Skip to content
?

단축키

Prev이전 문서

Next다음 문서

크게 작게 위로 아래로 댓글로 가기 인쇄
?

단축키

Prev이전 문서

Next다음 문서

크게 작게 위로 아래로 댓글로 가기 인쇄
Before I conclude, it may be necessary to give some account of the original versions of the sacred writings, which have been often consulted, and to which occasional references are made in the ensuing work. These are the Samaritan, Chaldaic, Ethiopic, Septuagint, with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; the Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Anglo-Saxon.
The samaritan text must not be reckoned among the versions. It is precisely the same with the Hebrew, only fuller; having preserved many letters, words, and even whole sentences, sometimes several verses, which are not extant in any Hebrew copy with which we are acquainted. In all other respects it is the same as the Hebrew, only written in what is called the Samaritan character, which was probably the ancient Hebrew, as that now called the Hebrew character was probably borrowed from the Chaldeans.
1. The Samaritan version differs widely from the Samaritan text; the latter is pure Hebrew, the former is a literal version of the Hebreo-Samaritan text, into the Chaldaico-Samaritan dialect. When this was done it is impossible to say, but it is allowed to be very ancient, considerably prior to the Christian era. The language of this version is composed of pure Hebrew Syro-Chaldaic, and Cuthite terms. It is almost needless to observe that the Samaritan text and Samaritan version extend no farther than the five books of Moses; as the Samaritans received no other parts of the sacred writings.
2. The Chaldiac version or Targums have already been described among the commentators. Under this head are included the Targum of Onkelos upon the whole law; the Jerusalem Targum on select parts of the five books of Moses; the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel also upon the Pentateuch; the Targum of Jonathan upon the prophets; and the Targum of Rabbi Joseph on the books of Chronicles; but of all these the Targums of Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the prophets, are the most ancient, and most literal, and the most valuable. See the beginning of this preface.
3. The Septuagint translation of all the versions of the sacred writings has ever been deemed of the greatest importance by competent judges. I do not, however, design to enter into the controversy concerning this venerable version; the history of it by Aristaeus I consider in the main to be a mere fable, worthy to be classed with the tale of Bel and the Dragon, and the stupid story of Tobit and his Dog. Nor do I believe, with many of the fathers, that "seventy or seventy-two elders, six out of each of the twelve tribes, were employed in the work; that each of these translated the whole of the sacred books from Hebrew into Greek while confined in separate cells in the island of Pharos;" or that they were so particularly inspired by God that every species of error was prevented, and that the seventy-two copies, when compared together, were found to be precisely the same, verbatim et literatim. My own opinion, on the controversial part of the subject, may be given in a few words: I believe that the five books of Moses, the most correct and accurate part of the whole work, were translated from the Hebrew into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 285 years before the Christian era; that this was done, not by seventy-two, but probably by five learned and judicious men, and that when completed it was examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders who constituted the Alexandrian Sanhedrin; and that the other books of the Old Testament were done at different times by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of God appointed. It is pretty certain, from the quotations of the evangelists, the apostles, and the primitive fathers, that a complete version into Greek of the whole Old Testament, probably called by the name of the Septuagint, was made and in use before the Christian era; but it is likely that some of the books of that ancient version are now lost, and that some others, which now go under the name of the Septuagint, were the production of times posterior to the incarnation.
4. The Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are frequently referred to. Aquila was first a heathen, then a Christian, and lastly a Jew. He made a translation of the Old Testament into Greek so very literal, that St. Jerome said it was a good dictionary to give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew words. He finished and published this work in the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Adrian, A.D. 128.
5. Theodotion was a Christian of the Ebionite sect, and is reported to have begun his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek merely to serve his own party; but from what remains of his version it appears to have been very literal, at least as far as the idioms of the two languages would bear His translation was made about the year of our Lord 180. All this work is lost, except his version of the book of the Prophet Daniel, and some fragments.
6. Symmachus was originally a Samaritan, but became a convert to Christianity as professed by the Ebionites. In forming his translation he appears to have aimed at giving the sense rather than a literal version of the sacred text. His work was probably completed about A.D. 200. These three versions were published by Origen in his famous work entitled, Hexapla, of which they formed the third, fourth, and sixth columns. All the remaining fragments have been carefully collected by Father Montfaucon, and published in a work entitled, Hexapla Origenis quoe supersunt, etc. Paris, 1713. 2 vols. folio. Republished by C. F. Bahrdt Leips. 1769, 2 vols. 8vo.
7. The Ethiopic version comprehends only the New Testament, the Psalms, some of the minor prophets, and a few fragments of other books. It was probably made in the fourth century.
8. The Coptic version includes only the five books of Moses, and the New Testament. It is supposed to have been made in the fifth century.
9. The Syriac version is very valuable and of great authority. It was probably made as early as the second century; and some think that a Syriac version of the Old Testament was in existence long before the Christian era.
10. A Latin version, known by the name of the Itala, Italic or Antehieronymian, is well known among learned men; it exists in the Latin part of the Codex Bezoe at Cambridge, and in several other MSS. The text of the four gospels in this version, taken from four MSS. more than a thousand years old was published by Blanchini, at Rome 1749, 4 vols. folio and a larger collection by Sabathier, Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. folio. This ancient version is allowed to be of great use in Biblical criticism.
11. The Vulgate, or Latin version, was formed by Saint Jerome, at the command of Pope Damasus, A.D. 384. Previously to this there were a great number of Latin versions made by different hands, some of which Jerome complains of as being extremely corrupt and self-contradictory. These versions, at present, go under the general name of the old Itala or Antehieronymian, already noticed. Jerome appears to have formed his text in general out of these, collating the whole with the Hebrew and Greek, from which he professes to have translated several books entire. The New Testament he is supposed to have taken wholly from the original Greek; yet there are sufficient evidences that he often regulated even this text by the ancient Latin versions.
12. The Anglo-Saxon version of the four Gospels is supposed to have been taken from the ancient Itala some time in the eighth century; and that of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Job, from the Vulgate, by a monk called Aelfric, in the ninth century. The former was printed at Dort, in conjunction with the Gothic version, by F. Junius, 1665, 4to.; the latter, by Edward Thwaites, Oxford, 1698, 8vo.; but in this version many verses, and even whole chapters, are left out; and the Book of Job is only a sort of abstract, consisting of about five pages.
13. The Arabic is not a very ancient version, but is of great use in ascertaining the signification of several Hebrew words and forms of speech.
14. The Persian includes only the five Books of Moses and the four Gospels. The former was made from the Hebrew text by a Jew named Yacoub Toosee; the latter, by a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, Simon Ibn Yusuf Ibn lbraheem al Tubreezee, about the year of our Lord 1341.
These are the principal versions which are deemed of authority in settling controversies relative to the text of the original. There are some others, but of less importance; such as the Slavonic, Gothic, Sahidic, and Armenian; for detailed accounts of which, as also of the preceding, as far as the New Testament is concerned, I beg leave to refer the reader to Michaelis's Lectures, in the translation, with the notes of the Rev. Dr. Herbert Marsh, and to the General Preface to the Gospels and Acts; and for farther information concerning Jewish and Christian commentators, he is requested to consult Bartoloccius's Bibliotheca Rabbinica, and the Bibliotheca Theologica of Father Calmet.
In the preceding list of commentators I find I have omitted to insert in its proper place a work with which I have been long acquainted, and which for its piety and erudition I have invariably admired, viz.: "A plaine discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John; set downe in two Treatises: The one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof: The other applying the same paraphrastically and historically to the text. Set foorth by John Napier L. of Marchestoun, younger. Whereunto are annexed certaine Oracles of Sibylla, agreeing with the Revelation and other places of Scripture. Edinburgh, printed by Robert Waldegrave, printer to the King's Majestic, 1593. Cum privilegio Regali, 8vo.
When the reader learns that the author of this little work was the famous Baron of Marchestoun, the inventor of the logarithms, a discovery which has been of incalculable use in the sciences of astronomy, practical geometry, and navigation, he will be prepared to receive with respect what so great a genius has written upon a book that, above all others in the sacred code, seems to require the head and hand of the soundest divine and mathematician. The work is dedicated "to the right excellent, high and mighty Prince James VI., King of Scottes," afterwards James I., King of England; and in the Epistle Dedicatorie, the author strongly urges him to complete the reformation begun in his own empire, that he might be a ready instrument in the hand of God in executing judgment on the papal throne, which he then supposed to be near the time of its final overthrow. The first treatise is laid down hi thirty-six propositions relating to the seals, trumpets, vials, and thunders.
In the third, fifth, and sixth propositions, he endeavours to prove that each trumpet or vial contains 245 years; that the first began A.D. 71. The second A.D. 316. The third A.D. 561. The fourth A.D. 806. The fifth A.D. 1051. The sixth A.D. 1296. The seventh A.D. 1541. See Propos. vi. And in Propos. x. he shows that, as the last trumpet or vial began in 1541, consequently, as it contains 245 years, it should extend to A.D. 1786. "Not that I mean," says the noble writer, "that that age or yet the world shall continew so long, because it is said, that for the elect's sake the time shall be shortened; but I mean that if the world were to indure, that seventh age should continew untill the yeare of Christ, 1756." Taking up this subject again, in Propos. xiv., he endeavours to prove, by a great variety of calculations formed on the 1335 days mentioned by Daniel (12:11), and the period of the three thundering angels, Rev. 8 and 9, that by the former it appears the Day of Judgment will take place in A.D. 1700, and by the latter, in 1688, whence it may be confidently expected that this awful day shall take place between these two periods!
We, who have lived to A.D. 1830, see the fallacy of these predictive calculations; and with such an example before us of the miscarriage of the first mathematician in Europe, in his endeavours to solve the prophetical periods marked in this most obscure book, we should proceed in such researches with humility and caution, nor presume to ascertain the times and the seasons which the Father has reserved in his own power. I may venture to affirm, so very plausible were the reasonings and calculations of Lord Napeir, that there was scarcely a Protestant in Europe, who read his work, that was not of the same opinion. And how deplorably has the event falsified the predictions of this eminent and pious man! And yet, unawed by his miscarriage, calculators and ready-reckoners, in every succeeding age, on less spacious pretences, with minor qualifications, and a less; vigorous opinion, have endeavoured to soar where Napeir sunk! Their labours, however well intended, only serve to increase the records of the weakness and folly of mankind. Secret things belong to God; those that are revealed, to us and to our children. Writers who have endeavoured to illustrate different prophecies in the Apocalypse by past events, and those that are now occurring, are not included in this censure. Some respectable names in the present day have rendered considerable service to the cause of Divine revelation, by the careful and pious attention they have paid to this part of the subject; but when persons attempt to speak of what is yet to come, they begin to prophesy, and are soon lost.
Adam Clarke.
P.S. On Genesis 2:4, I have hinted that our Saxon ancestors have translated the Dominus of the Vulgate by hlafort, Lovert, or Lort. This is not to be understood of the fragments of the translations of the Old and New Testaments which have reached our times, for in them Dominus when connected with Deus is often omitted, and the Word Irot substituted for both; at other times they use the Dano-Saxon Drihten both for ‏יהוה‎ Jehovah, and ‏אדני‎ Adonai; and in the New Testament, Drihten is generally used for Κυριος, Lord, at other times hlafort. It seems to have been applied as a title of respect to men: see Matt. 12:8; 13:27; 18:25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34; 21:30. Afterwards it was applied to the Supreme Being also; and the title Lord continues to be given to both indifferently to the present day, and sometimes both indifferently even in the same discourse. Thus in the Saxon homily in Dom. 1, Quadr. Bedae Hist. Eccles., lib. iv, c. 9: "Man shall pray to his Lord and him alone serve: He only is true Lord (hlafort) and true God." Hlafort belongs more especially to the Anglo-Saxon. Drihten, to the Dano-Saxon. In Danish Drotter is generally used for Lord.
Notes On the Electronic Edition
1. The words in the languages which Clarke cited for which we did not have an electronic font were removed. However, we retained the transliteration for these words where Clarke provided them.
2. Some of the supplementary articles occurring throughout the work have been omitted in order to deliver the work in a timely manner.
Footnote to the Preface
It is known that, at the Hampton Court Conference, several alterations were proposed by Dr. Reynolds and his associates to be made in the Liturgy then in common use, as will as in the Bible. These however were in general objected to by the king, and only a few changes made, which shall be mentioned below. While on this part of the subject it may not be unacceptable to the reader to hear how the present Liturgy was compiled, and who the persons were to whom this work was assigned; a work almost universally esteemed by the devout and pious of every denomination, and the greatest effort of the Reformation, neat to the translation of the Scriptures into the English language. The word liturgy is derived, according to some, from λιτη, prayer, and εργον, work, and signifies literally the work or labour of prayer or supplication; and he who labours not in his prayers prays not at all: or more properly λειτουργια, from λειτος, public or common, and εργον, work, denoting the common or public work of prayer, thanksgiving, etc., in which it is the duty of every person to engage; and from λιτανευω, to supplicate, comes λιται, prayers, and hence Λιτανεια, Litany, supplication, a collection of prayers in the Liturgy or public service of the Church. Previously to the reign of Henry VIII. the Liturgy was all said or sung in Latin, but the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in 1536 were translated into English, for the use of the common people, by the king's command. In 1545 the Liturgy was also permitted in English, as Fuller expresses it, "and this was the farthest pace the Reformation stept in the reign of Henry VIII.
In the first year of Edward VI, 1547, it was recommended to certain grave and learned bishops, and others then assembled, by order of the king, at Windsor Castle, to draw up a communion service, and to revise and reform all other offices in the Divine service; this service was accordingly printed and published, and strongly recommended by special letters from Seymour, Lord Protector, and the other lords of the council. The persons who compiled this work were the following:—
1. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.
2. George Day, Bishop of Chichester.
3. Thomas Goodrick, Bishop of Ely.
4. John Skip, Bishop of Hereford.
5. Henry Holbeach, Bishop of Lincoln.
6. Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of Rochester.
7. Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Westminster.
8. Doctor May, Dean of St. Paul's.
9. John Taylor, then Dean, afterwards Bishop, of Lincoln.
10. Doctor Haines, Dean of Exeter.
11. Doctor Robinson, afterwards Dean of Durham.
12. Doctor John Redman, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
13. Doctor Richard Cox, then Almoner to the King, and afterwards Bishop of Ely.
It is worthy of remark that as the first translators of the scriptures into the English language were several of them persecuted unto death by the papists, so some of the chief of those who translated the Book of Common Prayer, (Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley) were burnt alive by the same cruel faction.
This was what Mr. Fuller calls the first edition of the Common Prayer, published in 1548. Some objections having been made to this work by Mr. John Calvin abroad, and some learned men at home, particularly in reference to the Commemoration of the Dead, the use of Chrism and Extreme Unction, it was ordered by a statute in parliament (5 and 6 of Edward VI) that it should be faithfully and godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect. The chief alterations made in consequence of this order were these: the General Confession and Absolution were added, and the Communion Service was made to begin with the Ten Commandments, the use of oil in Confirmation and Extreme Unction was left out, also Prayers for the Dead, and certain expressions that had a tendency to countenance the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The same persons to whom the compiling of the Communion Service was intrusted were employed in this revision, which was completed and published in 1553. On the accession of Queen Mary this Liturgy was abolished, and the Prayer Book, as it stood in the last year of Henry VIII, commanded to be used in its place. In the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1559, the former Liturgy was restored, but it was subjected to a farther revision, by which some few passages were altered, and the petition in the Litany for being delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the bishop of Rome left out, in order that conscientious Catholics might not be prevented from joining in the common service. This being done, it was presented to parliament, and by them received and established; and the Act of Uniformity, which is usually printed with the Liturgy, published by the queen's authority, and sent throughout the nation. The persons employed in this revision were the following:—
1. Master Whitehead, once Chaplain to Queen Anna Bullein.
2. Matthew Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.
3. Edmund Grindall, afterwards Bishop of London.
4. Richard Cox, afterwards Bishop of Ely.
5. James Pilkington, afterwards Bishop of Durham.
6. Doctor May, Dean of St. Paul's, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
7. Sir Thomas Smith, Principal Secretary of State.
Of these Drs. Cox and May were employed on the first edition of this work, as appears by the preceding list.
In the first year of King James, 1604, another revision took place, and a few alterations were made, which consisted principally in the addition of some prayers and thanksgivings, some alteration in the Rubrics relative to the Absolution, to the Confirmation, and to the office of Private Baptism, with the addition of that part of the Catechism which contains the Doctrine of the Sacraments. The other additions were, A Thanksgiving for divers Benefits, A Thanksgiving for Fair Weather, A Thanksgiving for Plenty, A Thanksgiving for Peace and Victory, and A Thanksgiving for Deliverance from the Plague. See the Instrument in Rymer, vol. xvi. p. 565, etc. When the work was thus completed, a royal proclamation was issued, bearing date March 1, 1604, in which the king gave an account of the Hampton Court conference, the alterations that had been made by himself and his clergy in the Book of Common Prayer, commanding it, and none other, to be used throughout the kingdom. See the Instrument, Rymer, vol. xvi., p. 575.
In this state the Book of Common Prayer continued till the reign of Charles II., who, the 25th of October, 1666, "granted his commission, under the great seal of England, to several bishops and divines to review the Book of Common Prayer, and to prepare such alterations and additions as they thought fit to offer." In the following year the king assembled the convocations of both the provinces of Canterbury and York, and "authorized the presidents of those convocations, and other the bishops and clergy of the same, to review the said Book of Common Prayer," etc., requiring them, "after mature consideration, to make such alterations and additions as to them should seem meet and convenient." This was accordingly done, several prayers and some whole services added, and the whole published, with the Act of Uniformity, in the 14th of Charles II., 1661; since which time it has undergone no farther revision. These several additions have made the public service too long, and this is the principal cause why this part of Divine worship is not better attended. This excellent service is now burdensome through its extreme length: and the clergy shorten their sermons, making them superficial, to prevent too much weariness in their congregations. After being an hour and a half at prayers, they dismiss their audience with fifteen or twenty minutes preaching: thus the people are not sufficiently instructed. This is a short history of a work which all who are acquainted with it deem superior to every thing of the kind produced either by ancient or modern times.
It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that the chief of those prayers were in use in the Roman Catholic Church from which the Church of England is reformed; and it would betray a want of acquaintance with ecclesiastical antiquity to suppose that those prayers and services originated in that Church, as several of them were in use from the first ages of Christianity, and many of the best of them before the name of pope or popery was known in the earth.

List of Articles
번호 분류 제목
62 Exodus Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Exodus, Chapter 05
61 Exodus Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Exodus, Chapter 04
60 Exodus Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Exodus, Chapter 03
59 Exodus Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Exodus, Chapter 02
58 Exodus Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Exodus, Chapter 01
57 Exodus Preface to the Book of Exodus
56 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 50
55 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 49
54 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 48
53 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 47
52 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 46
51 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 45
50 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 44
49 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 43
48 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 42
47 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 41
46 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 40
45 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 39
44 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 38
43 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 37
42 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 36
41 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 35
40 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 34
39 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 33
38 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 32
37 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 31
36 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 30
35 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 29
34 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 28
33 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 27
32 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 26
31 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 25
30 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 24
29 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 23
28 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 22
27 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 21
26 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 20
25 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 19
24 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 18
23 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 17
22 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 16
21 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 15
20 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 14
19 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 13
18 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 12
17 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 11
16 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 10
15 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 09
14 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 08
13 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 07
12 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 06
11 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 05
10 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 04
9 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 03
8 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 02
7 Genesis Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Genesis, Chapter 01
6 Genesis Preface to the Book of Genesis
» OT Comments On the Original Writings Consulted and Referenced
4 OT Comments On the Sacred Text Used for This Work
3 OT Comments On the Author's Work
2 OT Comments On Christian Commentators
1 OT General Preface to the Old Testament
목록
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 Next
/ 2

All the Bibles, Commentaries and Dictionaries here have their own rights.
All rights are reserved for them, not for us. Thanks! Praise our great God, Christ Jesus!

HANGL Lingua Franca

sketchbook5, 스케치북5

sketchbook5, 스케치북5

나눔글꼴 설치 안내


이 PC에는 나눔글꼴이 설치되어 있지 않습니다.

이 사이트를 나눔글꼴로 보기 위해서는
나눔글꼴을 설치해야 합니다.

설치 취소