Request to Subscribe To, and Become a "Member" of my Youtube Channel

If you have not already done so, please consider "subscribing" to my youtube channel:

Scriptural Mormonism

And if you wish to help support the channel, you can become a member here.

Andrew McGowan on the Montanist Avoidance of Meat and Wine

  

Officia recusati pabuli - avoidance of meat and wine

 

The asceticism advocated by the New Prophets seems to have included refusal of particular foods, not just temporarily but altogether. Much of On Fasting has Tertullian defending refusal of meat and wine, in particular, against attacks from the psychics, who apparently had no such bans except during major fasts and emphasized individual discretion once again in their application.

 

Although Tertullian provides general rationales against meat and wine, he also contrasts at least the theory supporting his version of Christian practice with forms of absolute exclusions among followers of Marcion and Tatian. Yet the only counter-example he offers to illustrate the distinctive approach of the New Prophecy is that of the temporary nature of xerophagies, which might well have included avoidance of meat and wine but was more specific. Tertullian never returns to address the accusation that the adherents of the New Prophecy will not eat or drink anything at all with vinositas (1.4). His argument thus seems primarily to be that there is a difference between avoiding foods to reject the Creator (as the Marcionites were seen to do) and doing so to render him honour (15.4). A similar idea was expressed in his earlier work On the Apparel of Women, where complete abstinence from meat and wine are also praised, if for the right reasons (II.9.7).

 

Later in On Fasting, Tertullian indicates that at least a temporary bread and water diet was practiced by some among the psychici also (13.1). The actual practices characteristic of his allies were thus not necessarily unique to them, even if their extent may have been distinctive. Rather, the impetus given by the New Prophecy seems likely to have catalysed existing ascetic patterns and harnessed them in the service of the movement. What was controversial was not the practices themselves but their application: whether individual, voluntary, and temporary, or permanent, communal, and general. (Andrew McGowan, “Tertullian on Fasting: Asceticism and the New Prophecy in Carthage,” in Montanism in the Roman World: The New Prophecy Movement from Historical, Sociological, and Ecclesiological Perspectives. Festschrift for William Tabbernee on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, ed. Peter Lampe and Heidrun E. Mader [Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 132; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2024], 104)

 

Andrew McGowan on Christian Fasting Before Tertullian

  

Fasting in early Christianity

 

The temptation to see the history of fasting in early Christianity as a fall from some early freedom and festivity into the fetters of ascetic and institutional drudgery is as implausible as it is unhelpful. Fasting was practiced in Christian circles from the earliest times historically accessible, its forms and purposes (unsurprisingly) varied, given the background just noted.

 

Enthusiasm for fasting may have varied, of course. There is an obvious contrast between the characterization of Jesus as "glutton and drunkard" (Matt 11 : 19) and the fasts attributed to the disciples of John, and for that matter the practice of the communities who first read the canonical Gospels (Matt 6:1 6). An indifference or even perhaps hostility to fasting might be reflected in the Gospel of Thomas (Gos. Thom. 14, 27, 104). Yet, there is more evidence for how Christians fasted than of debates about whether to do so.

 

Early Christian literature suggests varied purposes and concerns for fasting, broadly comparable to the practices already noted. The Acts of the Apostles depict fasting for the choice and commissioning of leaders (13:2-3; 14:23). Colossians refers to a controversy over food and drink, presumably referring to some form of fasting (Col 2: 16-23). The Didache urges fasting as a form of prayer for enemies (1.3; cf. Matt 5:44), instructs baptismal candidates and those administering the rite to fast (7.4), and assumes regular fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays each week (8.1). Justin Martyr also reports baptismal fasting (1 Apol. 6 1). Diognetus distances itself from Jewish fasting customs, but lauds personal dietary discipline (6. 1; cf. 4.1). Ptolemy's Letter to Flora supports fasting - as reminder of a truer, spiritual fast (5.13- 14). Seasonal fasting before Easter is already attested in the second-century Gospel of Peter, as well as in the slightly later Didascalia.

 

The Shepherd of Hermas reveals tensions over the theory and practice of fasting. In the Visions section, the narrator fasts in order to seek visions or their interpretation (Herm. Vis. 2.2; cf. 2.1; 3.1; 3.10). This is a personal spiritual discipline, without obvious communal or (other) ritual dimensions. In the Similitudes, however, there is reference to a statio or set fast (Herm. Sim. 5). The heavenly Shepherd who addresses Hermas must underline the communal dimension in ethical and not merely ritual terms, criticizing fasts undertaken for purely personal ends - for seeking personal revelations, or adding to the power of one's prayers - and advocating a diet of bread and water on these stational days so the resulting funds could be set aside for charity (5.3.7).

 

This brief survey of fasting and the variety of its purposes prior to or contemporary with Tertullian at least illustrates its ubiquity and diversity. Fasting was both habitual and communal, but could be personal and occasional; it was associated with unique initiatory processes, but also with repeated spiritual quests; it was connected with personal prayer and also with social practice; it was conceptualized as effective in itself and as a sign whose real meaning lay beyond the material practices of abstinence. Tertullian's controversy with the Carthaginian psychici - less ascetically inclined Christians or opponents of the New Prophecy - must be seen within this diversity, where many things about dietary asceticism could be contested, but fasting itself was not. (Andrew McGowan, “Tertullian on Fasting: Asceticism and the New Prophecy in Carthage,” in Montanism in the Roman World: The New Prophecy Movement from Historical, Sociological, and Ecclesiological Perspectives. Festschrift for William Tabbernee on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, ed. Peter Lampe and Heidrun E. Mader [Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 132; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2024], 95-97)

 

 

William Tabbernee on the Montanist Understanding of Revelation

  

Revelatory Novelties

 

(i) New scriptures

 

Tertullian did not deny that Montanists composed new ‘scriptures,’ that they considered the content of the writings of the New Prophets to be superior to that in books which were ultimately to become part of the canon, or that they held that the final and most complete revelation of the Holy Spirit had come via the prophets and prophetesses of the New Prophecy. He strongly denied, however, that these aspects of Montanism constituted novelty. Montanist supplementary revelation only ‘made clear’ the ethical implications of what had already been revealed (e.g., Res. 63.1; Mon. 2.1–4; Prax. 13).

 

Adherents of the New Prophecy other than Tertullian also replied to accusations of novelty leveled at the movement. Proclus, for example, in his debate with Gaius, defended the practice of composing new scriptures (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.20.3).61 The particular arguments used in such defense, however, are not known as the contemporary records containing them have not survived. The allusions to Montanist defenses on the subject of allegedly ‘new scriptures’, by the opponents of the New Prophecy, nevertheless, strongly suggest that the Montanist case depended primarily on an appeal to the ultimate authority of the Paraclete who had spoken through the New Prophets.

 

(ii) Progressive revelation

 

Progressive revelation, for Tertullian, was progressive ethical revelation, not progressive doctrinal revelation. The Paraclete’s  final revelation was an interpretative, dependent revelation. It revealed how spiritual Christians were to act in an age of Christian maturity.

 

Tertullian did not write a separate treatise about revelation, but he strongly defended his view of progressive ethical revelation in a number of his later works, claiming each time that this view was the biblical view of progressive revelation. Tertullian found his evidence in the ethical progress of humanity, as portrayed in the scriptures of the old and new covenants. In the beginning God had granted very great liberty to his creation. Justice was not based on an explicit code, but on ‘natural law’ (e.g., Virg. 1.5–7). Mosaic legislation brought new ethical revelation and prepared people for a closer relationship to God through greater obedience (e.g., Virg. 1.7; Marc. 2.18–19; Jejun. 5.1). The teaching of Christ and the apostles brought further ethical revelation. Christian grace did not mean that discipline had been abrogated (e.g., Virg. 1.7; Pud. 6.12.). In fact, the discipline imposed by Christ was ‘harsher’ than that of the Law and Prophets. Moses tolerated divorce; Jesus did not (Mon. 14.3–7). The Decalogue forbade adultery; Jesus revealed that a lustful heart was equally sinful. Christ and the apostles, however, had only been able to lead their followers from ethical infancy into ethical youth. The people of Jesus’ day were not yet ready for the full burden of discipline; hence Christ promised further ethical revelation via the Paraclete (Mon. 2.2–4). The Montanist oracles contained the fulfillment of that promise. They were the means by which the Paraclete revealed the ultimate ethical implications of Jesus’ own teaching. The age of Christian maturity had arrived (Virg. 1.7). Just as Jesus was not instituting novelty when he “fulfilled the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 5:17), the Paraclete was not instituting novelties when fulfilling the promise of Christ. Consequently, Montanists were not instituting revelatory novelties when they collected and took seriously the oracles of the New Prophets, including second- (or later) generation ‘New Prophets,’ considered them superior to the books ultimately deemed canonical, and held that they contained the ultimate revelation from the Holy Spirit. (William Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial Reactions to Montanism [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 84; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 145-46)

 

Parallels to 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Sexual Generation “From Non-Being” in the Works of Plato and Philo

 Robert Doran, in his commentary on 2 Maccabees 7:28, wrote the following:

 

The mother again emphasizes that God is the creator of the cosmos, as can be seen by viewing heaven and earth. The mother states that God fashioned the individual things from previously unformed matter. Note that in LXX Jer 4:23, the Hebrew terms תהו ובהו (the same as in Gen 1:2) are translated by οὐθέν (“nothing”). The Lucianic manuscripts have not οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων but ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, which could be translated as “from things which do not exist.” A parallel to this phrase is found in Xenophon: “parents made [their children] to be from what did not exist [ἐκ μὲν οὐκ ὄντων)]” (Mem. 2.2.3). (Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2012], 161)

 

Here are similar parallels in other Greek texts:

 

Plato, Symposium 205b–c:

 

[B] εἴπερ γε πάντες τῶν αὐτῶν ἐρῶσι καὶ ἀεί, ἀλλά τινάς φαμεν ἐρᾶν, τοὺς δʼ οὔ;

Θαυμάζω, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, καὶ αὐτός.

Ἀλλὰ μὴ θαύμαζʼ, ἔφη· ἀφελόντες γὰρ τοῦ ἔρωτός τι εἶδος ὀνομάζομεν, τὸ τοῦ ὅλου ἐπιτιθέντες ὄνομα, ἔρωτα, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἄλλοις καταχρώμεθα ὀνόμασιν.

Ὥσπερ τί; ἦν δʼ ἐγώ.

Ὥσπερ τόδε. οἶσθʼ ὅτι ποίησίς ἐστί τι πολύ· ἡ γάρ τοι ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ ὂν ἰόντι ὁτῳοῦν αἰτία πᾶσά ἐστι [C] ποίησις, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ὑπὸ πάσαις ταῖς τέχναις ἐργασίαι ποιήσεις εἰσὶ καὶ οἱ τούτων δημιουργοὶ πάντες ποιηταί.

Ἀληθῆ λέγεις.

Ἀλλʼ ὅμως, ἦ δʼ ἥ, οἶσθʼ ὅτι οὐ καλοῦνται ποιηταὶ ἀλλʼ ἄλλα ἔχουσιν ὀνόματα, ἀπὸ δὲ πάσης τῆς ποιήσεως ἓν μόριον ἀφορισθὲν τὸ περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν καὶ τὰ μέτρα τῷ τοῦ ὅλου ὀνόματι προσαγορεύεται. ποίησις γὰρ τοῦτο μόνον καλεῖται, καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες τοῦτο τὸ μόριον τῆς ποιήσεως ποιηταί.

Ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ἔφην. (Plato, “Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias: Greek Text,” ed. Jeffrey Henderson, The Loeb Classical Library [Harvard University Press, 1925], 186)

 

 

[B] “ ‘Well then, Socrates,’ she said, ‘we do not mean that all men love, when we say that all men love the same things always; we mean that some people love and others do not?’

“ ‘I am wondering myself,’ I replied.

“ ‘But you should not wonder,’ she said; ‘for we have singled out a certain form of love, and applying thereto the name of the whole, we call it love; and there are other names that we commonly abuse.’

“ ‘As, for example ——?’ I asked.

“ ‘Take the following: you know that poetry is more than a single thing. For of anything whatever that passes from not being into being the whole cause [C] is composing or poetry; so that the productions of all arts are kinds of poetry, and their craftsmen are all poets.’

“ ‘That is true.’

“ ‘But still, as you are aware,’ said she, ‘they are not called poets: they have other names, while a single section disparted from the whole of poetry—merely the business of music and metres—is entitled with the name of the whole. This and no more is called poetry; those only who possess this branch of the art are poets.’

“ ‘Quite true,’ I said.

“ ‘Well, it is just the same with love. Generically, indeed, (Plato, Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias: English Text, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. W. R. M. Lamb, The Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, MA; London, England: Harvard University Press, 1925], 185-87)

 

 

 

Plato, Symposium 206b–e:

 

[B] Ὅτε δὴ τούτου ὁ ἔρως ἐστὶν ἀεί, ἦ δʼ ἥ, τῶν τίνα τρόπον διωκόντων αὐτὸ καὶ ἐν τίνι πράξει ἡ σπουδὴ καὶ ἡ σύντασις ἔρως ἂν καλοῖτο; τί τοῦτο τυγχάνει ὂν τὸ ἔργον; ἔχεις εἰπεῖν;

Οὐ μεντἂν σέ, ἔφην ἐγώ, ὦ Διοτίμα, ἐθαύμαζον ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ ἐφοίτων παρὰ σὲ αὐτὰ τοῦτα μαθησόμενος.

Ἀλλʼ ἐγώ σοι, ἔφη, ἐρῶ. ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο τόκος ἐν καλῷ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν.

