I have attempted to answer my own question here in a seven page essay entitled "Primary and Secondary Sources & the History of Christian Literature".So supposing we are trying to write a history of Christian origins for the first two centuries. What does the history of Christianity (the NT writings and the "Universal Church") in the early centuries look like if we stay only with the primary sources of evidence as advised in the above quote?
ABSTRACT
The thirty-eight volumes of the Ante Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene “Fathers” of the church are being used as if they were primary sources with respect to the history of the early centuries of the common era. The narratives of “Ecclesiastical History” are being treated as primary and authoritative guidelines. They play a pivotal role in the reconstruction of both the chronology and the history of the authorship of the entirety of New Testament literature.
In reality however the earliest extant manuscripts of these sources are from the Middle Ages and often a thousand years removed from the time period being investigated. These sources are thus erroneously inflated in terms of the credibility and authenticity assigned to them by most investigators. These sources are manifestly not primary sources. The Ecclesiastical History narratives are not artefacts from the time period being studied. They are secondary sources. Hypothetical data is no substitute for factual historical data. Factual data cannot be drawn from secondary sources in the same way that it can be drawn from primary sources
If anyone is interested here is a link to it:
https://www.academia.edu/119008034/Prim ... Literature
The thirty-eight volumes of the Ante Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene “Fathers” of the church are being used as if they were primary sources with respect to the history of the early centuries of the common era. The narratives of “Ecclesiastical History” are being treated as primary and authoritative guidelines. They play a pivotal role in the reconstruction of both the chronology and the history of the authorship of the entirety of New Testament literature.
In reality however the earliest extant manuscripts of these sources are from the Middle Ages and often a thousand years removed from the time period being investigated. These sources are thus erroneously inflated in terms of the credibility and authenticity assigned to them by most investigators. These sources are manifestly not primary sources. The Ecclesiastical History narratives are not artefacts from the time period being studied. They are secondary sources. Hypothetical data is no substitute for factual historical data. Factual data cannot be drawn from secondary sources in the same way that it can be drawn from primary sources
If anyone is interested here is a link to it:
https://www.academia.edu/119008034/Prim ... Literature
Also as a matter of interest in the separate and dedicated ChatGPT thread I asked the current AI model the same key questions that I have been attempting to get answers to in this thread and in the above essay. If anyone is interested in what ChatGPT says then here is a link to that:
viewtopic.php?p=172571#p172571
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Mon May 13, 2024 6:12 am