[BlueDragon]

If that's the so-called answer -- then why does trhe preponderance of historical evidence so strongly suggest differently -- in that whatever so-called primacy for Peter was not in the least seen to belong to Rome, alone, but was a thing which all were inheritors of?

For several centuries everyone must have been idiots -- until later, when those of Rome somehow remembered what was [allegedly] established by Christ -- that Peter wwas in charge of all, and that the bishopric of Peter was only in Rome (and no where else) etc.

Sorry, but that's much more the truth of the matter, instead of all the blather which you copy/pasted from some Romish apologetics page, somewhere...

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

If that's the so-called answer -- then why does trhe preponderance of historical evidence so strongly suggest differently

Post 2435 shows that the historical evidence, recorded in the Bible, goes back to the Davidic kingdom.