There are some very striking correspondences between Jesus’ teaching, on the one hand, and the teachings of the Essenes that we gather from the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, on the other; we can cite their apocalyptic vision of things to come, their hostility to mainstream, established Judaism and the Jerusalem priesthood, their views on marriage, and so on.
So there seems to have been some connection between Jesus (and the Baptist) and the Essenes, but what do you suppose it was? Was he one of them, a fellow traveller, a rejected Essene who had broken his vows, or something else? I am curious to hear your views.
Thanks!
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
SJB said
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
There is no evidence of it. Firstly, we don’t know much about the Essenes. Secondly, the Jesus movement has several complete incongruencies with what we did know about the Essenes… like how they did not take wives, which Jesus’ movement did. The “similarities” are just parallelomania as far as I’m concerned, and from what I can tell, people haven’t found Marcus’ book on JtB convincing.
SJB said
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
Thanks. Yes, I have the Joel Marcus book; and John the Baptist is a useful topic in answering this question. And I agree these groups at least shared a body of thought, and that suggests they had some common source for that shared body of thought, one which is unfortunately lost to us today.
I find the connections much more specific than you’d get merely from “something in the air”. Consider how Jesus and the Essenes had strikingly similar views on marriage, based on exactly the same text “male and female He created them”: the Essenes opposed people who took “two wives in their lifetimes”, and Jesus described as adultery the act of divorcing a woman and marrying another (so the Gospel of Mark). It is not intuitively obvious that the Genesis story of creation has any implications for how many wives you can take, or whether you can marry again after divorce; so how did both Jesus and the Essenes come up with similar, not very obvious conclusions based on these texts? It seems there had to be much closer channels connecting them. Something similar could be said about the Baptist and the Essenes in their use of texts from Isaiah.
Chris_Hansen said
SJB said
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
There is no evidence of it. Firstly, we don’t know much about the Essenes. Secondly, the Jesus movement has several complete incongruencies with what we did know about the Essenes… like how they did not take wives, which Jesus’ movement did. The “similarities” are just parallelomania as far as I’m concerned, and from what I can tell, people haven’t found Marcus’ book on JtB convincing.
Well, we need to be a little cautious here: Josephus claims that there was a second order of Essenes that did marry, and there are plenty of regulations concerning marriage in the Damascus Document. So it is not true that they did not take wives, although that might have been true of a subsection of them.
A good book on the similarities is Jesus, the Essenes, and Christian Origins: New Light on Ancient Texts and Communities by Simon J. Joseph. As I said, I find some of the similarities surprisingly specific, relating to particular texts and particular interpretations that suggest some close connection.
Omar6741 said
Chris_Hansen said
SJB said
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
There is no evidence of it. Firstly, we don’t know much about the Essenes. Secondly, the Jesus movement has several complete incongruencies with what we did know about the Essenes… like how they did not take wives, which Jesus’ movement did. The “similarities” are just parallelomania as far as I’m concerned, and from what I can tell, people haven’t found Marcus’ book on JtB convincing.
Well, we need to be a little cautious here: Josephus claims that there was a second order of Essenes that did marry, and there are plenty of regulations concerning marriage in the Damascus Document. So it is not true that they did not take wives, although that might have been true of a subsection of them.
A good book on the similarities is Jesus, the Essenes, and Christian Origins: New Light on Ancient Texts and Communities by Simon J. Joseph. As I said, I find some of the similarities surprisingly specific, relating to particular texts and particular interpretations that suggest some close connection.
There is no proof the Damascus Document originated with the Essenes. Furthermore, the mere presence of a document about marriage among an Essene collection is no proof they practiced marriage. They DSS and other collections also had most of the Hebrew Bible. Are they now the originators of those texts and did they follow those to the letter too? No. The mere presence of a document does not tell us what they actually practiced, and did not just preserve it for the sake of posterity. Not to mention, the mere presence of a document at Qumran is not evidence of them being Essene… because there is sparse evidence that the Qumran community was Essene. I think the evidence for it is sparse, and further more the Qumran community has several noted contradictions with Josephus’ description of Essenes. The idea that the Damascus Document originated with the Essenes is based on the presupposition that the DSS were of Essene origin, which I highly doubt.
Thanks to everyone for their responses and contributions! Some thoughts…
Josephus was an outsider to the Essenes, though he had gone through some of their admissions process; we can take as (probably) historical those traits noted by him that could have been verified by an outside observer who had been through some of their admissions process. That some or many of the Essenes were married is such a trait, especially as they could be found in every town or village. So we can conclude that some of them were married, just like some of Jesus’ followers.
Todd Beall wrote a dissertation and book (Josephus’ Description of Essenes , Society for New Testament Monograph Studies) on the correlations between Josephus’ Essenes and the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, focussing on the Community Rule; he argued, persuasively, that the similarities are much greater than the differences. The best explanation for this is that we are dealing with the same group, (the differences between Josephus and the texts are also not hard to explain).
As for the Damascus Document, it belongs with the sectarian texts (like the Community Rule) due to its similar language and ideas; what is very striking about these sectarian texts is the belief in predestination, and this is an important clue that these are the same people Josephus was remembering, as Josephus also notes the Essenes’ belief in predestination: this is belief is not attested among any other Jewish group. The simplest explanation is that we are dealing with one and the same group of people behind the sectarian texts, and Josephus’ memories from growing up in Israel.
Chris_Hansen said
Omar6741 said
Chris_Hansen said
SJB said
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
There is no evidence of it. Firstly, we don’t know much about the Essenes. Secondly, the Jesus movement has several complete incongruencies with what we did know about the Essenes… like how they did not take wives, which Jesus’ movement did. The “similarities” are just parallelomania as far as I’m concerned, and from what I can tell, people haven’t found Marcus’ book on JtB convincing.
Well, we need to be a little cautious here: Josephus claims that there was a second order of Essenes that did marry, and there are plenty of regulations concerning marriage in the Damascus Document. So it is not true that they did not take wives, although that might have been true of a subsection of them.
A good book on the similarities is Jesus, the Essenes, and Christian Origins: New Light on Ancient Texts and Communities by Simon J. Joseph. As I said, I find some of the similarities surprisingly specific, relating to particular texts and particular interpretations that suggest some close connection.
There is no proof the Damascus Document originated with the Essenes. Furthermore, the mere presence of a document about marriage among an Essene collection is no proof they practiced marriage. They DSS and other collections also had most of the Hebrew Bible. Are they now the originators of those texts and did they follow those to the letter too? No. The mere presence of a document does not tell us what they actually practiced, and did not just preserve it for the sake of posterity. Not to mention, the mere presence of a document at Qumran is not evidence of them being Essene… because there is sparse evidence that the Qumran community was Essene. I think the evidence for it is sparse, and further more the Qumran community has several noted contradictions with Josephus’ description of Essenes. The idea that the Damascus Document originated with the Essenes is based on the presupposition that the DSS were of Essene origin, which I highly doubt.
I agree that not everything in the library can be presumed to be Essene; the sectarian documents noted by scholars are usually taken to reflect Essene thought and practice, because they form a body of texts with distinctive terms and ideas, especially the unusual doctrine of predestination, not known to be held by any other Jewish group at the time.
Omar6741 said
Thanks to everyone for their responses and contributions! Some thoughts…Josephus was an outsider to the Essenes, though he had gone through some of their admissions process; we can take as (probably) historical those traits noted by him that could have been verified by an outside observer who had been through some of their admissions process. That some or many of the Essenes were married is such a trait, especially as they could be found in every town or village. So we can conclude that some of them were married, just like some of Jesus’ followers.
Todd Beall wrote a dissertation and book (Josephus’ Description of Essenes , Society for New Testament Monograph Studies) on the correlations between Josephus’ Essenes and the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, focussing on the Community Rule; he argued, persuasively, that the similarities are much greater than the differences. The best explanation for this is that we are dealing with the same group, (the differences between Josephus and the texts are also not hard to explain).
As for the Damascus Document, it belongs with the sectarian texts (like the Community Rule) due to its similar language and ideas; what is very striking about these sectarian texts is the belief in predestination, and this is an important clue that these are the same people Josephus was remembering, as Josephus also notes the Essenes’ belief in predestination: this is belief is not attested among any other Jewish group. The simplest explanation is that we are dealing with one and the same group of people behind the sectarian texts, and Josephus’ memories from growing up in Israel.
“As for the Damascus Document, it belongs with the sectarian texts” based on what reasons?
Todd Beall assumes far too much, imo. This assumes the Community Rule document is not just some document collected by the DSS community, just something they found and copied. Same as the Damascus document. It is based on so many presuppositions I would not find it convincing remotely.
Omar6741 said
Chris_Hansen said
Omar6741 said
Chris_Hansen said
SJB said
Omar you want to take a look at Joel Marcus’ superb book about ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He favors a relationship between John and the Essenes. I think Prof Ehrman doubts it. I’m currently reading Jewish Hekhalot and Merkabah literature. They were Jewish sectarian mystics who came into their own after the destruction of Jerusalem. But their ideas didn’t spring into being overnight. The similarities in outlook between them and the Essenes and even Christianity leads me to think there was something in the air in 1st century Palestine. Second Temple Judaism was messy and it seems just as likely that these groups shared a body of thought as it does to suppose they directly influenced each other. But the temptation to play connect the dots is often more than we can resist.
There is no evidence of it. Firstly, we don’t know much about the Essenes. Secondly, the Jesus movement has several complete incongruencies with what we did know about the Essenes… like how they did not take wives, which Jesus’ movement did. The “similarities” are just parallelomania as far as I’m concerned, and from what I can tell, people haven’t found Marcus’ book on JtB convincing.
Well, we need to be a little cautious here: Josephus claims that there was a second order of Essenes that did marry, and there are plenty of regulations concerning marriage in the Damascus Document. So it is not true that they did not take wives, although that might have been true of a subsection of them.
A good book on the similarities is Jesus, the Essenes, and Christian Origins: New Light on Ancient Texts and Communities by Simon J. Joseph. As I said, I find some of the similarities surprisingly specific, relating to particular texts and particular interpretations that suggest some close connection.
There is no proof the Damascus Document originated with the Essenes. Furthermore, the mere presence of a document about marriage among an Essene collection is no proof they practiced marriage. They DSS and other collections also had most of the Hebrew Bible. Are they now the originators of those texts and did they follow those to the letter too? No. The mere presence of a document does not tell us what they actually practiced, and did not just preserve it for the sake of posterity. Not to mention, the mere presence of a document at Qumran is not evidence of them being Essene… because there is sparse evidence that the Qumran community was Essene. I think the evidence for it is sparse, and further more the Qumran community has several noted contradictions with Josephus’ description of Essenes. The idea that the Damascus Document originated with the Essenes is based on the presupposition that the DSS were of Essene origin, which I highly doubt.
I agree that not everything in the library can be presumed to be Essene; the sectarian documents noted by scholars are usually taken to reflect Essene thought and practice, because they form a body of texts with distinctive terms and ideas, especially the unusual doctrine of predestination, not known to be held by any other Jewish group at the time.
There is no proof this body was Essene. You can only do this by assuming the Josephan portrait is accurate and drawing parallels, which is automatically problematic from the start, because Josephus is notoriously inaccurate and functions under the use of Hellenistic historiographical techniques, as Robertus pointed out above. I would add that many of the supposedly “sectarian” texts are actually general enough they could have come from anywhere. And, again, there is no proof that these texts were sectarian texts used by the DSS community, instead of being texts that they found and copied, essentially functioning like a Dead Sea library of Alexandria.
And, it is also notable that Pliny says the Essenes near the Dead Sea had no women at all. Yet the tombs reveal women. So which is it?
Also, their legal texts are remarkably similar to Sadducean ideology. So… once again, we have a problem. I think the DSS is a library of texts copied likely by a library community, and probably by far fewer hands than we think, as recent analyses of shown that one singular hand of one scribe likely copied dozens of the scrolls, and I don’t think that these scrolls reflect any unified theology, ideology, or similar.
Also, Todd Beall wrote that in 1988, over 30 years ago. It is outdated and there have been tons of developments since then in the field.
As I recall John Romer, the archeologist, was very critical about claims that the ruined “fort” near where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found had anything to do with the Essenes. He also questioned the assumption of the idea that the ruins and the scrolls were necessarily connected. I do not recall offhand if he directly questioned the association of the scrolls with the Essenes.
Good discussion here! A number of interesting points for me to address. Before going further, though, let me offer a clarification in this post.
I think we need to distinguish between two issues (both important and interesting), which tend to get conflated: the identity of the community that occupied the Qumran site for a century half before the Roman destruction, on the one hand; and the identity of the Jews who were behind the sectarian documents found in the caves. The sectarian documents — which scholars have identified as such based on the cluster of distinctive terms and ideas that tend to re-appear among them — point towards a distinctive group responsible for them. The question then becomes: is this distinctive group the same distinctive group that Josephus called “the Essenes”? The identity of the occupants of Qumran is not the issue, but merely the identity of the people behind the sectarian documents.
Most people identify the authors of the DSS sectarian documents with the Essenes, and most people also also identify the occupants of Qumran with the Essenes. Just to clarify my own view for the discussion: I accept the former, (based on the kinds of reasons offered in Beall’s book); yet I am agnostic about the latter.
Todd Beall’s argument is based on cataloguing the similarities and differences between Josephus’ description of the Essenes, on the one hand, and points we find in the sectarian scrolls on the other. I don’t believe this argument has gone out of date, since it is unaffected by archaeological developments, and the broad consensus that Beall is defending is still there among scholars (and rightly so, in my opinion).
Not only are the similarities and probable similarities much more numerous than the differences, but the sectarian documents reveal a number of traits not known of any ancient Jews other than the Essenes; these include belief in predestination, and rules against spitting in an assembly, and a lengthy admissions process, and a policy of secrecy about their books and teachings. The best explanation of this overall pattern of similarities and differences is that the very people remembered by Josephus under the name ‘Essenes’ were the ones who authored the sectarian documents; unsurprisingly, Josephus, who never made it past the first stage of the Essene admissions process and remained an outsider to the group, seems to have misremembered certain points of detail (the exact length of the admissions process), and in some cases he may have been speculating, or embellishing his narrative. Overall, he is evidently basing himself on genuine recollections from his time in Israel.
I don’t know if this counts as ‘proof’; I do think it is the best explanation, however, and it deserves to be a kind of “default working hypothesis”.
Thanks to everyone reading, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
As a sidenote, some of these topics would work better on a subforum dedicated to the Dead Sea Scrolls, wouldn’t they? We are already getting quite far away from the historical Jesus. The identity of the authors of the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls is very important to discussing the historical Jesus but also leads to independent topics; it seems better to have a subforum for these independent topics.
Robertus said
Omar6741 said
… As for the Damascus Document, it belongs with the sectarian texts (like the Community Rule) due to its similar language and ideas; what is very striking about these sectarian texts is the belief in predestination, and this is an important clue that these are the same people Josephus was remembering, as Josephus also notes the Essenes’ belief in predestination: this is belief is not attested among any other Jewish group. The simplest explanation is that we are dealing with one and the same group of people behind the sectarian texts, and Josephus’ memories from growing up in Israel.
When I read the Dead Sea Scrolls, I see an unreflective combination of predestination and free will, which is common to a lot of religious texts. Steve Mason points out that Josephus may be merely trying to fit these Jewish groups into the larger Roman Hellenistic context of their philosophical debate (J&NT, 2nd ed, 115, cf 194):
I confess I have had a very different experience when reading the Scrolls. I haven’t found any signs of the sectarian authors being unreflective. They seem to have reflected quite intensely about their doctrines and practices.
Robertus said
Chris_Hansen said
There is no proof this body was Essene. You can only do this by assuming the Josephan portrait is accurate and drawing parallels, which is automatically problematic from the start, because Josephus is notoriously inaccurate and functions under the use of Hellenistic historiographical techniques, as Robertus pointed out above. I would add that many of the supposedly “sectarian” texts are actually general enough they could have come from anywhere.
My remarks were also directed against your own argument that “the Qumran community has several noted contradictions with Josephus’ description of Essenes.”
I think there is a fairly strong consensus that the Damascus document is indeed sectarian. It mentions the Teacher of Righteousness as an important, early reformer of their group and copies of it were found in three different caves at Qumran.
And? Being sectarian is no evidence of what kind of sectarian, and that we keep claiming it is “Essene” comes from the presumption of Josephus being accurate… which he was not. I’m with Steve Mason. Josephus’ text cannot lead us to conclude Essenes were the Qumran community or author of the DSS texts.
Omar6741 said
Good discussion here! A number of interesting points for me to address. Before going further, though, let me offer a clarification in this post.I think we need to distinguish between two issues (both important and interesting), which tend to get conflated: the identity of the community that occupied the Qumran site for a century half before the Roman destruction, on the one hand; and the identity of the Jews who were behind the sectarian documents found in the caves. The sectarian documents — which scholars have identified as such based on the cluster of distinctive terms and ideas that tend to re-appear among them — point towards a distinctive group responsible for them. The question then becomes: is this distinctive group the same distinctive group that Josephus called “the Essenes”? The identity of the occupants of Qumran is not the issue, but merely the identity of the people behind the sectarian documents.
