User:Creationist/Herodotus

Herodotus or Pseudo-Herodotus?

When Heinrich Brugsch wrote his Egypt Under the Pharaohs in the late 19th century he restricted his comments on dynasties 26 through 30 to a few pages. The editors explain:

With the Twenty-fifth Dynasty Dr. Brugsch's history practically ends, for it was his special object to write the story of the kingdom of Ancient Egypt from the evidence of the monuments alone. At this point their information becomes but very scanty, while in the fragments of Manetho and among the Greek and Roman authors there is to be found an abundance of material which, even if some of it must be accepted with caution, furnishes us with ample means for laying down the broad outlines of the history of Egypt from the Twenty-sixth Dynasty until its close."[6] At the outset of the 26th dynasty inscriptional evidence practically ceases and we are dependent for history on Greek and Roman historians writing decades or centuries after the fact. There is no great surprise that the production of monuments all but ceased. The exile marked the end of an artistic tradition stretching backward a thousand years. The artisans were gone, their skills employed in the service of Babylon, then Persia. Only a few survived the invasion. The fact that Psamtik I ruled Egypt for 53 years, yet erected not a single building and inscribed but a handful of monuments, speaks volumes. But what of the Greek and Roman historians? Are they reliable? The question applies particularly to Herodotus.

Secular History Based on Herodotus

The traditional history of the Saite dynasty is derived almost entirely from Herodotus. But the history which emerges is heavily edited. Herodotus makes factual statements; modern historians adapt those facts to an assumed 7th/6th century context. Change the context and the facts would be interpreted differently. There is nothing in Herodotus, apart from his description of the Persian invasion which brought the Saite dynasty to a close, which places it unequivocally in the 7th/6th centuries. Herodotus is ignorant of any connection between Psamtik I and the Assyrians. He knows nothing of Necho's wars with Nabopolassar nor of Nebuchadrezzar's conflicts with Egypt. The Babylonian invasion and the exile which followed are not mentioned. When the details of Herodotus' Saite history are examined later in this book, in the respective chapters dealing with the Saite kings, we will see that almost everything the Greek historian says suits the Persian context into which we have moved the dynasty. There is but a single exception, namely, the military conflict between Cambyses and the Saite kings Amasis and Psamtik III which terminated the 26th dynasty and initiated foreign rule in Egypt. To set this incident in context and to introduce a secondary problem created by the revised chronology itself, we digress for a moment to look at the structure of Herodotus' Histories.

The Histories of Herodotus

The Histories of Herodotus was originally an oral discourse, delivered in open forums as entertainment for Greek speaking audiences in and around Athens. Like most oral tradition it grew over time, as anecdotes and historical information were accumulated in the author's travels. Only later was it put into written form.

The existing written version is divided into seven divisions or "books" which are themselves subdivided into sections for reference purposes. Much of Book II - which deals exclusively with Egypt - is not, strictly speaking, historical in nature. The first 34 sections are concerned with geography; sections 35-98 with matters of custom and religion. The historical discussion proper is confined to the final sections 99-182. This historical material can be further divided into two parts - those sections describing Egyptian history before the Saite period (99-146) and those which focus exclusively on the Saite dynasty (147-182). We will consistently refer to the latter as the "Saite History" of Herodotus. It is important to note that there is no fundamental disagreement between the current revision and this Saite history.

The conflict is confined to the initial sections of chapter three (III:1-30) where Herodotus describes in great detail the expedition of Cambyses against Egypt. The function of this "Cambyses Expedition Story" in the overall narrative needs to be clarified.

In the final sections of chapter one Herodotus documents the death of Cyrus and the ascendancy of Cambyses. The few verses which begin chapter two introduce a lengthy Egyptian digression:

After the death of Cyrus Cambyses inherited his throne. He was the son of Cyrus and Cassandane daughter of Pharnaspes, for whom, when she died before him, Cyrus himself mourned deeply and bade all his subjects mourn also. Cambyses was the son of this woman and Cyrus. He considered the Ionians and Aeoloians as slaves inherited from his father, and prepared an expedition against Egypt, taking with him, with others subject to him, some of the Greeks over whom he held sway. (Her. II.1) Abruptly at this point Herodotus begins talking about Psammetichus. "Now before Psammetichus became king of Egypt, the Egyptians deemed themselves to be the oldest nation on earth." (Her. II.2) There follows the Egyptian discourse which ends with the "Saite History". Chapter three resumes the tale of the Cambyses expedition to Egypt, describing it in great detail. This "Cambyses Expedition Story" functions both as an ending to the Saite history of chapter two, and as a bridge bringing the narrative back to the Persian history. In the final chapter of this revision we will explain the origins of the Cambyses narrative. The intent here is to discuss its authorship.

