Dan B. Wallace on CT: woman caught in adultery – John 7:53 – 8:11

A recent online story (here) by Christianity Today (CT) is about the woman caught in adultery. Daniel B.Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) (Wallace’s account here), was recently interviewed by CT (CT interview here) about his trip to Tirana, Albania where his team photographed the Greek New Testament manuscripts housed in the National Archive. Forty-seven manuscripts were photographed and 45 of these have never been photographed before so this is a major and recent undertaking and will affect future textual criticism. After they returned home with thousands of photographs, they discovered something interesting. Three of the manuscript completely lacked the periscope adulterae, or the story of woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). This itself is not a recent discovery but this does add more proof that it was not in the original Gospel of John. Most manuscripts have it but the earliest and best manuscripts do not.

One of Dan Wallace’s account of a manuscript is quite funny; he said:

“One of the Albanian manuscripts that lacked the story was ‘fixed’ by a later scribe who hastily stitched a sheet of paper to the following parchment page, scribbling the text of the pericope adulterae on the paper! Even though most manuscripts of the fourth gospel have the story, the earliest and best manuscripts do not. That at least four of the Albanian manuscripts lacked the story suggested that perhaps they came from a decent line of transmission.”

This leads us to many difficult questions on textual criticism and canonicity. Could Jesus have actually had this encounter with the woman caught in adultery? Could it have been transmitted orally early on but was written down later? Even if the story is not inspired and was not in the original Greek manuscripts should it be left out of the bible? Or should we continue to leave it in but include a note that it is not contained many of the earliest manuscripts? If it is not inspired and we leave it in, we can then no longer claim that our bible is 100% totally inspired. So what’s the solution? If we include a note, as is done in our modern translations, we might be able to get around that. But this would still mean that our current bibles with 66 books are no different from bibles with the apocryphal books containing uninspired scripture.

Here is another interview of Dan B. Wallace by Andy Cheung at Midlands, UK.

Advertisements

Author: Kevin S.

A follower of Jesus, a husband and a father. Hobbies include biking, keeping fish if they don't die on me, blogging when I can, theologizing and ministry, and pondering about world affairs.

36 thoughts on “Dan B. Wallace on CT: woman caught in adultery – John 7:53 – 8:11”

  1. Kevin, notice what the TNIV did to this pericope and Mark 16:9-20. Quite interesting!

    Personally, I think we should keep the textual note on this pericope. I believe this is responsible scholarship.

    Would it have been something Jesus would have done? I believe so.

    An oral tradition? It is quite possible!

    Like

  2. I say leave it in, and keep the footnote. My concern with inspiration is more about Divine principles. Personally, I`ve always been overwhelmed by the idea of the early Church Fathers having to wade through so many texts and determine what stays and what goes. This is precisely why my main translation simply MUST contain the apocryphal books. Some I feel are inspired, such as Wisdom and Sirach, others I`m iffy about, still others I don`t feel are inspired throughout but contain eternal truths in places. If something is an eternal truth, to me it is inspired, even if it is but one line.

    Bottom line, if there is any possibility at all that it may be inspired, I want it in there, with footnotes, and I will decide if the Spirit moves me by what it says.

    Like

  3. TC, I agree with keeping the textual note. I took a look at the TNIV and I like how it handled it by italicizing the text and prefaced it with an explanatory note: “[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.]” It is a more conservative and responsible approach.

    The NIV and NLT added an explanatory note but didn’t italicize the text—still good.

    The NEB/REB’s method of relegating it to the back of the book seems a little over-confident for my taste.

    The NASB’s method of merely adding brackets without any explanatory notes is far too conservative and is borderline irresponsible. The readers deserve to know the truth about the early manuscripts.

    Like

  4. L. Wells, yes the work of the early church fathers was tremendous because their work contributed to the canon as we have it today. For me personally, the apocrypha is nice to have as a secondary text but it’s not necessary for my main translation but I’m glad it does for you. I don’t mean to put you on the spot but I’m not sure what you mean by “inspiration is more about Divine principles”?

    Like

  5. Kevin, instead of divine principles I probably should`ve stuck with eternal truths, things we know are true because they are established over and over throughout the scriptures. So I suppose what I`m saying is, I hold the position of my Anglican faith, in that we use these books, but not to establish doctrine. Any doctrine taught from these books must be upheld by the other 66. I do however happen to be especially accepting of Wisdom and Sirach, and believe in their inspiration.

    Not sure I`m being clarion clear about what I mean, but I hope this dissipated some of the clouds surrounding my vague terminology. My apologies for any confusion.

    Like

  6. I appreciate the post on this… i also find it interesting because my mother and father in law are missionaries in albania… ought to be interesting to them…

    Like

  7. Kevin, I`m trying to think of an example of what I mean by divine principles or eternal truths. I guess one would be that some take the story of Jonah literally, some figuratively, but no matter how you look at it, there are still spritual truths to be taken from the story.

    For me, whether or not he was swallowed by a whale or sea monster is not the main point of the story. I judge it to be inspired due to its message of repentance, and salvation to any and all who will repent, and that it was to teach Israel against a nationalistic attitude concerning the love and mercy of God, amongst many other messages to be gleaned from it (it is full of spiritual gems).

    By the same token there are spiritual truths to be found in the stories of Bel and the Dragon, so I can understand why someone may accept these extensions of Daniel as inspired. To me they seem more legendary in nature, but still teach divine principles or eternal truths, if you will, concerning things like idolatry. I do not really see anything in them that is contrary to other scriptural teachings, so I would say leave them in and just remember to keep them in subjection to the other 66 books.

    Hope this was helpful in clarifying my position.

    Like

  8. Kevin, I don’t know what edition of the NASB you are using, but the ones that I have bracket John 7:53–8:11, and at John 7:53 has a marginal note which says, “Later mss. add the story of the adulterious woman, numbering it as John 7:53–8:11.” I would say that is a good reference to the textual issue, without going into an extended discussion of it. I believe they gave their readers the truth about the textual concerns on this passage.

    Like

  9. L. Wells, thanks for explaining what you mean by divine principles. These days, spiritual terminology has also taken new meanings under new age philosophy and I often get confused by these terminologies. I understand what is “eternal truths” or “spiritual truths”. I can now appreciate and understand broader aspects of inspiration of scripture. For a lot of evangelicals, inspiration means literalness of biblical stories. I used to believe this but I’ve come to a wider understanding that symbolism in biblical stories can also be inspired. Certainly the book of Revelation which is full of symbolism is inspired to evangelicals; however, this is the exception. If our spoken words from the pulpit can be inspired, then inspiration can take on a wider context than our 66 books of written words.

    Like

  10. Roger, you certainly have reason to appreciate the situation in Albania. It’s a newly opened country and I think that is why they allowed religious researchers into the country.

    Robert, thanks for bringing that to my attention. My 1995 Gideon’s edition NASB didn’t have that note in it, just the brackets. I really shouldn’t have used the Gideons edition. I just checked my 1977 NASB Reference Edition and it did have it in its side reference but not in the main section of text. It shows that many people like myself will conveniently skip the footnotes when reading through it quickly.

    Like

  11. Kevin, the NASB has been accused of following the KJV tradition more often than not, but that comes I suppose with being an ASV revision.

    My wife will attest I have enough editions of most every version that if there’s a variation, I’m sure to have it somewhere!

    Like

  12. The Orthodox Church would say it is “in” because its the lectionary reading for October 8.

    How are protestants going to decide? If they are going to let Orthodox into their hypothetical deliberation, then it can only be in, because we are not changing.

    Even if this was a protestant only affair, how would you propose coming to a decision? Who will you invite to deliberate? The pastor of the church around the corner? The scholarly elite?

    Once you open the door here, why not reconsider the whole canon? Maybe the Syrians of old were right to exclude the catholic epistles. Maybe Luther was right about Revelation.

    Like

  13. In response to orthodox, I would hope whoever is invited to examine this issue, we would put an objective examination of the texts together, instead of allowing tradition, or personal bias, to dictate response. This section is difficult to determine at best. As Metzger noted in his Textual Commentary, “The evidence for the non-Johannine origin…is overwhelming.” He also adds, “At the same time, the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity.” He then summarizes, “Inasmuch as the passage is absent is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts which normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings.”

    This last statement says much. While it seems clear it may not be Johannine, that doesn’t preclude it from being historical accurate. What to do? I would either bracket it in the text and footnote it in the margin, or place the passage in the margin, which is what most translations have done.

    I feel having these discussions among those considering the various texts, seeking to decide on this basis, is best. Otherwise, anything goes.

    Like

  14. Orthodox,
    Protestants, unlike Catholics or Orthodox, will never be able to decide as a group because in my opinion, we work differently from Orthodox, that is, consensus through chaos. I don’t expect there to be any consensus between protestant groups—evangelical and mainline—anytime soon but I’m sure that is totally okay with most protestants. Perhaps decisions will be done through consensus achieved over long periods of time. The advantage today is that we have so many translations out and it is increasing all the time. However, over time, more translations will increasingly enter into general agreement on such passages as this. This is consensus through chaos.

    Robert, thanks for the research on Metzger. His academic research is well respected.

    Like

  15. “What to do? I would either bracket it in the text and footnote it in the margin, or place the passage in the margin, which is what most translations have done.”

    i.e. Your ecclesiology prevents you from reaching any conclusions, like I said.

    “we work differently from Orthodox, that is, consensus through chaos”

    The historical Orthodox consensus is quite chaotic too. This is not the problem.

    “Perhaps decisions will be done through consensus achieved over long periods of time.”

    No, you see that’s not going to happen. Why? Because there already was a consensus, and protestants are willing to upend it. If you’re willing to upend the consensus now, then you would be willing to upend it ad-infinitum.

    “However, over time, more translations will increasingly enter into general agreement on such passages as this.”

    The general agreement of translations is they don’t wish to offend any of the people in shops with $$$ in their wallet. Why you would want to offload responsibility onto corporations, I don’t know.

    Like

  16. If you’re willing to upend the consensus now, then you would be willing to upend it ad-infinitum.

    lol…because I think you’re right. Protestants and evangelicals have a history of upending it. As soon as some groups find consensus, new sub-groups will form. I actually see this as helpful because theology that becomes dry can become refreshed. Though stability in ecclesiology may seem to give support to the apostolicity and catholicity of the Orthodox church, a fluid ecclesiology can also broaden the apostolicity and catholicity of the wider church but not in the manner of the Orthodox church.

    The general agreement of translations is they don’t wish to offend any of the people in shops with $$$ in their wallet. Why you would want to offload responsibility onto corporations, I don’t know.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of offending people who have $$$. And I’m not of the persuasion that corporations are necessarily greedy. Greed can exist anywhere (even in the highest echelons of ecclesiastical authorities in Catholic and Orthodox churches). Translators want to continually improve upon each successive English translation that comes out. As more translation committees enter into the work of translation, and publishing houses fund the work, more alternatives in translations will eventually lead to better translations. Example is the TNIV, HCSB, NJB. Without these alternative translations and competition in the bible marketplace, we might still be stuck with the old KJV.

    Like

  17. “Protestants and evangelicals have a history of upending it. As soon as some groups find consensus, new sub-groups will form. I actually see this as helpful because theology that becomes dry can become refreshed.”

    If what you’re upending is the scriptures, the declared foundation of protestantism, that is a dangerous path to head down. Luther tried it, but protestants pulled back from the brink…. then.

    “I don’t think it’s a matter of offending people who have $$$.”

    You think a bible without the Periscope is going to sell lots of copies? I think not. That means nobody would print it. The offence by people missing the verse exceeds the offence of those who don’t think it should be there.

    Like

  18. I think a lot of copies without the pericope would sell today. Why? Because the issue is a non-issue to many in society anymore. The Biblical literacy of the general public isn’t what it used to be, and issues like these, while debated among academics, is not that big a deal to others.

    Many young people, who come from unchurched families, don’t have a clue about textual issues, and the ones I have talked with, don’t really care. I’m not saying that’s right, but when it comes to the buying market, church councils and textual critics don’t factor in much to everyday living.

    It’s not this isn’t an important issue, but we need to educate folks over issues like inspiration, textual criticism, and such.

    Like

  19. Orthodox, sorry for my late response…been busy. I wouldn’t see it as upending scripture but of the status quo that may be wrong. So sometimes, upending it can be a positive thing. I agree there is always a danger in changing what is traditionally seen as inspired scripture. But what if a scribe had actually inserted a piece of text into the manuscript when it wasn’t there in the original text? Do we still call what is uninspired inspired? I like you and anyone else wish for scripture to be as accurate as possible because God’s word is holy and inspired.

    Like

  20. Robert, they don’t really teach textual criticism, even in bible colleges and some seminaries. I was once very leery of it and feared that it might lead to an unholy deviation of God’s word but I’ve come to see it’s value in biblical studies. We do need to educate some of our people in church about this but it takes time and consideration of other’s views.

    Like

  21. As a Catholic the PA is really a non – issue. As Orthodox says, this is a Protestant problem. For me the Church is determinative. It was the Church that produced the Scriptures. It was the Church that decided what would, and would not be Scripture. And it was the Church that Canonized the Scriptures.

    We know that Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine all believed the PA should be counted as Scripture. And that it was found in a variety of Greek and Latin texts in their time. Some even think the story can be found in the writings of Papias and actually reflects a historical incident.

    Be that as it may, it was in the texts that were canonized at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, (late 4th and early 5th centuries). Those Councils and their decisions were confirmed by the reigning Pope and were later implicitly reconfirmed by the Seven Ecumenical Council. As a side note, the Deutero – canonical books were also included in the above Canon.

    This was the Canon that was definitively – at least for Catholics – reconfirmed at the Council of Trent.

    So for me, the PA is Scripture. If you want to footnote it, that’s fine with me.

    Though I do have one nagging question? For those who would like to get rid of the PA, why stop there?
    Why not throw out Second Peter, too? Most scholars think it dates to mid Second century and wasn’t written by Peter.

    Pax,
    John

    Like

  22. “Many young people, who come from unchurched families”

    I don’t think unchurched people are buying many bibles.

    If you mean formerly-unchurched people, they’ll soon figure out that a passage is missing in such and such a bible and not to buy that one.

    Bibles get into the top 10 charts because they have redeeming features, not because enough ignorant people failed to make an informed decision.

    “I wouldn’t see it as upending scripture but of the status quo that may be wrong. So sometimes, upending it can be a positive thing.”

    Then we’re back to the problem I originally alluded to, which is that protestants have no basis for deciding if John 7:53-8:11 is canonical.

    “But what if a scribe had actually inserted a piece of text into the manuscript when it wasn’t there in the original text? Do we still call what is uninspired inspired? I like you and anyone else wish for scripture to be as accurate as possible because God’s word is holy and inspired.”

    Well, there seems to be some kind of scholarly consensus, or at least widespread belief that Luke 22:44 is not original. But ALL bibles seem to be printing it.

    I think, Orthodox would tend to see widespread variants as orthodox and just as inspired as the original. That makes for a more defensible position. For one thing, most of history didn’t have access to many of these obscure but possibly original variants. Secondly, most people of history only had access to one local copy and didn’t have the luxury of comparing thousands of manuscripts. Thirdly, most people in history, even possibly some of the apostles themselves only had access to the Greek OT, which while differing considerably from any available Hebrew, was still considered inspired. Fourthly, since there are still a great many uncertain variants, one is forced whether one likes it or not, to consider the text inspired even with its scribal corruptions.

    “Why not throw out Second Peter, too? Most scholars think it dates to mid Second century and wasn’t written by Peter.”

    This is the inconsistency with the protestant position. If you throw out the periscope, why not revisit 2 Peter? Will you be happy in Church if the pastor reads 2 Peter and somebody in the congregation says “yes but that’s not scripture”?

    Like

  23. John, welcome to the New Epistles blog. You make a good point. It is difficult to remove parts of scripture from the canon, especially when so much work and care was put into the canon of scripture. Protestants appreciate the work done by Catholic scholars and councils. But what if the earlier texts were not yet discovered during the time of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine and the early ecumenical councils?

    Luther also thought Revelation and James were bordered on the edge of being inspired. I can see how rethinking the canon can be scary for many people, not just for Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants but also evangelicals. If the canon opens up, it’s like opening up a whole can of worms.

    Like

  24. Orthodox, in my ministry there are people from unchurched homes that do buy Bibles. They find something lacking in their life, and they are turing to various places to fill the void, including Christianity. So no, I did mean unchurched people.

    And even those who come from church backgrounds, many of the young people have no clue about issues like these, because they aren’t taught in general. Does this passage belong in the text, margin, or nowhere? Such textual issues are not issues to them.

    Regarding 2 Peter, there are references to it by Clement of Rome (AD 95), and Aristides has an expression which evidently comes from 2 Peter (AD 130). The Apocalypse of Peter, written in the middle of the second century, makes use of 2 Peter. So there are references to it early, and most of the scholarship I read generally recognizes the priority of 2 Peter. I don’t believe your argument is “apples to apples” in this instance.

    As far as how well-researched Bible buyers are, go visit a religious bookstorea and listen to the conversations of those trying to buy a translation. They’ve either got advice from a friend, or go by what the person in the bookstore tells them about each version. And not all workers at such places are textual experts. I know people who buy Bibles based on the cover it has, not the translation inside! So, assuming most people who are buying Bibles have educated themselves on issues like these, is assuming too much.

    Like

  25. Kevin wrote:

    < < John, welcome to the New Epistles blog. You make a good point. It is difficult to remove parts of scripture from the canon, especially when so much work and care was put into the canon of scripture... >>

    Hello Kevin,
    Thank you for the kind welcome.

    Here is where I would differ from the view of some Protestants. I believe that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit, not only when it produced the Scriptures, but also when it selected and canonized the Scriptures. Which is why I consider the whole issue, as a non- issue.

    < < I can see how rethinking the canon can be scary for many people, not just for Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants but also evangelicals. If the canon opens up, it’s like opening up a whole can of worms. >>

    Well, the possibility doesn’t really scare me, because I don’t think it’s going to happen. IMHO, the canon we have, is the canon the Holy Spirit wanted us to have. And if it’s going to be changed, the only one that has the authority to do it, is the Church that produced it in the first place.

    It’s certainly going to take more than a scholarly consensus, at least for me. I’ve been around long enough to know, that the scholarly consensus, can often turn out to be wrong.

    Pax,
    John

    Like

  26. Robert wrote:

    < < Regarding 2 Peter, there are references to it by Clement of Rome (AD 95), and Aristides has an expression which evidently comes from 2 Peter (AD 130). The Apocalypse of Peter, written in the middle of the second century, makes use of 2 Peter. So there are references to it early, and most of the scholarship I read generally recognizes the priority of 2 Peter. I don't believe your argument is "apples to apples" in this instance. >>

    Hello Robert,

    Be that as it may, I think it’s fair to say that most scholars do not think Peter wrote it and that it post dates his death. If they are right, then the same questions apply: Is it inspired and should be in the canon.

    Pax,
    John

    Like

  27. Robert, I believe you are correct when u say:

    “So, assuming most people who are buying Bibles have educated themselves on issues like these, is assuming too much.”

    I think one thing that greatly skews the figures in the “top ten Bibles” chart is the fact that some publishers simply flood the market with their “darling translation of the day”. The sales numbers go up due to inexpensive “hand out” editions, and people think the high output off the presses MUST mean it is a reliable translation. While we know better, the average person, as you say Robert, is uneducated in these matters.

    This whole discussion is interesting, as both sides make valid points. I`ve always wanted to accept that there is some all knowing ecclesial authority that could get it all right in one fell swoop. Thus far I haven’t fully embraced this concept, which I surmise is the reason I remain Anglican instead of converting to Roman Catholic. I DO consider myself Catholic, but Anglo – Catholic.

    I suppose my position, respective to this issue, to say it with brevity, is that I lean more toward the Eastern Orthodox in that I favor a larger Canon. Whether some books carry the weight of others or not, does not mean they are worthless or uninspired. That being said, I think most of us would agree there has to be some point of exclusion, say for example those gospels which smack of gnosticism.

    Like

  28. Anonymous, I guess this is a point that could be argued ad infinitum, but I think it probably is based on your theological position as to the evidence you examine on 2 Peter. I teach, and can produce volumes for the authenticity of 2 Peter. I don’t believe adding up the scholars and seeing who has the majority is the best way to decide such matters. I do appreciate your perspective. I believe examining the canon to be sure we have the complete Word of God is a good thing.

    I. Wells, I too believe the ranking in sales of Bible versions probably is misleading at best. If a publisher does $1 Bibles, then it stands to reason it will sell more. But what has that to do with how good the version is? Same with dollar sales too. We’ve seemed to buy into marketing more than honest evaluations, each version judged on its own weaknesses and merits.

    Like

  29. “Orthodox, in my ministry there are people from unchurched homes that do buy Bibles.”

    I don’t think these people are the ones who influence the top 10 bibles.

    “Regarding 2 Peter, there are references to it by Clement of Rome (AD 95), and Aristides has an expression which evidently comes from 2 Peter (AD 130). The Apocalypse of Peter, written in the middle of the second century, makes use of 2 Peter. “

    Even if we accept this, which is disputed, the question then becomes whether the author of 2 Peter was familiar with Aristide, Clement and the Apocalypse, or vice-versa.

    If an early reference settles the issue, then it should be settled that the Periscope is in, right?

    “As far as how well-researched Bible buyers are, go visit a religious bookstorea and listen to the conversations of those trying to buy a translation.”

    If it’s true that people would buy bibles without the pericope purely based on ignorance, I don’t know that this is a good argument.

    But the point is that I don’t think your bible will get into the top 10 without the support of the buying demographic which would notice the passage missing and be unhappy about it. And if you’re not in the top 10, those ignorant folks won’t even get to choose that version.

    Like

  30. Orthydox, we are both reasoning from our own point of views. Do those folks ignorant of the pericope have any influence on which are the top 10 Bibles? As much as anyone else does. The knowledge of the general public, including those who do shop and buy Bibles, is not on the level of the discussions going on here.

    Does it matter if there are early references to 2 Peter? I suppose only if you want it to. If you don’t believe it matters, you will discount it. Should we consider all the textual evidence in such things? I believe so, and examine the motives and biases of those who draw their conclusions, as well as our own. One of the first questions that should be asked is to ask ourselves what biases we bring to the discussion, and if that keeps us from seeing all the information objectively.

    As I’ve been preaching lately, I think the most frightening thing any of us, including myself, can do, is to be honest with ourselves. We may not like what we see. When we ask questions about the text, and examine the opinions of others, we have to ask what draws us one way or the other. Looking to find someone to agree with us can be comforting, but not always helpful. Thanks for asking some of us to think outside our box.

    Like

  31. Orthodox, even though people may buy bibles w/o the periscope based on ignorance, many will draw from the opinions and research of others. This is why we have so much negative opinions on gender-inclusive translations like NRSV and TNIV. Opinions, negative or positive will come to the light, either from the general reading public or from scholarly consensus.

    Robert, I am of the opinion that we all come with our own biases and opinions when we draw conclusions. This is inevitable. Is this harmful? Maybe. Maybe not. There are advantages and disadvantages to either. So like you say, we can only ask questions and examine opinions.

    Like

  32. Hi. Just wanted to chime in with a few belated comments.

    First, I think Robert might have misunderstood part of Metzger’s statement. Metzger was sure that the Pericope of the Adulteress was not originally part of the Gospel of John, but was willing to keep an open mind to the possibility that the PA nevertheless is a record of a historical event in the life of Christ. So far, so good. But when Metzger wrote, “Inasmuch as the passage is absent is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts which normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings,” he did not mean that the decision about whether the PA is or is not original was a difficult decision; he was referring to alternative readings *within the PA itself.*

    Also, having done some thorough research on Mk. 16:9-20, I applaud the comment-writer who declined to casually accept the current scholarly consensus. Not only are several Bible footnotes seriously misleading, but commentators at every level of scholarship — Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace, Ben Witherington III, N. T. Wright, etc. — have spread demonstrable errors in their writings about the external evidence pertaining to the subject. A text-critical axiom says, “Manuscripts must be weighed, not counted.” The same is true of commentators.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s