Ancient World Review

The Malleus Maleficarum

"The Malleus Maleficarum (Latin for 'The Hammer of Witches', or 'Hexenhammer' in German) is one of the most famous medieval treatises on witches. It was written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, and was first published in Germany in 1487. Its main purpose was to challenge all arguments against the existence of witchcraft and to instruct magistrates on how to identify, interrogate and convict witches." Source: The Malleus Maleficarum.

"Some modern scholars believe that Jacob Sprenger contributed little if anything to the work besides his name, but the evidence to support this is weak. Both men were members of the Dominican Order and Inquisitors for the Catholic Church. They submitted the Malleus Maleficarum to the University of Cologne’s Faculty of Theology on May 9, 1487, seeking its endorsement."

According to some sources I've seen, the Malleus Maleficarum was banned by the church, but apparently this wasn't the case:

"While general consensus is that The Catholic Church banned the book in 1490 by placing it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum ('List of Prohibited Books'), the first Index was, in fact, produced in 1559 under the direction of Pope Paul IV. Therefore such claims are dubious, at best." (Ibid)

According to Wikipedia, "The Malleus recommended not only torture but also deception in order to obtain confessions: 'And when the implements of torture have been prepared, the judge, both in person and through other good men zealous in the faith, tries to persuade the prisoner to confess the truth freely; but, if he will not confess, he bid attendants make the prisoner fast to the strappado [see note below] or some other implement of torture. The attendants obey forthwith, yet with feigned agitation. Then, at the prayer of some of those present, the prisoner is loosed again and is taken aside and once more persuaded to confess, being led to believe that he will in that case not be put to death."

Note: Weirdly enough, the strappado (modified to prevent dislocations) has become a popular form of sexual bondage. There are lots of videos of the practice out there in case you're interested.

Comment: The Malleus Maleficarum has been called one of the most evil books of all time, but I'd love to have a copy of one of the early editions. These old books are beautiful and they're worth a fair amount of money.

Video from Jan. 2020.

The Malleus Maleficarum is obsolete, of course. These days we don't need a manual on how to identify witches, force them to confess and then execute them because modern witches freely confess their blasphemies on the internet and most of them aren't worth hanging. Not for witchcraft, anyway. I can think of other reasons to string them up, however.

Book Review -- Ancient Rome: The Autobiography

Ancient Rome:The Autobiography, edited by Jon E. Lewis, is a fantastic collection of official reports, personal letters, inscriptions, graffiti, memoirs, speeches, poetry and historical writings that cover the history of Rome from the early days of the kings to the collapse of the western empire.  An epilogue contains some material from the eastern empire and a long extract from The Second Speech Of Marcus Tullius Cicero Against Marc Antony is included in an appendix.

The book has a little bit of everything "...from the writings of Caesars, slaves, generals, and poets, on everything from major battles, conspiracies, and politics to the minutiae of everyday life." Shorter pieces like inscriptions and graffiti are given complete, but much of the anthology consists of excerpts from longer works. The collection doesn't just focus on Roman writers, but includes material from all over the Roman world.

The Autobiography is divided into three main sections covering the Rise, the Empire and the Fall.

Part One -- Rise: Rome 753 BC - 31 BC -- starts with Plutarch's description of the ordination of the vestal virgins by King Numa in 680 BC and ends with Horace's description of Octavian's victory at Actium in 31 BC.

This section covers a wide range of subjects including Polybius' account of the Punic Wars, Cato the Elder's advice on how to keep a slave, an example of election graffiti from Pompeii, a reward notice for the return of runaway slaves and Cicero's descriptions of piracy in Sicily, jury corruption and election bribery in Rome and what it was like to have dinner with Caesar. One entertaining excerpt is from a letter that Marc Antony wrote to Octavian, who was complaining because Antony was getting it on with Cleopatra while he was married to Octavian's sister, Octavia:

"To Octavianus Augustus: What's upset you? Because I go to bed with Cleopatra? But she's my wife and I've been doing so for nine years, not just recently. And, anyway, is Livia [Octavian's wife] your only pleasure? I expect that you will have managed, by the time you read this, to have hopped into bed with Tertulla, Terentilla, Rufilla, Salvia Titisenia, or the whole lot of them. Does it really matter where, or with what women, you get your excitement?"

