Asimov's Guide To The Bible, by, of course, Isaac Asimov.
Did you know Asimov was a founding member of CSICOP? Cool.
This is an analysis of the historical aspects of the Bible and some of the Apochrypha. He follows the order and text of the King James Version but uses material from the Revised Standard Version and the Talmud; plus of course, historical documents and writings of the time. I think of it as a "somewhat" scholarly book--an excellent work of research by an excellent author who was motivated to tell the story well.
I, as a common reader, admit that I got a little bored among the endless chronologies of Kings and the endless battles of the Israelites. In the New Testament I was a little disappointed to read the details of the geographical path taken by Peter and Paul and the others, but to read nothing of the philosophical and social path taken as the new religion assumed form and life. But that was not Asimov's intent.
Here's something I didn't find boring--learning how much out of order the books are. I didn't realize that Chronicles simply repeats the history found in the earlier books, but in a different voice. I didn't realize that modern scholars think the the epistles in the new testament are arranged mostly by length, not chronology. Nor that several of the ones attributed to Paul (via secretary) were probably not written by Paul at all.
Nor did I realize that some of the books are generally believed to be works of fiction--good literature that was carefully "fitted" into history but most likely never belonged there. Ruth and Job are the classic examples. I did not know that the books of the prophets were written in a later time but described people and events from a much earlier time. Daniel was set in the period of the Babylonian exile (maybe 597 B.C. - 520 B.C.?). It extends in visions to the the Greek period (300 B.C.), but may have been written as late as 165 B.C. Asimov gives an outline of the evidence, inside the book and out, that makes this seem obvious in retrospect--for example, it is much more accurate about things happening in Daniel's future (the present time) than in Daniel's present time (far-distant history). Parts of it were written in Aramaic, which was the common speech of the people in the 300 B.C. to 165 B.C. time--Hebrew was only used by the educated.
I've always wondered about the supposed gap from the last book, Malachai, to the first book of the new testament. Did the Jews stop writing?
Nope--they wrote lots but the writings ended up in the apocrypha. Asimov says that the ancient scholars believed that the "prophetic impulse" stopped after the return from Babylonian exile and the rebuilding of the walls and temple of Jerusalem. So any writings after 430 BC could not be included in the books of the ancients...unless they were attributed to ancients. Such was the book of Jonah, written around 300B.C. but attributed to a contemporary of Jonah writing in 780 B.C.
The book of Maccabees 1 and 2 tell the missing history. They are parallel works--1 Maccabees was written sometime between 135 B.C. and 100 B.C. and covers the period from 175 B.C. to 135 B.C. It was originally written in Hebrew but no copies of that version survived, only a Greek translation which is included in the Apochrypha. 2 Maccabees, written about a century later, retells the same events but ends earlier, at the death of Judas Maccabeus.
2 Maccabees 2:23. All these things, I say, being declared by
Jason of Cyrene in five books, we will assay to abridge in one volume.
There were three more volumes of Maccabees, not considered canonical and not included in the Apocrypha. One is a work of fiction, one a sermon, and the third a retelling of the history from 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus.
Two last things I'd not known before. One, Asimov points out a good number of places where prophetic writings from the old testament are "creatively translated" (my words) to predicate the coming of Christ. In Daniel, the KJV capitalizes Son of man, making it indicate that the Jesus is the one who will come to the Jewish new kingdom; the Revised Standard Version leaves it as as lower-case 'son'. Most likely, the writer was contrasting the coming kingdom of the Jews, led by the likeness of a man (mankind), to the kingdoms of the heathen, led by the likenesses of the beasts in his vision. But of course, the King James Version translator were divinely inspired. And good Christians.
Two, elephants. In the last years B. C., armies actually fought with elephants. Real elephants. Sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment