Skip to content


June 9, 2017

The title reminds me of a far more interesting book by Dennis Nineham.

It also reminds me of a course I did as part of my degree.  It was entitled ‘NBI’ but covered very different ground: echoes of the bible in poetry and novels.

It ranges from the evangelists’ engagement with the Hebrew Scriptures to the use of the Bible in present day politics – perhaps most pertinently in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Wansbrough takes as his starting point Frances Young’s The Art of Performance . This enables him to creatively display how ‘The Bible’ is ‘performed’ differently in different ages. Wansbrough demonstrates the variety of these performances and their different emphases in the history of Christianity to glimpse the different ways in which great figures within the Christian tradition have used and abused the Bible. Indirectly, therefore, it attacks the ever-present danger of fundamentalism, and single-minded interpretation of the Bible.

I’ve heard this guy speak. To many conservatives he will appear to be liberal but he is completely orthodox.

He is good on the Pharisees – Jesus engaged in pharisaical arguments with them rather than excoriating them.

I fail to see how these are different:There were not to be two sources of revelaion, as in Judaism, where the two sources consist in the written and oral Torah (torah she katub and torah she be al pe) , both claiming descent from Moses. For Catholic Christians there was but one source, the Scripture as seen through the eyes of the Church.”

 If you think the traditional Good Friday reproaches are anti-Semitic, you should see those of Melito of Sardis.

I must have picked up far more anti-Catholic feeling towards Jerome and his Vulgate then I realised. Although difficult, personality-wise, he as losing his sight, like the great John Hull, and had an army of women helpers.

The first mention of any Abuse comes with the factions over monarchy which resulted in the King James Version.

He applauds the Wesley brothers for their abundant use of Scripture in their hymns and preaching, but also lauds Newman for striking a balance between Scripture and tradition and facing up to the challenges posed by the new archaeological, historical and literary studies of the Bible in the 19th century. He regards most of these interpreters sympathetically and even affectionately, though he is very tough on the early Zionists’ political/propagandistic use of the Old Testament and biblical archaeology in the Land of Israel. I agree with him when he regards the use of the Bible to back up Israel’s territorial claims as spurious but I cannot accept his view that the true witness of the Jews lies in their suffering, even in the Holocaust.

Table of contents

Foreword: Which Bible? What is the Bible?
1. The First Century: The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New
2. The Second Century: Melito and Irenaeus
3. The Third Century: Origen
4. The Fourth Century: Jerome
5. The Dark Ages: Bede and the Bible
6. The High Middle Ages: Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas
7. Two Norfolk Ladies: Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe
8. Martin Luther
9. The Bible in the Politics of Early Seventeenth Century England
10. John and Charles Wesley
11. Newman
12. The Bible and the State of Israel
13. Lectio Divina


A position now more common among scholars is that variations from the Hebrew text in the Septuagint may represent a textual tradition parallel to and perhaps older than the Hebrew text as we have it now.

For many centuries — basically since St Jerome was bullied by the mockery ofJewish rabbis into preference for the Hebrew Bible, but certainly since the Protestant Reformation — it has often been held that the authentic text of the Old Testament was the Hebrew Bible, and that this was older and generally more reliable than the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. However, the Septuagint was valued for many instances of development in revelation and theology over and above the ‘original’ Hebrew text. he oldest extant full text of the Hebrew Bible is, after all, the Aleppo Codex dating from the tenth century AD.

Everyone is accursed who does not observe this Law. (Deut. 27.26) Everyone is accursed who is hanged. (Deut. 21.23)

The original context of these two passages is entirely different, yet Paul uses the merely verbal coincidence to prove that ‘Christ [hanged on a tree] redeemed us from the curse of the Law by being cursed for our sake’ (Gal. 4.13) .6

Paul’s skill in rabbinic argument is seen perhaps at its most brilliant in the way he takes traditional Jewish positions and turns them on their head for his own purposes. He does this frequently, in a way that must have infuriated his opponents. Particularly in Galatians, where he is arguing against those who claim the continued validity of Jewish legal observance, he twice uses this move. Paul’s opponents must have argued the dignity of the law from the fact that the angels were its mediators. Paul replies mockingly that if the law were mediated by angels it was not directly from God (Gal. 3.19). Again, Jews commonly held that Isaac, son of the free woman Sarah, was the ancestor of the Jews, while the slave-girl Hagar was mother of the gentiles through Ishmael. Paul replies mischievously that Jerusalem (the mother city of Judaism) is an enslaved city, while the mother city of Christians, the heavenly Jerusalem, is free (Gal. 3.21-31). Christians, therefore, are the free children of the free mother, while the Jews are the enslaved children of the slave-girl — exactly the opposite position to that held by the Jews as their birthright.’

The part played in the New Testament by allusion to the Old Testament can scarcely be exaggerated. To the original hearers, familiar with the Bible and with no other book, such allusions would immediately recall well-known scenes, enriching the meaning of the words on a different plane, in just the way a catch-phrase from a popular TV serial or football theme song would conjure up a whole world for a modern audience.

The only direct evidence we have for the understand­ing of Scripture at the time of Jesus comes from the Qumran scrolls. A number of the scrolls are biblical commentaries, called pesharim (interpretations). The pesharim show that the members of this escha­tological community believed that the texts of Scripture had a hidden or secret eschatological meaning, which would be made clear at the end of time.

Twice in this short passage occurs the formula ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’. This formula also occurs frequently in the documents of Qumran,’ showing that the understanding of the Scriptures among the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls coincided with this attitude. The most obvious difference between the process in the scriptural commentaries at Qumran and in the New Testament is that they work in opposite directions: the Qumran i documents (being commentaries on Scripture) take the scriptural passage as their point of departure and apply that to current events, whereas the New Testament writers take the life of Jesus as their point of departure and apply the Scripture to that. The Qumran commen­taries explain the Scriptures in the light of events of the community’s life, whereas the New Testament explains events in the life of Jesus in the light of the Scriptures.

Perhaps the most striking of all the series of allusions occurs in the Passion narratives. It has been maintained that the early Disciples of Jesus ‘knew nothing more about the passion than the fact of the crucifixion’,16 and that all the details are deduced from what, in view of Scripture, must have happened, rather than from memory of what did happen. I consider this an exaggeration, but agree that there is difficulty in attributing many of the details to eyewitness testimony. In the eyes of the evangelists, the explanation provided by the scriptural ‘ allusions is far more important than the bare facts. The accounts of the Passion should therefore be regarded as an interpretation of the events rather than as a chronicle or narrative.

Most statements are not fulfilled or unfulfilled, but only true or false, unless they are predictions, which at first sight none of the first four of these quotations used in John is. They are statements about the past. Only the last two (19.36-37) are statements about the future, and in their original form they were intended as statements about the imme­diate future of the speaker at the time, to be fulfilled long before the Passion of Jesus.

The answer to this puzzle seems to be twofold. First, we are deal­ing with God’s word, and the New Testament authors (in this case John) understand the words to have been spoken not only about their immediate situation but also with relevance to the wider future. The message of God is addressed not only to the situation of the original author but also to all time. Second, we must ask just how the words and actions are relevant to the wider future. The thought behind this is the consistency of God’s dealings, of God’s shaping of history. The earlier events and the earlier words create a pattern into which the later events fit. This gives rise to what is often known as the ‘typological sense’. The typological sense means that a mould is created into which a later event fits, just as molten metal is poured into a clay mould. This was certainly greatly used in the later understanding of Scripture, as we shall see in the section on Melito of Sardis (p. 18). So Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son was seen as the mould and pattern for God the Father’s offering of his Son on the Cross, and the crossing of the Red Sea was seen as the mould and pattern for the Christian pass­ing through the water of baptism.

In this way, Paul sees the failures of the people in the desert during the exodus despite drinking from the rock — ‘and that rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10.4) — to be a type or mould for the failure of the Corinthians despite their receiving the Eucharist. He can say, ‘These things hap­pened to them type-wise [ typikos] and were written down for our instruction’. In other words, the failures in the desert created the pat­tern that would make clear what was happening when the Corinthians fell into the same mould.” In the same way, Luke can present the Risen Christ explaining to the disciples on the way to Emmaus, ‘starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself’ (Lk. 24.27), no doubt explaining the patterns, which, from Moses onwards, were being prepared for Jesus to fulfil.

In Matthew a whole series of these patterns is seen, which Jesus surpasses: great as is the Temple, Jesus, in the same mould, is greater than the Temple (Mt. 12.6). Jonah’s three days in the whale are a mould for Jesus’s three days in the tomb (12.40) . The repentance of Nineveh at Jonah’s preaching is a countersign to the failure to repent at the preaching of the one ‘greater than Jonah’ (12.41). The Queen of the South admiring the wisdom of Solomon is a countersign of the mem­bers of this generation not recognizing the one ‘greater than Solomon’ (12.42). Perhaps the most condensed and close-packed instances of all uses of the Old Testament in the New occur in the Matthean account of the death of Judas (Mt. 27.3-10), featuring the price of a prophet (Zech. 11.12-13, 30 pieces of silver), Jeremiah’s purchase of a field as a guarantee of salvation (Jer. 32.6), the suicide of David’s traitor (2 Sam. 17.23), and the Valley of Slaughter (Jer. 19.6). All of these suggest over­tones that come to rest, or are fulfilled, in the betrayal of Jesus and its consequences. They all supply a mould or pattern that makes deeper sense of these events and helps to explain their meaning.


Melito of Sardis: You were revelling, he was hungry

You were drinking wine and eating bread, he was drinking vinegar and


Your face was bright, his was grim

You were rejoicing, he was being tortured

You were singing, he was being judged

You were beating time, he was bring nailed

You were dancing, he was being buried

You were stretched on a soft couch, he in a coffin and the grave.”

He it was who chose you and guided you on the way

From Adam to Noah

From Noah to Abraham

From Abraham to Isaac and Jacob and the 12 patriarchs.

He it was who guided you to Egypt

And guided you there and nourished you.

He it was who lit your way in a pillar

And sheltered you in a cloud,

Who cut the Red Sea and led you through

Scattering your enemies . . .

Ungrateful Israel, come to me and be judged about your ingratitude!

What price did you put on being led by him?

What price did you put on the discovery of your ancestors?

What price did you put on the guidance down to Egypt

And the nourishment there through noble Joseph?

What price did you put on the ten plagues?

What price did you put on the pillar by night and the cloud by day

And the crossing of the Red Sea?’

Irenaeus: For Irenaeus himself this blindness to the Jewish background has important consequences, both negative and positive. Negatively, he shows striking ignorance of Hebrew, hence an extraordinary passage” in which he gives etymologies of the divine names Sabaoth, Elohim, Adonai and the sacred Tetragrammaton, which show total ignorance of Hebrew. He also dizzily thinks (Demonstration, 43) that the two first words of the book of Genesis, breshith bara (In the beginning he created’) , include the word ‘son’. In 3.8.1 he carefully, but quite incorrectly, insists that mamuel (which he thinks is the Hebrew for the Aramaic mammon in Lk 16.13) means ‘glutton’ ; there is no such word in biblical Hebrew.


‘You are not yet fifty!’ Irenaeus held that Jesus was 49 years old at the time of his death.

Irenaeus also correctly points out that the Septuagint translation was made long before the birth of Jesus, and so was a true prophecy

Both `LORD’ and ‘lord’ are translated into Greek as kyrios. In fact in ‘The LORD said to my lord’ the first and second instances of ‘lord’ translate different Hebrew words, whereas Irenaeus takes the identity of the words to show that both Father and Son are one. Later theology, equipped with the terms ‘person’ and ‘nature’,

and typology (the water falling on Gideon’s fleece in Judg. 6.37-38 is a type of the fruitful moisture of the Spirit on the people of God”)

one might even say he was the first Christian scholar to take the Old Testament seriously for its own sake. He frequently mentions learning from Jews about matters of Hebrew, not only when he is in Palestine, but already when he was still resident at Alexandria.’

Alexandria had long been the home of the ‘spiritual’, that is, non-literal, understanding of Scripture, a tradition initiated by the first-century Jewish scholar Philo, and seen also in the work of Clement of Alexandria around 200.” Most signifi­cant, therefore, was Origen’s division of his catechumens: he entrusted the beginners to Heraclas, while he himself taught the more advanced catechumens, no doubt extending to them the learning he had imbibed at the University of Alexandria.

he goes into meticulous and often valuable detail about such tricky problems as arrangements in Noah’s Ark for waste disposal and for feeding carnivorous animals.25 This is not the same as saying that every detail of Scripture is histori­cally correct. Origen joins Philo in rejecting the literal historicity of the account of the Creation. Some of the laws cannot be taken literally, such as the prohibition of eating a vulture, for no one, he thinks, even in the direst need, would want to eat a vulture!”

” Origen holds that some passages of Scripture have literal meaning at all, but in any case the spiritual meaning is to be erred.’

Neoplatonic preference for mind over matter has, therefore, by a subtle change, gone to the root of Origen’s attitude to Scripture, because the literal or material sense is regarded as less important than the spiritual or transferred sense….. in Mk 4.11: ‘To you is revealed the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those outside everything comes in parables.’ With a slight, but highly significant, adjustment, this was understood by Matthew and Luke to refer to separate mysteries of the Kingdom

So in the book of Joshua, the crossing of the Jordan is a type of the sacrament of baptism and the moral lesson is drawn, ‘then, when the Jordan is parted, you will enter the land of promise by the services of the priests’.” Commenting on the passage in the book of Joshua about the sun standing still, the lengthening of the day and the huge hailstones that ensured Joshua’s victory (Josh. 10.11-12), Origen does not linger on the historical problems or the miraculous phenomena, or point out that this is a snatch of poetry, but immediately passes to the symbolism: ‘until all Israel may

ll be saved the day is lengthened and the setting is deferred and the sun never sinks down as long as the sun of righteousness pours the light of truth into the hearts of believers’. Just afterwards, Joshua’s (that is, Jesus’s, for in Greek it is the same word) opponents, the five kings immured in the cave at Makkedah, are the five senses by which people fall into sin — again a moral meaning.

Perhaps Origen’s single most important application of this concerned the New Jerusalem of the book of Revelation, 20-21.

Interpretation until then widespread in the Christian Church’ was Christ would literally reign on earth for a thousand years before final resurrection. This ‘millenarian’ interpretation was based on a literal understanding of Rev. 20.1-10. Origen would have none of it, criticizing this as understanding Scripture ‘in a Jewish way’.’ He interpreted the ‘precious stones’ of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21.19) as Christians. Such was his authority as a teacher that millenarian-seems to have waned from that moment, never again to be taken seriously in the Church, though periodically revived by fringe groups the Middle Ages and beyond.

It is significant that Jerome avoids two contemporary tendencies, anti-Semitism and allegorization.

From the time of the composition of the New Testament onwards, Greek of the LXX had been the master text of the Church. Already in the New Testament most of the quotations of the Old Testamenf use this version, and some of them do not make sense in any other version.

It was not, therefore, self-evident that the Hebrew was more ‘correct’ than the LXX. In some cases the Hebrew might be corrupt, in others the Greek, while in yet others the two texts might simply reflect different traditions, and both be ‘correct’ though.

does not mean that Jerome was blind to the lite meaning. Thus in commenting on Ezekiel’s vision of the dead bones steers a very careful course. The prophecy, he maintains, is not a the general resurrection, though he does not deny that the gen resurrection is a scriptural teaching; it is a prophecy of the restoration of captive Israel.’

Bede: while he sees it as his task to tr the tradition of the Church, he does not do so uncritically.

figuratively (e.g., ‘At all times, dress in white and keep your head well scented’, Eccl. 9.8, which in clear language means, At times let your actions be clean and your heart full of love)…. , context of the book of Ecclesiastes, the quotation in 3b could accurately understood to mean, ‘Enjoy life and be sure to best’.

The contrast is stark. Modern exegesis regards the book as a Jewish novel — Luther called it a comedy — full of irony, farce and other humour. It principally makes fun of Tobit’s absurdly fussy and meticulous observance of the law, contrasting this with his wife’s sensible, practical and reverent religious observance. Another figu of fun is Tobit’s son, the naive and ineffective Tobias, guided at eve step of his journey to retrieve his father’s money by an angel, whom fails to recognize as such. The crowning burlesque is the scene whe Tobias and the dolorous Sarah (whose previous seven husbands h all died on their wedding night) piously interrupt their wedding ni — while Sarah’s father is digging a grave for Tobias, just in case — to out of bed and offer a long prayer together.

In Bede’s exegesis Tobit himself, the hero of the book, stands the people of Israel, serving God with right faith and good works the gentiles given over to idolatry. There is, however, plenty of de `spiritual’ meaning. For example, at one point

Tobit (in 2.10) is so exhausted by his good works that he takes a si under the eaves, where he is blinded by the droppings of swallows.

Tobit here represents one who fails to stay awake in faith (like the sleepy wedding attendants in Mt. 25.1-13). The swallows, because their airy flight, represent levity of heart, which blinds those whom it dominates.

Tobias sets out on his journey to recover his father’s money, followed byhis faithful dog. The dog represents Christian teachers, who follow t and defend their Master’s household and sheep from unclean spirits and heretics. In the course of his journey he goes down into the s to wash his feet. A huge fish springs out to devour him. This is, course, Jesus’ descent into death, and the devil’s attempt to over-me him. Tobias shrieks for help to the angel, who tells him to grab fish. Tobias kills and guts the fish. This is Christ’s victory over the evil, after which the devil’s wiles are exposed. On the return journey the dog runs ahead, wagging its tail.

Christian preachers go ahead, followed by the Lord, who cleanses hearts. The extremity of the dog’s body suggests the final accomplish­ment of the good work and the consequent rejoicing.

Bernard of Clairvaux:  It is only the just, well intentioned and loving who can penetrate to the true wisdom of the Scriptures

Scripture must be chewed meditatively: ‘As food is sweet to the palate, so does a psalm delight the heart. But the soul that is sincere and wise will not fail to chew the psalm with the teeth as it were of the mind, because if he swallows it in a lump, without proper mastication, the palate will be cheated of the delicious flavour, sweeter even than honey that drips from the comb.

the purpose of meditating on the Scriptures is not so much intellectual understanding as experience

Aquinas: The personal qualities of teachers are also important; they must be blameless, intelligent, fervent and obedient to God’s will. The listeners, in their turn, must be humble, willing to learn, and fruitful; that is, able to carry the teaching further, with a certain inventiveness, ‘through which the good listener, hearing a little, will proclaim much: “Give the wise man a chance and he will learn more wisdom” (Prov. 9.9)’

Again and again he insists that nothing can be established from Scripture unless it is present in the literal sense.

Luther: He shows himself to be not only an ebullient controversialist but also a careful exegete. He makes good iuse of the biblical texts, argues persuasively for their meaning, and illustrates them by the tradition of the Church in the form of early Church writers, frequently citing not only his beloved Augustine and the Sentences of Peter Lombard, but other patristic writers for support, while taking others, such as the second-century heretic Marcion, as counter-examples…..’8He departs from the tradition of the Church in only one respect: he does not admit that ecclesiastical authority — and in particular papal authority — has the right to make a decision about the meaning of Scripture. He relies on the fact that the meaning he sees in Scripture must be clear to all.

The truth is that Luther’s mind works far more easily with brilliantly evocative imagery (such as the red-hot iron) than with dry philosophy. Several times he shows his impatience with philosophical analysis: ‘Let us not dabble too much in philosophy’

More important, however, for our investigation of Luther’s unde standing and use of the Scripture is his refusal to accept ecclesiasti authority for its interpretation. For Luther, Scripture validates t Church, not vice versa, even in the matter of the establishment of canon of Scripture. ‘The gospel is not believed because the Chur confirms it, but because one recognizes it is God’s word.’27 Even mo Scripture is not validated by the Pope: ‘If the article of our faith right, “I believe in the holy Christian Church,” the Pope cannot alo be right; else we must say, “I believe in the Pope of Rome,” and red the Christian Church to one man, which is a devilish and damn heresy.’

he embraces wholeheartedly the typological sense of the Old Testament: the high priest and the sacrifices are figures that point beyond themselves and signify Christ,” and the Passover is a type, pointing to the Christian Easter. This is a thoroughly medieval view, encapsulated in the well-known jingle Novum in vetere latet, vetus in novo patet (The New Testament lies hid in the Old, the Old Testament lies open in the New).

From now on Luther felt able to rely entirely on the saving power of God. This is indeed the true meaning of ‘the justice of God’ in Romans. It is not like human justice: behaviour in accordance with law and due recompense for that. If I drive at the right speed and pay my taxes, that is just. My justice is faithfulness or fidelity, an external standard of behaviour. God’s justice, however, is his faithfulness to his own stand­, ards, his consistency with his promises. God’s justice is God’s fidelity to the promises of salvation made to Abraham, so wholly a saving justice, not a retributive justice. In Hebrew poetry- (e.g., the Psalms), God’s justice is often put parallel to God’s salvation, God’s saving power, God’s forgiveness.

Luther has a superb grasp of the basic teaching of Paul, but goes too far by attempting to apply it to the wrong problem.

The Bible is a haphazard collection of books, in which one should not expect a systematic exposition. Newman likens it to a collection of papers: ‘It is as if you were to seize the papers or correspondence of leading men in any school of philosophy or sci­ence, which were never designed for publication, and bring them out in one volume. . . . You would have many repetitions, many hiatuses, many things which looked like contradictions; you would have to work your way through heterogeneous materials, and after your best efforts, there would be much hopelessly obscure; and, on the other hand, you might look in vain in such a casual collection for some particular opinions which the writers were known nevertheless to have held, nay to have insisted on.’ The Scripture must therefore be interpreted by the tradition.

The peasants’ revolt theory holds that the inhabitants of Canaan themselves

rebelled against their Egyptian overlords and threw them out, perhaps with

the aid of infiltrating Hebrews. The chief protagonist of this view is Norman Gottwald, inspired by the protest movements of the 1970s and by Communist ideals. A further possible explanation is that improve­ments in water storage and improvements in agriculture made new settlement patterns possible.

The depravity of Canaanite culture is based largely on evidence of fertility cults, which continued to flourish beside the Yahwistic religion until the Babylonian exile in 586 bc. The theory was pressed by the great archaeologist W. F. Albright, who was working in Israel during the 1930s, and was clearly affected by the Zionist ethos of those days. ‘His construction of an imagined past has been one of the most influential in the history of the discipline, and still retains wide popular support and considerable influence particularly among Israeli scholars. As such, it is an influential reconstruction of the past which has laid claim to Palestine for Israel, thereby denying any such claim by the indigenous population whether ancient or modern.’

Objects and sites that can be linked to biblical and Jewish history are made much of, and carefully exhibited, while those from other periods of the country’s history have often been neglected or passed over.

David may be taken as an example. The greatness of David does not consist in his ( conquests or in his prowess; he has, not unjustifiably, been described as an oversexed bandit.

A point that is surely intended is that there is a development of understanding in the course of the Bible; for instance, on the matter of life after death, of Jesus’s teaching on divorce and on forgiveness. The earlier teaching on the desolate situ­ation of Sheol is to be understood as a pirtial revelation, preparing for the later revelation of the resurrection of the dead. The biblical acceptance of divorce under certain circumstances (Deut. 24.1-4) is removed by Jesus. The acceptance of a limited revenge Can eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’) is perfected by Jesus’s prohibition of all revenge. The full meaning of many prophetic messianic texts may be perceived only in the light of their fulfilment in Christ. The Bible must be read as a whole, each part throwing light on all others, Old Testament as well as New.

are expressed by the characteristic Markan style of the double negative (literally, ‘Jesus did not answer nothing’), and the former also by a Markan double-expression (“Jesus was silent and did not answer nothing’) . The narrative was surely composed by Mark, on the basis of oral tradition.

One cause of corruption in religion is the refusal to follow the c of doctrine as it moves on, and an obstinacy in the notions of the Certainly: as we see conspicuously in the history of the chosen race_ Samaritans who refused to add the Prophets to the Law, and the Sad who denied what lay hid in the Book of Exodus, were in appea faithful adherents to the primitive doctrine. Our Lord found His precisians in their obedience to their letter; He condemned them being led on to its spirit, that is, to its developments. The Gospel development of the Law; yet what difference can seem wider m that which separates the unbending rule of Moses from the ‘ truth’ which ‘came by Jesus Christ’?

Return to the home page


From → Biblical

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: