Corpus-Paul

["Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>]

Eric,
thanks for a learned essay on scholarly houses of cards. I am still puzzled 
however (I am afraid) as to your distinction between scientific rules and 
scholarly ones as you call them. How can scholarly consensus be both a house 
of cards (first section of your reply) and the scientific basis for your 
assertions of primary evidences  (second part of your reply)?

Please enlighten me on the following:

>  For a simple example, the
> person of Peter: (a) Galatians is generally considered to contain authentic
> first-person witness references to Peter, whereas (b) Acts is generally
> considered not to do so.....

If a scholarly card house considers Galatians to contain authentic 
first-person witness references to Peter as opposed to Acts, should not that 
card house be shaken and checked for it's foundations? One major foundations 
being, as I understand, the confessional assertion of the superiority of Paul 
over Peter!

> For example, after the
> Holocaust against the Jews, scholars came increasingly to doubt the
> authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, so that today it might even be a
> consensus position to say that that passage is bogus, an interpolation, not
> by Paul. I reject that "politically correct" (or, perhaps, "religiously
> correct") view, and whenever I reject a scholarly consensus regarding
> authentication and dating, I not only make note of that fact, but I present
> the reasons behind my position.

Don't you agree that there might have been (to say the least) a 'politically 
correct' view in support of pre-Holocost consensus position on 1 Thess 
2:14-16?

 
> 5) Applying the fundamental legal/forensic skepticism regarding the
> honesty-of-intent of any witness, I systematically include in every point of
> my hypothetical reconstruction a consideration of not only its truthfulness,
> but also its honesty-of-intent. Never is there any mere assumption that a
> given statement--from no matter how high-ranked a source--is either truthful
> or even honest.

This assertion of yours (with which I am in agreement) should cause you to 
reconsider your first point above, should it not, namely that Galatians 
contains "authentic first-person witness references to Peter". How can an 
legal sceptic consider an accuser's assertions with regard to the one he 
accuses to be authentic? 

But if you grant me this, then your 'scientific consensus' is in fact just 
another scholarly card house. Or?

Dieter, Mitternacht
Lund, Sweden