Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Carlson
    ... Yes, vg is Juelicher s symbol for the Vulgate. ... I just copied the refs from Juelicher. If Juelicher didn t cite them, neither did I. ... Juelicher
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
      On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
      > Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition,
      > could I please ask the following:
      > 1) I don't recognize 'vg' as an old Latin ms. Could you give me the Beuron number
      >for this, or are you using this simply to mean 'Vulgate'?

      Yes, vg is Juelicher's symbol for the Vulgate.

      > 2) You include r1, but not (for example) r2. Is this because the text of the gospels
      > in r2 is close to the Vulgate? What about the other old Latin mss of the gospels that you do not mention?

      I just copied the refs from Juelicher. If Juelicher didn't cite them,
      neither did I.

      > 3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available?
      > What is actually stated about the form of these verses in these mss?

      Juelicher gives the text. Its basically the Vulgate but with the
      usual little textual variants (e.g. tradetur for datur, ad for in,
      etc.).

      > 4) The two groups you list below seem to split largely along 'age' lines, with Lk 22:19b-20a
      > missing only in the earlier mss. Do you agree with this assessment?

      I haven't made a study of these MSS, but many so-called Old Latins
      have been mixed with Vulgate readings to varying extents.

      Stephen

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson
      Graduate Program in Religion
      Duke University
    • David Inglis
      Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
        Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
        of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:

        1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and

        2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.

        3) David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA



        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
        Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:43 AM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

        On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
        > Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition, could I please ask the following:

        > 3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available? What is actually
        stated about the form of these verses in these mss?
        Juelicher gives the text. Its basically the Vulgate but with the usual little textual variants (e.g. tradetur for datur,
        ad for in, etc.).

        Stephen
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Graduate Program in Religion
        Duke University



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
        David: I think it s a bit more complicated than that. OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies autou with
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 10, 2012
          David:

          I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

          OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies "autou" with an expanded "tois mathhtais autou". And OL r1 has 19b but with a textual variant.

          Moreover, it is not clear to me that OL aur and c, while they follow the Vulgate, are derivative of it or the other way around. But I'm not a big vulgate scholar.


          Mark A. Matson
          Milligan College
          Milligan College, TN
          http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
          ________________________________________
          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:29 PM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

          Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
          of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:

          1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and

          2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.

          3) David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
          Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:43 AM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

          On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
          > Stephen, thank you for this list. As I don't have access to Juelicher's edition, could I please ask the following:

          > 3) Where you state that Lk 22:19b-20a are "present in some form," is there more detail available? What is actually
          stated about the form of these verses in these mss?
          Juelicher gives the text. Its basically the Vulgate but with the usual little textual variants (e.g. tradetur for datur,
          ad for in, etc.).

          Stephen
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson
          Graduate Program in Religion
          Duke University



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------

          Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • David Inglis
          Mark, it is my understanding that Lk 22:19b is NOT in b, so I d be very interested in your evidence for its existence. Also, I m aware of the differences in
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 11, 2012
            Mark, it is my understanding that Lk 22:19b is NOT in b, so I'd be very interested in your evidence for its existence.
            Also, I'm aware of the differences in order (e.g. Lk 22:17-18 after 19a in b and e), and the other variants of Lk
            22:17-20 in the Syriac and other versions. Although I only asked about Lk 22:19b-20a, I was just using these as a
            'proxy' for 1 Cor 11:24-25, as what I'm really interested in is determining whether there are pre-Vulgate traces of any
            of these verses in Latin mss of Lk. 'Mixed' (old Latin and Vulgate) mss are of course a problem, but so far I haven't
            come across anything that suggests to me that any text from 1 Cor 11:24-25 existed in old Latin form in Lk.

            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
            Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:36 PM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

            David:

            I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
            OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies "autou" with an expanded
            "tois mathhtais autou". And OL r1 has 19b but with a textual variant.
            Moreover, it is not clear to me that OL aur and c, while they follow the Vulgate, are derivative of it or the other way
            around. But I'm not a big vulgate scholar.

            Mark A. Matson
            Milligan College
            Milligan College, TN
            http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
            ________________________________________
            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...
            <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> ]
            Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:29 PM
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

            Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
            of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:
            1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and
            2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.
            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Mealand
            I am aware that this group is very much focused on the view that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark. This makes me, as someone who inclines towards the 2ST feel
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 12, 2012
              I am aware that this group is very much focused
              on the view that Luke used Matthew as well as Mark.
              This makes me, as someone who inclines towards the
              2ST feel that I should tread delicately here.

              I have tried to apply stylometric tests to work
              out a possible "crucial experiment" to see if new
              evidence can help with the relative probabilities
              in the debate between 2ST and FGT.

              The idea is that if we look at the sayings and also
              the apophthegms and parables in Matthew which are
              attributed to Q, and compare them with those found
              only in Matthew then we might get one of two possible
              results.

              a) The material attributed to Q and that found only in Matthew
              does not reveal stylistic differences when we allow for genre.
              b) There are such stylistic differences between the two sets
              of material.

              The results of this experiment are set out in an article
              recently published in New Testament Studies (October 2011).
              There are links to CUP, and to NTS, and also a link to
              the text of the article, on my Edinburgh Uni site here:

              https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/DLM/DLM-stylometric-analysis

              This should mean that it is available to members of Synoptic-L

              David Mealand




              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


              --
              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
            • Matson, Mark (Academic)
              I was looking at the extensive apparatus from the Critical NT Textual project on Luke (2 vols). But their source was Juelicher. Mark A. Matson Academic Dean
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 13, 2012
                I was looking at the extensive apparatus from the Critical NT Textual project on Luke (2 vols). But their source was Juelicher.
                Mark A. Matson
                Academic Dean
                Milligan College
                Milligan College, TN
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                ________________________________________
                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:15 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                Mark, it is my understanding that Lk 22:19b is NOT in b, so I'd be very interested in your evidence for its existence.
                Also, I'm aware of the differences in order (e.g. Lk 22:17-18 after 19a in b and e), and the other variants of Lk
                22:17-20 in the Syriac and other versions. Although I only asked about Lk 22:19b-20a, I was just using these as a
                'proxy' for 1 Cor 11:24-25, as what I'm really interested in is determining whether there are pre-Vulgate traces of any
                of these verses in Latin mss of Lk. 'Mixed' (old Latin and Vulgate) mss are of course a problem, but so far I haven't
                come across anything that suggests to me that any text from 1 Cor 11:24-25 existed in old Latin form in Lk.

                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
                Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:36 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                David:

                I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
                OL c and b both have v. 19b, but locate it after v. 16. OL f does have v. 19, but modifies "autou" with an expanded
                "tois mathhtais autou". And OL r1 has 19b but with a textual variant.
                Moreover, it is not clear to me that OL aur and c, while they follow the Vulgate, are derivative of it or the other way
                around. But I'm not a big vulgate scholar.

                Mark A. Matson
                Milligan College
                Milligan College, TN
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                ________________________________________
                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of David Inglis [davidinglis2@...
                <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> ]
                Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:29 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Do Lk 22:19b-20a exist in the Old Latin?

                Stephen, thank you for the extra information. Would it be accurate to say that Juelicher does not provide any evidence
                of old Latin mss that contain Old Latin versions of Lk 22:19b-20a, or putting it another way, he identifies just:
                1) Old Latin mss of Lk that do not contain Lk 22:19b-20a; and
                2) Old Latin (or mixed old Latin - Vulgate) mss that contain Vulgate versions of Lk 22:19b-20a.
                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA,. 94549, USA





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                ------------------------------------

                Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links



                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Ronald Price
                ... David, Thanks for this pointer to your article, which I was indeed able to access. The overall conclusion that stylometric analysis favours the 2ST more
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 14, 2012
                  On 12/01/2012 23:05, "David Mealand" <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

                  > There are links to CUP, and to NTS, and also a link to
                  > the text of the article, on my Edinburgh Uni site here:
                  >
                  > https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/DLM/DLM-stylometric-analysis
                  >
                  > This should mean that it is available to members of Synoptic-L

                  David,

                  Thanks for this pointer to your article, which I was indeed able to access.
                  The overall conclusion that stylometric analysis favours the 2ST more than
                  the FGT, is perhaps what I would have expected. However the footnote about
                  the groups 'R' and '8' is surely open to question. For those who haven't
                  seen David's article, he suggests that the double tradition woes of Mt 23
                  ('R') // Lk 11 might not belong to Q, and certain M sayings in Mt chs. 10,
                  11, 12, 16 & 18 constituting his group '8' may actually have been derived
                  from Q. Can an analysis based on the most common Greek words in 250-word
                  samples, be sufficiently accurate to provide a reliable indication of the
                  source of a single sample? For anyone not used to counting NT Greek words,
                  250 words is about one sixth of the size of Colossians.

                  In any case (to take up a couple of David's points) a low level of agreement
                  in the double tradition does not necessarily indicate a different source. It
                  can mean simply that one of the synoptic authors was not entirely satisfied
                  with a specific pericope or set of pericopes. Also the evidence for
                  divergent translation from Aramaic in Mt 23 // Lk 11 should be linked with
                  evidence there and elsewhere for paronomasia in the underlying Aramaic, and
                  the parallelism in scores of aphorisms, as thoroughly undermining
                  Kloppenborg's Greek-in-origin Q.

                  I would still argue that it is not tinkering with Q which is required, but a
                  radical rethink.

                  Ron Price,

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • David Mealand
                  Ron Thanks for your view of the paper. I notice that you focus mainly on a tentative afterthought. It was only when the main argument and conclusions had been
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 14, 2012
                    Ron

                    Thanks for your view of the paper.

                    I notice that you focus mainly on a tentative afterthought.

                    It was only when the main argument and conclusions had
                    been reached, that I included (probably tucked away in a footnote)
                    some tentative thoughts on a few oddities I noticed
                    on my route.

                    It is the argument based on the evidence of the main series
                    of tests which must carry the weight. For that samples ranging from
                    1000 words down through 500 to 250 were in fact used. If you use
                    rare words of course you need very large samples, that is why arguments
                    based on rare words are often seriously problematic. Most of my tests
                    used the words in Matthew with the very highest frequency, and none of
                    them used very rare words.

                    One could, of course, compare all of Q with all of M using just two large
                    blocks of text, but that would be very unwise.
                    It would give no indication of within group consistency
                    (or otherwise), and it would commit the serious error of not allowing
                    for the differences of style between sayings and such things as
                    apophthegms and parables. The tests allow for these genre differences,
                    and they do check "within source" differences, as well as between source
                    differences. That is why the material has to be divided into small
                    samples, and so rely on the words of the highest frequency. Doing this
                    takes considerably longer of course, but taking what looks like an
                    attractive short cut can have inconvenient consequences.

                    David M.





                    ---------
                    David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                    --
                    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                  • Ronald Price
                    ... David, I did mention that they were in a footnote. What I didn t mention is that in the final section headed Conclusions , the footnote is explicitly
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 16, 2012
                      On 14/01/2012 23:59, "David Mealand" <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

                      > I notice that you focus mainly on a tentative afterthought.
                      >
                      > It was only when the main argument and conclusions had
                      > been reached, that I included (probably tucked away in a footnote)
                      > some tentative thoughts on a few oddities I noticed
                      > on my route.

                      David,

                      I did mention that they were in a footnote. What I didn't mention is that in
                      the final section headed "Conclusions", the footnote is explicitly referred
                      to thus:

                      "Note 34 explored some further implications of these results relating to the
                      extent of Q."

                      So what your article referred to as "some further implications of these
                      results", you now call "tentative thoughts on a few oddities". They seem to
                      be rapidly losing their status! In any case my response did not pretend to
                      be a formal review, and I don't see why even tentative thoughts should be
                      exempt from comment.

                      > It is the argument based on the evidence of the main series
                      > of tests which must carry the weight.

                      The main thrust of your argument does indeed seem to count significantly
                      against the FGT, in which the double tradition is taken as essentially
                      Matthean, and therefore would be expected to be similar in style to 'M'
                      material.

                      But lest some readers deduce that the hypothesis of Luke's use of Matthew
                      has been dealt a serious blow, I should point out that the crude form of the
                      3ST outlined by Tuckett as a possible fall-back position would behave
                      exactly like the 2ST on David's stylometric tests. Also my more radical form
                      of the 3ST would require a different arrangement of the input data if it
                      were to be tested using David Mealand's methods. Luke's subsidiary use of
                      Matthew is a fundamental part of the 3ST.

                      Ron Price,

                      Derbyshire, UK

                      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_meri.html




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Mealand
                      Ron Yes thanks for the clarification. I was trying to make the logical structure of the argument clear. The first and main concern was to compare a sufficient
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 16, 2012
                        Ron

                        Yes thanks for the clarification. I was trying
                        to make the logical structure of the argument
                        clear. The first and main concern was to compare
                        a sufficient set of samples representing the DT with
                        an equivalent set of samples representing sayings,
                        parables and apophthegms only in Matthew. Once it
                        was clear from the results that the great majority of Q
                        differs on these criteria from the great majority of
                        M, I then, and only then, allowed myself some further
                        exploration of the few bits of material that didn't go
                        all the way with the trend.

                        One of 12 samples from Q is at issue, and this turned out
                        to include some verses that several people are hesitant about
                        attributing to Q anyway. They are some verses from the woes
                        against the scribes which have low levels of agreement in the DT,
                        indications of the use of a source other than Q, and evidence of
                        some divergent translation from Aramaic. But we are talking about
                        part of one 250 word sample here, and some people do attribute
                        some of these verses to M. My results suggest they are right
                        to do so. Similar considerations apply to the few bits of M that
                        are closer to Q. Some of these contain verses which are immediately
                        adjacent to verses evidently belonging to the DT. My results
                        suggest that these few verses should be considered more carefully
                        as possibly being verses in Q that Luke omitted. But we can only
                        start looking at this in this way if we can first get an 82%
                        success rate in blind assigning of Q samples to Q, and M samples to M.

                        If someone wishes to explore variations on 3ST then
                        I would be quite happy to see the results. I would
                        only warn that setting this kind of thing up, assembling
                        all of the data, checking the experiments carefully etc.
                        etc. is not going to be done quickly. If it could be
                        done speedily I might have tested all the Synoptic
                        theories at once while about it, but sadly it ain't like
                        that.

                        One final comment. I am more passionate about trying to persuade
                        NT scholars to allow the discipline to take scientific methods
                        seriously, than I am about the results that come out at the end.
                        We need to be much much more serious about formulating hypotheses
                        to test our theories, and then rigorously finding and checking
                        the evidence. This is even more the case when dealing with a
                        clash of theories which affects so much else in the discipline.
                        We should not give up traditional literary methods, but should
                        reinforce them with more logical and analytical and numeric processing
                        of the evidence. I do care about the results, but I might have to
                        rethink them tomorrow.

                        David M


                        ---------
                        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                        --
                        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      • Bob Schacht
                        ... I agree with this sentiment. However, your (and my) efforts in this direction are swimming against the tide of C. P. Snow s The Two Cultures: Those
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 16, 2012
                          At 09:52 AM 1/16/2012, David Mealand wrote:
                          >...I am more passionate about trying to persuade
                          >NT scholars to allow the discipline to take scientific methods
                          >seriously, than I am about the results that come out at the end.
                          >We need to be much much more serious about formulating hypotheses
                          >to test our theories, and then rigorously finding and checking
                          >the evidence. ...

                          I agree with this sentiment. However, your (and my) efforts in this
                          direction are swimming against the tide of C. P. Snow's The Two
                          Cultures: Those educated in the humanities tradition vs. those
                          educated in the "sciences." My experience has been that people
                          educated in the humanities just don't like the words "hypothesis" or
                          "testing" of hypotheses or theories, etc. That is, they either just
                          don't like those terms anywhere, or they feel that those words just
                          don't apply to the humanities. There is this mis-perception that
                          "hypothesis" and "testing" must always involve men and women in white
                          lab coats working in a clean laboratory with microscopes and test
                          tubes, and they just don't see how their information can be reduced
                          to slides and test tubes. They generally don't know much about
                          science (and so, The Two Cultures), and don't realize how much of
                          science does not involve those kinds of laboratories (think of the
                          social sciences, geology, astronomy, etc.) They don't see the value
                          of stating an idea in the form of a testable hypothesis.

                          For example, J.D. Crossan has written about "prophecy historicized"
                          (e.g., Birth of Christianity, p. 521) when he discusses the
                          Passion-Resurrection stories, by which he explains the passion and
                          resurrection stories in terms of prophecies. Years ago, he did an
                          internet seminar with CrossTalk (XTalk) on his book. I asked him
                          about this idea, "prophecy historicized," saying that it sounded like
                          an interesting hypothesis for Biblical studies, because it seemed
                          like historicizing prophecy is something that might have happened
                          more than once..
                          * How does prophecy become historicized?
                          * When, and in what circumstances does this occur?
                          But he was unwilling to investigate this idea in this way. He would
                          only apply it to the passion-resurrection narratives. And
                          furthermore, when I tried to outline what was involved, I found that
                          he employed many different fragments of prophecy from different
                          places in a variety of contexts. I could see no way to generalize
                          this thought into a more wide-ranging theory. It seems like an ad hoc
                          idea, produced only to explain one literary phenomenon, and not
                          applicable to any other situation. I think it more likely is a case
                          of "history rationalized," whereby an attempt is made to explain one
                          incident with fragments of prophecies that had common elements. But
                          this makes the assumption that the incident in question actually happened.

                          In short, I think your issue is not simply a numerical problem, but a
                          philosophical one, as well.

                          Bob Schacht
                          Northern Arizona University





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.