 |
| Cable gondola shuttle to the top of Masada, Israel (near the Dead Sea) |
JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD - DAY 28
Christians didn't celebrate Christmas for the first few hundred years. "There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.
1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point... Finally, in about 200 C.E., a Christian teacher in Egypt makes reference to the date Jesus was born... The earliest mention of December 25 as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid-fourth-century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked:
natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”
3 In about 400 C.E., Augustine of Hippo mentions a local dissident Christian group, the Donatists, who apparently kept Christmas festivals on December 25, but refused to celebrate the Epiphany on January 6, regarding it as an innovation." (For more see
"How December 25 Became Christmas." And note: the popular idea that December 25 is rooted in paganism is itself a myth - see the cited essay for this, too.)
However, early Jesus-followers
did celebrate Easter. The cross and the resurrection of Christ were the primary realities of the Jesus-life.
I believe in the birth of Christ. But I have not invested much study time in Jesus's birth. The Cross and Resurrection are THE BIG ONES. I have spent the better part of my lifetime studying these realities. As Paul himself
wrote, "If Christ is not been raised, then our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Faith rises and falls on the matter of the historical resurrection.
Rewind 42 years. I am 21, and a brand new Jesus-follower. One of my pastors, and one of my two theistic philosophical mentors (the other being J.P.), presented to me a historical argument for the resurrection of Christ. Here it is, updated and revised. Listen to the audio and follow along if you would like to see a defense of the resurrection of Christ. But if not, one more thing.
I am not, nor ever have, been a philosophical naturalist/materialist/physicalist. I am less convinced today than ever of the poverty of philosophical physicalism. I still believe - more now than 42 years ago - in a God who is all-powerful and can, of course, resurrect dead people.
There is a God.
God raised Christ from the dead.
All who are "in Him" shall rise with Him.
*****
I presented this
historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus at Redeemer on April 3, 2012.
It is largely taken from William Lane Craig's work, with other scholarship added
as I saw fit, plus my own comments.
The audio presentation is
here. These are the notes I gave
to those who came. Listen and follow along.
***
DID JESUS RISE FROM
THE DEAD?
(Adapted from William
Lane Craig, debate with Richard Carrier; Question 103 at reasonablefaith.org; “Contemporary
Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
at reasonablefaith.org)
A FEW
PRELIMINARIES:
·
Focus on the
historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.
o
Argue NOT from the
Bible as God’s Word, but argue HISTORICALLY using the ancient texts as
historical records, historical documents.
·
All historical truths
are probableistic (inductive). The historian asks, re. historical facts – what
is the best, most probable explanation for the
facts?
·
Presuppose the
existence of God.
o
An atheist will not
share this presupposition.
o
The atheist will
assume, therefore, that supernatural events are
impossible.
Defend two major
contentions.
#1 – There are 4
historical facts that must be explained by any historical
hypothesis.
·
Jesus’ burial (Jesus
was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb)
·
The discovery of his
empty tomb
·
Jesus’ post-mortem
appearances
·
The origin of his
disciples’ belief in the resurrection
#2 – The best
explanation of those facts is that God raised Jesus from the
dead.
#1 – the following 4
facts are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars. (NOTE: If a person
wants to study the historicity of the New Testament documents, read the works of
New Testament scholars. But aren’t they biased? And, if they are biased, can we
trust them? A few points: 1) everyone is biased; 2) bias is helpful, even
necessary; 3) a world-famous brain surgeon is biased – if you want to study
brain surgery study with those who spend their life on the subject; if you want
to study and learn about the guitar do not learn from someone who claims to be
“neutral” about the guitar (I think “neutrality” is not an
option…).
Fact 1 – after the
crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a
tomb.
Evidence: Jesus’ burial is multiply-attested in
various independent sources.
This does NOT mean
that the burial stories are in the 4 Gospels. It means that the source material Mark used is different
from the source material of Matthew and Luke, and they are all different from
John, and these are all different from Paul’s
sources.
The burial account is
part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' Passion.
This is a very early
source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to
within several years of Jesus' crucifixion.
Moreover, Paul in his
first letter to the church of Corinth also cites an extremely early source for
Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within a few years or even months of
the crucifixion.
Independent testimony
to Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the special sources used by Matthew
and Luke and in the Gospel of John. Historians consider themselves to have hit
historical pay dirt when they have two independent accounts
of the same event. But we have the remarkable number of at least five
independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily
early.
Mark's Passion source
didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is
tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and
John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also
mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the
Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by
Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have
multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four
independent sources. (See reasonablefaith.org, Question
103)
Craig
writes:
Notice the focus is
on the early, independent sources used by the New
Testament authors.
First and foremost is
the Passion source which Mark used in writing his Gospel. Whereas most of Mark's
Gospel consists of short anecdotal stories strung like pearls on a string, when
we get to the final week of Jesus' life we encounter a continuous narrative of
events from the Jewish plot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread through Jesus'
burial and empty tomb.
The events of the
Last Supper, arrest, execution, burial, and empty tomb were central to the
identity of early Christian communities. According to James D. G. Dunn, "The
most obvious explanation of this feature is that the framework was early on
fixed within the tradition process and remained so throughout the transition to
written Gospels. This suggests in turn a tradition rooted in the memory of
the participants and put into that framework by them" (J. D. G. Dunn,
Jesus
Remembered, 2003, pp. 765-6.)
The dominant view
among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and
based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell, JAAR 68 [2000]: 171).
Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion
narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard
Bauckham, Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an
extraordinarily early source.
Matthew and Luke, re.
the burial story, draw on resources different from Mark. Craig
writes:
Now Matthew and Luke
probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources.
But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other
independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not
plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke
because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e.g., Mark: "tomb which
had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the
inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and
(iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in their wording in contrast
to Mark (e.g.,
Matt. 27.58 = Lk. 23.52 "This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of
Jesus." Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew
and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have independently chosen
exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another
source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account,
differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple
sources.
What about the Gospel
of John? Craig writes:
John is generally
believed to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. As Paul Barnett points out,
"Careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these
Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of incidents in
common: For example, . . . the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of
Arimathea" (Jesus and the
Logic of History, 1997, pp. 104-5).
Paul:
Finally, the old
tradition handed on by Paul to the Corinthian church, which is among the
earliest traditions identifiable in the NT, refers to Jesus' burial in the
second line of the tradition. That this is the same event as the burial
described in the Gospels becomes evident by comparing Paul's tradition with the
Passion narratives on the one hand and the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles
on the other. The four-line tradition handed on by Paul is a summary of the
central events of Jesus' crucifixion, burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the
discovery of his empty tomb, and his appearances to the
disciples.
As a member of the
Jewish Sanhedrin that was against Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a
Christian invention.
NT scholar Raymond
Brown says burial by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable. Why? Because: It is
almost inexplicable why Christians would make up a story about a member of the
Jewish Sanhedrin who does what is right by Jesus.
So most NT scholars
say it is highly likely that Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb by Joseph of
Arimathea.
Fact #2 – on the
Sunday after the crucifixion the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of His
women followers.
Most NT scholars also
agree with the fact of the empty tomb.
Some who argue
against this claim that the story of the empty tomb was a fictional, literary
creation of Mark.
1 – The historical
reliability of the burial account supports the empty tomb.
If the account of
Jesus’ burial is accurate, then the site of Jesus’ tomb was known to Jew and
Christian alike.
In that case it’s a very short
inference to the historicity of the empty tomb.
Because in that case,
the tomb must have been empty when the disciples began to preach that Jesus was
risen.
Why? Because the
disciples could not have believed in Jesus’ resurrection if his corpse still was
lying in the tomb.
As long as the corpse
of Jesus lay in the tomb, a Christian movement in Jerusalem, founded on the
resurrection of Jesus, would never have arisen.
If the disciples went
around preaching “Jesus is risen from the dead,” but his body lay in the tomb,
hardly anyone would have believed them. Remember that early Christian belief in
the resurrection flourished in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had been
publicly crucified.
More than this, even
if a lot of people believed this while the body of Jesus was still in the tomb,
the Jewish authorities could have exposed the whole thing by pointing to Jesus’
tomb, even perhaps exhuming Jesus’ dead body.
2 – the empty tomb is
multiply attested in independent early sources.
The account of Jesus'
burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is part of Mark's source material for
the passion story. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness
testimony. (Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Kindle
Locations 6492-6493).
Moreover, Matthew and
John rely on independent sources about the empty
tomb.
The empty tomb
tradition is independently preserved in the early sermons in the book of
Acts.
And, it’s implied in
the very old tradition cited by Paul.in his first letter to the Corinthian
church.
Thus we have multiple
early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb, in at least 4 independent
sources.
So, the story of the
empty tomb can’t be a literary creation of Mark.
Craig
writes:
What about the empty
tomb account? First, it was also part of the pre-Markan Passion narrative. The
empty tomb story is syntactically tied to the burial story; indeed, they are
just one story. E.g., the antecedent of
"him" (Jesus) in Mk. 16:1 is in the burial account (15:43); the women's
discussion of the stone presupposes the stone's being rolled over the tomb's
entrance; their visiting the tomb presupposes their noting its location in
15.47; the words of the angel "see the place where they laid him" refer back to
Joseph's laying body in the tomb.
As for the other
Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident
not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e.g., the words translated
"on the next day," "the preparation day," "deceiver," "guard [of soldiers]," "to
make secure," "to seal"; the expression "on the third day" is also non-Matthean,
for he everywhere else uses "after three days;" the expression "chief priests
and Pharisees" never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew),
but also from Matt. 28.15: "this story has been spread among Jews till this
day," indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians.
Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting
the tomb, which, given John's independence of Luke, indicates a separate
tradition behind the story. Moreover, we have already seen that John's
independence of Mark shows that he has a separate source for the empty
tomb.
The early sermons in
Acts are likely not created by Luke out of whole cloth but represent early
apostolic preaching. We find the empty tomb implied in the contrast between
David's tomb and Jesus': "David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to
this day." But "this Jesus God has raised up" (2:29-32; cf. 13.36-7).
Finally, the third
line of the tradition handed on by Paul summarizes, as I have said, the empty
tomb story. The German NT critic Klaus Berger concludes: "Without a doubt the
grave of Jesus was found to be empty, and, moreover, the texts about it are not
in general dependent upon Mark" (ZKT, 1993, p. 436).
Thus, the burial and
empty tomb of Jesus enjoy multiple, early, independent attestation. While some
of these traditions could be variations on a common tradition (such as Luke and
John's tradition of the disciples' inspection of the empty tomb in response to
the women's report), they cannot all be so regarded because they narrate
different events. Even in the case of variations on a common tradition, we are
pushed back so early, as Dunn emphasizes, that we must now ask what events
occurred to leave such an early impression on the tradition, and the obvious
explanation is the burial of Jesus in the tomb and the discovery of the empty
tomb. While multiple, independent attestation alone would not render the burial
and empty tomb "virtually certain," keep in mind that this is but one line of
evidence among many, so that the cumulative case for these facts is very
powerful, indeed.
3 – The tomb was
discovered empty by women.
In patriarchal Jewish
society the testimony of women was not highly
regarded.
In fact, the ancient
Jewish historian Josephus says that, on account of their boldness and levity,
women should not even be allowed to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of
law.
In light of this fact
how remarkable it is that it is women who were the discoverers of Jesus’ empty
tomb.
Any later legendary
account would surely have made male disciples find the empty
tomb.
The fact that it is
women rather than men who are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is best
explained by the fact that they were
the discoverers of the empty tomb.
The Gospel writers
faithfully record what for them was an awkward and embarrassing
fact.
4 – the story of the
empty tomb is simple and lacks theological embellishment.
Mark’s story of the
empty tomb is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be
present if the story was a Christian creation.
For example, it’s
remarkable that in Mark’s account the resurrection of Jesus is not actually
described at all.
Contrast later,
forged “gospels,” in which Jesus is seen emerging from the tomb in glory to
multitudes of crowds.
In Mark we have
little or no embellishment. At most, the critical historian might want to call
the angel a later embellishment.
But Mark’s account of the
resurrection is stark. Simple.
Mark’s story has all
the earmarks of a very primitive tradition which is free from theological and
apologetical reflection.
This is powerful
evidence against those critics who argue that Mark’s account of the empty tomb
is a literary creation.
5 – The early church
polemic presupposes the empty tomb.
In Matthew 28 we find
a Christian attempt to refute a Jewish polemic against the resurrection.
Disciples of Jesus
were in Jerusalem proclaiming “Jesus is risen from the
dead!”
How did Jews respond to
this?
By saying Jesus’ body is still in
the tomb?
By say the disciples are
crazy?
No – what they did say was this:
“The disciples stole away the body.”
Think about that for a
moment.
The earliest Jewish
response to the situation was itself an attempt to explain the fact that the
tomb was empty.
Fact #3 – Jesus’
post-mortem appearances.
On different
occasions and under various circumstances individuals and groups of people
experienced appearances of Jesus now alive from the
dead.
This is a fact that’s
acknowledged by virtually all NT scholars, for the following
reasons.
1 – Paul’s list of
resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.
·
Paul tells us that
Jesus appeared to his chief disciple, Peter.
·
Paul tells us that
Jesus appeared to the 12.
·
Paul tells us that
Jesus appeared to 500 at once.
·
Paul tells us that
Jesus ten appeared to his younger brother James, who apparently at that time was
not a believer.
·
Paul then tells us
that Jesus appeared to all the apostles.
·
Finally, Paul adds,
“Jesus appeared also to me.” And Paul was at that time still an
unbeliever.
Craig
writes:
Undoubtedly the major
impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration
by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old
Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts
According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his
conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and
James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time,
if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of
witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it
is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them
away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's
information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and
groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT
critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with
regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they
are based." This conclusion is virtually
indisputable.
Given the early date
of Paul’s writing this, plus Paul’s personal acquaintance with the persons
involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as
unhistorical.
NOTE: the early date
ensures that the appearance stories cannot be “legendary.” Legends take many
years to develop. Craig writes: “For in order for these stories to be in the
main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the
evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have
been supplanted by unhistorical.”
2 – The appearance
narratives in the Gospels provide multiple independent attestation of the
appearances.
The appearance
narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be
reasonably denied that the original disciples had such
appearances.
Even the skeptical
scholar Gerd Ludemann says it cannot be denied that these early followers of
Jesus did have such experiences.
N.T. Wright, in The
Resurrection of the Son of God, gives a 7-step argument in support of these two
claims.
- When early
Christians are asked why they believed in the resurrection of Christ, “their
answers hone in on two things”:
- Stories about
Jesus’ tomb being empty.
- Stories about
Jesus appearing to people, alive again.
- These stories
were formulated within the context and worldview of Second-Temple Judaism. “No
second-Temple Jews came up with anything remotely like them.”
(688)
Neither the
empty tomb by itself, nor the appearances by themselves, would have generated
early Christian belief in the resurrection.
- The empty tomb,
by itself, would be a puzzle and a tragedy.
i.
Perhaps,
e.g., the grace had been robbed? “Tombs were often robbed in the ancient world,
adding to grief both insult and injury.” (688)
ii.
“Nobody in
the pagan world would have interpreted an empty tomb as implying resurrection;
everyone knew such a thing was out of the question.”
(688-689)
iii.
“Certainly…
the disciples were not expecting any such thing to happen to Jesus.”
(689)
- The appearances,
by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which
were well known in the ancient world.
- Individually,
the empty tomb and the appearances are insufficient to explain the belief in the
resurrection of Jesus.
- “However, an
empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have
presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.”
(Ib.)
- Together, the
empty tomb and the appearances provide a sufficient reason for early Christian
belief in Jesus’ resurrection.
- “From
“The meaning of
resurrection within Second-Temple Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of
this reshaped resurrection belief emerging without it being known that a body
had disappeared, and that the person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive
again.” (Ib.)
Alternative
explanations for the emergence of the belief that Jesus had been raised from the
dead do not have the same explanatory power.
“It is therefore
historically highly probable that Jesus’ tomb was indeed empty on the third day
after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving
every appearance of being well and truly alive.” (687)
The past and
most important question is: What explanation can be given for these two
phenomena?
Fact #4 – The
original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus is risen
from the dead despite them having every predisposition to the
contrary.
Think of the
situation these followers of Jesus faced after his
crucifixion.
1 – Their leader was
dead. Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who would triumph
over his enemies by being humiliated and executed by them as a
criminal.
2 – Jewish beliefs
about the afterlife did not allow for some individual to rise from the dead
before the expected general resurrection from the
dead.
But the early
disciples felt so strongly that God had raised the individual man Jesus from the
dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that
belief.
Then… the question
arises… what caused them to believe such an un-Jewish, outlandish
thing?
N.T. Wright says –
“That is why, as an historian, that I cannot explain the arising of Christianity
unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb
behind.”
SUMMING
UP
The following 4 facts
are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament
scholars.
1.
Jesus’
burial
2.
Jesus’ empty
tomb
3.
Jesus’ post-mortem
appearances
4.
The origin of the
disciples’ belief
This brings us to the
second major contention, which is: the best explanation for these facts is that
God raised Jesus from the dead.
6 Tests Historians
Use to Discover What Is the Best Explanation For a Given Historical Fact (from
historian C.B McCullough)
The hypothesis “God
raised Jesus from the dead” passes all of these
tests.
1.
It has great
explanatory scope – it explains all 4 of the facts before
us
2.
It has great
explanatory power – it explains each fact well
3.
It is plausible –
give the historical context of Jesus’ own life and claims, the resurrection
occurs as divine confirmation of those claims.
4.
It is not ad hoc or
contrived – it requires only 1 additional hypothesis; viz., that God
exists.
5.
It is in accord with
accepted beliefs – the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead does not
conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead.
6.
It far outstrips any
rival theories in meeting conditions 1-5. No natural hypothesis does as good a
job at explaining the 4 facts.
I think the best
explanation for the historical facts is that God raised Jesus from the
dead.
*****
ADDITION - N.T. Wright on the
Resurrection of Jesus, from his The Resurrection of the Son of
God.
These two things must
be regarded as historically secure:
1.
The emptiness of the
tomb
2.
The meetings with the
risen Jesus
“These two phenomena
are firmly warranted.” (686)
Wright gives a 7-step
argument in support of these two claims.
1.
When early Christians
are asked why they believed in the resurrection of Christ, “their answers hone
in on two things”:
a.
Stories about Jesus’
tomb being empty.
b.
Stories about Jesus
appearing to people, alive again.
c.
These stories were
formulated within the context and worldview of Second-Temple Judaism. “No
second-Temple Jews came up with anything remotely like them.”
(688)
2.
Neither the empty
tomb by itself, nor the appearances by themselves, would have generated early
Christian belief in the resurrection.
a.
The empty tomb, by
itself, would be a puzzle and a tragedy.
i.
Perhaps, e.g., the
grace had been robbed? “Tombs were often robbed in the ancient world, adding to
grief both insult and injury.” (688)
ii.
“Nobody in the pagan
world would have interpreted an empty tomb as implying resurrection; everyone
knew such a thing was out of the question.”
(688-689)
iii.
“Certainly… the
disciples were not expecting any such thing to happen to Jesus.”
(689)
b.
The appearances, by
themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were
well known in the ancient world.
c.
Individually, the
empty tomb and the appearances are insufficient to explain the belief in the
resurrection of Jesus.
3.
“However, an empty
tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a
powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.”
(Ib.)
a.
Together, the empty
tomb and the appearances provide a sufficient reason for early Christian belief
in Jesus’ resurrection.
4.
“The meaning of
resurrection within Second-Temple Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of
this reshaped resurrection belief emerging without it being known that a body
had disappeared, and that the person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive
again.” (Ib.)
5.
Alternative
explanations for the emergence of the belief that Jesus had been raised from the
dead do not have the same explanatory power.
6.
“It is therefore
historically highly probable that Jesus’ tomb was indeed empty on the third day
after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving
every appearance of being well and truly alive.”
(687)
7.
The past and most
important question is: What explanation can be given for these two
phenomena?