Authorship of Herodotus II & III:1-30

We have registered the complaint that Herodotus is almost singularly responsible for the belief that Amasis and his son Psamtik III were contemporaries of Cambyses. On that account alone we would have argued with the content of the Cambyses expedition narrative. But the careful reader will recognize by now that we also have a fundamental problem with the Saite history of chapter two - not with its content, but with its authorship. The problem is created by the revised chronology. With the removal of Amasis to the end of the fifth century the critic will be quick to complain. How is it possible for Herodotus, who presumably died before the end of the 5th century (ca. 425 B.C), and who supposedly derived his information while visiting Egypt two decades earlier (ca. 450 B.C.) to describe in chapter 2 the prosperous reign of Amasis which only began in 449 B.C. and did not end until 405 B.C. The question applies equally to the Cambyses narrative in chapter 3 which describes the death of both Amasis and Psamtik III. Neither the Saite History nor the Cambyses narrative could have been authored by Herodotus unless he lived and wrote this portion of his history after the deaths of Amasis and Psamtik III, i.e. after 404 B.C.

In truth we have only one problem with a common solution. Both the difficulty with the content of the Cambyses expedition story and the alleged anachronism in the Saite history require much the same solution, namely, the assumption that the whole of Herodotus II and the early sections of Herodotus III are not the work of the 5th century historian. In fact, we argue that the entire treatment of Egyptian geography, culture, and history in Herodotus II was the creation of some later author, a pseudo-Herodotus, who inserted his work into the existing dialogue of Herodotus, supplying the Cambyses material by way of blending this material with the existing Persian history. We will not attempt to identify this author, nor the specific time when the alleged pseudepigraph was written, though it clearly antedates Diodorus Siculus, the 1st century B.C. Roman historian who refers to several of the Egyptian sections and attributes them to Herodotus. The intrusive Egyptian material dates probably to the middle of the Seleucid era. Beyond that we cannot say.

While we cannot identify the pseudo-Herodotus, we can argue for his existence. The arguments have been known for well over a century.

The Uniqueness of Herodotus II

The whole of chapter two of Herodotus differs markedly in tone and construction from the balance of the Histories. Its uniqueness has been the subject of much discussion. A. Bauer in his Die Entstehung des Herodotischen Geschichtswerkes (1878) argued the thesis that it was written last, late in the life of Herodotus, basing his belief in part on its distinctly anti-Hellenic tone. W.W. How and J. Wells dedicated a section of their classic Commentary on Herodotus to this "Peculiar tone of Book II" in which they discuss Bauer's thesis, adding their own observations:

But if the tone of Bk. II is really different from that of the rest of H(erodotus)'s work, this fact may well be connected with another obvious difficulty as to it. It is hard to conceive an author possessed of the literary skill and sense of form which H(erodotus) undoubtedly had, deliberately composing it in its present place or its present scale (italics mine). If, on the other hand, we suppose that it was written by itself when the rest of the history was practically finished, and then introduced into its present place later, both the difference of tone and the difference of scale explain themselves. It seems not unlikely, therefore, that Bk. II is the latest part of the work of H." [7] When we suggest that some later author incorporated chapter two into an existing history we are not introducing any novel thesis. Bauer's claim that the Egyptian material is different in tone from the earlier Herodotus can be construed as an argument that its author was not Herodotus. And it is a very small step from arguing with Bauer, How, and Wells that the Egyptian material was inserted late by Herodotus to arguing that it was inserted late by someone else. As we have already noted, this insertion of newly created material into an existing work is standard procedure in early oral tradition. Historical works such as Herodotus, and Hecataeus, on whom Herodotus depended for much of his information, were not composed in a single sitting. They grew over time as refinements were made to existing works. It is not known when the entire discourse of Herodotus achieved its final form and was put into writing. The assumption is made that its final editing antedated Herodotus' death around 430 B.C. and that the text as presently received is essentially what Herodotus wrote. But there is no evidence that this was the case. Many oral traditions are not put into writing in the author’s lifetime. Many pass for centuries before being committed to writing. And bogus additions to the works of famous authors are commonplace.[8]

When was Herodotus written and what was the original content of the Histories? The earliest extant written manuscripts of the text are from the 9th to 11th centuries A.D., fifteen centuries after the death of the alleged author. The possibility certainly exists that the Saite history in chapter two and the early sections of chapter three were not part of the original oral tradition or the first written text. Peudepigraphic works abound in the ancient world, especially in the first four centuries B.C. All we know for certain is that a history of Herodotus was known to Ctesias and Thucidydes early in the 4th century B.C. They are both highly critical of its contents. Neither appears to be aware of the second book. Ctesias has a different version of the arrival of Cambyses which includes no mention of Amasis or Psamtik. His version of events, discussed later in this book, has not received due attention.

Chapter 2 of Herodotus is arguably late and intrusive. We need do no more than rest on the authority of How & Wells, whose influential commentary has not been superceded after more than a century. The only debatable point is whether the intrusive material was composed by Herodotus in the 5th century or the later pseudo-Herodotus in the 3rd or 2nd centuries. The chapter 3 Cambyses story is also late, and results from a confusion to be detailed in chapter 11. We argue therefore that the entirety of II:1-III:30 is the product of a later editing of the text by a secondary author. Further discussion on the nature of this late redaction is beyond the bounds of the present revision. We might expect, however, that a different author would reveal his presence otherwise than by changes of style and content. That is, in fact, the case.

The Character of the Pseudo-Herodotus

The 5th century Greek historian has received bad press. Herodotus was early criticized by his near contemporaries Thucydides and Ktesias as being more concerned with storytelling than with strict accuracy. "Herodotus was one among many who had more of story and song about them than truth, a storyteller whose main object was to entertain and profit therefrom".[9] But in spite of the criticism, there is little evidence in the Histories that Herodotus was deliberately fraudulent. He might be mistaken in his facts, but he did not misrepresent himself. That is, except in the Egyptian narrative. Reading any article critical of Herodotus one is immediately struck by the fact that the criticisms are almost entirely concerned with chapters two and the beginning of chapter three.

A recent article has revived the debate which has raged for the past two centuries concerning the integrity of Herodotus vis-a-vis his discussion of things Egyptian. The object of contention is Herodotus' claim to have derived his material first hand from his travels through Egypt:

At the turn of the century (20th century), the face value of Herodotus' travel in Egypt was much in doubt. If Aelius Aristides (2nd cent. A.D.) believed that Herodotus never reached Elephantine, Gardner Wilkinson had the same kind of doubts in the 19th century. A.H. Sayce believed that Herodotus never got as far as Upper Egypt, and he came to doubt that Herodotus went to Egypt at all. By the end of the century F. Ll. Griffith had cut the knot and decided that it did not matter where he went. Of Herodotus' Egypt Griffith wrote, in 1899, that "If occasionally his descriptions are truthful, they present so marked a contrast to the general standard of his history that one is disposed to credit them to other vision than his." [10] Griffith's frustration with Herodotus was well founded, but misdirected. His quarrel was with the author of the Egyptian material, whom we identify as an impostor. . The problem with Herodotus' statements about Egypt is not so much with their accuracy as with his integrity, though the two cannot easily be separated. The author of chapter 2 claims to have been to Egypt and to be recording his own observations. But a strong case can be made that he had never even visited the country. He mistakenly describes the Egyptians as black skinned, wooly-haired and circumcised. He claims to have confirmed these personal observations from conversations from the Colchians, supposed kinfolk of the Egyptians. Both claims have been called into question recently by O.K.Armayor, who concludes after a lengthy analysis that Herodotus (our pseudo-Herodotus) is not just a gullible and unreliable witness; he is a liar. This is particularly so when Herodotus claims to be informed on Egyptian matters by Egyptian priests.

We come, therefore, to Herodotus' Egyptian priests. Apart from his own experience, Herodotus claims that most of his knowledge of Egypt came from them. But could Herodotus ever really have been admitted to extensive converse with learned Egyptian priests of Memphis, Thebes, Heliopolis, and Sais (ii. 2f., 28)? [11] Herodotus acknowledges the fact that Egyptians detested Greeks, "yet Herodotus tells us that the priests counseled and tutored him on Egyptian mores and history, and even on Egyptian religion." And how, Armayor goes on to ask, does the Greek speaking Herodotus engage in length conversation with these native Egyptians: "Perhaps we should also remember the matter of interpreters. Herodotus did not talk to native Egyptian priests without them, and yet he does not mention either interpreters themselves in this connection, or the lack of a need for them."[12] Alan Lloyd in his classic treatment of Herodotus Book II (1975), produces a lengthy list of problematic features of the Egyptian history. While remaining positive regarding the reliability of book two he does observe that "from the historical point of view some things in Herodotus' account are profoundly disturbing." [13] Additionally Lloyd refers to a more negative appraisal by Heidel a half-century earlier: Herodotus' account of Egyptian history, in Heidel's view, cannot possibly derive from Egyptian priests. It is a garbled rehash of what Hecataeus had derived from them and whenever Herodotus mentions hiereus [priests] as sources he means his predecessor. In other words, Herodotus is a barefaced liar! [14] The conclusion reached by Armayor was essentially that reached by Heidel in 1935 and by A.H. Sayce at the turn of the twentieth century. The author of the Egyptian material lied about his travels to Egypt. What conclusions shall we draw? Herodotus may indeed have gone to Egypt, but his narrative bears little or no relation to whatever his travels may have been on the basis of archaeological evidence now in hand. As Griffith put it in 1899, it is the frequent absence of even superficial knowledge that tries our belief in the veracity of Herodotus.[15] The problem which bothered these critics is not just what Herodotus said about Egyptian blacks and priests, nor his complete misrepresentation of the backwardness of the country. It was a combination of things he said which any casual visitor to Egypt would know to be false and of things he did not say which the same visitor would very likely have considered worth mentioning: Herodotus says nothing of the monuments of Thebes, nothing of Abydos, nothing of the Sphinx, even though it was probably visible, according to Gardiner and Blackman among others, nothing of Egyptian pyramids other than those of Gizeh, nothing of the changes of color in the Nile, nothing of Naucratis' relation to the Nile or the sea or the canals (ii. 97, 178 f.), nothing of the looks of a single Egyptian temple. Herodotus believes that it never rained anywhere in Egypt (iii. 10.3; ii. 7.1, 14.1, 25.3-5), that the seasons never changed in Egypt (ii. 77.2-3), that there were no breezes on the Nile (ii. 19.3, 27), that there was not any native Egyptian wine nor any kind of wine-jars in Egypt (ii. 77i.4, iii. 6), that all the Egyptians drank from brazen cups and never grew beans or the vine (ii. 37.1f, 77. 4), that all the dead cattle of Egypt were buried in Prosopitis (ii. 41,4-6), that Egyptian canals were for drinking water rather than navigation even though he is interested in navigation-canals elsewhere (ii. 108.2ff, i.193.2). The complaint continues. Herodotus purports to have gone to Elephantine, but he does not know that it was an island and he believes that the Nile gushed both north and south from between two peaked mountains between Elphantine and Syene, where there is nothing but a channel fo the river about 150 yards wide (ii.28). And even after travelling the whole length of upper Egypt he remains convinced that Egypt was shaped like a double-axe (iij.8) Herodotus purports to have seen a vast, symmetrical Labyrinth of two storeys and twelve courts and 3,000 chambers and a 40-fathom pyramid at the corner, a Labyrinth greater than the pyramids, with buried kings and sacred crocodiles and priestly warders, and he claims that he himself toured the 1,500-chamber upper storey of it. Herodotus purports to have found this Labyrinth on the shores of a great and deep, man-made, north-south, Memphis-Thebes lake in a desert country seven days up the Nile from the sea, with a perimeter of 3,600 stades that is equal to the whole Egyptian seaboard, and with two hundred-fathom pyramids in the middle and colossi on top of them, connected with the Libyan Syrtis through an underground extension to the west according to the natives, and flowing to and from the Nile six months at a time through a tax-collector's dream of a fish-canal. Herodotus could not find the earth taken from the digging of this lake, however much he look for it (ii.148-150). And he tells almost nothing of contemporary fifth century Egypt. [16]. The existence of this Labyrinth in the 5th century B.C. is unlikely, to say the least. There is no certain reference to it in any Egyptian inscription from the first millenium B.C. The conclusion follows that "if we cannot believe that he (Herodotus) saw the Egypt and Egyptians that he talks about, then how do we know that he went to Egypt at all?" In fact, argues Armayor, "Herodotus' evidence and authority on Egypt need re-thinking.... .It is difficult to imagine a literary genius of wide and varied Greek learning confused enought to set down in full earnest the impressions of Egypt that we find here."[17] The reputation of Herodotus need to be rescued. The criticisms directed toward the Egyptian sections should not be reflective on the character of the 5th century Herodotus. He was not their author. Part of the re-thinking suggested by Armayor needs to focus on the question of the authenticity of Herodotus book II.

http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Herodotus.htm

taken from: http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t3674.html