Part Two -- Empire: Rome 30 BC-AD 180 -- starts with The Deeds of  the Divine Augustus, in which Augustus (Octavian) brags about all his accomplishments, and ends with Avidius Cassius' account of an insurrectionist plot by the governor of Syria in 175 AD. This section is full of fascinating material: a letter from Augustus to Tiberius describing his luck at gambling; Philo's description of a personal audience with Caligula and a juicy story by the poet Juvenal (my favorite Roman poet) about the way Claudius' third wife, Messalina, liked to prostitute herself in the streets like a common whore. Other excerpts from Juvenal describe female athletes and gladiators, and the "hot, overcrowded, venal, class-ridden" city of Rome.

Part Three -- Fall: Rome AD 181-476 -- describes the final years of corruption, war, riots and invasion. It starts with Herodian's account of how a disgraced former consul, Didius Julianus, bought the Roman empire at auction and ends with a sycophantic piece by Sidonius called "The Magnificence Of The Barbarian Prince Sigismer, Burgundy" (AD 470). As this section progresses, the Visigoths, Huns and Christians start to appear. There are descriptions of gladiatorial games, the conversion of Constantine, mob insurrection, the sack of Rome, and a fascinating account by Priscus of the Court of Attila the Hun.

This is a fantastic book that covers a huge amount of material from original sources. Some of the most interesting material deals with the details of everyday life: the hazards of sea travel, a flute player's contract, window shopping in Rome, recipes, advice on how to bring up children, advertisements for gladiatorial shows, petty crimes, what it was like to live above a Roman bath, and so on. If you're interested in ancient Rome, you should definitely check this out.

Note: "Ancient Rome: The Autobiography" was first published in the UK as "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness Ancient Rome." I somehow ended up with both of these books and as far as I can tell they're identical.

Did Nero Burn Rome? (Updated)

Was Nero the victim of an ancient smear campaign? Of course he was. Just to take one example, the famous story that he set fire to Rome and then played the lyre while watching the city burn is an obvious fabrication.

Here's the Roman historian Suetonius's description of what happened:

"Pretending to be disgusted by the drab old buildings and narrow, winding streets of Rome, he brazenly set fire to the city; and though a group of ex-consuls caught his attendants, armed with tow and blazing torches, trespassing on their property, they dared not interfere. He also coveted the sites of several granaries, solidly built in stone, near the Golden House; having knocked down their walls with siege-engines, he set the interiors ablaze. This terror lasted for six days and seven nights, causing many people to take shelter in monuments and tombs. Nero's men destroyed not only a vast number of apartment blocks, but mansions which had belonged to famous generals and were still decorated with their triumphal trophies; temples, too, vowed and dedicated by the kings, and others during the Punic and Gallic wars -- in fact, every ancient monument of historical interest that had hitherto survived. Nero watched the conflagration from the Tower of Maecenas, enraptured by what he called 'the beauty of the flames'; then put on his tragedian's costume and sang The Sack of Ilium from beginning to end." -- from "Nero", paragraph 38, Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars.

This is an entertaining story, but it's pure fiction. In fact, this account of Nero's crime is so outlandish that it's almost comical.

Just think about it. According to Suetonius and other sources, Nero sent his flunkies out to burn the city because he wanted to clear land to build his Golden Palace, aka the Domus Aurea, a "vast landscaped palace ... in the heart of Rome." (Wikipedia) This would be like an American president sending out his personal staff to burn down the neighborhoods around the White House so he could build a gigantic complex of mansions and pleasure gardens.

Nero's men weren't subtle about their arson, either. If Suetonius is to be believed, they ran completely amok for six days and seven nights, using siege engines to knock down walls and torching apartment blocks and other buildings that were presumably swarming with people. The chaos and panic this would have caused can easily be imagined. That would be bad enough, of course, but Nero also destroyed monuments and tombs and temples and "mansions which had belonged to famous generals."

This wholesale destruction would have attracted some attention, to say the least.

Rome was a big city at the time, but it wasn't that big and Nero's orgy of destruction supposedly went on for an entire week, right out in the open. Everybody would have known what was happening and who was responsible. According to Suetonius, a group of ex-consuls, no less, caught Nero's men setting fires but were afraid to do anything about it. In other words, they knew who the arsonists worked for.

The point is that none of this was a secret. When it was all over, everyone from the patricians in the Roman government to the ordinary plebs on the street would have known that Nero was responsible. He would have been universally condemned, but that isn't what happened:

"The Great Fire of Rome was an urban fire in July of the year AD 64. It caused widespread devastation in the city on 19 July, before being brought under control after six days. Differing accounts [emphasis added] either blame Emperor Nero for initiating the fire or credit him with organizing measures to contain it and provide relief for refugees." Wikipedia.

Why would there be differing accounts of what happened if Suetonius's version of events is correct? Remember, some of Nero's arsonists were supposedly caught in the act. This wasn't a covert operation. If Nero really did order his people to "brazenly" attack and burn his own city, it wasn't exactly deniable.

Nero himself was in Antium when the fire started. According to Wikipedia, "[h]e returned to the city and took measures to bring in food supplies and open gardens and public buildings to accommodate refugees." Curiously, he wasn't lynched on the spot after committing such an atrocity. On the contrary, he was given credit, at least in some sources, for his relief efforts.

Nero, like Caligula, was the victim of an ancient smear campaign, but that doesn't mean he was a particularly good emperor. He wasn't, but even though Rome apparently rejoiced at his death (according to Suetonius), he was still popular with part of the population when he was finally overthrown and murdered during the revolt of Vindex and Galba in 68 AD. Even Seutonius concedes as much:

"...there were people who used to lay spring and summer flowers on his grave for a long time, and had statues made of him, wearing his fringed toga, which they put up on the Rostra; they even continued to circulate his edicts, pretending he was still alive and would soon return to confound his enemies. What is more, King Vologaesus of Parthia, on sending ambassadors to ratify his alliance with Rome, particularly requested the Senate to honor Nero's memory. In fact, twenty years later, when I was a young man, a mysterious individual came forward claiming to be Nero; and so magical was the sound of his name in the Parthians' ears that they supported him to the best of their ability, and only handed him over with great reluctance." -- "Nero," from paragraph 57.

People don't usually put up statues to honor deranged lunatics who attack and burn their own capital cities. For the real story, at least as far as it can be reconstructed, check out The Great Fire of Rome by Stephen Dando-Collins. Highly recommended.

The Timbuktu Manuscripts

Video from 2014.

"Timbuktu Manuscripts ... is a blanket term for the large number of historically important manuscripts that have been preserved for centuries in private households in Timbuktu, Mali [see note below]. The collections include manuscripts about art, medicine, philosophy, and science, as well as copies of the Quran. The number of manuscripts in the collections has been estimated as high as 700,000." (Wikipedia)

^"The manuscripts are written in Arabic and local languages like Songhay and Tamasheq.The dates of the manuscripts range between the late 13th and the early 20th centuries (i.e., from the Islamisation of the Mali Empire until the decline of traditional education in French Sudan). Their subject matter ranges from scholarly works to short letters."

Video from 2018.

Note: Mali is located in northwestern Africa. "Rock paintings and carvings indicate that northern Mali has been inhabited since prehistoric times when the Sahara was fertile grassland. Farming took place by 5000 BC and iron was used around 500 BC. Large settlements began to develop in 300 A.D., including Djenne." (Wikipedia)

Timbuktu, perhaps Mali's most famous ancient city, "started out as a seasonal settlement and became a permanent settlement early in the 12th century. After a shift in trading routes, particularly after the visit by Mansa Musa around 1325, Timbuktu flourished from the trade in salt, gold, ivory, and slaves. It became part of the Mali Empire early in the 14th century. In the first half of the 15th century, the Tuareg tribes took control of the city for a short period until the expanding Songhai Empire absorbed the city in 1468." (Wikipedia)

"In its Golden Age, the town's numerous Islamic scholars and extensive trading network made possible an important book trade: together with the campuses of the Sankore Madrasah, an Islamic university, this established Timbuktu as a scholarly centre in Africa. Several notable historic writers, such as Shabeni and Leo Africanus, wrote about the city. These stories fueled speculation in Europe, where the city's reputation shifted from being extremely rich to being mysterious."

The subsequent history of Timbuktu is too complex and chaotic to describe here, but the basic story is easy enough to understand. The town reached its zenith under the Muslims during the 14th and 15th centuries and then entered a long period of decline. All that remains of its golden age are a complex of ancient buildings and mosques made of earth, fiber, straw and wood -- well preserved by the climate -- and this huge collection of manuscripts.

