Write-up1 (as at 14/07/2026 03:46:05): 1 Corinthians: 15
General Notes
- As part of my research into the topic of Resurrection, a sub-plot of my Thesis on Personal Identity2, I have taken a look at what one of the primary New Testament texts has to say on the matter. This is Chapter 15 of Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.
- General philosophical thoughts on Resurrection in a Christian context are given in a paper to be discussed at an Open Bible Trust Fellowship weekend in May 2026. See "Todman (Theo) - Resurrection". This has onward references3 to my comments on another couple of works put out by the Open Bible Trust.
- My intention in this paper has been to be fairly succinct in the first instance, and to avoid commenting on verses irrelevant to the theme in hand. I’ve also treated this Chapter purely as an exercise in philosophical reasoning, whether or not Paul so intended it (though he clearly intends to be arguing). I have been reverent towards the text but have not treated it other than I would any other serious philosophical work.
- This discussion is not an exercise in spiritual exhortation, so includes none of the ‘gee whiz – how wonderful’ elements that are important in commentaries and are prevalent in the works alluded to above.
- I have proceeded by adding footnotes to the verses. I intend – one day – to add more substantive comments but have not had the time as yet.
- For copyright reasons, I’ve taken my Text from the English Standard Version, obtained from the Bible Society’s website (Bible Society ESV: 1 Corinthians 15).
- The interlinear Greek text is available on-line at BibleHub: 1 Corinthians 15; Greek/English Interlinear.
Text & Footnotes
- Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
- and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.
- For I delivered to you as of first4 importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
- that he was buried, that he was raised5 on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
- and that he appeared6 to Cephas, then to the twelve.
- Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
- Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
- Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me7.
- For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
- But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
- Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
- Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no8 resurrection of the dead?
- But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even9 Christ has been raised.
- And if Christ has not been raised, then10 our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
- We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
- For if the dead are not raised, not even11 Christ has been raised.
- And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile12 and you are still in your sins.
- Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished13.
- If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied14.
- But in fact15 Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits16 of those who have fallen asleep.
- For as by a man came death17, by a man has come also18 the resurrection of the dead.
- For as in Adam all die19, so also in Christ shall all be made alive20.
- But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits21, then at his coming22 those who belong to Christ.
- Then comes the end23, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father24 after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
- For he must reign until25 he has put all his enemies under his feet.
- The last enemy26 to be destroyed is death.
- For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who27 put all things in subjection under him.
- When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him28 who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all29.
- Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead30? If the dead are not raised at all, why31 are people baptized on their behalf?
- Why are we in danger32 every hour?
- I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day33!
- What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die34."
- Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals35."
- Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
- But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised36? With what kind of body37 do they come?"
- You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies38.
- And what you sow is not the body that is to be39, but a bare kernel40, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
- But God gives it a body41 as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body42.
- For not all flesh is the same43, but there is one kind44 for humans45, another for animals46, another for birds47, and another for fish48.
- There are heavenly bodies49 and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind50, and the glory of the earthly51 is of another.
- There is one glory of the sun52, and another glory of the moon53, and another glory of the stars54; for star differs from star in glory55.
- So is it56 with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable57; what is raised is imperishable58.
- It is sown in dishonor59; it is raised in glory60. It is sown in weakness61; it is raised in power62.
- It is sown a natural body63; it is raised a spiritual body64. If there is a natural body, there is also65 a spiritual body.
- Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being66"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit67.
- But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
- The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven68.
- As was the man of dust, so also69 are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also70 are those who are of heaven71.
- Just as72 we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image73 of the man of heaven.
- I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood74 cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable75.
- Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep76, but we shall all be changed77,
- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet78. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable79, and we shall be changed80.
- For this perishable body must put on the imperishable81, and this mortal body must put on immortality82.
- When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory83."
- "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?84"
- The sting of death is sin85, and the power of sin86 is the law.
- But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
- Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain87.
In-Page Footnotes
Footnote 1:
- This is the write-up as it was when this Abstract was last output, with text as at the timestamp indicated (14/07/2026 03:46:05).
- Link to Latest Write-Up Note.
Footnote 3:
- I’ve also been recommended – by an old friend from Romford – to listen to two hour-long sermons on 1Cor. 15 by a Scottish Presbyterian.
- I’ve now listened to the first one. It’s wholesome enough stuff, as you’d expect, and is well-delivered, but is over-long being – I presume – 45 minutes on one verse, with another 45 minutes in the evening session. It is – as is usual – a gospel message, with warnings of hell, though not in a Bible-bashing way.
- He does make some mention of contemporary controversies when he laments that modern preachers don’t focus on hell, just like they don’t focus on the evils of abortion or assisted suicide (he didn’t mention gay marriage, possibly because he could be reported for hate speech). He stated that the Bible is ‘against’ suicide, though is it really? See Wikipedia: Christian views on suicide. It’s ‘against’ murder, though not against killing as such. Is suicide self-murder or self-killing, sometimes justified? He mentioned Saul’s ‘running himself through’ with the assistance of his armour bearer lest the Philistines ‘make sport’ with him. His armour bearer also kills himself. Another man is then killed by David not because he’d assisted a suicide but because he claimed to have ‘killed the Lord’s anointed’. See Wikipedia: The Suicide of Saul. None of this is relevant to the topic under discussion – which is resurrection. I will move it elsewhere in due course.
- Otherwise, he focuses on verse 54 with its allusion to Isaiah 25:8. He doesn’t note that the text differs (see my footnote on v. 54) and applies any comforting parts of the passage to the Church (not mentioning the reference to Moab) just as amillennialists usually do (see Wikipedia: Amillennialism).
- He takes the veil or covering that is over all people (in Isaiah 25:5) to be the ‘shroud’ of death (he notes that his view is in contrast to most expositors, who take it to be the veil of unbelief [as alluded to by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16], as does the Jewish Study Bible [unbelief in God, naturally, rather than in Christ]). Maybe, but the prophetic passages are mightily obscure, and a preacher can make what he likes of them.
- Links:-
→ Kenneth Stewart - Death swallowed - Sermon 1
→ Kenneth Stewart - Death swallowed - Sermon 2
Footnote 4:
- The ensuing doctrinal statement is introduced because of the apparent denial of personal resurrection by the Corinthians, as we shall see. Paul wants to stress that resurrection is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, and cannot be lightly denied, as it generally was at the time (eg. by Greek philosophers – who disliked being embodied – or Sadducees, who thought the doctrine absent from the Pentateuch).
Footnote 5:
- I have no great philosophical worries about the raising of Jesus. In Jesus’ case we have bodily continuity, and not too much time between death and resurrection. Consequently, I will not discuss it further in this place. It is our potential resurrection that I am primarily interested in, and which presents greater philosophical problems.
Footnote 6:
- Again, evaluating the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is not my topic here. Enough to say that the “appearances” present some problems in reconciliation, however certain some exegetes are that they can be resolved. But we will ignore these issues here.
- The important point is that Jesus resurrection is said to be bodily, and the tomb was empty. So, it is the same body that is resurrected, albeit “glorified” in some way.
- I don’t know whether anything is to be made of the request by Jesus to Mary Magdalene not to “handle him” as he had not yet ascended. See John 20:17. Modern translations imply that he doesn’t want to be clung on to, so as to prevent him ascending, though this wasn’t scheduled for another 40 days.
Footnote 7:
- The appearance to Paul is – or has the potential to be – qualitatively different to the earlier appearances to the other disciples.
- The reason is that it is post-ascension and a vision. Jesus is said not to be visible to Paul’s companions on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:7).
- As it’s a vision, it says nothing about the corporeal state of Jesus either at the time, or in his post-ascension abode wherever that might be.
Footnote 8:
- This is an argument: “If … (then). The argument, to be elaborated, is that if it is impossible for the dead to rise, then Christ has not been raised, and the cornerstone of the Christian’s faith is undermined.
Footnote 9:
- Another “If … then” argument. But, it might be said, there may be special cases. As I noted above, there is bodily continuity in the case of Jesus (and Lazarus) but not usually in our own cases. So, it might be true that we are not raised, because (say) it is a metaphysical impossibility, but still true that Jesus was raised.
Footnote 10:
- Another “If … then” argument.
- Read on for why the preaching and faith are “in vain”.
Footnote 11:
- This is a repetition of verse 13.
Footnote 12:
- There seem to be two reasons for this ‘futility’, as this verse itself indicates. Firstly, “your faith is futile“ – which may or may not equate to a lack of a future hope. Secondly “you are still in your sins” – the resurrection of Christ is essential in procuring forgiveness of sins (says Paul).
Footnote 13:
- There is much that could be said here about the nature of the Christian post-mortem “hope”. If the Corinthians were Platonists, they would not at all equate the lack of a resurrection with “perishing”, for the (immortal) soul would carry on existing, freed at last from the shackles of the body.
Footnote 14:
- Why is this so? Why are ‘we’ ‘of all people most to be pitied’ if they have hope only in this life? Most people only have – or think they only have – ‘hope in this life. Is the Christian’s lot worse than the non-Christian’s? Was this the case just for the persecuted Christians at the time? Are the ‘we’ only Paul and his fellow missionaries?
Footnote 15:
- Paul had provided the evidence for Christ’s resurrection at the start of the Chapter.
Footnotes 16, 21:
- There had been – according to Scripture – earlier resurrections, though these individuals were raised in their pre-mortem state, just repaired a bit, not with ‘imperishable’ bodies.
Footnote 17:
- Paul is arguing by analogy and parallelism here. He is assuming the real existence of Adam, with death coming into the world as a result of his sin. This is not really credible to modern sensibilites, but does it really matter to the argument?
Footnote 18:
- The completion of the analogy / parallelism: Adam versus Christ.
Footnote 19:
- Comparisons can be made to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans here. The reason for all dying can be debated. It would not be impossible for an organism to repair itself indefinitely, but from an evolutionary perspective this is not a good thing as it prevents the gene shuffling and mutations necessary for the variation to allow evolution to have purchase.
Footnote 20:
- At first sight, Christians are in view here, though maybe not. If it’s only Christians, it spoils the parallelism.
Footnote 22:
- This is not the general resurrection, but of Christians only.
Footnote 23:
- This – sort of – implies that the end is immediately after Christ’s return, but read on … the millennium intervenes between the return of Christ and the End.
Footnotes 24, 25, 27, 28, 29:
- All this is interesting, but not relevant to my concerns here.
Footnote 26:
- ‘Death’ is here personified, just as in Revelation where Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire. Presumably this is after the ‘second death’ – the fate of unbelievers. Note that ‘Death’ is not supposed to be tortured indefinitely, but to be destroyed.
Footnote 30:
- This supposed reference to vicarious baptism is obscure but – maybe – only because it sounds silly.
Footnote 31:
- Paul’s point is that – in some way – the dead can be benefited which – he says – only makes sense if they are to live again. Resurrection isn’t the only means of living again, but is the one Paul has firmly in mind.
Footnote 32:
- Paul argues that accepting the risks he and his fellow missionaries are taking only make sense if he is to live indefinitely, if there is a ‘reward’. Yet most virtuous people do what they do because it has to be done and is of immediate – if transitory – benefit to others (and is fulfilling for the virtuous person). This is a sharp divide between Greek (and modern) ethics and Paul’s. Also – I suppose – Jesus’ … what reward have you if you only love your friends.
Footnote 33:
- I don’t know what to make of the reference to ‘death’ here. Did Paul literally ‘die every day’?
Footnote 34:
- This is a quotation from Isaiah 22:13. But this isn’t recommending this attitude or saying anything about resurrection, but that the Israelites should be doing something to avert the coming catastrophe.
- It’s not at all the case that hedonism is the best way to lead a finite life.
Footnote 35:
- This is said to be a quotation from Menander’s Thais, but had been collected, together with other aphorisms, into a school-book and would therefore presumably have been authoritative for the Corinthians.
- See Wikipedia: Menander: “An admirer and imitator of Euripides, Menander resembles him in his keen observation of practical life, his analysis of the emotions, and his fondness for moral maxims, many of which became proverbial: "The property of friends is common," "Whom the gods love die young," "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (from the Thaïs, quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:33). These maxims (chiefly monostichs) were afterwards collected, and, with additions from other sources, were edited as Menander's One-Verse Maxims, a kind of moral textbook for the use of schools.”
Footnote 36:
- The ‘how’ – as immediately becomes apparent – is not asking for a mechanism – but means ‘in what form’ or ‘with what body’.
- This is disappointing, in that the mechanism is important for the preservation of identity, and Paul says nothing on this matter.
Footnote 37:
- This is an important question. If it’s not the same kind of body that died we have questions about the identity-preservation of metamorphosis.
- There are different degrees of metamorphosis – that of frog-spawn → frog (and maybe even frog → prince) is a continuous process involving a transition from one form to another with a continuing distinct individual. Not too much different to human gestation from fertilised egg through to neonate. But egg → caterpillar → chrysalis → butterfly involves a stage where the body of the caterpillar turns to gloop before being reconstituted as a butterfly. I’d have thought this analogy would be more apposite than the ‘seed’ analogy, as we will see, though the ‘gloop’ is not completely formless.
- As well as the ‘how’ question, Paul doesn’t address questions of ‘where’. Where are the dead raised, and where is their eternal abode?
- The ‘where’ question is particularly pressing in the case where the corpse of the deceased has become dispersed, has had its atoms incorporated into the bodies of other individuals who have subsequently died – or who – maybe – are still alive and are to be ‘changed’, and so on.
Footnote 38:
- Again, this is some sort of analogy.
- It’s a classical philosophical conundrum whether the oak tree is the same individual as the acorn.
- Even though there is great physical difference between the acorn and the oak tree – just as there is between the early-term fetus and the human neonate – and between the latter and the adult human being – there is continuity of form and matter (though with the addition of extra matter).
- But in no sense does the acorn, or early-term fetus – ‘die’. Rather, it ‘develops’.
- As Paul later suggests, while death is a necessary precursor for resurrection – by the very meaning of words – it is not necessary for the assumption of the resurrection body – ‘change’ will do.
- I would suggest that the acorn is ‘changed’ into the oak tree. But even if the acorn doesn’t literally die, it is no longer there in the same form at the end of the developmental process.
Footnote 39:
- The ‘sowing’ is in the farming sense, nothing to do here with any supposed ‘sowing’ of a corpse.
Footnote 40:
- This is presumably referring to the whole seed.
- However, some philosophers – and the medieval Jews – thought that there is some indestructible ‘kernel’ in the human being’s body that survives cremation or corruption and forms the link between the corpse and the resurrected body. See Wikipedia: Luz bone.
- It’s nonsense, of course. The sacrum is not indestructible and we’ve no reason to believe – anatomically-speaking – that any bone or substantive particle within the body is indestructible.
- This is a failed wheeze – like the medieval suggestion that human flesh is indigestible to cannibals, so doesn’t form part of their bodies causing problems for reassembly of the same matter.
Footnote 41:
- Whether the ‘giving’ of the body is by supernatural creationist means or natural evolutionary ones does not matter for these purposes.
Footnote 42:
- This seems to refer not to the bodies of the seeds themselves but to the individual the seed (allegedly) dies and then develops into.
Footnote 43:
- We slide from vegetable to animal matter.
Footnote 44: Footnote 45:
- Much debated today, where humans are classed along with the other great apes (albeit as special ones).
Footnote 46:
- ‘Animals’ is a very wide term in modern biology – and would definitely include birds and fish. I suppose Paul has livestock or beasts of burden in mind – familiar mammals – but the details don’t really matter. The Greek word κτῆνος (ktēnos) has these meanings.
Footnotes 47, 48: Footnote 49:
- I have no idea what sort of bodies Paul thought the ‘heavenly bodies’ had. The Greeks – and therefore the Corinthians, who are supposed to be following Paul’s argument – had all sorts of wrong ideas about heavenly bodies. It was only Galileo’s telescope that revealed they weren’t perfect spheres.
Footnotes 50, 51, 52, 53, 54:
- What is meant by ‘glory’ (Greek doxa) here?
Footnote 55:
- No doubt ‘glory’ has a meaning here analogous to ‘majesty’. The term is important in the ensuing argument.
- What is certain is that ‘glory’ isn’t a place. This isn’t saying that the stars in ‘glory’ differ from one another but that the stars differ from one another in majesty.
- Paul is presumably unaware that the sun is a fairly nondescript star, important though it is to us.
Footnote 56:
- Here we have the explanation or clarification of the analogy.
Footnote 57:
- Well, yes, especially as it has already perished, but this sets off a series of contrasts.
Footnote 58:
- Presumably this means that it’s not subject to decay as our ‘earthly’ bodies are. Presumably it is not immortal – in the sense that God could destroy it (as presumably he will do with Satan and the wicked angels).
- I say this not because it’s at all likely in the case of resurrected Christians but to raise the question of what sort of body it is.
Footnote 59:
- In what sense ‘dishonourable’? Because it was a corpse? Or are healthy human bodies ‘dishonourable? This would be in stark contrast to the Greek view – think of all those statues – and might be in line with the views of the ascetics about to mount their pillars in the desert. But not likely.
Footnote 60:
- Again, ‘glory’ is not a place, but a state.
Footnote 61:
- Another contrast. Even the strong-man’s body is – presumably – weak in comparison to the resurrection body, but it’s not clear what sort of power is presupposed.
Footnote 62:
- See the footnote immediately above.
Footnote 63:
- Greek: σῶμα ψυχικόν. Literally ‘soulish’ – the body of the ‘living soul’ that we are.
Footnote 64:
- As is well know, this ‘spiritual body’ has some odd properties. It can walk through walls, fly through the air but can consume fish.
- It’d be nice to know whether it is an organic body ‘fixed up a bit’ or whether it is of a completely different make-up, and in what sense it will be ‘ours’. Will it be something we ‘have’ or is it ‘us’. Elsewhere Paul talks of clothes and tents, doubtless analogously in some way.
Footnote 65:
- What is this ‘If … (then)’ sentence meant to mean? It is not a logical consequence of there being a natural body that there should be a spiritual one, though it might be a fact.
- Maybe – if we are essentially corporeal beings that live on indefinitely – some such ‘spiritual’ body is a prerequisite.
Footnote 66:
- This was written (in Genesis). The NT Greek is ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.
Footnote 67:
- This was not written but is Paul’s supplied parallel.
- ‘Became’ (Greek Ἐγένετο) is understood as carried forward from the parallel clause, though ‘is’ might be understood.
Footnote 68:
- We might ask just where ‘heaven’ is. Is it a place in our universe?
Footnote 69:
- This is clearly a valid suggestion; whatever is predicated of one human being is true of another cateris paribus. Presumably the tendency to physical corruption – returning to dust – is what is in mind.
Footnote 70:
- The parallel case. This is not obvious, so is a ‘revelation’.
Footnote 71:
- In what sense – and when – are Christians ‘of heaven’?
Footnote 72:
- This parallel is a revelation, not a logical consequence of the transition to resurrection.
Footnote 73:
- Again, in what sense are ‘we’ to bear the heavenly image?
Footnote 74:
- I remember some quibbles about the passage not mentioning ‘flesh and bones’, and it’s the blood that’s the impediment. This is very doubtful. Even though the Jews were forbidden from eating ‘flesh’ with the blood in it, ‘because the soul is in the blood’, whatever this is meant to mean, it was never really possible to drain the blood out entirely, and flesh without blood in its capillaries cannot function.
- The point – presumably – is that purely biological life isn’t kitted out for the heavenly realm, wherever or whatever this is.
Footnote 75:
- Necessarily so for an endless life.
Footnote 76:
- This ‘secret’ may have occurred to Paul given the supposed then closeness of the return of Christ. What happens to those still alive?
Footnote 77:
- Rather than have them die and be resurrected, they would need to change in some way to be fit for the heavenly life.
Footnote 78:
- When is the last trumpet?
Footnote 79:
- Is this the general resurrection of all the dead, including the unredeemed, or just those who ‘died in the Lord’. Does it include the OT saints?
Footnote 80:
- This changing is evidently to be instantaneous rather a gradual metamorphosis. This raises problems for identity-preservation, where gradual change is expected. You can’t just instantaneously swap X for a completely different Y and say X=Y, though if X gradually and continuously changes into Y, you might.
Footnote 81:
- What is the sense of ‘putting on’ here. Is something added to our perishable bodies to make them imperishable?
Footnote 82:
- So, do these new or enhanced bodies now possess intrinsic immortality?
Footnote 83:
- An inexact allusion to Isaiah 25:8. It’s not clear where Paul got his citation from, in particular ‘victory’.
- The LXX seems to have it that it is death that is swallowing the strong (κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας), though the Hebrew has the same sense as 1Cor. 15:54.
- In the original languages:-
→ BibleHub - Isaiah 25:8
→ LXX: Isaiah 25
Footnote 84:
- If this is taken from Hosea 13:14, Paul has turned the sense of the passage on its head:
Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death?
O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion is hidden from my eyes.
Most Christian translations treat this passage positively in the light of 1 Cor. 15, but in the original context this verse sounds like a collection of rhetorical questions demanding the answer ‘no’, and threats as in the ESV quoted above – also the NASB and the JPS version. Death and Sheol are being invoked as punishments rather than banished. Why else the closing ‘Compassion is hidden from my eyes’?
Not that this matters. Presumably Paul’s exegesis was popular at the time. Footnotes 85, 86:
- Popular Pauline tropes. How are they relevant to the context?
Footnote 87:
- This is a repetition of an earlier suggestion that labour is ‘in vain’ if it has only transitory consequences. Is this really the case?
- I suppose it depends what the Corinthians ‘labour’ is. If it’s ‘spreading the Gospel’ and the Gospel is false (because there is no resurrection) then the labour would be in vain.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)