Is it all down to interpretation/assumptions? (I don't know how else to word this sorry)
/u/LegalAction has previously explained about textual criticism, or " how we know what that old book really said"
/u/Daeres /u/qed1 and others are mentioned in How do modern historians assess the biases of ancient Roman authors and their works? How do you tell when an emperor really was that bad, or when the historian was writing with an agenda?
See below for more