Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: Stephen C. Carlson's:

> In our historical enterprise, where we try the balance the testimony
> of Galatians vs. Acts, it is clear that both of them are admissible
> to the historian's mind.  On the other hand, since no one uses the
> Acts of Paul and Thecla (as far as I am aware) to reconstruct these
> events, that document is an example of inadmissible evidence in practice.

Yes, it would be rejected on materiality grounds.

As regards Galatians versus Acts, I am not denying that "both of them are
admissible in the historian's mind," but I am saying that huge evidentiary
distinctions have to be made between them if a historian is to be scientific
in his reconstruction of events from such documents. I accept your
implication here that those evidentiary distinctions are not, at present,
being made. I do make them, however.

Regarding your other comments concerning documentary evidence, I would say
only that this is, indeed, an evolving field that is based upon the
historically new emphasis upon white-collar crime, and that the kinds of
guidance that we as historians can best derive from this field concern not
merely rules of evidence but far less-statutorily defined practices such as
investigative methodologies, not understood merely from a technological
standpoint, but far more from an epistemological standpoint. These concerns
are driven by an investigator's worry that his theory explaining how a crime
took place will end up failing to convince a jury because the judge refused
to permit a key step in that theory to be backed up, due to throwing out a
key piece of "evidence" on that point. Consequently, investigators are
forced to formulate their theories on the basis of the solidest evidence,
and they use lesser exhibits only as theory-confirmation, not for
theory-construction.

Of course, there are investigators who do otherwise, and there are judges
who rule otherwise, and so there are judges and cases that get overturned on
appeal. But as the decades roll by, investigators and judges do tend to
learn better and these fields consequently become more professional. This
isn't due to improvements in forensics; it's due to trial and error,
producing better trials in court. It's simply methodological. But so is
science itself.

Best,
Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net