Josephus on Greek Mythology

Then the Lysimachuses, Molons, and other such disreputable sophists, those deceivers of young men, revile us as the most inferior of men. I, on the other hand, would not have wished to inquire into the customs among other peoples, for it is a hereditary tradition among us to observe our own matters and not to condemn what belongs to others. And our Lawgiver has expressly forbidden us from mocking or blaspheming the gods believed in by others, for the sake of the appellation itself, “God.” But since those who bring accusations against us believe they can refute us on the basis of comparison, it is not possible to keep silent, especially since I myself did not devise the argument about to be brought to proof; rather, it has been asserted by many highly esteemed individuals.

For who among those Greeks who have been admired for their wisdom has not censured both the most celebrated poets and the most trusted lawgivers for originally nurturing such opinions about the gods among the multitudes, declaring them to be as numerous as they would wish, that they came into being from one another and through all types of births, and distinguishing them according to place and lifestyle, similar to the offspring of animals, some [coming from] beneath the earth, others [existing] in the sea, indeed the most ancient among them shackled in Tartarus.¹ Now as for those they allotted heaven, they have appointed over them one who in title is their father but by his actions is a tyrant and despot; and for this reason a plot was hatched against him by his wife and brother and daughter, whom he begat from his own head, for the purpose of apprehending and imprisoning him, just as he himself [had acted] against his own father. Those distinguished by prudence rightly deride these things as worthy of great censure; moreover, they are scornful at them for determining that we ought to believe some of the gods to be beardless and young, others old and bearded, and some are assigned to trades, that one god is a smith, and another goddess is a weaver, that one wages war and fights with men, while some of them play the cithara² or delight in archery, or factions arise among them and rivalries concerning people, even so far as to not only lay hands on one another, but also to lament and suffer affliction from being wounded by men. But most outrageous of all, is it not revolting that unbridled lusts and toxic liaisons are attributed to nearly all of them, both to the male and female deities? Moreover, the most noble of their gods, the first father himself, allows those women whom he has seduced and impregnated to suffer imprisonment or drowning at sea. And he is so subject to destiny that he is incapable of either saving his own offspring or holding back his tears upon their death.

These are fine things indeed, as are the rest that follow, such as adultery in the heavens, observed by the gods so shamelessly that some even admitted that they envied those engaged in the very act itself. And why should they not intend on doing so, when the oldest among them, who is also their king, could not restrain his violent lust for intercourse with his wife long enough to retire to the bedroom? There are some gods who are servants to men, sometimes being builders for hire and sometimes being shepherds, while others, in the manner of criminals, are shackled in a prison of brass. And what sensible person is there who would not be provoked at such stories, who would not rebuke those who contrived them and condemn the sheer stupidity of those that believe them to be true? There are some who have refashioned terror and fear, even madness and deception, and any other of the vilest passions, into the nature and form of a god; and they have convinced cities to offer sacrifices to the better sorts of them. They have therefore been utterly forced to esteem some of the gods as givers of good things and to call others of them averters of evil. They also endeavor to ward them off, as they would the vilest of men, by gifts and presents, as if anticipating nothing else than to receive some great mischief from them, unless they pay them their wages.

What then is the occasion for such deviance and errancy with respect to the divine? I suppose it derives from the imperfect knowledge that their legislators had at first about the true nature of God. Nor did they explain to the people even as much as they did comprehend of it, nor did they compose the other parts of their political constitution according to it but omitted it as a thing of very little consequence and allowed both the poets to introduce what gods they pleased, those subject to all sorts of passions, and the orators to pass political decrees from the people for the admission of such foreign gods as they thought proper. Painters also, as well as sculptors, enjoyed great authority in this regard among the Greeks, as each of them could contrive a shape [proper for a god], the one to be formed out of clay and the other by painting a bare picture. But those artists who were principally admired employed ivory and gold as the constant materials for their new statues [whereby it comes to pass that some temples are quite deserted, while others are in great esteem and adorned with all the rites of all kinds of purification]. Besides this, the first gods, who formerly flourished in the honors done them, are now grown old [while those that flourished after them are come in their room as a second rank, that I may speak the most honorably of them I can]. Certain other gods are newly introduced and newly worshiped [as we, by way of digression, have said already, and yet have left their places of worship desolate]. As for their temples, some of them are already left desolate, and others are built anew, according to the pleasure of men; whereas they ought to have their opinion about God, and the worship due to Him, always and immutably the same.