Pauline chronology and the problem of evidence: a legal perspective
| Author | Clifford G Hall |
| Position | MA (Cantab), LLM (Wales), DPS (Codringron College), Senior Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Law |
| Pages | 119-156 |
PAULINE
CHRONOLOGY
AND
THE
PROBLEM
OF
EVIDENCE:
A
LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE
CLIFFORD
G
HALL
*
Introduction
That
an
academic
lawyer,
who
also
happens
to
be
a
priest,
should
offer
this
contribution
to
biblical,
specifically
Pauline,
studies
should
come
as
no
surprise.
After
all,
rheology
itself
has
often
attracted
interest
in
those
trained
in
the
law;
think
of
Anselm,
Calvin
and
Bacon.
Paul
himself
has
much
to
say
about
‘
law
’
and
employed
the
persuasive,
informal
logic
of
argument
in
the
letters.
Again,
at
the
interface
of
law
and
Christian
thought
the
idea,
for
example,
of
rhe
creative
power
of
the
“
new
life
of
the
Spirit
”
which
relieves
and
liberates
but
does
not
inevitably
destroy
the
written
law
(
c
f
Romans
7.6:
2
Or
3:6),
an
idea
which
cl
early
appealed
to
Jesus,
also
provides
valuable
insights
not
least
to
the
jurisprudent
and
legal
historian.
Conversely
in
three
wa
y
s
at
least
the
lawyer
also
has
something
to
contribute.
First,
is
his
understanding
and
use
of
forensic
techniques,
the
value
of
which
in
biblical
debate,
here
debate
about
when
Pau
l
wrote
his
letters
and
the
relative
value
in
this
regard
of
Luke-Acts
in
order
to
trace
the
development
of
Pauls
thought,
is
self-evident
.
This
is
not
a
rnat
t
er
of
giving
a
special
sanctity
to
legal
ratiocination
for
that,
at
root,
is
really
only
the
most
rigorously
employed
commonsense
expressed
in
a
quas
i-
formal
way
and
so
forms
the
bedrock
and
ballast
of
all
argument.
Legal
argument,
the
argument
from
case
to
case,
the
procedure
a
similibus
ad
similia,
is
something
we
all
employ
though
we
may
not
know
it.
Secondly,
and
following
from
the
first,
is
the
lawyers
understanding
of
proof.
In
civil
cases
in
the
law
the
judge
cannot
know
beyond
a
peradventure
*
MA
(Cantab),
LLM
(Wales),
DPS
(Codringfon
College),
Senior
L
ecturer
in
Law,
Faculty
of
I
aw.
University
of
rhe
West
Indies.
Cave
Hill
Campus,
Barbados.
The
writer
wishes
warmly
to
acknowledge
the
support
and
encouragement
of
Fr
Frank
Hughes.
PhD,
l
ecturer
in
New
Testament
Studies
at
Codrington
College.
Barbados.
that
a
party
is
telling
the
truth
and
so
determines
the
issue
on
the
balance
of
probabilites.
Proof
is
thus
a
matter
of
a
lesser
rather
than
a
greater
degree
of
uncertainty.
Doubtless
that
is
the
standard
by
which
we
settle
most
issues
anyway,
and
thus
it
may
equally
be
applied,
with
appropriate
caution,
in
Pauline
chronology
debates
despite,
as
they
say,
the
alleged
credulity
of
the
ancients
and
their
relative
lack
of
concern
for
historical
accuracy.
Dr
Luke
in
Acts,
for
example,
may
not
in
fact
always
have
written
accurate
history,
yet
what
he
records,
as
he
asserts,
is
intended
to
be
so,
not
necessarily
first-hand
or
eye-witness
’
testimony
to
be
sure,
yet
‘
fact
’
in
the
sense
that
what
he
records
allegedly
happened
at
a
particular
time
or
place.
Luke
did
not
purport
to
be
a
writer
of
fictional
history
any
more
than
did
Paul
in
the
letters
in
revealing
autobiographical
data.
Thirdly,
the
lawyer
may
also
offer
a
significant
contribution
through
his
expertise
in,
say,
the
interpretation
of
documentary
evidence,
the
hearsay
rule,
presumptions
and
expert
testimony
to
indicate
that
what
the
ancients
asserted
is
at
least
primafacie
reliable
albeit
subject
to
counter-evidence.
At
root,
the
critical
issue
for
the
admissibility
of
evidence
is
its
relevance,
and
the
lawyer
’
s
method,
no
matter
if
expressed
through
the
application
of
formal
rules,
really
only
seeks
in
his
domain
to
address
the
question
which
Pauline
scholars
have
sought
to
address
in
theirs,
namely
whether
the
evidence,
of
Paul
and
Luke,
render
it
more
or
less
likely
that
the
fact
or
issue
actually
happened.
The
lawyer
does
not
divorce
legal
logic
from
life.
What
he
does,
and
in
this
paper
proposes
to
do,
is
to
apply
what
my
old
colleague,
Dr
Roger
Booth,
once
described
in
his
important
book
Contrasts
-
Gospel
Evidence
and
Christian
Beliefs
(Paget
Press:
1990,
p
7)
as
“
the
canons
of
common-sense
which
have
been
marshalled
by
lawyers
into
rules
which
assist
the
search
for
truth
in
the
disputes
of
daily
life.
”
And
so,
as
I
say,
this
essay
should
come
as
no
surprise
if
seen
as
an
attempt
to
harness
the
methodologies
of
one
discipline,
law,
to
several
purposes
and
applications
in
another.
In
doing
this,
the
writer
is
not
claiming
to
be
a
biblical
scholar.
No,
but
what
he
asserts
is
that
the
“
short
dark
oracles
of
the
law
”
,
in
Bacon
’
s
phrase,
may
yet
illumine
a
path
when
,
it
seems,
Pauline
chronology
scholars
may
in
fact
have
led
us
nowhere
very
much.
Call
it
a
‘
contribution
to
biblical
scholarship
if
you
will,
or
call
it
jurisprudence
or
an
exercise
in
hermeneutics.
More
generally,
call
it
simply
what
it
is
in
fact,
an
interdisciplinary
study
in
law
and
biblical
studies
which
may
yet
be
of
interest
to
the
general
reader.
That
is,
I
assume,
the
Editor
’
s
justification
in
generously
agreeing
to
publish.
**********
First
thoughts
Pauline
chronology
is
rather
like
a
macabre
detective
story,
a
whodunit
’
but
without
the
body.
We
know
that
something
is
not
quite
right
-
there
are
clues
that
something
is
amiss
-
yet
we
can
’
t
say
for
certain
that
there
has
been
a
crime
let
alone
what
that
crime
is.
“
Much
ado
about
nothing,
then,
”
whines
the
amateur.
“
A
sheer
waste
of
police
manpower,
”
cries
the
critic.
It
is
difficult
not
to
have
some
sympathy
with
them.
Yet
on
and
off
for
the
past
500
years,
and
particularly
during
the
past
50,
learned
men
have
tried
to
solve
the
unsolvable,
have
rabbited
on
and
argued
and
abused
each
other,
mostly
in
the
nicest
possible
way,
about
the
song
the
sirens
sang.
Very
well,
‘
the
game
’
s
afoot
’
,
but
what
sort
of
game
is
it?
Is
it
really
a
private
game
with
just
two
key
players,
Luke
and
Paul,
who
may
in
fact
be
doubles
partners
not
opponents
facing
each
other
across
the
net?
Personally,
I
find
it
all
utterly
compelling.
There
seem
to
be
two
principal
reasons
why
it
is
all
of
interest.
One
is
to
provide
authentic
biographical
evidence
of
Paul
’
s
life.
Clearly,
that
is
of
interest
for
its
own
sake
and
especially
so
if
we
regard
Paul
as
the
true
founder
of
Christianity,
or
at
least
of
coherent,
fundamental
Christian
beliefs.
In
that
case
he
is
rather
special
and,
after
all,
we
know
precious
little
about
the
rest
of
the
team.
The
other,
as
I
understand
it,
is
that
by
identifying
in
at
least
a
rough
date
order
the
key
events
in
Paul
’
s
life,
we
are
then
equally
able
to
date
his
letters.
With
that
information
we
should
be
able
to
trace
the
development
of
his
thought.
It
becomes
possible
to
refer
to
this
or
that
Pauline
pronouncement
as
‘
early
Paul
’
or
‘
late
Paul'
and
also,
I
suppose,
‘
middle
Paul'
and
‘
two-thirds
Paul
’
,
and
so
on.
In
other
words,
instead
of
looking
at
the
body
of
Paul
’
s
writing
as
a
comprehensive,
once-and-for-all
theological
scheme,
complete
and
final,
as
it
were
mouthed
by
the
oracle
on
a
single
day
in
a
seamless
uninterrupted
flow,
we
should
be
able,
through
chronology,
to
discern
the
ebb
and
flow
of
his
thought,
the
chiaroscuro,
the
light
and
shade
of
his
thought,
its
novelty
and
its
back-tracking,
and
its
final
majesty.
Now
in
fact
I
am
a
little
unclear
why
one
can
’
t
do
much
of
this
by
simply
comparing
and
contrasting
the
content
of
the
letters
themselves,
as
a
lawyer
would
construe
a
series
of
documents,
and
with
a
little
chronological
fudging,
that
is
by
accepting
that
Romans
is
the
most
complete,
most
exhaustive
and
so
most
authoritative
Pauline
exegesis
that
we
have,
simply
work
from
there.
Note
that
to
please
some
chronologists
I
do
not
say
that
Romans
is
the
last
letter
that
we
have.
Now
despite
this
somewhat
tongue-in-check
approach
to
Pauline
chronology
studies,
let
me
say
first
that
I
do
accept
the
value
of
what
the
chronologists
seek
to
do,
even
if,
as
a
by-product,
this
might
lead
us
to
conclude
that
Luke,
whom
with
everyone
else
I
accept
as
the
author
o
f
Acts,
utterly
misrepresented,
To continue reading
Request your trial