09-11-2012, 11:59 AM
Ephesus (Ephesos): An Abbreviated History from Androclus to Constantine XI (2011) by Hans Willer Laale is a history of the city from its foundation through to the late Byzantine period. It is the worst history book I have read in ten years or more. Not only is it a bad book in my opinion, I am very suspicious of some of its content and perhaps even the intentions of its author.
It proceeds chronologically, with headings about major events or persons in the history of the city. The author has obviously done an amazing amount of research, and cites from a huge range of sources. There is much information on artists, philosophers, architecture, and the like, which I quite enjoyed. I learned much about the city of Ephesus – which was what I wanted – but there are major problems.
I began to be uneasy almost immediately when the mythological foundations of the city were portrayed as fact. I was also confused by some of the sources Laale used, like the Eyewitness Travel Guide Turkey for geographical information. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but it is certainly unusual for a serious history book.
Then there were strange statements, presented as fact, like how Augustus was poisoned by his wife and that Crassus was captured at Carrhae. Now these can be sourced to ancient texts, but they are by no means generally accepted by historians. It is impossible for a historian to list all dissenting opinions, but it is good practice to at least mention the most commonly-believed and why the author favours one over another. I thought it strange that the consensus opinions were not even acknowledged to exist, much less addressed.
Here and there were also unusual editorial comments, such as how the disintegration of Alexander the Great’s kingdom was foretold in the Bible. But these instances are rare, and I put it down to eccentricity. The book has almost an antiquarian feel to it, and the author is not a professional historian: he is a retired Zoology professor.
Some way into the book I did some research on the publisher, WestBow Press, and realised that it was a self-publisher. I had no idea that this book was self-published before I ordered it. This explained its quality, and I assume the book did not have a professional editor or fact-checker.
But the thing that is most disturbing is the section on Marcus Aurelius. Laale quotes the fake Rain Miracle letter by Marcus regarding the Christians, and says that it is possible the letter was read in Ephesus. Here’s the problem: Laale takes the letter from Loeb’s Fronto II, translated by Haines. I have that book, and Loeb categorically states “this letter is certainly spurious,” and Laale undoubtedly read this. Yet this is not mentioned. He also quotes the Letter of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia (about our religion), whose authenticity is also doubted, as if it were fact.
The Rain Miracle letter was almost certainly forged by Christians wanting to help legitimise their religion on the back of the good reputation of Marcus Aurelius. It is possible that Laale believes it is a legitimate letter, contrary to historical opinion, but I find it incredible that he does not even mention that its authenticity is in doubt and why he thinks it is a real letter. It is also possible that Laale reproduced the letter, knowing it was spurious, for his own reasons. I believe this would be deliberate deception.
I do not recommend this book.
It proceeds chronologically, with headings about major events or persons in the history of the city. The author has obviously done an amazing amount of research, and cites from a huge range of sources. There is much information on artists, philosophers, architecture, and the like, which I quite enjoyed. I learned much about the city of Ephesus – which was what I wanted – but there are major problems.
I began to be uneasy almost immediately when the mythological foundations of the city were portrayed as fact. I was also confused by some of the sources Laale used, like the Eyewitness Travel Guide Turkey for geographical information. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but it is certainly unusual for a serious history book.
Then there were strange statements, presented as fact, like how Augustus was poisoned by his wife and that Crassus was captured at Carrhae. Now these can be sourced to ancient texts, but they are by no means generally accepted by historians. It is impossible for a historian to list all dissenting opinions, but it is good practice to at least mention the most commonly-believed and why the author favours one over another. I thought it strange that the consensus opinions were not even acknowledged to exist, much less addressed.
Here and there were also unusual editorial comments, such as how the disintegration of Alexander the Great’s kingdom was foretold in the Bible. But these instances are rare, and I put it down to eccentricity. The book has almost an antiquarian feel to it, and the author is not a professional historian: he is a retired Zoology professor.
Some way into the book I did some research on the publisher, WestBow Press, and realised that it was a self-publisher. I had no idea that this book was self-published before I ordered it. This explained its quality, and I assume the book did not have a professional editor or fact-checker.
But the thing that is most disturbing is the section on Marcus Aurelius. Laale quotes the fake Rain Miracle letter by Marcus regarding the Christians, and says that it is possible the letter was read in Ephesus. Here’s the problem: Laale takes the letter from Loeb’s Fronto II, translated by Haines. I have that book, and Loeb categorically states “this letter is certainly spurious,” and Laale undoubtedly read this. Yet this is not mentioned. He also quotes the Letter of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia (about our religion), whose authenticity is also doubted, as if it were fact.
The Rain Miracle letter was almost certainly forged by Christians wanting to help legitimise their religion on the back of the good reputation of Marcus Aurelius. It is possible that Laale believes it is a legitimate letter, contrary to historical opinion, but I find it incredible that he does not even mention that its authenticity is in doubt and why he thinks it is a real letter. It is also possible that Laale reproduced the letter, knowing it was spurious, for his own reasons. I believe this would be deliberate deception.
I do not recommend this book.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
