Jesse Leigh

G'morning!

Simon Greenleaf 1783–1853, American legal writer, b. Newburyport, Mass. A member of the Maine bar, he won a high reputation for legal scholarship early in his career. With the admission (1820) of Maine as a state, he was elected to a term in the legislature and was appointed reporter of the Maine supreme court. He also published A Full Collection of Cases Overruled, Denied, Doubted, or Limited in their Application, taken from American and English Reports (1821). In 1833 he resigned this position and accepted the invitation of Joseph Story to become a professor of law at Harvard. Much of the excellence of Harvard Law School is attributed to these two men. Greenleaf's Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vol., 1842–53) for many years was the standard American work on the subject. Another text used for many years was his revision (5 vol., 1849–50) of William Cruise's Digest of the Law of Real Property. The work below as well; Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence administered in the Courts of Justice, with an account of the Trial of Jesus (1846; London, 1847).

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. Made available online by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink, This essay is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed.

http://evangelic.org/doctrine/resurr..._Greenleaf.htm


Yours, insert appropriate signature/well-wishes here - Jesse.

Dean Anderson

Thanks for the link. I've often heard Christians talk about Greenleaf's essay as if it was something special. It's nice to be able to read it for myself.

I do like the way that Greenleaf is always portrayed (as in your introduction) as a skeptic who is reluctantly convinced that the Gospels are reliable.

The essays shows this to be far from the truth. Look at this evidence of his "skepticism"...

Yep - that's a skeptic for you...



As we can see, the standard Christian claim that Greenleaf approached the Gospels from a position of skepticism is false. He approached as a believer, and his work is that of apologetics, not investigation.

Upon reading the rest of this, I can summarise Greenleaf's argument as follows:

If we make the following assumptions (and according to Greenleaf, we can):

1) God exists, and the Bible is his revelation to us.

2) The Old Testament is a true account of the history of God's interaction with us.

3) The Gospels we have now are exact copies of the originals.

4) The Gospels were written by the actual Apostles that they are traditionally named after.

5) The authors of the Gospels are reliable, good and honest.

6) The authors of the Gospels were trying to record eyewitness accounts.

7) The miracles that the Gospels talk about are all possible and need no extraordinary evidence.

Then:

1) The Gospels don't exactly agree with each other, so there is no reason to think their authors colluded to give the same story.

2) The Gospels contain some genuine historical details and therefore we can trust the rest of what they say too.



Of course, since I grant none of his assumptions, I find his conclusions to be completely without merit.

Thank you once again, Jesse, for letting me see how specious his arguments are for myself. Now I will never again need to listen to a Christian going on about how wonderful Greenleaf was and how I should bow to his authority and become a Christian because Greenleaf has shown without doubt that the Gospels are accurate and the resurrection happened.

JoeWallack

JW:
"originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity."

This is one of the more repeated Lies on the Internet and as always one wonders where the Hell Bede, Pearse, Holding and Carlson are when you really need them. From the link above (and Greenleaf's book):

"The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related, as well by one man as by another. And if the testimony of the Evangelist, supposing it to be relevant and material to the issue in a question of property or of personal right, between man and man, in a court of justice, ought to be believed and have weight; then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive our entire credit here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in rejecting it, if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence to be sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence.

The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true. That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being. Be it the rude-carved idol of his own fabrication, or the unseen divinity that stirs within him, it is still the object of his adoration. This trait in the character of man is so uniform, that it may safely be assumed, either as one of the original attributes of his nature, or as necessarily resulting from the action of one or more of those attributes."


JW:
So the idiot (Greenleaf) Starts with the Assumption that Christianity is True and X-Strapolates that therefore Christian witness is Assumed to be True unless it is Contradicted by Christian witness. He than goes on to special plea that all the contradictions are not contradictions. The dumbshit was apparently also unaware of something called Textual Variation. See my
related Thread here on the Significance of Textual variation -

The Word According To Garp, Mork, Mark. An Inventory of Significant Editing in the First Gospel

so after he went to wherever the hell Jesus has been for the last two thousand years, by an Act of Providence a Chapter mysteriously appeared at the end of his book talking about Textual variation (the book dishonestly hides the fact that this chapter was not Greenleaf's).

The book gives no indication that Greenleaf was ever anything but Christian and the only evidence I've ever seen that he wasn't is the son of Mantra chanted above by Liars for Jesus. I've even seen some claim that Greenleaf was Jewish which is especially comical considering Jews weren't let into Harvard until relatively recently (so how good could it possibly have been back than?).

Here is a related Book Review of mine:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...053901-8020617

Enjoy!



Joseph

LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gregor

Is there not a way to have any post mentioning that old chestnut about Greenleaf automatically link to any of the number of replies showing the complete vacuity of the argument?

M. Leigh - The purported motivation of Greenleaf's original task is an apparent canard; the entire premise of proving the truth of a 1,500 year old story from a "legal" basis is invalid; and the rules of courtroom evidence (from even before Greenleaf's time and through today) would get the case dismissed immediately (violating the best evidence rule, unauthenticated writings, hearsay within hearsay within hearsay, etc.).

Thanks, but we've disembowled this attempt before.

Julian

This is useless as it was written before any real critical edition was available. He also seems completely devoid of skepticism, reason and common sense. Whatever...

Julian

Jack the Bodiless

So this author expects us to believe that Greenleaf was a non-Christian, who became convinced by the evidence?

That's not what Greenleaf himself says:
So, he's going to be hopelessly biased. He's going to asume that Christianity is true, and then "investigate" whether the gospels give a believable account of events which "actually happened".
..."deluge"?

Why are so many Christian apologists unable to resist the temptation to witter aimlessly about their religious fantasy?

Scanning ahead, looking for the start of his actual argument...
The contrary has been shown. Textual analysis has moved on since Greenleaf's time. But shouldn't even HE have known that some versions of the Gospel of Mark end at the empty tomb and don't mention the Resurrection?
Irrelevant, if the document is a "genuine" fictional account rather than a "forged" one. If we have the original A Midsummer Night's Dream written in Shakespeare's own hand: Oberon the Fairy King exists?

Greenleaf also appears to be entirely ignorant of the historical sources which indicate that there were no canonical "four Gospels" in early Christianity.

He also thinks that Matthew was written first (modern scholars don't), and early (again, modern scholars don't). Greenleaf has apparently never heard of the "Synoptic Problem".

He is also unaware of the fact that "Mark" was ignorant of the geography of Palestine. For instance, if the author had done as much travelling in the region as Greenleaf indicates, he would have known that Sidon was/is north of Tyre, not south of it.

Here, I admit that I'm rapidly losing interest. More waffling, in which Greenleaf has blindly assumed that the gospels were written by the traditional authors and is now arguing that they were "honest men"...

He accepts that the gospels contradict each other (I'll have to remember this when inerrantists cite Greenleaf), but considers this to be a sign of authenticity. But he doesn't seem to be aware of the problem of the date of the birth of Jesus (4 BC or earlier according to Matthew, 6 AD or later according to Luke). This is a BIG difference, and at least one author (probably "Matthew") has to be an outright liar: certainly not an "honest man" as Greenleaf claims.

There is remarkably little substance here.

Toto

I was going to "infidelize" this link to Faith on Trial (or via: amazon.co.uk), but given that the reviews are so negative, and used copies can be bought for 36 cents, I don't think I'lll bother



Toto

Jesse Leigh

Afternoon all!

I *could* refute your arguments, but I won't
<Spam and preaching deleted>

Kosh

<yawn>

RUmike

At least he's a Universalist.