>here it is: 2 Cor 13:1, being a direct quote from Deut.  19:15,
Yes, but this statement clearly refers to persons giving
evidence in support of a criminal charge, and neither one of
these treats instances as witnesses.
>and used again in Matthew 18:16 and referenced by Jesus in Jn
>8:17.  Ah!  Four witnesses establish this critical asperity
>within the scriptures.
But it does not establish that Jesus spoke these words.  There is
a difference between a principle commonly recognised in the
Bible and a multiple attestation showing that a particular person
named in the Bible said something equivalent to it.
While Matthew 18.15 and 18.21-22 are in Q, and 18.19-20 is in
Thomas, Matthew 18.16-18 is in neither, and not in Mark.  It was
therefore an insertion made by the author of Matthew, probably
looking at Deuteronomy 19.15.  Many critical scholars therefore
reject the idea that Jesus spoke the words attributed to him at
18.16-18.
John 8.17-18 almost looks like a second attestation in the Gospels
for the Deuteronomy principle, but for the fact that John
identifies the second witness as God.  As a result the human claim
for God's witness would amount to an oath, and therefore blasphemy
to Jesus' audience.  Consequently, few scholars believe Jesus
spoke John's version.
>And which all agree with _you_ and find
>you in _agreement_ with them.  It isn't a new idea with critical
>scholars - seems it has been a practice since early Hebrew times,
>and may have even been a standard of Egyptian law practice.
Once again, it is one thing to say that a principle of relying
only on the evidence of at least two witnesses is by no means
original with critical scholars and in fact goes well back into
ancient history, perhaps back to the very origin of civilisation
itself in ancient Sumer.
It is quite another thing to say that this principle, by the words
attributed to him, were actually spoken by Jesus.  The evidence in
the Gospels encourages more skepticism on that point than
credibility.
 >facet of the scripture - whether it is to be rendered more or
 >less reliable, must be stated twice or three times to _establish_
 >it as reliable or important, as each instance is considered a
 >"witness" to it.
No, this is not true.  Simple examination of all the passages you
refer to above clearly shows that 'two or three times' refers to
two or three PERSONS expressing the instances, not instances alone
without specifying how many people expressed them.
The mere fact that a single person or writing states a doctrine
twice does not count, either in the Bible or among critical
scholars, as two witnesses to the doctrine.  Such a situation
counts only as one witness.
Whether in the courts of Moses, or in the those of modern society,
a person who says on the stand "He did it" 100 times does not
increase the credibility of his claim any more than if he said it
only once.  Indeed, the person who gives the same evidence
multiple, or more precisely an excessive number of times may, in
context, be seen to protest his case too much.  Such an appearance
may on the contrary suggest that he is a liar.  Thus,
self-repetition by the same person or writing beyond a certain
point actually REDUCES the reliability of the claims made, except
among the gullible.
This is the sort of thing which led some scholars to question the
authenticity of 2 Thessalonians; for at 3.17 NRSV of that
document, the author wrote,
  I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.  This is the mark
  in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.
A critical scholar looking at this passage may well throw up his
hands and think loudly to himself 'You want me to believe that?
Give me a break!' This reminds one of experiences of listening to
witnesses in actual court proceedings, in which one of the
witnesses appearing at the stand gives his account, and, after
each of his sentences or paragraphs, he says "I cannot tell a
lie!", "and that is the absolute truth!", or such like.  Such
witnesses embarrass the court by reducing, rather than improving,
the credibility of the claims they make.
In truth, the excessive protest (against a presumed charge of
forgery), occuring at 2 Thess 3.17, is not found in most of the
other letters (and therefore not a "mark" of the way Paul wrote).
At the same time, in these two lines, the author makes his point
three times.
There is, therefore, the strong suspicion that the author
protested too much about himself--that, indeed, he was lying in
his intent to convey the impression that he was Paul.  Only a
psychologically naive forger would put his case in this manner.
BE:
-Well, I really wonder whether Paul thought mere instances were
-witnesses.
>Not in the context of Paul's writ of the "second" Corinthian
>letter.  But rather the law of Moses itself, the progenitor of
>all the other references to it.
Deuteronomy 19.15-21 clearly refers to different persons giving
evidence in defense of a charge, each one a "witness".  The whole
notion of "parties" used in that passage assumes that witnesses
are multiple persons citing instances as evidence, not multiple
instances from one person.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------