Just read THE ELEVENTH DISCOURSE MAINTAINING THAT TROY WAS NOT CAPTURED by Dio Chrysostom, who was born in 40 AD. He claims that the Iliad was not true, that the Greeks were defeated by the Trojans, and that Homer was just trying to please his Greek audience. For example, about Hera seeing Paris as an enemy:
Furthermore, it is strange that she became so bitterly disposed towards Paris when she herself had entrusted the judgment to him; and yet, even in human affairs, the man who refers a dispute to arbitration does not regard the arbitrator as an enemy when the decision is not in his favour.
About Achilles receiving armor and weapons from a God:
Finally, he brings forth Achilles, who was in fact already slain, and has him do battle with the Trojans. But his arms are not at hand but are in Hector’s possession — for here Homer did permit one truth to escape his lips — and so he says that Thetis brought from heaven the arms made by Hephaestus, letting Achilles in this way, forsooth, rout the Trojans single-handed — a ridiculous conception, wherein Homer has ignored all the other Achaeans as though not a single man were available.
About Agamemnon being killed by his wife's lover after his return:
The domestic disasters also which befell those who reached their homes are not the least evidence of their discomfiture and weakness. It is certainly not the rule for attacks to be made on men who are victorious and successful. Such men are feared and admired. The unsuccessful, however, are held in contempt by outsiders and even by some of their own kinsfolk. It was undoubtedly because of his defeat that Agamemnon was despised by his wife, that Aegisthus attacked and easily overcame him, and that the Argives took the matter into their own hands and made Aegisthus king. They would not have done it had he slain an Agamemnon who had returned with all his glory and power after conquering Asia.
John Michael Greer wrote about
the three types of knowledge. The 11th Discourse is a great example of episteme, or logical reasoning:
Most people, given patience and a willingness to learn, can be led step by step through a sequence of logic until they understand why the conclusion follows from the premises, and the moment they get it, they have episteme of it.
It's fun to be totally convinced by the reasoning of a 1st century philosopher.