| If the Passion Narrative is not simply a martyr story, neither is it a typical Greek apotheosis story; the focus in the Synoptic Gospels is on Jesus» mortal suffering, not a promotion to divinity. 9525 In the Fourth Gospel, however, one may come closer to apotheosis (except for the claim that Jesus was already deity!) than in the Synoptics; his Passion Narrative underlines Jesus» control of the situation (18:4–9; cf. 10:18; 13:26–27). Mark 15:38–39 probably implies a sort of hidden theophany, and Matt 27:51–54 a more explicit one. Jesus suffers, but the focus of his mortality in John is more explicitly theophanic; in his death he is glorified (12:23–24). One might symbolically summarize the difference between Mark " s passion and John " s in Jesus» closing recorded words in each, whether «My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?» ( Mark 15:34 ) or a triumphant «It has been completed!» ( John 19:30 ; cf. Mark 15:37 ). Yet John hardly presents an apotheosis in the Greek sense even though the latter category includes deification in the midst of mortal suffering (as with Heracles). In contrast to Greek heroes becoming divine, Jesus is returning to his préexistent glory with the Father; here is not a mere hero among many but the image of divine Wisdom returning home (cf. 1 En. 42:2). 2. The Historical Foundation for the Passion Narratives The extreme skepticism expressed by the most radical scholars is surely unwarranted. Burton Mack, for instance, suggests that scholars have simply gone easy on the passion narratives from faith prejudice. 9526 Nevertheless, he shows little familiarity with the evidence cited by such «prejudicial» scholarship 9527 and, in dismissing previous scholarship on the passion narratives as uncritical, seems unaware of his predecessors who have focused critical attention on the passion narratives. 9528 In contrast to Mack " s position, we have no record of any Christianity where the basic structure of the kerygma was missing, whether or not Christians had yet constructed full passion narratives. 9529 Other narratives may have figured frequently in early Christian ethical preaching, but it is likely that early Christians would have told and retold the passion story, which lay at the heart of their kerygma, and that the Gospel writers would have here a variety of oral and perhaps written traditions from which to draw. 9530 Paul has a sequence similar to Mark " s ( 1Cor 11:23; 15:3–5 ; cf. Jewish and Roman responsibility in 1 Thess 2:14–15; 1Cor 1:23 ), and if, as is probable, John represents an independent tradition, 9531 it is significant that his Passion Narrative again confirms the outline Mark follows, suggesting a pre-Markan passion narrative. 9532 In preaching, one could flesh out the full sequence or omit some of the stories, but the basic outline remained the same. 9533 |
| Crucifixion victims often had wounds, and those who had been wounded often showed their wounds to make a point (see comment on 20:20); that Jesus did so stems from pre-Johannine tradition (Luke 24:39–40, though 24is textually uncertain). Soldiers who carried out crucifixions often used rope 10755 but also used nails through the wrists, 10756 which seem to have been used for Jesus (20:25, 27). Dibelius, noting that Matthew and Mark omit the piercing of hands and/or feet, which appears only as hints in the Easter narratives of Luke (24:39) and John (20:20,25,27), thinks the hints of piercing stem from Ps 22rather than historical recollection. 10757 But Dibelius " s skepticism on this point is unwarranted for several reasons: all four extant first-century gospels omit it in descriptions of the crucifixion (as well as many other explicit details, such as the height of the cross, shape of the cross, and other variables we must reconstruct secondhand); Mark and Matthew include the briefest resurrection narratives, Mark without any appearances, so one would not expect them to recount it there; and finally, Luke and John probably supply independent attestation of a tradition that predates both of them, yet neither allude clearly to Ps 22:17 . 10758 Putting hands into Jesus» wounds would convince Thomas that this was the same Jesus (see comment on 20:20); no trickery would be possible. 10759 John omits another tradition in which Jesus confirms his bodily resurrection by eating with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43), preferring the stronger proof of his corporal resurrection. 10760 In the third-century Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, Apollonius invites two of his disciples to grasp him to confirm that he has not, in fact, been executed; 10761 but the Christian resurrection narratives were widespread in the Roman Empire by the time Philostratus dictated his stories. 10762 2C. The Climactic Christological Confession (20:28–29) Ancient writers often used characterization to communicate points about «kinds» of people. Nicodemus was slow to believe (3:2; cf. 7:50) but eventually proved a faithful disciple (19:38–42). Likewise, Thomas had missed the first corporate resurrection appearance, which convinced most of his fellow disciples; given the problem with secessionists in some Johannine communities (1 John 2:19), his missing might provide a warning to continue in fellowship with fellow believers (to whatever extent Thomas " s fellow disciples had already been disciples and believers when Jesus first appeared at that point!) Nevertheless, Thomas becomes the chief spokesman for full christological faith here (20:28–29)–and the foil by which John calls his readers to a faith deeper than the initial resurrection faith of any of the twelve disciples (20:29). |
| Mark announces that the whole narrative of Jesus’ ministry is gospel (euangelion, Mark 1.1 ). Luke chooses the verb euangelizesthai for the good news of the Savior’s birth (Luke 1.10–11). In Matthew and Mark, and also Luke but without the same terminology, Jesus begins his public ministry with the announcement that the dawn of the awaited age of salvation is fulfilled in him (Matt. 4.17; Mark 1.14–15 ; Luke 4.16–21). John presents Christ as the incarnation of the eternal Logos or Word of God who mediates the very presence and power of God as grace, glory, truth, light, bread, life, and love ( John 1.1–18; 3.16; 8.12; 17.24–26 ). The witness of the four gospels confirms that the entire ministry of Jesus is good news for humanity, which is the very reason why these documents themselves were eventually named gospels. Their titles “Gospel according to Matthew,” “Gospel according to Mark,” and so forth, derive from the 2nd century, and signify both the essential unity of the gospel message and the freedom of the evangelists to narrate Jesus’ ministry from their own perspective. The heart of the gospel, distinguishable by content, blessings, and demands, is Christ and his saving work. The content is the person of Christ himself in whom God’s rule or kingdom is inaugurated. Jesus not only announced but also enacted the good news of the dawn of God’s rule, bestowing blessings in forgiving sinners, healing the sick, eating with the outcast, instructing the ways of God’s righteousness, anticipating his death and resurrection as the cosmic defeat of evil, and gathering around him followers who formed the nucleus of the church. Jesus’ gospel, proclaimed as the “word of God,” included radical demands most notably recorded in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7). Jesus challenged his followers to take up their cross, pray for persecutors, freely forgive others, tend to the needy, and love enemies, to be worthy of him and not risk being cast out of the kingdom (Matt. 7.21–23; 16.24–26; 25.11–12, 46). |
| Six days before the Passover (12:1) Jerusalem would already be filling, both for purification (11:55) and for Diaspora Jews making pilgrimage who could neither calculate the exact time of their arrival nor risk arriving late. In John " s story world (in which Passover begins Friday evening; see 18:28; 19:14), this timing apparently indicates Saturday evening after sundown, when Martha could serve at table. 7766 Yet Mark strongly implies that the anointing occurred two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–3 ). Some think that John corrects Mark on the basis of independent tradition; 7767 whether the difference involves a deliberate correction or not, it does emphasize the independence of the tradition. Mark may have moved the anointing closer to Passover to clarify the connection or increase suspense, or to recount it after the fateful meeting of authorities, which he places two days before Passover ( Mark 14:1–2 ) but which John places earlier ( John 11:47–53 ). John may wish to begin passion week with the anointing; having recounted Jesus» conflicts in Jerusalem as early as 2:14–18, he now must bring the passion to an end quickly once Jesus enters the holy city. It is also possible, in view of an early Christian tradition concerning the transfiguration ( Mark 9:2 ; Matt 17:1), that John uses the six days to allude to the waiting period for the revelation of God " s glory at Sinai (Exod 24:16); at the Passover Jesus would be «glorified» (12:23–24), and his disciples would behold his glory as Moses had (1:14). 7768 Less likely (though reflecting the Pentateuch " s most frequent use of «six days») it refers to the period of work preceding a Sabbath (cf. John 19:14,31,42 ). The six days might also allow a careful interpreter to note the transition to the next day (12:12) and thus to suggest that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the day the Passover lambs were set aside (Exod 12:3), four days before their offering (Exod 12:6); but the lack of explicit chronological indication at the time of Jesus» entrance, when it would be most helpful to convey this point, renders unlikely the suggestion that John sought to communicate this impression. |
| Isa köp hassalary sagaldýar (Mark 1:29-34;Luka 4:38-41) 14 Isa Petrusy öýüne geldi. Ol Petrusy gaýynenesini gyzzyrma tutup ýatanyny gördi. 15 Isa aýaly elinden tutan badyna, onu gyzzyrmasy aýryldy. Aýal ýerinden turup, Isa hyzmat etmäge balady. 16 ol gün agam Isany ýanyna arwah-jyn eýelän adamlary getirdiler. Ol hem bir söz bilen olardaky erbet ruhlary çykardy, eýle-de hassalary hemmesini sagaltdy. 17 unlukda, Iaýa pygamberi üsti bilen aýdylan u sözler berjaý boldy: «Ol bizi hassalygymyzy Öz üstüne aldy, bizi dertlerimizi çekdi». Isany yzyna eýermek (Luka 9:57-62) 18 Isa dayna üýen köpsanly mähelläni görüp, ägirtlerine kölü beýleki tarapyna geçmegi buýurdy. 19 onda Töwrat mugallymlary biri gelip: «Mugallym, Sen nirä gitse, men hem Seni yzya düjek» diýdi. 20 Isa oa: «Tilkileri süreni, gulary höwürtgesi bardyr, ýöne Ynsan Ogluny bayny goýara-da ýeri ýokdur» diýip jogap berdi. 21 Onu baga bir ägirdi: «Agam, rugsat et, öürti gidip, kakamy jaýlaýyn» diýdi. 22 Emma Isa oa: «Meni yzyma dü, goý, ölülerini ölüleri özleri jaýlabersinler» diýdi. Isa tupany ýatyrýar (Mark 4:35-41;Luka 8:22-25) 23 Isa gaýyga münende, ägirtleri hem Onu yzyna düdüler. 24 Kölde birdenkä güýçli gaý turdy we gaýyk tolkunlara büreldi. Emma Isa uklap ýatyrdy. 25 ägirtleri Ony oýaryp: «Agam, bizi halas et! Biz heläk bolup barýarys!» diýdiler. 26 Isa olara: «Nämä gorkýarsyyz, eý, imany azlar?!» diýdi. Sora Ol ýerinden turup, ýele we köle käýedi welin, ol ýere doly ümsümlik aralady. 27 Olar haýran galyp: «Bu nähili Adamka, hatda ýel bilen köl-de Oa gulak asýar?» diýidiler. Isa arwah-jynlary çykarýar (Mark 5:1-20;Luka 8:26-39) 28 Isa kölü beýleki kenaryndaky gadaralylary ýurduna geldi. Ol ýerde Oa arwah-jyn eýelän iki sany adam du geldi. Olar gonamçylykdan çykyp gelýärdiler. Olary juda wagydyklary üçin, ol ýerden hiç kim geçip bilmeýärdi. 29 Birdenkä olar: «Eý, Hudaýy Ogly! Seni bizi bilen näme ii bar? Bizi wagtyndan ö gynamaga geldimi?» diýip gygyryyp baladylar. 30 ol wagt olardan uzagrakda ullakan bir douz sürüsi otlap ýördi. 31 Arwah-jynlar Isa ýalbaryp: «Eger bizi kowup çykarmakçy bolsa, onda bizi douz sürüsine iber» diýdiler. 32 Isa olara: «Bary!» diýdi. eýdip, olar adamlardan çykyp, douzlary içine girdiler. onda tutu douz sürüsi uçutdan aak zyyp, kölde paýyrdayp gark boldy. 33 Çopanlar gaçyp, ähere gitdiler. Olar arwah-jyn eýelän adamlara näme bolandygy baradaky wakalary hemmesini halka gürrü berdiler. 34 Onso äheri tutu ilaty Isa bilen duumaga geldi. Ony görenlerinde, özlerini äherinden gitmegini sorap, Isa ýalbardylar. |
| Isa Özüni ölüp direljegini ýene aýdýar (Mark 10:32-34;Luka 18:31-34) 17 Isa Iýerusalime barýarka, ýolda on iki ägirdini bir çete çekip, olara: 18 «Ine, Iýerusalime barýarys. Ynsan Ogly ýolbaçy ruhanylary, Töwrat mugallymlary eline tabyrylar, olar hem Ony ölüme höküm ederler. 19 Ony kemsitsinler, gamçylasynlar we haça çüýlesinler diýip, keseki milletlere tabyrarlar, emma Ol üçülenji gün direler» diýdi. Bir enäni haýyy (Mark 10:35-45) 20 Sora Zebedeýi ogullaryny ejesi öz ogullary bilen Isany ýanyna geldi. Ol Isadan bir zatlar dilemek üçin dyzyna çöküp, tagzym etdi. 21 Isa aýaldan: «Näme isleýärsi?» diýip sorady. Aýal Isa ýüzlenip: «Öz alygyda meni bir oglumy Seni sagyda, beýlekisini bolsa çepide oturmagyny emr et» diýdi. 22 Emma Isa: «Siz näme dileýäniizi bilmeýärsiiz. Siz Meni içjek hasrat käsämden içip bilersiizmi? » diýdi. Olar Isa: «Hawa, içip bileris!» diýip jogap berdiler. 23 Isa olara: «Siz Meni içjek käsämden içersiiz , emma size sagymda ýa çepimde oturmaga rugsat bermek Meni elimde däl. Bu orunlary Atam kimler üçin taýýarlan bolsa, olar üçindir» diýdi. 24 Beýleki on ägirt muny eidip, ýaky iki dogana gaharlandylar. 25 Isa olary ýanyna çagyryp: «Özüiz bilýärsiiz, keseki milletleri batutanlary olara hökümdarlyk edýärler, ýokary wezipelileri-de agalyk edýärler. 26 Sizi arayzda beýle bolmasyn. Arayzda kim üstün bolmak isleýän bolsa, beýlekileri hyzmatkäri bolsun. 27 Kim ilkinji bolmak isleýän bolsa, hemmäizi guly bolsun. 28 Ynsan Ogly hem Özüne hyzmat edilmegi üçin däl-de, eýsem, bagalara hyzmat etmek üçin, köpleri ugrunda janyny gurban edip, olary azat etmek üçin geldi» diýdi. Iki körü gözi açylýar (Mark 10:46-52;Luka 18:35-43) 29 Isa bilen ägirtleri Ýerihodan çykanlarynda, uly mähelle Isany yzyna düüp gitdi. 30 Ýolu gyrasynda oturan iki sany kör adam Isany geçip barýanyny eidip: «Agam, eý, Dawut Ogly, bize rehim et!» diýip gygyrdy. 31 Seslerini çykarmaz ýaly, köp adamlar olara käýediler, emma olar öküden hem gaty ses bilen: «Agam, eý, Dawut Ogly, bize rehim et!» diýip gygyrdylar. 32 Isa aýak çekdi-de, olary çagyryp: «Sizi üçin näme etmegimi isleýärsiiz?» diýip sorady. 33 Olar Oa: «Agam, gözümiz açylsyn» diýdiler. 34 Isany olara haýpy gelip, gözlerine elini degirdi welin, obada olary gözleri açyldy. Olar hem Isany yzyna düüp gidiberdiler. |
| Kieffer, «L " arrière-fond juif» Kieffer, René. «L " arrière-fond juif du lavement des pieds.» RB 105, no. 4 (1998): 546–55. Kieffer, «Fottvagningens» Kieffer, René. «Fottvagningens tolkning mot dess judiska bakgrund.» Svensk exegetisk ârsbok 63 (1998): 217–23. Kiev, Magic Kiev, Ari, ed. Magic, Faith, and Healing: Studies in Primitive Psychiatry Today. Foreword by Jerome D. Frank. New York: Free Press, Macmillan, 1964. Kiley, «Geography» Kiley, Mark. «The Geography of Famine: John 6:22–25 .» RB 102 (1995): 226–30. Kilpatrick, «Background» Kilpatrick, G. D. «The Religious Background of the Fourth Gospe1.» Pages 36–44 in Studies in the Fourth Gospe1. Edited by F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1957. Kilpatrick, «Punctuation» Kilpatrick, G. D. «The Punctuation of John VII.37–38 .» JTS NS 11 (1960): 340–42. Kim, «Invitation» Kim, Chan-Hie. «The Papyrus Invitation.» JBL 94 (1975): 391–402. Kim, Letter Kim, Chan-Hie. Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation. SBLDS 4. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Kim, «Mark» Kim, Deuk-Joong. «Mark–a Theologian of Resurrection.» Ph.D. diss., Drew University Graduate School, 1978. Kim, Origin Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul " s Gospe1. Tübingen: Mohr, 1981. Kimbrough, «Sabbath» Kimbrough, S. T. «The Concept of Sabbath at Qumran.» RevQ 5 (1964– 1966): 483–502. Kimelman, « «Amidah» Kimelman, Reuven. «The Daily »Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption.» JQR79 (1988–1989): 165–97. Kimelman, «Birkath» Kimelman, Reuven. »Birkath Ha-minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity.» Pages 226–44 in vo1. 2 of Meyer and Sanders, Self-Definition. Kimelman, «Note» Kimelman, Reuven. «A Note on Weinfeld " s " Grace after Meals in Qumran.» JBL 112 (1993): 695–96. King, «Brown» King, J. S. «R. E. Brown on the History of the Johannine Community.» Scripture Bulletin 13, no. 2 (1983): 26–30. King, «Sychar» King, J. S. «Sychar and Calvary: A Neglected Theory in the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospe1.» Theology 77 (1974): 417–22. |
| «House» and «temple» language in the Fourth Gospel invites comparison between the old and new temples. Herod " s temple was the site of Jesus» presence ( 10:23), teaching (7:14,28; 8:20; 18:20), healing (5:14), and rejection (8:59; 11:56). But the Son would remain in the Father " s «house» (8:35), and would prepare «rooms» for his followers to dwell with him there (14:2, 23); essentially Jesus would prove to be the new temple (2:14–21), the locus of God " s presence with his people (Rev 21:22). Explanatory teaching typically accompanied prophetic actions in the biblical tradition, so Jesus probably uttered a proclamation while protesting the activities in the temple, and it is very possible that this proclamation included Scripture. 4686 Unlike Mark, however, John does not cite Isa 56and Jer 7:11 . Some have suggested that John draws from Zech 14:21; 4687 the links between the two texts, however, are inadequately convincing to support any specific verbal allusion. Further, John 2if pressed fully may ground Jesus» hostility in a somewhat different offense than Mark " s account; here those who profane the Father " s house do so with merchandise, whereas in Mark they profane it by treating it as a place of refuge for sin rather than a witness to the nations. Nevertheless, John repeats the basic substance of the tradition behind the Markan proclamation: those ruling the temple have profaned it, and Jesus is challenging their authority. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus himself will become the new temple (2:19–21), consistent with the Markan cornerstone tradition. 4688 Jewish tradition emphasized zeal for God " s law and God " s temple, a zeal that could sometimes be expressed violently ( Num 25:11 ). Thus the «zealous ones» could slay anyone who stole a vessel from the temple. 4689 One can make a case that this tradition of Jesus» «zeal» derives from an earlier period in which Jewish Christians could share the term with those who sometimes defined «zeal» in terms of Phinehas " s act of vengeance in Num 25:11 4690 –perhaps a period before the term had been co-opted by the revolutionary group calling themselves «zealots» in the war with Rome. |
| VIII в.) кроме М. указаны Марк, племянник ап. Варнавы, еп. Аполлониады (в Вифинии?), и ап. Марк Иоанн, «который упоминается Лукой в Деяниях апостолов», епископ Библа ( Schermann. 1907. S. 124, 126, 141, 142; PG. 10. Col. 957). Эти сведения были включены в визант. Синаксари: напр., Синаксарь К-польской ц. упоминает под 30 июня в Соборе 70 апостолов Марка, племянника Варнавы, еп. Аполлониадского, и Марка Иоанна из Деяний св. апостолов, епископ Библа (SynCP. Col. 787). Помимо этого общего празднования оба Марка получают в календарях собственные дни памяти: ап. Марк Иоанн вместе с апостолами Аристархом и Зиной - 27 сент. В визант. Синаксарях эти 3 апостола имеют еще одну дату празднования - 27 апр. (SynCP. Col. 633-634). 30 окт. отмечается память ап. Марка, племянника ап. Варнавы, и апостолов Тертия, Иуста и Артемы. В визант. период существовали и др. даты памяти М. с теми же апостолами - 20 окт. (SynCP. Col. 153-154) и 21 или 22 июня (Ibid. Col. 761-762, 764). Ист.: BHG, N 1035-1038t; PG. 115. Col. 164-169; ActaSS. Apr. T. 3. Antw., 1675. P. XLVI-XLVII; P., 1863. XXXVIII-XL; Budge E. A. W. The Contending of the Apostles. L., 1899. T. 1. P. 257-264; 1901. T. 2. P. 257-264; History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria/Ed. B. Evetts. P., 1904. T. 1: St. Mark to Theonas (300). P. 141-148. (PO; 1/2); Lewis A. S. Acta Mythologica Apostolorum. L., 1904. P. 126-129; eadem. The Mythological Acts of the Apostles. L., 1904. P. 147-151; Halkin F. Actes inédits de St. Marc//AnBoll. 1969. Vol. 87. P. 343-371; Haile G. A New Version of the Acts of St. Mark//Ibid. 1981. Vol. 99. P. 117-134; Hubai P. The Legend of St. Mark: Coptic Fragments//Studia in honorem L. Foti. Bdpst, 1989. P. 165-189; Elanskaya A. I. The Literary Coptic Manuscripts in the A. S. Pushkin State Fine Arts Museum in Moscow. Leyden etc., 1994. P. 68-74. Лит.: Lipsius R. A. Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden. Braunschweig, 1884. Bd. 2. H. 2. S. 321-353; Lemm O., von. Zur Topographie Alexandriens//Bull. |
| 4225 See Maynard, «Peter»; cf. Watty, «Anonymity.» Comparisons do not always demean their inferior object (see comment on 13:23) 4226 Although John alone of all NT writers includes this Aramaic (see Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 13) term, some older scholars, convinced that the Gospel addressed Gentiles, asked why John translates the term into Greek (though that was the language of most Diaspora Jews); Westcott even suggested that John kept the term to guard against gnosticism (John, 25). 4227 Even Andrews precedence over Peter may reflect the tradition of Asiatic Christianity reported in Papias (Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.39.4, as argued by Dodd, Tradition, 304–5). 4228 Wolmarans, «Peter,» argues that John uses standard literary conventions of this period to portray Peter " s character, adapting them for Peter " s special characteristics. Matthew and Luke depend largely on Mark " s portrayal (Feldmeier, «Peter»), which may even go back to Peter (Hengel, «Problems,» 238–43). 4229 Ferguson, Backgrounds, 83; Watson, «Education,» 311; Jeffers, World, 256; independent farmers worked about one hundred days annually (Jeffers, World, 20), but their work overlapped with the school year. Some students studied with teachers only for several months (Cicero Brutus 91.315–316), but some apparently studied many years (Eunapius Lives 461), perhaps with little break (cf., e.g., the tale of Akiba, " Abot R. Nat. 6A). 4230 Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 88, observes that John 1confirms the pre-Matthean tradition here; for discussion of that passagés authenticity, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:609–15; Keener, Matthew, 423–30. 4231 See Ellis, Matthew, 128–29; Weeden, Mark, 43. One may also compare the thesis of Weber, «Petrus»; also idem, «Notes,» who suggests that Matthew " s interest in the OT wilderness community explains his preservation of the words as against Mark. 4232 Cf. Cullmann, «Πτρος, Κηφς,» 105, who rightly points out (at least from a Markan reading) that the Matthean beatitude interrupts an otherwise negative portrayal of Peter " s inadequate Christology. Certainly the whole narrative is exquisitely balanced in Matthew, however (see Meier, Vision, 118; idem, Matthew, 179). Feldmeier, «Excursus,» prefers the Markan portrait while not excluding all historical basis for other traditions. |
|
|
