or at least as the sort of incident that would be given this moral in later retellings. 5991 Barley was cheaper, hence accessible to the poor in larger quantity, than wheat (cf. Rev 6:6); 5992 the fish may have been dried. 5993 That the multitudes must «recline» (6:10) may suggest an allusion to the Passover (6:4). For normal meals people sat on chairs, but they reclined at banquets and festivals in accordance with the Greek custom probably adopted during the Hellenistic period. 5994 3. The Miracle (6:10–13) As noted in the introduction to this section (6:1–13), multiple attestation supports the probability that a massive feeding event occurred. But against what light would such an event be understood? Some find Hellenistic parallels more persuasive than Jewish ones. 5995 Visiting Greek deities might prevent food from running out, 5996 in ways similar to prophets in some biblical accounts (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 17:14–16; 2 Kgs 4:3–6). Yet even were the original disciples or John " s audience more attuned to the reports of Hellenistic divine men than to the biblical prophets, the Hellenistic parallels for divine men accomplishing such feats seem relatively few. 5997 But given the importance of food to survival, it is hardly surprising that most traditions would emphasize divine intervention in providing it. 5998 The biblical examples of multiplied food stand much closer; John actually contains some verbal reminiscences of 2 Kgs 4:42–44. 5999 Early Jewish tradition also spoke of the miraculous multiplication of oil (cf. 2 Kgs 4:5–6) 6000 and food (Exod 16:18). 6001 One wonders why an increasingly hellenized church would create a Hellenistic story about Jesus then introduce biblical allusions when incorporating them into the Gospels. A Jewish context for Jesus» miracle seems more likely from the start. |
| Interestingly, while some moralists of Jesus» day opined that it was good to allow some of one day " s provision to remain over for another day, 6015 manna was not supposed to be left over for the next day (Exod 16:19–20), because God would continue his miraculous supply as long as Israel remained in the wilderness. As in the Synoptics, Jesus offers this sign on a special occasion of need rather than desiring disciples to depend on it continually (6:26)– just as the manna stopped once natural means of providing food became available (Exod 16:35; Josh 5:12). 6016 Thus Jesus instructs the disciples to gather the food that remains, to be used later (6:12). Although miserliness was regularly condemned, 6017 ancient moralists regularly exhorted against waste and squandering, preferring frugality; this was both a Jewish view 6018 and a broader Mediterranean one. 6019 The ideal was frugality coupled with generosity toward others. 6020 Jewish teachers even instructed passersby to pick up food lying beside the roadside, which could be given to Gentiles for whom it would not prove unclean. 6021 One could argue that the bread symbolizes God " s people, on the basis of the number twelve, the term «lost» (6:12; cf. 6:27, 39 in the ensuing discourse), or other terms here like «gathering.» 6022 But the following discourse plainly applies the symbol of bread to Christ alone (6:32–35, 41, 48, 50–51, 58). That the disciples filled twelve baskets (6:13) simply underlines afresh the abundance of the miracle; there is no need to allegorize the baskets. 6023 Twelve is the maximum number that these disciples could reasonably carry. Guests who slipped out with leftover food in their baskets could be thought to be greedy, stealing the host " s food, or at best ill-mannered; remains belonged to the host. 6024 4. The Prophet-King (6:14–15) The narrative proper includes a christological climax (6:14–15), but the inadequacy of the confession will pave the way for the contrast between the Spirit and mere flesh in 6:63. Jesus» identity did include being a prophet (1:21, 25; 4:19,44; 7:40; 9:17) and a king (1:49; 12:13–15; 18:33,37), but such titles necessarily proved inadequate for him. Those who defined his prophetic and royal identity by the eschatological beliefs of their contemporaries sought a political or military leader (see introduction on Christology)–a fleshly role rather than one from the Spirit (6:63). In John " s day the emperor cult demanded earthly worship (see introduction); Jesus was a higher sort of king (cf. Rev 5:13). But in contrast to the response to Jesus in Judea, the Galilean response, which affirms him to be a prophet and a king, is at least partly correct (cf. Mark 8:29–33 ). 6025 In Galilee he is not altogether a «prophet without honor» (4:44). |
| Jesus revealed to the disciples God " s «name» (17:6), partly meaning his honor 9437 but very probably also implying his character and identity (14:9; 17:26). 9438 Acting by God " s name could represent dependence on God (e.g., 1QM 11.3). When God acted in history, he often did so for the sanctifying of his name, 9439 as he would do also at the final day. 9440 God expected his people to sanctify his name (kiddush haShem was central to Jewish ethics), especially by righteous deeds. 9441 Some rabbis opined that God " s name was hidden in the present age but would be revealed in the coming age; 9442 Jesus» revelation of the Father " s name is thus consonant with John " s emphasis on realized eschatology. Moses sought to know God " s «name» to reveal God to the people (Exod 3:13; cf. 33:18; 34:6–7); here Jesus provides his disciples, who are like Moses, with the same privilege. 9443 This experience would continue more fully after Jesus» glorification (14:21). That Jesus» disciples kept the word he gave them (17:6; cf. 8:51; 14:23; 15:20), as Jesus kept the Father " s (8:55), may recall the obedience of Moses but probably reflects more generally the obedience of Israel or a faithful remnant within Israel ( Deut 33:3, 9 ) . 9444 Yet in giving them the Father " s word (17:6, 8), Jesus is again greater than Moses, who gave the word to Israel; in John " s language, the law was given «through» Moses, but the actual giver of the law was God himself (1:17; cf. 6:32); thus the passage again portrays Jesus in a divine role. At the same time, Jesus remains subordinate to the Father, emphasizing that whatever he gave the disciples was from the Father (17:7). Perhaps, in the language of Exodus, Jesus is the «angel of YHWH» (Exod 3:2), but in the language of John (1:1–18) and of the early Jewish context he reflects, Jesus is divine Wisdom, which imparts God " s teachings to Moses and all those who will hear (e.g., Wis 7:27; 10:16; 11:1). The disciples realized that all that the Father had given Jesus was genuinely from the Father (17:7), in this case referring especially to Jesus» message (17:8; cf. 12:47–50; 16:15). That the Father had «given» disciples to Jesus (17:9; also 17:24) reiterates a striking image in the Fourth Gospe1. Early Judaism taught that Israel as a whole was predestined (see comment on 6:43–44), but like some other early Jewish Christian writers (e.g., Rom 9:6–32 ; Eph 1:4–5 ), John emphasizes the predestination of individuals in Christ through their faith in Christ. Jesus prays on behalf of the disciples (17:9) in a way that provides a model for how disciples will soon be authorized to pray for themselves in his name (16:26–27). |
| Some Jewish writers, especially those who, like Philo, were influenced by Greek thought, could use «god» loosely as well as for the supreme deity. But even when writers like Philo (following Exod 7:1) call Moses a «god,» 3273 Moses remains distinct from the supreme, eternal God to be worshiped, 3274 for whom the title is normally reserved. 3275 Further, Philo has a text (Exod 7:1) that allows him to accommodate some Hellenistic conceptions of heroes in an apologetically useful manner. Finally, for all the associations of Moses with the divine in Philo, the language comes short of Johns language for Jesus. 3276 Jesus appears as God s agent in the Fourth Gospel, but not just like Moses as God " s chief agent; Jesus is one greater than Moses (1:17), namely the Word itself (1:14). In John " s claim, Jesus is therefore not merely the «ultimate prophet.» «God» in the third line (1:1c) hardly signifies something dramatically different from what the term signified in the two lines that preceded it (l:lab), even if one presses a distinction on the basis of the anarthrous construction; like other early Christians (e.g., Mark 12:29 ; 1Tim 1:17 ), John acknowledges only one God (e.g., John 5:44; 17:3 ). Many commentators doubt that the anarthrous construction signifies anything theologically at al1. It certainly cannot connote «a god,» as in «one among many,» given Jesus» unique titles, role, and relationship with the Father later in the Gospe1. 3277 Nor should it mean «divine» in a weaker sense distinct from Gods own divine nature, for example, in the sense in which Philo can apply it to Moses. 3278 Had John meant merely «divine» in a more general sense, the common but more ambiguous expression τ θεον was already available; 3279 thus, for example, Philo repeatedly refers to the divine Word (θεος λγος) 3280 and Aristeas refers to «the divine law» (του θεου νμου). 