Feast upon the Word Blog

A blog focused on LDS scriptures and teaching

Sunday School Lesson 3

Posted by Jim F. on January 15, 2007

NOTE: THE MOST RECENT, UPDATED VERSION OF THIS LESSON CAN BE FOUND AT: http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2011/01/09/nt-sunday-school-lesson-3-jef-luke-2-matthew-2/

 

Matthew 2

Verse 1: Who were the wise men? As the lexical notes for this verse point out, the phrase “wise men” is a translation of the Greek word mago. It is because of this word that sometimes we refer to the wise men as “magi.” We get the word “magician” from mago. “The east” may refer to Mesopotamia, the center of astronomical studies at the time. Compare Numbers 24:17, Psalms 72:10-11, and Isaiah 60:1-7. What do such verses suggest to us about the wise men? Why does Matthew tell us about the homage paid to Jesus by the wise men, but Luke tells us about the homage paid to him by shepherds? Why does each story emphasize what it does?

Why might Matthew have thought it was important to tell the Jewish community about the visit of the Gentile wise men? We see that the Gentile visitors have come to adore the Messiah. What is the reaction of the Jews to the news of his birth? What might that foreshadow? Given that foreshadowing, how might this chapter be an excellent introduction to Matthew as a whole? Early Christians celebrated Epiphany, the holiday commemorating the coming of the wise men, before it began to celebrate Christmas. Why do you think that might have been?

Verse 2: What do the wise men mean when they say that they have seen his star? Notice that, in spite of our traditions, they do not say that they have followed his star. Note also that, as the lexical notes for this verse point out, they literally say, “We have seen his star at its rising” rather than “we have seen his star in the east.”

Verses 3-4: Why is Herod troubled? What would Herod’s wise men know that the magi wouldn’t know? In other words, why did the wise men consult with Herod and his court? (Note that Herod died in 4 B.C.)

Verse 6: Matthew quotes Micah 5:1-3. Since his quotation doesn’t correspond to either the Greek version of the Old Testament that was commonly used in Jesus’s day (the Septuagint) or the established Hebrew version, he is either quoting somewhat loosely, or he may be quoting a version of Micah that we no longer have.

Verse 11: Why does Matthew mention the gifts the wise men gave? What is frankincense? What is myrrh? (Look in your LDS Bible Dictionary.) How might Jesus’ family have been able to use these gifts?

Verses 13-15: Why does Matthew quote scripture so often when he tells what happened to Jesus?

Verses 13-23: The parallels between the story of Moses and that of Jesus are striking, as are the parallels between the Pharaoh and Herod: the Pharaoh tried to kill all male children (Exodus 1:22); Moses had to flee because his life was in danger (Exodus 2:15); when the Pharaoh died, and Moses returned (Exodus 4:19-20). In addition, as Word Biblical Commentary points out (33a:34), the language of Matthew 2:19 is almost identical to that of Exodus 2:23 (of the Septuagint, of course). What are we to make of such parallels? What is Matthew doing by drawing out attention to them?

Verse 16: How many children would you think were living in Bethlehem at the time?

Verse 17:”Jeremy the prophet” means “Jeremiah the prophet.” Matthew is quoting Jeremiah 31:15. As with Micah 5, he is not quoting exactly.

Verse 23: No scripture in the Old Testament mentions Nazareth, so what prophets can Matthew be thinking of? Some have suggested that Matthew has Isaiah 11:1 in mind: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (nsr) shall grow out of his roots.”

Luke 2

As in chapter 1, Luke goes out of his way to tell the story of Jesus’ birth as a parallel to the story of John the Baptist’s birth: the joy at the birth of the child, the circumcision and naming, prophecies of expectation by someone closely associated with the temple, and a concluding remark about the growth and development of the child. Why do you think he does tells the stories with these parallels?

Verse 6: The Greek word translated “accomplished” could also have been translated “fulfilled.” Luke uses that Greek word, “fulfilled,” eight times in chapters one and two. Why?

Verse 7: As the exegesis for this verse indicates, swaddling clothes are strips of cloth four or five inches wide and about six yards long. They were used to bind children when they were born. The belief was that if the baby’s arms were bound tightly to its sides, they would grow straight and firm. See the lexical notes for the verse for a discussion of “inn” and “manger.”

Verses 8-20: Though Matthew shows us Christ’s birth (or at least his infancy—the wise men may have come some time after he was born) as it relates to the rich and powerful, Luke shows us the birth in relation to the poor. Why do you think Luke tells the story this way?

Why is it significant that, from among the many poor people living around Bethlehem, the angel appears to the shepherds? What symbolic significance could that have? What was David the king’s occupation? How is Jesus sometimes described?

Verse 11: The angels announce the good news, the gospel: the Savior, the Messiah (“the Anointed One”), the Lord has been born. How does each of these titles differ in meaning? Luke is the only one of the four gospel writers who uses the title “Savior,” and he uses the verb “save” more than Matthew and Mark put together. Why might that be? What does it tell us about his gospel?

Verses 21-28: Notice that Luke shows us here that Jesus was raised according to the Mosaic law. He is circumcised and named, and his parents follow the law regarding the sacrifices to be made. Why would that have been important to Luke’s audience? Oddly, however, Luke seems to be confused about the rituals required by the law. According to Leviticus 12:2-8, forty days after the birth of a male child, a woman was to be purified by offering a lamb at the temple, or a pair of doves if she was poor. Exodus 13:2 and 13:12-13 says that the first-born male belongs to God and could be redeemed by an offering by the father. Luke has conflated the two offerings.

Verses 22-24; verses 25-27: In the first set of verses, Luke refers to the law three times. In the second set, he refers to the Spirit three times. What do you make of that parallel?

Verse 25: Some have speculated that Simeon is a member of the priestly class who, having seen the corruption of the temple priesthood, is waiting for its restoration. This speculation based on the fact that he calls himself a servant in verse 29 and that word is generally reserved for those with the priesthood. Simeon has been “waiting for the consolation of Israel.” What does that mean? A rabbinic tradition has it that the phrase refers to the last words spoken between Elijah and Elisha, words that will be revealed when Elijah returns. Could that rabbinic tradition have significance for Latter-day Saints?

The word translated “consolation” is paraklēsis. It is closely related to the word translated “comforter” in places like John 14:16 and 26, and 15:26. Literally the Greek word means “one who calls out” or “one who calls to,” so it means “an exhorter” or “one who beseeches.” Luke uses the word in Luke 3:18 to describe John the Baptist’s preaching. How does this word describe Jesus? How is it possible that a word that means “exhorter” can also mean “comforter”?

Verse 28: It was customary for a rabbi to take a child in his arms to give him a blessing.

Verse 32: Simeon recognizes that Jesus is the Savior of all people, Gentile and Jew. Why is that theme important to Luke? How did Matthew include that theme in his story?

Verses 34-35: When Simeon speaks of the fall and rise of many in Israel, he may have Isaiah 8:14 in mind. Note also that the only other times that Luke uses the Greek word that is here translated “rise,” he is referring to resurrection, so that is probably also what he means here. With what does Simeon bless Mary? When Simeon says that Jesus will minister so “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,” what does he mean?

Verses 36-38: Anna confirms Simeon’s testimony. Four women in the Old Testament are called “prophetess”: Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3). The rabbis also recognized Sarah, Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1), Abigail (1 Samuel 25:32), and Esther as prophetesses. By calling Anna a prophetess, Luke explicitly compares her to these women. In what ways is she comparable to them? If we think of Simeon and Anna as types, who might they represent? Phanuel means “face of God” and “Asar” (Asher) means “good luck.” Is Luke mentioning these names because he believes they add an additional layer of symbolism to his story?

Verses 41-51: Notice how important the Temple is to Luke’s story. It begins in the Temple, with Gabriel’s appearance to Zacharias. As an infant Jesus’s divinity and calling is confirmed by witnesses in the temple. And the only incident we know from his childhood is one in the Temple. When we get to the end of Luke gospel (Luke 24:53), we will see that his story ends with the disciples in the Temple. Why do you think the Temple was so important to Luke’s understanding of the gospel? He is, after all, not himself a Jew. In verse 49, the phrase translated “about my Father’s business” is probably better translated “in my Father’s house,” and is, therefore, another place in which Luke is emphasizing the importance of the Temple.

