In 15 minutes even. Well done, James. Snapp makes a compelling case to refute the idea of a floating PA (w/ regard to 5 alternative locations). His case is largely circumstantial, but that is to be expected. The idea that copyists were trying to retro fit PA into a variety of places w/i the four gospels to ‘legitimize’ it seems effectively dead based on the work of Keith, Robinson, and Snapp. Or, have I missed something? This, of course, doesn’t tell us anything about the originality of PA w/i John or whether the initial variation in the tradition regarding PA was an interpolation or a removal/loss. That’s a separate question.
God bless you brother, i just heard about you from brother Sam Shamoun. I subscribed to your channel and i strongly believe that many other Brothers and Sisters will come to your channel and subscribe from now on. I will promote your channel also brother, great work. I also bought immediately your books and will promote them too. Our true Christian community needs to know this material and we need to increase. May the Triune God bless you mightily brother!
You should look into the 2 main codexes used for the Alexandrian texts containing false and heretical books and compare that to the false books contained in manuscripts for the TR which I believe could be far less
So, while Prof. Bart D. Ehrman has this CV (see below), and you have no credentials, why do you think you can say this scholar is wrong or not (august 26, 2013)? Bart D. Ehrman, CURRICULUM VITAE (just a peek) DEGREES AND HONORS Ph.D. - Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985 M.Div. - Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981 B.A. - Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978 TEACHING EXPERIENCE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Religious Studies. James A. Gray Distinguished Professor, 2003 - Department Chair, 2000 - 2006 Professor, 1999 - 2003 Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor, 1998-2001 Director of Graduate Studies, 1996-99 Associate Professor, 1994-99 Assistant Professor, 1988-94 Rutgers University, Department of Religion Lecturer at the Rank of Assistant Professor, 1985-88 Lecturer at the Rank of Instructor, 1984-85 Princeton Theological Seminary Instructor in New Testament Greek and Exegesis, 1985 For a detailed CV (Is very extensive) see his website: bartdehrman, curriculum-vitae
Pablo Rupa, Because none of that turns false statements into true ones. Dr. Ehrman once claimed that the pericope adulterae originated in the Middle Ages, which is incorrect, and when I mentioned this to Dr. Ehrman, he admitted that he had made a mistake. (He didn't then proceed to take steps to stop the mistake from circulating, as far as I know, but at least that's something.) If you were to ask Dr. Ehrman how much training he has had specifically in New Testament textual criticism, I think he would tell you that it amounted to one course at the M.A. level. He is perhaps best-known for the book "Misquoting Jesus" which addresses text-critical questions, but every textual variant he brings up in that book was well-known 100 years earlier; it is just the sensationalism of the marketing of the book (such as the provocative title, and the ridiculous claims in its blurb) that gave it traction. People with long, impressive C.V.'s disagree with each other all the time. It's no guarantee of the correctness of accuracy of a particular claim, and to think otherwise would be to invite groupthink and a fallacious appeal to authority rather than to evidence.
Pablo Rupa, I'm not sure the point is registering: a long CV does not guarantee that a researcher is competent; nor that his conclusions are correct. But if you need someone with credentials to show you that what I am saying is true, just read Chris Keith's research on this subject; I believe you can find it at Academia. Keith doesn't think that the PA is original, but he has confirmed that it should be proclaimed and preached in the churches. And his work shows (as far as the Greek evidence is concerned; he doesn't explore the versional evidence much) that John 7:53-8:11 followed 7:52 in the text long before it is seen at any other location.
THE detailed ANSWER. The text below are excerpts from the very detailed PA ‘Pericope de Adultera’ by Wieland Willker 2015 (The Adulteress) which includes text of all the writings referenced below and PA style problems. 'Overall conclusion: There is absolutely no convincing evidence that the PA was originally part of the Gospel of John. It took a long time until its universal acceptance. The story is very old. It has been transmitted probably both through oral tradition and in apocryphal Gospels. 5th century Codex Bezae {Latin-Greek} is the earliest Bible manuscript witness to the Pericope Adulterae. Silent Fathers: Cyprian. Origen and Chrysostom wrote commentaries about the Gospel of John, but did not discuss the PA. Tertullian (ca. 200-220 CE): Tertullian is an important witness against the PA. In "De Pudicitia" (On Modesty) Tertullian has become disgusted with the complacent willingness to forgive almost anything, evinced especially by an edict of a bishop, allowing adultery and fornication. In the 2nd century, Papias knows about this story. There is a 3rd century story in the Didascalia Apostolorum that mentions a woman accused of adultery who the elders had not condemned and Jesus said go your way. Didascalia is notoriously inexact in his quotations. [Catholic Encyclopedia "Didascalia"] {ed. - The 4th century is the FIRST occurrence that included ‘cast a stone’} - in Didymus' Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus. 5th century Codex Bezae {Latin-Greek} is the earliest Bible manuscript witness to the Pericope Adulterae. It is possible that the first manuscripts that had the PA in John were Latin ones. {Roman Catholic} There are a few other traces of apocryphal material in the Latin codices. In the early 6th century manuscripts are known to contain the PA in Alexandria, probably even already in the 5th century. Around the 8th century the final lectionary system has been set up in the East from an NT text probably without the PA. "Although the oldest Syriac versions of John omit the PA, some later Syriac manuscripts include it either after John 7:52, in the margin, or as an appendix to the entire Gospel. In several of these manuscripts, ranging from the 9th to the 15th century, the passage is accompanied by a note claiming that it derived from a certain 'Abbot Paul', who found it in Alexandria. ' {It is reported regarding the Latin-Greek Codex Bezae, that in general the Greek text is treated as an unreliable witness.}
ChristFirstChurch, If you take in hand my e-book, "A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11," you can see my interaction with the same data that Willker cites. Most of his data is valid but I don't think the solution of an early lection-cycle-related omission ever crossed his mind. Also, it should be noted (as I do in my book) that Willker has misconstrued the annotation in family-1 that relates to the PA; the reference is to the 86th Eusebian Section of John, not to what Willker misinterpreted as an abbreviation for "fathers." You are welcome to contact me via FB to request a free copy of my e-book, which I hope that you may compare in force and thoroughness to Willker's assessment.
TCC, Wieland and I had many text-critical discussions. I do not think that he gave adequate attention to the lection-cycle-related solution. Also, the use of a Latinized term, based on Greek, in the Latin breves, indicates that a Greek source preceded the Latin.
Today I'll explain what an ad is. THIS is not an ad. An ad is for selling something. THIS is here because it can not make it on UA-cam in its own merits. It has been down voted and reported as a fake ad
"Dr" James white utterly Despiseth the King James Bible. He is a perfect example of being puffed up in knowledge, but he's ever learning, but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth. Proffessing himself to be wise, he became a fool. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not GOD made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Corinthians 1:20 KJB 📃 GOD bless you brother.
“Throw the first stone” story is the only story in the Bible that manuscript experts agree is not part of the original text, even though scribes counted words in manuscripts. The 5th century Codex Bezae {Latin-Greek} is the earliest Bible manuscript evidence of the Adulteress Woman story. This story is communicated by Catholic fathers like Jerome in the 5th century, but not by Greek fathers until the 12th century. Did Catholic writers ADD this adulteress story to the Bible? in order to tolerate adultery. NIV footnote John 7.53: [The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7.53-8.11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7.36, John 21.25, Luke 21.38 or Luke 24.53.] NASB footnote John 7.53 Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7.53-8.11 For centuries, especially today, people and false teachers in the church and Bible translators have tried to minimize the commands of the LORD which prohibit divorce and adultery. Throw the first stone is the favorite story quoted by unbelievers/feminists, and it appears in many of the movies about the life of Jesus. "This story is not included in the best and earliest manuscripts [of John]. In fact, it is absent from all witnesses earlier than the 9th century, with the exception of a fifth century Greek-Latin manuscript. No Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the 12th century." - Jamieson et al, "The New Commentary on the Whole Bible", Tyndale, Wheaton IL (1990), P. 247-248 "The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. Scholars generally agree that this story was not originally part of the Gospel of John." - p 1830 Harper Collins Study Bible Around the year 220, Catholic writer Tertullian wrote in "De Pudicitia" about the complacent willingness to forgive almost anything, evinced especially by an edict of a bishop, allowing adultery and fornication. Did the CATHOLIC writers ADD this adulteress story to the Bible? in 5th century Latin - in order to tolerate adultery. "JEROME’S VULGATE AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD” - christianhospitality org
That all seems reasonable, doesn't it. However, there is a simple mechanism that accounts for the early loss of the passage. There is also early evidence for the passage which none of the resources you have cited mention. Please read my book, "A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11" for details. It is available as a Kindle book, cheap, or contact me for a free digital copy.
TruthChristianChurch, Your statement, "This story is communicated by Catholic fathers like Jerome in the 5th century, but not by Greek fathers until the 12th century" is not accurate. It appears that you are laboring under the burden of the assumption that Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary gives an accurate picture of the relevant evidence on this subject. It does not. Jerome affirmed that he had seen the account of the adulteress in many copies, **both Greek and Latin.** It is in about 1500 Greek manuscripts. Please read the materials which are readily available to you (in my research-book, and at my blog) to become better acquainted with the relevant materials.
We Christian must honest to our text and must accept the fact even if displeases, research does proved that the passages were floating around.. Later taken his abode in John...
Raja Das, It ought to be super-obvious that it would be folly to expect a book that was written c. A.D. 90 to be quoted in the first century, inasmuch as 9/10ths of the first century had already gone when the Gospel of John was written. For the evidence from the Didascalia, and from the Old Latin capitula, see the details in my e-book and at my blog, www.thetextofthegospels.com .
Are the gospels legends? Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
You strenghtened my confidence in the Bible.
Thank you so much this makes the teaching coming up that much easier.
Thank you for your presentation now it becomes my task to investigate the lectionaries.
Thank you, James, for your dedicated work that seeks God’s confirmation, not Man’s.
James Snapp is brilliant as always.
Thank you James
thanks for all you work... ptl....
White will do or say anything to get rid of The KJV, it is his life's goal, everything he does is to accomplish that end.
A bit hyperbolic don’t you think?
In 15 minutes even. Well done, James.
Snapp makes a compelling case to refute the idea of a floating PA (w/ regard to 5 alternative locations). His case is largely circumstantial, but that is to be expected. The idea that copyists were trying to retro fit PA into a variety of places w/i the four gospels to ‘legitimize’ it seems effectively dead based on the work of Keith, Robinson, and Snapp. Or, have I missed something?
This, of course, doesn’t tell us anything about the originality of PA w/i John or whether the initial variation in the tradition regarding PA was an interpolation or a removal/loss. That’s a separate question.
God bless you brother, i just heard about you from brother Sam Shamoun. I subscribed to your channel and i strongly believe that many other Brothers and Sisters will come to your channel and subscribe from now on. I will promote your channel also brother, great work. I also bought immediately your books and will promote them too. Our true Christian community needs to know this material and we need to increase. May the Triune God bless you mightily brother!
God bless you, too.
One free coupon
James how are you able to Research full time?
Kim Glenn,
I don't. It's more like a job-related hobby.
I wondered if its from Luke was the gospel it was in, and then it ended up in John.
Now I will get better info I see.
Thank you so much for this Study ..,!
perfect!.... telling... revealing... thanks...
Thank you good sir!
can you do a video about the end or the Gospel of Mark? Thanks!
ua-cam.com/video/dsVJVD4FAXQ/v-deo.html
You should look into the 2 main codexes used for the Alexandrian texts containing false and heretical books and compare that to the false books contained in manuscripts for the TR which I believe could be far less
What is your CV, James?
As far as New Testament textual criticism goes, I'm pretty much self-taught, from books.
So, while Prof. Bart D. Ehrman has this CV (see below), and you have no credentials, why do you think you can say this scholar is wrong or not (august 26, 2013)?
Bart D. Ehrman, CURRICULUM VITAE (just a peek)
DEGREES AND HONORS
Ph.D. - Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
M.Div. - Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
B.A. - Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Department of Religious Studies.
James A. Gray Distinguished Professor, 2003 -
Department Chair, 2000 - 2006
Professor, 1999 - 2003
Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor, 1998-2001
Director of Graduate Studies, 1996-99
Associate Professor, 1994-99
Assistant Professor, 1988-94
Rutgers University, Department of Religion
Lecturer at the Rank of Assistant Professor, 1985-88
Lecturer at the Rank of Instructor, 1984-85
Princeton Theological Seminary
Instructor in New Testament Greek and Exegesis, 1985
For a detailed CV (Is very extensive) see his website: bartdehrman, curriculum-vitae
Pablo Rupa,
Because none of that turns false statements into true ones. Dr. Ehrman once claimed that the pericope adulterae originated in the Middle Ages, which is incorrect, and when I mentioned this to Dr. Ehrman, he admitted that he had made a mistake. (He didn't then proceed to take steps to stop the mistake from circulating, as far as I know, but at least that's something.)
