>> In a recent post, Thomas Thompson stated that one must have evidence
>>to write history. Quite so: but the quality of evidence is not always
>>of uniformly high quality. It is all too easy, and tempting, for
>>competent historians to compose and market very readable histories using
>>uncorroborated data; and in fact this happens all the time...
> Graham Hagens
>Have you considered that the biblical history is a concocted history of
>- known historical scenarios and circumstances - in which each and every
>possible historical scenario is presented - not to record past events -
>but to provide behavioral outcomes and guide future historical
>navigation by an ethnic diaspora?
>And if not, why not?
Of course. That is what 'historical fiction' is all about.
Shakespeare's Henry V contains profound insights into the human condition.
It's just not a very faithful rendition of the Battle of Agincourt.
Both 'objective historicity' (whatever that may mean), and 'interpretive historiography' (ditto) are worthy disciplines. Part of our problem is that we frequently get the two confused.
Modern authors of historical fiction don't make this job any easier either as they try harder than ever to get the 'facts' right.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.