Classical historical methodology (which I talk about) defines "primary sources" as artefacts from the time period under study. The study I am conducting is an examination of the Christian revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE). Therefore any artefact whatsoever, manuscript or relic, original or copy, from the 4th century is a primary source. The treatment of autographs and copies is a separate issue.Again, you talk methodology, then abandon it. E.g., copies of texts are not "primary sources" as you claim
In contrast the biblical historical methodology (which you talk about) approaches the definition of "primary sources" differently due to the authority attributed to certain texts, such as the biblical scriptures and particularly the autographs.
Biblical vs Classical Sources
https://chatgpt.com/share/f3c5e5b5-37f7 ... f?oai-dm=1
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:12 pm