Corpus-Paul

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

Dave Hindley wrote:

 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.
>
Dave -  I agree entirely with the first two paragraphs of your comments, but
have something to add to the above.  A primary source with a strong and
evident motive must be taken with great caution, and this can sometimes
outweigh its prima facie value as a primary source; for example, some of
Josephus's remarks about his own life have been strongly doubted by
scholars, though of course we are glad to have such a direct source.  I did
not say that 'the secondary nature of  Acts is outweighed by its pro-Paul
attitude', but that its evidence of Paul's inferiority to James and Peter at
the Jerusalem Council cannot be dismissed as arising from any animus against
Paul on the part of the author of Acts (on the contrary he always portrays
Paul in the best light he can), and this makes his evidence very persuasive
in this instance.  Tendenz theory works in two ways: by casting doubt on
passages that are dominated by the tendenz, and by giving special
credibility to passages that go against the tendenz.  There is nothing
'subjective' about this approach;  on the contrary, an easy acceptance of
primary sources as inherently more reliable than secondary sources involves
a refusal to accept the plain fact that human nature is such that people
tend to bend the truth about themselves.

With best wishes,

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 4:29 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] RE: Jerusalem conference/evidence


> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> 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')
>