Flavius Josephus, in his Against Apion, grapples with precisely this when he contrasts the historical record of the Jews with that of the Greeks.
He points out that the Greeks themselves acknowledge the relatively late development of their alphabet. Some claim they learned it from the Phoenicians or from Cadmus. But Josephus asks a very pointed question: where's the proof? Where are the inscriptions, the documents, the anything that definitively dates back to that era? Even the Trojan War, a cornerstone of Greek identity, is shrouded in doubt. Did the Greeks even have a standardized writing system at that point? The prevailing opinion, he notes, suggests they did not.
And what about Homer? These epic poems are foundational to Greek culture, but even here, Josephus throws a bit of shade. The story goes that Homer didn't even write down his poems! Instead, they were preserved through oral tradition, passed down in song. This, Josephus suggests, explains the numerous variations found within them. He references the ancient commentators and the term Rhapsodies, sung "like ballads, by parts" rather than a "composed and connected together in complete works". While acknowledging some find this hard to believe, he suggests the Greeks themselves don't fully claim anything ancienter than Homer.
Now, Josephus isn't saying the Greeks had no ancient writings whatsoever. His point is more nuanced. He's arguing they don't fully own any writings claiming such great antiquity. There's a tentativeness, a lack of consensus.
Then he turns to the early Greek historians, figures like Cadmus of Miletus and Acusilaus of Argos. They lived relatively close to the Persian expedition into Greece. And what about the philosophers? Thinkers like Phercydes the Syrian, Pythagoras, and Thales. They themselves admitted they drew their wisdom from the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and they wrote relatively little. Josephus emphasizes that even the authenticity of the writings attributed to these figures is often questioned.
So, what's Josephus driving at? He's setting the stage to highlight the comparative strength and clarity of the Jewish historical record. By questioning the foundations of Greek historical claims, he prepares us to understand his later defense of the antiquity and reliability of Jewish tradition, rooted in the Torah and the prophets. It's a powerful rhetorical move, challenging his audience to consider the very nature of evidence and historical truth.