At 08:50 PM 8/3/98 +0000, Jim West wrote:
>The only problem is that we are talking about use of sources. Schlesinger
>and company most certainly did not make use of each other's stuff as they
>composed their books on Kennedy.
How do you know that? I think you're guessing. And even if one was not
DEPENDENT on the other, the second or third could be trying to correct the
spin that a previous author put on certain incidents.
> Mt and Lk did use Mark.
A plausible THEORY.
>The analogy, Bob, falters on that simple fact.
Facts are not always so simple. Besides, I still think the idea is worth
>My suggestion, then, that no NT scholar would use Lindsey is still
>appropriate, because the issue is dependence, not similarity.
"Dependence" is a theory built on similarities.
I recognize that my suggestion has many weak points, among them that the
time interval between the death of the hero and the appearance of the bios
was much shorter; we KNOW a lot more about the documentary sources
available to all of the authors; Sorenson & Schlesinger are known to have
been eye witnesses, whereas the evangelists were not, etc. etc. So feel
free to ignore my suggestion.
"Is it not extraordinary to the point of being a miracle, that so loose
and ill-constructed a narrative in an antique translation of a dubious
text should after so many centuries still have power to quell and
dominate a restless, opinionated, overexercised and undernourished,
Malcolm Muggeridge _Jesus Rediscovered_ (1969), writing about
the KJV New Testament -