A Discussion of the 1st & 2nd Century After the Death of Christ

[leftyladyfrommo]

Sara: I'm not sure where to start on this so just jump right in there with me.

One discussion might be the new Gospel of Judas that has been translated. I don't know if that translation is available to the public yet. But we had an interesting letter to the KC Star about it. A person was upset that the National Geographic put out the information right before Easter. He felt like it was an attack on the Orthodox beliefs in the standard Canon. His argument was that the author was unkown, and the writing was late.

I got to thinking about this because I thought his reply was strange. In the Orthodox Canon the authors of all 4 Gospels are unknown. We do not have a single original - only copies of copies of copies. And the entire New Testament is not found until the 4th Century.

But the interesting part of the Gospels that have been found - the ones not accepted into the standard canon - is that it becomes very obsious that groups existed then that believed everything under the sun and were all over the place. So it is not that unusual to find another Gospel with another interpretation and certainly was not meant to challenge the entire New Testament. It is just more information. And we need more information - all that we can get to get as true a picture as possible.

For instance it is the Gospel of Philip where all the information on Christ and Mary Magdelene is found. It wasn't any big secret back in the 1st and 2nd Century. So why are we so shocked?

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. Hi leftyladyfrommo! Good discussion....and I have a lengthy response!

I've read both the Gospels that you mentioned, (Thomas and Phillip), but I'll have to refresh my memories on them both, and I know nothing about the new Gospel of Judas, other than what was printed or reported in the news. If the Judas interpretation of Christ's life is correct, then Jesus becomes like a Socrates who willingly drank the hemlock, because he believed that it was his political duty to do so. (Have you read Plato's The Apology of Socrates? It is very moving, and is supposedly the closest to Socrates' true beliefs than any other Platonic Dialogue.) That is, Jesus committed suicide, and according to Judas, did so willingly in order to return to God faster.

This is so against the mainstream teachings that "Jesus died on the Cross for our sins" that I'm sure it would not only be discarded and disregarded as 'truth,' it would also be vigorously opposed. I have a few 'fundie' friends (who are now anti-B*, BTW) who absolutely believe that "Jesus died on the Cross for our sins!" When I point out the obvious, that, 'No, he died because of our sins; we killled him and he didn't want to die,' I am viewed as a blasphemer. Also, given all religious teachings' opposition to suicide, I don't see how they could ever accept this Judas version as "gospel."

IMHO, I don't believe that Jesus had any part in the planning of his own death, but maybe Judas thought that he desired death. Who knows? The problem with all religions is that the Truth has to be represented as myth, in part, and then the Truth becomes the 'truth' as represented by symbols and myth. The vast majority of mankind believes these myths and symbols as truth, with their more educated portion seeing the fallacies of the myth, with the resultant denial of the existence of God. The enlightened ones throughout history are those who know both myth and Truth, and if they so choose, they start new religions, not by intent, but because the only manner in which they can express the inexpressible is by language, which merely points to, and is a shadow of, the Truth. For this reason, I have studied the 'mystics' and 'enlightened' philosophers of all religions, because they are the only ones who speak the same language at the core, in spite of the myths.

Many wars have been fought in the name of religion, because people have so strongly believed in myth as 'truth.' If they could just get back to their own definitions of God, they would see that an Infinite, Eternal Being is the same for Everyone, Everywhere, and in all time periods, because that which is Eternal has always been. I think that the vast majority of teachers of religion (ministers, pastors, priests, and even popes) are ignorant with respect to the Truth, so the myths are just perpetuated and not corrected. I think it is in the Gospel of Thomas where reincarnation is alluded to. This is a feature of all major religions except Christianity and Judaism, and I am very curious as to why this was frowned upon and rejected in the early days of Christianity. Look at the hubbub over the fictional book The Da Vinci Code recently! People are so afraid that if one iota of their 'truth', myth is questioned, their entire deck of cards come tumbling down, and their tapestries completely unwoven!

[leftyladyfrommo]

3. I try to keep "belief" or "non-belief" out of my studies

for obvious reasons. Not that it bothers me one whit if you have your own belief system. I just try to read the stuff that is out there and get an impression of what really might have happened in those first two centuries.

There were many interpretations of Christ in those years. Obviously people were very puzzled by the whole thing. Some thought Christ was the illigitimate sone of a Roman soldier - they even knew his name. Some thought he was the son of Joseph. Some thought he was God come to earth in human form. Some thought he was born human and then God enetered his body and stayed there until right before he died on the cross. So it is not a surprise that there were people who believed that Judas was a willing partner in Christ's death. There were others who don't believe that Christ died at all.

I did start on St. Thomas Aquinas' Confessions yesterday. (3rd to 4th Century) He makes it pretty obvious that he believed that "man" was only a mere partical of God's creation. That the creation itself was unknowingly vast and that we cannot know much about it from our viewpoint.

I have always kind of sided with that theory. I guess that is the reason I tend to hold back on "beliefs." There is absolutely no way for us to "know" much of anything with any certainty. We simply are too small.

All we have of what happened 2,000 years ago are the written documents. And we can know quite a lot from them. I do think it is clear that Christ existed and that he taught. There is just too much documentation out there that supports his existence. Was he God? I have no earthly idea? How can one possible know?

So now I guess I will try and continue on with St. Aquinas. I kind of skipped over his Confessions as an infant and as a 15 year-old. I simply cannot belive that an infant is capable of "sin." But then he did say something interesting about that - kind of gave me the feeling that perhaps he felt that infants had a prior existence. That certainly screams of Gnostic influence - Come from the Light and Go Back to the Light. And that is about the same time the Gnostics were going strong.

I have to say that I am a "believer." But I am a mystic and our interpretation of "faith" is probably a little different. Like the Gospel of Thomas says - you have to look inside to find God. That is what mystics do. So it is probably not very easy for us to be threatened by any new ideas that come floating to the surface.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. Carl Jung was once asked during an interview, "Do you believe in God?"

And Jung paused, and said "No Ma'am, I don't believe in the existence of God. I knowthat God exists." Gnosticism comes from the greek word gnosis, which means to know, and Jung bemoaned the way history treated the gnostics, and he felt that civilization as we know it, would be vastly different, had the gnostics been given more credence.

I agree that you have to look inside to 'find' God, and this is also stated in the New Testament, but it's not often addressed in the church sermons I've attended, anyway! "Seek ye first (to know) the Kingdom of God" ((Matt. 6: 43) "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21) There's another verse I'm looking for and can't find currently, that refers to "Look under a stone, and you will find me there?" Maybe you know the verse?

I think the following verses allude to reincarnation.

"The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death. Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into (B)eing." (The Gospel of Thomas verse 18)

And then of course, the well known New Testament verses referring to beginnings: "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end" and "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

And the verse about children being 'closer to the fount of God' and, "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God" (Hebrews 7: 3)reminds me of the Zen kaon, "Show me the face you had before you saw your parents' faces."

How do you define a mystic?

[leftyladyfrommo]

10. I mispoke - was thinking right but wrote it wrong.

Am reading Augustine - not Aquinas. So sorry.

[WiseButAngrySara]

14. I knew what you meant when you said you were reading the

Confessions. Some say that Augustine was more closely a Platonist in his outlook, and Aquinas was more an Aristotelian. In our present day culture, Aristotle clearly won out! It is interesting to consider how the world view might have been changed if Aristotle hadn't gained such an influence.

[leftyladyfrommo]

12. That may be Gnostic influence.

I am just starting to read the Gnostic stuff. I didn't have enough background to make much sense out of it before. But they believed that souls exist in the Light before they are born. Then they are born into this world (not a very good place to be) and then die and go back to the Light.

You are right - that idea seems to crop up a lot, doesn't it.

I don't know what the definition of "mystic" really is. I'm the kind where we just sit and pray - or meditate a lot. I have always used the Prayer of St. Francis and the Lord's Prayer. It is very much an internal thing. But what I believe is definitely colored by what I study. I guess that's the reason I want to find out what was really there - not just what made it into the orthodox canon.

I'm sure that is why I have been so drawn to the Gospel of Thomas as it is the mystical stuff. So is John. But according to Elaine Pagels the followers of John were kind of in competition with the followers of Thomas and finally the followers of John won out - in the battle for Orthodoxy. She says that if the Gospel of Thomas had been in the canon instead of John the Christian Religion would have developed in a much different way.

Have you read the Didache? It is very early and very interesting, too.

[WiseButAngrySara]

20. Hey leftylady! (I've been caught up in the NSA scandal and Rove

indictment each time I've logged onto DU, and that is why it took me so long to respond.)

My impression of the gnostics (but I think that it's because of a misinterpretation on the part of 'orthodox' thinkers) is that they are too dualistic; they believe that there is no good in the world, and that matter is inherently evil, and that God is responsible for human suffering. Their creation stories are so much more interesting than Adam and Eve, IMO.

I've not read the Didache, but perhaps I should. Interesting comments about John and Thomas...John was so important, as he introduced the concept of God as Love. I can't imagine what the effect of John's absence from the Bible would be, as it is difficult enough to understand so-called 'Christians' who believe that it is morally responsible to wage war on innocents and that the death penalty is good and just for those who commit crime!

What did Pagels think would change, were Thomas to be substituted for John? There is also an Apocryphon of John, which I have read. Is this the same John as in the New Testament, or do you know?

[leftyladyfrommo]

21. The real difference between Thomas and John, I think

is that Thomas believed in looking inward to find God. Pagels has a really interesting book just on the Gospel of Thomas and the questions you asked.

She is so fascinating.

I am still trying to wade thru some of the Gnostic stuff from the Nag Hammadi Library. It is so difficult to understand. Partly because so many words or phrases have been lost. And partly because it is just hard to understand - I think it's one of those things where you would have had to have been there. But I do like the concept of coming from the Light and returning to the Light. And I kind of get the same take on life here on planet earth. It just seems to be pretty awful and the idea is just to get thru it.

I have been watching the News, too. It's so bad I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I just want Bush and his band of not very funny jokers out of the White House and out of our lives.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. Oh, you're here! Hello, and I've read your other post on the question

of evil, but it will take a while to address that very important issue, and will probably post it later, after collecting my thoughts and using quotes from some contemporary authors whom i've so benefitted from. (I know I mentioned Dr. Hora to you; how about Eckhart Tolle? Have you read him?) Back to your post on evil: I read about your friend's illnesses, and want you to know that if you have ANY questions about their diagnosis and treatment, PM me; I'm trained as a Pathologist for whatever that's worth! I hope your trip with your mother will be pleasant...nope. It WILL be!

Now, for the current post. I think Pagels is fascinating also. Have you visited gnostics.org? You can listen to lectures on Gnosticism, and I think that Pagels has a few. I haven't been there in probably about a year, but these discussions on Gnosticism have perked my interest again. The only book that I have by Pagels is titled: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent and I've read bits and pieces of it. It is very good.

Why don't we study online The Gospel of Thomas? We can offer our interpretations and perhaps others will join in. I have absolute faith in the concept that we come from and return to The Light. It is repeated throughout history, and that evidence alone is extremely compelling. This is also why I'm reasonably convinced in reincarnation.

Hope you're still here! If not, take care and be safe on your trip.

Sara.

[leftyladyfrommo]

23. Thank you so much.

Our one friend who is dying from lung cancer is in Bartlesville, OK. I don't know much except that this whole thing has been a total surprise to everyone. She thought she had hurt her back and I guess when they started doing tests (X-rays?) they found this lung cancer and throat cancer. And I guess it has spread everywhere. I just feel terrible about it.

I would be fine with studying Thomas if you can figure out a good way to do it on line. It doesn't take long to read that Gospel but it is pretty hard to understand in some places. You just can't make sense of some of the stuff if you don't have background from other religious thought going on at the time. That is what Pagels does in her book. She says that the Gospel of Thomas was pretty popular and the followers were called, I think, The Thomasisians. And that group was in conflict with the followers to John whatever they were called - Jonathanites? I don't know.

Thomas, you probably already know, is Judas Thomas - better known as St. Jude, brother of Christ, or brother of James and cousin to Christ, depending on your interpretation. Of course, we don't know that he is the one who actually wrote it but I like to think that those are St. Jude's thoughts. And there are some other books in the Nag Hammadi Library that are Thomas but I haven't managed to wade through those yet. And then there is the Gospel of the Infant Thomas (is that right, it sounds wierd to me) but that Thomas is a different Thomas and not to be confused with our Thomas) Seems like Thomas was a pretty popular name at the time.

[WiseButAngrySara]

25. I started a thread on Thomas with text copy and links there! I'll post my

interpretations later. I had forgotten how neat the Gnosis site is. Steven Hoeller (sp?) is an excellent speaker, and he has a 39 minute free lecture on Judas! There is so much on that site. I hope you enjoy it, if you haven't already visited it.

http://www.gnosis.org/
Link for The Gnosis Archive (Main Page)

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
Link for the Nag Hammadi Libray

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
Link for the Gospel of Thomas

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend. If she doesn't have a history of smoking, I'm very surprised to hear about the involvement of both lung and throat, which is exceedingly rare in the absence of cigarette use. It could be a salivary gland tumor which has spread to the lungs; they can be very aggressive; it could be a cartilage or bone cancer that has spread to the lungs. Does she have any history of any cancer or growth removed before? (Melanoma, mis-diagnosed by pathologists as benign, can later show up everywhere as metastatic disease.)

I hope that her back pain wasn't due to metastatic disease, but that would be my guess based on such limited clinical information. If she really hasn't smoked, it is important that the correct diagnosis be made, as treatment is different. I hope she has no objections to pain medications...getting 'hooked' on morphine is the least of her problems right now, and she should have some quality time that is relatively pain-free to say goodbye to her loved ones. Death is such a lonely process; but the Wise Ones of the past and present, have said to "Die before you die!" (Still working on it, and I don't know if it will ever be possible for me! Stubborn ego)

Later...

[leftyladyfrommo]

26. This kind of illness is kind of staggering, isn't it.

So unexpected and so devastating. And they found it so late. It had already spread everywhere.

What is even more devastating is that she has been taking care of her sick husband for several years. He had Parkinsons with some mental confusion so it was a very difficult situation. Now they are in the same nursing home - just rooms apart.

Life is just so unfair sometimes.

And on top of that my best friend has to have her shoulder replaced on Tuesday. I have no idea what all that entails. But she is going to need help for a while. Fortunately, I am not working right now so I can help her.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Hi, leftyladyfrommo!

There was a lot of different sects of Christianity during those first centuries after the death of Jesus. Some didn't believe in the Trinity; some, like Muslims, didn't even believe Jesus died on the cross (a substitute was put in His place by God). If you look at the Coptic Church and the Armenian Orthodox Church (I believe it is this one that claims to have been founded by James, brother of Jesus), you find not only different rites than in the Paulist church that came to be dominant, but also different languages, which literally change the meaning of the words of the gospels. My friend, Neil Douglas-Klotz, says that a word Jesus uses in the Aramaic texts when talking of Mary Magdaline was one used by a husband addressing his wife. So the idea that Jesus was married isn't something new to all Christians. And during those first years, the early followers of Jesus weren't sure whether or not they were a new faith or another branch of Judaism. There's a lot about this time in history that hasn't been thoroughly explored.

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. Hey, girlfriend.

Yea, I don't know why everyone got so up-in-arms about the idea of Christ having a relationship. I wouldn't jump to saying he was married. I don't think there is one thing in any of the Gospels that we have that states he was married. Doesn't mean he wasn't. But there does seem to be pretty strong evidence that he loved Mary M above all other women and even above his disciples. And he talked to her about stuff, too. He seems to have given her information that he gave no one else. And his disciples didn't much care for that.

I'm still trying to get my mind around the two early branches of the early church - the one of Peter and the one of Paul. Peter seems to have believed that you really needed to be Jewish and keep all of the Laws in order to be Christian. Paul believed that gentiles could be included which was a pretty shrewed move because he could pull in a lot of pagans that way.

I am going to read Paul's Letters first as those are the very earliest thing we have - about 50 year's after the death of Christ. I have never really cared for Paul so I haven't really tried to figure all of that stuff out. But it is evident that all of the early groups were arguing with each other over all sorts of dogma and I want to get into that. Try to get a feel for what was going on there.

Such interesting stuff to study. Sara and I wanted a place to discuss all of this far far away from the madding crowd and nothing was going on over here so we decided to use this place. Please jump right in. It is so good to hear from you.

Later

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I can't stress enough

how much Neil Douglas-Klotz's books have influenced my thinking on Christianity. Neil is a Murshid (senior teacher) in the Sufi Ruhaniat Society, and known by his Sufi name Saadi. He looks at ancient texts and then translates them directly to English. The thing that strikes me is that in Aramaic and Hebrew, there is not the dicotomy one finds in Greek and other European languages. In Aramaic and Hebrew, something can be both-like light, which is both particle and a wave. When the teachings of Jesus were written in Greek, that concept was lost-because in Greek, things can be one thing or the other, but not both. Saadi's commentaries about the writings are fascinating. I'm at work, and don't have them here to quote from. But when I get home I'll find a couple of his books and quote directly from them.

[leftyladyfrommo]

6. Plese do.

I think all of the translations I have seen are Greek or Coptic to English.

Some of those original documents may have been written in Aramic so that would be most interesting to read.

Have a good day at work.

Mary

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. And it's not just the language used, but the one who writes the

translations; the translator's understanding of the meaning of the original text can completely alter the text. I first discovered this years ago, when I read Thucydide's History of the Peloponnesian War, and the speeches were so moving and powerful in the one particular translation. When I read another translator, I was astonished to find that it left me completely cold! Until that time, I had thought that translation was simply a one-to-one correspondence of word for word. Because of this, I studied Greek (while doing a Master's degree in Biochemistry! to the consternation of my professors) and then got way too busy to finish my studies in Greek, but it's always been something that I've wanted to do.

Another example is by the use of capital letters, as strange as that may sound. John Locke, the political philosopher responsible for much of our constitution, wrote The Second Treatise Concerning Government and during his lifetime he had complained that the press releases of his text kept making errors, that he finally gave up on correcting. An 'original' copy was found in the Cambridge Library several decades ago, and the use of capital letters becomes all important in understanding John Locke's state of nature, and state of war. His State of Nature is always a State of Peace and his state of Nature is always a State of War! But if you weren't looking for that level of significance, you would take out the capital letters, thinking that Locke had made a mistake!

:hi: ayeshahaqqiqa! I've read many of your posts. I PM'd leftyladyfrommo recently to find out why she had stopped posting here, because we seemed to share many interests, judging by the content of her posts. Have you read anything by H.I. Kahn? I bumped into his works by 'accident' on the internet about 2 years ago, and his writings are wonderful! I'll look up the link. He is/was a Sufi, not sure what sect.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Prayers of the Cosmos

was Saadi's first book. I also have Desert Wisdom, which goes into greater depths about the Aramaic and Hebrew languages (that book includes sacred texts not only from the Abrahamic traditions but also from ancient Egypt and some of the Goddess writings that are still extent). Unfortunately, I can't get my hands on that book right now, so you'll have to get an idea where Saadi is coming from from this introduction by Matthew Fox.

How disturbing and refreshing, therefore, is this effort by Neil Douglas-Klotz to recover the orignal language, the native Middle Eastern languae, the Aramaic that Jesus spoke! How much expanded heart consciousness and prophetic juice might result from hearing, for example, that what have have translated as "be you perfect" really means "be you all-embracing", or that "to be satisfied" means "to be surrounded by fruit"; that "blessed are the meek, for they shall inhert the earth" also means "soften what's rigid inside and you shal receive physical vigor and strength from the univers:; that:blaessed are the pur in heart: means blessed are those "whose passion is electrified by deep, abiding purpose; that "heaven" in Aramaic means, in fact, "the universe"; and that the overly familiar words "lead us not into temptation" can be translated this way: "Don't let surface things delude us, but free us from what holds us back." Can we get any more cosmologic al than that? Do the words of Jesus not take on new life and vigor in this version of his saying?

Douglas-Klotz's translations also reveal how feminist Jesus was. Consider that the word Jesus uses, which we have traditionally translated as "kingdom" is realted to the word for the "Great Mother" in the Middle East; the word we translate as "daily bread" means nourishment of all kinds and derives from roots for the divine feminine and for Holy Wisdom, or Sophia.

In each line of the Lord's Prayer, Saadi explains what the words, and even syllables within words, mean-and they have a range of meaning that has been lost in translation. I have had the honor of not only talking with Saadi but dancing with him; he has put the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes into sacred Dance. It is truly an experience, because you find yourself withinthe words, acting out their meaning.

If you'd like to know more about Saadi's work, I'll dig out Desert Wisdom and post more.

[leftyladyfrommo]

11. I would love to see his translation of the Lord's Prayer and

the Sermon on the Mount. We know those were in Aramaic.

My mind is slush this morning. Weather is changing really fast here and I never think too well until the air pressure changes.

I am still reading Augustine. It is getting more and more interesting. I have been looking at his footnotes and he seems to really rely on John and Matthew and the works of Paul. So far he has just been kind of skipping over Mark and Luke. That is kind of interesting.

I know that John had a lot of followers. That is pretty understanable just because his writting is so powerful.

[leftyladyfrommo]

13. If you can put your translation out I can put the one's I have.

I have a great book on the 5 Gospels (they include Thomas) and a whole bunch of theologians got together and translated the Gospels to try and get the very most accurate translation they could. Let's see how they stack up.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. I posted the Lord's Prayer

in Religion/Theology. Here are the Beatitudes:

Tuned to the Source are those who live by breathing Unity; their "I can!" is included in God's.
(Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven)

Blessed are those in emotional turmoil;they shall be united inside by love.
(Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.)

Healthy are those who have softened what is rigid within; they shall receive physical vigor and strength from the universe.
(Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.)

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for physical justice; they shall be surrounded by what is needed to sustain their bodies.
(Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.)

Blessed are those who, fromtheir inner wombs, birth merch; they shall feel its warm arms embrace them.
(Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.)

Aligned with the One are those whose lives radiate from a core of love; they shall see God everywhere.
(Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.)

Blessed are those who plant peace each season; they shall be named the children of God.
(Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.)

Blessings to those who are dislocated for the cause of justice; their new home is the province of the universe.
(Bleassed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.)

Renewal when you are reproached and driven away by the clamor of evil on all sides, for my sake...
(Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.)

Then, do everything extreme, including letting your ego disappear, for this is the secret of claiming your expanded home in the universe.
(Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.)

Matthew 5:3-12 (King James Version in parenthesis)

[leftyladyfrommo]

16. Thank you.

I'm still reading up on these. Very interesting.

[leftyladyfrommo]

17. I'm missing it. Where did you post the Lord's Prayer.

Am I just looking right over the top of it?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Check in my journal

I cross posted it there, since things tend to drop like a stone in Religion/Theology. I think you can get to my journal by clicking on the button in the top right hand corner of this post.

[leftyladyfrommo]

19. Got it - thanks so much. Very interesting.

I didn't know we had journals. But I don't know much when it comes to computers. But your journal is really, really nice.

I need to see if I can find those books. I would be very interested in reading them. Probably will make it up to the bookstore tomorrow. I am planning on working on my latest art today. I'm not very good at art but I find it to be very fulfilling. Not relaxing because I get obsessed with it. But it makes me feel like I accomplished something worthwhile.

[leftyladyfrommo]

24. I will go home and try to find my translations. Will be interesting.