Diodorus Siculus has not enjoyed a positive reputation among historians of antiquity. Since the nineteenth century hisBibliothēkēhas been dismissed as a derivative work produced by an incompetent compiler, useful often only in so far as one can mine his text for lost and, evidently, far superior works of history. Diodorus’ own input into theBibliothēkēhas been dismissed as the clumsy intervention of ‘a small man with pretensions’. In one of the sharpest expressions of the traditional view, Diodorus is not a historian (...) but ‘a mere epitomizer and an incompetent one at that’. In recent years voices of dissent have spoken up, determined to investigate Diodorus’ own contribution to ancient historiography. Their contributions have been notable for their desire to study and understand Diodorus on his own terms or to problematize his derivative use of his sources. Sacks, in particular, has argued that Diodorus’ voice can be heard in nearly every proem, a feature that occurs regularly in the text, and that Diodorus’ own views structure his analysis of historical events copied from other authors. (shrink)

Summary Although ancient Idumea was certainly a marginal object of interest for classical writers, we do possess as many as thirteen extant classical non-Jewish authors who explicitly refer to Idumea or the Idumeans. For classical writers, Idumea was an inland territory between the coastal cities of Palestine, Egypt, and Arabia that straddled important trade routes. Idumea is also frequently associated in ancient literature with palm trees, which grew in Palestine and were exported throughout the Mediterranean. In the eyes of classical (...) authors, the Idumeans were a distinctive ethnos living in the melting pot of southern Palestine. Ancient writers emphasized the Idumeans’ ethnic and cultural connections with the Nabateans, the Phoenicians and Syrians, and, finally, the Judeans, and also indicated that a great deal of Hellenization occurred in western Idumea in an urban context. (shrink)

This article addresses the problem of veracity in ancient historiography. It contests some recent views that the criteria of truth in historical writing were comparable to the standards of forensic rhetoric. Against this I contend that the historians of antiquity did follow their sources with commendable fi delity, superimposing a layer of comment but not adding independent material. To illustrate the point I examine the techniques of the Alexander historian, Q. Curtius Rufus, comparing his treatment of events with a range (...) of other sources that reflect the same tradition. The results can be paralleled in early modern historiography, in the dispute between J. G. Droysen and K. W. Krüger on the character of Callisthenes of Olynthus. Both operate with the same material, but give it different “spins” according to their political perspectives. There is error and hyperbole, but no deliberate fiction. (shrink)