Explore a Topic...  Abraham
 Millennium
 Asimov
 Mormons
 Cults
 Muslims
 Dead Sea Scrolls
 never heard?
 Evil
 prejudice
 Hinduism
 Opportunity?
 JEPD Theory
 radiocarbon
 JW's
 Rev. Moon
 messianic proph.
 Trinity
 Universalism

Isaac Asimov was a chemist, brilliant science writer, science fiction writer, and a secular humanist. When I was growing up, I was an avid reader of his books. Asimov wrote a skeptical book, Asimov's guide to the Bible, apparently as sort of a genteel commentary to knock belief in the Bible. This page is a response to his book. It will show all the places where Asimov was wrong, made unsubstantiated assertions that would not be accepted in a scientific field, and some of the historical comments he made that are correct.

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 appears to be a deliberate contrast with pagan concepts.

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 (p19), he 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.

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 by Assyrians 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A: No. The name Molech might have been derived from the word for king. However, this was a specific idol the Ammonites worshipped. The god named Muluk in Mari c.1700 B.C.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

A: There is no 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.

A: No, for three reasons.

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.

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 that was destroyed to be rebuilt. Actually archaeology tells use that 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 Canaanites.

Hazor was the largest city in all Canaan with an area of 175 to 200 acres and a maximum population of 40,000. Hazor had unusual shape. There was an inner bastion of around 14 acres, and a double wall on the far end with 100 feet between the two walls. It was 1542 feet (5 football fields) long, and 574 feet wide at its widest. In the time of Judges 4, Hazor again rose to power and oppressed the Israelites, until Barak and the Israelites defeated them.

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.

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.

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.

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, " and "Astarte" in Greek script. "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.

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.

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.

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.

A: No conservative Bible scholar had this view, but Harper’s Bible Dictionary (Harper & Row 19612) 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A: No, Asimov is making a claim with no evidence. 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 othewise 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.

A: One could conjecture that these might not necessarily have been their original names but what they were called later after they died.

However, a more likely answer is found by studying non-Western cultures. The Israelites, like many Africans in the twentieth century, would give names whose meaning was based on current events, whether they be good or bad. So if the sons were born in hard times, it would be natural for the Israelites to name them appropriately.

As evidence of this, Rachel named her son Ben-Ammi (son of my sorrow) as she was dying, and Phinehas’ wife named her son Ichabod (no glory, or the glory has departed) as she was dying in 1 Samuel 4:19-20. Hosea was told by God to name his first son Jezreel after the massacre at Jezreel, his daughter Lo-Ruhamah (not loved), and his second son Lo-Ammi (not my people). God told Isaiah to name his son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil) in Isaiah 8:1-4.

As for my children though, I think I will stick to simpler names.

A: No. The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.262 even claimed it was written in the fifth century B.C. The following first will discuss why the alleged Aramaic words are not relevant, and second why it was likely written earlier.

1. "lahen" in Ruth 1:13 does mean "therefore" in Aramaic, but it also means "to them" in Hebrew. "Mara" in Ruth 1:20 is spelled the Aramaic way, but the Hebrew has an identical sound and is only slightly different in spelling. Of course, as the book as copied through the years, scribes who knew Aramaic could easily have introduced the second change. See Survey of Old Testament Introduction p.286-287 for more info.

2. The author Gleason Archer also points out that it was probably written down between the time of David and Solomon, as Solomon probably would have been mentioned too, if he had been reigning then. Also, this shows a time before the Moabites hated the Israelites because of their constant subjugation.

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.

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 and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.220 for the same answer, too.

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. Beth-Shemesh was far from Philistia proper, yet it was still under Philistine influence. Archaeologists have found numerous Philistine artifacts from Beth-Shemesh from this time.

2. It 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.

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.

A: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.440 and the New Geneva Study Bible say it to be the same Gilgal. 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.

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.

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.

A: According to Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.279, 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..

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.

A: While Scripture does not say, remember, 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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A: It was about 30,000 square miles, or about the size of the U.S. state of Maine, according to the skeptic 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 peoples were weak.

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.

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. Asimov made the blunder of thinking the inside dimensions are the same as the outside ones. Even forgetting about approximations, a thickness give as a handbreadth (say 6 inches) for a perfectly round sphere would give a ratio of exactly 3.0.

Assume for sake of argument there were no approximations and that the bronze sea was perfectly round. Assume 30 cubits was the inner circumference and 10 cubits was the outside diameter. If the rim was 0.22535 cubits, then the value of pi would be 3.14159. 0.22535 cubits (4 inches) is certainly reasonable for a handbreadth.

What if the 30 cubits was the outer circumference. One could make use the same numbers, by having the rim protrude by a handbreadth.

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.

1 Ki 14:31; 15:1,6 "Abijam" (most Hebrew manuscripts) vs. "Abijah" (some Hebrew and the Septuagint) (The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.418 says Abijah may be the throne name, while Abijam might have been his personal (birth) name.)

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.

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 iron weapons and armor, instead of bronze weapons. 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 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.

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.

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.

A: There are a number of differences between these two writings.

Time: Chronicles was written later, during the exile. It emphasizes the genealogies, which would be important for the returning Jews.

Numbers: Chronicles is the most number-oriented book in the Bible, with the size of armies, and numbers of priests and descendants.

References: Kings mentions the Book/Annals of Kings of Israel, the Book/Annals of Kings of Judah, and the Book/Annals of Kings of Israel and Judah in 32 verses. Chronicles mentions books of various kings only 12 times, and it never mentions "the Book/Annals of the Kings of Judah" without mentioning Israel too.

Kingdom vs. Temple: Nehemiah as well as 1 and 2 Kings emphasize the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Chronicles and Ezra also mention those, but they have a greater emphasis on the Temple.

International Affairs: Kings focuses on battles and alliances with Aram, Edom, Moab, and nearby kingdoms, including Egypt. Chronicles focuses on trading alliances with Hiram of Tyre, the Queen of Sheba, and Egypt.

Consequences of Wickedness vs. Repentence: Kings focuses more on the results of the sins of the kings, while Chronicles tells of their personal walk with God.

David: Chronicles does not tell us much about David, except that he wanted to build the Temple. Kings tells us almost nothing about David, since David was covered in 1 and 2 Samuel.

Solomon: Chronicles tells us little about Solomon, except as it related to building the temple and his wealth. With the exception of Pharaoh's daughter, only Kings tell of the serious moral compromises Solomon made.

Manasseh's repentance, which had no political impact, is mentioned only in Chronicles. Manasseh removed many idol altars, but his repentance had almost no effect on the kingdom.

Jehoiakim is given more attention in 2 Chronicles 36 than in 2 Kings 24.

Geography: Between the time of the Divided Kingdom and Hezekiah, Chronicles, being concerned with the Temple, has a southern emphasis on Judah, while Kings discusses both kingdoms at length. Consequently, Chronicles provides no dates or lengths of reign of the kings of Israel, while Kings provides information on both Judah and Israel. Kings also has more material on Elijah and Elisha.

Time Written: Chronicles was written later, and likely presumed the reader had a knowledge of Kings. Chronicles and not kings tells of the return of the Jews under the reign of Cyrus of Persia.

Lessons: The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.412 says the Chronicler shows that material benefits accompany righteous action. However, Kings also show the consequences, of obeying or disobeying God.

735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.134 points out that no facts were hidden, as 1 and 2 Kings had been written before 1 and 2 Chronicles.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A: No. Certainly the serpent spoke and tempted Eve in Genesis 3, had non-natural abilities, including speech and intelligence. Most curiously, Asimov 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.

A: While 2 Chronicles 11:20 does not specifically say this Absalom was the same as the son of David, it probably 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 three simple possible solutions.

1. Absalom had a son, Uriel who lived in Gibeah, who had a daughter Maacah.

2. Uriel who lived in Gibeah had a daughter who married Absalom. They had a daughter named Maacah.

3. Absalom had a daughter, who married Uriel who lived in Gibeah, and they had a daughter named Maacah.

A: We do not know much about this tribe, except that they were probably 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.

A: Nothing indicates that a force from all Egypt, Libya, and northern Sudan, or 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen, and uncounted infantry is exaggerated.

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.

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. 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.

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 religious at the same time.

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.

A: Yes, the records of the Assyrian king Eserhaddon list Manaseh 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A: They probably were not sincere. The Samaritans forcibly stopped the rebuilding, and Mt. Gerazim in Samaria was a "competitor" as a worship center.

Contray to this, Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.441 thinks the Samaritans were sincere here.

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.

A: According to Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.439 it means "child of Babylon".

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 says "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 or 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.

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.

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.

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.

A: Yes it is, but in a hidden form. At four crucial points in the narrative, (1:20, 5:4; 5:13; 7:7) YHWH is there in acrostic form, twice forward and twice backward.

For another example for a word acrostic, the famous acrostic "Icthyus" is found in an early Christian writing, the Sibylline Oracles 8:217-50. See the Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 1 p.59 for more info.

See When Critics Ask p.219-220 for more info. The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.495 also mentions this and gives two examples using "Lord" in English. In any language, this is difficult to do without it appearing stilted. "Due Respect Our Ladies, all Shall give their husbands, great and small. (1:20), and IlL tO feaR decreeD I find, Toward me in the monarch’s mind" (7:7) (taken originally from Arthur T. Pierson). Here are to other examples: "Let Our Reigning Dear King and Haman comes to the banquet I have prepared. (5:4) "Yet remains my mooD faR toO fouL, as long as Mordecai the Jew sits at the King’s gate." (5:13).

As Hard Sayings of the Bible p.253-254 observes, Esther 4:14 this is a veiled reference to God. In other words, it would be most natural to put the word "God" here, yet the author apparently refrained from doing so.

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 se.."

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 was actually probably 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. Persia and the Bible p.235 also says this, and add that 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.

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).

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.

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.

A: Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.474 suggests so. On the contrary, it would be surprising if there was 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.

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.

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.

A: The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.488 is correctly says that we do not know. Of the 150 Psalms in our Bible, 101 of them have captuions added saying 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 we cannot prove the authorship of any Psalm, Jesus said some of the Psalms were by David though.

A: Among the Egyptian Pharaohs, Babylonian kings, and some other rules yes.

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.

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.

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 for more info on the first two views.

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.

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.

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.

A: Rahab originally was 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.

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 things Levites sang these during festival times standing on the temple steps. The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.505 says the same.

The Babylon was son 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.

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.

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, another 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 updated some of the language to the later style.

3. The writer never actually said he was Solomon, though a King, the Son of David, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A: Three points to consider in the answer.

1. There is no problem with saying the Bible is inerrant and this being written long after Solomon’s time.

2. Tirzah, six miles northeast of Shechem, was the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel from Jeroboam I to Omri (900-880 B.C.).

3. Since Tirzah existed in Solomon’s time, there is no problem saying this was written in Solomon’s time. Tirzah would be especially appropriate if one of the two people had lived there. Sometimes small towns in a beautiful setting are more beloved by their inhabitants than large political capitals.

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.

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.

A: Scholars do not know when Isaiah was born, but he prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah through Hezekiah and probably in the reign of Manasseh. Uzziah reigned from 790-739 B.C.. If Isaiah 6 was an early vision, that was in the year that Uzziah died in 739 B.C.

Since Isaiah mentions Sennacherib’s death, Isaiah probably lived during this event, which was 681 B.C. Manasseh started reigning in 687 B.C. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.546 also says it is not impossible 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

A: Yes. The Yemenite Midrash 349-350 and the Pereq Shalom p.101 show that some Jews considered this to be Messianic.

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.

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.

A: Isaiah was referring to Jerusalem with the figurative name of "Ariel". 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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

A: There are three characteristics of the subject of this chapter.

A person: The Messiah was a man or sorrows (53:3), with an appearance (52:2) and no children (53:8)

Take on others' sins as a guilt offering (53:10), took upon himself our infirmities and sorrows (53:4), suffered reproach as though struck by God (53:4) pierced and crushed for our sins (53:5).

Died and yet see his seed: assigned a grace with the wicked and the rich (53:9) yet we will see his offspring (53:10)

In contrast to this, the Jewish people never claimed to be a guilt offering (53:1), intercede for the sins of others (53:12), or bore our infirmities and sorrows (53:4). The Jewish people would not say about themselves "The punishment that brought peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (53:5f)

A: No, there is no evidence that Isaiah thought he was setting judgment on the earth (Isaiah 42:4), he felt he had labored in vain (Isaiah 49:4) he himself was given for a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6), or that he personally fulfilled Isaiah 53.

A: According to Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.263-266 the Two-Isaiah Theory, and variations was espoused in 1789 by J.C. Doederlein (1745-1792) and others, including Duhm (ca. 1825) who had a three-Isaiah theory. These theories answered the following dilemma: "Since they could not believe there were genuine prophecies in the Bible, how could the book of Isaiah have so many prophecies of the Babylonians and Persians that came true?"

All these anti-supernatural theories have in common that Isaiah 6 was a part of early Isaiah who wrote in the eighth century, and Isaiah 40-46 was not done by the early Isaiah. The Dead Sea scroll 1Qisa was found with all of Isaiah, it had a blank space separating chatpers, but the blank space was between Isaiah 33 and 34. (The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 6 p.9)

However, besides the anti-supernatural bias, there are a countless problems with these multiple Isaiah theories. The next question will give the external evidence, and the question after that the internal evidence.

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 Psduo-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, witten 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 this was written by Isaiah 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 menioned 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.

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 majestory 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 (Isahah 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.

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 throught 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 wilerness 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.