Theory that the biblical holy land was not in present day Israel

April 2, 2015 7:20 PM

I'm trying to find an article by some historians that posited that the places described in the Bible we not actually in present day Israel. The historians had done some theorizing that the mountains and valleys mentioned in the bible (can't remember which book) fit better with an area in Saudi Arabia off the coast of the Red Sea. I've searched the Google but can't find any mention of this theory. I would love to find it again. Thanks, MeFi!
posted by drinkmaildave to Religion & Philosophy (5 answers total)

Sounds like the Kenite hypothesis, which places the origin of Yahweh in Midian.
posted by Knappster at 7:38 PM on April 2, 2015 [2 favorites]

Some adherents of the truly mad theory of British Israelism (see also Nordic Israelism, French Israelism, etc) suggested that the events of the Bible took place in England, with all this Middle East business being basically a mistranslation. Not precisely what you're looking for, but it might be a useful keyword.
posted by ostro at 7:46 PM on April 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

Mormons (Disclaimer: I am not a Mormon) believe that the antediluvian stuff happened in America, and that Noah's Ark floated halfway around the world to land on Mount Ararat.
posted by Hatashran at 9:21 PM on April 2, 2015

Best answer: Historian Kamal Salibi advanced this theory in his book The Bible Came From Arabia..
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 8:17 AM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]

This reminds me of Fomenko's "New Chronology." He claims that ancient Troy and Jerusalem and Rome are all the same city (Which might actually be Istanbul? I'm no cryptohistorian.).

Wikipedia says that Fomenko claims "...all ancient history is 'folded' onto the Middle Ages...the written history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no information about events between AD 800–1000, and most known historical events took place in AD 1000–1500."
posted by General Tonic at 7:27 AM on April 4, 2015