Bible Query - Responding to Asimov's Guide to the Bible on the Old Testament
Q: What are the earliest copies we have of the Apocryphal books?
A: Among the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of Sirach and possibly Tobit. Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) and Alexandrinus (c450 A.D.) contain the entire Apocrypha including 3 and 4 Maccabees (early version, not just modern Catholic version). Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.) contains Tobit, Judith, 1 and 4 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach.
Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.573 says that Baruch, also called "The Letter of Jeremiah", was written around 100 B.C. primarily as an argument against idol worship. It is in some Greek and Syriac versions of the Bible.
Q: In Gen 1 do the similarities between this and the Babylonian creation accounts prove they were from a common, human origin? (Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.1197 says this is very likely)
A: Babylonian accounts are similar in many physical details, but almost diametrically opposite in terms of cause. In contrast to Marduk struggling against the chaos of the dragon Tiamat, God commands what happens. If there is some truth in non-Biblical culture that should not be a surprise. In addition, the style of Genesis 1 appears to be a deliberate contrast with pagan concepts.
Q: In Gen 2:2, was the concept of the Sabbath Babylonian in origin that was added to Jewish tradition later, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.19,847-848 says it is tempting to suppose?
A: Two answers, one for Christians and one for non-Christians
1. (for Christians): If you assume that Jesus was from God as proved by his resurrection, since Jesus accepted the original accuracy and preserved reliability of the Old Testament, and the references to the Sabbath in Genesis and Jeremiah can be proved to be written before Jesus, it was not a Babylonian invention, and there is nothing more that needs to be said.
2. (for non-Christians): In Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.847 he says the Babylonians called the 15th day of the month sappatu. Of course, that is only one day a month not four. On p.19, Asimov was astute to notice that the Sabbath seemed of little consequence to the Israelites in Pre-Exilic times and of great importance in Post-Exilic times. However, to postulate that the Babylonian and Post-Exilic Jews were universally "hoodwinked" into a) believing their exile was due to failure to obey a command that was not in their Scriptures, and b) this was added in 59 places (35 of which were in the Torah) without anybody noticing the new concept, is incredulous. By the way, not all the Jews went to Babylonia. Jeremiah records that some went instead to Egypt. It was descendents of those Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek, and in the Greek Septuagint translation has the Sabbath verses, too.
Any and every speculation about errors in the Bible might be seem completely believable to someone who thought it very important to show there were errors in the Bible and they did not have to follow it. However, even Isaac Asimov at least recognized the tenuousness of this theory by not mentioning it as any more than a temptation.
Q: In Gen 4:22, is the name "Tubal-Cain" related to the region of "Tubal" in modern Turkey as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.33 says?
A: While it cannot be proven either way, it probably is not related. Tubal was also the name of a son of Japheth, and the Tubal people likely were related to him. The "Tubal" people were mentioned in Assyrian records during the time of Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C. and Sargon around 732 B.C. See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1751 for more info.
Q: In Gen 6:4-5, who were the Nephilim or "Sons of God"?
A: Nephilim means people called them "sons of God" and here are some theories.
Godly line of Seth, or believers who sinned by marrying unbelievers. 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.65,348 advocates this, and says this was Scofield's view. This view goes as far back as Julius Africanus writing in 232-245 A.D., in Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 p.131.
Mighty kings is the interpretation of the Aramaic Targum.
Another race such as Neanderthals or possibly Homo erectus.
Technologically advanced: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.73 thinks that the Israelites called them giants because of their high walls and technologically advanced weapons.
Children of women and demon-possessed men.
Some demonic beings could interbreed was the belief of the Jews Philo, Josephus (<100 A.D.), and the writer of 1 Enoch (chapter 6). The Christians Justin and Ambrose (c378 A.D.) also believed this. See Difficulties in the Bible p.186 for more info.
Perhaps this was Satan's attempt to alter our gene pool. However, if demons could interbreed how could Jesus half-way atone for half-men, half-demons? Hank Hanegraff mentioned this on the excellent radio show, the Bible Answer Man 10/29/97. See also The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.46-47, Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament p.35, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.79-80, When Critics Ask p.40-41, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.106-108, and Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.208-209 for more info.
Q: In Gen 10:8-12, were the deeds of Nimrod an amalgamation of the feats of Lugal-Zaggasi, Sargon of Agade, Hammurabi, and Shalmaneser I, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible says (p.52)?
A: No. While we do not know much about these ancient Sumerian kings except for the tens of thousands of Sumerian tablets that have been preserved, the similarities between those conquerors and Nimrod are remote. The Bible simply mentions that Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord, that Nimrod's career began in four cities in Shinar (Sumer), and later he went into Assyrian built four closely spaced cities there, which later became very influential. The Bible does not say anything else about Nimrod, so it is hard to make a comparison. Nimrod could not have been Hammurabi, because Hammurabi (1803/1793-1760/1750 B.C.) lived long after Abraham. Nimrod might in fact be a Biblical reference to Sargon, except that we know too little about both Sargon and Nimrod to say.
Q: In Gen 11:7, as far as we know, were early beliefs always polytheists with monotheism being a later development, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.18 says?
A: No. As far as we know from history, the early Chinese religion was monotheistic, as well as some other southeast Asian cultures. The early Chinese name for this monotheistc God was "Shang-di", which is used for God in Chinese Bibles today.
Q: In Gen 11:9, was deriving the name "Babel" from the Hebrew word balal meaning "mixed, confused, or confounded" false, because the in Babylonian Bab-ilu means "gate of God", as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.55 says?
A: No. Asimov assumes that Babel is the city of Babylon, while it might be a city in ruins by then. It does not say the Babylonians or Sumerians said it was because it was mixed, confused, or confounded. Rather, Genesis was saying that wherever Babel was, the people afterwards, (including the Hebrews who read Genesis), could call it Babel because the languages were confused there.
Q: In Gen 13:8, 29:15, how were these men brothers?
A: In Genesis 13:8 Abram is calling Lot his brother, while in Genesis 29:15, Laban is calling Jacob his brother. The Bible is recording that Abram and Laban were expressing both their close feelings and their blood kinship, but they were not actually brothers.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.819-820 does not see any problem with this, but adds that in these cases enough genealogical material is usually given so that we know the exact relationship. This is not the case with Jesus' brothers, so they likely were biological half-brothers.
Q: In Gen 14:18, how old is the city of Jerusalem?
A: We think it was founded about 3000 B.C. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.74 says that early Egyptian chronicles call the city "Urusalim", which iimplies that the "salem" part of Jerusalem goes back as least as far as the "Jebus" part.
Q: In Gen 20 and Ex 23:31, how could the Philistines be in Israel in Abraham's time, about 2000 B.C.?
A: the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.85 mentions this. The earliest levels of Ashdod were occupied back in the 17th century (H.F. Vos, Archaeology in Bible Lands). Somebody lived in that fertile land back then, and there is no historical evidence which says it was not the Philistines. After the Egyptians defeated the Philistines in 1190 B.C., they came to Palestine in force, and makes sense they would retreat to where they already had towns. See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.94-96, When Critics Ask p.50 for more info.
Q: In Ex 5:2, who was the Pharaoh of Egypt and when was the Exodus?
A: The Pharaoh who died here was probably Thutmose III. His chief queen was Hatshepsut Meritre (different from his mother, the famous Hatshepsut). The Exodus took place around 1446/1445 B.C. The reason for this 1446/1445 date is 1 Kings 6:1, which says that Solomon began to construct the Temple 480 years after Israelites came out of Egypt, and archaeologists are confident this would be 966 B.C..
This would be under either Thutmose III, or more probably, under Pharaoh Amenhotep II (1450/20-1401/1385 B.C.). His chief queen was named Tia. Other Christians used to think the Exodus took place much later under Rameses II (1290-1224 B.C.). The 1446/1445 B.C. date fits because:
1. 1 Kings 6:1 says 480 years before Solomon's Temple.
2. Under Amenhotep II, Semites were forced to make bricks.
3. Dream Stela of Thutmose IV. See the discussion on Exodus 12:29.
4. Judges 11:26 says 300 years before Jephthah.
5. Hazor was not inhabited after 13th century.
6. Amarna tablets 1400 B.C. mention the feared "Habiru" or "Abiru" running amok.
7. Clement of Alexandria, in Stromata 1:21 (183-217 A.D.), mentions 450 years from the time of Joshua to David.
8. The name was Rameses used before the 13th century. See CHRONOLOGICAL AND BACKGROUND CHARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT p.29-30 and When Critics Ask p.67-68. Ramose was the name of a nobleman in the time of Amenhotep III, according to Inerrancy p.64.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.327 says "To have the Exodus take place then (1449 B.C.) is unthinkable.". However, secular archaeologist David Rohl in Pharaohs and Kings : A Biblical Quest (Crown Publishers 1995), p.278-283, makes a strong case that the Exodus was 1447 B.C. and the reigning Pharaoh was Thutmose III.
Q: In Ex 23:19 and Dt 14:23, why shouldn't people boil a kid in its mother's milk?
A: -Simply because God told them not to do it. Whether an action is idolatrous, magical, profane, cruel, or contemptuous is not the main point; the ultimate reason is that God disliked it and said not to do it. See When Critics Ask p.80 for more info.
There was also an ancient Canaanite and Syrian practice of this going back to at least the 15th century B.C., according to the Expositor's Bible Commentary Volume 3 p.101.
In Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.161, Isaac Asimov, a skeptical Jew, says that later Jews expanded on this to not having meat and milk served at the same meal, or even prepared using the same utensils.
Q: In Lev 16:8, who is Azazel, and what relationship does he have with the scapegoat?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.158-159 claims that this was evidence of a prior, more primitive Jewish mythology. Three points for a Christian response.
1. We have so little evidence of the specifics of idolatrous Israelite practices, that trying to deduce idolatrous practices from monotheistic practices is like deducing what Christian churches do by looking at Muslim practices.
2. Christians freely admit that from the earliest times many Israelites had idolatrous, mythological practices. One needs only read of the golden calf at Mount Sinai, or the constant exhortations against idol worship, to see that the Old Testament candidly admits this wickedness, though the Bible does not go into too many details.
3. Asimov's claim has the presupposition that the Old Testament rituals could not have been given by a transcendent God. Rather, Asimov assumes the source must have been idolatrous practices, and by using circular reasoning, he uses the example of Azazel to prove his point. Asimov's flaw is that while he uses the comparison of Azazel with a hypothetical idolatrous Israelite practice to show this ritual was not given by a transcendent God, there is no evidence of idolatrous Israelites having a practice similar to Azazel.
Q: In Lev 17:7, were the demons here (sairrim), wild goat gods, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.159 claims?
A: According to Green's Literal translation, the Hebrew here means "sacrifices to goats". Thus, they were tempted to make sacrifices to goat-gods, as Asimov puts it.
Q: In Lev 20:2, does "Molech" really refer to "melech" (king), and is this a prohibition against the god of the people, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.162 claims?
A: No. The name Molech might have been derived from the word for king. However, this was a specific idol the Ammonites worshipped. There is evidence a god with the name Muluk was known in the city-state of Mari c.1700 B.C.. according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.705.
Q: In Lev 23:6, Is it true that "Undoubtedly the use of unleavened bread in ritual is extremely ancient, dating back to long before the Exodus" as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.156 claims?
A: We have no record of this being performed prior to the Exodus. If Asimov thinks it significant that we have no record of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kipper) prior to the Exile (see the discussion on Lev 23:26-32), why does he think the use of unleavened bread was very ancient?
Someone else could argue (with just as little support) the opposite, that the Day of Atonement was before the Exodus, and using unleavened bread was after the Exile. Of course all the scriptures that mention unleavened bread could be dismissed as "additions apparently written after the exile, since unleavened bread indicates a late date."
I am guessing Asimov got this from the Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 6 p.756 and especially p.759-760 under "Theories of Origin". However, this liberal book provides no evidence of this being celebrated outside of the Bible. Apparently this theory started with Julius Wellhausen in the 19th century.
As for me, since the only evidence shows the Israelites practicing both here, I choose to go with the evidence.
Q: In Lev 23:26-32, Lev 16:1-34, and Num 29:7-11, Is it true that there is no record of the Day of Atonement being observed until post-Exilic times, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.158 claims?
A: Asimov provides no record of it being observed in Old Testament Post-Exilic times either, but that is beside the point. One would not expect many records of temple rituals that say "we performed it like we were supposed to do." Similarly, one does not have historical records of wood being gathered for the Temple, but we do know that Gibeonites, who were the wood gatherers, performed their function both before and after the exile. Likewise, we do not have pre-Exilic records of any Temple ritual, besides what is already written in the Bible.
On the Year of Jubilee, a trumpet was sounded on the Day of Atonement according to Leviticus 25:8-9. Thus, celebration of the year of Jubilee includes celebration of the Day of Atonement.
It would seem strange that Moses would have written down the rituals for the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:1-34; 32:26-32; and Numbers 29:7-11, and then immediately not follow it.
Q: In Num 1 and Ex 1, how could the Sinai Peninsula support over 600,000 men plus women and children?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.166 says this is implausibly large. Even with were more abundant rainfall back then, it still could not support them as in Exodus 16:3. That is why the miracles of the manna and quail (Exodus 16) were not merely helpful, but necessary. See also When Critics Ask p.96 and p.131 for more info and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.129-134 for a particularly extensive answer.
Q: In Num 12:1, could the "Ethiopian" woman, actually have been an Arabian, since the Hebrew word is Cushi?
A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.167-168 mentions this as a possibility. I had not found any Arab tribe of that time with that name. However, there was a Mesopotamian tribe with that name, and perhaps that is to what Isaac Asimov was referring.
While it is remotely possible that the woman might have been from that rather distant tribe (east of Babylon), it is more likely the woman was from Ethiopia, and "Cushite" would be the term to tell us that.
Q: In Num 12:1, could this "Cushite" woman have been Zipporah, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.168 suggests?
A: Most likely not, as Zipporah was from the Midianite tribe, and not from the Cushites. However, if some blacks were accepted as part of the Midianites, it is possible that Zipporah could have been black, and thus called a Cushite.
Even if Zipporah was dark-skinned, she was most probably not the woman mentioned in Numbers 12:1, as Moses had been married to Zipporah prior to leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
Q: In Num 22:5, do we have any extra-Biblical evidence of Balaam's hometown of Pethor?
A: Possibly so. An inscription of Shalmaneser II mentions a town on the Euphrates and Sagur rivers just west of Carchemish called Pitru, and this might be Pethor. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.183 also adds the Egyptians called this Pedru. See The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.775 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1322 for more info.
Q: In Num 26 and Num 1, how come the tribe of Simeon lost about 60% of it members?
A: Most tribes lost a few members, as the total went from 603,550 to 601,730. However, Simeon went from 59,300 to 22,200 as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.166 points out. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1592 also mentions this and says a probable reason is that many of them might have been executed along with their leader, Zimri, during the Baal of Peor occurrence in Numbers 25:1-15.
Q: In Num 31:1-24, was the war with the Midianites an unhistorical story to mask an inconclusive war with the Moabites, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.190 asserts?
A: The Israelites fought the Midianites because of the incidents in Numbers 22:4 and 25:14-18. Asimov characteristically provides no evidence for his assertion. However, common sense suggests that if an ancient people lived close by another nation for many years, either they would become friends or they would have some battles between them. The Israelites and Midianites never became friends.
Q: In Num 31:16, did the memory of the incident at Peor strengthen the position of later Yahvists against foreign intermarriage, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.190 claims?
A: Asimov assumes the Old Testament did not come from God. He is trying to read in to it a political battle between those who were against intermarriage and those who were for it.
While there were struggles in the Old Testament between Israelites who were serious about following God's Law and those who were not, the early date of composition of Genesis was prior to the alleged political groups Asimov is trying to create.
Q: In Dt 33:7, as Judah's kingship is not mentioned, does this show this was composed after the northern tribes split away, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.206 says?
A: No, it would be equally valid to say that no mention of Judah's kingship would be made if it was before David and the united kingdom, as it would be to say it was after the time of the united kingdom. Actually, since these were blessings of Moses, there was no need to either mention or not mention Judah's kingship.
Q: In Josh 4:19, did the twelve stones have a pre-Israelite Canaanite significance, similar to Stonehenge in England, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.212 says is quite likely?
A: There is no archaeological evidence that there was any pre-Israelite significance of these stones. If the Israelites brought the stones themselves, there would not be any stone altar there prior to the Israelites.
Q: In Josh 4:19, did the Israelite religion "assimilate" Gilgal, somewhat as Muslims "assimilated the Kaaba and the holiness of Mecca from the pagan past and Christianity assimilated the Christmas celebration from pagan rites centering about the winter solstice", as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.212 claims?
A: No. Here are Asimov's assumptions.
1. While the name Gilgal could mean many things, there is no proof it means circle of stones.
2. Asimov has no evidence that Gilgal had Canaanite religious significance.
3. There is no evidence of similarity to stonehenge.
As to what Asimov says about other religions:
The Muslim Bukhari Hadith freely admits that the Quaraysh had 360 idols in the Kaaba prior to Mohammed.
Christians celebrate Christmas for the birth of Christ. As to Asimov saying this was taken over from a pagan soltice festival is only indirectly true. Of the 25 or so Roman festivals throughout the year, it was during Saturnalia (December 17-24) that slaves were temporarily freed. Many Christians were slaves, and it would make sense for them to celebrate at the time they were temporary free.
Q: In Josh 6, did the walls of Jericho fall because Israelite sappers dug under the walls while the Canaanites were distracted by the marching, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.213 says?
A: Asimov has a clever theory, but there are three problems with it.
1. They only marched around the walls for seven days, which would not have been enough time to tunnel under the walls. Remember, ancient peoples did not have explosive charges, so they would have to do extensive digging under the walls.
2. They would have required great precision in their digging, to go the correct depth up the hill and possibly under a ditch.
3. There is no record that the concept of digging under city walls to undermine them was even thought of at that time, 3,400 years ago.
Q: In Josh 11:10-11, how could Hazor, which Joshua totally destroyed and burned, enslave Israel a few generations later in Jdg 4:3?
A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.236 points to this as an inaccuracy of Joshua. However, 170 years is plenty long for a city to be rebuilt. Archaeology actually tells use that the city of Hazor was burned 1400 B.C, 1300 B.C. by the Egyptians, and 1230 B.C. Regardless of the bias of critics of the Bible, archaeology tells the story very precisely. See the previous question and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.93 for more info on how Hazor was destroyed by Joshua and rebuilt 170 years later by the Canaanites to oppress the Israelites.
Q: In Jdg, were the periods of each judge and oppression consecutive, or were some simultaneous?
A: The Book of Judges does not explicitly say, 1 Kings 6:1 says it was 480 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon's Temple. These would make the periods of Judges non-overlapping. While Asimov's Guide to the Bible (p.230) claims it was impossible for the Exodus to have occurred around 1440 B.C., an Egyptologist, David Rohl has extensive documentation of how it did occur around that time. See the discussion on Exodus 5:2 for more info, David Rohl's in Pharaohs and Kings : A Biblical Quest (Crown Publishers 1995), p.278-283, for a strong case that the Exodus was 1447 B.C.
Q: In Jdg, since so much is unedifying and unflattering in the book of Judges, does that mean "one is forced to trust the Book of Judges to be a more accurate reflection of secular history than the Book of Joshua can be" as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.224 says?
A: No; there are two points to consider in the answer.
1. Asimov's Guide to the Bible is correct in saying there is much that is unflattering to Israel here, and this shows the candid honesty of the author. However, unflattering does not mean unedifying. We are supposed to learn from other's mistakes, and one of the main points of the book of Judges is the mistake of every man doing what is right in his own eyes.
2. Asimov's Guide to the Bible betrays a subjective anti-Biblical bias here. Since Judges is less positive toward the Israelites, how does being more positive or negative prove truthfulness. Perhaps if we took a book and removed all the negative parts, then the book would not be true at all! If we took the same book and removed all the positive parts, would that make the remainder totally true! While the existence of negative aspects shows the author did not want to gloss over the negative parts, the degree of positive or negative parts does not prove how accurate a reflection something is.
Q: In Jdg 1, were there twelve judges listed, to correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.230 says?
A: No. There is nothing, except in Asimov's mind, that says the twelve Judges who "held sway" corresponded to twelve tribes. In addition, it was thirteen judges, not twelve, since Abimelech also "governed Israel" in Judges 9:22.
Q: In Jdg 2:13, was "ashtoreth" a generic word for a Semitic goddess, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.232 says?
A: No. While the name here is in a plural form, it refers to multiple statues of the same goddess, not different goddesses. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary (p.700-707) has an extensive section on 36 or so specific Mideast deities, and Ashtarte was a specific goddess worshipped by many peoples in many languages. She was the goddess of sex, fertility in general, and often war. She was called "Ishtar" by the Babylonians, "Inanna" by the earlier Sumerians, ttrt at Ugarit, 'strt in Phoenicia, Astarte in Greek script, and Attar (South Arabic). Astarte/Ishtar also may be related to Greek Aphrodite and Roman Venus.
Note that there is also a goddess named "Asherah", also known to the Sumerians, southern Arabs, the people of Ugarit as Athiratu-yammi, and to the Babylonians as Ashratum and to the Egyptians as Abdi-Ashirta. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.701 says that this is a different goddess than Ashtarte/Ishtar.
Q: In Jdg 2:13, was "Ashtoreth" a distortion of the correct name, Ashtarte, because pious Israelite editors combined the vowels of Bosheth (shame) with the consonants of Ashtarte/Astarte, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.233 says?
A: The New Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans 1962) p.96 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.702 both mention that some scholars believe this. The original Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were written without the vowel points, so whatever vowels were used were a later addition.
Q: In Jdg 3:8, was Cushan-Rishathaim a real name, or a scornful title as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.233-234 says?
A: Asimov is probably either totally correct or at least half correct here. The Israelites transliterated names in other languages, and perhaps Cushan was a transliteration. Regardless, "Rishathaim" means double wickedness, and that was probably not his real name. Cushan is more likely to be a transliteration of a name than "Cushite", though Asimov's assertion that is means Cushite is possible.
Q: In Jdg 4:9 and elsewhere in Judges, is the mention of the tribe of Ephraim and its prominent position evidence that Judges was composed after the northern kingdom broke away, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.237 claims?
A: No. Apparently according to some critics, if a part mentions Ephraim, it was written in the northern kingdom; if it mentions Judah, it was written in the southern kingdom, if a book mentions both, it had two parts, written in different places.
It is not inconceivable to an unbiased observer, that some one in Judah might at least mention Ephraim a few times, and it is not inconceivable that some one in Ephraim might mention Judah. It is also not inconceivable, that if the books were written prior to the divided kingdom, there would not be any antagonism between the two.
Q: In Jdg 5, is the Song of Deborah considered one of the most ancient parts of the Bible, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.239 claims?
A: No conservative Bible scholar had this view, but Harper's Bible Dictionary (Harper & Row 1961) p.132 also has this view. Neither this nor Asimov provide support for this assertion, so let's just mark this as another personal opinion of liberals and skeptics, and not confuse it with arguments where people do present supporting evidence.
Q: In Jdg 11:30-40, was this the appropriation of a pre-Israelite pagan festival, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.246-247 says is often suggested?
A: No. While there was a Mideast custom of women weeping for Tammuz (a male god), there is no evidence that this was the source of this Israelite custom. Furthermore, there is no evidence of this Israelite custom surviving very long.
Q: In Jdg 13-16, can the story of Samson be made to fit into the type of solar myths common in ancient times, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.248-251 asserts?
A: No. Asimov asserts two things, that Samson was a type of the solar myths (p.248), and Nazirites in general, were a type of the solar myths because their long hair represents the sun's rays (p.249).
Samson was from Beth-Shemesh in Dan, which means "house of the sun", and Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.251 asserts that the Philistine name Delilah is closely akin to the Hebrew word lilah, which means night. However, the liberal Harper's Bible Dictionary p.134 says that Delilah means "coquette", not night. Strong's Concordance says it means "languishing"
Probably as much evidence could be made of Samson being taken from Aztec mythology (2,500 years in the future), as from alleged solar myths. Remember that much of Greek and Roman mythology that we know today did not exist at this time.
Q: In Jdg 18:2, is it true that Samson's deeds did not seriously weaken the Philistines or help the Danites, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.254 says?
A: Judges 16:31 says that at his death Samson killed 3,000 men and women, which was more than he killed in the rest of his life. He did weaken them some, as he killed many of a generation of rulers. However, while killing 3,000 to 6,000 Philistine men was a tremendous job for one man, it was a only a small victory for a general of an army.
On one hand, Asimov is correct, and there is a lesson to learn here. Samson was too busy chasing after a love life to be obedient and be a real leader of the Israelites, and he did not accomplish much.
On the other hand, Samson still accomplished one thing. He put to an end the time of more-or-less friendly relations between the Israelites and their Philistine overlords. However, it remained for Saul and David, with their average strength serving the Lord, to accomplish what Samson was unable to do with his miraculous strength alone, without other Israelites and without walking obediently in God's ways.
Q: In Jdg 19-21, was the outrage at Gibeah a fictional tale, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.279 asserts?
A: Two pieces of evidence that this was true are:
1. The record of its occurrence in Judges. No author would want to write this story that is so unflattering of both the Benjamites and the other Israelites, unless he felt compelled to write the truth.
2. If this was not true, then Asimov or others need to find some other reason why the tribe of Benjamin was smaller than the other tribes.
Q: In Jdg 20:1, was the gathering of all Israel unlikely at this time, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.257-258 says?
A: No. This occurred around the same time as the early life of Samuel the prophet. All Israel gathered under Samuel to see Saul anointed as King of Israel.
Q: In Jdg 20:47, is it true that this could not have happened at the end of Judges, since Benjamin was prosperous then, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.259 asserts?
A: No. Benjamin was prosperous until this Civil War. Asimov gives no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, of Benjamin being prosperous at the end of the book of Judges. In contrast, Saul says he is from the least of the tribes of Israel in 1 Samuel 9:21.
Q: In Jdg 21:8, does the destruction of Jabesh-Gilead show this did not happen late in the period of Judges, since Jabesh-Gilead was a flourishing town, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.259-260 claims?
A: No. Here is what the Bible says about Jabesh-Gilead. Saul rescued the city from the Ammonites in 1 Samuel 11:1-11. After Saul was killed, the men of Jabesh-Gilead took Saul's body and buried it. David praised them for doing so (2 Samuel 2:4-7). 1 Chronicles 10:11 gives the same account. The archaeologist Glueck found what probably is Jabesh-Gilead, and it had city walls. Three Bible Dictionaries, and a reference work The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land - Third Edition by Avraham Negev (Prentiss-Hall 1986) do not give any further information.
It is interesting, that with no further evidence, Asimov can conclude that Jabesh-Gilead was a flourishing city, and no destruction was possible. Cities, especially fortified ones, can eventually make a comeback, but to use the above scant evidence that Jabesh-Gilead was so flourishing that it could never have been destroyed is amazing for one like Asimov, who was careful in scientific endeavors. Unfortunately, Asimov made a similar mistake in his evaluation of Hazor, except in that case archaeological evidence refuting him was abundant. See the three questions on Joshua 11:10 for more discussion on the comeback of Hazor.
Q: In Ru 1, was this book written in the fifth century to try to counteract Nehemiah's ban on marrying non-Jews, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.265 claims?
A: No, Asimov is making a claim with no evidence. There are four points to consider in the answer.
1. The fact of Boaz being the ancestor of David was prior to David's reign around 1010 B.C., was also recorded in a historical narrative of that time: 1 Chronicles 2:11-12.
2. While we do not know exactly when the book of Ruth was written, it would be very curious that it would be written after Solomon's time, since it makes no mention of David's famous son Solomon.
3. Also, Ruth being a Moabitess explains what would otherwise be a mystery: when the going got rough, David brought his parents to refuge in Moab in 1 Samuel 22:3-4.
4. Finally, the author does not seem prone to insert his own facts, because 1:7 it would have been easy to simply name a town in Moab. However, the author said they "she came from the place where she was". The author was not going to try to tell us where Naomi lived in Moab, since the author apparently did not know himself.
One could argue that we have no evidence except what people wrote in Ruth and 1 Chronicles. While that is true, we have no evidence of anything in history apart from artifacts and what people wrote. For example, we have no evidence that Julius Caesar even had a mother (was he hatched?) apart from what people wrote. Likewise we have no evidence that David had a great grandmother, apart from what people wrote.
Q: In 1 Sam 1, was the entire story of Hannah made up here to explain Samson's long hair, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.270 suggests?
A: There is no evidence of that. Often when Asimov says "it may be", and he provides no support for his view, it is just a speculation.
Q: In 1 Sam 1:1, was Samuel's father from the hill country of Ephraim, or was he a Levite as 1 Chr 6:16-30 says?
A: Both are correct. Two points to consider in the answer.
1. Elkanah was descended from Levi. The Levites did not have any region of their own, but they were interspersed among the other tribes.
2. Elkanah was a Levite who lived in the hill country belonging to the tribe of Ephraim.
This should not be a problem for most atheists, as even the skeptic, Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.269-270 gives basically the same answer. See When Critics Ask p.155, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.220, and The NIV Study Bible p.375 for the same answer, too.
Q: In 1 Sam 1:4-5, was the story of the childless wife and her husband and a Nazirite son "rather unaptly, cast back into the Book of Judges in order to explain Samson's long hair in a non-mythological fashion" as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.270 says it may have been?
A: No, the vows of a Nazirite go back to Number 6:1-21. Notice Asimov's skeptical method here. Since two facts are in common: both women were childless, and both sons were Nazirites, two common facts alone are sufficient for Asimov to suspect that one story was copied from another. However, notice four differences: Samson's mother was the only wife involved, while Samuel's wife was tormented by her rival wife. God gave Samson great strength, which remained until he cut his hair, while we have no reason to suspect that Samuel was particularly strong. Samson lived a dissolute wife, while Samuel was obedient. Samuel was a prophet, who anointed two kings, while Samson did nothing of the kind. We could go on and on about more differences, but the point is that all of these differences seem irrelevant to a skeptic who wants to suggest one story was copied from another to explain the Nazirite custom, when it was already explained centuries earlier in Numbers 6.
Q: In 1 Sam 1:16, 1 Sam 2:12, and 1 Sam 10:27, 1 Sam 25:17,25, 1 Sam 30:22, 1 Ki 21:10, who was Belial?
A: This was an idiom, similar to Jesus calling a person a son of the devil. While one could read the meaning as reprobate, probably this simply means that at that time they were doers of wickedness. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.214 says that this term could either mean a son of wickedness, or else a useless good-for-nothing. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.204 also says Belial means literally "not profitable", as in worthless or empty.
Q: In 1 Sam 5:1-10, what do we know about the Philistines and their major cities of Ashdod, Gath, Ekron, Gaza, and Ashkelon?
A: The Philistines were the still formidable remnants of a powerful and sophisticated sea peoples from more ancient times. Archaeology tells use the Philistines were skilled at smelting iron and using chariots in warfare. As all or part of the "Sea Peoples", they were defeated in a naval battle off of the coast of Egypt about 1190 B.C. They may have been the same people who destroyed the Hittite capital of Khattushah. The Egyptians called them the "PRST", and the Assyrians called them the Pilisti and Palastu.
An interesting piece of trivia is that while dogs were often not thought of very highly in the Mideast, the Biblical Archaeology Review Jan./Feb. 1991 p.26 reports that at Ashkelon the Phoenicians had a dog cemetery with 220 burials.
We are not aware of any warfare of the Philistines among themselves. They had many powerful warriors, and after defeating them, David enlisted some of their soldiers as his elite guard.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.271 has an insightful comment that the Philistines were "... the most technologically advanced, best organized, and hence most dangerous of the early enemies of Israel."
See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1332-1335 fore an extensive article on the Philistines.
Q: In 1 Sam 6:9, why did the Philistines choose to send the cart to Beth-Shemesh instead of back to Ephraim?
A: Scripture does not say, but a skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.272-273 has two interesting speculations, which might be correct here.
1. Though Beth-Shemesh was far from Philistia proper, it was still under Philistine influence. Archaeologists have found numerous Philistine artifacts from Beth-Shemesh from this time.
2. The ark came from Ephraim, and the territory of Benjamin and Dan was between Judah and Ephraim. Perhaps the Philistines did not mind Israelites under their influence to have it, but they did not want to give it back to the Ephraimites.
Q: In 1 Sam 7:5, do the future battles against the Philistines show that 1 Samuel was wrong to show that the Philistines were massively defeated under Samuel as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.274 says?
A: No, because it was not recorded that the Philistines were massively defeated with great loss of life. Furthermore, the result of the battle was not that the Israelites conquered the Philistines, but that the Israelites had freedom from the Philistines for a period of time.
Sometimes a general chooses to retreat prior to their being great losses.
Q: In 1 Sam 7:16, is this Gilgal different from the Gilgal Joshua went to, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.274 categorically states?
A: It is probably the same according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.440 and the New Geneva Study Bible p.387. The liberal Dummelow's Bible Commentary p.186 says it was probably the same. The New Bible Dictionary p.469-470 mentions that there was a Gilgal which was "opposite the ascent of Adummim" However, it says this might be the same Gilgal as the famous one east of Jericho. The liberal Harper's Bible Dictionary p.227-228 mentions that it might be the same Gilgal as Joshua's or it might be between Mizpah and Bethel. The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.609 says this Gilgal was "perhaps modern Khirbet el-Mefjer) and was a few miles from Bethel and Mizpah.
Q: In 1 Sam 9:12,18, how did Saul not recognize a famous person like Samuel?
A: Remember, this is in the days before TV, photographs, and printing presses. Saul and his servant definitely had known of Samuel, according to 1 Samuel 9:6-8. However, they had never met him before, and so they had never seen his face, and it would not be expected that they would recognize.
Not being able to recognize his face does not mean "he did not even know of Samuel", contrary to what Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.275 asserts.
Q: In 1 Sam 11:8, where the numbers in the army too high, and was the division into Judah and Israel anachronistic, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.278 claims?
A: No. Actually the population of the Israelites from the time of the Exodus to David's time was fairly constant, with some ebb and flow. This number is considerably less than the census after the Exodus. However, 1 Samuel 11:8 did not say that Saul was successful in mustering every single able-bodied man.
Also, while it was not anachronistic because tribes had a fair degree of independence from each other, remember that 1 and 2 Samuel were written after there was civil war between Judah and the northern tribes with David fighting Saul's son.
Q: In 1 Sam 13:1, what does the Hebrew say?
A: According to Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.279-280, it says, "Saul was one year old when he began to reign."
We can agree with Isaac Asimov that there was a copyist error here. The conservative Christian reference books Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.171-172 and When Critics Ask p.159 say the same thing. The NIV footnote says "thirty" is in the translation because a few late Septuagint manuscripts have "thirty". The Massoretic text we have says "... Saul was ... [a] year old".
Q: In 1 Sam 14:30, was Jonathan being disrespectful here, saying the command of his father the king was wrong?
A: There are two ways to look at what happened.
No disrespect: Jonathan's words were correct; Saul did make a mistake. As a commander in battle, it was fine to point out possible mistakes to his superior.
Disrespectful: On the other hand, instead of Jonathan privately telling Saul that he made a mistake, Jonathan pointed out Saul's mistake publicly. Even if Jonathan was disrespectful to his father and king though, there is no suggestion that we should follow Jonathan's example. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.281 sees a certain coldness here between the king and heir apparent, that is not uncommon in monarchies. If you read 1 Samuel 14 If you read 1 Samuel 14:44, where Saul promises he will kill Jonathan that die, perhaps Asimov is correct here.
Q: Prior to 1 Sam 16:4 and the time of Saul, is the tribe of Judah so much ignored in the Bible that there is strong suspicion that it was not considered a part of Israel up to that time, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.284 says?
A: No, here are the facts: In Judges chapters 1 to 18, here are the number of times each tribe is mentioned:
Judah (16 times) Judges 1:2,3,4,8,9,16,17,18,19; 10:9; 15:9,11; 17:7 (2x), 9, 12
Simeon (2 times) Judges 1:3,17
Ephraim (24 times) Judges 1:29; 2:9; 3:27; 4:5; 5:14; 7:24 (2x) 8:1,2; 10:1,9; 12:1; 12:4 (3x), 12:5 (3x), 12:6,15; 17:1,8; 18:2,12
Joseph (2 times) Judges 1:22,35
Manasseh (5 times) Judges 1:27; 6:15,35; 7:23; 12:4
Benjamin (4 times) Judges 1:21; 3:15; 5:14; 10:9
Asher (4 times) Judges 1:31; 5:17; 6:35; 7:23
Zebulun (7 times) Judges 1:30; 4:7,10; 5:14,18; 6:35; 12:11
Issachar (2 times) Judges 5:15 (2x)
Dan (10 times) Judges 1:34; 5:17; 13:2,25; 18:1,2,11,12,16,22
Levite (5 times) Judges 17:9,11,12; 18:3,15
Naphtali (8 times) Judges 1:33 (2x); 4:6,7,10; 5:18; 6:35; 7:23
Gilead (2 times) Judges 10:3,17
Makir (1 time) Judges 5:14
Reuben (2 times) Judges 5:15,16
The rest of Judges primarily concerns Benjamin, but here are the numbers for that.
Benjamin (42 times) 19:14,16; 20:3,4,10,12,13,15,17,18,20,21,23,24,25,28,30,31,32,34,35 (2x), 36 (2x), 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; 21:1,6,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,23
Judah (5 times) 19:1,2,19 (2x); 20:18
Ephraim (2 times) 19:1,16
Levites (2 times) 19:1; 20:4
Dan (1 time) 20:1
Gilead (1 time) 20:1
Conclusion: Looking at the numbers, it is very hard to see why Asimov thought Judah was ignored so much that it was not considered a part of Israel until Saul's time.
Q: In 1 Sam 17:4, how tall was Goliath?
A: The Massoretic text says six cubits and a span, or roughly 9 feet 9 inches. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.287 also says this is just over nine feet. The liberal Harper's Bible Dictionary (1961) p.231) mentions that "recovered skeletons prove that men as tall as Goliath lived in Palestine." The conservative Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.709 also says, "Recovered skeletons of equal height from archaeological excavations at Gezer and other sites bear out the unusually tall stature of individuals in ancient Palestine at roughly the same period." (also ibid p.676) However, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls say four cubits and a span, which would be roughly 6 feet, 9 inches, which is still somewhat tall.
Regardless of whether he was the size of a professional football linebacker or even taller, he would be menacing to a young teenage boy.
As a side note, modern people are significantly taller than ancient people are, and scientists are not sure why. One view was that since Americans eat animals that have been given drugs that make them grow larger, people are larger. The problem with the view is that European farmers must obey laws against using these drugs. Europeans today are as tall as Americans today.
Q: In 2 Sam, when was this book split from 1 Sam?
A: In Jewish Bibles today they are one book. 1 and 2 Kings are also one book. According to both the Believer's Bible Commentary p.295 and Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.267, 1 and 2 Samuel were split when the Septuagint was translated about 250 B.C. In the Septuagint there are called 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings respectively.
It is not important whether 1 and 2 Samuel are treated as one book or two. What is important is the content contained in 1 and 2 Samuel.
Q: In 2 Sam 2:8, why did Abner not support David?
A: While Scripture does not say, remember that Abner probably was one of the army leaders who earlier pursued David. Often people suffer from one of two problems. Either they are not loyal when they should be, or they are loyal to what they should not be.
A prime example was the brilliant German chemist Fritz Haber. He was the father of the Haber process, which was a way to extract nitrogen from the air. This enabled Germany to manufacture explosives without relying on imports from Chile or other countries. Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts p.254 points out that if it was not for Haber's work, Germany would have been forced out of World War I by 1916. Haber also directed Germany's poison gas development. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.254 also mentions that Haber was exiled when Hitler came to power, because Haber was Jewish.
What are all the things to which you are loyal?
Q: In 2 Sam 2:10, did Ish-bosheth reign two years, or did David reign for seven and a half years in Hebron in 2 Sam 2:11 and 2 Sam 5:5?
A: Christians have two different answers.
David reigned over Judah only for seven and a half years: Ish-bosheth, Abner, and the Israelite army had to retreat across the Jordan after the Philistines' victory. Ish-bosheth was made king over Gilead, Ashuri, and Jezreel first, according to 2 Samuel 2:8-9. Only after five and a half years did they reconquer enough territory west of the Jordan. Therefore, Israel had no king for 5 1/2 years, Ish-Bosheth for 2 years, and then David. The skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.298-299 also mentions this. See When Critics Ask p.171, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.183-184, and 735 Bible Questions Answers p.113 for more info on this answer.
David reigned in Hebron for seven and a half years: While there might have been a small delay before Ish-bosheth was crowned, the seven and a half year period referred to all the time David reigned in Hebron prior to capturing Jerusalem and reigning there. Between the time that Ish-bosheth was murdered and David reigned in Jerusalem, David reigned no where else but at Hebron. Therefore, Ish-bosheth was king over Israel for two years, then David was king over both Israel and Judah for 5 years in Hebron, then David moved his capital to Jerusalem.
Q: In 2 Sam 5:11 and 1 Ki 5:1, Since Hiram of Tyre was so famous, was he anachronistically placed on the throne in Davids time as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.304,325 claims?
A: No. Asimov says that Hiram of Tyre had just become king in 969 B.C., four years after Solomon (Asimov p.325). However, The NIV Study Bible p.479 says Hiram ruled from about 978-944 B.C. and that he might also have ruled as co-regent with his father as early as 993 B.C.. The Nelson Study Bible p.567 also says Hiram ruled from 978-944 B.C. The New Geneva Study Bible p.480 says Hiram ruled from about 980-947 B.C.
Q: In 2 Sam 9:1, did David say this after executing Saul's sons, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.309 says?
A: Asimov claims David said this prior to the executions, because it would not have been hard to find members of Saul's family prior to the executions.
Two points to consider in the answer.
Looking for a son loyal to him: David did not say he was just looking for one of Saul's sons. Rather, David said he was looking for one of Saul's sons to whom he could show kindness for Jonathan's sake.
Not chronological: 2 Samuel 21:1 says the execution of Saul's sons occurred "during the reign of David", and it is not necessarily chronological. In other words, it is possible that Asimov might be correct here.
Q: In 2 Sam 12:1-12, why did Nathan use this approach to talk with David about his sin?
A: Two possible reasons, both of which may be true.
1. King David already knew what he did was evil. David did not need either instruction or correction here; he needed rebuke. Nathan approached David in such as way that his "Defenses" would not be aroused. Once Nathan appealed to David's strong sense of justice, and got David's anger aroused at this "unnamed oppressor", then Nathan laid it on David heavily.
2. David was a king who had just ordered the death of a valuable and loyal servant. While Nathan was already risking his life to rebuke David, Nathan would want to use an indirect, yet effective approach.
The skeptic Asimov in Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.310-311 makes the interesting comment that he considers this one of the more moving passages in the Bible.
Q: In 2 Sam 15:7, should it say 40 years, or 4 years?
A: It should say four years, which is more in keeping with the lifetime of Absalom. The Massoretic text says 40 years, but the Septuagint, Syria, and Josephus say 4 years. See the NKJV, NIV, and NRSV footnotes, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.64 The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 3 p.991, and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.313 for the same answer.
Q: In 2 Sam 16:5-8, was Shimei cursing David for executing Saul's sons, which was only written later in the book, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.315-316 claims?
A: There are two possible explanations for Shimei's cursing.
Other reasons: Shimei might very well have been referring to the long war between the armies of David and Ish-bosheth.
Not chronological: Since 2 Samuel 21:1 says the execution of Saul's sons occurred "during the reign of David", it is not necessarily chronological. Thus Shimei cursing David might be after the execution of Saul's sons.
Q: In 2 Sam 21:1-7, did David have Saul's sons killed for the security of his own reign, and then blame it on God, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.308 says?
A: No. If David had wanted to do so, he would have come up with a pretense long before this and not waited so long. Other kings used secret assassinations, and if David had been evil, he easily could have done the same.
Q: In 2 Sam 21:19, did Elhanan kill Goliath, or did David kill Goliath the Gittite as 1 Sam 17:50 says, or did Elhanan kill Lahmi the brother of Goliath as 1 Chr 20:5 says?
A: Our preserved versions of 2 Samuel 21:19 have a copyist error, where they left out the phrase "Lahmi the brother of". The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.288 also mentions this.
1 Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.
This copyist error is easy to trace, according to Hard Sayings of the Bible p.212-213, which gives a full Hebrew analysis.
See also Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.178-179, a Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.709, and When Critics Ask p.163-164 for more info.
Q: In 2 Sam 24:1, how big was David's empire at its largest?
A: It was about 30,000 square miles, or about the size of the U.S. state of Maine, according to the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.307. As Asimov correctly points out, it was small compared to the Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires at earlier and later times. During the time of David though, all of these other peoples were militarily weak.
Q: In 1 Ki, what are 1, 2, 3, and 3 Kings?
A: In some Catholic Bibles 1 and 2 Samuel are called 1 and 2 Kings. Then they call 1 and 2 Kings 3 and 4 Kings. The Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.267 points this out.
Q: In 1 Ki 2:38-46, did Shimei leave Jerusalem on some innocent occasion, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.322 says?
A: No, Shimei took the king's command lightly, as today many take the Lord's commands lightly. When a rebel is pardoned, there can still be restriction to ensure there is no further revolt.
Q: In 1 Ki 3:1, who was the Pharaoh of Egypt at this time?
A: According to a skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.322, it was Psusennes II. Militarily, Egypt was very weak at this time, and there was hostility between Pharaoh and the priests of Thebes. Eliminating the threat of an eastern attack would make good sense for Psusennes II.
Q: In 1 Ki 5:6, why did Solomon mention Sidonians, since Hiram was the king of Tyre?
A: Tyre was founded by colonists from Sidon 25 miles away, but Tyre became more important than Sidon. Regardless of whether Hiram had any control over the city of Sidon, In 969 B.C., Hiram became ruler over the "Sidonian people" (or Phoenician people) living in Tyre and the surrounding area. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.324 also says that Hiram became king in 969 B.C.
Q: In 1 Ki 6:1, since there four 40 years in a generation, and 480 = 12 * 40, is this simply saying the temple was built 12 generations after the Exodus?
A; No. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.327 suggests this, along with counting the consecutive years of the rule of the judges. They could simply have said 12 generations if they wished. The way Asimov "uses" language here, it would be impossible for them to say the numbers of years in a way Asimov would accept.
Q: In 1 Ki 7:23 and 2 Chr 4:2-5, does the Bible say the value of pi is 3?
A: No. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.328 claims, "The explanation is, of course, that the Biblical writers were not mathematicians or even interested in mathematics and were merely giving approximate figures. Still, to those who are obsessed with the notion that every word in the Bible is infallible (and who know a little mathematics) it is bound to come as a shock to be told that the Bible says that the value of pi is 3."
Asimov had a Ph.D. in chemistry, so he should have known better. There are three different possibilities.
Rounding with significant digits: Assume the circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits. Since they only gave the dimensions in whole numbers, which number would Asimov have them use? A perfectly round basin with no rim would give a value of 9.55, and that is closer to 10 than to any other number.
A rim: Assume either the inner circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits, or that the thickness of the basin made the inner and outer circumference almost the same. A diameter that included a rim of 4 inces (0.22535 cubits) would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.
A flare: Nothing says the walls of the basin were perfectly vertical. If the basin had a very slight flare of 0.75% at the top, then the outer circumference at the narrow part and the outer or inner diameter at the top would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.
Q: In 1 Ki 9:11, Could Solomon giving away 20 cities of Naphtali to Tyre be a factor in the northern kingdom's hostility to Solomon's dynasty?
A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.326-327 mentions this point, and Asimov might be correct here. We do not know all the reasons why the northern Israelites wanted to break away. Certain heavy taxation was the primary earthly reason. Ultimately though, the reason was God wanted to separate the northern and southern kingdoms due to the disobedience starting under Solomon.
Q: In 1 Ki 10:14 and 2 Chr 1:15-17, where did Solomon get all of this gold?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.412,417 says the Chronicler describes Solomon's wealth "in terms of unbridled exaggeration." However, Solomon's really was this wealthy.
Hiram of Tyre gave Solomon 120 talents of gold for 20 cities in Galilee. (1 Kings 9:14) Solomon and Hiram imported from Ophir 420 talents of gold (1 Kings 9:26) The Queen of Sheba gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (1 Kings 10:10)
Total: In one year Solomon got 666 talents of gold (1 Kings 10:14) Solomon used that gold to make 200 large gold shields, 300 other shields, and overlaid his throne and the drinking vessels with gold. (1 Kings 10:16-21)
How could they have so much gold in ancient times? This was a lot of wealth, but other kings had wealth too. According to 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.120-121, Esarhaddon of Assyria "coated the walls" of the shrine of Asshur "with gold as if it were plaster." An Egyptian Pharaoh overlaid a 200-foot long barge with gold to the waterline. After Pharaoh Shishak invaded Judah, he took most of the gold and died a year later. His son, Osorkon I, in 921 B.C. donated 383 tons of gold and silver as part of his gift to the gods.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.242-243 for more info.
Q: In 1 Ki 10:22, is Tarshish the same place as Ophir?
A: No it is not. Ophir is probably modern Ethiopia or south of there. Tarshish (in modern Spain) was probably the westernmost civilized city. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.332 also says that Ophir and Tarshish were different.
Q: In 1 Ki 11:40, why did Shishak shelter Jeroboam from Solomon, when earlier Pharaoh had given his daughter in marriage to Solomon in 1 Ki 3:1?
A: These were different Pharaohs. Solomon's father-in-law was either Siamun or Psusennes II. After the death of these Pharaoh's, Shishak, a Libyan who was a general in the Egyptian army, became Pharaoh around 945 B.C..
See The NIV Study Bible p.475,496, The New Geneva Study Bible p.476,493 for more info. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.335 also agrees with this.
Q: In 1 Ki 11:40, why does this say "King" instead of "Pharaoh"?
A: The ruler of northern Egypt was Shishak, a general from Libya. While he and his descendants were called Pharaohs, they never ruled all of Egypt, and perhaps the Bible writer wanted to indicate that Shishak became ruler, but was not from the former Pharaoh's family. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.336 also mentions this.
Q: In 1 Ki 16:31, what else do we know about Omri, King of Israel?
A: The NIV Study Bible p.508 says that we do not know much about Omri except that he founded a dynasty that lasted over 40 years and built up Samaria as the capital, and by his marriage brought in widespread Ball worship. The annals of Tiglath Pileser III call Israel "The land of Omri" 150 years later (732 B.C.) Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.343 says similar.
Q: In 1 Ki 18, did Elijah's "prophetic/Yahwist" party become increasingly intolerant of other worship, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.344 says?
A: What Asimov calls a "party" were the worshippers of the true God. Asimov did not make his case well here, as nothing shows they were tolerant to begin with.
Q: In 1 Ki 20:26, is this the same Aphek where the Philistines fought 200 years earlier in 1 Sam 4:1?
A: No, the Aphek of 1 Kings 20:26 is about four miles east of the Sea of Galilee, halfway between Samaria and Damascus, according to The NIV Study Bible p.516 and The New Geneva Study Bible p.383,509, and The Nelson Study Bible p.601. The modern village of Fik is there. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.348-349 also says similar.
Q: In 2 Ki 11:2, Joash was hidden to protect him from Athaliah's idolatrous upbringing, and Athaliah did not want to kill Joash, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.387 says might be conceivable?
A: Asimov had an active imagination, but no, this was not the case. Joash's mother was not from the Phoenician line. According to 2 Chronicles 24:1, she was named Zibiah hailing from Beersheba in the extreme south of Judah. Regardless, 2 Kings 11:1 clearly says that Athaliah wanted to kill the entire royal family.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.217 says that since Joash had a different mother, perhaps his birth was unnoticed by Athaliah, and thus he was not missed.
Q: In 2 Ki 18:9, why were the Assyrians so successful?
A: There were a number of reasons. Their whole culture was geared for war, they had very strongly fortified cities, and they had very effective chariots. However, the biggest advantage was that they had steel weapons and armor, instead of bronze weapons. The Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology p.387-388 says the Assyrians were the first to use steel in both war and peace. It mentions that the swords actually were just iron, but they had a steel edge, and that quenching the steel was first done around 900 B.C.. While Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.372 claims that iron weapons were cheaper than bronze, that is not true. Iron needed much higher smelting temperatures and thus were more expensive to make. However, iron weapons with a steel edge were harder than bronze and iron weapons and armor made an infantryman almost invincible when fighting against less well-armed infantrymen.
In addition, they were the first known experts in siege works. The earliest known siege ramp was the Assyrian one at Lachish. It was 165-180 feet at the base, rising to the height of the city wall, which was 18 feet. See the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land p.216 for more info.
Q: In 2 Ki 20:12-15, should this name, Merodach, start with a "B" or an "M"?
A: Both Isaiah 39:1 and Babylonian records show that "M" is correct. This person was Merodach-Baladan, and the "B" in 2 Kings 20:12-15 is a copyist error. When Critics Ask p.198. The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.276, and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible all point this out.
Q: In 2 Ki 23:29, why did Josiah choose to fight Pharaoh Neco?
A: Josiah might have decided to fight for three reasons. None of these reasons came from God; the first two from fear and the last one from greed.
1. Josiah was politically loyal to Babylon, and he was afraid he would be considered disloyal if he allowed the Egyptian army to travel unopposed through Judah.
2. Regardless of Josiah's loyalty to Babylon, Josiah did not want a foreign army marching through Judah. Not only would he be concerned about what the Egyptian army would do as it came through, it would show weakness to other kingdoms, and give them the idea they could march through Judah too.
3. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.391 speculates that Josiah wanted Egypt out of Asia, so that when the Assyrians were destroyed, Josiah could control Syria himself.
Note that these three reasons are all natural thinking. Absent from these reasons is any idea of asking God what He would want Josiah to do. How long can you be a Christian, pray, and study the Bible, until the time comes when it is safe to stop listening to God? The answer is: never.
Q: In 1 Chr 3:9, were there possibly nine sons ahead of Solomon for the throne, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.402 conjectures?
A: There could be, if the sons of David were given in order of their birth. Certainly Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah were older than Solomon, and Solomon was born when David was older. However, nothing dictates that this list is in the order of their birth.
Q: In 1 Chr 3:16, was Shallum the personal name of the king with the throne name of Jehoahaz, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.403 suggests?
A: Christian commentators agree that Shallum as another name for Jehoahaz. However, whether Shallum was a personal name he was born with, or a nickname he acquired later is not known.
Q: In 1 Chr 6:16,26-28, was Samuel's father from Levi, or was Samuel an Ephraimite as 1 Sam 1:1 says?
A: The Levites had no territory of their own but were scattered throughout Israel. Samuel's father was a Levite, but they lived in the Ephraimite territory. When Critics Ask p.155, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.220, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.239, and even the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.269-270 all agree on this answer.
Q: In 1 Chr 21:1, did God have David number the Israelites in a census, or did Satan?
A: It was Satan directly, and God indirectly. See the discussion on 2 Samuel 24:1 for the answer.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.409 has a paragraph explaining that the Hebrew word satan means adversary as well as Satan. However, Asimov offers no hypothesis as to who this adversary would be, if it were not Satan.
Q: In 1 Chr 21:1, did the Hebrew concept of Satan come from the Persians, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.409 says was very likely?
A: No. Certainly the serpent spoke and tempted Eve in Genesis 3, had non-natural abilities, including speech and intelligence. Most curiously, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.410 even mentions the serpent in the garden of Eden, but fails to see anything supernatural claimed with an intelligent, talking serpent.
Job, which some think is one of the earliest books of the Bible, discusses Satan in detail, as does Isaiah. Saying that those books discussion of Satan shows those to be post-exilic is circular reasoning.
Q: In 2 Chr 4:2-4 and 1 Ki 7:23, why is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter 3.0 instead of the value of pi (3.14.159)?
Since we do not know anything of the shape of the round "sea" except these two dimensions, there are three simple explanations.
Rounding with significant digits: Assume the circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits. Since they only gave the dimensions in whole numbers, which number would Asimov have them use? A perfectly round basin with no rim would give a value of 9.55, and that is closer to 10 than to any other number.
A rim: Assume either the inner circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits, or that the thickness of the basin made the inner and outer circumference almost the same. A diameter that included a rim of 4 inces (0.22535 cubits) would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.
A flare: Nothing says the walls of the basin were perfectly vertical. If the basin had a very slight flare of 0.75% at the top, then the outer circumference at the narrow part and the outer or inner diameter at the top would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.
Q: In 2 Chr 11:20, was Abijah's mother Maacah a daughter of Absalom, or a daughter of Uriel of Gibeah as 2 Chr 13:2 says?
A: While 2 Chronicles 11:20 does not specifically say this Absalom was the same as the son of David, it most likely was the same person.
735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.137 says that the Hebrew word for daughter, bet, can mean descendant, and Maacah might have been Absalom's granddaughter. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.245 also mentions that Genesis 46:15 is an example where the "sons of Leah" mean the descendants of Leah.
While the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.418-419 says that on whether Maachah was a daughter of Absalom or Uriel "There is no likelihood that the confusion can ever be straightened out...". However, there are at least four simple possible solutions not involving any copyist errors.
Absalom->Uriel->Maacah Absalom had a son, Uriel who lived in Gibeah, who had a daughter Maacah.
Uriel->daughter+Absalom->Maacah Uriel who lived in Gibeah had a daughter who married Absalom. They had a daughter named Maacah.
Absalom->daughter+Uriel->Maacah Absalom had a daughter, who married Uriel who lived in Gibeah, and they had a daughter named Maacah.
Q: In 2 Chr 12:3, who were the Sukkites?
A: We do not know much about this tribe, except that the Sukkites probably were the same people the Egyptians called the Tjuku or Tjukten. They were light-armed scouts. While the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.418 speculates they might be people from Succoth, a native Egyptian city in the Nile Delta, this likely is incorrect. The NIV Study Bible p.637 says they also are mentioned in Egyptian writings. See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1631 for more info.
Q: Does 2 Chr 12:3 greatly exaggerate the size of Pharaoh's army, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.418 says?
A: Nothing indicates that a force from all Egypt, Libya, and northern Sudan, or 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen, and uncounted infantry is exaggerated.
Q: In 2 Chr 14:9-12, how could there be a million-man army here?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.420 says this is exaggerated. The Hebrew here literally means "thousands upon thousands", which can simply mean a vast army, as the NIV has translated it.
Q: In 2 Chr 20:35, why did Jehoshaphat ally himself with Ahaziah, instead of learning his lesson in 2 Chronicles 19:2 and 1 Ki 22:6-7?
A: Jehoshaphat either did not listen to the prophet, or else he learned the wrong lesson. The alliance in 2 Chronicles 20:35 was a peaceful trading alliance, not a military alliance. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.421 says that Jehoshaphat was a subservient ally, but there is no proof that Jehoshaphat reigned under Ahab's control. Perhaps Jehoshaphat wrongly thought the prophet's words were limited to only fighting together in war. Sometimes when people learn a lesson, it can be a wrong or incomplete lesson.
Q: In 2 Chr 26:16-21, why was Uzziah punished for coming before the ark, since David was not in 1 Sam 6:5?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.423 says it was because "the position of the priests had hardened since those days." However, Uzziah's problem was not with the priests, but with God.
First we will answer the question from the perspective of action, and then from motives.
Action: David and others went before the ark which was in plain view. Before the ark was in Jerusalem, and hidden from the people, it was in plain view during the 40+ years of the Exodus and from then until the time of David.
Now David was not following the proper protocol in transporting the ark, but he was doing wrong from careless ignorance, and his heart was in the right place.
Motives: David was worshipping God and trying to please God. Uzziah was trying to take the place of the priest. It is interesting that Uzziah was trying to do something he knew God prohibited and trying to be very religious at the same time.
Q: In 2 Chr 32:1,33:1, and 2 Ki 21:1 how do you pronounce "Sennacherib" and "Manasseh"?
A: Cruden's Concordance pronounces them as "sen-AK-e-rib" with all vowels short, and "ma-NAS-se" with all vowels short. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary pronounces these as "sen-AK-e-rib" with the first e long and the rest of the vowels short, and "ma-NAS-a" with the middle a short and the first and third a's with a dot over them.
The Assyrians probably pronounced Sennacherib as "Sinakhe-erba" according to Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.384.
Q: In 2 Chr 33, do we have an extra-Biblical evidence of King Manasseh?
A: Yes, the records of the Assyrian king Eserhaddon list Manasseh and 21 other kings who had to provide building materials for the Assyrians, as The NIV Study Bible p.663 says. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.425 says that Assyrian records show that in 672 B.C. Manasseh, along with other vassal kings, had to travel to the Assyrian capital to swear allegiance to Asshurbanipal, king Esarhaddon's successor.
Q: In 2 Chr 33:18, where are the acts of Manasseh and his prayer written in the book of the kings of Israel?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.426 says that if the Biblical book of Kings is intended, then the Chronicler errs.
Asimov might be confused here. The book (annals) of kings are the official records, not the Biblical book of Kings. We know this because the book of Kings itself mentions the "book of Kings of Israel" and also the "book of Kings of Judah" in 32 verses: 1 Kings 14:19,29; 15:7; 31; 16:5,14,20,27; 22:39,45; 2 Kings 1:18; 8:18,23; 12:19; 13:8; 14:15,16,18,28; 15:6,11,15,21,26,31,36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17,25; 23:28; 24:5.
Chronicles mentions this in only 12 verses: 1 Chronicles 1:43; 9:1; 2 Chronicles 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 27:7; 23:26; 32:32; 33:18; 35:27; 36:8
Q: In 2 Chr 35:25, were these laments part of the book of Lamentations?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.581 mentions that the laments in 2 Chronicles 35:25 could not be the book of Lamentations, because this was prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Asimov might be correct here, or else parts were written before the fall of Jerusalem. Remember, Jeremiah knew the fall was going to occur, and he might have written parts prior to the fall. See the first question on Lamentations for more info.
Q: Why does 2 Chr 36:17 say "King of Chaldees", since Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians?
A: Chaldea was a synonym for the land of Babylonia, as Habakkuk 1:6 and other verses show.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.429 has an interesting speculation here that sounds very reasonable. The first chapter of 1 Chronicles 1 mentions Abraham, who left Ur of the Chaldees, and the last chapter of 2 Chronicles ends with the Jews returning back to Chaldea.
Q: In 2 Chr 36:22-23, is this a prophecy of Cyrus?
A: No it is not, and it does not claim to be a prophecy either. This shows that the writing of Chronicles was only completed after the exile, since it is speaking of the liberation of Cyrus as an event that already occurred.
It might have been that all of Chronicles was written after the exile (438 B.C.), or else that different parts of Chronicles were written at different times, and the last part was after the exile. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.403, mentioning the Anchor Bible Dictionary, says the Chronicler might have been writing about 400 B.C.
Q: In Ezr 1:1, why was this called the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, since he had been king prior to the conquest of Babylonia as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.435 mentions?
A: Cyrus became king of Anshan in 559 B.C. and king of the Medes as well as the Persians in 550 B.C. However, this was the first year of his reign over this vast Empire of Babylon and Persia. According to Persia and the Bible p.89, William H. Shea studied the over 400 places where Cyrus was given a title, and in 90 percent of the cases he was called "King of Babylon, King of lands." The Cyrus Cylinder calls Cyrus, "King of the World, Great King, Legitimate King, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the Four Quarters (of the Earth)." Shea also found that Cyrus was first called "King of Lands" at the beginning of 538 B.C., but he was not called "King of Babylon, King of Lands" until the end of 538 B.C. He thinks the reason is that the governor, Gubaru, bore the title King of Babylon, until his death that year.
Just as a duke who becomes king lists his first year as his being king, not being duke, Cyrus' first year is counted from the time he was Emperor of the Empire. "The Empire" included Babylon as one of its capital cities. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.654 for more info.
Q: In Ezr 1:1, could the 70 years refer to the length of the Babylonian Empire, or the Temple, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.436-437,449 suggests?
A: It refers to the length of time Judah served Babylon. First let's see precisely what the Bible claims, and then what history confirms.
Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10,16 claims:
1) The country of Judah would become a wasteland, and they would serve Babylon for seventy years
2) After 70 years, Babylonia would be punished (Jeremiah 25:12)
3) Jeremiah 29:10 adds that after 70 years, the exiles would return.
4) Jeremiah 29:16 adds that not everyone would go into exile
While it does not say Jerusalem would be totally destroyed, one could imply that. However, it does not specify how long Jerusalem was destroyed. It is the serving of Babylon, not the destruction of Jerusalem, that was prophesied to be 70 years.
Historically, Judah served Babylon from 605 B.C. to 538 B.C.. This is about 68 of our years. However, prophecies were given in terms of the religious, lunar year, which was 360 days.
Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.449 also speculates that it might refer to the time the Temple was destroyed, since it was destroyed in 587/586 B.C. and not rebuilt until 516 B.C., which is exactly 70 365-day years. While this is 70 years, this is a coincidence.
Q: In Ezr 1:1, was the actual exile only 49 years, from 587/586-538 B.C., as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.436 says?
A: Many people were exiled in 605 B.C. for the full 70 years. Complicating this is the fact that others were exiled for only 49 years. Regardless, the prophecy was for Judah serving Babylon for 70 years.
Q: In Ezr 1:8, what do the names of these Jews mean?
A: According to Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.438, Mithredath means "given by Mithra". Mithra was a major Persian god on the side of good.
Sheshbazzar is a non-Hebrew name of uncertain meaning. Asimov speculates that perhaps it was another name for Shenazar, and Shenazar was the fourth son of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:18) the former king of Judah. That would make sense that Sheshbazzar was called the prince of Judah.
Some say that Shezbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. However, When Critics Ask p.213-214 points out that it would not make sense to have two non-Hebrew names. It also says Shezbazzar might be another name for Shealtiel, who apparently died shortly after the laying of the foundation.
Q: In Ezr 2, since an estimated 1.5 to 3 million Israelites and Jews scattered in the Persian Empire, why did only 49,000 plus people return to Jerusalem?
A: While some might have been slaves and had no choice, most were disobedient and did not want to return. The Israelites were exiled over 200 years earlier, and almost all of them were assimilated and lost their national identity. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.437 astutely points out that "The fact that they donated objects of value to help those who were planning to make the trip indicates that they were reasonably well-to-do and might have seen no point in leaving a place where they were prosperous and secure and where by now they felt at home."
Of course it is kind that they donated money for those who returned home. However, God did not want their donations; God wanted them to return home.
Q: In Ezr 4:2, were the Samaritans sincere in offering to help the Jews?
A: They probably were not sincere. The Samaritans forcibly stopped the rebuilding, and Mt. Gerazim in Samaria was a "competitor" as a worship center.
Contrary to this, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.441 thinks the Samaritans were sincere here.
Q: In Ezr 4:8-6:18 and Ezr 7:12-26, why was this written in Aramaic?
A: Nothing says that Ezra or his secretaries had to write in the same language. Perhaps different secretaries wrote down different parts. Also, Daniel 2:4b-7:28 was also written in Aramaic, as well as Jeremiah 10:11.
As Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.446 points out, the Samaritan's letter to the King was in Aramaic, and thus it makes sense to quote the letter in Aramaic.
Q: In Ezr 5:16, what does the name "Zerubbabel" mean?
A: According to Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.439 it means "child of Babylon".
Q: In Ezr 7:6, could Ezra have arrived either in 458 B.C. or 398 B.C.?
A: No. However, the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.450,451 claims it could be either one, because there is no clear way to know whether the reigning Persian king was Artaxerxes I or Artaxerxes II.
While Ezra does not explicitly say "I" or "II', it must be "I", because 398 B.C. is too late a time period for the Temple not being completed. Furthermore, people often distinguish between two kings of the same name once the second reigns, but they do not distinguish when only 1 of the kings has lived.
However, the time of Ezra and Nehemiah had to be under Artaxerxes I, because an Elephantine papyrus (Cowley #30) dated at 407 B.C., mentions Sanballat, the governor of Samaria who is mentioned in Nehemiah. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.570, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.677, and Persia and the Bible p.242 for more info.
Q: In Ezr 10:11,19,44, was Ezra wrong to force the Jewish men to divorce their non-Jewish wives, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.452 says?
A: No. They knew they were wrong to marry these pagan wives, and divorce was permitted in the Old Testament. At this time, the Jews were in the "fight of their life" to preserve their religion and culture from being lost to assimilation.
Also, while this contradicts Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul had not been born yet, and marriage rules for everyone after Jesus came differ from the rules for Jews during Old Testament times. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.249-250, 735 Bible Questions Answered p.142, and When Critics Ask p.215-216 for more info.
Q: In Neh 1:1, when was this time?
A: This was November-December 444 B.C. The twentieth year means the twentieth year of the reigning king, in this case, Artaxerxes I.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.459 says that this could either be under Artaxerxes I (444 B.C.) or Artaxerxes II (385/384 B.C.), though he mentions that Josephus says Nehemiah arrived about 440 B.C., which would be under Artaxerxes I. However Persia and the Bible p.242 says, "It is certain that Nehemiah (Neh. 1:1; 2:1) served as the cupbearer of Artaxerxes I, who ruled from 464 to 424 B.C., because an Elephantine papyrus (Cowley #30) dated to 407 B.C., mentions the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria and adversary of Nehemiah." The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.677 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.570 also mention this.
Q: In Esth, why do some claim the book is spiritually "deficient"?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.463, the Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 2 p.636-637 and other critics mention some of the following about Esther:
1. No mention of God, though the Persian king is mentioned 190 times. However, the name of God (in the form of "Yah") is found in the Song of Solomon only 1 time (8:6). There is no law that a book of Scripture has to mention God, so while this is peculiar, this is not an objection. See the next question for how the name of God is in the book of Esther.
2. No mention of prayer. However there is mention of fasting, which usually includes prayer. Moreover, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, and Ruth do not explicitly mention prayer either, so this objection is not valid.
3. No mention of religious elements, such as sacrifices, diet, or the law.
4. Excessive Jewish nationalism. However, anyone who objected to Esther on these grounds would object even more to Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.
5. Vengeance on the part of Esther and the Jews. However, vengeance was practiced in the Old Testament, and this is consistent with Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.
6. Not quoted in the New Testament. However, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are not quoted either, and Job is only quoted in one place. There is no requirement that an Old Testament book be quoted in the New Testament.
The Apocryphal additions to Esther in the Greek Septuagint "fixed" these supposed problems, but these additions are certainly not genuine. There are at least six contradictions between the additions and the original book of Esther.
Both the conservative The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.326 and the liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 2 p.636 agree that the lack of mention of God and prayer is so striking, it was no accident. There are a number of views as to why this is so.
A General Introduction to the Bible p.260 mentions that since the Jews in Persia at this time were not in God's will, the name of the Covenant God was not associated with them, or else not having God's name would protect the book from pagan plagiarizing and substituting the name of a heathen god.
Q: In Esth, what extra-Biblical evidence is there of the events and people in this book?
A: Many things corroborate, though extra-Biblical recorded history is silent on others.
Xerxes is the Greek (and modern) name given to kings the Persians knew as "Khshayarsha". In Hebrew this was Ahashwerosh, which in our Bibles is "Ahasuerus". As Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.445 says, "Place an 'A' in front [of Khshayarsha] and the change to Ahasuerus is not a difficult one to see."
Queen Vashti can be linked to probably the same queen that Herodotus knew as Amestris, if some phonetic modifications are assumed, as Persia and the Bible p.231 mentions.
Mordecai was a name that appeared in Aramaic letters, though this is not the same Mordecai. There were probably at least four officials named Mordecai during this period. A "Marduka" is mentioned in a tablet from Borsippa, in modern Iraq. He was an accountant who made an inspection tour of Susa during the last years of Darius or the early years of Xerxes, as the liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 2 p.638 and Persia and the Bible p.235 both say. There are more than 30 discovered tablets, dating between 505 and 499 B.C., with the name "Marduka" or "Marduku", which may refer to up to four individuals. (Some of these are PF 81, 412, 489, 790, 863, 941, 942, 991, 1183, 1236,1581, 1858, PT1, 84). In 2 Maccabees 15:36, Purim is called "The Day of Mordecai".
Other names are found on various inscriptions. The Anchor Bible Dictionary p.638-639 mentions Haman's son Pharshandatha (Psrndt). Persia and the Bible p.238 mention the following names having parallels in Elamite Persepolis texts: the eunuchs Mehuman, Bigtha, Carcas, Hathach, the advisors Meres, Marsena, and Memukan, Haman's father Hammedatha, and Aridai, and Aridatah/Aridatath the sons of Haman.
The ai in Vaizatha, Haman's son in Esther 9:9, would be pronounced as "ai" prior to Xerxes reign, and "e" in the reign of Artaxerxes his son, and this dates Esther rather precisely. See Persia and the Bible p.238 for more info.
The citadel at Susa was burned down during the time of Xerxes son, according to an inscription. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.702 mentions that a later writer probably would not have known about this citadel.
Q: In Esth 2:6, was Mordecai the one who was carried away in captivity from Jerusalem, 70 years prior to this, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.467 asserts?
A: No. While the language is ambiguous, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.703 points out that it is better understood that Kish, Mordecai's great grandfather, was the one who was exiled to Babylon 70 years ago.
Persia and the Bible p.236 is more precise on this. It says the relative pronoun 'aser should not be associated with Mordecai (the first name in the list), but the Kish, the last name in the list).
Q: In Esth 2:7, what do the names in the book mean?
A: There are a number of interesting things here.
Esther: The Anchor Bible Dictionary p.633 says there are three views for the origin of this name.
1. Esther is the Akkadian word istar or Ishtar, the fierce Babylonian goddess of love. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.467 says this is clearly the case.
2. Esther comes from the Persian word stara meaning "star". The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.703 presents this view.
3. Esther comes from the Median word astra, meaning "myrtle".
Hadassah is the Hebrew name that probably means "myrtle" according to the New International Dictionary of the Bible p.326, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.703, and 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.316. So, it might seem the Median origin of Esther is most likely. However, Persia and the Bible p.233 also says that Hadassah is usually derived from the word for "myrtle", but that other origins have been suggested.
Mordecai was a Babylonian name derived from the Babylonian war-god Marduk. It is similar to the new Testament name "Mark" meaning "of Mars", and Mars was the Roman god of war. Over 30 tablets in Susa, and 1 tablet in Borsippa mention up to four Persian officials named "Marduku" or "Marduka".
The Elamites had a chief god named Humman, whose wife was Kirisha. An Elamite goddess was named "Mashti". (The Encyclopedia Britannica 1956 volume 8 p.118 says the chief god was In-Susinak, though.) Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.467 and others mentioned by The Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 2 p.637 see a strong parallel between the Elamite gods, the Babylonian gods Marduk and Ishtar, and the story of Esther.
Q: In Esth 8:10, what are dromedaries?
A: These are one-humped camels. Dromedary camels are used in Africa and most of the Mideast. Two-humped Bactrian camels are in most of Iran and the rest of Asia. As a side note, an ancient writer would probably never make this distinction unless he lived in a land, such as Persia, where one was familiar with both kinds of camels.
As the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.465 observes, Esther 1:1 is the only place in the Bible where India is mentioned.
Q: Was Job taken from ancient Sumerian and Babylonian legends?
A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.474 suggests so. On the contrary, it would be surprising if there were no other literature that dealt with this issue. There are two Mesopotamian works that address the problem of suffering.
I will Praise the Lord of Wisdom, an Akkadian work, sometimes is called the Babylonian Job.
The Dialogue of Human Misery (also called the Babylonian Theodicy) asks why there is suffering in general, while Job asks why he is suffering. The Dialogue of Human Misery answers by saying the gods made men evil. The book of Job answers this by saying that it is not because of Job's sin. Rather, God is so much greater than us, that sometimes He has reasons we cannot see for why He allows his obedient servants to suffer. In Job's particular case, Job's demonstrated faithfulness in suffering glorified God. In Job's case, things worked out well before the end of his physical life, but regardless, Job knew he would be vindicated after death (Job 13:15).
In modern times, the book The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis is very insightful.
Q: In Job 1:1, where was the land of Uz?
A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.476-477 says there appears to be confusion about Uz, and that the Assyrians knew of a district called "Ussai" in modern-day Syria. However, Jeremiah 25:20 listing the land of Uz right before the Philistines does not mean the two were adjacent. Asimov also mentions that Edom dwelt in Uz in Lamentations 4:21, and that is because there was another Uz descended from Edom in 1 Chronicles 1:42.
However, The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.879 says that since Delitzsch notes the Arabic name for Esau is "'is", Uz might be the place in North Arabia where two cultures, Aramean and Edomite met or divided.
For a modern illustration, I wonder if people in other parts of the world are confused in there being a Washington state and a Washington, D.C. To Americans this is not confusing, and there being two lands of Uz were probably not confusing to Bible writers either.
Q: In Job 40:15, was behemoth a throwback to the monster Tiamat of Babylonian mythology, whom Gilgamesh slew?
A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.485-486 suggests this. Behemoth was a large, fierce animal, most likely a hippopotamus. Male hippos in particular can be very dangerous to people.
In Job 39-40, God is mentioning unusual animals to Job that were either very powerful or else peculiar, yet well-adapted to their environment. Prior to this, God had mentioned the goats, dear, wild donkeys, ox, ostrich, horse, hawk, and eagle. It would seem strange to pass in silence on the hippopotamus and crocodile.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.261-262 for more info.
Q: In Ps, who wrote the Psalms?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.488 correctly says that we do not know. Of the 150 psalms in our Bible, 101 of them have captions added giving the author. 73 of them are said to be by David, 2 by Solomon, 12 by the sons of Korah, and 12 by Asaph. However, the captions were added later, and could be incorrect. While Asimov says that although we cannot prove the authorship of any psalm, Jesus said some of the psalms were by David.
Q: In Ps 2:7, did ancient kings customarily consider themselves the adopted sons of the national god, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.489-490 says?
A: Among the Egyptian Pharaohs, Babylonian kings, and some other rulers yes.
Q: In Ps 6:1, what does the Hebrew word "sheminith" mean?
A: This Hebrew word means "eighth", and as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.491 says, it could refer to an eight-stringed instrument or an octave.
Q: In Ps 9:16; Ps 32:4,5,7; 45:11, 47:4; 48:8; 49:13,15; 50:6; 52:3,5; 54:3; 55:7; 55:19; 57:6; 60:4; 61:4; 62:4; 66:4,7,25; 68:7; 75:3; 76:3,9; 77:3,9, 84:4; 85:2; 76:3,6; 88:7,10; 89:4; 89:37,45,48, 143:6; 140:3,8, what does "selah" mean?
A: Outside of these verses, the word is not encountered so we are not certain. However, based on the context, the word appears to mean "amen" or "so be it". The NASB footnote for Psalm 3:2 says, "Selah may mean: Pause, Crescendo or Musical Interlude"
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.490-491 observes that "selah" occurs 71 times in Psalms, and usually at the end of a natural pause in the thought.
Q: In Ps 22:16, should the Hebrew be translated as his hands and feet were "pierced" or "lion-like"?
A: Scholars disagree. The literal Hebrew word means "lion-like", and the word was not commonly used this way. Perhaps it means that Christ's hands were twisted, as they would contract after the nails were driven in and He hung on those nails for hours.
It could simply be a poetic way of saying "pierced". The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.895 wonders if "pierced" was inserted by Christians as a reference to Jesus. However, the Septuagint, translated centuries before Christ, says "pierced".
Q: In Ps 34:1, should this say Abimelech as the king of Gath, or Achish?
A: This refers to the time in 1 Samuel 21:12-15 when David pretended to be insane. There are three possibilities here.
Copyist error: The writers who added the headings to the psalms might have made a copyist error of Abimelech when it should have said Achish.
Dual name: Many kings in ancient times had dual names, typically the personal name they were born with and a throne name. Persian kings and Egyptian Pharaohs all had two names, and Solomon had another name: Jedidah. Zedekiah was also called Mattaniah in 2 Kings 24:17. We do not know the names of many Philistine kings, except from Assyrian sources. They mention an A-himilki (same as Ahimelech) who was a king of Ashdod. The first use we know of the Philistines using the name Abimelech was in Genesis 20:2, and the second was Abimelech II in Genesis 26:1.
Title: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.497, in addition to mentioning a possible copyist error, says it might not be a copyist error after all, but Abimelech might have been a title, as Pharaoh was a title for the ruler of Egypt.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.243-244 and When Critics Ask p.237 for more info on the first two views.
Q: What is unusual about Ps 34?
A: This psalm is an alphabet acrostic, where successive verses start with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.495 also points this out.
Q: In Ps 39:1, why is Jeduthun mentioned here?
A: The psalm could be dedicated to Jeduthun, or as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.497 says, it could be written in a style after the clan of Jeduthun.
Q: In Ps 74:8, when did enemies burn the synagogues in the land?
A: This could be prophetic, or what the Philistines did, what Jeroboam did, or this psalm might have been written when Assyrians were invading. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.500-501 mentions that this psalm is probably exilic.
Q: In Ps 87:4,89:10, who is Rahab?
A: Rahab was originally the name of a large "monster" such as a Nile crocodile. Metaphorically, Rahab symbolized Egypt, and Psalm 87:4 speaks of Egypt [Rahab] and Babylon. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.501, after conjecturing that Rahab was the name for a primitive monster, also agrees that Rahab was a symbolic representation of Egypt.
Q: Why are Ps 120-134 called psalms of ascent?
A: We are not sure. According to 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.154, some think these were sung when worshippers walked up toward the temple on Mount Zion, and others think Levites sang these during festival times standing on the temple steps. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.505 says the same.
Q: In Ps 137:1, what were the rivers of Babylon?
A: The Babylon was on the mighty Euphrates River. While it could possibly refer to the two rivers of Babylonia, the Euphrates and the Tigris, 40 miles east of Babylon, it probably does not. Rather it most likely refers to the Euphrates and numerous canals serving Babylon and its gardens. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.506 says the same.
Q: In Prov, was "most wisdom literature was ascribed to Solomon almost as a matter of course..." as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.506 claims?
A: No, Asimov is showing his bias here. Here are the known examples of Jewish wisdom literature.
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Job
Psalm 19, 37, 104, 107, 147, 148.
The Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha
Ecclesiasticus (=Sirach, =The Wisdom of Ben Sira) in the Apocrypha
3 Maccabees (1st century B.C.)
4 Maccabees (1st century A.D.)
Not counting Psalms, only three of the seven are said to be by Solomon.
Q: Does Ecc have an Aramaic influence, which the Jews adopted in times later than Solomon?
A: First the facts, then three possibilities.
Facts: Linguists argue over Solomon's writings. While one Conservative Christian scholar (Delitzsch) found 96 "Aramaisms" in Ecclesiastes, the conservative Christian scholar Hengstenberg found only 10. Solomon's writings are unique, in not appearing any closer to 5th century Hebrew documents than 10th century Hebrew documents.
1. Contrary to what Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.512 asserts, it was not written in a "later" style. Rather, it shows a Phoenician and Aramaic influence, which Solomon likely learned from his friendship with Hiram son of Abibaal, king of the Phoenician city of Tyre.
2. Later Hebrew scribes might have updated some of the language to the later style.
3. The writer never actually said he was Solomon. However, a son of David reigning in Jerusalem would either mean Solomon or one of his descendants.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.255-258, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.292-293, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.975-976 for extensive discussions.
Q: Does Ecc seem to be written from 300-200 B.C as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.512 says?
A: It was definitely written earlier. Asimov might not have known that the earliest fragments of Ecclesiastes in the Dead Sea scrolls were written in the second century B.C. However, Asimov forgot to mention that Ecclesiastes was in the Greek Septuagint, which was translated between 285 and 160 B.C. It would be strange that the Massoretic text, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Septuagint all had this book, and it was first written between 300 and 200 B.C.
Q: Is Ecc 12:9-14 an addendum written later, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.515 claims?
A: We have no external evidence either way. Within Ecclesiastes itself, Ecclesiastes is written in first person, with the exception of the ending, so Asimov might be correct here. If a second person wrote an addendum to Ecclesiastes, that poses no problem for inerrancy.
Q: In SofS 1:5, was the girl here black, or was she Jewish, and thus Caucasian?
A: First an interesting side note, and then the answer. Judaism has been in the country of Ethiopia ever since around the time of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. The Judaism in Ethiopia was distinct in that they had no concept of Purim or Hanukkah, which were introduced over four hundred years after Solomon's time.
Answer: The girl might have been black, and she might have been Ethiopian. However, it is more likely she was Caucasian and her skin was tanned, because she mentioned that the sun made her dark. A skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.520, correctly says the same thing.
Q: In SofS 2:12 (KJV), how could the voice of a turtle be heard in the land, since turtles do not make sounds?
A: The King James Version accurately translated this as the bird we today call a "turtledove". The skeptic Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.522 says essentially the same thing.
Q: In SofS 6:4, does this reference to Tirzah indicate the poem was written after Solomon's time, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.522-523 suggests?
A: The Song of Songs never said it was written by Solomon, or in his time. However, this verse does not indicate a later date. There was a king of Tirzah in Joshua 12:24 and Jeroboam I (900-880 B.C.) stayed in Tirzah in 1 Kings 14:17. Archaeologists have found Tirzah occupied since Joshua's time.
The Song of Songs 6:4 mentions both Tirzah and Jerusalem, and 6:5 mentions Gilead. Asimov says this indicates a later time because Tirzah was not analogous to Jerusalem. It was not in power, but in beauty that it might be just as analogous to Jerusalem as Gilead was.
Q: In SofS 6:13, why was she called a Shulamite?
A: There are two views.
Town of Shulem/Shunem. The New Geneva Study Bible p.1014 and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.523 say this was likely a copyist's error for someone from the town of Shunam, which was about three miles (five kilometers) north of Jezreel. The NIV Study Bible p.1011 says the letters "l" and "n" were sometimes interchanged in Semitic languages. Abishag was a Shunamite according to 1 Kings 1:3,15; 2:17,21. See www.scripturewise.com for more on the view that the girl in the Song of Solomon was Abishag.
Solomon's girl: Shulamite is the feminine form of "Solomon". Perhaps she was being called a "Solomoness", meaning Solomon's girl. The NIV Study Bible p.1011 mentions both these views.
Since we know of a town of Shunem, the first view is most reasonable, since Abishag was a Shunemite, but she was not especially Solomon's girl. Otherwise, every girl from Shunem would be Solomon's girl.
Q: In Isa 1:1, when did Isaiah live?
A: Isaiah chapter 6, early in Isaiah's career, was In the year that Uzziah died, 739 B.C. Hezekiah succeeded Uzziah as king, followed by Manasseh in 687 B.C. Since Isaiah mentions Sennacherib's death, Isaiah probably lived during this event, which was 681 B.C. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.546 also says it is possible that Isaiah lived into the reign of Manasseh.
The Jewish pseudepigraphal book Ascension of Isaiah says that Isaiah was killed by being sawn in two during the reign of Manasseh. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.547 calls this "The Martyrdom of Isaiah" and says it was written about 100 A.D. Hebrews 11:37 says that some Old Testament believers were sawn in two, and Asimov says this might be a reference to Isaiah.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.4 for more info.
Q: In Isa 1:1, who was Isaiah's father Amoz?
A: We do not know anything about him. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.527 mentions a rabbinic tradition that Amoz was a brother of king Amaziah, so Isaiah would be of royal blood. However, The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.4 says this is a Jewish tradition that Amoz was of royal blood cannot be substantiated.
Q: In Isa 6:1, by the time of the prophets, was lightning personified as seraphim, and the storm blast as cherubim as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.530 claims?
A: No, there is no evidence of this claim. If a scientist at a conference asserted a scientific fact with as little evidence as Asimov has for some of his Bible interpretations, he would be laughed out of the meeting.
Q: In Isa 6:3, where else is this Hebrew word saraph used?
A: The angelic beings called seraphim are not mentioned by this name anywhere else in the Old Testament. However, some think the cherubim might be the same, as the previous questions discusses. In addition, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.529 correctly points out, the Hebrew word means "fiery" and it is used as an adjective in "fiery serpents" in Numbers 21:6,8. It is also used in Isaiah 14:29; 30:6.
Q: In Isa 7:10-11, why was Ahaz told to ask for a sign here?
A: God invited Ahaz to ask for a sign or miracle from God. Ahaz chose not to do so, and so Ahaz was not given an impressive sign for him to see. Instead, God provided a double fulfillment of this prophecy. The word "woman" here can be translated as "young maiden" or as "virgin". Isaiah's wife had a child that provided immediate fulfillment of this prophecy. Nothing seems particularly miraculous about this birth, though. Centuries later, Jesus would be born of a virgin.
It can be proved that interpreting this word as virgin is not a "Christian invention", as the Greek Septuagint translation, written centuries before Christ, translated this word as parthenos, or virgin. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.532 fails to point this out, incorrectly saying instead that the Christian's view rests on the word translated in the King James Version. (Later, on p.781 Asimov does say that making this word as "virgin" goes back to Matthew.)
Q: In Isa 7:14-16, could the immediate fulfillment of this prophecy be the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz?
A: No, because Hezekiah would be about ten years old at the time of the prophecy. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.301 for more info. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.533 says Hezekiah would be an adult at this time.
Q: Do Isa 9:1 and Isa 9:2 belong together, or was Mt 4:14-16 incorrect to put these together?
A: They belong together because Isaiah 9:1 is a transition with both sections.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.816 says Isaiah 9:1 belongs with the earlier section and is actually called Isaiah 8:23 in modern Jewish Bibles and the New Jerusalem Bible. Admittedly Isaiah 8:22 and 9:1 do relate, because Isaiah 8:22 speaks of people in darkness and Isaiah 9:1 speaks of no more darkness.
However, Isaiah 8:22 speaks of people who will be driven away into darkness, Isaiah 9:1 says there will be no more darkness for Zebulun and Naphtali, and Isaiah 9:2-7 says how the people who were in darkness will see a great light.
It is interesting that Asimov is trying to say that those who were in gloom will have it lifted in Isaiah 9:1 does not relate to those who were in darkness and have seen a great light in the very next verse. The Bible is great literature, but apparently having a section transition smoothly to another section is disconcerting for some skeptics.
Q: In Isa 9:6-8, does this refer to the Christ?
A: Yes. Christ is the Greek for Messiah, and this is definitely a Messianic prophecy, for the Messiah will
a) Govern the people (Isaiah 9:6,7
b) Reign on David's throne (Isaiah 9:7)
c) From that time on and forever (Isaiah 9:7)
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.534 says such rhapsodic phrases of an ideal king may refer to the coronation of a king such as Hezekiah. However, no Jews in ancient times every wrote that they held this apparently modern theory.
Q: In Isa 14:29; 30:6; Isa 59:5 (KJV), why is a mythical animal, a cockatrice, mentioned in the King James version of the Bible?
A: The NKJV says "fiery flying serpent", the NASB says serpent and viper, and the NIV says snake and viper.
A skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.537 also mentions that the King James version is not correct here, and the horned viper snake is the most likely candidate for what was meant here. He correctly adds that the RSV translation "adder" could not be correct, as the adder snake was only present in continental Europe and the Island of Britain.
Q: In Isa 19:18, when did five cities of Egypt speak the language of Canaan?
A: First, it does not say they will speak "Canaanitish", but rather the language that is spoken in Canaan.
After the fall of Jerusalem, many Jews fled to Egypt. In fact, under the Persians, the main fort at Elephantine in south Egypt was manned by Jewish mercenaries. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.579 also mentions the Jewish colony on Elephantine Island.
During the time of the early church, tradition says Mark was one of the first to evangelize Egypt. He and other Christians were so successful that Alexandria in Egypt, became one of the four main centers of Christianity, at least as important as Jerusalem.
Q: In Isa 29:1-2,7, why is Jerusalem called "Ariel" here?
A: Isaiah was referring to Jerusalem with the figurative name of "Ariel". In Hebrew Ariel could mean "lion of God", and it can also mean "altar". The Believer's Bible Commentary p.959 says Isaiah is implying that the city that was once a lion of God will be like a burning altar, and its inhabitants its victims. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.544 also agrees that Ariel is Jerusalem. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1078 for more info.
Q: In Isa 30:7 (KJV), should this say "strength" or "Rahab" as other translations say?
A: The King James Version is incorrect here. The Hebrew word here is "Rahab" which is a nickname for Egypt. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.545 also says "Rahab" is a personification of Egypt.
Q: In Isa 34:5,6 and Ezek 35:15; 36:5 (KJV), why is Idumea is mentioned?
A: Idumea was a later name for the land of Edom. It was first called Idumea starting around the fourth century B.C., almost 200 years after Isaiah was written. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.545 mentions correctly mentions that this was the name in Greek and Roman times and that the RSV used "Edom". However, Asimov fails to mention that in all four verses the Hebrew says "Edom". It is only the King James Version that uses the anachronistic name Idumea. Of course, the Septuagint, written in Greek, also uses Idumea.
Q: In Isa 34:13 (KJV), why are dragons mentioned?
A: The King James Version did not translate this correctly, and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.545 also assumes is was dragons. The correct word is "jackals", as the NIV, NKJV, and NRSV say. However, the NIV, NRSV, and The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.220 translate this as "jackals" in Isaiah 34:14. The NKJV translates this as "hyenas".
Q: In Isa 46:1, who are Bel and Nebo?
A: Bel was another name for Marduk, the chief god of Babylon. Nebo was Marduk's son. The Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar (Nabu-kudurri-usur) and Nebopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur) have "Nebo" in their names. The NIV Study Bible p.1084 says that Bel was another name for the Canaanite idol Baal. Rounding this out, the Babylonian goddess Ishtar was the same as the Canaanite goddess Ashtarte.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.551-552 agrees with the preceding, except that it also adds that "Bel" was originally given to En-lil, the Sumerian god of the air and sky. However, the Sumerians lived in Sumeria as far back as 3500 B.C., and the Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Babylonians, and other Amorites who would worship Bel did not come until 2500-2000 B.C., so Bel did not come from En-lil, though they might have retroactively been associated with each other.
Q: In Isa 53:3, 41:9, 42:4; 49:4; 49:6, could the author be speaking of himself as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.550-551 claims?
A: No, there is no evidence that Isaiah thought he was setting judgment on the earth (Isaiah 42:4), or that he felt he had labored in vain (Isaiah 49:4), or that he himself was given for a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6), or that he personally fulfilled Isaiah 53.
Q: In Isa, what is the external evidence of the number of authors of Isaiah?
A: Here are three points of negative evidence, followed by the positive evidence.
N1. Unknown in antiquity. The Jews themselves were unaware of any possibility of Isaiah being the product of two different authors. They considered the parts after chapter 40 Isaiah too, as Nahum 1:15, Zephaniah 2:15, and the son of Sirach in Ecclesiasticus 48:22-25. Josephus never mentions two Isaiahs. The early church fathers never heard of the theory of two Isaiahs, either. If there were two or more Isaiah's, surely someone back then would have heard about it.
N2. Only a modern skeptical/liberal view. Liberal scholars have maintained that Isaiah was by two or more authors. On one hand the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.524,547-550 says the view of Isaiah being by a single author has no important advocates today. Apparently every single conservative Bible scholar is not important to Asimov. The scholarly Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.6, says that prior to the eighteenth century, the only writer to suggest that multiple authors wrote Isaiah was the Twelfth-century Jew Ibn Ezra, who quoted a Moses ben Samuel Ibn Gekatilla who had the same view. It was not until more than a millennium later that anyone heard or thought up that Isaiah was by more than one author.
N3. The liberal theories cannot agree among themselves. Once you get to a three or more Isaiah theory, the theorists cannot agree among themselves which parts go with which pseudo-Isaiah's or how many Pseudo-Isaiah's there are. It sort of reminds you of Mark 14:55-56 when false witnesses tried to slander Jesus, no two of them could agree.
P1. What Jesus and the Gospel writers knew about Isaiah - Jesus mentions verses he said were by Isaiah in Matthew 13:14; 15:7; Mark 7:6. In Luke 4:17-20 Jesus was given a scroll from Isaiah the prophet, He read Isaiah 49:8-9 from it, and said "scripture" has been fulfilled in your presence. Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted both parts of Isaiah extensively, many times attributing them to Isaiah, and they never knew of two Isaiahs.
John 12:38 says that Isaiah was the author of Isaiah 53:1. Jesus, Paul, and the New Testament writers said verses in the first, middle, and later parts of Isaiah were by Isaiah.
Jesus did not know of any two-Isaiah or three-Isaiah theory. Jesus and the Gospel writers said the following was by the prophet Isaiah
Isaiah 42:1 Matthew 12:17-18
Isaiah 40:3 Matthew 3:3
Isaiah 40:3-5 Luke 3:4
Acts 8:28 Isaiah 53:7-8
Isaiah 52:1; 6:9-10 John 12:38-41
P2. Acts 8:28-30 mentions the Ethiopian eunuch reading through Isaiah the prophet. In Acts 28:26 Paul quotes from the first part of Isaiah, Isaiah 6:9-10 as said to be by Isaiah. In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes from Isaiah 65:1.
P3. What the Jews knew about Isaiah: The apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus 48:24, written in the second century B.C. quotes from Isaiah 61:3 saying this is by Isaiah.
P4. Early Christians, Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) was one of the church fathers who mentions that Isaiah wrote this in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapter 97.
Clement of Rome (97 A.D.) in First Clement chapter 16 quotes (with explanations) almost all of Isaiah 53.
The Letter (or Epistle) of Barnabas (100 A.D.) also refers to verses in Isaiah.
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from 248 to his martyrdom in 258 A.D., quotes from "Isaiah" in Treatise 12 The Third Book in many places. In "verses" 5,11,20,34,59,75,100 Cyprian quotes as Isaiah passages in Isaiah after 40:1. In "verses" 41,53,60,113,115,118 Cyprian quotes as "Isaiah" passages in Isaiah before 40:1.
It is accepted that Isaiah might have written the later chapters might have later in his life. That is why Assyria is not mentioned in the later chapters.
Conclusion: We could go on looking for more external references, but the bottom line is this: Jesus and the apostles said this was by Isaiah. Modern atheists and "Christian liberals" have no substantial reasons to prove this was not so. Either we believe what Jesus and the apostles affirmed without hesitation, or we deny what they taught. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.8-10 for a more extensive discussion on the unity of Isaiah. In the next question we will look at the internal evidence.
Q: In Isa, what is the internal evidence for the number of authors of Isaiah?
A: Internal evidence is within the book itself. First we will honestly give evidence that implies more than one author, and then the evidence that implies one author.
M1. Isaiah is only one book, but it does fall naturally into two parts, right before chapter 40.
M2. Different chapters do discuss different parts, and chapters 40-45 for example, say a lot about the character of God.
M3. Isaiah mentions Seraphs in Isaiah 6:2,6 and fiery serpents ("saraph" serpents) only in Isaiah 124:29; 30:6.
M4. Only in the later chapters of Isaiah is Cyrus or Persia prophesied. Only in the earlier chapters, probably written earlier, is Assyria mentioned.
M5. Isaiah 26:10 says the wicked do not behold the majesty of the Lord, while Isaiah 40:5 says all will see God's glory. However, the Hebrew word in Isaiah 26:10 means gave at or contemplate, so the wicked do not regard the Lord, but all will see the Lord. Regardless of the Hebrew word, Isaiah 26:10 speaks of the current time, and Isaiah 40:5 speaks of the endtimes.
However, there are many arguments for the unity of the book. The simplest explanation for these three points is that Isaiah wrote different parts at different time in his life.
S1. "Early Isaiah" prophesies about Babylon too
It mentions the Babylonians exiling the people of Judah in Isaiah 39:5-8. The land would be 90% emptied in Isaiah 6:11-12. The first 39 chapters mentions Babylon in 63 verses (Isaiah 13-14:23; 21:1-10; 39:1-8), while the last 26 chapters of Isaiah mention Babylon in 28 verse (chapters 46 and 47).
Liberals and skeptics have an answer to this evidence tough: the parts in "early Isaiah" that mention Babylon must have been written later and inserted, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.538 "suspects". This actually is a very good argument. In fact, it is so good, it is non-falsifiable. In other words, someone could use the "undetectable insertions argument" to say every piece of literature that was ever written being written by multiple authors.
S2. Both early and late Isaiah prophesy about the endtimes in Isaiah 24-27 and Isaiah 63-66.
However, liberals and skeptics such as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.542 have an answer for this: this say that Isaiah 24-27 was not written by Isaiah.
S3. Chiasms in both parts
All of Isaiah is chock-full of chiasms. Isaiah 1-39 has at least 18, and Isaiah 40-66 has at least 23. As one goes through Isaiah, one sees some more complex patterns, but these gradually increase in complexity and do not start abruptly at chapter 40. It should be expected that for someone who lived a long time, one might see a gradual change in writing style.
S4. Other similarities in both parts. As The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1030 and When Critics Ask p.265-267 show, there are at least ten similar passages in both parts:
(1:15 and 59:3,7) (2:29 and 57:4-5), (2:3 and 51:4), (10:1-2 and 59:4-9), (28:5 and 62:3), (29:18 and 42:7), (29:23 and 60:21), (30:26 and 60:19), (33:24 and 45:25) and (35:6 and 41:18).
Here are some of the similarities between Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66 according to When Critics Ask p.265-267.
1-39 has "the Holy one of Israel 12 times, and 40-46 has it 14 times.
1:15 says "Your hands are full of blood." And 59:3 says "For your hands are defiled with blood."
28:5 says "For a crown of glory and a diadem of beauty to the remnant of His people." And 62:3 says "You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God."
35:6 says "For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert." And 41:18 says "I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.
S5. Isaiah is unique among the prophets in mentioning God's highway (11:16; 19:23: 35:8; 40:3; 62:10).
S6. Isaiah is also peculiar in mentioning the "Holy One of Israel". This occurs 12 times in Isaiah 1-39, 15 times in Isaiah 40-66, and only 7 times in the rest of the Old Testament.
S7. The establishment of justice is distinctive of Isaiah. It is in verses 9:7; 11:4; 16:5; 28:6; 32:16; 33:5; 42:1,3-4; 51:5.
S8. Peace is mentioned in Isaiah 9:7; 26:3; 26:12; 27:5; 32:17; 33:7; 36:21; 38:17; 39:8; 42:14; 45:7; 48:18,22; 52:7; 53:5; 54:10,13; 55:12; 57:2,11; 57:19,21; 59:8; 60:17; 62:1,2; 64:12; 66:12.
S9. Joy is mentioned in Isaiah 9:3,17; 12:3; 16:10; 22:13; 24:8,11; 29:19; 32:13,13; 35:2,10; 51:3,11; 52:9; 55:12; 60:15; 61:3,7; 65:14,18,19; 66:5,10.
S10. The Hebrew word for thorn bush, na'asus only occurs in the entire Old Testament in Isaiah 7:19 and 55:13.
S11. If Isaiah 40-66 was written during the exile, why does it so prominently mention rocks, mountains, valley streams, etc.?
S12. Books written during or after the exile have Babylonian and Aramaic terms. All of Isaiah has no Aramaic terms.
Finally, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary also mentions the underlying reason for the "Second Isaiah" theory of the 18th century. Since the prophecies of Cyrus and Babylon are so precise, liberal critics take that as "proof" that Isaiah 40-66 was after these occurred, which was over a century after Isaiah. However, taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the preciseness of the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah 53 would likewise "prove" that Isaiah 40-66 was written after Jesus' crucifixion. Both Jews in general and the Dead Sea scrolls in particular shows the falsehood of that.
Conclusion: Conservative Christians readily acknowledge that different parts of Isaiah might have been written during different parts of his life, and various chapters emphasize different things. However, if someone is looking for evidence of the number of authors of Isaiah (assuming the person wants to see evidence), how much more evidence do you need that it was by a single author.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.270-271 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1030-1031 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.857-858 for more discussion on the inconsistency of the two-Isaiah theory.
Q: Was Isa written by three authors?
A: Berhard Duhm said that chapters 56-66 were by a "third Isaiah" who lived in Palestine or Egypt. He also said the servant songs "Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 were by a second Isaiah. The original Isaiah did not even write the rest of it, as many said Isaiah did not write chapters 13-14, 24-27 and 35-39.
However, it is unclear that Berhard Duhm himself held to the servant songs being by a second Isaiah. Perhaps a pseudo-Berhard wrote various parts of his commentary and the publisher just compiled these together. In fact, if you selectively analyze his writing, you might even find two or more pseudo-Berhards. Of course it is easy for me to say this, since Duhm wrote in 1892 and is no longer alive to defend himself. It is also easy for me to say this as long as I do not have to give any defensible evidence.
Seriously, these views presuppose that God could not have given any information about the future. Since Isaiah prophetically mentioned Babylon, that had to be written after Babylon conquered Judah. Since Isaiah prophetically predicted Cyrus, that had to be written in the time of Cyrus.
Therefore it is a circular argument that since Isaiah mentions Babylon and Cyrus, therefore it had to be written during the time of Babylon and Cyrus and thus not be prophetic.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.553 also says that many suggest chapters 56-66 were written by a Third Isaiah. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.7 for more info on why this view is wrong.
Q: Was additional material added to Isaiah, such that the book did not achieve its final form until as late as 350 B.C. as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.525-526 claims?
A: No. He provides no evidence for such as claim. This view is an outgrowth of the multiple Isaiah theory, and it is amazing what otherwise intelligent people can come up with, without any evidence.
Q: In Jer 1:1, was Jeremiah's father Hilkiah the high priest, who found the book of the law in 2 Ki 22:?
A: Probably not, because Jeremiah came from Anathoth, not Jerusalem. The Believer's Bible Commentary p.995 also mentions that Jeremiah was born of a priest in Anathoth. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1129 and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.555-557 agree that this was probably not the high priest Hilkiah.
Q: In Jer 2:16, where were Noph and Tahpanes?
A: These were two prominent Egyptian cities, with Tahpanes probably the same city the Greeks called Daphnai/Daphne. The NIV Study Bible p.1122 and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.559 says that the ruins of Taphenes are under the mound called Tel Defneh/ Defenneh just south of Lake Menzaleh in the eastern Nile Delta region.
Q: In Jer 2:16, since this was during the time of Josiah, are these rebukes of apostasy out of place, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.559 says?
A: No. Many Jews returned to God under Josiah, and perhaps Jeremiah had a part in this great revival. However, this does not negate the fact that many others did not return to God, and Jeremiah still rebuked them. Also, the evidence that everyone did not turn to God under Josiah was that as soon as Josiah died, the revival immediately appeared to be over.
Q: In Jer 7, when was this temple sermon given?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.561-562 says that it can be dated shortly after Josiah died in battle in 608 B.C., based on Jeremiah 26:1-2. The NIV Study Bible p.1132 says that it MAY be dated at that time based on Jeremiah 26:2-6,12-15. On the other hand, it adds that Jeremiah might have spoken on several occasions during his long ministry.
Q: In Jer 11:21-23, were the men of Anathoth not wanting Jeremiah to stay there because Jeremiah's unpopularity might spread to Anathoth, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.563 says?
A: Perhaps. Asimov's point is that they did not like Jeremiah either, and if Jeremiah stayed in Anathoth, other Jews might dislike Anathoth because they would mistakenly think the people of Anathoth supported Jeremiah.
However, regardless of their political considerations, they could simply not want Jeremiah around for the same reason the leaders of Jerusalem did not want Jeremiah around. From their perspective, Jeremiah was negative, a loose cannon, and did not fit in with their plans.
Q: In Jer 25:26 and Jer 51:41, who was the king of Sheshach?
A: Since Jeremiah encouraged support of the Babylonians, this prophecy of the destruction of the king of Babylon was in code. Sheshach was a code name for Babylon, similar to "abcd" being "zyxw". The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.535 says this was a type of cipher known as Atbash, and it was also used in Jeremiah 25:12; 51:1 for the Chaldeans "Leb Kamai". The New International Bible Commentary p.780, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1162, The New Geneva Study Bible p.1194, the NIV, the NRSV p.687, and the non-Christian Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.565-566 all agree this was a cryptogram for Babylon.
Q: In Jer 31:15, was Rachel buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19), or on the border of Benjamin at Zelzah (1 Sam 10:2)?
A: As the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.560-561 points out, Zelzah was probably an alternate name for Ramah in Benjamin. Rama is 5 miles (8 kilometers) north of Jerusalem.
According to Genesis 35:16-19, Rachel died "on the road" from Bethel to Bethlehem. Bethel is 12 miles (20 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, and Bethlehem is 5 miles (8 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem. Also, Ephrathah was another name for Bethlehem in Judah, according to Genesis 35:19.
Q: In Jer 44:30, who was Pharaoh Hophra, and what happened to him?
A: The Greeks called him Apries, and he ruled the Egyptian Delta from 589/588-570/569 B.C. The Cultural Atlas of the World : Ancient Egypt cautions that we do not know many of the actual pronunciations of the Pharaohs, but suggests Egyptians pronounced his name as Ha'a'ibre') (p.36-37). Ezekiel 17:15,17; 29:1-16; 30:20-26; 31:1-18, 32:1-32 and Jeremiah 37:5-11; 43:9 all mention him, though not by name. Jeremiah 44:30 said Hophra would die at the hand of his enemies. He was killed by his coregent Aahmes (Amasis in Greek), who was subservient to Babylon. The non-Christian Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.580 says not that Amasis was a co-regent but just an officer. See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1325 and The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.778 for more info.
Q: In Jer 46:13-20, when did Nebuchadnezzar strike the land of Egypt?
A: This answer is a duplicate of the discussion on Ezekiel 29:11-13; 30:23-26.
Skeptics used to think that the Babylonians never attacked Egypt, because Greek historians gave no mention of this invasion. However, not only did the Jewish historian Josephus mention this (Antiquities of the Jews 10.9.5-7 c.93-94 A.D.), When Critics Ask p.280 points out that a fragment of a Babylonian Chronicle from 567 B.C., as well as a inscription on the funerary statue of Nes-hor in south Egypt, corroborate with Josephus and the Bible. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.276278 mentions a Babylonian cuneiform tablet discovered by Pinches, which tells of an invasion 569/568 B.C. (It is unclear if this is the same tablet mentioned in When Critics Ask p.280, or a different tablet.)
How far into Egypt did the Babylonians go? Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.593 (1981), admits that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt, but says "it could not have been the resounding Babylonian success that Ezekiel had confidently predicted." The invasion probably was brief. However, according to Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.278, the funerary statue of Nes-hor says that during sometime during the reign of Uah-ib-Ra, an army of northerners went so far south as to threaten the Ethiopian border. Nes-hor was the governor of southern Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra according to When Critics Ask p.280. Note that Ezekiel did not predict how long the Babylonians would remain in Egypt, only that they would invade Egypt to the border of Ethiopia.
Q: In Ezek 1:1, what does "in the thirtieth year" mean?
A: Both the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1040 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1227 says it probably referred to Ezekiel's age, and adds that thirty years old was the age a priest would enter the Lord's service. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.583 says the same, though emphasizing that this is not at all certain.
Q: In Ezek 1:3 and Ezek 10:20, where was the Kebar (or Chebar) River?
A: This was a canal (man-made river) which flowed into the Euphrates River south of Babylon. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.584 mentions that it was one of the larger canals, and it original Akkadian name was nar Kabari, meaning Grand Canal.
Q: In Ezek 8:14, does the Christian practice of Good Friday and Easter Sunday owe something to the rite of Tammuz, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.586 claims?
A: Asimov has no basis for this assertion. Jesus voluntarily choosing to die, and being raised from the dead, no more to die, is very different from Tammuz being taken to Hell against His will, and repeating the process every year.
Q: In Ezek 26:3-14, was Ezekiel's prophecy of victory over Tyre contradicted in Ezek 29:17-20, since Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer Tyre, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.587-588 asserts?
A: No. First notice that those who listened to Ezekiel did not see any difficulty, as four chapters later, in Ezekiel 29:17-18 says that Nebuchadnezzar got no reward (i.e. plunder) from Tyre. The answer first discusses the literary structure, what was prophesied, what was not prophesied, and finally what happened.
Literary structure:
Ezekiel 26:3-14 is has a chiastic structures, with some exceptions. In a perfect chiasm, each thought is put in parallel in symmetric form. The changes in pronouns in the Hebrew are important here.
Ezek 26:3 Many nations will come against Tyre
..Ezek 26:4 They will destroy Tyre's walls and towers.
....Ezek 26:4,5 I [God] will make Tyre a bare rock, a place to spread fishnets.
......Ezek 26:6 Her mainland settlements will be sacked.
........Ezek 26:7 Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, will come against Tyre
......Ezek 26:8 He [Nebuchadnezzar] will sack your mainland settlements.
..Ezek 26:8,9 He will demolish the walls and towers
..Ezek 26:10,11 His horses will enter Tyre's gates and kill some of the people.
Ezek 26:12 They will plunder the wealth and loot. They will break down your walls and throw the rubble into the sea.
Ezek 26:13 I [God] will put an end to their songs.
....Ezek 26:14 I [God] will make Tyre bare rock, a place to spread fishnets.
As a side note, the Septuagint preserved the pronouns correctly until verse 12. Thereafter, it used "he" where it should have used "they" two times and "I" [God] one time.
2. What was prophesied:
There are three parts to the prophecy: many nations (they), God (I), and Nebuchadnezzar (he).
Many nations will come, loot Tyre, destroy Tyre's walls, and throw the rubble into the sea.
God will make Tyre a bare rock, a place to spread fishnets, and end their songs (Tyrian culture).
Nebuchadnezzar will come, sack the mainland city, and destroy the walls and towers, and kill some of the people.
3. What was not prophesied:
It never mentions that Nebuchadnezzar will do anything to the island, or which nation God will use to make the island a place for spreading fishnets. It was the many nations "they" that got the plunder, while Nebuchadnezzar only got the mainland settlements.
4. What happened:
The Assyrians, prior to Ezekiel's prophecy, unsuccessfully tried to capture the mainland city in 726/724 B.C. for five years. They tried again, and failed in 664 B.C.
Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon besieged Tyre for 13 years from 585 to 573 B.C. They successfully demolished the Mainland city. However the Tyrians in Old Tyre moved to the pre-existing New Tyre on the island (700-750 meters wide) across from the Mainland city. The Tyrian fleet kept the Babylonians from attacking the island city.
Alexander the Macedonian captured the mainland city, and he used the rubble to build a 200 foot (60 meter) wide causeway (artificial land-bridge) half a mile long (600-750 meters) connecting to the island city, and after seven months, he captured the island city in 332 B.C. The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that in capturing Tyre he used ships from many nations: Sidon, Cyprus, Rhodes, Mallus, Soli, Lycia, and of course, Macedonia. Alexander's army killed 8,000 people at first, 2,000 crucified later, and enslaved the remaining 30,000. (The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 6 p.687 says 6,000 were killed at first, 2,000 crucified later, 30,000 sold into slavery, and 15,000 rescued by the Sidonians.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.276-278 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1279 for more on the he/they showing the two-phase destruction. 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.187 reminds us that the time element of the two-phase was not specified. See also When Critics Ask p.287 for more info.
See the discussion on Ezekiel 26:14,19-20 for info on Tyre never being rebuilt.
Q: In Ezek 27:7, where were the coasts of Elishah?
A: Scholars do not know for certain. The Septuagint transliterates this as Elisai. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1280 mentions that some scholars equate it with Alashia, the ancient name for Cyprus. Other possibilities are parts of Greece, Italy, or Syria. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.588 conjectures that it was a district in Cyprus or else northern Africa. Asimov has an interesting and plausible theory here. He mentions that the founder of Carthage, had a throne name of "Dido", but her actual name was Elissa, and thus Carthage was on the coast of "Elissa".
Q: In Ezek 28:8, was this a false prophecy, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.590 claims?
A: No. Asimov claims this because the king of Tyre, Ethbaal (Ithobaal) II was taken captive to Babylon and not killed. While Ethbaal was taken to Babylon, Asimov is conjecturing here, because history does not record how Ethbaal was killed.
Q: In Ezek 29:11-13; 30:23-26, when was Egypt uninhabited for forty years and the Egyptians scattered by the Babylonians?
A: This answer is a duplicate of the discussion on Jeremiah 46:13-20.
Skeptics used to think that the Babylonians never attacked Egypt, because Greek historians gave no mention of this invasion. However, not only did the Jewish historian Josephus mention this in Antiquities of the Jews 10.9.5-7 (c.93-94 A.D.), When Critics Ask p.280 points out that a fragment of a Babylonian Chronicle from 567 B.C., as well as a inscription on the funerary statue of Nes-hor in south Egypt, corroborate with Josephus and the Bible. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.276278 mentions a Babylonian cuneiform tablet discovered by Pinches tells of an invasion 569/568 B.C. (It is unclear if this is the same tablet mentioned in When Critics Ask p.280, or a different tablet.)
How far into Egypt did the Babylonians go? Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.593 (1981), admits that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt, but says "it could not have been the resounding Babylonian success that Ezekiel had confidently predicted." The invasion probably was brief. However, according to Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.278, the funerary statue of Nes-hor says that during sometime during the reign of Uah-ib-Ra, an army of northerners went so far south as to threaten the Ethiopian border. Nes-hor was the governor of southern Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra according to When Critics Ask p.280. Note that Ezekiel did not predict how long the Babylonians would remain in Egypt, only that they would invade Egypt to the border of Ethiopia.
Q: In Ezek 30:15,16, how did God pour His fury on Sin?
A: This does not refer to sinful acts, but rather to the region called the Wilderness of Sin, also called Pelusium, which is to the northeast of Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.593 has a helpful comment here. When the Persian king Cambyses conquered Egypt, he first defeated the Egyptian army at Pelusium in 525 B.C.. There was little resistance after that.
Q: In Ezek 38:4 did God lead Gog and Magog to invade Israel, or did Satan lead them in Rev 20:7-8? (Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.594 thought this was a contradiction)
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. From Ezekiel 38:10-11, Gog and Magog would devise an evil plan, prepare, and apparently believe it was only they themselves that had decided this. Actually, they were summoned to do this (Ezekiel 38:8),
2. It specifically says that God will turn them from their home in the north to come against Israel. Then God will destroy them. (Ezekiel 38:4; 39:2-3)
3. God Himself does not tempt people (James 1:13). Rather, the means that God will use is to have Satan deceive Gog and Magog, according to Revelation 20:7-8.
4. This concept, of God using the evil of men and Satan to accomplish things that are a part of His plan, is called the doctrine of "concurrency" by theologians. Probably the clearest example of this truth is Genesis 50:20, when Joseph spoke to his brothers about their enslaving him. Joseph said, "Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good,...". Another example of concurrency is Judas betraying Jesus; it was a part of God's definite plan and foreknowledge (Acts 2:23). Also, there was God using Satan to incite David to pridefully number Israel in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1.
Q: In Dan, when was this book written?
A: Daniel was most likely written down shortly after the events occurred, in the 6th century B.C., according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1324. Many Jewish youths were taken to Babylon in 605 B.C, and some commentators guess that Daniel was about 16 years old. This would make Daniel about 85 years old when the Persians captured Babylon.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.596 claims it could have been written as late as 165 B.C. However, the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5 (c.93-94 A.D.) records that when Alexander the Great approached Jerusalem, the High Priest Jaddua met him and showed Alexander part of the Book of Daniel where the Greeks would overcome the Persians. Alexander apparently was impressed, and left the Jews alone. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367 for more info on this, When Critics Ask p.291, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.282-284 for more info in general on the date of the Book of Daniel.
Q: Was Dan written down in the second century (after Alexander's conquest), because of the Greek words found in Daniel?
A: No. While the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.597 claims "other subtle facets of the language used bespeak the Greek period rather than the time of Exile", there are only three Greek words in Daniel, which is less than the seven Persian words found. Here is more on these two points.
Only 3 Greek words are in Daniel (Daniel 3:5,10,15), and all three of them refer to musical instruments. 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 says that this does not show 2nd century authorship, as Assyrian inscriptions say Greek captives were in Mesopotamia in the 8th century B.C. In addition, in the 7th century, the Greek Alcaeus of Lebos mentions that his brother was serving in the Babylonian army. Likewise The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 1 p.247 also says that these formerly were thought to indicate a late date. However, "There is little doubt that the names of the instruments in Daniel were Old Persian in character, and were assimilated by the Greeks into their own culture with some orthographic modifications. Consequently this particular argument is no longer important for the literary criticism of Daniel"
7 Persian words are in Daniel referring to administration (Daniel 6:1-4,6-7). As 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 says, "...Daniel's correct use of these words simply cannot be explained if the author were an unknown second -century writer unfamiliar with the details of Persian government three hundred years before his time."
Q: Was Dan written after Sirach, since Sirach 47-49 contains a fairly exhaustive list of the Old Testament, omitting Daniel, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.623 says?
A: The time of the Maccabees was until about 165 B.C. However, four pieces of evidence are against this second century theory.
1. In the Apocrypha, 1 Maccabees 2:49-60 mentions Daniel and the three young men in such a way to imply that the book was already written by then. Otherwise, how would the readers of 1 Maccabees be expected to understand Daniel and the three young men? See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367 for more info on this.
2. Archaeologists have dated a copy of the manuscript of Daniel at 120 B.C. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438 mentions this, saying that this "brings into question the alleged Maccabean date of its composition."
3. Babylonian excavations show that the details of Daniel are correct. M. Lenormant says, "The more the knowledge of cuneiform texts advances, the more is felt the necessity to revise (correct) the too hasty condemnation of the book of Daniel by the German exegetical school" (La Magie p.14) (quoted from 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367)
4. Also the reference in Josephus already mentioned in the previous question.
Q: In Dan 1:2, where is Shinar?
A: Shinar is a synonym for the land of Babylonia. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.599 claims this is anachronistic. However, literary writers often used synonyms for the same word, and Daniel is doing so here.
Q: In Dan 1:6, what did these names mean?
A: Here is what they meant according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1330.
Belteshazzar was the Akkadian word Belet-sar-usur, which meant, "Lady, protect the King".
Shadrach was probably the Akkadian verb Saduraku, which meant "I am fearful [of a god]". Alternately, it might come from Aku, the Sumerian moon god.
Meshach possibly was the Akkadian verb mesaku, which meant "I despised, contemptible, humbled [before my god].
Abednego meant servant of [the god named] Nebo. Nebo was the Babylonian god of writing and vegetables. He was the son of Bel.
The names seemed to serve the purpose of reminding them that they were a conquered people, and exalting the Babylonian gods.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.600 gives totally different meanings. It says Belteshazar means "Bel protect his life", Shadrach means "Aku commands", Meshach was a word of doubtful meaning. He agrees that Abednego means "servant of Nebo".
Q: In Dan 2:2-10; 4:7; 5:7,11, who were the Chaldeans here?
A: While the Amorite Babylonian people were called Chaldeans, that is not what is meant here. Within Babylonian culture, the Chaldeans were a class of priests. The Amorites came from the northwest. The Chaldeans did not emerge from the Arabian desert, despite what Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.387 states.
Q: In Dan 2:2-10; 4:7; 5:7,11, does calling the priests Chaldeans show a later authorship, as some the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.601 maintains?
A: No. Gleason Archer has an extensive article in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.285-286 discussing this.
1. Daniel uses the Hebrew term, Kasdim, not only to refer to priests, but also the Chaldean (Babylonian) people in Daniel 5:30. If using it to refer to priests showed a late authorship, then Daniel 5:30 would show an early authorship.
2. However, using this in two ways shows this was written around Daniel's time. The Akkadian language, which Babylonians in Daniel's time spoke, used the same word Kal-du (from the Sumerian Gal-du to refer to both the priests and the nation. A table dated in the 14th year of Shamash-shumukin (668-648 B.C.) uses Gal-du for the priests. Archer says the Babylonians prior to the fall of Assyria used Gas'du for the Chaldean people. After the fall of Assyria, they changed the consonant "s" in many words to the consonant "l".
3. The Greeks, who knew of the Babylonians long before Daniel was born, called the nation Chaldaioi.
See also When Critics Ask p.293 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:37-44, what were these four kingdoms and the mountain?
A: They are the Babylonian, Medeo-Persian, and Greek/Macedonian, and Roman Empires. Here are three clues to help us arrive at the answer.
1. These were not just any four Empires, but four Empires that superseded each other. Thus, Indian, Chinese, Mongol, and New World empires are not under consideration here.
2. Daniel 2:36-39 shows that the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar is the first one. Thus, the Egyptian Empire cannot be one of the four, as it preceded the Babylonian Empire, yet existed in some form until Persian times. Likewise, the Assyrian Empire is not one of the four as it was destroyed forever prior to Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Jesus Christ, the Kings of Kings, will set up His kingdom during the time of the fourth empire.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.603 claims the Median and Persian Empire were counted as two empires, and the fourth empire was Alexander's Macedonian Empire. Asimov probably says this because he believes Daniel was written after Alexander came to power (perhaps as late as 165 B.C. he claims).
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, is there any extra-Biblical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar temporarily went insane?
A: Perhaps. While the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.605 says there is none, but The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 7 p.63 mentions an interesting Aramaic Dead Sea scroll fragment found at Qumran in cave 4. It is a prayer attributed to Nabonidus that says, "The words of the prayer which Nabunai(d), King of Assyria and Babylon, the great king, prayed when he was smitten with an unpleasant skin-disease by the ordinance of God Most High in the city of Teima: ' I was smitten with an unpleasant skin-disease for seven years ... to the name of God Most High'" (This conjectural translation, dependent on several restorations of missing letters, was published by J.T. Milik in Revue Biblique, 63 (1956): 408; cf. Saggs, Babylon, p.154 for the English version above.) The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 7 p.63 says this might be a late, partially legendary fragment, that either could contain a true account either of a skin disease of Nabonidus. But, it says, "... a careful examination of the Nabonidus fragment shows that it is far more likely to have been a late, garbled tradition of the illness of Nebuchadnezzar himself, if indeed it does not represent a later illness that actually befell Nabonidus personally (whose ten years of confinement to the North Arabian city of Teima [Teman] may have been partly occasioned by the illness.)".
The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 1 p.246-247 says that the Prayer of Nabonidus is too mythical to be helpful, but adds that we still know of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar through Berossus, a third century Babylonians priest and historian, and the second century writer Abydenus, who said that Nebuchadnezzar was "possessed by some god or other", where he made a prophecy and disappeared from Babylon.
So, this evidence is certainly not conclusive, but it illustrates that the official Babylonian records and Greek history do not give all the details.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, could the idea of Nebuchadnezzar acting like an animal have from Assyrian statues of bulls with human heads and bird's wings, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.605 says is an attractive guess?
A: Not likely. First of all, humans with heads of bulls were known in ancient Egypt and Crete from the time of Moses. Second, these were Assyrian statues, not Babylonian. Daniel would have less reason to write something about an "animal-man", than Moses who lived in Egypt.
Q: In Dan 5:1 and Dan 5:30, who was Belshazzar?
A: The Greek historian Herodotus, writing only about 90 years after the fall of Babylon, never mentioned Belshazzar and explicitly said the last king was Nabonidus. Until the 20th century, that was the final word on the subject apart from the Bible. This would be one of the things Christians would have to accept that there would be an explanation someday, without knowing the explanation.
However, in the 20th century archaeologists have found a cuneiform table, called the "Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus". Belshazzar was the firstborn son of Nabonidus, and after his first three years of rule (553 B.C.), Nabonidus went into voluntary exile for ten years in Tema in Arabia, and Nabonidus appointed Belshazzar as the rule. Significantly, when the Persians conquered Babylon, Nabonidus was not even there; he was in Tema in the northern part of Saudi Arabia. When Critics Ask p.209 concludes on this, "Since Belshazzar was the subordinate of Nabonidus, his name was forgotten, because the ancient Babylonian and Greek historians were primarily interested in the reigns of the official kings. Daniel's record has proven to be amazingly accurate."
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.286 mentions an "inscription of Nabunaid" uncovered at Ur. This is likely the same as the "Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus". Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.286 also adds that other cuneiform documents say how Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen offerings at the temples of Sippar as "an offering of the king."
Now Herodotus is considered generally to be very accurate. If Belshazzar's co-regency (under Nabonidus) was so insignificant that Herodotus, writing 90 years later, overlooked it, how could anyone expect the book of Daniel to naturally get this correct, unless Daniel were written at this time. Since Daniel knew more about this than Herodotus, is it simply amazing that some liberal scholars in the late Twentieth century still considered Daniel as a second century book. See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 for more on this.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.606 does not mention these details, except it says that Belshazzar (Bel-shar-utsur meaning "Bel, protect the king") was the firstborn son of Nabonidus.
See also Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.65-66, the New Geneva Study Bible p.1339-1340, and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1170-1171 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:25-28, what is the meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?
A: Scholars are unsure of the meaning of these Aramaic words. They mean either:
a) They are words that referred to money. The mina, shekel, and half-mina were common coins.
b) They meant numbered, numbered, weighted, and divisions.
"u" in upharsin can mean "and". "pharsin" is the plural of peres, which would sound like their word for Persian.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.607 gives essentially the same answer. See the New International Dictionary of the Bible p.640 for more info.
Q: In Dan 7:3-7,17-19, what are the four beasts?
A: Daniel 7:17 says these are four kings or kingdoms. They are Babylon, Medeo-Persia, Greece / Macedonia, and the Roman Empire. Here is how they fit the imagery.
Lion with eagle wings: Creatures appearing like winged lions covered the magnificent-looking Ishtar Gate in Babylon. Babylon was referred to as a lion Jeremiah 4:7. Babylon's horses were swifter than eagles in Jeremiah 4:13. Babylon and Egypt were both referred to as eagles in Ezekiel 17:3,7. Later, the Babylonians treated the Jews well, when Daniel was in the court. Habakkuk 1:8-9 is not relevant here, as the Babylonian horses are compared to leopards and wolves, as well as eagles.
Bear raised on one side: The Medeo-Persian Empire had two parts, with the Persian side being dominant.
Leopard with four wings and four heads: Though a leopard is the fastest large land animal, reaching speeds of 60 miles per hour, a leopard with four wings would be even faster. Alexander the Macedonian conquered the entire Persian Empire and parts of even India in a breathtaking thirteen years. After his death, the empire was divided up among his four generals. While a leopard was not a typical symbol of the Greeks, no other animal could represent the speed of Alexander's conquests any better.
Iron-toothed beast: The fourth beast was different, had horns, and was arrogant. The Roman Emperors had themselves declared as gods, and even had annual sacrifices made to them.
In addition, many see a dual fulfillment of this prophecy, with the Antichrist coming from a revived Roman Empire.
The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.610 claims the leopard was the Persian Empire, its four heads were four kings known to Daniel, and the fourth beast was Alexander's Empire. Asimov says this because he separates the Median Empire from the Persian Empire. However, the Medes, aside from assisting the Babylonians in destroying Assyria, fighting the Scythians, and merging with the Persians, had no other effect on world history.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1350-1351 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1082-1083 for more info.
Q: In Dan 7:3-7,17-19, instead of the Roman Empire, does the fourth beast represent the ideal Jewish state, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.610-611 says seems more likely?
A: Unless Asimov thinks the Jews thought an ideal Jewish state was a terrible, evil thing, Asimov is confused here. Daniel 7:7 says, "...before me was a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crush and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left... it had ten horns." In Daniel 7:11 (NIV) says, "...I kept looking until the [fourth] beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire." It is God who kills the fourth beast, so this is not a godly state.
Q: In Dan 8:16 and Dan 12:1, what is interesting about the names Gabriel and Michael?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.612 observes that Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament where angels are named. Of course, both Gabriel and Michael appear in the New Testament too.
Q: In Dan 9:25, is it reasonable to understand the Messiah the Prince to mean Cyrus of Persia, as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.614 says?
A: No, Asimov apparently is confused on this point. According to Daniel 9:25 there will be 69 "sevens" of years, before the Messiah comes. Cyrus already came when Daniel was written. In addition, the Messiah is killed (cut off) in Daniel 9:26.
Q: To what does Dan 11:1-33 refer?
A: Both The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1367 and the New Geneva Study Bible says these refer to the Persian kings: Cambyses II (530-522 B.C.), Pseudo-Smerdis (Guatama) 523/522-522/521 B.C.), Darius I (550-522/521-486 B.C.), and Ahasuerus (Xerxes in Greek) (486-465/464 B.C.) The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.616 says the same.
The fourth king, Xerxes, invaded Greece. It was later, in verse 3, that Alexander the Great (356-336-324 B.C.) conquered the Persian Empire.
Finally, Alexander's empire was split into four parts. Cassander ruled Macedonia
Lysimachus ruled Thrace and Anatolia
Seleucus (312-281 B.C.) ruled Syria, and
Ptolemy (I Soter) (323-285 B.C.) ruled Egypt.
The Believer's Bible Commentary p.1092 points out that Daniel 11:5-33 refer to the leaders of Syria and Egypt, and not to the same two rulers all throughout the text.
Q: In Hos 3:5, is it not odd that a northerner would mention King David, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.628-629 mentions?
A: It is not at all odd that this godly prophet would say this. It is true the northerners in general were in revolt against the south, but this northern prophet was obedient to God and understood God's promise to King David.
Q: In Hos 5:13 and Hos 10:6, who is King Jareb?
A: While the KJV and NKJV literally translate melek Yareb, the NIV translates this as "great King". Green's literal translation also says King Jareb. It might be that Jareb was the Israelite nickname for one of the Assyrian kings. A skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.627, points out that it is associated with the Hebrew word to strive/fight. Thus, it might be "fighting king" or "warlike king".
The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 7 p.193,209 likewise says the Massoretic text [vowel] pointing shows that "Jareb/Yareb" means great, and this means the Assyrian king is a warrior.
Q: In Jo 1:1, when was the book of Joel written?
A: There is nothing internally or externally to pinpoint the time. Here are three possibilities.
1. Ninth century
The NIV Study Bible p.1339 says a good case can be made for this time.
2. Late-preExilic (597-587 B.C.)
1a. 10,000 men of Judah were deported in 597 B.C. (2 Kings 24:10-16) Also, Jews had been enslaved for years (See the discussion on Joel 3:6).
1b. Future mercy on Judah in Joel 2:12-20.
1c. The Temple was still standing (Joel 1:13)
1d. Future sudden destruction of Jerusalem.
3. Post-exilic (after 587 B.C.)
2a. Many more were enslaved in 587 B.C.
2b. Some see in Joel 2:12-20 God promising mercy to those individuals, not their descendants.
The skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.630 believes it is the post-exilic. However, he justifies this based on Joel 3:6, where God's people were sold to the Greeks. Since the Greeks were known to Moses, and were in Greece prior to Moses, this evidence does not support a late date. See the discussion on Joel 3:6 for more info.
Q: In Jo 2:1-11, when will this Day of the Lord occur?
A: This occurs in Revelation when the Lord comes to execute judgment. This sounds like it is the same event described in Psalm 50:3 and Jude. The skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.632 also accepts that this refers to the end times.
Q: In Am 1:1, was this earthquake merely a legendary rabbinical tradition, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.633 says?
A: No. While we do not have any evidence of this earthquake, Asimov provides no evidence that this was a rabbinical tradition either. There were priests and Levites back then to teach the people, but there were no "rabbis" in the strict sense of the Pharisees of Jesus time, or the Jews of later. One should be more inclined to believe Amos, who lived back then, instead of Asimov.
Earthquakes were common in that region. For example, the archaeology at Qumran shows there was a damaging earthquake in 31 B.C., and yet no ancient writers record this event.
Q: In Obad 1, was this the same Obadiah who hid 100 prophets in 1 Ki 18:3-4?
A: Josephus mistakenly thought so. However, the skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.639-641 correctly points out that since Obadiah 1:11 refers to the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, the Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:3-4 lived almost 300 years earlier. In conclusion, we have no record outside of the Bible of this Obadiah.
Q: In Obad 20, was this a false prophecy since the Israelites never returned, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.641 suggests?
A: No. The exiles who returned, who were called the Jews, did possess the land. While it is true that the majority of the returned exiles were from Judah, Ezra 2:3-63 and Nehemiah 7:6-63 and Nehemiah 11 shows that people from other tribes returned, too. If a group of Benjamites was selected to live in Jerusalem in Nehemiah 11:7-9, there had to be Benjamites from which to select.
Q: In Jon 1, is this book fictional because of its elements of fantasy, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.642 says?
A: No. Asimov did not list any elements of fancy, so it is hard to answer a vague objection. Here are the possible points Asimov might have seen, along with answers.
Going to Tarshish: Tarshish (Tartessus) in Spain was founded by the Phoenicians around the ninth or tenth century B.C., so there is no problem trying to travel to Tarshish, since it already existed.
Great Storm: The eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea often has violent and sudden storms. Another storm you can read about is documented in Acts 27:13-38.
Ninevah's existence: According to archaeologists, Ninevah existed as early as 5000 B.C. Ninevah was mentioned in cuneiform tablets of King Gudea (about 2200 B.C.) and Hammurapi (c.1700 B.C.). Therefore, it is expected that Ninevah was prominent enough in early times to be mentioned in Genesis 10:11.
Ninevah' s size: Ninevah was a great city from before the time of Jonah, so there is no problem here. As evidence, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1208 mentions that Calah was a city less than half the size of Ninevah, and it had 69,574 people in 879 B.C.
The King in Ninevah: Ninevah was not the capital of Assyria until King Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.), which was soon after the time of Jonah. Nevertheless, Ashurbanipal II (884/883-859 B.C) and Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.) were among the kings who lived in Ninevah part of the time. Harper's Bible Dictionary p.493 says that Ninevah was one of the royal residences from 1100 B.C. onward. See the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1208-1210 for more info
Swallowed by a great fish: While this could have been a miraculously-created fish, there is no reason to require that it be so. There have been a number of other cases of men being swallowed by a great fish (called a Jewfish), being vomited out, and living to tell about it. See the discussion on Jonah 1:17 for more info on this.
The rapidly-growing gourd plant: It is conceded that this would be a miraculous plant
The east wind: There is nothing fantastical about an east wind coming down off the mountains.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.301-302 and When Critics Ask p.307 for more on taking Jonah as literal history. As Walt Kaiser summarizes in Hard Sayings of the Bible p.332-333, "Thus, the objections to the book come down to this: it has too many miracles!"
Q: In Jon 1:2, is this an anachronism, since Ninevah was not a great city in Jonah's time, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.645 says?
A: No. It is conceded that Assyria had not reached the maximum of its power until a century after Jonah. However, Assyria was a military force to be reckoned with, from back in King David's time. From Asimov's mention of anachronisms, it is unclear to me how much he knew of Assyrian history.
Q: In Jon 1:17 and Matt 12:40, how could this be a whale, since only sperm whales have throats large enough to swallow a man whole, and sperm whales do not live in the Mediterranean Sea, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.647 says?
A: There are four possibilities.
1. Jewfish are various species of large sea bass. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica vol.12 1972 p.1040, many of them reach 500 to 700 pounds and 7 to 12 feet long.
2. Whale sharks (Rhineodon typicus) have swallowed men who were later found alive in their stomachs.
3. Sperm whales can swallow large objects whole. One even swallowed a 15-foot shark. This was documented by Frank T. Bullen, in Cruise of the Cachalot Round the World after Sperm Whales. (1898).
In 1771 Marshall Jenkins was swallowed by a sperm whale. James Bartley also was swallowed by a sperm whale in 1891. The October 1928 issue of the Princeton Theological Review shows that some details of Bartley's story are inaccurate, but that the evidence of inaccuracy on some details does not disprove it. See Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.95 for more on these two occurrences.
While sperm whales are not normally found in the Mediterranean, they can swim great distances, and God could have one swim to the Mediterranean. Asimov's dismissal of a sperm whale in the Mediterranean presupposes there is no God who causes events to occur.
4. It was a unique fish, especially prepared by God for this purpose. However, perhaps this was unnecessary, as there are three other types of fish that not only are theoretically capable of swallowing a man alive, but they have actually done so.
There have been other accounts of men swallowed alive by some great fish and living to tell about it. One was a sailor off the New England coast in the 1800's. A more recent one is in The Dallas Morning News in the 1970's in the Gulf of Mexico
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1462-1463 for more info.
Q: In Jon 3-4, why did the Ninevites repent?
A: In more modern accounts of people swallowed by Jewfish that have survived, their skin looks very bleached. Undoubtedly Jonah must have had a strange appearance when he came to Ninevah.
In addition, God may have used a few other factors prior to Jonah's coming around 758-757 B.C.
Plague in Ninevah 765 B.C. The mightiest army in the world was powerless before a plague.
Eclipse in 6/15/763 B.C. The ancient people were afraid of eclipses, and the Assyrians as well as others saw a solar eclipse in 763 B.C. The skeptic Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.636 also accepts the fact of an eclipse occurring then.
Another plague in Assyria 759 B.C. This was just one to two years prior to Jonah.
Q: In Jon 4:6, what kind of gourd was this?
A: Scripture does not say if it was a normal type of plant that miraculously grew, or a species of plant that did not otherwise exist on earth. The skeptic Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.648 guesses that it was a castor-oil plant, which can grow to the size of a tree.
Q: In Jon, do we have any extra-Biblical evidence of the Assyrians repenting?
A: Perhaps so. While the skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.647 says no, there actually is evidence. The Assyrian army fought every single year, except that, strangely there were two years, around 758-757, where apparently they did not fight at all. While it cannot be proved that Jonah came during either of these two years, he came at approximately that time, and Jonah's preaching makes a good explanation for why a whole nation of career soldiers chose not to fight for two years. This was either under Ashur-dan III (about 772-754 B.C.) or else his successor Ashur-nirari V (about 754-647 B.C.).
Later the Assyrians went back to their old ways, and they were destroyed in 612 B.C., as Nahum 2:1-3:9 and Zephaniah 2:13-15 prophesied.
Q: In Jon, is this the reverse of the primitive concept of God wanting to exterminate non-Jews such as the Amalekites, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.648 claims?
A: No. Three points to consider in the answer.
The Assyrians were not yet enemies of God's people. In contrast, the Amalekites specifically tried to fight God's people and kill the stragglers.
Later prophets, including Jonah, were never critical of the earlier killing of the Canaanites and Amalekites.
God said through Moses that non-Canaanite peoples, including those who lived far away, were eligible to be friends and have a treaty with the Israelites.
Thus, Asimov wrote about an alleged "reversal of concept", when there was complete harmony between both the spirit and letter of the writings of Moses and Jonah.
Q: In Mic 1, when was this book written?
A: Since Micah mentions the city of Samaria, and this city existed from around 900 B.C., Micah had to be written after that time. As the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.652 correctly points out, since Samaria was destroyed in 722 B.C., at least part of Micah was written before that time. Micah lived about the same time as Isaiah. Micah 3:12 was quoted a century later in Jeremiah's time in Jeremiah 26:18. 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.209 says between 750 and 686 B.C.
Q: In Mic 1:1, could this Micah be the same as Micaiah, who prophesied to Ahab in 1 Ki 22:8?
A: No. while Micah is a shortened form of Micaiah, Micaiah prophesied about 854 B.C., while Micah here lived over a hundred years later. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.650 says the same.
Q: In Mic 4:10, does this reference to Babylon show that, if this was not a divinely inspired prophecy vision of the future, then this indicates that Micah was written later, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.652-653 says?
A: Two points to consider in the answer.
1. Asimov probably says this because Babylon did not become the dominant world power until almost a century after Samaria was destroyed.
2. While this is a divinely inspired prophecy, Asimov overlooks some history here. Right after the Assyrians were stopped outside of Jerusalem, King Merodach-Baladan of Babylon sent ambassadors to Judah to make an alliance. King Hezekiah showed them everything in 2 Kings 20:12-15 and 2 Chronicles 32:31. God used Isaiah to tell Hezekiah that the people will be exiled to Babylon in 2 Kings 20:16-20.
In summary, the Babylonian's visit, combined with Isaiah's public prophecy at this time of Judah's exile, would not make Micah anachronistic.
Q: In Zeph 1:1, when was Zephaniah written?
A: From Zephaniah 2:13, all agree it written before the Assyrians were defeated, which was around 612 B.C. Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.658 suggests that it was written prior to Josiah's reforms in 621 B.C. Both the Believers Bible Commentary p.1147 and the New Geneva Study Bible p.1451 say it is unclear whether it is before or after Josiah's reforms.
Q: In Hag 1:1, when was Haggai written?
A: According to what was written in Haggai 1, this would be about 520 B.C. The skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.661 says the same. Here were the kings of Persia during this time period.
-530 B.C. Cyrus II (killed in battle)
530-522 B.C. Cambyses II
522-521 B.C. Artaxerxes (an imposter who reigned 7 months. He is called Pseudo-Smerdis by the Greeks and historians today) (He wrote the letter in Ezra 4:7-23 stopping the building)
522/521-486 B.C. Darius I (Killed the imposter king. Fought the Scythians and Greeks, defeated at Marathon in 490 B.C. Esther was his queen)
520 B.C. Haggai and Zechariah gave their first prophecies
486-465/464 B.C. Xerxes I (murdered) (same as Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 and Esther)
464-336 B.C. Artaxerxes I (called I to erase the memory of the imposter Artaxerxes.
445 B.C. Nehemiah came to Jerusalem to build the city wall
336-331 B.C. Darius III (defeated by Alexander of Macedon)
Q: In Zech 1:1, when was Zechariah written?
A: According to Zechariah 1:1, his ministry started about 520 B.C.. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1546 and the skeptical work Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.664 say the same.
Q: In Zech 3:1, was this evidence that Persian dualism had influenced Jewish religion, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.665 claims?
A: Not at all. Persian Zoroastrians believed in two gods: a good god of fire and an evil demon. They also believed in many lesser evil demons, and many of these evil demons had the same names as the gods of Hinduism. The belief of a good Creator, and a lesser evil tempter goes all the way back to Genesis 3.
Q: In Zech 3:8, Zech 6:12, Isa 4:2, Isa 11:1, Jer 23:5, and Jer 33:15, who is the branch?
A: This is the Messiah, descended from David, whom we know today to be Jesus Christ. The book by a Jewish skeptic, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.665 on Zechariah 3:8 also says this was a clear indication of the coming of the Messiah. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1554-1555 for more info.
Q: In Zech 6:13, did this originally say crowns (plural), and was later tampered with when the prophecy proved false, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.666 claims?
A: The Hebrew says "crowns", while the Septuagint and Syriac say "crown". Regardless, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.665 on Zechariah 3:8, agrees that the branch is the Messiah. The prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus.
Q: In Zech 9-14, what evidence is there that this section was written by a different author than chapters 1 through 8?
A: None. Some liberal critics postulated this based on the two oracles being a shift in emphasis and content.
A skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.668-669, claims that Zechariah 9-14 was written during the time of the Seleucids. However, he provides no evidence for this claim. He probably just repeated the liberal critic view.
The Believer's Bible Commentary p.1157 says that the shift in content might be because Zechariah wrote chapters 9-14 later. See Gleason Archer's answer in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.303-304 and Survey of Old Testament Introduction p.425-430 for a more extensive answer.
Q: In Zech 10:13, when will the future pride of Assyria be brought down?
A: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.668 has a helpful comment here. It says that after Alexander, the two main empires were the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria. Since Egypt and [As]syria are mentioned, this was probably a copyist error for Syria.
Either way, the land of the Assyrians was part of the Seleucid Empire.
Q: In Zech 11:12-13, what is the significance of thirty pieces of silver?
A: Exodus 22:32 sets 30 pieces of silver as the price to pay for an ox injuring a slave. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1565-1566, the New Geneva Study Bible p.1480, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1167, and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.669 all say the same.
Q: In Zech 11:13 should the word "potter" really be "treasury", as the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.669 says?
A: This is uncertain. The RSV and NRSV follow the Syriac here, which says "treasury". The Hebrew says "potter", and the Septuagint says "furnace"
Q: In Mal 1:1, when was the book of Malachi written?
A: The book of Malachi does not say. A guess is that it was about 433 B.C. A skeptical work, Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.670 places the date at 460 B.C.
The Believer's Bible Commentary p.1173 says between 470 and 460 B.C. Three reasons are that the Temple has been rebuilt for some time, the walls were rebuilt, and Malachi used a word for governor that was only known in post-exilic times.
Q: In Mal 1:1, was Malachi's job to uplift the despondent Jews, since the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah failed to pass, as Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.670-671 claims?
A: No and no. Malachi 1-2 is not primarily to uplift the Jews. Rather, it is explanatory, showing that insincere worship is not worth much to God. Malachi 3 and 4 is both convicting and uplifting, as well as somewhat scary. In the New Testament, the Book of Revelation has a similar tone.
While the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah did not yet come to pass in the time of Malachi, both prior to Christ and now people recognized the prophecies as relating to the Messiah. Some of the prophecies, such as Zechariah 12-14 will be fulfilled during Christ's second coming.
For more info please contact Christian Debater™ P.O. Box 144441 Austin, TX 78714 www.BibleQuery.org