From: eliedw@hedda.uio.no (Elie Dib Wardini)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon
Subject: Salibi can be mistaken
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:16:10 GMT
Organization: UiO

I would like to give an example on how Mr. Salibi can be mistaken:

on page 172 of house of many mansions Salibi says:

"When the Greek historian Herodotus visited Syria in the fifth century BC, he
was told by the Phoenician elders of Tyre that their ancestors had originally
arrived as immigrants from the Arabian shores of the Red Sea, and even
specified the time of their arrival as being twenty three centuries earlier."


Going to Herodotus we fing the following:
In Book one THe very second paragraph in the book Herodotus makes tha following
statement:

"Learned Persians put the responsibility for the quarrel on the Phoenicians.
THese people came originally from the so called Red Sea..." (p. 41 penguin)

to the word red sea, the translator has the following footnote:
Red Sea: the Greeks used this expression for all parts of the southern (our
Indian) ocean. Here the Persian Gulf is meant, and the reference is to (real)
ancient influences from Mesopotamia.

In book two (p.147 penguin) Herodotus says:
wanting to find information about the temples of Heracles: "To satisfy my wish
to get the best information I possibly could on this subject, I made a voyage
to Tyre in Phoenicia, because I had heard that there was a temple there, of
great sanctity, dedicated to Heracles. I visted the temple, and found that the
offereings which adorned it were numerous and valuable, not the least
remarkable being the two pillars, one of pure gold, the other of emerald which
gleamed in the dark with a starnge radiance. In the course of conversation with
the priests I asked how long ago the temple had been built, and found by their
answer that they too did not share the Greek view; for they said that the
temple was as ancient as Tyre itself, and that Tyre had already stood for two
thousand three hundred years."

Look at the msitakes that Salibi does in his analysis.

check agains Salibi's statement:

"When the Greek historian Herodotus visited Syria in the fifth century BC, he
was told by the Phoenician elders of Tyre that their ancestors had originally
arrived as immigrants from the Arabian shores of the Red Sea, and even
specified the time of their arrival as being twenty three centuries earlier."

THe elders in Tyre, did not tell Herodotus that they came from the Red Sea, at
least not in this passage. Salibi takes a statement in Book 1 from the mouth of
Herodotus and inserts it in Book 2, in the mouth of the Tyran elders.

Mistake nr.1. Herodotus does not tell us who was his source on the issue. We
can but speculate, but speculate it remains.

Mistake nr. 2. Salibi concludes that Tyre was built 2300 years before
Herodotus' visit from the statement: Tyre had already stood for two thousand
three hundred years.

Note the wording: Tyre had already stood. THis statement gives us an at least
date, and not an absolte at least 2300 years maybe more. Thus when Salibi
deduces: and even specified the time of their arrival as being twenty three
centuries earlier, this is speculation and nothing else.

Mistake nr. 3 Salibi deudces that they arrived from Arabia 2300 years prior to
Herodotus' visit. For he says: arrived as immigrants from the Arabian shores of
the Red Sea, and even specified the time of their arrival as being twenty three
centuries earlier.

No where do the Tyran elders say that Tyre was built on their arrival from the
Red Sea. It is possible that they built Tyre asfter moving from Sidon, Byblos
or any other Phoenician city. Here too one can speculate.

THus Salibi's equation: Red Sea => 2300 => Herodotus is, to say the least,
highly conjectural, and speculative.

Moreover, Salibi interprates the Red Sea as being our Red Sea of today. Well
there is cause to questian this interpretation. See translators note in the
penguin edition.

Moreover, Salibi goes to discuss the name Phoenician and indicates that it
refers to an area in Arabia called Faniqa. Salibi fails to mention that the
name Phoenician is one given to the Phoenicians by the Greeks (just as the name
Syria!) and was not the native term. THey called themselves  Cannanites, the
son of Sidon, Tyre etc. Not Phoenician.

Another issue that Salibi takes for granted is his equation:

Red Sea => Arabia => Arabs

Salibi does not exaplain that whether the Arabs (whom we know of the 6th.
century AD) really originated from Arabia! Wether 2300 + 500 years BC. => app.
3000 BC. Arabia was Arabia, and that those who lived there were the ancesters
of our 6th century Arabs. It is important to note, that the old theory of
Arabia being the original home of the Semites (whether there existed anything
of that sort) is one that has very much less following today (to say the
least). There are those who argue that Arabs actually originated from the
Syrian desert and moved later on sout ward to the Arabian peninsula. NOte that
in Arabian tradition, those whom we call Arabs (of the 6th AD) are actually
al-Arab al-Mustariba (the Arabized Arabs) as opposed to the Ancient Southern
States who did not speak arabic, but were the descendents of Adnan who was of
of a more pure Arab descent (al-Arab al-Ariba).

Note again that according to Arab tradition, the arabs are the descendants of
Ismail, who was the Son of Abraham, who was from Ur of the Chaldees, from
Mesopotamia, and who then Migrated to Arabia. Anbraham must have lived at app.
2000 BC. not 3000 BC. or earlier.

Salbi would of course disagree with all this.

My point is the following: before we start quoting Historians, we should check
their sources and critically analize their conclusions amd methods.

THus if some are fascinated by Salib's book: THe Bible came from Arabia, they
should realize that there are those who do not see things in the same light.
THus without making injustice to Mr. Salibi, who books on the History of
Lebanon I very much apreciate, we should look critically at all our sources.

elie wardini