Dave, it's clear you don't understand the difference between "historical documents" and "written history". Ancient copies of the Greek epics and tragedies are "historical documents" but no one claim them to be "history". Writings of the early Church "Fathers" are "historical documents", also not claimed to be "history" in any sense of the word. And, yes, I've read many writings by the early Church writers (with Origen being my favorite writer among them- can you name any?) and his along with the other writers are considered "historical documents" but not "histories".

"Histories" weren't written in that time unless you consider the OT, a collection of (I would say divinely inspired rather than the literal word of God) to be intended as "history", even though it was never intended to be used that way. So, one of us has at least studied religion- my focus was on the early Church, btw, and I never met a Bible scholar ignorant enough to claim anything about the OT or NT being "history" (hint: I attended university to study religion, but it's clear you didn't).

But you say you don't want to "bore anyone with names". That also makes it clear that you have no names to offer to back your claim. I don't want to call you lazy or a liar- I'll stick with the kinder words for you- "ignorant" or "mislead".