3281 The anarthrous construction cannot be pressed to produce the weaker sense of merely «divine» in a sense distinct from the character of the Father " s deity. In one study of about 250 definite predicative nominatives in the NT, 90 percent were articular when following the verb, but a comparable 87 percent were anarthrous when before the verb, as here. 3282 Grammatically, one would thus expect John " s predicate nominative «θες» to be anarthrous, regardless of the point he was making. Further, John omits the article for God the Father elsewhere in the Gospel, even elsewhere in the chapter (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18). 3283 The same pattern of inconsistent usage appears in early patristic texts, 3284 and apparently Greek literature in genera1. 3285 And in a context where absolute identification with the Father would be less of a danger, John does not balk at using the articular form to call Jesus θες (20:28). 3286 |
| 6 It is useless to fast from food, protests St. Basil, and yet to indulge in cruel criticism and slander: ‘You do not eat meat, but you devour your brother’ . 7 The same point is made in the Triodion, especially during the first week of Lent: As we fast from food, let us abstain also from every passion. . . Let us observe a fast acceptable and pleasing to the Lord. True fasting is to put away all evil, To control the tongue, to forbear from anger, To abstain from lust, slander, falsehood and perjury. If we renounce these things, then is our fasting true and acceptable to God. Let us keep the Fast not only by refraining from food, But by becoming strangers to all the bodily passions. 8 The inner significance of fasting is best summed up in the triad: prayer, fasting, almsgiving . Divorced from prayer and from the reception of the holy sacraments, unaccompanied by acts of compassion, our fasting becomes pharisaical or even demonic. It leads, not to contrition and joyfulness, but to pride, inward tension and irritability. The link between prayer and fasting is rightly indicated by Father Alexander Elchaninov. A critic of fasting says to him: ‘Our work suffers and we become irritable. . . . I have never seen servants [in pre-revolutionary Russia] so bad tempered as during the last days of Holy Week. Clearly, fasting has a very bad effect on the nerves.’ To this Father Alexander replies: ‘You are quite right. . . . If it is not accompanied by prayer and an increased spiritual life, it merely leads to a heightened state of irritability. It is natural that servants who took their fasting seriously and who were forced to work hard during Lent, while not being allowed to go to church, were angry and irritable.’ 9 Fasting, then, is valueless or even harmful when not combined with prayer. In the Gospels the devil is cast out, not by fasting alone, but by ‘prayer and fasting’ (Matt. 17: 21 ; Mark 9: 29); and of the early Christians it is said, not simply that they fasted, but that they ‘fasted and prayed’ (Acts 13: 3; compare 14: 23). In both the Old and the New Testament fasting is seen, not as an end in itself, but as an aid to more intense and living prayer, as a preparation for decisive action or for direct encounter with God. Thus our Lord’s forty-day fast in the wilderness was the immediate preparation for His public ministry (Matt. 4: 1-11). When Moses fasted on Mount Sinai (Exod. 34: 28) and Elijah on Mount Horeb (3 Kgs. 19: 8-12), the fast was in both cases linked with a theophany. The same connection between fasting and the vision of God is evident in the case of St. Peter (Acts 10: 9-17). He ‘went up on the housetop to pray about the sixth hour, and he became very hungry and wanted to eat; and it was in this state that he fell into a trance and heard the divine voice. Such is always the purpose of ascetic fasting – to enable us, as the Triodion puts it, to ‘draw near to the mountain of prayer’. 10 |
| John Anthony McGuckin Widows VALENTINA IZMIRLIEVA Widows were the most prominent group of women in the first three centuries of the Christian church. The Greek term for widow, χρα (etymologically related to the preposition “without”), meant not merely a deceased man’s wife, but any woman without a husband. Used as a cover term for celibate women living outside traditional matrimonial structures (whether widowed, separated, divorced, or unmarried) it became associated in the Christian context with charisma, following the Pauline treatment of celibacy as a spiritual gift ( 1Cor. 7.7–17 ). Given the patristic understanding of virginity as a spiritual state that can be regained through continence, widows were often linked to virgins: Ignatius of Antioch hails “the virgins who are called widows” (Smyrn. 13.1), while Tertul- lian of Carthage commends the widows for “becoming virgins” (Exhortation to Chastity 1; To His Wife, 2.8). Thus, for the early Christian communities, widowhood came to represent an ideal lifestyle, a privileged opportunity for spiritual progress through chastity and service, offering a new social role for independent women that granted them respectability outside the patriarchal constraints of their society. In the biblical tradition, widows and their children (the orphans) symbolize all powerless people in society and fall directly under divine protection. Christian law, drawing on both its Jewish roots (Exod. 22.22; Ps. 68.5 ) and the personal example of Jesus ( Mk. 12.38–44 ; Lk. 7.11–17 ), made widows the financial responsibility of the church (Acts 6.1–7). Not all widows in Late Antiquity, however, were in need of support. Upper- class widows could inherit substantial property under Roman law. Such financially independent women, who were often also highly educated, were among the most generous benefactors of the Christian communities and the ecclesiastical elite. The early church generally encouraged widows of childbearing age to remarry ( 1Tim. 5.11–14 ), even though St. Paul considered those who remain widows “more blessed” (μακαριωτρα; 1Cor. 7.39–40 ). Only menopausal widows (the age limit fluctuates between 60 in 1Tim. 5.9 and 50 in the Didascalia Apostolorum) were entrusted with responsibilities toward their communities in exchange for subvention. To qualify for service, these “real” (oντως) widows had to have married only once, distinguished themselves by good deeds, and pledged a life of celibacy. They were appointed mostly for prayer, since the Lord never ignores the pleas of widows ( Sirach 35.17–22 ) and a widow personifies the New Testament ideal of incessant prayer ( Lk. 18.1–8 ). Yet both Tertullian and the Didascalia Apostolorum refer to more extensive communal duties (teaching, anointing the newly baptized, caring for the sick). |
| 3146 P. Meg. 1:5, §4; cf. b. Šabb. 104a: prophets reinstituted Moses» forgotten laws (cf. 4 Ezra 14:44–46), but even a prophet could make no innovations after Moses. Cf. Sipre Deut. 11:17, cited in Bonsirven, Judaism, 219: the law would not be altered. 3151 See 4Q176, frg. 1, 4, 14, 24, 31 and line 14, as assembled in Wise, Scrolls, 237 (it is unlikely that the «second» law book is Exod or Deut here). 3153 Sipre Deut. 345.2.2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Exod. Rab. 29:4; Song Rab. 8:11, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. For Torah as God " s daughter cf. also b. Sanh. 101a; Exod. Rab. 33:1; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1. Hengel regards this personification of Torah as God " s daughter as equivalent to Philós identification of Logos as God " s son (Judaism, 1:171). Although this is the usual image in rabbinic sources, Jewish people used imagery flexibly; in a much rarer variant, Torah is the bride and the ark is the bridegroom (p. Ta c an. 2:1, §6), or (more often) Israel is God " s daughter rather than his son (e.g., b. Pesah. 56a; Song Rab. 8:9, §2); one may also compare the personification of repentance as God " s daughter in Jos. Asen. 15:7. 3155 Song Rab. 8:14, §1, attributing the parable to R. Levi, early-third-century Palestine. For Torah as intercessor, cf. also Exod. Rab. 29:4. 3157 Exod. Rab. 30:3; on the Holy Spirit " s analogous exclamations, cf., e.g., Exod. Rab. 27:9. 3161 Martens, «Prologue,» 179, finds no pre-Christian data for «an independent Torah theology» with personalization or hypostatization. 3164 Kümmel, Theology, 280, unfortunately uses the lack of «personification» of Torah in Palestinian Judaism to indicate that Torah is inadequate background for the prologue. Dodd and Bultmann (especially the latter) both show lack of firsthand familiarity with rabbinic sources relevant to the prologue; see Kysar, «Background,» 254. 3166 Cf., e.g., Epp, «Wisdom»; Schoneveld, «Thora»; idem, «Torah»; Casselli, «Torah»; Keener, «Pneumatology,» 240–54; idem, «Knowledge,» 44–71. |
| 7239 L.A.B. 23:12; 30:5; 1 En. 89:16–24; 4Q266 18 5.13; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Exod Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 26:1/2. ( Sir 18:13 ; Philo Agriculture 50–53; and p. Ber. 2:7, §2 appear to be exceptions.) Early Christians applied the image to the church (Minear, Images, 84–87; Ladd, Theology 108); on the shepherd image in early Christianity, see Keener, «Shepherd,» 1091–93. 7240 Robinson, Studies, 71. It is doubtful that the image is one of replacement (as apparently in Pancaro, Law, 301)–rather, one of the faithful covenant remnant (cf. Barrett, John, 369). 7244 E.g., Ps 77:20 ; Isa 63:11; 1 En. 89:35; L.A.B. 19:3, 10; Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; p. Sanh. 10:1, §9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8; Exod. Rab. 2:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 40 (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam); possibly 1Q34 and 1Q34 bis, 3 2.8 (Wise, Scrolls, 186; fragmentary); see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 311–12 (esp. on Mek. Pisha 1 on Exod 12:1); Glasson, Moses, 95–96; Odeberg, Gospel, 315–17. R. Nehemiah understood Isa 63to mean that all Israelites became shepherds as Moses was (p. Sotah 5:4, §1). Moses» title may relate to his occupation (Exod 3:1), but it is hard to suppose (with Enz, «Exodus,» 213) that the good shepherd of John 10 recalls Exod 3:1. 7250 E.g., the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran (Painter, John, 42). Derrett, «Shepherd,» 26–28, argues that John uses «shepherd» as teacher; God is their owner, he claims, not their shepherd. 7258 T. B. Qam. 7:2; b. B. Qam. 114b; Gen. Rab. 54:3; Derrett, «Shepherd,» 41; also Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430b. 16–19. The robbers (ληστα, Lat. latrones) generally lived off the countryside and traveled in bands (MacMullen, Enemies, 255). 7261 Thieves and wolves summarized the greatest collective dangers to flocks (Tibullus 1.1.33–34). 7263 Ibid., 123; cf. Ruth 3:7. Cf. the allegedly Jewish robbers (ληισ[ται]) in the Ptolemaic vineyard in CPJ 1:157–58, §21. 7266 Aulus Gellius 11.18; death in Xenophon Mem. 1.2.62 and Hamm. 21; those in collusion with them should receive the same penalty (Lysias Or. 29.11, §182). Even former thieves were permanently barred from speaking to public meetings (Seneca Controv. 10.6.intr.). |
| 5921 E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.58–59. 5922 Let. Aris. 131–132, 156–157; see further Longenecker, Paul 54–58; Davies, Paul 27–29. Cf. Xenophon Mem. 4.3.13; Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2; Cicero Nat. d. 2.54.133–58.146; Seneca Benef. 6.23.6–7; Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6.7, 10; 1.16.8; 2.14.11; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Theophilus 1.5–6. 5923 Other messianic claimants also appealed to promised signs as testimony of their identity (Talbert, John, 128, cites Josephus Ant. 18.85–87; 20.97,167–172). 5924 In Johannine theology, those who did see him through Jesus would be transformed, both spiritually in the present (1 John 3:6) and physically eschatologically (1 John 3:2). 5925 E.g., Exod. Rab. 41:3; see the source in Exod 19:9,11; 24:10–11. Philosophers spoke of hearing and seeing God through reason (cf. Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.10). 5926 «Thunders» in Exod 19LXX is «sounds» or «voices» (φωνα). A later tradition even says this voice raised the dead (Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 20:15/18). 5927 Dahl, «History,» 133; cf. also Borgen, Bread, 151; Brown, John, 1:225; Schnackenburg, John, 2:52; Whitacre, Polemic, 68; see comment on 6:46. Against the bat kol here, see Odeberg, Gospel, 222. In Pirqe R. E1. 11, Torah shares God " s image; see comment on 1:3. 5928 Odeberg, Gospel, 223–24. Greeks told stories of gods unrecognized among mortals, as Jews did of angels (see, e.g., Homer Od. 1.105, 113–135; 17.484–487; Ovid Metam. 1.212–213; 2.698; 5.451–461; 6.26–27; 8.621–629; Pausanias 3.16.2–3; Heb 13:2; cf. Gen 18 ; Tob 5:4–6,12; 9:1–5; Philo Abraham 114). 5929 Whitacre, John, 137, may be right to see polemic against mystical Judaism here; but we can account for the text sufficiently on the basis of any Torah-observent Jewish circles. 5930 See Philo Confusion 97,147; Flight 101; Heir 230; Planting 18; Spec. Laws 1.80–81,171; 3.83. Cf. Plutarch Isis 29, Mor. 362D; 43, 368C; 54, 373B; 377A. 5931 For a person having Torah in oneself, see, e.g., Deut 30:14 ; Ps 37:31; 40:8; 119:11 ; Lev. Rab. 3:7. Believers have Jesus " words in them ( John 15:7 ), Jesus in them (6:56; cf. 1 John 3:15 ), and remain in Jesus ( John 8:31 ). |
|
|
