Biblical Historians Do Not Play By The Same Rules As Other Historians

Apologists talk about the evidence for Christianity. Following are quotes that clearly show that what apologists call evidence and primary sources in support of Christianity is not what non-biblical historians call such:

“Biblical historians often use the term “primary sources” when referring to the Gospels or Epistles of Paul. Non-biblical historians refer to such sources as “secondary sources” because they are not contemporary with Jesus or written by eyewitnesses. Virtually all written sources regarding Jesus are “secondary sources”. To most non-biblical historians, “primary sources” refers to evidence physically situated in the time and place under investigation.”



“In nearly every case, when non-biblical historians use the terms “evidence” and “source”, they are referring to “primary” sources, “primary” documents and “primary” evidence. When they speak of the value of “secondary” sources they always specify strict conditions by which to judge their value, and these conditions relate at some point to primary evidence.”

“Non-biblical historians work with the primary evidence or sources that make up the factual data that needs to be pieced together into some explanatory narrative. Biblical historians are still struggling to find some facts to begin with.”

“Now there are cases where all we have is secondary evidence and which nonetheless do give us good reasons for accepting the historicity of certain events and people, but such cases are rare and meet conditions not met by the gospels (e.g. genuinely independent corroboration, known provenance and authorship, positive text critical evaluations).”

~Neil Godfrey (http://vridar.org/…/response-to-james-mcgraths-argument-fr…/)