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

Re: one word supplied by Luke?

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jack Kilmon wrote (SNIP)- ... Jack, Even if what you say is true, could not Luke still have taken these words from his documentary source material? According
    Message 1 of 16 , May 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack Kilmon wrote (SNIP)-
      >
      > AMARTIAS in the first half of the "debt/debtors" petition of
      >the Lord's Prayer in Luke is definitely Luke's. Luke ... saw fit to
      >explain what the idiom meant by using AMARTIAS in the first half and
      >the participial form OFEILONTI in the second half.
      >
      Jack,
      Even if what you say is true, could not Luke still have taken
      these words from his documentary source material? According to the
      Jerusalem School Hypothesis, such Semitisms in Luke actually support the
      idea that this is precisely what he did. On their view, Luke used a
      rather literal written translation into Greek of Jesus tradition which
      had been transmitted orally in Semitic language(s) by the close
      followers of Jesus. So the Semitisms in Luke may well have been copied
      by Luke from his Greek documentary sources, and not supplied by him.

      Is it possible to show that any word (sic) in the Gospel of Luke from Lk
      1:5 onwards, was supplied by the evangelist Luke himself, and not taken
      from his documentary source material?


      I am asking for just one word.


      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I agree, and would want to add that among all the evangelists, Luke is the most versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms (both in Gospel and
      Message 2 of 16 , May 5, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        David Peabody wrote (much omitted):

        >More specifically, I find Jack's argumentation about "debts/debtors"
        >and "sins/sinners" in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the Lord's
        >Prayer to be interesting, but at least reversible, if not more
        >probable in the reverse.

        I agree, and would want to add that among all the evangelists, Luke
        is the most versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms
        (both in Gospel and Acts). This can make the business of attempting
        to distinguish 'source' from 'redaction' in Luke very tricky. It is
        all too easy to jump to source explanations of Lukan material when a
        literary explanation will often suffice.

        David Peabody also wrote (in passing):

        >Although I have a long history of advocating a source theory that
        >challenges the scholarly "consensus" (at least to the extent that
        >this consensus is formulated by New Testament scholars generally and
        >not by experts in the Synoptic Problem where a consensus is less
        >clear) . . .

        I think this an interesting (and perhaps troubling) observation.
        SNTS might provide good evidence for its accuracy. I have only
        been to the conference twice (1996 and 1997) and on each occasion sat
        in on the Synoptic Problem seminar at which a consensus in favour of
        the 2ST was certainly not in evidence -- quite the contrary, in fact.
        Yet I would bet that a poll of most SNTS members (or SBL for that
        matter) would turn up a majority vote for the 2ST. I wonder what the
        explanation is? Are those who are experts on the Synoptic Problem
        seeing things that others are not? Or are they regarded as a lunatic
        fringe better left alone to argue amongst themselves while others get
        on with more important matters?

        With good wishes

        Mark
        -------------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
        Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in
        Message 3 of 16 , May 6, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
          >
          >Among all the evangelists, Luke is the most versatile, the one who
          >constantly varies his synonyms (both in Gospel and Acts).

          By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
          versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel and
          Acts? It seems to me that to come to this view, we must first be able
          to pick out some words which Luke himself supplied (other than Lk
          1:1-4), and which he did not take from his documentary sources. How else
          would we know that he is versatile in HIS style and that they are HIS
          synonyms?

          Please tell us how we can know that Luke is the most versatile
          evangelist and that he constantly chose to vary his synonyms.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... When we talk about Luke s versatility , we are making an inference about the author from the data in the text. The text (Luke s Gospel) has the largest
          Message 4 of 16 , May 7, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Brian Wilson asked:

            > By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
            > versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
            > and Acts? It seems to me that to come to this view, we must first
            > be able to pick out some words which Luke himself supplied (other
            > than Lk 1:1-4), and which he did not take from his documentary
            > sources. How else would we know that he is versatile in HIS style
            > and that they are HIS synonyms?
            >
            > Please tell us how we can know that Luke is the most versatile
            > evangelist and that he constantly chose to vary his synonyms.

            When we talk about 'Luke's versatility', we are making an inference
            about the author from the data in the text. The text (Luke's Gospel)
            has the largest vocabulary, the highest number of hapax legomena and
            the greatest variation in style and language among the evangelists.
            This is indisputable.

            Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
            because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
            the sources he happened to be using? Could he have been using widely
            varying sources, all of which had high numbers of hapax legomena
            etc.? I would answer this in the following way:

            1. If talking to a two-source theorist, I would look at the way
            Luke deals with Mark, introducing more hapax legomena than he takes
            over, varying his synonyms and so on. We could agree on this.

            2. If talking to a Griesbachian, I would do the same with Luke's use
            of Matthew, and then we could agree.

            3. If talking to an 'Augustinian' we could do the same with Luke's
            use of Mark and Matthew, and we could agree.

            4. How would one answer the question for someone like Brian who
            does not accept any of the above source theories? I suppose one
            would have to point to the following:

            (a) the extreme unlikelihood that the large vocabulary, the
            variation in style etc. could all be due to conservative
            retention of source material. This would be to return to the
            kind of scissors and paste theory that has rightly been
            rejected by contemporary scholarship.

            (b) Acts, where the same richness, variation etc. is evident.
            It would be difficult to maintain, I would have thought, that
            the parallels between Luke's literary style in the Gospel and
            Acts could be explained on the assumption that Luke was
            conservatively using very similar sources for each.

            All the best

            Mark
            -------------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Brian Wilson asked (SNIP) ... Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) - ... This wasn t my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that there are just two
            Message 5 of 16 , May 9, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson asked (SNIP)
              >By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
              >versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
              >and Acts?

              Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
              >The text (Luke's Gospel) has the largest vocabulary, the highest
              >number of hapax legomena and the greatest variation in style and
              >language among the evangelists.
              >Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
              >because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
              >the sources he happened to be using?

              This wasn't my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that
              there are just two mutually-exclusive explanations of the data - (1)
              that it is entirely the result of Luke's literary activity, (2) that it
              is entirely the result of Luke's use of sources. I do not make this
              assumption. Why should not the data described be the result partly of
              Luke's literary activity and partly of Luke's use of sources?

              Putting my question another way to make this explicit -

              Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
              supply in his gospel, and which therefore can be used for determining
              his style(s), from words which Luke did not supply in his gospel, and
              which therefore indicate the style(s) of his source material?

              The supplementary question is this. Using such a method, can we pinpoint
              one word in the gospel of Luke (from Lk 1:5 onwards), and say with
              confidence that Luke supplied it, and did not take it from his
              documentary source material?

              I am asking, still, for just one word to be identified as supplied by
              Luke himself (other than Lk 1:1-4), and not taken from his documentary
              source material.

              For the record, my statement of my hypothesis in the Expository Times in
              June 1997 explicitly posits that each synoptist EDITED the wording of
              the material he took from his documentary sources. The fact that Luke
              has the largest vocabulary, the highest number of hapax legomena and the
              greatest variation in style and language among the synoptists is
              perfectly compatible with my hypothesis.

              Best wishes,
              BRIAN WILSON

              E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
              SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
              10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
              Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
            • Jim Deardorff
              ... Brian, Surely no single word would be regarded as adequate proof of anything, and as you asked above: Can we describe a method for distinguishing between
              Message 6 of 16 , May 9, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:04 AM 5/9/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                >
                >Brian Wilson asked (SNIP)
                >>By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                >>versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
                >>and Acts?

                >Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
                >>The text (Luke's Gospel) has the largest vocabulary, the highest
                >>number of hapax legomena and the greatest variation in style and
                >>language among the evangelists.
                >>Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
                >>because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
                >>the sources he happened to be using?

                >This wasn't my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that
                >there are just two mutually-exclusive explanations of the data - (1)
                >that it is entirely the result of Luke's literary activity, (2) that it
                >is entirely the result of Luke's use of sources. I do not make this
                >assumption. Why should not the data described be the result partly of
                >Luke's literary activity and partly of Luke's use of sources?
                >
                >Putting my question another way to make this explicit -
                >
                >Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                >supply in his gospel, and which therefore can be used for determining
                >his style(s), from words which Luke did not supply in his gospel, and
                >which therefore indicate the style(s) of his source material?
                >
                >The supplementary question is this. Using such a method, can we pinpoint
                >one word in the gospel of Luke (from Lk 1:5 onwards), and say with
                >confidence that Luke supplied it, and did not take it from his
                >documentary source material? [...]

                Brian,

                Surely no single word would be regarded as adequate proof of anything, and
                as you asked above:

                "Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                supply in his gospel..."

                words (plural) would be needed, probably not just 10 words but 100 or more,
                before scholars would take notice.

                Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                problem?

                Jim Deardorff
                Corvallis, Oregon
                E-mail: deardorj@...
                Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
              • Richard H. Anderson
                Jim Deardorff, Brian Wilson, greetings: I would like to propose the following O.T. phrases that among NT writers are unique Lucan terminology: the law of the
                Message 7 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim Deardorff, Brian Wilson, greetings:

                  I would like to propose the following O.T. phrases that among NT writers
                  are unique Lucan terminology:
                  'the law of the lord' and 'the law of the fathers'
                  Lk 2:23, 24, 39 and Acts 22:3
                  'the customs which Moses delivered to us' and similar expressions
                  Acts 6:14; 15:1; 21:21; 28:17.
                  'Moses being preached'
                  Acts 15:21
                  'Moses and the prophets'
                  Lk 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; Acts 26:22; 28:23

                  I guess why question is, why are we focusing on words, why not look at
                  phrases?

                  Richard H. Anderson
                  > At 09:04 AM 5/9/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                  > >
                  > >Brian Wilson asked (SNIP)
                  > >>By what method do we arrive at the conclusion that Luke is the most
                  > >>versatile, the one who constantly varies his synonyms in both Gospel
                  > >>and Acts?
                  >
                  > >Mark Goodacre replied (SNIP) -
                  > >>The text (Luke's Gospel) has the largest vocabulary, the highest
                  > >>number of hapax legomena and the greatest variation in style and
                  > >>language among the evangelists.
                  > >>Brian's question, however, is how do we know that this data is there
                  > >>because of the literary activity of the author and not because of
                  > >>the sources he happened to be using?
                  >
                  > >This wasn't my intended question. Mark introduces the assumption that
                  > >there are just two mutually-exclusive explanations of the data - (1)
                  > >that it is entirely the result of Luke's literary activity, (2) that it
                  > >is entirely the result of Luke's use of sources. I do not make this
                  > >assumption. Why should not the data described be the result partly of
                  > >Luke's literary activity and partly of Luke's use of sources?
                  > >
                  > >Putting my question another way to make this explicit -
                  > >
                  > >Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                  > >supply in his gospel, and which therefore can be used for determining
                  > >his style(s), from words which Luke did not supply in his gospel, and
                  > >which therefore indicate the style(s) of his source material?
                  > >
                  > >The supplementary question is this. Using such a method, can we pinpoint
                  > >one word in the gospel of Luke (from Lk 1:5 onwards), and say with
                  > >confidence that Luke supplied it, and did not take it from his
                  > >documentary source material? [...]
                  >
                  > Brian,
                  >
                  > Surely no single word would be regarded as adequate proof of anything, and
                  > as you asked above:
                  >
                  > "Can we describe a method for distinguishing between words which Luke did
                  > supply in his gospel..."
                  >
                  > words (plural) would be needed, probably not just 10 words but 100 or more,
                  > before scholars would take notice.
                  >
                  > Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                  > 2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                  > paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                  > total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                  > If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                  > definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                  > occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                  > considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                  > problem?
                  >
                  > Jim Deardorff
                  > Corvallis, Oregon
                  > E-mail: deardorj@...
                  > Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                • Brian E. Wilson
                  Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)- ... Jim, You seem to be saying that it is impossible to distinguish Luke s vocabulary and style(s) from the vocabulary and
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)-
                    >Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                    >2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                    >paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                    >total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                    >If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                    >definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                    >occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                    >considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                    >problem?

                    Jim,
                    You seem to be saying that it is impossible to distinguish Luke's
                    vocabulary and style(s) from the vocabulary and style(s) of the
                    writers of his source materials. I do not think Goulder would agree
                    with this.

                    Goulder writes very confidently of Luke's "language" and "style". For
                    instance, writing about Lk 10:30-35, Goulder says that "modern
                    commentaries like Schneider and Fitzmyer...pay no attention to the
                    insistently Lucan style of the story (of the Good Samaritan)...not only
                    is the language substantially Luke's own, the stylistic features
                    (Luke's) ...make up the very stuff of the parable. If we took them away,
                    there would be nothing left." ( "Luke: A New Paradigm", Sheffield 1981,
                    page 491.)

                    Goulder clearly claims to know Luke's language and style. It is not a
                    difficulty for him.

                    The problem is to understand by what method Goulder, or Schneider, or
                    Fitzmyer, or anyone else, distinguishes in Luke's gospel between Luke's
                    language and style, and the language and style of Luke's documentary
                    source material.

                    Or are they just pulling the wool over our eyes?

                    Best wishes,
                    BRIAN WILSON

                    E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                    SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                    10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                    Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                  • Jim Deardorff
                    ... Hello Richard, Yes, expressions are more definitive than isolated words. The expressions in the verses you mentioned above all look like Lucan winners to
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 09:48 AM 5/10/98 -0400, Richard H. Anderson wrote:
                      >Jim Deardorff, Brian Wilson, greetings:
                      >
                      >I would like to propose the following O.T. phrases that among NT writers
                      >are unique Lucan terminology:
                      >'the law of the lord' and 'the law of the fathers'
                      >Lk 2:23, 24, 39 and Acts 22:3
                      >'the customs which Moses delivered to us' and similar expressions
                      >Acts 6:14; 15:1; 21:21; 28:17.
                      >'Moses being preached'
                      >Acts 15:21
                      >'Moses and the prophets'
                      >Lk 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; Acts 26:22; 28:23
                      >
                      >I guess why question is, why are we focusing on words, why not look at
                      >phrases?
                      >
                      >Richard H. Anderson

                      Hello Richard,

                      Yes, expressions are more definitive than isolated words. The expressions
                      in the verses you mentioned above all look like Lucan winners to me, and it
                      was good of you to have included the ones in Acts also, since that suggests
                      the writer of Luke was not at all averse to making up speeches for Paul and
                      others to have recited.

                      Unless the expressions occur within material paralleled within Mark and
                      and/or Matthew, however, I guess they don't say much about the Synoptic
                      Problem. Except that I know of no good reason why, if Luke had come before
                      either of the other two Synoptics, they would not have copied much of his
                      "special" material.

                      One can look at triple tradition material containing "Moses," but these are
                      not connected to "law" or "customs" or such, and are subject to the usual
                      easy reversability arguments. E.g., it looks to me like in Mk 12:26 its
                      writer is working from Mt 22:32, and this was one rare instance in which he
                      knew what part of the Scriptures it had come from when it wasn't mentioned
                      in Matthew. So he added in "in the book of Moses at the bush," which the
                      writer of Luke then made use of. Others would argue it differently of course.

                      Jim Deardorff
                      Corvallis, Oregon
                      E-mail: deardorj@...
                      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                    • Jim Deardorff
                      ... Brian, I was instead pointing out that looking at one individual word can t prove anything. It could be suggestive, though, as in Luke s frequent mention
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 10, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 06:54 PM 5/10/98 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                        >Jim Deardorff wrote (SNIP)-
                        >>Here's an example taken from Goulder's discussion of how the material in Lk
                        >>2:22-52 actually stems from 1 Sm 12-26, with Lk 2:40 and 2:52 closely
                        >>paralleling 1 Sm 2:21b and 2:26. Comparing Lk 2:52 with 1 Sm 2:26, we see
                        >>total Lucan dependence except that "the boy Samuel" is replaced by "Jesus."
                        >>If one accepts Goulder's analysis, this means that the writer of Luke
                        >>definitely supplied the word IHSOUS there himself. But since that word
                        >>occurs all over the other Gospels and Epistles, it can't in any sense be
                        >>considered distinctive of any one evangelist's vocabulary. Do you see the
                        >>problem?
                        >
                        >Jim,
                        > You seem to be saying that it is impossible to distinguish Luke's
                        >vocabulary and style(s) from the vocabulary and style(s) of the
                        >writers of his source materials. I do not think Goulder would agree
                        >with this.

                        Brian,

                        I was instead pointing out that looking at one individual word can't prove
                        anything. It could be suggestive, though, as in Luke's frequent mention of
                        Jerusalem.

                        >Goulder writes very confidently of Luke's "language" and "style". For
                        >instance, writing about Lk 10:30-35, Goulder says that "modern
                        >commentaries like Schneider and Fitzmyer...pay no attention to the
                        >insistently Lucan style of the story (of the Good Samaritan)...not only
                        >is the language substantially Luke's own, the stylistic features
                        >(Luke's) ...make up the very stuff of the parable. If we took them away,
                        >there would be nothing left." ( "Luke: A New Paradigm", Sheffield 1981,
                        >page 491.)

                        The Good Samaritan, like other special Lucan material, is quite obviously
                        Lucan, I should think, but I don't see how that has much to do with the
                        Synoptic Problem (except suggesting Luke didn't come first). Look for Lucan
                        expressions within double and triple tradition material; then, if there is
                        some non-reversible argument that tells one about the priority of the
                        verse/pericope, it would be very relevant.


                        >Goulder clearly claims to know Luke's language and style. It is not a
                        >difficulty for him.
                        >
                        >The problem is to understand by what method Goulder, or Schneider, or
                        >Fitzmyer, or anyone else, distinguishes in Luke's gospel between Luke's
                        >language and style, and the language and style of Luke's documentary
                        >source material.
                        >
                        >Or are they just pulling the wool over our eyes?

                        I think that for those who see as clearly as Goulder that Luke came third,
                        as in the Farrer or AH hypotheses, it becomes obvious to you what the Lucan
                        style is.

                        Jim Deardorff
                        Corvallis, Oregon
                        E-mail: deardorj@...
                        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Richard Anderson notes that the phrase Moses and the prophets is a phrase describing the O.T., and that among NT writers it is unique to the writer Luke,
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 12, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Richard Anderson notes that the phrase 'Moses and the prophets' is a
                          phrase describing the O.T., and that among NT writers it is unique to
                          the writer Luke, being found in Lk 16:29,31; 24:27,44; Acts 26:22;
                          28:23 only.

                          Hello Richard!

                          Kim Paffenroth, in his book "The Story of Jesus according to L"
                          (Sheffield, 1997), maintains that when writing his gospel, Luke used a
                          documentary source 'L' written about thirty years earlier than the
                          gospel (see page 148 and page 155). The pericope Lk 16:19-31, which
                          includes the phrase "Moses and the prophets" twice, is listed by
                          Paffenroth in his (minimum) reconstruction of the source 'L' (page 145).

                          On this view, phrases like "Moses and the prophets" could have stood in
                          the documentary source material used by Luke.

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
                          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
                          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.