OK< Asimov is not a noted biblical scholar, nor did he do much original biblical scholarship. What he did was take the greatest biblical scholars works, such as the Anchor Bible, and distill out the most interesting bits, and rewrite them into an enjoyable and readable style. So, his book is considered a good SOURCE, but not for any original scholarship done by Asimov. The Anchor Bible, Asimov’s big source, is a set the size of a good sized encyclopedia, so he can perhaps be excused for doing a “mere” 2 volume set based heavily on their work.
DrF said:
Good point.
My parents just returned from a trip to Israel. Among the places they visited was Masada.
Everybody here probably knows the story. Romans wanted to enslave Jews; some took off for Masada; stayed there for 3 years; when Romans were finally going to capture them, they killed themselves.
That’s the way it was written in the history books.
However, when they visited, a problem was explained to them. That problem is that there is no physical evidence that it’s true. No bones, for example, have ever been found on Masada. Did the Romans clean up all the dead bodies and leave nothing behind?
Or was it just a good story, with the noble zealouts finding their way to “escape” slavery? It’s a much better ending than, “and in the end, they were all captured and turned into slaves anyway.”
You might want to check this out. A POSSIBLE SOURCE FOR THE STORY OF NOAH’S FLOOD STORIES
Pretty interesting reading, and a lot more believable than Noahs story. They say all myth has some basis in truth.
Modian:
I agree that was good reading. The problem is that I have seen Biblical literalists say that since the Bible said it was a worldwide flood, it HAD TO BE a worldwide flood. Again, nothing science tells them will dissuade them on this “fact.” Which is fine until they start “creating” evidence to fit this hypothesis…
My personal opinion is that it is all a symbolic story. Evidence of this are the countless cultures and tribes which all tell of destructions by flood. The symbolism of water as a clensing agent is something that simple animals understamd, and it’s destructive powers are also easy to observe.
So while there might very well have been some great flooding in the Black Sea, I think the book would have been written even without it.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, six days, 13 hours, 44 minutes and 32 seconds.
5142 cigarettes not smoked, saving $642.86.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 30 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
Satan said:
“Next up in the New York Times Review of Books, the metaphor of doves in Hemingway’s For Whom The Bell Tolls is explored by Fido, Rover, and three single-celled bacteria.”
Daniel,
As much as I respect Asimov, the mere fact that he took other sources and distilled them down to an “enjoyable and readable style” does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make him a good source. Scholarship is made of different, much more rigorous, stuff. I assume you’re familiar with the idea of primary and secondary sources, so I won’t bore you with treatise on it. Suffice it to say that the further you get away from the original scholarship, the less reliable your information is. The very phrase “rewrite them into an enjoyable and readable style” seems to suggest a certain amount of editorial license. Mr. Asimov was a remarkable writer, but he had his biblical paradigm, the same as the rest of us. He may not have even been aware of any bias, but you can bet it was there.
I believe most of this discussion about archeology “proving” the bible is missing the point. Obviously most of the details described in the bible have not, and cannot be, proved by archeology. What is meant is something different.
It is my impression, and you may correct me if I am wrong on this, that the general trend of archeological discoveries has been to give more credence to the bible than had been previously been given by bible critics and scholars. That is, that the previous inclination of scholars had been to dismiss the bible (in terms of historical accuracy) to a greater degree than they do today. The overall effect of archeology has been towards forcing a greater acceptance of biblical accuracy, not a lesser acceptance.
Of course, this has no direct bearing on science today. But it is usefull to bear in mind, when scholars are dismissing the bible as being poetry and myths etc. that these are the guys who didn’t even give it any credence at all, until forced to by the evidence. In other words, it tends to suggest that scholars tend to give less weight to the bible than it deserves.
Is it my imagination, or did CollegeStudent post a grand total of one message to this multi-page thread?
-Ben
It’s been a week since College Student offered to show us how archaeology has proven the Bible. He has not returned.
How long should we wait?
Well, geez, andros, give him a break. He’s very tired, you know. And he has that big case he’s working on. Not to mention the whole biotech thing.
::d&r::
Sorry, Ben, didn’t see your post. Great minds . . .
It’s “pretty obvious” only if you buy that the walls were “shoved down”. The chain of reasoning would go like this:
The walls were shoved down. Humans can’t shove walls. Therefore, something supernatural happened. Only God is supernatural. The Bible was written by a supernatural being. Therefore, the Bible is true.
Logic isn’t my strong suit, but you’ve got a bunch of assumptions in there that I don’t think quite gel. And remember, I’m a Christian, I’m on YOUR side.
Also, your only source for supernatural powers would seem to be God. What about aliens? What about time travel? Couldn’t Kurt Russell have come through the Stargate and shoved the walls down? What about “older races” with ancient technology who WOULD have been capable of shoving the walls down? (Hey, they built Stonehenge…)
I am only half-kidding.
P.S. I think it’s obvious by now that the “Neandertal” post was posted in the wrong thread. And I think it’s possible that Fille-Parfait was kidding.
Manny, you knwo you’re going to Hell, right? 
What’s all this then?
Personally. my theory is that CollegeStudent and Averroes have eloped.
-Ben
He Whose Name Will Not Be Spoken. Remember, Ben, in syberspace, no one can hear you scream.
Ben is starting to look more like Inspector Harry “Snapper” organs…
(MEBuckner– You look familiar. If you are who I think, I will blame you personally if Jabriol, PAP, or Ed Conrad shows up here.)
Well, I used to post on the old AOL board…but I don’t know who Jabriol, PAP, or Ed Conrad are. Should I find out, and invite them all over?
Sorry. After a year and a half you show up and expect me to remember you exactly? Give an old phart a break. I consider it a good day if I can recognize my sister-in-law on the first try.
(Note to self-- do I have a sister-in-law? Better discretely ask The Wife…)
David, a note on the Masada thing. The story was first told in The Jewish War by Josephus. Now, as much as we know cause of Josephus, he was still rather loose with the truth a lot of the time. He writes whole sections about what Alexander the Great dreamed the night before he went into Jerusalem and a lot of other stuff that a. never happened or b. he couldn’t possibly have known. So, everything he says really should be taken with a grain of salt. Including the Masada story, which I seriously doubt ever happened.
Nevertheless, Masada is a very interesting and remarkable place. The Roman siege of the place really DID happen - the marks their camps made, and the paths runners used to go between them, are still visible. Archaeology is important whether or not it proves/disproves your agenda.