Luke shows us a young boy who knows the scriptures, who is at home in the Temple, who understands that God is his father, and who obeys his parents. The person we see here is anything but a rebel. Why might Luke have thought it important to show his audience that?

Verse 49: This verse could summarize Jesus’ life. Did Luke write it with that in mind?

25 Responses to “Sunday School Lesson 3”

  1. Jim, isn’t this lesson 3? [Fixed.]

  2. Matthew said

    The following link, http://feastupontheword.org/Site:SS_lessons/NT_lesson_3 , shows in one place all of the work that has been done so far for Matthew 2 & Luke 2. This includes the questions and comments above, which are cross-posted there. Joe also did some great work on some of these scriptures around Christmas of last year.

    In case you aren’t familiar with how a wiki works, anyone can edit the information on those pages so long as they follow the policies. The idea is that over time these pages should get better and better. Dad, thanks for the questions. They are a great addition.

  3. Jim F. said

    Joe, thanks. My apologies.

    Matthew, if the wiki continues to grow as it should, eventually it would take the place of sets of questions like mine. I assume that is your intention, but if it isn’t, it should be. Good work.

  4. brianj said

    “Verses 21-28: …Oddly, however, Luke seems to be confused about the rituals required by the law. According to Leviticus 12:2-8, forty days after the birth of a male child, a woman was to be purified by offering a lamb at the temple, or a pair of doves if she was poor. Exodus 13:2 and 13:12-13 says that the first-born male belongs to God and could be redeemed by an offering by the father. Luke has conflated the two offerings.”

    I don’t read this as conflation but as two (or possibly three) separate events: 1) the sin offering of two birds on behalf of Mary and 2) the presentation of Jesus as the first-born male, which they waited to do until Mary could join them. 3) As the NET Bible points out, Joseph may have needed to make a sin offering as well if he participated in the delivery. (Note that the NET also argues that it should read “their purification” instead of “her purification.”)

    So I read the verses this way: “And when Mary had completed her quarantine, they brought Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (like they were supposed to)—and Mary made the required sin offering so that she would not defile the temple during Jesus’ presentation.”

    What is particularly interesting to me is that the events with Simeon and Anna apparently occured before Mary, Joseph, and Jesus did any of the required purification, presentation, etc (verse 39). Contrast the heavenly manifestations that occur after Jesus’ baptism, not before.

  5. Robert C. said

    Joe’s got me on a bit of a Margaret Barker kick. A significant episode of his life on her view is when he met the mystics at the temple in Luke 2:41ff (which, as I think her argument goes, had a very important influence on first temple references in Jesus’ teachings, incl. a large part of Revelation). After citing several passages that support her theory that are exclusively in the Gospel of Luke, she writes:

    These [Lukan] passages suggest that Luke’s source of information knew of Jesus’ contact with the mystics who had preserved the traditions of the first temple, and gives added significance to two other incidents recorded only by Luke: first that Jesus met the tempole teachers when he was only twelve years old and made a great impression on them (Luke 2.41-51); and second, that when he read from the scroll of Isaiah in his home synangogue, he claimed that he was fulfilling the Jubilee prophecy (Luke 4.21). [The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 65]

    Elsewhere (I like her academically cautious wording of what many would surely consider a very radical idea):

    It would be tempting to read Luke’s story about Jesus and the temple teachers as one of Mary’s memories, significant not because the young Jesus was missing for a while, but because this was his first contact with the mystics. [The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 10]

  6. Rebecca L said

    Hi I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the swaddling clothes. It just struck me as interesting how many times clothing/vestiture is important at transitional events. This certainly seemed to be the case all through the OT stories, from Adam and Eve onwards. On a less symbolic level, the comparison with Samuel underlines the repetitions of Hannah’s psalm in Mary’s Magnificat too.

    Are they a symbol of mortality? priesthood? chosen/firstborn son? certainly love and care and a reminder that Mary is the implicit author of this history.

    Question #2
    We often “see” the Nativity as it has been carefully arranged in so many creche scenes. One woman, beautifully composed, surrounded by men: husband, shepherds, sometimes wisemen. Isn’t it more likely that in a place where all her relatives had gathered, Mary would be surrounded by the women of her family? Surely they didn’t travel alone and surely there were many there who knew of her situation and would be there to help, as they would at any birth. Luke may mention the shepherds, and Matthew the wisemen, precisely because their attendance was only possible through a miraculous manifestation and thus was a testimony to Christ’s divinity. Yet is seems that the daily miracle of women’s work, a work so customary you probably wouldn’t even mention it, may have brought women to the same bedside to see the new-born babe (dare I say “first”?).

    #3 What evidence do we have that Mary descended from David? Christ is called the son of David by the writers who give us Joseph’s geneology. I am perfectly willing to believe that she is a descendant of David, but I wonder if the idea of adoption isn’t also a powerful one.

    Thanks for any input!

  7. Robert C. said

    Verse 23: No scripture in the Old Testament mentions Nazareth, so what prophets can Matthew be thinking of? Some have suggested that Matthew has Isaiah 11:1 in mind: “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (nsr) shall grow out of his roots.”

    Barker discusses this a fair amount, how the branch is an important menorah-temple symbol. Barker also conects this to the seven candlesticks mentioned in Rev 1:13 as well as many other Old Testament passages (usually with the keyword lamp) as important references to first temple themes.

  8. Robert C. said

    Rebecca #6: I think your “swaddling clothes” remark is very interesting. I may be biased b/c of my recent focus on Margaret Barker’s work which is rather temple-obsessed, but I think Ezek 16 is even more suggestive. Describing Jerusalem as the to-be-bride of the Lord, verses 1 and 9, according to Leslie Allen’s translation:

    4. As for the circumstances of your birth, on the day you were born your umbilical cord was not cut,b you were not washed with a view to oiling you. you were not rubbed with salt nor were you wrapped in swathing cloths. . . . 9. “I washed you with water, rinsing off your blood, and rubbed oil on you. 10. I clothed you in a robe of many colors and put leathera sandals on you. [Allen, L. C. (2002). Vol. 28: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary (224). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

    The Word Biblical Commentary notes (albeit skeptically) that some scholars have pointed out similarities with the description of Christ’s being wrapped for the tomb in Luke 23:53. Even if these connections to temple robes is a bit thin, I think the symbolic meaning of the swaddling clothes surely includes loving care.

  9. BrianJ said

    Rebecca, #6: Great questions! I don’t read any symbolism into the swaddling clothes. Instead, I see irony: the angel says that the baby will be swaddled, indicating that he is cared for, and yet he will be found in a feeding trough.

    Interesting question about relatives attending the birth. There is no evidence that Mary or even Joseph had any relatives in the village. Yes, Joseph was Bethlehemite (sp?) by lineage, but it may have been generations since any of his relatives lived there. It’s also possible that the owner of the stable would have been there to help, etc. Since we really can’t say either way, I think the other part of your question is more interesting: why did Matthew and Luke (who is famous for highlighting women) not care to mention the delivery at all? Was it oversight or were they trying to make a point (such as the one you suggest)?

  10. Robert C. said

    Rebecca #6, on adoption: After discussing the view that Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy, and saying this view “must finally be judged to be an artificial harmonization,” J. Noland writes:

    The most attractive of the harmonizing solutions is that proposed by Holzmeister (ZKT 47 [1923] 184–218) and cf. Nolle (Scr 2 [1947] 38–42). Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heiress (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr 2:21–22, 34–35; Num 27:3–8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption. [Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20. Word Biblical Commentary (170). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

    So, on Nolland’s view, adoption is important, but for Joseph instead of Jesus. Clearly adoption is an important theme in Paul’s writing, but I don’t know if it’s an important theme in Luke’s gospel–does anyone know?

  11. Wow, I thought I’d just read through Jim’s questions and insights again this morning before heading to meetings, and I found a whole series of interesting questions raised to boot! A couple of responses.

    As for swaddling clothes, I’m fascinated by the quotation Robert pulled out. Some years ago I attended a Christmas discourse by Russell M. Nelson, and he mentioned that “some authorities” believe the swaddling clothes were actually a many-colored garment made of strips that was placed on the Davidic heir only. That fascinated me, but I had not come across any such reference until Robert posted that. I think there may be something to that.

    Rebecca, let me just say that I loved your comment on the women and Jesus’ birth. I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments (and the way you explain the scriptural content without denigrating it).

    In addition to what’s been said about Mary’s ancestry, it is worth taking a look at Kent Brown’s work on _Mary and Elizabeth_. He gives some background information that may explain why Joseph (and/or Mary) was in Nazareth in the first place. Essentially, he argues that because of the Hasmonean overthrow of internal Jewish government, those most closely related to the Davidic heirship moved into the Galilee to get away from retaliatory action. That both Mary and Joseph were up there may well suggest that they were both direct descendants of David.

    The point about Nazareth also jumped out at me this morning, even before I read Robert’s response to it. Though the OT makes no reference to it whatsoever, it is interesting to me that Nephi sees it and apparently knows it in 1 Nephi 11. Following some of the recent arguments that Nephi and his brethren’s “land of our inheritance” was in the Galilee, it may well be that Nephi was already acquainted with Nazareth (even from Nazareth?). Though the archaeological record shows the town as tiny (no more than a few dozen houses, if I remember right), its appearance in Nephite prophecy may suggest that there were other prophecies known in Jesus’ day that no longer survive. Totally speculation, here.

    One last comment, I really like Jim’s point about how prevalent a role the temple plays in Luke’s gospel (and this might well bear on themes of adoption–which I think Luke is very interested in). How did the Gentiles understand the temple when they first swarmed into the gospel? There is abundant evidence for its continued sanctity among the Jewish Christians, but does anyone know of any studies that take up the question of the first Gentile Christians and the temple? I’d be very interested in following that question out.

  12. Rebecca L said

    Thank you Robert and Brian for your fantastic and annotated help! I like the idea of the swaddling clothes being a forshadowing of the burial linen. The manger would have been a stone box, right? We just saw a film at the Body Worlds Exhibit that talked about how a fetal hand, which looks like a paddle, is formed not by fingers growing out of it, but by the death of cells inbetween the fingers. That image of death shaping life even in its genesis intrigued me. The real irony for me is Mary’s knowledge, to whatever extent she understood Christ’s mission, this is a sword that would pierce her always as she saw simultaneously her sweet baby and the Lord’s annointed, a sacrificial offering for all the world.

    On the temple, this series of revelations of God seems very important. Zacharias’s vision leads to the birth of an Elias, but then the shepherd’s vision, like a Day of Atonement vision, of the heavenly host and the glory of the Lord, witnesses of the incarnation of Christ. It takes place near Bethlehem (God’s house) and perhaps we can read into it that a true priesthood is that which guards the flock. To such is revealed the glory of God. To move from the theatre of the temple to the world is nice because it reminds us that the temple is a representation of something much greater, and that God’s power is over all. Maybe a stretch, but interesting.

    If they were both from the house of David, wouldn’t their relatives have to show up too?

    Why do people think that the account in Luke is of Mary’s ancestry? Just because it differs from the account in Matthew?

    Thanks,
    Rebecca

  13. Matt B said

    Rebecca, Regarding your above comment that if the swaddling clothes were a foreshadowing of the burial linen, then the manger would have been a stone box. It is very possible that the manger was one of the many limestone caves that are found in Bethlehem and were often used by property owners as storage areas or even as overflow areas for guests, thus making the manger a stone box. However, if you are looking for a stone box, you can look to the feeding trough that Jesus was placed in. Our European influence tend to make us believe it was made of wood. However, in an article I recently read by Maurine Jensen Proctor, she explained that in ancient Palestine feeding troughs were made of stone.

  14. nhilton said

    I think it’s interesting to note what happened to John in his escape from Herod’s crime against the innocents and from a woman’s point of view, how Elizabeth was then the “single mother” akin to Mary’s single parentage of the Savior. The scriptures don’t give this detail:

    “John the Baptist was a small child, just six mo. older than Jesus, who also lived with his parents in the vincinity of Bethlehem when Heord gave out the order to murder the babies. John escaped murder by the selfless courage of his father, Zacharias. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: ‘When Herod’s edict went forth to destroy the young children, John was about six months older than Jesus, and came under this hellish edict, and Zacharias caused his mother to take him into the mountains, where he was raised on locusts and wild honey. When his father refused to disclose his hiding place, and being the officiating high priest at the Temple that year, was slain by Herod’s order, between the porch and the altar, as Jesus said.’ (See Matt. 23:35) Teachings, p. 261. Zacharias died, then, to save his son; he died a noble martyr, perhaps the first of the Christina era.” Excerpt from the Institute Manual, pg. 23.

  15. brianj said

    nhilton, #14: Kevin Barney posted a correction to the story of Zechariah/Zacharias over at BCC. Find the post .

  16. brianj said

    Ooops! I don’t know what happened to the link I posted; here is the url: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/the-murder-of-zacharias/

  17. nhilton said

    Brianj, thanks for the heads up. I’m super frustrated with errors like this in church publications. Where is a teacher to go if the Institute Manual doesn’t get it right? By the way, how do you find links like BCC? In an effort to learn more about the gospel before trying to teach it, & wanting more than “maintenance questions” to ask my GD class to get discussion going, I found Times & Seasons. Now I guess Jim is posting here but there is obviously more to study, i.e. BCC. I’d like someone equally, if not more, interested in gospel study (with the eye of faith) to suggest some destinations for the spiritually hungry (besides the scriptures, of course!). Julie suggested NET Bible once & that seems o.k. Any other suggestions? Maybe a reading list?

  18. Robert C. said

    Rebecca #12: Thanks for your comments (and questions), I like the Day-of-Atonement tie in. I think you’re right that the reason some have guessed that Luke is Mary’s genealogy is in an effort to explain why it’s different than that given in Matthew. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that this theory has been around since about the 5th century, and my sense is that many think it was b/c, if the virginal birth is to be taken seriously, then for Jesus to have royal mortal blood, then its Mary’s lineage that matters, not Joseph’s (although I think many would say that both mattered: the legal right, through Joseph as given in Matthew, and the blood right, through mary as given in Luke).

  19. brianj said

    nhilton, #17: Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. You asked, “I’m super frustrated with errors like this in church publications. Where is a teacher to go if the Institute Manual doesn’t get it right? By the way, how do you find links like BCC?”

    First answer: who cares? So you get something wrong in class that a bunch of other people got wrong. You’re trying but you’re not perfect. Don’t sweat it.

    Second answer: I found BCC by following links to from other LDS blogs or aggregators. But the way I knew that BCC was worth reading is that I paid attention to the comments being made by the authors on the site when they commented on other blogs. They seem to know what they’re talking about, so I figured BCC was a good reference.

    Third answer: don’t sweat it. (bears repeating)

  20. norm said

    We finally had this lesson in church today, and for the first time, I found myself wondering where Luke got his information to write about Jesus’ birth and the early years of his life. Do we know anything about first sources? I, personally, like the idea of Luke sitting next to an aged Mary carefully writing down her stories.

    (I feel like I should declare that I’m a long time reader of the blogernacle but I contribute only like the youth avoiding eye contact with the Bishop on testimony Sunday.)

  21. nhilton said

    Norm, the 2006 BYU Sperry Symposium reprint re: New Testament origin gives terrific answers to your question on Luke. I’m just about done with the book & have found it terrific. It’s available at Deseret Book online or in store. Very scholarly but accessible.

  22. Robert C. said

    Norm #20: I don’t think we know much about first sources. This wikipedia seems to do a decent job of summarizing the current state of scholarship on the issue.

  23. nhilton said

    Robert C. How do you place a link in your blog comment i.e. #22?

  24. Robert C. said

    nhilton #23: See here for an example of how to create a link.

  25. nhilton said

    Not going well, 3rd try Click here for wiki notes on essenes.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 319 other followers

%d bloggers like this: