Veyne, as referenced by Andrew here, also wrote:
That can be misleading, however.An ancient historian does not cite his authorities , for he feels that he is a potential authority himself. We would like to know where Polybius finds all that he knows. We are even more curious each time his account, or that ofThucydides, takes on a beauteous precision that seems too true to be real because it con forms to some political or strategic reality. (p. 9)
For instance, take Polybius, whom Veyne references. Here is an extract from Polybius's history of Rome:
Then later we read this:The truth of what I have just said is borne out by an example from one of these histories. At the beginning of his second book Philinus tells us that . . . It is impossible to reconcile the two versions of events, so it follows that either his account of the earlier or else of the later operations must be false. It is the former which is inaccurate. . . . . We must therefore admit that the first part of Philinus’ report is false . . . . -- para 15 of Book 1
Veyne also refers to Thucydides. Thucydides, likewise, regularly returned to a discussion of his sources -- though not as nearly often as modern historians would like. But that he did so at all is important and marks his work as an instance of historiography and not pure fiction. Here is one passage from Thucydides:One of the writers who lived in the times of Aratus is Phylarchus. His accounts of events often contradict and his opinions differ from those of the Achaean statesman, but he is nevertheless regarded by some readers as a trustworthy witness. Accordingly, since I have chosen to follow Aratus’ narrative for the history of the Cleomenean Wars, it will, I think, be useful and indeed necessary for me to examine the question of the two writers’ relative credibility; in this way we shall ensure that falsehood shall not be allowed to enjoy equal authority with truth in their respective writings. Speaking generally, there are many statements scattered throughout Phylarchus’ work which have been made at random and without discrimination. . . . para 56 of Book 1
Sometimes Thucydides did write fiction: his description of the plague of Athens is arguably an adaptation of a work written for the stage. Herodotus is thought by some classicists to have told outright lies when he said he witnessed X or read a certain inscription or spoke to so-and-so. Ancient historians did that sort of thing way too often for modern comfort, but that was not the whole story.And with regard to my factual reporting of the events of the war I have made it a principle not to write down the first story that came my way, and not even to be guided by my own general impressions; either I was present myself at the events winch I have described or else I heard of them from eye-witnesses whose reports I have checked with as much thoroughness as possible. Not that even so the truth was easy to discover: different eye-witnesses give different accounts of the same events, speaking out of partiality for one side or die other or else from imperfect memories. . . . . Book 1
Here are some excerpts from Pausanias to flesh out a little Veyne's account of him:
If the evangelists were following the model of historians of their day they would pause and acknowledge that they had heard contradictory accounts about Jesus -- they'd probably expect their readers to have heard contradictions, too -- and would then explain why they present both because they cannot decide or why they choose one over the other. Of course, each evangelist writes as if his own account is "the truth" -- and we know he is guided by a theological agenda -- and simply keeps quiet about the earlier gospel. He must presume his readers know of the earlier work because his own is often a polemical rejoinder to what another has already written.It is pertinent to add here an account of Attalus, because he too is one of the Athenian eponymoi . . ..
The accounts of the end of Theseus are many and inconsistent. . . . .
I know that most of the traditions concerning the Phliasians are contradictory, but I shall make use of those which have been most generally accepted. . . .
Certain writers have said that the events I have related happened not to the Thessalian Eurypylus, but to Eurypylus the son of Dexamenus who was king in Olenus, holding that this man joined Heracles in his campaign against Troy and received the chest from Heracles. The rest of their story is the same as mine . . . ..
The gospels read like, say, the Book of Esther, not at all like a Polybius, Thucydides or Pausanias.
As for Oral Reports or Traditions -- we can see evidence of that means of information in Polybius, Thucydides, Pausanias -- they discuss what they have heard and the different accounts. There is, of course, nothing comparable in the gospels.