If you were to ask Dr. Ehrman how much training he has had specifically in New Testament textual criticism, I think he would tell you that it amounted to one course at the M.A. level. He is perhaps best-known for the book "Misquoting Jesus" which addresses text-critical questions, but every textual variant he brings up in that book was well-known 100 years earlier; it is just the sensationalism of the marketing of the book (such as the provocative title, and the ridiculous claims in its blurb) that gave it traction.
People with long, impressive C.V.'s disagree with each other all the time. It's no guarantee of the correctness of accuracy of a particular claim, and to think otherwise would be to invite groupthink and a fallacious appeal to authority rather than to evidence.
You said it very clearly, people with long CV's disagree all the time, "with long CV's". At least try to get some credentials.
Pablo Rupa,
I'm not sure the point is registering: a long CV does not guarantee that a researcher is competent; nor that his conclusions are correct.
But if you need someone with credentials to show you that what I am saying is true, just read Chris Keith's research on this subject; I believe you can find it at Academia. Keith doesn't think that the PA is original, but he has confirmed that it should be proclaimed and preached in the churches. And his work shows (as far as the Greek evidence is concerned; he doesn't explore the versional evidence much) that John 7:53-8:11 followed 7:52 in the text long before it is seen at any other location.
THE detailed ANSWER. The text below are excerpts from the very detailed PA ‘Pericope de Adultera’ by Wieland Willker 2015 (The Adulteress) which includes text of all the writings referenced below and PA style problems.
'Overall conclusion: There is absolutely no convincing evidence that the PA was originally part of the Gospel of John. It took a long time until its universal acceptance. The story is very old. It has been transmitted probably both through oral tradition and in apocryphal Gospels. 5th century Codex Bezae {Latin-Greek} is the earliest Bible manuscript witness to the Pericope Adulterae.
Silent Fathers: Cyprian. Origen and Chrysostom wrote commentaries about the Gospel of John, but did not discuss the PA. Tertullian (ca. 200-220 CE): Tertullian is an important witness against the PA. In "De Pudicitia" (On Modesty) Tertullian has become disgusted with the complacent willingness to forgive almost anything, evinced especially by an edict of a bishop, allowing adultery and fornication. In the 2nd century, Papias knows about this story. There is a 3rd century story in the Didascalia Apostolorum that mentions a woman accused of adultery who the elders had not condemned and Jesus said go your way. Didascalia is notoriously inexact in his quotations. [Catholic Encyclopedia "Didascalia"] {ed. - The 4th century is the FIRST occurrence that included ‘cast a stone’} - in Didymus' Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus. 5th century Codex Bezae {Latin-Greek} is the earliest Bible manuscript witness to the Pericope Adulterae. It is possible that the first manuscripts that had the PA in John were Latin ones. {Roman Catholic} There are a few other traces of apocryphal material in the Latin codices. In the early 6th century manuscripts are known to contain the PA in Alexandria, probably even already in the 5th century. Around the 8th century the final lectionary system has been set up in the East from an NT text probably without the PA. "Although the oldest Syriac versions of John omit the PA, some later Syriac manuscripts include it either after John 7:52, in the margin, or as an appendix to the entire Gospel. In several of these manuscripts, ranging from the 9th to the 15th century, the passage is accompanied by a note claiming that it derived from a certain 'Abbot Paul', who found it in Alexandria. ' {It is reported regarding the Latin-Greek Codex Bezae, that in general the Greek text is treated as an unreliable witness.}
ChristFirstChurch,
If you take in hand my e-book, "A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11," you can see my interaction with the same data that Willker cites. Most of his data is valid but I don't think the solution of an early lection-cycle-related omission ever crossed his mind. Also, it should be noted (as I do in my book) that Willker has misconstrued the annotation in family-1 that relates to the PA; the reference is to the 86th Eusebian Section of John, not to what Willker misinterpreted as an abbreviation for "fathers."
You are welcome to contact me via FB to request a free copy of my e-book, which I hope that you may compare in force and thoroughness to Willker's assessment.
TCC,
Wieland and I had many text-critical discussions.
I do not think that he gave adequate attention to the lection-cycle-related solution.
Also, the use of a Latinized term, based on Greek, in the Latin breves, indicates that a Greek source preceded the Latin.
@@JamesSnappJr where to find your e-book?
@@reguser146 Reguser146,
at smile.amazon.com/Fresh-Analysis-John-External-Evidence-ebook/dp/B01HBC8EGQ
Today I'll explain what an ad is. THIS is not an ad. An ad is for selling something. THIS is here because it can not make it on UA-cam in its own merits. It has been down voted and reported as a fake ad
Kirk, I'm not sure why anyone would imagine that this is an ad. It has simply been advertised.
Go Jesus! (I found this ad on my recommended section, wtf is this)
"Dr" James white utterly Despiseth the King James Bible. He is a perfect example of being puffed up in knowledge, but he's ever learning, but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth. Proffessing himself to be wise, he became a fool. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not GOD made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Corinthians 1:20 KJB 📃 GOD bless you brother.
“Throw the first stone” story is the only story in the Bible that manuscript experts agree is not part of the original text, even though scribes counted words in manuscripts. The 5th century Codex Bezae {Latin-Greek} is the earliest Bible manuscript evidence of the Adulteress Woman story. This story is communicated by Catholic fathers like Jerome in the 5th century, but not by Greek fathers until the 12th century. Did Catholic writers ADD this adulteress story to the Bible? in order to tolerate adultery.
NIV footnote John 7.53: [The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7.53-8.11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7.36, John 21.25, Luke 21.38 or Luke 24.53.]
NASB footnote John 7.53 Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7.53-8.11
For centuries, especially today, people and false teachers in the church and Bible translators have tried to minimize the commands of the LORD which prohibit divorce and adultery. Throw the first stone is the favorite story quoted by unbelievers/feminists, and it appears in many of the movies about the life of Jesus.
"This story is not included in the best and earliest manuscripts [of John]. In fact, it is absent from all
witnesses earlier than the 9th century, with the exception of a fifth century Greek-Latin manuscript.
No Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the 12th century."
- Jamieson et al, "The New Commentary on the Whole Bible", Tyndale, Wheaton IL (1990), P. 247-248
"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25
or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. Scholars generally agree that this
story was not originally part of the Gospel of John." - p 1830 Harper Collins Study Bible
Around the year 220, Catholic writer Tertullian wrote in "De Pudicitia" about the complacent willingness to forgive almost anything, evinced especially by an edict of a bishop, allowing adultery and fornication.
Did the CATHOLIC writers ADD this adulteress story to the Bible? in 5th century Latin - in order to tolerate adultery. "JEROME’S VULGATE AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD” - christianhospitality org
That all seems reasonable, doesn't it. However, there is a simple mechanism that accounts for the early loss of the passage. There is also early evidence for the passage which none of the resources you have cited mention. Please read my book, "A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11" for details. It is available as a Kindle book, cheap, or contact me for a free digital copy.
TruthChristianChurch,
Your statement, "This story is communicated by Catholic fathers like Jerome in the 5th century, but not by Greek fathers until the 12th century" is not accurate. It appears that you are laboring under the burden of the assumption that Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary gives an accurate picture of the relevant evidence on this subject. It does not. Jerome affirmed that he had seen the account of the adulteress in many copies, **both Greek and Latin.** It is in about 1500 Greek manuscripts. Please read the materials which are readily available to you (in my research-book, and at my blog) to become better acquainted with the relevant materials.
@@JamesSnappJr Hello do you have a hard copy of the book?
@@SavedbyGrace1611 No; the Kindle edition is available - 99 cents.
"...and they're not particularly old." Tells you all you need to know about the authenticity of the passage.
We Christian must honest to our text and must accept the fact even if displeases, research does proved that the passages were floating around.. Later taken his abode in John...
Raja Das,
Did you *watch* and *listen* to the video at all???
Sir, can you quote me first or second century who had quoted this passage in the Epistle...
Raja Das,
It ought to be super-obvious that it would be folly to expect a book that was written c. A.D. 90 to be quoted in the first century, inasmuch as 9/10ths of the first century had already gone when the Gospel of John was written.
For the evidence from the Didascalia, and from the Old Latin capitula, see the details in my e-book and at my blog, www.thetextofthegospels.com .
Are u saying it's part of the original manuscript?
Are the gospels legends?
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
what the fuck