Commentary on Luke 2
On the very Christmas Eve of 2006, the respected Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet published an essay by PhD Magnus Zetterholm about uncertainties in the Bible’s presentation of Jesus’ birth. With the fact in mind that Jesus must have been born one or a few years before Herod's death in 4 BC, Zetterholm points out the historic problem: Quirinius did not become a governor of Judaea until 6 AD, where, according to Josephus, he was then conducting a census that did not include Galilee. Thus, Luke seems to have been mistaken.
Another problem is that, according to the Bible, Joseph and Mary went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for taxes. Luke tells us that the Romans demanded everyone to go to places from which their families originated. But that is not likely, according to Zetterholm. Instead, he argues that the idea of Jesus stemming from Bethlehem has no congruence whatsoever with the rest of the New Testament. On the contrary, it emphasizes his connection to Nazareth. Moreover, the two birth stories, Matthew and Luke, are very different from each other. In Matthew's writing, it seems that the magi did not arrive at the stable, but at a house that was Joseph’s and Mary’s permanent residence.
Extracting the truth from this peculiar mixture of history, myth and legend is not always easy, Zetterholm says, concluding his Christmas message somewhat sarcastically: “It is often difficult to discern and access the truth in the tangled forest of biblical studies, even if church representatives sometimes like to make us believe the opposite.”
Zetterholm’s article piqued my interest. For myself, I wanted to check the claims he made. I found that his views are well known to those who are familiar with the history of theology. In 1835–36, the then famous German protestant theologian David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) published Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, a work of 1500 pages. Here (part I, chapter 4) Strauss sets up a number of theses, or rather antitheses, regarding the Roman census of the Christmas gospel:
1. There was never any census for the entire Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus;
2. An imperial census within Herod’s kingdom is unlikely;
3. During Herod’s lifetime Quirinius was not a governor of Syria;
4. That Joseph's would need to appear in Bethlehem is not in accordance with Roman practice;
5. According to this regulation, Mary did not have to register herself.
Strauss was a disciple of the German philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher. He saw history from the vantage point of German idealist philosophy, where ideas exist before history, not the other way around. According to Strauss, the Christian idea did not start from the person Jesus, but from the church that transferred its mythological ideas on this person, who in fact is just a symbol for humanity. For Strauss, the New Testament contained only myths whose purpose was to give the eternal Christian idea a temporary guise. He therefore wanted to free the idea-based ahistorical Christianity from history’s coincidences by clearing away these myths and everything supernatural. In his clean-up activities, he often relied on the not always reliable Josephus, who, strangely enough, was not subjected to the same harsh criticism as the evangelists.
Strauss’ information has then, with slight variations, been passed on in many textbooks and commentaries into our own time. This is what is stated, for example, in the well-reputed and widely distributed The New Jerome Biblical Commentary: “There are historical problems in vv 1–3; Quirinius was a governor of Syria in AD 6–7 and not during the reign of Herod who ruled from 37–4 BC; there is no extra-Lucan evidence that under Caesar Augustus a worldwide census occurred or that people were required to register in their ancestral towns.”
The mystery of the missing census
But is this really true? – As regards to the question of possible censuses under Emperor Augustus, the most immediate source has been strangely missed, namely what Augustus himself says in his own autobiography, the so-called Res Gestae Divi Augusti, which he wrote down at the age of 76. The original was engraved on two bronze pillars at the Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome, and several copies were spread throughout the empire's various provinces by carving the text into monuments and temples so that as many people as possible could take part of it.
One can assume that Luke had read it in the Syrian provincial capital of Antioch, which, according to the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke and Jerome’s De viris illustribus, was Luke’s home town.
An almost completely preserved copy of the Res Gestae, Monumentum Ancyranum, was found in 1555 by the later Emperor Ferdinand I’s ambassador to the Ottoman court, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq (1522–1592) who was a skilled Latinist (and who is also credited with introducing the tulip to Europe). He found the inscription in the vestibule of the ruins of the Temple of Roma and Augustus in Ankara, at that time the capital of the Roman province of Galatia. A Greek translation of the inscription is provided on the outside wall. With the help of fragments of copies from other sources, it has been possible to restore the entire text. It was published in 1847 by the eminent explorer of ancient inscriptions August Wilhelm Zumpt (1815–1877), just over a decade after Das Leben Jesu, a circumstance that may well explain Strauss’ ignorance but hardly his arrogance.
