But let it be observed, that
in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages there is no term which
expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek
and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, It is,
for it signifies. So Gen. xli, 26, 27, The seven kine ARE (i.e.,
represent) seven years. This is (represents) the bread of affliction
which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Dan. vii, 24, The ten horns ARE
(i.e., signify) ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed
them, and the Rock was (represented) Christ, 1 Cor. x, 4. And
following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find, in Rev.
i, 20, the seven stars ARE (represent) the angels of the seven churches:
and the seven candlesticks ARE (represent) the seven churches. The same
form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this
sense must necessarily be given to the world. Matt. xiii, 38, 39. The field IS
(represents) the world: the good seed ARE (represent, signify)
the children of the kingdom: the tares ARE (signify) the children of the
wicked one. The enemy IS (signifies) the devil: the harvest IS (represents)
the end of the world: the reapers ARE (i.e., signify) the angels, Luke
viii, 9. What might this parable BE? τιςΕΙΗηπαραβοληαυτη;
what does this parable SIGNIFY? John vii, 37, τιςΕΣΤΙΝουτοςολογος; what is the SIGNIFICATION of this saying? John x, 6. They
understood not what things they WERE, τιναΗΝ,
what was the SIGNIFICATION of the things he had spoken to them. Acts x, 17, τιανΕΙΗτοοραμα, what this vision MIGHT BE; properly
rendered by our translators, what this vision should MEAN. Gal. iv, 24, For
these ARE the two covenants: αυταιγαρΕΙΣΙΝαιδυοδιαθηκαι, these SIGNIFY the two covenants. Luke
xv, 26, He asked, τιΕΙΗταυτα, what these things MEANT: see also
chap. xviii, 36. After such unequivocal testimony from the sacred writings, can
any person doubt that, this bread IS my body, has any other
meaning that, this REPRESENTS my body? (Adam Clarke, A Discourse on
the Nature and Design of the Eucharist, or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper [New
York: G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, 1842], 64-65, emphasis in original)
According to Athanasius, the
only books that are authentically theoponeustoi, “Inspired by God,” are
those which either belong to the group of kanonizomena, those which have
been canonized and which thus pose no problem (the “twenty-two books of the Old
Testament” and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, listed at §§ 17-18),
or to that of “the anagignoskomena, the books ‘appointed to be read’,”
that is, the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books of the Greek Old Testament (the
Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, to which the patriarch added
the Teachings of the Apostles (most probably, the Didache) and
the Shepherd of Hermas (§ 20). (Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Rewriting: The Path
from Apocryphal to Heretical,” in Religious Conflict From Early Christianity
to the Rise of Islam, ed. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil [Arbeiten zur. Kirchengeschichte
121; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013], 97-98)
In fact, since the book of
Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah (attached to the book of Jeremiah), and 1 Ezra
(attached to Ezra-Nehemiah) are counted in the number of canonical writings (§
17), Athanasius accepts here the majority of deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphal
books that one could read (to judge by the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus,
and Codex Alexandrinus) in the great unical manuscripts of the fourth and fifth
century. However, he makes no mention—with serious consequences—of the four books
of the Maccabees (copied in Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, but absent
from not only Codex Vaticanus, but also the ancient Ethiopic version of the
Bible) and the Psalms of Solomon (whose presence is mentioned in the
index to Codex Alexandrinus), nor the Paralipomena of Jeremiah (copied
following the books Jeremiah-Baruch in the older manuscripts of the Ethiopic
Bible). (Ibid., 98 n. 31)
The Shepherd of Hermas,
copied in Codex Sinaiticus, was also among the scriptural texts translated from
Greek into Ethiopic in the Axumite period . . . while the Didache (if
that is indeed it), cited here by Athanasius, survives only in a Greek
manuscript from Jerusalem copied in 1056, that also contains the Epistle of
Barnabas (included likewise in Codex Sinaiticus) and 1-2 Clement
(also copied in Codex Alexandrinus). The latter were neither mentioned by the
patriarch, nor, apparently, translated into Ethiopic. (Ibid., 98 n. 32)
While disagreeing with the translation one finds for Isa
28:10, 16 in the KJV, NRSV, and other translations, Theophilos and Smith agree that
it is “a literal translation” of the underlying Hebrew:
In their conceit, the priests and prophet’s mock
Isaiah’s message with simple repeated words: “
כִּי צַו לָצָו צַו לָצָו קַו לָקָו קַו לָקָו זְעֵיר שָׁם זְעֵיר שָׁם.”
