| 680 It may ground authority in Jesus himself, in contrastic to a prophetic, «Thus says the Lord» (cf. the latter formula applied to Jesus in Rev 2–3); see Aune, Prophecy, 164–65; Witherington, Christology, 186–88; Marshall, Origins, 43–44. 682 Horsley, Galilee, 247–49. Some hold that Aramaic prevailed in Upper Galilee, Greek in Lower Galilee (Goodman, State, 66–67; cf. also Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 74); some others that Aramaic remained predominant throughout Palestine (Mussies, «Greek in Palestine,» 1060–64). Cf. the Targumim, and the Aramaic Qumran texts; even Josephus claims Aramaic, not Greek, as his tongue in War 1.3; cf. Ant. 1.7; 20.263–264. 683 Most (e.g., Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua; Black, Approach; idem, «Recovery»; Deissmann, Light, 64; Draper, «Greek»; Jeremias, Theology, 4; Sevenster, Greek, 37; Dibelius, Jesus, 25; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:255–68) have supported Jesus» use of Aramaic (some contending that he spoke Aramaic exclusively, others that it was his common language in rural Galilee), even using it as a criterion of authenticity (e.g., Barrett, Jesus, 6; Burkitt, Sources, 20; contrast Dibelius, Tradition, 34–35). Some «Semitisms» may stem from an Aramaized Greek in the eastern Mediterranean, though note the case against «Jewish Greek» in Horsley, Documents, 5:5–40. 686 Argyle, «Semitism»; idem, «Greek»; Mussies, «Vehicle»; Freyne, Galilee, 171–72; Stauffer, Jesus, 60. Especially the better off and educated knew Greek (educated Romans also sought fluency in both: e.g., Quintilian 1.1.12, 14), but others were undoubtedly acquainted with it, especially in urban areas. 687 Cf. Goodman, State, 64; Sevenster, Greek, passim; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 3–4; in a later period, cf. p. Sotah 7:1, §4; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:185; Cohen, Maccabees, 40; the evidence of Schwank, «Grabungen,» applies only to an urban area. Palestinian Jewish burial inscriptions, which are the safest indicators of the common language, are often in Greek (Leon, Jews, 75), though for the poorer majority of Jerusalem Aramaic probably remained the dominant language (cf. Levine, Hellenism, 80–84). |
| 4176 See abundant evidence in Young, Parables, 214; Safrai, «Home,» 762; among Romans, though usually inside, see Jeffers, World, 255. Vermes, Religion, 46, notes some meager evidence for « " wandering Galilean» Bible interpreters.» 4177 Robbins, Jesus, xxi, 101, 105, contrasting Greek teachers and the portrait of Jesus in Mark. But even most Greek teachers lectured in particular locations. See also local teachers in current Middle Eastern communities (Eickelman, Middle East, 141). 4178 See Watson, «Education,» 312. Although specific buildings probably were used in the Mishnaic Beit ha Midrash, the scant evidence (cf. Goodman, State, 75) need not require formal structures exclusively devoted to study in this period. 4182 See Liefeld, «Preacher,» 229. For emphasis on traveling with those who hold divine favor, see t. c Abod. Zar. 1:17; Šabb. 17:2; on finding a good traveling companion to talk with, see Aulus Gellius 17.14.4; cf. Babrius 15.1–4; Plutarch Cicero 39.4; Luke 24:14–17; Hock, Context, 28. 4183 Following the use of time in the Synoptics ( Mark 15:25,33 ; Matt 27:45–46; Luke 23:44) and in Jewish texts (e.g., Exod. Rab. 41:7), i.e., reckoning from dawn around 6 A.M. Apart from legal contracts, Romans counted from sunrise as well; noon was VI (not XII) on their sundials (Morris, John, 158 n. 90; cf. Michaels, John, 20). 4185 Different peoples reckoned days from different points (Aulus Gellius 3.2.4–6); a Jewish «day» began at nightfall, but a Roman «day» technically began at midnight (Plutarch R.Q. 84, Mor. 284C; Aulus Gellius 3.2.7). Thus Bruns, «Time,» 286, notes that literally «staying a day» with Jesus on the Jewish method (which he favors, pp. 286–87) is only two hours. 4186 The so-called Egyptian method of reckoning; Walker, «Hours.» Westcott, John, 282, thinks that John follows the practice of reckoning civil days from midnight (cf. Matt 27:19; Mart. Po1. 21), though admitting that Romans, like Jews and Greeks, normally reckoned hours from sunrise. 4188 Casson, Travel 176–77 (though this was probably the exception); on variation in hour lengths through the year on Roman clocks, cf. Carcopino, Life, 149–50. |
| 7267 Alciphron Farmers 16 (Pithacnion to Eustachys), 3.19, par. 1–2; this remains common today in some African towns where I have stayed. Either the robber or the homeowner might be bound (Xenophon Anab. 6.1.8; Matt 12:29); a homeowner could kill a thief if he came at night or armed (Cicero Mi1. 3.9; Exod 22:2; Eshnunna 13; cf. Eshnunna 12). 7273 Phaedrus 4.23.16; 2Cor 11:26 ; m. Ber. 1:3; b. c Abod. Zar. 25b; Ber. lia; B. Qam. 116b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:6; Gen. Rab. 75:3; Exod. Rab. 30:24; cf. sources in Friedländer, Life, 1:294–96; Hock, Context, 78 n. 19; Tannaitic sources in Goodman, State, 55. In ancient romances, robbers also carried off young women (Achilles Tatius 2.16.2; 2.18.5; 3.9.3). 7275 E.g., Horace Ep. 1.2.32–33; Apuleius Metam. 8.17; 1 Esd 4:23–24; Sib. Or. 3.380; Josephus Ant. 14.159–160,415,421; 20.5,113,124; Life 105; Treat. Shem 6:1; 7:20; b. Sanh. 108a; Lev. Rab. 9:8. The poor may have been less frequent targets (Dio Chrysostom Or. 7, Euboean Discourse, §§9–10). 7278 MacMullen, Relations, 2, and many sources cited in his notes; he compares the dogs with those outside many contemporary Anatolian villages, «able to tear a man in pieces.» They often targeted wolves (Longus 1.21), but dogs could prove faithful to their masters (Appian R.H. 11.10.64; Sei. Pap. 3:460–63 in 3 B.C.E.; Xenophon Mem. 2.3.9; Plutarch Themistocles 10.6; p. Ter. 8:7; cf. some tamed in Xenophon Eph. 4.6; 5.2; one surprisingly tame in Philostratus Hrk. 2.2). 7280 E.g., Aristophanes Wasps 952; Virgil Georg. 3.406–408; Phaedrus 3.15.1; Babrius 93.3–11; Plutarch Demosthenes 23.4; Valerius Flaccus 1.158–159. 7282 Against the masses (κλπτοα και λωποδτοα, Epictetus Diatr. 1.18.3, though he thinks them just misled; cf. ληστς in 1.18.5) or those who think they control the body (Epictetus Diatr. 2.19.28). 7283 Cicero Phi1. 2.25.62 (rapinas); technically it was the duty of governors to suppress robbers (Plutarch Cicero 36.4). 7284 The exception might be a use for someone deceptive and cunning (Xenophon Cyr. 1.6.27), which could be positive toward onés enemies (1.6.28). That Jesus is a «good thief» here (Derrett, «Shepherd»; cf. Matt 24:43) is highly unlikely; that the lack of identification of Jesus with the thief would make the parable early (Robinson, Studies, 72, who wrongly makes the tradition of Rev 3:3; 16late) is likewise unlikely. |
| 4263 T. Job 1:3; 51:2/1; Mussies, «Greek in Palestine,» 1051–52; CIJ 1, lxvii; cf. also Simon, «Synkretismus.» 4264 Greek names were to be expected in areas such as Bethsaida with its Gentile surroundings (Cullmann, Peter, 22; cf. 17). 4266 So, e.g., Michaels, John, 21. One could appeal in support of this to the parallel structure between 1:40–42 and 1:43–51, since the opening disciple of the first narrative derives from the preceding account; but the symmetry could as easily argue the opposite, for, had Philip been one of the two disciples of 1:37, one would have expected John to have pointed this out as in 1:40. 4267 This need not mean that the anonymous disciple is the beloved disciple (against which see, e.g., Smalley, John, 75), but in favor of the possibility one may note that (1) he is in the company of Andrew, a fisherman in a fishing cooperative with James and John (Luke 5:10), and (2) this proposal would explain the private Baptist tradition narrated here (not that ancient narrators required such explanation). In the Fourth Gospel, anonymity applies especially to the beloved disciple (at least in later parts of the Gospel), but not exclusively to him. 4269 M. «Abot 1:16; both sayings are very concisely formulated and probably reflect the same editing. That the early teachers sought to raise up many disciples (m. »Abot 1:1) or perhaps held public meetings in homes (m. " Abot 1:4) need not conflict with this principle. 4272 E.g., Gundry, Matthew, 62. By contrast, Malina, World, 78, suggests that Jesus calling the disciples represents a diminution of his own status to initiate «bonds or alliances with others,» so that Jesus» act here is not one of authority but one of humble service. 4274 Cf. Adinolfi, «Lago.» It was forgotten long after its destruction by the Romans (Arav and Rousseau, «Bethsaide»). 4275 Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 102; Arav and Rousseau, «Bethsaide»; for fishing instruments found there, see Arav, «Bethsaida.» Galilean villages generally regulated their own economy (Goodman, State, 120, citing t. B. Mesi c a 11:23). Locals likely ignored Herod Philip " s Roman name for the town (Julias). |
| Goodman, «Identity» Goodman, Martin. «Identity and Authority in Ancient Judaism.» Judaism 39 (1990): 192–201. Goodman, «Nerva» Goodman, Martin. «Nerva, the Fiscus judaicus, and Jewish Identity.» Journal of Roman Studies 79 (1989): 40–44. Goodman, State Goodman, Martin. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A. D. 132–212. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983. Goodman, Henney, and Pressel, Trance Goodman, Felicitas D., Jeannette H. Henney, and Esther Presse1. Trance, Healing, and Hallucination: Three Field Studies in Religious Experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974. Goppelt, «Church in History» Goppelt, Leonhard. «The Existence of the Church in History according to Apostolic and Early Catholic Thought.» Pages 193–209 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism Goppelt, Leonhard. Jesus, Paul, and Judaism. Translated by Edward Schroeder. New York: Nelson, 1964. Goppelt, Theology Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by John E. Alsup. Edited by Jürgen Roloff. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–1982. Goppelt, Times Goppelt, Leonhard. Apostolic and Post-apostolic Times. Translated by Robert Guelich. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Gordis, «Messiah» Gordis, Robert. «The " Begotten» Messiah in the Qumran Scrolls.» VT7 (1957): 191–94. Gordon, Civilizations Gordon, Cyrus H. The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations. New York: W. W. Norton, 1965. Gordon, East Gordon, Cyrus H. The Ancient Near East. New York: W. W. Norton, 1965. Gordon, «Prayer» Gordon, Ernest. «Our Lord " s Priestly Prayer.» Homiletic and Pastoral Review 92, no. 2 (1992): 17–21. Gordon, « Psalm 82 » Gordon, Cyrus H. «History of Religion in Psalm 82 .» Pages 129–31 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by Gary A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. |
| Church and State Etatism is not as bad as it may look at the first glance. At least, the local Churches do not have bad feelings about it, since their attachment to any sort of political power, whether this power has a form of empire, national state, international structures etc., is quite dear to them. Attachment to the state power is one of the characteristic features of the eastern Christian world. This feature should not be condemned a priori, as it has become a logical result of the development of the historical circumstances, on which I should dwell more. There are two kinds of the local Churches in the Christian world. One kind are the ancient Churches that were established before Constantine and went through severe persecutions from the hostile Roman state. Those Churches have been vaccinated against collaboration with the state and even in the periods of the state favouritism kept memories about state-sponsored persecutions. They know that however nice may be the state in its attitude to the Church, one day it may turn into a hostile enemy. Those Churches try to keep reasonably distance from the state. Some of them, like the Roman Church, went as far as to establishing its own quasi-state structure, to secure at least relative independence from the state. Some, as the Church of Constantinople, worked out mechanisms of symphonia, which allowed clear distinction between the responsibilities of the Church and the state. In my personal opinion, the rationale of symphonia was not so much to harmonise, but to distinguish the realms of the Church and the state. Although the mechanisms of symphonia historically often failed, at least they were declared as an ideal model of coexistence of the Church and the state. Another kind of the local Churches are those established with a direct involvement of the state authorities: kings, knjazes, vojevodas and so forth. These Churches have a similar pattern of birth. A chief of a people accepted Christianity and then forced his people to do the same. Christianity was spread therefore from above, and the State authority substituted apostolic mission. The Church was established by a commandment and with the direct administrative and financial support of the state. Such a pattern does not bring any negative memory about the state. Something the opposite, in the memory of the people, the very being of the Church remains connected with the state authority. |
| 25 3 Kgd 19:9 ff. 26 Probably an echo of both the chariot in which Elijah ascends into heaven in 4 Kgd 2:11, and of the chariot of the soul in Plato’s Phaedrus (246A-C). 27 Cf. 4 Kgd 2:1ff. 28 Probably commenting on 4 Kgd 1:9–12, but alluding also to 4 Kgd 6:15–17. 29 Cf. 1 Kgd 1:9–20. 30 Cf. Lev. 14:33–42 . 31 Cf. 3 Kgd 17:8–24. 32 Cf. Matt. 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8 , Luke 9:28–36. 33 Cf. Isa. 53:2. 34 Cf. Psa. 44:3. 35 Cf. John 1:1 . 36 Apophasis: Maximus introduces here the technical terms of apophatic and cataphatic theology. 37 Cf. John 1:14 . 38 This section develops the theme just introduced in the dual interpretation of the radiant garments of the Transfigured Christ as both Scriptures and creation. 39 The Evagrian triad of ascetic struggle (praktike), natural contemplation (physike), and theology was related by Origen to a very similar classification of the categories of philosophy in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs: see Louth (1981), 57–8. 40 Cf. Denys the Areopagite, Ep. 9.1 (1105D). 41 Literally: in a Greek way. It is in contrast with the later ‘in a Jewish way’: cf. St Paul’s contrast between Greeks/Gentiles and Jews, especially in Rom. 1–3 . 42 Cf. Phil. 3.19 . 43 A metaphor for the Incarnation used by Gregory Nazianzen in Sermon 38.2 (PG 36:313B). Maximus devotes a Difficulty to Gregory’s use of the term (suspected of Origenism?): Amb. 33:1285C-1288A, where the Word’s expressing itself in letters and words is one of the interpretations offered of the metaphor. 44 Cf. Gen. 39:11–12 . 45 This is an important section in which Maximus reworks a fundamental Evagrian theme. For Evagrius, the five modes of contemplation are: 1. contemplation of the adorable and holy Trinity, 2. and 3. contemplation of incorporeal and incorporeal beings, 4. and 5. contemplation of judgment and providence (Centuries on Spiritual Knowledge I.27, in Guillaumont 1958 ). Maximus’ understanding is quite different. See Thunberg (1965), 69–75 and Gersh (1978), 226–7. 46 I do not know where Maximus gets these five secret meanings (or hidden logoi) from. They recall Plato’s ‘five greatest kinds’ (being, rest, motion, sameness and difference: see Sophist 254D-255C), but are evidently not the same. |
| 9054 Mitchell, «Friends,» 259, citing Cicero Amic. 6.22. Masters also should avoid confiding in servants (Theophrastus Char. 4.2). 9057 Plutarch Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB (LCL 1:344–45); cf. Flatterer 17, Mor. 59A; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 39. 9063 Aristotle N.E. 9.8.2, 1168b, cited in Stowers, Letter Writing, 58; Witherington, Acts, 205 (on Acts 4:32). Cf. Arius Didymus 11C. 9065 Martial Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Herodian 3.6.1–2; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 3.4; Iambli-chus V.P. 19.92 (cf. 29.162; 30.167–168; 33.237–240); cf. 1Macc 12and perhaps Ps.-Phoc. 30; Euripides Andr. 585 (but cf. 632–635); Plutarch Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Longus 1.10; Martial Epigr. 8.18.9–10. 9066 E.g., Alciphron Farmers 27 (Ampelion to Euergus), 3.30, par. 3; 29 (Comarchides to Euchaetes), 3.73, par. 2; Fishermen 7 (Thlassus to Pontius), 1.7. 9069 Diogenes Laertius 7.1.125; Plutarch Cicero 25.4. On friendship between good men and the gods, cf., e.g., Seneca Dia1. 1.1.5; on all things belonging to them, Seneca Benef. 7.4.6, cf. Philo Cherubim 84. The maxim is especially cited in works on 1Corinthians (Willis, Meat, 169; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 80; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 200–201; Grant, Christianity, 102–3). 9070 E.g., people invoked divinities as φλοι, to help them in battle (Aeschylus Sept. 174); cf. a mortal as a «friend» who honors his patron demigod in Philostratus Hrk. 58.1 (the hero is also his friend in 10.2); cf. perhaps Iamblichus V.P. 10.53 (where the friendship is demonstrated by deities» past favors). 9071 This observation (in contrast to some other observations above) may run counter to the suggestion of Judge (Pattern, 38) that w. 13–15 of John 15 «reveal the peculiar combination of intimacy and subordination» characteristic of the patronal relationship. 9073 Maximus of Tyre Or. 19.4; Iamblichus V.P. 33.229. This might involve sharing the divine character (Iamblichus V.P. 33.240). 9074 Crates Ep. 26, to the Athenians (Gyn. Ep. 76–77); cf. likewise Diog. Ep. 10, to Metrocles (Cyn. Ep. 104–5). Cf. Plato Leg. 4.716D (cited in Mayor, James, cxxv); fellowship between mortals and deities in the golden age (Babrius pro1.13). |
| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| 101 Евхаристиа 3. Taken from Faber, Dominica 2 Post Pentecosten, No. 1 «S. Eucharistia coena magna», sect. 3 «Ex epulis selectissimis». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Deinde cibus Eucharisticus mira arte confectus est. Nam primo per consecrationem uno verbo et in momento mutatur panis in Corpus Christi.» 11. 7–8 cf Faber: «Secundo, accidentia panis remanent sine subiecto.» 11. 9–14 cf Faber: «Tertio, Christus cum tota sua naturali quantitate est in parva hostia et in quavis eius parte, si frangatur.» Евхаристиа 4. Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 6 «Ex maximo periculo». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Hinc canit Ecclesia: Mors est malis, vita bonis, vide paris sum ptionis quam sit dispar exitus.» 11. 7–14 cf Faber: «Sic mel nocet cholericis, prodest phlegmaticis. Sic eadem columna illuminavit Hebraeos, excoecavit Aegyptios. Exod. 14. ut habetur ex Chaldaeo. Sic ex eodem fonte Hebraei hauriebant aquam claram, Aegyptii vero sanguinem, ut scribit Iosephus. Sic ex eodem flore apis sugit mel, aranea venenum.» 11. 15–16 are not taken from Faber. Евхаристиа 5. Taken from Meffreth, In Festo Corporis Christi, No. 2. 11.1–10 cf Meffreth: «Multa mirabilia sunt in hoc Sacramento, vt dicit Thom: de Argen: in Compend: Theolog: verita: li. 6. Primum est quod ibi est corpus Christi in tanta quantitate, sicut fuit in cruce, & sicut iam est in coelo, nec tarnen excedit terminos illius formae.» 11. 11–14 cf Meffreth: «Secundum quod ibi sunt accidentia sine subiecto.» 11. 15–16 cf Meffreth: «Tertium quod conuertitur ibi panis in corpus Christi, nec etiam annihilatur.» 11. 17–22 cf Meffreth: «Quartum quod corpus non augetur ex multarum hostiarum consecratione, nec minuitur ex multarum hostiarum sumptione.» 11. 23–28 cf Meffreth: «Quintum quod idem corpus in numéro est in locis pluribus sub omnibus hostijs consecratis.» 11. 29–32 cf Meffreth: «Sextum quod quando diuiditur hostia non diuiditur corpus Christi, sed sub qualibet parte totus est Christus.» 11. 33–40 cf Meffreth: «Septimum quando tenetur hostia in manibus, & videtur oculis corpus Christi, nec tangitur nec videtur, sed haec tantum modo circa species sunt.» 11. |
|
|
