Introduction
The Text In Various Bible Versions
Two Thoughts THREE CONSIDERATIONS
Nobody Has Known
Make Known
The Dual Nature of Christ Introduction Few chapters of the Bible have caused more serious difficulties to readers, and more disagreement among interpreters, than Matthew 24 and its parallel in Mark 13:32, especially since the clause is absent in the parallel chapter … Luke 21. The problem, and it is a considerable one, is... If Jesus was God, how could He say that he did not know the day and hour of a future event? Yet, as Daniel Wallace says (The Dual Nature of Christ below) “The fact is that in the Gospels there is plenty of evidence of Jesus’ humanity—aspects of his life and nature that simply do not seem to fit with deity”. For example Luke 2:52 tells us that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. On the other hand, the Gospels also speak clearly and eloquently of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge. In Matt 17.27 Jesus knew that the first fish Peter would catch would have a coin in its mouth, enough to pay the temple tax for both Peter and Jesus. Also remember that Jesus told Nathaniel that He had seen him under a fig tree and knew him to be a man without guile [John 1.48]. While these often contrasting views have been wrestled with by theologians for eons, we may be no closer to the answer than we ever were. In the final analysis it is near impossible to come to any final conclusion as to what exactly was meant by Jesus’ words. Hopefully one day it will be more clear, perhaps when we ‘no longer see in a glass darkly’. All three of the most reasonable explanation have been presented here. Each has it’s own merits and shortcomings. However it seems inescapable that Jesus' plain statement was that he did not know when the end of the age would come. This may seem shocking since He was God, but we need to get away from the notion that we can or ever will understand everything, especially when it comes to spiritual matters and the unseen realm. Regardless of the torrent of words on the matter, the very concept of ‘God’ or ‘Spirit’ are not that easily grasped, much less the idea of God coming down to earth in human form. How this works is far more than any one in this world is able to wrap their heads around. Many concepts in scripture remind me of electricity. I know it is there… I know how powerful it is. I operate every day in faith that it exists and will do what is promised. I can turn on a light switch, or plug in a power drill and Voila!. However I do not have the faintest clue as to how electricity works and am fairly fuzzy as to how it is generated. I have never figured out exactly how a dam is related to the wires in the walls of my house. However it really does not matter. I don’t have to have every detail figured out in order to use my blender. I don’t have to have every detail figured out in order to be saved.
The Text In Various Bible Versions
For starters not all Bible versions say the same thing, since some manuscripts omit the words nor the Son. King James Version [KJV] Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Youngs Literal Translation [YLT] Matthew 24:36 `And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known--not even the messengers of the heavens--except my Father only; Mark 13:32 `And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known--not even the messengers who are in the heaven, not even the Son--except the Father.
New American Standard Bible [NASB] Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
New International Version [NIV] Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Two Commentaries Some believe the omission can be explained by reluctance to attribute ignorance to the Son, however this does not make sense, since the commonly used versions that omit the controversial words from Matthew 24:36, include them in Mark 13:32. Adam Clarke in his commentary on Mark 13:32, was probably referring to the KJV when he stated Neither the Son - This clause is not found either in Matthew or Luke; and Ambrose says it was wanting in some Greek copies in his time. To me it is utterly unaccountable, how Jesus, who knew so correctly all the particulars which he here lays down, and which were to a jot and tittle verified by the event - how he who knew that not one stone should be left on another, should be ignorant of the day and hour when this should be done, though Daniel, Dan 9:24, etc., could fix the very year, not less than five hundred years before it happened: how he in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, should not know this small matter, I cannot comprehend, but on this ground, that the Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus might, at one time, communicate less of the knowledge of futurity to him than at another. However, I strongly suspect that the clause was not originally in this Gospel. Its not being found in the parallel places in the other evangelists is, in my opinion, a strong presumption against it.
He then goes on to advance the “make known” hypothesis But Dr. Macknight, and others, solve this difficulty in the following manner. They suppose the verb ïéäåí to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense; and that it means here, make known, or promulge, as it is to be understood in 1Co_2:2. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice. I am afraid this only cuts the knot, but does not untie it.
