Textual concurrence
Is there a way to verify if the reconstructed core biblical arena suffers from a fatal mapping error? Yes, there is. Theoretically at least, all one has to do is crosscheck the Bible’s records with other ancient world secular sources from classical antiquity. If the Bible stories were true, mention of the more prominent historical events that underpin these stories should have found its way into these archives as well.But do we have any independent ancient world secular historian who documented the Levant or parts thereof, with which we can compare the Bible’s geography for similarities?
The answer to this question too is a fortunate yes. Inspired by Homer, Plato and others, quite a few enterprising Greek scholars were out there in the field, vying with each other to document world history, geography, politics and progress in general, including developments in new-fangled sciences. There was a market for such literary productions and enterprising Greeks scholars were already cashing in on it. Of course, ancient world scholars in general are shown to be ‘not overly trusted’ when it comes to documenting the truth, by their modern-day counterparts, the modern-day scholars. This blanket suspicion may perhaps have something to do with the superior technology available today and the empowering conceit it seems to bestow. Ancient world scholars, poor valiant souls, could not help but be tainted by the shadowy beliefs of their times. Often they inadvertently borrow from the untenable pages of mythology and prevalent beliefs, to supplement their histories, never even suspecting for a moment that this simple act constitutes the ultimate faux pas in the eyes of their modern-day counterparts. Even the sciences during their times, were in their infancy. Geography for example, was barely complete and most
of these gentlemen stumbled about with the grand notion that the world was, well, flat. The bottom line is, modern-day scholars, view with suspicion—perhaps unfairly so—everything that ancient world secular scholars have to say. Historians especially were thought to be gullible fools who spruced up their history to satisfy the tyrannical rulers of their times. Even so, ancient world secular scholars are a rich textual source of historic information and if cautiously used, ought to be able to deliver a recognizable framework of Levantine geography, with which we can compare the reconstructed one.
Herodotus
One such an ancient world secular scholar is Herodotus. The Greek historian Herodotus (484 BC - 425 BC) was born in Halicarnassus, now in Turkey. Exiled from Halicarnassus for conspiring against Persian rule, this maverick scholar traveled throughout Asia Minor, Babylonia, Egypt and Greece and accumulated valuable firsthand knowledge of virtually the entire Ancient Near East. This serves as the foundation of his epic work entitled ‘The History of Herodotus.’ Herodotus eventually went to Athens, the centre and focus of culture in the Greek world and there his weighty tome won him the admiration of the most illustrious men of Greece, including the great Athenian political leader Pericles and his consort, the able Aspasia. Indeed, his contribution to history won him the appellation ‘father of history.’ In later years, Herodotus moved to Thurii in southern Italy and devoted the remainder of his days in refining his work.
Not all is well with Herodotus today though. There was a time when he reigned supreme, when his documentation on Egypt was pretty much all the knowledge we had of this ancient land. All that changed once archaeologists stumbled upon the ruins of Egypt and began to draw their own picture of Egypt through the vast archives recorded in hieroglyphics, carved profusely on the walls and preserved in pristine condition by the dry desert air. Naturally, the deciphering of these archives did not happen overnight. But when it finally did in 1822, thanks to the efforts of a Frenchman named Jean Francois Champollion, and scholars were able to literally read the hieroglyphics off the walls, a very curious fact came to light. Herodotus and his hugely popular ‘The History of Herodotus,’ which until that point was praised to no end for the author’s keen sense of observation and high fidelity, begged to differ. It soon became apparent that Herodotus’ Egypt seemed radically different from that of the modern-day Egyptologists.
Herodotus presents information about ancient Egypt that is disquieting to say the least. He differs in a number of crucial topographical and political details; indeed his version of ancient Egypt is radically different from the accepted archaeologically resurrected version. If that was not blasphemous enough, he goes on to systematically and scientifically anchor his version with a number of recognizable landmarks. To complicate matters, Herodotus is positively earnest and his documentation sounds annoyingly transparent. Nor indeed can one peremptorily dismiss his credentials. During his days, he was welcomed into the folds of the powerful and elite Greek academia that orbited around Aspasia, thanks to this very same production, his ‘The History of Herodotus,’ his life’s work. What is more, Egypt needed no rediscovering. It was very much around and still at the center of world attention. Thus, Herodotus’ description of Egypt cannot have differed from the real thing even by a hair’s breadth.
Now ordinarily, while reconstructing a region from potshards and such like, a marked disagreement with an ancient world textual source ought to have set off all sorts of alarm bells ringing. Ancient world sources, some of them at least, had literally walked down the streets of the kingdom they so painstakingly describe. It would be very unwise therefore for reconstruction scholars to ignore discordance with ancient world textual sources. However, ‘who needs inept ancient world historians’ was the prevailing mood. And, going by the modern fare, all glossily presented, with only niggling ‘what they (mummies) had for lunch’ questions continuing to engage native Egyptologists, Herodotus’ documentation does come across as the prattle of a blundering tourist, amateurishly capturing quaint tales and idiosyncratic anecdotes, in an geographical scenario that was pathetically quixotic. Today, the sad fact is that modern scholars cannot mention Herodotus’ name without a show of annoyance.
Even so, Herodotus continues to humbly serve. Indeed, he serves as an excellent doormat if you please. His anecdotes that exude an ancient world charm are generously used to set the mood for handsomely bound coffee table publications on Egypt by modern-day ‘no-nonsense’ scholars. His ‘thesis’ on embalming, considered the pièce de résistance, is morbidly fascinating and has unfailingly added that borrowed sparkle to many a vapid modern-day publication.
Also, haunted by the daunting prospect of marketing their indescribably drab productions, starchy modern scholars are beginning to come around to Herodotus’ ways. Who will sit late into the night pouring over their work if it were not spiced up a little? A thunderous battle here, a spill of blood and gore there, the titillating flash of bare breasts, stories of flying serpents and gold digging ants and other colorful tales as Herodotus had expertly used to spice up his history, they realize, is perhaps the way to go after all.
Like the scarab beetle of Egyptian fame, Herodotus appears to have gotten right under the skin of the modern-day scholars. They appear not to know whether to love him or hate him. His annoying transparency and detailed documentation makes it difficult for them to call his bluff and effectively quarantine him.
It is this very quality that caught my attention. The fact that Herodotus digs in his heels and stoically begs to differ with modern scholars, puts him in league with the Bible, the other ancient world secular textual source, that modern-day scholars are having a spot of trouble in swallowing whole. It is also interesting to note that both these sources seem transparent, and their only sin seems to be to innocently reveal a markedly different picture of the Levant region.
Now, two ancient world witnesses reporting significantly different pictures of the Levant would still not accomplish anything. But what if they were to concurrently report a noticeably different picture of the Levant? What if they delivered a remarkably similar, ‘landmark for landmark’ tallied picture of the Levant (or at least the core biblical arena) that is markedly different from the current reconstructed scenario? Then we would most certainly have a rock solid case. Indeed, the beauty of corroboration is, it is scientifically impossible for two independent ancient world secular sources that have not proliferated from each other, and are separated by time and space, to deliver a concurrent scenario, unless and until both reverently present the truth. Let us see therefore if the Bible, in conjunction with secular ancient world historians, can deliver a concurrent picture of the Levant.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Copyright © 1998 by James Natchurivalapil Rappai. All rights reserved. James Natchurivalapil Rappai (also known as James Rappai or N. R. James) has asserted his rights under the Indian and International Intellectual Property Rights (Copyright & Related Rights and Industrial Property Rights including patents) to be identified as the author, discoverer, and creator of this body of work. The material contained in this website, including the text, including the reinterpretation of ancient texts, all of which has also been codified into diagrams, maps, charts, tables, diagrams, & photographs and altogether gives this work its uniqueness of expression, cannot be copied, communicated, transmitted, reproduced, adapted, translated or cinematographically reproduced, in part or in full, or in a reconstituted manner. Any manner of infringement will swiftly and legally be dealt with to the full extent of the law.