neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:11 pm
... if the secondary source for event X happened to be written in time A then it is a primary source for Time A.
Only if it was supported by primary sources such as specific, named, first-hand accounts*; or documented first-person accounts; official documents (such as a birth, death, or marriage certificate (unlikely for the 1st C ad, of course, but still), etc.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:18 am
.. Let's say the Gospel of Mark is a historical document about the life of Jesus 40 years earlier. That would mean GMark is a secondary source for Jesus.
eg. -
- Tom spoke about meeting Jesus during event X [in time B].
- Dick also told me about what Jesus said about event X
- Harry told me about Jesus' life in place K.
Only if it were an account about beliefs 'that were held about Jesus at around 70 CE'.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:18 am
But the Gospel of Mark is a primary source for the time, say, of beliefs that were held about Jesus at around 70 CE..
Only if it were based on suitable primary sources.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:18 am
The product of time A (70 CE) is a secondary source, arguably, of the Jesus event (X) 40 years earlier.
Only if it is based on suitable primary sources about Hitler.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:18 am
I have a book here about Hitler. The book was published in 1978. It is a secondary source about Hitler.
Such a book would only be an account about 'what people believed and wrote about Hitler' in 1978.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:18 am
But the same book is a primary source for what people believed and wrote about Hitler in 1978. It is a primary source for what people thought about the war and Hitler in 1978. But it is a secondary source about Hitler himself.
It would only be 'a primary source for what people thought about the war and Hitler' [in 1978] if it included documentation and first hand accounts of what certain, specific people thought.
..