I don't think "biblical historical method" is a widely recognized thing.Biblical vs Classical Sources
https://chatgpt.com/share/f3c5e5b5-37f7 ... f?oai-dm=1
It's an example of hallucinations by LLMs.Biblical Historical Method:
In the biblical historical method, the distinction between primary and secondary sources may be approached differently due to the authority attributed to certain texts, particularly the biblical scriptures.
While the manuscripts of the church fathers are not considered primary sources for the study of the early Christian period by classical historical standards, they may hold greater significance within the biblical historical method. This is because they contain interpretations, commentaries, and reflections on the biblical texts, which are themselves considered primary sources within this method.
For adherents of the biblical historical method, the church fathers' writings are secondary sources that provide valuable insights into the early interpretation and understanding of biblical texts, as well as the development of Christian theology and doctrine. They are seen as part of a tradition of interpretation that extends back to the apostolic period, even if they were written centuries later.
However, it's important to recognize that even within the biblical historical method, there is a recognition of the chronological and interpretative distance between the church fathers' writings and the events described in the biblical texts. While these writings are valued for their insights and perspectives, they are not considered direct eyewitness accounts or firsthand evidence of the events of the early Christian period.
In summary, while the manuscripts of the church fathers are generally considered secondary sources by classical historians due to their chronological distance from the events they describe, they may hold a different level of significance within the biblical historical method, where they are viewed as part of a tradition of interpretation and reflection on the primary sources of scripture.
A more commonly accepted term is historical-critical method, and it's named this way to emphasize that it's the same concepts as used in similar disciplines.
I also don't think classical scholars generally are ready to use the newspeak you are advocating where having only medieval manuscripts render otherwise ancient sources into a category of "secondary sources."
I guess it's notable that someone can use LLMs to manufacture misinformation, but that shouldn't be news to anyone.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:57 pm