Corpus-Paul

["Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>]

When assessing the credibility of an account given in an ancient (or modern)
document, one of the main considerations is whether the writer has anything
to gain by presenting events in the way he does.  Thus Paul's account of the
Jerusalem meeting (Galatians 2) is obviously biased to make himself appear
to be have been there on equal terms with James to discuss matters in
general;  whereas the account of the same event as presented by Acts 15
shows Paul to have been distinctly inferior in status to James and to have
been summoned to the meeting to answer charges made against him.  On tendenz
principles, Acts is far more credible than Galatians in this matter.  The
fact that Galatians is 'first-hand evidence'  does not make it more
credible; on the contrary, it makes it less credible, since it is the
evidence of a witness who is trying to enhance his own importance.  On the
other hand, one might argue that the author of Acts has some axe to grind;
but since his standpoint is  pro-Paul, it is hard to see what motive he
might have had to belittle the status of Paul at the meeting.  At any rate,
any simple-minded application of a principle of 'first-hand' versus
'hearsay' evidence is beside the point, since it ignores the whole issue of
motivation, as well as misrepresenting the distinction between 'first-hand
evidence' and 'hearsay' as applied in courts of law.
    On the other hand, Acts sometimes presents a narrative that needs to be
corrected by Paul's evidence.  Paul (also in Galatians 2) describes a
serious quarrel which he had with Peter.  In Acts, on the other hand, the
tendenz of the author is to represent Paul and Peter as in agreement (Peter
gradually shedding his adherence to the Torah in response to Paul's views)
and to minimize the breach between the Jerusalem Church and Pauline
Christianity.  Consequently, Acts contains no account of the serious quarrel
at Antioch.  In all matters, we should look to the motivation of the author
when assessing credibility.


Hyam Maccoby








____________________________________________________________________________
_________


Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
                   fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk




----- Original Message -----
From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 7:10 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] RE: Jerusalem conference


> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>