Monumentum Ancyranum in Ankara
Augustus’ text is, of course, propagandistic. It covers up certain events and sometimes stretches the truth. However, it has been possible to prove and verify most of its contents. In the eighth paragraph we find something that ought to interest readers of the Christmas gospel:
Tum iterum consulari imperio lustrum solus feci C. Censorino et C. Asinio cos., quo lustro censa sunt civium Romanorum capita quadragiens centum milia et ducenta triginta tria milia.
(“Subsequently, once more [after the previous census of 28 BC], with the power of consul, I alone performed a lustrum [a sacrifice at a census for taxation purposes] when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls. This census included 4 233 000 Roman citizens.”) [Augustus also began a third census in 14 AD, the same year he died.]
In the list of Roman consuls, on which the chronology of Roman history and archaeology is based, we find that Gaius Marcius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius Gallus were consuls in 8 BC, which is just before the probable time of Jesus’ birth. The year is also in alignment with the “star of Bethlehem”, the conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in the year 7 BC, carefully documented by Gustav Teres (1931–2007), astronomer at the Pontifical Observatory in Castel Gandolfo, in The Bible and Astronomy (Oslo, 2002). (Dionysius Exiguus apparently lost seven years when he constructed the Christian calendar, perhaps the seven years when Gaius Octavius reigned as first consul before he was elevated to Augustus.)
In other words, we seem to have found Augustus’ lost census in Augustus Mabedi (Temple of Augustus) at the upper end of Cumhuriyet Bulvarı (Republic Boulevard), just beyond the equestrian statue of Atatürk, roughly a kilometer northeast of Ankara Tren Garı, the railway station in Turkey's capital Ankara.
Res Gestae Divi Augusti in Ankara
Now it can be objected that Augustus’s census only included Roman citizens, which would not prevent him from also being interested in other peoples in their capacity as taxpayers. Large sums of money were spent to “inherit a city in brick and leave a city in marble”, not to mention the cost of keeping standing troops in all provinces. From Josephus, we know that even Herod had his subjects in Judaea taxed. According to Antiquitates Judaicae 17:190, Herod presented his tax revenue of ten million drachmas to Augustus and five million drachmas to his daughter Julia. In spite of that, Herod fell out of favor. Josephus writes in Antiquitates Judaicae 16:290, 293 [translations by William Whiston]:
“And when they were forced to confess so much Caesar, without staying
to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry,
and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas
of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject.
--- Now Herod was forced to bear all
this, that confidence of his being quite gone with which Caesar’s favor
used to inspire him; for Caesar would not admit so much as an embassage
from him to make an apology for him; and when they came again, he sent
them away without success.”
Philipp Filtzinger (1925–2006), professor at the Limes Museum in Aalen in Würtemberg, states in Bethlehem, Die christliche Legende, Ein historisches Ereignis im Konsulatsjahr des Gaius Censorinus und Gaius Asinius 8.v.Chr., that the Romans also carried out censuses in the provinces. Each province had its own set intervals for the census. In Syria/Judaea, they took place every fourteen years. The year 8 BC was a unique year, because the national census and the provincial census then accidentally coincided. From the public's point of view, the two censuses should have been perceived as only one. What has caused confusion is that Luke in verse 1 refers to the census of Roman citizens, while in verse 2 he seems to have merged the national census and the provincial census. The following provincial tax assessment was held at the fixed interval every fourteen years, as in the year 6 AD, which is the year that Josephus also states.
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), professor at Oxford and Aberdeen, outlined the census system during Augustus’ time on the basis of papyrus findings that have been preserved in the Egyptian climate, which is advantageous from an archival point of view (The Augustan Census system in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Aberdeen 1914, pp. 255ff.). In Egypt, the system was applied in the years 9 BC, and 6, 20, 34, 48, 62, etc. AD. Then it must be taken into account that the New Year in the Eastern Mediterranean began after summer and thus extended over two Roman year numbers. Ramsay holds that the system was used during Herod’s reign in 8 AD, and estimates that it took a year to complete such a census. According to his investigation, everyone, with wives and children, were to appear in person at their domicile: as in the case of Joseph and Mary, to Bethlehem. Likewise, as was the case in Egypt, the prefect Vibius Maximus issued an edict “that all who for any reason whatever are away from their own Nomos should return to their home to enroll themselves”.
The mystery of the missing governor
According to Luke, Quirinius, when the census occurred, was a governor of Syria. The problem, according to Zetterholm, is that he did not become a governor until 6 AD, which is thirteen years after the birth of Jesus, and then only in Judaea.
But let us read the text! According to the original Greek text Quirinius in fact was hägemoneuontos täs syrias. Thus he was not a procurator but the one who had hegemony over Syria. Jerome in the Vulgata translates it as praesidie Syriae Cyrino. He presided over Syria.
The word “governor” does not occur at all. It was introduced after the model of the Luther Bible, in which Luther launched the word “Landpfleger” to contextualize and inculturate the meaning of the concept into German. The English translation, King James Bible, has “governor”.
Luke 3:1 states that Pontius Pilate also was hägemoneuontos, but in this place Jerome instead translates the word as procurante Pontio Pilato. Apparently, Jerome knew that there was a difference between the respective titles/positions of Pilate and Quirinius.
Who was Quirinius? – He was born in 45 BC in Lanuvium 20 miles southeast of Rome (present-day Lanuvio, just south of Lake Nemi, where one of the narrow streets now is called Via Sulpicio Quirino). He made a career in the army. In 15 BC Augustus appointed him as proconsul of Crete and Cyrene, where he successfully fought the Garamantes. He then returned to Rome in 12 BC, where he was elected consul. The following year, he was given the task of fighting the Homonads in northern Syria and Cilicia. The war lasted from 11 BC to 7 BC. Quirinius then commanded Legio III Gallica, Legio VI Ferrata and Legio X Fretensis, all of which were stationed in Syria (Horst Braunert, Der römische Provinzialzensus, Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 6 (1957), pp. 192ff.).
From 10 AD, Gaius Sentius Saturninus was a governor of Syria and thus the foremost responsible for Augustus’ census. Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem IV:7 writes: “Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum.” (English translation: However, it has been established that a census was just carried out under Augustus in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus.) Tertullian also states (IV:19) that the archives at this time, around 200 AD, still were in Rome: “…de censu denique Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt.” (English translation: Finally, the census of Augustus, which is preserved in the archives of Rome, is also a reliable witness of the birth of our Lord.)
This census happened to coincide with the local census for Syria. However, a governor Sentius Saturninus died and was succeeded in the summer of 6 BC by the cruel Publius Quintilius Varus (the same Varus who got into trouble in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD). During the period of interregnum that arose between the death of Saturn and the accession of Varus, Quirinius, who had just finished his war against the homonads in northern Syria, may have officiated at the tax collection (H. M. Melin, Föreläsningar öfwer Jesu Lefwerne, First part, Stockholm 1855, p. 196). This was the first census of Quirinius. He later made a second census in 6 AD, when he returned to Syria as a legate.
Quirinius’ career continued to rise. Augustus gave him the mission as rector responsible for the education of the intended heir to the throne, Augustus’ grandson (daughter’s son) Gaius Caesar. He got from the year 1 BC for study purposes to accompany Qurinius on a journey to the easternmost provinces. After a campaign in Armenia, Gaius Caesar was wounded and died in 3 AD during the return journey to Rome.
Quirinius then was appointed a legate in Syria, to which he returned a second time. In this troubled province at his disposal he now had an additional legion, namely the Legio XII Fulminata. The subordinate procurator of Judaea was Coponius.
In Tibur (now Tivoli 20 miles east of Rome) an inscription was found in 1794, now set up in the Lateran Museum, with text as follows: legatus pro prætore divi augusti iterum syriam (English translation: for the second time envoy to Caesar Augustus in Syria). Unfortunately, the text is missing immediately before, but it is thought, among others by Mommsen, to refer to Quirinius. There can hardly be any question of anyone else.
'
Insciption from Tibur
Quirinius returned to Rome in 12 AD, there he died in 21 and was buried with great honors. In Syria's provincial capital Antioch, a monument to him was erected, the remains of which were found during Princeton University excavations in the 1930s.
The above coin series was minted in Antioch around the second census of Quirinius in 6AD.
Qurinius’ service in the war against the homonads is described by Ramsay in the above mentioned work (When Quirinius was governing Syria, pp. 275ff.). In a photo taken by Mrs. Ramsay in 1912, Ramsay himself can be seen next to a then newly discovered inscription in Antioch in Pisidia, where Qurinius 8 BC is mentioned as Duumvir together with a certain Servilius. Ramsay concludes that Quirinius and Servilius together around 8 AD ruled the two provinces of Syria-Cilicia and Galatia. As for Tertullian´s mention of Sentius, Ramsay thought that he may have been Augustus’ legate in Syria at the same time as Quirinius, which does not contradict the fact that he may have died shortly afterwards, in which case the responsibility for the census passed to Quirinius.
Mrs. Ramsay`s photo 1912 of her husband and the basis of the first statue erected in Pisidian Antioch, probably 8 BC in honour of Caristantius, praefectus of Quirinius, honorary duumvir of the Colony while governor of Syria, "... praefecto P. Sulpici Quirini duumviri, praefecto M. Servili ...".
The Mystery of the lost Bethlehem
Why would Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem? It is not likely that the Romans demanded everyone to go to places of their origin. The important thing for them was that they received their taxes. On the other hand, the rural population had to get into their nearest town, eis tän heautou polin, where the census scribes had their reception. Perhaps the people of Nazareth, a town with at most 150 inhabitants, in ordinary cases would register in the larger and fortified town of Japhia, located a few miles away.
But Joseph and Mary instead went on a four-day journey to far away Bethlehem. Why? – By angelic revelations they were both convinced that the expected child was the promised Messiah: “The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,” Luke 1:32. Therefore, it was of utmost importance that the birth took place in the city of David, as prophesied in Micah 5:2. Not the Romans forced them to Bethlehem. It was the Holy Scriptures.
The fact that there was no room in the shelter does not have to be due to the census. Bethlehem was a popular place to stay along the caravan route to Egypt. Even in the days of the prophet Jeremiah, people stopped there, Jeremiah 41:17, at the habitation of Chimham, in Hebrew gerut which corresponds to khan, as in a caravanserai.
“In fact, the idea that Jesus would come from Bethlehem has no congruence whatsoever in the rest of the New Testament,” Zetterholm writes. Then there is mostly talk about the insignificant town of Nazareth. After fleeing to Egypt the Holy Family returned there, as it is said in Matthew 2:23: “The things that were said by the prophet would be fulfilled: He will be called Nazarene.”
Yes, indeed you may wonder to what prophetic word this refers. And why does the tablet above the cross says »Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews» without mentioning Bethlehem and the Davidic lineage? Why were early Christians called Nazarenes, Acts 24:5? Why are Christians in today's Israel called notzrim? What about Bethlehem?
In his book With Jesus through Galilee according to the Fifth Gospel (Rosh Pina 1992), archaeologist Bargil Pixner (1921–2002) presents a marble splinter from 3-400 AD that 1962 was found during excavations in Caesarea. It contains an inscription in Hebrew with a list of families who settled in Galilee during Roman times. Among them was a family who lived in Nazareth.
This is the earliest testimony to the little village of Nazareth in Jewish epigraphy. Previously, only the Greek spelling of the place had been known, but the marble splinter shows that Nazareth was spelled with the Hebrew letter tz (tzade), that is Natzareth. This excludes the interpretation that Nazareth had to do with nazirite, a person, a nazir, who is set apart to God, Numbers 6. Instead, the marble splinter supports Jerome’s interpretation that Mathew 2:23 refers to Isaiah 11:1: “A shot will shoot up out of the cut off trunk of Jesse.” See also Revelation 22:16! The place name Nazareth has the same root as the Hebrew word netzer, as in “branch, shoot”.
The same interpretation is given by H.M. Melin (op. cit., p. 218f.) and Bertil Gärtner (Die rätselhaften Termini Nazoräer und Iscariot in Horæ Soederblomiæ IV, 1957).
The marble chip with the name Nazareth
Thus, the designation “Jesus of Nazareth” would refer to the Davidic lineage. That the first Christians were called Nazarenes and that the Christians in ivrit are called notzrim would then be due to the Christians confessing Jesus of Nazareth as the David-appointed Messiah.
When Jesus
had been hung on the cross, a sign was put up to indicate why he had
been crucified. His "crime" was being called "King of
the Jews". Perhaps the text on the sign was ironically meant, something
along the lines of the soldiers putting a red cloak and a king's crown
on him. But in this case Pilate himself had formulated it. Therefore,
he refused to give in to the high priests' desire for change: "What
I have written, that I have written," an attitude reminiscent of
what King Ahasverus said in Esther 8:8: "For a letter issued in
the king's name and sealed with the king's ring cannot be revoked."
Apparently the inscription on the cross has an important meaning, since all the four evangelists mention it. The most detailed account is found in John 19:19. It says that "many of the Jews read that headline". It thus attracted a lot of attention. Furthermore, it is particularly emphasized that it was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Evidently Jesus' connection to Nazareth was important: Jesus from Nazareth, King of the Jews.
In our churches, which maintain the Western Latin tradition, the crucifix is often provided with a sign with just the initial letters of the Latin text, INRI, an abbreviation for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum. It is an old custom to use only this four-letter abbreviation. It is very unusual when the entire text is reproduced.
How old is this custom of specially emphasizing the four initial letters? Could it date back to biblical times?
Let’s find out by reading the basic Greek text in the Gospel of John: Jæsous ho Nazoraios ho basileus ton youdaion.
But what happens if you try to reconstruct the Hebrew text?
The well-known writer and rabbi Shalom Ben-Chorin made an attempt in his book Bruder Jesus, Der Nazarener in jüdischer Sicht, which was published in 1967. Ben-Chorin believes it should have been read Yeschua Hanozri W(u)melech Hayehudim. Then the four initial letters are read YHWH, the so-called tetragrammaton, i.e. the sacred unpronounceable name of God.
Was this the main reason for the reaction of the high priests? Jesus had been accused of blasphemy. Did they see the ultimate blasphemy in the dying Jesus with God's name as a name tag over him? Was this Pilate's way of getting revenge on the chief priests who pressured him to pass the death sentence on Jesus? Was it a prophecy that Jesus would be recognized in Rome but not among the Jews?
The mystery of the lost stable
According to the birth story in Matthew, the Magi “found neither shepherds nor stables, nor singing angels nor mangers, but a house that appears to be the permanent residence of Joseph and Mary,” Zetterholm points out. Yes, this may seem mysterious – if you have seen too many nativity scenes!
But if we just read the text, we find that the birth story of Matthew actually is not a birth story. Instead, it tells about what happened after the birth had taken place: “When Jesus had been born in Bethlehem ...”
When the Magi arrived in Bethlehem, some time had already elapsed since birth. The crib and the people around had not been left stationary since Christmas night. After the first rush, Joseph had acquired a house for the family, thus making it possible for them to there register for the census. The shepherds had returned to their duties. Perhaps the sheep had already been slaughtered as Easter lambs. It was in the meadows around Bethlehem that the temple priesthood’s profitable lamb breeding took place. It may have been weeks, months, maybe even a year since the baby Jesus was born because Herod wanted to have all male children killed up to the age of two.
If you carefully read the text of Matthew, you will discover that Joseph was not even at home when the fine guests arrived. Maybe he was at work.
To mark the difference in time between the night of the birth and the visit of the Magi, the church since long time has celebrated these events at thirteen-day intervals.
The Mysteries of Biblical Research
The question of census has been dealt with by exegetes such as Joseph Fitzmayer, Raymond E. Brown, W.D. Davies, E.P. Sanders. Most of them doubt the reliability of Luke and do not believe that any census took place about 8 BC, since neither Josephus nor any other historian mentions one. Many think that Luke confused the whole thing with the census that took place in 6 AD, when Qurinius for the second time was serving in Syria. This second census is mentioned in Josephus but even by Luke himself in Acts 5:37, which in that case assumes that Luke is completely confused. The later census did not cover the entire Roman Empire either, but occurred between Augustus’ “worldwide” censuses of 8 BC and 14 AD.
Unfortunately, the material is scarce for the later part of Augustus’ reign. It is not only that the archives that existed in Tertullian’s time were destroyed, probably when the Germans conquered Rome in 476 AD. Ancient historians did not write so much about everyday things as censuses. They did roughly the same news evaluation as today’s tabloid journalists and dwelt on murders, wars, battles and dramatic marriage relationships. This applies not the least to Josephus, who for the years around the censuses 9–8 BC only writes about the, to say the least, dramatic events within Herod’s family. Reading these accounts, one understands that Caesar no longer wanted to count Herod as his friend. At that time, he was not at all capable of carrying out an orderly census.
During Augustus’ time finally the Pax Romana was reached. Apart from some border wars, which were not noticeable inside the kingdom, it was tranquil, which may explain why there are few historical sources during this time. But for that sake one should not think that the Roman census machinery was in dormant. Would the Romans have refrained from collecting taxes just because we have no preserved information on the matter?
Josephus has the same news value that applies in our own time. He writes about what deviates from the routine. Among other things, he mentions “a certain Galilee named Judas” in connection with the census of 6 AD. He “prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans” (Flavius Josephus, The Jews’ War against the Romans, book 2, chapter 8). Josephus later outlines a series of incidents, but makes no mention of the censuses which, according to the schedule, should have taken place in 20, 34, and 48. Apparently they proceeded without anything exciting happening. However, there was unrest after the census that began in 62 AD. At a dramatic scene in 64 AD, when the Jews wanted the tyrannical governor Gessius Florus deposed, King Agrippa (mentioned in Acts 25) replies that “what they had already done was like such as make war against the Romans; for you have not paid the tribute which is due to Cæsar” (op. cit., chap. XVI). We can be sure that the Roman census system was active, even if every census not is mentioned by Josephus.
Luke is not less reliable than other ancient historians. He has, according to his own statement, “thoroughly researched everything from the very beginning”. The problem is that things that were well known as a background in Luke’s time are not so today. Much of the frame of reference that existed during antiquity has been forgotten. One of the most important tasks of biblical research must therefore be to regain the knowledge that has been lost.
I have tried to show that the mysteries of the Christmas gospel are no mysteries. Hopefully, something has cleared up in the alleged obscurity. The priests and pastors can, by and large, continue to preach in the traditional way.
But I fear that this article still has been written in vain. It would not be surprising if, just in time for next Christmas, an article somewhere appears announcing the sensational news that no census ever occurred during Augustus’ time, at least not when Quirinius was a governor of Syria. Such tall tales are persistent.
This small investigation due to Zetterholm’s essay above all has aroused my wonder about how things work in the academic exegesis. For nearly two centuries people have been content with the ideologically motivated and obviously erroneous assertion by Strauss that no census for the entire Roman Empire during Augustus’ reign ever took place. There is no extra-Lucan evidence that under Caesar Augustus a worldwide census occurred, as stated in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
In fact, Augustus issued no less than three edicts of census. The Res Gestae Divi Augusti, which gives us knowledge of this, was discovered as early as 1555 and in 1847 published in a scientific edition. H. M. Melin quotes Augustus’ text in his Föreläsningar öfwer Jesu Lefwerne, Part One, p.195 (1855). The text is currently available in about ten different editions with English translation and commentary. It is also available in German and French editions, yes, even in a Swedish edition. Nevertheless, it is claimed that no census was issued during Augustus’ reign. This is the real mystery.
Anders Brogren
Dean h.c., Falkenberg, Sweden
Sankt Lars Kyrkogata 4
S-311 31 Falkenberg
SWEDEN
Mail
to
anders [ at ] brogren.nu
