How can the Greeks be so proud, boasting that they alone possess knowledge of antiquity and have delivered accurate accounts of early times? It seems a bit... well, absurd, doesn't it?
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Greeks themselves often reveal their lack of solid foundations when they start writing? They contradict each other, even within their own books, and seem almost unashamed to present conflicting stories about the same events. I wouldn't want to waste my time pointing out the obvious disagreements they themselves know better than I do.
Consider the discrepancies between Hellanicus and Acusilaus concerning genealogies. Acusilaus frequently corrects Hesiod. Ephorus accuses Hellanicus of blatant falsehoods in much of his history. Timeus does the same to Ephorus, and later writers criticize Timeus! And then Herodotus… well, we’ll get to him.
Josephus, in his Against Apion, points out this very problem: Greek historians constantly challenged Herodotus' reliability.
Think about it. Timeus couldn't agree with Antiochus and Philistius, or with Callias, about the history of Sicily. The writers of the Athide offer conflicting narratives of Athenian affairs, and the historians of the Argolics can't agree on the events in Argive history. Why dwell on minor cities when even the most respected accounts of the Persian expeditions, and the actions that took place within them, are riddled with inconsistencies?
Even Thucydides, seemingly the most meticulous historian of his time, is accused by some of writing falsehoods!
And poor Herodotus! While Josephus doesn't accuse him of intentional deception (unlike Ctesias, perhaps), he suggests that Herodotus often lacked sufficient evidence and sometimes favored sensational stories over well-supported facts. Strabo, a highly regarded geographer and historian, also considered him a "fabulous" author. Xenophon, known for his accuracy in describing Cyrus's life, implies Herodotus's account of that great man is almost entirely romanticized. Against Apion reminds us that even Manetho, a top source on Egyptian history, complained about Herodotus's mistakes regarding Egypt.
So, what do we take away from all this?
Perhaps it's a reminder that even the most revered sources should be approached with a critical eye. History, it seems, is rarely a straightforward, objective recounting of events. It's a tapestry woven from different perspectives, biases, and interpretations. And sometimes, the most captivating stories are the ones that stray furthest from the unvarnished truth.