<head><w lemma="%2Aflai+%2Fou">Φλαΐου</w> <w lemma="%2A%29iwsh%2Fpou">Ἰωσήπου</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaio%2Fthtos">ἀρχαιότητος</w> <w lemma="a%29ntirrhtiko%5Cs">ἀντιρρητικὸς</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgos">λόγος</w> <w lemma="b">β</w>. </head><w lemma="%2Adia%5C">Διὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="prote%2Frou">προτέρου</w> <w lemma="bibli%2Fou">βιβλίου</w>, <w lemma="timiw%2Ftate%2F">τιμιώτατέ</w> <w lemma="moi">μοι</w> <w lemma="%2A%29epafro%2Fdite">Ἐπαφρόδιτε</w>, <w lemma="peri%2F">περί</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaio%2Fthtos">ἀρχαιότητος</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29pe%2Fdeica">ἐπέδειξα</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Afoini%2Fkwn">Φοινίκων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Axaldai%2Fwn">Χαλδαίων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gupti%2Fwn">Αἰγυπτίων</w> <w lemma="gra%2Fmmasi">γράμμασι</w> <w lemma="pistwsa%2Fmenos">πιστωσάμενος</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lh%2Fqeian">ἀλήθειαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pollou%5Cs">πολλοὺς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ellh%2Fnwn">Ἑλλήνων</w> <w lemma="suggrafei%3Ds">συγγραφεῖς</w> <w lemma="parasxo%2Fmenos">παρασχόμενος</w> <w lemma="ma%2Frturas">μάρτυρας</w>, <w lemma="th%2Fn">τήν</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="a%29nti%2Frrhsin">ἀντίρρησιν</w> <w lemma="e%29poihsa%2Fmhn">ἐποιησάμην</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Amaneqw%5Cn">Μανεθὼν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Axairh%2Fmona">Χαιρήμονα</w> <w lemma="kai%2F">καί</w> <w lemma="tinas">τινας</w> <w lemma="e%28te%2Frous">ἑτέρους</w>.
<head><w lemma="%2Aflai+%2Fou">Φλαΐου</w> <w lemma="%2A%29iwsh%2Fpou">Ἰωσήπου</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaio%2Fthtos">ἀρχαιότητος</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ioudai%2Fwn">Ἰουδαίων</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgos">λόγος</w> <w lemma="a">α</w>. </head><w lemma="%2A%28ikanw%3Ds">Ἱκανῶς</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="u%28polamba%2Fnw">ὑπολαμβάνω</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaiologi%2Fan">ἀρχαιολογίαν</w> <w lemma="suggrafh%3Ds">συγγραφῆς</w>, <w lemma="kra%2Ftiste">κράτιστε</w> <w lemma="a%29ndrw%3Dn">ἀνδρῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29epafro%2Fdite">Ἐπαφρόδιτε</w>, <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29nteucome%2Fnois">ἐντευξομένοις</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3D%7C">αὐτῇ</w> <w lemma="pepoihke%2Fnai">πεποιηκέναι</w> <w lemma="fanero%5Cn">φανερὸν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnous">γένους</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ioudai%2Fwn">Ἰουδαίων</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="palaio%2Ftato%2Fn">παλαιότατόν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="prw%2Fthn">πρώτην</w> <w lemma="u%28po%2Fstasin">ὑπόστασιν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fsxen">ἔσχεν</w> <w lemma="i%29di%2Fan">ἰδίαν</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="xw%2Fran">χώραν</w> <w lemma="h%28%5Cn">ἣν</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxomen">ἔχομεν</w> <w lemma="katw%2F%7Ckhse">κατῴκησε</w> ?<w lemma="pentakisxili%2Fwn">πεντακισχιλίων</w> <w lemma="e%29tw%3Dn">ἐτῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29riqmo%5Cn">ἀριθμὸν</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fan">ἱστορίαν</w> <w lemma="perie%2Fxousan">περιέχουσαν</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%28mi%3Dn">ἡμῖν</w> <w lemma="i%28erw%3Dn">ἱερῶν</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fblwn">βίβλων</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ellhnikh%3Ds">Ἑλληνικῆς</w> <w lemma="fwnh%3Ds">φωνῆς</w> <w lemma="sunegraya%2Fmhn">συνεγραψάμην</w>.
<w lemma="e%29pei%5C">ἐπεὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="suxnou%5Cs">συχνοὺς</w> <w lemma="o%28rw%3D">ὁρῶ</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="dusmenei%2Fas">δυσμενείας</w> <w lemma="u%28po%2F">ὑπό</w> <w lemma="tinwn">τινων</w> <w lemma="ei%29rhme%2Fnais">εἰρημέναις</w> <w lemma="prose%2Fxontas">προσέχοντας</w> <w lemma="blasfhmi%2Fais">βλασφημίαις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaiologi%2Fan">ἀρχαιολογίαν</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29mou%3D">ἐμοῦ</w> <w lemma="gegramme%2Fnois">γεγραμμένοις</w> <w lemma="a%29pistou%3Dntas">ἀπιστοῦντας</w> <w lemma="tekmh%2Frio%2Fn">τεκμήριόν</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="poioume%2Fnous">ποιουμένους</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="new%2Fteron">νεώτερον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnos">γένος</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="mhdemia%3Ds">μηδεμιᾶς</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29pifane%2Fsi">ἐπιφανέσι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ellhnikw%3Dn">Ἑλληνικῶν</w> <w lemma="i%28storiogra%2Ffwn">ἱστοριογράφων</w> <w lemma="mnh%2Fmhs">μνήμης</w> <w lemma="h%29ciw%3Dsqai">ἠξιῶσθαι</w>,
<w lemma="a%29%2Frcomai">ἄρξομαι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="u%28poleipome%2Fnous">ὑπολειπομένους</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="gegrafo%2Ftwn">γεγραφότων</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="kaq%27">καθ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29le%2Fgxein">ἐλέγχειν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29api%2Fwna">Ἀπίωνα</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="grammatiko%5Cn">γραμματικὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29ntirrh%2Fsews">ἀντιρρήσεως</w> <w lemma="tetolmhme%2Fnois">τετολμημένοις</w> <w lemma="e%29ph%3Dlqe%2F">ἐπῆλθέ</w> <w lemma="moi">μοι</w> <w lemma="diaporei%3Dn">διαπορεῖν</w>, <w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w>
<w lemma="xrh%5C">χρὴ</w> <w lemma="spouda%2Fsai:">σπουδάσαι·</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ga%2Fr">γάρ</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="gegramme%2Fnwn">γεγραμμένων</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllwn">ἄλλων</w> <w lemma="ei%29rhme%2Fnois">εἰρημένοις</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fmoia">ὅμοια</w>, <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="li%2Fan">λίαν</w> <w lemma="yuxrw%3Ds">ψυχρῶς</w> <w lemma="proste%2Fqeiken">προστέθεικεν</w>, <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Dsta">πλεῖστα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="bwmoloxi%2Fan">βωμολοχίαν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxei">ἔχει</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pollh%2Fn">πολλήν</w>, <w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="dei%3D">δεῖ</w> <w lemma="ta%29lhqe%5Cs">τἀληθὲς</w> <w lemma="ei%29pei%3Dn">εἰπεῖν</w>, <w lemma="a%29paideusi%2Fan">ἀπαιδευσίαν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29nqrw%2Fpou">ἀνθρώπου</w> <w lemma="sugkei%2Fmena">συγκείμενα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="fau%2Flou">φαύλου</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w>
<w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="a%28pa%2Fntwn">ἁπάντων</w> <w lemma="w%29%7Ch%2Fqhn">ᾠήθην</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="gra%2Fyai">γράψαι</w> <w lemma="sunto%2Fmws">συντόμως</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="loidorou%2Fntwn">λοιδορούντων</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="dusme%2Fneian">δυσμένειαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%28kou%2Fsion">ἑκούσιον</w> <w lemma="e%29le%2Fgcai">ἐλέγξαι</w> <w lemma="yeudologi%2Fan">ψευδολογίαν</w>, <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fgnoian">ἄγνοιαν</w> <w lemma="e%29panorqw%2Fsasqai">ἐπανορθώσασθαι</w>, <w lemma="dida%2Fcai">διδάξαι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntas">πάντας</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fsoi">ὅσοι</w>
<w lemma="ta%29lhqe%5Cs">τἀληθὲς</w> <w lemma="ei%29de%2Fnai">εἰδέναι</w> <w lemma="bou%2Flontai">βούλονται</w>, <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="h%28mete%2Fras">ἡμετέρας</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaio%2Fthtos">ἀρχαιότητος</w>. <w lemma="xrh%2Fsomai">χρήσομαι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29mou%3D">ἐμοῦ</w> <w lemma="legome%2Fnwn">λεγομένων</w> <w lemma="ma%2Frtusi">μάρτυσι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29ciopistota%2Ftois">ἀξιοπιστοτάτοις</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fshs">πάσης</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaiologi%2Fas">ἀρχαιολογίας</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ellh%2Fnwn">Ἑλλήνων</w> <w lemma="kekrime%2Fnois">κεκριμένοις</w>, <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="blasfh%2Fmws">βλασφήμως</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="yeudw%3Ds">ψευδῶς</w> <w lemma="gegrafo%2Ftas">γεγραφότας</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="di%27">δι᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28autw%3Dn">ἑαυτῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29legxome%2Fnous">ἐλεγχομένους</w> <w lemma="pare%2Fcw">παρέξω</w>.
<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fnta">πάντα</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fon">βίον</w> <w lemma="o%29xlagwgou%3D">ὀχλαγωγοῦ</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Ftos">γεγονότος</w>. <w lemma="e%29pei%5C">ἐπεὶ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="polloi%5C">πολλοὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29nqrw%2Fpwn">ἀνθρώπων</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fnoian">ἄνοιαν</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftwn">τοιούτων</w> <w lemma="a%28li%2Fskontai">ἁλίσκονται</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgwn">λόγων</w> <w lemma="ma%3Dllon">μᾶλλον</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="meta%2F">μετά</w> <w lemma="tinos">τινος</w> <w lemma="spoudh%3Ds">σπουδῆς</w> <w lemma="gegramme%2Fnwn">γεγραμμένων</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="xai%2Frousi">χαίρουσι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="loidori%2Fais">λοιδορίαις</w>, <w lemma="a%29%2Fxqontai">ἄχθονται</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29pai%2Fnois">ἐπαίνοις</w>, <w lemma="a%29nagkai%3Don">ἀναγκαῖον</w> <w lemma="h%28ghsa%2Fmhn">ἡγησάμην</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="mhde%5C">μηδὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w> <w lemma="a%29nece%2Ftaston">ἀνεξέταστον</w> <w lemma="katalipei%3Dn">καταλιπεῖν</w> <w lemma="kathgori%2Fan">κατηγορίαν</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fntikrus">ἄντικρυς</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="di%2Fkh%7C">δίκῃ</w> <w lemma="gegrafo%2Fta">γεγραφότα</w>.
<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="au%29%3D">αὖ</w> <w lemma="ka%29kei%3Dno">κἀκεῖνο</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="polloi%3Ds">πολλοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29nqrw%2Fpois">ἀνθρώποις</w> <w lemma="o%28rw%3D">ὁρῶ</w> <w lemma="parakolouqou%3Dn">παρακολουθοῦν</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="li%2Fan">λίαν</w> <w lemma="e%29fh%2Fdesqai">ἐφήδεσθαι</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="a%29rca%2Fmenos">ἀρξάμενος</w> <w lemma="blasfhmei%3Dn">βλασφημεῖν</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fteron">ἕτερον</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29le%2Fgxhtai">ἐλέγχηται</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="proso%2Fntwn">προσόντων</w> <w lemma="kakw%3Dn">κακῶν</w>.
<w lemma="peira%2Fsomai">πειράσομαι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="ai%29ti%2Fas">αἰτίας</w> <w lemma="a%29podou%3Dnai">ἀποδοῦναι</w>, <w lemma="di%27">δι᾽</w> <w lemma="a%28%5Cs">ἃς</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="polloi%5C">πολλοὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fqnous">ἔθνους</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fais">ἱστορίαις</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhnes">Ἕλληνες</w> <w lemma="e%29mnhmoneu%2Fkasin">ἐμνημονεύκασιν</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="me%2Fntoi">μέντοι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="paralipo%2Fntas">παραλιπόντας</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fan">ἱστορίαν</w> <w lemma="poih%2Fsw">ποιήσω</w> <w lemma="fanerou%5Cs">φανεροὺς</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="gignw%2Fskousin">γιγνώσκουσιν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="prospoioume%2Fnois">προσποιουμένοις</w> <w lemma="a%29gnoei%3Dn">ἀγνοεῖν</w>.
<w lemma="%2Aprw%3Dton">Πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="e%29pe%2Frxetai%2F">ἐπέρχεταί</w> <w lemma="moi">μοι</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fnu">πάνυ</w> <w lemma="qauma%2Fzein">θαυμάζειν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="oi%29ome%2Fnous">οἰομένους</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="palaiota%2Ftwn">παλαιοτάτων</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Frgwn">ἔργων</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnois">μόνοις</w> <w lemma="prose%2Fxein">προσέχειν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhsi">Ἕλλησι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="punqa%2Fnesqai">πυνθάνεσθαι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lh%2Fqeian">ἀλήθειαν</w>, <w lemma="h%28mi%3Dn">ἡμῖν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllois">ἄλλοις</w> <w lemma="a%29nqrw%2Fpois">ἀνθρώποις</w> <w lemma="a%29pistei%3Dn:">ἀπιστεῖν·</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dn">πᾶν</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%29gw%5C">ἐγὼ</w> <w lemma="tou%29nanti%2Fon">τοὐναντίον</w> <w lemma="o%28rw%3D">ὁρῶ</w> <w lemma="sumbebhko%2Fs">συμβεβηκός</w>, <w lemma="ei%29%2F">εἴ</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="dei%3D">δεῖ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="matai%2Fais">ματαίαις</w> <w lemma="do%2Fcais">δόξαις</w> <w lemma="e%29pakolouqei%3Dn">ἐπακολουθεῖν</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w>
<w lemma="e%29%2Fsti">ἔστι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="r%28a%2F%7Cdion">ῥᾴδιον</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="dielqei%3Dn">διελθεῖν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="safw%3Ds">σαφῶς</w> <w lemma="gnw%3Dnai">γνῶναι</w>, <w lemma="ti%2F">τί</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgein">λέγειν</w> <w lemma="bou%2Fletai">βούλεται</w>, <w lemma="sxedo%5Cn">σχεδὸν</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="pollh%3D%7C">πολλῇ</w> <w lemma="taraxh%3D%7C">ταραχῇ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="yeusma%2Ftwn">ψευσμάτων</w> <w lemma="sugxu%2Fsei">συγχύσει</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="o%28moi%2Fan">ὁμοίαν</w> <w lemma="i%29de%2Fan">ἰδέαν</w> <w lemma="pi%2Fptei">πίπτει</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="proechtasme%2Fnois">προεξητασμένοις</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gu%2Fptou">Αἰγύπτου</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="h%28mete%2Frwn">ἡμετέρων</w>
<w lemma="progo%2Fnwn">προγόνων</w> <w lemma="metanasta%2Fsews">μεταναστάσεως</w>, <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29sti%5C">ἐστὶ</w> <w lemma="kathgori%2Fa">κατηγορία</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29alecandrei%2Fa%7C">Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ</w> <w lemma="katoikou%2Fntwn">κατοικούντων</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ioudai%2Fwn">Ἰουδαίων</w>. <w lemma="tri%2Fton">τρίτον</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="me%2Fmiktai">μέμικται</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%28gistei%2Fas">ἁγιστείας</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="i%28ero%5Cn">ἱερὸν</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllwn">ἄλλων</w> <w lemma="nomi%2Fmwn">νομίμων</w> <w lemma="kathgori%2Fa">κατηγορία</w>.
<w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="di%2Fkaion">δίκαιον</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pragma%2Ftwn">πραγμάτων</w> <w lemma="lamba%2Fnein">λαμβάνειν</w>. <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhsin">Ἕλλησιν</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fpanta">ἅπαντα</w> <w lemma="ne%2Fa">νέα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="xqe%5Cs">χθὲς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prw%2F%7Chn">πρῴην</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fpoi">εἴποι</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w>, <w lemma="eu%28%2Froi">εὕροι</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Fta">γεγονότα</w>, <w lemma="le%2Fgw">λέγω</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="kti%2Fseis">κτίσεις</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flewn">πόλεων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29pinoi%2Fas">ἐπινοίας</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="texnw%3Dn">τεχνῶν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="no%2Fmwn">νόμων</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafa%2Fs:">ἀναγραφάς·</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="newta%2Fth">νεωτάτη</w> <w lemma="sxedo%2Fn">σχεδόν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="h%28">ἡ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="suggra%2Ffein">συγγράφειν</w>
<w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fas">ἱστορίας</w> <w lemma="e%29pime%2Fleia">ἐπιμέλεια</w>. <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fntoi">μέντοι</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gupti%2Fois">Αἰγυπτίοις</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Axaldai%2Fois">Χαλδαίοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Afoi%2Fnicin">Φοίνιξιν</w>, <w lemma="e%29w%3D">ἐῶ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="h%28ma%3Ds">ἡμᾶς</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnois">ἐκείνοις</w> <w lemma="sugkatale%2Fgein">συγκαταλέγειν</w>, <w lemma="au%29toi%5C">αὐτοὶ</w> <w lemma="dh%2Fpouqen">δήπουθεν</w> <w lemma="o%28mologou%3Dsin">ὁμολογοῦσιν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaiota%2Fthn">ἀρχαιοτάτην</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="monimwta%2Fthn">μονιμωτάτην</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxein">ἔχειν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w>
<w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gu%2Fptioi">Αἰγύπτιοι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnos">γένος</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dsan">ἦσαν</w> <w lemma="h%28mw%3Dn">ἡμῶν</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="pate%2Fres">πατέρες</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="lu%2Fmhn">λύμην</w> <w lemma="swma%2Ftwn">σωμάτων</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="toiau%2Ftas">τοιαύτας</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllas">ἄλλας</w> <w lemma="sumfora%2Fs">συμφοράς</w> <w lemma="tinas">τινας</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%3Dqen">ἐκεῖθεν</w> <w lemma="e%29chla%2Fqhsan">ἐξηλάθησαν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="metri%2Fws">μετρίως</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pe%2Fra">πέρα</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="summe%2Ftrou">συμμέτρου</w> <w lemma="proapodedei%3Dxqai">προαποδεδεῖχθαι</w> <w lemma="nomi%2Fzw">νομίζω</w>.
<w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="prosti%2Fqhsin">προστίθησιν</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29api%2Fwn">Ἀπίων</w> <w lemma="e%29pimnhsqh%2Fsomai">ἐπιμνησθήσομαι</w> <w lemma="sunto%2Fmws">συντόμως</w>.
<w lemma="mnh%2Fmhs">μνήμης</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="para%2Fdosin:">παράδοσιν·</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpous">τόπους</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fpantes">ἅπαντες</w> <w lemma="oi%29kou%3Dsin">οἰκοῦσιν</w> <w lemma="h%28%2Fkista">ἥκιστα</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="perie%2Fxontos">περιέχοντος</w> <w lemma="fqorai%3Ds">φθοραῖς</w> <w lemma="u%28pokeime%2Fnous">ὑποκειμένους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pollh%5Cn">πολλὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29poih%2Fsanto">ἐποιήσαντο</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fnoian">πρόνοιαν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="mhde%5Cn">μηδὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fmnhston">ἄμνηστον</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="prattome%2Fnwn">πραττομένων</w> <w lemma="paralipei%3Dn">παραλιπεῖν</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="dhmosi%2Fais">δημοσίαις</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafai%3Ds">ἀναγραφαῖς</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="sofwta%2Ftwn">σοφωτάτων</w>
<w lemma="a%29ei%5C">ἀεὶ</w> <w lemma="kaqierou%3Dsqai">καθιεροῦσθαι</w>. <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fda">Ἑλλάδα</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpon">τόπον</w> <w lemma="muri%2Fai">μυρίαι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="fqorai%5C">φθοραὶ</w> <w lemma="kate%2Fsxon">κατέσχον</w> <w lemma="e%29calei%2Ffousai">ἐξαλείφουσαι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="mnh%2Fmhn">μνήμην</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Ftwn">γεγονότων</w>, <w lemma="a%29ei%5C">ἀεὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kainou%5Cs">καινοὺς</w> <w lemma="kaqista%2Fmenoi">καθιστάμενοι</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fous">βίους</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="panto%5Cs">παντὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29no%2Fmizon">ἐνόμιζον</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frxein">ἄρχειν</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fkastoi">ἕκαστοι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29f%27">ἀφ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28autw%3Dn">ἑαυτῶν</w>, <w lemma="o%29ye%5C">ὀψὲ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Flis">μόλις</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fgnwsan">ἔγνωσαν</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsin">φύσιν</w> <w lemma="gramma%2Ftwn:">γραμμάτων·</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="gou%3Dn">γοῦν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaiota%2Fthn">ἀρχαιοτάτην</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="xrh%3Dsin">χρῆσιν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="qe%2Flontes">θέλοντες</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Afoini%2Fkwn">Φοινίκων</w>
<w lemma="fhsi%5C">φησὶ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="tri%2Fth%7C">τρίτῃ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29guptiakw%3Dn">Αἰγυπτιακῶν</w> <w lemma="ta%2Fde:">τάδε·</w> <w lemma="“%2Amwsh%3Ds">“Μωσῆς</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fkousa">ἤκουσα</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="presbute%2Frwn">πρεσβυτέρων</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gupti%2Fwn">Αἰγυπτίων</w>, <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28hliopoli%2Fths">Ἡλιοπολίτης</w>, <w lemma="o%28%5Cs">ὃς</w> <w lemma="patri%2Fois">πατρίοις</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fqesi">ἔθεσι</w> <w lemma="kathgguhme%2Fnos">κατηγγυημένος</w> <w lemma="ai%29qri%2Fous">αἰθρίους</w> <w lemma="proseuxa%5Cs">προσευχὰς</w> <w lemma="a%29nh%3Dgen">ἀνῆγεν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="oi%28%2Fous">οἵους</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dxen">εἶχεν</w> <w lemma="h%28%2Flios">ἥλιος</w> <w lemma="peribo%2Flous">περιβόλους</w>, <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29fhliw%2Fthn">ἀφηλιώτην</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fsas">πάσας</w> <w lemma="a%29pe%2Fstrefen:">ἀπέστρεφεν·</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dde">ὧδε</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28hli%2Fou">Ἡλίου</w> <w lemma="kei%3Dtai">κεῖται</w> <w lemma="po%2Flis">πόλις</w>.
<w lemma="a%29nti%5C">ἀντὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="o%29belw%3Dn">ὀβελῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fsthse">ἔστησε</w> <w lemma="ki%2Fonas">κίονας</w>, <w lemma="u%28f%27">ὑφ᾽</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="e%29ktu%2Fpwma">ἐκτύπωμα</w> <w lemma="ska%2Ffh">σκάφη</w>, <w lemma="skia%5C">σκιὰ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29ndro%5Cs">ἀνδρὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29p%27">ἐπ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29th%5Cn">αὐτὴν</w> <w lemma="diakeime%2Fnh">διακειμένη</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="ai%29qe%2Fri">αἰθέρι</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w> <w lemma="a%29ei%5C">ἀεὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w>
<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aka%2Fdmou">Κάδμου</w> <w lemma="semnu%2Fnontai">σεμνύνονται</w> <w lemma="maqei%3Dn">μαθεῖν</w>. <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="a%29p%27">ἀπ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnou">ἐκείνου</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnou">χρόνου</w> <w lemma="du%2Fnaito%2F">δύναιτό</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dcai">δεῖξαι</w> <w lemma="swzome%2Fnhn">σωζομένην</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafh%5Cn">ἀναγραφὴν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Ft%27">οὔτ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="i%28eroi%3Ds">ἱεροῖς</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Ft%27">οὔτ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="dhmosi%2Fois">δημοσίοις</w> <w lemma="a%29naqh%2Fmasin">ἀναθήμασιν</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fpou">ὅπου</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Atroi%2Fan">Τροίαν</w> <w lemma="tosou%2Ftois">τοσούτοις</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ftesi">ἔτεσι</w> <w lemma="strateusa%2Fntwn">στρατευσάντων</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fsteron">ὕστερον</w> <w lemma="pollh%5C">πολλὴ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fgonen">γέγονεν</w> <w lemma="a%29pori%2Fa">ἀπορία</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="zh%2Fthsis">ζήτησις</w>, <w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="gra%2Fmmasin">γράμμασιν</w> <w lemma="e%29xrw%3Dnto">ἐχρῶντο</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%29lhqe%5Cs">τἀληθὲς</w> <w lemma="e%29pikratei%3D">ἐπικρατεῖ</w> <w lemma="ma%3Dllon">μᾶλλον</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dsan">οὖσαν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="gramma%2Ftwn">γραμμάτων</w> <w lemma="xrh%3Dsin">χρῆσιν</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnous">ἐκείνους</w> <w lemma="a%29gnoei%3Dn">ἀγνοεῖν</w>.
<w lemma="o%28%2Flws">ὅλως</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhsin">Ἕλλησιν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5Cn">οὐδὲν</w> <w lemma="o%28mologou%2Fmenon">ὁμολογούμενον</w> <w lemma="eu%28ri%2Fsketai">εὑρίσκεται</w> <w lemma="gra%2Fmma">γράμμα</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28omh%2Frou">Ὁμήρου</w> <w lemma="poih%2Fsews">ποιήσεως</w> <w lemma="presbu%2Fteron">πρεσβύτερον</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%3Dtos">οὗτος</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Atrwi+kw%3Dn">Τρωϊκῶν</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fsteros">ὕστερος</w> <w lemma="fai%2Fnetai">φαίνεται</w> <w lemma="geno%2Fmenos">γενόμενος</w>, <w lemma="kai%2F">καί</w> <w lemma="fasin">φασιν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="gra%2Fmmasi">γράμμασι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="poi%2Fhsin">ποίησιν</w> <w lemma="katalipei%3Dn">καταλιπεῖν</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="diamnhmoneuome%2Fnhn">διαμνημονευομένην</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%7Csma%2Ftwn">ᾀσμάτων</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fsteron">ὕστερον</w> <w lemma="sunteqh%3Dnai">συντεθῆναι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="polla%5Cs">πολλὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3D%7C">αὐτῇ</w> <w lemma="sxei%3Dn">σχεῖν</w>
<w lemma="dro%2Fmon">δρόμον</w> <w lemma="h%28li%2Fw%7C">ἡλίῳ</w> <w lemma="sumperipolei%3D”">συμπεριπολεῖ”</w>. <w lemma="toiau%2Fth">τοιαύτη</w> <w lemma="me%2Fn">μέν</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="h%28">ἡ</w> <w lemma="qaumasth%5C">θαυμαστὴ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="grammatikou%3D">γραμματικοῦ</w> <w lemma="fra%2Fsis:">φράσις·</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="yeu%3Dsma">ψεῦσμα</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgwn">λόγων</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="deo%2Fmenon">δεόμενον</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Frgwn">ἔργων</w> <w lemma="perifane%2Fs:">περιφανές·</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Amwsh%3Ds">Μωσῆς</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fte">ὅτε</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="prw%2Fthn">πρώτην</w> <w lemma="skhnh%5Cn">σκηνὴν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="qew%3D%7C">θεῷ</w> <w lemma="kateskeu%2Fasen">κατεσκεύασεν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29qe%5Cn">οὐθὲν</w> <w lemma="e%29ktu%2Fpwma">ἐκτύπωμα</w> <w lemma="toiou%3Dton">τοιοῦτον</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="au%29th%5Cn">αὐτὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29ne%2Fqhken">ἐνέθηκεν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="poiei%3Dn">ποιεῖν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fpeita">ἔπειτα</w> <w lemma="prose%2Ftacen">προσέταξεν</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2F">ὅ</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="kataskeua%2Fsas">κατασκευάσας</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="nao%5Cn">ναὸν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ierosolu%2Fmois">Ἱεροσολύμοις</w> <w lemma="%2Asolomw%5Cn">Σολομὼν</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fshs">πάσης</w> <w lemma="a%29pe%2Fsxeto">ἀπέσχετο</w> <w lemma="toiau%2Fths">τοιαύτης</w> <w lemma="periergi%2Fas">περιεργίας</w> <w lemma="oi%28%2Fan">οἵαν</w> <w lemma="sumpe%2Fpleken">συμπέπλεκεν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29api%2Fwn">Ἀπίων</w>.
<w lemma="a%29kou%3Dsai">ἀκοῦσαι</w> <w lemma="de%2F">δέ</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="presbute%2Frwn">πρεσβυτέρων</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Amwsh%3Ds">Μωσῆς</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28hliopoli%2Fths">Ἡλιοπολίτης</w>, <w lemma="dh%3Dlon">δῆλον</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="new%2Fteros">νεώτερος</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="w%29%5Cn">ὢν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%2Fs">αὐτός</w>, <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnois">ἐκείνοις</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pisteu%2Fsas">πιστεύσας</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="h%28liki%2Fan">ἡλικίαν</w>
<w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="diafwni%2Fas">διαφωνίας</w>. <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fntoi">μέντοι</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fas">ἱστορίας</w> <w lemma="e%29pixeirh%2Fsantes">ἐπιχειρήσαντες</w> <w lemma="suggra%2Ffein">συγγράφειν</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w>, <w lemma="le%2Fgw">λέγω</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aka%2Fdmon">Κάδμον</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Amilh%2Fsion">Μιλήσιον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29argei%3Don">Ἀργεῖον</w> <w lemma="%2A%29akousi%2Flaon">Ἀκουσίλαον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2F">εἴ</w> <w lemma="tines">τινες</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Flloi">ἄλλοι</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgontai">λέγονται</w> <w lemma="gene%2Fsqai">γενέσθαι</w>, <w lemma="braxu%5C">βραχὺ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Apersw%3Dn">Περσῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fda">Ἑλλάδα</w> <w lemma="stratei%2Fas">στρατείας</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnw%7C">χρόνῳ</w> <w lemma="prou%2Flabon">προύλαβον</w>.
<w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="ou%29rani%2Fwn">οὐρανίων</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="qei%2Fwn">θείων</w> <w lemma="prw%2Ftous">πρώτους</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhsi">Ἕλλησι</w> <w lemma="filosofh%2Fsantas">φιλοσοφήσαντας</w>, <w lemma="oi%28%3Don">οἷον</w> <w lemma="%2Afereku%2Fdhn">Φερεκύδην</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Asu%2Frion">Σύριον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Apuqago%2Fran">Πυθαγόραν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aqa%2Flhta">Θάλητα</w>, <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="sumfw%2Fnws">συμφώνως</w> <w lemma="o%28mologou%3Dsin">ὁμολογοῦσιν</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gupti%2Fwn">Αἰγυπτίων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Axaldai%2Fwn">Χαλδαίων</w> <w lemma="genome%2Fnous">γενομένους</w> <w lemma="maqhta%5Cs">μαθητὰς</w> <w lemma="o%29li%2Fga">ὀλίγα</w> <w lemma="suggra%2Fyai">συγγράψαι</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhsin">Ἕλλησιν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="dokei%3D">δοκεῖ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="a%29rxaio%2Ftata">ἀρχαιότατα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Flis">μόλις</w> <w lemma="au%29ta%5C">αὐτὰ</w> <w lemma="pisteu%2Fousin">πιστεύουσιν</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnwn">ἐκείνων</w> <w lemma="gegra%2Ffqai">γεγράφθαι</w>.
<w lemma="e%29pistame%2Fnois">ἐπισταμένοις</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cn">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="suggenome%2Fnois">συγγενομένοις</w>. <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28omh%2Frou">Ὁμήρου</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="poihtou%3D">ποιητοῦ</w> <w lemma="grammatiko%5Cs">γραμματικὸς</w> <w lemma="w%29%5Cn">ὢν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxoi">ἔχοι</w>, <w lemma="ti%2Fs">τίς</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="patri%2Fs">πατρίς</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w>, <w lemma="diabebaiwsa%2Fmenos">διαβεβαιωσάμενος</w> <w lemma="ei%29pei%3Dn">εἰπεῖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Apuqago%2Frou">Πυθαγόρου</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="e%29xqe%5Cs">ἐχθὲς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prw%2F%7Chn">πρῴην</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Ftos">γεγονότος</w>, <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Amwse%2Fws">Μωσέως</w> <w lemma="tosou%2Ftw%7C">τοσούτῳ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqei">πλήθει</w> <w lemma="proa%2Fgontos">προάγοντος</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnous">ἐκείνους</w> <w lemma="e%29tw%3Dn">ἐτῶν</w> <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftws">οὕτως</w> <w lemma="a%29pofai%2Fnetai">ἀποφαίνεται</w> <w lemma="r%28a%7Cdi%2Fws">ῥᾳδίως</w> <w lemma="pisteu%2Fwn">πιστεύων</w> <w lemma="a%29koh%3D%7C">ἀκοῇ</w> <w lemma="presbute%2Frwn">πρεσβυτέρων</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="dh%3Dlo%2Fs">δῆλός</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="katayeusa%2Fmenos">καταψευσάμενος</w>.
<w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnwn">χρόνων</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Amwsh%3Dn">Μωσῆν</w> <w lemma="e%29cagagei%3Dn">ἐξαγαγεῖν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="leprw%3Dntas">λεπρῶντας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tuflou%5Cs">τυφλοὺς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="ba%2Fseis">βάσεις</w> <w lemma="pephrwme%2Fnous">πεπηρωμένους</w>, <w lemma="sfo%2Fdra">σφόδρα</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="sumpefw%2Fnhken">συμπεφώνηκεν</w>,
<w lemma="%2Apw%3Ds">Πῶς</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fstin">ἔστιν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Flogon">ἄλογον</w> <w lemma="tetufw%3Dsqai">τετυφῶσθαι</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhnas">Ἕλληνας</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnous">μόνους</w> <w lemma="e%29pistame%2Fnous">ἐπισταμένους</w> <w lemma="ta%29rxai%3Da">τἀρχαῖα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lh%2Fqeian">ἀλήθειαν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29kribw%3Ds">ἀκριβῶς</w> <w lemma="paradido%2Fntas;">παραδιδόντας;</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fs">τίς</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="suggrafe%2Fwn">συγγραφέων</w> <w lemma="ma%2Fqoi">μάθοι</w> <w lemma="r%28a%7Cdi%2Fws">ῥᾳδίως</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="mhde%5Cn">μηδὲν</w> <w lemma="bebai%2Fws">βεβαίως</w> <w lemma="ei%29do%2Ftes">εἰδότες</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fgrafon">συνέγραφον</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fkastoi">ἕκαστοι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pragma%2Ftwn">πραγμάτων</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fkazon;">εἴκαζον;</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Don">πλεῖον</w> <w lemma="gou%3Dn">γοῦν</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="bibli%2Fwn">βιβλίων</w> <w lemma="a%29llh%2Flous">ἀλλήλους</w> <w lemma="e%29le%2Fgxousi">ἐλέγχουσι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%29nantiw%2Ftata">τἀναντιώτατα</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgein">λέγειν</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="o%29knou%3Dsi">ὀκνοῦσι</w>.
<w lemma="peri%2Fergos">περίεργος</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fhn">εἴην</w> <w lemma="e%29gw%5C">ἐγὼ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29mou%3D">ἐμοῦ</w> <w lemma="ma%3Dllon">μᾶλλον</w> <w lemma="e%29pistame%2Fnous">ἐπισταμένους</w> <w lemma="dida%2Fskwn">διδάσκων</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fsa">ὅσα</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fnikos">Ἑλλάνικος</w> <w lemma="%2A%29akousila%2Fw%7C">Ἀκουσιλάῳ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="genealogiw%3Dn">γενεαλογιῶν</w> <w lemma="diapefw%2Fnhken">διαπεφώνηκεν</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fsa">ὅσα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="diorqou%3Dtai">διορθοῦται</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28hsi%2Fodon">Ἡσίοδον</w> <w lemma="%2A%29akousi%2Flaos">Ἀκουσίλαος</w>, <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fna">τίνα</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w> <w lemma="%2A%29%2Feforos">Ἔφορος</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fnikon">Ἑλλάνικον</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="plei%2Fstois">πλείστοις</w> <w lemma="yeudo%2Fmenon">ψευδόμενον</w> <w lemma="e%29pidei%2Fknusin">ἐπιδείκνυσιν</w>, <w lemma="%2A%29%2Feforon">Ἔφορον</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaios">Τίμαιος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaion">Τίμαιον</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="met%27">μετ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%3Dnon">ἐκεῖνον</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Ftes">γεγονότες</w>, <w lemma="%2A%28hro%2Fdoton">Ἡρόδοτον</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w>.
<w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="oi%29%3Dmai">οἶμαι</w>, <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="grammatiko%5Cs">γραμματικὸς</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="a%29kribh%2Fs">ἀκριβής</w>. <w lemma="%2Amaneqw%5Cs">Μανεθὼς</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Ateqmw%2Fsios">Τεθμώσιος</w> <w lemma="basilei%2Fan">βασιλείαν</w> <w lemma="a%29pallagh%3Dnai%2F">ἀπαλλαγῆναί</w> <w lemma="fhsin">φησιν</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gu%2Fptou">Αἰγύπτου</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ioudai%2Fous">Ἰουδαίους</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="e%29tw%3Dn">ἐτῶν</w> <w lemma="triakosi%2Fwn">τριακοσίων</w> <w lemma="e%29nenhkontatriw%3Dn">ἐνενηκοντατριῶν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29%2Fargos">Ἄργος</w> <w lemma="%2Adanaou%3D">Δαναοῦ</w> <w lemma="fugh%3Ds">φυγῆς</w>, <w lemma="%2Alusi%2Fmaxos">Λυσίμαχος</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Abo%2Fkxorin">Βόκχοριν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="basile%2Fa">βασιλέα</w>, <w lemma="toute%2Fsti">τουτέστι</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="e%29tw%3Dn">ἐτῶν</w> <w lemma="xili%2Fwn">χιλίων</w> <w lemma="e%28ptakosi%2Fwn">ἑπτακοσίων</w>, <w lemma="%2Amo%2Flwn">Μόλων</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Flloi">ἄλλοι</w> <w lemma="tine%5Cs">τινὲς</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fdocen">ἔδοξεν</w>.
<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%2F">δέ</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="pisto%2Ftatos">πιστότατος</w> <w lemma="%2A%29api%2Fwn">Ἀπίων</w> <w lemma="w%28ri%2Fsato">ὡρίσατο</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fcodon">ἔξοδον</w> <w lemma="a%29kribw%3Ds">ἀκριβῶς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%28bdo%2Fmhn">ἑβδόμην</w> <w lemma="o%29lumpia%2Fda">ὀλυμπιάδα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fths">ταύτης</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ftos">ἔτος</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="prw%3Dton">πρῶτον</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="w%28%3D%7C">ᾧ</w>, <w lemma="fhsi%2F">φησί</w>, <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fna">Καρχηδόνα</w> <w lemma="%2Afoi%2Fnikes">Φοίνικες</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fktisan">ἔκτισαν</w>. <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntws">πάντως</w> <w lemma="prose%2Fqhke">προσέθηκε</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fna">Καρχηδόνα</w> <w lemma="tekmh%2Frion">τεκμήριον</w> <w lemma="oi%29o%2Fmenos">οἰόμενος</w> <w lemma="au%28tw%3D%7C">αὑτῷ</w> <w lemma="gene%2Fsqai">γενέσθαι</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29lhqei%2Fas">ἀληθείας</w> <w lemma="e%29narge%2Fstaton">ἐναργέστατον</w>, <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="sunh%3Dke">συνῆκε</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kaq%27">καθ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28autou%3D">ἑαυτοῦ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Flegxon">ἔλεγχον</w> <w lemma="e%29pispw%2Fmenos">ἐπισπώμενος</w>.
<w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Asikelikw%3Dn">Σικελικῶν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxon">Ἀντίοχον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Afi%2Fliston">Φίλιστον</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="%2Akalli%2Fan">Καλλίαν</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaios">Τίμαιος</w> <w lemma="sumfwnei%3Dn">συμφωνεῖν</w> <w lemma="h%29ci%2Fwsen">ἠξίωσεν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29d%27">οὐδ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29%3D">αὖ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29attikw%3Dn">Ἀττικῶν</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29atqi%2Fdas">Ἀτθίδας</w> <w lemma="suggegrafo%2Ftes">συγγεγραφότες</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29argolikw%3Dn">Ἀργολικῶν</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29%2Fargos">Ἄργος</w> <w lemma="i%28storou%3Dntes">ἱστοροῦντες</w> <w lemma="a%29llh%2Flois">ἀλλήλοις</w> <w lemma="kathkolouqh%2Fkasi">κατηκολουθήκασι</w>.
<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ti%2F">τί</w> <w lemma="dei%3D">δεῖ</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgein">λέγειν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="po%2Fleis">πόλεις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="braxute%2Frwn;">βραχυτέρων;</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fpou">ὅπου</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Apersikh%3Ds">Περσικῆς</w> <w lemma="stratei%2Fas">στρατείας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3D%7C">αὐτῇ</w> <w lemma="praxqe%2Fntwn">πραχθέντων</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="dokimw%2Ftatoi">δοκιμώτατοι</w> <w lemma="diapefwnh%2Fkasi">διαπεφωνήκασι</w>, <w lemma="polla%5C">πολλὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aqoukudi%2Fdhs">Θουκυδίδης</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="yeudo%2Fmenos">ψευδόμενος</w> <w lemma="u%28po%2F">ὑπό</w> <w lemma="tinwn">τινων</w> <w lemma="kathgorei%3Dtai">κατηγορεῖται</w> <w lemma="kai%2Ftoi">καίτοι</w> <w lemma="dokw%3Dn">δοκῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29kribesta%2Fthn">ἀκριβεστάτην</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="kaq%27">καθ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%28to%5Cn">αὑτὸν</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fan">ἱστορίαν</w> <w lemma="suggra%2Ffein">συγγράφειν</w>.
<w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29pisti%2Fas">ἀπιστίας</w> <w lemma="pisteu%2Fein">πιστεύειν</w> <w lemma="dei%3D">δεῖ</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Afoini%2Fkwn">Φοινίκων</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafai%3Ds">ἀναγραφαῖς</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnais">ἐκείναις</w> <w lemma="%2Aei%29%2Frwmos">Εἴρωμος</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="basileu%5Cs">βασιλεὺς</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fgraptai">γέγραπται</w> <w lemma="presbu%2Fteros">πρεσβύτερος</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fnos">Καρχηδόνος</w> <w lemma="kti%2Fsews">κτίσεως</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ftesi">ἔτεσι</w> <w lemma="plei%2Fosi">πλείοσι</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="penth%2Fkonta">πεντήκοντα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="e%28kato%2Fn">ἑκατόν</w>, <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3D">οὗ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="pi%2Fsteis">πίστεις</w> <w lemma="a%29nwte%2Frw">ἀνωτέρω</w> <w lemma="pare%2Fsxon">παρέσχον</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Afoini%2Fkwn">Φοινίκων</w>
<w lemma="a%29nagrafw%3Dn">ἀναγραφῶν</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Asolomw%3Dni">Σολομῶνι</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="nao%5Cn">ναὸν</w> <w lemma="oi%29kodomhsame%2Fnw%7C">οἰκοδομησαμένῳ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ierosolu%2Fmois">Ἱεροσολύμοις</w> <w lemma="fi%2Flos">φίλος</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="%2Aei%29%2Frwmos">Εἴρωμος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="polla%5C">πολλὰ</w> <w lemma="suneba%2Fleto">συνεβάλετο</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="naou%3D">ναοῦ</w> <w lemma="kataskeuh%2Fn">κατασκευήν</w>. <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Asolomw%5Cn">Σολομὼν</w> <w lemma="w%29%7Ckodo%2Fmhse">ᾠκοδόμησε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="nao%5Cn">ναὸν</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="e%29celqei%3Dn">ἐξελθεῖν</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29gu%2Fptou">Αἰγύπτου</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ioudai%2Fous">Ἰουδαίους</w> <w lemma="dw%2Fdeka">δώδεκα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="e%28cakosi%2Fois">ἑξακοσίοις</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ftesin">ἔτεσιν</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fsteron">ὕστερον</w>.
<w lemma="%2Aai%29ti%2Fai">Αἰτίαι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="toiau%2Fths">τοιαύτης</w> <w lemma="diafwni%2Fas">διαφωνίας</w> <w lemma="pollai%5C">πολλαὶ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="i%29%2Fsws">ἴσως</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fterai">ἕτεραι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="boulome%2Fnois">βουλομένοις</w> <w lemma="zhtei%3Dn">ζητεῖν</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="fanei%3Den">φανεῖεν</w>, <w lemma="e%29gw%5C">ἐγὼ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="dusi%5C">δυσὶ</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="lexqhsome%2Fnais">λεχθησομέναις</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="megi%2Fsthn">μεγίστην</w> <w lemma="i%29sxu%5Cn">ἰσχὺν</w> <w lemma="a%29nati%2Fqhmi">ἀνατίθημι</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prote%2Fran">προτέραν</w> <w lemma="e%29rw%3D">ἐρῶ</w>
<w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="kuriwte%2Fran">κυριωτέραν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai%2F">εἶναί</w> <w lemma="moi">μοι</w> <w lemma="dokou%3Dsan:">δοκοῦσαν·</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%3Ds">ἀρχῆς</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="spoudasqh%3Dnai">σπουδασθῆναι</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhsi">Ἕλλησι</w> <w lemma="dhmosi%2Fas">δημοσίας</w> <w lemma="gi%2Fnesqai">γίνεσθαι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fstote">ἑκάστοτε</w> <w lemma="prattome%2Fnwn">πραττομένων</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafa%5Cs">ἀναγραφὰς</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="ma%2Flista">μάλιστα</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="pla%2Fnhn">πλάνην</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29cousi%2Fan">ἐξουσίαν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="yeu%2Fdesqai">ψεύδεσθαι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="boulhqei%3Dsi">βουληθεῖσι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="palaiw%3Dn">παλαιῶν</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="gra%2Ffein">γράφειν</w> <w lemma="pare%2Fsxen">παρέσχεν</w>.
<w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="a%29riqmo%5Cn">ἀριθμὸν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29laqe%2Fntwn">ἐλαθέντων</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cn">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Alusima%2Fxw%7C">Λυσιμάχῳ</w> <w lemma="sxedia%2Fsas">σχεδιάσας</w>, <w lemma="e%28%2Fndeka">ἕνδεκα</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai%2F">εἶναί</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="muria%2Fdas">μυριάδας</w>, <w lemma="qaumasth%2Fn">θαυμαστήν</w> <w lemma="tina">τινα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="piqanh%5Cn">πιθανὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29podi%2Fdwsin">ἀποδίδωσιν</w> <w lemma="ai%29ti%2Fan">αἰτίαν</w>, <w lemma="a%29f%27">ἀφ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%28%3Ds">ἧς</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="sa%2Fbbaton">σάββατον</w> <w lemma="w%29noma%2Fsqai">ὠνομάσθαι</w>.
|
In the former book, my most esteemed Epaphroditus,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note1"> The dedication mirrors that in 1.1, with a different epithet (<w lang="el-GR">τιμιώτατέ μοι</w>), for variety’s sake; cf. 2.296. On Epaphroditus, see note to “Epaphroditus” at 1.1. It is common to begin a second book with a short summary of the first and, where appropriate, a secondary dedication; cf. Diodorus 2.1-2; Philo, <emph rend="underlined">Mos</emph>. 2.1; <emph rend="underlined">Prob</emph>. 1; Acts 1.1-2 (with Barrett 1994: 64-67); cf. Josephus, <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 8.1-2; 13.1-2. </note> I demonstrated our antiquity, confirming the truth from the writings of Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note2"> For antiquity (<w lang="el-GR">ἀρχαιότης</w>) as the theme of the first two-thirds of Book 1, see note to “antiquity” at 1.3. This clause has particularly influenced the ascription of titles to this treatise; see Introduction § 4. The three non-Greek sources of evidence are here, as in Book 1, given greatest emphasis: Phoenician (1.106-27), Chaldaean (1.128-60), and Egyptian (1.73-105). Their different ordering here may reflect a de-emphasis on the Egyptian material, since the epithet “Egyptian” is now almost entirely negative, especially in the Apion-segment. The introductory segments in Book 1 (1.6-68) again get no mention. </note> and providing many Greek writers as witnesses;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note3"> On the “witness” language, see note to “witnesses” at 1.79. In the Greek segment (1.161-218), the category “writers” (<w lang="el-GR">συγγραφεῖς</w>) is remarkably broad (see note to “compositions” at 1.161). The sentence to this point is a close echo of Josephus’ summary of his achievement in 1.215. </note> I also issued a counter-statement to Manetho, Chaeremon, and certain others.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note4"> Only here and in 2.2 does Josephus use the term <w lang="el-GR">ἀντίρρησις</w> (“counter-statement” or “refutation”). He does not treat these Egyptian exodus narratives as “accusations,” as he does parts of Apion’s material (2.6-7) and the charges of Apollonius Molon (2.147): those require what he calls a “defence” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀπολογία</w>, 2.147; cf. 2.137). Manetho’s narrative is relayed and refuted in 1.227-87; Chaeremon’s in 1.288-303. Oddly the Lysimachus section (1.304-20) is here made indefinite and plural – perhaps because Lysimachus is not yet finished with (cf. 2.16, 145), and perhaps to give the impression of comprehensiveness. Troiani (138) thinks Josephus here includes his response to the critics of his own historiography (1.47-56). </note> <note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note1"> The preface (1.1-5), considerably briefer than that of <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> and <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph>, contains the bare essentials: the occasion of the work (1.1-2), its purposes (1.3), and its methods (1.4-5). In form and generic content it matches the prefaces of technical or “scientific” works (Alexander 1993); despite some rhetorical coloring, it does not present <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> as a work of rhetoric, nor of history in any of its classic modes. The explicit reference back to <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> might suggest that <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> continues the agenda of the previous work, though it is in fact self-standing (see Introduction, § 2). As in <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph>, Josephus offers no self-introduction (for the implications regarding his audience, see Introduction, § 7). The rhetorical tone is that of a teacher slightly irritated by unnecessary questions. The polemical front is not clearly defined, but the four-fold mention of “Greek” (1.1, 2, 4, 5), the only non-Judean ethnicon mentioned in the preface, suggests a dialogue with the “Greek” tradition that will be of rhetorical significance throughout <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph>. </note> Through my treatise on <emph rend="underlined">Ancient History</emph>,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note2"> “Ancient History” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀρχαιολογία</w>) is Josephus’ shorthand title for his 20-volume work, which we term his <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> (cf. 1.54, 127; 2.136, 287; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 20.259, 267; <emph rend="underlined">Life</emph> 430). Its public title (if it had one) would have had to indicate <emph rend="underlined">whose</emph> “ancient history” this recounted (cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.5; <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 2.136, “our ancient histories”). The connotations of the term are ambiguous at a critical point (see Rajak 2002: 241-55). For some in antiquity, <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχαιολογία</w> suggested “ancient lore,” the sagas and “myths” which historians could at best sift for true history, but might wholly discard (Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Mor</emph>. 855d; <emph rend="underlined">Thes</emph>. 1); for others (presumably Josephus; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, <emph rend="underlined">Ant. rom.</emph> 1.4.1) it simply meant the history of ancient times. In his <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> Josephus had not fully defended his almost complete dependence on a particular, Judean source for the most ancient history (the Judean scriptures), and thus encountered (or imagined) scepticism (1.2). </note> most eminent Epaphroditus,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note3"> The same Epphroditus is the dedicatee of <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> (1.8-9) and <emph rend="underlined">Life</emph> (430), thus binding the three works together. He is given here no further description or address (cf. 2.1, 296), and the repetition of identical wording from <emph rend="underlined">Life</emph> 430 (the end of Josephus’ most recent work) could indicate that the dedication is a formality. The epithet (literally, “most eminent of men,” <w lang="el-GR">κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν</w>) is probably formulaic (cf. <w lang="el-GR">κράτιστε</w> in Luke 1:3 with comment by Alexander 1993: 132-33; Cadbury 1922: 505-7); it is “a form of address too vague to allow us to determine the man’s social status” (Cotton and Eck 2005: 49). All attempts to identify this figure among the known elite of Flavian <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> run up against the severe limitations in our knowledge. Epaphroditus was a very common name in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (nearly 300 cases are known from the 1<emph rend="superscript">st</emph> and 2<emph rend="superscript">nd</emph> centuries CE), especially for slaves and freedmen. There are two figures contemporary with Josephus of whom something is known, and both have been proposed as his patron. 1. Epaphroditus, the freedman of Nero (see Steindorff 1905: 2710-11). This man was secretary (<emph rend="italics">a libellis</emph>) to Nero, helped expose the Pisonian plot against him (65 CE), then fled <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> with Nero and helped him commit suicide. He appears to have returned to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and was known to Domitian who first exiled him, then had him killed in 95 CE (Suetonius, <emph rend="underlined">Dom</emph>. 14.4; Dio Cassius 67.14.4-5). We do not know how much “earlier” he was exiled (Dio Cassius 67.14.4; Cotton and Eck [2005: 50] suggest c.90 CE, but without clear warrant), but even if he left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 94 CE it is hard to find time for the composition of <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> after <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> (93/94; see Introduction, § 3). Moreover, there is no reason to think that this Epaphroditus wielded significant influence in the Flavian court (see Weaver 1994), where he may have been tainted by his association with Nero. Thus, the older tradition that identifies this man as Josephus’ patron (Luther 1910: 61-63; cf. Mason 1998: 98-100; Nodet 1992: 4, n.1) is now largely discredited (Cotton and Eck 2005: 50-51). Josephus’ description of him as a man used to large changes in fortune (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.8-9) could apply to anyone who had lived through the last few decades of Roman history. 2. M. Mettius Epaphroditus, a freedman scholar (<emph rend="italics">grammaticus</emph>; see Cohn 1905: 2711-14). This man is known only from the <emph rend="underlined">Suidas</emph>, where he is described as a former slave of the <emph rend="italics">praefectus</emph> of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, a scholar on Homer, Hesiod, and Callimachus, who lived in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> from the time of Nero to Nerva (died 98 CE), and had a library of 30,000 books; for an inscription attached to a statue, see <emph rend="underlined">CIL</emph> 6.9454. If Josephus’ patron is identifiable at all, this is the most likely candidate: he had both financial and intellectual resources of value to Josephus, and probably had at least some contacts in aristocratic families, even if he was not himself among the elite (see Sterling 1992: 239-40, n.66; Rajak 1983: 223-24; Cotton and Eck 2005: 51-52, perhaps overstressing his social marginality). If one has to choose between these two Epaphroditi, the second is far more probable (cf. Gerber 1997: 65-66; Labow 2005: lxxiv-lxxv; Feldman 2000: 5, n.9; Mason 2001: 173, n.1780). But it is equally possible that Josephus’ Epaphroditus is otherwise unknown to us (Weaver 1994: 474-75; Jones 2002: 114-15, suggesting, as another candidate, a freedman who served <emph rend="italics">ab epistulis</emph> under a Flavian emperor, <emph rend="underlined">CIL</emph> 6.1887). For the relation of this question to the date of the work, see Introduction, § 3. </note> I consider that, to those who will read it,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note4"> The clause may be innocent (and redundant), but may also indicate that the present work has in mind those who have <emph rend="underlined">not</emph> read Josephus’ <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> and are not likely to do so. Otherwise, if the following points have already been made there “sufficiently clearly,” Josephus need do no more than refer his readers back to the earlier work. On Josephus’ implied audience, see Introduction, § 7.1. </note> I have made it sufficiently clear<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note5"> In the Greek, “sufficiently” (<w lang="el-GR">ἱκανῶς</w>) stands in an emphatic position as the very first word of the sentence. Josephus does not admit to plugging gaps or mending faults; he is simply dealing with peevish objections (1.2). The rhetorical pose of “sufficiency” (cf. 1.58, 160, 182; 2.288, etc.) enlists the reader’s assent. A <w lang="el-GR">μέν ... δέ</w>construction ties 1.1 and 1.2 closely together; the point has already been made clear but is now to be bolstered by proof. The sentence is as cumbersome in Greek as in this translation. The syntax of preface sentences is frequently over-loaded (Alexander 1993: 64-65; cf. Luke 1:1-4 and, conspicuously, <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 1.1-6). </note> concerning our people,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note6"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">γένος</w>. The term evokes birth and ancestry, and, as the following clause hints, it is extremely important for Josephus that the Judean people have a distinct line of genealogy, and are not descended from Egyptians (cf. 1.252, 278; 2.289). While the nearest English equivalent might appear to be “race,” that term is too tainted by association with the “racial science” of the 19<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> century, and is best avoided. The term means “people” in the anthropological sense of a “descent-group” (see Esler forthcoming). <w lang="el-GR">ἔθνος</w> (“nation”) has a potentially broader, and more political, sense, though the two can be practically synonymous (in the preface at 1.5). The “our” provides an immediate identification of author and people, reinforced through the preface by 5 further uses of the pronoun <w lang="el-GR">ἡμεῖς</w> (and one each of the adjective “our,” and first-person plural verb). </note> the Judeans,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note7"> Here and throughout this commentary <w lang="el-GR">᾿Ιουδαῖοι</w>is translated “Judean” in recognition of the continuing association Josephus makes between the people and “the land that we now possess” (1.1; cf. 1.179: the name derives from the place). See further, Introduction, § 9, with defence of this lexical choice. Even as a long-term resident in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, Josephus presents himself and his people as “Judean.” </note> that it is extremely ancient<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note8"> This is the first of the three items here chosen (out of all the topics in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>.), since it is the first under dispute (1.2). The claim is never given greater precision in this work (cf. 1.36, 39, 104, 108; 2.226); the origins of the people (with Abraham?) are here implicitly elided with the total historical span of the work (from Adam), about to be numbered as 5,000 years. Cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.13, 16, 82-88, 148-49. For the importance of antiquity as a proof of value, see Pilhofer 1990. </note> and had its own original composition,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note9"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">καὶ τὴν πρώτην</w> <w lang="el-GR">ὑπόστασιν ἔσχεν ἰδίαν</w>. <w lang="el-GR">ὑπόστασις</w> is rare in Josephus (otherwise only at <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 18.24, which is textually uncertain); it has philosophical connotations of “essence” or “true substance.” The stress falls on “its own” (<w lang="el-GR">ἰδία</w>), suggesting something distinct. The point is emphasized here in anticipation of the “slanders” that Judeans were in fact (renegade and polluted) Egyptians; cf. 1.104, 228-29, 252-53, 278, 298; 2.289 (in summary). Later, Josephus will declare that “the ancestors of our people were Chaldean” (1.71), but he cannot allow any original “mixing” with Egyptians; on the cultural politics see Barclay 2004. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.148 had begun the history of the “Hebrews” with Abraham, of Chaldean descent (cf. 1.158-69). The Egyptian issue is alluded to in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 2.177, but ethnic purity was not there given the prominence this comment suggests. </note> and how it inhabited the land that we now possess;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note10"> Although eternal possession of the land is taken for granted in <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> (e.g., 4.115), its means of possession by Abraham or after the Exodus is not given any special profile in that narrative. But that the Judeans’ homeland was <emph rend="italics">not</emph> <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> is a vital point in this treatise, in refutation of Egyptian stories (cf. <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 1.252, 314; 2.289). The emphatic present-tense statement (“we now possess”) is striking from a long-term resident in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. Although he is fully conscious of the Diaspora in this treatise (e.g., 1.30; 2.33, 39, 67, 277), Josephus makes remarkably frequent reference to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Judea&groupId=1081&placeId=420">Judea</a> as the land <emph rend="italics">presently</emph> possessed or inhabited by Judeans, and as the land that they call <emph rend="italics">their own</emph>. Thus he describes <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Judea&groupId=1081&placeId=420">Judea</a> as: a) the land (<w lang="el-GR">χώρα</w>) or place (<w lang="el-GR">τόπος</w>) “we (now) inhabit” (present tense of [<w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>]<w lang="el-GR">οικέω</w>): 1.60, 174, 179, 195, 209 (Agatharchides), 280 (<w lang="el-GR">νῦν</w>), 315 (<w lang="el-GR">νῦν</w>). b) “our land” (<w lang="el-GR">ἡμετέρα χώρα</w>/<w lang="el-GR">γῆ</w>): 1.132, 174; c) “our own land” (<w lang="el-GR">οἰκεῖα γῆ</w>/<w lang="el-GR">χώρα</w>): 1.224; 2.289; d) “this land” (<w lang="el-GR">ἡ χώρα αὕτη</w>): 1.103; e) “the ancestral land” (<w lang="el-GR">ἡ πάτριος γῆ</w>): 2.157; and f) “the homeland” (<w lang="el-GR">πατρίς</w>): 1.210 (Agatharchides), 212; 2.277. Cf. the reference to “our cities” (in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Judea&groupId=1081&placeId=420">Judea</a>, 1.60), and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Jerusalem&groupId=51&placeId=242">Jerusalem</a> as the city “we inhabit from the remote past” (1.196). For the significance of this geographical component of Judean ethnicity, see Introduction, § 9. </note> for<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note11"> Reading <w lang="el-GR">γάρ</w> (following Latin <emph rend="italics">enim</emph>, with Reinach and Schreckenberg); L has no connecting conjunction, leaving the text unsyntactical. Niese marks a lacuna. </note> I composed in the Greek language<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note12"> <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 20.262-66 parades Josephus’ achievement to have written in Greek, as an acquired language (cf. <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 1.50 on <emph rend="underlined">War</emph>). </note> a history covering 5,000 years,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note13"> The round figure (as in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.13) is made up of 3,000 years from creation to Moses (<emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 1.39) and 2,000 years of the Judean constitution (2.226; cf. 1.36; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.16). For more precise, but inconsistent, calculations, see <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.82; 8.61-62; 10.147-48; cf. Nodet 1992: 5. In the Greek tradition, where the Trojan War was dated to 1184 BCE (Diodorus 1.5), few historians would attempt a chronological calculation further back (but cf. Diodorus 1.24.2: 10,000 years from the Giants or Olympians). But oriental nations were known to make large claims, which were sometimes taken seriously (Diodorus 1.23.1: some Egyptians say Osiris was 10,000 years before Alexander; others more than 23,000), sometimes not (Diodorus 2.31.9: Babylonians claim to have charted 473,000 years; cf. Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">Div.</emph> 1.36-37). Josephus’ figure would not look wholly implausible in his western context. </note> on the basis of our sacred books.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note14"> The documentary sources for Judean history are a pivotal point in the discussion of historiography in 1.6-59 (especially 1.37-41), and Josephus frequently identifies the basis of his history as “the sacred writings” (1.54, 127; cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.17; 2.347; 3.81, etc.). In fact, the reliance on these sources is both Josephus’ boast (<emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 1.37-41) and, to a non-Judean, his greatest vulnerability. While he will cite many other sources in this work, their truth is, ultimately, judged by their agreement with the Judean scriptures (1.91-92, 154, 279-86, etc.); it is his unwillingness to sift, sort, and critically evaluate <emph rend="italics">all</emph> his sources that makes Josephus’ historiography discordant with the Greek tradition (see at 1.37). </note> However, since I see that a considerable number of people<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note15"> The description is vague (merely <w lang="el-GR">συχνοί</w>), and suggests that Josephus is responding to a general mood of disbelief in Judean self-claims, rather than specific critics of his work (see below). A preface has to indicate the necessity of the work, and this is often expressed in polemical statements regarding the inadequacy or wrong-headedness of others; cf. <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 1.1-3, 13-16. The “people” mentioned here are defined by two participles in the Greek: they “pay attention to slanders …” and “disbelieve what I have written …” They are not themselves the “slanderers” (whose slander is left undefined: see below), but by associating their doubt with such “slander” and “malice” Josephus brings even the initial topic of this treatise (a proof of Judean antiquity) into the overarching strategy of apologetic (see Introduction, § 5). </note> pay attention to the slanders spread by some out of malice,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note16"> The “slanders” are attributed to a third party (“some”), to whom “a considerable number of people” attend; placing this source at one remove frees Josephus to use as strong invective as he wishes. Of the two terms here used, the first in particular attaches itself to the “Egyptian” material (narratives about Moses; charges by Apion). <w lang="el-GR">βλασφημίαι</w> (“slanders”) and its cognates recur in 1.4, 59, but then not again (apart from a neutral use in 1.164) until 1.221, 223, 279 and the segment on Apion (2.5, 32, 143; cf. Latin in 2.79, 88); it is one of Josephus’ favorite labels for the stories he attacks. For <w lang="el-GR">δυσμένεια</w> (“malice”), repeated in 1.3, cf. 1.70, 212, 220; 2.145. As far as we can tell, such “slanders” rarely if ever induced doubt on the antiquity of the Judean people (see note to “us” at 2.156), but it suits Josephus’ rhetoric to associate the first topic of this treatise (the proof of Judean antiquity) with the other topics, wrapping them all in the same mantle, as responses to hostility. The doubt itself is hardly a “slander” and Josephus’ following remarks might suggest that its origin lay in ignorance rather than malice (1.3, 5). But he later redescribes it as a “charge” (2.288) and as a “case against us” (<w lang="el-GR">ἡ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀντιλογία</w>) advanced by “detractors” (<w lang="el-GR">οἱ βασκαίνοντες</w>, 1.72), thus again associating it with the “charges” and “slanders” that occupy the rest of the work. </note> and disbelieve what I have written on ancient history,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note17"> Here the terrain is not the trading of insults (an argument focused on <emph rend="italics">ethos</emph>), but the display of evidence and proof (a matter of <emph rend="italics">logos</emph>). Hence the material on the antiquity of Judeans is characterized as a correction of ignorance (1.3, 5), where “disbelief” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀπιστία</w>, 1.6, 161) is countered by reliable evidence worthy of belief (<w lang="el-GR">πίστις</w>; noun, verb, or adjectival forms in 1.4, 38, 72, 112, 143). One can imagine many aspects of Josephus’ <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph> open to doubt, but in what follows he chooses to focus on only one. The problem of disbelief (and malice) had been recognized in the earlier work (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 14.187; 16.44. </note> but adduce as proof that our people is of more recent origin that it was not thought worthy of any mention by the most renowned Greek historians,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note18"> At first sight, this looks like a simple argument: Greek historians knew about antiquity; they did not mention Judeans; therefore Judaeans did not exist in antiquity, but are a new nation. This straightforward argument is what Josephus wishes to dispute (cf. 1.58; 2.288) and the ground on which he wages battle in 1.6ff. But we might suspect that such a charge is invented or at least misrepresented by Josephus. No names are associated with this argument (cf. the named critics elsewhere), and its form is later changed to a claim that the Judean people is “recent” (<w lang="el-GR">νέα</w>, 1.58) or even “very recent” (<w lang="el-GR">νεώτατον</w>, 2.288; here the form is <w lang="el-GR">νεώτερον</w>). In any such forms the charge is unlikely to emanate from “Greek” sources or on the basis of Greek evidence (as the context implies, cf. 1.6). It is hard to imagine a strong objection being raised to Josephus’ assertion of the mere existence of Judeans in antiquity, on the superficial level he suggests. It was generally recognized that Greek historians were not well informed on oriental ancient history (as Josephus knows and uses for his ends in 1.6-29). All of Tacitus’ variant versions of Judean origins (<emph rend="underlined">Hist</emph>. 5.2-3) presuppose great antiquity; and it was widely believed that Moses was a figure of the distant past (cf. 2.156). Moreover, it would be highly convenient for Josephus to concoct a charge on these lines, both to provide some polemical occasion for his work (cf. <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 1.1-3, 13-16) and to set up a Greek “straw man,” easily knocked down (1.6-26); so Droge 1996: 117-19, 140; Goodman 1999: 52-53; Gruen 2005: 40-41. Yet there are reasons to think that there <emph rend="italics">may</emph> have been some doubts expressed about Judean self-claims, at least concerning Judean <emph rend="italics">importance</emph>. Josephus’ language here indicates that the matter is not directly about the ancient existence of the Judean people but is differently slanted. The issue is whether the Judeans were “<emph rend="italics">worthy</emph>” of mention (<w lang="el-GR">μνήμης ἠξιῶσθαι</w>), and whether they were mentioned by “the <emph rend="italics">most renowned</emph> (<w lang="el-GR">ἐπιφανεῖς</w>) Greek historians.” This suggests that the topic is Judean prestige, not mere existence: if the Judeans did not rate mention in such authoritative sources, they were clearly undistinguished, since renowned Greek historians could be relied upon to notice anyone who had a significant impact on history (cf. Diodorus 1.9.3: barbarians insist that their history is also “worthy of record”). Anyone familiar with the Greek historians would notice the complete lack of overlap between Josephus’ Judean history and the history recounted in the Greek tradition. It might be claimed by some (and disputed by others) that Homer had alluded to them (Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Hist.</emph> 5.2.3), but that none of the famed historians so much as gave them a mention would naturally lead to the conclusion that they were a wholly insignificant people (cf. the concern at <emph rend="underlined">Aristeas</emph> 312). The circulation of a work on the Judeans attributed to the truly famous Hecataeus thus occasioned dispute and doubt: Herennius Philo (second century CE; Origen, <emph rend="underlined">Cels</emph>. 1.15) considered the work probably spurious, since it seemed so adulatory. At the start of his treatise on Moses, Philo complains that Greek men of letters (<w lang="el-GR">λόγιοι</w>) have not regarded Moses as “worthy of mention” (<w lang="el-GR">μνήμης ἀξιῶσαι</w>, <emph rend="underlined">Mos</emph>. 1.2). The similarity to Josephus’ statement might indicate a rhetorical trope, but it also suggests a common perception among Judeans that they were unfairly disregarded, because their ancient heroes were not mentioned by Greeks. Celsus, in fact, gives us good evidence of exactly this non-Judean viewpoint: the Judeans never did anything worthy of mention (<w lang="el-GR">ἀξιόλογον</w>) and have never been of any significance, as witnessed by the fact that no event in their history is recorded by the Greeks (<emph rend="underlined">apud</emph> Origen, <emph rend="underlined">Cels.</emph> 4.31). It is quite possible that such an opinion circulated among <emph rend="italics">literati</emph> in Josephus’ <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, though not necessarily, as he suggests, in specific reaction to his own <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph>. While some might agree with Josephus that Greek historiography was myopic (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, <emph rend="underlined">Ant. rom</emph>. 1.4.2; Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Ann</emph>. 2.88), others could use Greek silence about Judeans as a weapon of denigration. Another dimension to this issue has been suggested by Boys-Stones (2001: 44-95). He has shown that in post-Hellenistic Stoicism the question of the antiquity of nations was of major philosophical and cultural significance. The Stoic belief that the wisdom of the ancients was deposited in pure (even if cryptic) form led to the search for traces of this primitive truth; and those nations that could show loyalty to such traditions of ancient wisdom would have perfect justification for their customs, however awkward or unusual they may seem. In this context it was extremely important to show which traditions <emph rend="italics">were</emph> ancient, and which were merely derivative (younger and corrupt versions of the original truth). The challenge to Judean antiquity could thus belong to a philosophical attack on the value and integrity of Judean culture (see further below, Reading Options to 1.219-320) Josephus’ presentation of the matter may thus contain a grain of truth, but is misleading: although he seems aware that the issue is historical <emph rend="italics">importance</emph> or <emph rend="italics">integrity</emph> (1.1), he shifts the battle to the easier ground of mere historical <emph rend="italics">existence</emph>. The issue is thus easily manipulated to his own ends: he can safely lambast Greek pretensions to knowledge of ancient history and can readily collect “witnesses,” who need only mention the Judeans in their narratives. At its deeper level, the issue concerns the solipsistic Greek criteria for “significance”: the only history worth recounting is what Greek historians know and relate. But Josephus will not challenge this cultural presumption head on. A swifter and easier case can be made if the issue is taken to be the mere existence of Judeans in antiquity. </note> I shall now begin to refute the remaining authors who have written something against us,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note5"> This statement suggests that Josephus understands the whole of Book 2 as refutation, even the positive presentation of the Judean constitution in 2.151ff.; Josephus’ introduction of that segment in 2.145-50 confirms that impression (see Introduction § 1). Apion is thus included in this wider (and purportedly comprehensive) refutation, and Josephus’ reply to him will include other authors, cited as his sources (2.79, 112). The verb <w lang="el-GR">ἐλέγχειν</w> (“refute,” “convict,” or “censure”) was prominent in 1.3-4; its moral tone is evident in 2.5. </note> and in venturing a counter-statement<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note6"> The text here is corrupt. The whole phrase in L reads: <w lang="el-GR">καὶ τοῖς τῆς πρὸς ?Απίωνα τὸν γραμματικὸν ἀντιρρήσεως τετολμημένοις</w>, which makes little sense. Niese posits a lacuna after <w lang="el-GR">ἀντιρρήσεως</w>; the Latin appears to paraphrase the whole sentence. The ed. princ. emends the start of the clause to <w lang="el-GR">καίτοι περὶ τῆς</w>and omits <w lang="el-GR">τετολμημένοις</w> altogether, an emendation followed by most modern editors (Naber, Reinach, Thackeray, Münster). But a simpler and quite adequate emendation by Boysen reads <w lang="el-GR">κἀν τοῖς τῆς</w>…<w lang="el-GR">ἀντιρρήσεως τετολμημένοις</w> (cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 2.25 for this meaning of <w lang="el-GR">τολμάω</w>); this is approved by Giangrande (1962: 108-9, n.4) and is translated here. </note> against Apion the “scholar,”<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note7"> Josephus immediately foregrounds the label “scholar” (<w lang="el-GR">γράμματικος</w>); later uses (2.12, 14, 15, 109) indicate that its tone is ironic. The term means an expert in Greek language and literature (especially Homer) and fits Apion well. Apion is known to us only in fragments (<emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 616) and from comments by Josephus and other ancient sources. For analyses of his life and work see Sperling 1886; Gutschmid 1893: 356-71; Cohn in <emph rend="underlined">PW</emph> 1.2803-06; Montanari in <emph rend="underlined">New Pauly</emph> 1.840-41; Schürer revised: 3.604-07; van der Horst 2002: 207-21; Dillery 2003; Jones 2005. He rose to prominence in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> in the early years of the first century CE, gained Alexandrian citizenship (2.32), and succeeded Theon as head of the Alexandrian academy (so the Suda). He became a world-famous scholar, known in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and to the emperor Tiberius (probably before 26 CE; Pliny, <emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. preface 25), and was especially prominent in the years 37-41 CE when he conducted a famous lecture tour of Greece (Seneca, <emph rend="underlined">Ep</emph>. 88.40) and headed the Alexandrian delegation to Gaius, blaming the city’s disturbances on the Judeans (Josephus, <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 18.257-60); he was also personally known in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> to such luminaries as Pliny the elder (<emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. 30.6). According to the Suda, he continued to teach in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> during Claudius’ reign, and probably died around 50 CE (Jacobson 1977). He was thus a well-known figure in the two most important cities of the Roman empire (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>), and spoke Latin well enough to write a treatise on it (Athenaeus, <emph rend="underlined">Deipn</emph>. 680d). He was clearly a scintillating public performer who left a lasting impression on his hearers, but his writings were also famous (<emph rend="italics">non incelebres</emph>, Aulus Gellius, <emph rend="underlined">Noct. att</emph>. 5.14.2), especially his five-book <emph rend="underlined">Aegyptiaca</emph> (“Egyptian Matters”) and his works on the language and text of Homer (Neitzel 1977). The fact that he was mentioned by all the writers indicated above, as well as by Aelian (<emph rend="underlined">Nat. an</emph>. 10.29; 11.40) and several early Christian authors (Tatian, the Pseudo-Clementines, etc.; see Reading Options), indicates his fame both in his lifetime and long thereafter. The label <w lang="el-GR">γραμματικός</w>, much used by Josephus (see above), is also how he is known by Seneca and Pliny among others (see <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 616, T.5). Aulus Gellius considered him an <emph rend="italics">eruditus vir</emph> with an encyclopedic knowledge of things Greek (<emph rend="underlined">Noct. att</emph>. 6.8.4; 5.14.1); after his sparkling Greek tour he was dubbed “<emph rend="italics">Homericus</emph>” (Seneca, <emph rend="underlined">Ep</emph>. 88.40). But he was also known as a grossly self-important figure, who liked to “blow his own trumpet” and was vain enough to think that he conferred immortality on others by dedicating his books to them (Pliny, <emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. preface, 25). His brilliant rhetoric was also, apparently, aggressive and bombastic: his nickname, “Pleistonikes” was taken to mean “highly quarrelsome” (Jacobson 1977; cf. 2.56), and Josephus’ criticism of his self-advertisement (2.136; cf. 2.17) is echoed by a remark on his love of ostentation by Aulus Gellius (<emph rend="underlined">Noct. att</emph>. 5.14.3). His scholarship was clearly ingenious, but also sometimes erratic and far-fetched. Many of our sources comment on his striking, but unconvincing, interpretations of texts or natural phenomena (e.g., Seneca, <emph rend="underlined">Ep.</emph> 88.40; Pliny, <emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. 30.18; 37.19; Aelian, <emph rend="underlined">Nat. an</emph>. 11.40), and his philological explanations of Homeric terms were later considered eccentric (Neitzel 1977). Josephus knows a good deal about Apion’s life (and death, 2.144) and deploys or masks that information where it suits his argument. It is striking that he never indicates here (despite <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 18.257-60) Apion’s role in the Alexandrian delegation against the Judeans, although the material in 2.33-78 clearly relates to that dispute. As Jones has shown (2005), he uses elements of Apion’s negative reputation (as a self-important orator and idiosyncratic scholar) to great effect. But in his assault on Apion’s <emph rend="italics">ethos</emph> (his chief rhetorical strategy), Josephus’ main weapon is denigration of Apion’s (purported) Egyptian ethnicity; see Barclay 1998a and Jones 2005. </note> it occurred to me to wonder whether it is necessary to make the effort.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note8"> In other cases, Josephus finishes his refutations with a statement that he need say no more (1.287, 303, 320). Only here does he start with a claim that he hardly need bother, although he actually gives more attention to Apion than to any other opponent (2.8-144). </note> For some of what he writes is similar to what has been said by others;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note9"> It is convenient to present Apion as unoriginal, and thus insignificant; cf. 2.6, 8. </note> some things he has added in an extremely artificial manner;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note10"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">λίαν ψυχρῶς</w>. Josephus uses the adjective in a similar sense (2.255; cf. <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 6.200). From its literal meaning “cold,” the word was employed in the context of rhetoric to mean “artificial,” “exaggerated,” or “empty”; see Aristotle, <emph rend="underlined">Rhet</emph>. 3 <emph rend="italics">passim</emph>. This matches Apion’s reputation for bombast and dubious scholarship (see note to “scholar” at 2.2). </note> but most is of the nature of burlesque<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note11"> The term (<w lang="el-GR">βωμολοχία</w>) is a hapax in Josephus, and suggests low vulgarity and clownishness; the verb is used of priests of Cybele in Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Pyth. Orac</emph>. 25. It was (and remains) a common rhetorical device to accuse one’s most violent critics of resorting to “gutter” tactics, with implications of both social and moral inferiority; cf. Origen’s objections to Celsus in <emph rend="underlined">Cels</emph>. 1.37; 4.30; 6.74. </note> and contains, if the truth be told, gross ignorance,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note12"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">πολλὴ ἀπαιδευσία</w>, the greatest imaginable insult to one styled a “scholar” (2.2), for whom <w lang="el-GR">παιδεία</w> is his defining virtue. The noun is used again in 2.38, 130, and the cognate adjective in 2.37; cf. the related terms <w lang="el-GR">ἀμαθία</w> (“ignorance,” 2.26), <w lang="el-GR">φλυαρία</w>/<w lang="el-GR">φλυαρήματα</w> (“nonsense,” 2.22, 116), and <emph rend="italics">omnium gurdissimus</emph> (“the greatest imbecile of all,” 2.88). </note> as if concocted<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note13"> The term (<w lang="el-GR">συγκείμενα</w>) and related verb <w lang="el-GR">συντίθημι</w> are favorites of Josephus (see note to “like” at 1.293); cf. <emph rend="italics">finxit</emph> at 2.110. </note> by a man who is both despicable in character and a lifelong rabble-rouser.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note14"> No grounds are given for this moral characterization, which signals the significance of <emph rend="italics">ethos</emph>-assaults in Josephus’ rhetoric. “Despicable” (<w lang="el-GR">φαῦλος</w>) is a statement about morality as well as status: cf. 1.53 and its use against Judeans in 1.210; 2.236, 290. “Rabble-rouser” (<w lang="el-GR">ὀχλαγωγός</w>) seems a strange accusation to throw against a pillar of the Alexandrian establishment, and does not match his reputation evidenced elsewhere. But it is repeated in 2.136 and may reflect Josephus’ judgment on his role in the Alexandrian civic riots (cf. 2.68-69; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 18.257-60), generalized as an enduring character trait. Cf. Philo’s characterizations of the Alexandrian civic leaders (oddly not including Apion) in <emph rend="underlined">Flacc</emph>. 20, 135-45; there Isodorus is dubbed <w lang="el-GR">ὀχλικός</w> (<emph rend="underlined">Flacc.</emph> 135). Apion accused the Judeans in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> of causing civic strife (2.68). </note> I thought it necessary to write briefly on all these matters,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note19"> The fact that this clause is followed, irregularly, by three further infinitives expressing purpose has led to several textual conjectures: Niese minor omits “to write” (<w lang="el-GR">γράψαι</w>), making the following infinitives depend on “it [was] necessary”; Bekker, Naber, and Schreckenberg (following the Latin) add <w lang="el-GR">καί</w> (“and”) before “to convict,” to achieve the same result; Reinach inserts <w lang="el-GR">ὥστε</w>(“with the result that”). But the syntax of prefaces is often convoluted, and it is probably better to leave the text as it stands. A condensed statement of decision and purpose is standard in prefaces, as is the claim to be brief (cf. 1.29, 58; 2.145; Alexander 1993: 94). “All these matters” is vague enough to embrace the topics highlighted in 1.1, together with the issues of 1.2. </note> to convict those who insult us as guilty of malice and deliberate falsehood,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note20"> The first purpose relates to the first issue of 1.2, reflected in the repetition of “malice.” “Insult” (<w lang="el-GR">λοιδορέω</w>) is another term strongly associated with the material in 1.219-2.144: it recurs in 1.219-20, 319 and frequently in the Apion segment (see note to “irksome” at 2.4). “Falsehood” (<w lang="el-GR">ψευδολογία</w>) is also a recurrent charge against “Egyptians” (1.252, 267, 293, 318, etc.). The term alone could be free of moral blame (one can tell erroneous tales unwittingly), but the epithet “deliberate” removes that ambiguity (on “lies” in Greek historiography, see note to “matters” at 1.16). The moral tone suggests the translation of <w lang="el-GR">ἐλέγξαι</w> as “convict as guilty”; in other contexts Josephus uses this verb to speak of logical “proof” (e.g., 1.253), but since he usually attributes error to malicious motivation, the verb often hovers on the border between “prove,” “convict,” and “expose.” </note> to correct the ignorance of others,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note21"> The second aim meets the second issue of 1.2, those who doubt Josephus on Judean antiquity. Josephus prefers to present this as a matter of factual correction, though 1.5 hints at a more sinister dimension to the problem of “ignorance.” </note> and to instruct all who wish to know the truth on the subject of our antiquity.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note22"> The third clause relates more to the second purpose than to the first, and the category may be artificially created, out of the second, to create a rhetorical tricolon (cf. <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 3.108-9). Although “truth” is at issue in both cases, “antiquity” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀρχαιότης</w>) is the theme of the proofs running up to 1.218 (the term is repeated in 1.59, 69, 93, 160, 215, 217; cf. 2.1). This clause may be partly responsible for the common title accorded to this work in antiquity (see Introduction, § 4), but it hardly covers the whole treatise: after so much else in 1.219ff., it is listed as only one of the topics in the summation at 2.287-90. This generalized depiction of audience (cf. 2.296) is of little help in assessing Josephus’ intended readers (see Introduction, § 7), though the reference to “wishing” to know the truth (repeated in 2.296) perhaps hints at his awareness that he will only convince those who are willing to be persuaded (cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.12). “The truth” will often be decided through a procedural asymmetry: while those who agree with Josephus’ argument, or his scriptures, are hailed as truth-telling, without scrutiny of their motives or bias, those whom Josephus refutes are subjected to lengthy analyses of their (improper) motives. </note> I will employ as witnesses for my statements<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note23"> 1.4-5 now indicates the means by which Josephus will achieve the aims of 1.3, though not in the sequence that he will follow; the substance is repeated in 1.58-59, in proper order. The two means mentioned in this section reflect the two challenges of 1.2, in reverse order. The appeal to witnesses (<w lang="el-GR">μάρτυρες</w>, see note to “witnesses” at 1.70; the terminology permeates 1.69-219) is necessary to provide proof against the doubters, who have cited “evidence” (<w lang="el-GR">τεκμήριον</w>, 1.2). The language hints at the development of a legal metaphor as if the Judean nation were here on trial; it thus provides a rhetorical link to the more developed forensic metaphors in later material (2.4, 147). </note> those judged by the Greeks to be the most trustworthy on ancient history as a whole,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note24"> Josephus will not dismiss the authority of the Greek tradition altogether, but will work within its parameters to relativize its significance; the tactic is deployed throughout 1.6-59, where the Greek historiographical tradition is utilized, both in self-criticism and in validation of others considered more “trustworthy” (the three nations of 1.8-9, here still unnamed). The statement thus looks forward to the segments on Egyptian, Phoenician, and Chaldean witness in 1.73-160. <w lang="el-GR">ἀξιοπιστότατοι</w>(“most trustworthy”) echoes both <w lang="el-GR">ἀπιστέω</w> (“disbelieve”) and <w lang="el-GR">ἀξιόω</w>(“think worthy”) in 1.2. </note> and I will show that those who have written about us slanderously and falsely are convicted by themselves.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note25"> The terminology indicates the authors whom people “attend to” in 1.2, and whom Josephus will convict of “falsehood,” not least by showing how they contradict themselves. This anticipates 1.219-2.144, where the self-refutation takes the form of contradicting one another (e.g., 1.303, echoing this statement) and individually contradicting themselves (1.226, e.g., of Manetho in 1.230-32, 253-87; of Apion in 2.17, 137-39). The language here (as in 1.219) is ambiguous enough to cover both collective and individual self-incrimination. As Quintilian noted (<emph rend="underlined">Inst</emph>. 5.7.29), turning one’s opponents’ arguments against themselves is one of the most effective rhetorical strategies. </note> However, since most people, because of their folly, are captivated by such language rather than by literature of a serious nature,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note15"> After the dismissive comments of 2.3, Josephus has to give some justification for the fact that he <emph rend="italics">will</emph> make a serious effort to refute Apion. This first explanation (the second comes at the end of the section) runs the risk of insulting Josephus’ readers, but is put in generalized terms to explain Apion’s wide popularity. The readers are thus presumed to share Josephus’ scorn for “most people” (<w lang="el-GR">οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων</w>; cf. the “rabble” of the previous section), whose “folly” is demonstrated by their vulnerability (note the passive, “are captivated”) and low-brow tastes. </note> and enjoy insults, while finding expressions of praise irksome,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note16"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">χαίρουσι μὲν ταῖς λοιδορίαις, ἄχθονται δὲ τοῖς ἐπαίνοις</w>. The language is remarkably close to Demosthenes, <emph rend="underlined">Cor</emph>. 3, and may be borrowed from it: Demosthenes speaks of the natural tendency of all people <w lang="el-GR">τῶν μὲν λοιδοριῶν καὶ τῶν κατηγοριῶν ἀκούειν ἡδέως, τοῖς ἐπαινοῦσι δ</w>’<w lang="el-GR">αὑτοὺς ἄχθεσθαι</w> (“to listen gladly to insults and accusations, but to find those who praise themselves irksome”). In fact, Demosthenes’ statement makes better sense, since praise is more likely to be irksome when it is self-praise. For Josephus’ sensitivity regarding his encomium on the Judean constitution, see 2.147. The language of “insult” (<w lang="el-GR">λοιδορία</w>) had been used in 1.3, 219-20, 319; it will figure prominently in this segment in its verbal form (2.30, 32, 34, 49, 142, 144; cf. the noun in 2.34 and the echoing statement in 2.295; <emph rend="italics">detrahere</emph> in 2.111). </note> I have deemed it necessary not to leave even this man unscrutinized,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note17"> On the root of this term (<w lang="el-GR">ἀνεξέταστον</w>), see note to “scrutinize” at 1.288: Josephus will scrutinize his character as much as his arguments. </note> since he has composed a charge against us as though in a lawsuit.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note18"> This is the second reason for Josephus’ reply. The language of “charge” or “accusation” is prominent throughout this segment: <w lang="el-GR">κατηγορία</w> (2.7 [bis], 137); <w lang="el-GR">κατήγορος</w> (2.132); <w lang="el-GR">κατηγορέω</w> (2.117, 137, 142); <w lang="el-GR">ἐγκαλέω</w> (2.137, 138); <emph rend="italics">accuso</emph> (2.56, 68, 79); <emph rend="italics">accusatio</emph> (2.63); <emph rend="italics">culpo</emph> (2.68); <emph rend="italics">increpo</emph> (2.81). The reference to a “lawsuit” (<w lang="el-GR">δίκη</w>) might suggest that Josephus has in mind particularly Apion’s role in the Alexandrian embassy, which went to Gaius in 38/39 CE with accusations against the Alexandrian Judeans (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 18.257-60; cf. Smallwood 1981: 235-50; Barclay 1996a: 51-60). There are many elements of the Alexandrian material here (2.33-78) that would fit that context precisely (see note to “<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>” at 2.33). Despite an early Christian misunderstanding, there is no good evidence that Apion wrote a treatise specifically against Judeans (see Schürer revised 3.606-7; Jones 2005: 310-15); certainly the only work Josephus mentions is his <emph rend="underlined">Aegyptiaca</emph> (2.10). Thus we should conclude that Apion incorporated material reflecting that Alexandrian crisis into his large-scale work, which cannot have been composed until after 39 CE. The precise literary context of this material is unknown. The portrayal of Apion’s material as a “lawsuit” accusation enables Josephus to respond with all the tricks of the court-room, including exaggeration, appeals to emotion, and (particularly) <emph rend="italics">ethos</emph>-assaults on his “accuser.” </note> Besides, I notice that it is also the case that most people are particularly delighted<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note19"> Josephus comes even closer here to placing his readers in this category of “most people” (cf. <w lang="el-GR">οἱ πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι</w>, 2.4); he will certainly provide the “delight” he here mentions. Since <emph rend="italics">ethos</emph>-attacks were open to the charge of “gutter-tactics,” it was always best, as here, to make a pretense of being above such things, and to insist that one is only responding to one’s opponent in kind. </note> whenever someone who has begun to slander another<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note20"> The language of “slander” (<w lang="el-GR">βλασφημέω</w>; see 1.2, 59, 221) will recur frequently in this segment: <w lang="el-GR">βλασφημία</w> (2.32, 143); <emph rend="italics">blasphemia</emph> (2.79, 88); cf. <emph rend="italics">detraho</emph> (2.90, 111); <emph rend="italics">derogo</emph> (2.73); <emph rend="italics">derogatio</emph> (2.89). </note> is himself convicted of vices pertaining to himself.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note21"> Josephus regularly turns charges against Judeans back on Apion: concerning Alexandrian citizenship (2.28-32, 42, 71-72), the character of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> (2.34), religion (2.65-67), political sedition (2.68-70), political weakness (2.125-34), diet and circumcision (2.137, 143). Most of these depend on characterizing Apion as “Egyptian”; see note to “Apion” at 2.28, and Barclay 1998a. </note> I will try also to explain the reasons why not many Greeks made mention of our nation in their histories;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note26"> This looks forward chiefly to 1.60-68 (lack of contact between Judeans and Greeks), but the silence is given additional explanation in 1.6-27 (Greeks do not know about antiquity anyway) and in 1.213-14 (a case of hostility towards Judeans). Josephus thus partially concedes the charge of 1.2 (though not its implication of the Judeans’ historical insignificance). But, as the next clause shows, he will not concede it altogether. Although this double strategy is not without internal tension, it gives the impression of providing a more than adequate answer to the challenge. </note> at the same time, however, I will draw attention to those who have not passed over the history which relates to us<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note27"> “Draw attention” (<w lang="el-GR">ποιήσω φανερούς</w>) echoes the Greek of the opening statement of 1.1 (“made clear”), providing a linguistic bracket for the preface. Josephus will not allow that there is no Greek historical reference at all (the criterion of “most renowned” historians in 1.2 is quietly dropped), and thus announces the section of Greek witnesses in 1.161-218. “Not passed over” allows a minimal degree of attention to the Judeans, as is often the case with the sources collected in that segment. Now all the main segments in 1.60-2.144 have been mentioned, though not in the order in which they will appear. 1.6-59 thus stands outside the preannounced scheme, with a preliminary role relevant to the proof of Judean antiquity (1.69-218). On the status of 2.145-286, see note to “Molon” at 2.145 and Introduction, § 1. </note> for those who are, or feign to be, ignorant.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note28"> Correcting ignorance was one of the aims of 1.3, but a twist is here added in the suspicion that at least some of the “ignorance” may be feigned. This injects a dose of polemic sufficient to justify the sharpness which hovers around the edge of an otherwise unemotional argument (cf. 1.72, 213-14). </note> The first thing that occurs to me is utter astonishment<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note29"> The prominence of personal and emotional language gives this preliminary segment an immediate rhetorical draw. “Astonishment” is a familiar rhetorical mask for rebuke or scorn (cf. Paul in Gal 1:6); Josephus uses cognate terms in sarcastic comment on Apion (2.12, 20, 25, 125, etc.). </note> at those who think one should pay attention only to Greeks on matters of great antiquity, expecting to learn the truth from them, while disbelieving us and the rest of humanity.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note30"> The language echoes 1.2, but if Josephus there only half represents the issues at stake, he now exaggerates the viewpoint of his doubters to assist his rhetoric (cf. 1.161). It is hard to imagine that anyone argued that <emph rend="italics">only</emph> Greek historians should be trusted; in fact, as 1.8-9 suggests, even Greeks looked to others for information about ancient history. But by restating the matter in this way, representing the doubt as directed against “us” (not just Josephus’ <emph rend="underlined">Antiquities</emph>, but Judeans as a whole), and by adding “and the rest of humanity,” Josephus can suggest a generalized cultural antagonism between Greeks and everyone else. When the (artificial) charge is then reversed, Josephus can embed the authority of Judean historiography among well-respected examples of “the rest of humanity” (cf. 1.8, 28-29, 58) who put Greek historiography to shame. The issue is “truth,” the theme that will dominate this segment (1.15, 24, 26-27, 47, 50, 52, 56). </note> For my part, I find the very opposite of this to be the case,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note31"> The rhetorical tactic of reversing one’s opponents’ arguments leads Josephus into denial of any historical worth in Greek historiography; only at the very end is a more nuanced statement allowed (1.58). </note> if indeed one should not follow worthless opinions but derive a right conclusion from the facts themselves.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note32"> The tone and vocabulary (not following <w lang="el-GR">ματαίαι δόξαι</w>, but deriving <w lang="el-GR">τὸ δίκαιον</w> from the <w lang="el-GR">πράγματα</w>) evokes the “philosophical” pursuit of truth, which attacks mere fancy (cf. 1.211); the opposite view is <w lang="el-GR">ἄλογον</w> (“absurd,” 1.15). Philosophical criteria will be evoked more explicitly in 2.145-86, not least in refutation of erroneous <w lang="el-GR">δόξαι</w> (2.169, 239, 258). “The facts” appealed to are common opinion (e.g., 1.7-15, 28-29), and, for Josephus, the most crucial is the authority of the biblical books, which are “rightly trusted” (<w lang="el-GR">δικαίως πεπιστευμένα</w>, 1.38). </note> Now it is not easy to follow Apion’s discourse or to know for sure what he intends to say.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note22"> Josephus writes as Apion’s intellectual superior; cf. 2.3 and the charge of Apion’s “stupidity” in 2.13, 18. </note> Roughly – as his material is in great disorder, with lies all jumbled up<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note23"> Josephus repeatedly accuses Apion of lying: (<w lang="el-GR">κατα</w>)<w lang="el-GR">ψεύδομαι</w>: 2.14, 28, 29 [bis], 32, 121, 122, 144; <w lang="el-GR">ψεῦσμα</w> (2.6, 12, 115); <emph rend="italics">mentio</emph> (2.79, 85, 90); <emph rend="italics">mendacium</emph> (2.82, 98, 111); <emph rend="italics">fallacia verba</emph> (2.88). The “disorder” here implies (what Josephus considers) a confusion of material, rather than a wide distribution, and seems to apply particularly to the third category (see 2.7). In 2.148 Josephus contrasts Apollonius’ spread of material with Apion, who has his “grouped together” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀθρόαν</w>). If we may believe 2.7, there seem to have been two main contexts for Apion’s comments on Judeans: the exodus narrative (in the third book of the <emph rend="underlined">Aegyptiaca</emph>, according to 2.10) and the Alexandrian issue. Josephus judged it in his interests to extract from these the material that he himself groups in 2.79-144. </note> – some of what he says falls into the same category as the material that we have already scrutinized concerning the migration of our ancestors from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note24"> See 2.8-27. Josephus does not describe this as constituting a “charge” (cf. 2.7), and some may have been complementary about Moses (2.10-11). By characterizing it as repetitious (cf. 2.3), Josephus can avoid recounting Apion’s full narrative, and will isolate only those “artificial” features he can ridicule. What Apion seems to have depicted as an “expulsion” (2.8, 20) is here termed merely a “migration” (cf. 2.16, 17, 28). </note> some is a charge against the Judeans who reside in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note25"> For the legal language of a “charge,” and the relationship to the Alexndrian crisis in 38-39 CE, see note to “lawsuit” at 2.4. The political charges brought against Alexandrian Judeans at that time are very clear in 2.65, 68, 73, but can be detected throughout 2.33-78. </note> thirdly, there is mixed up with these a charge concerning the ritual practiced in our temple and the rest of our rules.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note26"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">νόμιμα</w>, a term much used in Book 2 (2.48, 152, 203, 213, etc.). It is closely related to “laws” (<w lang="el-GR">νόμοι</w>), and may sometimes overlap with that term, but need not imply the same degree of legal definition; these are practices which are regulated by custom or precedent. The contents of this third category, which Josephus has artificially separated in 2.79-144, were apparently incorporated with the other two topics (on the “mixing” or “disorder,” see 2.6). It is difficult now to reconstruct how the topics related. Regarding the temple (see 2.79-120), the charge of ass (or ass-head) worship (2.79-88, 112-20) might have been connected with the account of the exodus, to judge from the association between the two made by Tacitus (<emph rend="underlined">Hist</emph>. 5.4.2; cf. 5.3.2). Similarly the accusation of sacrificing “tame animals” (2.137) probably concerns specifically the sacrifice of rams and oxen, associated with Moses’ revulsion against Egyptian religion (Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Hist</emph>. 5.4.2). The ban on pork (2.137) may be related to the diseases allegedly suffered by Moses’ followers, requiring their expulsion (2.15; cf. Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Hist</emph>. 5.4.2). On the other hand, the alleged annual sacrifice of a Greek (2.89-110), the oath against Greeks (2.121-24), and the charge of religious stupidity or impiety (2.112, 125) are more likely to relate to the political accusations of anti-Greek and anti-Roman behavior in the Alexandrian riots; they may even supply, together with the ass-stories, some justification for Gaius’ plan to “reform” Judean cult by installing a statue of himself in the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Jerusalem&groupId=51&placeId=242">Jerusalem</a> temple. By extracting and grouping these elements in his own way, Josephus can conduct the argument on his terms; for instance, his refutations on the topic of the temple reinforce one another. </note> For everything to do with the Greeks I have found<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note33"> Translating <w lang="el-GR">ηὗρον</w> (“I have found”) suggested by the Latin (<emph rend="italics">cognovi</emph>) and supported by Reinach and Schnackenburg, in preference to the optative <w lang="el-GR">εὕροι</w> (in L and Eusebius, supported by Niese and Thackeray), which lacks a subject. Other emendations are possible. </note> to be recent, so to speak from yesterday or the day before<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note34"> The idiom (<w lang="el-GR">χθὲς καὶ πρ?ην</w>) is repeated as <w lang="el-GR">ἐχθὲς καὶ πρ?ην</w> in 2.14 and 2.154 also in relation to the Greeks; cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 2.348; 18.243. It has its roots in a famous passage in Herodotus 2.53, where Herodotus uses this idiomatic expression to contrast the antiquity of Egyptian theology with the recent Greek knowledge of the Gods (Homer and Hesiod being only 400 years in the past). It is used by Plato in a passage closely parallel to our text: Greek inventions in arts, and the founding of cities, are only 1,000 or 2,000 years old, that is, compared to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, only yesterday or the day before (<w lang="el-GR">ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν χθὲς καὶ πρ?ην γεγονότα</w>, <emph rend="underlined">Leg</emph>. 677d; cf. Droge 1989: 43). That Josephus should (silently) use Herodotus and/or Plato here on this critical point, where Greeks acknowledged their historical inferiority, is a symptom of his tactic throughout 1.6-26, to deploy Greek self-criticism and self-deprecation in a blanket critique of Greek historiography. The trope of Greek youth (compared to Egyptian antiquity) echoes through later Greek literature, e.g., Plato, <emph rend="underlined">Tim</emph>. 22b-c (cf. 1.10 below); Aristotle, <emph rend="underlined">Pol</emph>. 1329b. For Josephus the crucial term here is “recent” (<w lang="el-GR">νέα</w>), in counter-echo of the claim that the Judean nation is “more recent” (<w lang="el-GR">νεώτερον</w>, 1.2; cf. Plato, <emph rend="underlined">Tim</emph>. 22b on the Greeks as <w lang="el-GR">νέοι</w>). Josephus will not allow that a “recent” nation, such as the Greeks, might have better critical tools for judging the ancient history of other nations; for him accurate historiography requires the faithful transmission of one’s own ancient records and in this the Greeks are evidently inferior for the reasons to be discussed. </note> – I mean the founding of cities, and matters concerning the invention of arts and the recording of laws;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note35"> These three items together encapsulate a Greek understanding of “civilization” and play on familiar Greek themes (cf. Diodorus 1.2). The founding myths of many Greek cities (e.g., Thebes and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>) involve settlers coming from more ancient civilizations such as <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (cf. 1.103). The “invention of arts” (<w lang="el-GR">τεχναί</w>) alludes to the theme of “first inventor,” in which other nations regularly claimed priority over the Greeks (see note to “intellectuals” at 2.135). The third item (cf. 1.21; 2.151-56) is carefully phrased to include the key term “recording” (lit. “records,” <w lang="el-GR">ἀναγραφάς</w>), since what matters for Josephus is not having laws but having them <emph rend="italics">in writing</emph>. The prominence of this theme is indicated by the profusion of terms from the <w lang="el-GR">γραφ</w>- root in 1.6-59: <w lang="el-GR">γράφω</w> (1.20, 21, 24, 25, 26[<emph rend="italics">bis</emph>], 37, 41, 45, 55); <w lang="el-GR">ἀναγράφω</w>(1.49); <w lang="el-GR">ὑπογράφω</w>(1.37); <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιγράφω</w> (1.46); <w lang="el-GR">συγγράφω</w> (1.7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 33, 37, 40, 45, 57); <w lang="el-GR">συγγραφεύς</w>(1.15, 23, 27, 58); <w lang="el-GR">ἀναγραφαί</w> (1.7, 9, 11, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 36, 38, 43, 47, 58); <w lang="el-GR">γράμματα</w> (1.10, 11[<emph rend="italics">bis</emph>], 12, 21, 22, 28, 35, 41, 54[<emph rend="italics">bis</emph>], 59); <w lang="el-GR">συγγράμματα</w> (1.44). For Josephus everything hinges on the reliability of <emph rend="italics">written</emph> tradition. </note> and just about the most recent of all for them is care in relation to the writing of histories.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note36"> This (unsupported) claim is placed last for emphasis, since this is the central issue. Lack of “care” (<w lang="el-GR">ἐπιμέλεια</w>) in historiography (cf. 1.9, 21, 28-29) suggests a cultural deficiency more damaging to Greek honor than the accidents of history (1.10). The phrase seems to denote care <emph rend="italics">in</emph> the composition of history, rather than care <emph rend="italics">about</emph> it, but both may be implied. </note> However, they certainly themselves acknowledge<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note37"> If others appeal to the authority of Greeks (1.2), Josephus will do so too (cf. 1.4) – but here in order to undercut (supposed) Greek pretensions. It is hard to see how this acknowledgement by Greeks can be squared with the self-importance attributed to them in 1.15. </note> that matters to do with the Egyptians and Chaldeans and Phoenicians<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note38"> The three peoples are chosen to match the three categories of “witness” whom Josephus will employ in 1.69-160; cf. 1.10, 14, 28. The antiquity of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> was discussed in educated circles from the time of Hecataeus and Herodotus and was taken for granted by Josephus’ contemporaries (sufficient to be satirized by Lucian, <emph rend="underlined">Sacr</emph>. 14). The Chaldeans were an ethnic group or priestly caste associated with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Babylonia&groupId=388&placeId=728">Babylonia</a>, with a reputation for astrology dependent on the possession of extremely ancient records of the stars (see below, <emph rend="underlined">Chaldean Evidence (1.128-60): Reading Options</emph>). The Phoenicians, taken by Greeks as their teachers in the alphabet (see at 1.10), were also reputed to have ancient records. At the time of Josephus, Philo of Byblos (70-160 CE) claimed to translate material from the Phoenician Sanchuniathon, whose accounts of life before and during the Trojan War were gaining credence in some quarters as more reliable than Homer; see Baumgarten 1981; Attridge & Oden 1981; Bowersock 1994: 43-48. </note> – for the moment I refrain from adding ourselves to this list<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note39"> The seemingly modest gesture (discarded in 1.28-29) is enough to affect the reading of all that follows, suggesting that Judeans could be taken as included in this excellent company. Of course precisely this insinuation is what would be resisted by Josephus’ critics. Greek lists of ancient oriental nations (Egyptians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, Indians) never include Judeans, except as offshoots from one or another. Celsus pointedly refused to include Judeans in such distinguished company (<emph rend="underlined">apud</emph> Origen, <emph rend="underlined">Cels</emph>. 1.14; 6.78-80). </note> – enjoy an extremely ancient and extremely stable tradition of memorialization.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note40"> I translate <w lang="el-GR">μνήμη</w> as “memorialization” to include both memory and record. Both antiquity and stability are important to Josephus. He does not commit himself to precision on the antiquity. Cf. Herodotus’ claim to more than 11,000 years of recorded Egyptian history (2.100, 143) and Diodorus’ statement on Chaldean tradition, passed on from father to son for 473,000 years (2.29; 2.31.9). The implied contrast is with Greek novelty and <emph rend="italics">instability</emph>, the latter to be stressed in 1.10. Herodotus is close to the surface here: “the Egyptians, by their practice of keeping records (<w lang="el-GR">μνήμη</w>), have made themselves the best historians (<w lang="el-GR">λογιώτατοι</w>) of any nation I have encountered” (2.77.1). </note> That our fathers were neither Egyptians by descent<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note27"> Josephus worked hard to address this issue in 1.219-320 (see especially 1.252, 278, 314); “Egyptians by descent” was used before at 1.252, 275, 298, 317. Apion’s claim, implied here, is also evident in 2.28 (and explicit in relation to Moses in 2.10). For Apion such descent would have political as well as historical significance, since it could be used against the claim of Judeans to “Alexandrian” status (see 2.38). </note> nor expelled from there because of bodily injury or any other such afflictions,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note28"> “Bodily injury” (<w lang="el-GR">λύμη σωμάτων</w>, repeated in 2.289) would normally mean physical impairment, not pollution (<emph rend="underlined">pace</emph> Thackeray, “contagious diseases”). Josephus uses <w lang="el-GR">λύμη</w> in the sense of “harm” or “injury” at 2.232; <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 7.418; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 9.96; 17.121. Josephus may here substitute a medical category for one originally to do with pollution (cf. note to “people” at 1.234); cf. his other paraphrases of Apion at 2.15, 23, which also suggest forms of physical impairment. Apion claimed that the expellees contracted groin tumors during the desert march (2.20-27), but we cannot tell from Josephus what he considered to be the cause of their expulsion. For similarly unspecified “afflictions” (<w lang="el-GR">συμφοραί</w>), see 2.122. However, if Apion linked the Judeans’ ban on pork (2.137) with the scabies infection contracted by the Judeans’ ancestors (so Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Hist</emph>. 5.4.2), that may represent his version of the plague that necessitated their exodus. </note> I think I have already demonstrated not merely adequately but more than adequately.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note29"> For Josephus’ statements on a job well done, cf. 1.287, 303; here <w lang="el-GR">οὐ μετρίως μόνον</w>…<w lang="el-GR">πέρα τοῦ συμμέτρου</w>(cf. 1.303, <w lang="el-GR">μετριώτερον</w>, in a different sense). It suits Josephus to present Apion as largely repeating previous versions of this story. But it is possible that Apion’s story was actually the most devastating (see Appendix 3). </note> I shall mention briefly the material that Apion adds.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note30"> For the language of “additions,” see 1.3, 17. Josephus will mention just three: on Moses’ prayer-houses (2.10-14); on the date of the exodus (2.15-19); and on the contraction of groin tumors (2.20-27). These have no doubt been selected because they are most easily refuted or made to look absurd. As Troiani (141) suggests, it is possible that Apion himself signalled these as additions to his literary sources (from oral tradition, 1.10, or from his own calculations, 2.17). In fact, Apion may be the source through whom Josephus gained knowledge of Chaeremon and Lyismachus (cf. 2.20). Troiani suggests this also with regard to Manetho, but Josephus’ lengthy quotes suggest that he had independent access to the latter. </note> For these all inhabit places which are least subject to the catastrophic effects of climate,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note41"> The general claim, advanced to contrast with 1.10, derives from a particular tradition concerning <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>: that she had a sufficiently good climate to escape radical change (Herodotus 2.77) and had not been affected by the flood of Deucalion (Diodorus 1.10.4). The Chaldeans and Phoenicians are allowed to ride on this Egyptian tradition. For comparison of the climate of Asia and Europe, see Hippocrates, <emph rend="underlined">Aer</emph>. 12-24. </note> and they have applied great forethought to leaving nothing of what happens among them unrecorded,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note42"> <w lang="el-GR">ἄμνηστον</w> echoes <w lang="el-GR">μνήμη</w> (“memorialization”, 1.8). The claim suggests a comprehensiveness which is wildly exaggerated, but Josephus does not know enough, or wish, to describe the narrow compass of these records; in a similar vein, he will use the Judean priest-lists to generalize about Judean historiography (1.30-36). </note> but to have them consecrated continuously in public records composed by the wisest individuals.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note43"> Each of the terms is carefully chosen. “Consecrated” (<w lang="el-GR">καθιερόω</w>, an unusual term in this context) suggests security and stability, and echoes the Chaldean reputation as priests, and the role of priests in Egyptian historiography (cf. 1.28, 73 and Herodotus book 2, <emph rend="italics">passim</emph>); Diodorus, drawing on Hecataeus, refers to Egyptian “holy records” (1.44.4; 46.7). “Continuously” underlines the claim that there is no break in tradition (cf. 1.8). “Public records” (<w lang="el-GR">δημοσίαι ἀναγραφαί</w>) implies both public authorization and public accessibility (cf. 1.11, 21). “Wisest” reflects the Chaldeans’ reputation (cf. 1.28, 129) and the notion of Egyptian priests as “philosophers” (1.28; 2.140; cf. Herodotus 2.160 on Egyptians as the wisest people). The Phoenicians had no comparable reputation, but can be included here by association. </note> The region of Greece, on the other hand,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note44"> To the charge of carelessness in record-keeping (1.7) Josephus now adds two reasons why Greece was in any case <emph rend="italics">unable</emph> to keep records: the repeated destruction of civilizations and the late discovery of writing. He can advance both as well-known tropes in discourse on Greece, but only the second is elaborated in detail (1.10-12). </note> has been affected by numerous catastrophes that have wiped out the memory of past events;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note45"> Josephus aims for maximum contrast with the statements of 1.8-9: the regions <emph rend="italics">the least</emph> subject to catastrophe (1.9) are here contrasted with a land subject to <emph rend="italics">numerous</emph> catastrophes (1.10). The motif is at least as old as Plato, <emph rend="underlined">Tim</emph>. 21e – 23c, where the exposure of Greece to repeated conflagrations and floods is contrasted to the safety of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, as an explanation of the “youth” of Greek culture; cf. Plato, <emph rend="underlined">Leg.</emph> 677a – 678a. The theme is recycled right through antiquity (cf. Celsus <emph rend="underlined">apud</emph> Origen, <emph rend="underlined">Cels</emph>. 1.20). Josephus was aware of Greek flood stories which he connects to Noah (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.93-95), but he does not specify here the well-known floods associated with Ogygus and Deucalion. </note> and since they were repeatedly establishing new ways of life, the people of each period thought that their time was the beginning of everything,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note46"> Cf. Plato, <emph rend="underlined">Tim</emph>. 23b: disasters leave only the unlettered (<w lang="el-GR">ἀγράμματοι</w>) so that the Greeks become “young” again and again, with no knowledge of what happened in ancient times; cf. <emph rend="underlined">Leg</emph>. 680a; <emph rend="underlined">Crit</emph>. 109d. Once again Josephus is using against Greeks a motif which originates in the Greek tradition. </note> and it was late – and with difficulty – that they learned the nature of the alphabet.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note47"> The late origin of the Greek alphabet is a motif broadly discussed in Greek literature (see below); its acquisition “with difficulty” (cf. 1.66) is a slur on the intelligence of Greeks, which places them in contrast with the “wisest individuals” active in other nations (1.9). </note> In any case, those who wish its use to be the most ancient pride themselves on learning it from the Phoenicians and Cadmus.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note48"> Josephus’ wording suggests both scepticism (those who <emph rend="italics">wish</emph> its use to be most ancient) and scorn: if they are <emph rend="italics">proud </emph>to have <emph rend="italics">learned </emph>the alphabet from another nation, the Greeks trumpet their own cultural inferiority (cf. 1.14)! Throughout this section, “learning” (<w lang="el-GR">μανθάνω</w>) signals subordination to a superior authority (1.14, 15, 23, 37; cf. 1.22). The introduction of the alphabet to Greece by Cadmus, the legendary Phoenician founder of Thebes, is a tradition already familiar to Herodotus (5.58-61) and passed on through antiquity (cf. Ephorus <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 70, frag. 105a; Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Quaest. conv</emph>. 738f; Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Ann</emph>. 11.14). For Josephus the Phoenician origin is crucial, to support his inclusion of that nation in the ancient company of Egyptians and Chaldeans (1.8). For Judean attempts to go one better, making Judeans the source of Phoenician knowledge of the alphabet, cf. Eupolemus <emph rend="underlined">apud</emph> Clement, <emph rend="underlined">Strom</emph>. 1.23.153.4 (Holladay 1983, frag. 1). </note> In the third book of his <emph rend="underlined">Aegyptiaca</emph> he says this:<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note31"> Cf. the title of Manetho’s work (1.73); both concern the history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, but probably more besides. According to Aulus Gellius, <emph rend="underlined">Noct. att</emph>. 5.14.4, there were 5 books in this work. Tatian (<emph rend="underlined">Orat</emph>. 38) says that Apion, following Ptolemy of Mendes, records Amosis’ destruction of Avaris in Book 4, and Africanus (<emph rend="underlined">apud</emph> Eusebius, <emph rend="underlined">Praep. ev.</emph> 10.10.16) connects this event with the exodus. But Africanus is not trustworthy on this matter (see note to “year” at 2.17), and there is no reason to question Josephus’ location of this material in Apion’s work. What follows is introduced and concluded as if a verbatim citation, which it may well be. Textual problems in both sentences (see below) suggest the text is either corrupt or compressed, though we cannot tell if Josephus cites a text of Apion already garbled or whether the difficulties were created by Josephus, or the tradents of his text. Josephus has picked out this snippet because he finds it bizarre and offensive, and judges it easily discredited. </note> Moses, as I heard from the elders of the Egyptians,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note32"> The phrasing suggests that Apion does not count himself an Egyptian (he does not say “our elders”; cf. 2.28-32, 135). From our fragments of his work, it appears that Apion liked to cite his sources: e.g., eyewitness accounts (Aulus Gellius, <emph rend="underlined">Noct. att</emph>. 5.14.4; 6.8.4), the priests of Hermoupolis (Aelian, <emph rend="underlined">Nat. an</emph>. 10.29), Ctesion of Ithaca (Athenaeus, <emph rend="underlined">Deipn</emph>. 16f), and Poseidonius and Apollonius Molon (<emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 2.79). Here he uses a formula that refers to folk-lore and oral tradition (cf. Manetho’s sources in <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 1.105, 229). Similarly, Philo talks of learning about Moses from both “the sacred books” and “some of the elders of the nation” (<emph rend="underlined">Mos</emph>. 1.4: <w lang="el-GR">πρεσβύτεροι</w>, as here). Josephus (wilfully?) misconstrues this reference in 2.13. </note> was a Heliopolitan,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note33"> Cf. Manetho, regarding Osarseph, in 1.238, 250. The place of origin, whose name means “city of the sun,” is important for the sun associations to follow. Josephus records Joseph’s marriage to the daughter of the priest of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heliopolis&groupId=163&placeId=405">Heliopolis</a> (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 2.91) and states that Jacob and his sons settled there (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 2.188). The city is also the centre of the nome in which the temple of Onias was constructed, at Leontopolis (<emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 1.33; 7.420-36; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 12.387-88; 13.62-73, 285; 20.236); it is just possible that the following description of prayer-houses has some link with that fact (see below, at “<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heliopolis&groupId=163&placeId=405">Heliopolis</a>”). </note> who, being pledged to his ancestral customs,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note34"> “Being pledged” (<w lang="el-GR">κατηγγυημένος</w>) is a rare use of the passive of <w lang="el-GR">κατεγγυάω</w> (to give, or make another give, something as security). His ancestral customs are apparently taken to be <emph rend="italics">Egyptian </emph>and unshakeable. What follows need not imply criticism of Moses, just that his behavior betrayed his Heliopolitan origins. But since we do not know when and where Apion placed the building work to be described, it is hard to see what nuances are intended. </note> used to build open-air prayer- houses<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note35"> The term (<w lang="el-GR">προσευχαί</w>) is distinctively Judean in its application to a meeting-place or building. It is well-attested in Ptolemaic inscriptions from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (Horbury & Noy 1992: nos. 9, 13, 22, 24, 25, 117, 125, 126, 127) and was similarly known in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Philo, <emph rend="underlined">Legat</emph>. 156; Juvenal, <emph rend="underlined">Sat</emph>. 3.296); see Hengel 1971; Levinskaya 1996: 207-25; Levine 2000. “Open-air” suggests that the location, or the main part of the structure, was unroofed (cf. Acts 16.13?), and the following reference to the circuits of the sun (?) suggests that this was structurally necessary. Apion appears to be offering some etiological explanation for an aspect of “prayer-houses” recognizable to his readers, but the problems in our text, and the lack of context, make this impossible to discern. For other etiological aspects of exodus stories, see Appendix 3. </note> in line with whatever circuits the sun had,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note36"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">εἰς οἵους ε?χεν ἥλιος περιβόλους</w> (L, followed by Niese). The Latin reads: <emph rend="italics">templa enim quae habuit haec civitas …</emph> (“for the temples that this city had …”). For <w lang="el-GR">ἥλιος</w> (“sun”), S reads <w lang="el-GR">ἡ πόλις</w> (“the city”). This is followed by Naber, Reinach, and Thackeray (cf. Jacoby, <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 3.C, 127), understanding <w lang="el-GR">περιβόλους</w>(“circuits”) as the walls or precincts of the city. L’s Greek is certainly difficult and probably corrupt, but the circuiting of the sun seems to be important in relation to the preceding “open-air” and the following 2.11, and the word <w lang="el-GR">ἥλιος</w> (“sun”) should probably be retained. Schreckenberg 1977: 163-64, tentatively suggested reading <w lang="el-GR">εἶδεν</w>(“saw”) in place of <w lang="el-GR">εἶχεν</w>(“had”), an emendation followed in Münster but not adopted here. </note> and used to turn them all towards the east; for that is also the orientation of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heliopolis&groupId=163&placeId=405">Heliopolis</a>.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note37"> For the importance of solar-worship in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heliopolis&groupId=163&placeId=405">Heliopolis</a>, see Allen in Redford 2001: 2.88-89; Kákosy in <emph rend="underlined">LÄ</emph> 2.1111-13. It is not clear if Apion is talking about Moses’ practice in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (Müller 226) or in the new city settled by his followers and equipped with prayer-houses (so Jacoby, <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 3.C, 127; Schäfer 1997a: 29). In this case, the point might be that the peculiar customs of Judeans were adaptations of Egyptian religious practices. But which customs? Although Josephus mentions Judean worship as east-facing, or sun-revering, in isolated cases (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 3.115; 4.305; <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 2.128, of the Essenes; cf. Ezek 47:1 and <emph rend="italics">m. Sukkah</emph> 5.2-4 of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Jerusalem&groupId=51&placeId=242">Jerusalem</a> temple), these were hardly familiar or distinctive enough to found this comment about Moses’ “prayer-houses.” In the Egyptian context, Philo’s comment about the Therapeutae greeting the rising sun (<emph rend="underlined">Contempl</emph>. 89), if it reflects any reality, is hardly applicable to other Judeans. The temple in Leontopolis, associated with “the city of the sun” (Is 18:18-19), may have contained a special feature relating to light, though Josephus describes lamp-light as important, not sunlight (<emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 7.428-29). Perhaps the prayer-houses known to Apion (in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> or <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) were east-facing, but we do not have archaeological evidence to establish this. </note> In place of obelisks he set up pillars,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note38"> The obelisks of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heliopolis&groupId=163&placeId=405">Heliopolis</a> were famous: see Jer 43:13; Herodotus 2.111.4 (with Lloyd 1988: 42-43); two were transported by Augustus to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 10 BCE and placed in the Circus Maximus and Campus Martius (Ammianus Marcellinus 17.12). Moses is here made responsible for a modification of this tradition, perhaps a <emph rend="italics">corruption</emph> of his Egyptian culture, to discredit his own degenerate offshoot (Boys-Stones 2001:71-72). But what Apion has in mind by these pillars, and the sundial described hereafter, is obscure. For the five pillars at the entrance to the Tabernacle, see Exod 26:37 (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 3.123), but Apion would had to read the LXX very carefully to know about those, or about the two enormous pillars in Solomon’s temple, I Kgs 7:15-22 (see Reinach 1900: 14). </note> under which there was the base of a sundial sculptured in relief;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note39"> Greek: <w lang="el-GR">ὑφ</w>’<w lang="el-GR">οἷς ἦν ἐκτύπωμα σκάφης</w> (L and other codd. read <w lang="el-GR">σκάφη</w>). <w lang="el-GR">ἐκτύπωμα</w> means something carved in relief (Josephus picks up the term in 2.12). <w lang="el-GR">σκάφη</w> can mean a boat (so Thackeray), but also the concave, hemispherical base of a sundial (Vitruvius 9.8.1: <emph rend="italics">scaphe sive hemisphaerium</emph>; other references in Reinach 1900: 13; cf. Gibbs 1976: 30-35, 60); the latter sense fits better with what follows. </note> this had the shadow of a statue<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note40"> Here again the text seems corrupt: L and S read <w lang="el-GR">ἀνδρός</w> (“of a man”); Münster follows Thackeray and Reinach in emending to <w lang="el-GR">ἀνδρίαντος</w> (“of a statue”). There is no equivalent term in the Latin. The statue is presumably what constitutes the upright in the sundial; cf. Herodotus 2.149.2, referring to pyramids with stone figures on the top. If Apion knew the LXX well, it is just possible that he is alluding to the cherubim whose wings “overshadowed” the top of the ark (Exod 25:18-20); but it is a long stretch from there to a sundial. If Apion refers here to a statue, or something equivalent, it would have been useful fodder for his attack on the Judean refusal to allow statues of the emperor (2.73); if Moses allowed such a thing, their denial of this honor to the emperors could be ascribed only to political insubordination, not religious taboo. </note> cast upon it, in such a way that this went round in accordance with the course of the sun as it travels continuously through the air.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note41"> There are minor problems in the Greek at the start of the clause (L, S read <w lang="el-GR">ὡς ὅτι</w>; Münster, following Reinach, reads <w lang="el-GR">ὃν οὗτος</w>) but the general sense is moderately clear: as the sun circles the sky, the shadow tells the time. Is Moses being credited here with the invention of the sundial? If so, this is a high honor (cf. Vitruvius 9.8.1, ascribing the “hemisphere” or <w lang="el-GR">σκάφη</w> to Aristarchus of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Samos&groupId=944&placeId=1680">Samos</a>; cf. Pliny, <emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. 2.187). Feldman suggests (1988: 198-99) that a famous pillar, of unknown origin, served as a sundial and was attributed to Moses. In truth, without the larger context, we cannot tell what Apion was claiming, nor why. On sundials in antiquity, see Gibbs 1976. </note> In fact, no-one would be able to produce any record even from that date,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note49"> Josephus is vague, as Cadmus is undatable; he is simply presumed to be “many years” before the Trojan War (below; cf. Labow 2005: 16, n.32). Homer refers to the inhabitants of Thebes as “Cadmeii” (<emph rend="underlined">Il</emph>. 4.388) or “Cadmeiones” (<emph rend="underlined">Il</emph>. 4.385). “Record” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀναγραφή</w>) is the third use of this term since 1.7 (see note to “laws” ad loc.). </note> preserved either in temples or on public monuments,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note50"> Cf. the twinning of “consecrated” and “public” in 1.10. Josephus takes this absence of evidence to raise questions about the Greek ability to write, thus not committing himself to the Cadmus-legend while silently alluding to the claim of Herodotus (5.58-61) to have seen three inscriptions in “Cadmean letters” in the temple of Ismeneian Apollo at Thebes, which he dates to 2/3 generations after Cadmus (Gutschmid 389). </note> seeing that, even with regard to those who fought against Troy so many years later,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note51"> Again no dates are provided and Josephus’ chronology throughout lacks precision (see at 1.104). Eratosthenes (3<emph rend="superscript">rd</emph> century BCE) had provided a widely accepted date for the fall of Troy as 1184 BCE. </note> it has become a question of considerable uncertainty and research as to whether they used writing; and the true, prevailing view is rather that they did not know the present mode of writing.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note52"> Josephus begins to display his cultural expertise – knowing both that there is debate and what is the majority opinion – and notably changes the issue from use of any sort of writing to knowledge of writing in “the present mode.” He thus protects himself against alternative readings of the famous passage on which this debate hinged, the reference to the writing of “baneful signs” (<w lang="el-GR">σήματα λυγρά</w>) at Homer, <emph rend="underlined">Il</emph>. 6.168-69. Opinions in antiquity were divided as to whether this represented alphabetic script, e.g., in scholia on Homer (Dindorf 1875: 1.235) and on Dionysius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Thrace&groupId=1030&placeId=509">Thrace</a> (Hilgard 1901: 185); the modern debate on this passage began with Wolf 1795 (see now Kirk 1990: 181-82, with further literature). But since most now regard the written forms of Homer’s poems to be no earlier than 750 BCE, a reference to alphabetic writing there does not prove anything about the emergence of Phoenician-Greek in earlier centuries (probably, in fact, in the 9<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> century BCE). See Powell 1991. </note> Across the board among the Greeks no authentic writing is to be found older than Homer’s poem, and he clearly lived after the Trojan events;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note53"> Josephus follows Herodotus who, in the same passage as that echoed in 1.7 (see note to “before” ad loc.), suggested that any poets said to have preceded Homer and Hesiod were in fact of a later date (2.53; see Lloyd 1976: 247-49). There is also a verbal echo of Thucydides here (noted by Schäublin 1982: 319 n24): Thucydides wrote that Homer “lived much later than the Trojan events” (<w lang="el-GR">πολλ? ὕστερον ἔτι καὶ τῶν Τρωικῶν γένομενος</w>, 1.3.3); Josephus’ Greek runs: <w lang="el-GR">καὶ τῶν Τρωικῶν ὕστερος φαίνεται γενόμενος</w>. <w lang="el-GR" />Homer is left as uncertainly dated as the Trojan War, but Josephus seems to depend on the consensus that that is the first secure date in Greek history and, by the standards of eastern chronology, not all that ancient. This line of argument – that Homer was the earliest Greek author, but much later than Moses – was crucial to early Christian apologetics, in explaining the greater authority of the Judeo-Christian tradition (e.g., Tatian, <emph rend="underlined">Ad Gr</emph>. 31, 36; cf. Pilhofer 1990: 253-60). On the question of how long Homer lived after the Trojan War, Tatian lists no less than 16 ancient authorities who discussed this question, with answers varying from 80 to 500 years (<emph rend="underlined">Ad Gr</emph>. 31). Josephus does not commit himself to precision on the matter, and does not need to. </note> and even he, they say, did not leave his own poem in written form, but it was transmitted by memory and later put together from its recital in songs, and for this reason has many internal discrepancies.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note54"> Using this common opinion (“they say”), Josephus places a further historical gap, bringing the first writing, and thus historiography, down to a yet more recent period. Apart from scholia to Dionysius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Thrace&groupId=1030&placeId=509">Thrace</a> (see Gutschmid, 391), this statement by Josephus is the main passage indicating the oral transmission, in song, of the Homeric epics. This was the foundation of the revolutionary approach to Homer by Wolf 1795 and, through the modern comparative studies of Parry and Lord (see Lord 1960), continues as the presupposition of contemporary analysis of Homeric style in comparison with the performance of bards (Segal 1992). Josephus’ comment on the resulting discrepancies anticipates a major theme in his exposure of contradictions between Greek historians (1.15-26). </note> Such is the amazing statement of the “scholar.”<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note42"> On Josephus’ ironic use of this label (again in 2.14, 15), see note to “scholar” at 2.2. He is here refuted by the simple statement of a few facts. The adjective <w lang="el-GR">θαυμαστός</w> (“amazing”) and its cognate verb will be used frequently in response to Apion (2.20, 25, 28, 125, 135; cf. <emph rend="italics">admiror</emph>, 2.79), with heavy sarcasm; cf. 1.302. </note> Its falsity does not need to be argued, but is quite evident from the facts.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note43"> Josephus here contrasts the deployment of arguments (Greek: <w lang="el-GR">λόγοι</w>, “words,” i.e., “artificial” proofs) with the use of facts (Greek: <w lang="el-GR">ἔργα</w>, “acts,” i.e., “inartificial” proofs). The “facts” will actually be drawn from the Judean scriptures – no neutral source. “Falsity” (<w lang="el-GR">ψεῦσμα</w>, see note to “up” at 2.6) is immediately asserted as entirely “evident,” since Josephus likes to declare his judgments immediately, before conducting the argument to support them (cf. 1.252). </note> For neither did Moses himself, when he constructed the first Tent for God, place in it any such sculptured object, nor did he instruct his successors to make one.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note44"> On Moses’ Tent (Tabernacle), see Josephus’ description in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 3.102-50, based on Exodus 25-27, 36-38. It was emphasized there that the curtain tapestry had no shapes of living things “molded” on it (LXX <w lang="el-GR">ἐξετυποῦντο</w>, from the same root as the noun <w lang="el-GR">ἐκτύπωμα</w> in 2.11; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 3.113; cf. 3.126). But Josephus did there mention some features which might be seen to correspond to Apion’s description: the tent had prominent pillars (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 3.123), faced east, to catch the rising sun (3.115), and had a very important carving in its holiest place, the two “figures” (<w lang="el-GR">πρόστυποι</w>) of the cherubim (3.137, based on Exod 25:18-20; 37:7-9). Moses’ instruction to his successors may allude to the second commandment (Exod 20:4; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 3.91; <emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 2.191). </note> And Solomon, who later constructed the sanctuary in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Hierosolyma&groupId=51&placeId=241">Hierosolyma</a>, refrained from any such curiosity of the kind that Apion has fabricated.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note45"> Solomon’s temple is described in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 8.61-98 (based on 1 Kings 6-7). It contained two prominent pillars (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 8.77-78), the cherubim (8.72-73, 103), and ten lavers, with carved reliefs of animals (8.81-86). Josephus had criticized Solomon for the construction of bronze bulls in the temple (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 8.195). But none of these would correspond to Apion’s sundials. </note> He says that he heard from “the elders” that Moses was a Heliopolitan; evidently, being younger himself, he has trusted those who, because of their age, knew Moses and were his contemporaries!<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note46"> Having contradicted Apion’s facts, Josephus ridicules his purported source. Where Apion had meant “the elders” in the sense of the bearers of oral tradition (see note to “Egyptians” at 2.10; cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 13.292), Josephus takes him to mean strictly the next generation above him. Moreover, Josephus arbitrarily deduces that these “older people” claimed to know Moses at first-hand. Since Apion is soon shown to have dated the exodus hundreds of years before (2.17), this is clearly a complete misconstrual of his meaning, but Josephus is not above taking cheap rhetorical shots. There is an added nuance of Apion’s gullibility, taking things “on trust,” rather than finding them out for himself; the verb <w lang="el-GR">πιστεύω</w> (“trust”) will be repeated in the next section. </note> On the other hand, those of their number who attempted to write histories<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note55"> From writing in general Josephus moves to the writing of history; Homer was presumably in a different category (epic; though Hesiod is to be found in the company of historians in 1.16). Josephus demands now not just the keeping of records (cf. Draco in 1.21), but the composition of “histories.” For the other nations (Egyptians, Chaldeans, Judeans) possessing written records is sufficient (1.8-9, 28-29) – or at least Josephus never clarifies what would qualify in their case as “history.” In this treatise, the verb “attempt” (<w lang="el-GR">ἐπιχειρέω</w>) always conveys a sneer, presuming lack of success (cf. 1.53, 56, 58, 88, 220, 223, etc.). </note> – I mean such as Cadmus the Milesian<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note56"> A shadowy figure of the mid 6<emph rend="superscript">th</emph>-century BCE, known as among the first prose writers (with Pherecydes and Hecataeus; Strabo 1.2.6; Pliny, <emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. 5.112; 7.205), and associated with the <emph rend="italics">logographoi</emph> who recycled “mythical” tales (Diodorus 1.37.3). The fragments attributed to him are collected in <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 489, but their authenticity was doubted in antiquity (Dionysius of Halicarnasus, <emph rend="underlined">Thuc</emph>. 23) and remains uncertain. </note> and the Argive Acusilaus<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note57"> Listed with Hellanicus and Hecataeus in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.108, and known among scholars in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">De or.</emph> 2.53; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, <emph rend="underlined">Thuc.</emph> 5). His probable dates (end of 6<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> – beginning of 5<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> centuries BCE) would make him a contemporary of Hecataeus, Herodotus’ most important predecessor; see <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 2, and further below, at 1.16. </note> and any others that may be cited after him<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note58"> The others (the “logographers” listed, e.g., in Dionysius, <emph rend="underlined">Thuc</emph>. 5) are all described as “after him,” so that no additional names could place the beginnings of Greek historiography any earlier. The most famous in this category, Hecataeus of Miletus, goes unmentioned here and in 1.16, perhaps to avoid confusion with Hecataeus of Abdera, whose (inauthentic) work <emph rend="underlined">On the Judeans</emph> constitutes a key Greek witness (1.183-204). </note> – lived only a little before the Persian invasion of Greece.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note59"> Herodotus, the first proper “historian” on some definitions, was reputed to have been born just before the Persian Wars (Dionysius, <emph rend="underlined">Thuc</emph>. 5). Xerxes’ invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE) is alluded to as a known fact, but undated; and lack of precision allows Josephus to bring all the “historians” close to this date. Thucydides’ damning comments on such “logographers” (1.21) and his refusal to set any store on history before the Persian Wars stands behind the dismissive tone of this sentence. </note> Certainly, the first among the Greeks to philosophize on the heavens and matters divine,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note60"> This is not strictly relevant to a discussion of Greek historiography, but it is the only other genre of early Greek prose, and it allows further mention of Egyptians and Chaldeans (cf. 1.8-9), again suggesting Greek inferiority. Ionian science was well known to combine cosmology with theology as the beginning of “philosophy”; in Pherecydes, for instance, the “upper heaven” is Zeus and the “lower” Chronos. </note> such as Pherecydes of Syros,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note61"> Syros is one of the Cyclades, west of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Delos&groupId=533&placeId=1004">Delos</a>, and Pherecydes a well-known philosopher of the 6<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> century BCE (cf. Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">Tusc</emph>. 1.38: the teacher of Pythagoras); see Schibli 1990. </note> Pythagoras,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note62"> Of the mid 6<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> century BCE; his place of origin was disputed (cf. 1.162; 2.14) and is here left unstated. Josephus will use his authority in 1.162-65, and portray him as a youngster compared to Moses (2.14). His inclusion here is important as his borrowings from older nations were much discussed (see below). </note> and Thales,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note63"> The Ionian philosopher (from Miletus, early 6<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> century BCE) was famous as one of the “Seven Sages” who brought Egyptian mathematics and Chaldean astrology into the Greek tradition (Diogenes Laertius 1.24-28). Herodotus thought him Phoenician by origin (1.170.3), a suggestion Josephus would have enjoyed. </note> are acknowledged, by universal consent, to have been pupils of the Egyptians and Chaldeans for what little they wrote.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note64"> The paragraph thus circles back to its beginning (the youth of the Greeks compared to eastern nations), with the added point of cultural inferiority, as mere <emph rend="italics">pupils</emph> (cf. 1.10). Pythagoras was indeed generally thought to have borrowed his chief ideas from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (Isocrates, <emph rend="underlined">Bus</emph>. 28-29; Diodorus 1.98.2; Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Quaest. conv</emph>. 729a) and from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Chaldea&groupId=110&placeId=346">Chaldea</a> (Diogenes Laertius 8.3, 6). Thales’ science was generally traced to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> as well (Iamblichus, <emph rend="underlined">VP</emph> 12; Diogenes Laertius 1.27). These two are prominent figures in a larger schema, in which Greek science/philosophy traced its roots to the East (Diodorus 1.96-98; Strabo 17.1.29; Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Is. Os</emph>. 354 d-e); see West 1971. The <emph rend="italics">topos</emph> was available for other nations (including Judeans) to exploit in their own interests, especially in response to Greek cultural or political hegemony. Josephus is less direct than some of his Judean predecessors in claiming Judean originality (see 1.162-65; 2.168, 281), but he turns the theme more subtly to his advantage. </note> This is what the Greeks consider the most ancient material of all – and they have difficulty believing that these works were all written by those men.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note65"> The statement seems to refer particularly to the philosophers; doubts were aroused in particular by alleged writings of Pythagoras (see note to “his” at 1.163) and Thales (Diogenes Laertius 1.23). By raising doubt at this point, Josephus leaves the antiquity of Greek writing dangling in rhetorical uncertainty, with Greeks themselves beset by self-doubt – a striking contrast to their (false) self-assurance (1.15). </note> With regard to the poet Homer, though he is a “scholar” he would not be able to say with confidence what his homeland was,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note47"> The title “scholar” (<w lang="el-GR">γραμματικός</w>) here has special irony, since it signals above all an expertise in Homeric literature; Apion was famous in this field, and was dubbed “Mr. Homer” (<emph rend="italics">Homericus</emph>) after a notable lecture tour of Greece (Seneca, <emph rend="underlined">Ep</emph>. 88.40). Homer’s birthplace had been debated since the Archaic period (see, e.g., <emph rend="underlined">Hym. Hom. Apollo.</emph> 172-73: <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Chios&groupId=462&placeId=863">Chios</a>; Pindar frag. 264 [ed. Maehler]: <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Chios&groupId=462&placeId=863">Chios</a> or <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Smyrna&groupId=981&placeId=1733">Smyrna</a>; Aulus Gellius, <emph rend="underlined">Noct. att</emph>. 3.11: Colophon, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Smyrna&groupId=981&placeId=1733">Smyrna</a>, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>, or <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>); the issue was famously irresolvable. Josephus may assume that Apion was as uncertain on this as everyone else. But it is possible that he alludes to a specific anecdote, according to which Apion claimed to have called up the “shades” to enquire from Homer himself about his homeland but, when he had received an answer, declared himself unable to divulge it (Pliny, <emph rend="underlined">Nat</emph>. 30.18). The argument is structured <emph rend="italics">a minori</emph>: if Apion does not know the equivalent facts in his area of expertise, how can he claim to know the birthplace of someone else? This and the parallel argument, about relative antiquity, have only superficial force, since historical knowledge is normally patchy, and can be more accurate on some remote or distant facts than on matters nearer to hand. </note> nor with regard to Pythagoras, who lived just about “yesterday or the day before”;<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note48"> For this expression, also in 2.154, see note to “before” at 1.7. Josephus always uses it in this treatise in relation to the comparative youth of the Greeks. In 1.14 Pythagoras is named among the first Greek philosophers and in 1.162 dubbed “ancient” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀρχαῖος</w>), as suits the rhetorical needs of that context. Here, by contrast, he is considered (comparatively) recent. He probably lived in the 6<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> century BCE. His homeland is named without hesitation in 1.162 as <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Samos&groupId=944&placeId=1680">Samos</a>, but is here (as often elsewhere) regarded as a matter of uncertainty: see note to “Samian” at 1.162, and the options canvassed in Diogenes Laertius 8.1; Porphyry, <emph rend="underlined">Vit. Pyth.</emph> 1, 5; Clement, <emph rend="underlined">Strom</emph>. 1.14.62. </note> but with regard to Moses, who preceded these men by such a vast number of years,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note49"> On the dating of Homer, some time after the Trojan War, see note to “events” at 1.12; on Pythagoras, see the previous note. Josephus consistently dates Moses at least 2000 years in the past (1.36; 2.226; <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 1.16). </note> he gives his opinion with such ease, trusting the report of elders, that he is clearly telling lies.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note50"> Apion’s naivety is reinforced with the further reference to “trust,” but the main thrust of the charge is that he cannot know the truth on this matter and is simply making things up (cf. 1.15). The last word (<w lang="el-GR">καταψευσάμενος</w>, “telling lies”) echoes <w lang="el-GR">ψεῦσμα</w> (“falsity”) in 2.12, to bracket the whole discussion. </note> With respect to the date<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note51"> The following discussion of Apion’s dating (2.15-19) gives Josephus an opportunity both to expose discrepancies between different authors (2.15-16; cf. 1.293-303) and to convict Apion of a historical error (2.17-19). Josephus thus emerges as the better “scholar.” </note> at which he says Moses led out the lepers, the blind, and those whose feet were crippled,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note52"> The last phrase (<w lang="el-GR">τὰς βάσεις πεπηρωμένους</w>) is almost certainly Josephus’ own (cf. its use in <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 7.61, 113); cf. the reference to the “lame” in 2.23, where Josephus notes the absurdity of Moses leading across the desert people who are unable to walk. </note> the precise “scholar” is in complete agreement, I should imagine, with his predecessors.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note53"> Josephus supplements yet another use of “scholar” (<w lang="el-GR">γραμματικός</w>, cf. 2.2, 12, 14) with the adjective “precise” or “accurate” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀκριβής</w>); cf. 2.17. He seems to presuppose that truthfulness would require agreement among sources (cf. 1.26, 293) and that disagreement discredits them all (cf. 1.15-27). A historian in the Greek tradition would argue otherwise. </note> Is it not absurd, then, for the Greeks to puff themselves up as if they alone know about antiquity and accurately transmit a true account of it?<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note66"> The rhetorical question heightens the aggressive tone (cf. 1.44), and the charge of “absurdity” (<w lang="el-GR">ἄλογον</w>) meets the Greek tradition of reason on its own terrain (cf. 1.6). The language echoes earlier statements about the Greeks (1.2, 6: here <w lang="el-GR">μόνους</w>, “alone,” matches <w lang="el-GR">μόνοις</w>, “only” in 1.6), but the issue has also subtly changed: whereas earlier Josephus pits himself against <emph rend="italics">those who made appeal</emph> to the authority of the Greeks (1.2), here he counters directly <emph rend="italics">the Greeks themselves</emph>. There is no indication that Greek historians, past or contemporary, made a claim as extreme as this; indeed, Josephus has just described Greek <emph rend="italics">humility</emph> on this score (1.8-9; cf. 1.14). His statements of the issue thus evidence a progressive distortion: from the likely misstatement at the outset in 1.2, through the exaggeration of 1.6 to this evident gross misrepresentation. The image of Greeks now forged matches a common Roman stereotype of the self-important and impudent Greek; see, e.g., Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">Flac</emph>. 9-11, and Tacitus, <emph rend="underlined">Ann</emph>. 2.88 (of the German Arminius: <emph rend="italics">Graecorum annalibus ignotus, qui sua tantum mirantur</emph>). </note> Can one not easily discover from the authors themselves that they wrote without reliable knowledge of anything, but on the basis of their individual conjectures about events?<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note67"> “Authors” (<w lang="el-GR">συγγραφεῖς</w>) is a slightly less specific term than “historian,” allowing Hesiod into the following discussion (1.16); this ambiguity will later enable the inclusion of a wide assortment of Greek “writers” in 1.161-218. Josephus now turns to internal evidence, and will argue that disagreement between authors is caused by each simply guessing at the facts, a phenomenon which is itself explained by their lack of sources (1.16-23). This highly partial chain of reasoning is here presented as “easily” deduced; the rhetorical force of the argument precludes consideration of alternative explanations for historians’ disagreements (beyond that offered in 1.24-26). Cf. Strabo, <emph rend="underlined">Geogr</emph>. 8.3.9: “ancient historians do not agree with one another as they were brought up on lies, due to mythology.” It was common to accuse the historians whom one disparaged of operating by “guesswork”; cf. 1.45; 2.20; Polybius 12.3.7; 4.4 (on Timaeus). </note> Indeed for the most part they refute each other in their books, and do not hesitate to say the most contradictory things on the same topics.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note68"> The generalizing statement prepares for the list of examples of 1.16-18, using exaggeration (“for the most part”; “most contradictory”) to suggest that the following disagreements are of such extent as to wholly discredit them all. In this polemical context, the fact that they do not hesitate suggests not courage (cf. 1.205) but brazenness (cf. 1.226). </note> It would be superfluous for me to instruct those who know more than I<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note69"> The <emph rend="italics">praeteritio</emph> excuses Josephus from giving a long description of the matter, but allows him to cause the damage to Greek historiography that he desires, while flattering his implied readers as more educated than himself. The following list indicates his knowledge of most of the famous figures in early Greek historiography (the obvious absentees are Xenophon and Theopompus; cf. 1.220) and of the penchant for Greek historians to establish their credentials by criticising their predecessors (Marincola 1997: 217-36). This feature of Greek agonistic culture could be favorably represented as an emblem of the critical spirit in the quest for truth (cf. Diodorus 1.56.6), but Josephus skilfully turns it round into a mark of Greek confusion and ignorance. He knows enough about the Greek tradition to turn its self-reflexive virtues into a defect, with the help of Roman prejudices against “quarrelsome” and “mendacious” Greeks (e.g., Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">Flac.</emph> 16-19; Juvenal, <emph rend="underlined">Sat</emph>. 10.174; cf. Josephus, <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 1.16). For a parallel strategy – an eastern historian criticising the contradictions among Greek historians – see Philo of Byblos, <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 790, frag. 1. </note> how much Hellanicus disagreed with Acusilaus on the genealogies,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note70"> Josephus will present a chain of six figures, each of whom undermines his predecessors; but he enters the chain part way in, perhaps to prevent tedium and to debunk at once one of the figures in the previous discussion (cf. 1.13). Hellanicus of Lesbos (c.480 – 395 BCE) was a major figure in Greek historiography, of whom about 200 fragments survive (<emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 4). The “genealogies” are accounts of Greek origins whose mythological character and local variations made them vulnerable to criticism. Hellanicus’ attempt to create a common chronology of Greece no doubt gave him occasion to critique the Argos-based accounts in Acusilaus (see note to “Acusilaus” at 1.13). </note> how often Acusilaus corrects Hesiod,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note71"> Acusilaus’ work on cosmogony and theogony (his “Genealogies”, <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 2, frags. 5-22) inevitably brought him into the terrain of Hesiod. Plato, <emph rend="underlined">Symp.</emph> 178b reports agreement, but points of divergence were easily detectable (cf. Clement, <emph rend="underlined">Strom</emph>. 6.2.26.7). Hesiod wrote epic poetry ca. 700 BCE; his <emph rend="underlined">Theogony</emph> is probably in view here. </note> or how Ephorus proves Hellanicus to have lied on most matters,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note72"> The exaggeration echoes the introduction in 1.15; for one example see Strabo, <emph rend="underlined">Geogr</emph>. 8.5.5 and for other criticisms of Hellanicus’ inaccuracy see Thucydides 1.97.2. Ephorus of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyme&groupId=510&placeId=960">Cyme</a> (c.405 – 330 BCE) wrote a 30-book universal history which enjoyed a high reputation in antiquity and was much used by Diodorus, Strabo and others, but is preserved only in fragments (<emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 70); see Barber 1935. “Lied” translates <w lang="el-GR">ψευδόμενον</w>, a verb which in some contexts can connote merely “giving a false account” (where the falsehood is not taken to be deliberate). But in this context “falsehoods” are presumed to be intentional (cf. 1.3, 68), and the contrast with mere “error” (<w lang="el-GR">πλάνη</w>, 1.20) suggests that the historians in question were deliberately deviating from the facts; the verb recurs in 1.18, 20, 23. </note> and how Timaeus did the same to Ephorus,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note73"> Timaeus of Tauromenium in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> (c.350 – 260 BCE; see Pearson 1987: 37-51; <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 566) was famous for his extreme criticisms of his predecessors (cf. 1.17). He was dubbed “Epitimaeus” (“The Censurer”) by <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ister&groupId=654&placeId=1194">Ister</a>, and was often regarded (e.g., by Polybius 12.4-11, 24-25) as playing his polemical role to excess. For his criticisms of Ephorus, see, e.g., Polybius 12.23.1-8; 28.12. He was especially concerned for accuracy in dating (Polybius 12.10-11). </note> and Timaeus’ successors to him,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note74"> The chain ends with anonymous critics. Josephus perhaps did not know how to carry on the list, or had now sufficiently displayed his erudition, or declined to bring it down to historians such as Polybius, who were highly regarded in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. 2.84). <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ister&groupId=654&placeId=1194">Ister</a> (3<emph rend="superscript">rd</emph> century BCE) wrote a contradiction of Timaeus, and Polemon of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ilium&groupId=645&placeId=1183">Ilium</a> (2<emph rend="superscript">nd</emph> century BCE) no less than 12 books against him; Polybius (2<emph rend="superscript">nd</emph> century BCE) devoted practically the whole of book 12 to an assault on his reputation. </note> and everyone to Herodotus.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note75"> Manetho is cited later (1.73) as part of this chorus of criticism, which was a common trope in historiography. The implied criticism in Thucydides 1.21 is made explicit by Ctesias (see Diodorus 2.15), Diodorus (e.g., 1.69.7), Cicero (<emph rend="underlined">Div</emph>. 2.116; <emph rend="underlined">Leg</emph>. 1.5), Strabo (e.g., <emph rend="underlined">Geogr</emph>. 17.1.52), and many others, before becoming the subject of a treatise by (Pseudo-?) Plutarch (“On the Malice of Herodotus”); see Momigliano 1984 and, for Roman views, Wardman 1976: 105-6. Despite this comment (cf. <emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 8.253; 10.19), Josephus will use Herodotus as a reliable Greek witness to Judean antiquity in 1.168-71. </note> In fact, Manetho says that the Judeans left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> during the reign of Tethmosis, 393 years before Danaus’ flight to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note54"> On the dating, see note to “<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>” at 1.103. Here again Josephus does not correlate the various dates by placing them on a common chronological scale. </note> Lysimachus when Bocchoris was king, that is, 1700 years ago,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note55"> See note to “Egyptians” at 1.305. In 1.312 Josephus suggested that Lysimachus had made up this name, but here he is a real king, with a datable reign. Bocchoris probably reigned ca. 720 – 715 BCE, but from some versions of Manetho’s account of the 24<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> Dynasty it was possible to conclude that he reigned earlier in the eighth century, and for 44 years (see Motzo 1912-13: 466-67). It is likely that Apion, following Lysimachus, also placed the exodus in Bocchoris’ reign, but specified the precise year (see 2.17). Josephus, however, places Bocchoris in the much more distant past, for reasons that remain obscure. One has the impression that he has plucked his figure out of the air. He makes no attempt to correlate this with the date of Danaus’ flight to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>, unless the <w lang="el-GR">πρό</w> here should be interpreted in another sense, as “1700 years earlier,” rather than “1700 years ago.” Josephus omits mention of Chaeremon, for obvious reasons: he <emph rend="italics">agreed</emph> with Manetho on the dating of the exodus (1.288). </note> and Molon and some others as seems good to them.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note56"> For Molon, who has not previously been mentioned or introduced, see note to “Molon” at 2.79. The reference to “Molon and some others” (cf. 2.145) is vague, and no dates are specified; but Josephus needs a third name to make a rhetorical tricolon. Since he discussed Moses (2.145), it is likely that Molon made some effort to place him historically. Moses’ fame was sufficiently widespread to encourage non-Judean authors to integrate him into larger chronological schemes, at least from the 1<emph rend="superscript">st</emph> century BCE (see Wacholder 1968). Josephus’ suggestion that they did this arbitrarily (<w lang="el-GR">ὡς αὐτοῖς ?δοξεν</w>) matches his complaint about Greek historical license, 1.20. </note> Apion, being of course the most reliable of them all,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note57"> Josephus echoes ironically Apion’s huge self-opinion (see 2.2, note at “scholar”). This “most reliable” scholar turns out here to be demonstrably wrong. </note> fixed the date of the exodus precisely during the seventh Olympiad, and in its first year,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note58"> The Olympiad dating starts in 776/75 BCE, so the seventh Olympiad is 752-49 BCE, and its first year 752 BCE. Using the Greek chronological scheme, Apion is able to place Egyptian events into a framework by now universally accepted. Apion surely mentioned the name of the Egyptian king in whose reign the exodus took place, and this was almost certainly Bocchoris: on other matters he agreed with Lysimachus (2.20), and Josephus’ silence on this matter is suspect (it would signal the <emph rend="italics">agreement</emph> he wishes to deny). Bocchoris could have been taken to reign at this period (see note to “ago” at 2.16), so Apion is merely specifying the precise year during his reign. Africanus (<emph rend="italics">apud</emph> Eusebius, <emph rend="underlined">Praep. ev.</emph> 10.10.16) is certainly wrong to claim that Apion placed Moses’ exodus at a much earlier point in time, during the reign of Amosis. It is possible to trace how this error arose. According to Tatian (<emph rend="underlined">Orat</emph>. 38), Apion reported the claim by Ptolemy of Mendes that Amosis destroyed Avaris, and followed Ptolemy in placing Amosis in the time of Inachus. In the same passage from Tatian, Ptolemy of Mendes is reported (whether accurately or not) as having claimed that the Judeans, under Moses, left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> in the time of Amosis. Tatian does <emph rend="italics">not</emph> say that Apion either reported this last claim or agreed with it, but the juxtaposition of these remarks led Clement to imply (<emph rend="underlined">Strom</emph>. 1.101.5), and Africanus to state, that Apion followed Ptolemy in dating the exodus to the time of Amosis. Some scholars have been similarly misled (e.g., Wacholder 1968: 478-79). </note> the year in which, he says, the Phoenicians founded Karchedon (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>).<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note59"> On the date of the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, see note to “Karchedon (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>)” at 1.125. The origins of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> were sometimes placed rather earlier: according to Timaeus (<emph rend="italics">apud</emph> Dionysius of Halicarnassus, <emph rend="underlined">Ant. rom</emph>. 1.74) in 814/13 BCE (cf. Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">Resp</emph>. 2.42), according to Pompeius Trogus (in Justin, <emph rend="underlined">Epitome</emph> 18.6.9) in 825 BCE. Apion’s alignment of dates is by no means arbitrary. Where Timaeus had dated the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> to the same year (814/13 BCE), Apion agrees with the correlation but shifts it to the date fixed by Porcius Cato and by then universally agreed as the year of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>’s foundation, 752/1 BCE (Cicero, <emph rend="underlined">Resp</emph>. 2.18). Thus, although Josephus does not here reveal it, Apion apparently effected a triple correlation between the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, and the exodus from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>. We have to suppose that this had some symbolic significance for Apion (so Momigliano 1977: 187-88; cf. Troiani 144). Just as the simultaneous founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> symbolized their future animosity, as bitter rivals for control of the Mediterranean, so the dating of the exodus and the foundation of the Judean nation in this very year signalled the future hostility between Judeans and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. Apion later attempted to prove this hostility through the evidence of historical events (2.50, 63), political disturbances (2.68), and disrespect towards the emperors (2.73); but that the Judean nation began in the same year as the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, simultaneous with the foundation of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, was a harbinger of future trouble. Josephus understandably omits reference to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in this context, and focuses only on the alignment with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. </note> He certainly added this reference to Karchedon thinking it would be very clear evidence of his veracity, not realizing that he was incorporating something that refuted himself.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note60"> On Apion’s unconvincing “additions,” see 2.3, 9. Josephus is delighted to find a point at which Apion’s cleverness backfires, his self-refutation (or “conviction,” <w lang="el-GR">ἔλεγχος</w>) echoing the principle of 2.5. The fact that Apion did not even realize this is further confirmation of his ignorance (see 2.3). </note> Even on Sicilian affairs Timaeus did not deign to agree<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note76"> The discussion of local history begins with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>, providing a link to the previous section via Timaeus, a Sicilian, and offering 3 more names to add to the catalogue of 1.16. The logic appears to be based on the assumption that one would expect locals to agree on their own history; and if they cannot agree on this, how much less on matters on a larger scale (cf. 1.18). In fact, local history might be the most contested of all, as the most politically significant, but Josephus does not reveal the nature or the extent of the disagreements. “Did not deign” (using <w lang="el-GR">ἀξιόω</w>, cf. 1.2) suggests that the disagreement is a matter of pride and competition, not better knowledge of the facts. </note> with the narratives of Antiochus<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note77"> Antiochus of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> wrote a 9-book history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> in the fifth century BCE (Diodorus 12.71.2); see <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 555 and Pearson 1987:11-18. </note> and Philistus<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note78"> Philistus of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> (c. 430 – 356 BCE) wrote an extensive history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> which was notorious for the support it gave to the tyrants Dionysius I and II. Extensive references to him by later writers, including Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Quintilian (who admired his style), indicate he was well-known in antiquity; see <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 556 (esp. the testimonia) and Pearson 1987: 19-30. Timaeus’ critique, fuelled by political disagreement, is also known from Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Dion</emph> 36; <emph rend="underlined">Nic</emph>. 1. </note> or Callias,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note79"> Callias of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> (late 4<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> – early 3<emph rend="superscript">rd</emph> centuries BCE; <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 564) wrote a favorable account of the tyranny of Agathocles (316 – 289 BCE) in 22 books, which won him later suspicion (cf. Diodorus 21.17.4) and the more immediate enmity of Timaeus, whose exile from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> (in 315 BCE) probably owed much to Agathocles’ rise to power. The political nature of such disputes among historians is not made evident here, though 1.25 hints at the general phenomenon. </note> nor again did the authors of the “Atthides” follow one another on Attic affairs,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note80"> “Atthides” designates a genre of local history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Attica&groupId=383&placeId=721">Attica</a>, which was particularly popular during the 4<emph rend="superscript">th</emph> – 3<emph rend="superscript">rd</emph> centuries BCE; authors include Cleidemus, Androtion, Phanodemus, Demon, and Philochorus, with a later compilation by <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ister&groupId=654&placeId=1194">Ister</a>; see <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> IIIb (including Supplement vols.) and Jacoby 1949. Their style (based on lists of kings and archons) was later considered tedious (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, <emph rend="underlined">Ant. rom</emph>. 1.8.3) and their disagreements were well-known (cf. Strabo, <emph rend="underlined">Geogr</emph>. 9.1.6); see, e.g., Philochorus’ dispute with Demon, <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 328 frag. 72. </note> nor the historians of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a> on Argive affairs.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note81"> Accounts of Argive history (see <emph rend="underlined">FGH</emph> 304-14) were similarly varied and contested (cf. Pausanias 1.14.2). In these last two cases Josephus provides no names, but the multiplication of examples is enough to convey both his erudition and the sense that the Greek tradition of historiography was riddled with self-contradiction. </note> And why is it necessary to speak about the histories of city-states and minor matters,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note82"> Schreckenberg adds <w lang="el-GR">διά</w> before <w lang="el-GR">τῶν βραχυτέρων</w>, refering to <emph rend="underlined">War</emph> 4.338 (a speech made <w lang="el-GR">διὰ βραχέων</w> “in a few words”). But nothing in the context suggests that the issue is the <emph rend="italics">length</emph> of their histories; rather, the contrast with the Persian invasion indicates that it concerns the <emph rend="italics">significance</emph> of the events. Cf. the use of the superlative <w lang="el-GR">βραχύτατος</w> in the sense “slightest” or “least significant” (<emph rend="underlined">Apion</emph> 1.284; 2.173). </note> when the most reputable historians have disagreed even on the subject of the Persian invasion and what took place during it?<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note83"> This rhetorical climax (marked by a rhetorical question) moves from minor matters and minor historians to major events and “the most reputable” historians. The Greek (<w lang="el-GR">οἱ δοκιμώτατοι</w>) hints at Josephus’ ironical detachment (cf. Mason 2001: 106-13; Paul and <w lang="el-GR">οἱ δοκοῦντες</w> in Gal 2:2, 6, 9). Criticisms of Herodotus’ account of the Persian Wars, perhaps especially by Ephorus, may be here in mind. But that Herodotus should be impicitly included among “the most reputable” historians hardly matches the notice on his universal disparagement in 1.16. </note> On many points even Thucydides is accused by some of lying, although he is reputed to have written the history of his time with the highest standards of accuracy.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note84"> Reading <w lang="el-GR">ἀκριβέστατα τήν</w>, an emendation of <w lang="el-GR">ἀκριβεστάτην</w> (found in L and Eusebius) suggested by Holwerda and followed by Thackeray, Reinach, and Schreckenberg. The reputation of Thucydides (ca. 455 – 400 BCE) and his 8-book account of the Peloponnesian War was immense: Dionysius’ essay contains criticism only of his structure and style, and presupposes that he is typically judged the greatest of historians, providing the gold-standard of historiography (<emph rend="underlined">Thuc</emph>. 2-3); cf. Diodorus 1.37.4; Lucian, <emph rend="underlined">Hist</emph>. <emph rend="italics">passim</emph>, and, for Roman views, Wardman 1976: 106-8. Thus this (vague and unsubstantiated) reference to the vulnerability of Thucydides forms the climax of this paragraph. Josephus does not justify these criticisms, but the tenor of this passage implies that all the critics are to be credited in their “corrections” of their predecessors (1.16). For the influence of Thucydides on Josephus’ own historiography see, e.g., Mader 2000. </note> For if one may believe the Phoenician records concerning the colony,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note61"> The text is uncertain. L reads <w lang="el-GR">περὶ τῆς ἀπιστίας</w> (“concerning the disbelief”), which must be wrong (although supported by the Latin). Niese suggests removing the phrase; ed. princ. changes to <w lang="el-GR">περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας</w>, an emendation followed by Naber, Thackeray, Reinach, and Münster, and translated here. For Josephus’ valuation of the Phoenician records, see 1.8, 106. </note> king Eiromos is there recorded as having lived more than 150 years before the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note62"> Josephus depends on his earlier citation from Menander (not directly the Phoenician records) in 1.121-26, whose figures add up to 155 years, 8 months (1.126). Münster follows Niese’s conjectural emendation of <w lang="el-GR">πλείοσι</w> (“more”) to <w lang="el-GR">πέντε</w> (“five”), thus making the figure of 155; I prefer to keep the text as it stands. The argument here (2.18-19) has three steps: i) Eiromos was 150+ years before the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>; ii) Eiromos was a contemporary of Solomon; iii) Solomon can be dated 612 years <emph rend="italics">after</emph> the exodus. Although the first two derive (at one remove) from the Phoenician records, the last is dependent on Josephus’ scriptures, an additional source not here identified. </note> Concerning this man, I earlier provided proofs from the Phoenician records that Eiromos was a friend of Solomon who built the sanctuary in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Hierosolyma&groupId=51&placeId=241">Hierosolyma</a>, and contributed much towards the construction of the sanctuary.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note63"> See 1.113-20, citing Dius and Menander on the contact between Eiromos and Solomon. Their <emph rend="italics">friendship</emph> is actually attested only by Josephus himself, in his introduction to the citations (1.109, 111), and Eiromos’ contribution to the <emph rend="italics"><a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Jerusalem&groupId=51&placeId=242">Jerusalem</a></emph> sanctuary is similarly inferred by Josephus, not stated in his Phoenician sources; see note to “roof” at 1.110. </note> But Solomon himself built the sanctuary 612 years after the Judeans left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note64"> This last fact, simply stated by Josephus, can only derive from his biblical source. 1 Kgs 6:1 has the interval as 480 years (LXX: 440), but Josephus records it variously as 592 years (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 8.61) or 612 (<emph rend="underlined">Ant</emph>. 20.230, as here). The reasons for the discrepancies are obscure. If we add the 143 years from the building of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Jerusalem&groupId=51&placeId=242">Jerusalem</a> temple to the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> (1.126), that would make the exodus 755 years before the establishment of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> – a large margin of error on Apion’s part! If one were to accept Apion’s dating of the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, in 752 BCE, that would date the exodus at 1507 BCE, still somewhat short of the 2000 years Josephus places between Moses and his own day (see 2.14, note at “years”). But Josephus does not perform any such computation, or commit himself to Apion’s date for the founding of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. </note> Among the reasons for such disagreement,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note85"> Reading <w lang="el-GR">τοιαύτης</w> <w lang="el-GR">διαφωνίας</w> (with Eusebius, Niese, Thackeray, and Schreckenberg), rather than <w lang="el-GR">τοσαύτης</w> <w lang="el-GR">διαφωνίας</w> (“so great disagreement,” with L, Naber, and Reinach). In 1.15 Josephus had suggested that Greek historians contradicted one another since they were going on nothing but guesswork. That hint is now taken up as the first of two causes of disagreement: the lack of records to which to refer (1.20-23). A second cause – the historians’ concern for style and reputation – will be added (1.24-25) connecting this discussion to more familiar tropes. By remaining vague about the nature of the disagreements surveyed in 1.16-18, Josephus is able to attribute them all, chiefly, to lack of documentary evidence; the possibility that some had better sources than others is not considered. </note> many other factors may perhaps present themselves to those who wish to enquire into the matter, but I would give the greatest weight to the two I am about to describe,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note86"> Josephus presents himself as a contributor to cultural “enquiry,” an informed and discriminating analyst of the failings of the Greek tradition. He could hardly here admit that the critical spirit – the process of scrutiny and challenge which might bring historians <emph rend="italics">closer</emph> to the truth – could be viewed as a positive phenomenon. </note> and I will discuss first the one which seems to me the more significant.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note87"> Although Josephus has only one concrete fact about the Greek lack of documentary evidence (1.21), he prioritizes this, in both order and length of treatment (1.20-23), since it reinforces the critique of 1.7-14 and will provide the deepest contrast to Judean culture (1.28-43). </note> From the outset the Greeks did not bother to create public records of contemporary events,<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note88"> The language closely echoes (by contrast) 1.9; the term “records” (<w lang="el-GR">ἀναγραφαί</w>, see note to “laws” at 1.7) occurs three times in 1.20-23. As in 1.7, the charge is deeper than just the lack of records: it is the lack of concern on this matter (“did not bother”) that makes this cultural lacuna a sign of moral deficiency (cf. 1.21, 24, 45). The lists of kings and (later) archons drawn on in local histories often had public events connected to them in their chronologies (see notes at 1.17), but Josephus either ignores or distrusts that tradition. On the problems in early Greek historiography see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, <emph rend="underlined">Thuc</emph>. 5 and Finley 1990: 11-33. In fact, Greek records of their <emph rend="italics">own</emph> history are hardly the issue for Josephus or his critics: the question is whether Greek historians can be depended upon to relate what was important about <emph rend="italics">other</emph> nations in antiquity (cf. 1.27). </note> and this above all supplied to those who subsequently wanted to write about ancient history both error and the license to lie.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note89"> The distinction between <w lang="el-GR">πλάνη</w> (“error”) and <w lang="el-GR">ψεύδεσθαι</w> justifies the translation of the latter as “to lie” (not simply, as sometimes in Greek, “to be in error”). The association with “license” (<w lang="el-GR">ἐξουσία</w>) connotes a cultural and moral slackness (cf. 2.173), and stands in sharp contrast with Judean control in this matter (1.37). </note> Having guessed, for the number of those expelled, the same figure as Lysimachus (he says there were 110,000),<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note65"> Josephus had not recorded the number in his précis of Lysimachus (1.307-9; cf. Manetho in 1.89 and Chaeremon in 1.292). It is odd that he should advertize here Apion’s <emph rend="italics">agreement</emph> with Lysimachus, after emphasizing differences in dating in 2.15-17. He probably does so because Apion himself indicated his agreement with Lysimachus, and perhaps used Lysimachus explicitly as his source. Their agreement on the date of the exodus (see 2.17) could be explained in the same way, and it is possible that most of Apion’s narrative was built on that of Lysimachus, supplemented with his own additions; what follows here perhaps fills out the “considerable difficulties” recorded by Lysimachus (1.310; see 2.3). Indeed, Josephus may have known Lysimachus only through Apion (so Troiani 145). In any case, while acknowledging this agreement, Josephus cannot allow it as evidence of their truthfulness (despite 1.26): it can be only a matter of chance, each plucking a figure out of the air (cf. the guessing by Greek historians in 1.15, 45). The large number will serve Josephus’ rhetorical purposes in 2.22. </note> he offers an amazing and persuasive reason<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note66"> For “amazing” (<w lang="el-GR">θαυμαστήν</w>), see note to “scholar” at 2.12. “Persuasive” (<w lang="el-GR">πιθανήν</w>) is similarly sarcastic (cf. <w lang="el-GR">ἀπίθανος</w> in 1.105), as was “most reliable” in 2.17. Josephus thus loads the rhetorical scales against his opponent, before he begins his argument (see further Barclay 1998a). He speaks here of Apion’s offering a “reason” (<w lang="el-GR">αἰτία</w>), and it appears that all Apion’s “additions” had etiological purposes – concerning the “prayer-houses,” the Judeans’ hostility to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (see note to “<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>” at 2.17), and now the Judean word <emph rend="italics">sabbaton</emph>. </note> for how, he says, the <emph rend="italics">sabbaton</emph> got its name.<note anchored="yes" resp="ed" place="footnote" id="note67"> The Hebrew term áú שׁ was regularly transliterated into Greek (<w lang="el-GR">σάββατον</w> and variants) and Latin (<emph rend="italics">sabbaton</emph> or <emph rend="italics">sabbata</emph>). For its use in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, see <emph rend="underlined">CPJ</emph> 10 and the names, such as Sambathion, which seem to be derived from it (see Tcherikover in <emph rend="underlined">CPJ</emph> III: 43-56). In one variant or another, the term occurs very regularly in comments on Judeans by Roman authors (e.g., Ovid, <emph rend="underlined">Remedia</emph> 220; Horace, <emph rend="underlined">Sat</emph>. 1.69; Seneca, <emph rend="underlined">Ep</emph>. 95.47; Juvenal, <emph rend="underlined">Sat</emph>. 6.159; Martial, <emph rend="underlined">Epigr</emph>. 4.4.7; Suetonius, <emph rend="underlined">Aug</emph>. 76.2; <emph rend="underlined">Tib</emph>. 32.2). It naturally occasioned some speculation as to its meaning and origin; cf. Plutarch, <emph rend="underlined">Quaest. conv</emph>. 671f-672a, who connects it with “Sabi,” a Bacchic cry to Dionysus. Apion ingeniously offers a narrative that explains <emph rend="italics">both</emph> the seventh-day rest <emph rend="italics">and</emph> its distinctive Judean name. </note>
|