Most people identify the authors of the DSS sectarian documents with the Essenes, and most people also also identify the occupants of Qumran with the Essenes. Just to clarify my own view for the discussion: I accept the former, (based on the kinds of reasons offered in Beall’s book); yet I am agnostic about the latter.
Todd Beall’s argument is based on cataloguing the similarities and differences between Josephus’ description of the Essenes, on the one hand, and points we find in the sectarian scrolls on the other. I don’t believe this argument has gone out of date, since it is unaffected by archaeological developments, and the broad consensus that Beall is defending is still there among scholars (and rightly so, in my opinion).
Not only are the similarities and probable similarities much more numerous than the differences, but the sectarian documents reveal a number of traits not known of any ancient Jews other than the Essenes; these include belief in predestination, and rules against spitting in an assembly, and a lengthy admissions process, and a policy of secrecy about their books and teachings. The best explanation of this overall pattern of similarities and differences is that the very people remembered by Josephus under the name ‘Essenes’ were the ones who authored the sectarian documents; unsurprisingly, Josephus, who never made it past the first stage of the Essene admissions process and remained an outsider to the group, seems to have misremembered certain points of detail (the exact length of the admissions process), and in some cases he may have been speculating, or embellishing his narrative. Overall, he is evidently basing himself on genuine recollections from his time in Israel.
I don’t know if this counts as ‘proof’; I do think it is the best explanation, however, and it deserves to be a kind of “default working hypothesis”.
Thanks to everyone reading, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Several methodological issues:
(1) cataloguing similarities and differences and then weighing things based on the number of similarities vs. differences is amateurish at best, imo. If I did this with dying-rising gods and Jesus, I would be laughed out of the academy and with good reason. While anyone can over emphasize “similarities” between things and say the differences are too few to “outweigh” them, even just a few differences can show the difference between same and different sects. For instance, one could do the same thing with different sects of Christianity. Just pile up the similarities, they all believe in a Christ who walked earth, is part of some triune godhead, etc. They may differ on… what they mean by those terms, but who cares. Just weigh similarities and eventually we can just say “they are the same” by discounting the differences.
(2) “Josephus, who never made it past the first stage of the Essene admissions process and remained an outsider to the group, seems to have misremembered certain points of detail (the exact length of the admissions process), and in some cases he may have been speculating, or embellishing his narrative”
In which case, we are relying on someone whose narrative is unreliable, based possibly on hearsay, and so we are just projecting an unreliable narrative on the texts, and interpreting the texts through that narrative. Of course they will look “similar” if you forcefit an unreliable narrative on them. Again, this is the sort of thing that mythicists do to ancient texts all the time. Not only are you also forcefitting an unreliable narrative, but also a Hellenistic one, written in Greek Hellenistic historiographical style. So, there is just a lot of projection happening to make this work.
(3) “Overall, he is evidently basing himself on genuine recollections from his time in Israel”
Based on what? Pliny the Elder, Philo, and Josephus all contradict each other on the Essenes. The archaeological remains contradict Pliny’s statements and occasionally also Josephus’. Josephus is simply not reliable and with this I am on the side of Steve Mason, who concluded that we cannot conclude that the Essenes were responsible for the documents at Qumran or the community located therein. And given Steve Mason is a far more current, updated, and leading scholar of Josephus, I’ll take him over Beall’s outdated work.
Robertus said
Chris_Hansen said
And? Being sectarian is no evidence of what kind of sectarian, and that we keep claiming it is “Essene” comes from the presumption of Josephus being accurate… which he was not. I’m with Steve Mason. Josephus’ text cannot lead us to conclude Essenes were the Qumran community or author of the DSS texts.
Thus it is more likely the Damascus document reflects something of the Qumran sect’s identity and history than merely being a document that they happened to possess in their library.
That does not follow at all. Not being Essene, or being vaguely sectarian, does not mean that it originated with the Qumran community at all.
Again, we have no way of knowing the Qumran community was not just a librarian hub, given the vast array of documents from all over that are there, in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)