text:
Well, it's that time of year again to look at why Christian apologists spend so much of our time and energy meticulously arguing dozens and dozens (and hundreds of dozens!) of little points in favor of believing that something happened in history and what it means in principle for people.
That may not sound like evangelism, especially to professional and gifted evangelists, but sceptics sure realize (and sometimes suspiciously resent, perhaps reasonably so) the evangelical character of such activity -- because they're sensitive (for better or for worse) about where all those big and little pieces are ultimately pointing.
Where those pieces are pointing is an idea that, like any good idea, can still be abused in various ways to hurt people and to promote non-fair-togetherness (or "injustice" or "unrighteousness" as the term in Biblical Greek is usually translated) between people.
It might be abused so that people get the idea that mutual cooperation between persons doesn't matter, whether between creatures and creatures or between creatures and the source of our existence. Or it might be abused so that people get the idea that fair-togetherness between persons is something that shouldn't be or ultimately won't be fulfilled.
Either way, people are hurt, and so is society. And in my experience, the people who reject the idea, often primarily reject where they think the idea is going: one of those different (yet ultimately related) ideas.
So when someone (such as myself) comes along to talk about how the incarnation of God Most High, if it's true, and how the voluntary suffering of God Most High, if it's true (in one way or another), are testimony by God that He does willingly choose to value persons, giving value to persons by making us persons at all, and treasuring persons --
some people will turn around and see that as a license for us to do whatever we happen to feel like doing (because God values us and our feelings, right?) --
and some people will dig in their heels because Christians often turn around and deny that God surely or effectively values persons after all --
and I am sad to say that some people (Christian as well as non-Christian) will dig in our heels because we'd personally prefer not to value persons, maybe not even ourselves, for what we think or feel are various conveniences of our own. I am also sad to say that this is my own category!
But all of us, in fact, fall into one or even (at various times and ways) more of those categories. If you don't think you do, I confidently say you haven't been paying enough attention to what you think and do -- or perhaps you're paying the wrong kind of attention to your self.
Yet the cross says, if trinitarian Christianity is true, that not everything we happen to feel like doing is right -- and God Himself voluntarily pays for letting us act out badly on our feelings anyway, by being reckoned with the victims of injustice.
And the cross says, if trinitarian Christianity is true, that even the worst doers of injustice are still beloved of God -- and God Himself voluntarily suffers along with such people, by being reckoned with transgressors.
And what about the empty tomb, and the resurrected body?
They say, if they're true, that despite immediate tragedies of injustice, God will eventually put everything right, even better than before: because He loves even corrupted Nature (though not the corruptions), enough to suffer with us through corrupted Nature and then to triumph over the corruptions by bringing Nature through and out of the corruptions.
What's at stake for Christianity's truth -- even somewhat literally "at stake", for the cross is after all a stake -- is whether people matter and just how much people matter.
Do people matter at all?
Do people matter at all to fundamental reality?
Do all people matter to fundamental reality, or only some people?
Do people matter enough to fundamental reality? -- enough to sympathize with us? -- enough to lead us to triumph over our griefs? -- enough to let people be enemies rather than puppets? -- enough to save the worst enemies of reality?
Enough to go the full distance, however far it takes, however long it takes, until we all agree that other people (not only ourselves) do truly matter?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
A thousand times YES, into the eons of the eons!
Or, no.
Yes, or no:
that is what is at stake,
each and every Easter.
God's grace to all our readers around the world, this and every Easter.
Jason Pratt
Easter Sunday 2014
"For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, Who was announced among you by us, did not become yes and no, but in Him has become Yes! For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes! -- therefore also through Him is our Amen toward the glory of God through us." 2 Cor 1:19-20
The members of the CADRE maintain this blog for commenting on various items of interest to apologetics. We welcome input. E-mail us at email@example.com.
The Religious a priori is an apologetics website covering philosophy of religion (existence of God) religion and science bogus atheist social science, and issues of Biblical Scholarship.
Our Books
The Trace of God
Joe Hinman
Transcending Proof
Don McIntosh
Defending the Resurrection
J.P. Holding, Ed.
Trusting the New Testament
J.P. Holding. Ed.
Shattering the Christ Myth
J.P. Holding, Ed.
Defining Inerrancy
J.P. Holding and Nick Peters
Cry of Justice
Jason Pratt
Blog Archive
- ► 2016 (162)
- ► 2015 (55)
- What's At Stake On The Cross Each Easter
- Resurrection harmony page 1
- C.S. Lewis, Screwtape Proposes a Toast, Discussion...
- And so one "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" makes it to the...
- Is it Arrogant for Christians to Think God Created...
- Objecting to the National Day of Reason
- Possilbe World Arguments Agaisnt the Existence of ...
- ▼ April (7)
- ► 2013 (58)
- ► 2012 (58)
- ► 2011 (124)
- ► 2010 (151)
- ► 2009 (142)
- ► 2008 (202)
- ► 2007 (289)
- ► 2006 (331)
- ► 2005 (412)
CADRE Blogs of Interest
Comments Policy
Popular Posts
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And rememb...
Study: The Miracles: A Doctor says "Yes" by Richard H. Casdorph.(Logos International, 1976) Richard H. Casdroph collected medi...
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew's account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that som...
One of the most interesting passages in Mark's Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21: A certain man from C...
As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2's song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, " Pride &quo...
pie charts from Pew study In the late 90s, atheists began making the argument that less than a majority of scientists believe in God. In ...
Today is Good Friday, the day that we commemorate Jesus' death. Why, given the nature of that remembrance, is it called "Good Frida...
The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stabl...
What are your favorites from any tradition, including classical, country, praise & worship, contemporary Christian, Christian rock, gosp...
Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writ...
Translate This Blog
Well, it's that time of year again to look at why Christian apologists spend so much of our time and energy meticulously arguing dozens and dozens (and hundreds of dozens!) of little points in favor of believing that something happened in history and what it means in principle for people.
see Metacrock's Blog, today, for my original NEW essay
"Did Mark Invent the Empty tomb?"
The purpose of this argument is merely to establish that the events described in the four canonical Gospel resurrection accounts can be construed as a coherent event. Atheists are always harping on the many differences in the accounts. They seem to feel that these amount to insurmountable contradictions, marking a totally contradictory story. But I will argue that we can pull together the events described in all four Gosples to create a unified haromny which shows that there was a single coherent event taking place.This may not mean that call differences vanish away, but most of them can be explained by the process of eye witness testimony and story telling based upon the accounts of eye witnesses. There may be a couple of loose ends, but I will argue that these are not important when one considers the over all agreement and ensuing harmony,(for harmony table click here)*
My theory is that the Gospel evangelists each spoke with different groups of witnesses at different times. I believe that the witnesses fanned out into the different commuities which produced the Gospels. Scholars no longer think of a single author producing a single gospel, but see each work as the pruduct of a whole process that centered around a community. Each Gospel is the product of a community. Matt for example is the work of a "Matthew community." These communities would have been much like schools or communies. It is my contention that the witnesses borke up and fanned about among these communites, and each Gsopel bears the unqiue persective of that communitie's band of witnesses. This explains why John focusses on Mary Magdeline, she was probably one of the most elustrias witnesses who went to live in the Johaninne community. That is crucial to my theory, because it means that John followed the exploits of that eye witness,and as John shows Mary departing at the fist sign of the stone being rolled away, that backs the theory I argue for. These gropus create a jumbaled picture when one looks at all four accounts because the acconts are coming from diffrent persectives. Some accounts, such as Mark and Matthew indicate that the original event was a confussing a freightening event. Nevetheless, it was a real event and as such most of the "contradictions" can be haromonized.
I will pull together material from all four gospels to make a coherent story. I will only concern myself withe events that happen around the actual discovery of the empty tomb. I will not concern myself with the matters pertianing to epiphanies or sittings of the risen Chrsit after the women leave the tomb area. The reasons for this are as follows: (1)Koseter says that all four Gospels and GPete follow a single ealry pre-markan source up to and including the mepty tomb, but after that the ephinanies are compilled form different sources. That being the case, we can expect some contradiction in those sources.
(2)atheist claims of contradiction as to where Jesus was and whom he appeared to after that point are unimportant. Jesus was God and he could be in two places at once, what difference does it make if he appeared to two guys on a road somewhere and then to the 11 in an upper room at the same time?
My senerio is this:
An undisclosed group of women (we can only be sure that Mary Magdeline was one of them, maybe Mary of Nazerath, Joanna,and Salome, maybe others, we can't be sure) came to the tomb early un Sunday morning. They saw the stone moved, Mary Magdeline felt certain that the body had been moved, probably to desicrate it. She immidiately ran back to tell the others, while the rest of the women ventured into the tomb, where they encountered angels telling them that Jesus had risen. On their way out of the tomb they saw Jesus himself. Meanwhile, Mary arrived at the place where the disciples waited. She brought back with her Peter and John. While Peter and John went insdie and examined the emptyh tomb, Jesus appeared to Mary outside; while the other women were at this time arriving back at the place where the disciples were waiting.
This senerio hendges upon one assumption about a verse that is not stated explicitly in the text. One must assume that the angle and the earthquake and the rolling of the stone in Matt.28:2-4 are a "flash back" or sorts, an exlaiation of what happened the night before, and that the women did not see this event. For this reason, when the angels begins to speak to the women in v5 this is after a gap of undiscloed time, and it could be either before or after they went into the tomb. The text does no specify where the angle was in realtion to the women or the tomb when he begins to speak.
The reason this is important is because if Mary was with the women and if then had seen the angel roll the stone away and the risen Christ leave the tomb, then it makes no sense of Mary M. to run back to John and say "they've taken away the lord and we don't know where they have laid him!" That is a significant problem and it can only be resolved if Mary didn't see the angel roll back the stone.
The senerio described and the interpritation of Matt 28:2-4 as a flashback is justified based upon several facts:
(1) The most important is the Greek verb for "come down" in the v2 phrase "an angel of the Lord had come down." This verb is Katabas from the base from Kantabino which means to come down. The form it is in here is the inflected tense aroist. That tense is a description of past time, but it is different form the rebular past tense. The past tense in Greek is usually formed by the imperfect tense, which is continuous action in past time. "She was going to the store." But the Aorist is completed action in past time, "she went to the store." So the imperfect is like a film of the past, while aroist is like a snapshot of the past. Since this snap shot is place d in the middel of the "film" of the women's experince, it is clear that the angel had already come down, alredy moved the stone; this is an explaition of what happened the night before. Some English translations hint at this: NAS says "an angel of the Lord had come down" in other words, this has already happened.
Reasons supporting MM's Early Departure
(1)The Greek Text of Matt.28:2-4 supports "Flashback."
The Greek term Katabas (which means "an angel had come down") is aorist tense. This is completed action in past time. The angel had come, had rolled away the stone, there had been an earthquake, the guards had fallen like dead men. All of these events had already occurred when the women got there. Here is an inflection of the verb katabas.
Katabas from Katabaino , Tense is Aorist, its a verb, active, participle, nominative,singular,Masculine.
(2) All other accounts, including Peter, say that the stone was had been moved already when the women got there.
Mark 16:4
4 "Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away."
Luke 24:2
2 "And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb..."
Peter 13:55
55 "And they went and found the sepulchre open."
(see John 20:1-2 below).
(3) John says that Mary departed as soon as she saw the stone had been moved.
John 20:
1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark,and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved,and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
(4) "We" don't know in John 20:2 indicates Mary was not alone.
One major apparent contradiction is that Mary seems to go alone in John, and with several different people in the other accounts.But what she says in John indiates that she was with other people, but John just chooses to focuss on her alone, for reasons explained below. Moreover, that is also added reason to assume the flashback-departure theory, since the text of John validates the idea that Mary left the others as soon as she saw that the stone had been moved.
(5) The focuss of John upon just the actions of Mary is expalined by the ancient legeond that says Mary Magdeline helped John care for Jesus' mother and that she was associated with his ministry after the asscention.
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
"The Greek Church maintains that the saint retired to Ephesus with the Blessed Virgin and there died, that her relics were transferred to Constantinople in 886 and are there preserved. Gregory of Tours (De miraculis, I, xxx) supports the statement that she went to Ephesus."
This actually does link her with the John community, see my Gospel of John page to find out how.
Thus, there is reason to believe that the tradition of John preserves a neauance of the orignal event not covered by the others. The "flashback" idea haromonizes the chronological sequnce of the stone being moved with the other sources, and Mary's early departer explians why she went to John and said "we don't know where they laid him." Because even if the women had seen the angel and the rolling back of the stone, Mary didn't, she was already gone. I further contend that The other women didn't see it either, it had happened the night before. After Mary left, the other women went inside the tomb where they saw the angel, or angels.
There is a charge of contradiction between the Matt account where the angels begins speaking in v5 and is sitting on top of the stone. That necessitates that the women saw him outside the tomb before going in, which contradicts all other accounts. But this assumes that the events of v2-4 are immediate and that the women this action. If the falsh back idea is right, there is an undisclosed gap of time between v4 and 5, the span of which we are not told. So the angel begins talking to the women in v5 we are not told if they had already gone in the tomb or if this is outside the tomb.
*Table laying out all four canonical versions plus two apocryphal versions for comparision of contradictions.
Next=>Part 2
page 2
This page is from my website the religious a prori, It's a stationary site not a blog and it's all the materail on Doxa plus updates.
this page
Hope Page: Religious a priori
I am posting hereunder my discussion questions prepared for the class for Lewis' "Screwtape Proposes a Toast", Part I. I have posted part II as Screwtape Proposes a Toast, Discussion Questions, Part II. I am purposely not posting my answers to the questions asked in the discussion questions. I want each person to work out their own answers in light of Scripture and what they may otherwise know of Lewis' work. I would be happy to answer individual questions as they arise.
"He that falls into sin is a man; that grieves at it, is a saint; that boasts of it, is a devil." ~ Thomas Fuller
"For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither." ~ C.S. Lewis
[Note: last substantially updated Wednesday morning April 16, 2014]
Just to be clear -- although clarity is hard to come by on this topic -- the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" text that will be making it to publication for Easter 2014 is the possibly-forged snippet published (at the subsequent hyperlink) as a critical edition article (since a single copy of one snippet with only a few vague words and phrases doesn't need a full book for a 'critical' edition) by Dr. Karen King and Harvard University.
This GJW is not the very full text supposedly found (by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson) in a drawer in a British museum after being supposedly lost/suppressed for 2000 years, which is probably nothing other than a translation of the well-known 1st century romantic poem Joseph and Asenath. Totally and completely different texts, but the marketing histronics around each of them are kind of similar. For details about the non-King GJW, our article from October 2013 still seems to be the most recent information.
No, this is a fragment of a late Coptic text, scribed no earlier than the 600s. Marc Goodacre collects the most important current links (all from Harvard one way or another) here. The translation (and the Coptic original for anyone who cares) is public information now, so here is the full best English translation currently available of the so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife":
1 ] "not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe…"
2 ] ." The disciples said to Jesus, ".[
3 ] deny. Mary is (not?) worthy of it [
4 ]…" Jesus said to them, "My wife . .[
5 ]… she is able to be my disciple . . [
6 ] . Let wicked people swell up … [
7] . As for me, I am with her[1] in order to . [ [1 Or: "I exist with it/her"; "I dwell with it/her."]
8 ] . an image … [
1 ] my moth[er
2 ] thr[ee
3 ] … [
4 ] forth …[
5-6 ] (untranslatable) [
Setting aside the still unresolved (and probably unresolvable) question of whether this is a forgery to begin with (though in its favor the ink does not seem to have pooled into the cracks, per one forgery expert)...
...so what?
1.) What does this have to do with Easter?
Literally nothing other than the topic is Jesus. It might possibly perhaps maybe be a scene indicative of post-resurrection teaching, which was a popular setting for most spuriously late texts in their entirety. Or it might not. It might have been part of a text that also had post-res appearances though this one isn't. It might not have anything at all to do with the resurrection of Jesus (or of anyone else). Nothing in the text itself indicates one way or another.
2.) What does this have to do with the historical Jesus?
There was also a guy in history named Jesus who had disciples and knew someone named Mary who might be regarded as unworthy of something. Even that's kind of pushing it: the text doesn't say Mary is the woman unworthy of something. The context in which the text was found indicates this was produced by a Christian community somewhere, and so the text is talking about Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples and so also about someone connected to Jesus named Mary. (Excuse me, I mean the context in which the text might have imaginably been found. The provenance trail for the text, tracing where it physically came from, is one of the most terrible I've ever seen, and lends initial suspicion to it being a forgery fadged up to rake some money from rousing some kind of scandal in people's imaginations. To be fair, at least a book wasn't launched on the topic this Easter. Just a raft of promotional news releases.)
3.) What does this have to do with Mary?
Which Mary? Mary the mother of Jesus (not called that here directly)? One of the other Marys mentioned in the canonical Gospels as knowing Jesus? Some Mary (the most popularly attested name for Jewish women in the 1st century) not mentioned in the canonical Gospels? Some Mary mentioned in another text not the canonical Gospels? Some Mary never mentioned anywhere else but this text? A historical Mary? A purely fictional Mary?
3.1) ...uh... just, whichever Mary, I guess...
Someone in this text named Mary is regarded by someone as being unworthy of something.
People are making guesses based on a couple of other late unhistorical texts, plus similar form of wording found in this text, that this Mary, whoever she is, is being regarded by other disciples as being unworthy of being one of Jesus' disciples. That's an educated guess, but why exactly she's unworthy of whatever by whoever, is unmentioned. The somewhat-gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which this fragment resembles in some very suspicious close exactness (like it's copying from the only known extant page of it found in modern times!), seems to think Mary is unworthy to be a disciple because she's a woman. That might or might not be the case here, too. (If my reader is sensing a theme, my reader has more sense than some of the senseless sensationalism surrounding the scene of this... text. Sorry, I ran out of assonance. Maybe "text" counts.)
4.) What does this have to do with Jesus' wife?
Jesus talks to someone about "My wife". The end. Whether the Jesus of this text means a literal wife or a figurative one (like the church being a bride) is unknown. Whether he means the woman called Mary in the text (whoever that is) is unknown. He might be saying that his wife should be able to accept that Mary is able to be his disciple. It's hard to figure out what the grammar of the transition between lines 2 and 3 could mean, so the implication is that the square is cut out of a much larger page with significantly more text after the trailing lines (to the right in English). Why someone would cut out a fairly neat block of used papyrus like this, that just happens to center precisely yet with vague ambiguousness on the sole marketing reason for why anyone other than Coptic scholars would care even slightly about the text {inhaaale!}... is a mystery that only the completely unknown and in some cases anonymous trail of people behind the text, or alternately its forger, can answer.
(Along with why someone in the 600s would be using repurposed papyrus, though to be fair the carbon dating does kind of point to the page material being that old, though the first test dating back to an unusably early 404-209 BCE range would make more sense. Amazingly, either no one thought to try radiometrically dating the ink -- a material clearly made of "lamp black", a type of burnt carbon -- or the result was deemed unimportant somehow to disputes about the text being a forgery. Studying the carbon of the ink by micro-Raman spectroscopy is not the same as carbon dating the ink. It only shows what the ink is composed of materially, not the ancient status of the ink.)
5.) What does this have to do with Jesus' mother?
Someone says the mother of whoever is speaking gave him or her life at the top of one side of the page, and someone's mother is mentioned at the top of the reverse side of the page. Whether this is Jesus' mother or not is unknown; although as a general rule whenever a mother is mentioned near Jesus it tends to be Jesus' mother, so that's a reasonably educated guess.
6.) What does this have to do with the history of Christian groups in antiquity?
Assuming for purposes of argument it isn't a forgery: who knows? Whoever wrote it down in the 600s or 800s might have been responding to it, and might not have even been a Christian (though probably he was). By the 600s most Christians were trinitarian of one flavor or another, and there was never a known tradition of Jesus actually having a wife, so it isn't likely the guy writing it was trying to promote a variant Christology and/or Jesus having a literal wife.
6.1.) Wait, we thought there was at least one small tradition somewhere about Jesus having a wife...?
Jesus has a companion he kisses somewhere somehow for some purpose in the late Gospel of Philip, who seems to be one of the Marys. The term for companion might mean wife, but it might not either, and the kiss not only doesn't have to be romantic but considering the overt Gnosticality of the text it most likely doesn't: the kiss is used for transferring breath of knowledge, and Gnostic Christians weren't usually in favor of the idea of procreation to begin with (contrary to popular marketing trying to make them out to be more respectful of sexuality than the orthodox. A topic we shall return to in a minute...)
That's pretty much it. No tradition anywhere makes an overt claim about Jesus having a literal wife, though some traditions (notably the orthodox!) like to talk about the body of believers being corporately the Bride of Christ. Starting in the late 2nd century different authors (including the orthodox) start making an overt point about Jesus not having a wife, but in order to promote the honor of celibacy (in various ways) not to combat a competing notion of Jesus having a wife.
