Sources? (1 Viewer)

[ashimation]

Hi everyone.

For my project I am looking at Mary Magdalene and the differing perspectives surrounding her..

Anyway this may sound like a really obvious question but:

what exactly is a source?

Is there a criteria for which distinguishes a source from something that is not a source.

With my project specifically I have one historian (Margaret Starbird) and not a whole lot of other historians -- I know they are out there but all I can seem to find are religious groups preaching about how the bible is correct but without much evidence (and obviously they are not historians).

So for a source, you cannot use, say a book written by a historian, right? I mean its not a source is it? It's THEIR interpretation of a source/evidence. A source is the bible, or inscriptions or paintings, or writings etc. Am I correct? Or can historians interpretations be used (I know you can reference them, but then you are not really DOING your own analysis, are you?).

The problem I'm having with the sources is that there are literally HUNDREDS of potential sources, some of which are only marginally relevant.

My project is due on 26th May and I really haven't made a decent start.

I guess I'm just looking for help in defining sources and how I should go about locating these and deciding what is relevant (which is what my brain is for I know).


Please shove me in the right direction! Thanks in advance.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hi everyone.

For my project I am looking at Mary Magdalene and the differing perspectives surrounding her..

Anyway this may sound like a really obvious question but:

what exactly is a source?

Is there a criteria for which distinguishes a source from something that is not a source.

With my project specifically I have one historian (Margaret Starbird) and not a whole lot of other historians -- I know they are out there but all I can seem to find are religious groups preaching about how the bible is correct but without much evidence (and obviously they are not historians).

So for a source, you cannot use, say a book written by a historian, right? I mean its not a source is it? It's THEIR interpretation of a source/evidence. A source is the bible, or inscriptions or paintings, or writings etc. Am I correct? Or can historians interpretations be used (I know you can reference them, but then you are not really DOING your own analysis, are you?).

The problem I'm having with the sources is that there are literally HUNDREDS of potential sources, some of which are only marginally relevant.

My project is due on 26th May and I really haven't made a decent start.

I guess I'm just looking for help in defining sources and how I should go about locating these and deciding what is relevant (which is what my brain is for I know).


Please shove me in the right direction! Thanks in advance.

It seems you're confused about the idea of primary and secondary sources.

A primary source is a source that comes from within the timeframe of the idea that you're studying.

An example: Pwar writes a book about the pyramids -- the book is not a primary source if you are studying the pyramids.

Pwar's book is, however, a primary source if you are studying the book, its historiography, and maybe the times of the author.

That being said, only fictitious books are always primary; novels like the The Great Gatsby and Spot's Adventure in Thailand are always considered primary because they're not discussing anything and can't be seen as a reflection of something else. If I wrote a book, Pwar's Gatsby, about the The Great Gatsby, it would be considered a secondary source until you are studying only my book, my self, or my times.

 

[silvermoon]

So for a source, you cannot use, say a book written by a historian, right? I mean its not a source is it? It's THEIR interpretation of a source/evidence. A source is the bible, or inscriptions or paintings, or writings etc. Am I correct? Or can historians interpretations be used (I know you can reference them, but then you are not really DOING your own analysis, are you?).

to answer this second aspect of your question: no, if you are only mentioning historians (name-dropping) then you are not doing your own analysis. However:
a) it is important that you do include historians (where applicable) to give credit for ideas - if you don't, you're plagiarising
b) it is just as legitimate for you to critique an historian's opinion on a primary source as it is for you to do 'your own' analysis of the source. This is part of historiography - finding other historians and analysing not just what they say but how what they say is shaped by their own biases. For example, you could contrast the work of two historians whose views contradict each other on their analysis of the meaning or importance of a primary source.