Feminist version of the bible!
- From: "MCP" <gf010w5035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:42:53 GMT
http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html
The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy
by Michael D. Marlowe, 2001
(revised January 2005)
'This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, he
made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and he blessed them
and he named them Man in the day when they were created.' (Genesis 5:1,2)
One of the most controversial features of several recent versions of the Bible has
been the use of gender-neutral language. Many articles and at least three books have
appeared dealing with this issue in the past seven years. (1) I can add little to
what has already been said by scholars on both sides of the issue. In this article I
will provide some background information and a brief history of the controversy for
those who are not already familiar with the facts.
The Feminist Origin of Gender-Neutral Language
Gender-neutral language is a style of writing that adheres to certain rules that were
first proposed by feminist language reformers in universities during the 1970's, and
which have been accepted as normative in many schools since about 1980. The rules
prohibit various common usages which are deemed to be "sexist," as for example the
use of the word "man," and the generic use of masculine pronouns, in referring to
persons of unspecified gender. A number of new words were also recommended, as for
example "chairperson," "spokesperson," etc., as substitutes for the "sexist" words in
common use. Feminists hoped that by means of such reforms in the universities the
language of the whole society might gradually be reformed, and that by means of such
a reform in the language, the consciousness of people would be rendered more
favorable to feminist ideas. (2)
There is some disagreement as to what to call this new style of writing. Its
advocates have called it by various names and descriptions: "inclusive language,"
"gender-inclusive language," "gender generic language," "non-discriminatory
language," etc. Some translators have even preferred to call it "gender accurate"
language, because they claim that only the use of such language in a translation will
accurately reflect the inclusive intent of the original. Conservatives have of course
objected to the term, "gender accurate." They have also objected to the word
"inclusive" as a description for the new style, because this word implies that the
ordinary English usage (e.g. the generic "he") is not inclusive. Therefore they
prefer to call the new style "gender-neutral." But there is a sense in which the term
"inclusive language" is most fitting: The word "inclusive" in modern academic
discourse is often used as a sort of code-word for a whole ideology of egalitarian
inclusivity.
Feminism in the Seminaries
During the late 1970's the liberal mainline seminaries generally adopted these new
rules of usage. The feminists in these seminaries where not satisfied, however, with
the gender-neutral language as applied only to persons, and insisted upon
gender-neutral language in reference to God also; and so during the 1980's
gender-neutral language in reference to God became normal and even prescribed by
codes of speech. Today it is not permissible for students in many schools to use the
pronoun "he" in reference to God, and even such usages as "God Godself" (instead of
"God himself") have gained currency in these places. The feminists have insisted upon
the use of such language as a very important moral duty.
The Patriarchal Bible Problem
After this change in language was brought about in seminaries, the next effort was to
promote its use in the churches at large, by means of denominational publications.
But a great hindrance to this campaign was the fact that the Bible itself did not
abide by their new rules.
The Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible often use generic masculine nouns (adam and
anthropos, both meaning "man") and generic masculine pronouns in a gender-inclusive
sense, in reference to persons of unspecified gender. In the Epistles, believers in
general are addressed as adelphoi, "brethren." Such usages are not merely figments of
"sexist" English translations; they are a normal feature of the original languages,
just as they are normal in English and many other languages. In most cases the
inclusive intent of the writer is obvious from the context, and when the intent is
not inclusive, this is also obvious enough from the context. The interpreter must not
proceed mechanically with the idea that every occurance of adam and anthropos is to
be understood in a gender-inclusive sense, because the Bible for the most part
records the names and actions of men, uses male examples, assumes a male audience,
and in general focuses on men and their concerns while leaving women in the
background. I will give now a few examples of how these tendencies manifest
themselves in the biblical text.
a.. In Genesis 2:24, after Adam declares that Eve is "flesh of my flesh," it is
said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his
wife, and they shall become one flesh." It has been observed by commentators that
among the Israelites for whom this text was written, it was really the woman who left
her father and mother. She was brought into the extended family of her husband, and
the new household was established on the property of the man's family. Why then do we
read that "a man shall leave his father and his mother," instead of "a woman shall
leave her father and her mother"? It is because this saying is describing the action
from the man's perspective.
b.. In Genesis 3:23-24 we read that God sent Adam out of the garden of Eden, but
the text says nothing about Eve being driven out. Obviously we must understand that
both were exiled, but the writer sees fit to describe this event in terms of Adam's
exile.
c.. The genealogies of the Old Testament rarely mention wives or mothers. Often
when a woman does appear in a narrative she is not named, but is referred to only as
the wife of a certain man (e.g. Noah's wife).
d.. God is often described as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (e.g. Exodus
3:16) but what of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel?
e.. The tendency of the writers to address males in particular is seen in the Ten
Commandments (Exodus 20). There we read, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."
In Deuteronomy 29 we read, "Moses summoned all Israel and said to them ... you are
standing today all of you before the Lord your God ... your little ones, your wives,
and the sojourner who is in your camp ... so that you may enter into the sworn
covenant." See also Exodus 22:24, 32:2; Deuteronomy 3:19, Joshua 1:14, Nehemiah 4:14;
Jeremiah 44:9, 44:25. Much of the book of Proverbs is addressed to young men, with
warnings against getting involved with prostitutes and adulteresses (e.g. 7:5), but
there is no similar advice given directly to women. The famous description of the
"excellent wife" in Proverbs 31 is cast in the third person.
f.. In Deuteronomy 7 there is a good example of how the Hebrew text tends to encode
patriarchal ideas: the chapter begins speaking of the need for the Israelites to
drive out the Canaanites, and in verse 3 it says, "you shall not give your daughter
to his son, nor take his daughter for your son, for he will turn your son away from
following me, that they may serve other gods." The masculine singular forms are used
here because the focus is on the duty of the Jewish father, the religious practices
of his son, and the bad influence of a heathen father-in-law. The girl (usually at
about the age of sixteen) is "taken" from her father by her new husband's father, on
behalf of his son, and she is "given" to her new husband. Nothing is said regarding
the daughter who is given to a Canaanite's son, because it is taken for granted that
she must worship her husband's gods. The text focuses on what may happen to the son
who takes a daughter of Canaan to be his wife, because this association with
heathenism will weaken the son's resolve to worship only the God of his fathers.
Regarding this, it is especially notable that the text does not say that she (i.e.
the Canaanite's daughter) will turn the Jewish son away, but instead skips over the
woman to focus on a man-"he will turn your son away." (The heathen patriarch is
meant. See the American Standard Version for the literal translation.) The heathen
mother-in-law is not mentioned. The linguistic features of these sentences are not
meaningless accidents of the Hebrew language, nor are they constrained by any
grammatical requirements of the language; they are reflections of the patriarchal
assumptions of the author, which are in several ways controlling the choice of words
in this text.
None of this changes when we come to the New Testament.
a.. In Luke 18:29 we read a promise of Jesus, "there is no one who has left house
or wife ... for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more."
He says "wife," not "husband or wife."
b.. In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul addresses the whole congregation with
second-person plural forms which cannot be inclusive of women: "if you allow
yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you" (5:2). In 1
Corinthians 7:27-28 he writes, "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are
you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not
sinned-and if a virgin marries she has not sinned." In 1 Corinthians 14:31 he says,
"You can all prophesy one by one," but in verse 34 he says "the women should keep
silent." In such places it becomes obvious that the authors of the New Testament are
addressing their words primarily to men.
c.. Typically men are addressed in the second person while women are referred to in
the third person. In Luke 15, Jesus introduces one parable in verse 4 with the words,
"What man of you, having a hundred sheep" (second person plural), and the next
parable in verse 8, "what woman, having ten silver coins" (third person).
d.. Sometimes a serious misunderstanding will come from a failure to recognize that
the text presupposes a male audience. For instance, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus' warning
against frivolous divorce is framed entirely from the standpoint of the man - "anyone
who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit
adultery." Here the hapless wife, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, is said to be
adulterated by any remarriage, after having been wrongly divorced. In ancient times a
woman had to remarry if she was to have any security, and so it might seem that a
woman who had been divorced is put in an impossible moral position by the saying. But
this hyberbolic saying is aimed entirely against the man who unjustly divorces his
wife, and there is no intention of stigmatizing innocent women here. The idea that
the husband "makes her commit adultery" is merely an ironic way of saying that God
looks upon the divorce as illegitimate. Jesus did not intend for anyone to draw from
this saying any rule for the divorced woman, because the saying was not meant to be
read from the standpoint of the woman. The woman is not even considered to be a
morally responsible agent.
e.. When people are numbered in the Bible, it is the men who are numbered. In
Matthew 14:21 we are told that "those who had eaten were about five thousand men,
beside women and children," and likewise Matthew 15:38 mentions "four thousand men,
beside women and children." In Acts 4:4 it says "many of those who heard the word
believed, and the number of the men (arithmos ton andron) was about five thousand."
In Revelation 14:4 we read that the 144,000 redeemed from tribulation "have not
defiled themselves with women."
f.. In various places the Bible contains expressions which are quite unacceptable
in the modern climate of political correctness. In 2 Timothy 3:6 Paul refers to false
teachers who prey upon ?????????? "silly women," and in 1 Timothy 4:7 he warns
Timothy to have nothing to do with the worthless fables that are ????????, "typical
of old women." In Isaiah 19:16 the prophet says "the Egyptians will become like women
(?????) and tremble with fear" (similarly Jeremiah 50:37, 51:30, and Nahum 3:13). In
1 Corinthians 16:13 Paul urges the Corinthians to stand firm and ?????????? "act like
men." This is how a man speaks to men.
In short, the Bible is by no means gender-neutral. It presents from beginning to end
a thoroughly "androcentric" perspective, and it often leaves it to the reader to
decide what application to women or what inclusion of women is implied.
In pointing these things out, I am aware of the fact that I am breaking an unwritten
law of modern apologetics. The tendency today among conservative Christian writers is
to deny that the Bible is primarily addressed to men. Although it is undeniably true,
evidently it is thought to be too embarrassing or too scandalous to be talked about,
or even admitted. Frankly, it seems to me that there has been more honesty on this
point among liberal scholars than among conservatives, because liberal scholars are
not so worried about what people will think of the Bible because of it-but the fact
is, the biblical authors are completely oblivious to anything resembling the modern
rules of polite "inclusivity" in discourse. One feminist critic in pointing to this
feature of the biblical text has said that it means the female reader must read much
of the Bible as if she were a man, which is quite true. (3)
If we begin looking for places where women are directly addressed in the Bible, we
quickly discover that in such cases the message is even more offensive to the modern
egalitarian mindset than anything which has been noted above. The women are addressed
only to remind them that they are not equal:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of
the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior. As
the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their
husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-24. See also 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3:1-6, etc.)
Obviously such passages present serious problems for those who wish to tone down the
patriarchalism of the Bible, and many feminists have concluded that there is not much
to be gained by making the language of such a pervasively patriarchal book
"inclusive." According to one feminist critic this may even be a bad idea. After
highlighting some examples of "patriarchal, misogynist, and androcentric" features
which are only superficially camouflaged by recent gender-neutral Bible versions, she
concludes:
By changing the language of patriarchy we run the danger of merely disguising,
rather than eliminating, the deeply ingrained patterns which we struggle against. We
thus risk embedding misogynist discourse even more deeply into our metaphoric
constructions, while at the same time removing the signals which could alert us to
its presence ... changing the language does not necessarily remove the bias or the
sexism that remains embedded in the thought patterns, images and metaphors which,
with language, combine to form a given text. Indeed, removing the language which
signals sexist bias may result in obscuring that bias beyond conscious recognition,
while allowing it to continue to quietly permeate our cultural subconscious ... The
masculine bias has not been removed; it has simply been rendered more subtle and
therefore more dangerous, because more difficult to discern and expose ... When
symbol, image and metaphor are so deeply embedded in a text and culture as is the
case with the Bible, perhaps it is time to recognize that we cannot easily eliminate
the gendered biases which so often define the very essence of its thought and to set
our energies rather to exposing those biases. Language is only a symptom of a more
deeply ingrained problem; in changing the language alone, therefore, we run the risk
of merely disguising the biases which are inherent in the text and its cultural
stance. Unrecognized, and unrecognizable, those biases become even more insidious,
even more powerful. This is particularly dangerous with a text such as the Bible
which has played a foundational role in the formation of our own culture to the
extent that its influence is so subtle and pervasive that it goes unrecognized in a
culture that believes itself sophisticated and free of such influence. Rather than
empowering gender bias by rendering it implicit, perhaps it is better to expose its
hidden power, retaining the language which signals its presence and eliminating its
force by bringing it into the light of critical and analytical discourse. (4)
Nevertheless, most religious feminists who have taken an interest in the Bible have
felt that something should be done to suppress its patriarchal aspects. But what was
to be done?
The remedy proposed was twofold: (1) a revision of the Bible, in which the new
"dynamic equivalence" method of translating would be employed so as to conform the
text to the same stylistic guidelines which had lately been imposed on the seminary,
and to otherwise obscure the "patriarchalism" of the Bible by the adoption of
feminist interpretations; and (2) an elimination of the intractable "problem"
passages (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-24) by means of a revised lectionary (schedule of
readings) which was to omit all passages in which the subordination of women is so
plainly taught that it could not be obscured by false interpretations. By this means
the Bible might be exhibited as an example of political correctness to all who heard
it read in the churches.
The earliest example of such an effort was the Inclusive Language Lectionary
published by the National Council of Churches in 1983. This lectionary presented
gender-neutral adaptations of Scripture for the readings prescribed in the Common
Lectionary (1983, revised 1992), which excluded 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians
14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colosians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Peter 3:1-6.
The adaptations were thoroughgoing, and included gender-neutral language in reference
to God. Soon after this, complete versions of the Bible which featured a moderate use
of gender-neutral language began to appear. In 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman
Catholic version, became the first such version. But the first version to use
gender-neutral language in a really thorough and systematic way was the New Revised
Standard Version (NRSV), which appeared in 1990. This version was created under a
mandate from the copyright holder, the National Council of Churches, to eliminate
"sexist" language. It did not however substitute gender-neutral language in reference
to God, and it did not incorporate many of the misinterpretations proposed by
feminists, and so it did not satisfy many liberals.
In 1991 a version of the New Testament much more to their liking appeared: the
Contemporary English Version, published by the American Bible Society (the complete
Bible appeared in 1995). This version did not use gender-neutral language for God,
but it did incorporate many feminist interpretations that went beyond the mere use of
gender-neutral language. In Genesis 2:18, Eve is called not a "helper" but a
"partner" of Adam; in 1 Peter 3:1, Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22 women are
advised to "put their husbands first" rather than "submit" to them; in 1 Corinthians
11:10 the CEV says a woman should wear a head covering not merely as a "sign of
authority" (usually interpreted to mean her husband's authority) but "as a sign of
her authority." In 1 Timothy 3:3 and 3:12 gender-neutered officers of the church are
required to be "faithful in marriage" rather than "the husband of one wife." The CEV
also featured some renderings designed to combat anti-semitism: The word "Jews" is
changed to "religious leaders" wherever this group comes under sharp criticism in the
New Testament.
Going still further, in 1994 a group of liberal Roman Catholics published the
Inclusive New Testament, in which full advantage was taken of the principle of
"dynamic equivalence." Typical of this version is the following rendering of
Colossians 3:18-19.
"You who are in committed relationships, be submissive to each other. This is your
duty in Christ Jesus. Partners joined by God, love each other. Avoid any bitterness
between you."
In 1995, liberal Protestants published a similar version in the New Testament and
Psalms, An Inclusive Version. Both of these versions featured gender-neutral language
for God along with many other politicaly correct alterations designed to combat
"racism," "homophobia," "ageism," etc. The liberties taken with the text of Scripture
in these versions were however so flagrant that they were met with ridicule in the
popular press. For the time being at least, the most reputable liberal scholars have
not ventured to publicly defend them as legitimate translations, although it remains
to be seen how much headway such avant garde versions will make in the next
generation.
"Evangelical" Feminism?
None of the versions mentioned above were produced by organizations which professed
to be evangelical, and they were intended for an audience which did not consider
itself to be evangelical. Their use has been limited to the shrinking "mainline"
churches controlled by liberals. But by 1990 feminism had made some inroads into
evangelical circles also, and its influence was evident in several seminaries and
Bible agencies which were considered to be evangelical. (5) Academics in these
seminaries and agencies were involved in the production of five gender-neutral
versions that were published between 1986 and 1996, and which were intended for the
evangelical market. The first of these, the New Century Version, was a version
intended for young children. It was brought out by a small publisher and attracted
little notice. Next was God's Word, another little-known version that made a very
cautious use of gender-neutral language. The third was the New International Reader's
Version (NIrV), and the fourth version was The New International Version Inclusive
Language Edition (NIVI). These last two were revisions of the popular New
International Version (NIV). The NIrV was a simplification of the NIV intended for
children, and its gender-neutral renderings were not noticed until later. The NIVI,
which very much resembled the NRSV, was first published in England, where the people
who consider themselves to be evangelical are much more liberal than in America, and
for a year or two it went unnoticed in America. Then in 1996 the New Living
Translation (NLT), which also made consistent use of gender-neutral language,
appeared on the market with much fanfare; but, like the NIrV, this version made such
heavy use of the "dynamic equivalence" method that the gender-neutral language was
scarcely to be noticed in the general looseness of translation.
In 1997 the issue of gender-neutral "dynamic equivalence" came dramatically to the
forefront after World magazine (6) revealed that the International Bible Society
(IBS), which owns the copyright of the NIV and had apparently come under the
influence of "evangelical feminists," (7) was planning to publish its little-known
NIVI soon in America, as a new edition of the NIV. Because the NIV was widely used as
a trustworthy version in evangelical circles, a great uproar ensued, in which several
conservative Christian organizations brought pressure against the IBS to abandon
these plans. In May of 1997 James Dobson, the influential head of the Focus on the
Family ministry, convened several prominent evangelical leaders for a special meeting
on the issue at Colorado Springs. The participants issued a declaration of
recommended guidelines which would discourage the artificial use of gender-neutral
language in Bible translations. The IBS reluctantly yielded to this pressure, and at
that time promised that it would not publish this new edition of the New
International Version in America. It also issued a revision (1998) of its NIrV in
which the gender-neutral language was replaced with more accurate renderings. The
controversy was not settled by this however, because various scholars came forward
with arguments for gender-neutral language, provoking counter-arguments, and then the
IBS announced that it would publish its gender-neutral revision of the NIV, under
another name. (8) Advance review copies of this revision, under the name Today's New
International Version, were distributed in January 2002. The reaction to it has been
overwhelmingly negative.
The NIV "inclusive language" controversy has widened into criticism and defense of
the "dynamic equivalence" method which had made such an objectionable revision
possible in the first place. Many evangelicals who had been using the NIV began to
doubt the trustworthiness of the version in its original form.
Although the liberal organizations that sponsored the earlier gender-neutral versions
plainly avowed their ideological motives for such revisions, advocates of the revised
NIV (writing for a conservative audience) produced some literature (9) that defended
some of the changes on scholarly or linguistic grounds alone. The word anthropoi was
mentioned as a word in the Greek text which is sometimes quite properly translated
"people." Examples were given where a plural "they" put in place of the generic "he"
does not appear to affect the meaning at all, and the change was defended on the
ground that the gender-inclusive meaning of the sentence is better conveyed by such a
"dynamically equivalent" rendering. But critics (10) drew attention to places where
the systematic substitution of plurals did significantly interfere with the sense.
For example, in Psalm 1, the one man whose delight is in the law of the Lord is set
in opposition to the many ungodly ones around him. But when the man is made to
disappear into a group of genderless people, then a part of the meaning of this
passage is lost. It was also noticed that the Messianic interpretations of some Old
Testament passages were eliminated in the pursuit of genderless language, as in Psalm
8:4, where the phrase "son of man" becomes "human beings" (compare to Hebrews 2:6).
Another debated point was the extent to which the gender-neutral style adopted in the
new versions could be justified on the basis of common English usage. Some claimed
that the generic use of "man" and "he" are no longer commonly used or understood, and
that a translation which aims to be understood must avoid these usages. In support of
this idea they referred to the gender-neutral style of textbooks used in schools,
(11) and of some television and newspaper journalism, as representative of the people
at large, and as proof that the gender-neutral style had become normal and standard
usage outside of the academic circles where it originated. Critics replied that the
politically correct language of school textbooks and journalism are far from being
representative of established English usage, or of English as it is commonly spoken.
(12)
It should be noted that not everyone who has advocated the use of gender-neutral
versions in the evangelical sub-culture has done this with some hidden feminist
agenda in mind. Some evangelicals, such as D.A. Carson, have advocated this change in
Bible versions apparently because they feel a great awkwardness when linguistic
customs of modern and polite society are not observed, especially in mixed company.
Their desire to make the Bible speak politely is nothing new. As early as 1833 Noah
Webster (the famous American lexicographer) revised the King James Version so as to
eliminate many words and phrases that he deemed "offensive, especially to females."
There has always been a certain amount of uneasiness about expressions in the Bible
which were thought to be offensive to women, and ever since the days of Webster there
has been a constantly growing concern about the feelings and opinions of women in the
churches. So this new trend toward gender-neutralism may be seen in this light. Yet
it should also be noted that in former times this kind of condescending editorial
work did not try to conceal its nature under specious arguments about the meaning of
Greek and Hebrew words. Some apologists for gender-neutral Bible versions have even
argued that the Greek word aner, which clearly means "adult male," is a
gender-neutral word. Arguments like this could not have arisen among scholars apart
from a desire to provide ad hoc justifications for gender-neutral renderings. (13)
More important in the long run were the arguments concerning the legitimacy of
"dynamic equivalence" as a method of translating. This method, which was employed to
a moderate degree in the original NIV, had for a long time been criticized by the
more conservative evangelicals, who warned of its dangers. As the NIV controversy
unfolded, these critics were in a strong position to argue that the NIV from the
beginning embodied dangerous tendencies, and that it is time for evangelicals to turn
away from it.
Conclusion
Gender-neutral Bible versions originated as an attempt by feminists to transform both
the language and the beliefs of Christians. They were welcomed in liberal circles,
but were met with strong resistance among evangelicals. Despite the efforts of
"evangelical" feminists it appears that the attempt to introduce these versions in
evangelical circles will fail. The creators and defenders of these versions have
suffered a loss of reputation among evangelicals, and publishers are not likely to
market them successfully among evangelicals in the near future.
For further study of this issue, see the books listed in the bibliography and the
links in the Web Directory.
Chronology of Gender-Neutral Translations
a.. 1983. An Inclusive Language Lectionary
b.. 1985. New Jerusalem Bible
c.. 1986. New American Bible, revised New Testament
d.. 1987. New Century Version
e.. 1989. Revised English Bible
f.. 1990. New Revised Standard Version
g.. 1992. Good News Bible, 2nd ed.
h.. 1993. The Message
i.. 1993. The Five Gospels (Jesus Seminar).
j.. 1994. The Inclusive New Testament
k.. 1995. Contemporary English Version
l.. 1995. God's Word
m.. 1995. New International Reader's Version
n.. 1995. New International Version, Inclusive Language Edition
o.. 1995. New Testament and Psalms, An Inclusive Version
p.. 1996. New Living Translation
q.. 2002. Today's New International Version
r.. 2004. Good As New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Women Do More Than Their Share...Again
- Next by Date: Re: Females 6x more likely to cause arguments
- Previous by thread: Girl battered in two-hour attack
- Next by thread: Feminism for sovinists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