Think about it: if there was an obvious claim of that sort, little dinky vague fragments like the GJW, or esoteric interpretations of well-known romantic poems about someone else completely, wouldn't have such ridiculous popular marketing value. Dr. King herself (in a rebuttal article I'll link to below) calls the detail "startlingly new". She's right that this is not itself evidence of forgery, of course; but that's another admission that there is no extant competing tradition about Jesus being married.
6.2.) Why would the history of Christian groups in the 600s to 800s be even slightly important in popular marketing anyway?
It wouldn't. But the idea that Christianity might have 'originally' been radically different, or that a bunch of radically different Christianities had equal (and at best equally faulty) historical merit to what Jesus actually taught and intended people to believe, does have marketing value to tease or threaten a bunch of people who haven't read up enough not to be impressed with such teases or threats. Consequently, you'll see a lot of talk about how this might have been copied from an earlier Coptic text which itself might have been copied from an original Greek text which itself might have been composed as far back as the late second century (after 150 CE). Which Dr. King and other scholars directly involved with the work admit still makes not the slightest difference in favor of what the original Jesus taught or intended others to learn and pass on, thus makes not the slightest difference even in favor of radical original diversity theories. But after multiplying hypotheses through the power of innuendo, it only takes one more hypothesis to suggest by the faintest innuendo that this might after all have something to do with early Christian origins.
More directly, Dr. King et al can market the work (slicing the baloney until it's nearly transparent, so to speak) as being a worthy competitor to mainstream orthodoxy somehow which, on a somewhat related myth, started oppressing people sometime in the 2nd century with crying effects today that ought to be rectified. More on this later.
7.) What does this "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" have to do with being a Gospel?
It slightly resembles (due to the poverty of its contents) some texts which called themselves "Gospels" after the original (or anyway the oldest surviving) four were given that title. The later Gospels do not match by genre with the canonical four, so calling them all "Gospels" as though they are all relevantly similar is misleading marketing at best -- a salient point even back in the 2nd century, when the practice started!
7.1.) Does anyone anywhere even call it a Gospel, including its original author?
I'm sure if the original author was a modern forger he or she called it a Gospel. Otherwise, no the only people we know for sure who call it a Gospel are its modern proponents; partly for convenience of description and partly as marketing foofaraw. Whether the person who originally wrote it, if it isn't a forgery, called it a Gospel is unknown.
7.2.) Does Jesus' wife talk about any kind of salvation in it? Or any kind of good news? Does anyone at all talk about any of that?
Nope. Not by any term corresponding to 'gospel' / 'evangel', and not more generally. Wicked people are cursed or invited to swell up. Does that count?
7.3.) Does it match the genre details of the canonical four in any way?
Jesus does appear to be teaching someone something in it, the only legible detail being that some woman, who might or might not be the Mary mentioned on the previous line, is able to be his disciple. That's it. The original text (if not a forgery) might have had more common genre markers, or it might not have.
8.) So why is this rather technical Harvard Divinity School article (link provided again for ease of reference) being released with popular marketing trumpets at Easter...?!
Because publishers are in the business to make money and/or get attention for their university departments. I'm sorry if that sounds horribly cynical, but then her publishers shouldn't have tried to release and market a text on Easter week which (I must emphasize) HAS NOT EVEN ONE SLIGHTLY SIGNIFICANT THING TO DO WITH EASTER PER SE (even if the text is legitimate instead of forged).
9.) What does the Harvard FAQ page have to say about it?
It emphatically agrees (with an italicized "No") that the fragment doesn't prove Jesus was married (nor prove he wasn't married the FAQ hastens to add); provides zero evidence about the historical Jesus and what he actually intended to teach; was certainly written in the late 600s to early 800s if legitimate (though naturally they lean conveniently on the early date); by someone who was a non-professional Coptic author of the sort to copy magical books or write copy-book exercises; and is only called "the Gospel of Jesus' Wife" as an invented reference for convenience of discussion, due to the Gospel's most (or rather only) distinctive claim. It also agrees that we can know practically nothing about whoever wrote the actually existent text; and that the tiny fragment cannot provide even much information about the character of Jesus' wife or what that means within the context of the work. It's pretty straightforward and even detailed about the provenance of the fragment being (my words not theirs) extremely crappy.
10.) Does the Harvard FAQ misrepresent the situation in any ways?
Does the Pope wear a tall hat? Answer: sometimes.
The FAQ thinks the "primary" reason people suspected from the beginning the text is a forgery, is "because its contents are so unfamiliar" -- but the contents are barely detailed enough to vaguely describe, aside from Jesus calling someone "my wife" -- "or because they suspect someone might have an agenda to prove that Jesus was married or use the forgery to get rich." Protip: releasing a scholarly article with suggestive marketing during a season when the article has no topical relevance other than strong interest in Jesus, is not a good way to alleviate suspicions about profit motive. Productive university departments in the news get grants after all. Protip2: wildly overstating the "significance" of the text on multiple levels while downplaying the various hypotheses and vagaries involved, is not a good way to alleviate suspicions about ideological motives from an author with previously (and currently) vocal ideological agendas on the topic of Christian attitudes about marriage, sexuality, and reproduction.
The FAQ contrasts this "primary" reasoning from suspicious innuendo (and to be fair even some scholars sceptical of the legitimacy of the text, do resort to such suspicion from suspicious innuendo) to the "procedures" of "scholars". But the primary evidence in any forgery case, including this one, starts with a suspiciously vague and convenient lack of provenance. The FAQ admits the lack of provenance later, and in some admirable detail, but totally neglects to talk about its highly important relevance to suspicions of forgery.
I'm willing to grant that the FAQ wouldn't have to mention something as relatively minor yet suspicious as the notorious handwritten note reported by Dr. King back in 2012 in her original public announcement -- where a typed note accompanying the group of fragments where this was found, signed in 1982 by a known respected expert Peter Monroe, mentioned a Sahidic copy of GosJohn being the most notable detail of the collection, but then there was also a note handwritten anonymously calling attention to the Jesus Wife fragment and its unique importance as possible evidence that Jesus was married. Who is this unknown person who noticed what someone officially and professionally cataloging the fragments for a value estimation managed to miss?? Thank whatever Dr. King believes in that someone thought to call attention to it, or it might have been lost forever in a drawer somewhere!
Anyone seriously assessing the case for or against forgery would have to continually keep that note in account on the negative side, and any professional accounting of the evidence pro and con for a public report (with a world-famous university's reputation behind it) would have to mention that note on the negative side of the scales. But I'll grant the FAQ didn't have to mention it. What the FAQ should have mentioned, since it talks about evidence for and against forgery, is that the crappy trail accounting for the fragments counts strongly as evidence against legitimacy. An argument in favor of legitimacy might be able to overcome it, but that's certainly one thing such an argument would have to overcome. And the case for legitimacy has a lot more to overcome than that.
The FAQ obscures the scholarly complaint about copying ancient phrases. The problem isn't that the phrases were copied -- after all the text could have been competing against GosThom by repurposing phrases from it. The problem is that the copied phrases begin and end precisely where fragmentary lines of the only surviving older GosThom text begin and end. This demonstrable detail is simply not mentioned (as of this date) in the Harvard FAQ, and while its existence in a legitimate document isn't technically impossible the unlikelihood strains the credulity of some scholars. So does the formation of some of the letters, which occasionally seem to betray modern printed Coptic practices including what looks like a modern Coptic punctuation mark between two parts of a word.
Relatedly, the FAQ simply ignores several problems raised by Coptic experts in translating some of the phrases. That parenthetical "(not)" in the English translation? The reason it's parenthetical is because the sentence is gibberish in Coptic, meaning whoever originally composed the sentence didn't understand Coptic very well. A copyist in the 600s might have faithfully copied an original problem without trying to correct it, but the salient point is that Dr. King is trying to build a picture of what some putative community anywhere at any time believed about "Jesus' wife" from a grammar so screwy that it's impossible to seriously guess whether the woman (whoever she is -- Mary or Jesus' wife or both) is or is not worthy of something -- something the text as it stands does not directly address. It might be discipleship, or it might not.
The FAQ also completely ignores the fact that the clause in line six, translated as "Let the wicked people swell up", is even more gibberishy in the Coptic text -- so much so that sceptics are arguing the gibberishness can be explained best by a modern forger picking up phrases from elsewhere and dropping them together: "Evil man habitually does not habitually bring". The infinitive translation of the Coptic habitual marker as "to swell" instead, is technically possible but problematic at best and still reduces to gibberish: "Evil man to swell does not to swell bring". Dr. King has yet to seriously address this problem and its relation to theories about copy-pasting.
Out of the evidence for legitimacy summarized by the FAQ, two points (papyrus age, type but not age of the ink) have very limited weight (because any halfway competent forger would deal with those details); two other points (handwriting, and clumsy Coptic grammar) are not themselves positive evidence but evidence to be defended against as also fitting a plausible theory of legitimacy; and one point (historical context) depends on massively theoretical extrapolation from the textual details as well as multiple unsubstantiated hypotheses (of no evidence whatever) to get the composition date back to the desired point. Oddly, the one impressive positive evidence mentioned in the FAQ, the lack of pooling of ink subsequent to textual damage, is not mentioned in the summary. On the other hand, the FAQ tends to conveniently phrase references to the micro-Raman spectroscopy so that a reader who doesn't know what that is might get the impression it's dating the ink (perhaps through radiocarbon dating); when in fact the spectroscopy is totally limited to studying how the ink would be made, whether by an ancient author or by a modern forger. Demonstrating the ink isn't modern ballpoint is important, but demonstrating it's lamp black (maybe with touches of vine black) is at best only minor evidence in favor of authenticity.
It must also be said that the FAQ strongly under-reports the doubts of the two carbon dating scientists about even the results of the second test, presenting the results as solidly settled. How two highly divergent dating sets both returned probabilities over 95%, seems to be a mystery. To be fair, however, the text material might perhaps be both as old as the original carbon dating and as new as the 600 to 800s, due to multiple reuse of material stored in environmentally ideal circumstances.
But I'll hereafter set aside (so far as possible) challenges to the texts legitimacy and move along.
There is not the slightest positive evidence the text was originally composed as early as the late second century; this is purely the thinnest conjecture based on very vaguely suggestive parallels with other texts with stronger arguments for dating back that far. The FAQ kind of admits this by being almost as qualified (at one point) about it "maybe" being the copy of a copy of etc., as I was above in this article; and then merrily treats the original composition date as established with things to testify thereby about 2nd century Christian communities. This is doubtless a holdover from back when the fragment (which really ought to be called "the Jesus Wife Fragment") was first announced to the press in late 2012, when Dr. King tried to argue on the same thinnest conjecture that it represented a 4th century (300s) copy of an actual Gospel from the late 100s. That would be slightly more plausible since people in the 400s were in the habit of trying to preserve early texts by copying. Now that the date has been pushed to the early 600s at best (but just as likely the mid 800s, or even the mid 900s!), there is proportionately less reason to allow any credence to the idea that the writer was copying something from the 100s -- which is why the FAQ (and Dr. King in her more official work) suggests MAYBE it's a copy from an earlier Coptic manuscript (for example in the 400s) which MAYBE was copying from an earlier Coptic manuscript (in the earlier Coptic language period, say the 200s) which MAYBE was copying from an original Greek in the late 100s. Just how far does a thin thread have to be ever more thinly stretched before it ceases to be in any way importantly relevant?!
Despite having stretched that tiny thin thread by at least five hundred years of length (maybe seven or even eight hundred), Dr. King and the Harvard Divinity School (who at least authorized the FAQ) have not the slightest compunction about launching into a position that the extremely vague and indistinct details of the text ("tantalizing glimpses" indeed from "this tiny, damaged fragment") should outright count as "evidence... that the whole question about Jesus's marital status arose as part of the debates about sexuality and marriage that took place among early Christians at that time." But the text as it stands is not even slightly positive evidence about any such thing; and the clearly extant full texts of the period stand as stronger evidence that the question about Jesus' marital status arose as part of the debates about whether church leaders should be (so to speak) monogamously married in permanent faithfulness to the church (like Christ) or not. This was not a small question to them, because whether Christ is married with permanent faithfulness to the church was not (and still is not) any small question for Christian soteriology (logic of salvation).
The FAQ doesn't come out and directly say the 'orthodox' party was against sex and other Christians were in favor of it just like us in the modern day y'all! -- but it implies this by selective composition and omission. Most importantly it omits the demonstrable fact that it was the opponents of orthodoxy, especially the Gnostics (often championed by Dr. King in other works, by the way) who tended to be against marriage and sexual procreation at all. Orthodox proponents cautioned that sexual behavior led people to behave uncharitably and like depersonalized animals, and admired people with the spiritual strength and discipline to overcome those problems through celibacy, but weren't generally against marriage or even sex per se: a major thrust of the orthodox anti-heretics was that God had created nature, including animal sexuality, to be good, even though sin had corrupted that nature.
The FAQ is also rather cagey about who exactly was debating whether women could even be disciples of Christ -- the citation it uses on the topic "women are not worthy of life" (by contrast to the GJW) comes from the non-orthodox text Gospel of Thomas!
The FAQ somewhat backhandedly admits that there is no demonstrable early tradition about Jesus being married -- "Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married" -- but then tries to counterbalance this with "another newly discovered writing" (if a copy recovered over 65 years ago counts as "newly discovered"), the Gospel of Philip, "show[ing] that some Christians claimed Jesus was married". But this is a highly disputable interpretation of that text, at best, and may be deductively false in context. At least the FAQ doesn't try to cite the so-called Gospel of Mary as more evidence along this line, though that was once popular to do. A reader should at least be able to see why any text at all from any Christian (even from the 800s) seeming to directly represent a claim Jesus was married, would be tempting to promote as at last actual indisputable evidence someone somewhere ever thought of Jesus really being married, to someone professionally or otherwise invested in the idea that surely some Christians somewhere had to have thought Jesus was married. "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife makes it possible [at last?!] to say that some early Christians believed Jesus was married." Sure, it's possible to say that, or even to type it, but the GJW at best counts as very vague evidence on this; and the "significant implications for the history of ancient Christian attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, and reproduction" can only be as "significant" as the significance of whatever group (or for all we know merely one person somewhere) wrote it. Which by the nature of the case cannot possibly be much significance.
The FAQ takes such a broadly vague definition of the "genre of gospel" as to be functionally worthless: "all early Christian literature whose narrative or dialogue encompasses some aspect of Jesus' career" or since sometimes even that's missing "or which was designated as a 'gospel' already in antiquity". The mere titling of something is not a sufficient genre marker in itself; but it does help justify the marketing strategy... um, I mean the titling of the fragment for convenience of discussion, as well as to minimize the significant differences between the canonical four and other texts.
The FAQ says the fragment "discusses discipleship in terms similar to select passages in other early Christian gospels", where GosMary and the Gospel of the Egyptians are considered effectively as "early" as the Synoptics -- only a hundred years' difference or more! The similarity of select passages can only be as similar as the extremely few phrases of the GJW allow, however; and so far as the Synoptics are concerned the phraseological similarities basically begin and end with "the disciples said" and "Jesus said to the disciples". Which is to say that the similarities to the Synoptics, so far as they go, mean nothing. The similarities to exact partial phrases and words in GosThom, where those phrases begin and end with damage, is rather more important; but not, ironically, in any way that helps compare the text as legitimately 2nd century! Relatedly, I defy anyone anywhere to argue that the phraseological similarities to GosMary and GosEgyptians, such as they are, are significantly more significant (so to speak) than the demonstrable and suspiciously exact relationship to the modern surviving copy of Coptic GosThom.
(In a reply to one charge of forgery -- one that unfortunately does rely partially on suspicions of innuendo -- Dr. King admits along the way of agreeing that the phrases are broadly capable of being found in GosThom, though not in particularly exact forms insisted by the scholar arguing for forgery, that the phrases are too common or too limited to be truly comparable to other works. She does not in this article mention the case for portions of lines 1 and 2 starting and stopping in synch with damaged remains of an old GosThom text known to modern scholars.)
When discussing the approximate date of original composition, the FAQ tries to argue that the composition "had to have been written after the first century c.e." "since it refers to Mary, Jesus and his disciples". What must be a truly amazing rationale behind this necessary restriction ("had to have been"!) being based on the mere reference to three topics, is sadly left to the imagination of the FAQ's reader. Surely it can only be a coincidence, though, that a project connected to the practical equivocation of importance among Gospel texts, happens to accidentally leave an implication that if a text (like, say, just for example, the canonical four) happens to mention those three topics then that text must have been written no earlier than 2nd century and so (as the FAQ notes earlier in such a case) "its late date means the author is not someone who knew Jesus [or Jesus' immediate followers] personally".
Who exactly in the Harvard Divinity School thought releasing any of this would bring more academic respect to that branch of the university?! -- or was it academic respect the authorizers of this mess were reaching for at all? If I financially supported them, I'd be furious that the prestige of the school was being sacrificed in such a laughingstock fashion, and for the sake of what exactly!
11.) We notice that the charge against the text, about two lines matching with photocopies of a damaged GosThom text, seems either to have been dropped or oddly ignored in recent discussion.
Me, too, O fictional FAQ interlocutor! -- and I don't know what to make of that. Neither have I read anyone anywhere yet refuting this observation. Still, since to me that would be the second main evidence in suspicion of forgery, after the ludicrously poor provenance tracing of the text; and since I might as well admit that sometimes legitimate texts also have ludicrously poor provenance tracing (due to the often shady nature of the antiquities market as well as substandard accounting prior to 20th century standards); I also might as well go on to ask what does it matter if the text is legitimate instead of forged.
11.1.) So what would it matter if the text is legitimately from the 7th to 9th centuries instead of a modern forgery?
I think it must be stressed (as I have tried to do above) that even if the text is genuine, extrapolating it back to a 2nd century milieu is wishful speculation at best, and trying to use that wishful speculation as any kind of positive evidence for the history of early Christian communities is professionally irresponsible at best.
The case does (perhaps inadvertently) highlight the huge differences involved in arguing for composition dates of the canonical Gospels and Acts (and, to a lesser degree the various epistles and RevJohn). Despite some definite oddities in their 2nd century transmission, those texts don't exist in a historical vacuum, and their richness of many kinds of internal details at least allows several kinds of dating arguments (from early to late) to be attempted.
11.2.) And what if solid evidence actually showed up indicating 2nd century authorship?
The significance of the authorship would be exactly proportional to the contemporary impact it had (which by all known evidence so far is none), and proportional to the cultural importance of whoever wrote it. If we had numerous strong reasons to believe it was written, for example, by the president of a catechetical seminary for some wing of non-orthodox Christianity in Alexandria, Egypt (Panneus or Clement of Alexandria being orthodox contemporaries in that time and place), that would be proportionally strong evidence for its importance in the history of diverse early Christian communities. Marcion; Valentinius; Tatian and Tertullian (in their later non-orthodox phases); these represent communities competing with the proto-orthodox party or parties. This text doesn't even have the impact in Christian culture of the Ebionites (sparse though our evidence is for them), or even the orthodox forger of Paul's Epistle to the Laodicians, much less the popular romance fable The Acts of Paul and Thecla or, heck, literally any other text known to have existed in that day -- even ones mentioned but now lost to us.
How could that possibly be a basis for adducing any weight of evidence to what Christian cultures and communities were doing in the 2nd century? It might have been written by the 2nd century version of a guy typing away alone in his office one afternoon! (Ahem....)
11.3.) And what if solid evidence actually showed up indicating it had some kind of demonstrable contribution to the shape of 2nd century Christian development history?
After registering deep scepticism any such evidence will ever appear -- that evidence, whatever it might be, would for all practical purposes totally eclipse the evidence from the text itself, which on its own merits is next to nothing. The short little three line messages passed back and forth (fictionally or otherwise) between Jesus and King Agaba (since Dr. King mentions that in passing during a rebuttal article) feature more solid data about the intentions meant in their composition.
In other words, any evidence strong enough to make this wisp of a snippet culturally relevant, would be important enough that we would be interpreting the snippet by that evidence. The snippet itself would remain functionally next to worthless, although still important for students of paleography perhaps. (Though this Spanish paleographer thinks not.)
12.) But what if, instead of reading the perfectly free Harvard articles linked to above, we absolutely have to spend our hard-earned money on a substantially heavy book, chock full of primary source references, published just this year, providing evidence for a fuller and more accurate history of the diverse forms, practices, and ideas held by Christians in the earliest centuries after the death of Jesus, of a sort that might not only really upset a lot of "traditional" Christians, but even has some direct connections to Easter week thematically?
You could do a lot worse, even when it comes to physical exercise, than to heft around Dr. Ilaria Ramelli's massive hardback tome The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. If you hurry, you might be able to nab a used copy from an Amazon reseller (not me, I'm keeping my copy) for only a little less than $200 plus shipping! I guarantee you will not only build your forearm muscles and possibly cripple your wrist tendons, but you will learn an utter oil-tankerfull of (pretty-)well demonstrable facts about orthodox vs non-orthodox parties in early Christianity and the impact of their struggles on a particular area of Christian life and practice over a span of more than 600 years. (I do have one grievous nitpick, but correcting it doesn't sink the rest of the monograph.) Seriously, this is meant as a library reference book, not for mass market -- thus the high cost and lack of popular promotion, so I figured I'd take a moment to give it some Easter-relevant good recommendation. I don't personally know Dr. Ramelli, and I'm pretty sure we've never once even corresponded, so I have no personal benefit involved.
Arrogant [ar-uh-guh
nt] adjective1. Making claims or pretensions to superior importance of rights; overbearingly assuming, insolently proud; an arrogant public official.2. Characterized by or proceeding from arrogance, or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement: arrogant claims.
Use of Content


text:
John Yau
|John Yau
Photograph by Gloria Graham taken during the video taping of Add-Verse, 2003
|June 5, 1950
Lynn, Massachusetts
|United States
|Poetry, fiction, criticism, hybrid forms
|Notable awards
|Academy of American Poets' Lavan Award
American Poetry Review's Jerome Shestack Prize Guggenheim Fellowship
|Eve Aschheim
|Cerise Yau
John Yau (born 1950) is an American poet and critic who lives in New York City. He received his B.A. from Bard College in 1972 and his M.F.A. from Brooklyn College in 1978. He has published over 50 books of poetry, artists' books, fiction, and art criticism.
Life and career[edit]
According to Matthew Rohrer's profile on Yau from Poets & Writers Magazine,[1] Yau's parents settled in Boston after emigrating from China in 1949. His father was a bookkeeper.[2] As a child Yau was friends with the son of the Chinese-born abstract painter John Way. By the late 1960s Yau was exposed to, "a lot of anti-war poetry readings in Boston [and] so I'd heard Robert Bly, Denise Levertov, Galway Kinnell, people like that. I don't know - Robert Kelly (poet) just seemed a different kind of poet. Mysterious, in a way. He was interested in the occult, in gnosticism and abstract art - things that had a particular appeal to me."[3] According to Rohrer, Yau's decision to attend Bard College was motivated by his admiration of Kelly.
Yau's most recent books are "Egyptian Sonnets" (Rain Taxi, 2012), Exhibits (Letter Machine Editions, 2010), A Thing Among Things: The Art of Jasper Johns (Distributed Art Publishers, 2009),[4] and The Passionate Spectator: Essays on Art and Poetry (University of Michigan Press, 2006). His collections of poetry include Paradiso Diaspora (Penguin, 2006), Ing Grish, with Paintings by Thomas Nozkowski (Saturnalia, 2005),Borrowed Love Poems (Penguin, 2002), Forbidden Entries (Black Sparrow, 1996), Berlin Diptychon with Photographs by Bill Barrette (Timken, 1995), Edificio Sayonara (Black Sparrow, 1992),Corpse and Mirror (Holt & Rinehardt, 1983), a National Poetry Series book selected by John Ashbery, and Broken Off by The Music (Burning Deck, 1981). Artists' books include projects with Squeak Carnwath, Richard Tuttle, Norbert Prangenberg, Hanns Schimannsky, Archie Rand, Norman Bluhm, Pat Steir, Suzanne McClelland, Robert Therrien, Leiko Ikemura, and Jürgen Partenheimer (a.o.), his books of art criticism include The United States of Jasper Johns (1996) and In the Realm of Appearances: The Art of Andy Warhol (1993). He has also edited Fetish (1998), a fiction anthology.
Yau was the Arts editor of The Brooklyn Rail, from 2007-2011, but left to edit an online magazine, Hyperallergic Weekend. He also runs a small press, Black Square Editions, which publishes translations, poetry, and fiction.[5] Yau currently teaches art history and criticism at Mason Gross School of the Arts, Rutgers University.
Yau has received awards and grants from Creative Capital/Warhol Foundation, the Academy of American Poets (Lavan Award), The American Poetry Review (Jerome Shestack Award), the Ingram Merrill Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, the New York Foundation for the Arts, the General Electric Foundation, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and the Foundation for Contemporary Arts.
Selected bibliography[edit]
- 1983 – Corpse and Mirror (Poems)
- 1989 - Radiant Silhouette: Selected Writing 1974-1988 (Poems and prose)
- 1992 – Edificio Sayonara (Poems)
- 1993 – In the Realm of Appearances: The Art of Andy Warhol (Critique)
- 1995 – Berlin Diptychon (Poems)
- 1995 – Hawaiian Cowboys (Short stories)
- 1996 – Forbidden Entries (Poems)
- 1996 – The United States of Jasper Johns (Critique)
- 1998 – Fetish (Editor)
- 1998 – My Symptoms (Short Stories)
- 1999 – In Company: Robert Creeley's Collaborations (Essay)
- 2002 – Borrowed Love Poems (Poems)
- 2005 - Ing Grish
- 2006 - Paradiso Diaspora
- 2006 – "andalusia" Authors: John Yau (Poems), Leiko Ikemura, Verlag: Weidle Verlag, ISBN 3-931135-96-9
- 2008 - A Thing Among Things: The Art of Jasper Johns, Distributed Art Publishers, ISBN 1933045620
- 2010 - Exhibits (Poem)
- 2012 - Further Adventures in Monochrome (Copper Canyon Press) (Poetry)
See also[edit]
- ^ Poets and Writers Magazine (2002) 30:3 pp. 24-31
- ^ Dictionary of Literary Biography, v. 234: American Short Story Writers Since WWII, p. 307
- ^ Reference required
- ^ "John Yau in Conversation with Phong Bui". Brooklyn Rail. July–August 2009.
- ^ http://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/further-adventures-in-the-monochrome-a-conversation-with-john-yau
External links[edit]
|Wikiquote has quotations related to: John Yau

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Laval
Select your stay dates to check availability at Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Laval
Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Laval
About the Hotel
Property Location
With a stay at Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Laval in Laval, you'll be convenient to Centropolis and Carrefour Laval. This hotel is within close proximity of Sky Venture and La Recreatheque.
Make yourself at home in one of the 104 guestrooms. Complimentary wired and wireless Internet access is available. Private bathrooms with shower/tub combinations feature complimentary toiletries and hair dryers. Conveniences include desks and complimentary newspapers, and you can also request cribs/infant beds (complimentary).
Don't miss out on recreational opportunities including an indoor pool and a fitness center.
A complimentary hot/cold buffet breakfast is included.
Business, Other Amenities
Featured amenities include a business center, a 24-hour front desk, and laundry facilities. This hotel has 2 meeting rooms available for events. Free self parking is available onsite.
Hotel Facilities
- In-room accessibility
- Free WiFi
- Number of floors - 5
- Laundry facilities
- Free self parking
- Accessible bathroom
- 24-hour front desk
- Number of meeting rooms - 2
- Free breakfast
- Fitness facilities
- Total number of rooms - 104
- Business center
- Number of buildings/towers - 1
- Indoor pool
Room Facilities
- Coffee/tea maker
- Hair dryer
- Connecting/adjoining rooms available
- Rollaway/extra beds (surcharge)
- Shower/tub combination
- Free cribs/infant beds
- Private bathroom
- Iron/ironing board
- Free WiFi
- Desk
- Free newspaper
- Television
- Free toiletries
- Free wired high-speed Internet
Hotel Policy
Know Before You Go
- The property has connecting/adjoining rooms, which are subject to availability and can be requested by contacting the property using the number on the booking confirmation.
The following fees and deposits are charged by the property at time of service, check-in, or check-out.
- Rollaway beds are available for an additional fee
The above list may not be comprehensive. Fees and deposits may not include tax and are subject to change.Show all hotel policy Show less hotel policy


text:
Author's Note: Had this idea in my head for a while.. Only got the inspiration and motivation to start it now... Hopefully I'll actually finish this because since Shipwrecked my amount of finished stories is a big, fat ZERO. SO here I go...
This entire story will be written from Sam's point of view, no transitions (if I can remember that rule...).
Disclaimer: Don't own DP.
Chapter One
Just My Luck
I was woken up by a sudden light hitting my eyes and an annoying squeal in my ears.
Groaning, I rolled over and shoved my face into my pillow, wondering why, oh why, did my parents have to be so obnoxious.
"Sammy!" my mother's high-pitched voice rang through my ears, making me wince and draw away from her. "Rise and shine, sweetums, it's time to get up, get dressed, and-"
"Go away," came my muffled voice from under the pillow. They were silent for a while, which was odd, but the feeling soon went away when my covers were snatched off me.
"Come on, Sammykins," dad cooed, using his silkiest, softest voice. "Get up or you'll be late."
"If I get up, will you go away?" I said, annoyance lacing every word.
I could almost see them roll their eyes. "Now, Samantha, that is not a way to-"
"Alright!" I lifted my head so fast they flinched and took a few steps backwards. "I'm up." To emphasize my point, I dragged my butt out of the bed and started pushing them towards my door. "Now if you don't mind, leave." At the last word, I gave them one hard push out the door and slammed it in their shocked faces. "Jesus," I muttered, resting my back against the door and shaking my head. Those two, I swear, are going to be the reason I end up in jail because the next time I was going to push them out the window, not the door.
Since I was already up - who the hell wakes up at 5 freaking am anyway? - I sighed, looking at my bed longingly. Screw it, I told myself before hopping into the shower and starting my day.
"Okay, so I get that isotopes are basically copycat atoms of the same proton number but different neutron number, but what the hell does any of this have to do with radioactivity and treating cancer?"
I refrained from kicking Danny's shin underneath the table. My idiot best friend, who was also Amity Park's superhero ghost boy and most eligible bachelor - some part of me told me that Paulina Sanchez started that one - was looking at me with a confused and frustrated look, his Chemistry book open in front of him. His book, compared to mine, which was filled with highlighted parts and extra notes, was blank. I knew I had to take it easy on the poor boy, since, as I'd mentioned, he always had to be ghost boy extraordinaire on a daily basis, so therefore had no time to do what us mere mortals did: study and do our homework. But the amount of stupidity one male can contain, honestly…
I sighed, and explained, "Think of it this way. The space in the nucleus of an isotope is too crowded to bear the extra neutrons, so it kicks them out in the form of energy by decaying, which is radioactivity. Now, this radioactivity-"
"Whoa, wait," he held a hand up to cut me off, "decaying? Atoms can decay?"
I sighed, and couldn't help but bang my head on the table. That was the fifth time he asked me that.
There is a reason I don't want to be a teacher, I thought grumpily to myself, trying to calm myself down. Currently it was free period, and Danny had a Chemistry test tomorrow, and unless he studied at least half of the chapter we were on, he was screwed.
I heard him sigh in frustration and close his Chemistry book. "That's it. I'm screwed."
I looked back up at him and tried my smoothest voice, "You're not screwed, Danny, you just need to concentrate. Look, if you're worried about the chapter being too long, here-" pausing, I bent down and unzipped my backpack, bringing out my notes on the chapter and shoving it towards him. "I'm gonna let you copy my notes - but only this time." I raised a finger warningly up at him.
His frown melted into a giddy and relieved grin, and he took no time to tear through my notes and bring out his notebook, pencil in hand. "Thanks, Sam, you're a life savior."
"I know," I muttered to myself. The library was mostly empty at this time of day, with only a few nerds bending over their homework and a few lurkers curled up on one of the beanbags with a book. How I wish I actually had the luxury of curling up with a book right now. But no. After this I had AP French, and after school my schedule was booked with a piano lesson, a dress fitting, an etiquette class, and I still had tons of homework to do. My parents had finally hit me at my red line when they'd decided I'd needed to start fitting into their world, and if I couldn't do it by attending balls and country club events, they would get me started with basic lessons. On top of all of that, there was no foreseeing whether Danny would need me and Tucker for a ghost hunt or another tutoring lesson.
I tried to shrug off the rest of the day and not worry about it, and tried to focus on the awkward boy in front of me. His head was bent down, his jet-black hair hanging over his forehead as he scribbled madly on the paper, copying my notes.
I don't know when I fell in love with him, but I did. Freshman year went by so fast it was fuzzy to determine where my innocent crush turned into outright love. I hadn't told him, of course; I hadn't told anyone, in fact. Tucker, however - TF as in 'too fine' techno-geek - somehow knew. He just knew, and it was annoying how he'd catch my blush whenever Danny and I'd accidently touch or catch the jealous look in my eye whenever Danny'd be drooling over Paulina or Valerie. Thankfully, he was quiet about the whole thing - overlooking the fact that he'd let a few hints slip here and there, but Clueless One was too oblivious to catch on. Or he'd be too busy staring at Paulina's ginormous boobs. Probably the latter.
Danny was done writing by the time the bell rang, signaling the end of free period and start of hell - at least to him. Realizing this at the same time I did, he groaned, and slammed his head against the table - rather loudly, because the librarian glared in our direction and yelled a "Sshh!" at us.
"Come on, Ghost Boy," I rolled my eyes, getting up and strapping my bag over my shoulder, walking over to his side. "It'll be over before you know it."
Finally dragging him up out of his chair, we started walking down the hallways and then our separate ways towards our classes.
AP French went by in a breeze, since as a child my parents used to make me take conversational French and Spanish. I was too busy losing my trail of thought and doodling on my notebook. Glancing out the window, I noticed the trees almost flying out of their roots on the ground from how powerful the wind was. Amity Park never usually got powerful weather, but we were in mid-January and already the snow was piling up high and the wind dangerously howled.
Finally, after class ended, everyone rushed outside to get their things and go home. I rushed to my locker to quickly put away my books and get the ones I would need for homework. I had no time to walk home with Danny and Tucker due to my piano lesson, which was scheduled dangerously close to the time school ended. I tried pleading my parents in changing the times, but they only told me that that was a lesson in itself about punctuality and the importance of watching my appointments and time management.
My parents really were full of crap.
I was almost an entire building to the door when Tucker ran up to me, PDA in hand as usual, and said, "Remind me, again, why you take piano lessons?"
"Long story short, my parents are pretentious assholes who think their daughter is a robot," I curtly replied, half-running to the doors. Crap. If I didn't leave school within the next ten minutes I was screwed.
"You said that last time, but okay," he said. "Sam, I'm gonna need to borrow your chemistry notes tonight because, um-"
I rolled my eyes knowingly. "Because you spent the last week playing Doomed until your eyes bled, didn't you?"
He laughed nervously. "Yeah, kind of. Look, I'll just scan them real quick at home and then drop them off at your place by the time you get back from your piano lesson."
I wanted to protest - because my policy with the two goofballs was that I was only going to tutor and help because letting them count on me for too long won't do them any good - but since I already let Danny borrow my notes, I knew I couldn't deny him them too.
I sighed, and started digging into my backpack. "Alright," I said in defeat. He grinned happily, and was practically bouncing on his feet as I searched for my notes in my bag. After a few minutes of searching and coming up with nothing, I looked up at him with a panicked look, "I can't find them."
"What do you mean you can't find them?" He asked, confused.
My mind was already panicking. "Shit," I cursed, rummaging more thoroughly and pulling out all the contents in my bag. When I didn't find them, I hastily stuffed the books back into the bag and muttered out a high-pitched, panicked, "Shit."
"This cannot be happening," Tucker said. "If none of us can get those notes, we're going to fail."
"Okay, calm down," I managed to say without squeaking, "I must've left them in the library. Or Danny must've taken them by mistake."
"Let's go find him then!" Tucker dragged me with him against the flow of students towards the library.
I did the mistake of checking my watch. "No, no." I groaned, stopping in my tracks. "I'm gonna be late for my lesson; I have to go."
"Alright, you go and I'll find the notes and send them to you," Tucker told me, and we went our separate ways.
The halls were almost empty, the only students still lurking around the ones still getting things from their lockers or ones who were taking a leisurely walk to the doors. I scowled, envying them. Turning the bends towards the doors, I was stopped when I heard a slam against one of the lockers. I was about to continue walking, ruling it off as some couple fooling around, when I heard a loud echo of a zap and a grunt as another slam emanated through the otherwise silent air. Too curious for my own good, piano lesson momentarily forgotten, I trailed to the sound of the slam. Two turns later, I was greeted with the sight of Danny Phantom leaning against a bent locker, a look of pain on his face and Skulker in front of him, his ectobeam pointed at Danny's chest.
"This time, whelp, I will have your pelt on my wall," Skulker sneered, his flaming hair almost dancing with glee.
"No thanks," Danny grumbled, getting back on his feet, "I like my head attached to my body, thank you very much."
"I am the best hunter of the Ghost Zone," Skulker yelled, his eyes flashing, "you do not threaten me-"
He was shut up by an ectoplasmic ray blown into his chest, courtesy of a pissed off halfa. "Yeah, yeah, whatever, Skulker. Can we skip the trash talk and go right to the part where I suck you in the thermos so I can go home and get some sleep?"
I couldn't help but clear my throat, making my existence in the matter knowledgeable, folding my arms across the chest and giving Danny a meaningful look. "Don't you mean go home and study for that important Chemistry test you have tomorrow?"
Momentarily taken aback by my abrupt appearance, Danny turned to me with a pout. "Yeah, sure, that's what I-"
He disappeared through the wall behind him in a flash of white and green, Skulker turning himself intangible and phasing in after him. Running towards the classroom they were both in, I quickly pulled out the Fenton Thermos from my backpack. Danny avoided another ray, stumbling across the desks and landing on the floor. Skulker would've fired another ray at Danny's chest had I not held out the thermos in front of me and let the blue ray engulf him.
Skulker yelled a series of creative curses as he was sucked in, that if my parents ever heard me say they would probably spend the next few weeks washing my mouth with soap. Once he was finally in the thermos, I closed the tap. "It's always the freaky Goth girls you need to watch out from," came his aggravated grumble. I rolled my eyes, and banged the thermos on one of the desks. "Ow!"
"Thanks, Sam," Danny said, getting up and sheepishly grinning at me, changing back. "Chemistry must've really taken its toll on me."
"Yeah, Chemistry," I drawled out, handing him the thermos as he changed back. "Right."
"Come on," he rolled his eyes at me as we made our way out the classroom and towards the front school doors. Suddenly, the lights to the entire school snapped close simultaneously, engulfing us in darkness. Why would the janitors close up now? I knew it was late, but it hadn't even reached six o'clock yet.
"Ah, crap," I had avoided looking at my watch for so long, but my eyes had accidentally trailed to the clock on the wall of the classroom as we passed it and went out into the hallway. Add the closed lights to the deal, and I knew I was done. "I think I'm gonna miss my piano lesson."
He shrugged. "Eh. You can just tell your parents a swarm of ghosts surrounded the school and locked you in for the entire time of the lesson."
I let out a small chuckle as we finally reached the doors. We automatically pushed through them, but for some strange reason they wouldn't budge. Frowning in confusion, I looked around for a janitor or an older authority, but the hallways were dead silent and empty when we'd walked through them. The office's glass windows were dark, and there was basically no sign of life in the entire school.
Looking in front of me through the glass doors, I knew why.
There was an enormous pile of snow everywhere, almost waist-high, piled against the door.
When I looked over at Danny, he was agape, staring at the vast landscape of white right outside the windows of the door, which were blocking the door and trapping us in.
Oh. This was just perfect.
A/N: So.. Whatcha think? Good start? Bad start? Interesting enough? By the way I just want to warn you that it's been ages since I'd written DP, much less watched any of the episodes or read other fanfics, so the characters might be slightly OOC - I don't even remember how they are when they're IN character to actually know if they're OOC or it's just me. I don't know. Just thought you should know.
And okay, I decided with myself that I was only going to post this when I was completely done with it to avoid writer's block and not updating for a long time, but I'm upset, and mad, and frustrated, and nothing cheers me up like awesome reviews from my awesome readers so (: - That's supposed to be a cheeky smile, by the way, not a constipated one xP.
Soo... If you like it, review and cheer me up? REVIEW PEOPLE x


text:
Masitinib Helpful in Symptomatic Systemic Mastocytosis »
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Treatment with masitinib can be helpful when severely symptomatic indolent systemic mastocytosis is unresponsive to optimal treatments, according to a multinational trial.
In a paper online January 6 in The"...
Read the Masitinib Helpful in Symptomatic Systemic Mastocytosis article »
(epinephrine) for Injection
Auvi-Q (epinephrine injection, USP) 0.3 mg and 0.15 mg is an auto-injector and a combination product containing drug and device components.
Auvi-Q includes audible (electronic voice instructions, beeps) and visible (LED lights) cues for use. The needle automatically retracts after the injection is complete.
Each Auvi-Q 0.3 mg delivers a single dose of 0.3 mg epinephrine from epinephrine injection, USP (0.3 mL) in a sterile solution.
Each Auvi-Q 0.15 mg delivers a single dose of 0.15 mg epinephrine from epinephrine injection, USP (0.15 mL) in a sterile solution.
Auvi-Q 0.3 mg and Auvi-Q 0.15 mg each contain 0.76 mL epinephrine solution. 0.3 mL and 0.15 mL epinephrine solution is dispensed for Auvi-Q 0.3 mg and Auvi-Q 0.15 mg, respectively, when activated. The remaining solution is not available for future use and should be discarded.
Each 0.3 mL in Auvi-Q 0.3 mg contains 0.3 mg epinephrine, 2.3 mg sodium chloride, 0.5 mg sodium bisulfite, hydrochloric acid to adjust pH, and water for injection. The pH range is 2.2–5.0.
Each 0.15 mL in Auvi-Q 0.15 mg contains 0.15 mg epinephrine, 1.2 mg sodium chloride, 0.2 mg sodium bisulfite, hydrochloric acid to adjust pH, and water for injection. The pH range is 2.2–5.0.
Epinephrine is a sympathomimetic catecholamine. Chemically, epinephrine is (-)-3,4-Dihydroxy-α- [(methylamino)methyl]benzyl alcohol with the following structure:
Epinephrine solution deteriorates rapidly on exposure to air or light, turning pink from oxidation to adrenochrome and brown from the formation of melanin.
Auvi-Q is not made with natural rubber latex.
Auvi-Q instructional and safety systems should be thoroughly reviewed with patients and caregivers prior to use [see PATIENT INFORMATION].
Last reviewed on RxList: 1/3/2017
This monograph has been modified to include the generic and brand name in many instances.
Auvi-Q FDA Prescribing Information
Additional Auvi-Q Information
Report Problems to the Food and Drug Administration
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
Allergies & Asthma
Improve treatments & prevent attacks.


text:
Headache with some flu
I am having some headache in my top of back side and sometimes both left and right side(back area) of my head. I am also feeling pain in my back leg and knee joints. No runny nose but blocking little bit sometimes. Eyes are burning mostly at evening and feeling sleepy. A small temp(98.9 - 99 f) is coming mostly at evening. Small water color cough(sometimes dry). feeling small dizzy after some work.. Feeling little heavyness in head. Sometimes a small chest pain(might be due to gastric). A small breath problem (mostly at evening). Also feeling a smll dizzy at the time of back head pain. The headache is not painful but I am fearing for this. I don't know whether I have to consult any doctor or not. The headache is from 1 month but feeling sometimes only.but cold symptoms are from 4 days. I am feeling a small uncomfortable in breath and small dizzy in bus travel. I have also some gastric and acidity problem. Is there any disease I have. I just want to get rid from this fear.
Answers (1)
Like the answers? Chat privately for 24 hours with the doctor of your choice
Dr. Swathi S Aithal
General Physician 2 yrs exp Bangalore
Free 3 day follow up
Chat Now
₹100 for 24 hrs
Hello, I understand your problem. It seems that you have been suffering from head ache since one month. And you are also having cold and cough since 4 days. These bodyaches and the headache and.light headedness might be because of the cold and cough. But your headache might be because of very other causes you need to sort out. So you need to get investigated and consult a doctor and get treated for that. Thank you
Flag this answer
Let others know if this answer was helpful
Was this answer helpful?


text:
For you are my moonlight at night.
Poem by: ToniTaylor
Status: Finished
Genre: Poetry
Another day
another night
once again
you're out of my sight
There's no one to blame
it'll always be the same
there will always be
oceans between us
You've always asked me
"how can this be?"
How can two people be
meant for each other if
they're both on each
side of the planet?
When you're gazing
at the stars
I'm daydreaming
about love on Mars
Should we let go?
how impossible
could this possibly be?
Oh but your baby-blue eyes are all I see
I'm just trying to accept that
it's impossible for
the moon to love the sunlight
they could never be together
They are seperated forever
yet everyone knows what a
wonderful sight it would be if
the moon and the sun were up at once
© Copyright 2017 ToniTaylor. All rights reserved.
Add Your Comments:
This is sweet. Once again your drawings are spectacular!
This is another emotional poem. I can see you follow a similar patten in your poems I read at this point in time.
if the moom and sun were up together that'd be awesome! I love this! You describe everything so nicely!!!!
Is the moon and sun thing a metaphor or are your literally talking about the moon and sun? xD Sorry I'm slow :P
Anyway, love it! Beautiful ^^
This is sooo sweet!!
LOve it,... going to read more!! xooxo
Awwwww... Im in love with it... great work..!!
oh wow, so beautiful, very precious!!! Certainly love this bright loving gem!! GREAT STUFF, BE PROUD OF YOUR TALENT!!
Oh my God! My favourite poem from you so far! I mean, the meaning was wonderful, it flowed, it was romantic and it could be related to true stories.
This was BRILLIANT!
Wow, great poem. It is emotionally gripping and the word choice is lovely. The meaning behind it is beautiful as well. I'll admit, as I read the description, I was thinking it was a tad cliche. However, after reading it, I find it is stunningly beautiful poetry.
This is a beautiful poem filled with pure, sweet emotion and desire. Feelings are painted beautifully. I see most of your poems are correlated with longing for love emotion. This poem of yours is my favorite. I like it a lot :-)
This is seriously going on my reading list Toni
you have made just a neat job of this one
i love "when you're gazing at the stars i am daydreaming about love on mars" somewhere along them lines away
this poem is EPIC
Other Content by ToniTaylor
Book / Romance
Short Story / Romance
Short Story / Fantasy
Short Story / Mystery and Crime
Book / Thrillers
Short Story / Young Adult


text:
Telephone & Addresses
(1 - 4 from 46
Hannah Cooke, Brighton, US, Foster St, Unit 2
View Hannah Jay's social profiles and photos on Facebook, MySpace, and +40 Networks.
Hannah Cooke, Brookline, US, Beacon St, Apt 3
View Hannah Jay's social profiles and photos on Facebook, MySpace, and +40 Networks.
Hannah Cooke, Cherryville, US, Ledbetter Rd
View Hannah Jay's social profiles and photos on Facebook, MySpace, and +40 Networks.
Hannah Cooke, Cherryville, US, Tot Dellinger Rd
View Hannah Jay's social profiles and photos on Facebook, MySpace, and +40 Networks.
Yellow Page contacts
Network Profiles
(1 - 4 from 180
LinkedIn: Jay Cooke | LinkedIn
View Jay Cooke's (Canada) professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Jay Cooke discover inside ...
(1 - 4 from 16
Sold! Real Estate Transfers: September 26 - October 3
04.10.2012 [Patch.com] - 2 Cormorant Way, Aquinnah sold for $2,900,000. Sellers: Jay Cooke Michael Allen Massachusetts Qualified Personal Residence Trust, Jay Cooke Michael Allen Trs, Priscilla Ridgely Allen Massachusetts Qualified Personal Residence Trust , Priscilla Ridgely
Saying Goodbye to Smith Barney
25.09.2012 [Forbes] - The first person you should be aware of is the legendary financier Jay Cooke, a treasury bond salesman whose efforts helped fund the Union army during the civil war. Cooke eventually went broke through excess speculation (sound familiar?) and this
Hannah Cooke's Women's Basketball Recruiting Profile
Evaluate Hannah Cooke's women's basketball recruiting profile. Learn how this Berkshire School student is connecting with coaches in MA and nationwide.
ArtSlant - Hannah Cooke
ArtSlant profile for contemporary artist Hannah Cooke. ArtSlant is the #1 Contemporary Art Network with comprehensive information on artists and events worldwide.
Business Profiles
(1 - 4 from 7
Xing: Jay Cooke
Associate of Arts Real Estate / Mortgage Broker / Paradise, Vereinigte Staaten / Bankers Mortgage, Butte Community Bank, Home Financial, Habitats of California
HayJay, Model, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom
Official model mayhem page of HayJay; member since Jul 5,2009 has 7 images, 40 friends on Model Mayhem.
Jay Cooke | Stafford County Public Schools | ZoomInfo.com
Find business contact information for Jay Cooke and see work history, affiliations and more.
Jay Cooke, Greenwich Real Estate Agent - ActiveRain
Get to know Jay Cooke, Real Estate Agent - People Always Come First Greenwich, CT
Private Homepages
Jay Cook
Jay Cooke was born in Sandusky, Ohio, on August 10, 1821. In 1861, he opened his own private banking house in Philadelphia, Jay Cooke and Company. During the...
Dr Hannah Cooke (B.Sc,M.Sc(Econ),MSc(Nurs),Ph.D,RN,DN,RNT) research...
Senior Lecturer (Teaching Focus) Email: email@example.com; Telephone: +44 (0)161 306 7816; Fax: 0161 306 7707; The School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social ...
(1 - 4 from 31
classmates: Hannah Cooke
Rock Hill High School, Ironton, OH, 1989-2002
classmates: Hannah Cooke
Seton School, Front Royal, VA, 2007-2011
classmates: Hannah Cooke
Holbrook High School, Holbrook, AZ, 2001-2005
Jay Cooke | Railroaded - Stanford …
Cooke to Gen. George Sargent, Feb. 20, 1870, Northern Pacific, Letters no. 1 (LB), Jan. 19, 1870 - Sept. 27, 1871, Private Letters, Jay Cooke, pp. 88-89, Cooke Papers.
Celebrities & Politicians
(1 - 2 from 3
IMDB Filmography: Jay Cooke - IMDb
Jay Cooke, Art Department: Songcatcher
IMDB Filmography: Hannah Cooke - IMDb
Hannah Cooke, Actress: Texas Ranch House. ... Amazon Affiliates Amazon Instant Video Watch Movies & TV Online: Prime Instant Video
Bad news
(1 - 4 from 36
legacy.com: Hannah Ross Cooke
On March 24, 2016, Hannah R. "Micki" Cooke, 88, beloved wife of the late John J. Cooke, Jr. Mother of Charles "Ross" and wife Wanda( dec. ), Kevin and wife Peggy, John "Jay" and
findagrave: Cooke, Hannah
08/20/1806 - 04/26/1886, Wilkes-Barre (Luzerne County, Pennsylvania)
findagrave: Cooke, Hannah
03/1/1812 - 09/21/1884
findagrave: Cooke, Hannah Ballou
12/1/1717 - 01/10/1783, Cumberland (Providence County, Rhode Island)
(1 - 4 from 17
Jay Cooke (1821 - 1905) - Genealogy
Genealogy for Jay Cooke (1821 - 1905) family tree on Geni, with over 150 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives.
Hannah Cooke (1746 - d.) - Genealogy
Genealogy for Hannah Cooke (1746 - d.) on Geni with over 100 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives. Page updated June 16, 2010.
Hannah Cushing (Cooke) (1749 - 1806) - Genealogy
Hannah Cooke (1749 - 1806) on Geni with over 100 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives. Page updated July 22, ...
Hannah Cooke (1699-1783) | WikiTree: The FREE Family Tree
DNA and genealogy collaboration for Hannah Cooke born 1699 Eastham, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States died 1783 Truro, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United...
hannah cooke is fundraising for Macmillan Cancer Support
JustGiving - the easiest way to fundraise and donate to charity online
The River Inn - Jay Cooke State Park MN - Living New Deal
The River Inn at Jay Cooke State Park, one of the largest CCC buildings in Minnesota, was made from local gabbro, a dark rock quarried nearby. Jay Cooke ...
Books & Literature
(1 - 4 from 15
Read the eBook Colonial families of Philadelphia (Volume 2) by John...
Rachel, b. Jan. 27, 1738; ni. March 7, 1759, Thomas Kirby. of Burlington, N. J.; David, b. Sept. 18, 1739, d. June 6, 1825; m. Hannah Cooke; of whom presently;
JAY COOKE, FINANCIER OF THE CIVIL WAR, VOL II : Agapea Libros Urgentes
Compra el libro Jay Cooke, Financier of the Civil War, V junto con cualquiera de los libros de la selección que te proponemos y ahórrate los gastos de envío
Hannah Cooke | Barnes & Noble
Barnes & Noble - Hannah Cooke - Save with New Lower Prices on Millions of Books. FREE Shipping on $25 orders!
Sociology, Nursing & Health book by Anne Williams, Hannah Cooke, Carl...
Sociology, Nursing & Health by Anne Williams, Hannah Cooke, Carl May starting at . Sociology, Nursing & Health has 0 available edition to buy at Alibris
Related Documents
Old Kennett Meeting House Cemetery - USGenWeb Archives ...
... Kennett Square Township, Pennsylvania ... 23 Oct 1724 d/o Henry Osborn & Wife of Ezekiel Harlan Hannah Cooke HARLAN, Jacob 1725/26 ...
LG Challenge | Local Government Association
Hannah Cooke, Worcester City Council. hannah Cooke, LG Challenge contestant 2013 I am relatively new to local government, having recently ...
Scientific Publications
Why indeed should we teach sociology? A response to Hannah Cooke. -...
PubMed comprises more than 23 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to...
(1 - 4 from 6
Our Mysterious Panics and the Story of Jay Cooke, from Victor ...
21.05.2011 Our Mysterious Panics and the Story of Jay Cooke, from Victor Niederhoffer. May 21, 2011 |. My research today started with Our Mysterious Panics by Charles Coleman, 1931. There is recounted the story of Jay Cooke. He was ...
Jay Cooke, financier of the Civil War : Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson,...
Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
Tags | Photobucket
Get free image hosting, easy photo sharing, and photo editing. Upload pictures and videos, create with the online photo editor, or browse a photo gallery or...
Jay Cooke - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal...
Career . The Ohio-born Jay Cooke had joined the moderately successful Philadelphia investment banking firm of Clark and Dodge as a clerk at the age of 18.
Video & Audio
(1 - 4 from 9
jay cooke - YouTube
Hannah-Jay Cooke - YouTube
Hannah-Jay Cooke - YouTube
Duluth Flood 2012 Swinging Bridge Jay Cooke State Park HD 720p -...
► 1:00► 1:00Duluth Flood 2012 Swinging Bridge Jay Cooke State Park HD 720p ... Jay Cooke - Silver Creek by ...
hannah cooke - YouTube
My honorary COVERGIRL dramatic smokey eye makeup look, perfect for a night out, using COVERGIRL makeup and nail polish. Try this easy, breezy, beautiful ...
(1 - 4 from 60
Endurance wiz faces daunting road to recovery
26.09.2012 [Duluth News Tribune] - Olson believes he contracted Lyme disease during a trail run in Jay Cooke State Park in 2010. Yet the distinctive, telling red bull's-eye wound wasn't apparent, he said. He said he felt fatigued, but wasn't concerned. When the disease became more
Hikers and Campers can Soon Return to Jay Cooke
25.09.2012 [Northland's NewsCenter] - (Norhtland's NewsCenter)--There is still a long road to recovery along Highway 210 near Jay Cooke State Park and within the park itself. But, campers and hikers itching to get back inside only have a few weeks to wait. Park leaders and the Minnesota
Google News: Geocaching appeals to the inner explorer
21.09.2012 [Pioneer Press] - They were lucky to visit Jay Cooke State Park early in the summer, before it closed in the wake of storm damage. In mid-July they visited their last park and solved a puzzle that allowed them to find the final card at Itasca State Park. McCollor's
Google News: 'First' National Bank Note Signed
19.09.2012 [NumisMaster.com] - This bank was controlled by Jay Cooke, whose financial company Jay Cooke & Co, Bankers, in Philadelphia, was the primary force behind the sale of government bonds and securities used to finance the Civil War. (Jay Cooke was also allowed to have his
Reports & Statements
(1 - 4 from 227
Twitter Posts: Joy ^.^ (joydyson)
09.08.2012 Oh I forgot I'm going to the cinema tomorrow with H.A.N.N.A.H @Hannah__Cooke
Twitter Posts: Hannah (Hannah_Cooke_)
07.08.2012 Only 5 hours left of my 9 hour shift -.- #thinkofthemoney
Twitter Posts: Hannah☯ (Hannah__Cooke)
07.08.2012 @joydyson thanks! :)
Twitter Posts: Joy ^.^ (joydyson)
07.08.2012 @Hannah__Cooke woahhhhhhhhhhhh, Hannah your hair looks so cool like that!
(1 - 20 from 175
19.09.2012 [Los Andes (Argentina)] - Segundo Viernes Negro: quiebra el banco Jay Cooke & Co. de los Estados Unidos, causando pánico financiero. 1899. Perdón público al capitán Dreyfus en Francia. 1921. Se inaugura el Teatro Nacional Cervantes. 1928. Nace Adam West, actor que
Flood Reconstruction Open House
24.09.2012 [KDAL] - (KDAL) - A public meeting and a short presentation to update flood damage reconstruction on Highway 210, the Willard Munger State Trail and Jay Cooke State Park is being held at the Carlton Four Seasons Event Center in Carlton on Monday. The meeting
"£1m isn't rich anymore": the rise and fall of investment banking
03.10.2012 [New Statesman] - Having failed to sell bonds directly to investors, the federal government hired the financier Jay Cooke to manage the first large-scale retail marketing of securities. Cooke employed 2,500 salesmen to float $830m of federal government bonds to the
Jay Cooke | LinkedIn
View Jay Cooke's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Jay Cooke discover inside ...
Jay Cooke: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek
Mr. Jay Cooke is the Chairman and President at New York Capital Corp. Mr. Cooke founded NYCC in 1991. He was a senior officer of two investment banking firms,...
Hannah Jay Cooke Pictures - Free Hannah Jay Cooke Images Gallery
Hannah Jay Cooke Graphics - Search for Free Hannah Jay Cooke Pictures in our Photo Galleries. Find Hannah Jay Cooke MySpace Comments for your Profile or...
Hannah Jay Cooke Articles and Pictures
Hannah Jay Cooke It seems that there's trouble in paradise as it's been rumored that Kristin Cavallari, the hottie from the well known reality TV series "The...
hannah jay cooke Pictures, hannah jay cooke Images, hannah jay cooke...
Tinypic™ is a photo and video sharing service that allows you to easily upload, link and share your images and videos on MySpace®, eBay®, blogs and message...
Home - Jay Cooke Real Estate Finance Expert
Personal business page for Jay Cooke Real Estate Finance Expert Residential Reverse Commercial Mortgages over 30 years of personal service
Jay Cooke Collection at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center
The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center's Manuscripts Division contains over 4500 linear feet of documentary material in six major collecting areas.
Jay Cooke State Park: Minnesota DNR
Official web site describes the park's history, landscape, geology, and wildlife. Information on facilities. Summer and winter maps in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format.
Maps: Jay Cooke State Park: Minnesota DNR
© 2012 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ⢠Equal Opportunity Employer ⢠State of Minnesota ⢠Disclaimers, Legal Notices and Policies ⢠Email Us
Jay Cooke (203) 253-2920 - Welcome to your number one source on the...
Greenwich CT Luxury Homes for Sale and Greenwich CT Real Estate. We specialize in Greenwich CT Luxury Homes, and Listings representing both Home Buyers and...
MY YEAR OF CHEESE by HANNAH COOKE - Sometimes - Always ...
21.05.2012 MY YEAR OF CHEESE by HANNAH COOKE. — Posted on 22.05.2012. I've had a few false starts in writing this column. Tropea is so far removed from my life in Auckland that I don't know what you would be interested in ...
How Do Hormone Levels Affect Menopause? - Menopause Relief ...
12.12.2010 Hannah Cooke successfully devised a strategy that helped her cope with her own menopause easily and calmly and now she coaches other women how to do the same thing. Sign up for her FREE newsletter and discover all ...
Jay Cooke
Jay Cooke . The original area of Jay Cooke State Park was once a thriving fur trading post. The state park originated in 1915 when the St. Louis River Power Company
Jay Cooke
Jay Cooke Jay Cooke (August 10, 1821-February 18, 1905), American financier, was born at Sandusky, Ohio, the son of Eleutheros Cooke (1787-1864), a pioneer Ohio
No. 17 Griffons sweep Southern to extend win streak to eight | St ...
07.04.2012 The Lions got hits from Breanna Volkmann and Kiley Siebenaler while Hannah Cooke falls to 3-10 going just 1.2 inings. She gave up four hits and five earned runs. Kayce Moore went 3.1 innings giving up eight hits and six ...
Jay Cooke - Academic Kids
An Encyclopedia article about Jay Cooke - Academic Kids ... Template:Infobox Biography Jay Cooke (August 10, 1821-February 8, 1905), American financier, was born at
Jay Cooke - Biography
Jay Cooke - Biography | 15,000 biographies of famous people | FREE bios online.
Related search requests for Hannah Jay Cooke
|Hannah Cooke
Hanna Krupcheck
Hannie Dropkick
|Kristin Cavallari
Person "Cooke" (2)
Forename "Jay" (31229)
Name "Cooke" (4410)
sorted by relevance / date