Albert Barnes while admitting that ‘make known’ was conceivable, did not completely agree with it. Neither the Son - This text has always presented serious difficulties. It has been asked, If Jesus had a divine nature, how could he say that he knew not the day and hour of a future event? In reply, it has been said that the passage was missing, according to Ambrose, in some Greek manuscripts; but it is now found in all, and there can be little doubt that the passage is genuine. Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1Co 2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it? After all, the passage has no more difficulty than that in Luke 2:52, where it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He had a human nature. He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite. As a man he often spoke, reasoned, inquired, felt, feared, read, learned, ate, drank, and walked. Why are not all these, which imply that he was a “man” - that, “as a man,” he was not infinite - why are not these as difficult as the want of knowledge respecting the particular “time” of a future event, especially when that time must be made known by God, and when he chose that the man Christ Jesus should grow, and think, and speak “as a man?”
Nobody Has Known While I am not sure whether the following theory will completely hold water, it nevertheless provides a very interesting interpretation of these verses.. Apparently one school believes that the English translations do not accurately reflect the original Greek. They say that while is a linguistically possible sense of the Greek, the literal translation is: Young's Literal Translation of the bible does say ‘Nobody has known’. The Greek word word translated 'knows' is oiden, the 3rd person singular perfect tense of eido, which means 'I see'. The perfect tense is used for completed actions in the past. So oiden literally means 'he has seen' 'To know:- the perfect tense "Oida", I have seen, as a present tense verb, in the sense I know, for what one has seen, one knows.' [Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon]
No one has known implies that while no one has known in the past, it is possible to know now. In other words no one knew up to the point that Jesus spoke but (implied) He did.
Make Known Did Jesus Not Know the Hour of His Second Coming?
[http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/know.htm] The Gospel of Matthew: (KJV) Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (KJV) Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
The Gospel of Mark: (KJV) Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? (KJV) Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Note that in the intervening verses, in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus is able to tell the disciples the many signs that will signal the nearness of the second coming, yet according to the verse, He apparently does not know the exact hour it will happen. Is this not more than a little strange? Was Jesus really ignorant of the time of His own second coming, yet able to relate the many signs of it? Lets look at the word used in both passages that is translated as "knoweth", which is the Greek "eido": From Strong's Greek Dictionary: 1492. eido, i'-do; a prim. verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equiv. G3700 and G3708; prop. to see (lit. or fig.); by impl. (in the perf. only) to know:--be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) known (-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wist, wot. Comp. G3700.
Now note how the word is used in the following verse: (KJV) 1 Cor 2:2 For I determined not to know (eido) any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
In the above verse, Paul is saying that his only desire is to make known Jesus, in other words to preach the Gospel. Now if that sense of the word eido is used in the passages is question, they would then be rendered as follows: Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour no man will make known, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father (only will announce it).
With this understanding, Jesus is not saying He is ignorant of the hour of the second coming, but rather, He cannot reveal it, neither can angels, because it is reserved for the Father only to announce the very hour of the second coming. This begs the question, does scripture reveal this announcement, when God the Father Himself declares the impending second coming? The Voice of God the Father: Ezekiel 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel. Ezekiel 39:8 Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the Lord GOD; this is the day whereof I have spoken. Revelation 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
This great voice announcing the end, we can now surmise, is that of God the Father, announcing the impending second coming of His son. Note the result of this announcement on earth: Revelation 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. The earth is rocked by a massive earthquake, the greatest of all time. Revelation 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. Revelation 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Now note this parallel passage of the same event: Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
The voice of God the Father, when He says It is Done from the temple in heaven, triggers world-wide events that precede the second coming of His son. From this I think it is plain, that Jesus was not claiming ignorance of the hour of his second coming in Matt 24:36 and Mark 13:32. Rather, as God He indeed knew the exact hour, but He was saying that only His Father can reveal it, at the appointed time mentioned above. That announcement of the Father will have the wicked running for the caves and dens in the mountains, to hide from the impending second coming of Jesus Christ, and they can only blaspheme Him rather than repent of their wickedness. And what of the righteous who have been watching and waiting for the second coming? What will be their reaction while the wicked try to hide?: Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it. Isaiah 25:9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
{TOP OF PAGE}
The Dual Nature of Christ When Did Jesus Know? The Translation of Aorist and Perfect Participles for Verbs of Perception In the Gospels
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio) The Problem On several occasions in the Gospels, we are told that Jesus knew something or heard something. Frequently, such an assertion is made by way of the aorist or perfect adverbial participle. However, many English translations give the distinct impression that Jesus’ knowledge, in such instances, is simply an application of his omniscience. For example, in Matt 12.25 the Greek text reads: eijdwV" deV taV" ejnqumhvsei" aujtw'n eipen aujtoi'". This expression is translated “And knowing their thoughts He said to them” (NASB), “Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them” (NIV), “He knew what they were thinking and said to them” (NRSV), “Knowing what was in their minds, he said to them” (REB), “Jesus knew their thoughts and replied” (NLT), “Knowing their thoughts, he said to them” (RSV, ESV), “Jesus knew what they were thinking, and so he said to them” (TEV), “Knowing what was in their minds he said to them” (NJB).
All of these translations, to one degree or another, seem to give the impression that Jesus already knew what these religious leaders were thinking, almost as if to say that he did not learn by observation. Such translations, therefore, make Jesus seem to be omniscient in this verse. One translation stands out as giving a different impression. The NET Bible here says, “Now when Jesus realized what they were thinking, he said to them.” This translation implies that Jesus learned, and that he learned by observation, perhaps intuition. Two questions are raised by the NET’s rendering here. First, is the NET more accurate than the other translations in this passage? And second, if so, what does this mean for Jesus’ omniscience? The Grammatical Answer It is best to answer the grammatical question first. However we construct our Christology, it must be based on scripture. Our theology and our translations should be informed by a proper understanding of the Greek text. And the fact is that there are crystal clear passages which speak of Jesus’ ignorance on occasion. The locus classicus in this regard is Mark 13.32: “But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father” (NET).
Other translations may vary the word order, and one or two prepositions, but all are essentially the same in content. And the essential point here is that “the Son” (namely, Jesus) did not know when the Tribulation would begin, nor when he would return (cf. vv 26-31). In other words, Jesus’ ignorance of at least something is found in everyone’s Bible.1 Thus, we cannot make categorical claims that Jesus’ omniscience was always operating on the human conscious level. Mark 13.32 won’t let us do that. There is also the well-known text in Luke that speaks of the child Jesus growing in wisdom (Luke 2.52). It will not do to say that the child Jesus may have grown in knowledge and wisdom but the adult Jesus did not, for if he is omniscient he is omniscient as a child and as an adult. An omniscient being never grows in knowledge because he always knows all things There are, of course, other passages that imply Jesus’ limited knowledge. In John 5.6, for example, the narrator says, “When Jesus… knew that he [the lame man] had already been lying there a long time…” (tou'ton ijdwVn oJ jIhsou'" katakeivmenon kaiV gnouV" o{ti poluVn h[dh crovnon e[cei). Most translations render the participle gnouv" temporally (“when he knew”). But even if that translation is not a given, the evangelist in the earlier verse tells us the exact amount of years (thirty-eight) that the man had been sick. But this information is not picked up in his description of Jesus’ understanding. Jesus only knew that he had been there “a long time.” Although this is an argument from silence, the silence in this instance is deafening. The narrator could have easily, and less cumbersomely, said something like “[When] Jesus knew this,” referring back to the amount of time the man had been sick. Further, there are occasions in which Jesus is said to be “amazed” or “surprised.” Cf. Matt 8.10 (“when Jesus heard this, he was surprised”); Mark 6.6 (“he was amazed at their unbelief”); Luke 7.9 (“Jesus was surprised when he heard this”). The verb in each of these instances is qaumavzw, a verb that is regularly used of others being surprised or amazed (cf. Matt 8.27; 9.33; 15.31; 21.20; 22.22; 27.14; Mark 5.20; 15.5, 44; Luke 1.21, 63; 2.18, 33; 4.22; 8.25; 9.43; 11.14, 38; 20.26; 24.12, 41; John 3.7; 4.27; 5.20, 28; 7.15, 21). In every instance, the connotation seems to be an emotional reaction that accompanies learning something new. But this means that if Jesus learned, then in some respect he was not omniscient. I will address the issue of Jesus’ omniscience at the end of this paper. For now, we need to continue with the grammatical evidence. When it comes to aorist and perfect adverbial participles of perception, there are plenty of examples used in the Gospels (as well as the rest of the NT) of individuals besides Jesus. And in such cases, these participles regularly imply that the person in question grew in knowledge. [2] If this is the case with others, why should we translate the same participles when Jesus is the subject differently? If we do so, it certainly seems as though theological bias has interfered with integrity in translation. Here are some examples: Mark 5.33—“when the woman realized what had happened to her” (eijdui'a) Mark 15.45—“when he learned from the centurion that it was so” (gnouv") Luke 3.16—“When [John] knew the thoughts of their hearts” (ejpignouV" [3]) Luke 8.53—“because they knew that she was dead” [4] (eijdovte") Acts 23.6—“Since Paul knew that some of them were Sadducees…” [5] (gnouv") Phil 2.19—“when I learn about your circumstances” (gnouv")
