|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bloodlines of the Apostles
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
OK, so whether or not Jesus had kids, presumably, most of the apostles would have done, in which case are there any known descendants of the 12? And does it matter?
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Taking genealogy back two thousand years is IMHO impossible.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
I must believe in the Apostolic Succession, there being no other way to account for the direct descent of +Spong from Judas Iscariot.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Taking genealogy back two thousand years is IMHO impossible.
Moo
I don't believe that anybody has anything verifiable that even goes 1000 back.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Taking genealogy back two thousand years is IMHO impossible.
Moo
I don't believe that anybody has anything verifiable that even goes 1000 back.
The oldest I know of are some Italian and Russian families with Comnenian descent, which would bring us back about a thousand years. I think that the Queen has a documented connexion to some of the pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxons, but offhand I can't say if that goes beyond the tenth century.
There are Cypriot families which claim a connexion to Saint Barnabas, but I think that the word "verifiable" would cause them problems.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
The British royal family have a pretty reliable claim to be descended from the ancient kings of Wessex, about 1200 years ago. Since lots of people are verifiably descended from assorted royals, a large number of people can claim the same thing. There are no verifiable lines back to anyone who wasn't of very high status back then. No-one can prove descent from anyone before about 700AD at the very earliest, and even that's shaky. We don't even know for sure that the high-status people back then (eg Merovech of the Franks) really existed as they are depicted in later histories.
We're all probably descended from all of the Apostles who left grandchildren, and none of can prove it.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
Can anyone tell me the tradition of where all 12 apostles ended up
I know that tradition has Thomas in India, and Peter in Rome, .... but what about the rest ?!?!
Andrew,
Matthew,
... etc
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
John on Patmos.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
Can anyone tell me the tradition of where all 12 apostles ended up
I know that tradition has Thomas in India, and Peter in Rome, .... but what about the rest ?!?!
Andrew,
Matthew,
... etc
This might help.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
I have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. If I go back 10 generations, I should find 2 to the power 10 - which is 1024 - ancestors. Going back 20 generations will give me over a million, and 30 generations, over a billion. To get to the time of the apostles means going back around 60 generations.
OK, at some point, people will start to crop up several times in my family tree (as people with common ancestors marry each other), but even so, my ancestors during the first century must have included a significant proportion of the world's population. In other words, it seems highly likely that I am descended from one, or possibly several, of the apostles.
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Not so sure about the logic there, Dave. That would seem to prove you have an ancestor from each continent, and given the odds, at least 2 from China. But given how little poeple actually moved around prior to about the 15th century (excepting mass migrations), probably if your ancestors from say 1701 were in a small village in England or France, none of their ancestors came from terribly far away from that area. ANd those that did came from fairly well known migrations, which are unlikely to lead (as one progresses back in time) anywhere near an apostle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Actually, mobility in ancient and medieval times is a bit underestimated. It's very likely that anyone in England in 1701 had Scandinavian and French ancestors in addition to British and Anglo-Saxon ones, and when you take into account the countries of origin of the Roman legions stationed in Britain from 55-410 (and in Gaul, contributing to the French strain), almost anything becomes possible. This was discussed on some thread several months ago, with someone (I think maybe ken) laying out the reasoning quite compellingly.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
Leaving to one side for the moment whether proof that a particular person is descended from one of the apostles, is there any suggestion, evidence, tradition or whatever of any of the apostles having a family that continued their line? Accounts of the lives of the apostles never seem to mention family, but wouldn’t it be surprising if the apostles were all single?
On a slightly separate note (but perhaps appropriate for this board), Queen Elizabeth is supposed (by some at least) to be descended from King David. Which presumably makes her related to Jesus. Now there’s a nice theory. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Accounts of the lives of the apostles never seem to mention family, but wouldn’t it be surprising if the apostles were all single?
It would be extraordinarily surprising, owing to the fact that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1.30-31)
Also, Paul complained: "Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor 9.5)
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Didn't Matthew trace the blood-line of Jesus at the start of his gospel - right through to Joseph, his, er, (adopted) father? Did nobody ever ask Matthew how he squared that with the vitgin birth?
Obviously not.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
Didn't Matthew trace the blood-line of Jesus at the start of his gospel - right through to Joseph, his, er, (adopted) father? Did nobody ever ask Matthew how he squared that with the vitgin birth?
Obviously not.
Have you read the Gospel of Matthew lately? Matthew rather specifically said, "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." He did not say that Joseph was the father of Jesus.
Yet even if he had, it wouldn't mean that he thought that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. In Israel, when a man raised up children for his dead brother, the children were the children of the dead brother, not of the biological parent.
Even today, when a child is adopted, their birth records are altered to show the adopted parent as the child's parent, and the original records are sealed or destroyed. If an older child is adopted, it can create some real anomalies in the paperwork -- it may appear that a child was born to a couple before that couple even met!
I'm sure there are all kinds of other situations where the reality of family and the details of biological kinship are at odds.
Eusebius deals with this question to some extent -- click on Chapter VII.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Here's a thought experiment.
Let's take a random Chinese peasant living around the time of Confucius (600BC). In 100 years, this person might be the ancestor of some 81 people (assuming a very conservative three offspring per person and no intermarriage, and 20-year generations). Of those 81, 80 stay at home and grow rice.
The one remaining one, though, becomes a mercenary in one of the scores of armies which criss-crossed China at the time. He sires a son on one of the camp followers, and abandons the child and mother at some godforsaken spot in Xinjiang. The son, having no particular reason to stay there 20 years later, joins a southbound caravan and finally settles in Qandahar. Some generations later, most of Qandahar is descended from this one lone Chinaman.
One (again, just one of scores of hundreds) of those descendants is kidnapped by Alexander the Great's army as it pours down from Persia into India, and ultimately taken as a slave to Babylon. Her owner forces himself on her, and a daughter is born. She grows up a slave herself, and is sold to a man from Petra. He 'marries' her, and (it's now not yet 200BC) before long many people in Petra are descended from her.
Just of those hundreds, one is persuaded by a business associate to move to Anitoch, in Asia Minor, around 70AD. His son, born free under the Roman Empire, becomes a soldier. According to the custom of the Roman Army, he's posted far from his homeland, and finds himself guarding a draughty bit of stonework marking the narrow line between the might of Rome and some very scary people painted blue. He lives in the vicus and marries a local girl, and when his 20-year posting ends, he and she return home, but their daughter stays in Britain.
1900 years later, one of that girl's hundreds of millions of descendants is an anthropologist who confidently announces that all the evidence shows that people in the UK are mainly descended from the people who were living in the same area 1200 or more years ago...
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I found a website that might be interesting. I don't know how much I can quote for copyright reasons, so I'll keep it at a single line:
quote:
From this article: After 1200 AD, every single human is either ancestor of no one alive today, or ancestor of some people alive today.
So yes, St. Peter is my forefather! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
And I managed to quote the wrong line ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) It should be this one:
quote:
Before 700 AD, every single human is either ancestor of no one alive today, or ancestor of everyone alive today.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I was under the impression, and I could be wrong, that the population which can trace its bloodline back the furtherst in the world today is the icelandic one and, even then, they can only get back to either the 9th or 10th centuries - their lines having been sustained by a living on an island which has been a little bit 'out of the way' and doesn't have that much appeal for immigration.
I agree with the points made about mobility in the medieval periods etc. Even ultra-orthodox Jews who claim direct a direct unaltered link by blood with the past having originally come from Slavic Countries can usually be traced to places such as the Khazar Kingdom in the Crimea, which converted to Judaism after being stuck between both Muslim and Byzantine Armies.
On the subject of the apostles, is there evidence that they were ever married ?
[ 18. April 2006, 22:12: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And I managed to quote the wrong line It should be this one:
quote:
Before 700 AD, every single human is either ancestor of no one alive today, or ancestor of everyone alive today.
I very much dobut I'm descended from anyone who was living in Australia in 700AD, for the good reason that I've a fair idea where all my ancestors were when Australia became known to the British. I'd have to stretch a point a lot further than I did in my imagined story above to try and produce a descent of someone in (say) 1850s Britain from someone in 700s Australia.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I was under the impression, and I could be wrong, that the population which can trace its bloodline back the furtherst in the world today is the icelandic one and, even then, they can only get back to either the 9th or 10th centuries - their lines having been sustained by a living on an island which has been a little bit 'out of the way' and doesn't have that much appeal for immigration.
Two points.
Firstly, although the ancestry of many Icelanders is more or less traceable as you describe, it's often over-stated for various reasons.
Secondly, as noted above, there are similarly ancient lines of descent for nobility and royalty on the European mainland. (Sometimes back to the same people as the Icelanders - those viking chiefs got about.)
quote:
On the subject of the apostles, is there evidence that they were ever married ?
Matthew 8:14-15: And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Doesn't the Japanese royal family claim a line of descent that goes back several hundred yrs BC? Is this a trustworthy claim?
I believe the late Shah of Iran claimed direct descent from Darius or Xerxes or perhaps Alexander the Great. That's certainly more impressive than being descended from a petty generalissimo installed in office by the British Foreign Office in the 1920's.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I found a website that might be interesting. I don't know how much I can quote for copyright reasons, so I'll keep it at a single line:
quote:
From this article: After 1200 AD, every single human is either ancestor of no one alive today, or ancestor of some people alive today.
Yep, that's the reasearch I was going on about in the other thread a few months back.
I think the website you have there (or maybe the paper it quotes) is slighly wrong - the chances are that any two people alive today have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) in the last 120 years or so - that's not *quite* the same as saying that everyone 1200 years ago who has left any living descendents is the ancestor of everybody now living. Though you don't have to go back much further to get that.
What confuses people is our tendency to think about "bloodlines". In fact, once you get back more than a few generations ancestry is vastly more complext than that & has to be thought about statistically.
1200 years is anything from 30 to 50 human generations. So each of us has anything from a billion to a million billion separate lines of descent going back that far - vastly exceeding the world's population at the time. Much of that descent will go back to the same few people, probably living in just a few small districts.
So it is likely that most of us are mostly - perhaps overwhelmingly - descended from people who lived wherever our ancestors lived a couple of centuries ago. But it is at the same time true that we are all a little bit descended from people who lived all over the place.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I found a website that might be interesting. I don't know how much I can quote for copyright reasons, so I'll keep it at a single line:
quote:
From this article: After 1200 AD, every single human is either ancestor of no one alive today, or ancestor of some people alive today.
So yes, St. Peter is my forefather!
Or St. Peter ain't nobody's daddy anymore. For folks prior to 700ad (as your next quote expressed) an individual (such as St. Peter) is either the ancestor of everyone alive today or is not the ancestor of anyone alive today.
The quote about 1200ad seems vaccuously true?
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Dear Teufelchen,
Thanks for that - could I ask by way of a tangent (and something for me to do seperate from this thread) where the problems for icelandic lineages come from. Some books or weblinks for example ?
Edward
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Josephine. Thank you for the Eusebius tangent, which I look forward to studying more fully later. His concern seems to have been an apparent discrepancy between Matthew's genealogy and someone else's. That was not my point.
The purpose of Matthew's genealogy seems to be to establish (a) the Messiah's Jewish roots and (b) his descendancy from King David, according to the prophets.
Unfortunately (b) does not hold if Jesus is not the son of Joseph. It might make sense if Joseph were adopting Jesus and the line came through Mary, or if Jesus were the son of one of Joseph's brothers. As it stands, it's nonsense if Jesus is God's son and not Joseph's.
Of course Jesus, being both fully human and fully God could be the son of both Joseph and God. But the fully human bit (of the paradox, I mean, not him) rules out a virginal conception.
One dosn't have to have a modern world-view and knowledge of DNA to make this assertion. Even according to the understanding of conception in Jesus' day, the seed which grew in Mary's womb was either put there miraculously by God or naturally by Joseph.
I think it's reasonable to speculate from this that the tradition of the virgin birth was a later addition to the story, but the original genealogy was too important to drop. The resulting inconsistency has not worried Christians for 2000 years and I'm sure Eusebius would have found a way round it. I'm almost sorry I brought it up, and really only did so because there may be others who were frightened to. Everyone knows I'm weird - what have I got to lose?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose - just back on line - thanks for link, am off to read!!!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
The purpose of Matthew's genealogy seems to be to establish (a) the Messiah's Jewish roots and (b) his descendancy from King David, according to the prophets.
Unfortunately (b) does not hold if Jesus is not the son of Joseph. It might make sense if Joseph were adopting Jesus and the line came through Mary, or if Jesus were the son of one of Joseph's brothers. As it stands, it's nonsense if Jesus is God's son and not Joseph's.
It's only nonsense if Jesus had to be the biological descendant of King David. Matthew seems to be aware that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, since, as I said in my earlier post, Matthew rather specifically said, "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." He did not say that Joseph begat Jesus.
And Matthew would certainly have known, if he were trying to establish the Messiah's descendancy from King David according to the prophets, whether biological descendancy through the male line was an absolute necessity. There is nothing that I can see in Scripture to dictate such a necessity,and plenty to suggest that such would not have been considered necessary. I think, therefore, that you are reading something back into it that simply wasn't there.
quote:
But the fully human bit (of the paradox, I mean, not him) rules out a virginal conception. One dosn't have to have a modern world-view and knowledge of DNA to make this assertion. Even according to the understanding of conception in Jesus' day, the seed which grew in Mary's womb was either put there miraculously by God or naturally by Joseph.
Unfortunately for your argument, while people in Jesus' day would likely have believed that the seed that grew in a woman's womb was planted there by a man, the Church at its earliest opportunity rejected the idea that there was any sort of "divine seed" involved in the conception of Jesus. Jesus's flesh came from Mary, period.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
So Jesus was cloned?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Of course. Dammit. Can't sleep when I think I've been offensive. Please disregard my last couple of posts. Am going back up my own burro(w) with a solpadeine. Goodnight and God bless.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Dear Teufelchen,
Thanks for that - could I ask by way of a tangent (and something for me to do seperate from this thread) where the problems for icelandic lineages come from. Some books or weblinks for example ?
Edward
I'll find what I can as soon as possible. For a general overview of Icelandic history, I recommend Magnus Magnusson's 'Iceland Saga'. I can't remember if it has anything specific on the genealogy aspect, though.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pendragon
Ship's swordbearer
# 8759
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
Josephine. Thank you for the Eusebius tangent, which I look forward to studying more fully later. His concern seems to have been an apparent discrepancy between Matthew's genealogy and someone else's. That was not my point.
The purpose of Matthew's genealogy seems to be to establish (a) the Messiah's Jewish roots and (b) his descendancy from King David, according to the prophets.
Unfortunately (b) does not hold if Jesus is not the son of Joseph. It might make sense if Joseph were adopting Jesus and the line came through Mary, or if Jesus were the son of one of Joseph's brothers. As it stands, it's nonsense if Jesus is God's son and not Joseph's....
There is one important reason why Matthew would want to explain Joseph's line of descent from David-this is how, courtesy of the Roman desire to want to know who they were ruling, the family ended up in Bethlehem, fulfiling the quoted Micah 5:2 verse 'But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are too small to be among the army groups from Judah, from you will come one who will rule Israel for me, he comes from very old times, from days long ago' or as Matthew puts it in 2:6 'But you Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are important among the tribes of Judah. A ruler will come from you who will be like a shepherd for my people Israel.'
--------------------
Not a particuarly GLE
Everything will be OK in the end; if it's not OK it's not the end.
(seen on a fridgemagnet)
Posts: 392 | From: Coventry | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
