The Trace of the Lion: A Close Reading of the Gospel of Mark

Mark’s Language of Religious Conflict As Rhetorical Device

---

Matthew felt free to adopt it according to his way of telling the story by inserting Q material, which he knew in a written format, as was the case also for his main source. Matthew's reworking of Mark shows both the popularity of the latter's Gospel and the dangers of success, for the 'edition' was such that it incorporated almost all of Mark, to the effect that the latter became redundant and at one point seems to have been at the verge of extinction The Markan side of the question is also addressed in a recent essay by Matthias Konradt Konradt is critical of the 'anti-Pauline' thesis, but shows quite convincingly from a comparison between Mark's and Matthew's dealing with the torah, Son-of-David Christology, and the position of Jesus' relatives that the latter is indeed critical of his source and wishes to rein in its influence and remedy it to a substantial degree before giving it out to his readers in this new format that is Matthew's Gospel.

In five chapters Doole reviews the sources of Matthew, viz. In the following it is proposed to have a closer look at some of the arguments Doole has put forward in support of his thesis. More specifically, issue with three of his comments will be taken. Assessing Mark's influence on Matthew. Matthew obviously is strongly indebted to Mark's Gospel. He uses it as his literary model and he incorporates most of it, much more than Luke does.

Doole formulates this most clearly in a comment in the final chapter of his book that is worth quoting in full as it reveals something of his approach and viewpoint: The victory of the narrative over the discourse gospel is of course only evidence for the dominance of the Markan format, not the Markan tradition. Yet here too we have signs that the story of the Gospel according to Mark is central for Matthew. He follows Mark from beginning to end with only brief interruptions for extended discourse and in dependent traditions, the omission of a handful of rather minor events in the narrative story, and the rearrangement of a few miracles and the mission of the disciples.

Most importantly, however, Matthew's Passion is that of Mark. This presentation could be said to be basically correct. However, when reading it in its immediate and its broader context one has the impression that Doole does not always seem to be fully aware of its consequences for assessing Matthew's dealing with Mark, that he combines with it some more disputable tenets, and that this formulation creates a tension with other statements.

This will be illustrated somewhat further. By speaking of victory Doole clearly wishes to give the palm to Mark when it comes to decide which of the two, Mark or Q, had the larger impact on Matthew. But immediately before this citation one comes across a line that apparently sheds another light on the state of affairs. Matthews shows a preference for Mark over Q. Mark's victory is clearly nuanced in a rather important way. Moreover, respect goes hand in hand with 'usurpation' and 'replacement'. Regardless of how Doole thinks this is to be understood, it obviously casts another light on things and strikes a different chord.

It now looks as if there are no winners and that Doole stands closer to such views that are more critical of Matthew's dealing with Mark than he seems to realise or is willing to admit. It is not just a matter of semantics. Victory is something different from replacement. The lack of clarity or the fuzziness of the vocabulary has consequences. Generally speaking one could say that Matthew 'follows Mark from beginning to end'.

However, Doole seems to belittle the impact of Matthew's intervention in rearranging his Markan material in the first half of his Gospel. Most scholars have been more attentive to this aspect of Matthew's composition than Doole seems to be, and some of them certainly were more concerned about it. Almost all of Mark is saved in that part of the Gospel and Matthew's redaction can be reasonably explained on the basis of Mark, but it consists of more than 'the rearrangement of a few miracles and the mission of the disciples' and its impact is larger than Doole wishes to accept. Matthew toiled with Mark and the changes are for an important part the result of Matthew's decision to incorporate Q material into the narrative.

Doole is critical of scholars who have given up on searching for the overall structure of Matthew's Gospel, as well as of those who think it should be found in the five major discourses. But perhaps more disturbing still is Doole's assessment of the origin of Matthew's Sondergut material. In his view, Matthew can in no way be credited as its author, not even for smaller additions he introduced to material he picked up from Mark.

Gundry is cited, and blamed, for upholding the opposite position. Whilst the latter may at times perhaps have been too adamant in his claims, he certainly also made a good case for Matthean redaction on many an occasion, and he has been rightly applauded for this by others. The reason why Doole refuses to take this path is as revealing as it is disturbing for his position.

He admits he just cannot imagine the evangelist, 'a pious early Christian scribe', to have taken to such procedures. It would have been unworthy of his profession, so it seems, and would have degraded him to 'a charlatan and confidence-trickster' Doole This is really harsh language, but in the end one wonders who is most embarrassed by it - the author of Matthew's Gospel, or Doole himself.

For indeed, his claims brings the latter in a very difficult situation, as one has to come up with an explanation for the additional material in whatever format. Doole prefers to call these extras 'developments' of Mark's account, but does not speak out on their origin and is content with noting that; overall they do not contradict Mark who remains 'normative' throughout This may all be good and well, but it did not prevent 'loyal' Matthew of adding to the text of Mark, and in doing so, of changing it. Doole prefers to work with an 'unknown' Christian tradition. But what is gained by this, and how does this constitute a better solution than working with the alternative of a known author whose tendencies, and interests, and style, can be identified elsewhere in his Gospel?

Matthew has been struggling to integrate Q into his Gospel, and so is Doole, it seems, who goes to great lengths to protect the evangelist from yielding too much to the influence of his second source. In this regard two of Doole's observations need to be challenged. He begins by noting, 'Q is not the first major source to be incorporated into the Matthean gospel but it quickly becomes the dominant force' Doole The first half of this phrase matters little, since Matthew is not citing or using his sources in a strictly subsequent order but rather integrates the two into a new composition of his own.

Doole expands on the second half of the phrase just quoted, and adds force to it by citing approvingly Robinson's perhaps somewhat overstated observation that 'Mark is hence only a subordinate factor in Matthew , just as Q is only a subordinate factor in Matthew ' Robinson However, after this relatively good start, Doole then tries to minimise Q's influence on Matthew in two ways. Q is a force in the first half of the Gospel, but not all the time.

Also, Q is a force, but it does not affect in any significant way the narrative account as borrowed from Mark. In Doole's words: The first of these observations is the weaker, hence also the easier to refute. Doole's is a rather unfortunate expression. I am not sure what he means with inevitably, but the change of focus after the Sermon is in any case not final and actually short-lived, as Doole The focus on Q is not broken, it is suspended for a short while after Matthew , and then most forcefully resumed in the latter part of Matthew As for Doole's second observation, it is true, of course, that Matthew hardly leaves out anything from Mark and indeed basically also keeps intact the overall sequence of the events that are related by Mark.

Related Video Shorts (0)

But Mark's account is affected in other ways by incorporating material from Q into the first half of the Gospel. This happens at three levels. Firstly, Matthew may have kept to the structure of Mark's account, but he has given it content with the help of Q. His second source provides him with the material to add flesh to the bones and to transform Mark's account into a much longer and richer one that directs the reader beyond Mark. There may be not much to be found in Q about the Baptist's location, but the larger part of what should be said about the contents of his preaching comes from Q 3: Q is less prominently present in the account of Jesus' baptism maybe because it was so close to Mark , but it massively steps in again right after to inform the reader of what actually happened in the desert.

So, Q has claimed its place, much to the benefit of the reader, at the same moment as Mark does and completes the latter in a significant way. The import of Q material in Matthew's account of the Baptist and the temptation narrative did perhaps not turn upside down the Markan framework and story line, but by filling it up with new content it took away some of its preponderance, and it definitely also shifted the balance between the various elements of that framework the extensive temptation narrative.

But there is more in play than adding content to Mark. Secondly, with the help of Q, and maybe also under its influence, Matthew performs a major transformation of the order in which Mark had presented Jesus' activities. That sounds as if Matthew caused a major breakup of Mark's framework. And this is indeed how one should best describe Matthew's intervention. But perhaps Doole's is also somewhat incorrect or too simplistic in his presentation of what Matthew has been doing with that framework.

Mark does not 'begin with miracles'. He starts his account of Jesus' ministry in Galilee with a short and general statement on the contents of his teaching Mk 1: He picks up on this motif and develops it in what follows by introducing an audience -people hearing Jesus preach at a Sabbath service in the synagogue Mk 1: But nothing is said anymore about the contents of the teaching. Instead Mark turns to Jesus' healing ministry that is illustrated in much detail all through the rest of chapter 1 and up to the first pericope of chapter 2.

It is only briefly interrupted by two passing references to teaching that again tell the reader nothing about its content Mk 1: Matthew follows Mark 1: Mt a and accounting for it by a long citation from Scripture Mt 4: He decidedly drops all the concrete information on the healing activity obviously without saying he will come back to it later. Instead he keeps to some general summary references to Jesus' healing activity without instancing this in any concrete way, as is clear from the summary account in Matthew 4: But contrary to Mark, the content of the first one is illustrated, however briefly, by recalling a phrase from Matthew 4: A first attempt at illustrating the healing activity somewhat further is made in Matthew 4: Matthew's summary in v.

The final verse of this latter passage provides Matthew with the setting for the Sermon Mt 5: One cannot say that the healing motif is completely absent from this part of Matthew and that the evangelist solely focuses on the teaching. But when it comes to illustrating these activities Matthew resolutely choses to give precedence to the latter and only then will turn to the former. One may perhaps dispute whether this intervention constitutes a radical change in the sequence of events, as both activities are mentioned from the outset and supposed to be an integral part of Jesus' ministry, but on the level of the narrative it produces a significant change as the reader's attention is first and foremost drawn to Jesus' teaching.

That is the Jesus that Matthew's readers first come to know more intimately. It is probably an exaggeration to say that Q 'forced' Matthew to intervene in Mark's order in such a drastic way. But at least Q allowed him to do so, providing him with ample material for illustrating the contents of Jesus' teaching in far more detail than he had found so far in Mark and also for significantly changing the contents.

As a matter of fact, the whole composition of Matthew leading up to and including the Sermon on the Mount could be called 'Mark in reverse'. The latter told how Jesus was teaching all over the place, but hardly showed an interest in its content and instead started telling details about his healing ministry.

Matthew, by contrast, says that Jesus was teaching and healing, but then first tells the reader extensively, what Jesus had to say, and only then moves on to illustrate Jesus 'the miracle-worker'. Mark influenced Matthew, but he did not dominate him. Matthew mentions both aspects of Jesus' ministry, as did Mark and Q. They are of equal importance, but when it comes to telling the reader about them, it seems that one is more equal than the other. We are talking about a change of perspective that, on the level of the narrative, involves a change in sequence; and it is obvious who is 'to blame' for it.

Thirdly, Q has also influenced the sequence of events as narrated by Matthew on a smaller level. Two instances will be mentioned briefly. Mark has the Baptist being killed whilst the disciples are on their first mission.

Product details

He uses the episode to fill the gap that is left by the disciples' absence. It makes for an elegant composition Mk 6: Matthew has deconstructed it. He separates the two and anticipates the mission instructions, placing it at a much earlier point in Mt Q is nowhere in sight, but it nevertheless may have played its part in this. After Jesus' encounter with the Baptist, Mark mentions John only once, in the controversy on fasting in Mark 2: It looks as if in between all links with the Baptist have been severed; he is no factor in Jesus' ministry and is never mentioned again by him.

Matthew has a parallel to these two passages of Mark 9: This is Q territory. Matthew could have had Jesus speaking of the Baptist in the same, or a very similar way, also after the latter's death, but instead prefers to bring this passage at an earlier stage, when John is still around. One cannot say that he did so because he wished to remain true to Mark's order and make the account of his death the last thing to be told about the Baptist, for that is not the case. John is mentioned a couple more times later on in Mark and in Matthew , be it briefly: When Matthew then decides to insert a substantial extra passage with valuable information on John and Jesus before telling about the former's death, he does not really change the sequence of events that he found in Mark, but he nevertheless intrudes upon that sequence and has Jesus making a statement about John that is directly relevant for his teaching and his own position.

One should at least concede that he thought the Q material to be sufficiently important and pressing to be given a place in Jesus' earliest ministry of which there is no trace in Mark. The second example has to do with the status Doole gives to Matthew That status is said to be ambivalent, and the way Doole presents it, this is certainly true. In an attempt to give body to the Isaiah citation Matthew turns to Mark for help. In so far as this was an obvious choice, there is nothing wrong or surprising about it. But then Doole wanders off and misses the point.

He claims that the citation was after all not that important to Matthew: Proof for this is found in the way Matthew has proceeded. When confronted with what is said in Q 7: I would like to dispute this presentation. If it really was an issue for Matthew to match Q with Mark at this point, he could have done a far better job.

Now it rather looks as if he is caught between two loyalties - to Mark and to Q, and has struggled in vain to accommodate both. There were several other options besides the one he has taken. He could have dropped the Q saying he must have known Q 7: He does none of these, but shows the reader the blatant differences that exist between the two. One way to get around this, is by concluding that Mark's account was so 'dominant' Matthew did not wish to leave out an iota, but that does not work, for he left out some of the healing stories. Another option is to accept the situation and blame Matthew for it, making him a careless author.

There is, however, also a third option, and that is to allow Matthew to be aware of the tensions and to have him make sense of it. It might well be the safer one. What Matthew does is praise Mark, and praise Q, by keeping both of them on board. But then he also goes on adding two Q healing stories to his Markan material, and this at strategic places, namely in Matthew 9: In short, Matthew wishes the reader to be confronted with the tensions; and that makes sense - especially also on the terms we are discussing here.

Mark's 'full' account is implicitly said to be not-so-final or perfect; it has been rearranged by Matthew himself, and Q adds further material for a composition that is different from Mark's. The issue is not that Q does not comply to Mark's order and therefore would show its 'submission' and Mark's 'domination', but rather that Matthew, by keeping it intact, shows Q to have a value of its own, just as the healing summary of Matthew 4: Indeed, in a sense, Q's is the 'definite' summary, the one that is found 'worthy' to summarise all of Matthew when Jesus informs the Baptist about his healing ministry.

That is quite a different status, not subservient to, but along and on an equal level with Mark, and perhaps even slightly more important than Mark, as this summary follows after the whole healing ministry had been told in so much detail. It means that the importance of this 'only lull in the dominance of Mark', as Doole Doole also develops a second type of argument for reducing the influence of Q on Matthew's composition by stating: That Q is thus almost confined to the first half of Matthew's gospel is often taken as evidence of Matthew's affiliation to the Q teaching, which is itself permeated with M traditions.

Similar Books

However, as Q is almost exhausted halfway through Matthew's gospel and as it fails to exert significant influence on the reception of Mark in Matthew, we have to ask how close Matthew really is to Q. If he were representative of a Q community, he may understandably take to writing his gospel with the incorporation of Q traditions as his first project.

Yet once finished this, would a self-respecting Q-Christian resort to rote copying of the gospel of Mark, and leave no Q stamp on the Markan account? Doole makes it look as if Q were almost an embarrassment to Matthew, something he was trying to 'masquerade' and dispose of as quickly as possible, before turning all his attention to his 'really important' source again. That Q would not have left its stamp has been discussed and rejected above. That in Matthew it was 'permeated with M traditions' is a bit of a nasty phrase, if put like that with no further explanation.

Of course, such things have happened, but Mark has been 'permeated' in the same way see Mt 3: The question is what instigated Matthew to this intervention and for what purpose this happened. Was it because Matthew thought Q or Mark were somehow 'incomplete', or was this actually inspired in a more positive way by what he read in either Q or Mark? I am not sure how we can ever determine what 'a self-respecting Q-Christian' coming across Mark and seeing its value could or should have done with that part of Mark that does not invite or allow for adding Q material.

It is hard to imagine that there was something in Q forbidding an author to go beyond it. As far as we can possibly know, Q did not say it was a closed corpus of sayings of Jesus, nor did it speak out against telling stories about Jesus' passion and trial it rather seems to suppose these or against using narrative material it seems to have started doing this itself.

Doole's description of Matthew's handling of Q is contradictory and indeed also false. It is contradictory for two reasons. Doole notes the massive presence of Q in the first half of the Gospel, and then is surprised that nothing is left. But that seems to be plainly obvious. One cannot eat one's cake and have it. Q is a source of wisdom, but it is not an eternally flowing source. Moreover, Doole emphasises this presence of Q, but nevertheless concludes from it that it cannot be used to demonstrate that this source was of any special importance to Matthew.

The Pharisees claim Jesus is departing from the Jewish, divinely-revealed practices which define the covenant people of God in their view.

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark by John William Burgon

Jesus, conversely, seeks to substantiate the plausibility of his argument through the parable of digested food 7: These religious leaders again have failed to discern the true intent of God in giving Israel such sacred instructions. By focusing on the externals they have lost sight, apparently, of the internal, sinful pollution which these rituals seek to remedy.

As Jesus ministry in Galilee draws to a conclusion, Mark includes one more confrontation with the Pharisees 8: In the Old Testament Moses set forth some criteria by which Israel might evaluate the claims of a prophet cf. Moses warned the Israelites not to be fooled by miracles or signs.

These were not a sure indicator of divine authority. Rather, with the signs there also needed to be orthodoxy. But he also indicated that the announcements of true prophets would prove true. So the Pharisees require that Jesus forecast a "sign from heaven" in order to demonstrate his authority and its true source in God. Given his unorthodox response to sabbath practice and fasting, in their opinion Jesus needs to show clearly his orthodoxy by performing a divine sign "from heaven".

However, Jesus refuses because he realizes that their request is rooted in unbelief not belief. They seek a reason to destroy him. If the miracles he has already accomplished and which they have observed do not bring them to the point of faith, nothing he does in addition will sway them. Subsequently, Jesus warns his disciples about the "leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod" 8: He reinforces this by paraphrasing terms from Isaiah 6[35] in verse 8: Even his own intimate followers can succumb to this disease of unbelief and refuse to recognize Jesus for who he is, despite the powerful deeds and words which they see and observe first hand.

After this scene Jesus concentrates his attention in the narrative upon the faith-formation of his own disciples, eventually arriving in Jerusalem 8: The frequently repeated prophecy about his own death and resurrection 8: At the beginning of chapter 10 Mark informs the readers that Jesus and his followers are moving towards Judea.

The questioning by the Pharisees is characterized as a "testing" He reviews the commands of Moses and also the intent of God expressed in the creation account of Genesis 2: The crowds in Jerusalem during this Passover time Mark requires the reader to consider once again the question of Jesus. Is he indeed the terrible danger and threat the religious leaders perceive him to be and so his destruction is warranted? Or does he stand in the line of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the prophets he quotes The destruction of the fig tree, which the disciples alone observe, indicates to the reader something of the authoritative power of Jesus.

They hope his answers will provide the ammunition necessary to arrange for his arrest with minimal public agitation. Sequentially the high priests, scribes and elders Finally, after Mark notes that "from then on no one dared ask him any more questions" He ends with a strong warning that "such men will be punished most severely" The first confrontation centres around the source Earlier Mark has indicated that some religious leaders, "scribes from Jerusalem", considered that satan provided Jesus with his authority 3: Despite all that Jesus had done in between, these leaders persisted in their belief that Jesus was a false prophet, demonically inspired.

They know precisely the implications of both answers. They also know that the majority in Israel believed John was a prophet from God.

When they respond by saying "we do not know" The parable which follows in The story of the vineyard resonates with that told by Isaiah 5: When it does not produce the fruit He expects i. Similarly, Jesus warns that the farmers leasing the vineyard and refusing to provide the owner with his rightful share will be severely punished. The vineyard will be taken away from them and the owner will "give the vineyard to others" However, they kill him and throw him out of the vineyard vs. Jesus ends the parable by quoting from Psalm Plainly Jesus asserts that his authority comes from God, that his mission is sanctioned by God, even while acknowledging once more that he will be killed and rejected by the religious leaders, just as God had predicted in the Jewish Scriptures.

In response the religious leaders try to arrest Jesus on the spot, because "they knew that he spoke the parable against them" Fear of the crowds again stymies them. Their rejection confirms his status. With flattering and deceitful words "we know that you are truthful…. They anticipate that Jesus will condemn himself no matter what answer he provides.

Despite their extreme example which they think demonstrates that the idea of resurrection is absurd, Jesus, pointing them to study and understand the very Scriptures they quote to him, accuses them of error because they do not understand their sacred writings nor do they appreciate the power of God. He repeats his charge in verse 27, claiming that they "are badly mistaken.

Who is winning the religious debate? No matter how difficult the issue or cunning their intent, the religious leaders in the end lose the argument. If they cannot sustain their religious credibility in the temple precinct, the management of which validates their position and authority in the minds of contemporary Jews, why should the reader accept their assessment of Jesus as blasphemer, demon-possessed, deceiver, and false-prophet? Yet, the discussion about the greatest commandment As in Nazareth there are a few in Jerusalem who exercise faith.

Mark concludes this series of confrontations with the comment that "from then on no one dared ask him any more questions" Their credibility is in tatters. But the author is not content to leave matters here. Jesus in the narrative proceeds to challenge a fundamental belief presented by these scribes, namely that the Messiah is the "son of David" By reference to Psalm Jesus asks for the canonical source of their assertion. They claim to know the Scriptures and yet they use titles for the Messiah which have no basis in these Scriptures.

A final blow to the status of the religious leaders comes in Jesus pillories the religious attitudes and pretensions of the scribes "for a show [they] make lengthy prayers" This language reflects the accusations of injustice and corruption leveled by earlier prophets i. Isaiah and Jeremiah against religious leaders of their day. Jesus implies that nothing has changed and the current religious leaders similarly "will be punished most severely", presumably by God[53]. The cryptic oracle of judgment uttered by Jesus Mark As he draws his commentary to a conclusion, Jesus affirms once more the authority of his words:.

The reader must ponder, then, the implications of such a strong assertion. Such hyperbole underscores the authority which Jesus claims for his message, which responds to the prophetic promises in Daniel 7: His closest followers betray or desert him. Alone he faces the inquisition of the religious leaders and the interrogation by the Roman governor Pilate.

The religious leaders conversely seem to gather boldness as their conspiracy succeeds. Jesus is executed, condemned by his own claim to be "the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One" and warning his accusers that they "will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. Surely, if he were the messiah, God would have miraculously intervened to protect him, to enable him "to come down from the cross, that we may see and believe.

Of course, the readers know that Jesus had prophesied these precise events numerous times in chapters 8 — Further, Jesus claims that all of these events precisely fulfill the plan which God previously had revealed in the Old Testament. Are the disciples of Jesus doing the only thing possible when they scatter in fear for their lives as Jesus is arrested? His crucifixion does not nullify his mission, but rather establishes its credibility.

He is both Jesus of Nazareth and Son of God. In particular the language of religious conflict compels the hypothetical reader to choose between the competing interpretations of Jesus and his message. The narrator strives to remove spiritual blindness, deafness and hardness of heart in the implied reader. Such language tends to characterize intra-Judaic religious controversy in the first century. Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. The groups responding to Jesus in this fashion have various descriptions: As he draws his commentary to a conclusion, Jesus affirms once more the authority of his words: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. The writer is fully aware of the continued discussions relating to issues of authorship. In this essay the third category of rhetorical criticism described in C. The goal is to determine how the text is shaped in such a way so as "to motivate people to act right " page , quoting from an article by Elisabeth S.

Or, it could be a general instruction to one who read the text to pay particular attention to the interpretation of this special phrase. Other interpretations are also possible. Other examples of such editorial guidance might be 2: This specific comment also occurs in the Matthean parallel cf. The expectation that those involved in the trial would "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" becomes a statement of judgment for his accusers, but a statement of promise and vindication for himself.

Those accusing him regard it as the final proof they require to justify his execution. Stephen Smith, A Lion with Wings. Sheffield Academic Press, , However, defining the purpose for such language as part of the narrative and its contribution to the rhetorical agenda of the author deserves closer study. Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? Issues in Polemic and Faith , ed. Augsburg Fortress, , pages The New Testament and First-century Judaism. Dead Sea Scrolls, Psalms of Solomon, etc. For example, in the "Rule of the Community" those who are governed by the spirit of deceit are described as possessing a "…blasphemous tongue, blindness of eyes, hardness of hearing, stiffness of neck, hardness of heart in order to walk in all the paths of darkness and evil cunning.

And the visitation of those who walk in it will be for a glut of punishments at the hands of all the angels of destruction, for eternal damnation for the scorching wrath of the God of revenge,…" 1QS IV The translation is that of F. Brill, , page 7. I assume the priority of Mark within the Synoptic complex.

In addition, various elements in his narrative which are not found in Matthew or Luke or, if present, are located much later in the sequence of those narratives, indicate how significant this issue of conflict is for Mark in the presentation of his message.

Related Content

Attention will be directed to several examples in footnotes. Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part One New Testament.

• Who is the Predator? (Predator-Proof Your Family Book 2)
• Map Addict
• For Men Only Discussion Guide: A Companion to the Bestseller About the Inner Lives of Women
• Dreifach: Thriller (Allgemeine Reihe. Bastei Lübbe Taschenbücher) (German Edition)
• Chemical Physics of Thin Film Deposition Processes for Micro- and Nano-Technologies (Nato Science Se
• Performing Qualitative Cross-Cultural Research
• A Match Made In Texas (The Diamondback Ranch Original Series, Book 3)