Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence
  • Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:29:09 +0200


Eric,
thanks for a learned essay on scholarly houses of cards. I am still puzzled
however (I am afraid) as to your distinction between scientific rules and
scholarly ones as you call them. How can scholarly consensus be both a house
of cards (first section of your reply) and the scientific basis for your
assertions of primary evidences (second part of your reply)?

Please enlighten me on the following:

> For a simple example, the
> person of Peter: (a) Galatians is generally considered to contain authentic
> first-person witness references to Peter, whereas (b) Acts is generally
> considered not to do so.....

If a scholarly card house considers Galatians to contain authentic
first-person witness references to Peter as opposed to Acts, should not that
card house be shaken and checked for it's foundations? One major foundations
being, as I understand, the confessional assertion of the superiority of Paul
over Peter!

> For example, after the
> Holocaust against the Jews, scholars came increasingly to doubt the
> authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, so that today it might even be a
> consensus position to say that that passage is bogus, an interpolation, not
> by Paul. I reject that "politically correct" (or, perhaps, "religiously
> correct") view, and whenever I reject a scholarly consensus regarding
> authentication and dating, I not only make note of that fact, but I present
> the reasons behind my position.

Don't you agree that there might have been (to say the least) a 'politically
correct' view in support of pre-Holocost consensus position on 1 Thess
2:14-16?


> 5) Applying the fundamental legal/forensic skepticism regarding the
> honesty-of-intent of any witness, I systematically include in every point of
> my hypothetical reconstruction a consideration of not only its truthfulness,
> but also its honesty-of-intent. Never is there any mere assumption that a
> given statement--from no matter how high-ranked a source--is either truthful
> or even honest.

This assertion of yours (with which I am in agreement) should cause you to
reconsider your first point above, should it not, namely that Galatians
contains "authentic first-person witness references to Peter". How can an
legal sceptic consider an accuser's assertions with regard to the one he
accuses to be authentic?

But if you grant me this, then your 'scientific consensus' is in fact just
another scholarly card house. Or?

Dieter, Mitternacht
Lund, Sweden







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page