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

[gthomas] Re: CORRECTION Eerdmans (NOT Weeden on GTh 61)

Expand Messages
  • Jacob Knee
    Apologies for the mistaken subject heading. And just as you were all hoping for something substantive from me....! Cheers, Jacob Knee (Boston, England)
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 27, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Apologies for the mistaken subject heading. And just as you were all hoping
      for something substantive from me....!

      Cheers,
      Jacob Knee
      (Boston, England)

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Jacob Knee [mailto:jknee@...]
      > Sent: 27 March 2000 20:13
      > To: gthomas@egroups.com
      > Subject: [gthomas] Re: Weeden on GTh 61
      >
      >
      > You may (or may not) be intereted to know that it looks like Eeerdmans
      > (religious publishers) are soon to go online.
      >
      > http://www.eerdmans.com/default.htm
      >
      > Book hound,
      > Jacob Knee
      > (Boston, England)
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > To post to gthomas send e mail to gthomas@egroups.com
      > To unsubscribe from gthomas send a blank e mail to
      > gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
      > -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=gthomas&m=1
      >
      >
      >
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      Mike, Reading Ted s analysis make me wonder about what s going on on Crosstalk nowadays. Posters there seem to spend huge amounts of time arguing, and
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 30, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike,

        Reading Ted's analysis make me wonder about what's going on on Crosstalk
        nowadays. Posters there seem to spend huge amounts of time arguing, and
        authoring interminable posts about what seems like straws in the wind.
        Such as if Mk was written in northern Israel or in southern Israel? As if
        there's any hope of ever determining this for sure... The truth most
        likely is that it was written over a 100 years, possibly in the West, by a
        dozen hands with influences coming from different places, and based on
        different sources. I guess they just have to keep trying to push that
        camel through the needle's eye?

        Speaking about Ted's piece, what are his speculations really based on?
        He's using some apocryphal inferences about who the daughter of Herod was,
        while forgetting all about the Salome that actually _is_ attested as a
        close disciple of Jesus? Indeed..

        On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Michael Grondin wrote:

        > Ted Weeden is author of a notable work on Mark, now unfortunately out of
        > print. Recently, he's been writing on Crosstalk arguing that GMark was
        > written in the East (specifically, Caesarea Philippi) rather than in the
        > West (Rome or Egypt) as some early church writings claim. In a recent note,
        > he mentions Mark's use of Salome and discusses GTh 61 (wherein Salome is
        > also mentioned). He's given me his consent to repost that material here.
        > The following is from a much longer note, but is complete in itself:
        > ----------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Can my case for Salome in Mark being a surrogate for the Herodians be
        > supported in the tradition of the early church?

        But the name of Salome the Herodian is not mentioned in Mk. The only
        Salome in Mk is in these two passages,

        Mark 15:40
        Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary
        Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and
        Salome.

        Mark 16:1

        When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of
        James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to
        anoint Jesus' body.

        In fact, these are the only two places in the whole Bible where Salome is
        mentioned.

        > Is there a reference any where else in first-century Christian sources
        > to a Salome, one who is both linked to Jesus and manifests all the
        > characteristics of the Herodian Salome?

        "Any where else"? Such a reference exists nowhere in NT.

        > Yes, in the Gospel of Thomas the same Markan Herodian Salome, of
        > immoral reputation, appears there.

        The same mistake again.

        > In GT 61, using the English translation of Hans-Gebhard Bethge as it
        > appears in Stephen Patterson and James Robinson's _The Fifth Gospel_,
        > we find this:
        >
        > Jesus said: "Two will rest on a bed. The one will die, the other will
        > live." Salome said: "(So) who are you, man? You have gotten a place
        > on my couch as a <stranger> and you have eaten from my table." Jesus
        > said to her: "I am he who comes from the one who is (always) the same.
        > I was given some of that which is my Father's." "I am your disciple!"
        > Therefore I say: If someone becomes <like> (God), he will become full
        > of light. But if he becomes one, separated (from God), he will become
        > full of darkness.

        So where do we get any indication that this is not a reference to the
        Salome of Mk, who is one of close and true disciples of Jesus?

        > That a very interesting and strange exchange between Jesus and Salome.
        > Unlike all other characters in Thomas, she does not question Jesus
        > with sincere intent to be taught by him. She interrogates him in a
        > very confrontational matter: "So who are you man?" And what she
        > confronts him about is that he has crashed her party. She is clearly
        > cast as someone of means ("my couch" and "my table'). She speaks with
        > a sense of authority to back up her confrontational assertiveness. She
        > sounds like her own barroom bouncer, demanding to know what right he
        > has to crash her party. It fits an elite profile of a woman in courtly
        > setting with courtly authority.
        >
        > Moreover, GT 61 seems to have some redactional seams suggesting that
        > this passage has been reworked or inserted. Salome's surprising
        > declaration, "I am your disciple," indicating a sudden conversion to
        > discipleship,

        Why "sudden"? Mk indicates that she's one of the close and true disciples
        of Jesus.

        > seems to have been sandwiched in between two of the Thomas Jesus'
        > typical "otherworldly" declarations. And the last one makes no sense
        > as a response to Salome's declaration of discipleship. It is as though
        > Jesus either did not hear her or ignored her announcement that she is
        > now his disciple. Moreover, the GT 61 reference to two men on a bed,
        > one who dies the other who lives, may be a redactor's rework of Q
        > (17:34), with an intended allusion to John the Baptist (the one who
        > dies at Salome's hands) and Jesus (the Thomas Jesus who now eternally
        > lives) in mind, to serve as a lead-in to this Herodian Salome

        Why "this Herodian Salome"?

        > and her confrontation with this itinerant party crasher.
        >
        > ------------------------------------------
        >
        > In my email with Ted, he indicated that he would be interested in what
        > our list members had to say about his analysis of #61. In reply, I
        > mentioned my own theory that the phrase "I'm your disciple" is not
        > intended to be taken as being uttered by Salome to J, but rather is a
        > misplaced rejoinder to J's statement to Thomas in #13 ("I'm not your
        > master.") Nevertheless, Ted has presented a viable and coherent
        > alternative explanation for the apparently clumsy insertion of "I'm
        > your disciple" into the text sometime after it was originally written.

        Actually, I don't think Ted's explanation is either viable or coherent.

        > I'd only add that if the two on the bed are intended to be Jesus and
        > John-the-B, then the question arises as to what this "bed" is intended
        > to represent. I suspect that Ted might say that it represents the
        > geographic domain of Salome. If so, this would provide an explanation
        > for what is meant when Salome is made to say that J has "mounted her
        > bed" and "eaten from her table".

        The only interesting thing that I see in this GOT passage that, I agree,
        is quite possibly corrupt, is Salome's direct question, "So who are you
        man?" This seems to support the view that early disciples of Jesus did not
        think of him as Christ. In other words, supporting the view that low
        christology was normative earliest christology of the movement.

        Regards,

        Yuri.

        Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

        Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

        The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
        equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
      • Michael Grondin
        ... Well, now, Yuri, as I ve said before, things that interest you may not interest other folks, and vice versa. Myself, I find text-critical issues quite
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 30, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          At 01:03 PM 03/30/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >Reading Ted's analysis make me wonder about what's going on on Crosstalk
          >nowadays. Posters there seem to spend huge amounts of time arguing, and
          >authoring interminable posts about what seems like straws in the wind.
          >Such as if Mk was written in northern Israel or in southern Israel? As if
          >there's any hope of ever determining this for sure...

          Well, now, Yuri, as I've said before, things that interest you may not
          interest other folks, and vice versa. Myself, I find text-critical issues
          quite interesting, and certainly much more susceptible of resolution than
          the wide-ranging and ill-defined historical issues you favor. (Talking
          about "interminable posts", have you made any headway yet in convincing
          anyone that Xianity was almost entirely Jewish prior to 150?) Actually, I
          found the Crosstalk discussion of Weeden's ideas quite stimulating and
          productive, especially as I had not previously encountered the view that
          Mark was written in the East.

          >The truth most likely is that it [Mark] was written over a 100 years,
          >possibly in the West, by a dozen hands with influences coming from
          >different places, and based on different sources.

          Hmm. And during that 100 years was never disseminated to others, so that we
          might find a copy of any one of its early versions? "Possibly in the West"?
          OK, but also possibly in the East, so what's the point of saying that? And
          how many major redactions do you suppose there might have been in that
          extremely long 100-year period? Two? Six? Twenty? Fifty? If this is "the
          truth most likely" to you, I'm afraid I don't share your sense of
          historical probability. And I think I know the source of the difference in
          our senses. If I may say so, you (or your sources) seem to have fallen
          victim to the not-uncommon malady one might call "historical time
          distortion", i.e., the subconscious feeling that somehow 100 years back
          then didn't count for anywhere near as much as it does today, in the sense
          that not much could have been done in relatively "short periods" like a
          year or two, or even ten or twenty. So in your mind it took five
          generations to write Mark. Geez, you'd think they would've gotten tired of
          working on it. Or turned out something a little better. But wait! Maybe
          they did! Maybe what we now know as Mark is really Mark, the first
          generation, and Matthew is Mark, the 2nd generation, etc. That would
          account for those 100 years, maybe. But wait again - I'd better stop - I'm
          getting a headache.

          >Speaking about Ted's piece, what are his speculations really based on?
          >He's using some apocryphal inferences about who the daughter of Herod was,
          >while forgetting all about the Salome that actually _is_ attested as a
          >close disciple of Jesus?

          According to Ted's thesis, as I understand it, the "close disciple" Salome
          is a Markan creation whose name was chosen so as to make her symbolic of
          the actual Herodian Salome. As you say, the actual Salome is not mentioned
          in Mark, presumably so as not to confuse the symbolism. Since you yourself
          believe that Mark was subject to many hands over a long period of time, I'm
          sure you can appreciate that it cannot have been just a simple little
          non-metaphorical story. But you can find out more about this by consulting
          Ted's original piece on Crosstalk, or by writing to Ted himself.

          >> Jesus said: "Two will rest on a bed. The one will die, the other will
          >> live." Salome said: "(So) who are you, man? You have gotten a place
          >> on my couch as a <stranger> and you have eaten from my table." Jesus
          >> said to her: "I am he who comes from the one who is (always) the same.
          >> I was given some of that which is my Father's." "I am your disciple!"
          >> Therefore I say: If someone becomes <like> (God), he will become full
          >> of light. But if he becomes one, separated (from God), he will become
          >> full of darkness.
          >
          >So where do we get any indication that this is not a reference to the
          >Salome of Mk, who is one of close and true disciples of Jesus?

          Already you're begging the question, since Ted believes that the Salome of
          Th 61 IS the Salome of Mk - he just doesn't agree with you that the Salome
          of Mk is a real, non-symbolic person. In any case, hold on, cuz Ted is
          about to answer your question in the passage you quote immediately
          following, but then proceed to ignore:

          >> That a very interesting and strange exchange between Jesus and Salome.
          >> Unlike all other characters in Thomas, she does not question Jesus
          >> with sincere intent to be taught by him. She interrogates him in a
          >> very confrontational matter: "So who are you man?" And what she
          >> confronts him about is that he has crashed her party. She is clearly
          >> cast as someone of means ("my couch" and "my table'). She speaks with
          >> a sense of authority to back up her confrontational assertiveness. She
          >> sounds like her own barroom bouncer, demanding to know what right he
          >> has to crash her party. It fits an elite profile of a woman in courtly
          >> setting with courtly authority.
          >>
          >> Moreover, GT 61 seems to have some redactional seams suggesting that
          >> this passage has been reworked or inserted. Salome's surprising
          >> declaration, "I am your disciple," indicating a sudden conversion to
          >> discipleship,
          >
          >Why "sudden"? Mk indicates that she's one of the close and true disciples
          >of Jesus.

          Now you see, you've not only ignored Ted's argument, but forgotten your own
          original question as well. You asked him to tell you why the Salome of Th
          61 is different from the "surface" Salome of Mk, and when he does so, you
          ignore his answer and shift the ground of your argument. Ted gives a number
          of indicators that the Salome of Th 61 is *not* presented there as being a
          "close and true disciple", and yet you beg the question (again) by saying
          that she _must be_ because Mark says she is. This kind of shiftyness on
          your part doesn't exactly lend credence to your position. Perhaps you
          didn't read the whole thing before responding to parts of it.

          >> ... Ted has presented a viable and coherent
          >> alternative explanation for the apparently clumsy insertion of "I'm
          >> your disciple" into the text sometime after it was originally written.
          >
          >Actually, I don't think Ted's explanation is either viable or coherent.

          Opinion noted. But your counter-argument, such as it is, doesn't even
          present a serious or consistent challenge to Ted's interpretation, IMO.

          >The only interesting thing that I see in this GOT passage that, I agree,
          >is quite possibly corrupt, is Salome's direct question, "So who are you
          >man?" This seems to support the view that early disciples of Jesus did not
          >think of him as Christ. In other words, supporting the view that low
          >christology was normative earliest christology of the movement.

          There's an interplay between hypothesis and data, as you know.
          Unfortunately, you ignore the interpretation of the data in Th 61 presented
          by Ted (namely that Salome speaks like a person of means and power, not
          like a humble disciple). This seems to indicate that you are
          over-interested in your hypothesis and under-interested in any data in
          Thomas, which places the objectivity of your assessments in question.

          Mike

          The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
          http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm
        • Kanefer@aol.com
          My own feeling too was that Jesus was guest of Salome. She is wanting to be convinced about who He is, tests with her authority as host; He answers well. It
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 1 4:13 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            My own feeling too was that Jesus was guest of Salome. She is wanting to be
            convinced about who He is, tests with her authority as host; He answers well.
            It is not far-fetched to consider that she at some point "repented" to
            become His humble disciple, so as to be with His mother at His crucifixion,
            having bought spices, & to visit at His tomb.
            Then, the "I am your disciple!" could be viewed as connection, of rewriting
            history, of something that was actually said later but inserted earlier,
            where author looked back & considered at what point Salome must have
            converted and to show that. Sincerely, Patti
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... I call this a basic historical background, Mike. If this is not clarified, then we might as well give up historical study of early Christianity
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 4 11:38 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Michael Grondin wrote:

              > At 01:03 PM 03/30/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
              > >Reading Ted's analysis make me wonder about what's going on on Crosstalk
              > >nowadays. Posters there seem to spend huge amounts of time arguing, and
              > >authoring interminable posts about what seems like straws in the wind.
              > >Such as if Mk was written in northern Israel or in southern Israel? As if
              > >there's any hope of ever determining this for sure...
              >
              > Well, now, Yuri, as I've said before, things that interest you may not
              > interest other folks, and vice versa. Myself, I find text-critical
              > issues quite interesting, and certainly much more susceptible of
              > resolution than the wide-ranging and ill-defined historical issues you
              > favor.

              I call this a basic historical background, Mike. If this is not clarified,
              then we might as well give up historical study of early Christianity
              altogether...

              > (Talking about "interminable posts", have you made any headway yet in
              > convincing anyone that Xianity was almost entirely Jewish prior to
              > 150?)

              At least prior to 100. That's my position.

              > Actually, I found the Crosstalk discussion of Weeden's ideas
              > quite stimulating and productive, especially as I had not previously
              > encountered the view that Mark was written in the East.
              >
              > >The truth most likely is that it [Mark] was written over a 100 years,
              > >possibly in the West, by a dozen hands with influences coming from
              > >different places, and based on different sources.
              >
              > Hmm. And during that 100 years was never disseminated to others, so
              > that we might find a copy of any one of its early versions?

              Disseminated to Matthew and to Luke, who based their gospels on proto-Mk,
              as Koester maintains!

              > "Possibly in the West"? OK, but also possibly in the East, so what's
              > the point of saying that? And how many major redactions do you suppose
              > there might have been in that extremely long 100-year period? Two?
              > Six? Twenty? Fifty?

              At least 3.

              > If this is "the truth most likely" to you, I'm afraid I don't share
              > your sense of historical probability. And I think I know the source of
              > the difference in our senses. If I may say so, you (or your sources)
              > seem to have fallen victim to the not-uncommon malady one might call
              > "historical time distortion", i.e., the subconscious feeling that
              > somehow 100 years back then didn't count for anywhere near as much as
              > it does today,

              Don't see it.

              > in the sense that not much could have been done in relatively "short
              > periods" like a year or two, or even ten or twenty.

              But we know the canonicals were written by religious Jews. Remember
              "biblical prophesy historicized"? They could not change their views on a
              dime.

              > So in your mind it took five generations to write Mark.

              Not to write but to re-write.

              > Geez, you'd think they would've gotten tired of working on it. Or
              > turned out something a little better. But wait! Maybe they did! Maybe
              > what we now know as Mark is really Mark, the first generation, and
              > Matthew is Mark, the 2nd generation, etc. That would account for those
              > 100 years, maybe. But wait again - I'd better stop - I'm getting a
              > headache.

              From trying to accomodate the real history of the movement to your
              preconceptions of what it "should have been"?

              > >Speaking about Ted's piece, what are his speculations really based on?
              > >He's using some apocryphal inferences about who the daughter of Herod was,
              > >while forgetting all about the Salome that actually _is_ attested as a
              > >close disciple of Jesus?
              >
              > According to Ted's thesis, as I understand it, the "close disciple"
              > Salome is a Markan creation whose name was chosen so as to make her
              > symbolic of the actual Herodian Salome.

              Well, this is a huge speculative assumption right from the start!

              > As you say, the actual Salome is not mentioned in Mark, presumably so
              > as not to confuse the symbolism.

              You're already assuming you know who "the actual Salome" was.

              > Since you yourself believe that Mark was subject to many hands over a
              > long period of time, I'm sure you can appreciate that it cannot have
              > been just a simple little non-metaphorical story. But you can find out
              > more about this by consulting Ted's original piece on Crosstalk, or by
              > writing to Ted himself.
              >
              > >> Jesus said: "Two will rest on a bed. The one will die, the other will
              > >> live." Salome said: "(So) who are you, man? You have gotten a place
              > >> on my couch as a <stranger> and you have eaten from my table." Jesus
              > >> said to her: "I am he who comes from the one who is (always) the same.
              > >> I was given some of that which is my Father's." "I am your disciple!"
              > >> Therefore I say: If someone becomes <like> (God), he will become full
              > >> of light. But if he becomes one, separated (from God), he will become
              > >> full of darkness.
              > >
              > >So where do we get any indication that this is not a reference to the
              > >Salome of Mk, who is one of close and true disciples of Jesus?
              >
              > Already you're begging the question, since Ted believes that the
              > Salome of Th 61 IS the Salome of Mk - he just doesn't agree with you
              > that the Salome of Mk is a real, non-symbolic person.

              But maybe she was exactly who Mk says she was. Why should I not take Mk on
              his word here?

              > In any case, hold on, cuz Ted is about to answer your question in the
              > passage you quote immediately following, but then proceed to ignore:
              >
              > >> That a very interesting and strange exchange between Jesus and Salome.
              > >> Unlike all other characters in Thomas, she does not question Jesus
              > >> with sincere intent to be taught by him. She interrogates him in a
              > >> very confrontational matter: "So who are you man?" And what she
              > >> confronts him about is that he has crashed her party. She is clearly
              > >> cast as someone of means ("my couch" and "my table'). She speaks with
              > >> a sense of authority to back up her confrontational assertiveness. She
              > >> sounds like her own barroom bouncer, demanding to know what right he
              > >> has to crash her party. It fits an elite profile of a woman in courtly
              > >> setting with courtly authority.
              > >>
              > >> Moreover, GT 61 seems to have some redactional seams suggesting that
              > >> this passage has been reworked or inserted. Salome's surprising
              > >> declaration, "I am your disciple," indicating a sudden conversion to
              > >> discipleship,
              > >
              > >Why "sudden"? Mk indicates that she's one of the close and true disciples
              > >of Jesus.
              >
              > Now you see, you've not only ignored Ted's argument,

              Not ignoring it. I just think it has little basis in fact. Why should we
              not assume that Mk knows Salome as perhaps one of wealthy
              disciples/sponsors of Jesus?

              How do we know what was Herod's daughter's name, anyway? Apparently we
              know this from Josephus who names her in passing, without saying she had
              anything to do with JB's death. At some point probably this became an
              apocryphal Christian story. It would be interesting to find out when the
              daughter of Herod first gets named in Christian tradition.

              > but forgotten your own original question as well. You asked him to
              > tell you why the Salome of Th 61 is different from the "surface"
              > Salome of Mk, and when he does so,

              I don't think he does. He doesn't even appear to consider this
              possibility. All GOT references to Salome can be explained by there having
              been a real Salome who was a wealthy disciples/sponsor of Jesus. Then Mk
              and GOT are in accord.

              What if it was merely coincidental that the daughter of Herod was also
              named Salome? If so, then this coincidence may have been used as a late
              smear against Salome who was an actual disciple of Jesus. Just a
              possibility.

              ...

              > >The only interesting thing that I see in this GOT passage that, I agree,
              > >is quite possibly corrupt, is Salome's direct question, "So who are you
              > >man?" This seems to support the view that early disciples of Jesus did not
              > >think of him as Christ. In other words, supporting the view that low
              > >christology was normative earliest christology of the movement.
              >
              > There's an interplay between hypothesis and data, as you know.
              > Unfortunately, you ignore the interpretation of the data in Th 61
              > presented by Ted (namely that Salome speaks like a person of means and
              > power, not like a humble disciple).

              So maybe she was an unhumble disciple?

              > This seems to indicate that you are over-interested in your hypothesis
              > and under-interested in any data in Thomas, which places the
              > objectivity of your assessments in question.

              And then again, GOT may have known of Salome, a real disciple of Jesus,
              and created this whole incident only to stress the view that early
              disciples of Jesus did not think of him as Christ, and thus to make an
              important theological point?

              Or Mk may have read GOT at some late point, and included Salome in Mk as
              just another disciple of Jesus that he needed to beef up his accounts of
              Crucifixion and Resurrection?

              Just two more speculative possibilities...

              Now, this is how I see this whole problem. Mt and Mk had this early story
              about the beheading of JB as involving the feast and the unnamed daughter
              of Herod. This sounds like a fairy tale, anyway, that doesn't have to have
              any historical basis, and probably didn't. Herod killed JB because he
              considered him too dangerous, and the story was added later as a great
              story.

              But the actual naming of the daughter as Salome was probably done later
              apocryphally, and on the basis of Josephus. This may have been a later
              attempt to cast doubt on an actual disciple of Jesus. Such a general
              tendency is clear anyway in later traditions. So it is possible that the
              daughter's name was not used until much later, well after both Mk and GOT
              were already written.

              To introduce some historical realism to this whole problem, keep in mind
              that the young daughter of Herod, the high princess, simply could not
              become a disciple of Jesus in the few months between the beheading of JB
              and the Crucifixion. The historical possibility of this is zero. So the
              similarity in names can be merely a coincidence.

              Now, to cast doubt on my own theory, and probably to complicate things
              even further, it is my view that the two mentions of Salome in Mk 15:40
              and 16:1 are both part of the latest redaction of Mk. Because I consider
              anything that has to do with the Tomb Burial as late redaction. (Also I
              looked up in the Pepysian Harmony, which tends to preserve a lot of early
              stuff, but Salome is not there!)

              When a later editor of Mk was adding Salome to these passages he may have
              been motivated by various reasons. He may have borrowed Salome from GOT?
              But the whole thing is too complicated and speculative anyway, so I'd
              rather leave it at this...

              Regards,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

              What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
              reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
              to us the things to come -=O=- Isaiah 41:22
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.