1. Dienstfertig, Meyer, Die Prophetologie in der Religionsphilosophie des ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts, unter besonderer Beachlung der Verschiedenheit in den Auffassungen des Philon von Alexandrien und des Flavius Josephus, diss. Erlangen (Breslau: Schatzky, 1892), pp. 24–33Google Scholar; Fascher, Erich, ПροΦήτης (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1927), pp. 161–164Google Scholar; Meyer, Rudolf, “προΦήτης,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard, vol. 6 (English trans.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 812–828Google Scholar; Blenkinsopp, Joseph, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” Journal of Jewish Studies 25 (1974): 239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delling, Gerhard, “Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus,” in Otto Betz et al., Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70, Geburtstag gewidmet (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 109–121Google Scholar; van Unnik, Willem C., “Die Prophetie bei Josephus,” in his Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Schneider, 1978), pp. 41–54Google Scholar; and Begg, Christopher T., “The ‘Classical Prophets’ in Josephus' Antiquities,” Louvain Studies 13 (1988): 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Begg, , “The ‘Classical Prophets,’” pp. 345–347Google Scholar; and Duval, Yves-Marie, Le livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine; sources et influence du Commentaire sur Jonas de Saint Jérôme, vol. 1 (Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1973), pp. 82–86.Google Scholar

3. This is the point made by Begg, , “The ‘Classical Prophets,” p. 345.Google Scholar

4. Rappaport, Salomo, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930).Google Scholar

5. Hereafter abbreviated A.

6. We may add that while it is true that Josephus, like the talmudic rabbis, regarded the sages as the true successors to the prophets, there are two prophetic functions which the sages could not and did not claim, namely, the inspiration to write books of Scripture and the authority to record history. The latter point will explain why the sages did not attempt to write a single work of history (the Seder Olam Rabbah, ascribed to the Palestinian rabbis Yose ben Halafta of the second century and Johanan of the third century, is merely a chronological compilation rather than an interpretative history) and why, among other reasons, they declined to include the Books of Maccabees in the biblical canon.

7. See Berchman, Robert M., “Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divination in the Vita Mosis of Philo of Alexandria,” Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers, ed. Lull, David J. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 391.Google Scholar

8. See Aune, David E., “The Use of προΦήτης in Josephus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. In this, as Dienstfertig, , Die Prophetologie, p. 27Google Scholar, has remarked, Josephus is not unique or arbitrary but is in accordance with the spirit of his time.

10. Thackeray, Henry St. John, Josephus the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929), pp. 110–114.Google Scholar

11. See Marcus, Ralph, ed., Josephus, vol. 6 (London: Heinemann [Loeb Classical Library], 1937). p. 275Google Scholar, note c.

12. At least the story of the big fish that swallowed Jonah was apparently well known even to pagan intellectuals, as we can see from Celsus (ap. Origen, , Against Celsus 7:53).Google Scholar

13. It is so designated as the haftarah in the Talmud (Megillah 31a). That the institution of reading selections from the prophets was known in Josephus' time and that it goes back to at least the middle of the first century is clear from the reference in Luke 4:16–17, where we are told that Jesus, on the Sabbath day in the synagogue, was given the book of the prophet Isaiah from which to read. Furthermore, we read in Acts 13:15 that “after the reading of the law and the prophets” Paul was invited to speak in the synagogue. See Büchler, Adolph, s.v. “Haftarah,” Jewish Encyclopaedia (1907), 6:135–136.Google Scholar

14. Cf. Josephus, A 1.127, who, paraphrasing the Table of Nations found in Genesis, chapter 10, comments on the verse that gives the name of one of Japheth's sons as Tarshish (Gen. 10:4). Josephus there declares that Tarshish was the ancient name of Cilicia, as is proven by the fact that its principal and capital city was called Tarsus. It is perhaps tempting to see a connection between this identification of Tarshish as Tarsus and the fact that a contemporary of Josephus, the apostle Paul, was, like Jonah, involved in a shipwreck; but Josephus nowhere mentions Paul or his mission; and if the passage were interpolated by a Christian one would have expected a more precise reference to Paul as well as to the gospel which he preached.

15. This identification apparently results from Josephus' assumption that the Euxine (Black) Sea is the nearest sea to Nineveh. So Marcus, , Josephus, p. 113Google Scholar, note c.

16. It is true that the Book of Jonah begins in a manner similar to that of several others of the minor prophets—Hosea, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Malachi—namely, “The word of the Lord [that] came to …,” without mention of the word “prophet.” It is clear in Jonah's case, as in that of the other prophets, that he is a prophet; his mission which he tries to flee is nothing if not prophetic, and the whole paradox of Jonah is that he is a prophet whose act of prophesying leads to a falsification of the prophecy, so that readers of the Book of Jonah in Hebrew were not particularly sensitive about the absence of the word “prophet” in the narrative. Yet, the significant point is that Josephus keeps emphasizing that he is a prophet, for the reason which we have suggested, namely, that he regards the prophet as the twin brother of the historian.

17. This is the classification given to the biblical narrative by Trible, Phyllis Lou, “Studies in the Book of Jonah” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1967).Google Scholar

18. Cf. War 1.78: Judas was of Essene extraction ('Εσσαος ν γένος), where the reference cannot be to a nation since the Essenes did not constitute a nation. Similarly, elsewhere with regard to the Essenes (War 2.1 13, 2.119; 13.311, 17.346). That the word γένος does not imply a nation is clear from the passage (War 2.308) in which we are told that the procurator Florus scourged and nailed to the cross men of equestrian rank who were Jews by birth (τό γένος Ἰουοϑαον), where clearly neither Josephus nor Florus would grant that these equestrians were members of a Jewish nation. That the word γένος does not necessarily mean a nation in the political sense is clear from Josephus' statement (War 7.43) that the Jewish people (τò γàρ Ίονőαίων γένος) are densely interspersed among the native populations of every portion of the world. Other instances where the word γένος cannot refer to a political entity are 2.78, referring to Joseph's rank by birth (γένους); 2.179, referring to Leah's progeny (γένος); and 2.216, referring to the people (γένος) who will be delivered by Moses, in all of which cases the Jewish nation has obviously not yet been constituted; likewise in A 7.117 and 296 it refers not to the nation but to the family (γένος) of Saul, and in 8.232 and 270, where it refers to the family (γένους) of David.

19. Cf. Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 18.97–98; Jerome, introduction to Commentary on Jonah, who connects the name of Jonah's father, Amittai, with the word emet (“truth”) in the statement of the widow of Zarephath to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.”

20. Josephus (A 7.94) is content to say that David's house will be glorious and renowned. Whereas in the biblical text (2 Sam. 7:13, 1 Chron. 17:12), the prophet Nathan assures David that God will establish the throne of his kingdom forever, Josephus (7.94) says merely that David rejoiced greatly to know that the royal power would remain with his descendants, with no indication that this would be so forever. In contrast, Josephus' presumed contemporary Pseudo-Philo (Biblical Antiquities 59.2) remarks that the prophet Samuel, mistakenly thinking that Eliab, the oldest son of Jesse, was the one to be anointed king, declared, “Behold, the holy one, the anointed of the Lord [sanctus christus = meshiaḥ ha-qadosh],” clearly alluding to him as messiah, “anointed,” whereas Josephus avoids the word χριστός. The rabbis likewise portray David, in the days to come (Sanhedrin 98b), as the viceroy of the Messiah, who also will be named David.

21. The point is made but not developed by Duval, , Livre de Jonas, pp. 82–86.Google Scholar

22. Begg, , “The ‘Classical Prophets,’” p. 347Google Scholar, correctly notes that Josephus' version of the Jonah story lacks much of the theological depth and satiric bite of the original, but he does not develop the point further.

23. Feldman, Louis H., “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, ed. Mulder, Jan and Sysling, Harry, sec. 2, vol. 1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 503–507.Google Scholar

24. See, e.g., Hecataeus of Abdera, ap. Diodorus 40.3.3; Strabo, , GeographyGoogle Scholar 16.2.38–39.762; Pseudo-Longinus, , On the SublimeGoogle Scholar 9.9; Tacitus, , HistoriesGoogle Scholar 5.3.1–5.4.1.

25. See Bickerman, Elias, Four Strange Books of the Bible (New York: Schocken, 1967), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

26. That Josephus knew the Hebrew text of Jonah is evident from the fact that he renders it literally in the passage where Jonah says that he is a Hebrew (1:9), whereas the Septuagint reads ἃολος κυρίον, presumably based upon a Hebrew text that read 'eved y rather than 'ivri, where the letter resh was replaced by a daled. On the question of which text of the Bible—Hebrew, Septuagint, Targum, etc.—Josephus employed, see my “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” pp. 455–466.Google Scholar

27. Presumably the reference is to the twelve prophetic books mentioned in Against Apion 1.40.

28. Begg, , “The ‘Classical Prophets,’” p. 348Google Scholar, says that Josephus' inclusion of Nahum's prophecy gave him an opportunity to confirm and reinforce the announcement about Nineveh's overthrow. But the question still remains why Josephus should have wanted to emphasize Nineveh's overthrow instead of the point made by the Book of Jonah itself, namely the power of repentance.

29. See my critical bibliography on the subject in Josephus and Modern Scholarship (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), pp. 477–480Google Scholar. See also my “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” pp. 506–507.Google Scholar

30. Delling, Gerhard, “Josephus und das Wunderbare,” Novum Testamentum 2 (1957–1958): 291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacRae, George W., “Miracle in The Antiquities of Josephus,” in Miracles: Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History, ed. Moule, Charles F. D. (London: Mowbray, 1965), pp. 136–142.Google Scholar

31. So also Pseudo-Philo, , Homily on Jonah 19–25Google Scholar, replaces the prayer with a more appropriate supplication. It is interesting that the great twelfth-century Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Jonah 2:2, notes that there were commentators who stressed the fact that Jonah prayed not in the fish but from the fish and hence deduced that he prayed after he had emerged from the fish.

32. For further discussion see Feldman, Louis H., “Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World,” in History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism, ed. Berger, David (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1986), pp. 30–32.Google Scholar

33. See Feldman, , “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra,” pp. 494–496.Google Scholar

34. Duval, , Livre de Jonas, p. 77Google Scholar, is astonished that Philo, whose universalism is not in doubt, never refers to the story of Jonah; but we may remark that it is only with relative rareness that Philo refers to books of the Bible other than the Pentateuch. In particular, he mentions only two of the twelve minor prophets and those in only three places (Hosea, ; De Plantatione 138Google Scholar, De Mutatione Nominum 139Google Scholar; and Zechariah, ; De Confusione Linguarum 62).Google Scholar

35. This is actually the view expressed in the Midrash on Lamentations, introduction, no. 31: “I sent one prophet to Nineveh, and he brought it to penitence and conversion. And these Israelites in Jerusalem—how many prophets have I sent to them!”

36. Levine, Etan, The Aramaic Version of Jonah (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1975), p. 14Google Scholar, remarks that several early Church Fathers (e.g., Martyr, Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 107Google Scholar; Jerome, Ad Jonas 1.3 and 4.1) used the motif of the Ninevites' sincere repentance in their anti-Jewish polemics to contrast it with the stubbornness of the Jews. We may also suggest that Josephus' omission of Jonah's statement that “It is better for me to die than to live” (Jon. 4:8) may be a response to Christian exegesis, which cited this verse with reference to the Christian view that death was better for Jesus than life, since while alive he could save only one nation but with his death he saved the whole world. See Bowers, Robert H., The Legend of Jonah (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971), pp. 58–59Google Scholar, and Levine, , Aramaic Version of Jonah, p. 14Google Scholar, who notes that the Targum has, by subtle paraphrase, altered the “proof-text” in Jonah through rendering it as: “It is better that I die than that I live.” Cf. also Paul, André, “Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews: An Anti-Christian Manifesto,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who suggests that Josephus' substitution (A 1.103) of the word παλαν (“truce”) for the word berith (Gen. 9:9, Septuagint διαθήκην) is due to his desire to dissociate himself from the New Testament's emphasis on the doctrine of the “new covenant.” But, as I have noted elsewhere (“The Portrait of Noah in Josephus, Philo, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 55 [1988]: 56, n. 30)Google Scholar, if, indeed, Josephus is writing an anti-Christian manifesto, we would have expected him to be more open about it, since he had nothing to fear from the Christians at the time that he wrote the Antiquities, inasmuch as they were few in number and were hardly held in favor by the Emperor Domitian, during whose reign Josephus issued his work. Moreover, the fact that Josephus (A 20. 198–200) is so highly laudatory of James the brother of Jesus (a passage whose authenticity has seldom been questioned) is not consistent with the view that he was carrying on a polemic against Christianity.

37. See Levine, , Aramaic Version of Jonah, p. 13Google Scholar. On the other hand, whereas in the Hebrew text (1:9) and Josephus (A 9:211) Jonah identifies himself as a Hebrew, as do the Christian Church Fathers, the Targum identifies him as a Jew, the difference being important in polemics between Jews and Christians.

38. Cf. Levine, , Aramaic Version of Jonah, p. 10Google Scholar: “The spectacular discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Targum Neophyti I have provided increasing indications that even targum texts of a late date may incorporate a significant amount of ancient material.” See Bamberger, Bernard J., “The Dating of Aggadic Materials,” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1949): 115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bikerman, Élie (Elias J. Bickerman), “La Chaine de la Tradition pharisienne,” Revue Biblique 59 (1952): 44–54Google Scholar; Bloch, Renée, “Note Methodologique pour l'étude de la littérature rabbinique,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 43 (1955): 194–227Google Scholar; Macho, Alejandro Díez, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with Other Targumim,” Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7 (1960): 222–245.Google Scholar

39. Cited by Ginzberg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 6 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1928), p. 349Google Scholar, n. 27.

40. See the discussion by Bickerman, , Four Strange Books, pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

41. We are told that the angel Gabriel installed Pharaoh as king of the great city of Nineveh, and that it was Pharaoh who, seized by fear and terror, covered himself with sackcloth and published the decree that men and beasts should fast. The inhabitants of Nineveh are said to have become “God-fearers,” and some are reported to have gone so far as to destroy their palaces in order to return a single brick to the rightful owner. Some, of their own accord, appeared before courts of justice in order to confess their secret crimes even though these crimes were subject to a death penalty. One case mentions a man who, in a building lot which he acquired from his neighbor, found a treasure which now both buyer and seller refused to accept (Midrash Jonah 100–102Google Scholar, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 43Google Scholar, Exodus Rabbah 45.1). Furthermore, we are told (Targum on Jon. 1:16) that the sailors promised to make sacrifices to God upon their return to land. Indeed, the Midrash Jonah states that they went up to Jerusalem, were circumcised, and after the completion of their conversion to Judaism brought sacrifices. See Ginzberg, , Legends of the JewsGoogle Scholar, 3.29–30 and 6.10–11, n. 54.

42. See Mekhilta Bo (Pisha) 2a. See also Jerome on Jon. 1:6.

43. Cited by Ginzberg, , Legends of the JewsGoogle Scholar, 6.349, n. 27.

44. See above, n. 26.

45. In the apocryphal Book of Tobit (14:4) there is a reference to the prophecy of Jonah according to which Assyria and Nineveh would be destroyed. This is the reading of the major manuscripts; but Zimmerman, Frank, ed., The Book of Tobit (New York: Harper, 1958), pp. 40–41Google Scholar, prefers to read Nahum in place of Jonah, though it would seem more likely that Tobit and Josephus reflect a common tradition.

46. See Abel, Ernest L., “Were the Jews Banished from Rome in 19 A.D.?” Revue des Études juives 127 (1968): 383–386Google Scholar. Williams, Margaret H., “The Expulsion of the Jews from Rome in A.D. 19,” Latomus 48 (1989): 765–784Google Scholar, argues that the expulsion of 19 was the conventional response of a beleaguered administration to a group which was deemed to be posing a threat to law and order, but her case is hardly convincing.

47. Graetz, Heinrich, Die jüdischen Proselyten in Römerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitan, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian (Breslau: Schottlaender, 1884).Google Scholar

48. Josephus (A 20.267) says that he completed his Antiquities in the thirteenth year of the reign of Domitan, that is, 93–94.

49. Undoubtedly the main reasons for the success of proselytism were political, social, and religious developments in Rome itself and, above all, the inherent appeal of Judaism. See my “Proselytism and Syncretism” [in Hebrew], in World History of the Jewish People, ed. Stern, Menahem and Baras, Zvi, First Series: The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World (Jerusalem: Am Oved, 1984), pp. 188–207, 340–345, 378–380Google Scholar. Perhaps this success was also, in part, due to admiration for the heroism which the Jews had shown in the great war against the Romans. Thus, even Tacitus, though showing utter contempt for the Jews, grudgingly admits (Histories 5.13.3) that during the siege “both men and women showed the same determination, and if they were forced to change their home, they feared life more than death.” Dio Cassius (66.5), in a detail omitted, one would guess, intentionally, by the pro-Roman Josephus, notes that a number of Roman soldiers defected to the Jews during the course of the siege, persuaded that the city was actually impregnable. We may further suggest that Josephus' extensive account (War 7.252–406) of the defenders of Masada, which was relatively unimportant from a military point of view, and of their grisly act of committing mutual suicide rather than submitting to the Romans, might have aroused the admiration of the Romans, as, indeed, it did of the Roman soldiers who entered Masada and were “incredulous of such amazing fortitude” (War 7.405).

50. Christian tradition makes Clemens and Domitilla martyrs during Domitian's persecution of the Christians; but by the time of Dio (150–235) the distinction between Jews and Christians was probably clear to the Roman world, as Harry J. Leon (The Jews of Ancient Rome [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960], p. 252Google Scholar) remarks, though Dio himself never mentions the Christians by name.

51. Of course, the behavior of the sailors is not necessarily an indication of a Greek concept of hospitality, since such an attitude was prevalent in the Near East generally, as we see, for example, in the Bible's portrait of Abraham; but Josephus' Greek readers would most probably think of the Homeric reference.

52. See Ginzberg, , Legends of the Jews, 4.247–248.Google Scholar

53. Cf. A 1.161, where, in Josephus' addition to the biblical text, Abraham shows a similar open-mindedness in declaring, upon his descent to Egypt, that he would adopt the doctrines of the Egyptians if he found them superior to his own, but that he would convert the Egyptians if he found his own doctrines superior to theirs.

54. See my “Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 81 (1950): 200–208.Google Scholar

55. See my “Omnipresence of the G-d Fearers,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12, no. 5 (09–10 1986): 58–69Google Scholar; and “Proselytes and ‘Sympathizers’ in the Light of the New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias,” Revue des Études juives 148 (1989): 265–305.Google Scholar

56. See the discussion of this passage by Lieberman, Saul, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942), pp. 78–80.Google Scholar

57. Attempts to identify Antoninus with any of the Antonine or Severan emperors at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century have proven unsuccessful. See Gutmann, Joshua, s.v. “Antoninus Pius,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), 3.165–166.Google Scholar

58. On Josephus' anti-Parthian bias, see Colpe, Carsten, “Die Arsakiden bei Josephus,” in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. Betz, Otto et al. (Göttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 97–108.Google Scholar

59. To be sure, in A 9.239, Josephus refers to the city by both names, Ninos and Nineveh; but elsewhere, in the prophecy of Nahum, the name is spelled “Ninos.” The rule seems to be that when he refers to Nineveh by itself he calls it Nineveh.

60. While it is true that Josephus does sometimes vary the spelling of proper names, the variation is seldom of the order that we find here; and, in any case, it would seem to be more than a coincidence that the variant is a name that has such special significance as that of Ninos.

61. We may conjecture that the fact that Ninos is the son-in-law of the fish-goddess Atargatis may have occasioned the use of this name in place of Nineveh in the story of Jonah, whose most famous incident connects him with a fish. The very name Nineveh, according to a popular etymology, means “place of the fish,” and the cuneiform pictogram for the city shows Nina, representing an enclosure with a fish inside (see Speiser, Ephraim A., e.v. “Nineveh,” Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3 [Nashville; Abingdon, 1962], p. 552Google Scholar). In Hellenistic times a parallel was drawn with the Greek god Ninos, who was a fish-god.

62. In the Hebrew and Septuagint versions (Ezra 1:2) God is called “the Lord, the God of heaven.”

63. See Feldman, , “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” pp. 500–501.Google Scholar

64. See Feldman, Louis H., “Josephus' Version of Samson,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 19 (1988): 183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar, contrasting the exaggerations in the portrayals of Samson by the rabbis and by Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities with Josephus' more measured elaborations.

65. Cited by Ginzberg, , Legends of the Jews, 6.350, n. 34.Google Scholar

66. Cf. Gaster, Theodor H., Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's “Folklore in the Old Testament” (New York: Harper, 1969), pp. 655–656Google Scholar. A possible parallel to beasts mourning may be found in Herodotus (9.24), where the Persians, in their mourning for Masistius, who, after Mardonius, was held in the greatest esteem by the Persians, cut the manes from their war-horses and their beasts of burden; but this is hardly as grotesque as putting sackcloth of mourning upon their beasts, as we find in the case of Nineveh.

67. Bickerman, , Four Strange Books, p. 28.Google Scholar

68. See Levine, , Aramaic Version of Jonah, p. 9.Google Scholar