Copyright © 1999 by Westminster
Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
SHORT STUDY
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
AND THE INTERPRETATION
OF GEN 2:4-7
JACK COLLINS
I. Introduction
The interpretation of Gen 2:4-7 is a
traditional hard place for Biblical
studies. These verses are often cited as proof
of discord between the creation
narratives of Genesis 1 and 2, and hence as
evidence of disparate sources
of the originals. In response, many have sought to
harmonize the two peric-
opes, but with widely
differing conclusions. The purpose of this essay is to
employ the tools of discourse grammar to see if they
can shed light on this
passage.
We begin by giving the Hebrew of Gen
2:4-8, with the RSV for a sample
English version. Our grammatical
discussion will lead to an interpretation
that we can express by modifying the RSV
Mymwv
Crx Myhlx hvhy tvWf Mvyb
Mxrbhb Crxhv Mymwh tOdlOt hlx
4
Hmcy MrF hdWh
bWf-lkv Crxb hyhy MrF hdWh
HyW lkv 5
hmdxh-tx dbfl Nyx Mdxv
Crxh-lf Myhlx hvhy ryFmh xl yk
hmdxh-ynp-lk-tx hqwhv Crxh-Nm hlfy dxv
6
MyyH tmwn vypxb Hpyv hmdxh-Nm
rpf Mrxh-tx Myhlx hvhy rcyyv
7
hyH
wpnl Mdxh yhyv
rcy rwx Mdxh-tx Mw MWyv Mdqm Ndfb-Ng
Myhlx hvhy fFyv 8
(4)
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
In
the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (5) when no plant
of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of
the field had yet sprung up--for
the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was no man
to till the ground; (6) but a mist went up from
the earth and watered the whole
face of the ground--(7) then the Lord God formed man
of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.
(8)
And the Lord God planted a garden in
the man whom he had formed. (RSV)
The way the RSV has divided verse 4
into two parts, with 4b as the
beginning of the sentence that continues on
through verse 5, represents a
Jack Collins is
associate professor of OT at Covenant Theological Seminary.
269
270
common analysis of the clause-to-clause relationships.1
Further, the inter-
pretation of the Hebrew ‘eres as
"earth" in verses 5-6 is also common.
Indeed,
it is this that leads to the declaration of contradiction between these
verses and the events of Genesis 1. S. R. Driver is
typical:2
The words [of verses 4b-5], taken in connexion with the sequel (v. 7), are intended
to describe the
condition of the earth at the time when man was created: no shrub
or herb--and a
fortiori, no tree--had yet appeared upon it, for it was not suffi-
ciently
watered to support vegetation. According to i. 11f., plant- and tree-life was
complete three ‘days’
before the creation of man: obviously the present writer
views the order of
events differently.
Those
who oppose source criticism but still accept this clause-to-clause analysis
typically contend that the two pericopes
are better seen as complementary
rather than contradictory; and any successful
harmonization between the
two pericopes diminishes
the credibility of conventional source analysis.3
A recent example of such a complementary
interpretation comes from
Mark
Futato.4 He says,
I understand Gen 2:5 as having a global
reference that would parallel the situa-
tion
prior to Days 3b [Gen 1:11-12] and 6b [Gen 1:26-30], i.e., before God created
vegetation and
people.... Rather than being a second creation account, Gen 2:4-25
is properly read as
a resumption and expansion not of Day 6 but of Days 3b and
6b taken together as a unit.5
He
uses this to support the conclusion that strict chronological sequence is
not a part of the communicative intent of either
Genesis 1 or 2, and hence
to support the so-called "framework"
interpretation of the Genesis days.
1 The RSV as it stands is
non-committal on whether verse 4a goes with 1:1-2:3 as its
conclusion, or with 2:4b-25 as its heading. My
discussion will address that question later.
2 S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (
37.
Cf. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (
1910]),4-5; John Skinner, Genesis
(International Critical Commentary;
51;
Claus Westermann, Genesis
1-11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984 [German original, 1974]),
197.
Terje Stordalen,
"Genesis 2, 4: Restudying a locus classicus,"
ZAW 104:2 (1992) 163-177,
gives an overview of the process whereby this became
dominant (at 163). The influence of this
approach is visible in many places, which it
would be tedious to document; one example would
be Dianne Bergant and
Carroll Stuhlmueller, "Creation according to the
Old Testament,"
in Ernan McMullin, ed., Evolution
and Creation (Notre Dame:
1985), 153-175, at 155, who simply take it for
granted.
3 Richard Hess, "Genesis 1-2
in its literary context," TynB 41:1 (1990), 143-53, gives a
rationale for this approach without discussing the
particulars of Genesis 2:4-7. As he observes,
it is a feature of Genesis first to give the
overall picture, and then to go back and focus on some
details. Derek Kidner,
"Genesis 2:5, 6: Wet or Dry?" TynB 17 (1966) 109-14, attempts to
harmonize the two passages by taking 2:5-6 as
describing the same conditions as 1:2, "the
unrelieved expanse of waters" (112).
4 Mark Futato,
"Because it had rained: A study of Gen 2:5-7 with implications for Gen
2:4-25
and Gen 1:1-2:3," WTJ 60 (1998), 1-21. Although the analysis and conclusions of the
present
paper originated independently of Futato's
work, they have profited greatly from that work.
5 Futato,
"Because it had rained," 12 n.41 and 14.
INTERPRETATION OF GEN
2:4-7 271
In my judgment Futato
is probably right in supposing that, under this
analysis of Gen 2:4-8, the only way to avoid the
declaration of incoherence
between the two pericopes
is to do away with sequentiality. But this can lead
us to question whether the analysis is itself
right. I am the more interested
in raising this question, because my own exegesis
has convinced me of a view
of the Genesis days as "analogical
days," namely they are God's work days:
they are analogous, and not identical, to ours,
structured for the purpose of
setting a pattern for the human rhythm of work
and rest. According to this
interpretation, the days are
"broadly consecutive" (allowing for the possi-
bility that parts of the days
may overlap, or that there may be logical rather
than chronological criteria for grouping some events
in a particular day).6
II.
Discourse Considerations and Literary Structure for Gen 2:4-25
Discourse analysis is the discipline that
studies texts as acts of communi-
cation. Discourse grammar
analyzes grammatical structures, such as verb
tense and aspect, to find patterns of usage related
to communicative intent.
Described
this way, its advantages for exegesis should be obvious and not
particularly controversial.
Unfortunately, discourse grammarians often use
exotic vocabulary and make extravagant claims, and
generally do not make
clear to the uninitiated just which parts of their
position are common
ground among Hebrew grammarians, and which are not.7
I aim to make
use of those parts which are in fact common ground.
Our first task is to identify the genre of our
text: is it narrative, exposition,
exhortation, eulogistic poetry, lament, or something
else? There is no diffi-
culty in discerning that in
this passage we are dealing with narrative prose.
Next
we must delineate the boundaries and structures of the individual
pericopes. In this case, we must
decide whether we should in fact divide
verse 4; and then whether any of its parts belong to
the first pericope
(1:1-2:3) or to the second (2:5-25).
Many have noticed that in Gen 2:4 we have an
elaborate chiasmus.8 In
general, the communicative function of a
chiasmus is to unify its parts, with
6 C. John Collins, "Reading
Genesis 1:1-2:3 as an act of communication: Discourse analy-
sis and literal interpretation," in Joseph Pipa, Jr. and David Hall, eds., Did God Create in Six
Days? (Taylors: Southern
Presbyterian Press, 1999), 131-51. At 142-43 I offer some critique of
the framework scheme.
7 In this light it is understandable that
Bruce Waltke and Michael O'Connor, An Intro-
duction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1990), 55, "have resisted the
strong claims of the discourse grammarians"; but
it is nonetheless an unfortunate decision on
their part. After all, the goal of discourse grammar
is riot to replace the traditional grammar
(which seems to be Waltke and
O'Connor's perception), but to incorporate that grammar into
a systematic description of what good readers in
the receptor audience do when they receive
a text.
