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

[Synoptic-L] Re Lk 10,18 eqewroun

Expand Messages
  • david cook
    In terms of form eqewroun can obviously be 3rd plural or 1st sing, but IMHO the suggestion that `they = `ta pneumata cd be subject seems to overlook the use
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 1 12:51 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In terms of form eqewroun can obviously be 3rd plural or 1st sing, but IMHO
      the suggestion that `they' = `ta pneumata' cd be subject seems to overlook
      the use of singular verb forms w neuter plural subjects. It is clear that Lk
      is not wholly consistent in this (or have I not yet found the rule he
      follows? - perhaps more likely) but note 4,44 exhrcheto; 10,17 hupotassetai
      - though I admit hidiesan 4,44 and exerchontai 4,36. (I have Merk to hand,
      and have not checked NA at the moment, so this is a bit off the top of my
      head). Given dedwka in the next verse, why should we assume a change of
      subject?
      David Cook
      33 Oatfield Drive Cranbrook Kent, TN17 3LA UK -
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/1/2000 3:57:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, senor_aardvaark@hotmail.com writes:
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 1 6:47 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/1/2000 3:57:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        senor_aardvaark@... writes:

        << In terms of form eqewroun can obviously be 3rd plural or 1st sing, but
        IMHO
        the suggestion that `they' = `ta pneumata' cd be subject seems to overlook
        the use of singular verb forms w neuter plural subjects.>>

        More accurately, the remote subject of the verb in 10:18, assuming it is a
        3rd pl. form, would be ta daimonia (10:17), not ta pneumata. The rule about
        neuter plurals taking a singular verb form is of course the strongest
        grammatical argument against my proposed reading. However, as you note here...

        << It is clear that Lk is not wholly consistent in this (or have I not yet
        found the rule he follows? - perhaps more likely) but note 4,44 exhrcheto;
        10,17 hupotassetai
        - though I admit hidiesan 4,44 and exerchontai 4,36. >>

        This should read 4:41 instead of 4:44. Note also the same phenomenon in 8:31
        and 32b. I think these texts suggest that a neuter plural substantive for
        Luke takes a singular verb form (in accordance with the rule) when this verb
        occurs in the same phrase with the expressed subject. However, it seems that,
        in a subsequent phrase, Luke habitually reverts to a plural verb form even
        when the neuter plural is still the remote subject of the verb. This means
        that in the present text only arguments from context can be decisive in
        determining the implied subject of the verb etheooroun.

        << Given dedwka in the next verse, why should we assume a change of
        subject? >>

        The term idou that opens v. 19 might point to a change of subject here,
        thereby supporting a 3rd pl. reading of the main verb in 10:18. Moreover, the
        subject in 10:17b is in fact ta daimonia. (The disciples do not report: "we
        were able to throw demons out", but rather "even the demons are subject to us
        in your name". One might ask: why should Jesus "change the subject" in his
        response? Note too that the verb is imperfect, and this seems to fit better
        when applied to the demons. The demons have been watching their leader,
        Satan, fall like lightening from heaven, as Jesus' ministry of preaching
        God's kingdom and unleashing his benevolent power progresses, and it is for
        this reason that they are subject to the disciples of Jesus, following, as it
        were, their leader in giving up power.

        It is interesting to note the aorist tense of the verb dedoka in v. 19,
        seeming to refer to a particular moment when Jesus communicated this power to
        the 70. Strangely, the narrator tells us that Jesus gave power "over all
        demons" to the twelve disciples (in 9:1), whereafter these men are
        nevertheless shown to be without power over the demon in 9:40. The 70 are not
        explicitly given this power at the beginning of chapter 10. Yet we hear from
        them upon their return from mission that the demons are in fact subject to
        their power, and thereafter Jesus remarks that he has given them this power.
        Luke is writing at a time when effective power over the demonic forces has
        passed to Paul and his helpers in the world-wide mission. See too Lk 9:49,
        and my now published interpretation of 9:46-48 (where I show that "the great
        one" is Paul, who is greater than the [twelve] disciples [see 9:46: the
        thought arising in the hearts of the twelve as to who might be greater than
        they]).

        Leonard Maluf
      • Carl W. Conrad
        ... DEDWKA is not aorist but perfect tense; the aorist would be EDWKA. -- Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University Summer: 1647 Grindstaff
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 1 12:13 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 9:47 AM -0400 7/1/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
          >It is interesting to note the aorist tense of the verb dedoka in v. 19,
          >seeming to refer to a particular moment when Jesus communicated this power to
          >the 70. Strangely, the narrator tells us that Jesus gave power "over all
          >demons" to the twelve disciples (in 9:1), whereafter these men are
          >nevertheless shown to be without power over the demon in 9:40. The 70 are not
          >explicitly given this power at the beginning of chapter 10. Yet we hear from
          >them upon their return from mission that the demons are in fact subject to
          >their power, and thereafter Jesus remarks that he has given them this power.
          >Luke is writing at a time when effective power over the demonic forces has
          >passed to Paul and his helpers in the world-wide mission. See too Lk 9:49,
          >and my now published interpretation of 9:46-48 (where I show that "the great
          >one" is Paul, who is greater than the [twelve] disciples [see 9:46: the
          >thought arising in the hearts of the twelve as to who might be greater than
          >they]).

          DEDWKA is not aorist but perfect tense; the aorist would be EDWKA.


          --

          Carl W. Conrad
          Department of Classics, Washington University
          Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
          cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
          WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/1/2000 3:13:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 1 12:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/1/2000 3:13:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            cwconrad@... writes:

            << DEDWKA is not aorist but perfect tense; the aorist would be EDWKA. >>

            Thanks, Carl. That is of course true. I believe this has relatively little
            effect on my argument, however. What did you think of the arguments for a 3rd
            plural form in Lk 10:18?

            Leonard Maluf
          • Carl W. Conrad
            ... Let me acknowledge a modicum of plausibility to it, upon a closer look. The text:17 hUPESTREYAN DE hOI hEBDOMHKONTA [DUO] META CARAS LEGONTES: KURIE, KAI
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 2 3:21 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: [Synoptic-L] Re Lk 10,18 eqewroun
              At 3:54 PM -0400 7/1/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
              >In a message dated 7/1/2000 3:13:51 PM Eastern Daylight
              Time,
              >cwconrad@... writes:
              >
              ><< DEDWKA is not aorist but perfect tense; the aorist would
              be EDWKA. >>
              >
              >Thanks, Carl. That is of course true. I believe this has
              relatively little
              >effect on my argument, however. What did you think of the
              arguments for a 3rd
              >plural form in Lk 10:18?

              Let me acknowledge a modicum of plausibility to it, upon a closer look. The text:17 hUPESTREYAN DE hOI hEBDOMHKONTA [DUO] META CARAS LEGONTES: 'KURIE, KAI TA DAIMONIA hUPOTASSETAI hHMIN EN TWi ONOMATI SOU'. 18. EIPEN DE AUTOIS: 'EQEWROUN TON SATANAN hWS ASTRAPHN EK TOU OURANOU PESONTA. 19. IDOU DEDWKA hUMIN THN EXOUSIAN TOU PATEIN EPANW OFEWN KAI SKORPIWN, KAI EPI PASAN THN DUNAMIN TOU ECQROU, KAI OUDEN hUMAS OU MH ADIKHSHi. 20 PLHN EN TOUTWi MH CAIRETE hOTI TA PNEUMATA hUMIN hUPOTASSETAI, CAIRETE DE hOTI TA ONOMATA hUMWN EGGEGRAPTAI ET TOIS OURANOIS.

              The disciples returning form their mission report that what most has impressed them is the subordination of TA DAIMONIA to them as they act in Jesus' name (as I understand the force of EN TWi ONOMATI SOU). Jesus replies (18): "they were having a vision (EQEWROUN impf. 3d pl.): Satan hurled like a stroke of lightning from heaven (PESONTA aor. pass. ptc. functioning as passive ptc. of BALLW; I would like the sequence better if there were a GAR following EQEWROUN)." What's always impressed me about 10:19 is the aorist ptc. PESONTA in a participial clause of indirect discourse introduced by a verb of seeing, in this instance QEWREW. QEWREW is not quite the same as hORAW or BLEPW. Louw's & Nida's category here would seem to be:

              24.14 QEWREW a ; QEAOMAI a : to observe something with continuity and attention, often with the implication that what is observed is something unusual - 'to observe, to be a spectator of, to look at.'
              QEWREW a : QEWRW TOUS OURANOUS DIHNOIGMENOUS 'I see the heavens opened' Ac 7:56.
              QEAOMAI a: hOTI TOIS QEASAMENOIS AUTON EGHGERMENON OUK EPISTEUSAN  'because they did not believe those who had seen him after he had risen' Mk 16:14.

              Then, as you note, there is a shift of focus in what Jesus says marked by the IDOU: "Take note, I have indeed given you power/authority to be untouched by Satan's minions . .  .BUT you shouldn't be happy so much about their subordination to you as by the fact that your names stand written (EGGEGRAPTAI, another 3d sg. verb with n. pl. subject!) in the heavens." Does he mean to say that TA DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA have recognized those names?

              I still think this is questionable and that it makes more sense to understand Jesus as saying, "I was envisioning Satan hurled like a bolt of lightning out of heaven" -- yet I suppose it could be understood in terms of the subordination of the DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA as related to their understanding of the implications of their loss of power.

              On the whole, I'm still more or less convinced of Conzelmann's notion of Jesus' ministry in Luke as a temporary "Satan-free" period running from the end of the Temptation until Passion Week when Satan once again gains the upper hand. Yet I will add that, for myself at least, all convictions regarding the Synoptics are "more or less."

              --

              Carl W. Conrad
              Department of Classics, Washington University
              Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
              cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
              WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/2/2000 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes: [Responding to Leonard: what did you think of the arguments
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 2 6:27 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/2/2000 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                cwconrad@... writes:

                [Responding to Leonard: "what did you think of the arguments for a 3rd plural
                understanding of the main verb in 10:18?"]

                << Let me acknowledge a modicum of plausibility to it, upon a closer look.>>

                Good to hear. I don't expect more than that. After all, the versions, ancient
                and modern (beginning with Vulg.: videbam satanam..), all have translated
                with the first pers. sing. I do think, however, that the alternative reading
                should be looked at carefully before being rejected out of hand.

                << The disciples returning form their mission report that what most has
                impressed them is the subordination of TA DAIMONIA to them as they act in
                Jesus' name (as I understand the force of EN TWi ONOMATI SOU). Jesus
                replies (18): "they were having a vision (EQEWROUN impf. 3d pl.): Satan
                hurled like a stroke of lightning from heaven (PESONTA aor. pass. ptc.
                functioning as passive ptc. of BALLW; >>

                You undoubtedly meant: PESONTA aor. act. ptc.? To reflect the nuance of the
                aor. tense in English it is perhaps sufficient to render: "They watched Satan
                fall like lightning from heaven", (i.e., they were co-spectators when Satan
                fell dramatically from heaven), instead of "they watched Satan falling like
                lightning...", which would call for a present ptc. (PIPTONTA).

                << I would like the sequence better if
                there were a GAR following EQEWROUN).>>

                An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only if
                the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
                example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
                (GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
                discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
                results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.

                << What's always impressed me about
                10:19 is the aorist ptc. PESONTA in a participial clause of indirect
                discourse introduced by a verb of seeing, in this instance QEWREW. QEWREW
                is not quite the same as hORAW or BLEPW.>>

                Are you sure this is a correct syntactical analysis? I always thought
                indirect discourse necessarily required an infinitive verb form (with acc.
                subject). It is certainly close, if not identical in meaning to a sentence in
                indirect discourse that would have employed an infinitive form of the verb
                (if I am right). But I would analyze this as an alternate syntax to indirect
                discourse, with roughly the same meaning. Cf. Lk 5:2, e.g.

                <<Then, as you note, there is a shift of focus in what Jesus says marked by
                the IDOU: "Take note, I have indeed given you power/authority to be
                untouched by Satan's minions . . .BUT you shouldn't be happy so much about
                their subordination to you as by the fact that your names stand written
                (EGGEGRAPTAI, another 3d sg. verb with n. pl. subject!) in the heavens."
                Does he mean to say that TA DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA have recognized those names?>>

                Interesting suggestion. I'm not sure, but the twofold reference to heaven/the
                heavens in the passage as a whole is certainly a factor to be considered in
                its exegesis.

                <>

                Yes, but then one must probe further and ask exactly what is Luke thinking
                about here. What does he see as the precise occasion of this dramatic fall?
                What does he expect his readers to understand? Could PESONTA be an iterative
                aor., and refer to a fall of Satan that occurs each time a demon is driven
                out by the disciples? Or what else might be conveyed by the aorist nuance?

                << ..yet I suppose it could be understood in terms
                of the subordination of the DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA as related to their
                understanding of the implications of their loss of power.>>

                In which case, similar questions need to be asked as above.

                << On the whole, I'm still more or less convinced of Conzelmann's notion of
                Jesus' ministry in Luke as a temporary "Satan-free" period running from the
                end of the Temptation until Passion Week when Satan once again gains the
                upper hand. Yet I will add that, for myself at least, all convictions
                regarding the Synoptics are "more or less." >>

                Agreed.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Carl W. Conrad
                ... Yes, formally PESONTA is active, but I d prefer to call it the default form for voice; PIPTW is certainly an intransitive verb, but it (and its
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 2 11:45 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 9:27 AM -0400 7/2/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
                  >In a message dated 7/2/2000 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  >cwconrad@... writes:
                  >
                  >[Responding to Leonard: "what did you think of the arguments for a 3rd plural
                  >understanding of the main verb in 10:18?"]
                  >
                  ><< Let me acknowledge a modicum of plausibility to it, upon a closer look.>>
                  >
                  >Good to hear. I don't expect more than that. After all, the versions, ancient
                  >and modern (beginning with Vulg.: videbam satanam..), all have translated
                  >with the first pers. sing. I do think, however, that the alternative reading
                  >should be looked at carefully before being rejected out of hand.
                  >
                  > << The disciples returning form their mission report that what most has
                  > impressed them is the subordination of TA DAIMONIA to them as they act in
                  > Jesus' name (as I understand the force of EN TWi ONOMATI SOU). Jesus
                  > replies (18): "they were having a vision (EQEWROUN impf. 3d pl.): Satan
                  > hurled like a stroke of lightning from heaven (PESONTA aor. pass. ptc.
                  > functioning as passive ptc. of BALLW; >>
                  >
                  >You undoubtedly meant: PESONTA aor. act. ptc.? To reflect the nuance of the
                  >aor. tense in English it is perhaps sufficient to render: "They watched Satan
                  >fall like lightning from heaven", (i.e., they were co-spectators when Satan
                  >fell dramatically from heaven), instead of "they watched Satan falling like
                  >lightning...", which would call for a present ptc. (PIPTONTA).

                  Yes, "formally" PESONTA is active, but I'd prefer to call it the default
                  form for voice; PIPTW is certainly an intransitive verb, but it (and its
                  compounds) does function for passive to BALLW (and its compounds).

                  ><< I would like the sequence better if
                  > there were a GAR following EQEWROUN).>>
                  >
                  >An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only if
                  >the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
                  >example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
                  >(GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
                  >discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
                  >results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.

                  On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
                  "Yes, that's so, because ..."

                  ><< What's always impressed me about
                  > 10:19 is the aorist ptc. PESONTA in a participial clause of indirect
                  > discourse introduced by a verb of seeing, in this instance QEWREW. QEWREW
                  > is not quite the same as hORAW or BLEPW.>>
                  >
                  >Are you sure this is a correct syntactical analysis? I always thought
                  >indirect discourse necessarily required an infinitive verb form (with acc.
                  >subject). It is certainly close, if not identical in meaning to a sentence in
                  >indirect discourse that would have employed an infinitive form of the verb
                  >(if I am right). But I would analyze this as an alternate syntax to indirect
                  >discourse, with roughly the same meaning. Cf. Lk 5:2, e.g.

                  Perhaps Koine is less regular here, but not, I think, much less; when the
                  introductory verb is a verb of perception (including OIDA), the indirect
                  discourse normally is with a participle rather than with an infinitive.

                  ><<Then, as you note, there is a shift of focus in what Jesus says marked by
                  > the IDOU: "Take note, I have indeed given you power/authority to be
                  > untouched by Satan's minions . . .BUT you shouldn't be happy so much about
                  > their subordination to you as by the fact that your names stand written
                  > (EGGEGRAPTAI, another 3d sg. verb with n. pl. subject!) in the heavens."
                  > Does he mean to say that TA DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA have recognized those names?>>
                  >
                  >Interesting suggestion. I'm not sure, but the twofold reference to heaven/the
                  >heavens in the passage as a whole is certainly a factor to be considered in
                  >its exegesis.
                  >
                  > <>
                  >
                  >Yes, but then one must probe further and ask exactly what is Luke thinking
                  >about here. What does he see as the precise occasion of this dramatic fall?
                  >What does he expect his readers to understand? Could PESONTA be an iterative
                  >aor., and refer to a fall of Satan that occurs each time a demon is driven
                  >out by the disciples? Or what else might be conveyed by the aorist nuance?

                  "Iterative" aorist? No, rather, if I'm right about the indirect discourse
                  with participle after verb of perception, then PESONTA refers to a single
                  complete act. "I was (they were) witnessing the fall/ejection of Satan."

                  > << ..yet I suppose it could be understood in terms
                  > of the subordination of the DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA as related to their
                  > understanding of the implications of their loss of power.>>
                  >
                  >In which case, similar questions need to be asked as above.
                  >
                  ><< On the whole, I'm still more or less convinced of Conzelmann's notion of
                  > Jesus' ministry in Luke as a temporary "Satan-free" period running from the
                  > end of the Temptation until Passion Week when Satan once again gains the
                  > upper hand. Yet I will add that, for myself at least, all convictions
                  > regarding the Synoptics are "more or less." >>
                  >
                  >Agreed.
                  >
                  >Leonard Maluf

                  --

                  Carl W. Conrad
                  Department of Classics, Washington University
                  Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
                  cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
                  WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes: [Responding to Leonard who wrote] An interesting point.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 2 5:42 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    cwconrad@... writes:

                    [Responding to Leonard who wrote]
                    << >An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only
                    if
                    >the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
                    >example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
                    >(GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
                    >discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
                    >results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.

                    << On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
                    "Yes, that's so, because ...">>

                    Pardon me for insisting here, but my whole point was that in this statement
                    of Jesus, there is nothing equivalent to an opening "Yes, that's so,
                    [because...]". It still seems odd to me to imagine a GAR simply slipped into
                    its normal postpositive position in Lk 10:18 as it stands. I would be
                    delighted if you could cite an example (perhaps from classical sources,
                    because I doubt one exists in the NT) that would illustrate the validity of
                    what you are saying here.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 2 5:46 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      cwconrad@... writes:

                      << Perhaps Koine is less regular here, but not, I think, much less; when the
                      introductory verb is a verb of perception (including OIDA), the indirect
                      discourse normally is with a participle rather than with an infinitive.>>


                      Thanks Carl for this. I must acknowledge that I had completely forgotten this
                      rule. But now that you remind me, I can recall numerous NT instances of this
                      syntax.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Carl W. Conrad
                      ... I guess that what I was thinking of with the GAR was the rather standard usage of it in stichomythia in classical Attic grammar, where the postpositive GAR
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jul 3 3:26 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 8:42 PM -0400 7/2/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
                        >In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        >cwconrad@... writes:
                        >
                        >[Responding to Leonard who wrote]
                        ><< >An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only
                        >if
                        > >the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
                        > >example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
                        > >(GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
                        > >discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
                        > >results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.
                        >
                        ><< On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
                        > "Yes, that's so, because ...">>
                        >
                        >Pardon me for insisting here, but my whole point was that in this statement
                        >of Jesus, there is nothing equivalent to an opening "Yes, that's so,
                        >[because...]". It still seems odd to me to imagine a GAR simply slipped into
                        >its normal postpositive position in Lk 10:18 as it stands. I would be
                        >delighted if you could cite an example (perhaps from classical sources,
                        >because I doubt one exists in the NT) that would illustrate the validity of
                        >what you are saying here.

                        I guess that what I was thinking of with the GAR was the rather standard
                        usage of it in stichomythia in classical Attic grammar, where the
                        postpositive GAR indicates a causal relationship between the response and
                        the question posed by an interlocutor in the immediately preceding line. I
                        don't really think I could put my fingers on an example of what I was
                        arguing in the case of EQEWROUN.

                        --

                        Carl W. Conrad
                        Department of Classics, Washington University
                        Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
                        cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
                        WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.