Μαντείας, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, δεῖται ὅ τί ποτε λέγεις, καὶ οὐ μανθάνω.

[C] Ἀλλʼ ἐγώ, ἦ δʼ ἥ, σαφέστερον ἐρῶ. κυοῦσι γάρ, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, πάντες ἄνθρωποι καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἔν τινι ἡλικίᾳ γένωνται, τίκτειν ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡμῶν ἡ φύσις. τίκτειν δὲ ἐν μὲν αἰσχρῷ οὐ δύναται, ἐν δὲ τῷ καλῷ. ἡ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς συνουσία τόκος ἐστίν. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο θεῖον τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τοῦτο ἐν θνητῷ ὄντι τῷ ζῴῳ ἀθάνατον ἔνεστιν, ἡ κύησις καὶ ἡ γέννησις. τὰ δʼ ἐν τῷ ἀναρμόστῳ ἀδύνατον γενέσθαι. [D] ἀνάρμοστον δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ αἰσχρὸν παντὶ τῷ θείῳ, τὸ δὲ καλὸν ἁρμόττον. Μοῖρα οὖν καὶ Εἰλείθυια ἡ Καλλονή ἐστι τῇ γενέσει. διὰ ταῦτα ὅταν μὲν καλῷ προσπελάζῃ τὸ κυοῦν, ἵλεών τε γίγνεται καὶ εὐφραινόμενον διαχεῖται καὶ τίκτει τε καὶ γεννᾷ· ὅταν δὲ αἰσχρῷ, σκυθρωπόν τε καὶ λυπούμενον συσπειρᾶται καἰ ἁποτρέπεται καὶ ἀνείλλεται καὶ οὐ γεννᾷ, ἀλλὰ ἴσχον τὸ κύημα χαλεπῶς φέρει. ὅθεν δὴ τῷ κυοῦντί τε καὶ ἤδη σπαργῶντι πολλὴ ἡ πτοίησις γέγονε [E] περὶ τὸ καλὸν διὰ τὸ μεγάλης ὠδῖνος ἀπολύειν τὸν ἔχοντα. ἔστι γάρ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔφη, οὐ τοῦ καλοῦ ὁ ἔρως, ὡς σὺ οἴει.

Ἀλλὰ τί μήν;

Τῆς γεννήσεως καὶ τοῦ τόκου ἐν τῷ καλῷ.

Εἶεν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ.

Πάνυ μὲν οὖν, ἔφη. τί δὴ οὖν τῆς γεννήσεως; ὅτι ἀειγενές ἐστι καὶ ἀθάνατον ὡς θνητῷ ἡ γέννησις. ἀθανασίας^. (Plato, “Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias: Greek Text,” ed. Jeffrey Henderson, The Loeb Classical Library [Harvard University Press, 1925], 188-92)

 

 

[B] “ ‘Now if love is always for this,’ she proceeded, ‘what is the method of those who pursue it, and what is the behaviour whose eagerness and straining are to be termed love? What actually is this effort? Can you tell me?’

“ ‘Ah, Diotima,’ I said; ‘in that case I should hardly be admiring you and your wisdom, and sitting at your feet to be enlightened on just these questions.’

“ ‘Well, I will tell you,’ said she; ‘it is begetting on a beautiful thing by means of both the body and the soul.’

“ ‘It wants some divination to make out what you mean,’ I said; ‘I do not understand.’

[C] “ ‘Let me put it more clearly,’ she said. ‘All men are pregnant, Socrates, both in body and in soul: on reaching a certain age our nature yearns to beget. This it cannot do upon an ugly person, but only on the beautiful: the conjunction of man and woman is a begetting for both. It is a divine affair, this engendering and bringing to birth, an immortal element in the creature that is mortal; and it cannot occur in the discordant. [D] The ugly is discordant with whatever is divine, whereas the beautiful is accordant. Thus Beauty presides over birth as Fate and Lady of Travail; and hence it is that when the pregnant approaches the beautiful it becomes not only gracious but so exhilarate, that it flows over with begetting and bringing forth; though when it meets the ugly it coils itself close in a sullen dismay: rebuffed and repressed, it brings not forth, but goes in labour with the burden of its young. Therefore when a person is big and teeming-ripe [E] he feels himself in a sore flutter for the beautiful, because its possessor can relieve him of his heavy pangs. For you are wrong, Socrates, in supposing that love is of the beautiful.’

“ ‘What then is it?’

“ ‘It is of engendering and begetting upon the beautiful.’

“ ‘Be it so,’ I said.

“ ‘To be sure it is,’ she went on; ‘and how of engendering? Because this is something ever-existent and immortal in our mortal life.  (Plato, Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias: English Text, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. W. R. M. Lamb, The Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, MA; London, England: Harvard University Press, 1925], 189-93)

 

 

Philo, De specialibus legibus 2:225:

 

οἱ γὰρ γονεῖς μεταξὺ θείας καὶ ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεώς εἰσι μετέχοντες ἀμφοῖν· ἀνθρωπίνης μέν, ὡς ἔστι δῆλον, ὅτι καὶ γεγόνασι καὶ φθαρήσονται, θείας δ᾽ ὅτι γεγεννήκασι καὶ τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήγαγον· ὅπερ γάρ, οἶμαι, θεὸς πρὸς κόσμον, τοῦτο πρὸς τέκνα γονεῖς, ἐπειδὴ ὡς ἐκεῖνος τῷ μὴ ὑπάρχοντι ὕπαρξιν κατειργάσατο, καὶ οὗτοι μιμούμενοι καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷόν τε τὴν ἐκείνου δύναμιν τὸ γένος ἀθανατίζουσιν

 

For parents themselves are something between divine and human nature, partaking of both; of human nature, inasmuch as it is plain that they have been born and that they will die; and of divine nature, because they have engendered other beings, and have brought what did not exist into existence: for, in my opinion, what God is to the world, that parents are to their children; since, just as God gave existence to that which had no existence, they also, in imitation of his power, as far at least as they were able, make the race of mankind everlasting. (Spec. 2:225 PHE)

 

Philo, De decalogo 111:

 

ἐν δυσὶν οὖν δικαστηρίοις, ἃ δὴ μόνα ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ φύσει, μὴ ἀγνοείτωσαν ἑαλωκότες, ἀσεβείας μὲν ἐν τῷ θείῳ, διότι τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγαγόντας καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο μιμησαμένους θεὸν οὐ περιέπουσι, μισανθρωπίας δ᾽ ἐν τῷ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους.

 

Let them, then, not be ignorant that they are convicted before the two tribunals which are the only ones which exist in nature, of impiety as regards their duty towards God, as not worshipping those who have introduced beings who do not exist into existence, and who, in this respect, have imitated God; and as regards their duty towards men, of misanthropy and cruelty.

 

 

Philo, De specialibus legibus 2:2:

 

πρῶτον δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῶν τριῶν τὸ μὴ θεοῦ ὄνομα λαμβάνειν ἐπὶ ματαίῳ. ὁ γὰρ τοῦ σπουδαίου, φησί, λόγος ὅρκος ἔστω, βέβαιος, ἀκλινής, ἀψευδέστατος, ἐρηρεισμένος ἀληθείᾳ. κἂν εἰ ὀμνύναι μέντοι βιάζοιντο αἱ χρεῖαι, πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς ζώντων μὲν ὑγείαν καὶ εὐετηρίαν, τετελευτηκότων δὲ τὴν μνήμην ὅρκον ποιητέον· ἀπεικονίσματα γὰρ οὗτοί γε καὶ μιμήματα θείας δυνάμεώς εἰσι, τοὺς μὴ ὄντας εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγαγόντες.

 

And the first of these other commandments is not to take the name of God in vain; for the word of the virtuous man, says the law, shall be his oath, firm, unchangeable, which cannot lie, founded steadfastly on truth. And even if particular necessities shall compel him to swear, then he should make the witness to his oath the health or happy old age of his father or mother, if they are alive; or their memory, if they are dead. And, indeed, a man's parents are the copies and imitations of divine power, since they have brought people who had no existence into existence.

 

 

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457) on Isaiah 28:10

  

The expression “yet a little, and yet a little” alludes to the enemy attack that was soon going to materialize. As for the expression “hope upon hope,” it implies the ever-renewed expectation of woes. (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on Isaiah [trans. Gerald L. Bray; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2026], 96)

 

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457) on Isaiah 2:2-3 being Fulfilled by the Church

  

These words can be interpreted in two different ways, and we see how each of them has been fulfilled. If we understand the mountain of God to be Jerusalem, we see that it was there that those who have believed have come running. They have come running from everywhere in the world, and those who welcomed the message arrived and claimed the blessing that was first planted there. But if we declare that the churches spread everywhere over land and sea are the house of God—relying on what the divine Paul says; “We are his house”—then in that case also we can state that the prophecy is true because the church of God occupies a prominent position. The Gentiles are abandoning the ungodliness that once ruled over them, are coming near to it, and are being enlightened by it. (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on Isaiah [trans. Gerald L. Bray; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2026], 9)