BIBLE REVIEW - 1985
DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT
THE BIRTH OF JESUS
by Kenneth R.R.Gros Louis
Biblical scholarship has long recognized the significant
differences between the details of the birth of Jesus in the
gospels of Matthew and Luke - the only two gospels to contain an
account of his birth. Rarely, however, have biblical scholars
gone beyond the basic observation that the accounts of the birth
differ, as indeed do the gospels as a whole. The recent focus in
biblical studies on literary criticism of biblical narratives has
opened up many new ways of considering the rich literature of the
New as well as the Old Testament. The insights gained by applying
literary criticism to the texts have considerably expanded our
understanding of the strategies of biblical narratives, and,
indeed, have significantly influenced the teaching of the Bible
as literature in secondary schools, colleges, universities
throughout the United States.
Literary criticism strikingly reveals the extraordinarily
different approaches taken by the gospels of Mathew and Luke to a
description of what is, after all, the same event. (We may be
reminded of how, witnesses often describe the same event - for
example, an automobile accident or an argument - in a variety of
ways.
A literary critic is interested in such matters as how a
narrative begins, the significance of parallels and contrasts,
and of repetition. The literary critic also examine changes in
characters or images or setting, information withheld from the
reader as well as information provided to the reader, changes in
the physical or material or psychological or spiritual situation
of the characters; interaction among the characters and the
effect of those chance or planned encounters; the revelation of
character by what the characters say and, more important, by how
they say it; and the plausibility of what occurs in a narrative,
even if in "real life" the event is totally implausible.
Nine years ago, in a Commentary article that was later
expanded in "The Art of Biblical Narrative," Roben Alter
expressed surprise that there had been no serious literary
analysis of the Bible. No one had really paid much attention to
the artful use of language, the shifting play of ideas,
conventions, tone, sound, imagery, narrative viewpoint,
compositional units, and so on. During the past decade, he and
others in this country and abroad have shaken conservatives and
liberals alike with startlingly new readings of biblical
narratives and poetry.
The remarkable differences between the infancy narratives in
Matthew and Luke are naturally of great interest to the literary
critic. These differences reflect the fact that the same basic
event can be described in vastly different ways, that a writer,
even when depicting a well-known event - such as the
circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus - selects and
augments his material. We must be alert to the voice of a
narrator; a voice that, whether we like it or not, leads us to
what.... meaning or significance we derive from the narrative
Our two writers, Matthew and Luke, describe the same event,
a miraculous birth of someone who they believe is very important
- the King of the Jews, the Savior, the Son of God. Our question
is really their question - how are they going to do it? Many
stories must have circulated about this man Jesus, conflicting
versions of his birth and life and death, of his family and
disciples, of his sayings and influence. How do Matthew and Luke
decide what elements to select? What questions go through a
writer's mind as he considers his sources and subjects? For
Matthew and Luke, perhaps questions like these: How will the
birth be described? What is the audience like? How much does it
know? Does it need to be persuaded of the importance of the
birth? How can this best be done? Does the birth of a child to a
virgin need to be made believable? How can that best be done?
Into what narrative context should the birth be set? Which
events, of the many known, should be emphasized? Which characters
should be included and which ones emphasized? Who should speak?
What should they say? Should the sources be made known? In what
ways should the birth set the pattern and tone of the rest of the
narrative, for this is, after all, only the introduction to a
longer account of Jesus' life? Our problem is to see how Matthew
and Luke answered their questions - those of any writers - by
looking at the narratives and then asking why certain choices,
why certain decisions, were made.
Matthew's gospel tells of the birth of Jesus in the first
two chapters. The gospel opens by tracing Jesus' genealogy
through Joseph, back to King David and then back to Abraham
(Matthew 1:1-17). By contrast, Luke postpones his genealogy until
the end of chapter three, at a time when Jesus is 30 years old.
Matthew tells us, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in
this way (Matthew 1:18)." But instead of telling us about the
birth, Matthew immediately tells us why Joseph does not divorce
Mary after she becomes pregnant - she has become pregnant by the
Holy Spirit. We are told how this fulfills a prophecy, Isaiah
7:19, that a virgin shall bring forth a child who shall be called
Emmanuel, "God is with us."
Chapter two of Matthew's gospel opens by telling us that
Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great.
Wise men from the East arrive in Jerusalem on their way to visit
the child. King Herod is troubled, especially when he learns from
his chief priests and scribes that the prophet Micah has
prophesied that a ruler of Israel will be born in Bethlehem
(Matthew 2:3-6). Herod summons the wise men and instructs them to
complete their joumey in search of the child and then let him
know where the child is so that he too may worship him. They
continue on to Bethlehem….
[No they find Jesus in a house— KH]
where they find the child, to whom they present gifts of gold,
frankincense and myrrh. The wise men are then warned in a dream,
however, not to follow King Herod's instruction to report to him
where they found Jesus, but to return home by a different route.
Joseph also is warned in a dream that Herod plans to destroy
the child and is told to flee to Egypt. This flight, Matthew
tells us, was prophesied in Hosea (Hosea 11:1).
Herod, in a rage, orders that all male children in Bethlehem
two years old or under be killed (Matthew 2:16); thus is
fulfilled the terrible prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15, which Matthew
quotes in 2:18:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel
weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because
they were no mom."
When Herod himself dies, Joseph, following instructions
given in a dream, returns to Israel (Matthew 2:20). In another
dream Joseph a instructed to settle in Nazareth, rather than in
Judea where Herod's son now rules (Matthew 2:22). Matthew
concludes by noting that thus were fulfilled the words of Isaiah
which Matthew quotes in 2:23: "He [Jesus] shall be called a
Nazarene."
As a literary narrative, Luke's gospel is far different. It
opens with a formal preface to the "most excellent Theophilus."
The author immediately announces his intention to write an
"orderly account" of those things of which Theophilus has only
been "informed' (Luke 1:4).
The narrative itself begins not with the story of Jesus but
with the story of Zechariah, a righteous priest, whose wife
Elizabeth is barren. Both of them, we are told, are now of
advanced years (Luke 1:7). While Zechariah is serving in the
temple, the angel Gabriel appears to him and tells him that his
wife Elizabeth, though old and barren, will bear a son, who shall
be named John; John will "make ready for the Lord a people
prepared." Zechariah questions Gabriel's prediction; as a result,
he is struck mute. Zechariah returns home and Elizabeth soon
conceives.
In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, the angel
Gabriel appears before Mary - the first mention of Mary - who is
living in Nazareth - Gabriel announces that Mary, though a
virgin, will bear a son, who shall be named Jesus and who "will
be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High" (Luke
1132). Gabriel explains that nothing is impossible for God, as
evidenced by Elizabeth, who was barren until her old age and is
now pregnant.
Mary decides to visit Elizabeth, her kinswoman, in Judea.
When Mary greets Elizabeth, the unborn John stirs in her womb.
Elizabeth cries out aloud, "Blessed are you among women, and
blessed is the fruit of your womb!" (Luke 1:41-42).
When her time comes, Elizabeth gives birth to a son.
Neighbors and relatives gather at the mute Zechariah's house for
the child's circumcision, urging that the child be named for his
father. Elizabeth, however, indicates that the boy will be named
John. They are surprised because no one in the family has had
that name and inquire what Zechariah would like the child to be
called. Unable to speak, he asks for a tablet. To the amazement
of the crowd, he writes on the tablet, "His name is John." By the
act, his ability to speak is restored. He praises the Lord and
prophesies that his son "will be called the prophet of the Most
High." When John has grown strong in age and spirit, he goes into
the wilderness (Luke 1:80). Thus ends the first chapter of Luke's
gospel.
The story then returns to Joseph and Mary, who leave their
home in Nazareth and journey to Bethlehem to obey the decree of
Caesar Augustus that all the world should be "enrolled." For the
enrollment, Joseph must return to Bethlehem, because he is of the
house of David, and David was a Bethlehemite. Although Mary a
pregnant, she returns with him.
The time comes for Mary to give birth, but because the inn
is filled, she wraps the child in swaddling clothes and lays him
in a manger. An angel of the Lord appears to shepherds in the
fields to tell them the "good news" of the birth of a "Savior,
who is Christ the Lord." The shepherds decide to visit the child.
When they find him (they do not give gifts), they tell Mary and
Joseph what they have been told by the angel.
Jesus is circumcised after eight days, and his parents name
him Jesus, in accordance with the angel Gabriel's instructions
when he first made known to Mary that she would conceive a son by
the Holy Spirit.
Later, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Jerusalem "to present
him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22), in accordance with the Levitical
law relating to the first-born (Leviticus 12'1-8).
What is striking about these two narratives is that even
though they describe the same basic event, they are totally
different. The differences are not only in details but in
essentials, in structure, in emphases, and in point of view
toward the birth and toward those concerned with it.
In Matthew's narrative, Joseph and Herod play central roles,
but they are only names in Luke. Mary, only a name in Matthew, is
central to Luke's narrative. Zechariah, Elizabeth and John do not
even appear in Matthew. Bethlehem is the site of Jesus' birth in
both accounts, but the circumstances differ greatly, wise men
visit Jesus in Matthew, shepherds visit him in Luke. The list
could be extended by noting the details that are unique to one
narrative or the other. The only things they have in common, in
fact, are several names and places, and two important details -
the mother is a virgin and the child's name is given as Jesus by
an angel of the Lord.
Clearly, the same momentous historical event is being
reported but in two markedly different narratives.
Finally, it is important to note that one account is not an
elaboration of the other - nothing in Matthew's version suggests
what is in Luke's, or vice-versa.
What are we, as readers of literature, to make of these two
stories? What does each reveal about the narrator's viewpoint
toward the implications of the birth of a man whom both present
as the son of God? Surely such questions are provocative, if only
because of our surprise at discovering that the Nativiry story
with which we are so familiar is actually a composite of two
stories in the gospels.
To begin with in Matthew's gospel, we notice the importance
of dreams and prophecies. In two short chapters, we find five
dreams and five prophecies fulfilled. By contrast in Luke,
neither dream nor prophecy occurs. We must attribute the dreams
and prophecies in Matthew either to clumsy narration or to some
intended purpose. Reading Matthew's narrative with dreams and
prophecies in mind, we learn that nothing in the narrative
happens - that is, no action is begun or ended - that does not
result from a dream or that is not the fulfillment of a prophecy.
The only action in the entire narrative not directly related
to dreams and prophecies is the journey, of the wise men. But
even they, having calculated astrological changes, follow a star,
so their decision concerning the time to seek Jesus is
predetermined.
What does this apparently purposeful emphasis on dreams and
prophecies suggest about the narrator's view of history and of
the role of individuals in history? This is, after all, a
narrative describing a major historical event. A narrative that
describes actions as the outcomes of dreams or as the fulfillment
of prophecies invites us to view history as the result of
predetermined patterns and not of individual choice. Such a
narrative is not going to be much interested in individual
personalities. The pattern, the fulfillment of the plan, is what
is important.
Further analysis of the text of Matthew's narrative confirms
this suggestion. The dreams always alter human decisions - Joseph
had resolved to divorce Mary quietly until his dream. The wise
men had presumably planned to return to Jerusalem to report to
Herod until their dream. Joseph presumably had decided to remain
in Bethlehem until the angel in his dream told him to take the
child to Egypt to avoid Herod's massacre. Joseph does not leave
Egypt until he is told to do so in another dream.
Moreover, the prophecies are always given to us after the
facts and events are described. We know Mary, the virgin, is
pregnant before the narrative recalls the prophecy in Isaiah, We
know that Jesus is born in Bethlehem before Herod's chief priests
and scribes tell him that, and then we learn that it is a fulfil-
ment of prophecy. We know of the family's flight to Egypt, of
Herod's mass murder, of Joseph's returning to Nazareth, before
the prophecies that these events fulfill are recalled. The
narrator obviously could have reversed the pattern, but the
effect of concluding actions by recalling fulfilled prophecies is
to make the prophecies seem like afterthoughts recalled to
confirm information the narrative has already given us.
Additional evidence for the narrator's view of history comes
from the long genealogy at the beginning of Matthew's gospel.
Here we are told that there arc 14 generations from Abraham
(the first in the genealogical line) to David, 14 generations
from David to the deportation to Babylon following the
destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C., and 14 generations from
the deportation to the birth of the Messiah, Jesus (Matthew
1:17). The history of humanity has been planned, as the narrative
demonstrates by Abraham's line and by the triple-fourteen
pattern,. History is still being directed from elsewhere, a
demonstrated through the devices of dreams and prophecies.
As the genealogy further suggests, history is dominated by
men, a logical conclusion if central historical importance is
given to Abraham, David, and Jesus. This may explain why
Matthew's narrative is also heavily male-dominated. The angel
instructs Joseph to name the baby Jesus (Matthew 1:21), Herod
plays a central role, the wise men take the journey to Bethlehem,
an angel appears to Joseph four times in dreams. Mary is barely
mentioned. We conclude the narrative remembering men - Joseph,
the wise men, Herod, Jesus, Jesus' ancestry. Such a view of
history explains, perhaps, why the account of Herod's mass murder
is emphasized - the killing of all the male children in the
region of Bethlehem would be in this narrative an event of major
historical importance. This may also explain why so few women are
mentioned in the genealogy and why the narrative does not even
allude by name to Bathsheba, the woman who caused David's
downfall - she is only "the wife of Uriah." All the more striking
it is then, after several dozen repetitions of the pattern, 'X
the father of Y' to read in 1:16: "Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." Alert readers of
literature should know who is to be the subject of the narrative.
A conception of history that reflects a divine plan and of
men in history who act simply as instruments of that plan is
going to create a very special kind of literature, one that
describes major occurrences and largely ignores dramatic action,
human emotions and respones, and other details. Matthew's
narrative offers us few descriptions of individual responses.
Those few that are mentioned are almost narrative fillers between
a dream and the next prophecy.
Turning from Matthew to Luke, we recognize how complex are the
differences between the two narratives. Instead of structure
dominated by dreams, prophecies, and events written on a larger
canvas, in Luke we find a structure that is controlled by the
carefully worked out parallels between the births of John and
Jesus, and the varied responses of those connected with these
births. Instead of a male dominated narrative, Luke, if not
female-dominated, is at least more balanced in presenting us with
the responses and emotions of Elizabeth and Mary, as well as of
Zechariah.
Furthermore, instead of having characters suddenly appear or
being directed to go elsewher, as in Matthew, in Luke characters
move from place to place with narrative logic. Zechariah, as a
priest, has a reason for being in the Temple when he is
confronted by the angel Gabriel telling him that he and his wife
Elizabeth are to have a son.
Mary's trip to Judea to visit Elizabeth is described in
detail. We learn that the neighbors and kinfolk are as excited
about the birth of the child as Elizabeth is and that they urge
that the newborn child be named after Zechariah (Luke 1:58-59).
Joseph has a specific reason for going to Bethlehem - the census.
After the angel tells the shepherds to look for Jesus in the
manger, the shepherds discuss their decision to visit the manger
(Luke 2:15).
Events in Luke are connected. In other words, history, or
the reporting of history or the creation of literature, involves
not only recording events or their causes, but also describing
what happens to people in time and space as events unravel.
Matthew, by contrast, tells us simply "the birth of Jesus
Christ took place in this way." He then proceeds to describe
Joseph's decision not to divorce Mary and the fulfillment of the
prophecy concerning the virgin birth; the birth itself is not
described at all. The next thing we hear - another event - is
that Jesus has been born in Bethlehem.
Matthew reports that the angel directs Joseph to go to
Egypt, but he then shifts to an account of Herod's rage - his
interest, in other words, is in the instruction to Joseph and nor
in the human problems and difficulties involved in carrying it
out. Luke, on the other hand, is much more interested in human
emotions and responses: Zechariah's fear and disbeief at
Gabriel's announcement that he and Elizabeth will have a son; the
multitude's puzzlement at Zechariah's delay in coming out of the
temple; Elzabeth's delight to have the baby in her womb; Mary's
wondement at Gabriel's announcement that she too will bear a son,
Elizabeth's ecstatic response to Mary's visit, and so on. History
may be worked out in advance, as the songs in Luke suggest to us
that it is - the Magnificat which Mary recites (Luke 1:4655) and
the Benedictus recited by Zechariah (Luke 1:68-79) - but Luke is
as interested in the people involved in history as he is in the
history that results from what they do. True, the tight parallel
structure in Luke indicates his belief, similar to Matthew's, in
the ordering and patterning of human events, but Matthew would
not have included the details Luke does about human responses and
movement nor the asides, typical of Luke, that fill out the
narrative for us. For example, Luke does not have to mention that
Zechariah is of the division of the priesthood called after
Abijah (Luke 1:5), or that the angel Gabriel was on the right
side of the incense altar when he told Zechariah that he and
Elisabeth would have a child (Luke 1:11), or that the friends and
neighbors of Zechariah gossip about what will become of his son
John (Luke 1:66), or that the enrollment for which Joseph goes to
Bethlehem is the "first enrollment" (Luke 2:2). Matthew would not
have included such details and responses, to him they would not
have seemed relevant to the larger patterns of history.
A different sensibility is at work in Luke, creating a
different kind of literature. The very preface to Theophilus
suggests that the narrator has a strong sense of self; he
conceives of his function in time and space - he will be the
reliable narrator, writing an "orderly account" of what has
recently transpired. He seems aware of his audience - an
official, someone in power, skeptical perhaps, but knowledgeable
about contemporary events, interested in the human details of a
remarkable birth. The personal voice speaking to a specifically
identifiable auditor differs remarkably from Matthew's
impersonal, somewhat majestic voice, giving us the long genealogy
from Abraham to Jesus.
Dreams and prophecies that determine or alter human
decisions and actions do not dominate Luke's account, but this
does not mean that Luke's characters are nor fulfilling
prophecies or following divinely inspired instructions. It means
rather that the narrative centers on human consciousness as it
participates in history, instead of on the prophecies being
fulfilled and the instructions being given. Mary's song to the
Lord (the Magnificat Luke 1:46-55), for example, may be an
independent hymn artificially inserted at this particular point
in the narrative, but it nevertheless accurately reflects Mary's
wonder at having been selected to be the mother of the son of
God. Similarly, while Gabriel's song praising John (Lake 1:1417)
may have been inserted for instructional purposes, the narrator
refers back to the part of the song where we are told that John
"will be filled with die Holy Spirit, even from his mother's
womb," by telling us that the unborn John leaped in his mother's
womb when Mary greeted Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Luke insists on
recording these human responses.
Different sensibilities are at work in Luke and Matthew,
with different concepts of history, of the individual in history,
of the function of self in the creation of art. For Matthew the
birth is another major event, like the birth of Abraham, the
selection of David as King, the deportation to Babylon. History
is the total of these significant moments; it is made up of
announcements and instructions from angels and the fulfillment of
prophecies. The time and space the characters move in is not time
and space as we know them. For Luke, however, the birth of Jesus
has suggested a different kind of emphasis. Luke wants to know
how people respond to events, how they get from place to place,
what they're doing when they are not present in the narrative.
Notice the narrative neatness of Luke. The scene at the temple -
where Zechanah the priest goes, meets Gabriel, becomes mute, and
comes out - has its beginning, middle and end. Mary goes to and
from Elizabeth's house. When Zechariah writes "His name is John,"
the neighbors are amazed and discuss the incident in the
countryside (Luke 1:63-66). John is in the wilderness when he is
not in the narrative. Joseph's required to go to Bethlehem.
There are several obvious reasons for Luke's parallel
structure involving the birth of John and Jesus. What happens to
the virgin Mary is more believable because something comparable
has happened to the old and barren Elizabeth. A pattern is
established for much of the narrative that follows. Gabriel's
announcement to Zechariah that he and Elizabeth will have a child
prepares us for Gabriel's announcement to Mary that she, a
virgin, will conceive. The same pattern is seen in the fact that
John the son of Elizabeth will prepare the way for Jesus the son
of Mary. Zechariah's skeptical response to Gabriel's announcement
sharply contrasts with Mary's humble acceptance of the
announcement.
But there is also a major difference in the parallel
accounts that may explain Luke's special interest in individual
emotions and actions and in specific details. The events
surrounding the birth of John are heavily publicized. Many people
are involved - the multitude perplexed at Zechariah's delay in
coming out of the temple, the neighbors and kinfolk marveling
when Zechariah recovers his speech at John's circumcision, the
countryside gossiping about "What then will this child [John]
be?" By contrast, the events surrounding the birth of Jesus are
private and isolated, Gabriel appears to Mary when she is alone.
