When one speaks of science few would immediately think of the ancient Greeks, the history of warfare and even less of the Bible.  To many, science requires a specific level of technology, of education and perhaps even a date beginning with A.D. rather than ending with B.C.  It may surprise some then that we even discuss the possibility of Herodotus the scientist, who was himself an ancient Greek historian and whose writings date back some 2,400 years into our past.  We should not think, though, that because we find this so shocking that Herodotus himself considered his writings a methodological connection between history and science or even that he viewed the subjects as distinct from one another at all.

In explaining why he selected Herodotus for his anthology of great science writing, Bolles explains that "Herodotus (ca. 484 B.C. – ca. 425 B.C.) was the first great prose writer in the Western tradition, and his History includes the oldest science writing that has survived to our own day" (Edmund Blair Bolles, Galileo’s Commandment [New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 1999], p. 125.).  So how did Herodotus manage to squeeze great science writing into a lengthy book entitled History?  It may help to know what the writer himself meant by the title.  "The Greek word historiai (literally "investigations") aptly describes how Herodotus went about collecting and recording information about the customs and histories of the peoples he encountered" ("Herodotus and the Fall of Babylon," in the NIV Archaeological Study Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Company, 2005], p. 1283).

Though attention is often drawn to his discussion of the Nile and its effects on human history, Herodotus has an equally interesting account of another ancient river:  the Euphrates.  The taking of Babylon by Cyrus the Great has come to be one of the most confusing events in ancient history.  Accounts vary widely as to the actual circumstances surrounding the capture due largely to the emphases placed on it by each of the ancient writers.  The Nabonidus Chronicle states that the city fell without a battle, the Bible teaches that Darius the Mede was the one who ultimately ruled Babylon (Dan 5:30-31) and Herodotus claims that Cyrus diverted the river in order to decrease the volume and velocity of its waters enough for his troops to enter in under the massive walls of the city (NIV, p. 1283; Dan 5:22-31).  To add to this scene of witnesses, other sources state almost unanimously that "Cyrus’s forces proceeded down from the north and rapidly overcame resistance.  A second front was [then] opened against Babylon by a certain Ugbaru, governor of Gutium.  Ugbaru [then] proceeded to capture Babylon for Cyrus with astonishing speed, and Cyrus himself entered the city shortly thereafter" (NIV, p. 1283).

At first these sundry of details seem to be wholly incompatible with each other but at least one possible solution exists.  First, the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell because of the sin of Belshazzar the reigning regent (Dan 5:22-29).  To unwittingly carry out this judgment, Cyrus and his allies approached from the north and northwest, respectively.  Ugbaru (and not Cyrus as Herodotus claimed) diverted the Euphrates and breached the city during the "rowdy festival" of Belshazzar, thereby taking it without a fight (NIV, p. 1283).  Once Cyrus arrived at the city victoriously he rewarded Ugbaru with the governorship of the city itself, who then assumed the title "Darius the Mede" as his regal name (Dan 5:30-31; 6:28; 9:1).

So how can this be called science and what exactly did Herodotus contribute to the discussion and the resulting conclusion?  Herodotus was not present to observe the events that took place that day in 539 B.C. (NIV, p. 1283).  Because of this he investigated the events by gathering information from every source possible:  the people themselves, the natural terrain of the area and even certain legends that he probably knew to be false.  Though his attribution of the diverting of the Euphrates to Cyrus has ultimately proven incorrect, Herodotus understood that science was not a subject to be studied but a methodology used to draw conclusions in all things.  It is a process of observation, investigation, speculation and generalization that ultimately leads to a better understanding of the world around us (cf. Bolles, p. 125).  This is his contribution to science.