“Classical” Historians—How Dependable?

HISTORIANS of ancient Greece and Rome are heavily relied on by modern historians to fill gaps or confirm certain data in the history of the ancient world. Those “classical” authorities, some scholars feel, offer a more dependable basis for chronology than does the information found in the Bible. For this reason, it is of interest to consider those early sources of history. How accurate, how dependable are they?

Since late in the eighteenth century of our Common Era, institutions of “higher learning” have given a great deal of attention to the writings of these “classical” historians—men such as Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Plutarch and others. Generations of students have been taught to prefer the historical testimony of such ancient writers, where the testimony differs from that of the Holy Scriptures. And this despite the fact that a multitude of these students profess to be Christian.

Is there not, then, added reason to scrutinize those secular sources? We should be interested, not only in their general worth, but also in the motives that may have prompted them to write, and in determining whether they were consistently accurate as to the facts and dates they set down. Were these men striving after accuracy and truth? Or, were some writing mainly to acquire fame or simply to entertain?

ACCURACY OR POPULARITY?

The name of Herodotus, Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E., comes to attention first. He has been called “the father of history,” and doubtless he did start a new trend relative to the recording of history when he undertook his project—one that revealed a vivid imagination and broad scope of thought. As a storyteller he excels. Researchers of today, however, are somewhat disturbed about certain features of his work. “A large number of inaccuracies are found in his reports,” according to Professor A. W. Ahl, in his Outline of Persian History, page 15.

Here is a pertinent reference from The Encyclopædia Britannica (1946 edition, Volume 10, page 772): “The chief defects of Herodotus are his failure to grasp the principles of historical criticism, to understand the nature of military operations, and to appreciate the importance of chronology. . . . most serious of all his deficiencies is his careless chronology. Even for the fifth century [his own era], the data which he affords are inadequate or ambiguous.”

In all justice it must be said that historians are indebted to Herodotus for passing on a vast amount of facts and dates, some of them, as far as can be checked, quite accurate. However, there is no reason to accept all of his data as infallibly true.

Xenophon was another Greek chronicler who had grow to manhood by the close of that same fifth century B.C.E. His Cyropaedia has been called “a political and philosophical romance.” Scholars point out that in its writing Xenophon “had little or nothing to build upon except the floating stories and traditions of the East that had gathered round the figure of the great Persian hero-king [Cyrus the younger].” It is also claimed that “a distinct moral purpose, to which literal truth is sacrificed, runs through the work.”¹

In his Hellenica, or Greek history, it is charged, Xenophon displayed “unmistakable traces of a pettiness of mind and narrowness of view very far below the dignity of an historian.” It is also claimed that “there are certainly serious omissions and defects in the work, which greatly detract from its value.”—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 24, page 721.

There can be no doubt, on the other hand, that Xenophon’s works had their excellencies also. “His description of places and of relative distances is very minute and painstaking. The researches of modern travellers attest his general accuracy.”² However, geographical accuracy alone is surely no reason for elevating his writings to a position rivaling the Bible when it comes to matters of chronological history.

Historian Ctesias also lived in the fifth century B.C.E. His outstanding work, Persica, professes to be a history of Persia drawn from data in the royal archives of Persia. In his Seven Great Monarchies (Volume 2, page 85) George Rawlinson accuses Ctesias of deliberately extending the period of the Median monarchy “by the conscious use of a system of duplication. . . . Each king, or period, in Herodotus occurs in the list of Ctesias twice—a transparent device, clumsily cloaked by the cheap expedient of a liberal invention of names.” The testimony of Ctesias is also opposed by the priest-historian Berossus, the philosopher Aristotle (4th century B.C.E.), and by recently discovered cuneiform inscriptions.³

How dependable, then, were those early historians? Not so accurate and trustworthy that their data should go unchecked against other reliable facts. The Encyclopædia Britannica (11th edition, Volume 26, page 894), speaking about Thucydides, Greek historian of that same fifth century B.C.E., notes that “the vice of the chroniclers, in his view, is that they cared only for popularity, and took no pains to make their narrative trustworthy.” We can, however, allow for the possibility that Thucydides might have been somewhat severe in his appraisal.

THUCYDIDES AN EXCEPTION

Thucydides himself is widely regarded as somewhat of an exception to the rule of inaccuracy and carelessness among the “classical” historians. Says The Encyclopædia Britannica: “Thucydides stands alone among the men of his own days, . . . in the width of mental grasp which could seize the general significance of particular events . . . In contrast with [his] predecessors Thucydides has subjected his material to the most searching scrutiny.”⁴ And The Encyclopedia Americana (1956 edition, Volume 26, page 596) offers this: “As a historian Thucydides holds the foremost place. He was painstaking and indefatigable in collecting and sifting facts, brief and terse in narrating them. His style is full of dignity and replete with condensed meaning.”

Thucydides, for example, had recorded that the Greek general Themistocles fled to Persia when Artaxerxes Longimanus had but “lately come to the throne.” (See Thucydides, Book I, Chapter 137.) Most other historians say that it was during the reign of Artaxerxes’ father, Xerxes I, that this flight took place. On this point the Roman historian Nepos (1st century B.C.E.) declared: “I give credence to Thucydides in preference to others, because he, of all who have left records of that period, was nearest in point of time to Themistocles, and was of the same city.”—Themistocles, Chapter 9.

Though most reference works today give 465 B.C.E. as the year of Artaxerxes’ accession to the throne of Persia, there is strong reason to believe that this is an error. Diodorus Siculus, Greek historian of the first century B.C.E., gives the date of Themistocles’ death in Asia Minor as 471 B.C.E., and there is reason to believe that his flight took place at least two years prior thereto, or in 473 B.C.E. According to Thucydides, this was when Artaxerxes had “lately come to the throne.” So it is quite likely that Artaxerxes’ accession was sometime in the year 474 B.C.E.

And how does Artaxerxes’ reign concern the Bible student? Well, the Bible record at Nehemiah 2:1-8 states that it was in that monarch’s twentieth year that he issued a decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Then, God’s prophet Daniel was informed that from the time of Artaxerxes’ decree to the appearance of the promised Messiah would be a period of ‘sixty-nine weeks of years’ or 483 years. (Dan. 9:25) So, did the facts of history vindicate the Bible count of time?

The twentieth year from 474 B.C.E. began in 455 B.C.E. Counting 483 years from this latter date, we reach the year 29 of our Common Era, the year of Jesus’ baptism, on which occasion he received the heavenly acknowledgment of his Messiahship. As the disciple Luke recorded: “Jesus also was baptized and, as he was praying, the heaven was opened up and the holy spirit in bodily shape like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’”—Luke 3:21-23.a

It may be noted, then, that of those “classical” historians of the fifth century B.C.E. the only one that is highly recommended for his sifting of the facts and accuracy of statement offers testimony that supports rather than challenges the Bible chronology.

LATER HISTORIANS

But what about the later historians of the Greeks and the Romans? Do they supply chronology that is sufficiently exact that it poses a serious challenge to the Bible’s record? Among them we may consider Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.). Of the original forty books of his history, only fifteen have come down to us. Five of these deal with the mythic history of Egypt, Assyria, Ethiopia and Greece, and the remainder chronicle the second Persian war and extend to the time of Alexander the Great’s successors. It is said of Diodorus that “he has been at little pains to sift his materials, and hence frequent repetitions and contradictions may be found in the body of the work. . . . In the chronology of the strictly historical period he is occasionally inaccurate.”—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 7, page 245.

Then there is Plutarch (c. 46-c. 120 C.E.). “Much has been said of Plutarch’s inaccuracy; and it cannot be denied that he is careless about numbers and occasionally contradicts his own statements.” (Plutarch’s Lives, Introduction, by translator and reviser A. H. Clough, page xviii) He wrote about Themistocles and his times, as well as about other distinguished Greeks and Romans.

As to Livy, a Roman historian who died in the year 17 C.E., it appears that most of his historical works have come down to us only in quotations and epitomes by later writers. Says W. Lucas Collins, M.A., one of his translators: “Unhappily, the lost portion, as containing the later and more authentic history of the Roman people, and more especially of the period with which the writer was contemporaneous, is what we should have most wished to see.” As was customary in his time, Livy introduced into his narration the then-existing traditions.

These first-century historians, we must remember, had to depend upon earlier sources for data relating to the period of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian monarchies. Some of those sources, we have already learned, were marred by carelessness and chronological inaccuracies. And besides, the process of copying from ancient records introduces additional uncertainty.

It follows, therefore, that the later “classical” historians can produce no stronger case against the Bible count of time than their predecessors of the fifth century B.C.E. Indeed, few of those “classical” writers, early or late, displayed any great concern about accuracy in keeping records of time. They afford modern readers a wealth of information on events, customs and philosophies of their times—valuable background information. For the most part, however, they seem to have paid minor attention to accurate dating.

REFERENCES

¹ The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, Volume 28, page 886.

² Ibid., 9th edition, Volume 24, page 721.

³ Ibid., 9th edition, Volume 6, page 599.

⁴ Ibid., 11th edition, Volume 26, page 894.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 220]

HERODOTUS

THUCYDIDES

XENOPHON