ABSTRACT

Almost the entire source material we possess is thus to be classified as textual or narrative, i.e. textual accounts referring to people called Arabs in different ways. Of these the Greek sources are those which cover the longest time span: from c. 500 BC until the Prophet. The Latin texts are to a large degree founded upon Greek ones and should be judged together with them. The Graeco-Latin texts are also the most problematic ones. The acquaintance of the writers with the Arabs varies from the first-hand knowledge of writers like Herodotus, Xenophon, Hieronymus of Cardia, Posidonius and perhaps Josephus, to only literary acquaintance. The latter is the most common. The classical sources are informative as far as political relations between the Arabs and the empires are concerned, but are as a rule silent about cultural conditions. This is connected with the fact that Arab affairs are usually referred to en passant along with the description of political events in which they happened to be involved. There are some remarkable exceptions: Herodotus, Hieronymus of Cardia and Josephus have preserved unique material which allows us to catch some glimpses of the nature of these Arabs. But since much of the evidence given by the classical writers is known to us through digests and selections from original texts which have disappeared, we are dependent upon the attitudes and evaluations of those writers whose books are extant. No information from a Greek or Latin text can be used without minute source criticism. It also turns out that quite unsophisticated authors like Diodorus and Cosmas Indicopleustes are more valuable than relatively reflective authors like Strabo who tend to filter the information through minds full of preconceived ideas about geography and ethnology. Worst of all is Pliny. Most information that passed through his boiling brain was destroyed or confused beyond recognition, which is a great loss since he obviously had access to sources of great value. His general picture of the geography of the Middle East seems to have been sketchy, and practically every 'barbarian' place-name is distorted. But a more

sober writer like Strabo is also full of mistakes and unclear contexts. The much criticized and ridiculed Diodorus, on the other hand, stands out as a faithful and careful copyist in the cases where we can check him, and his accounts in general give a trustworthy impression even though he has often abbreviated and summed up his sources. This also holds to a large extent for Josephus.