In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) 



This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once
before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied.
Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.  This might be a 
literary/historical question, but when I studied history I always looked for 
firsthand original sources to write my papers.  If the topic was on Mr. X, I 
looked to see if Mr. X wrote anything about it.  If the topic was on a group, 
look for the group, etc.  If the topic is on Mr. X, and Mr. X did not write 
anything about it, (barring the theistic response about the Bible being 
divinely inspired which I can't adequately argue), wouldn't we look for people
who ate, worked, walked, talked, etc. with him?  If someone was at an event 
wouldn't they be a better "reporter" than someone who heard about it second 
hand?  I guess isn't firsthand better than second hand.  I know, there is bias,
and winners writing history, but doesn't the principle of firsthand being best
still apply?

MAC
--
****************************************************************
                                                    Michael A. Cobb
 "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois
    class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana
          -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu