C A Redactional Q

The other matter on which it is necessary to take issue with Kloppenborg is his argument that Q can be stratified into an earliest sapiential layer and a secondary prophetic redactional layer (Q2), 9 more or less equivalent to Koes-ter's apocalyptic redactional layer.60 Certainly the case for seeing Q as structured

57. Cf. Lindemann, 'Logienquelle Q' 17-18. E. P. Meadors, Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) notes the improbability of both Matthew and Luke combining sources which were christologically incompatible (15); his central thesis is that the two sources, Mark and Q, are 'utterly compatible with one (particularly 9, and conclusion

58. Kloppenborg sees Q1 as made up of six clusters of sayings: (1) 6.20b-23b, 27-35, 36-45, 46-49; (2) 9.57-60 (61-62); 10.2-11, 16 (23-24?); (3) 11.2-4, 9-13; (4) 12.2-7, 11-12; (5) 12.22b-31, 33-34 (13.18-19, 20-21?); (6) 13.24; 14.26-27; 17.33; 14.34-35 {Excavating Q 146).

59.Q4.1-13; 11.42c; 16.17 are attributed to the finalredaction (Q3) (ExcavatingQ 15253).

60. Koester notes that Kloppenborg assigns to the secondary stage not only sayings about the judgment of this generation and about the coming of the Son of Man but also the entire sections in which these sayings are embedded (Q 3.7-9, 16-17; 4.1-13; 12.39-59; 17.23-37; and the Q materials in Luke 7.1-35 and Koester argues for more explicit eschato-

round the motif of coming judgment and on the lines of Deuteronomistic theology is impressive.61 As is also the evidence marshalled of interpolations into earlier material.62 I do not particularly wish to dissent from the working hypothesis that Q was a carefully structured document. What remains unclear to me, however, is what we might call the status of the material.

One principal focus of discussion thus far has been the question of genre. Kloppenborg initially left himself somewhat vulnerable on this front in talking of sayings appropriate to different genres, and seeming to assume, for example, that a wisdom genre may not 'permit' apocalyptic forms.63 Such an argument would fall into the same trap as that of the early form critics who postulated the concept of 'pure' forms, and consequently found it necessary to classify various of the actual Synoptic pericopes as 'mixed' forms.64 But Kloppenborg is well aware of examples of 'mixed genres' in the literature of the period,65 and that the second stage compiler, on his own hypothesis, evidently had no qualms in combining the logical orientation of the earliest composition of Q' (The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus', in W. L. Petersen, et al., eds., Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-canonical, T. Baarda FS [NovTSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 1997] 137-54 [here 145]); 'the image of Jesus that is accessible through the most original version of Q is that of an eschatological prophet' (153).

61. See Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q 118-24; he now sees the story of Lot as a further structural element

62. Q 6.23c; 10.12, 13-15; 12.8-10 (Excavating Q 147-50).

63. I echo Kloppenborg's language (Formation 31).

64. See particularly Allison, Jesus Tradition 4-7, 41-42; A. Kirk, The Composition ofthe Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 64-86: 'the question of the degree of coherence and cohesion actually present in a given text must not be begged' (67); 'mixing genres in literature often seems the rule rather than the exception' (270); 'mixing of genres does not necessitate a redaction-historyjudgment if the genres in question are integrated with respect to each other and to the total textual Gestalt' (400). It is somewhat surprising that Kloppenborg has not interacted more fully with Kirk (his pupil) in his Excavating Q. Cf. also Horsley in Horsley and Draper, Whoever 69-75: 'if even "those sections of Q that supposedly do reflect apocalyptic idiom" are restrained and selective and the nonapocalyptic "sapiential" sections of Q are also pervaded by an "eschatological tenor", it would seem that precious few apocalyptic forms and motifs remain as the differentiating features' (72, citing Kloppenborg); 'If Wisdom appears in "apocalyptic" or prophetic sayings and "sapiential" sayings use apocalyptic language against the sages, then the criteria of categorization require critical attention' (74).

64. Kloppenborg, Formation 96-101.

65. E.g., CD and 1QS from the DSS, or T. 12 Pair, from Jewish pseudepigrapha and Revelation from the NT; see further D. J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996). Kloppenborg, noting that Proverbs contains some prophetic motifs and that Isaiah has absorbed sapiential elements, is initially critical of Koester for assuming that apocalyptic Son of Man and future-oriented eschatology sayings run counter to the tendencies of the 'wisdom gospel' genre and 'for that reason are judged to be secondary' (Formation 37-39; referring to Koester, 'GNOMAI DIAPHOROI').

different material (genres) of Q1 and Q2.66 So critics at this point should not themselves make the mistake of which they accuse Kloppenborg, that is, of assuming that the designation of a 'sayings' genre as a 'sapiential' sayings genre would necessarily be restricted to exclusively 'wisdom' sayings.67 The deficiency of such categorisation is rather, as Christopher Tuckett has repeatedly observed, that the range of material included by Kloppenborg in this genre gives such a breadth of definition to 'wisdom' as to diminish its usefulness as a distinguishing category.68 The likening of Q to a collection of Cynic chreiae,69 a suggestion taken up and pushed further by others,70 has confused the issue still further.71 And to speak of a gnosticizing tendency in the sapiential genre72 is to confuse later development with original motivation,73 and to propagate a concept

66. Cf. C. M. Tuckett, 'On the Stratification of Q: A Response', Semeia 55 (1992) 21322 (here 215-16). See Kloppenborg's further clarification in Excavating Q 380-82, 385-88, 394 n.60.

67. For Kloppenborg's robust response to Horsley in particular, see Excavating Q 150-51n. 71.

68. Tuckett, Q particularly 345-48, 353-54; similarly Horsley in Horsley and Draper, Whoever 77-78 and further 75-82. Schröter also points out that the vagueness of 'Logoi/Say-ings' hardly makes it a suitable criterion to distinguish a specific genre (Erinnerung 95-96).

69. Kloppenborg, Formation 306-16, 322-25; but he has repeatedly pointed out that he is thinking in terms of form not of content.

70. Especially F. G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992) ch. 5; also 'The Jewish Cynic Jesus' in Labahn and Schmidt, eds., Jesus, Mark and Q 184-214; Mack, Lost Gospel 45-46, 114-23; also The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic and Legacy (New York: Continuum, 2001) ch. 2; Vaage, Galilean Upstarts; also 'Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity', in Piper, ed., The Gospel behind the Gospels 199-229; also 'Jewish Scripture, Q and the Historical Jesus: A Cynic Way with the Word', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q479-95. See also Theissen, First Followers 14-15; Crossan, HistoricalJesus, e.g., 338.

71. For Tuckett's critique see 'A Cynic Q7,Biblica 70 (1989) 349-76; also Q 368-91. See also the critiques of H. D. Betz, 'Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis', JR 74 (1994) 453-75; J. M. Robinson, 'The History-of-Religions Taxonomy of Q: The Cynic Hypothesis', in H. Preissler and H. Seiwert, eds., Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte, K. Rudolph FS (Marburg: Elwert, 1994) 247-65; P. R. Eddy, 'Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis', JBL\ 15 (1996) 449-69. Robinson criticizes Vaage not so much for finding Cynic parallels to selected texts in the formative stratum of Q as for the texts' 'cynical interpretation that forms a Procrustean bed into which the Q movement is forced' ('Galilean Upstarts: A Sot's Cynical Disciples?', in Petersen, et al., eds., Sayings ofJesus 22349 [here 249]). In his most recent contribution, Kloppenborg Verbin criticizes the critics of the Cynic Q for their theological subtexts, and prefers to speak of 'a cynic-like Q' (Excavating Q 420-42). See also chapter 9 nn. 203-204 below.