Thus, various verbs are used to indicate that someone grew in knowledge: oida, ginwvskw, ejpiginwvskw. In addition to these texts, there are several that speak of someone acting when they hear news of some sort (the aorist participle ajkouvsa" is used). The news is obviously the catalyst for their actions, implying that they didn’t know until they heard. In such passages, Jesus is viewed just like all other individuals (several of the following texts have Jesus as the subject). Cf. Matt 2:3, 22; 4:12; 8:10; 9:12; 11:2; 14:13; 19:22; Mark 2:17; 6:16; 10:47; Luke 7:3, 9, 29; 8:50; 14:15; 18:22, 23, 36; 23:6; John 4:47; 21:7; Acts 7:12; 22:26; 23:16; Eph 1:15. The following passages are but a sample of the kinds of texts that should show that Jesus, too, grew in knowledge: Matt 12.15, 25; 16.8; 22.18; 26.10; Mark 8.17; 12.15; Luke 9.47; John 6.15, 61; 19.28. If we treat these adverbial participles when Jesus is the subject in a manner that is different from how we treat them when others are the subject, then our translations are suspect of theological bias. Integrity in translation demands that we not be inconsistent in this matter, even if such consistency makes us theologically uncomfortable. In this respect, the NET Bible stands apart from most other translations. The Theological Answer There are two elements in the theological answer. First, some of these passages seem to speak of Jesus’ knowledge as greater than that of his contemporaries. He sometimes knew people’s thoughts via means that mere mortals are not accustomed to (cf. Matt 12.25), or knew things that could not be learned by mere observation (John 13.1, 3). Several other passages are often adduced for this point, but many of them can be questioned. For example, in Mark 8.17 Jesus knew that his disciples were talking about not having any bread. But simple observation and a keen understanding of human nature could account for his knowledge in this instance. The same is even true in Mark 2.8 where the evangelist tells us that Jesus knew what the religious leaders were thinking when they muttered to themselves that only God could forgive sins and therefore Jesus was blaspheming when he uttered such a pronouncement. Frankly, it would not take a genius to figure out that the religious leaders thought such things when Jesus said such things; the frowns on their faces would be enough for a theologically-informed individual. Nevertheless, there are some passages that speak clearly and eloquently of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge. Two such examples are Matt 17.27 (in which Jesus knew that the first fish Peter would catch would have a stater in its mouth, enough to pay the temple tax for both Peter and Jesus) and John 1.48 (where Jesus declared to Nathaniel that he saw him when he was under the fig tree and that because of this he knew him to be a man without guile). Thus, in some instances we can clearly see evidence of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge, knowledge that cannot be explained by any natural means.
Does this mean that we have contradictory evidence in the Gospels? Is Jesus omniscient or not? Is he the theanthropic person—God in the flesh—or just a mere mortal? This tension leads us to our second element in the theological answer. The fact is that in the Gospels there is plenty of evidence of Jesus’ humanity—aspects of his life and nature that simply do not seem to fit with deity. Besides his ignorance of some things, and his stages of learning (sometimes accompanied by surprise), we read of his fatigue (John 4.6), hunger (Matt 4.2), etc. Furthermore, he felt pain and died. Can any of this be true of deity? Can God be ignorant, get tired, grow hungry, feel pain, die? Theologians have wrestled with such statements about Jesus of Nazareth. I won’t belabor the point because, as important as it is for us to consider, this issue cannot simply be answered as an appendix to an essay on Greek grammar! Further, we can never—in this life or the next—exhaust the unfathomable riches of the one we call Lord and Savior. We will learn for all of eternity about the Son of God. But though we cannot fully comprehend him, we can grasp the basic truths about this man from Nazareth, even in this lifetime. The scriptures are adequate for that. Briefly, here’s my take on things. [6] We need to think of the divine attributes in two categories: moral attributes and amoral attributes. The moral attributes are those attributes that speak of God’s morality—justice, mercy, love, goodness, kindness, etc. The amoral attributes are those that speak of God’s sovereignty—omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc.
What is interesting to observe in the Gospels is that a clear line of demarcation can be seen with reference to Jesus: he never fails to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes. In other words, the moral attributes seem to be “hard-wired” to his human consciousness, while the amoral attributes seem to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing. At the same time, since he does occasionally demonstrate the amoral attributes, there is no denying his deity. Although Jesus Christ has both a human and divine nature, he is not two persons. He has one consciousness. It is not enough to say that his divine nature does not always operate at the level of his human consciousness. Why? Because it is only the amoral attributes that fit this description. It is partially because of this distinction that I hold to the impeccability of Christ—that is, that he was not able to sin (which is saying more than that he was able not to sin). Further, it is partially because of my Christology that I view God’s attributes as amoral and moral instead of as communicable and incommunicable. [7] In any event, if we recognize that Jesus functioned as a mere man in the amoral realm much if not most of the time, we can begin to understand why the scriptures can speak of him as able to relate to us. As man, he represents us to God; as God, he represents the Father to us. He is the perfect mediator, the perfect high priest, and the perfect sacrifice. Notes [1] Codex X omits the filial ignorance clause here (oujdeV oJ uiJov"), as do most MSS in the parallel passage in Matt 24.36. In the parallel I am inclined to agree that the shorter reading is the correct reading, largely because of Matthew’s Christology. Although he omits the explicit statement of Jesus’ ignorance, such is implied in his addition of movno" with reference to the Father. See NET Bible tc note on Matt 24.36 for a discussion. Recently, Powell has argued against the NET’s reading here and for the longer reading (cf. Charles Powell, “The Textual Problem of oujdeV oJ uiJov" in Matthew 24:36,” an essay posted on the Biblical Studies Foundation website [http://www.bible.org/%22 http://www.bible.org])%22. Two major difficulties with the longer reading in Matt 24.36 are (1) although the Byzantine MSS omit the phrase here, thus making the shorter reading appear to be a scribally motivated reading, the fact that they en bloc retain it in Mark 13.32 is strong evidence that the shorter reading was not the product of Byzantine scribes; (2) since Matthew’s Christology is regularly elevated above Mark’s (not in the sense that both evangelists are describing a different Jesus, but in the sense that Matthew gives answers where Mark raises questions; thus, Matthew is more pedagogical and Mark is more dialogical), the very addition of movno" with reference to the Father in Matt 24.36 would mean that Matthew’s Christology is actually lower than Mark’s in this one instance if the longer reading is retained. For these reasons I am inclined to disagree with Powell in his assessment of the textual problem of Matt 24.36. [2] On occasion, especially with the perfect adverbial participle, the force is more causal than temporal. That is, the translation would be “because he knew” rather than “when he knew.” However, even in those instances, the individual who knew had learned at some point and thus was not omniscient. Cf. Mark 6.20 (Herod knew that John was a good man by experience, not by omniscience). [3] The reading epignou" ta dianohmata autwn eipen is found only in codex D; other witnesses here read apekrinato legwn pasin o iwannh". The wording here comes quite close to some of the texts that are often used to argue for Jesus’ omniscience. [4] In this instance, the people came to know that the little girl was dead by observation. See note 2. [5] In this instance, Paul knew because of his past experience with the Sanhedrin. [6] I have dealt with this issue more fully elsewhere. [7] It is probably fair to say that most theologians today view God’s attributes as communicable and incommunicable. But much can be said for the moral/amoral categorization. Besides Christology, this can be seen in the kinds of commands that God gives to mankind: we are commanded to be like God, yet the sin of the first man was that he sought to be like God. The key difference, I believe, is that we are to be like God in his moral attributes, but we are not urged to be like God in his amoral attributes. For what it is worth, this distinction is one that some Christian groups have not made; the result is a perversion of the Gospel and a confusion of our duty as Christians | 
Index To Articles On 
