Greek: καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί
1 Corinthians 8:5 (ESV): "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—"
NASB: "For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,"
NWT 2013: For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”
NET Bible: If after all there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
Should the translations above be faulted for referring to gods as "so-called"? Michael Heiser thinks such renderings are wrong. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyPrO3KuPao&list=WL&index=41
As with all matters of translation or biblical interpretation, the views are many and diverse. However, I want to present some observations that suggest Heiser could be wrong or he might need to attenuate his remarks:
1) καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ could be understood in a hypothetical sense. William Mounce translates "For even if . . ." like NASB does. Zerwick and Grosvenor supply two possible renderings, "for granted that, for although"
The point is that Paul's words might be concessive rather than stating a point about reality (i.e., the way things actually are pertaining to gods and lords).
2) Another issue is how we should understand λεγόμενοι θεοὶ. In the dissertation, "The Shema in John’s Gospel Against its Backgrounds in Second Temple Judaism,"
Lori A.R. Baron writes:
"In 1 Cor 8:5-6, Paul qualifies the first slogan which denies the existence of idols to say that there are many 'so-called' (λεγόμενοι) gods and lords; Paul does not deny that these powers exist in the world, only that they are not gods 'for us' (ἡμῖν; cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21)"
See page 237.
In my opinion, we should not conflate demons with "gods" per se. Granted, the demons are elohim/theoi (they belong to this category/class), but was Paul thinking about demons in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6? It's possible, but his use of "gods" and lords" suggest that he was thinking about gods/lords represented by idols. For instance, Zeus or Artemis: these gods do not have any extramental existence. They are so-called deities (soi-disant powers), but the Father is God "for us" just as Christ is Lord for true Christians.
Loren Stuckenbruck takes this approach to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:
"Paul's admission of the existence of these λεγόμενοι θεοί probably refers to function. Their existence holds 'to the extent that they are being worshipped'; so BETZ, Galatians, p. 215 and see n. 22."
See Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, page 108.
3) We must consider how writers sometimes use λεγόμενοι:
2 Thessalonians 2:4-ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον
θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα
ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός
Ephesians 2:11-"Therefore recall that you, formerly fleshly Gentiles, the so-called uncircumcision by the so-called circumcision, which is in the flesh, made by hands" (Translation by S.M. Baugh)
Baugh comments:
The expression “so-called” (for λεγόμενοὶ, legomenoi; here) is not necessarily pejorative; it can simply mean “who are called” (as the major versions here), “who are known as,” or “who are designated as.” For example, “Jesus, who is known as ‘Justus’ ” (Col 4:11; Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰοῦστος, Iēsous ho legomenos Ioustos; cf. Matt 1:16; 4:18; 10:2; John 11:16; 21:2). However, there are two places in Paul with this expression where “so-called” is found in some versions: “there may be so-called gods” (1 Cor 8:5; ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) and “every so-called god” (2 Thess 2:4; ESV, NASB, NRSV). In these cases Paul is distancing himself from labels other people use. That seems to be the case here in Eph 2:11, because Paul does not use derogatory labels for his audience; he calls them “saints” (e.g., 1:1; 5:3).
3) Speaking of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Craig Keener likewise observes:
"The particular knowledge to which the intellectually elite Christians here appeal is the claim that idols are really nothing (8:4). Whatever the status of their images,151 Paul is less convinced that the 'many gods' of Greeks and Romans (for statues in Corinth’s marketplace, see Pausanias 2.2.6, 8; 2.3.1) are
nothing (8:5); in fact, he follows common Jewish tradition in recognizing spiritual forces behind them (10:20). Paul does concede that these 'so-called gods' are nothing in the sense that Christians recognized that only one God was true (8:6)."
I agree that the many "gods" and lords" have spiritual forces behind them. Nevertheless, they are "nothing" by virtue of their non-existence in reality and insofar as they're false whereas God the Father is the only true God. Keener still refers to the deities as "so-called gods."
4) Galatians 4:8 seems to justify the translation of 1 Corinthians 8:5 as "so-called gods" or the translator could use quotation marks, "gods" and "lords."
The verse states: Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς·
See the discussion in A. Tim Span's Ph.D. dissertation,"The Divine Name in the New Testament: Tetragrammaton or Surrogate?" Pages 67-68.
Add this to the mix regarding "in heaven":-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYl24xibc2I
I think the early patristic notion was that the gods were deamons (or similar powers), but also were not gods, for example Origen, in against Celsus, says that idols and the mythic gods are not actually gods, and don't really exist; yet he also says they are actually demons, what makes them not gods in is their lack of virtue and their creulty, and thus they are not worthy of being worshiped .... This is also more or less the idea in Theophilus of Antioch.
ReplyDeleteI mean 2 Cor 4:4 seems to describe Satan as a god and you have beings that are not YHWH described as god, those in Psalms 82, some of the Qumran scrolls, etc etc; but it is also true that you have in Isaiah discussion of idols being nothing (Bel and the Dragon is a second temply kind of humerous story making that point), and here in verse 4 it does seem to say that there is not God but one, the idols are nothing.
But I wonder if one might be able to say that the gods of the nations are "real" in that there are demonic forces behind them, but not real in that they are not worthy of any righteous worship, and any power they hold is given to them.
One thing I will say ... reading Homer ... it honesly seems to me like those "gods" could actually be demons, they strike me as pretty demonic and evil in their depictions.
As far as the actual topic of your post (every once in a while my comments aren't wildly irrelevant :P), I think Stuckenbruck is probably correct, I don't think Kyrious is a strickly ontological distinction, I think it's probably in reference to human rulers, and the gods are not worth any concern, idols are nothing (their power is nothing); this might also highly the creation/eschatology aspect (all things are from God, and we into him, and all things through Christ and we through him), all things are made through Christ by God ... so no idol (or god) has any power or anything, or any necessity of being worshiped, and Christ is the only intermediary necessary. So idols are nothing in that sense.
I don't think here we are speaking of the ontological status of "gods" any more than the ontological status of "lords," perse.
As far as Micahel Heiser ... well ... perhaps I ought to bite my tongue ... needless to say, I'm often less than impressed with him.
Anyway ... good analysis, and a good collection of commentators (Stuckenbruck's book on apocalyptic is on it's way to me :)).
Are theoi/kurioi ontological or functional terms here? I lean toward them being ontological, but some have also suggested that we cannot separate ontology and function: they are two facets of a thing. I offer that point as something to consider. Paul Rainbow also contends that theoi/kurioi refer to the same things: he appeals to the Greek papyri to support this claim.
ReplyDeletePlease let me know what you think of Stuckenbruck's apocalyptic work.
Doesn't "gods ... on earth" tell you what you need to know?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Paul could use "the image of god" means that he differentiated between a go and its image/idol.
The early Roman usage of theos and apotheos were political - Gaius Julius Caesar was the apointer of gods (even Pontius Pilate may have been called god as well a lord), the meaning gradually became a little more "heavenly" over the next hundred years or so.
Yes, Paul differentiated a God from its image/idol. However, I would disagree that theos was originally a political term that became heavenly over time. The Romans used deus and related terms, but picked up theos from the Greeks. Paul's words also reflect the language of Exodus 20.
ReplyDeletehttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/96773774.pdf
ReplyDeleteWith particular attention on page 86.
Just to clarify, this is the roman context which is relevant to the period regardless of how theos was used by the Greeks.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3210166?seq=1 apotheosis was never automatic - it was by vote but the examples given here are late. In earlier Roman times this could be bestowed before death.
ReplyDeleteSome papers use the the term apotheosis for Egyptian kings which IMO is incorrect.
The Roman context is important, no doubt, but theos in the Bible is also influenced by the Greek usage of theos and the Hebrew background of elohim.
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks believed in apotheosis way back when. See the Oedipus trilogy by Sophocles.
Other sources that I would recommend for 1 Corinthians studies include Anthony Thiselton's commentary and Gordon Fee's work.
ReplyDeletehttps://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/72116/Watson-Tamara-MA-CLAS-August-2016.pdf
ReplyDeleteThank Foster, it's certainly possible that functional distincions can imply ontological ones (certainly theos does, and perhaps kyrious), but Paul certainly thinks there is a god of this world, and it's not the one God of the Christians: The Father.
ReplyDeleteI think one thing is for sure, the term theos was underdetermined, especially in comparison to our era.
You mention exodus 20, but compare https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/22-28.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:588337/s4054385_phd_final_thesis.pdf
ReplyDeleteSee page 35 footnote 110 - ‘to/for the unconquered god’.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cicero-and-the-rise-of-deification-at-rome/charting-the-posthumous-path/552597C26ADFCFD1377AF46203AD4950
ReplyDeleteDeification in his own life time, not at death.
Roman: I concur that Paul describes Satan as the god of this world: the Bible also refers to the holy angels as elohim/theoi and men have Psalm 82 applied to them in John 10.
ReplyDeleteDuncan: as Maimonides said, elohim is a homonym that applies to more than just the true God. I have no problem with that idea.
The Greeks likewise believed that apotheosis was not limited to death. Oedipus' divinization happens at the end of the play, but see https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=apotheosis-cn
Comments from the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary by William Baker. Speaking of eidolon:
ReplyDelete"For Jews and Christians, it is the word that denotes statues of pagan gods, which God considers revolting. This word is used in the second of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:4, LXX)."
One reason why I say the Decalogue serves as a backdrop for 1 Cor. 8:5-6.
"Jews believed idols are not real (Isa 41:29; Jer 2:11), and
yet they thought some sort of demonic powers lay behind their aura (Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37), as noted by Garland (2003:372)."
"gods both in heaven and on earth. In the Greek pantheon of gods, some were in heaven, others on earth, and still more were somewhere in between in different phases of their mythologies (Fee 1987:372). The reference to earthly gods could also refer to deified emperors or to the worship of aspects of nature (Collins 1999:319). The phrasing could be intended to coordinate with the next phrase of 'many gods and many lords' or to contrast with it, as Collins suggests (1999:314).
"many gods and many lords. The addition of 'lords' probably refers to the gods of the Greek mystery cults, who are regularly referred to by this word (Fee 1987:373), though this term could be a reference to deified emperors (Collins 1999:314)."
Looking through the Tufts article it noted regional governors in the relevant time frame.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ancient-literature.com/rome_seneca_apocolocyntosis.html
ReplyDelete"Seneca appears also to have been concerned with what he saw as an overuse of apotheosis as a political tool."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2936078?seq=1
ReplyDeleteThe waters seem to muddy here:- https://biblehub.com/text/acts/17-18.htm
ReplyDelete"deities" ?
δαίμων (masculine) and δαιμόνιον (neuter and diminutive) usually give classicists a bit of grief: should it be rendered "spirit," "god," "demon," deity?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how "deities" for Acts 17:18 could be wrong: the context provides some illumination and one is reminded of the δαίμων that instructed Socrates and don't forget the words εὐδαιμονία, εὐδαίμων, and εὔδαιμον.
Important to remember that Daimown didn't have a negative connotation (acts 25:19 "the dispute between paul and the Jews was described as one about their own "fear of the demons" i.e. worship, so Fustus thought that was an appropriate term for a Jewish religious dispute. So perhaps the line between demons and gods was blurry, (just like many distinctions that later became more strict). The Jews themselves would probably have not used that language about Jehovah, but overall there was a heavenly heirarchical world with blurry boundries, (thus the popularity of middle-platonism, syncronism, mystery cults, etc etc at the time.
ReplyDeleteRoman, I quickly checked a reference, so this comment could be wrong. But I believe daimon did not have a negative connotation for early Greeks, but the word acquired negative connotations for Christians. Of course, the context will make this clear.
Deletehttps://biblehub.com/greek/daimonio_n_1140.htm
ReplyDeleteI think the usages across the NT context speak for themselves & we even have an occurrence in Luke.
"deities" lacks the necessary force. Its a watering down because of whom is being spoken against? - translator bias?
To be clear, you asked whether Acts 17:18 could be translated with deities. The answer is yes, but that doesn't mean it should be translated that way. Yet, how is deities a watering down in Acts 17:18?
ReplyDeleteSee ESV and NASB. Notice how they render Acts 17:18. Deities is a synonym for gods: the words are interchangeable
ReplyDeleteGood point about the blurry boundaries
ReplyDeleteNot gods - demons.
ReplyDeleteIn Acts 17:18, and I could be wrong, but gods/deities seems preferable to demons.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/68ZXXYEX3Zo
ReplyDeleteYou know that in many circles Christians were perceived as godless. Also that foreign demon could be a good fit for Egyptian and Persian. In a disparaging way to say "foreign demons" fits very well as far as I see, at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThe word "demon" (δαιμόνιον in this case) did not have negative connotations for the Greeks; after all, Paul was in Athens when the words of Acts 17:18 were uttered. Even if they meant "demons," the force would not have been the same as it was for Jews and Christians. Even as far back and J.H. Thayer, the sense "deity, divinity" was recognized for Acts 17:18. I'm fairly confident that the overall evidence from antiquity will bear out this rendering.
ReplyDeleteThayer cites Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.1 about Socrates:
ReplyDeleteἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης οὓς μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων: ἀδικεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς νέους διαφθείρων.
See LSJ:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=daimo%2Fnia&la=greek&can=daimo%2Fnia0&prior=kaina\&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0207:book=1:chapter=1:section=1&i=1#lexicon
https://greekerthanthegreeks.com/2016/10/lost-in-translation-word-of-day-demon.html
ReplyDeleteThe second definition here is very interest but neither are god.
Compare:- Plat. Apol. 24b
ReplyDeleteI also see this as a derogatory accusation (whether true or not).
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FiO1DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=Plat.+Apol.+24b&source=bl&ots=9uiXrmuIff&sig=ACfU3U0NgVmZKB5BWagLr3bNT0kL6NI_vw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7ge3M3Z3uAhVJPcAKHTqlCGQQ6AEwBXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=Plat.%20Apol.%2024b&f=false
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure who put together the GreekerthanGreek page and I'm wary of its accuracy, but even it defines the Greek "demon" as a demigod, divinity or spirit. The word divinity can be synonymous with a god. A demigod is part god and part human.
ReplyDeleteThe uses in Plato's Apology 24b and 24c are certainly derogatory and mostly contrived. And they're talked by about gods. Socrates later drinks the hemlock and dies.
Socrates was being accused of denying old gods and introducing new deities and they sad he was corrupting young people. The punishment was death. I teach this account every semester.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemon_(mythology)
ReplyDelete"Also daimon is the Greek derivative for the term demon, in which case "demon" means "replete with knowledge".
On the OI video did you note https://youtu.be/68ZXXYEX3Zo?t=636
Worth comparison to Luke 11:15.
I did bookmark the video, and saw some of the content. Luke 11:15 is a pejorative usage.
ReplyDeleteI had a full study plate yesterday with Leviticus and Ezekiel's chariot 😃
ReplyDeleteSo I did not get to watch the video
Something else to ponder: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Acts/chapter17/18
ReplyDeletehttps://journals.openedition.org/kernos/2492
ReplyDeleteSee https://books.google.com/books?id=m1k7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=acts+17:18+%CE%B4%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BC%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&source=bl&ots=3UdMA12ZPL&sig=ACfU3U3lZIB9oqYhAfvh-nFFjuhA9P1WoQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWle-hn53uAhVClVkKHb9rARA4FBDoATASegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=acts%2017%3A18%20%CE%B4%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BC%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD&f=false
ReplyDeletePage 147 and following is about daimon.
https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/Library/TynBull_1994_45_2_10_McKay_ForeignGods_Acts17.pdf
ReplyDelete"A further point that may be made is that the plurality of
ξἐνων δαιμονίων is not likely to be significant. In general references
to deities in a polytheistic society the plural tends to be used except in
contexts in which one particular deity is specified or implied as
uniquely relevant."
Shouldn't he site some evidence for this?
Maybe he did not cite the evidence because it's not a widely disputed point, plus the lexica seem to confirm what McKay claims.
ReplyDeleteIt is similar to the way that English uses deity for one God or many, depending on the context
ReplyDeleteWould you call an angel and a prophet deity?
ReplyDeleteSince deity and God are interchangeable terms, why not? Both men and angels are called elohim in the Bible. DSS does the same thing
ReplyDeleteThe DSS is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
ReplyDeleteIn English:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity
This is inconsistent.
Where Jesus says "you are gods" why doesn't the English translation say "you are judges"? we know the context and what it means.
In English, to use the term divine has a much narrow meaning & I suppose that demon does too. So what should it say instead? Its all very ambiguous. Like the definition above with deity that divine somehow explains it - it wholly circular.
It doesn't matter if the DSS is preserved in 3 languages: the point still stands. god/God and deity/Deity are interchangeable terms. Elohim is used for humans and for angels.
ReplyDeleteThe translation, "you are gods," is a rendering of the Greek. There are different philosophies of translation and what a translation is supposed to achieve. Linguists now say we should not confused sense and reference: so, even if elohim/theoi were used of human judges, that would be the referent of the term, not its sense.
There is a difference between deity and divine: the first word is a noun, but "divine" is an adjective. While John 1:1c could be rendered, "the Word was deity," replacing the word with "divine" would give the translation a different flavor. See the American Translation at John 1:1c.
But even divine can mean different things, depending on the context, and so can demon. All I was saying earlier is that Acts 17:18 should be rendered "deities," "gods," or divinities.
Did you also review https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Acts/chapter17/18
Divine and deity are related terms. We get "deity" from "deitas" and the Romans employed deitas in place of divinitas, from which we get divinity. See Colossians 2:9.
ReplyDeleteSee also https://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2016017&p2=d
For Colossians 2:9
ReplyDelete"The gods did not live in their statues, they only visited them. An epigram in the Greek Anthology presents Aphrodite rushing to Knidos to see her statue and wonder where Praxiteles saw her naked and presented her so accurately.76 According to Pausanias, Pheidias prayed to Zeus to receive his approval for the statue in Olympia, which the god gave by sending a thunderbolt.77 He would not have done this if the god actually inhabited the statue."
https://journals.openedition.org/kernos/2492
Previous comment also applies to John 1:1
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JS468l8Rnu0C&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=divinity+divine+nondescript&source=bl&ots=LduguafV1M&sig=ACfU3U1zzTQOWS5BAohZPwen54TVnUtOaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuqvfG6KPuAhVbilwKHfioAaoQ6AEwBHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=divinity%20divine%20nondescript&f=false
ReplyDeleteOk for poetry, but still circular.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41475447?seq=1
ReplyDeleteIt is also a very large assumption that a first century response in Athens is modelled after ancient Greek belief as opposed to contemporary Roman.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-studies/article/cult-statues-of-the-pantheon/6F33641FC3985AA73E86F505477AA64F
ReplyDeleteI would expect Romans to be heavily influenced by Greek customs rather than the other way around: Virgilian poetry was shaped by Homeric verse and Roman statues by Greek craft.
ReplyDeletePhilology favors the deity rendering for Acts 17, so does the context. The city was full of idols then.
Darrell Bock (Baker Exegetical Commentary): The term δαιμόνιον (daimonion) can refer to a demon or to any kind of deity. In a pagan context, it would be a reference to a god. Socrates likewise was said to be guilty of promoting new and strange gods (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.1.2 [uses the same term, δαιμόνιον]; Plato, Apology 24B; Barrett 1998: 830). Josephus notes a similar description of an Athenian reaction to gods (Ag. Ap. 2.37 §267). The philosophers realize that Paul is discussing some new god and his divine activity that they do not recognize.
ReplyDeleteJohn Chrysostom (Homilies on Acts) likewise interprets the "demons" of Acts 17:18 as Greek gods/deities.
The poet Virgil wrote:
ReplyDelete“The Greeks shape bronze statues so real they seem to breathe,
And carve cold marble until it almost comes to life.
The Greeks compose great orations, and measure
The heavens so well they can predict the rising of the stars.
But you, Romans, remember your great arts;
To govern the peoples with authority,
To establish peace under the rule of law,
To conquer the mighty, and show them mercy once they are conquered."
-Virgil, Aeneid VI, 847-853”
Even Roman philosophy was shaped and formed by Greek thought
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I also watched that video.
ReplyDeleteRoman philosophy was partly shaped by Greek thought among others including Egyptian. But the real question is, for how long before it started to flow in the opposite direction. I have not completed my investigations but the modern analogy that comes to mind is USA being shaped in many ways initially by the east India company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company.
ReplyDeleteNote the flag.
But since the end of world war 2 and the US becoming dominant the flow of culture is definitely in the opposite direction. Prior to the film ET being released in the UK the celebration of Halloween was almost unknown to the public in general. It now seems to be the second biggest celebration to Christmas. Just one example out of many.
See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090302090642.htm
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying Rome did not have some influence on Greek culture/thought, but the Greek influence far outstrips the Roman when it comes to arts and culture (poetry, philosophy, literature, math, geometry, logic, art, sculpture). Of course, the Roman had their strengths, some of which we're still deriving benefit from today.
https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/jah/6/1/article-p80.xml?language=en&tab_body=abstract
ReplyDeleteMuch can happen in 100 years.
Thanks, this information may also be helpful:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cambridge.org/core/series/greek-culture-in-the-roman-world/9CBACE3925A75AA8332C258A5065D02A