{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026336173508907823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009295120061967466, 'mean_word_length': 4.88382687927107, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rome's Debt to Greece

that followed several Greeks—Theophrastus, Hecataeus of Abdera, Clearchus of Soli—wrote about the Jews, and Judaea became Hellenized. The Bible began to be translated into Greek in the third century but no Greek quotes it until the first century A.D. The second chapter is largely devoted to the clash with Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean resistance. Dating I and II Maccabees to c. 120, Momigliano shows the importance of Daniel 7—12 as the only contemporary Jewish evidence for the revolt. The author of these chapters saw the struggle in apocalyptic terms, and attached little importance either to the Hellenizing faction among the Jews or to the Maccabean movement. Lastly, the Iranians. Momigliano is rightly sceptical about attempts to see extensive Iranian elements in pre-Socratic philosophy, and passes briefly over the Greek attitude towards Persia after 480 (it would have been nice to have had something on the origins and significance of the Greek-barbarian dichotomy). There was no serious Greek interest in Persia history and customs in the fourth century—Momigliano suspends judgement about the authenticity of the letter of Aristotle to Alexander preserved in an Arabic text. In the Hellenistic period the Parthians took the place of the Persians. The Greeks as a whole took little interest in them, but Greeks living in Iran and Hellenized Iranians were active in writing the history and geography of their country. Finally, Momigliano traces the way in which speculation about Zoroaster, fed by many forgeries, spread in the Hellenistic world. Momigliano never touches a subject without illuminating it. It should perhaps be said, though, that the preservation of the lecture form in this book—including some delightful throwaway remarks—means that a number of contentious or dubious statements are not signalled as such. Thus the evidence adduced by Momigliano hardly justifies the statement that 'the Roman plebs seems to have taken a special interest in Greek religious and moral notions' (p.13). I cannot understand Momigliano's claim (p.28) that Polybius does not directly associate the Roman seizure of Sardinia with the origins of the Second Punic war: at iii.30.4 he seems to me to be doing just that. I do not see what Momigliano means by saying that Manlius Vulso's victory over the Galatians in 189 'justified the intervention of the Romans in Asia Minor' (pp.60—1). And it goes well beyond what we know to say that 'Livius Andronicus was brought to Rome to be a semi-official translator of Greek poetry into Latin' (p.91).