Some Orthodox accept the view of most secular historians that he was an advocate of Calvinism.

Zosimus, like all ancient secular historians of the era, says nothing of Philip's alleged Christianity.

He is considered to be a Marxist and secular historian.

I really am a secular humanist historian.

The story is rejected by a portion of secular historians.

He prefers Moses to all secular historians, as earlier and more authentic.

Some secular historians and certain critics would say that the Book of Daniel has little to no significance beyond its own contemporary historical setting.

Nor can we know what Jesus was like, what he said and did by consulting the secular historians of the time.

In Italy Bodin was seen as a secular historian like Machiavelli.

"Doesn't this represent a contradiction between the Bible and secular historians?"