(Review of a Youtube Series)
So, I'm continuing on with Yale University Open Courses. As I said last time, having these playing in the background keeps me from constantly flipping on the TV every time I get home, which, hopefully, helps to keep my brain from turning to complete mush.
This area of history (A.D. 284-1000) is the one I know least about. I was obsessed with Roman history in my youth, but read mostly about the Roman Republic and the Julio-Claudian (W) Emperors, mostly because almost all the popular history books published focus on this period.
I knew next to nothing about the later history of the Roman Empire.
The one exception being the Emperor Julian (W) (or Julian the Apostate),the Roman Empire who attempted to return Rome to Paganism years after Constantine had already made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Julian sticks in my mind, because I had read Gore Vidal's book on Julian when I was still at a young and impressionable age.
And I've picked up some of the history of Britain during this period from the BBC radio series This Sceptred Isle.
But mostly, it's a period I know nothing about, except what you pick up in the usual high school history classes.
I feel only slightly more informed after having listened to these lectures. It's mostly a survey history, since Paul Freedman has to cover almost 1000 years, and has to cover all of Europe, North Africa, Arabia, and Russia.
Which is not to say I don't recommend the lectures. I picked up all sorts of interesting little tidbits. I'll detail some of them below.
1). In the very first lecture, Paul Freedman warns his prospective students that the course has a way of changing into a religious studies class, and that he's not going to apologize for that. "In order to understand this period, you're going to need to understand the religious controversies behind it," he says. "You're going to need to understand the controversies about the nature of Christ so that you know why people are killing each other over it." *
Like any good teacher, Paul Freedman doesn't state his biases. But you definitively don't get the sense that he's dismissive of Christian theology. He takes all of these theological discussions very seriously. And I got the sense that he was sympathetic to the ancient idea that the spiritual is superior to the material, because everything material decays and fades away.
...but that being said, I don't know how anyone could listen to all this history, and not emerge from it an agnostic. After listening to a thousand years of the constant fighting between Donatism, Arianism, Manicheanism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Iconoclasm--And then Islam enters the picture, and almost immediately we have the same factional infighting within Islam between Sunnis and Shiites--After listening to all that, how could you not just throw up your hands and yell, "It's impossible to know" ?
I mean, seriously, if there is a God out there, he really has done a pretty terrible job of communicating with his followers. If there's something important he wants us to know, he's sure not making it easy.
2). In his book, A Very Short History of the World , Geoffrey Blainey says that the Viking colony in Greenland came to an end because of Climate Change (The end of the Medieval Warming period). Being a complete naive on this subject, I just accepted that this was the established history.
Paul Freedman, however, points out that this theory is actually quite controversy, and not at all the established historical version.
Yet another reminder that you can't trust everything you read.
3). A couple years ago, I was listening to This Sceptred Isle and Monarchy, and I began to notice a pattern in British history. Every time a new tax was introduced, it was always because the king needed to fight a new war.
And then I realized something: throughout history, wars and taxes have always gone hand and hand.
On the one hand, this is so self-evident I feel silly even saying it. But on the other hand, it's easy to forget in the political climate in the United States. Ever since Reagan (W), the American voter has constantly been told that the reason taxes are so high is not because of the military, but because of all the single black mothers on welfare.
In actuality, social spending has always been a minuscule part of the federal budget. You could cut welfare all you wanted--you could eliminate it completely--and we'd still need substantial taxes to pay for the military.
Because of this huge disconnect between the reality and the image, the right-wing for years has been demanding that the government 1) Increase the military, 2) lower taxes, and 3) balance the federal deficit--never seeming to realize that any one of these demands is automatically going to cancel the other two out.
Bob Dole ran on this trifecta in his 1996 campaign, and at the time I was so frustrated by how otherwise intelligent people didn't seem to realize this was pure fantasy. (I was young and naive back then, and didn't realize that politics was never about rationality, but instead about loyalty to your group.)
In 2010, when the Tea Party repeated this mistake, I wrote a post on that phenomenon here.
Anyway, the point of this big digression is that Paul Freedman makes the same point in his lectures. The most expensive thing a country can ever do, both back then and now, he says, is to maintain and use a military.*
That's the whole reason taxes were invented in the first place.
4). When I was part of an international student community in Melbourne, Australia, I learned about the antagonism between Arabs and Persians. I had always thought Iranians were Arabs, but my Iranian friends were very insistent that they were not Arabs, they were Persians, and that they hated the Arabs because the Arab conquerors destroyed Persia, burned their libraries, and obliterated much of their culture.
(How this hatred of the Islamic invaders coincides with the Iranian embrace of Islam I never quite figured out. It could be that this is a recent resurgent nationalism. Or that my handful of Iranian friends were not representative of the Iranian culture as a whole. Or any number of other possible explanations.)
The Persian Empire, and its destruction at the hand of the Islamic conquerors, is one of the many topics briefly covered by Paul Freedman. (Paul Freedman presents a view of the Arabs as being tolerant towards the beliefs of the conquered peoples--not entirely in line with the accounts my Iranians friends gave me of the conquest of Persia.)
He doesn't have time to go into a lot of details, but he does make the comment that the Persian Empire is always an off-stage presence in Western education. We always study the Persian threat to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Byzantines, but we never study Persia itself. (He makes reference to a Persian course at Yale, but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be part of the Open Courses project.)
For those of us raised in Christian educations, this is even more true. Like many Christians, I learned about the Persian Empire by studying the Old Testament. And although the Persians get quite a nice write-up in the Old Testament (their tolerant view of local religions made them very popular with the Old Testament prophets) they were nevertheless always seen through the lens of the story of Israel, and never as something worthy of being studied in their own right.
5). I forgot to mention this at the top, but I do have one more point of connection with the subject matter. For Philosophy class at Calvin College, we were required to read The Confessions of Saint Augustine --something Paul Freedman also assigns to his students, and devotes a whole lecture to in the fifth video.
It's funny how memory works. Some of the things I read when I was young I can remember almost perfectly. And some of the stuff I can remember hardly at all. The Confessions of Saint Augustine falls into the latter category. I suspect this is because the stuff I remember well is stuff I found interesting. The Confessions of Saint Augustine was not something I found interesting.
I wanted to like it, and I had high expectations going into it. I had heard that Saint Augustine lead a wild and rebellious life as a youth.
I was a youth myself at the time. I was not so wild and rebellious, but I desperately wanted to be wild and rebellious, and I was highly interested in the stories of other wild and rebellious youths.
I was also fascinated with the idea that the intimate details of someone else's life were available to me over the stretch of 2,000 years. (I've always been a history geek, and this is the kind of thing that fascinates us history geeks--that you can learn something about a time long before you were born.)
However, when I actually got into The Confessions of Saint Augustine, I found it highly disappointed. There were no wild and rebellious stories--he just goes on and on and on about these pears he stole from an orchard when he was a boy. What was the big deal about these pears?
To his credit, Paul Freedman addresses this question pretty much directly. "If you're wondering what the big deal about these pears are, then you're missing the point. It's not about the pears. Augustine is concerned with the question of why people would sin in the first place."*
Fair enough. I wish my philosophy professor had said this to us 20 years ago. It might have cleared up a lot of this book for me.
*All quotations from memory, but I'm confident that they are pretty close to what was actually said.
Link of the Day
UpFront - Noam Chomsky on Clinton vs Sanders
Showing posts with label Yale University Open Courses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yale University Open Courses. Show all posts
Sunday, February 07, 2016
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Introduction to Ancient Greek History with Donald Kagan: My Thoughts
(Review of a Youtube Series)
So, I imagine someone out there is probably indigently exclaiming: "What! It's 2016! Are you telling me you are just now discovering Yale Open Courses?"
Well, no, of course not. I've been dipping in and out of them for years now. Although I never wrote anything at the time, I used to listen to some of the courses when I was in Japan (specifically France Since 1871, and European Civilization 1648-1945).
I also wrote about the Yale lectures on the Old Testament and the New Testament , and then made -reference - to - the - content - of - these - lectures - several - times - since.
But this particular lecture is new to me. I've never gotten around to listening to Donald Kagan's class on ancient Greece.
In an effort to keep my brain from turning to mush from watching too much TV, I've decided to try to play these history lecture courses instead.
I've discovered I need something going on in my apartment when I'm getting up in the morning, or getting ready for work. The sound of silence just depresses me. This past year I've given in to the temptation to just turn on the TV a little bit too much, so I'm trying to use these Youtube lecture series as a substitute for TV. Having them on in the background helps ween me off of my TV addiction.
And, I figure as I watch these history lectures, I'll jot down some notes on my thoughts:
Notes (In No Particular Order)
* I've been vaguely familiar with Donald Kagan as an expert on the Peloponnesian War ever since I read this favorable review of his book by Blogging the Canon. (A blog I sometimes lurk on.) And Donald Kagan does not disappoint in this lecture series. He really gives fascinating expert account of all the causes leading up to the Peloponnesian War.
* That being said, as I was listening to these lectures, I thought I began to detect a rather right-wing view of history being presented. Even before I went to Wikipedia to check out Donald Kagan's political alliances, I was pretty sure he was going to be a staunch conservative. And sure enough, he is (W).
So, even as I praise Donald Kagan's ability to as an entertaining story-teller, I want to distance myself somewhat from his politics.
There are all sorts of little side-swipes that Kagan makes along the way, but my primary objection is that Kagan believes Democracy is a Western invention, and that it would never have arisen in the East if it hadn't been exported there by Western thinkers.
As a result of this thinking, Kagan believes that the Greek/Persian Wars were the central turning point of world history. If the Persians had won the war, the idea of democracy would have been extinguished, and we would never have had free representative governments in the modern era.
This is, to be fair, a very widespread view among historians. (My high school history teacher also had this view).
There is a counterview, however, held by political thinkers like Chomsky and others, which is that people don't need to be taught about democracy. The lower classes have always wanted some sort of control over their government and also some sort of control over their workplace. Historical circumstances have prevented them from obtaining this control for long periods of recorded history, but given the right set of favorable circumstances, this will always be their objective, no matter what their cultural background is.
So, according to this other view of thinking, even if the Persian Empire had completely wiped out the Greek States and conquered the world, the idea of democracy would not have gone away. Perhaps someday there might have been a democratic revolution within the Persian Empire instead.
* Kagan's contempt of pacifism would be my second major objection to his philosophy. Although I'm not sure he presents a coherent enough argument to refute. He praises the results of fighting when it defeated the Persian invasion, but he knows all too well that the Pelopponesian Wars were disastrous, and should be studied as a lesson in how to avoid unnecessary wars.
The problem with this view, however, is that it's only possible to untangle necessary wars from unnecessary wars with hindsight. (Remember how enthusiastic all of Europe was at the beginning of World War I?)
The other problem with this view is that the Just War theory has been outdated ever since the invention of the hydrogen bomb. Who cares if you're fighting for a just cause when the end result of any war between two nuclear armed powers will be the end of the world?
* All those objections being stated, however, I do think Donald Kagan did an excellent job of highlighting the intense ideological fighting among the Greeks over the concept of Democracy. (Democracy was not just handed down to the Greeks on a silver platter from the gods. The establishment of it, and maintenance of it, was a result of long struggles against the forces of oligarchy). Kagan also does a good job of highlight many of the class struggles in ancient Athens. I think he correctly uses the French Revolution as an analogy to describe much of what is happening in Athens during the Democratic Revolution.
* By the way, to tie this into a book review I did several years ago, the absence of all of this was one of my chief frustrations with A People's History of the World by Chris Harman. The ancient sources have left us very rich details about these ideological and class battles, and Harman completely ignores all of it.
* Another point I think that Kagan makes very well is that the word "Democracy" has become so abused in the modern world as to become meaningless. Every government calls itself a "Democracy", but, as Kagan points out, it's questionable how many of them actually qualify for the term. Even the United States.
In modern America, the President makes the decisions, and the public is only informed of what happened after the fact. (Kagan uses the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis as the classic example from his generation--Kennedy and his cabinet just made all the decisions, and once everything was a fait accompli, only then did they bother to inform the public.)
This Kagan contrasts with ancient Athens, in which the citizens actually gathered and deliberated on every state decision.
I've told this story once already, but I'm reminded again of a debate I once witnessed between Republican Party delegates and a group of anarchists. The Republican delegates were asking why these kids didn't respect democracy. The kids answered back that America wasn't a democracy--ancient Greece was a democracy. The Republican delegate threw up his hands and said, "Oh come on! You're not going to bring Ancient Greece into this?" I still remember how much contempt was in his voice.
America has never been a democracy, which makes it all the more egregious when Americans keep abusing the term, or using the word Democracy as synonymous with the American Government itself. At best, America is a republic, but in practice it's more of an elected monarchy. Once every four years, we get to choose our King, but other than that, our participation in our government is minimal.
* Another Point: In the documentary: Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky addresses a question often put to him: How can the United States Government be doing harm in the world when Americans have so much freedom and liberty at home?
Chomsky points out that historically there is often no correlation between the degree of freedom that the citizens of a country have, and whether or not that nation acts imperialistically in its foreign policy. Chomsky uses republican Rome and democratic Athens as examples.
Although Kagan is no Chomsky-ite, it's interesting listening to his lectures that this point is highlighted again. Some of the periods of most radical Athenian democracy also corresponded with the Athenian Empire at its most imperialistic.
* I'm disappointed that Kagan's lectures end exactly on the eve of Alexander the Great. (Kagan covers up through Alexander's father, Philip of Macedon, but then stops there).
Especially after having read a few different takes on Alexander - the - Great - this - past - year, I would have been curious to see who Kagan sided with.
For example, in Alexander: The Sands of Ammon, author Valerio Massimo Manfredi portrays Alexander as not simply conquering, but also liberating the Greek cities on Asia Minor from Persian rule, and in some cases restoring democracy to them. (Granted this is a work of historical fiction, but Manfredi is a classics scholar in his own right, so presumably he knows his facts as well.)
Was Alexander's legacy that he ended the age of classical Greek civilization? Or did he restore it, by ending Persian control over all the Greek city states on Asia Minor? I would have been interested to hear Kagan's take.
* Unrelated note: When talking about the Spartan training, Kagan compares it to the the 19th century British Public School system, and talks about the books written by Englishman about the hazing that took place in their public school days. I'm fairly sure this is an indirect reference to Tom Brown's Schooldays.
* I regret to say that I've never read Herodotus or Thucydides.
I was probably to young to read them when I was fascinated by ancient history in my adolescents, and by the time I was older I had moved onto other interests.
I still have them on my list of books to read before I die.
If I ever do get around to reading these volumes, this lecture series would make a great companion to putting either book in context.
* One final note:
When I was about 14, I had ambitions of being an ancient history scholar, and I actually entered college as a classics major, before I got distracted by other interests. (Modern history suddenly seemed to me to be much more interesting).
When I listen to these lectures, or read a good book on ancient history, I sometimes regret slightly that I didn't stick with the ancient classics.
On the other hand, I have in my travels in the TESOL world met 3 people now who were in a PHD program in the classics, and all of them dropped out once they realized there were no jobs at the end of the tunnel, and it was all just a very expensive hobby.
Almost no one makes it as a full time job, and given my problems with lack of focus, and my middle-brow intelligence, I almost certainly would not have been among those select few.
In fact, at my old alma mater, the classics program has recently been completely axed, which means even my old professors no longer have job security[Links here and here].
Since the only realistic option was just enjoying this kind of stuff as a hobby, I guess I should have no regrets.
Link of the Day
Chomsky on Democracy in America
So, I imagine someone out there is probably indigently exclaiming: "What! It's 2016! Are you telling me you are just now discovering Yale Open Courses?"
Well, no, of course not. I've been dipping in and out of them for years now. Although I never wrote anything at the time, I used to listen to some of the courses when I was in Japan (specifically France Since 1871, and European Civilization 1648-1945).
I also wrote about the Yale lectures on the Old Testament and the New Testament , and then made -reference - to - the - content - of - these - lectures - several - times - since.
But this particular lecture is new to me. I've never gotten around to listening to Donald Kagan's class on ancient Greece.
In an effort to keep my brain from turning to mush from watching too much TV, I've decided to try to play these history lecture courses instead.
I've discovered I need something going on in my apartment when I'm getting up in the morning, or getting ready for work. The sound of silence just depresses me. This past year I've given in to the temptation to just turn on the TV a little bit too much, so I'm trying to use these Youtube lecture series as a substitute for TV. Having them on in the background helps ween me off of my TV addiction.
And, I figure as I watch these history lectures, I'll jot down some notes on my thoughts:
Notes (In No Particular Order)
* I've been vaguely familiar with Donald Kagan as an expert on the Peloponnesian War ever since I read this favorable review of his book by Blogging the Canon. (A blog I sometimes lurk on.) And Donald Kagan does not disappoint in this lecture series. He really gives fascinating expert account of all the causes leading up to the Peloponnesian War.
* That being said, as I was listening to these lectures, I thought I began to detect a rather right-wing view of history being presented. Even before I went to Wikipedia to check out Donald Kagan's political alliances, I was pretty sure he was going to be a staunch conservative. And sure enough, he is (W).
So, even as I praise Donald Kagan's ability to as an entertaining story-teller, I want to distance myself somewhat from his politics.
There are all sorts of little side-swipes that Kagan makes along the way, but my primary objection is that Kagan believes Democracy is a Western invention, and that it would never have arisen in the East if it hadn't been exported there by Western thinkers.
As a result of this thinking, Kagan believes that the Greek/Persian Wars were the central turning point of world history. If the Persians had won the war, the idea of democracy would have been extinguished, and we would never have had free representative governments in the modern era.
This is, to be fair, a very widespread view among historians. (My high school history teacher also had this view).
There is a counterview, however, held by political thinkers like Chomsky and others, which is that people don't need to be taught about democracy. The lower classes have always wanted some sort of control over their government and also some sort of control over their workplace. Historical circumstances have prevented them from obtaining this control for long periods of recorded history, but given the right set of favorable circumstances, this will always be their objective, no matter what their cultural background is.
So, according to this other view of thinking, even if the Persian Empire had completely wiped out the Greek States and conquered the world, the idea of democracy would not have gone away. Perhaps someday there might have been a democratic revolution within the Persian Empire instead.
* Kagan's contempt of pacifism would be my second major objection to his philosophy. Although I'm not sure he presents a coherent enough argument to refute. He praises the results of fighting when it defeated the Persian invasion, but he knows all too well that the Pelopponesian Wars were disastrous, and should be studied as a lesson in how to avoid unnecessary wars.
The problem with this view, however, is that it's only possible to untangle necessary wars from unnecessary wars with hindsight. (Remember how enthusiastic all of Europe was at the beginning of World War I?)
The other problem with this view is that the Just War theory has been outdated ever since the invention of the hydrogen bomb. Who cares if you're fighting for a just cause when the end result of any war between two nuclear armed powers will be the end of the world?
* All those objections being stated, however, I do think Donald Kagan did an excellent job of highlighting the intense ideological fighting among the Greeks over the concept of Democracy. (Democracy was not just handed down to the Greeks on a silver platter from the gods. The establishment of it, and maintenance of it, was a result of long struggles against the forces of oligarchy). Kagan also does a good job of highlight many of the class struggles in ancient Athens. I think he correctly uses the French Revolution as an analogy to describe much of what is happening in Athens during the Democratic Revolution.
* By the way, to tie this into a book review I did several years ago, the absence of all of this was one of my chief frustrations with A People's History of the World by Chris Harman. The ancient sources have left us very rich details about these ideological and class battles, and Harman completely ignores all of it.
* Another point I think that Kagan makes very well is that the word "Democracy" has become so abused in the modern world as to become meaningless. Every government calls itself a "Democracy", but, as Kagan points out, it's questionable how many of them actually qualify for the term. Even the United States.
In modern America, the President makes the decisions, and the public is only informed of what happened after the fact. (Kagan uses the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis as the classic example from his generation--Kennedy and his cabinet just made all the decisions, and once everything was a fait accompli, only then did they bother to inform the public.)
This Kagan contrasts with ancient Athens, in which the citizens actually gathered and deliberated on every state decision.
I've told this story once already, but I'm reminded again of a debate I once witnessed between Republican Party delegates and a group of anarchists. The Republican delegates were asking why these kids didn't respect democracy. The kids answered back that America wasn't a democracy--ancient Greece was a democracy. The Republican delegate threw up his hands and said, "Oh come on! You're not going to bring Ancient Greece into this?" I still remember how much contempt was in his voice.
America has never been a democracy, which makes it all the more egregious when Americans keep abusing the term, or using the word Democracy as synonymous with the American Government itself. At best, America is a republic, but in practice it's more of an elected monarchy. Once every four years, we get to choose our King, but other than that, our participation in our government is minimal.
* Another Point: In the documentary: Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky addresses a question often put to him: How can the United States Government be doing harm in the world when Americans have so much freedom and liberty at home?
Chomsky points out that historically there is often no correlation between the degree of freedom that the citizens of a country have, and whether or not that nation acts imperialistically in its foreign policy. Chomsky uses republican Rome and democratic Athens as examples.
Although Kagan is no Chomsky-ite, it's interesting listening to his lectures that this point is highlighted again. Some of the periods of most radical Athenian democracy also corresponded with the Athenian Empire at its most imperialistic.
* I'm disappointed that Kagan's lectures end exactly on the eve of Alexander the Great. (Kagan covers up through Alexander's father, Philip of Macedon, but then stops there).
Especially after having read a few different takes on Alexander - the - Great - this - past - year, I would have been curious to see who Kagan sided with.
For example, in Alexander: The Sands of Ammon, author Valerio Massimo Manfredi portrays Alexander as not simply conquering, but also liberating the Greek cities on Asia Minor from Persian rule, and in some cases restoring democracy to them. (Granted this is a work of historical fiction, but Manfredi is a classics scholar in his own right, so presumably he knows his facts as well.)
Was Alexander's legacy that he ended the age of classical Greek civilization? Or did he restore it, by ending Persian control over all the Greek city states on Asia Minor? I would have been interested to hear Kagan's take.
* Unrelated note: When talking about the Spartan training, Kagan compares it to the the 19th century British Public School system, and talks about the books written by Englishman about the hazing that took place in their public school days. I'm fairly sure this is an indirect reference to Tom Brown's Schooldays.
* I regret to say that I've never read Herodotus or Thucydides.
I was probably to young to read them when I was fascinated by ancient history in my adolescents, and by the time I was older I had moved onto other interests.
I still have them on my list of books to read before I die.
If I ever do get around to reading these volumes, this lecture series would make a great companion to putting either book in context.
* One final note:
When I was about 14, I had ambitions of being an ancient history scholar, and I actually entered college as a classics major, before I got distracted by other interests. (Modern history suddenly seemed to me to be much more interesting).
When I listen to these lectures, or read a good book on ancient history, I sometimes regret slightly that I didn't stick with the ancient classics.
On the other hand, I have in my travels in the TESOL world met 3 people now who were in a PHD program in the classics, and all of them dropped out once they realized there were no jobs at the end of the tunnel, and it was all just a very expensive hobby.
Almost no one makes it as a full time job, and given my problems with lack of focus, and my middle-brow intelligence, I almost certainly would not have been among those select few.
In fact, at my old alma mater, the classics program has recently been completely axed, which means even my old professors no longer have job security[Links here and here].
Since the only realistic option was just enjoying this kind of stuff as a hobby, I guess I should have no regrets.
Link of the Day
Chomsky on Democracy in America
Friday, January 25, 2013
Links
I found these lecture series absolutely fascinating and you will too.
From Yale University:
Introduction to the Old Testament by Christine Hayes
and
Introduction to the New Testament by Dale Martin
I can't recommend these enough. If you're at all interested in the subject matter, you'll find these fascinating listening.
It's several hours of lectures, but you don't need to do it all at once. You can download them and listen to them at your leisure. Once you listen to the first couple hours, I think you'll be hooked.
I'm going to reference both of these lectures in my next post, but I'm going to talk about a lot of stuff in my next post, and I wanted to make sure these didn't get lost in the jumble.
I found these lecture series absolutely fascinating and you will too.
From Yale University:
Introduction to the Old Testament by Christine Hayes
and
Introduction to the New Testament by Dale Martin
I can't recommend these enough. If you're at all interested in the subject matter, you'll find these fascinating listening.
It's several hours of lectures, but you don't need to do it all at once. You can download them and listen to them at your leisure. Once you listen to the first couple hours, I think you'll be hooked.
I'm going to reference both of these lectures in my next post, but I'm going to talk about a lot of stuff in my next post, and I wanted to make sure these didn't get lost in the jumble.
Introduction to the Old Testament by Christine Hayes: Review of a Youtube Series
Introduction to the New Testament by Dale Martin: Review of a Youtube Series
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
