Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
As indicated at my Textual Criticism Blog Review of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts there is a significant difference in weighting Criteria between Skeptical Textual Criticism (STC) and Traditional Textual Criticism (TTC):
  • 1) STC places relatively more weight on Internal evidence while TTC usually concludes External evidence is decisive.

    2) STC makes a larger distinction regarding what constitutes quality External evidence.

    3) STC gives bonus weight to individual witnesses with multiple Difficult Readings.
I think though, due largely to STC being relatively new, even the average Skeptic tends to underestimate the strength of the above as evidence due to:
  • 1) The relatively small quantity of comparable credentialed early quality witness to even one early quality witness for a Difficult Reading such as Sinaiticus.

    2) The cumulative strength of relatively few early quality witnesses for individual Difficult Readings but the existence of multiple Difficult Readings witnessed by a few early quality witnesses as the primary defense against the Difficult Reading is usually that it is unintentional but the recurring pattern noted indicates it was intentional.
As usual let's start by looking at GMark since it not only is likely the earliest extant Gospel but also appears to be the original Gospel narrative:

Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
omission of [the Son of God]
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2
Isaiah the prophet
vs. "the prophets"
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah). Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.

Note that as we follow The Way of GMark, as Sinaiticus for example accumulates the rare/difficult readings and is vindicated for each reading as the likely original, it improves its credentials in general as having (much) greater weight for the next Difficult Reading in question and like its demonstrated victories does not necessarily need much support to win the current battle.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

Jamesthelazer wrote:This is an interesting idea; I'm wondering is this an invite to delve into the topic? Or just an informational post.
JW:
Perceptive question. Both. But I have to confess that regarding interaction I'm like Raul Julia in the classic Moon Over Parador. After actor interaction his catch phrase was "I hate actors!" I hate interaction.
Still, I'm not sure the differentiation between "skeptical" and "traditional" textual criticism holds up (or I just don't like the term, it's not Skeptical it's more thorough); rather, it to me seems, in cases like Mark 1:1, the textual criticism when it comes to judgement calls is often based on anachronism...
JW:
Let's call a Sephardic a Sephardic. Traditional Textual Criticism = Bad Textual Criticism. Skeptical Textual Criticism = Good Textual Criticism. The purpose of the distinction is to identify and communicate the difference. Skeptical Textual Criticism is relatively new (compared to Christianity) and the difference in methodology is significant (emphasis on Internal vs. External). Skeptical Textual Criticism is significantly criticism of Traditional Textual Criticism.
Son of God has a Hebrew contextualization that no one really takes into consideration and most assume Mark or "an editor" is only adding it (or not) for Christology claims. In cases like this the internal structure of the work is often ignored. (as 1:1 is sort of a thesis statement, and Mark explores the topic... he could include it without overt christology meanings/ as a term to later define"

And, any editor in this historical period could take "son of God" variably... an Arian could add it for adoption readings!

But most want to say it's some attempt at orthodoxy adding things (Ehrman) or they just assume the hardest reading always has to win, etc.
Oh but you're missing so many issues with scope:
  • 1) "Mark" (author) never says "son of god" via editorial comment.

    2) "Mark" is clearly Separationist. Nothing interesting about Jesus before the baptism.

    3) "Mark's" source for faith is Revelation.
You've also got the historical context of the timing of Jesus being the son of god. 2-4 centuries. Exactly when the change happened. You can see this in the extant Patristic discussions. When did Jesus become son of god? For the 2nd century Christians who only used GMark, a very critical question.

Regarding transmission, if you or anyone else do not agree that it is exponentially more likely "son of god" was added rather than exorcised, stop wasting my time.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:


[/td]
Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
omission of [the Son of God]
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2
Isaiah the prophet
vs. "the prophets"
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah). Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.
Mark 1:41
angry
vs. compassionate
BezaeSinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Mistaken similar word in Version (Latin, Aramaic, Syriac) retro translated to Greek Yes. Based on Christian theology clear expectation that if Jesus had emotion here it would be compassion. "Angry" would be the opposite of expectation (for subsequent Christianity, not "Mark" (author).

Ehrman has written the argument for "angry" and to its credit TTC is increasingly accepting it. A key piece of evidence is that "Matthew"/"Luke", presumably the earliest available witnesses, both exorcise the offending word. To its credit, Laparola mentions this. Note the relationship above that the greater the difficulty of the reading, such as who or what Jesus was, the less early quality support there is. Again, considering in general the small quantity of early quality witness combined with the pressure of a very difficult reading, Bezae by itself is not insignificant, especially as its cumulative value is starting to be weighed (1:2).



Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

Image
Stuart wrote: HT at the very beginning of a manuscript, especially of a creed is pretty much laughable. It would have been corrected on the spot, and further we would expect the scribe for the manuscript to have made similar mistakes quite frequently, as clearly he was not alert enough to catch one when fresh.
JW:
HT is possible but unlikely for the reasons you mention and more. The Apologetic is based on the Greek Nomina Sacra (NS). The possible NS at the start of GMark (by copyists) are potentially confusing for a 21st century Apologist who's first language is not Greek. They would not be for a native Greek speaker. Definitely not for a Greek scribe. As Ehrman points out the evidence for omission is relatively earlier in multiple Greek locations and all the important Versions which means HT would have needed to be contagious. The big picture comparison is intentional verses unintentional reasons. A good intentional reason always Trumps the unintentional, good or bad. Here we have a good intentional reason, a Statement of Faith vs. a bad unintentional reason, HT. The difference is large enough that for those who proffer original, that says more about them then 1:1.
Stuart wrote:
know the internal debates of the 2nd and 3rd century, as our first full manuscripts are 4th century
JW:
Amen. Obviously not a coincidence. Like Duncan Idaho I suspect that as superior as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are to other extants, they are still post Lucian Recension/Byzantine Corruption and that is why they survived. Let's suppose that original GMark was explicit regarding permanent condemnation of Peter. Would that have survived? We will see in this Thread famous/notorious likely originals supported by only one extant Manuscript. This increases the odds that there are other originals not supported by any extants. When we have an even earlier fragment that has a singular reading, especially if it is a difficult reading, such as Fayyum Fragment:

Mark 14:28, The Argument For Addition

we need to consider it a serious candidate for original because of this Thread. To its credit La Parola lists it as a variant. To its discredit La Parola shows it as Coptic.
Stuart wrote: (1) Joe wrote "ided" which is a typo of some form, perhaps "said to be" was meant. Hence I substituted "named". If he meant "died as the son of God at Baptism" then it's a dozy of an assumption about the text he is telling us is said "explicitly", but I think not.
JW:
As god has explained "ided" is a word. I think "Mark" would have really appreciated its use since it is also an anagram for something.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
An example where almost all scholars agree is Mark 9:29
And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.”
There are only Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and two or three other mss with the non-interpolated text
προσευχῇ] ‭א* B 0274 2427 itk geo1 Clement WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ] p45vid ‭א2 A C D E F G H K L N W X (Δ τῇ νηστείᾳ) Θ Π Σ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff2 iti itl itq itr1 vg syrh copsa copbo goth geo2 slav Diatessarona Diatessaronp Basil ς ND Dio
νηστείᾳ καὶ προσευχῇ] (see 1Corinthians 7:5) syrs syrp syrpal copbo(ms) arm eth

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by arnoldo »

JoeWallack wrote:Image
A few weeks ago I saw Mel Gibson's Jesus' movie (forgot the name), re-read The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and meditated on the traditional moral authority of the Church (especially its handling of male children). For the first time I understood how a mythical story of Jesus suffering for a few hours on a stake thousands of years ago explained the reason for the historical fact of most of my innocent relatives being tortured and murdered over a 5 year period by Nazis from a Christian country in modern times.

My good friend, Rabbi Singer, head of Outreach Judaism, had the exact same experience so we began to study JP Holding's website, Tektonics.org, together while periodically rereading Isaiah Chapter 53 (but only the KJV version) and Adam's Gospel Sources posts here in light of the new information which this website provided us and avoiding all articles by Dr. Richard Carrier and Neal Godfree. It wasn't long before we found the truth that we were looking for, that if you start with the conclusion that Jesus Christ was the prophesied Jewish Messiah according to the Tanakh, than you will conclude that Jesus Christ was the prophesied Jewish Messiah according to the Tanakh. Hallelujah Amen.

Effective immediately ErrancyWiki will be closed and then merged with Messianic Apologetic as an evangelistic tool.


In Hymn, Joseph Elizabeth Wallack

MessianicApologetic
:thumbup:
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

[/td]
Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
omission of [the Son of God]
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2
Isaiah the prophet
vs. "the prophets"
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah). Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.
Mark 1:10
and the Spirit as a dove descending into him:
vs. upon
Vaticanus
Bezae
Sinaiticus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
The Greek word for "into" can also mean "unto" and the difference between "unto" and "upon" is insignificant. Yes. "Into" is direct evidence for Separationist theology and is the best fit for GMark's preceding implication that there was nothing previously reMarkable about Jesus. Strangely Ehrman states on p. 174 of tOCoS that the consensus is so strong that it is not even mentioned in the Critical Apparatus. But the reason it is not mentioned is because the Critical Apparatus considers it (into/unto/upon)
insignificant difference in meaning.
Mark 1:41
angry
vs. compassionate
BezaeSinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Mistaken similar word in Version (Latin, Aramaic, Syriac) retro translated to Greek Yes. Based on Christian theology clear expectation that if Jesus had emotion here it would be compassion. "Angry" would be the opposite of expectation (for subsequent Christianity, not "Mark" (author).



Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Reading

Post by JoeWallack »

This Ain't No Place For A Hero

JW:

[/td]
Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
omission of [the Son of God]
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2
Isaiah the prophet
vs. "the prophets"
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah). Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.
Mark 1:10
and the Spirit as a dove descending into him:
vs. upon
Vaticanus
Bezae
Sinaiticus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
The Greek word for "into" can also mean "unto" and the difference between "unto" and "upon" is insignificant. Yes. "Into" is direct evidence for Separationist theology and is the best fit for GMark's preceding implication that there was nothing previously reMarkable about Jesus. Strangely Ehrman states on p. 174 of tOCoS that the consensus is so strong that it is not even mentioned in the Critical Apparatus. But the reason it is not mentioned is because the Critical Apparatus considers it (into/unto/upon)
insignificant difference in meaning.
Mark 1:41
angry
vs. compassionate
BezaeSinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Mistaken similar word in Version (Latin, Aramaic, Syriac) retro translated to Greek Yes. Based on Christian theology clear expectation that if Jesus had emotion here it would be compassion. "Angry" would be the opposite of expectation (for subsequent Christianity, not "Mark" (author).
Mark 16:9-20 omission vs. inclusion Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtoniansus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Original ending lost Yes. Whether or not the likely original Gospel narrative contained the primary historical assertion of orthodox Christianity, known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus.

Note - Regius has the LE but has notes giving evidence that the LE is not original. Thus the 3 best witnesses testify against the LE. Washingtoniansus, the 4th best witness, has an expanded LE, and variation is a sign of addition. Thus the majority of quality witness for LE was written about twice as long after original GMark than the quality witness against LE.



Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

P45

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
It's interesting how the lacunae of P45 have some relationship to the potentially more Difficult parts of GMark:

Papyrus 45
Papyrus 45 ( {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}45 or P. Chester Beatty I) is an early New Testament manuscript which is a part of the Chester Beatty Papyri. It was probably created around 250 in Egypt.[1] It contains the texts of Matthew 20-21 and 25-26; Mark 4-9 and 11-12;

Difficult Reading Missing in P45?
1:1 The son of God Yes
1:2 Isaiah the prophet Yes
1:10 Into him Yes
1:41 Angry Yes
3:5 Angry Yes
10 Secret Mark Yes
13:32 Neither the son Yes
16:8 ending Yes

c. 250 would have been before the Lucian Recension.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Mark 3:18 Levi as one of the Twelve

Post by JoeWallack »

This Ain't No Place For A Hero

JW:

Difficult Reading Witness Quality Witness Against Defense Against Significant Difference?
Mark 1:1
omission of [the Son of God]
Sinaiticus
3rd century papyrus
Irenaeus
Origen
Serapion
Basil
Cyril
Epiphanius
Asterius
Severian
Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Note that witness here is weakened by its variation
Manuscript = Homeoteleuton (accidental skipping due to similar near words)
Patristic = Abbreviation
Yes. Since GMark starts with Jesus' supposed baptism and Jesus is explicitly ided as the son of God at the baptism the issue of the timing of Jesus' status was/is a crucial issue for Christianity. Especially with GMark being the original Gospel.
Mark 1:2
Isaiah the prophet
vs. "the prophets"
Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Bezae
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Copyists wanted to make a general description (in the prophets) specific (Isaiah). Yes. Everyone agrees that the related quote is not only from Isaiah but is a combination of quotes (with editing) from multiple Jewish Bible authors. Hence, unlike supposed claims of history in the Christian Bible with no clear documented history to compare to, Christianity considered the Jewish Bible gospel and therefore a contradiction with it in the Christian Bible is a clear error. From a Christian standpoint.
Mark 1:10
and the Spirit as a dove descending into him:
vs. upon
Vaticanus
Bezae
Sinaiticus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
The Greek word for "into" can also mean "unto" and the difference between "unto" and "upon" is insignificant. Yes. "Into" is direct evidence for Separationist theology and is the best fit for GMark's preceding implication that there was nothing previously reMarkable about Jesus. Strangely Ehrman states on p. 174 of tOCoS that the consensus is so strong that it is not even mentioned in the Critical Apparatus. But the reason it is not mentioned is because the Critical Apparatus considers it (into/unto/upon)
insignificant difference in meaning.
Mark 1:41
angry
vs. compassionate
Bezae Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Mistaken similar word in Version (Latin, Aramaic, Syriac) retro translated to Greek Yes. Based on Christian theology clear expectation that if Jesus had emotion here it would be compassion. "Angry" would be the opposite of expectation (for subsequent Christianity, not "Mark" (author).
Mark 3:18
Levi
vs. Thaddeus
Bezae Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtonianus
Alexandrinus
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Ignored Yes. In addition to Bezae most of the Old Latin also has "Levi" and Origen testifies "Levi" in some of the Manuscripts (this comment by Origen is exponentially better evidence than any individual extant manuscript.). "Levi" here is evidence that GMatthew was deliberately edited to exercise Levi as the tax collector because of a desired tradition that GMatthew was written by a called disciple who was a member of the Twelve. Note that Bezae, an oft maligned Manuscript by the textually feeble (fundamentalists) now becomes the most reliable Manuscript here as to likely original difficult readings. Also note that this is another difficult reading that may have been deliberately cut off on P45.
Mark 16:9-20 omission vs. inclusion Sinaiticus
Vaticanus
Regius
Washingtoniansus
Alexandrinus
Bezae
Rossanensis
Beratinus
064
Basilensis
Original ending lost Yes. Whether or not the likely original Gospel narrative contained the primary historical assertion of orthodox Christianity, known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus.

Note - Regius has the LE but has notes giving evidence that the LE is not original. Thus the 3 best witnesses testify against the LE. Washingtoniansus, the 4th best witness, has an expanded LE, and variation is a sign of addition. Thus the majority of quality witness for LE was written about twice as long after original GMark than the quality witness against LE.



Joseph

Book Review of Tareq Baconi's Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance - Preface Only
Post Reply