Its typical that the Jihadi scumbags would want to destroy these ancient manuscripts.

The Library of Congress maintains a digital exhibition called the Ancient Manuscripts of the Desert Libraries of Timbuktu.

The Wanderer: An Old English Poem That Influenced Tolkien

"The Wanderer is an Old English poem preserved only in an anthology known as the Exeter Book, a manuscript dating from the late 10th century. It counts 115 lines of alliterative verse. As is often the case in Anglo-Saxon verse, the composer and compiler are anonymous, and within the manuscript the poem is untitled." Source: Wikipedia.

"The date of the poem is impossible to determine, but it must have been composed and written before the Exeter Book. The poem has only been found in the Exeter Book, which was a manuscript made at around 975, although the poem is considered to have been written earlier. The inclusion of a number of Norse-influenced words, such as the compound hrimceald (ice-cold, from the Old Norse word hrimkaldr), and some unusual spelling forms, has encouraged others to date the poem to the late 9th or early 10th century."

An Old English reading of The Wanderer.

The great J.R.R.Tolkien was deeply influenced by this poem when he wrote The Lord of the Rings. According to Project Muse, "Towards the end of his Valedictory Address, presented on the 5th June 1959, Professor Tolkien chose, by way of conclusion, to read the famous ubi sunt lines from the Old English poem The Wanderer:

"Where is the horse gone, where the young rider? Where now the giver of gifts? Where are the seats at the feasting gone? Where are the merry sounds in the hall? Alas, the bright goblet! Alas, the knight and his hauberk! Alas, the glory of the king! How that hour has departed, dark under the shadow of night, as had it never been!" (Modern English translation. The Old English text and modern translation can be found here).

An abridged version of this quote was used in The Two Towers, the second movie in the magnificent Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien wasn't just a fantasy writer; he was an erudite scholar and much of the power in his books and in the original movies comes from their deep connection with Western history and mythology. Tolkien is so connected with the West, in fact, that it's surprising his books haven't been banned yet. Condemned by the usual leftist parasites for his supposed "racism" and "colonial attitudes," he even has a Wikipedia page devoted solely to his attitudes on race. The only thing saving him from the Memory Hole, I suspect, is his popularity and the profitability of the Lord of the Rings franchise, but there are a lot of "people" out there who would like to see him go the way of the young rider and the merry sounds in the hall. They'll never succeed, of course. People will still be reading Tolkien and through him connecting with their heritage long after these neurotic, self-loathing pests have vanished, hopefully forever.

Princeton Ends Latin, Greek Requirements For Classics Over "Systemic Racism"

A horrifying example of the way systemic racism was running rampant at Princeton back in 2019.

"Princeton University will no longer require students to take Latin or ancient Greek to earn a classics degree, a change that comes as part of a larger effort by the school 'to address systemic racism' on campus." Source: Breitbart (May 30, 2021).

"Princeton faculty in April approved the elimination of the Classic’s Department’s 'classics track,' which required students to have an intermediate proficiency in one of the two languages before entering the track, and approved removing the requirement that students take either language as part of the major, according to a May issue of Princeton’s alumni magazine.

"Classics professor Josh Billings, the director for undergraduate studies, said faculty believe the change will improve the Classics Department because it will add 'new perspectives' to it."

News report (2020) exposes a secret meeting of white supremacists in New England.

Comment: Up until now, the Princeton classics department was considered to be one of the top programs in the world, but that's about to change. Getting rid of Latin and Greek requirements for a classics degree is like dropping the requirement that math majors learn calculus (or any kind of math at all). It's insane, an act of academic suicide, but the Princeton faculty think the change will be worthwhile because it will "add new perspectives" --  presumably the perspectives of classics majors who are incapable of reading the source material in their field of study.

This is all about addressing the "systemic racism" which has supposedly infected Princeton since it was founded in 1746. People of color, etc., are apparently too stupid to learn ancient Greek or Latin so the only way for the university to meet its "equity" quotas is to dumb down the program enough for everybody to get in (though why anybody would want to is another question). The Classics Department claims, bizarrely, that they haven't wavered in their commitment to teaching ancient languages even though that's exactly what they're doing. Their justification for dropping the language requirements is a typical example of meaningless, left-wing jargon:

"We believe that an approach based on inclusion and persuasion will be more effective in encouraging language study than one based on compulsion. We are confident in the appeal and excitement that the study of Ancient Greek and Latin hold, and see our changes as a means of growing the field (including the study of languages) by removing barriers to entry."

I read that statement several times and I'm still not sure what it means. As far as I can tell, the Department has decided to let anybody in and then try to "persuade" them to study Greek and Latin once they've been "included" in the program. If the students don't feel like putting in the effort, it won't matter, though, because Greek and Latin are just going to be electives from now on, I guess.  I'm not sure how Princeton can grow a field like the study of languages by dropping the language requirements, but never mind that. I never went to Princeton so I guess I'm too stupid to understand the subtleties of their reasoning.

Note: Basic tuition for undergrads at Princeton in 2020-2021 is $56, 010. That doesn't include room, board and miscellaneous expenses, which jack up the cost to $77,690. That's more than the estimated 2018 median household income in the United States.

The bottom line here is that the virtue-signaling faculty at Princeton are screwing their students. After all, what good is a classics degree -- or any kind of degree -- if the program has been dumbed down so much that anybody can get into the field? And eliminating the language requirements isn't going to attract any more nonwhites into the classics. In fact, I expect enrollment in the program to decline precipitously after this moronic decision. If the Princeton classics department survives another ten years it will be a miracle.

White supremacists address a group of Princeton classics students who were no longer required to learn Latin.

Herodotus Lied About Famous Greek Battle Against Carthage?

Video from 2017. Some of the details here may be out of date now.

"Herodotus, the famed ancient Greek historian, lied about a pivotal battle between the Greeks and the Carthaginians, a new study finds." Source: Live Science.

"In his magnum opus 'The Histories,' Herodotus detailed the First Battle of Himera on Sicily in 480 B.C. He wrote that when the 'barbarian' Carthaginians attacked the Greek colony of Himera, a coalition of Greek allies from other Sicilian cities joined the fray, leading to a Greek victory. 

"But now, a chemical analysis of the bones of the soldiers who fought at the First Battle of Himera reveals that those Greek 'allies' were actually foreign mercenaries, likely hired by the Greeks to help vanquish their foes."

Comment: If Herodotus lied (or got his facts wrong) about the Battle of Himera, it wouldn't be too surprising. During his time, he wasn't exactly known for his credibility. "It is on account of the many strange stories and the folk-tales he reported that his critics have branded him 'The Father of Lies.' Even his own contemporaries found reason to scoff at his achievement." (Wikipedia) But who cares? Even if he made the whole thing up, the Histories is a fantastic book. Highly recommended.

Sappho Of Lesbos, "The Most Iconic Lesbian Poet In History," Wasn't A Lesbian After All?

"Sappho of Lesbos (c. 620-570 BCE) was a lyric poet whose work was so popular in ancient Greece, and beyond, that she was  honored in statuary and praised by figures such as Solon and Plato. Very little is known of her life and of the nine volumes of her work which were widely read in antiquity only fragments survive. Contrary to popular opinion on the subject, her works were not destroyed by closed-minded Christians seeking to suppress lesbian love poetry but were lost simply through time and circumstance." Source: Ancient History Encyclopedia.

The popular image of Sappho as the "original lesbian" is relatively modern. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2rd ed. revised), "Her sexual inclinations have occasioned much speculation from antiquity to the present. From Attic comedy onward she was credited with an implausible selection of male lovers. [Emphasis added] She is described as a lover of women only in post-Classical times, and in later European tradition was often regarded as heterosexual." The truth is that hardly anything is known about her personal life or her work other than the fact that she was highly regarded during her time. As for her supposed lesbianism, the truth may have been far different:

"Even Sappho’s sexuality, which for modern readers is the most famous thing about her, has been controversial from the start. However exalted her reputation among the ancient literati, in Greek popular culture of the Classical period and afterward Sappho was known primarily as an oversexed predator — of men. This, in fact, was the ancient cliché about 'Lesbians': when we hear the word today we think of love between women, but when the ancient Greeks heard the word they thought of blow jobs [1]. In classical Greek, the verb lesbiazein — 'to act like someone from Lesbos' — meant performing fellatio, an activity for which inhabitants of the island were thought to have a particular penchant." Source: "Girl, Interrupted," Daniel Mendelsohn, The New Yorker.

[1] "In antiquity ... at least from the 5th century B.C., 'Lesbian' sex referred to fellatio and Sappho figured as a prostitute; the earliest association of Lesbos with female homoeroticism dates to the 2nd century AD." -- Oxford Classical Dictionary.

The strong possibility that Sappho, "the most iconic lesbian poet in history," may have actually been a notorious heterosexual man-eater famous for her blow jobs is absolutely hilarious. If true, it's all too typical of the way real history so often turns out to be the exact opposite of what everybody thinks they know.

Why Is The King James Bible So Popular Today?

"For a book that was published in 1611, it's amazing how influential and widely read the [King James Version] still is today. Though there are hundreds of versions and translations of the Bible, the KJV is the most popular. According to market research firm Statistica, as of 2017, more than 31% of Americans read the KJV, with the New International Version coming in second place, at 13%. Five large denominations of Christianity — Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Latter-day Saints and Pentecostal — use the KJV today." Source: Live Science.

Comment: There's no great mystery about why the KJV is the most popular version of the Bible. I've heard Fundamentalists say that it's the most accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts, but I think the real reason people like the KJV is because its archaic, elegant language makes the writing sound older and therefore more authentic. In other words, the KJV sounds more biblical than other editions which use modernized English. Whether it's the best translation, though, is another question altogether.

Most people, including me, are in no position to pass judgement on the accuracy of translations made from ancient languages they don't understand. The King James translation does have some problems, though, according to Bruce Gordon, professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale Divinity School:

"Despite the KJV's popularity throughout the centuries, Gordon said some scholars now view parts of it as outdated. He cautioned that there have been other ancient manuscripts discovered since the KJV was commissioned that enhance scholars' understanding of some biblical events and possibly even change the meaning of certain words." The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, provided early copies of biblical manuscripts -- not available when the KJV was put together -- which have been used to clarify and modify previous translations.

Most of the translation errors which have been identified in the KJV seem to be pretty trivial, but there are a few cases where mis-translations could change the entire meaning of passages used to support fundamental church doctrines. For instance, Gordon points out that "in the mid-20th century, 'many translators believed that 'maiden' or 'young woman' was a more accurate Hebraic translation to use to describe Jesus' mother Mary, instead of 'virgin,' .... If correct, the interpretation would have far-reaching implications as the Old Testament prophet Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin."

It would be pretty amusing to find out that the whole concept of Mary the Virgin is based on a mistranslation, but I have no idea where that question stands today. As expected, there's a lot of disagreement when it comes to which Bible translation is the most accurate.

Most Christians, I think, aren't too concerned about translation or copying errors in the Bible as long as the mistakes don't change the sense of a passage in any fundamental way. And even if the KJV isn't the best translation available due to various technical issues, there are a lot of reasons to favor it over other versions:

"The KJV 'works as both a word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation,' meaning it acts as both a literal translation of many of the words believed to have been used by Jesus Christ and his Apostles and accurately conveys the meaning behind those words and events, Gordon said. One line of manuscripts used in the KJV — the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, translated from Greek to Latin by the 16th-century Dutch scholar and philosopher Desiderius Erasmus — is thought by some to be a particularly important inclusion in the KJV, especially for those who see it as the purest line of the New Testament going back to the Apostolic Age (A.D. 33 to 100), Gordon said."

Ultimately, I think the KJV is popular because of the beauty of its language. Even atheists can appreciate the power of this translation:

"I have stolen more quotes and thoughts and purely elegant little starbursts of writing from the Book of Revelation than anything else in the English language - and it is not because I am a biblical scholar, or because of any religious faith, but because I love the wild power of the language and purity of the madness that governs it and makes it music." -- Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine (introduction).

Is The Real Mount Sinai In Saudi Arabia?

"'Yahweh came from Sinai' (Deuteronomy 33:2; Psalms 68:18). It is in Sinai that Moses first encounters Yahweh; it is back to Sinai that Moses leads Yahweh’s people from Egypt; and it is from Sinai that, two years later, on Yahweh’s order again, Moses sets off with them to conquer a piece of the Fertile Crescent.

"But where is Sinai, with its Mount Horeb [the mountain where God gave Moses the 10 commandments]? Exodus unequivocally places it in the land of Midian ...

"And where is Midian? Greek authors unanimously place it in northwestern Arabia, on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba [see map]. Even Paul the Apostle, who spent three years in Arabia, knew that 'Sinai is a mountain in Arabia' (Galatians 4:25). It was not before the 4^th century that the biblical Sinai was misplaced in the Egyptian peninsula, probably for geopolitical reasons (Egypt was within the control of the Roman Empire, unlike Arabia, under Persian influence). But placing the biblical Sinai west of the Gulf of Aqaba didn’t make any sense, since that region had always belonged to Egypt (archeology has confirmed it). Why would the Israelites have settled there when chased by the Egyptian army?" Source: "The Arabian Cradle of Zion," by French historian Laurent Guyenot, The Unz Review. Map from World Atlas.

Comment: Whether you agree with Laurent Guyenot in general, he's right about one thing at least. The idea that the biblical Mount Sinai / Mount Horeb is located on the Sinai peninsula doesn't make any sense at all. If the Jews were fleeing Egypt, why would they settle on Egyptian territory? Assuming this is actual history we're talking about here -- a very big assumption -- they would have left Egypt altogether and crossing the Gulf of Aqaba into Arabia would have been a good way to put some distance between them and the pharaoh. If that's what actually happened -- if the real Mount Sinai is in Arabia and not on the Sinai peninsula -- it would overturn centuries of accepted religious doctrine:

"The biblical Mount Sinai is one of the most important sacred places in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions. The summit [in Egypt] has a mosque that is still used by Muslims, and a Greek Orthodox chapel, constructed in 1934 on the ruins of a 16th-century church, that is not open to the public. The chapel encloses the rock which is considered to be the source for the biblical Tablets of Stone. At the summit also is 'Moses' cave', where Moses was said to have waited to receive the Ten Commandments." (Wikipedia)

The supposed Mount Sinai in Egypt. Is this just a pile of rocks in the middle of the desert?

I'm not sure how many Christians, Jews and Muslims still accept the idea that Mount Sinai is in Egypt. Some Christians, at least, have come around to the belief that the mountain is in Saudi Arabia and the idea seems to be gaining in popularity.  The UNZ Review article quoted above points out the effect this is having on Middle Eastern politics:

"The growing popularization of the Arabian Sinai cannot be unrelated to the NEOM project announced in October 2017 by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman: a high-tech, ultra-connected, transnational mega city and economic zone, covering 10,230 square-miles (about the size of Massachusetts), which happens to correspond roughly to ancient Midian."

There's a lot that could be said about the Saudis, the NEOM project and the war in Yemen, among other things, but never mind all that. The UNZ Review article is as much about the current politics of the region as it is about the location of the mountain where Moses talked to YHWH, but I'm just interested in the ancient history here. I'm not going to comment one way or another about the political stuff, but I will say that there is something deeply sinister about the Orwellian NEOM smart-city project.

Getting back to where Mount Sinai is actually located, it would be interesting to know if the conventional wisdom has been wrong all these years, but I'm not sure how anybody could prove that this or that pile of granite in the desert is the biblical mountain where Moses received the ten commandments. You would need an ancient map or some kind of non-biblical documentary evidence to do that and nothing of the sort has been discovered as far as I know. But even if the question could be settled conclusively, what difference would it make?

Scholarly interest aside, the importance of all this depends on whether you believe that the Old Testament stories are true. Call me a skeptic, but I don't believe that YHWH appeared on a mountaintop in the form of a burning bush and gave Moses a list of commandments. I don't believe that YHWH exists in the first place and Moses himself is probably a mythological character:

"The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure, and while, as William G. Dever writes, 'a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.', archaeology cannot confirm his existence. Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus–Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure." (Wikipedia)

The Exodus itself, the founding myth of the Israelites, probably never happened as well:

"The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, which formed as an entity in the southern Transjordan region by the 13th century BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture. There is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in ancient Egypt or even lived there and scholars broadly agree that the Exodus has no historical basis. There is a widespread agreement that the composition of the Torah or Pentateuch, the biblical books which contain the Exodus narrative, took place in the Middle Persian Period (5th century BCE), although the traditions behind it are older and can be found in the writings of the 8th-century BCE prophets." (Wikipedia)

In light of all this, the question of where Mount Sinai was located seems pretty much irrelevant.