I may not be dismissing Lampe so much as your interpretation of him. Either way, I’m happy to look at the scholarship, especially if it is as good a collection of primary sources as it seems.
But don’t wave that blanket “bias” charge. It’s a lousy cop-out and terrible form for a historian. Every man is who he is and looks at things a certain way.
And don’t forget SR, that your claim against Petrine primacy rests not only on Irenaeus but on a whole tissue of assumptions from the interpretation of “Petros” on down to every disputed passages in the Fathers.
Oh it’s real easy to not see any factual evidence when you’ve already conveniently dismissed everything inimical to your case, n’est-ce pas?
I'm not a historian, never claimed to be. As an attorney, I look at bias all the time, because in a contest of memories, you have to at least recognize the possibility, just as you said, that witnesses are necessarily operating within the limits of their own perspective. In that sense, the bias is not meant to discredit the person, only to stay alert for confirmation bias generally, to which we are all subject, fallible creatures that we are.
As for Petrine supremacy etc., the burden is on the party making the positive assertion. My belief or disbelief on the subject is conditioned by the affirmative evidence presented. In the absence of such evidence, the only honest position I can take is to reject the theory as having no authority to bind the Christian's conscience.