document_title: Gospel of Mark

question_text: who is the author of the book of mark in the bible

text: Gospel of Mark

text: Composition and setting[edit]

text: Composition[edit]

text: The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[7] Early tradition commencing with Papias of Hierapolis links it to John Mark, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter,[8][9] and hence its author is often called Mark, but most scholars are content to identify the author of Mark's gospel as an unknown first-century Christian.[10] It was probably written c. AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[3] The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[11]

text: Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians: Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms), Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternative places of authorship.[12] The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions from the Septuagint.[13] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[14]

text: Synoptic problem and historicity[edit]

text: The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. The fact that they share so much material verbatim and yet also exhibit important differences has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence, a phenomenon termed the Synoptic  Problem. Traditionally, Mark was thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew: for example, Augustine of Hippo believed they were written in order, "first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John" and that Mark followed Matthew as "his attendant and epitomizer".[15] Today, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that Mark was the first gospel (Marcan Priority) and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material. The strongest argument for this is the fact that Matthew and Luke agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events only when they also agree with Mark.[16]

text: The 19th century recognition of Mark as the earliest gospel led to the belief that it must therefore be the most reliable.[17] This conclusion was shaken by two works published in the early decades of the 20th century: in 1901 William Wrede argued strongly that the "Messianic secret" motif in Mark was a creation of the early church rather than a reflection of the historical Jesus[citation needed]; and in 1919 Karl Ludwig Schmidt showed how the links between the episodes are the invention of the writer, thus undermining the gospel's claim to be a reliable guide to the chronology of Jesus' mission.[18] The modern consensus is that Mark's purpose was to present a theological message rather than to write history,[17] but this gospel is nevertheless still seen as the most reliable of the four in terms of its overall description of Jesus's life and ministry.[19]

text: Setting[edit]

text: Christianity began within Judaism, with a Christian "church" (or ἐκκλησία, ekklesia, meaning "assembly") that arose shortly after his death, when some of his followers claimed to have witnessed him risen from the dead.[20] From the outset, Christians depended heavily on Jewish literature, supporting their convictions through the Jewish scriptures.[21] Those convictions involved a nucleus of key concepts: the messiah, the son of God and the son of man, the Day of the Lord, the kingdom of God. Uniting these ideas was the common thread of apocalyptic expectation: Both Jews and Christians believed that the end of history was at hand, that God would very soon come to punish their enemies and establish his own rule, and that they were at the centre of his plans. Christians read the Jewish scripture as a figure or type of Jesus Christ, so that the goal of Christian literature became an experience of the living Christ.[22] The new movement spread around the eastern Mediterranean and to Rome and further west, and assumed a distinct identity, although the groups within it remained extremely diverse.[20]

text: The gospels were written for an audience already Christian – their purpose was to strengthen the faith of those who already believed, not to convert unbelievers.[23] Christian "churches" were small communities of believers, often based on households (an autocratic patriarch plus extended family, slaves, freedmen, and other clients), and the evangelists often wrote on two levels, one the "historical" presentation of the story of Jesus, the other dealing with the concerns of the author's own day.[24] Thus the proclamation of Jesus in Mark 1:14 and the following verses, for example, mixes the terms Jesus would have used as a 1st-century Jew ("kingdom of God") and those of the early church ("believe", "gospel").[24] More fundamentally, some scholars believe Mark's reason for writing was to counter believers who saw Jesus in a Greek way, as wonder-worker (the Greek term is "divine man"); Mark saw the suffering of the messiah as essential, so that the "Son of God" title (the Hellenistic "divine man") had to be corrected and amplified with the "Son of Man" title, which conveyed Christ's suffering.[25] Other scholars think Mark might have been writing as a Galilean Christian against those Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who saw the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–73 CE) as the beginning of the "end times": for Mark, the Second Coming would be in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and not until the generation following the revolt.[25]

text: Place in the Christian Church[edit]

text: Mark was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, as a somewhat inferior abridgement of what was regarded as the most important gospel, Matthew. The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark. It was only in the 19th century that Mark came to be seen as the earliest of the four gospels, and as a source used by both Matthew and Luke. The hypothesis of Markan priority (that Mark was written first) continues to be held by the majority of scholars today, and there is a new recognition of the author as an artist and theologian using a range of literary devices to convey his conception of Jesus as the authoritative yet suffering Son of God.[26]

text: Structure, style and content[edit]

text:
Detailed content of Mark

1. Galilean ministry

John the Baptist (1:1–8)

Baptism of Jesus (1:9–11)

Temptation of Jesus (1:12–13)

Good News (1:15)

First disciples (1:16–20)

Capernaum's synagogue (1:21–28)

Peter's mother-in-law (1:29–31)

Exorcising at sunset (1:32–34)

A leper (1:35–45)

A paralytic (2:1–2:12)

Calling of Matthew (2:13–17)

Fasting and wineskins (2:18–22)

Lord of the Sabbath (2:23–28)

Man with withered hand (3:1–6)

Withdrawing to the sea (3:7–3:12)

Commissioning the Twelve (3:13–19)

Blind mute (3:20–26)

Strong man (3:27)

Eternal sin (3:28–30)

Jesus' true relatives (3:31–35)

Parable of the Sower (4:1–9,13-20)

Purpose of parables (4:10–12,33-34)

Lamp under a bushel (4:21–23)

Mote and Beam (4:24–25)

Growing seed and Mustard seed (4:26–32)

Calming the storm (4:35–41)

Demon named Legion (5:1–20)

Daughter of Jairus (5:21–43)

Hometown rejection (6:1–6)

Instructions for the Twelve (6:7–13)

Beheading of John (6:14–29)

Feeding the 5000 (6:30–44)

Walking on water (6:45–52)

Fringe of his cloak heals (6:53–56)

Discourse on Defilement (7:1–23)

Canaanite woman's daughter (7:24–30)

Deaf mute (7:31–37)

Feeding the 4000 (8:1–9)

No sign will be given (8:10–21)

Healing with spit (8:22–26)

Peter's confession (8:27–30)

Jesus predicts his death (8:31–33, 9:30–32, 10:32–34)

Instructions for followers (8:34–9:1)

Transfiguration (9:2–13)

Possessed boy (9:14–29)

Teaching in Capernaum (9:33–50)

2. Journey to Jerusalem

Entering Judea and Transjordan (10:1)

On divorce (10:2–12)

Little children (10:13–16)

Rich young man (10:17–31)

Son of man came to serve (10:35–45)

Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52)

3. Events in Jerusalem

Entering Jerusalem (11:1–11)

Cursing the fig tree (11:12–14,20-24)

Temple incident (11:15–19)

Prayer for forgiveness (11:25–26)

Authority questioned (11:27–33)

Wicked husbandman (12:1–12)

Render unto Caesar... (12:13–17)

Resurrection of the Dead (12:18–27)

Great Commandment (12:28–34)

Is the Messiah the son of David? (12:35–40)

Widow's mite (12:41–44)

Olivet discourse (13)

Plot to kill Jesus (14:1–2)

Anointing (14:3–9)

Bargain of Judas (14:10–11)

Last Supper (14:12–26)

Denial of Peter (14:27–31,66-72)

Agony in the Garden (14:32–42)

Kiss of Judas (14:43–45)

Arrest (14:46–52)

Before the High Priest (14:53–65)

Pilate's court (15:1–15)

Soldiers mock Jesus (15:16–20)

Simon of Cyrene (15:21)

Crucifixion (15:22–41)

Entombment (15:42–47)

Empty tomb (16:1–8)

The Longer Ending (16:9–20)

Resurrection appearances (16:9–13)

Great Commission (16:14–18)

Ascension (16:19)

Dispersion of the Apostles (16:20)

This box: viewtalkedit

text: Structure[edit]

text: There is no agreement on the structure of Mark.[27] There is, however, a widely recognised break at Mark 8:26–31: before 8:26 there are numerous miracle stories, the action is in Galilee, and Jesus preaches to the crowds, while after 8:31 there are hardly any miracles, the action shifts from Galilee to gentile areas or hostile Judea, and Jesus teaches the disciples.[28] Peter's confession at Mark 8:27–30 that Jesus is the messiah thus forms the watershed to the whole gospel.[29] A further generally recognised turning point comes at the end of chapter 10, when Jesus and his followers arrive in Jerusalem and the foreseen confrontation with the Temple authorities begins, leading R.T. France to characterise Mark as a three-act drama.[30] James Edwards in his 2002 commentary points out that the gospel can be seen as a series of questions asking first who Jesus is (the answer being that he is the messiah), then what form his mission takes (a mission of suffering culminating in the crucifixion and resurrection, events only to be understood when the questions are answered), while another scholar, C. Myers, has made what Edwards calls a "compelling case" for recognising the incidents of Jesus' baptism, transfiguration and crucifixion, at the beginning, middle and end of the gospel, as three key moments, each with common elements, and each portrayed in an apocalyptic light.[31] Stephen H. Smith has made the point that the structure of Mark is similar to the structure of a Greek tragedy[32]

text: Style[edit]

text: Examples of Mark's literary style include the use of summaries, in which several stories about Jesus are all wrapped up into one description (Mark 6:55, 56).[33]

text: Content[edit]

text:
Jesus is first announced as the messiah and then later as the Son of God; he is baptised by John and a heavenly voice announces him as the Son of God; he is tested in the wilderness by Satan; John is arrested, and Jesus begins to preach the good news of the kingdom of God.
Jesus gathers his disciples; he begins teaching, driving out demons, healing the sick, cleansing lepers, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, and giving sight to the blind; he delivers a long discourse in parables to the crowd, intended for the disciples, but they fail to understand; he performs mighty works, calming the storm and walking on water, but while God and demons recognise him, neither the crowds nor the disciples grasp his identity. He also has several run-ins with Jewish law keepers especially in chapters 2-3.
Jesus asks the disciples who people say he is, and then, "but you, who do you say I am?" Peter answers that he is the Christ, and Jesus commands him to silence; Jesus explains that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and be killed, but will rise again; Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus and God tells the disciples, "This is my son," but they remain uncomprehending.
Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he is hailed as one who "comes in the name of the Lord" and will inaugurate the "kingdom of David"; he drives those who buy and sell animals from the Temple and debates with the Jewish authorities; on the Mount of Olives he announces the coming destruction of the Temple, the persecution of his followers, and the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory.
A woman perfumes Jesus' head with oil, and Jesus explains that this is a sign of his coming death; Jesus celebrates Passover with the disciples, declares the bread and wine to be his body and blood, and goes with them to Gethsemane to pray; there Judas betrays him to the Jews; interrogated by the high priest, he says that he is the Christ, the Son of God, and will return as Son of Man at God's right hand; the Jewish leaders turn him over to Pilate, who has him crucified as one who claims to be "king of the Jews"; Jesus, abandoned by the disciples, is buried in a rock tomb by a friendly member of the Jewish council.
The women who have followed Jesus come to the tomb on Sunday morning; they find it empty, and are told by a young man in a white robe to go and tell the others that Jesus has risen and has gone before them to Galilee; "but they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid ...."[2]

text: Ending[edit]

text: The earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Mark end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb: the majority of recent scholars believe this to be the original ending,[34] and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome.[35] Two attempts were made to provide a more satisfactory conclusion.[36] A minority of later manuscripts have what is called the "shorter ending", an addition to Mark 16:8 telling how the women told "those around Peter" all that the angel had commanded and how the message of eternal life (or "proclamation of eternal salvation") was then sent out by Jesus himself.[36] This addition differs from the rest of Mark both in style and in its understanding of Jesus.[36] The overwhelming majority of manuscripts have the "longer ending", Mark 16:9–20, with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension.[35] This ending was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.[36]

text: Modern scholars have proposed many explanations for the abrupt original ending, though none with universal acceptance. It could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". Whatever the case, it is clear that Mark's Jesus looks forward to a post-death meeting in Galilee, and it is likely that at that meeting, like the final meeting in Galilee that Matthew depicts, Mark's Jesus would command the disciples to take his message to the nations.[37]

text: Theology[edit]

text: Mark's gospel theology[edit]

text: The author introduces his work as "gospel", meaning "good news", a literal translation of the Greek "evangelion"[38] – he uses the word more often than any other writer in the New Testament besides Paul.[39] Paul uses it to mean "the good news (of the saving significance of the death and resurrection) of Christ"; Mark extends it to the career of Christ as well as his death and resurrection.[38] Like the other gospels, Mark was written to confirm the identity of Jesus as eschatological deliverer – the purpose of terms such as "messiah" and "son of God".[40] As in all the gospels, the messianic identity of Jesus is supported by a number of themes, including: (1) the depiction of his disciples as obtuse, fearful and uncomprehending; (2) the refutation of the charge made by Jesus' enemies that he was a magician; (3) secrecy surrounding his true identity (this last is missing from John).[40]

text: The failure of the disciples[edit]

text: In Mark, the disciples, and especially the Twelve, move from lack of perception of Jesus to rejection of the "way of suffering" to flight and denial – even the women who received the first proclamation of his resurrection can be seen as failures for not reporting the good news. There is much discussion of this theme among scholars. Some argue that the author of Mark was using the disciples to correct "erroneous" views in his own community concerning the reality of the suffering messiah, others that it is an attack on the Jerusalem branch of the church for resisting the extension of the gospel to the gentiles, or a mirror of the convert's usual experience of the initial enthusiasm followed by growing awareness of the necessity for suffering. It certainly reflects the strong theme in Mark of Jesus as the "suffering just one" portrayed in so many of the books of the Jewish scriptures, from Jeremiah to Job and the Psalms, but especially in the "Suffering Servant" passages in Isaiah. It also reflects the Jewish scripture theme of God's love being met by infidelity and failure, only to be renewed by God. And in the real-world context in which the gospel was written, the persecutions of the Christians of Rome under Nero, the failure of the disciples and Jesus' denial by Peter himself would have been powerful symbols of faith, hope and reconciliation.[41]

text: The charge of magic[edit]

text: Mark contains twenty accounts of miracles and healings, accounting for almost a third of the gospel and half the first ten chapters, more, proportionally, than in any other gospel.[42] In the gospels as a whole, Jesus' miracles, prophecies, etc., are presented as evidence of God's rule, but Mark's descriptions of Jesus' healings are a partial exception to this, as his methods, using spittle to heal blindness (Mark 8:22–26) and magic formulae ("Talitha cumi," 5:41, "Ephphatha," 7:34), were those of a magician.[43][44] This is the charge the Jewish religious leaders bring against Jesus: they say he is performing exorcisms with the aid of an evil spirit (Mark 3:22) and calling up the spirit of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14).[43] "There was ... no period in the history of the [Roman] empire in which the magician was not considered an enemy of society," subject to penalties ranging from exile to death, says Classical scholar Ramsay MacMullen.[45] All the gospels defend Jesus against the charge, which, if true, would contradict their ultimate claims for him.[46] The point of the Beelzebub incident in Mark (Mark 3:20–30) is to set forth Jesus' claims to be an instrument of God, not Satan.[46]

text: The messianic secret[edit]

text: In 1901, William Wrede identified the "Messianic secret" – Jesus' secrecy about his identity as the messiah – as one of Mark's central themes. Wrede argued that the elements of the secret – Jesus' silencing of the demons, the obtuseness of the disciples regarding his identity, and the concealment of the truth inside parables, were fictions, and arose from the tension between the Church's post-resurrection messianic belief and the historical reality of Jesus. There remains continuing debate over how far the "secret" originated with Mark and how far he got it from tradition, and how far, if at all, it represents the self-understanding and practices of the historical Jesus.[47]

text: Christology: Mark's understanding of Jesus[edit]

text: Christology means a doctrine or understanding concerning the person or nature of Christ.[48] In the New Testament writings it is frequently conveyed through the titles applied to Jesus. Most scholars agree that "Son of God" is the most important of these titles in Mark.[49] It appears on the lips of God himself at the baptism and the transfiguration, and is Jesus' own self-designation (Mark 13:32).[50] These and other instances provide reliable evidence of how the evangelist perceived Jesus, but it is not clear just what the title meant to Mark and his 1st century audience.[50] Where it appears in the Hebrew scriptures it meant Israel as God's people, or the king at his coronation, or angels, as well as the suffering righteous man.[51] In Hellenistic culture the same phrase meant a "divine man", a supernatural being.[50] There is little evidence that "son of God" was a title for the messiah in 1st century Judaism, and the attributes which Mark describes in Jesus are much more those of the Hellenistic miracle-working "divine man" than of the Jewish Davidic messiah.[50]

text: Mark does not explicitly state what he means by "Son of God", nor when the sonship was conferred.[52] The New Testament as a whole presents four different understandings:

text:
Jesus became God's son at his resurrection, God "begetting" Jesus to a new life by raising him from the dead – this was the earliest understanding, preserved in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:3–4, and in Acts 13:33;
Jesus became God's son at his baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit marking him as messiah, while "Son of God" refers to the relationship then established for him by God – this is the understanding implied in Mark 1:9–11;
Matthew and Luke present Jesus as "Son of God" from the moment of conception and birth, with God taking the place of a human father;
John, the last of the gospels, presents the idea that the Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus – an idea also found in Paul.[53]

text: Mark also calls Jesus "christos" (Christ), translating the Hebrew "messiah," (anointed person).[54] In the Old Testament the term messiah ("anointed one") described prophets, priests and kings; by the time of Jesus, with the kingdom long vanished, it had come to mean an eschatological king (a king who would come at the end of time), one who would be entirely human though far greater than all God's previous messengers to Israel, endowed with miraculous powers, free from sin, ruling in justice and glory (as described in, for example, the Psalms of Solomon, a Jewish work from this period).[55] The most important occurrences are in the context of Jesus' death and suffering, suggesting that, for Mark, Jesus can only be fully understood in that context.[54]

text: A third important title, "Son of Man", has its roots in Ezekiel, the Book of Enoch, (a popular Jewish apocalyptic work of the period), and especially in Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is assigned royal roles of dominion, kingship and glory.[56][57] Mark 14:62 combines more scriptural allusions: before he comes on clouds (Daniel 7:13) the Son of Man will be seated on the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1), pointing to the equivalence of the three titles, Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, the common element being the reference to kingly power.[58]

text: Eschatology and salvation: The meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and return[edit]

text: Eschatology means the study of the end-times, and the Jews expected the messiah to be an eschatological figure, a deliverer who would appear at the end of the age to usher in an earthly kingdom.[59] The earliest Jewish Christian community saw Jesus as a messiah in this Jewish sense, a human figure appointed by God as his earthly regent; but they also believed in Jesus' resurrection and exultation to heaven, and for this reason they also viewed him as God's agent (the "son of God") who would return in glory ushering in the Kingdom of God.[60]

text: The term "Son of God" likewise had a specific Jewish meaning, or range of meanings,[61] one of the most significant being the earthly king adopted by God as his son at his enthronement, legitimising his rule over Israel.[62] In Hellenistic culture, in contrast, the phrase meant a "divine man", covering legendary heroes like Hercules, god-kings like the Egyptian pharaohs, or famous philosophers like Plato.[63] When the gospels call Jesus "Son of God" the intention is to place him in the class of Hellenistic and Greek divine men, the 'sons of God" who were endowed with supernatural power to perform healings, exorcisms and other wonderful deeds.[62] Mark's "Son of David" is Hellenistic, his Jesus predicting that his mission involves suffering, death and resurrection, and, by implication, not military glory and conquest.[64] This reflects a move away from the Jewish-Christian apocalyptic tradition and towards the Hellenistic message preached by Paul, for whom Christ's death and resurrection, rather than the establishment of the apocalyptic Jewish kingdom, is the meaning of salvation, the "gospel".[60]

text: Comparison with other writings[edit]

text: Mark and the New Testament[edit]

text: All four gospels tell a story in which Jesus' death and resurrection are the crucial redemptive events.[65] There are, however, important differences between the four: Unlike John, Mark never calls Jesus "God", or claims that Jesus existed prior to his earthly life;[66] unlike Matthew and Luke, the author does not mention a virgin birth, and apparently believes that Jesus had a normal human parentage and birth;[66] unlike Matthew and Luke, he makes no attempt to trace Jesus' ancestry back to King David or Adam with a genealogy.[66]

text: Christians of Mark's time expected Jesus to return as Messiah in their own lifetime – Mark, like the other gospels, attributes the promise to Jesus himself (Mark 9:1 and 13:30), and it is reflected in the letters of Paul, in the epistle of James, in Hebrews, and in Revelation. When return failed, the early Christians revised their understanding. Some acknowledged that the Second Coming had been delayed, but still expected it; others redefined the focus of the promise, the Gospel of John, for example, speaking of "eternal life" as something available in the present; while still others concluded that Jesus would not return at all (2 Peter argues against those who held this view).[67]

text: Mark's despairing death of Jesus was changed to a more victorious one in subsequent gospels.[68] Mark's Christ dies with the cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; Matthew, the next gospel to be written, repeats this word for word but manages to make clear that Jesus's death is the beginning of the resurrection of Israel; Luke has a still more positive picture, replacing Mark's (and Matthew's) cry of despair with one of submission to God's will ("Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"); while John, the last gospel, has Jesus dying without apparent suffering in fulfillment of the divine plan.[68]

text: Sayings unique to Mark[edit]

text:
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).[n 1] Not present in either Matthew 12:1–8 or Luke 6:1–5. This is also a so-called "Western non-interpolation". The passage is not found in the Western text of Mark.
People were saying, "[Jesus] has gone out of his mind", see also Rejection of Jesus (Mark 3:21).
Mark is the only gospel with the combination Mark 4:24–25, the other gospels split them up: Mark 4:24 being found in Luke 6:38 and Matthew 7:2; Mark 4:25 being found in Matthew 13:12 and 25:29, Luke 8:18 and 19:26.
Parable of the Growing Seed (4:26–29).
Only Mark counts the possessed swine; there are about two thousand (Mark 5:13).
Two consecutive healing stories of women; both make use of the number twelve (Mark 5:25 and Mark 5:42).
Only Mark gives healing commands of Jesus in the (presumably original) Aramaic: Talitha koum (Mark 5:41), Ephphatha (Mark 7:34). See Aramaic of Jesus.
Only place in the New Testament Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3).
Mark is the only gospel where Jesus himself is called a carpenter (Mark 6:3); in Matthew he is called a carpenter's son (Matthew 13:55).
Only place that both names his brothers and mentions his sisters (Mark 6:3); Matthew has a slightly different name for one brother (Matthew 13:55).
The taking of a staff and sandals is permitted in Mark 6:8–9 but prohibited in Matthew 10:9–10 and Luke 9:3.
Only Mark refers to Herod as a king (Mk 6:14, 24); Matthew and Luke refer to him (more properly) as a tetrarch (Mt 14:1; Lk 3:19; 9:7).
The longest version of the story of Herodias' daughter's dance and the beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29).
Mark's literary cycles:

text:
6:30–44 – Feeding of the five thousand;
6:45–56 – Crossing of the lake;
7:1–13 – Dispute with the Pharisees;
7:14–23 – Discourse on Defilement[69]

text:
8:1–9 – Feeding of the four thousand;
8:10 – Crossing of the lake;
8:11–13 – Dispute with the Pharisees;
8:14–21 – Incident of no bread and discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees.

text:
Customs that at that time were unique to Jews are explained (hand, produce, and utensil washing): 7:3–4.
"Thus he declared all foods clean".[n 2] 7:19 NRSV, not found in the Matthean parallel Matthew 15:15–20.
There is no mention of Samaritans
Jesus heals using his fingers and spit at the same time: 7:33; cf. Mark 8:23, Luke 11:20, John 9:6, Matthew 8:16; see also Exorcism.
Jesus lays his hands on a blind man twice in curing him: 8:23–25; cf. 5:23, 16:18, Acts 6:6, 9:17, 28:8, laying on of hands.
Jesus cites the Shema Yisrael: "Hear O Israel ..." (12:29–30); in the parallels of Matt 22:37–38 and Luke 10:27 the first part of the Shema (Deut 6:4) is absent.
Mark points out that the Mount of Olives is across from the temple (13:3).
When Jesus is arrested, a young naked man flees: 14:51–52. A young man in a robe also appears in 16:5–7, see also Secret Gospel of Mark.
Mark does not name the High Priest, cf. Matt 26:57, Luke 3:2, Acts 4:6, John 18:13.
Witness testimony against Jesus does not agree (14:56, 14:59).
The cock crows "twice" as predicted (Mark 14:72). See also Fayyum Fragment. The other Gospels simply record, "the cock crew". Early codices 01, W, and most Western texts have the simpler version.[n 3]
Pilate's position (Governor) is not specified, 15:1, cf. Matt 27:2, Luke 3:1, John 18:28–29.
Simon of Cyrene's sons are named (Mark 15:21).
A summoned centurion is questioned (Mark 15:44–45).
The women ask each other who will roll away the stone (Mark 16:3), cf. Matt 28:2–7.
A young man sits on the "right side" (Mark 16:5), cf. Luke 24:4, John 20:12.
Mark is the only canonical gospel with significant various alternative endings (see Mark 16, Possible Scenarios); however, most of the contents of the traditional "Longer Ending" (Mark 16:9–20) are found in other New Testament texts and are not unique to Mark, see Mark 16#The Longer Ending. The one significant exception is 16:18b "and if they drink any deadly thing", it will not harm those who believe, which is unique to Mark.


document_title: Cricket ball

question_text: which cricket ball is used in test matches in india

root

text: Cricket ball

text: Manufacture[edit]

text: British Standard BS 5993 specifies the construction details, dimensions, quality and performance of cricket balls.

tag: p

text: A cricket ball is made with a core of cork, which is layered with tightly wound string, and covered by a leather case with a slightly raised sewn seam. In a top-quality ball suitable for the highest levels of competition, the covering is constructed of four pieces of leather shaped similar to the peel of a quartered orange, but one hemisphere is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to the other. The "equator" of the ball is stitched with string to form the ball's prominent seam, with six rows of stitches. The remaining two joins between the leather pieces are stitched internally forming the quarter seam. Lower-quality balls with a two-piece covering are also popular for practice and lower-level competition due to their lower cost.

text:
Cricket ball specifications[3]

Weight
Circumference

Men, and boys 13 and over
5.5 to 5.75 oz (156 to 163 g)
8.81 to 9 in (224 to 229 mm)

Women, and girls 13 and over
4.94 to 5.31 oz (140 to 151 g)
8.25 to 8.88 in (210 to 226 mm)

Children under 13
4.69 to 5.06 oz (133 to 143 g)
8.06 to 8.69 in (205 to 221 mm)

Younger children

A plastic ball such as a  "Kwik cricket ball" is often used

tag: table

text: The nature of the cricket ball slightly varies with its manufacturer. White Kookaburra balls are used in one-day  and Twenty20 international matches, while red Kookaburras are used in test matches played in most of the ten test-playing nations,[4] except for the West Indies and England, who use Dukes, and India, who use SG balls.[5]

text: Use[edit]

text: Cricket balls are traditionally red, and red balls are used in Test cricket and First-class cricket.

text: White balls were introduced when one-day matches began being played at night under floodlights, as they are more visible at night; all professional one-day matches are now played with white balls, even when they are not played at night. The white balls have been found to behave differently to the red balls, most notably that they swing a lot more during the first half of an innings than the red ball, and that they deteriorate more quickly. Manufacturers claim that white and red balls are manufactured using the same methods and materials,[1] other than the dying treatment of the leather. Another problem associated with white cricket balls used in One Day Internationals is that they quickly become dirty or dull in colour, which makes it more difficult for batsmen to sight the ball after 30-40 overs of use.[6][7] Since October 2012, this has been managed by the use of two new white balls in each innings, with a different ball used from each bowling end; the same strategy was used in the 1992 and 1996 Cricket World Cups. Between October 2007 and October 2012, the issue had been managed using one new ball from the start of the innings, then swapping it at the end of the 34th over with a "reconditioned ball", which was neither new nor too dirty to see. Before October 2007, except during 1992 and 1996 World Cups, only one ball was used during an innings of an ODI and it was the umpires discretion to change the ball if it was difficult to see.[8]

text: Pink balls were developed in the 2000s to enable Tests and first-class matches played at night. The red ball is unsuited to night tests due to poor visibility, and the white ball is unsuited to first-class cricket because its rapid deterioration makes it unable to be used for eighty overs as specified in the rules, so the pink ball was designed to provide a satisfactory compromise on both issues. It is still considered more difficult to see than a white ball; and the leather is more heavily dyed than in a red ball, which better preserves its colour and visibility as it wears but also gives it slightly different wear characteristics. It has performed well enough in testing and first-class cricket to be approved for use in international cricket.[9] A pink ball was used for the first time in an international match in July 2009 when the England Woman's team defeated Australia in a one-day match at Wormsley,[10] and a pink ball was used in a day-night Test match for the first time in November 2015. Other colours were also experimented with, such as yellow and orange (glowing composite), for improved night visibility, but pink proved to be the preferred option.

text: As of 2014, the ball used in Test match cricket in England has a recommended retail price of 100 pounds sterling.[11] In test match cricket this ball is used for a minimum of 80 overs (theoretically five hours and twenty minutes of play), after which the fielding side has the option of using a new ball. In professional one day cricket, at least two new balls are used for each match. Amateur cricketers often have to use old balls, or cheap substitutes, in which case the changes in the condition of the ball may not be experienced in the same manner as that which occurs during an innings of professional cricket.

text: There are three main manufacturers of cricket ball used in international matches: Kookaburra, Dukes and SG. The manufacturer of the red (or pink) balls used for Tests varies depending on location: India uses SG, England, Ireland and the West Indies use Dukes, and all other countries use Kookaburra. The different manufacturers' balls behave differently – e.g. Dukes balls have a prouder seam and will tend to swing more than a Kookaburra ball[12] – providing a home advantage when playing against a team unfamiliar with the ball. All limited overs international matches, regardless of location, are played with white Kookaburra balls.[13] White Dukes balls were used at the 1999 Cricket World Cup, but the ball behaved more erratically than the Kookaburra and has not since been used. Domestic competitions may use a domestic manufacturer: for example, Pakistan uses Grays balls in its first-class competitions.[14][15]

text: Cricket balls can be bowled at close to 160 km/h (100 mph) by pace bowlers and made to deviate from a straight course, both in the air (known as 'swinging') and off the ground (known as 'seaming'). A spin bowler imparts lateral revolutions on the ball at the point of delivery, so that when it bounces it deviates from a straight course. As cricket bats have become thicker, the ball can now be hit well over 100 metres before touching the ground.

text: Cricket commentator and former Test bowler Simon Doull noted that cricket balls produced after Cricket World Cup 2015 produced a lot less swing regardless of manufacturer. This was said to be apparent in 2017 ICC Champions Trophy, even in traditionally swing-friendly British pitches, particularly with white balls, but the former West-Indian bowler Ian Bishop was unwilling to support this.[16]

text: Condition of a cricket ball[edit]

text:
In test cricket, a new ball is used at the start of each innings in a match. In Limited Over Internationals, two new balls, one from each end, are used at the start of each innings in a match.
A cricket ball may not be replaced except under specific conditions described in the Laws of Cricket:

text: Because a single ball is used for an extended period of play, its surface wears down and becomes rough. The bowlers may polish it whenever they can - usually by rubbing it on their trousers, producing the characteristic red stain that can often be seen there. However, they will usually only polish one side of the ball, in order to create 'swing' as it travels through the air. They may apply saliva or sweat to the ball as they polish it.

text: The seam of a cricket ball can also be used to produce different trajectories through the air, with the technique known as swing bowling, or to produce sideways movement as it bounces off the pitch, with the technique known as seam bowling.

text: Since the condition of the cricket ball is crucial to the amount of movement through the air a bowler can produce, the laws governing what players may and may not do to the ball are specific and rigorously enforced. The umpires will inspect the ball frequently during a match. If the ball is out of shape due to normal wear and tear due to batting and ball hitting the pitch, a ball of similar usage rate and condition will be replaced (i.e. a ball of about 30-overs old will be replaced by a ball about the same 'age').

text: It is illegal for a player to:

text:
rub any substance apart from saliva or sweat onto the ball
rub the ball on the ground
scuff the ball with any rough object, including the fingernails
pick at or lift the seam of the ball.

tag: ul

text: Despite these rules, it can be tempting for players to gain an advantage by breaking them. There have been a handful of incidents of so-called ball tampering at the highest levels of cricket.

text: A new cricket ball is harder than a worn one, and is preferred by fast bowlers because of the speed and bounce of the ball off the pitch. Older balls tend to spin more as the roughness grips the pitch more when the ball bounces, so spin bowlers prefer to use a worn ball, though a ball of about 8-10 overs old is still useful to a spinner as it can get more drift in the air. Uneven wear on older balls may also make reverse swing possible.  A captain may delay the request for a new ball if he prefers to have his spin bowlers operating, but usually asks for the new ball soon after it becomes available.

text: Dangers of cricket balls[edit]

text: Cricket balls are hard and potentially lethal, so most of today's batsmen and close fielders often wear protective equipment. Cricket ball injuries are fairly frequent, including eye (with some players having lost eyes),[17] head and face,[18] finger and toe,[19] teeth[20] and testicular injuries.[19]

text: Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707–1751) is often said to have died of complications after being hit by a cricket ball, although the connection between the incident and his actual cause of death is unproven. Glamorgan player Roger Davis was almost killed by a ball in 1971 when he was hit on the head while fielding.[21] The Indian batsman Nariman 'Nari' Contractor had to retire from the game after being hit by a ball on the head in the West Indies in 1962.[22]

text: In 1998, Indian cricketer Raman Lamba died when a cricket ball hit his head in a club match in Dhaka.[23] Lamba was fielding at forward short-leg without wearing a helmet when a ball struck by batsman Mehrab Hossain hit him hard on the head and rebounded to wicket-keeper Khaled Mashud.

text: A cricket umpire, Alcwyn Jenkins, died in 2009 in Swansea, Wales after being hit on the head by a ball thrown by a fielder.[18]

text: In November 2014, Australia and South Australia batsman Phillip Hughes died at the age of 25 at a Sydney hospital after succumbing to an injury sustained from being hit on the side of the neck by a bouncer bowled by Sean Abbott during a Sheffield Shield game.[24] The same week, Hillel Oscar, an umpire and former captain of Israel's national cricket team died after being hit in the neck by a ball.[25]

text: On 14 August 2017, Zubair Ahmed died after being hit on the head while batting in a club match played in the Mardan District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.[26]

text: Alternatives to cricket balls[edit]

text: Sometimes alternatives to a real cricket ball may be preferred for reasons of safety, availability and cost. Examples include a tennis ball and a plastic version of the cricket ball.

text: Many casual players use a tennis ball wrapped in layers of some type of adhesive tape (often electrical tape), which makes the relatively soft tennis ball harder and smoother. This is commonly referred to as a tape ball. A common variant is to tape only half the tennis ball, to provide two different sides and make it easy to bowl with prodigious amounts of swing.


document_title: Alaska Purchase

question_text: in 1867 the u.s. purchased alaska from the russian empire for approximately how many cents per acre

text: Alaska Purchase

text: Background[edit]

text: Russia was in a difficult financial position and feared losing Russian America without compensation in some future conflict, especially to the British, with whom they had fought in the Crimean War (1853–1856). While Alaska attracted little interest at the time, the population of nearby British Columbia started to increase rapidly a few years after hostilities ended, with a large gold rush there prompting the creation of a British crown colony on the mainland in addition to the one that was already established on Vancouver Island, where the French and British fleets had retreated after the Battle of Petropavlovsk in the Russian Far East.

text: The Russians decided that in any future war with Britain, their hard-to-defend colony might become a prime target, and would be easily captured. Therefore, the Russian emperor, Alexander II, decided to sell the territory. Perhaps in the hope of starting a bidding war, both the British and the Americans were approached. However, the British expressed little interest in buying Alaska. In 1859 the Russians offered to sell the territory to the United States, hoping that its presence in the region would offset the plans of Russia's greatest regional rival, Great Britain. However, no deal was reached, as the risk of an American Civil War was a more pressing concern in Washington.[5][6]

text: Grand Duke Konstantin, a younger brother of the Tsar, began to press for the handover of Russian America to the United States in 1857. In a memorandum to Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov he stated that

text: we must not deceive ourselves and must foresee that the United States, aiming constantly to round out their possessions and desiring to dominate undividedly the whole of North America will take the afore-mentioned colonies from us and we shall not be able to regain them.[7]

text: This proposal was a topic in the higher echelons of the Russian government throughout 1857 and 1858.[7] Konstantin's letter was shown to his brother, Tsar Alexander II, who wrote "this idea is worth considering" on the front page.[8] Supporters of Konstantin's proposal to immediately withdraw from North America included Admiral Yevfimy Putyatin and the Russian minister to the United States, Eduard de Stoeckl. Gorchakov agreed with the necessity of abandoning Russian America, but argued for a gradual process leading to its sale.[8] He found a supporter in the naval minister and former chief manager of the Russian-American Company (RAC), Ferdinand von Wrangel. Wrangel pressed for some proceeds to be invested in the economic development of Kamchatka and the Amur Basin.[8] The Emperor eventually sided with Gorchakov, deciding to postpone negotiations until the end of the RAC's patent, set to expire in 1861.

text: Over the winter of 1859–1860 de Stoeckl held meetings with American officials, though he had been instructed not to initiate discussions about the sale of the RAC assets. Communicating primarily with Assistant Secretary of State John Appleton and Senator William M. Gwin, de Stoeckl reported the interest expressed by the Americans in acquiring Russian America.[8] While President James Buchanan kept these hearings informal, preparations were made for further negotiations.[8] Senator Gwin tendered a hypothetical[clarification needed] offer of five million dollars for the Russian colony, a figure Gorchakov found far too low. De Stoeckl informed Appleton and Gwin of this, the latter saying that his Congressional colleagues in Oregon and California would support a larger figure.[8] Buchanan's increasingly unpopular presidency forced the matter to be shelved until a new presidential election. With the oncoming American Civil War, de Stoeckl proposed a renewal of the RAC's charter. Two of its ports were to be open to foreign traders and commercial agreements with Peru and Chile to be signed to give "a fresh jolt" to the company.[8]

text: Additionally, the Russian Crown sought to repay money to its landowners after its emancipation reform of 1861 and borrowed 15 million pounds sterling from Rothschilds at 5% annually.[9] When the time came to repay the loan, the Russian government was short of funds.

text: Russia continued to see an opportunity to weaken British power by causing British Columbia, including the Royal Navy base at Esquimalt, to be surrounded or annexed by American territory.[10] Following the Union victory in the civil war, the Tsar instructed the Russian minister to the United States, Eduard de Stoeckl, to re-enter into negotiations with William Seward in the beginning of March 1867. President Johnson was entangled in negotiations about Reconstruction and Seward had alienated a number of Republicans, so they believed that the purchase would help divert attention from the current domestic matters.[11] The negotiations concluded after an all-night session with the signing of the treaty at 04:00 on March 30, 1867,[12] with the purchase price set at $7.2 million ($123 million today[1]), or about 2 cents per acre ($4.74/km2).[13]

text: Public opinion in the United States[edit]

text: The notion that the purchase was unpopular among Americans is, a scholar wrote 120 years later, "one of the strongest historical myths in American history. It persists despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, and the efforts of the best historians to dispel it", likely in part because it fits American and Alaskan writers' view of the territory as distinct and filled with self-reliant pioneers.[14] American public opinion was not universally positive; to some the purchase was known as "Seward's folly", or "Seward's icebox." Newspaper editorials contended that taxpayer money had been wasted on a "Polar bear garden". Nonetheless, most newspaper editors argued that the U.S. would probably derive great economic benefits from the purchase; friendship with Russia was important; and it would facilitate the acquisition of British Columbia.[2][15][16] Forty-five percent of newspapers endorsing the purchase cited the increased potential for annexing British Columbia in their support.[10] W. H. Dall in 1872 wrote that "...there can be no doubt that the feelings of a majority of the citizens of the United States are in favor of it..." while referring to purchasing the territories of Russia in America.[17] A review of dozens of newspapers of the day reveals general support for the purchase, especially in California and most of the 48 major newspapers supported the purchase at the time.[14][18]

text: The principal urban newspaper that opposed the purchase was the New York Tribune, published by Seward opponent Horace Greeley. The ongoing controversy over Reconstruction spread to other acts, such as the Alaska purchase. Some opposed the United States obtaining its first non-contiguous territory, seeing it as a colony; others saw no need to pay for land that they expected the country to obtain through manifest destiny.[14] Historian Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer summarized the minority opinion of some American newspaper editors who opposed the purchase:[19]

text: Already, so it was said, we were burdened with territory we had no population to fill. The Indians within the present boundaries of the republic strained our power to govern aboriginal peoples. Could it be that we would now, with open eyes, seek to add to our difficulties by increasing the number of such peoples under our national care? The purchase price was small; the annual charges for administration, civil and military, would be yet greater, and continuing. The territory included in the proposed cession was not contiguous to the national domain. It lay away at an inconvenient and a dangerous distance. The treaty had been secretly prepared, and signed and foisted upon the country at one o'clock in the morning. It was a dark deed done in the night… The New York World said that it was a "sucked orange." It contained nothing of value but furbearing animals, and these had been hunted until they were nearly extinct. Except for the Aleutian Islands and a narrow strip of land extending along the southern coast the country would be not worth taking as a gift… Unless gold were found in the country much time would elapse before it would be blessed with Hoe printing presses, Methodist chapels and a metropolitan police. It was "a frozen wilderness."

text: American ownership[edit]

text: An Aleut name, "Alaska", was chosen by the Americans. This name had earlier, in the Russian era, denoted the Alaska Peninsula, which the Russians had called "Аляска" (Alyaska) (also Alyaksa is attested, especially in older sources).

text: Seward and many other Americans believed that Asia would become an important market for the country's products, and expected that Alaska would serve as a base for American merchant ships. Senator Charles Sumner was unusual in expecting that the territory would be valuable on its own; having studied the records of explorers, he believed that it contained valuable animals and forests.[14] As chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, he sponsored the bill to acquire the territory. Seward told the nation that the Russians estimated that Alaska contained about 2,500 Russians and those of mixed race (that is, a Russian father and native mother), and 8,000 indigenous people, in all about 10,000 people under the direct government of the Russian fur company, and possibly 50,000 Inuit and Alaska Natives living outside its jurisdiction. The Russians were settled at 23 trading posts, placed at accessible islands and coastal points. At smaller stations only four or five Russians were stationed to collect furs from the natives for storage and shipment when the company's boats arrived to take it away. There were two larger towns. New Archangel, now named Sitka, had been established in 1804 to handle the valuable trade in the skins of the sea otter and in 1867 contained 116 small log cabins with 968 residents. St. Paul in the Pribilof Islands had 100 homes and 283 people and was the center of the seal fur industry.[20] The treaty passed the United States Senate with 37 votes for versus 2 opposed.[21]

text: Transfer ceremony[edit]

text: The transfer ceremony took place in Sitka on October 18, 1867. Russian and American soldiers paraded in front of the governor's house; the Russian flag was lowered and the American flag raised amid peals of artillery.

text: A description of the events was published in Finland six years later, written by a blacksmith named T. Ahllund, who had been recruited to work in Sitka only less than two years previously.[22]

text:
“
We had not spent many weeks at Sitka when two large steam ships arrived there, bringing things that belonged to the American crown, and a few days later the new governor also arrived in a ship together with his soldiers. The wooden two-story mansion of the Russian governor stood on a high hill, and in front of it in the yard at the end of a tall spar flew the Russian flag with the double-headed eagle in the middle of it. Of course, this flag now had to give way to the flag of the United States, which is full of stripes and stars. On a predetermined day in the afternoon a group of soldiers came from the American ships, led by one who carried the flag. Marching solemnly, but without accompaniment, they came to the governor's mansion, where the Russian troops were already lined up and waiting for the Americans. Now they started to pull the [Russian double-headed] eagle down, but—whatever had gone into its head—it only came down a little bit, and then entangled its claws around the spar so that it could not be pulled down any further. A Russian soldier was therefore ordered to climb up the spar and disentangle it, but it seems that the eagle cast a spell on his hands, too—for he was not able to arrive at where the flag was, but instead slipped down without it. The next one to try was not able to do any better; only the third soldier was able to bring the unwilling eagle down to the ground. While the flag was brought down, music was played and cannons were fired off from the shore; and then while the other flag was hoisted the Americans fired off their cannons from the ships equally many times. After that American soldiers replaced the Russian ones at the gates of the fence surrounding the Kolosh [i.e. Tlingit] village.
”

text: When the business with the flags was finally over, Captain of 2nd Rank Aleksei Alekseyevich Peshchurov said: "General Rousseau, by authority from His Majesty, the Emperor of Russia, I transfer to the United States the territory of Alaska." General Lovell Rousseau accepted the territory. (Peshchurov had been sent to Sitka as commissioner of the Russian government in the transfer of Alaska.) A number of forts, blockhouses and timber buildings were handed over to the Americans. The troops occupied the barracks; General Jefferson C. Davis established his residence in the governor's house, and most of the Russian citizens went home, leaving a few traders and priests who chose to remain.[23][24]

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: After the transfer, a number of Russian citizens remained in Sitka, but very soon nearly all of them decided to return to Russia, which was still possible at the expense of the Russian-American Company. Ahllund's story "corroborates other accounts of the transfer ceremony, and the dismay felt by many of the Russians and creoles, jobless and in want, at the rowdy troops and gun-toting civilians who looked on Sitka as merely one more western frontier settlement." Ahllund gives a vivid account of what life was like for civilians in Sitka under U.S. rule, and it helps to explain why hardly any of the Russian subjects wanted to stay there. Moreover, Ahllund's article is the only known description of the return voyage on the Winged Arrow, a ship especially purchased in order to transport the Russians back to their native country. "The over-crowded vessel, with crewmen who got roaring drunk at every port, must have made the voyage a memorable one." Ahllund mentions stops at the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands, Tahiti, Brazil, London, and finally Kronstadt, the port for St. Petersburg, where they arrived on August 28, 1869.[25]

text: American settlers who shared Sumner's belief in the riches of Alaska rushed to the territory, but found that much capital was required to exploit its resources, many of which were also found closer to markets in the contiguous United States. Most soon left; by 1873 Sitka's population had declined from about 2,500 to a few hundred.[14] The United States acquired an area twice as large as Texas, but it was not until the great Klondike gold strike in 1896 that Alaska came to be seen generally as a valuable addition to American territory.

text: The seal fishery was one of the chief considerations that induced the United States to purchase Alaska. It provided considerable revenue to the United States by the lease of the privilege of taking seals, in fact an amount in excess of the price paid for Alaska. From 1870 to 1890, the seal fisheries yielded 100,000 skins a year. The company to which the administration of the fisheries was entrusted by a lease from the U.S. government paid a rental of $50,000 per annum and in addition thereto $2.62½ per skin for the total number taken. The skins were transported to London to be dressed and prepared for world markets. The business grew so large that the earnings of English laborers after the acquisition of Alaska by the United States amounted by 1890 to $12,000,000.[26]

text: However, exclusive U.S. control of this resource was eventually challenged, and the Bering Sea Controversy resulted when the United States seized over 150 sealing ships flying the British flag, based out of the coast of British Columbia. The conflict between the United States and Great Britain was resolved by an arbitration tribunal in 1893. The waters of the Bering Sea were deemed to be international waters, contrary to the U.S.'s contention that they were an internal sea. The U.S. was required to make a payment to Great Britain, and both nations were required to follow regulations which were developed to preserve the resource.[26]

text: Financial return[edit]

text: Economist David R. Barker has argued that the U.S. federal government has not earned a positive financial return on the purchase of Alaska. According to Barker, tax revenue and mineral and energy royalties to the federal government have been less than federal costs of governing Alaska plus interest on the borrowed funds used for the purchase.[27]

text: John M. Miller has taken the argument further, contending that U.S. oil companies that developed Alaskan petroleum resources did not earn profits sufficient to compensate for the risks they have incurred.[28]

text: Other economists and scholars, including Scott Goldsmith and Terrence Cole, have criticized the metrics used to reach those conclusions, noting that most continental Western states would fail to meet the bar of "positive financial return" using the same criteria and contending that looking at the increase in net national income, instead of simply U.S. Treasury revenue, paints a much more accurate picture of the financial return of Alaska as an investment.[29]

text: Alaska Day[edit]

text: In Alaska, Alaska Day celebrates the formal transfer of Alaska from Russia to the United States, which took place on October 18, 1867. The date is by the Gregorian calendar, which came into effect in Alaska the following day to replace the Julian calendar used by the Russians (the Julian calendar in the 19th century was 12 days behind the Gregorian calendar). Alaska Day is a holiday for all state workers.[30]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
^ Jump up to: a b Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Community Development Project. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Welch, Richard E., Jr. (1958). "American Public Opinion and the Purchase of Russian America". American Slavic and East European Review. 17 (4): 481–494. JSTOR 3001132.
Jump up ^ Howard I. Kushner, "'Seward's Folly'?: American Commerce in Russian America and the Alaska Purchase". California Historical Quarterly (1975): 4–26. JSTOR 25157541.
Jump up ^ "Purchase of Alaska, 1867". Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
Jump up ^ "Purchase of Alaska, 1867". Archived from the original on 2008-04-10. .
Jump up ^ Claus-M Naske; Herman E. Slotnick (15 March 1994). Alaska: A History of the 49th State. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 330. ISBN 978-0-8061-2573-2.
^ Jump up to: a b Russian Opinion on the Cession of Alaska. The American Historical Review 48, No. 3 (1943), pp. 521–531.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Bolkhovitinov, Nikolay N. (1990). "The Crimean War and the Emergence of Proposals for the Sale of Russian America, 1853–1861". Pacific Historical Review. 59 (1): 15–49. JSTOR 3640094.
Jump up ^ Кто и как продавал Аляску (Who and how was sold Alaska) Archived 2012-09-11 at the Wayback Machine.. Russian portal.
^ Jump up to: a b Neunherz, R. E. (1989). ""Hemmed In": Reactions in British Columbia to the Purchase of Russian America". The Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 80 (3): 101–111. JSTOR 40491056. doi:10.2307/40491056.
Jump up ^ Kennedy, Robert C. "The Big Thing". Harp Week. Archived from the original on March 26, 2013. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
Jump up ^ Seward, Frederick W., Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State. Volume: 3, 1891, p. 348.
Jump up ^ "Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 29 March 2015. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Haycox, Stephen (1990). "Haycox, Stephen. "Truth and Expectation: Myth in Alaska History". Northern Review. 6. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
Jump up ^ "Biographer calls Seward's Folly a myth". The Seward Phoenix LOG. 3 April 2014. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
Jump up ^ Jones, Preston. "Founding of Anchorage, Alaska" (DVR)|format= requires |url= (help). C-SPAN3.
Jump up ^ Dall, W. H. (1872). "Is Alaska a Paying Investment". Harper's New Monthly Magazine. NY: Harper & Brothers. XLIV: 252.
Jump up ^ photographs, Preston Jones ;; Holland, illustrations edited by Neal (2013). The fires of patriotism : Alaskans in the days of the First World War 1910–1920. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-60223-205-1. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
Jump up ^ Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, A History of the United States since the Civil War (1917)1:541.
Jump up ^ Seward (1869).
Jump up ^ "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875". loc.gov.
Jump up ^ Ahllund, T. (1873/2006).
Jump up ^ Bancroft, H. H., (1885) pp. 590–629.
Jump up ^ Pierce, R. (1990), p 395.
Jump up ^ Richard Pierce, introduction to Ahllund, T., From the Memoirs of a Finnish Workman (2006).
^ Jump up to: a b  Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). "Sealing". New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead.
Jump up ^ Powell, Michael (18 August 2010). "How Alaska Became a Federal Aid Magnet". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
Jump up ^ Miller, John. The Last Alaskan Barrel: An Arctic Oil Bonanza that Never Was. Caseman Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9828780-0-2.
Jump up ^ Powell, Michael (20 August 2010). "Was the Alaska Purchase a Good Deal?". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
Jump up ^ State of Alaska 2014 Holiday Calendar (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 20 August 2014, retrieved 18 December 2014

tag: ol

text: Further reading[edit]

text:
Bancroft, Hubert Howe: History of Alaska: 1730–1885 (1886).
Dunning, William. A. "Paying for Alaska", Political Science Quarterly Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 1912), pp. 385–398. JSTOR 2141366.
Farrow, Lee A. Seward's Folly: A New Look at the Alaska Purchase (University of Alaska Press, 2016). xiv, 225 pp.
Grinëv, Andrei. V., and Richard L. Bland. "A Brief Survey of the Russian Historiography of Russian America of Recent Years", Pacific Historical Review, May 2010, Vol. 79 Issue 2, pp. 265–278.
Pierce, Richard: Russian America: A Biographical Dictionary, p. 395. Alaska History no. 33, The Limestone Press; Kingston, Ontario & Fairbanks, Alaska, 1990.
Holbo, Paul S (1983). Tarnished Expansion: The Alaska Scandal, the Press, and Congress 1867–1871. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Jensen, Ronald (1975). The Alaska Purchase and Russian-American Relations.
Oberholtzer, Ellis (1917). A History of the United States since the Civil War. Vol. 1.  online

text: Primary sources[edit]

text:
Ahllund, T., From the Memoirs of a Finnish Workman, trans. Panu Hallamaa, ed. Richard Pierce, Alaska History, 21 (Fall 2006), 1–25. (Originally published in Finnish in Suomen Kuvalehti (editor-in-chief Julius Krohn) No. 15/1873 (1 August) – No. 19/1873 (1 October)).
Seward, William H. Alaska: Speech of William H. Seward at Sitka, August 12, 1869 (1869; Digitized page images & text), a primary source


document_title: Hotel Transylvania

question_text: who played frankenstein's wife in hotel transylvania

question_tokens: who played frankenstein 's wife in hotel transylvania

text: Hotel Transylvania

text: Plot[edit]

text: In the aftermath of the death of his wife Martha (Jackie Sandler) at the hands of an angry human mob, Count Dracula (Adam Sandler) commissions and builds a massive five-star, monsters-only hotel in Transylvania in which he raises his daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez) and to serve as a safe-place getaway for the world's monsters from fear of human persecution. Famous monsters such as Frank (Kevin James) and his wife Eunice (Fran Drescher), Wayne and Wanda Werewolf (Steve Buscemi and Molly Shannon) and their massive immediate family, Griffin The Invisible Man (David Spade), and Murray the Mummy (CeeLo Green) often come to stay at the hotel which is completely human-free and safe for monsters.

text: On Mavis's 118th birthday, Dracula allows his daughter to leave the castle in order to explore the human world, but he sets up an elaborate plan using his zombie bellhops disguised as humans to make them seem intimidating, but without her being in any danger, and frighten her home. The plan works, but the zombies inadvertently lead a 21-year-old[12] human named Jonathan (Andy Samberg) back to the hotel. Dracula frantically disguises him as a Frankensteinesque Monster and passes him off as "Johnnystein", 'a distant cousin of Frank's right arm'. Jonathan soon encounters Mavis and the two "Zing" (a form of romantic attraction). Unable to get Johnny out of the hotel without notice, Drac quickly improvises that Jonathan is a party planner, brought in to bring a fresher approach to his own traditional and boring parties. Jonathan quickly becomes a hit to the other monsters, especially Mavis, but this disgusts and worries Dracula greatly. Drac orders Johnny to leave, but Johnny is brought back by Mavis. After being shown the beauty of a sunrise by Johnny, Mavis is inspired to give humans another chance.

text: Meanwhile, the hotel chef Quasimodo (Jon Lovitz) with the help of his pet rat Esmeralda learns that Johnny is a human and kidnaps him in order to cook him. Dracula intervenes and magically freezes Quasimodo to keep him from telling anyone that Jonathan is human. Dracula leads Jonathan to his quarters and shows him a painting of his wife. Much to Dracula's surprise, Jonathan knows the woman in the painting from a legend he has recently heard and relates a story about how she fell perfectly in love with a count, but died in a mysterious fire. Dracula reveals the full painting with himself in it and confirms the truth of the tale, and proceeds to tell the full version, thus explaining why Dracula built the hotel and the origin of his overprotective behaviour with Mavis. Jonathan is understanding and Dracula develops respect for his knowledge, and the two bond, recognising that Jonathan is a good person. Jonathan then tries to leave for good, but Dracula convinces him to stay for the time-being to avoid ruining Mavis's birthday.

text: The party is a great success the next night, and Mavis looks forward to opening a gift from her deceased mother. However, when Jonathan and Mavis share their first kiss, Dracula overreacts, and, in his outburst, inadvertently confesses to deceiving Mavis with the town. A still-frozen Quasimodo bursts in and the Fly (Chris Parnell) translates from his frozen speech that Johnny is a human disguised by Dracula. The guests are outraged by the deceit at play, but Mavis is undeterred and wants to be with Johnny, even knowing he is human. Jonathan feigns disinterest in Mavis and rejects her out of respect for her father and leaves the hotel. Mavis then angrily yells at Dracula and flies off.

text: Dracula finds Mavis on the roof with her mother's present. He learns it is a book about how her mother and Dracula "Zinged" and fell in love. Dracula realizes humankind has become tolerant of monsters, and manages to convince Frank, Wayne, Griffin, and Murray to head out into the human world to help him find Jonathan, and with the scent-tracking ability of Wayne's daughter, Winnie, they learn that he is bound on a flight to the United States soon. The four head to the airport, but are held up in a town celebrating a Monster Festival along the way. Instead of being frightened by the appearance and powers of real monsters, the humans admire the group, and a team of men dressed as vampires help Dracula by providing him shelter from the sunlight while he rushes to the airport. Drac arrives to see Jonathan's plane taking off, and he gives chase in bat form, burning in the sunlight. After getting Jonathan's attention, Dracula makes his way to the front of the plane and uses his mind-controlling power on the pilot (Brian Stack) to help him apologize for his actions. Jonathan accepts his apology; Dracula then manipulates the pilot to return to the Transylvanian airport for a "refuel".

text: Dracula returns Jonathan to Mavis. Jonathan confesses that their 'Zing' was mutual and the two kiss, making Dracula realize his daughter has grown up and can make her own decisions. The monsters finish celebrating Mavis's party as Dracula, Mavis, Jonathan and their monster friends sing "The Zing" to the audience of hotel guests.

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Adam Sandler as Count Dracula, the 532-year-old owner and hotel manager of Hotel Transylvania, and Mavis' over-protective father.[12]
Andy Samberg as Jonathan ("Johnnystein") Loughran, a 21-year-old human who stumbles upon Hotel Transylvania in his travels.[12]
Selena Gomez as Mavis, Dracula's 118-year-old "teenage" vampire daughter who is interested in the outside world and falls in love with Johnny.[13]

Sadie Sandler voices Mavis as a child, as well as Wayne's daughter Winnie.

Kevin James as Frank/Frankenstein, Eunice's husband and one of Dracula's best friends who acts as an uncle to Mavis and mostly hangs out with Murray.
Fran Drescher as Eunice, Frankenstein's wife and Wanda's best friend.[12]
Steve Buscemi as Wayne, a male werewolf who is also one of Dracula's best friends and Wanda's husband.[12]
Molly Shannon as Wanda, a female werewolf, Wayne's heavily-pregnant wife and Eunice's best friend.[12]
David Spade as Griffin the Invisible Man, one of Dracula's best friends.[7]
CeeLo Green as Murray the Mummy, a short fat mummy who is one of Dracula's best friends and mostly hangs out with Frankenstein.[7]
Jon Lovitz as Quasimodo Wilson, a hunchback gourmet chef and the former Bell-ringer of Notre Dame who desires to make a dish with human as the main ingredient.[12][14]
Luenell as a wisecracking shrunken head that serves as a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door of Mavis's room.[15]
Chris Parnell as Mr. Fly, Hotel Transylvania's fitness coordinator who can also translate any speech.
Brian George as a Suit of Animated Armor, the head of Hotel Transylvania's security guards.
Brian Stack as the pilot of Jonathan's airplane back to America.
Jackie Sandler as Martha, Dracula's wife and Mavis's mother who was killed by an angry mob when Mavis was young.
Rob Riggle as Skeleton Husband
Paul Brittain as a Zombie Plumber, as well as one of the Hydra heads.
Robert Smigel as Fake Dracula, an attendee at a Transylvanian festival.

Robert Smigel also voices Marty, a pink Gill-man at Hotel Transylvania.

Jonny Solomon as Gremlin Man, one of the Gremlins at Hotel Transylvania.

Jonny Solomon also voices one of the Hydra heads.

Jim Wise as a shrunken head that serves as a "Do Not Disturb" sign.

Jim Wise also voices one of the Hydra heads.

Craig Kellman as a guy who shouts in the crowd at the festival.

Craig Kellman also voices one of the Hydra heads.

Brian McCann as a hairy monster that almost resembles a Yeti.

Brian McCann also voices one of the Hydra heads.

Tom Kenny as one of the Hydra heads.
James C. J. Williams as a deformed Igor-esque humanoid construction foreman who helped to build Hotel Transylvania.

text: Production[edit]

text: Hotel Transylvania was originally created and developed by comedy writer Todd Durham, which he based on his book of the same name; after creating the bible for a franchise of several films, television series, video games, books, merchandising, hotel chain, and theme park, he took the package unsolicited to Columbia Pictures and set it up at Sony Pictures Animation where he became the first of several screenwriters on the project.[18][19][20]

text: The development process ultimately went through six directors: in 2006 Anthony Stacchi and David Feiss became the first directors set to helm the film.[21] They were replaced by Jill Culton in 2008,[22] who was followed by Chris Jenkins,[23] with Todd Wilderman in 2010.[24] In February 2011,[25] Genndy Tartakovsky took over as the sixth scheduled director,[26] and made his feature directorial debut with the film.[12][24] He reimagined the film to follow the energy, organic nature, and exaggeration of 2D animation, particularly as seen in the work of director Tex Avery.[27] "I took all the aesthetics I like from 2-D and applied them here," Tartakovsky said. "I don't want to do animation to mimic reality. I want to push reality."[26] "I wanted to have an imprint so you'd go, 'Well, only Genndy can make this.' It's hard, especially with CG, but I feel there's a lot of moments that feel that they're very me, so hopefully it'll feel different enough that it has a signature to it."[28]

text: In November 2011, it was announced that Miley Cyrus would voice Mavis, Dracula's teenage daughter,[7] but in February 2012, Cyrus left the film to coordinate a musical comeback.[29] It was later announced that Selena Gomez would replace Cyrus.[30]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text:
"Where Did the Time Go Girl (Party Version)" Written by Robert Smigel, Adam Sandler, and Dennis White. Produced by Static Revenger.
"Daddy's Girl" Written by Adam Sandler and Robert Smigel. Performed by Adam Sandler.[31]
"Call Me Mavy" Performed by Traci L.[32]
"Problem (The Monster Remix)" Written by Henry Walter, Lukasz Gottwald, Becky Gomez (as Rebbeca Marie Gomez) & Will.i.am (as William Adams). Performed by Becky Gomez (as Becky G) featuring Will.i.am.
"Overprotected" Written by Max Martin. Performed by Britney Spears.
"Sexy and I Know It", performed by LMFAO
"The Zing" Written by Adam Sandler, Robert Smigel, and Dennis White. Produced by Static Revenger. Performed by Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Cee Lo Green, Kevin James, and Selena Gomez.[31]
"Helpless", written and performed by Peter Tvrznik[31]
"Sweet 118", written by Andy Samberg, Stuart Hart and Trevor Simpson. Performed by Andy Samberg.[31]
"Hush Little Baby", performed by Adam Sandler.[31]
"Monster Mash", performed by Bobby Pickett.[31]

text: Release[edit]

text: Hotel Transylvania premiered on September 8, 2012, at the Toronto International Film Festival.[5] The film received a wide release on September 28, 2012.[2] On October 26, 2012, Regal Entertainment Group Cinemas began exclusively playing the traditionally animated short film Goodnight Mr. Foot before the film. Based on Hotel Transylvania, the short was directed and animated by Genndy Tartakovsky.[33]

text: Home media[edit]

text: Hotel Transylvania was released on Blu-ray (2D and 3D) and DVD on January 29, 2013. It was accompanied by the short animated film, Goodnight Mr. Foot.[34]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 45% of critics gave the film positive reviews; the average rating is 5.3/10, based on 140 reviews. The site's critical consensus reads: "Hotel Transylvania's buoyant, giddy tone may please children, but it might be a little too loud and thinly-scripted for older audiences."[35] Another review aggregate, Metacritic, calculated an average score of 47 out of 100 based on 32 reviews.[36] CinemaScore polls conducted during the opening weekend revealed that the average grade cinemagoers gave Hotel Transylvania was an A- on an A+ to F scale.[37]

text: IGN editor Geoff Chapman rated the film 9 out of 10 and wrote "This is a fun film, full of quirky gags and lovable characters. There are a few songs that smack a bit like soundtrack marketing for the kids, and the story is of course fairly predictable, but this movie is about enjoying a fun journey with great characters. It's a romp that kids and families will all enjoy. Hotel Transylvania is definitely somewhere you'll want to check in."[38]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Hotel Transylvania earned $148.3 million in North America, and $210.1 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of $358.4 million.[6] The officially reported budget for the film was $85 million,[6] although Deadline.com claimed that the film actually cost $104 million.[39] For the film's marketing, Sony spent $52.1 million in the United States, and $31 million in other countries.[40]

text: Hotel Transylvania topped the box office with $11 million on its first Friday, and $42.5 million domestically and $50.6 million worldwide for its opening weekend, which at the time of its release broke the record for the largest-grossing September opening,[39] a record which was overtaken by its sequel Hotel Transylvania 2 in 2015, with a weekend gross of $48.5 million.[41] The film also earned the highest-grossing domestic debut for Sony Pictures Animation (also later overtaken by Hotel Transylvania 2).[41][42] According to Sony's president of worldwide distribution, Rory Bruer, Sony was very satisfied with the film's performance, which was "beyond anyone's imagination, and the holds are ridiculous. It exceeds expectations in every new market it opens in."[43] Hotel Transylvania was theatrically released in China on October 28, 2013,[44] more than a year after the worldwide premiere, and contributed $11,180,000 to the overall gross.[45]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Award
Category
Recipient
Result

Annie Awards[46][47]
Best Animated Feature

Nominated

Character Design in an Animated Feature Production
Carlos Grangel

Carter Goodrich

Directing in an Animated Feature Production
Genndy Tartakovsky

Music in an Animated Feature Production
Mark Mothersbaugh

Production Design in an Animated Feature Production
Marcello Vignali

Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production
Adam Sandler

Editorial in an Animated Feature Production
Catherine Apple

Golden Globe Awards[48]
Best Animated Feature Film
Genndy Tartakovsky

Visual Effects Society[49][50]
Outstanding Animation in an Animated Feature Motion Picture
Lydia Bottegoni, James Crossley, Mike Ford, Daniel Kramer

Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Feature Motion Picture
Bill Haller, Tim Pixton, Jorge Vigara (for Dracula)

Kid's Choice Awards[51]
Favorite Voice from an Animated Movie
Adam Sandler (as Dracula)
Won

text: Video games[edit]

text: A social game based on the film, titled Hotel Transylvania Social Game and made by Sony Pictures Interactive, was released on August 15, 2012. The game allows players to create their own Hotel Transylvania, where they must take care of the hotel's guests.[52]

text: Another video game, titled Hotel Transylvania, developed by WayForward and published by GameMill Entertainment, was released on September 18, 2012, for Nintendo DS and Nintendo 3DS at retail.[53][54] The game was also released in the Nintendo eShop in North America on November 15, 2012.[55]

text: A mobile game, titled Hotel Transylvania Dash, developed by Sony Pictures Consumer Products Inc. and PlayFirst, was released to iTunes App Store on September 20, 2012. The game is a variation of Hotel Dash mobile game and features the film's art and characters.[56]

text: A mobile digital storybook app, titled Hotel Transylvania BooClips Deluxe App, developed by Castle Builders and Sony Pictures Animation, was released to iTunes App Store, Nook Store, Google Play for the Android, iBookstore, Microsoft's Metro, and for the PC and Mac via www.BooClips.com, both in English and in Spanish, on September 20, 2012.[57]

text: Goodnight Mr. Foot[edit]

text: Goodnight Mr. Foot is a traditionally animated short film based on Hotel Transylvania, featuring Bigfoot from the film. Premiering in time for Halloween, on October 26, 2012, the short was shown exclusively in Regal Entertainment Group Cinemas, before the theatrical shows of Hotel Transylvania. As Sony Pictures Animation's first traditionally animated film, it was written and directed by Genndy Tartakovsky himself, who also animated the short with the help of Rough Draft Studios. Animated in the style of Bob Clampett, Tex Avery and Chuck Jones,[33] Tartakovsky created the short in four weeks during the final production stages of the main film.[58] Bigfoot (who has a non-speaking role in Hotel Transylvania) was voiced by Corey Burton while the Witch Maid was voiced by Rose Abdoo. Both voice actors provided additional voices in Hotel Transylvania.[59]

text: Taking place before the events of Hotel Transylvania, the short stars Bigfoot, whose rest in Hotel Transylvania is being constantly disturbed by an overly enthusiastic witch maid.[33]

text: Sequels[edit]

text: A sequel, titled Hotel Transylvania 2, was released on September 25, 2015.[9] Its story takes place seven years after the first film, with the hotel now open to human guests, and its owner, Count Dracula, being more preoccupied with the fact that his 5-year-old grandson is not a pure-blood vampire.[8] The original crew and cast returned for the film, except CeeLo Green as the role of Murray, who was replaced by Keegan-Michael Key. New additions include Mel Brooks as Dracula's father, Vlad;[60] Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally as Jonathan's parents, Mike and Linda;[61] and Asher Blinkoff as Mavis and Johnny's half-human/half-vampire son, Dennis.[62]

text: In November 2015, Sony Pictures Animation announced that Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation will be released on September 21, 2018 (now July 13, 2018).[63] Despite previously leaving the series to direct other projects, Genndy Tartakovsky will return as director for this installment.[64]

text: In 2017, Tartakovsky directed a five minute length short film set between the events of Hotel Transylvania 2 and 3, called Puppy!, which was released in cinemas as a pre-show special in front of The Emoji Movie. The story surrounds the events of Dennis requesting a puppy dog from Dracula.[65]

text: Television series[edit]

text: A television series based on the film premiered in June 2017, on Disney Channel.[66] Developed and produced by Nelvana Limited, in partnership with Sony Pictures Animation, the series takes place before the first film, focusing on the teenage years of Mavis and her friends at the Hotel Transylvania.[11]


document_title: Development Bank of the Philippines

question_text: what is the function of development bank of the philippines

text: Development Bank of the Philippines

text: Background[edit]

text: Under its charter, DBP is classified as a development bank. It is primarily tasked to provide banking services to cater to the needs of agricultural and industrial enterprises. It may also perform all other functions of a thrift bank.[3]

text: It focuses on four major areas of financing—infrastructure and logistics, social services, small and medium enterprises, and the environment.[4]

text: It also offers deposit and investment products and services, trade products and services, treasury products and services, transfer and remittance services, among others.[5]

text: As a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), DBP is required to declare and remit at least half of its annual net earnings to the national government.[6] In 2012, it turned over P4 billion in dividends to the national coffers.[7]

text: History[edit]

text: DBP's history can be traced back to the Commonwealth Era. In 1935, the National Loan and Investment Board (NLIB) was created to coordinate and manage the various government trust funds such as the Postal Savings Fund and the Teacher's Retirement Fund. In 1939, the NLIB was abolished and its functions were transferred to a new body, the Agricultural and Industrial Bank (AIB).

text: AIB continued operations until the outbreak of World War II. In 1947, the AIB was abolished and the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation was formed in its place by Republic Act No. 85, absorbing the powers and functions of the AIB. The RFC provided credit facilities for the development of agriculture, commerce and industry and the reconstruction of properties damaged by the war. In 1958, the RFC was reorganized into the modern-day DBP, reflecting that since reconstruction was largely finished, the RFC can venture into other fields.

text: With an initial capital of 500 million pesos, DBP set to work on expanding its facilities and operations to accelerate efforts on national economic development. It established a nationwide branch network and tapped local and foreign resources to complement its capital. It also borrowed money directly from international finance institutions.

text: In the late 70s up to the early 80s, however, its viability was undermined by numerous non-performing accounts.[8]

text: In 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 81, which reorganized the bank and gave it a new charter. All non-performing assets and liabilities were subsequently transferred to the government and led to DBP forming a program to strengthen its institutions, such as a thorough revision of the credit process and a training program for the intensive implementation of new lending thrusts. Likewise, DBP reopened its lending windows for housing, agriculture and SMEs.

text: In 1995, DBP became a universal bank when it was granted its universal banking license, and three years later, had its charter revised. Under the revised charter, DBP's authorized capital would increase from five billion pesos to 35 billion pesos and led to the creation of the posts of President and CEO.

text: In February 2016, President Benigno Aquino III approved the merger of DBP with Landbank which is another state-owned bank pending approval from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and written consent of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. Landbank will be the surviving entity.

text: On September 2016, the proposed DBP-Landbank merger was officially abandoned by the Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG).[9]

text: Organizational structure[edit]

text: The DBP Head Office in Makati exercises control and supervision of all DBP branch offices throughout the Philippines. The Board of Directors decides on policy matters to be carried out by the President and Chief Executive Officer. The President delegates policy and administrative directives to Executive Vice Presidents and Senior Vice Presidents manning specialized Departments of the bank. The Managers and Assistant Managers supervise the Division Chiefs in implementing daily tasks handled by rank-and-file personnel.

text: Key officials[edit]

text: As a state-owned financial institution, the Philippine President carries the power of appointing key officials of the bank, including the Chairman of the Board, the President and Chief Executive Officer, the Directors, and the Chief Legal Counsel. Past DBP presidents were former cabinet secretaries, corporate managers, economists, and international finance executives.

text: As of February 2017, the key officials[11] of the bank include:

text: Alberto G. Romulo- Chairman

text: Cecilia C. Borromeo - President and Chief Executive Officer, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors

text: Miguel C. Abaya - Director

text: Ma. Lourdes A. Arcenas - Director

text: Luis C. Bonguyan - Director

text: Emmanuel P. Galicia, Jr. - Director

text: Rogelio V. Garcia - Director

text: Teodoro M. Jumamil - Director

text: Rolando L. Metin - Director

text: Subsidiaries and affiliates[edit]

text: DBP subsidiaries and affiliates include:

text:
Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines
DBP Data Center
DBP Insurance Brokerage, Inc.

text: Competition[edit]

text: DBP competes in bank marketing against the largest commercial banks such as Metrobank, BPI, BDO Unibank and PNB. Outside the Metro Manila area, depending on the situation, it either competes against or complements the other banks in the area.

text: On the other end of the spectrum, DBP takes on a dual role with Landbank, another government-owned bank. It either competes against or works with Landbank, as the need arises.


document_title: United States Postmaster General

question_text: who was the first postmaster general of the united states

text: United States Postmaster General

text: History[edit]

text: The office, in one form or another, is older than both the United States Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence.  Benjamin Franklin was appointed by the Continental Congress as the first Postmaster General in 1775, serving just over 15 months.

text: Until 1971, the postmaster general was the head of the Post Office Department (or simply "Post Office" until the 1820s).[2] During that era, the postmaster general was appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.[3] From 1829 to 1971, the postmaster general was a member of the President's Cabinet.

text: The Cabinet post of Postmaster General was often given[when?] to a new President's campaign manager or other key political supporter, and was considered something of a sinecure. The Postmaster General was in charge of the governing party's patronage, and was a powerful position which held much influence within the party.

text: In 1971, the Post Office Department was re-organized into the United States Postal Service, an independent agency of the executive branch. Therefore, the Postmaster General is no longer a member of the Cabinet and is no longer in the line of presidential succession. The postmaster general is now appointed by nine "governors," appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The governors, along with the postmaster general and the deputy postmaster general, constitute the full Postal Service Board of Governors.[3][4]

text: The Postmaster General is the second-highest paid U.S. government official, based on publicly available salary information, after the President of the United States.[5]

text: Postmasters General under the Continental Congress[edit]

text:
Name

Date appointed

Benjamin Franklin

July 26, 1775

Richard Bache

November 7, 1776

Ebenezer Hazard

January 28, 1782

text: Postmasters general over the U.S. Post Office Department, 1789–1971[edit]

text: As non-Cabinet department, 1789–1829[edit]

text:
Name

State of Residence

Date appointed

President(s) served under

Samuel Osgood (pictured right) Federalist

Massachusetts

September 26, 1789

Washington

Timothy Pickering Federalist

Pennsylvania[6]

August 12, 1791

Washington

Joseph Habersham Independent

Georgia

February 25, 1795

Washington, Adams, Jefferson

Gideon Granger Democratic-Republican Party

Connecticut

November 28, 1801

Jefferson, Madison

Return J. Meigs, Jr. Democratic-Republican Party

Ohio

March 17, 1814

Madison, Monroe

John McLean Democratic-Republican Party

Ohio

June 26, 1823

Monroe, J. Q. Adams

text: As cabinet department, 1829–1971[edit]

text:
No party
  Federalist
  Democratic-Republican
  Democratic
  Whig
  Republican

text:
Political Party

Name

State of Residence

Date appointed

President(s) served under

William T. Barry

Kentucky

March 9, 1829

Jackson

Amos Kendall

Kentucky

May 1, 1835

Jackson, Van Buren

John M. Niles

Connecticut

May 19, 1840

Van Buren

Francis Granger

New York

March 6, 1841

W. H. Harrison, Tyler

Charles A. Wickliffe

Kentucky

September 13, 1841

Tyler

Cave Johnson

Tennessee

March 6, 1845

Polk

Jacob Collamer

Vermont

March 8, 1849

Taylor

Nathan K. Hall

New York

July 23, 1850

Fillmore

Samuel Dickinson Hubbard

Connecticut

August 31, 1852

Fillmore

James Campbell

Pennsylvania

March 7, 1853

Pierce

Aaron V. Brown

Tennessee

March 6, 1857

Buchanan

Joseph Holt

Kentucky

March 14, 1859

Buchanan

Horatio King

Maine

February 12, 1861

Buchanan

Montgomery Blair

District of Columbia

March 5, 1861

Lincoln

William Dennison

Ohio

September 24, 1864

Lincoln, A. Johnson

Alexander W. Randall

Wisconsin

July 25, 1866

A. Johnson

John A. J. Creswell

Maryland

March 5, 1869

Grant

James W. Marshall

Virginia

July 3, 1874

Grant

Marshall Jewell

Connecticut

August 24, 1874

Grant

James N. Tyner

Indiana

July 12, 1876

Grant

David M. Key

Tennessee

March 12, 1877

Hayes

Horace Maynard

Tennessee

June 2, 1880

Hayes

Thomas L. James

New York

March 5, 1881

Garfield, Arthur

Timothy O. Howe

Wisconsin

December 20, 1881

Arthur

Walter Q. Gresham

Indiana

April 3, 1883

Arthur

XX

Frank Hatton

Iowa

October 14, 1884

Arthur

XX

William F. Vilas

Wisconsin

March 6, 1885

Cleveland

XX

Donald M. Dickinson

Michigan

January 6, 1888

Cleveland

XX

John Wanamaker

Pennsylvania

March 5, 1889

B. Harrison

XX

Wilson S. Bissell

New York

March 6, 1893

Cleveland

XX

William L. Wilson

West Virginia

March 1, 1895

Cleveland

XX

James A. Gary

Maryland

March 5, 1897

McKinley

XX

Charles Emory Smith

Pennsylvania

April 21, 1898

McKinley, T. Roosevelt

XX

Henry C. Payne

Wisconsin

January 9, 1902

T. Roosevelt

XX

Robert J. Wynne

Pennsylvania

October 10, 1904

T. Roosevelt

XX

George B. Cortelyou

New York

March 6, 1905

T. Roosevelt

XX

George von L. Meyer

Massachusetts

January 15, 1907

T. Roosevelt

XX

Frank H. Hitchcock

Massachusetts

March 5, 1909

Taft

XX

Albert S. Burleson

Texas

March 5, 1913

Wilson

XX

Will H. Hays

Indiana

March 5, 1921

Harding

XX

Hubert Work

Colorado

March 4, 1922

Harding

XX

Harry S. New

Indiana

February 27, 1923

Harding, Coolidge

XX

Walter F. Brown

Ohio

March 5, 1929

Hoover

XX

James A. Farley

New York

March 4, 1933

F. Roosevelt

XX

Frank C. Walker

Pennsylvania

September 10, 1940

F. Roosevelt, Truman

XX

Robert E. Hannegan

Missouri

May 8, 1945

Truman

XX

Jesse M. Donaldson

Missouri

December 16, 1947

Truman

XX

Arthur E. Summerfield

Michigan

January 21, 1953

Eisenhower

XX

J. Edward Day

California

January 21, 1961

Kennedy

XX

John A. Gronouski

Wisconsin

September 30, 1963

Kennedy, L. Johnson

XX

Lawrence F. O'Brien

Massachusetts

November 3, 1965

L. Johnson

XX

W. Marvin Watson

Texas

April 26, 1968

L. Johnson

XX

Winton M. Blount

Alabama

January 22, 1969

Nixon

text: Postmasters General over the U.S. Postal Service, 1971–present[edit]

text:
Name

Date appointed[7]

President(s) served under

Winton M. Blount

July 1, 1971

Nixon

E. T. Klassen

January 1, 1972

Nixon, Ford

Benjamin F. Bailar

February 16, 1975

Ford, Carter

William F. Bolger

March 15, 1978

Carter, Reagan

Paul N. Carlin

January 1, 1985

Reagan

Albert Vincent Casey

January 7, 1986

Preston Robert Tisch

August 16, 1986

Anthony M. Frank

March 1, 1988

Reagan, H.W. Bush

Marvin Travis Runyon

July 6, 1992

H.W. Bush, Clinton

William J. Henderson

May 16, 1998

Clinton, Bush

John E. Potter

June 1, 2001

Bush, Obama

Patrick R. Donahoe

January 14, 2011

Obama

Megan Brennan

February 1, 2015

Obama, Trump

text: Note that, while the above table indicates the President under which each postmaster general served, these postmasters general were appointed by the governors of the Postal Service and not by the President.

text: Living former Postmasters General[edit]

text: As of  November 2017[update], there are four living former Postmasters General, the oldest being Anthony M. Frank (1988–1992, born 1931). The most recent Postmaster General to die was Paul N. Carlin (1985-86), on April 25, 2018. The most recently serving Postmaster General to die was Marvin Travis Runyon (1992–2000), on May 3, 2004.

text:
Name
Term of office
Date of birth

Anthony M. Frank

1988–1992

 (1931-05-31) May 31, 1931 (age 87)

William J. Henderson

1998–2001

 (1947-06-16) June 16, 1947 (age 71)

John E. Potter

2001–2010

1956 (age 61–62)

Patrick R. Donahoe

2011–2015

c. 1955 (age 62–63)