from Google Images
On what basis in Jewish law was Jesus convicted by the Sanhedrin? Matthew and Mark say the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:63). Did Jesus commit blasphemy? If not, why did the high priest believe he did or at least was able to convince the other priests present that Jesus spoke blasphemy? Luke records the trial held by the Sanhedrin in the morning:
Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. (Luke 22:69-71 KJV; emphasis mine)
In both Matthew 26:63 and Mark 14:61 Jesus was asked if he were the Christ the Son of God (the Blessed). When he replied, yes, and said he would come from the right hand of God to judge the nation, they cried: “Blasphemy!”
The trial in the evening in the home of the high priest within the Temple compound was not a legal trial, because no trial could be held at night if the death penalty was sought. The court did meet in the evening, but not for crimes that required the death sentence. Luke records the legal trial in the morning in the Hall of Hewn Stones on the Temple mount. This is where the Sanhedrin regularly met to hear the cases brought before them. They made their judgments before God, as the Temple stood just west and slightly north of the Sanhedrin meeting place.
Yet, the Jews today say the crime for which Jesus was found guilty could not have been blasphemy because the only way anyone could commit blasphemy was to utter the ineffable Name—YHWH! Is this true or are they mistaken?
Jesus said there were several kinds of blasphemy. He explained to the crowds when his public ministry was just beginning that all kinds of sins and blasphemies will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy committed against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, either in the age in which Jesus preached (age of the Law) nor in the age to come—age of grace or the Gospel age (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30). So, which is correct, the New Testament accounts or what the Jews believe today?
To understand this we must realize that the Jews today represent only a small faction of Judaism in the 1st century AD. Only the Pharisaical segment of Jewish society survived. Now it is certainly true that Judaism today is a varied culture, but it is also true that this variety come from the teaching of one group in the 1st century, namely, the Pharisees
The Pharisees receive a bad name, understood from the writings of the New Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus did most of his debating with this sect. Very little is recorded of Jesus speaking with other segments of Judaism, like the Sadducees, Zealots, Herodians, Essenes or followers of John the Baptist to name a few. Jesus spoke with, dined with and debated with the rabbis and chief priests of his day, many of whom were Pharisees. They were the leaders of the nation and Jesus showed respect for their office and told the people to do so, as well. My point is not to demean Judaism today by saying they are wrong concerning their understanding of blasphemy as it was understood in the 1st century. Nor do I wish to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. Jesus died for all mankind. The Jewish leadership in the 1st century acted as the representatives of all humanity when they sentenced Jesus to die. If the Jews were not the chosen people, then another tribe would have represented mankind and that tribe would have done the same thing. So, the Jews—per se—are not to blame for the crucifixion; the whole world is to blame, for we all have sinned and Jesus died to reconcile each of us to God. As the Scriptures conclude, we were God’s enemies—all of us—when Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-10. We love God, only because he love us first (1John 4:10, 19).
So what is the conclusion? Can we know for certain? Yes, I believe we can, and the truth comes from the writings of the Jews—the Babylonian Talmud. Notice (‘blesses’, ‘blessing’, and ‘blessed’ are used by the rabbis for ‘curses’, ‘cursing’ and ‘cursed’):
It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he ‘blesses’ the Name, by the Name. Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord… when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. How do you know that the word nokeb [used in the Hebrew] means a ‘blessing’? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob] whom God hath not cursed; whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God…[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)]
All this is saying is a blasphemer blasphemes God by cursing the Name (YHWH) with the Name, and then it gives the citation from Scripture that supports their understanding. The question as it applies to our argument is: did the high priest view Jesus remark as cursing (blessing) the Name with the Name according to Leviticus 24:16? The charges laid against Jesus at this point was that he said he would destroy the Temple and in three days build it up again. Viewed in this light the priest could have seen Jesus, a mere man, claiming to sit on the Throne of God, as God, coming to judge and destroy the Temple – the house of God and Jerusalem the city of God. Thus, cursing the Name with the Name. But to continue with the Talmud:
…But perhaps it means ‘to pierce,’ as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob] a hole in the lid of it, the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God? — The Name must be ‘blessed’ by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other. But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name…[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)]
The point here is the Israelites were commanded to destroy the names of the gods they found in the Promised Land, but they were commanded to never do so to their God. Concerning our present argument, did the high priest view Jesus’ statement as a threat to destroy the name of God from out of the land (Deuteronomy 12:3-4)? By saying he was coming in the clouds to judge Jerusalem, implying destruction, the high priest could have viewed Jesus’ remark as a threat to destroy the place where God had placed his Name.
Finally, we come to the present-day understanding of the Jews as it pertains to blasphemy. Notice:
…But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu] by their names; the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God? — Firstly, the Name must be ‘blessed’ by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all. An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman’s son] blasphemed wa-yikkob [and cursed], proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated? You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed, and not ‘him that hath blasphemed and cursed’, proving that one offence only is alluded to.[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)]
The point here is that the mere pronunciation of the ineffable Name is NOT blasphemy according to the Talmud. The modern Jewish understanding of the matter of blasphemy is clearly wrong, according to their own ancient writings. The conditions for blasphemy are: one must curse (bless) the Name with the Name, or one reviles God, or one destroys the name of God. Any one of these three conditions would be seen as blasphemy. So what did Jesus say to the high priest before the Sanhedrin?
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said (meaning yes, I am the Son of God): nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [Matthew 26:64 KJV; parenthesis mine]
Did the high priest see Jesus’ statement as “reviling” God (Exodus 22:28)? If Jesus were a mere man, he was placing himself upon the throne of God and judging the people of God. If he wasn’t viewed as insane, the priest could have judged this as abasing God, bringing him down to the level of a man, or saying a mere man could judge as God.
Judging from the statements found in the Talmud, the high priest could have chosen any one of the conditions he wished and accused Jesus of blasphemy—seeing him as a man, but claiming to be God’s own Son and sitting at God’s right hand—upon the very Throne of God! However, since Jesus was merely telling the truth, his remark was a statement of his Deity and proved true in 70 AD. Nevertheless, according to the text of the Talmud, Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, a sin worthy of death according to Jewish law. For this understanding alone the Jewish authorities wished to have Jesus executed.
Things Paul & Luke 
Woodrow Nichols
March 22, 2021 at 11:34
The Son of Man sayings of Jesus are clearly from the Book of Enoch, a verse of which is word for word quoted in Jude 14-15. If the Jewish priests viewed this person as Divine, then Jesus calling himself by this title would have been blasphemy because a man was claiming to be Divine or Semi Divine, and hence blasphemous. But your argument is a good one, as good as most.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 22, 2021 at 15:54
Greetings Woodrow, and welcome.
Concerning the “Son of Man” sayings of Jesus, I believe you are referring to the **title** “Son of Man” — both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezekiel predate the Book of Enoch. They use the phrase “Son of Man”. You have no support here.
Not according to a Jewish man, I debated years ago when we had those kind of websites. He was well equipped in his faith, and if I’m not mistaken he has a YouTube channel where he teaches Judaism, and is often a guest speaker in Christian churches that want to know more about the Jewish faith. He claimed nothing Jesus said in Matthew 26, Mark 14 or Luke 22 was blasphemous, until I quoted the Talmud. Then he had nothing to say. Now, if you have a reputable source to refute that and support your claim, then I’ll reconsider. But, as it stands, I’ll have to say you’re wrong.
Woodrow Nichols
March 22, 2021 at 16:19
Have you read the Book of Enoch, or Enoch 1 as the scholars call it? Almost all of the Son of Man sayings of Jesus are quotes from this book and there are too many in too many places to quote them all. Let’s just say after reading Enoch the sayings are well within the context of that book. Enoch and Daniel were the two main sources leading up to the Jewish War with Rome. I believe 11 copies of it were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In Enoch, he becomes one with the Son of Man in Heaven. Thus the idea of reincarnation is suggested. Some Jews at the time were influenced by Greek philosophy which taught it, as well as a belief in astrology and fate vis-a-vis Psalm 19:1-4 as one example.
Woodrow
Eddie
March 22, 2021 at 21:45
Its been awhile, but yes, I have read the Book of Enoch. But, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say:
Quote two or three, and we’ll go from there. Who are you speaking of when you say:
I’m thinking “Thus the idea of reincarnation is suggested” is but a figment of your imagination. Let me say it once more: reincarnation isn’t taught in the Bible. You get it elsewhere and bring your worldview **to** the Bible. That’s called ‘eisegesis’ not exegesis. The latter may be acceptable, but the former is never acceptable.
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 01:50
Enoch XLVI.1-3 ” And there I [Enoch] saw One, who had a Head of Days, and his head was white like wool, and with him was Another Being whose countenance had the Appearance of a Man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels.
“And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning the Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and), why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said to me, This is the Son of Man who hath Righteousness, with whom dwelleth Righteousness, and who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden. because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and whose lot hath preeminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness forever.”
LXX i-4: “And it came to pass after this that his name during his lifetime was raised aloft to that Son of Man and to the Lord of Spirits from amongst those who dwell on earth. And he was raised aloft on the Chariots of the Spirit and his name vanished among them. And from that day I was no longer numbered amongst them….”
LXXI 1:”And it came to pass after this that my spirit was Translated and it ascended into the heavens; and I saw the Holy Sons of God.”
It speaks for itself, brother.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 01:54
And by the way I brought no bias into my reading of the Bible for I was saved independent from it. My views grew with my discernment and understanding. I’ve taken in as many views as possible over the years and opposed cults at one time until i realized that all churches are cults. You are projecting your view as mine. You read as if there is some accepted dogma that all Christians agree on, and there is nothing farther from the truth. My views are based on the Bible, and hence biblical and you don’t just disagree, you treat me like a heretic, which is typical and boring.
Woodrow
Eddie
March 23, 2021 at 10:42
And, this is your **proof** of reincarnation? A man claims he has a vision which interprets his understanding of what the Messiah would be like, and all you can draw from this is that reincarnation must be true? The word is not in any part of the text. You bring it to the text! That’s eisegesis not exegesis. What would you do with Deuteronomy 18:15 and Acts 7:37-38?
Eddie
March 23, 2021 at 10:42
Woodrow, your bias is written throughout your comments, so is mine. I believe the text, and you bring stuff to the text to make it say something according to your bias. My bias is the text itself. If it isn’t there, it isn’t true. The word **reincarnation** isn’t found anywhere in the Bible, neither is so and so lives his second, third etc. life in this one—or anything to that effect. Nowhere is reincarnation taught in the Bible—nowhere!
Woodrow, just because you **say** your claims are found in the Bible doesn’t mean it is so. Your views are based upon Greek myths, which are based upon Hindi myths, and you bring this to the Bible, just like Origin did reincarnation, and Augustine brought the hell fire, and the Council of Nicea brought the Trinity. Reincarnation isn’t in the Bible, the hell fire that Augustine taught isn’t in the Bible and the Trinity that the Council of Nicea interpreted from the Bible isn’t in the Bible. Just because folks try to add Biblical authority to their own words, doesn’t mean their words have any authority from the Bible.
No, I just caught you with your hands in the cookie jar and called you out on it. I do the same with everyone who tries to make out like **their** words have the authority of **God’s** word. It makes no difference, if you’re a church goer or not, have a membership in a particular denomination or not, an atheist, agnostic or a Jew. If you claim **your** words are Biblical, I’ll ask for the proof.
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 12:02
I never said reincarnation is true in your sense. I just maintain that it is a viable theory and the most reasonable in my opinion. Many Jews in the First Century believed Enoch and Elijah would return and John used this idea in the Two Witnesses in Revelation, which, in my opinion, John really meant himself and his brotther, James. Under this belief, First Century Christians could have seen Jesus as the reincarnation of Enoch, who had become the Son of Man in Heaven, which is hinted in the gospel accounts of Herod and other Jews believing Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist or Elijah, Jeremiah, or other prophets.
I’ve never claimed that my opinions are the Word of God. I’ve always had a high degree of reader’s comprehension and always scored reallly high on tests in school. Thus I never accept what others believe or say about the Bible since I can read it for myself, believing the Holy Spirit will reveal things to me. In other words I know who my Savior is and to whom l owe my allegiance.
I also believe the Book of Enoch is Scripture, since it’s quoted by Jude.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 12:05
Hey, we’re in total agreement about Augustine and Constantine, brother. Let’s just leave it at that for now.
Woodrow
Woodrow Nichols
March 23, 2021 at 13:00
Hey, Eddie, I’ve got a really good article on the subject. If you send me your email I’ll post it to you.
Woodrow
Eddie
March 24, 2021 at 07:14
Woodrow, you say a lot of things are Scripture that aren’t Scripture. That seems to be your problem. Scripture doesn’t support your bizarre ideas, so you go searching the web and books for what might support your claims. Then you claim: ‘all this—i.e. your ideas and the books you mention—are Scripture’ (i.e. the word of God).
Eddie
March 24, 2021 at 07:16
You, totally, missed the point, Woodrow. It has nothing to do with our agreement on Augustine and the church fathers of the 4th century. You show no reason why you can say they are wrong, but Origen is correct. In my opinion, you are cherry picking your ‘proof’ texts.
Eddie
March 24, 2021 at 07:18
I see you found my email address. However, I don’t see what you are trying to prove by sending me the article. It doesn’t mention ‘reincarnation.’ What’s your point, Woodrow?
Woodrow Nichols
March 24, 2021 at 10:14
My point is that there is more than one way to understand the saying and the author covers almost all of them in a dissertation full of authorities. He doesn’t discuss the possibility that Herod and many people believed that the spirit of someone dead could possess a living person, hence the idea that Herod believed the spirit of John the Baptist had returned in Jesus. Depending on your bias, one can see this as a belief in semi reincarnation of spirit possession.
You gave me your email many moons ago and I tracked it down.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
March 24, 2021 at 10:25
Everyone who has studied the Bible seriously cherry picks. This is called spiritual discernment, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, dividing the Truth from the Lies. Look up the definition for divide, brother.
Woodrow
Woodrow Nichols
March 24, 2021 at 10:34
That is a lie, Eddie. I never say that. What I say is my opinion. I thought that article on John the Baptist wouild be helpful and I never said it was Scripture. I accept several writings as Scripture outside of the Protestant Holy Bible, but I only use them as secondary sources to support ideas current at the time. Saying the Gnostic documents were written in the Second Century is no excuse not to use them as secondary sources since most of the New Testament documents which exist also come from that period. This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important for understanding the First Century mindset of Jews that actually existed.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 25, 2021 at 09:33
Now you are redefining words. How am I to understand what you mean by ‘reincarnation’ unless you tell me? It is certainly impossible for me to know what you mean if I consult a dictionary, because you redefine the word to fit your own purposes.
The Bible tells us there is no consciousness in the grave. When folks die, their thoughts perish, neither can the Lord be praised by anyone who had died. This changed in 70 AD, but this is the testimony of the Bible for the Old Covenant text and the Gospels and Acts. So, what Herod believed has no bearing upon truth.
Are you now claiming that what the Bible refers to as demonic possession is reincarnation?
Perhaps I did, don’t remember; or you may have simply clicked on my “about” tab on the top of the page. My email address had always been there. But, thank you for the John / Elijah PDF document. It was kind of you to send that to me.
Eddie
March 25, 2021 at 09:38
Cherry-picking is called cherry-picking. Spiritual discernment is discerning correctly what the Scriptures mean. An example of this would be: “It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17).
“This is proof of reincarnation” – cherry-picking.
“Luke 1:17 is saying that just as the age of the prophets began in the spirit and power of the first prophet of that age (Elijah), so the age of the prophets would end with John the Baptist (cp. Matthew 11:17) in the same spirit” – spiritual discernment.
To “cherry-pick” one chooses from a range of options. To “discern” one detects or recognizes something within what one sees.
Eddie
March 25, 2021 at 09:42
I wasn’t referring to the document you sent via email. I was referring to your mention that the Book of Enoch is Scripture, now you seem to be claiming the Gnostic writings are on the same level as the New Covenant text, and in an earlier comment you claimed I need to read Plato in order to understand Scripture (is Plato also inspired?). Where will it end, Woodrow?
The Book of Ecclesiastes concludes with: “The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd.” (this is speaking of the Bible).
But then it goes on to say: “But beyond this (i.e. beyond Scripture), my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body” (Ecclesiastes 12:11-12). The parenthesis in both verses, of course, are mine. That said, the text claims: what is important is written by one Shepherd (i.e. the Lord), and that is found in Scripture. I don’t need to search the world of literature for a wise man to interpret it all for me (like Plato). I don’t need the Book of Enoch or the Gnostics or any of the Church fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries to know how to believe. All I need is the Bible for things pertaining to life and walking with God.
On the other hand, I’m surprised that you, being a lawyer and all, would accept ‘hearsay’ as truth. You put the writings of the New Covenant into the 2nd century with the Gnostic writings. Folks living there couldn’t possibly have witnessed anything Jesus said or did. All that could be said at that time would have been ‘hearsay’ and not admitted as a true witness to anything.
Woodrow Nichols
March 25, 2021 at 12:29
My choice of options was Matthew and Mark who don’t qualify the saying. That meaning, which I agree is yours, is an interpretation of Matthew and Mark. You treat Luke and Acts as idols. The fact is, when Luke/Acts disagree with the letters of Paul, you should choose Paul’s version. This is in line with the Rules of Evidence. Paul is considered a first hand source. “Luke” is pure hearsay, especially his recreations of the preaching of Paul. You either refuse to see the differences because of the fear of going against God’s word, or because of delusion. Your view of Scripture as the inerrant Word of God is downright foolish. The logic of your arguments in favor of this are ridiculous, the kind that you wouid instantly see if you were reading the Koran. But blindness is common in the cult known as Christianity.
I consider myself a Christian because I believe Jesus died for my sins and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. I deny the Trinity, that Jesus is God, and that his mother was a virgin at the time of his birth, for these are not only unnecessary but are pure paganism. I also deny the the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God for it is full of errors, lies, and contradictions, which are teaching devises the wise understand. I don’t say this lightly, but you are a Fool in the proverbial sense. Your hostility to the idea of reincarnation is proof enough, brother.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
March 25, 2021 at 12:33
Your proof of your view of Scripture is more Scripture. That is not proof. That is circular reasoning. It proves you are blind to the Truth. Okay, the final test. Should we continue our dialog under Proverbs 26 verses 4 or 5?
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
March 25, 2021 at 12:46
I had to dig in my emails to find yours because it is listed as locator something at something dot com. You have to assume your name is listed before locator. Your mission is to contradict everything I say no matter how absurd. I tossed out the idea of spiritual possession as a possible understanding of the belief of Herod and many people at the time who also believed Jesus was possessed by one of the prophets. These are common ideas, Eddie. You need to see them as reasonable possibilities and not as lies of the Devil. Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in the Devil.
Under the Rules of Evidence it’s all hearsay, brother. The key to understanding the Scriptures is the sources. Most cults regard the books of Kings as history not fit for doctrine, but Kings is the key to understanding the Old Testament.
I said you should read Plato to see what John is up to in his gospel. His idea of the Logos is hardly different from the Gnostic Yaldabaoth, who was evil, thus the world he created (our World) is evil. Thus the Platonic dichotomy of spirit equals good and matter equals evil.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
March 26, 2021 at 05:51
No! That is not true. Woodrow. You must have forgotten how we got onto this subject, and you never went back in the comments to see what that was. So, I’ll post a little history for you:
Woodrow (March 23, 2021 at 12:05)
Me (March 24, 2021 at 07:16)
Woodrow (March 24, 2021 at 10:25)
On March 25, 2021 at 09:38 I posted my reply to the above which is what you came back with:
The “cherry-picking” was with the church fathers. You conveniently falsify the Trinity and the Hell-fire (where we agree), saying Augustine and the church fathers of the Council of Nicea are wrong, but you say Origen is correct, and use him to validate your understanding that the Bible speaks of reincarnation. THAT’S cherry-picking the proof texts, my friend!
I merely accept his testimony as truth from a witness to the truth of what occurred in the first century AD. I do so with each and every writer of the New Covenant texts. I don’t know why you believe I’ve especially set up Luke as an idol. Do you make out like a truthful witness in a court of law is an idol? – and btw, Luke never contradicts Paul.
As opposed to what, your idea that the Bible is a collection of contradictory statements, but, oh yes, “I’m a Christian because I believe Jesus died for my sins and was raised the third day!” where’s the evidence for your faith, Woodrow? You’ve nullified it all by claiming it is all a bunch of contradictory statements. Now, THAT’S “downright foolish!”
Eddie
March 26, 2021 at 05:57
Now, that’s what I call convenience! Everyone knows that the Bible doesn’t have ONE human author, but many. The Bible is a collection of works coming from many human authors. They happen to be bound together in a single book form (only possible since the invention of the printing press), but you say my proof of Scripture is more Scripture as though it were one author. Very convenient argument, my friend, very convenient, indeed.
The choice is yours. You may reply or not. If you do reply, and you don’t go overboard with your remarks, I’ll let them stand unanswered. That’s my preference. I always like to let the other side in a discussion to have the final word, but I do that, only if their final statement isn’t full of new stuff that wasn’t discussed.
Woodrow Nichols
March 26, 2021 at 14:40
Wow, you deny my faith and hence deny the Holy Spirit. If I were you, brother, I’d repent ASAP for you are calling down judgment on your arrogant head.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
March 26, 2021 at 14:43
Okay, it’s verse 4. Nice talking with you, brother.
Woodrow