Jump to content

Biblical Scholars: Critical and Divinity School


WalkerW

Recommended Posts

In a recent thread, Rob Bowman provided a list of biblical scholars. The following are the ones I was familiar with:

Richard Bauckham

Craig Blomberg

William Lane Craig

Gregory A. Boyd

Gary Habermas

Craig Keener

Michael Licona

Ben Witherington III

N. T. Wright

David Bokovoy commented with the following:

I have no doubt that our friend Rob won't like this answer, but it is essential to note in this type of discussion that there are two groups of biblical scholars. Those trained and associated with conservative minded/apologetic divinity school programs, and those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship. The word "critical" does not mean to criticize or to belittle, but rather to approach with objectivity, interpreting the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context rather than through the lens of contemporary religious beliefs. Divinity school Bible scholars are quite deeply troubled by critical studies. Due to financial struggles, the flagship program for serious biblical scholarship, i.e. the Society of Biblical Literature, has recently changed its mission statement in order to placate these groups, removing the word "critical" from their mission statement.

...So before I answer your question, it's important to note that not all biblical scholars, nor their institutions are created equal. There are critical biblical scholars trained and connected with universities and biblical scholars trained and affiliated with divinity schools trying to prove the Bible accords with their own religious and historical perspectives.

I was reminded of Robert Cargill's review of The Ehrman Project (I like Ehrman, by the way, and own Misquoting Jesus).

My question: What are the opinions of Mormon scholars who participate on this board of these named scholars? Is their work good? Where does BYU stand in relation to critical or divinity school methodology? Are these scholars too conservative or are others too critical?

I'd love some feedback.

Link to comment

Thanks for the follow up on this topic! I thought it would be bad form to start one since I kind of said I would not pursue this line on the other thread, but I must confess I am glad you brought it up.

I have been criticized a lot on this board for my philosophical positions which really are quite mainstream in the philosophical community, but many here find them "radical" because they are definitely not "BYU approved" positions, (I have come out of secular universities) so though I do not not have an axe to grind directly here, I feel a kinship with those who see the Bible as primarily a cultural artifact.

That is not to say for one minute that "cultural artifacts" cannot be inspired by God- in my opinion the very fact that we have a "culture" at all manifests our God-given creativity, and participates in his creation of the world as we know it.

Link to comment

In a recent thread, Rob Bowman provided a list of biblical scholars. The following are the ones I was familiar with:

Richard Bauckham

Solid UK scholar, although I quibble with his conservatism sometimes.

Craig Blomberg

I was not impressed with the way he brought up LDS themes during discussion periods for my paper and a friend's paper at a regional SBL three years ago (neither paper had anything to do with the church). He's a very conservative scholar.

William Lane Craig

He comes across as more of an apologist, to me, and I think his field is actually philosophy.

Gregory A. Boyd

Quite conservative (I think he's a pastor), but I'm not familiar with his work.

Gary Habermas

An apologist, as far as I know.

Craig Keener

Not familiar with this one.

Michael Licona

Or this one.

Ben Witherington III

On the conservative side, in my opinion.

N. T. Wright

A well-read scholar. I got to spend some time with him here at Trinity Western and he seems like a great guy.

David Bokovoy commented with the following:

I was reminded of Robert Cargill's review of The Ehrman Project (I like Ehrman, by the way, and own Misquoting Jesus).

My question: What are the opinions of Mormon scholars who participate on this board of these named scholars? Is their work good? Where does BYU stand in relation to critical or divinity school methodology? Are these scholars too conservative or are others too critical?

I'd love some feedback.

I'm in this field for the scholarship, not for the theology, so in my opinion they're on the conservative side. I think David's hit the nail on the head regarding that dichotomy in the profession. Regarding BYU, I've been told by a couple BYU professors to not waste my time with a divinity school or a seminary. I had already come to that decision on my own, though.

Link to comment

Solid UK scholar, although I quibble with his conservatism sometimes.

I was not impressed with the way he brought up LDS themes during discussion periods for my paper and a friend's paper at a regional SBL three years ago (neither paper had anything to do with the church). He's a very conservative scholar.

He comes across as more of an apologist, to me, and I think his field is actually philosophy.

Quite conservative (I think he's a pastor), but I'm not familiar with his work.

An apologist, as far as I know.

Not familiar with this one.

Or this one.

On the conservative side, in my opinion.

A well-read scholar. I got to spend some time with him here at Trinity Western and he seems like a great guy.

I'm in this field for the scholarship, not for the theology, so in my opinion they're on the conservative side. I think David's hit the nail on the head regarding that dichotomy in the profession. Regarding BYU, I've been told by a couple BYU professors to not waste my time with a divinity school or a seminary. I had already come to that decision on my own, though.

Thanks, Mak. I appreciate it.

Link to comment

mak,

Just some factual information: regarding William Lane Craig, you wrote:

He comes across as more of an apologist, to me, and I think his field is actually philosophy.

Craig is both a philosopher and a New Testament scholar, having earned doctorates in both fields (from European universities, by the way--Birmingham and Munich), though it would be fair to say that his work in philosophy is more extensive. He is a member of SBL and has published articles in peer-reviewed NT journals such as Journal for the Study of the New Testament and New Testament Studies.

Link to comment

In a recent thread, Rob Bowman provided a list of biblical scholars. The following are the ones I was familiar with:

Richard Bauckham

Craig Blomberg

William Lane Craig

Gregory A. Boyd

Gary Habermas

Craig Keener

Michael Licona

Ben Witherington III

N. T. Wright

David Bokovoy commented with the following:

I was reminded of Robert Cargill's review of The Ehrman Project (I like Ehrman, by the way, and own Misquoting Jesus).

My question: What are the opinions of Mormon scholars who participate on this board of these named scholars? Is their work good? Where does BYU stand in relation to critical or divinity school methodology? Are these scholars too conservative or are others too critical?

I'd love some feedback.

Three good scholars to consider in addition to N.T. Wright (who tops my personal list of favorite biblical scholars):

Marcus Borg (who co-authored a book with N.T. Wright)

John Dominic Crossan

John Shelby Spong

All three of these are pretty liberal, though it never exactly bugged me. I read their work like I read the apocrypha.

And where would I be without mentioning Margaret Barker...but you already know how I feel about her Walker. I tried to get Kacey to go along with naming our daughter Margaret....but it she just glared at me. :acute:

BTW: I think I'm settled on Gonzaga's Religious Studies program for grad school.

Link to comment

Where does BYU stand in relation to critical or divinity school methodology?

I've never attended a religion class at BYU, but my impression has been that the Church Educational System seems to consider Talmage's "Jesus the Christ" as the pinnacle of New Testament studies, and it's been downhill since then. And whatever hope there may have been for an openness to Biblical criticism was probably lost when the Church set forth the KJV as the One True Bible translation.

The Church also has an additional sensitivity to Biblical scholarship brought by the Book of Mormon and other latter day scriptures, in that it's possible for non-LDS Biblical scholars to propose theories that impact LDS scriptures in unusual and discomfiting ways.

(If you're really interested in the subject, I highly recommend the book "Mormons and the Bible" by Philip Barlow

Link to comment

I've never attended a religion class at BYU, but my impression has been that the Church Educational System seems to consider Talmage's "Jesus the Christ" as the pinnacle of New Testament studies, and it's been downhill since then. And whatever hope there may have been for an openness to Biblical criticism was probably lost when the Church set forth the KJV as the One True Bible translation.

Though some teachers (particularly those without advanced training in the ancient Near East) rely heavily on conservative LDS scholarship from the 1970s, by and large I've found that this isn't the case (at least at BYU-Idaho). Biblical criticism is alive and well in the CES, you just have to look beyond the hour long weekly Institute classes being offered (for the most part) by volunteers. BYU's ANES program is excellent.

The Church also has an additional sensitivity to Biblical scholarship brought by the Book of Mormon and other latter day scriptures, in that it's possible for non-LDS Biblical scholars to propose theories that impact LDS scriptures in unusual and discomfiting ways.

Is this the Church per se, or certain members of the Church? Would you care to cite some examples?

(If you're really interested in the subject, I highly recommend the book "Mormons and the Bible" by Philip Barlow

Barlow's work is excellent. I came away with a feeling that it was a response/rebuttal to J. Reuben Clark's Why the King James Version?

More from Barlow:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/03/12-answers-from-philip-barlow-part-1/

Link to comment

I've never attended a religion class at BYU, but my impression has been that the Church Educational System seems to consider Talmage's "Jesus the Christ" as the pinnacle of New Testament studies, and it's been downhill since then. And whatever hope there may have been for an openness to Biblical criticism was probably lost when the Church set forth the KJV as the One True Bible translation.

(If you're really interested in the subject, I highly recommend the book "Mormons and the Bible" by Philip Barlow

Well, Mormons and the Bible was published 20 years ago, and a lot has changed since then (that's without noting that Barlow's chapter on biblical criticism is focused almost entirely on the early 20th century, with brief comments about Joseph Fielding Smith and one long footnote on David Wright). Today professors like Thomas Wayment, Gaye Strathearn, Dan Belnap, David Seely, Dana Pike, Eric Huntsman, Jared Ludlow, Frank Judd, and Kerry Muhlestein might disagree that there is no openness to biblical (not capitalized) criticism (I took a course there on biblical criticism where JEDP was standard). Additionally, the Church has not set forth a "KJV as the One True Bible translation" position. They've set forth a "this is traditional and a good enough translation" administrative decision. The Church's translation division also tries to avoid just looking for formal equivalence to the KJV in recommending Bible translations in other languages.

Link to comment

Well, Mormons and the Bible was published 20 years ago, and a lot has changed since then (that's without noting that Barlow's chapter on biblical criticism is focused almost entirely on the early 20th century, with brief comments about Joseph Fielding Smith and one long footnote on David Wright). Today professors like Thomas Wayment, Gaye Strathearn, Dan Belnap, David Seely, Dana Pike, Eric Huntsman, Jared Ludlow, Frank Judd, and Kerry Muhlestein might disagree that there is no openness to biblical (not capitalized) criticism (I took a course there on biblical criticism where JEDP was standard).

I can only offer my personal experience from institute classes, Church classes, and reading official Church publications. If there are people in CES that support such scholarship, I can only hope they rise through the ranks and are able to exert a broader influence.

Additionally, the Church has not set forth a "KJV as the One True Bible translation" position. They've set forth a "this is traditional and a good enough translation" administrative decision. The Church's translation division also tries to avoid just looking for formal equivalence to the KJV in recommending Bible translations in other languages.

First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members.

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are the standard works of the Church. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments.

Sincerely your brethren,

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson

(Emphasis added)

I'll leave it up to each of us to decide what the implications of that statement are for the LDS attitude towards biblical criticism and the use of alternate translations, and whether they were just setting forth a "this is traditional and a good enough translation" administrative decision or not.

Link to comment

I can only offer my personal experience from institute classes, Church classes, and reading official Church publications.

How many institute and Church classes have you been to, and Church publications have you read, that bear on the CES's position on the nature and trajectory of New Testament studies? I can't recall reading many, except for a couple recent articles by the professors I just pointed to, and they certainly don't support your position. This seems to me to be an inference drawn from rather limited anecdotal evidence and the assumption that a teacher's own curriculum and teaching style somehow accurately reflect CES administrative attitudes toward contemporary New Testament studies.

If there are people in CES that support such scholarship, I can only hope they rise through the ranks and are able to exert a broader influence.

I would say that group of professors exerts pretty broad influence in BYU's Religious Education program.

I'll leave it up to each of us to decide what the implications of that statement are for the LDS attitude towards biblical criticism and the use of alternate translations, and whether they were just setting forth a "this is traditional and a good enough translation" administrative decision or not.

I think the sections you didn't put in bold can help make that judgment more clear:

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’ (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

Modern day revelation supports the KJV over other versions, and it is the version historically used by the Church, according to this statement. In other words, it aligns better than other translations, even though we don't have a perfect translation. That hardly amounts to "the One True Bible translation," but it aligns nicely with "this is traditional and a good enough translation."

Link to comment

How many institute and Church classes have you been to, and Church publications have you read, that bear on the CES's position on the nature and trajectory of New Testament studies? I can't recall reading many, except for a couple recent articles by the professors I just pointed to, and they certainly don't support your position. This seems to me to be an inference drawn from rather limited anecdotal evidence and the assumption that a teacher's own curriculum and teaching style somehow accurately reflect CES administrative attitudes toward contemporary New Testament studies.

Like I said, I have no idea what the inner workings are of the Religion classes at BYU. I can only go by what I've seen, and what the focus and content is of the manuals that are used in these classes.

Perhaps one important question would be if students in the religion classes at BYU are ever formally told (or even required) to study from other Bible translations? Not counting the Joseph Smith Translation, of course.

Another way to look at it might be to ask to what degree the students who have completed courses in the religion department are knowledgeable about different specific, broadly accepted aspects of biblical criticism?

For example, what percentage of students who complete the Old Testament courses are aware of the arguments against a literal Job and are open to those arguments? How many of these students still support a global flood theory for Noah's flood, or have adopted a local or allegorical understanding as a result of what they learned in the class? Or the theories regarding multiple-authorship of Isaiah? Do students who complete the OT courses believe that Moses actually wrote the first books of the Bible, and are they aware of the arguments against such a theory?*

Do the New Testament students learn about the disputed authorship of some of the epistles? And when they learn about such things, are they taught only to be rebutted with the traditional LDS view, or are they supported with the evidence that might convince a student to believe them?*

This would be a fascinating study for someone to actually do, if BYU would let them. :diablo:

Modern day revelation supports the KJV over other versions, and it is the version historically used by the Church, according to this statement. In other words, it aligns better than other translations, even though we don't have a perfect translation. That hardly amounts to "the One True Bible translation," but it aligns nicely with "this is traditional and a good enough translation."

Like I said, I posted the Church's official statement and we'll each have to decide what that position might mean in regards to biblical studies and the use of other translations for Church members.

*Not being an actual biblical scholar and having not much interest in the field, I apologize to any violence done to actual theories in my attempts to summarize vague arguments I have heard presented over the years. Please substitute my ham-fisted generalizations with examples of actual theories if needed.

Link to comment

Like I said, I have no idea what the inner workings are of the Religion classes at BYU. I can only go by what I've seen, and what the focus and content is of the manuals that are used in these classes.

Perhaps one important question would be if students in the religion classes at BYU are ever formally told (or even required) to study from other Bible translations? Not counting the Joseph Smith Translation, of course.

Another way to look at it might be to ask to what degree the students who have completed courses in the religion department are knowledgeable about different specific, broadly accepted aspects of biblical criticism?

For example, what percentage of students who complete the Old Testament courses are aware of the arguments against a literal Job and are open to those arguments? How many of these students still support a global flood theory for Noah's flood, or have adopted a local or allegorical understanding as a result of what they learned in the class? Or the theories regarding multiple-authorship of Isaiah? Do students who complete the OT courses believe that Moses actually wrote the first books of the Bible, and are they aware of the arguments against such a theory?*

Do the New Testament students learn about the disputed authorship of some of the epistles? And when they learn about such things, are they taught only to be rebutted with the traditional LDS view, or are they supported with the evidence that might convince a student to believe them?*

This would be a fascinating study for someone to actually do, if BYU would let them. :diablo:

We discussed those topics in the classes I attended, but I can't speak for all the classes. I knew who knew what they were doing when I signed up for the courses, so I went to their classes.

Like I said, I posted the Church's official statement and we'll each have to decide what that position might mean in regards to biblical studies and the use of other translations for Church members.

Fair enough.

Not being an actual biblical scholar and having not much interest in the field, I apologize to any violence done to actual theories in my attempts to summarize vague arguments I have heard presented over the years. Please substitute my ham-fisted generalizations with examples of actual theories if needed.

Do you mean to suggest that one must be a biblical scholar or have a great deal of interest in the field to be informed on these topics? If so, why would you expect them to be covered in GE classes at BYU, and why would you consider their lack of coverage in GE classes indicative of an overriding lack of trust in biblical criticism on the part of the Church Education System?

Link to comment

I don't really qualify as a scholar (not yet at least), but hopefully you can appreciate some thoughts I have about this. I have read Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, and overall thought that it was a good book. I think he does a good job of pointing out the issues a lot of the New Testament criticism has. It only considers that which is in the actual text of the book when evaluating it, and (oddly) ignores the traditions associated with it and the titles of the books. They throw too much out in an effort to be objective. Bauckham did a good job pointing out what should be obvious: the New Testament was written not that long after Jesus' death and there were still were people around that remembered the things in it, and that the authorship of most books has never been debated until recently. It reminds me of my English classes in high school. We would just learn about the text, and the way the curriculum was set up, it wasn't seen as appropriate to use the author's biography or interpretations of their own stories to help interpret texts. To me this seems odd (and it really has bugged me in my English classes). As for Bauckam, I also thought that he put too much weight on the traditions associated with different books in the New Testament to draw conclusions. I think that there needs to be a middle way: consider both traditions about books and the actual text of the books, and be willing to say if there is not enough evidence to determine authors or dates.

(I apologize if I misrepresented Biblical criticism, but this has how this ametuer has percieve it.)

Link to comment

Do you mean to suggest that one must be a biblical scholar or have a great deal of interest in the field to be informed on these topics?

Only if you're LDS.

If so, why would you expect them to be covered in GE classes at BYU, and why would you consider their lack of coverage in GE classes indicative of an overriding lack of trust in biblical criticism on the part of the Church Education System?

I don't expect them to be. But it seems a little odd to teach college-age students about the Old Testament and New Testament and not teach them the things that the people who have really studied the subject are saying about them.

I can totally understand why CES might not want to broadly teach these things, and I'm encouraged to hear that some instructors might incorporate more recent scholarship in their lessons. But the general rule still appears to be to officially ignore any scholarship that hasn't been through correlation.

Link to comment

Only if you're LDS.

So non-LDS people who are not scholars and do not have a great deal of interest in New Testament studies are just automatically well informed on it? Can you point to any data that show this, because it sounds so odd considering Latter-day Saints scored higher than any other demographic in the Bible portion of that recent Pew survey on religious knowledge. It seems to me that if the rest of the general public doesn't know who Moses is they probably don't know much about the endings of Mark.

I don't expect them to be. But it seems a little odd to teach college-age students about the Old Testament and New Testament and not teach them the things that the people who have really studied the subject are saying about them.

It happens in every single seminary and Bible college in the country. Why is it odd?

I can totally understand why CES might not want to broadly teach these things, and I'm encouraged to hear that some instructors might incorporate more recent scholarship in their lessons. But the general rule still appears to be to officially ignore any scholarship that hasn't been through correlation.

No, that's not a general rule. In fact, it's not even close to a general rule, and I'm still wondering how you manage to extrapolate administrative rules out of your limited experience in institute and Sunday school. I commented on this and you've not yet described your methodologies. From where I sit it just looks like you're trying to make a small number of subjective observations prop up your own presuppositions about how uninformed and dogmatic those silly Mormons in the CES administration are. And you even have to admit that you're not particularly informed on the topic to begin with.

Link to comment

Perhaps one important question would be if students in the religion classes at BYU are ever formally told (or even required) to study from other Bible translations? Not counting the Joseph Smith Translation, of course.

I took classes from Victor Ludlow on the OT, for Isaiah there was an additional translation required that was an academic work. We had readings in the general OT class that were nonLDS generated as well, IIRC. Don't really remember my other religion classes though I do remember wandering all over the place in a Book of Mormon honors seminar where we discussed anything that came to our minds about it....and this was back in the 70's, just in case anyone was wondering.

Link to comment

So non-LDS people who are not scholars and do not have a great deal of interest in New Testament studies are just automatically well informed on it? Can you point to any data that show this, because it sounds so odd considering Latter-day Saints scored higher than any other demographic in the Bible portion of that recent Pew survey on religious knowledge. It seems to me that if the rest of the general public doesn't know who Moses is they probably don't know much about the endings of Mark.

That was a joke. The OP seemed to want to focus the discussion on LDS and BYU, so a "everybody else does it" observation didn't seem on topic.

It happens in every single seminary and Bible college in the country. Why is it odd?
I would expect seminaries and Bible colleges to adopt a similar "devotional" style of teaching as CES does, and for the same reasons. But again, I thought we were just talking about LDS.
No, that's not a general rule. In fact, it's not even close to a general rule, and I'm still wondering how you manage to extrapolate administrative rules out of your limited experience in institute and Sunday school. I commented on this and you've not yet described your methodologies. From where I sit it just looks like you're trying to make a small number of subjective observations prop up your own presuppositions about how uninformed and dogmatic those silly Mormons in the CES administration are. And you even have to admit that you're not particularly informed on the topic to begin with.

The only general representation of the CES (and Church?) endorsed attitude towards scripture study that I know of would be the Institute manuals, which are all online for anyone to see.

http://institute.lds.org/courses/

So we don't have to guess or extrapolate what people are supposed to learn in CES courses. We can look at the manuals.

Granted, the New Testament manual is 30+ years old, but the Old Testament manuals have a revision date of 2002. (And it could be argued that the fact that the New Testament manual has been preserved for 30 years might be an indicator in itself of how important current scholarship is to the powers that be in CES).

So let's experiment upon the manuals. Perhaps someone who is knowledgeable about biblical studies could make a list of 5 or 10 propositions that are commonly believed and discussed among contemporary biblical scholars (in the case of the New Testament, these propositions should pre-date the 1979 publication date). Then, we can each review the manuals and see to what degree these propositions are taught to the students.

To the degree that the Institute manuals represent the thinking of the religious education arm of the Church, even CES, this might be a good way to divine their true feelings towards such studies.

If anyone has any other ideas, I would be glad to hear them. Then again, it wouldn't be too hard to email all the religion professors at BYU and just ask them.

Link to comment

I was partially wondering how does BYU's biblical studies programs compare to well-known divinity schools.

I was mainly wondering what some LDS scholars who have training in biblical studies think of these various divinity school scholars.

I'm not all that concerned about institute and seminary classes. My institute director's background is in counseling, not biblical studies. The current ward seminary teacher has a degree in accounting. The one before that was the bishop's wife. The one before that was my mom and dad (the former having no degree and the latter being a CPA).

So, institute and seminary don't really count when it comes to discussing biblical studies on an academic level.

Link to comment

I was partially wondering how does BYU's biblical studies programs compare to well-known divinity schools.

Bingo.

But you're not going to get a straight answer.

Link to comment

Bingo.

But you're not going to get a straight answer.

I think Maklelan did just fine. But it started going off in a direction that I care little about. Institute and seminary classes to me are little more than more detailed Gospel Doctrine classes (in Texas, at least). There is nothing particularly academic about them.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...