Corpus-Paul

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

Hyam Maccoby says:

>>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.

... 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.

... In all matters, we should look to the motivation of the author when
assessing credibility ...<<

That is true, but this really is applicable to the sources as classes,
doesn't it? For instance, we would prefer primary/direct sources like
personal letters, signed deeds, etc., to a secondary/hearsay source such as
a biography or a history book. Yet each such source is subject to
misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise. As a result, an intentionally
misrepresented primary source can be of less evidentiary value than a well
researched biography, etc.

It is usual for historians to also criticize data by examining the veracity
of sources, taking into account external issues (such as whether the
document under consideration a genuine one) and internal issues (such as
whether the information contained in the document is
trustworthy/accurate/consistent/etc.).

Still, I am not sure it is a good idea to give them equal weight just
because each can be misrepresented in some way. You seem to be implying that
Paul's possible motive to misrepresent himself outweighs its value as a
primary source while Acts' secondary nature is outweighed by its pro-paul
attitude, as if this means that this source would be more objective in its
representation of Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem apostles. Looking at
the issue in this way promotes the employment of sources in a highly
subjective manner, in my opinion.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA