What do you think?
Rate this book
Asimov's Guide to the Bible #1-2
Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments
In "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" the noted author Isaac Asimov explores the historical, geographical, and biographical aspects of the events described in the Old and New Testaments. In doing so Asimov illuminates the Bible's many obscure and mysterious passages, producing a valuable text for anyone interested in religion and history.
1295 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1968
205 people are currently reading
4514 people want to read
About the author
Isaac Asimov
4,337 books27.6k followersWorks of prolific Russian-American writer Isaac Asimov include popular explanations of scientific principles,
The Foundation Trilogy
(1951-1953), and other volumes of fiction.
Isaac Asimov, a professor of biochemistry, wrote as a highly successful author, best known for his books.
Asimov, professor, generally considered of all time, edited more than five hundred books and ninety thousand letters and postcards. He published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey decimal classification but lacked only an entry in the category of philosophy (100).
People widely considered Asimov, a master of the genre alongside Robert Anson Heinlein and Arthur Charles Clarke as the "big three" during his lifetime. He later tied Galactic Empire and the Robot into the same universe as his most famous series to create a unified "future history" for his stories much like those that Heinlein pioneered and Cordwainer Smith and Poul Anderson previously produced. He penned "Nightfall," voted in 1964 as the best short story of all time; many persons still honor this title. He also produced well mysteries, fantasy, and a great quantity of nonfiction. Asimov used Paul French, the pen name, for the Lucky Starr, series of juvenile novels.
Most books of Asimov in a historical way go as far back to a time with possible question or concept at its simplest stage. He often provides and mentions well nationalities, birth, and death dates for persons and etymologies and pronunciation guides for technical terms. Guide to Science, the tripartite set Understanding Physics, and Chronology of Science and Discovery exemplify these books.
Asimov, a long-time member, reluctantly served as vice president of Mensa international and described some members of that organization as "brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs." He took more pleasure as president of the humanist association. The asteroid 5020 Asimov, the magazine Asimov's Science Fiction, an elementary school in Brooklyn in New York, and two different awards honor his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_As...
Isaac Asimov, a professor of biochemistry, wrote as a highly successful author, best known for his books.
Asimov, professor, generally considered of all time, edited more than five hundred books and ninety thousand letters and postcards. He published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey decimal classification but lacked only an entry in the category of philosophy (100).
People widely considered Asimov, a master of the genre alongside Robert Anson Heinlein and Arthur Charles Clarke as the "big three" during his lifetime. He later tied Galactic Empire and the Robot into the same universe as his most famous series to create a unified "future history" for his stories much like those that Heinlein pioneered and Cordwainer Smith and Poul Anderson previously produced. He penned "Nightfall," voted in 1964 as the best short story of all time; many persons still honor this title. He also produced well mysteries, fantasy, and a great quantity of nonfiction. Asimov used Paul French, the pen name, for the Lucky Starr, series of juvenile novels.
Most books of Asimov in a historical way go as far back to a time with possible question or concept at its simplest stage. He often provides and mentions well nationalities, birth, and death dates for persons and etymologies and pronunciation guides for technical terms. Guide to Science, the tripartite set Understanding Physics, and Chronology of Science and Discovery exemplify these books.
Asimov, a long-time member, reluctantly served as vice president of Mensa international and described some members of that organization as "brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs." He took more pleasure as president of the humanist association. The asteroid 5020 Asimov, the magazine Asimov's Science Fiction, an elementary school in Brooklyn in New York, and two different awards honor his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_As...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
March 26, 2023
What I gained from this book was a level of Biblical literacy that I had been sorely lacking.
As a lifelong atheist with a wholly secular upbringing, I feel I have enjoyed much good fortune relative to those indoctrinated by religion from a young age; on the other hand, many literary and cultural references, and even a few jokes, have passed me by. Since elementary school I have been better versed in Greek, Norse, and Egyptian mythology than I have been in modern religion. Even in a secular society that is something of a handicap.
Having been aware of this title for many years, but knowing that I have a strong bias in favor of an Asimov-penned treatment of most any subject and wanting to broaden my horizons a bit in reaction, I searched high and low for a book that would fulfill my needs, but kept failing to find something written from an unabashed secular--and scientifically rationalist--viewpoint which was also written with character and not with such brevity as to be contemptuously dismissed as a "Cliffs' Notes" summary of the Bible.
Well, in my view, here it is--despite my efforts, I ended up with Asimov after all. It should go without saying that this title is not for everyone, but for people who share the void in their cultural literacy that I had, I must regard Asimov's work as essential. Asimov is not what some folks call a "militant" atheist, and his Guide to the Bible has practically no overlap with recent provocative titles like Dawkins's The God Delusion and Hitchens's God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything . Foremost, his book does what it says on the tin--it's a guide to the Bible rather than a critique of Judaism, Christianity, or religion generally. Asimov's approach to these scriptures is simply that of a thoroughgoing empiricist. He therefore disregards miracles and creation stories as myths. Then too, many mainstream Christians and Jews share that assessment, and thus they stand to gain from Asimov's approach as well.
Another of Asimov's goals (as candidly set forth in his Introduction) is to place the historical events set forth in the Bible within their broader contexts. In contemporary histories of the ancient world, the events that were of all-consuming importance to the Israelite tribes, the Jews, and the early Christians are usually beneath notice, being irrelevant to the larger wheels turning in the rest of the Near East. Asimov is unrelenting in using secular historical sources to tie Biblical events in with the doings of the great ancient empires such as the Mittanians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Mycenaeans, Babylonians, Greeks, Parthians, and Romans. In some cases, particularly in the books of Genesis and Exodus, Asimov has to speculate or ground his conjectures on extra-Biblical scholarship, and often can only establish rough contemporaneity. But as the historical records become less murky (and as the Jews became more concerned with posterity once they had enjoyed, and then lost, a kingdom of their own), matters firm up considerably.
A further benefit is that Asimov is nearly as careful as the editors of The New Oxford Annotated Bible in covering apocryphal materials and documenting their status as such. For example, 1 Maccabees is an invaluable record of a crucial period in ancient Jewish history. Its utter lack of both miracles and canonical status in the Protestant tradition is a correlation I will leave to other cynical minds. The Maccabean period also presents us with the interesting spectacle of ancient Jews making converts to their religion by the sword (under the kings John Hyrcanus I and Aristobulus I)--not exactly the picture of Judaism that folks like Elie Weisel paint.
I find all of this invaluable.
It is worth noting that Asimov wrote his Guide to the Bible in two volumes, published in 1967 and 1969 respectively, and that, while he appears to have done his best to use then-contemporary critical sources, he was not a Biblical scholar, as he candidly admits in the front matter. His work likely does not reflect absolute cutting-edge Biblical scholarship of the time, let alone could it treat developments of the forty years since its publication. With that in mind, I would still urge anyone in Asimov's target audience to turn to this book--I know of no resource that is both as comprehensive and as readable.
Asimov's chapters vary greatly in length, as do the books of the Bible. These two data series roughly correlate.
Despite its accessibility and Asimov's renowned clarity of expression, simply to due to its length this work is a bit of a beast and will demand discipline to undertake, if you plan to read it cover to cover as I did. While it's certainly usable as a reference guide, I think the direct approach yields great benefits; first of all, Asimov uses forward and (especially) backward references extensively. While in practically all cases, a page number is offered to help you jog your memory, you will have no memory to jog if you haven't already read that material (or are already pretty familiar with the entire Bible). Secondly, those portions of the Bible which document historical events are for the most part already arranged in chronological order (in the Christian canons). Asimov offers a little push in that direction for Apocryphal materials, covering 1 Esdras at the end of Nehemiah in the Old Testament and 2 Esdras after Jude in the New Testament. I will not further elaborate here why that makes sense, nor why the various books of Maccabees have little to do with each other. Asimov makes all of this clear.
In my comments, I propose a reading plan for this work to help you tackle it, if you're interested.
I experienced a sense of accomplishment in completing this book, and now feel well-prepared not just to explore the Bible itself, but to better understand religious allusions made by Christians and Jews, and, perhaps best of all, to be able to much more richly appreciate the works of William Blake and John Milton (among many, many others). If you're at all like me, I hope you will undertake the same effort and find it similarly rewarding.
As a lifelong atheist with a wholly secular upbringing, I feel I have enjoyed much good fortune relative to those indoctrinated by religion from a young age; on the other hand, many literary and cultural references, and even a few jokes, have passed me by. Since elementary school I have been better versed in Greek, Norse, and Egyptian mythology than I have been in modern religion. Even in a secular society that is something of a handicap.
Having been aware of this title for many years, but knowing that I have a strong bias in favor of an Asimov-penned treatment of most any subject and wanting to broaden my horizons a bit in reaction, I searched high and low for a book that would fulfill my needs, but kept failing to find something written from an unabashed secular--and scientifically rationalist--viewpoint which was also written with character and not with such brevity as to be contemptuously dismissed as a "Cliffs' Notes" summary of the Bible.
Well, in my view, here it is--despite my efforts, I ended up with Asimov after all. It should go without saying that this title is not for everyone, but for people who share the void in their cultural literacy that I had, I must regard Asimov's work as essential. Asimov is not what some folks call a "militant" atheist, and his Guide to the Bible has practically no overlap with recent provocative titles like Dawkins's The God Delusion and Hitchens's God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything . Foremost, his book does what it says on the tin--it's a guide to the Bible rather than a critique of Judaism, Christianity, or religion generally. Asimov's approach to these scriptures is simply that of a thoroughgoing empiricist. He therefore disregards miracles and creation stories as myths. Then too, many mainstream Christians and Jews share that assessment, and thus they stand to gain from Asimov's approach as well.
Another of Asimov's goals (as candidly set forth in his Introduction) is to place the historical events set forth in the Bible within their broader contexts. In contemporary histories of the ancient world, the events that were of all-consuming importance to the Israelite tribes, the Jews, and the early Christians are usually beneath notice, being irrelevant to the larger wheels turning in the rest of the Near East. Asimov is unrelenting in using secular historical sources to tie Biblical events in with the doings of the great ancient empires such as the Mittanians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Mycenaeans, Babylonians, Greeks, Parthians, and Romans. In some cases, particularly in the books of Genesis and Exodus, Asimov has to speculate or ground his conjectures on extra-Biblical scholarship, and often can only establish rough contemporaneity. But as the historical records become less murky (and as the Jews became more concerned with posterity once they had enjoyed, and then lost, a kingdom of their own), matters firm up considerably.
A further benefit is that Asimov is nearly as careful as the editors of The New Oxford Annotated Bible in covering apocryphal materials and documenting their status as such. For example, 1 Maccabees is an invaluable record of a crucial period in ancient Jewish history. Its utter lack of both miracles and canonical status in the Protestant tradition is a correlation I will leave to other cynical minds. The Maccabean period also presents us with the interesting spectacle of ancient Jews making converts to their religion by the sword (under the kings John Hyrcanus I and Aristobulus I)--not exactly the picture of Judaism that folks like Elie Weisel paint.
I find all of this invaluable.
It is worth noting that Asimov wrote his Guide to the Bible in two volumes, published in 1967 and 1969 respectively, and that, while he appears to have done his best to use then-contemporary critical sources, he was not a Biblical scholar, as he candidly admits in the front matter. His work likely does not reflect absolute cutting-edge Biblical scholarship of the time, let alone could it treat developments of the forty years since its publication. With that in mind, I would still urge anyone in Asimov's target audience to turn to this book--I know of no resource that is both as comprehensive and as readable.
Asimov's chapters vary greatly in length, as do the books of the Bible. These two data series roughly correlate.
Despite its accessibility and Asimov's renowned clarity of expression, simply to due to its length this work is a bit of a beast and will demand discipline to undertake, if you plan to read it cover to cover as I did. While it's certainly usable as a reference guide, I think the direct approach yields great benefits; first of all, Asimov uses forward and (especially) backward references extensively. While in practically all cases, a page number is offered to help you jog your memory, you will have no memory to jog if you haven't already read that material (or are already pretty familiar with the entire Bible). Secondly, those portions of the Bible which document historical events are for the most part already arranged in chronological order (in the Christian canons). Asimov offers a little push in that direction for Apocryphal materials, covering 1 Esdras at the end of Nehemiah in the Old Testament and 2 Esdras after Jude in the New Testament. I will not further elaborate here why that makes sense, nor why the various books of Maccabees have little to do with each other. Asimov makes all of this clear.
In my comments, I propose a reading plan for this work to help you tackle it, if you're interested.
I experienced a sense of accomplishment in completing this book, and now feel well-prepared not just to explore the Bible itself, but to better understand religious allusions made by Christians and Jews, and, perhaps best of all, to be able to much more richly appreciate the works of William Blake and John Milton (among many, many others). If you're at all like me, I hope you will undertake the same effort and find it similarly rewarding.
December 27, 2008
I have a sentimental attachment to the book. I found a copy in a city library while living in the Bible Belt. I mentioned it to some heavily christian friends and the book tragically ended up being destroyed in a book burning. It took me over 14 years to find a replacement copy.
It is not anti-religious, even though it was written by Asimov, an atheist. Instead, the book describes the world at the time when the books of the bible were written. It also gives possible scientific or cultural explanations for some of the miracles described in those books.
I would say that this book would be an excellent addition to those interested in the christian bible. It is a little dated now, because we know a lot more about the time periods now than we did a few decades ago.
It is not anti-religious, even though it was written by Asimov, an atheist. Instead, the book describes the world at the time when the books of the bible were written. It also gives possible scientific or cultural explanations for some of the miracles described in those books.
I would say that this book would be an excellent addition to those interested in the christian bible. It is a little dated now, because we know a lot more about the time periods now than we did a few decades ago.
December 18, 2012
Quick and fun, chatty, non-academic--displays unnecessary erudition at times (e.g., at the first mention of any place name, Asimov typically notes anyone and anything of world historical importance connected therewith)--this text is basically the learned scientist's book report after reading seven translations of the Bible, plus a few commentaries & treatises on same.
The primary object of criticism is the geography, history, and linguistics of the biblical text--he does not get involved in doctrinal disputes, except to note that they existed, and to describe what might have been at stake historically (such as in the circumcision fights during the time of St. Paul). He doesn't present any scientific critique (noting only that the Bible miscalculates the value of pi in describing dimensions of Temple furniture)--but the scientific background of the writer is always present, insofar as miraculous and supernatural events are summarily dismissed as legends, metaphors, or other types of fictional accretions.
He doesn't footnote the views of other commentators, usually distinguishing them from his own views by marking others' theses as "some have said" or "the usual position." His own views on disputed issues appear to be marked out as tentative submissions, noting "perhaps" or "speculation." The non-academic style can be a bit frustrating in this respect.
He does give special attention to passages from the Hebrew scripture that later writers in the Roman period found compelling.
As an example of the awesomeness herein, consider Asimov's basic reading of the deuterocanonical text of Judith:
"This now adds an additional element of anachronism. We have the Assyria of the seventh century B.C. under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar of the sixth century B.C., which sends its army under a general of the fourth century B.C. to attack a re-established Judea of the fifth century B.C. Not a century is left out."
His opinion, for instance, on Judas Iscariot is interesting, too, as it adopts the contrarian thesis that "Iscariot" is not "man of Kerioth," a Judean designation (as distinguished from the other apostles, who were Galilean) but rather marks Judas as a member of the sicarii. Once Asimov elects a view, such as here, he runs with it, and the rest of his interpretation adheres thereto.
His reading of the Old Testament has definitely been influenced by higher criticism and other source studies--so we might consider his views in this regard to be serious; he certainly is pleased to point out dates of composition, interpolations, later amendments by editors, potential redactions, and so on in challenging the traditional theories of authorship. He's also keen on marking out purported prophecies that were actually written after the events they allege to predict, or errors in certain bona fide prophecies.
He has also spent time with the records of Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and so on--or, at least, distillations of those records--in order to cross-examine the biblical account, which often enough is the only source for its allegations. He is honest enough to note when external records corroborate the biblical account, and seems to regard the biblical account as generally rooted in history, even if he wants to quibble with certain details, and dismisses the more fanciful material as not worthy of historicity.
Overall, interesting, lively, goes by much faster than one might foresee for 1200+ pages. Includes many maps, chronologies, indices, &c. It doesn't assume much in the way of familiarity with scripture--though he doesn't summarize all events in the text. A good example of the latter point is that his discussions of the Greek epistles is limited to the geographical and linguistics notes, with the points of doctrine only grossly mentioned, if at all. That should be considered a feature rather than a bug, of course.
Recommended for serious persons.
The primary object of criticism is the geography, history, and linguistics of the biblical text--he does not get involved in doctrinal disputes, except to note that they existed, and to describe what might have been at stake historically (such as in the circumcision fights during the time of St. Paul). He doesn't present any scientific critique (noting only that the Bible miscalculates the value of pi in describing dimensions of Temple furniture)--but the scientific background of the writer is always present, insofar as miraculous and supernatural events are summarily dismissed as legends, metaphors, or other types of fictional accretions.
He doesn't footnote the views of other commentators, usually distinguishing them from his own views by marking others' theses as "some have said" or "the usual position." His own views on disputed issues appear to be marked out as tentative submissions, noting "perhaps" or "speculation." The non-academic style can be a bit frustrating in this respect.
He does give special attention to passages from the Hebrew scripture that later writers in the Roman period found compelling.
As an example of the awesomeness herein, consider Asimov's basic reading of the deuterocanonical text of Judith:
"This now adds an additional element of anachronism. We have the Assyria of the seventh century B.C. under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar of the sixth century B.C., which sends its army under a general of the fourth century B.C. to attack a re-established Judea of the fifth century B.C. Not a century is left out."
His opinion, for instance, on Judas Iscariot is interesting, too, as it adopts the contrarian thesis that "Iscariot" is not "man of Kerioth," a Judean designation (as distinguished from the other apostles, who were Galilean) but rather marks Judas as a member of the sicarii. Once Asimov elects a view, such as here, he runs with it, and the rest of his interpretation adheres thereto.
His reading of the Old Testament has definitely been influenced by higher criticism and other source studies--so we might consider his views in this regard to be serious; he certainly is pleased to point out dates of composition, interpolations, later amendments by editors, potential redactions, and so on in challenging the traditional theories of authorship. He's also keen on marking out purported prophecies that were actually written after the events they allege to predict, or errors in certain bona fide prophecies.
He has also spent time with the records of Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and so on--or, at least, distillations of those records--in order to cross-examine the biblical account, which often enough is the only source for its allegations. He is honest enough to note when external records corroborate the biblical account, and seems to regard the biblical account as generally rooted in history, even if he wants to quibble with certain details, and dismisses the more fanciful material as not worthy of historicity.
Overall, interesting, lively, goes by much faster than one might foresee for 1200+ pages. Includes many maps, chronologies, indices, &c. It doesn't assume much in the way of familiarity with scripture--though he doesn't summarize all events in the text. A good example of the latter point is that his discussions of the Greek epistles is limited to the geographical and linguistics notes, with the points of doctrine only grossly mentioned, if at all. That should be considered a feature rather than a bug, of course.
Recommended for serious persons.
April 3, 2015
If I had to pick books that forever changed the way I look at history, this one would seem like a dark horse. But believe it or not, Yitzchak Izaak Azimov (yes, the sci-fi author) managed to alter the way I look at both history and the bible.
The history is slightly dated--hey, it was written in the 1960s. And Asimov was not an historian by profession. But little do people realize that the author of the Foundation trilogy also wrote many other books; in fact, he has covered in his books just about every area in the Dewey Decimal System. I'm told that his Guide to Shakespeare is also worth checking out.
The book is structured in the same order as the Bible. The focus of the book is to explain how contemporary history (or contemporary to Asimov) views the episodes of the Bible. Asimov is not a minimalist: whenever possible, he tries to take the Bible seriously as an historical document. Sometimes (such as Jonah, Job, Esther, and Daniel), this is impossible; in those cases, Asimov makes no bones about it--he declares those books fictitious (or historical fiction).
But other times, he does his best to reconcile history with the Bible. For example, the Exodus. Many serious scholars doubt that the Exodus happened (at least the way it is portrayed in the Bible). Asimov does his best to salvage the story. He tries to approximate which Pharaoh could have been the antagonist of the story. He knows he's grasping at straws, but at least he tries.
Other times, he fills in gaps. Like the Hittites. We now know that the Hittites were once a mighty empire. But why are they only mentioned in passing? He surmises that during the apex of their empire, the Israelites would have been in Egypt, and thus wouldn't have been concerned with them. By the time they migrated to Canaan, the Hittite Empire had waned.
There are also times he uses extra-Biblical stories to bolster the story. Like with Hezekiah, the Assyrian version of events varies slightly. He fills us in on that story.
This work is not meant to be taken as a serious scholarly piece. But for an amateur or casual historian, this is a good read. It is lucid, accessible, and eye-opening.
The history is slightly dated--hey, it was written in the 1960s. And Asimov was not an historian by profession. But little do people realize that the author of the Foundation trilogy also wrote many other books; in fact, he has covered in his books just about every area in the Dewey Decimal System. I'm told that his Guide to Shakespeare is also worth checking out.
The book is structured in the same order as the Bible. The focus of the book is to explain how contemporary history (or contemporary to Asimov) views the episodes of the Bible. Asimov is not a minimalist: whenever possible, he tries to take the Bible seriously as an historical document. Sometimes (such as Jonah, Job, Esther, and Daniel), this is impossible; in those cases, Asimov makes no bones about it--he declares those books fictitious (or historical fiction).
But other times, he does his best to reconcile history with the Bible. For example, the Exodus. Many serious scholars doubt that the Exodus happened (at least the way it is portrayed in the Bible). Asimov does his best to salvage the story. He tries to approximate which Pharaoh could have been the antagonist of the story. He knows he's grasping at straws, but at least he tries.
Other times, he fills in gaps. Like the Hittites. We now know that the Hittites were once a mighty empire. But why are they only mentioned in passing? He surmises that during the apex of their empire, the Israelites would have been in Egypt, and thus wouldn't have been concerned with them. By the time they migrated to Canaan, the Hittite Empire had waned.
There are also times he uses extra-Biblical stories to bolster the story. Like with Hezekiah, the Assyrian version of events varies slightly. He fills us in on that story.
This work is not meant to be taken as a serious scholarly piece. But for an amateur or casual historian, this is a good read. It is lucid, accessible, and eye-opening.
May 27, 2025
Asimov was raised as a Jew but was an atheist. But with a strong fascination of the Bible. So he wrote this massive guide. I have read the book before but now I actually used it as a guide when reading the Bible. And it was a great help. (I added another star.)
Most of the time he limits himself to give historical background and indeed at times you get the impression that he gets carried away and goes into more detail than would be necessary.
He is completely neutral in his explanations. Although I think, he allowed himself to show a little bit of pride in regards to the kingdoms of David and Solomon.
I particularly liked the fact that he included the apocryphal writings. And I think he really enjoyed talking about the Maccabees.
In the part on the New Testament he tries to differentiate between passages that are obviously legendary and passages that seem to describe the historical Jesus. But that is about all of interpretation. Except for some speculation about the question who wrote which epistles.
Excellent.
The one thing that is bad about the book are the maps. They are completely useless (and ugly). And the same map is shown again and again.
This particular edition contains both books and there is continous numbering. Only the editor did not take the trouble to fix the cross-references.
Most of the time he limits himself to give historical background and indeed at times you get the impression that he gets carried away and goes into more detail than would be necessary.
He is completely neutral in his explanations. Although I think, he allowed himself to show a little bit of pride in regards to the kingdoms of David and Solomon.
I particularly liked the fact that he included the apocryphal writings. And I think he really enjoyed talking about the Maccabees.
In the part on the New Testament he tries to differentiate between passages that are obviously legendary and passages that seem to describe the historical Jesus. But that is about all of interpretation. Except for some speculation about the question who wrote which epistles.
Excellent.
The one thing that is bad about the book are the maps. They are completely useless (and ugly). And the same map is shown again and again.
This particular edition contains both books and there is continous numbering. Only the editor did not take the trouble to fix the cross-references.
September 4, 2008
While Asimov purported to just be dealing with the factual background of the Bible--and he does provide many interesting, if trivial facts--his point of view is plainly that the Bible (and assumedly all books of faith) are fiction. Given that orientation, it's still a useful resource.
October 5, 2011
A great book that helps to explain the historical context in which the events of the Bible play out. When my son and I read the Bible together, we read through this at the same time. Many otherwise confusing passages came clear, and we also learned of some details that are still debated by scholars and theologians. This is worth reading front to back, but is probably most useful as a reference; when questions come up regarding a specific chapter or verse, take the time to see what Asimov has to say about it!
March 18, 2020
Isaac Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of his time. Having written, or edited, more than 500 books and an estimated 9,000 published letters and postcards. He has published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System.
While a professor of biochemistry at Boston University he is primarily remembered for his Science Fiction works, several of which had been adapted for film in recent years.
In 1967 he decided to put the Old and New Testament of the bible into historical context. This edition is the two volumes in one for a whopping 1296-pages and includes maps by the artist Rafael Palacios.
This guide goes through the books of the Bible in King James Version order, explaining the historical and geographical setting of each one and the political and historical influences that affected it.
Asimov even goes as far as providing biographical information about the main characters. In essence Asimov seems to consider the bible as one of the most important history books ever written, and treats it as such.
There is no theological commentary, just information. For those of you who really want to know "what's really going on" as well as "what's happened before" this guides to the Old and New Testament includes biblical verse, footnotes, references and subject indexes.
Suggested for anyone who wants to know about the arc of history.
While a professor of biochemistry at Boston University he is primarily remembered for his Science Fiction works, several of which had been adapted for film in recent years.
In 1967 he decided to put the Old and New Testament of the bible into historical context. This edition is the two volumes in one for a whopping 1296-pages and includes maps by the artist Rafael Palacios.
This guide goes through the books of the Bible in King James Version order, explaining the historical and geographical setting of each one and the political and historical influences that affected it.
Asimov even goes as far as providing biographical information about the main characters. In essence Asimov seems to consider the bible as one of the most important history books ever written, and treats it as such.
There is no theological commentary, just information. For those of you who really want to know "what's really going on" as well as "what's happened before" this guides to the Old and New Testament includes biblical verse, footnotes, references and subject indexes.
Suggested for anyone who wants to know about the arc of history.
December 31, 2008
Asimov, best known as a science fiction master, took a long and hard look at the Christian Bible and came up with observations that never seemed to occur to the many Bible teachers I had as a boy. Asimov is a much better Bible teacher than they are. Having said that, this book would almost certainly be unwelcome in most Bible study sessions. I won't elaborate - but be sure to find a place for it on your reference shelf.
August 4, 2009
this book does a great job of breaking the bible down, nearly book-for-book, and showing where the nacent christian religion fit in with history. However, this isn't to say that it is a christian book. Rather, it goes through the books and matches what the bible says with what is known from other, more reliable, sources (assyrian, chinese, roman records, etc). You might say it is a secular look at the books of the bible.
March 6, 2008
Asimov goes through the entire Bible and provides the best current analysis of where all the material came from and points out inconsitencies and problems with the texts. I found it very enlightening.
December 8, 2007
I've never read an Isaac Azimov book I didn't like.
If you are ready, then this one will certainly teach you a few things.
If you are ready, then this one will certainly teach you a few things.
November 24, 2019
I slowly read this cover to cover over a couple of years. It's not exactly a page turner, but I was fascinated by the insights into how various misunderstandings led to common ideas of today. I took notes on what I thought were the most interesting bits, so if you don't want to trudge through page after page of historical commentary, maybe just read this.
A possible explanation for the origin of the idea of a mythical Unicorn is misunderstood bas-reliefs of a wild ox "re'em". Since they were shown in profile, only one horn was visible, and so later accidentally called one-horn, and eventually translated into "Unicorn". p. 186
Periodically Asimov notes that names of things as we know them are just a different languages basic word for the thing rather than a proper name. An example being the term Satan. It was originally just a word for a very bad person and people over time attached more meaning to it and gave it a persona. It is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary". p. 409
A possible explanation for the origin of the idea of dragons is the use of the phrase "fiery serpent" describing lightning is later is read and people imagine the idea of dragons not realizing the context.
In Isaiah a virgin birth is foretold, but it is not well translated - Hebrew has specific word for virgin (bethulah) which is not used, Instead almah is used which is more like a young lady who may or may not be a virgin. The whole concept of a virgin birth could be a misunderstanding.
The name Bible is from the Greek name for the city Gebal in Egypt, "Byblos", center of trade for Papyrus. The rolls of papyrus for scriptures came to be "the books" or "Biblia". p. 590
The Sabbath used to be Saturday. As hostility between Christians and Jews grew, Sunday came to take on attributes of the sabbath because Christians began treating Sunday with more and more significance being the day of the week they associate with the resurrection. p. 898
Many instances where writers use metaphor to talk about oppressors secretly result in source of ideas of fantastical creatures. Like in 2 esdras with 12 feathered and 3 headed eagle representing 12 emperor's of Rome.
The 7 day week originated from Sumerians naming each day after 7 bodies visible in the sky and it fit nicely as a quarter of the lunar month. p. 1198
144,000 which so many Christian spin-off religions believe to be a specific meaningful number is just an emphatic way of saying, "All the righteous, a large number of them!", because 12 was a special number to them for multiple reasons back then (number of tribes, months, etc) and 1,000 was the biggest number they had a name for so it really just meant, a really high number of something. 12 x 12 x 1,000.
The number of the beast, 666 is just and abstract way of referring to a particular person at the time without getting executed for treason, probably a Roman emperor. In Greek and Hebrew each letter of the alphabet was assigned a numerical value so they engaged in this kind of gematria commonly.
A possible explanation for the origin of the idea of a mythical Unicorn is misunderstood bas-reliefs of a wild ox "re'em". Since they were shown in profile, only one horn was visible, and so later accidentally called one-horn, and eventually translated into "Unicorn". p. 186
Periodically Asimov notes that names of things as we know them are just a different languages basic word for the thing rather than a proper name. An example being the term Satan. It was originally just a word for a very bad person and people over time attached more meaning to it and gave it a persona. It is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary". p. 409
A possible explanation for the origin of the idea of dragons is the use of the phrase "fiery serpent" describing lightning is later is read and people imagine the idea of dragons not realizing the context.
In Isaiah a virgin birth is foretold, but it is not well translated - Hebrew has specific word for virgin (bethulah) which is not used, Instead almah is used which is more like a young lady who may or may not be a virgin. The whole concept of a virgin birth could be a misunderstanding.
The name Bible is from the Greek name for the city Gebal in Egypt, "Byblos", center of trade for Papyrus. The rolls of papyrus for scriptures came to be "the books" or "Biblia". p. 590
The Sabbath used to be Saturday. As hostility between Christians and Jews grew, Sunday came to take on attributes of the sabbath because Christians began treating Sunday with more and more significance being the day of the week they associate with the resurrection. p. 898
Many instances where writers use metaphor to talk about oppressors secretly result in source of ideas of fantastical creatures. Like in 2 esdras with 12 feathered and 3 headed eagle representing 12 emperor's of Rome.
The 7 day week originated from Sumerians naming each day after 7 bodies visible in the sky and it fit nicely as a quarter of the lunar month. p. 1198
144,000 which so many Christian spin-off religions believe to be a specific meaningful number is just an emphatic way of saying, "All the righteous, a large number of them!", because 12 was a special number to them for multiple reasons back then (number of tribes, months, etc) and 1,000 was the biggest number they had a name for so it really just meant, a really high number of something. 12 x 12 x 1,000.
The number of the beast, 666 is just and abstract way of referring to a particular person at the time without getting executed for treason, probably a Roman emperor. In Greek and Hebrew each letter of the alphabet was assigned a numerical value so they engaged in this kind of gematria commonly.
March 6, 2015
Excellent. Highly recommend. Describes the world at the time when the books of the bible were written. It also gives possible scientific or cultural explanations for some of the miracles described in those books.
In 1967 he decided to put the Old and New Testament of the bible into historical context. This edition is the two volumes in one for a whopping 1296-pages and includes maps by the artist Rafael Palacios.
This guide goes through the books of the Bible in King James Version order, explaining the historical and geographical setting of each one and the political and historical influences that affected it.
Asimov even goes as far as providing biographical information about the main characters. In essence Asimov seems to consider the bible as one of the most important history books ever written, and treats it as such.
There is no theological commentary, just information. For those of you who really want to know "what's really going on" as well as "what's happened before" this guides to the Old and New Testament includes biblical verse, footnotes, references and subject indexes.
Suggested for anyone who wants to know about the arc of history.
In 1967 he decided to put the Old and New Testament of the bible into historical context. This edition is the two volumes in one for a whopping 1296-pages and includes maps by the artist Rafael Palacios.
This guide goes through the books of the Bible in King James Version order, explaining the historical and geographical setting of each one and the political and historical influences that affected it.
Asimov even goes as far as providing biographical information about the main characters. In essence Asimov seems to consider the bible as one of the most important history books ever written, and treats it as such.
There is no theological commentary, just information. For those of you who really want to know "what's really going on" as well as "what's happened before" this guides to the Old and New Testament includes biblical verse, footnotes, references and subject indexes.
Suggested for anyone who wants to know about the arc of history.
January 12, 2008
This is a large tome, and certainly more a reference book than a novel. It can be quite a dry read at times, but in small doses, it is really fascinating. I keep it in my bathroom and randomly read entries a few hundred words at a time.
January 25, 2016
Asimov goes through the Bible and interprets the stories written by the uninformed ancients based on what we now know what was going on at the time. I found it very interesting.
March 28, 2022
This is an absolutely fascinating and comprehensive examination of the historical context of the Bible, which – although I vaguely realised it – is far more sprawling and extensive than than I imagined. Indeed, it fully brought home the fact that the Bible was composed and compiled by people at many, many different points in actual history. This fact is obvious when you read it, but I never realised just how many points this entailed. Some of them argued with each other, like the people who wrote the Book of Ruth versus, well, everyone else.
I now have a far richer understanding of many of the metaphors and parables, because they rely so heavily on the local context – something which isn’t obvious when you’re reading it without footnotes. I didn’t even know that Israel and Judea were two different countries, and that much of the ‘Torah’ part of the Bible is reconciling two very similar but slightly different narratives about the same thing, with two different biases at play. Translation choices for certain words have had consequences that redound through millennia. I was sad to discover that the Biblical insistence that unicorns exist is in fact a mistranslation of ‘wild ox’. Not remotely as cool.
You probably don’t need to have read the Bible to enjoy this, but because I did, I have a much sharper appreciation for Asimov’s patience as he went through all those endless ‘begat’ passages to winkle out historical associations. With the benefit of modern printing and libraries, he was also able to do so better than the actual writers of the Bible, especially those of the New Testament, who made a lot of errors.
He also points out the anti-monarchical stance of most prophets; I picked up on it but didn’t grasp how standard it was for the average prophet. He really clarified the Saul, David, and Absalom stories in Samuel for me, which I found some of the most confusing in the entire Bible. The fact that the Old Testament was assembled after the Babylonian captivity is also very important, but given how little anything in it refers to history you would never learn that from the text. The story of Esther and Ahasuerus is far more impactful once you know it’s actually Xerxes of Persia. The history of the Seleucid Antiochus IV is also vital to much of the Old Testament.
For the New Testament, the four gospels are so alike that it was super helpful to have Asimov point out the key differences. Matthew was obsessed with linking it all back to the Old Testament prophecies, and scholarship now makes his the second after Mark, which he cribbed from. There’s also an inherent contradiction in Matthew's insistence on Jesus’ Davidic descent but also his godly descent. Herod, the real person, is fascinating. John is determined to make Jesus Messiah from the start – something close reading of the others suggests was not on his agenda – and begins a vilification of Jews that is directly responsible for thousands of years of persecution. The stuff about the origin of Logos/The Word was fascinating in the context of John’s suppression of Gnosticism.
Acts is all about substituting baptism for circumcision and how this was the key schism that made Christianity a religion of ‘Gentiles’. Revelation is a lesson in how all apocalyptic literature is a way of writing in code about your own time in a way that won’t get you punished; John is talking about Rome, the end.
One thing I will say, though, is that Asimov does use a lot of US comparators, and mostly seems to think his entire audience will be American. Um…?
Some great, mostly hilarious, quotes:
GENESIS
‘Some moderns seem to think that Ham represents the Negro peoples and that this chapter can be used to justify Negro slavery. This is the purest piffle.’
‘[…] the Great Pyramid is the most ambitious project of man with the possible exception of the Great Wall of China; and it is certainly the most useless, without exception.’
EXODUS
‘Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah.
Of course, if one doesn’t know how large an ephah is that doesn’t help.’
NUMBERS
‘In that case, Og’s bed was about thireeen feet long and six feet wide. A large bed, to be sure, though it need not be taken that Og’s body had to fill it top to bottom and side to side.’
1 KINGS
‘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.’
JOB
‘In these speeches, Job is anything but patient and uncomplaining, and seriously questions the justice of God. Nevertheless, this has not, for some reason, altered the commonplace conception of Job as a patient, uncomplaining man.’
PSALMS
‘The meaning of shiggaion is unknown and, out of desperation, it is usually considered as simply meaning ‘psalm’.’
‘Literacy meant one murder free, so to speak, but no more. Soon after 1800, this practice was ended. Perhaps too many people were learning to read.’
ISAIAH
‘The priesthood then, as always, was primarily interested in the minutiae of ritual. […] The prophets, however, were likely to disdain ritual and to insist, instead, on a higher ethical code of behaviour […]’
‘Religious ritual is just about the most conservative aspect of human culture.’
JUDITH
‘The march of Holofernes is given in detail, with many geographical names apparently made up out of thin air, for they cannot be identified with anything on the surface of the earth.’
1 MACCABEES
‘In all revolutions, those who ardently pursue the fight to the death are in the minority and there are at least as many who are ardently anti-revolutionary, plus an actual majority that is apathetic and will go where they are led (in either direction), if necessary, but who best prefer to be left alone.’
‘The usual excuse, in all times, is that the victors are merely exalting Truth over Falsehood, and are selflessly saving the souls of the losers. The losers, however, generally have trouble recognising the good intentions of those who are so thoughtfully converting them at the point of the sword.’
MATTHEW
‘The kings of England, few of whom were particularly holy, and some of whom who were particularly unholy, were considered capable of curing a disease called scrofula simply by touching the sick individual; and the monarch touched for the “king’s evil” into the eighteenth century.’
REVELATION
‘Behold, I come quickly.
And with that assurance – still unfulfilled nearly two thousand years later – the New Testament ends.’
I now have a far richer understanding of many of the metaphors and parables, because they rely so heavily on the local context – something which isn’t obvious when you’re reading it without footnotes. I didn’t even know that Israel and Judea were two different countries, and that much of the ‘Torah’ part of the Bible is reconciling two very similar but slightly different narratives about the same thing, with two different biases at play. Translation choices for certain words have had consequences that redound through millennia. I was sad to discover that the Biblical insistence that unicorns exist is in fact a mistranslation of ‘wild ox’. Not remotely as cool.
You probably don’t need to have read the Bible to enjoy this, but because I did, I have a much sharper appreciation for Asimov’s patience as he went through all those endless ‘begat’ passages to winkle out historical associations. With the benefit of modern printing and libraries, he was also able to do so better than the actual writers of the Bible, especially those of the New Testament, who made a lot of errors.
He also points out the anti-monarchical stance of most prophets; I picked up on it but didn’t grasp how standard it was for the average prophet. He really clarified the Saul, David, and Absalom stories in Samuel for me, which I found some of the most confusing in the entire Bible. The fact that the Old Testament was assembled after the Babylonian captivity is also very important, but given how little anything in it refers to history you would never learn that from the text. The story of Esther and Ahasuerus is far more impactful once you know it’s actually Xerxes of Persia. The history of the Seleucid Antiochus IV is also vital to much of the Old Testament.
For the New Testament, the four gospels are so alike that it was super helpful to have Asimov point out the key differences. Matthew was obsessed with linking it all back to the Old Testament prophecies, and scholarship now makes his the second after Mark, which he cribbed from. There’s also an inherent contradiction in Matthew's insistence on Jesus’ Davidic descent but also his godly descent. Herod, the real person, is fascinating. John is determined to make Jesus Messiah from the start – something close reading of the others suggests was not on his agenda – and begins a vilification of Jews that is directly responsible for thousands of years of persecution. The stuff about the origin of Logos/The Word was fascinating in the context of John’s suppression of Gnosticism.
Acts is all about substituting baptism for circumcision and how this was the key schism that made Christianity a religion of ‘Gentiles’. Revelation is a lesson in how all apocalyptic literature is a way of writing in code about your own time in a way that won’t get you punished; John is talking about Rome, the end.
One thing I will say, though, is that Asimov does use a lot of US comparators, and mostly seems to think his entire audience will be American. Um…?
Some great, mostly hilarious, quotes:
GENESIS
‘Some moderns seem to think that Ham represents the Negro peoples and that this chapter can be used to justify Negro slavery. This is the purest piffle.’
‘[…] the Great Pyramid is the most ambitious project of man with the possible exception of the Great Wall of China; and it is certainly the most useless, without exception.’
EXODUS
‘Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah.
Of course, if one doesn’t know how large an ephah is that doesn’t help.’
NUMBERS
‘In that case, Og’s bed was about thireeen feet long and six feet wide. A large bed, to be sure, though it need not be taken that Og’s body had to fill it top to bottom and side to side.’
1 KINGS
‘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.’
JOB
‘In these speeches, Job is anything but patient and uncomplaining, and seriously questions the justice of God. Nevertheless, this has not, for some reason, altered the commonplace conception of Job as a patient, uncomplaining man.’
PSALMS
‘The meaning of shiggaion is unknown and, out of desperation, it is usually considered as simply meaning ‘psalm’.’
‘Literacy meant one murder free, so to speak, but no more. Soon after 1800, this practice was ended. Perhaps too many people were learning to read.’
ISAIAH
‘The priesthood then, as always, was primarily interested in the minutiae of ritual. […] The prophets, however, were likely to disdain ritual and to insist, instead, on a higher ethical code of behaviour […]’
‘Religious ritual is just about the most conservative aspect of human culture.’
JUDITH
‘The march of Holofernes is given in detail, with many geographical names apparently made up out of thin air, for they cannot be identified with anything on the surface of the earth.’
1 MACCABEES
‘In all revolutions, those who ardently pursue the fight to the death are in the minority and there are at least as many who are ardently anti-revolutionary, plus an actual majority that is apathetic and will go where they are led (in either direction), if necessary, but who best prefer to be left alone.’
‘The usual excuse, in all times, is that the victors are merely exalting Truth over Falsehood, and are selflessly saving the souls of the losers. The losers, however, generally have trouble recognising the good intentions of those who are so thoughtfully converting them at the point of the sword.’
MATTHEW
‘The kings of England, few of whom were particularly holy, and some of whom who were particularly unholy, were considered capable of curing a disease called scrofula simply by touching the sick individual; and the monarch touched for the “king’s evil” into the eighteenth century.’
REVELATION
‘Behold, I come quickly.
And with that assurance – still unfulfilled nearly two thousand years later – the New Testament ends.’
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 28, 2018
یه راهنمای خوب واسه کتاب مقدس که این کتاب رو بیشتر از نظر تاریخی و جفرافیایی بررسی میکنه و اطلاعات خیلی خوبی رو ارایه میده مخصوصا قسمت عهد عتیق
ممنون فربد عزیز واسه معرفیت
ممنون فربد عزیز واسه معرفیت
March 22, 2015
This book was not what I wanted it to be, and is one of the more disappointing books I've encountered. (It is a 2 volume complete Bible commentary, so it is more of a reference book).
This is an extremely traditional walk through the Bible from a historical-critical perspective. As I've heard books like this described before, it could be titled, "Introduction to Biblical Contradictions and Inconsistencies."
So, if you have never encountered the historical-critical Bible, and you want at 1960's perspective on it, this has some value for you. If you want a way to look up stories in the Bible and find historical inaccuracies, implausibilities, and contradictions, this has some value.
But my gripe is that those books have been written, many times, by many many people. When you buy Asimov's Guide to the Bible, you want to read Asimov's thoughts, not generic historical-critical notes from the 60's. For example, the binding of Isaac is an important episode from the OT. Over the years, I have seen all sorts of commentaries on this, from Christians, Jews, Atheists, and others - you don't need to come at it from a particular faith perspective to be able to reflect on the story.
For example, I have seen beautiful comparisons from that story to the Vietnam War. "How dare we condemn Abraham, when our old men still sacrifice their sons to serve God?" All sorts of reflections on domestic violence, or what sort of culture would produce such a story. And none of this requires a faith in God. People still read the Iliad and find thoughts that apply to today without believing in the Greek deities. Asimov himself used fiction to make points - he should be able to find something meaningful or reflective to say. Instead, Asimov spends 2 paragraphs talking about how we can't find the mountain, and the traditional mountain wasn't it.
This is an extremely traditional walk through the Bible from a historical-critical perspective. As I've heard books like this described before, it could be titled, "Introduction to Biblical Contradictions and Inconsistencies."
So, if you have never encountered the historical-critical Bible, and you want at 1960's perspective on it, this has some value for you. If you want a way to look up stories in the Bible and find historical inaccuracies, implausibilities, and contradictions, this has some value.
But my gripe is that those books have been written, many times, by many many people. When you buy Asimov's Guide to the Bible, you want to read Asimov's thoughts, not generic historical-critical notes from the 60's. For example, the binding of Isaac is an important episode from the OT. Over the years, I have seen all sorts of commentaries on this, from Christians, Jews, Atheists, and others - you don't need to come at it from a particular faith perspective to be able to reflect on the story.
For example, I have seen beautiful comparisons from that story to the Vietnam War. "How dare we condemn Abraham, when our old men still sacrifice their sons to serve God?" All sorts of reflections on domestic violence, or what sort of culture would produce such a story. And none of this requires a faith in God. People still read the Iliad and find thoughts that apply to today without believing in the Greek deities. Asimov himself used fiction to make points - he should be able to find something meaningful or reflective to say. Instead, Asimov spends 2 paragraphs talking about how we can't find the mountain, and the traditional mountain wasn't it.
March 21, 2017
It does not matter if you are an atheist or believer - the book is an excellent detailed historical analysis of the period of time covered by the Bible. The best analysis from a historical, geographical and logical standpoint. I was always looking for a scientific analysis of the Bible and Asimov did that. The connections between multiple myths and mythology and the Bible, the logical explanation of what is described in the Bible, the revealing of many errors in years and names of people described in the Bible. And al of it is done in a very objective and neutral manner. A must read for anyone interested in the topic of Human history and the influence of religion on it.
August 21, 2009
The Good Doctor employs his usual insight and erudition to describe the secular history behind each of the books of the Bible and put them into the appropriate context; this single-volume edition covers both the Old & New Testaments.
May 26, 2010
This is a wonderful reference text. Asimov compares the biblical accounts with other historical references of the time. Over the years, we have found it provides a different perspective to the events, often including a frame of reference.
April 12, 2016
If you want to understand the underlying geography and anthropology of biblical stories--and maybe I'm weird that I do--this is the book for you. Somewhat dated, but still quite relevant. Asimov did his homework. This is an eye-opening study.
September 14, 2007
This is an amazing read! His analysis also includes books not included in the King James version of the Bible.
March 29, 2025
Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Isaac Asimov (1920-1992), maps by Rafael Palacios, two-volumes-in-one edition 1981 (vol. 1 OT 1967, vol. 2 NT 1969), 1295 pages, ISBN 051734582X. (The OT section is paged 1-716; the NT section is paged 1-637.)
The historical, biographical, geographical, and philosophical context of the Bible. Asimov assumes we're familiar with the Bible (at least generally). p. OT 8. This book contains no /original/ scholarship, instead summarizes the work of archaeologists, linguists, and historians. p. OT 9. Insightful. Throws light on the Bible stories.
Reading the Bible may not convey much--it tells us the Israelites fought various peoples, the names of whom mean nothing to us. But the names mean something to Azimov, and he tells us, where they lived, where they were likely from, when they settled the area, who their allies and enemies were, whether they were related to the Israelites or not.
Tells us of Persian and Greek influences on Jewish thought.
Asimov speculates on, for example, possible motives of Judas Iscariot (could the name be a copyist's error of sicariot, Zealot terrorist? He may have been disappointed at Jesus' failure to attack the Romans).
Many excellent maps.
Even today, the Bible is the most popular book. p. OT 7.
Asimov uses these versions of the Bible:
OLD TESTAMENT
Asimov writes as if figures such as Abraham were actual historic individuals, and yet also writes as if they're mere eponyms for the tribes they supposedly begot.
The stories of the early years occur in the Bible alone. Regardless of how much of them may be fact-based and how much legend or fiction, Asimov places the stories in a possible chronology and geography.
JUBILEE
Asimov opines that the once-every-50-years debt forgiveness of Leviticus 25 never actually happened. pp. OT 163-164. To the contrary: see /And Forgive Them Their Debts/, by Michael Hudson. It was common for millennia in the ancient Near East. It mitigated the dominance of plutocrats that has plagued the world since debt forgiveness was abandoned in the Iron Age. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
Leviticus is easily the dullest book in the Bible. p. OT 154.
CRUELTY
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18.
SEE ALSO
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Asimov gives us an extensive timeline, I've put in the notes:
The historical, biographical, geographical, and philosophical context of the Bible. Asimov assumes we're familiar with the Bible (at least generally). p. OT 8. This book contains no /original/ scholarship, instead summarizes the work of archaeologists, linguists, and historians. p. OT 9. Insightful. Throws light on the Bible stories.
Reading the Bible may not convey much--it tells us the Israelites fought various peoples, the names of whom mean nothing to us. But the names mean something to Azimov, and he tells us, where they lived, where they were likely from, when they settled the area, who their allies and enemies were, whether they were related to the Israelites or not.
Tells us of Persian and Greek influences on Jewish thought.
Asimov speculates on, for example, possible motives of Judas Iscariot (could the name be a copyist's error of sicariot, Zealot terrorist? He may have been disappointed at Jesus' failure to attack the Romans).
Many excellent maps.
Even today, the Bible is the most popular book. p. OT 7.
Asimov uses these versions of the Bible:
OLD TESTAMENT
Asimov writes as if figures such as Abraham were actual historic individuals, and yet also writes as if they're mere eponyms for the tribes they supposedly begot.
The stories of the early years occur in the Bible alone. Regardless of how much of them may be fact-based and how much legend or fiction, Asimov places the stories in a possible chronology and geography.
JUBILEE
Asimov opines that the once-every-50-years debt forgiveness of Leviticus 25 never actually happened. pp. OT 163-164. To the contrary: see /And Forgive Them Their Debts/, by Michael Hudson. It was common for millennia in the ancient Near East. It mitigated the dominance of plutocrats that has plagued the world since debt forgiveness was abandoned in the Iron Age. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
Leviticus is easily the dullest book in the Bible. p. OT 154.
CRUELTY
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18.
SEE ALSO
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Asimov gives us an extensive timeline, I've put in the notes:
February 13, 2023
Fantastic book, I learned so much! And not just about the Bible, but about history, geography, linguistic, culture. I probably found the linguistic parts the most interesting though.
While this book was written by an atheist, and I disagreed with some of his opinions, I found it largely respectful. I honestly believe it gave me a greater understanding of the Bible from a theological perspective as well. The Old Testament is something I've never successfully gotten through, and the perspective and understanding of those books that I've gained is wonderful.
I would recommend this to anyone, regardless of faith, who wish to gain a better understanding of the Bible, Judaism, early Christianity, or the influence of Hebrew on modern English language and culture.
While this book was written by an atheist, and I disagreed with some of his opinions, I found it largely respectful. I honestly believe it gave me a greater understanding of the Bible from a theological perspective as well. The Old Testament is something I've never successfully gotten through, and the perspective and understanding of those books that I've gained is wonderful.
I would recommend this to anyone, regardless of faith, who wish to gain a better understanding of the Bible, Judaism, early Christianity, or the influence of Hebrew on modern English language and culture.
May 3, 2021
By no means an authoritative work on the Bible.. but Asimov was one of the smartest and most creative people who ever lived, and you're missing out if you are missing his take.
May 11, 2015
fantastic! so let's make sure you know what you are getting into here. This is a 1200 page book that approaches the bible as an important historical document that had incalculable influence on Western culture. Asmiov takes a rationalist approach here and isn't interested in ethics or the supernatural but I think if you scan the other reviews here you'll see that he does it in a respectful way that even true believers find to be pretty palatable. What Asimov is interested in is how the Bible lines up with the historical record and setting the books in the context of Ancient History. I grew up Catholic, but went to public schools and so to be honest never really had any idea what a Pharisee or Samaritan was and how they related to the land of Canaan or any of that let alone what a Corinthian was. I've spent the last few years trying to fill in the holes in my liberal arts education since I'm engineering educated, and they don't really teach the classical canon much anyway and it quickly became apparent that I had big holes in my understanding of stuff so as usual I turned to Asimov, the great explainer. He goes book by book and explains who wrote it (and whether or not it is likely that is who it is attributed to), where the places they are talking about are with lots and lots of maps, whether it is corroborated by the rest of the historical record, and what the most likely biases of the authors were given that most books of both the old and new testament were written well after the events they describe. He spends a lot of time trying to untangle various inconsistencies in the versions of the stories and speculates as to what may be their cause. Sometimes his analysis on the genealogies get a little tedious, so I skimmed those, but otherwise, I found this a very useful guide. I had originally intended to put it down at the volume break between the old and new testament and read something else before picking it back up, but I ended up powering straight through which is a good testament to the material.
May 31, 2017
I had heard that Isaac Asimov was prolific, but I had not realized that he went into Biblical Study. Imagine my surprise when I saw a copy of this. I mean, it's Isaac Asimov, I have to see what he says about the Bible.
So Asimov goes through the Bible and discusses all of the major talking points. Have you ever wondered what a Sadducee was? So did I until I read this book. Where exactly is Jericho as related to Jerusalem? This book has multiple maps that show you just that. Along the way, we are treated to Secular History that has been verified by other records and not just the Bible. So that part alone makes it fascinating. I especially liked the parts that covered verifiable Jewish and Early Christian History. Those parts were excellent. The rest of the Bible seems to be made up of old Folk Legends and stories borrowed extensively during the Exile Period. For instance, there are numerous references to Marduk and Ishtar and other gods of the Babylonian Pantheon.
The Pentateuch and other parts make for pretty dry reading, but trying to estimate the relative dates and authors of certain books must be pretty hard. In any case, I really enjoyed this book.
So Asimov goes through the Bible and discusses all of the major talking points. Have you ever wondered what a Sadducee was? So did I until I read this book. Where exactly is Jericho as related to Jerusalem? This book has multiple maps that show you just that. Along the way, we are treated to Secular History that has been verified by other records and not just the Bible. So that part alone makes it fascinating. I especially liked the parts that covered verifiable Jewish and Early Christian History. Those parts were excellent. The rest of the Bible seems to be made up of old Folk Legends and stories borrowed extensively during the Exile Period. For instance, there are numerous references to Marduk and Ishtar and other gods of the Babylonian Pantheon.
The Pentateuch and other parts make for pretty dry reading, but trying to estimate the relative dates and authors of certain books must be pretty hard. In any case, I really enjoyed this book.
October 28, 2015
This is the second time through this as well. It is a secular tour of the books of the Bible - painting the back drop of periods of time where the rise and fall of dominance in the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman conquests affected Judaism and Christian perspectives. To borrow a paragraph from the introduction:
Millions know Ahasuerus as a Persian king who married Esther, even though there is no record of such an event outside the Bible. Most of those same millions never suspect that he is better known to modern historians as Xerxes and that the most important event of his reign was an invasion of Greece that ended in utter defeat. That invasion is not mentioned in the Bible.
It is gems like those that makes this book a mandatory companion to reading the source book of Judea-Christian worship. It was a lot of pages to conquer, but to quote Jesus himself: "It is finished" John 19:30
Millions know Ahasuerus as a Persian king who married Esther, even though there is no record of such an event outside the Bible. Most of those same millions never suspect that he is better known to modern historians as Xerxes and that the most important event of his reign was an invasion of Greece that ended in utter defeat. That invasion is not mentioned in the Bible.
It is gems like those that makes this book a mandatory companion to reading the source book of Judea-Christian worship. It was a lot of pages to conquer, but to quote Jesus himself: "It is finished" John 19:30
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews