One defense of Christianity is that it spread even in an environment that was ignorant to Old Testament prophecy.
I will argue that ignorance of the Old Testament makes one more open to Christianity. Of course, I'm not making a universal statement, and I'm not claiming the converse that Christians are ignorant of the OT. I'm evaluating the strength of the case made in the NT that the OT predicted Jesus' life and concluding that it is so bad, that the NT would be more likely to cause someone to accept Jesus if they had never read the OT.
Matt. 1:1-17 (genealogies)
Matthew's genealogies contain gaps when compared to the OT. The apologists answer is that Matthew was being loose with “father of” (compare to “Jesus son of David”) but was instead going for something numerological with the 14-14-14 pattern. That's reasonable so far. But when you count the names, you get 41, not 42 = 14 +14 + 14. And it's not a matter of counting grandfather-father-son as two or three generations – this alternate method of counting would give 40. When the genealogies are supposedly fixed around a numerological point, having the wrong number is quite an error. That's even an embarrassing mistake for a book written by a person without the Holy Spirit.
If you've never read the OT, I Chronicles 3:11-12 in particular, no explanation is needed. “Joram the father of Uzziah;” how complicated could it be? The idea that Matthew is neither inspired, nor particularly good, is a conclusion more true to the text than the one offered by apologists.
I learned about this a couple years ago. Less than a month after, Matthew 1 came up in a missions class I was taking called Perspectives. The missionary was talking about how different cultures view the Bible differently. There was one tribe with which the missionaries were getting nowhere for quite a while. Then one day he read the genealogies of Matthew to the natives. Their reaction was something like, “What? You mean they kept track of every single ancestor for all that time? Jesus was real!” And so the entire tribe converted.
While most of the room was no doubt praising the wisdom of the Holy Spirit for writing the Bible in such a way that all nations could come to believe, my thoughts were far different. What would I do if I was that missionary? Would I tell them that we know for certain that names are missing, and “father of” doesn't really mean “father of”? How long would I wait to translate I Chronicles? My emotions won the day, so I praised God and tried not to think. Emotions fade, but reasons never go away.
Matt. 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.” (BibleGateway's NASB uses all caps for OT quotation – that's not me shouting.)
is quoting
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”
Picky details: when did Mary, or anyone else, call his name Immanuel? Half the prophecy only happens in quotation of the prophecy. The other half, that the mother will be a virgin, is unclear in Isaiah.
More relevant details: Isaiah 7:16 makes it clear that it's supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's listeners. “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” As the king of Israel and the king of Assyria were dreaded by Judah, it is quite clear that Isaiah 7 is talking about kings in the present, thus events in the not-too-distant future.
Matt. 2:5-6 “They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"”
is (mis)quoting
Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel”
In Micah, it looks like Bethlehem Ephrathah (not to be confused with Bethlehem) is a clan, not a town. Also, it does not say “Messiah,” but “ruler.” What will this ruler do? Micah 5:5-6 answers this question; he will defeat the Assyrians. If Micah 5 is Messianic, it's hard to blame the Jews for expecting the Messiah to be a military leader.
This problem is a double problem (although the second is only a problem if the first is as well.) According to Matthew, when the chief priests and scribes were asked where the King of the Jews would be born, they answered Bethlehem. Thus, Matthew claims that not only can we see the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem when looking back, but we can also see it looking forward. We have copies of Micah, so we know that it could not have been seen looking forward. This not only means Matthew misused Micah, but it also means that the story of the magi looks fictitious for purely biblical reasons, or at least the detail about how they found out that Bethlehem was the destination.
Matt. 2:15 “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."”
is quoting Hosea 11:1, which is talking about Israel's escape from Egypt.
Matt. 2:17-18 “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."”
is quoting Jeremiah 31:15, which is describing events that Jeremiah saw.
Matt. 2:23 “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."”
Where? Remember that the point I'm arguing is not merely that the NT is wrong, but also that the NT's case that the OT foresaw the NT is strongest when viewed by someone who hasn't read the OT.
Matt 8:17 “[Jesus' healing of the sick] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."”
is quoting
Isaiah 53:4's: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;”
Isaiah 53:4 says he is suffering for us, while Matthew's paraphrase sounds like Jesus is taking away the suffering and no one is suffering in our place. Had Matthew argued that Isaiah 53 foresaw the NT's theology of the significance of the crucification, he would have had a better case. Matthew did not make this case.
Matt. 13:35 “I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”
misquotes Psalm 78:2 “I will utter dark sayings of old.” Matthew sounds like new revelation, while Psalms sounds like repetition of things known for a long time.
The people who should be most moved by the elucidation of prophecy are the people most familiar with the OT prophecy, the Jews. The Jew mostly reject the NT then and now. Looking at the arguments made by Matthew, it is easy to see why. The people most likely to be convinced by Matthew's claims of prophecy are the people who don't bother to look up the OT verses, and just take Matthew's word for it.
Here, I have heard a couple different Christian answers. Matthew was using either Midrash or Pesher (I don't remember which), a contemporary hermeneutic, and thus Matthew should be interpreted as the original audience would have in light of this hermeneutic. This doesn't answer the objection at all. That's like saying that parts of the Bible were written at a time when people didn't care what was true, thus parts of the Bible express an indifference to the truth. It certainly explains why the Bible looks like a work of man, but it doesn't explain how God fits in. Meanwhile, the alternative view that the Bible is a work of man that is not terribly good is quite consistent with what I see.
The other answer is that the OT was making dual prophecies, or prophecies in situations where the original author didn't know he was prophesying. But should not words be taken to mean what the speaker intended when the intent is clear? Also, the explanation just does not make sense when you look back at what the prophecies actually said. The clearest problem is in Isaiah 7:14-16. The prophecies is not just vague words that fits around multiple situations. They are clear, and clearly not about Jesus. “Two meanings” is a cop-out for not liking the one clear meaning. They could be less clear and still sufficiently clear to be valid proof-texts for major pieces of doctrine.
Hey, here we go...
ReplyDeleteFirst, the genealogies, Matthew actually counts the generations up to the exile- that's where he gets 14+14+14. So he counts Jeconiah before the exile and again after the exile and tells us this in v. 17. Similar to yourself, I don't get why he does this nor do I get why he leaves out a few generations when compared to Chronicles but I think it is a bit naive of us to assume that we've noticed this and the gospel writers (and other early Christians) didn't. When it comes to numbers (like 7), it seems as if they were used more symbolically than mathematically in the ancient near eastern cultures. For example, you know in Genesis when it gives the ancient ages of the patriarchs, they are often combinations of multiples of 60 and multiples of 7. This is comparable to other ancient Mesopotamian texts who describe their patriarchs as living tens of thousands of years. It seems as if numbers were used in a more symbolic way that we just don't get 2,000 years on in a completely different culture. However, these ways of listing generations and ages seem to have made sense to their contemporaries.
(The Genesis stuff I've mentioned is a garbled re-hash of some stuff I listened to by Dr Gordon Wenham in the multimedia folder of www.faraday-institute.org . This site is a must-visit for anyone interested in science/Bible issues (as I am)).
About the emotions winning the day over reason during your missions class, this reminds me of part of a book by Darrel Falk "Coming to peace with science" where he describes being afraid that reason would destroy his faith and this fear put him off studying biology. (He eventually does study biology and finds that reason does not destroy the Bible- see book for more detail).
Back to Matthew: I asked a famkily member about the virgin being with child prophecy and he said he hadn't heard a totally satisfactory answer yet but he also said that scholars can't place the prophecy to anything contemporary to Isaiah and seem to think it refers only to Jesus. (I have been further referred to a commentary on Isaiah which I have to track down). (I also asked him did this lack of explanation ever cause him to be skeptical about the Bible; he said that academics in whatever field realise that there will often be unanswered questions but that we can still study and search, that God has given us minds to use and just cos we don't have an answer now doesn't mean that there isn't one).
I forgot to ask him about Bethlehem and Jeremiah/Ramah. He brought up himself about the missing prophecy about the Nazarene and said everyone does wonder here what Matthew was referring to. (To me this shows the accuracy of the copies we have today- of course it doesn't prove they're inspired by God, just that they are accurate copies of what was originally written)
Re "Out of Egypt I called my son" referring back to Hosea, the thinking here is that Israel is a type/picture of Jesus in this case. The way that the NT writers use these types/pictures is similar to the allegorical writings of the time. (For example, apparently Plato used a lot of allegories in his writings) Israel is depicted here as being an imperfect picture of Jesus being called out of Egypt. This is similar to how the writer of Hebrews uses lots of pictures/types from the OT and shows how Jesus is the fulfilment of these shadowy pointers.
The "carried our infirmities" one and the "Land of Zebulun" prophecy seems to be pointing Matthew's readers back to Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 9 which give pretty good pictures (I think) of what Jesus did on earth. Just because Matthew didn't explicitly refer to the crucifixion here, I think that is more because it would have ruined the flow of what he was talking about at the time. In my NIV translation the Isaiah 53:4 reference says that "surely he took up our infirmities (not griefs) and carried our sorrows" which does match Matthew's fulfilment of prophecy.
I noticed that you left out the prophecies in Matthew 3:3, referring to John the Baptist and Matthew 4:14, referring back to Isaiah 9 and Matthew 12:18,19. Is that because they are examples of fulfilments that match the prophecies?
In summary, you are right: Matthew's prophecies raise some thorny questions for us. Some of them I think can be answered; some (like the one about the Nazarene) are still puzzles to us. But overall, I think the pictures we have in Isaiah 7, 9, 42, 53 (to which Matthew directs us) in particular, are pretty good outline sketches of the Jesus presented in the gospels.
The genealogies are a reason why I am not an inerrantist, and why I don't think the other genealogies in the Bible are reliable enough to inform my views on evolution. They are not a reason why I'm not a Christian like you are now or like I was for the last couple years.
ReplyDelete>he said that academics in whatever field realise that there will often be unanswered questions
I can accept that, which is why no one piece of evidence either way makes the call. I have a [non-literal] list of verses and evidence whose existence doesn't make much sense with Christianity, and a list of verses and evidence whose existence doesn't make sense without it. My cumulative case rejection of Christianity came from seeing that the “first list” is far longer and better than the “second list” (I will probably overuse these terms heavily.) We seem to agree that Matt. 1:23 goes on the first list.
>the thinking here is that Israel is a type/picture of Jesus in this case.
The problem is that 2:15 does not point the reader back to Hosea for a picture of Jesus, but says “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet...”
>everyone does wonder here what Matthew was referring to.
Matt. 2:23 goes on list one as well.
I've heard many educated Christians argue that an evidence for Jesus' status as Messiah is that the OT prophesied that he would be born in Bethlehem, come out of Egypt, and be from Nazareth. These misconceptions about the OT come from reading Matthew and believing it.
>To me this shows the accuracy of the copies we have today
This is a good point. If the Bible was maliciously tampered with to improve its credibility, it would make a lot more sense. IMO, it's pretty much fact that our modern texts basically match the texts around 200 A.D. or earlier. Much earlier is harder to say, but I give the burden of evidence to the skeptic to give a reason to distrust the authenticity of the text.
>I noticed that you left out the prophecies in ... 3:3 ... 4:14 ... 12:18,19. Is that because they are examples of fulfilments that match the prophecies?
With the first one, yes, although it's too vague to be impressive. With the next two, yes as well, except I missed two arguments that could have been made. See below.
>I think the pictures we have in Isaiah 7, 9, 42, 53 (to which Matthew directs us) in particular, are pretty good outline sketches of the Jesus presented in the gospels.
Isaiah 7 – I don't see it, except for the “virgin.” From this page, we can see that if Isaiah wanted to clearly communicate “virgin” rather than young woman, he could have done so. I could also have made a case that Matthew's claim that Isaiah said virgin is a misuse.
Isaiah 9:4-5 “For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders,
The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian.
For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult,
And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.”
If the passage from which this comes is Messianic as you and Matthew 4:15-16 think, this helps build the case that the Messiah of the OT was to be a military leader, not one who bring spiritual peace and leave Jerusalem to be destroyed.
Isaiah 42 is fairly vague. I suppose this is why in 12:21, Matthew felt the need to add “and in his name the gentiles will hope” to the end of his quotation of Isaiah 42:1-3.
Isaiah 53 was apparently misunderstood by Matthew in 8:17, as he sees it pointing to Jesus miracles, rather than to his crucifixion as you think. Furthermore, Isaiah never describes the suffering servant as the Messiah.
But despite this, I will count it as evidence for Christianity because so many details line up – although more so with the theology of Jesus' death than the mere historical facts of what happened. My best explanation is that this was a chapter that was highly influential in the writing on the NT. Here you are doing the fact-stating, while I am doing the explaining. If all, or even much, of the OT was like Isaiah 53, the case for the OT's prediction of Jesus would be strong.
However, I find the case for the OT's teaching of Jewish religious beliefs that differ from Christianity to be far stronger than the case from Isaiah 53. (IMO, the article oversells the case, but the points themselves are quite strong. In general, Jewish sources give the best rebuttals to Christian positions concerning the OT, as could be expected.)
You know too much! :-) Well, more than I do. But still it's not too late for me to learn. Probably won't get to address these til at least next week but I haven't forgotten (just so you know!)
ReplyDeleteSo. I don't think I have spent as much time reading the NT and comparing it to the OT in a long long time. I haven't yet been able to borrow any commentaries so all subsequent material is purely from my own digging.
ReplyDeleteRe Isaiah 9:4-5, I don't see that this necessarily points to a military leader (but maybe we're getting into pedantics here)
(1) "Midian's defeat" (recalled by Isaiah) by Gideon and the 300 men did not entail much fighting by the Israelites (Judges 7)
(2) the indication that the warrior's boots and bloody garments would be destined for burning imply the end of fighting
(3)The reason given for the shattering of the yoke is because of the birth of a child, which doesn't conjur up military images
Also in Isaiah 7:6, the prophecy does seem to imply that this child will be God.
I checked out the reference to the Jewish source you gave. It's an interesting challenge and I hope to investigate this further using a book (internet sources are not usually subject to peer review and don't give extensive bibliographies etc). I thought this book sounded intriguing: "Answering Jewish objections to Jesus", vols 3+4, by Michael Brown- so they're on order :-)
Anyway, while I was flicking back and forth from Old to New I rediscovered Psalm 22 and was actually very (pleasantly!) surprised at how many details of Jesus' death it depicted, e.g.- v.1 (obviously) v.7-8 (Mt 27:43); v.15 (Jn 19:28); v.18 (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:29). I know an objection could be that Jesus had it in mind and that's why he said, "My God, my God , why have you forsaken me" and why he said he was thirsty. However, he could also have said "My God, my God etc" to help the disciples see that this psalm painted a picture of his death.
Another thing I was again surprised by was the way the instructions to the Israelite people about the Passover lamb included not breaking its bones- and Jesus' bones were also not broken (John 19:33).
Obviously these are just a few of my own thoughts so far; however, notwithstanding some anomalies in Matthew, I'm still convinced that Jesus is the Messiah. To be perfectly honest I was a little nervous about undertaking this exercise because the last time I did something like this I ended up conceding the point (it was Noah's ark- global or local; I admit now- local).
I also had to consider the first followers of "the Way", that small Jewish sect (Acts 24:14). They were Jews and they became convinced from Scripture and the Resurrection that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. I looked through Acts and found instances of Paul arguing with the Jews and noted that "Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe" (Acts 28:24).
Anyway, I will investigate these answers to Jewish rebuttals which you say make the best case against Jesus and get back to you!
IN DEFENCE OF MATTHEW
ReplyDeleteJeffrey- I will argue that ignorance of the Old Testament makes one more open to Christianity.
And I will challenge that argument by drawing attention to the fact that the way Matthew refers to the OT is consistent with the way his contemporary Rabbis would have also used the OT. And also that he does not make errors in his writings but it is careful and attentive to detail. (My work here does not set out to prove Jesus is the Messiah or that Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit- although this is what I believe.)
Matt. 1:23 (quoting Isaiah’s prophecy about virgin birth and calling Jesus Immanuel)
Jeffrey- When did anyone call Jesus “Immanuel”?
2 Samuel 12:24-25. Nathan the prophet sent word to David to name his son Solomon “Jedidiah” yet when did anyone ever refer to Solomon as that? The name here in this case is significant because of its meaning: “Jedidiah” means “loved by the Lord”. Similarly, the Talmud and other Rabbinic commentaries claim (contrary to Christian beliefs of course) that the birth of Hezekiah fulfilled Isaiah 9:6- yet when was Hezekiah ever referred to as Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God etc? Finally, Jesus is praised by millions of his followers as Immanuel now, so the prophecy is fulfilled in that way. Plus the meaning of the name “God with us” is fulfilled in Jesus (if the gospels are true). My argument here is simply that the way in which Matthew applies this prophecy is consistent with the way in which other Jewish commentators and indeed the OT writer of Samuel apply name-calling.
Jeffrey-...it is quite clear that Isaiah 7 is talking about kings in the present, thus events in the not-too-distant future...
Actually, this passage of Scripture is not clear at all either for Jews or Christians. Furthermore because of the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isaiah 8:1) which is recorded as actually happening in Isaiah’s day, some scholars think the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz replaced the birth of Immanuel in the immediate fulfilment of this prophecy. Again, I’m not arguing that Matthew was right to say Jesus’ birth fulfilled the prophecy of Immanuel- just that it is consistent with Jewish tradition and interpretation of the OT.
-Jeffrey Matt. 2:15 “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."” is quoting Hosea 11:1, which is talking about Israel's escape from Egypt.
Yes, of course it’s talking about Israel’s escape from Egypt- it is to this that Matthew wishes to draw our attention. Matthew is attempting to show his Hebrew audience the parallels between Jesus, God’s son, and Israel, God’s national son (if you will).
Note the parallels:
1. An edict to kill baby boys at the time Moses was born (Ex 1:15-22) and at the time Jesus was born (Matt 2:16-18)
2. Israel as an infant in Egypt (Gen 46), just as Jesus was (Matt 2:13-15) and both called out of Egypt (Ex 3:8; Matt 2:21)
3. Israel crossed Jordan River (Josh 3); Jesus baptised in Jordan (Matt 3:13-15)
4. Israel tested for 40 years; Jesus tested for 40 days (Matt 4) (and he quoted Deuteronomy at the end of those days- remember that Deuteronomy was the book composed at the end of Israel’s wanderings)
Matthew is deliberately using this verse to show the parallels between Jesus, God’s son, and Israel, God’s son (Exodus 4:22).
To be continued...
>the way Matthew refers to the OT is consistent with the way his contemporary Rabbis would have also used the OT.
ReplyDeleteI agree so far - I hinted at that myself. My response was “This doesn't answer the objection at all. That's like saying that parts of the Bible were written at a time when people didn't care what was true, thus parts of the Bible express an indifference to the truth. It certainly explains why the Bible looks like a work of man, but it doesn't explain how God fits in.”
This is especially difficult to wrestle with, because if there is one place where the Bible should look like the work of God rather than man, it should be in the way it interprets itself. Interpreting the Bible in a way that does not involve saying the Bible says something it didn't say is something I expect out of even mortal teachers. I could let go of my belief that the Bible shares scientific insight and even accept the idea that it consistently reflects the science of its day, but on foundational doctrinal issues, like how to read the Bible, should it not rise above its culture and teach us?
>Also in Isaiah 7:6, the prophecy does seem to imply that this child will be God.
Did you mean 7:14?
“God with us” is very different from “I am God.” The plural “us” suggests that “God with us” is talking about God's relationship with a group of people, rather than the individual's identity.
>My argument here is simply that the way in which Matthew applies this prophecy is consistent with the way in which other Jewish commentators and indeed the OT writer of Samuel apply name-calling.
Granted. I should have gone with my intuition and left out the picky detail rather than merely labeling it as such. I do not consider it positive evidence for fulfilled prophecy, but I also was incorrect to use it as negative evidence rather than merely neutral.
>Another thing I was again surprised by was the way the instructions to the Israelite people about the Passover lamb included not breaking its bones- and Jesus' bones were also not broken (John 19:33).
It is on details greater than this that the Gospels contradict. With what level of precision are they written? If a bone in Jesus' hand or foot was broken, how would John have known the difference? A level high enough to think that Jesus' bones were not broken is a level high enough for the apparent contradictions to be real contradictions.
>Matthew is deliberately using [Hoses 11:1] to show the parallels between Jesus, God’s son, and Israel, God’s son (Exodus 4:22).
The parallels are certainly there. Although a simple prophecy of “the Messiah will come out of Egypt” would be more impressive than a list of parallels coming from Hoses' statement in the context of historical narrative – the existence of such an explicit prophecy is the impression one would have from reading Matthew without the OT. The reason this would be better is that if this part of Israel's history hadn't been parallel to Jesus, it could be overlooked and couldn't be used as a skeptical argument of false prophecy. This use of the OT allows Matthew to score lots of “hits” that are barely even hits, while overlooking analogous misses – the misses can easily be written off as not prophecy at all.
>remember that Deuteronomy was the book composed at the end of Israel’s wanderings
Are you familiar with the JEPD source theory of the Pentateuch? I'm currently reading “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong (I think she's some sort of religious pluralist) and “Inspiration and Incarnation” by Peter Enns (he's trying to remain evangelical – the degree to which he succeeds is debatable. As you've likely heard, this book is leading to his removal from Westminster Theological Seminary.)
The Isaiah 7 prophecy gets less credible when Jews argue that it shouldn't have been translated as virgin, but as young woman. (No one was expecting a virgin birth, that was a common Greek mythical element)
ReplyDeleteConsidering Matthew would have been reading from the Septuagint, which had the incorrect translation (along with the whole colt saga) it makes the case that Matthew fitted Jesus to the Old Testament prophecies.
Worse still the Isaiah prophecy was already fulfilled in the 8th Century. One also has to ask did Jesus satisfy the prophecy vis a vis those parts after 7:14...
http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html
I was always interested in why the Jews rejected Jesus - and not just the Christian explanation as to why the Jews reject Jesus.
Aaron,
ReplyDelete>(No one was expecting a virgin birth, that was a common Greek mythical element)
Oh, yes. I keep on learning more and more about "biblical" stories and ideas that predate the Bible's use of them.
>Worse still the Isaiah prophecy was already fulfilled in the 8th Century.
What are you referring to?
I would refer any readers of this to the lengthy but complete discussion of this and many other issues found in "The Grounds of Christianity Examined" by George Bethune English.
ReplyDeleteThis work provides a very complete discussion of many issues.
The book is available free at Gutenberg.
Good post and Smart Blog
ReplyDeleteThanks for your good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog Ancient Egypt and more The Dark Age in Ancient Greece and Responses thanks again admin