jjramsey

And your evidence for this is? What historians were writing might be called embellished, biased, or otherwise imperfect history, but "historical fiction" appears hyperbolic. I suggest you show how your claim isn't the hyperbole that it appears to be.

patcleaver

I am not imposing anything on anyone, I am just saying that we should understand that we really do not know what their intent was, and that there are lots of indications that Josephus and Tacitus and other ancient historians are not very reliable - especially about what people said.

There is lots of modern historical fiction where the only thing that is fiction is that the author is writing fictional dialog for the historical characters. From a modern perspective what ancient historians wrote is historical fiction. From an ancient perspective, that is how they wrote history in ancient times.
I am not flaying Josephus, I am merely pointing out why he is not reliable. If you’re a Josephus fan then I am sorry that you took it personally.

aa5874

Yes, Achilles could have been based on a real person, however, it is univesally accepted or reasonable to consider that Achilles was a myth or fiction based on the information that is available.

And likewise with Jesus, the information available make it reasonable to consider Jesus a myth or fiction. His mother Mary was named as a witness to his Holy Ghost conception and birth, and his disciples were witnesses to his transfiguration, resurrection and ascension to sit on the right hand of God.

Universally, such creatures as described by the NT are generally considered mythical or fictitious.

andrewcriddle

I think there may be a matter of definition here.

If one wishes to class all or almost all historical works from the Ancient World as historical fiction by modern standards (and is clear that that is what one is doing) then so be it. By that definition Josephus is writing historical fiction.

However most people when they speak of Ancient World historical fiction mean things like Xenophon's Education of Cyrus the Alexander Prose Romance and the Augustan Histories. These works vary in historical accuracy but are all very different from what Herodotus Thucydides etc were trying to do. Josephus is not historical fiction in this sense, but is closer to Herodotus and Thucydides.

Andrew Criddle

patcleaver

Yes, I agree with that.

I am not claiming that we should reclassify Josephus as ancient historical fiction, I am just saying that we need to really understand them and that includes understanding their limitations and biases and our own limitations and biases.

Doug Shaver

Modern standards were developed for a reason. The old ones weren't good enough.

mens_sana

That doesn't ring true for me. It is not that the old standards weren't good enough. They changed along with the printed page, advanced communication media, free and often open access to libraries — in other words far more widely accessible source materials and widespread literacy. Today everyone has a much larger collection of materials, so everyone can be a "critic." (Couldn't find an emoticon for "muffled laughter")

jjramsey

But this is the norm for the treatment of ancient histories. One can see an example of such skepticism here: http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm

Doug Shaver

And for no other reason? Not according to any history book I've ever read.