72. As does Robinson, 'LOGOI SOPHON'; Tuckett's critique in n. 71 above includes Robinson (Q 337-43).

73. Cf. D. Lührmann's critique of Robinson on this point (Die Redaktion der Logienquelle [WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969] 91).

of genre as having an inherent character analogous to the genetic determinism advocated by some contemporary biologists. All in all, the attempt to classify and demarcate genre types has not proved very helpful in the discussion of Q.

More to the point is the question of redaction itself. Here we need to remind ourselves of the methodological problems in such an analysis.74 If we take the parallel of Mark, it has proved difficult enough to determine redaction in Mark's case. There are, after all, no firm rules which enable modern commentators to distinguish clearly (outside the more obviously editorial linking passages) what Mark has retained or added: for example, regularity of word and motif in Mark tells us nothing as to whether the word or motif occurred regularly, occasionally or not at all in Mark's sources.75 And if identification of redaction is difficult in a case where the text of the document (Mark) is firm, how much more difficult in the case of Q whose text is always a matter of argument and hypothe-sis.76 How in particular is one to distinguish redaction from (initial) composition?77 If a redactor was not troubled by the presence of aporiae and tensions in

74. Kloppenborg offers his 'methodological considerations' in Formation 96-101; also ExcavatingQ 114-18.

75. Cf. particularly P. Dschulnigg, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des MarkusEvangeliums (SBB 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986). Despite, e.g., R. H. Stein, 'The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction History', NovT13 (1971) 18198; E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (SNTSMS 33; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1978). A good example is the issue of a pre-Markan Passion narrative (see below, §17.1).

76. The result has been, apart from those following Kloppenborg, that more or less every redactional study of Q comes up with its own compositional history; cf., e.g., S. Schulz, Q: Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer, 1972); M. Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zurGattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2.29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988); Allison, Jesus Tradition 8-37. It is true, however, that there is a substantial Kloppenborg consensus regarding the redactional character of the theme of judgment against 'this generation'. But see below, chapter 12. n. 397.

77. Note particularly Tuckett's criticisms at this point (Q 52-82): e.g., 'Lührmann's "Redaktion" is not so very different from the "Sammlung" from which he would distinguish it' (56); 'Jacobsons "compositional" stage is very similar to Lührmann's final redactional stage' (63). Contrast also, Jacobson's conclusion that 'an older Son of Man layer', a 'block of apocalyptic paraenesis, buttressed ... by the imminent expectation of the Son of Man' underlies the 'later layer of Deuteronomistic-Wisdom material' ('Unity' 114-15; similarly Liihrmann, Redaktion 93-100), with Koester's argument that an earlier wisdom/prophetic layer has been modified by the inclusion of Son of Man sayings ('GNOMAI DIAPHOROI' 138; also Ancient Christian Gospels 133-62). Bultmann, it should be recalled, concluded that announcements regarding the coming Kingdom of God went back to Jesus, whereas many of the wisdom sayings were plundered from Jewish wisdom ('New Approach' 57-58; 'Study' 55-57). Kloppenborg's earlier article, 'Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic Sayings Source', CBQ 46 (1984) 3462, provides several reminders of the breadth of disagreement and of the many imponderables in the quest for Q redaction. J. M. Robinson, 'The Q Trajectory: Between John and Matthew his final text, would an initial compositor of Q have felt any different?78 How can one both argue for the coherence and unity of Q (as proof of its existence), and at the same time argue that internal tensions indicate disunity, without the one argument throwing the other into question?79 Textual tensions are no clear proof of redactional layers (what author ever succeeded in removing all tensions from his/ her final product, or attempted to do so?).80 Clinical technique here is in danger of running ahead of common sense. That said, I do not deny the plausibility of detecting at least some redaction in the composition of Q (above n. 62).

My questions begin to multiply however when we turn our focus on to Kloppenborg does not explicitly address the issue of whether Q1 was also a document, certainly not in the way he addresses the issue of whether Q itself was a document.81 All he actually demonstrates is the plausibility of detecting clusters of sayings which have been taken over (and redacted) at the stage of composing Q (or Q2). He does not actually demonstrate that ever functioned as a single document or stratum in his excavations into Q. And on closer examination it is hard to detect a unifying theme or redactional motif which links them together (as, arguably, is the case with the motif of coming judgment in Q itself). What we seem to have, rather, is six(?) clusters of Jesus' teaching: (1) the somewhat disparate material gathered into 'the Sermon on the Plain' (Q 6.20-23, 27-49); (2) teaching on discipleship and mission (9.57-62; 10.2-11, 16); (3) teaching on prayer 9-13); (4) encouragement to fearless confession (12.2-7, via Jesus', in B. A. Pearson, ed., The Future ofEarly Christianity, H. Koester FS (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 173-94 provides a lucid account of the two main competing perspectives in attempts to reconstruct Q's history ('trajectory').

78. In Koester's view the apocalyptic material 'conflicts' with the emphasis of the wisdom and prophetic material {Ancient Christian Gospels 135). Kloppenborg speaks of 'aporiae created by redactional activity' or of a group of sayings 'modified by the insertion of a secondary expansion or commentary . . .' (Formation 97, 99); but that simply begs the question, as Kloppenborg seems to realise (Formation 99).

79. Jacobson, 'Unity', is particularly vulnerable at this point (cf. Tuckett, Q 63-64). Here again Streeter's words of caution have been too much ignored (Four Gospels 235-38).

80. The pendulum may have begun to swing against Kloppenborg in recent treatments of Q which argue for a single compositional stage: Schröter, Erinnerung particularly 216-17, 292-93, 368-69, 449-50, 468-72; Kirk, Composition ofthe Sayings Source: 'No warrants exist for supposing that a single one [of Q's twelve speeches] formed gradually or incrementally or is a sedimentized witness to some multi-layered archaeology of early Christianity' (269); Horsley in Horsley and Draper, Whoever23-24, 61-62, 83-93, 148; P. Hoffmann, 'Mutmassungenüber Q: zum Problem der literarischen Genese von Q', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q 255-88 (conclusion 286); D. Lührmann is also dubious about Kloppenborg's suggested composition history of Q ('Die Logienquelle und die in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q 191-206 [here 204]).

81. He does, however, assume it (Excavating Q 159, 197, 200, 208-209); see also 15459 on the genre of

(5) the right priorities (12.22-31, 33-34); (6) more teaching on discipleship (13.24; 14.26-27; 17.33; 14.34-35). There is no reason, however, why this material should be taken as a single document.82 It looks in fact more like the sort of teaching material which was no doubt rehearsed in the Q communities in their regular gatherings, some individual items already grouped (different clusters) for convenience and as good pedagogical practice.83 If we follow this line of reasoning, then the rationale for two distinct compositional layers is undermined, and the related hypothesis that a single document represented the sole concerns and interests of the Q people (cf. §7.4b) makes even less sense.84 The evidence is fully satisfied by the alternative hypothesis of a single compositional act, when the Q author/editor pulled together these different clusters, adapted them (the redactional interpolations), and knitted them into the larger single collection Q (or Q2).85

82. Similarly Hoffmann's conclusion ('Mutmassungen über Q' 266). The considerations adduced by Kloppenborg (Excavating Q 144-46, referring back to Formation ch. 5) hardly demonstrate 'in all likelihood ... a discrete redactional stratum': (1) A common structure: but to describe the first item in each cluster as a 'programmatic saying' overstates the case; since it is all teaching material with the character of personal address ('you'), it naturally evinces a 'rhetoric of persuasion', but that hardly marks it out as distinctive; and the designation of the last item in each cluster as one which 'underscores the importance of the instructions' applies even on Kloppenborg's reckoning to only four of the six clusters. (2) To describe the content as 'an interlocking set of concerns which have to do with the legitimation of a somewhat adventuresome social practice' implies a higher degree of intention and coherence bonding the clusters than is actually evident.

83. This hypothesis makes as good if not better sense of the case for 'complexes of logia' or 'collections of aphoristic sayings' behind Q, as suggested by D. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (Forschung zur Bibel 17; Würzburg: Echter, 1977) 191-92, and argued particularly by R. A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching ofJesus (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989); but Zeller gives a negative answer to the question 'Eine weisheitliche Grundschrift in der Logienquelle?', in F. Van Segbroeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 389-401. The recognition of a tendency to cluster sayings of Jesus has been a feature of Q research — J. M. Robinson, 'Early Collections of Jesus' Sayings', in J. Delobel, ed., Logia: Les Paroles de Jesus — The Sayings ofJesus (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters, 1982) 389-94; Crossan, Fragments; P. H. Sellew, Dominical Discourses: Oral Clusters in the Jesus Sayings Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989); R. A. Horsley, 'Q and Jesus: Assumptions, Approaches and Analyses', in J. S. Kloppenborg and L. E. Vaage, eds., Early Christianity, Q and Jesus, Semeia 55 (1992) 175-209.

84. The argument, e.g., that the absence of such concerns as purity distinctions and To-rah indicates the limitation of the Q people's range of interest, or that they saw Jesus more as a sage than a prophet (Excavating Q 199, 397-98), begins to make sense only if Q1 represented the complete range of concerns of the Q people.

85. See further Tuckett, Q 71-74; F. Downing, 'Word-processing in the Ancient World: The Social Production and Performance of Q', JSNT 64 (1996) 29-48, reprinted in

Again these matters would not be too serious except that such analysis presupposes, once again, that the different layers represent different understandings of Jesus, 'asymmetrical kerygmas',86 different circles of discipleship.87 Tensions within Q become tensions between redactional levels, between different Sitze-im-Leben, added to the tensions between Q and the circles which focused on the cross and resurrection.88 All this is then taken as providing proof that the earliest responses to Jesus were far more diverse than had previously been recognized, and that the historical Jesus was first remembered as a teacher of wisdom. But, as Kloppenborg himself has pointed out, 'tradition-history is not convertible with literary history': tradition brought in at a redactional stage might be as old as or older than the tradition redacted.89

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the leap from Matthew's and Luke's common material ('q') to 'Q', to a 'Q community' with markedly different stages in its development, and thence to a wisdom-teaching/non-apocalyptic Jesus is too much lacking in visible means of support. The various attempts to build hypothesis upon presupposition upon hypothesis can scarcely inspire confidence in the outcome. In what follows, therefore, I will use the Q hypothesis as a working hypothesis, but not assume a stratified Q (Q1, Q2, Q3). It will also be important to recall Streeter's qualification that 'a substantial portion of the 200 verses in question were probably derived from some other (oral) source than Q'.90 The issue will be investigated further below (§8.5).

Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century (JSNTS 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 75-94 (here 85-94). Horsley in Horsley and Draper, Whoever 62-67, sums up his genre critique: 'The common features that supposedly characterize the sayings clusters assigned to the different strata either fail to appear in the clusters or do not appear consistently across the various clusters. The hypothesized layers cannot in fact be differentiated according to the stated criteria of these features' (67).

86. Kloppenborg, Formation 21-22; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 160: Q s theology and soteriology are fundamentally different' from the theology represented by the Pauline kerygma.

87. So particularly Schulz, who thinks it possible to distinguish a Palestinian Jewish Christian group on the Syrian border from a later Hellenistic Jewish Christian group in Syria self (Q 47, 57, 177, etc.).

88. Contrast Schröter, though his critique is still too dependent on the genre argument (Erinnerung 35); 'Since a genre can be connected with reality in multiple ways, it follows conversely that the union of more genres in one text in no way compels the conclusion that these stemmed originally out of disparate situations' (59, similarly 142).

89. Kloppenborg, Formation 244-45; also Excavating Q 151; similarly Attridge, 'Reflections' 228.

d. Date and Place

Given the imponderable uncertainties about Q itself, the questions of the date, place, and reasons for its composition may be too much a matter of per obscurius. The only real clarity is that Matthew and Luke used the document Q; so any date prior to their composition (80-95) is technically possible. Hoffmann and Kloppenborg date the final redaction of Q to about the final stages of the first Jewish revolt or just after.91 Allison notes that allusions have been detected to certain Jewish 'sign prophets' known from Josephus (Catchpole, referring particularly to Q 17.23-24),92 suggesting a date sometime after 45; or to Caligula's attempt to have a statue or bust of himself erected in the Jerusalem Temple (Theissen, referring to Q 4.5-7), suggesting a date subsequent to 39/40. And Allison himself thinks his probably appeared in the 30s, with final Q in the 40s or 50s.94

As to Q's Sitz im Leben, the strongest case has undoubtedly been made for Galilee.95 The influence of Theissen (§4.6) is evident on those who see an early collection of Q material (Q1?) as providing guidance for itinerant missionaries.96

91. P. Hoffmann, 'The Redaction of Q and the Son of Man', in Piper, ed., The Gospelbe-hind the Gospels 159-98; Kloppenborg, Excavating 80-87.

92. D. R. Catchpole, 'The Question of Q', Sewan ee Theological Review36 (1992) 3-44.

93. Theissen, The Gospels in Context 206-21.

94. Allison, Jesus Tradition 49-54; possibly in Aramaic (47-49, 62-66).

95. See particularly Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q chs. 4-5, and the impressive argument of J. L. Reed, 'The Sayings Source Q in Galilee', Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus 170-96. But challenged now by M. Frenschkowski, 'Galiläa oder Jerusalem? Die topographischen und politischen Hintergründe der Logienquelle', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q 535-59. We will have to return to the question in vol. 2; for the present volume see further below, It is curious that the indications of Q material's Galilean context should be counted as good evidence for Q communities in Galilee, of which we know next to nothing, but not as good evidence for Jesus' mission, whose Galilean context is undisputed.

96. Zeller, Mahnsprüche 192, 196-97; U. Luz, Matthäus (EKK 3 vols, so far; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1985, 1990, 1997) 1.371; L. Schottroff and W. Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986) 38, 47-49; R. Uro, Sheep among the Wolves (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987) 241; Vaage, Galilean Upstarts 38-39; Allison, Jesus Tradition 30-32; J. D. Crossan, 'Itinerants and Householders in the Earliest Jesus Movement', in W. E. Arnal and M. Desjardins, eds., Whose Historical Jesus? (SCJ 7; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1997) 7-24. S. J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1993) chs. 5-6 argues that the 'wandering radicalism' (Theissen) was preserved in the Gospel Thomas by 'a group of Thomas itinerants' who 'wandered' into Syria from Palestine (156-57); 'if in synoptic texts one must read the tradition largely through the lens of "local sympathizers", in the Gospel of Thomas one reads it through the lens of the "wandering charismatics'" (170). See the review of the discussion by W. E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) ch. 2, who subjects the hy-

But disagreement about Q's compositional/redactional history makes further clarification of Q's Sitz im Leben more difficult. What does emerge, however, is some sense of tradition history, of the process by which these traditions were transmitted. This is a process which Catchpole and Allison, for example, would suggest began with Jesus himself,97 which indeed is probably the case, though the fact that they think of that process in terms of literary editing (rather than of oral transmission) is a further example of a blind spot which still needlessly restricts contemporary perspective on the earliest stages of the history of the Jesus tradition.

Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment