Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:47 pm

spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:Gal 2:2's δοκουσιν is a declined (dative plural masculine) participle. δοκουντων in Gal 2:6 is genitive plural masculine. In 2:9 δοκουντες is nominative plural masculine. The word is not treated as a verb, but as a nominalized participle. You cannot insert a subject, so your "those who I consider pillars" has little to do with the sense of the text. As to the meaning of the verb, try here.
According to your link to Perseus “I. expect (δέκομαι) think … 1. … thought … 2. an opinion … 3. methinks … 5. to be considered … II. … 3. seem good … 4. … b it seems good to me, methinks … 5. … men of repute”.
You missed out on all the part about the participle and the unjustifiable insertion of a subject.
Michael, spin is correct here. Any verbal force to be found in the participle has to belong to whatever/whomever the participle is modifying. In all three cases, the participle is modifying an understood "they/them", which is common for Greek participles. If anyone is "thinking" or "considering" here, it is the pillars (the "they"), not Paul; therefore the best sense is "seeming" — the pillars seem to be something. A sort of parallel can be found in 2 Maccabees 1.13:

For when the leader was come into Persia, and the force (δύναμις) with him that seemed (δοκοῦσα) invincible, they were slain in the temple of Nanea by the deceit of Nanea's priests.

It is the force (the army) that is doing the action of the participle, since the participle is adjectivally modifying "force". Translated literalistically, this would be "the force seeming to be invincible" (but translations often smooth the participle out in English as a relative clause).

Or consider Proverbs 16.25 (LXX):

There are ways that seem (ὁδοὶ δοκοῦσαι) to be right to a man, but the end of them looks to the depth of Hades.

Again, the participle modifies "ways"; therefore the "ways" are what are seeming to be something. This verse adds "to a man" so that we know to whom those ways seem to be right; the verses in Galatians do not do this (they do not add "to me/Paul").

Mark 10.42 has a similar construction for "those who are considered to rule the gentiles" (those "seeming" to rule the gentiles). This is a case where the participle is given a definite article and modifies an understood "they", exactly as we find in the verses in Galatians.

To make Paul be the one who is "seeming" or "thinking" or "supposing" (or however you want to translate the participle) is simply an imposition upon the text.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Michael BG
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:48 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:Michael, spin is correct here. Any verbal force to be found in the participle has to belong to whatever/whomever the participle is modifying. In all three cases, the participle is modifying an understood "they/them", which is common for Greek participles. If anyone is "thinking" or "considering" here, it is the pillars (the "they"), not Paul; therefore the best sense is "seeming" — the pillars seem to be something.

Mark 10.42 has a similar construction for "those who are considered to rule the gentiles" (those "seeming" to rule the gentiles). This is a case where the participle is given a definite article and modifies an understood "they", exactly as we find in the verses in Galatians.

To make Paul be the one who is "seeming" or "thinking" or "supposing" (or however you want to translate the participle) is simply an imposition upon the text.
Mark 10:42 has δοκουντες which could be translated as “ones-recognised” because δοκέω should be seen as positive. Therefore “you know that those who are recognised to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.” The question seems to be who is doing the recognising. Can it be general i.e. everyone recognised them or is the Greek ending such that it has to be only the “lords” who recognise them as such? Please can you give the different Greek words for both meanings?

Turning to Gal 2:6
ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι ὁποῖοί

ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο,
(A literal translation)
From now the ones-recognised to-be something

To-me for the ones-recognised nothing added

(A more correct English one)
Now from those who are recognised to be something

For those recognised added nothing to me;

The replacement of “repute” with “recognised” does not remove the negativity of “something”.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I don’t understand your argument. In Gal 2:7a Paul states that his gospel is to the uncircumcised and in Gal 2:9 that “they (James, Peter and John) [go] to the circumcised”. Therefore Paul is implying a difference between the messages to the uncircumcised and the circumcised.
There is no other gospel than the one that Paul preaches. There is no other gospel. You cannot represent Paul as thinking of a gospel to the uncircumcised and a gospel to the circumcised. There is just one gospel. Talking of a gospel to the uncircumcised would not make sense to Paul.

The interpolation 2:7b-8 included the words "to the uncircumcised".
You posted:
spin wrote:Gal 2:7b-8 which injects Peter rather than Cephas into the text does not reflect Paul, but later values that wish to put Paul in his place.
You did not specify what you meant by “7b”. I assume that letters are added to specify part of the verse and there is a natural divide between these parts.
RSV
but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
The break between a and b must be between “uncircumcised,” and “just”. If your position was to include “to the uncircumcised” you did not make this clear. I think the normal place for the split is between “uncircumcised,” and “just”.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:How can Paul state that James, Cephas and John gave Paul and Barnabas “the right-hand of fellowship or partnership” if James and Cephas and John didn’t give the impression to Paul that they had done so?
The notion of hospitality must be quite foreign. You don't have to agree with someone to be hospitable. You can shake hands and wish someone well, despite not agreeing with their views.
Now we are having a discussion of the meaning of κοινωνιας. I see it as meaning more than hospitality. According to Liddell and Scott it means communion, association or partnership (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon). Therefore James, Cephas and John are not just offering hospitality. Paul is giving the impression that James, Cephas and John gave acceptance to Paul and Barnabas as partners; as associates; in communion together sharing thoughts and beliefs.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote: Paul I think is clear that the law does not apply to Gentiles:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,…
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Therefore there is no need for anyone anymore to be circumcised.
Paul is offering a choice to the Galatians between Jesus and the law/circumcision. Circumcision says Paul has no meaning in Jesus. Anyone can follow Jesus, be they circumcised or not.
I agree.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote: We can agree that we know that James, John and Cephas gave Paul the impression they were happy for him to preach his gospel of Jesus Christ to the uncircumcised. You think that we cannot assume this means that James, John and Cephas accepted a gospel regarding Jesus Christ. While I think it is illogical for messianic Jews to give the impression that they would be happy for a false message to be preached to gentiles.
You are happy with non-trinitarians self-defining as christians. I'm sure many christians are for the sake of a spirit of ecumenicalism will accept all sorts of astandard christian views, but you don't think the broad church of Judaism is able to do the same. There were so many different flavors of Jewish belief at the time representing the one ethnos, Pharisaism, Essenism, Rechabitism, Messianism, Gnostic Judaism.... Within some of these there were different sub-flavors. Paul and the pillars might not have agreed, but it doesn't mean they would have acted out on a disagreement. Paul left unimpressed with them, "what they actually were makes no difference to me" (2:6), but he still presented the departure positively.
Paul could be referring to their former positions – disciple; brother, when he writes, “what they actually were”.
I do accept that Jews could recognise Paul as a Jew. There is a question mark whether all Jews did. However I do not consider the partnership and communion between James, Cephas and John and Barnabas and Paul as just a recognition of their Jewishness but a recognition of a shared view regarding the resurrection of Jesus.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:09 pm

Michael BG wrote:Mark 10:42 has δοκουντες which could be translated as “ones-recognised” because δοκέω should be seen as positive.
The positive, negative, or neutral denotation or connotation of the participle has nothing to do with its grammar, so I will skip any discussion of this. I am commenting on the grammar only.
Therefore “you know that those who are recognised to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.” The question seems to be who is doing the recognising. Can it be general i.e. everyone recognised them....
Yes, it can. It is similar to saying, "Lincoln is thought to have been the greatest President of the United States." Who thinks that? It could be everybody, it could be most people, or it could be some. The writer is not specifying.
...or is the Greek ending such that it has to be only the “lords” who recognise them as such?
There are no lords in Mark 10.42. There are only "those who seem to rule" or "those who are thought to rule" or "those who are regarded as ruling" (again, not going to comment on positive versus negative). Those people, whoever they are, Jesus accuses of "lording over" their subjects. "Lord" is a verb here, not a noun.

The Greek ending is the standard ending for a masculine plural participle. Nothing fancy.
Please can you give the different Greek words for both meanings?
I am really not sure what you are asking here. If you want one Greek participle to mean that everybody is doing something and another to mean that only a few people are doing something, without specifying in an additional phrase, you will be disappointed. Such a thing does not exist in any language with which I am familiar. This is just a participle: a verbal adjective, as it were. It just modifies a noun, a pronoun, or an implied noun or pronoun (like an adjective) and makes that modified word "do" something (like a verb). Examples in English:

flying duck = a duck that flies
dying light = a light that dies
woman trying to find a job = a woman who tries
man lying on a hammock = a man who lies
people seeming to be something = people who seem to be something

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin » Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Michael, spin is correct here. Any verbal force to be found in the participle has to belong to whatever/whomever the participle is modifying. In all three cases, the participle is modifying an understood "they/them", which is common for Greek participles. If anyone is "thinking" or "considering" here, it is the pillars (the "they"), not Paul; therefore the best sense is "seeming" — the pillars seem to be something.

Mark 10.42 has a similar construction for "those who are considered to rule the gentiles" (those "seeming" to rule the gentiles). This is a case where the participle is given a definite article and modifies an understood "they", exactly as we find in the verses in Galatians.

To make Paul be the one who is "seeming" or "thinking" or "supposing" (or however you want to translate the participle) is simply an imposition upon the text.
Mark 10:42 has δοκουντες which could be translated as “ones-recognised” because δοκέω should be seen as positive. Therefore “you know that those who are recognised to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.” The question seems to be who is doing the recognising. Can it be general i.e. everyone recognised them or is the Greek ending such that it has to be only the “lords” who recognise them as such? Please can you give the different Greek words for both meanings?
This is going beyond the text of Mk 10:42. There is no positive slant in the verse. It is a neutral presentation: "those reputed to rule" and "great men" are just descriptive terms. Your analysis doesn't come from the text. (Ben C. responded while I was writing!)
Michael BG wrote:Turning to Gal 2:6
ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι ὁποῖοί

ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο,
(A literal translation)
From now the ones-recognised to-be something

To-me for the ones-recognised nothing added

(A more correct English one)
Now from those who are recognised to be something

For those recognised added nothing to me;

The replacement of “repute” with “recognised” does not remove the negativity of “something”.
I can't see why you've done this work. Paul does make his attitude to these leaders clear, when he adds "what they were makes no difference to me" and that carries no respect.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I don’t understand your argument. In Gal 2:7a Paul states that his gospel is to the uncircumcised and in Gal 2:9 that “they (James, Peter and John) [go] to the circumcised”. Therefore Paul is implying a difference between the messages to the uncircumcised and the circumcised.
There is no other gospel than the one that Paul preaches. There is no other gospel. You cannot represent Paul as thinking of a gospel to the uncircumcised and a gospel to the circumcised. There is just one gospel. Talking of a gospel to the uncircumcised would not make sense to Paul.

The interpolation 2:7b-8 included the words "to the uncircumcised".
You posted:
spin wrote:Gal 2:7b-8 which injects Peter rather than Cephas into the text does not reflect Paul, but later values that wish to put Paul in his place.
You did not specify what you meant by “7b”.
Sorry, I hope I've cleared it up now. A "gospel to the uncircumcised" is not a Pauline idea.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:How can Paul state that James, Cephas and John gave Paul and Barnabas “the right-hand of fellowship or partnership” if James and Cephas and John didn’t give the impression to Paul that they had done so?
The notion of hospitality must be quite foreign. You don't have to agree with someone to be hospitable. You can shake hands and wish someone well, despite not agreeing with their views.
Now we are having a discussion of the meaning of κοινωνιας.
(To be accurate, you are having a discussion of the meaning of κοινωνιας.)
Michael BG wrote:I see it as meaning more than hospitality. According to Liddell and Scott it means communion, association or partnership (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon). Therefore James, Cephas and John are not just offering hospitality. Paul is giving the impression that James, Cephas and John gave acceptance to Paul and Barnabas as partners; as associates; in communion together sharing thoughts and beliefs.
As I said, in the meeting with the pillars Paul may be seeing things as he wants to. We are not discussing facts here but perceptions and desires.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote: We can agree that we know that James, John and Cephas gave Paul the impression they were happy for him to preach his gospel of Jesus Christ to the uncircumcised. You think that we cannot assume this means that James, John and Cephas accepted a gospel regarding Jesus Christ. While I think it is illogical for messianic Jews to give the impression that they would be happy for a false message to be preached to gentiles.
You are happy with non-trinitarians self-defining as christians. I'm sure many christians are for the sake of a spirit of ecumenicalism will accept all sorts of astandard christian views, but you don't think the broad church of Judaism is able to do the same. There were so many different flavors of Jewish belief at the time representing the one ethnos, Pharisaism, Essenism, Rechabitism, Messianism, Gnostic Judaism.... Within some of these there were different sub-flavors. Paul and the pillars might not have agreed, but it doesn't mean they would have acted out on a disagreement. Paul left unimpressed with them, "what they actually were makes no difference to me" (2:6), but he still presented the departure positively.
Paul could be referring to their former positions – disciple; brother, when he writes, “what they actually were”.
I do accept that Jews could recognise Paul as a Jew. There is a question mark whether all Jews did. However I do not consider the partnership and communion between James, Cephas and John and Barnabas and Paul as just a recognition of their Jewishness but a recognition of a shared view regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
If you are happy with this assertion, I won't be able to disabuse you of it. You may even be right, but it is not based on evidence. One-sided views of situations quite often don't reflect what happened.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

Michael BG
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Michael BG » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:44 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Therefore “you know that those who are recognised to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.” The question seems to be who is doing the recognising. Can it be general i.e. everyone recognised them....
Yes, it can. It is similar to saying, "Lincoln is thought to have been the greatest President of the United States." Who thinks that? It could be everybody, it could be most people, or it could be some. The writer is not specifying.
Thank you Ben.
spin wrote:Paul does make his attitude to these leaders clear, when he adds "what they were makes no difference to me" and that carries no respect.
As I wrote:
Michael BG wrote: Paul could be referring to their former positions – disciple; brother, when he writes, “what they actually were”.
However it is an interesting issue. I accept that Paul is not happy with the attitude of the pillars – James, John and Cephas, but he does not reject them. He claims equality with them. From other letters Paul is still talking about collecting money for “the poor in Jerusalem”. He talks of Cephas as being part of the same group as himself, Barnabas and the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:5-6).
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I see it as meaning more than hospitality. … Paul is giving the impression that James, Cephas and John gave acceptance to Paul and Barnabas as partners; as associates; in communion together sharing thoughts and beliefs.
As I said, in the meeting with the pillars Paul may be seeing things as he wants to. We are not discussing facts here but perceptions and desires.
I think you are accepting that Paul does see it in the way I describe it, but that you are asserting that we have no way of knowing if his perception was shared by “the pillars”. As has already been stated we do not have an account from James, John and Cephas' side. The only evidence we have is from Paul’s side. Therefore while we cannot rule out the possibility “the pillars” saw it differently we have no evidence that they did. Therefore on the evidence we have it is likely that James, Cephas and John acted in a way that Paul could interpret as acceptance and communion. If we look at the rest of Paul’s letters he has not split from those in Jerusalem.
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I do accept that Jews could recognise Paul as a Jew. There is a question mark whether all Jews did. However I do not consider the partnership and communion between James, Cephas and John and Barnabas and Paul as just a recognition of their Jewishness but a recognition of a shared view regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
If you are happy with this assertion, I won't be able to disabuse you of it. You may even be right, but it is not based on evidence. One-sided views of situations quite often don't reflect what happened.
It is based on the only evidence we have.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by spin » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:29 pm

Michael BG wrote:I accept that Paul is not happy with the attitude of the pillars – James, John and Cephas, but he does not reject them. He claims equality with them. From other letters Paul is still talking about collecting money for “the poor in Jerusalem”.
Paul promised to support the poor in Jerusalem (Gal 2:10). I don't know who that entails, but neither does anyone else.
Michael BG wrote:He talks of Cephas as being part of the same group as himself, Barnabas and the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:5-6).
That's not what the text says. He opposes the other apostles with himself and Barnabas, so they are not the same group, though they may be all perceived by outside observers as doing the same thing. Cephas incidentally seems to vacillate and may have become more acceptable to Paul. He, Paul and Apollos are viewed similarly by the Corinthians and there is less sign of conflict with Cephas in 1 Cor.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I see it as meaning more than hospitality. … Paul is giving the impression that James, Cephas and John gave acceptance to Paul and Barnabas as partners; as associates; in communion together sharing thoughts and beliefs.
As I said, in the meeting with the pillars Paul may be seeing things as he wants to. We are not discussing facts here but perceptions and desires.
I think you are accepting that Paul does see it in the way I describe it, but that you are asserting that we have no way of knowing if his perception was shared by “the pillars”. As has already been stated we do not have an account from James, John and Cephas' side. The only evidence we have is from Paul’s side. Therefore while we cannot rule out the possibility “the pillars” saw it differently we have no evidence that they did. Therefore on the evidence we have it is likely that James, Cephas and John acted in a way that Paul could interpret as acceptance and communion. If we look at the rest of Paul’s letters he has not split from those in Jerusalem.
As I've already shown the evidence that Paul contrasts the circumcision with belief in Jesus, saying that if you want to follow the law then Christ is no use to you, he does indeed reject the Jerusalemite group—those from James—that influences Cephas.
Michael BG wrote:
spin wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I do accept that Jews could recognise Paul as a Jew. There is a question mark whether all Jews did. However I do not consider the partnership and communion between James, Cephas and John and Barnabas and Paul as just a recognition of their Jewishness but a recognition of a shared view regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
If you are happy with this assertion, I won't be able to disabuse you of it. You may even be right, but it is not based on evidence. One-sided views of situations quite often don't reflect what happened.
It is based on the only evidence we have.
Actually, it's just one approach to that evidence, the basically orthodox christian interpretation. Our job is to remove the christian overlay and try to see what is really to be found in the text. It might be the same, but I don't think it is anything more than one possibility.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

iskander
Posts: 1635
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:14 am

Michael BG wrote:
I do accept that Jews could recognise Paul as a Jew. There is a question mark whether all Jews did. However I do not consider the partnership and communion between James, Cephas and John and Barnabas and Paul as just a recognition of their Jewishness but a recognition of a shared view regarding the resurrection of Jesus.

The good news for the uncircumcised is that redemption is an accomplished fact for everyone , Jew and Gentile alike. Later in 3: 28 , Paul writes " 28There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. "

iskander
Posts: 1635
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by iskander » Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:42 am

Tod Stites wrote:*Paul's chronology is obviously important for early Christian history...

The chronology of his " conversion " is far less interesting to me than how to understand his conversion. What do you think his conversion meant to him and to his contemporaries?

Aleph One
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by Aleph One » Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:03 am

outhouse wrote:Evidence you keep asking for, is the Koine ONLY text we possess.

had Israelites wrote any part of the NT we would have not only an Israelite origin of the text, but we would also have Aramaic text.

There is a reason why we do not.
Hey I'm currently reading Mazzaferri's "The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective" (1989), and I found some evidence possibly pertaining to this argument about the lack of non-Hellenist NT writings. To me the following sounds like it goes against your position that all the NT authors worked exclusively from a Greek milieu.

Regarding the author of Revelation's source texts for allusions, quotes, and references (and the surprising results favoring, strongly, the Massoretic Text (MT)):
Mazzaferri wrote:Moreover, "There is only one case", 2 1 :5 (Isa. 43:19)52 "where the Revelation
reading is supported strongly by the LXX and by that O.T. version
alone."53 Thus the MT has a dominant, though not exclusive, influence. 54 It
must be remembered, though, that the allusions are secondary to the direct
quotations, where the MT is almost unchallenged. In all, Trudinger's careful
research provides persuasive evidence that the MT is decidedly John's
paramount OT quarry. 55
And on the Revelation author's rejection of the LXX:
Mazzaferri wrote:He detects some influence from theTargums61 and the LXX.62 The paucity
of the latter has very special significance: "That a Christian Jew of the first
century could have lived in total ignorance of the LXX is inconceivable,
and it is a remarkable proof of the Hebraic character of this book that Septuagintal
influence is so little evident. "63 In all, it is obvious that Ozanne's
research fully supports Trudinger's and V anhoye's, further confirming the
surpassing import of the MT as John's primary OT text.
Mazzaferri states that many other scholars agree with this assessment. Does this show that at least some of the NT authors were interested in staying faithful to Hebraic tradition?

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:41 pm

Aleph One wrote: To me the following sounds like it goes against your position that all the NT authors worked exclusively from a Greek milieu.
They are speaking of the kind text the NT authors plagiarized as part of their source. It does not state MT tradition creating NT text

Does this show that at least some of the NT authors were interested in staying faithful to Hebraic tradition?
Pauline text states some wanted to adhere to laws more then others in the many different types of households involved.

We already know these houses had wide and diverse ranges of adherence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Charles Wilson, Giuseppe, Google [Bot], iskander, Jax, Joseph D. L., lsayre, Peter Kirby, Secret Alias and 79 guests