However, the meaning of these words is not clear. A literal translation—“it
is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line,
here a little, there a little” (NRSV, NIV)—seems unlikely. . . . (Michael
P. Theophilos and A. M. Smith, “The Use of Isaiah 28:11-12 in 1 Corinthians
14:21,” in Religious Conflict From Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam,
ed. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil [Arbeiten zur. Kirchengeschichte 121; Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2013], 57)
Some persons associate the two
robbers crucified with the Lord with two kinds of baptized persons. For all
of us, who have been baptized in Christ Jesus, were baptized in his death.
Indeed, both were crucified alike, but one became a worse blasphemer on the
cross; the other became a martyr by confession. For some are crowned by the
baptism with which we as sinners are cleansed, when they praise with faith,
hope, and love the God who suffered in the flesh; others, as long as they
refuse to have either faith or the works of baptism, are deprived of the gift
that they received. (Bede, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [trans.
Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis; Translated Texts for Historians 85; Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2025], 624)
In the JST, “angel” is
replaced by “servant” in passages such as Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18. The following is from
NT Manuscript 2, p. 149:
There is an on-going debate within
scholarship if these angels are celestial beings or humans (i.e., bishops). For
examples of those who support the “human bishop” interpretation, consider the
following:
Moving on from the Pastorals, at the beginning of the
Book of Revelation, Christ gives John a message for each angelos (ἄγγελος) of
the seven churches in Asia (Rev 1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). The Greek
word angelos, translated as “angel,”
can also mean “messenger,” which can be seen in its verbal form angellō (ἀγγέλλω) meaning to “announce,” “report,” or
“inform.” Some, though not many, consider these “angels” to be the human
leaders of each of the seven churches of Asia. However, the word angelos occurs sixty-seven times in the
Book of Revelation, and on every other occasion it means an angel. Be that as
it may, it would seem strange if John were really asked to write to an angel,
especially when he can see and talk to angels during his vision on Patmos (Rev
1:9–10), and there is no indication of how those angels would then pass on the
message to the church. On the other hand, it makes sense to regard the angel as
the episkopos of the church who could
pass on the message of John’s letter in his preaching, which seems to be the
meaning of the conclusion of each message to each “angel” advising that he who
has an ear should hear what the Spirit says to the churches (2:7, 11, 17, 29;
3:6, 13, 22). While rare, there are instances of angelos in the New Testament meaning a human “messenger” rather
than an “angel”: the messengers of John the Baptist (Luke 7:24); Jesus’
messengers (Luke 9:52); and the messengers Rahab received (James 2:25). John
the Baptist himself is understood as the messenger of Malachi 3:1 by Jesus in
Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27. So these instances in the first three chapters of
Revelation would not be the first or only occurrences where the word angelos means a human. While there is no
agreement on the meaning of the “angels” of the churches of Asia in Revelation
1–3, I nevertheless think it cannot be ruled out that the angelos of each of the seven churches in Revelation is its episkopos. If that is correct, these
angels/messengers are the episkopoi
of these seven churches, and in Revelation 1–3, we are now seeing a development
in church governance that brings us close to the situation at the turn of the
first century, when each local church was presided over by a bishop (assisted
by priests and deacons).(Thomas J. Lane, The Catholic
Priesthood: Biblical Foundations [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road
Publishing, 2006], 170-71)
The Angels as Human Figures
A third interpretation understands the angels as human
beings. This view generally understands the term ἄγγελος (angelos)
in the specific context of Rev 1:20 and the subsequent seven messages (Rev
2–3), to mean “messenger” in some form. Interpreters disagree concerning the
identity of these humans. Some interpretations describe the angels as:
• bishops.
• leaders
of worship in the Christian congregations, patterned after the Jewish style
(Mulholland, Revelation, 91–2).
• messengers
who carried the letter from John at Patmos to the churches.(Andrew
Coutras, “Angels of the Seven Churches,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary,
ed. John D. Barry et al. [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], Logos ed.)
ANGELS
OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES: It is evident from the contexts of the
various Biblical passages in which the word “angel” appears, that the word does
not always represent the same idea. In such passages as Dnl 12:1 and Acts 12:15
it would seem that the angel was generally regarded as a superhuman being whose
duty it was to guard a nation or an individual, not unlike the jenei of the Arabs. However, in Mal 2:7
and 3:1 (Heb) the word is clearly used to represent men. In the NT also, there
are passages, such as Jas 2:25 (Gr), in which the word seems to be applied to
men. The seven angels of the seven churches (Rev 1:20) received seven letters,
fig. letters, and therefore it would seem that the seven angels are also fig.
and may refer to the seven bishops who presided over the seven churches of
Asia. Or the angels may be regarded as the personifications of the churches. (E.
J. Banks, “Angels of the Seven Churches,” in The International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr et al., 4 vols. [Chicago: The
Howard-Severance Company, 1915], 1:135)
The Catholic “Douay-Rheims” Bible contains a number of
theologically-driven mistranslations (think the New World Translation's use of “a god” in John
1:1c). The Vulgate, which it is based on reads:
Petrus vero ad illos: Pœnitentiam,
inquit, agite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi in
remissionem peccatorum vestrorum: et accipietis donum Spiritus Sancti.
This is translated by the Douay-Rheims as:
But Peter said to them: Do
penace: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for
the remission of sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The Greek does not read "do penance"; instead,
the Greek is μετανοήσατε, the second personal plural aorist active imperative
of μετανοεω, "change one's mind" or "feel remorse, repent, be
converted" (BDAG). Firstly, it cannot be “penance” as, per the Baltimore
Catechism, is the means “by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven
through the absolution of a priest.” Or at the modern Catechism of the Catholic
Church puts it, the Sacrament of Penance is
The liturgical celebration
of God’s forgiveness of the sins of the penitent, who is thus reconciled with
God and with the Church. The acts of the penitent—contrition, the confession of
sins, and satisfaction or reparation—together with the prayer of absolution by
the priest, constitute the essential elements of the Sacrament of Penance. (Catholic
Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church [2d ed.; Vatican City: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 2019], 892)
Another theologically-driven mistranslation is found in Heb 10:12. The Greek reads:
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.
The term translated as "he had offered" is προσεωεγκας, the nominative masculine aorist active participle of the verb προσφερω, a sacrifical term meaning "to bring to/offer." It denotes how Christ's sacrifice (θυσια, the term it is coupled with in this verse) was done once-for-all in the past, and is not to be repeated.
The Vulgate renders the verse as:
Hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam, in sempiternum sedet in dextera De.
The Greek term προσεωεγκας is translated as "offerens" in the Latin Vulgate. As there are always difficulties and ambiguities due to translating texts into different languages, the Vulgate can be interpreted as speaking of Christ either as having had offered, or offering a sacrifice. However, the Douay-Rheims translated the Latin Vulgate as follows:
But this man offeringone sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God
The Douay-Rheims grossly misunderstood the text of Heb 10:12 to present Jesus as presently offering a sacrifice, commensurate with the Roman Catholic teaching on the Mass being a representation of the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross.
As we can see here, the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation
did not have to make big changes to the text; they just had to make small but
very important theologically-driven changes. Such changes have a big impact on
the Bible we read. Hopefully, this knowledge will help Latter-day Saints have
accurate conversations with Roman Catholics, especially when some falsely claim
that “A Catholic who studied the Bible a thousand years ago as well as
Catholics today can have the certainty that their Bibles are accurate because
of the Holy Spirit.”
The preface to D&C 113
(= LDS D&C 135) in the Doctrine and Covenants for the Remnant Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reads:
The General Conference of 1896 gave serious consideration
to the question whether this section should be continued in the Doctrine and
Covenants. After debate, a resolution was adopted providing for its continued
publication with an appended explanation by the President of the church and the
Book of Publication. (Book of Doctrine and Covenants Remnant Edition [Marceline,
Miss.: Walsworth, 2022], 298)
The resolution reads thusly:
a. The succeeding sections were published by the
authority of the General Conference of September, 1878, held at Gallands Grove,
Iowa, as follows:
b. “WHEREAS, We accept the revelations heretofore given
to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, through the
present presiding officer thereof, as being the word of the Lord to his church,
equally with those published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; therefore
be it
c. “Resolved, that the revelations received by the
president of the church in 1861, 1863, and 1865, be received as from God,
authoritative and binding on us as a body; and in connection with the
revelation of 1873, that they be hereafter compiled with that book.”
Why ‘from the blood of Abel’,
who first suffered martyrdom, is not to be wondered at all, but it must be
asked, why ‘up to the blood of Zechariah’, when not only are there many who were
killed after him up to the birth of Christ, but also immediately after Christ’s
birth the innocent children in Bethlehem were killed by this generation.
Perhaps because Abel was a shepherd of sheep, and Zechariah a priest, and the
one was slain in the field, and the other in the courtyard of the temple, he wanted
to make known under their name martyrs of both kinds, that is to say, bot the laity
and those dedicated to the office of the altar. (Bede, Commentary on the
Gospel of Luke [trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis; Translated Texts
for Historians 85; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2025], 412)
While I am pretty critical of Trent Horn on the topic of "Mormonism," I stand by what I said back in 2017: His The Case for Catholicism is the best single-volume apologetic work by a modern Catholic author and he does great work against abortion. I also consider him one of the better mainstream apologists for Rome. Today, he just released a pretty good review of Michael Horton's defense of Sola Scriptura. Horton focused on Gal 1:8 and 1 Cor 4:6. You can see Trent's video here:
I have already discussed 1 Cor 4:6 a few times on this blog. However, I decided to add to the discussion by checking out (1) the Peshitta and (2) some instances of the text in the Migne series.
A machine translation (I will admit I used ChatGPT as I
have never formally studied Syriac) renders the text as:
These things, therefore, my
brothers, have been committed to you in accordance with your own
measure—serving as the seal of my authority. And Apollos is among you so that
you may not become overly exalted beyond what is written, nor should any man be
commended in regard to his fellow as if he were greater than a man
This coheres well with another translation, that of
Hastings:
These things, my Brethren, I
have stated concerning the person of myself and of Apollos, for your sakes;
that, in us, ye might learn not to think [of men], above what is written; and
that no one might exalt himself in comparison with his fellow, on account of
any person. (The Syriac New Testament: Translated into English from the
Peshitto Version [9th ed.; trans. James Murdock; Boston: H. L. Hastings
& Sons, 1915], Logos ed.)
In context, it appears that, at least in this tradition
(all translation is interpretation, after all), what is in view is not the formal
sufficiency of Scripture, but one should not place men “above what is written”
(whether the Scripture in general or the Old Testament texts referenced by Paul
earlier).
During a cursory check of my works from the Syriac
Fathers (e.g., Ephrem; Jacob of Serugh), there is no discussion of 1 Cor 4:6. A
search of the patristics up until the year 600 revealed only 24 references to
this passage (according
to the Bibl Index). I decided to check the references for (1) Athanasius in
PG 26 and (2) Theodoret of Cyrus in PG 82.
“Now, in saying this he signifies something else—that
they have become one in our unity; are they indeed one with one another? In
this way, since we are one by nature and truth, they could not otherwise become
one unless they had learned true unity. Moreover, in our midst this very sign
is present—as we hear Paul declare: ‘Thus I have conformed both myself and
Apollos, that you might learn among us not to be of a nature exceeding that
which is written to exist.’
Therefore, among us there is not in the Father what
the Son is in Him but rather a pattern and likeness—so that, in effect, they
may learn from us (as it is said, “From among us let them learn”). For just as
Paul taught the Corinthians, so the unity of the Son and the Father is set
forth as the foundation and doctrine for all. By beholding the natural unity of
the Father and the Son, they can learn how they too must be one in mind toward
one another.
And if it is necessary to offer another explanation
regarding this saying, it can again be demonstrated that among us there is an
equality with that which is proclaimed—by the power of the Father and the
Son—so that, becoming one, we all proclaim the same truth; for without God this
could not come into being, and indeed it is found once more in the divine
words, ‘In God we shall produce power,’ and ‘In you we shall trample our
enemies.’
Thus it is evident that in the name of the Father and
the Son we are enabled, by becoming one, to possess a secure bond of love.
Again, extending this same thought, the Lord declares: ‘And I have given them
the glory which you gave me, that they may be one, just as we are one.’ Here he
does not say that they should be “in You, as I am,” but rather “as we are” –
for they do not demonstrate absolute identity, but rather a likeness and
pattern of that which is spoken.”
Theodore of
Cyrus (PG 82:256B-C):
«Ώστε μή πρό καιρού τι
κρίνετε, Έως εν ό Κύριος έλθη, ος καί φωτίσει τά κρυπτά τού σκότους, καί
φανερώσει τάς βουλάς τών καρδιών, καί τότε ό έπαινος γενήσεται έκάστω άπό τού
Θεού. » Υμεϊς, φησίν, όράτε τά φαινόμενα, Θεψ δε δήλα καί τά χρυπτόμενα · άλλά
κατά τόν παρόντα βίον ού πάντα γυμνοί, έν έκείνω δε πάντα δήλα γενήσεται. Το
δίκαιον τοίνυν κριτήριον άναμείνατε · δψεσθε γάρ τηνικαϋτα δικαίας τάς
αναρρήσεις. Καί επειδή έν τοϊς πρόσθεν έαυτόν είς μέσον προτέθεικε, καί τόν
Άπολλώ, καί τόν Κηφάν, άπό των μειζόνων δεικνύς του γινομένου τήν άτοπίαν,
άναγκαίως λοιπόν τήν κατηγορίαν γυμνοί.
“Therefore, do not judge
prematurely until the Lord has come—He who will illuminate the hidden recesses
of darkness and reveal the counsels of the heart—so that then the praise from
God will be made perfect. He says, ‘Behold the appearances, and see that which
is manifested and made illustrious; yet in this present life you are not always
exposed, whereas in that life all things will be made clear.’ Therefore, hold
fast to the just standard; for you will clearly perceive the righteous
expressions. And because in times past he set himself among them—along with
Apollos and Cephas—thereby showing through the greater ones the incongruity of
what was taking place, the charge against them is necessarily laid bare.
“Thus, brethren, I have
conformed both myself and Apollos to our own manner, that you might learn among
us not to think in ways beyond what is written.” For we were the teachers of
teachers, having received the preaching from God; and we did not impose our own
titles, but rather urged that we be called by Christ. Look at how much
unseemliness is evident in what is happening among them. For it is said: “Learn
among yourselves not to think beyond what is written.” And it is written, “Let
him who wishes be first among you, and let the last be the last of all.” And,
“Let each be called to remain in his own place.” One should not be above
another. For they divided themselves—some from one group, others from
another—and those coming from the latter contended with one another, each
exalting his own teachers above the rest in a spirit of rivalry.
It appears that neither
commentator interpreted it as teaching the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
In this research three indications of “divine assembly”, “divine
council”, and “pantheon” are to be interchangeably used to denote the plurality
of deities. (Sang Youl Cho, Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the
Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Study of their Nature and Roles [Deities and
Angels of the Ancient World 2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2007], 1
n. 3)
ilm
“Gods”
This term is a generic form which expresses the plurality of Ug. il,
“god” (KTU 1.1 iv 6, and passim). Lesser deities are often stated as
“gods” in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.3 iii 32; 1.15 iii 19; 1.17 i 2-3, etc.).
All lesser deities in the celestial assembly may be identified as “gods” as
well as their master god. (Ibid., 11)
The Song of Songs as well,
according to Ambrose, contains a typological prefiguration of baptism (DM
7.35), in the Bride’s words, “I am dark and beautiful”, if interpreted, not
literally, but allegorically (as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa had done, joining
the Bible and Greek philosophy in their exegesis, including the maxim “Know
Yourself”): “the Church, who has received these clothes thanks to the laver of
regeneration (baptism), says in the Song of Songs: ‘I am dark and beautiful, O
daughters of Jerusalem’: dark because of the weakness of human condition, and
beautiful thanks to the divine grace; dark because I am constituted by sinners,
beautiful thanks to the sacrament of faith [fidei sacramentum]”. (Haec
vestimenta [. . .] Ecclesia, per lavacrum regenerationis adsumpta, dicit in
canticis: “Nigra sum et decora, filiae Hierusalem”: nigra per fragilitatem
condicionis humanae, decora per gratiam; nigra quia ex peccatoribus, decora fidei
sacramento.) Sacramentum fidei is the sacrament of baptism, since it is
through baptism that one becomes a Christian, either at birth or after
converting. (Ilaria L. E. Ramelli , “The Sources of Augustine on Christ’s Death
and Resurrection as Exemplum and Sacramentum: Origen and
Ambrose?,” in Origen, the Philosophical Theologian: Trinity, Christology,
and Philosophy-Theology Relation [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 160; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2025], 489)
We read this in the ninetieth
Psalm, but there the prophecy is not about Christ, but about a holy man. The
devil, therefore, interprets the Scripture badly. Indeed, if he knew that it
was really written about the Saviour, he ought to have said what follows in the
same Psalm and which is directed against himself: ‘You will walk upon the asp
and the basilisk, and you will trample underfoot the lion and the dragon.’ He
speaks of the help of the angels as if to one who is weak; like an equivocator,
he is silent about the fact that he is trampled under. (Bede,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith
Wallis; Translated Texts for Historians 85; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2025], 217)
Rightly is
she called ‘full of grace’, who without a doubt contains a
grace which no other woman ever merited, in that she will conceive and bear
the very author of grace. . . . When he saw that she was troubled by
this unusual salutation, he calls by name as if she were intimately known, and
bids her not to fear, which is only natural given that he alone had custody
over her. And because he had said she was full of grace, he both affirms that
same grace more fully and explains it more copiously saying: [Luke 1:31] Behold
you will conceive in your womb, and you will bring forth a son, and you will
call his /32/ name Jesus. Jesus means ‘saviour’ or ‘salvific’. The
angel who was speaking to Joseph explained the mystery of his name, saying: For
he will save his people from their sins. He does not say ‘the people of
Israel’ but ‘his people’, that is, a people called both from foreskin and from
circumcision into the unity of faith, so that after they have been gathered together
from different sides there might be one sheepfold and one shepherd. (Bede,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith
Wallis; Translated Texts for Historians 85; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2025], 131-32)