Her news is shared only with Elizabeth and presumably with
Joseph. The narrative takes Joseph and his family away from their
home town, and therefore away from their neighbors and kinfolk to
be enrolled in Bethlehem. And even in that town, there is no room
for them at the inn and the child must be born in a manger, out
of sight, unnoticed by those who fill the inn. The good news of
the birth is told to shepherds in the fields, not to multitudes
in the temple, nor to assemblies in the city or court. In fact,
we know from Luke 1:65 that the big news in Judea (where Jesus is
born), "talked about through all the hill country," is the birth
of John. Only when Jesus goes to Jerusalem does he begin to
receive public attention. The differences between the multitudes
who know about John and the few who know about Jesus is striking.
While Luke thus emphasizes the privacy and isolation of
Jesus' birth, Matthew emphasizes the fact that Jesus birth comes
as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. In Matthew this has
an enormous public impact on Herod the King, as well as on the
entire city of Jerusalem.
This contrast may suggest Luke's different understanding of
this birth and of its significance for the individual in history.
Perhaps for Luke, events become major events, become "history"
only after the fact, they are made up of seemingly minor events,
involving people we do not know, the results of births we did nor
hear about. In Luke, people marvel at John's conception and
birth, not realizing that unknown to them, a more important
conception and birth is taking place elsewhere. This irony as
used by Luke is similar to the literary device of the "still
small voice," a strand that runs through the Old Testament, for
example in 1 Kings 19, when Elijah covers his face with his
mantle at the sound of the still small voice of the Lord, ironic
because he did not cover his face at a more likely time, when the
storm and whirlwind raged around the mountain. Another example is
found in Isaiah 53, when, surprisingly, the suffering servant,
despised and rejected by many, is later exalted as king.
The differences in the accounts of the birth of Jesus in
Matthew and Luke are not simply alternate versions of an oral
tradition. The characters in Luke wonder, exclaim rejoice,
marvel, ponder, they are troubled, perplexed, filled with fear.
By contrast, only the wise men rejoice in Matthew, and only Herod
expresses emotion of any kind. For Luke, Jesus' birth has altered
the meaning of individual actions and responses, any one of which
might become significant for history and for literature. For
Matthew, Jesus' birth is part of a predetermined plan that
prophecies have predicted and that instructions given in dreams
will help to fulfill.
There is not one Jesus birth story in the gospels, but two,
told in profoundly different narrative styles, offering us two
different interpretations of history and the individual's role in
its creation, two different ways of representing the same
reality.
By asking appropriate literary questions of the birth
stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, we realize how,
important the selection of narrative strategy is in a reader's
understanding and appreciation of the text. Biblical scholars
have long explained the differences between the two accounts by
focusing on the historical and cultural circumstances at the time
the narratives were composed as well as the audience to which the
narratives were directed. These explanations, of course, follow
important and legitimate avenues of scholarly research.
A literary approach to the beginnings of these gospels,
however, not only asks different questions than those posed by
biblical scholarship, but illuminates the strategies of the
narratives in ways that enhance and broaden our appreciation of
the artistry of the compilers of the New Testament.
...............
NOTE:
Truly a fine understanding and edification to us of how God uses
different people with different skills of thought and language,
to express the same truth in different shades of teaching scenes,
coming from a different perspective. The Bible is full of figures
of speach, shades of expression, this side of the picture and
that side of the picture, this side of the coin and the other
side of the coin. All in all, it gives life, meaning, depth,
color, views, transactions, melody, and all that makes wonderful
inspired reading from the mind of God, who is in everything, who
is the most rounded, balanced, and complete, person in the entire
universe. The Almighty, the Most Holy One, is the creator of all
that we humans can express. He is the all in all, and He
expresses His fullness in every individual being, with all the
abilities, talents, gifts of every kind, that humans can possibly
have.
When it is all put together like a massive jig-saw-puzzle, as
demonstrated by the narratives of the birth of the Son of God,
Christ Jesus, as we have seen in Matthew and Luke, we have a
beautiful tapestry, that is a picture of perfection.
Keith Hunt
|
No comments:
Post a Comment