Why can't we get a straight story?
Josephus, in his work Against Apion, grapples with this very issue, specifically regarding the discrepancies between Greek and Jewish accounts of history. And his explanation? It's surprisingly human.
Josephus points a finger at a couple of key culprits. First, he suggests a lack of reliable record-keeping in the early days of Greece. Imagine trying to piece together a story centuries after the fact, relying on fragmented memories and word-of-mouth accounts. It's a recipe for error, and, let's be honest, for embellishment. Josephus argues that this absence of meticulous public records gave ample opportunity for mistakes and outright fabrication to creep into historical narratives. He emphasizes that this wasn't just a problem in smaller Greek states; even Athens, which prided itself on its intellectual prowess and claimed to be Aborigines (native to the land), lacked comprehensive historical records.
He even throws a little shade at the Athenians, pointing out that the laws of Draco, dealing with murders, were considered their oldest written records—and Draco lived only a short time before the tyrant Pisistratus, around the time of Cyrus and Daniel. As for the Arcadians, who boasted of their ancient lineage, Josephus notes they adopted written letters much later and even then, with considerable difficulty.
But Josephus doesn't stop there. He identifies a second, perhaps more subtle, reason for these historical inconsistencies: the priorities of scholars. He observes that many learned critics focus on philology – the study of words – rather than deeply engaging with the content and historical accuracy of ancient texts. They prioritize style and eloquence over truth. It's an interesting critique, isn’t it? Are we sometimes so caught up in the how that we lose sight of the what and the why?
Josephus illustrates this point by noting the debates about whether Herodotus or Thucydides was the better historian based on their writing style. While such discussions have their place, Josephus implies they miss the bigger picture. Herodotus's history is much broader in scope, while Thucydides is far more reliable when writing about his own time period. This distinction, Josephus suggests, is far more important than stylistic preferences.
It’s a reminder that engaging with history isn't just about admiring the language or the narrative flair. It's about critically evaluating sources, understanding their biases, and striving to uncover the most accurate representation of the past, even when the path is obscured by conflicting accounts and human fallibility. It’s about valuing truth over eloquence, substance over style. And ultimately, it's about remembering that the stories we tell about the past shape the world we live in today.