8 E.g., Yehudah
Kiel, Sefer Biresit (Genesis, Da’at Miqra;
1997),
43 (Hebrew page numbers); C. John Collins, "The wayyiqtol as ‘pluperfect': When
and
272
the context allowing us to infer just what kind of
unity the author has in
view.9 The chiasmus here can
be seen thus: a heavens ... b earth ... c
when they were created c' in the day that the Lord God made b' earth and
a'
heavens. As I observed in an earlier paper,
Such an elaborate chiasmus is evidence of
art, not coincidence. Further, by this
means the author
has tied the two accounts together: note how the word order
"the heavens
and the earth" (a and b), as well as the verb bara
"create" (c), point
us back to 1:1 (as
well as 1:21, 27 for the verb); whereas the change in divine name
from ‘elohim,
"God" (ch. 1) to yhwh elohim, "the Lord God" (ch. 2-3) is reflected
in the c' element.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the final editor wanted
his readers to read
the two accounts as complementary, not contradictory.10
This
further shows why the change in divine name from 4a to 4b does not of
itself indicate that the two parts are separable:11
instead, as Franz Delitzsch
put it, "The combination of the two names
denotes ... the oneness of God
the Creator ['elohim, 1:1-2:4a] and the God of Israel, or the God of
positive
revelation [yhwh,
2:4b-3:24]."12
Therefore the features of the text invite us to
read verse 4 as a unit, and
to start a new sentence at the beginning of verse
5. However, is it a post-
script to the first pericope,13 or a
heading to the second? The simplest
answer is that it introduces what follows: that is the
function of the toledot
"generations" phrases throughout Genesis (cf. 5:1; 6:9;
10:1; 11:10, 27;
25:12,
19; 36:1, 9; 37:2),14 but so long as the
communicative function is
observed (i.e., as an invitation to read the two
narratives as complements)
it does not matter much.15
why," TynB 46:1 (1995) 117-140, at 138-40; Stordalen,
"Genesis 2, 4," 169-75; Alviero Niccacci,
The Syntax of the Verb
in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSS 86, Sheffield:
Press,
1990 [Italian original, 1986]), 200 n.26; Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Commentary;
Magnes, 1961 [Hebrew original, 1944]), I: 98-99.
9 For example, the chiastic word
order of Genesis 1:5 expresses simultaneous naming of the
light and darkness. A good discussion of the chiasmus
appears in H. Van Dyke Parunak, "Oral
typesetting: Some uses of Biblical structure," Bib 62:2 (1981) 153-68.
10 Collins,
"Wayyiqtol
as pluperfect," 139.
Stephen
Kempf, "Introducing the Garden of Eden: The
structure and function of Gene-
sis 2:4b-7," JOTT 7:4 (1996) 33-53, acknowledges the chiasmus but supports the
division of
the verse on the basis of, among other things, the
change in divine name (at 39-41).
12 Franz Delitzsch,
A New Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1888), 114. Cf.
also Cassuto, Genesis, I:
86-88.
13 As preferred recently by Alviero Niccacci, "Analysis
of Biblical narrative," in R. D. Bergen,
ed.,
Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics
(Dallas: SIL, 1994), 175-98, at 184 (but without
discussion).
14 Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 49; Delitzsch,
Genesis, 110. This agrees with
the paragraph
marker of the Masoretic
text.
15 As Cassuto
noted, Genesis, I: 99. Hence the
suggestion that the difference in conclusion
between Niccacci and
myself on this point is evidence of "the subjective nature of Discourse
Analysis"
is a drastic overstatement (Joseph Pipa, Jr.,
"From chaos to cosmos: A critique of
the non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1:
1-2:3," in Did God Create in Six
Days?, 153-98, at 179;
INTERPRETATION OF GEN
2:4-7 273
Next
we must assess the structure of the whole pericope.
Here is where
the discourse grammar of the verb can help us. In a
Biblical Hebrew narra-
tive, the function of the wayyiqtol verb
form (also improperly called "the
waw-consecutive with imperfect") is as
"the backbone or storyline tense of
Biblical Hebrew narrative discourse."16 Hence, if we want to
find the main
sequence of events in a narrator"s
presentation,, we should begin by looking
for the wayyiqtol verbs.17 Other verb forms are used for
supplying background
information: e.g., the "perfect" (qatal) is used to
denote events off the
storyline, while the "imperfect" (yiqtol),
"converted perfect" (weqatal), and
participle (qotel) denote background activities with process aspect
("some-
thing
was happening").18
From this we can see that the storyline begins
in verse 7 with the first
wayyiqtol verb (wayyiser,
"and he formed"). Verses 5-6 are syntactically
background, or setting, for verse 7: with verbs
describing what had "not
yet" happened in verse 5, and then verbs with
process aspect in verse 6
(ya’aleh, RSV
"went up," better "was going up"; wehisqa, RSV "watered,"
better "was watering") describing what was
happening when the action of
verse 7 took place.19 This yields a
structure as follows:
2:4 Hinge/heading
2:5-6 Background/setting--specific
circumstances for following events
2:7-9 Events:
formation of man, planting of garden, placing of man
2:10-14 Excursus: the four primeval rivers20
cf.
Benjamin Shaw, "The literal day interpretation," in the same volume,
199-220, at 200 n.3).
The
difference is simply one of literary judgment, and does not impinge on the
validity of the
methodology (especially since Niccacci
does not interact with the alternative).
16 R. E. Longacre,
"Discourse perspective on the Hebrew verb: Affirmation and restate-
ment," in Walter Bodine, ed., Linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew (
1992), 177-89, at 178. Cf. also Randall Buth, "The Hebrew verb in current discussions,"
JOTT 5:2 (1992) 91-105.
17 Of course, since this verb
form can be used for imbedded storylines, we cannot mechan-
ically identify the occurrence
of the verb form with this function.
18 "Process aspect" has
a number of contextually inferred nuances, such as habitual action,
repeated action, one action in process, inceptive
action.
19 This analysis agrees with Niccacci;, "Analysis of
Biblical narrative," 187; cf. Wenham,
Genesis 1-15, 46
n.5a. Futato, "Because it had
rained," 2 n.5 and 5-6, argues that verse 7 is part
of the background with verses 5-6. However, this
is unsatisfactory because (1) the wayyiqtol
sequence begins in verse 7 and runs through verse
9; and (2) it gives no indication of how the
discontinuity between verses 7 and 8
is detectable. He depends, not so much on the gram-
matical particulars as on his assessment
of this section as having a "problem-resolution"
structure, as well as on his interest in
supporting a version of the "framework" view of 1:1-2:3.
But
if neither of those has independent support, his case loses its force.
20 The verb forms are
participles, an imperfect (verse 10 yippared, RSV "it divided"), and
a converted perfect (verse 10 wehaya, RSV "and
became"), which have the function of giving
process aspect background with past time
reference. That is, these four rivers were flowing etc.,
though they might not flow the same way now (cf. John Munday, Jr., "
erodes
flood geology," WTJ 58:1 [1996]
123-54). The existence of the excursus explains why
verse 15 begins by re-stating the action of verse 8
(verse 8 "there he put the man" . . . verse
15
"the Lord God took the man and set him"): it resumes the narrative
after a digression. This
274
2:15-17 Events: God establishes terms of
relationship with man
2:18-25 Events: formation of complementary
helper
Peak: verses 23-2421
III. Harmonizing with Gen 1:1-2:3
Since Gen 2:7 recounts the formation of the
first human (cf. verse 6 which
says there was not a human up to this point), we
cooperate with the author
by taking it as complementary to 1:27. In doing so
we note that the forma-
tion of the woman, which is
given in the same verse in the broad stroke
account of chapter 1, is in chapter 2 separated
from the making of the man
by several events. The making of the woman is
preceded by a declaration
of "not good" in 2:18, indicating that
at that point we have not yet come
to the "very good" status of everything
in 1:31. We note further that
Gen
2:19 describes the formation of the animals.22 All of this suggests
that
the storyline events of 2:5-25 are events of the
"sixth day" of 1:24-31.23
This being the case, it makes sense to see if we
can interpret 2:5-6 in a
simple way as background to the events that begin in
verse 7. Can we
cooperate with the invitation of verse 4, to read
the two pericopes as com-
plementary, in a way that is
consonant with the grammar and the lexicon?
We
can if we take note of several factors. First, we note that discourse-
oriented exegesis shows that the "days"
of Genesis 1 need not be the 24-
hour kind, and that hence the events of the sixth
"day" could be some
number of weeks, years, or even longer after the
beginning of the creation
week in 1:3.24
We note further that the semantic range of
Hebrew 'eres
in verse 5: is it
"earth," "land," or "region"? It is fairly
common to take 'eres
as "earth"
(cf.
RSV, NASB, NIV text), and to find in this a description of the condition
of the whole earth.25 But the word
quite often means simply "land" (cf.
explanation of verse 15 hardly supports Futato's contention that the narrative of Genesis 2 is
not governed by chronological concerns
("Because it had rained," 11-13; Futato
takes verse
9-14 as an expansion of verse 8a).
21 The "peak" is the
place of maximum interest in the narrative, and here it is marked by
(1)
the poetic and rhetorical features of verse 23; (2)
the fact that the project of verse 18 is now
complete; (3) the enduring consequences described
in verse 24; and (4) the viewpoints of the
chief characters, man (verse 23) and God (verse 24)
being clearly stated.
22 See Collins, "The wayyiqtol as
pluperfect," 135-40, justifying the interpretation of 2:19,
"The
Lord God had formed from the ground every animal of the field and every flying
thing
of the sky," i.e., this formation actually
took place before the making of the man, as recorded
in Genesis 1.
23
second pericope as an
elaboration of the sixth day (see his note 7 for evidence).
24 See Collins, "
25 If we reject the view that
there are two competing creation accounts, we have to decide
what to do about it not having rained: are we to
suppose that rain did not fall until the flood?
INTERPRETATION OF GEN
2:4-7 275
NIV
margin), either as dry land (its sense in 1:10-31) or as a specific region
(its sense in 2:11-13), where God made man prior to moving
him into the
The discourse relation of verses 5-6 to verse 7,
as the setting for the events
of verse 7, makes the latter line of
interpretation the simplest: that is, in a
particular year, at the time of year before the
rain fell to water the ground
(e.g. in
when the "mist" (or perhaps
"spring"?)28 was rising (possibly beginning to
rise),29 in some unspecified region, God
formed the first human, planted a
garden, and then transplanted the man to this new
place to enjoy it and
care for it. This interpretation has the advantages
of (1) following directly
from the discourse relations; (2) using ordinary
meanings of words; and
(3)
being easily harmonious with Gen 1:1-2:3.30
IV. A
Revised Translation of Gen 2:4-8 (with notes)
We may modify the RSV given above to reflect
this analysis (I have
included several philological comments as
annotations):
(4) These are the generations
of the heavens and the
earth when they were created,
26 Cf.
an argument for "region."
27 Cf. John Bimson
et al., .New Bible Atlas (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 14-15.
Futato, "Because it had rained," 3, notes
this fact but does not apply it in the same way as
I
do.
28 Hebrew ‘ed, no one knows for sure what this word means. I see no reason to
dissent from
Delitzsch, Genesis,
117, who argues on the basis of Job 36:27 (its only other occurrence in the
Bible)
and an Arabic cognate for the sense "mist" (i.e., "condensed
vapor"). The Septuagint
rendered the Hebrew with phgh<, "spring,"
and comparative evidence may favor something
like "flood" (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15,
58; Victor Hamilton, Genesis 1-17
[New International
Commentary on the OT;
this evidence decisive. Futato,
"Because it had rained," 5-9, argues strongly and, I think, success-
fully, against the
"flood"/"stream" interpretation and in favor of something
like "rain-
cloud," i.e., along the lines of Delitzsch.
that this is the Targum
and Rabbinic tradition. (Futato does not like the
rendering "mist"
because according to his definition the English
word does not quite match the meaning
"rain-cloud";
but it seems clear that Delitzsch means something
close to the sense for which
Futato argues.)
29 It is possible to infer from
the context that the particular nuance of the process aspect is
inceptive action, "it was beginning to go up.
.. it was beginning to water." Waltke and O'Connor,
Hebrew Syntax, §31.2c, support such a
possibility, but their examples are not all persuasive
(2
Sam 15:37 is the best, cf. RSV).
30 This harmonization, by the
way, which began with the possibility
that the "days" were
not the 24-hour kind, seems actually to, favor the likelihood that they represent
longer spans
of time. The passage itself supplies an explicit
reason why the vegetation had not grown,
namely the absence of rain and man (verse 5). In order
for this to hold there must be some
lapse of time longer than a few days.
276
in the day that31
the LORD God made earth and heaven.
(5)
When no bush of the field32 was yet in the land and no small plant
of the field
had yet sprung up--for the Lord God had not caused
it to rain on the land, and
there was no man to work the ground, (6) and a mist
was going up33 from the land
and was watering the whole face of the ground--(7)
then the Lord God formed
the man34 of dust35 from the
ground,36 and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life, and the man became a living creature.37
(8) And the Lord God planted38
a garden in
31 I.e., "when the Lord God
made." For this meaning of beyom followed by an infinitive
construct see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400a; P Jouon and T. Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew
(Rome: Editrice Pontifico Biblico, 1993), §129p
A.2.
32 Futato,
"Because it had rained," 4, argues that the only legitimate
interpretation of siah
hassddeh "bush of the
field" must be "wild shrubs of the steppe," in contrast to the seb hassadeh
"small plant of the field," which he takes to be
cultivated (a possibility mentioned in Kidner,
"Genesis 2:5, 6," 109).
33 Taking the verb ya'aleh, as most
do, as a simple Qal imperfect with 'ed as subject. Futato,
"Because
it had rained," 8, argues that we should interpret the verb as a Hiphil imperfect
with the Lord God as subject of both it and the next
verb wehisqa
"and it was a mist that he
[i.e.,
the Lord God] was bringing up, and he was watering." This is possible, but
the reasons
he offers do not settle the question. (I) When the first element of a clause is not the verb, as
is here the case, it is more expected for that
element to be the subject. (2) A noun in the
semantic category "mist/cloud" can as
easily be the subject of the Qal of the verb (cf.
1
Kgs 18:44) as the object of the Hiphil
(cf. Ps 135:7). (3) Similarly, it is quite proper for a
source of water to be the subject of the next verb, wehisqa "and
was watering" (as it is in verse
10).
The credibility of his argument that "God would
be the explicit solver of both the
problem of no rain and the problem of no
cultivator" (8-9) depends in turn on the prior
acceptance of his literary reading for the text,
and hence cannot establish that reading in
opposition to others. Hence I see no reason not to
translate this in the usual way.
34 The Hebrew has a definite
article ha'ddam, "the man," namely the first human. I would
take the article as anaphoric to the mention of
"man" in verse 5, which does not have the
article: literally, "and as for man, there
was none to work." Without the article it becomes the
proper name Adam in verse 20. In verse 23, using different
terms, the "woman" ('issa) is taken
from the "man" (is).
35 That is, loose soil.
36 Many suppose that there is a
play on words here: "human" is 'adam, while "ground"
is 'adama, from which man was made and now to which lie
will returns because of sin (cf. 3:19).
Since,
however, in verse 19 God also "forms" the animals "from the
ground," we must not
push this too far.
37 It is difficult to give a good
literal translation of this term (nepes hayya, traditionally
"living
soul": cf. 1:21, 24, 30; 2:7, 19) and still have elegant English:
"living animated being"
would be the closest. Delitzsch,
Genesis, 94, points out that since a nepes (often
rendered "soul")
animates a body, the expression denotes
"animated material beings, bodies having souls." In
I
Cor 15:45, Paul employs the LXX rendering of this
expression, yuxh>
zw?sa ("living
soul")
in the sense of "living natural being,"
to contrast with the supernatural life he denotes by
nvefµa
("spirit") in verses 44-46.
38 In Collins, "The wayyiqtol as
pluperfect," 140 n.75, I reject the NIV's making
this
pluperfect: "the Lord God had planted." I think the end of the verse, 'aser yasar "whom he
had formed," places the formation of verse 7
prior to the planting of verse 8.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
2960
www.wts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: