Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

Stephen Carlson said:

>>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.<<

Thanks for that URL. I had also found it after a web search, and noted some
of the same limitations you did (although you do get to the heart of it
faster than I could).

What was probably on my mind was the distinctions modern historians make
between their sources: Types of data, such as Consciously transmitted
information, Relics, and Memorials; versus Sources of data, such as Primary
sources = Materials by eyewitnesses, and Secondary sources = Hearsay
materials.

The various types of data are not treated the same, nor are the various
sources, and for good reason. However, I am not so sure that everyone in the
historical trade makes use of these distinctions, when analyzing and
devising explanations for the data, in any sort of unified manner.

So, actually, I was looking for a modern formal/"scientific" legal model
into which I could fit these types and sources of data in order to help me
standardize my analysis and interpretation of historical data.

Thanks again!

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA