The Myth of Bradford and Winthrop

In reading these two biographies by Mathers I find myself feeling as though these accounts are less like biographies and more like mythic story telling. Both figures are portrayed as being unwaveringly good and are comparable to biblical figures such as Moses. In reading the article on biographical parallels I see that it was not uncommon to make such comparisons during that time. However along with the parallels is a story of men that appear to be almost biblical figures themselves. They are seemingly incorruptable and work only to further the glory of God. I wonder how true such an account can be. I'm not saying that neither were good men, they likely were, but to be described as so infallable presents them as if they were Gods themselves. It is clear that some must have found flaw with Withrop given the several examples of his having to answer courts and accusers. Mathers presents Withrops responses and tells how his spiritualness and goodness satisfied his opponents. I can't help but wonder whether he was truly such a wholly good man or if, as I think more likely, he was an intelligent and skilled orator and was able to use that skill to his advantage. I do not believe that if the latter were true that it would make Withrop a bad man but it would make him seem more like a man than Mather's account of him does. I think both biographies were embellished and do not give a true representation of who these people actually were. I am not sure if Mathers did this intentionally or if he truly viewed Bradford and Withrop in this way but either way the result was two biographies that serve to glorify New England life in the 17th century rather than to give an accurate account of these two men's lives.