Corpus-Paul

["Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson AT mindspring.com>]

At 10:30 AM 8/24/02 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
>Eric Zuesse says:
>>>The difference between the two accounts is not greater than the difference
>that a court of law routinely expects to encounter between the accounts from
>two different witnesses to the same event. However, Paul was a witness to
>this event, and Luke knew of it only by hearsay. A court would question and
>cross-examine Paul's account, but would admit Luke's hearsay account only
>under special conditions, and even then only to provide confirmation for a
>hypothesis that is, itself, derived entirely from such direct witness
>testimony and from other non-hearsay evidence. Consequently, whereas a
>legal/forensic explanation can employ Gal. 2 for hypothesis-formulation and
>not only for hypothesis-confirmation, it can employ Acts 15 only for
>hypothesis-confirmation, and cannot formulate any explanatory hypothesis on
>the basis of that account of the council meeting.<<
>
>This is intreresting! For some while I have thought about employing legal
>methodology to this kind of evidence. Can you provide a short bibliography
>of reference material (particularly in English) that summarizes the "rules
>of evidence" used in lawcourts?
>
>Evidence       type                    hyp. form.      hyp. conf.      other?
>
>Gal 2          personal letter Y               Y               ?
>Acts 15        hist. account   N               Y               ?

The key reference material (that lawyers use) is the Federal Rules of
Evidence.  You can it find on-line at:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.html

Section 801(c) defines "hearsay" as follows:

        "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant
        while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence
        to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

A letter (such as the epistle to the Galatians) is hearsay under
the rules because it is not an in-court statement, unless it offered
to prove something other than it asserts or it falls under one of
the exclusions and exceptions of the hearsay rule.  (Both would be
admissible under the ancient document exception since they are more
than 20 years old.)

So, in response to Eric Zuesse's points, *both* Galatians and Acts
are hearsay from a legal perspective.

The rules of evidence in the Anglo-American legal tradition are
premissed on the notion that the most reliable evidence is an
orally interviewed witness who is subject to cross-examination.
(Basically, the reasoning is that by the time a case goes to trial,
someone is usually lying and juries need to see the demeanor of
every witness to determine who is lying.)  However, the historian
of Paul cannot cross-examine Paul, Luke, or anyone else, and this
is the reason why a legal approach to the historical evidence, if
done by the book, will not be helpful.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson AT mindspring.com
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35