dr. greenleaf

[ungoliant]

i am having a discussion with a christian friend of mine about the historical jesus, if any, and he brought up this guy:

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence," considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated, "it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."(p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!



what does anyone know about him? is he for real?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ungoliant
i am having a discussion with a christian friend of mine about the historical jesus, if any, and he brought up this guy:

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was .....

As far as I can tell, there is no "Royal Professor of Law" at Harvard University. As a matter of fact, the phrase "Royal Professor of Law" is not the sort of title I would expect to see at Harvard -- the sort of king who would endow such a chair would use the rather more pretentious Latinate title "Regius Professor."

To the best of my knowledge, there is not (and has never been) a "Regius Professor" of Law at Harvard, either.

And this sort of title isn't the kind of thing that would be allowed to lapse; the whole point about these "endowed" chairs is that the founder gives enough money to keep them around in perpetuity -- but by the same token, a chair endowed by royalty is prestigious enough that Harvard would continue to appoint people to such chairs.

On the other hand, Simon Greenleaf definiitely existed (and the book, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence exists. So this story looks to me like it has all the hallmarks of another "Darwin's Deathbed Conversion" story, made up with lots of details to make it more poignant.

[cyborg]

How interesting.

I had this conversation with some Christian guy on /. - this is blatant appeal to authourity be that authourity real or not. I wasn't having any of it:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159475&cid=13366850

[Darat]

The text of "Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)" can be found here:


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

(Edited to add.)

And it aint very convincing!

[ceo_esq]

I remember Greenleaf's name from law school. He was a noted expert in evidentiary matters, although his great treatise is chiefly of historical interest now.
Originally posted by new drkitten
As far as I can tell, there is no "Royal Professor of Law" at Harvard University. As a matter of fact, the phrase "Royal Professor of Law" is not the sort of title I would expect to see at Harvard -- the sort of king who would endow such a chair would use the rather more pretentious Latinate title "Regius Professor."It's not the Royal professorship; it's the Royall professorship (named after Isaac Royall (http://www.royallhouse.org)). I think it might be the oldest endowed chair in U.S. legal academia; it's prestigious enough for me to have heard of it. Some very well-known jurists have held it.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

It's not the Royal professorship; it's the Royall professorship (named after Isaac Royall (http://www.royallhouse.org)). I think it might be the oldest endowed chair in U.S. legal academia; it's prestigious enough for me to have heard of it.

Interesting. In that case, I should have been able to find information about the Royall professorship under Greenleaf's name when I checked.

I'm afraid that my central point still stands. This kind of microevolution of detail is a hallmark of a friend-of-a-friend urban legend, worn smooth through long retelling without regard to the actual facts of the case. And a reading of the so-called Testimony of the Evangelists does not support the story either. For example, Greenleaf's fourth paragraph begins


The proof that God has revealed himself [sic] to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been show, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings [Ed. note the lack of citation] for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true.

And a little later:


That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; [... is a fact] which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.


These aren't the writings of someone seeking to critically investigate the truth of the Resurrection story.

I still maintain this is another Darwin's Deathbed Confession.

[Jon.]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I still maintain this is another Darwin's Deathbed Confession.

No, I think it's more like The Case For Christ 150 years earlier. I doubt that Greenleaf was sincere in his attempt to critically analyze the testimony of gospel writers, since Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf) records him as having been " for many years president of the Massachusetts Bible Society". His great work of apologetics was published in 1846, about seven years before his death.

I think it rather more likely that Greenleaf was a devout Christian who wrote propaganda aimed at a critical audience who would be impressed that he used a legalistic approach.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by ungoliant
Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history! Well, pretty much all the evidence available would be thrown out of court as hearsay, I imagine (at least in the UK, and I think the rules of evidence are similar in the US). The gospels, for example, weren't contemporaneous accounts. I think they were actually written about a century after the facts. This may not have been generally known when Greenleaf was writing, of course (early to mid nineteenth century).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Mojo
Well, pretty much all the evidence available would be thrown out of court as hearsay, I imagine (at least in the UK, and I think the rules of evidence are similar in the US). The gospels, for example, weren't contemporaneous accounts.

Not quite. There are actually special rules of evidence regarding, for example, "ancient documents," in similar fashion to the way the hearsay rule may be waived in special cases such as deathbed confessions. In the US, for example, Federal Rule 803 (16) declares that "Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established" are not hearsay. SImilarly, 803 (11) specifically allows for "regularly kept records of religious organizations," and rule 807 allows for a more general exception, "if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence." In other words, if the best available evidence is hearsay, the courts are allowed, and in fact required, to admit the best evidence.

From a strictly legalistic point of view (and this of course, applies on a more broadly philosophical and scientific point of view), what is the best evidence that a believer could be expected to produce in favor of a long-ago historic fact? It doesn't have to be the Resurrection -- it could be something much less controversial, such as the circumstances of the ascension of the emperor Claudius (whom I believe became emperor when Caligula was killed by members of the Praetorian Guard).

I do not believe there is any real dispute among historians about how that happened. IBut --- why do we believe that? Most of what we "know" derives from the writings of Roman historians like Suetonius, but Suetonius was born almost thirty-five years after Caligula died.

Assume, for a moment, that I am an a-Claudian -- that I do not believe that the emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar Drusus ever existed. How would you prove his existence to me? How would you prove that he was, in fact, the first emperor to be elected by the Praetorian Guard and not the Senate?

[Gregor]

Mojo
British evidentiary law and most US state evidentiary law would probably be the same, then.

The gospels are unauthenticated. That merely means that we don't know the authors. Not so unusual for ancient writings.

If used to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein, the contents also contain hearsay.

And people knew that the gospels were more than likely written many years (ranging from 30 to 100) after the events dispicted. Eusebius in @ 330, in apparently citing an early church father Papias acknowledge their lack of contemporanity.

And Greenleaf might have published in response to the Dutch and German biblical critics of the 19th century (see F.C. Bauer on google).

[ungoliant]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Not quite. There are actually special rules of evidence regarding, for example, "ancient documents," in similar fashion to the way the hearsay rule may be waived in special cases such as deathbed confessions. In the US, for example, Federal Rule 803 (16) declares that "Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established" are not hearsay. SImilarly, 803 (11) specifically allows for "regularly kept records of religious organizations," and rule 807 allows for a more general exception, "if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence." In other words, if the best available evidence is hearsay, the courts are allowed, and in fact required, to admit the best evidence.


how is the bible in any way authenticated?

if things are allowed in court, how does that imply that they carry any merit? isn't that what will be decided?

doesn't your above simply mean that these arguments can be MADE in a court, but not that they actually have any truth to them?

[Jon.]

new drkitten: It is one thing to rely on ancient documents that contain direct observation. It is another to rely on ancient documents that contain hearsay. The gospels, to the extent that their authors say "I saw Jesus do thus and such" might be admissible evidence; however, when they say "So and so saw Jesus do thus and such", they would be hearsay.

Also, consideration should be given to the weight to be accorded to the gospels. While they might not be hearsay, they were clearly written by interested parties, namely those who were starting a new religion (or confirming the prophecies of an old one, if you prefer) based on the writings in question. Because they were trying to convince people, rather than trying to record what was happening, they should be given little weight.

[Gregor]

Dr. K

Well, since we're talking about how many angels can dance, I don't think the referenced exceptions to the hearsay rule would really apply if the issue to be proved is the veracity of the documents under review.

The Bible is not a business record of a church. Certain records have exceptions to the hearsay rule merely because trying to track down an authenticating witness would be impossible (e.g. the church secretary that wrote the baptismal records from 1950 is long dead) or there is not a reasonable ground to challenge the accuracy of the information (e.g. what is written in the 1965 Encyclopedia).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by ungoliant
how is the bible in any way authenticated?

From Greenleaf's own writings,

[QUOTE]
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves upon the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

It sufficies, therefore, for purposes of law simply to establish that the Church, who might be expected to keep track of such things, regards it as genuine.

You may legitimately point out that this is a fairly bogus standard. You're right. But it's about the best that can be hoped for with regard to ancient documents, because there is, as you point out, no way they can be "authenticated" to the standards of modern forensic science.

You may also legitimately point out that this is simply a case of special pleading. Again, you are right. But Federal Rules 804 and 807 are acknowledged to be special pleading, in the general case where better evidence cannot reasonably be expected to be available.


if things are allowed in court, how does that imply that they carry any merit? isn't that what will be decided?

doesn't your above simply mean that these arguments can be MADE in a court, but not that they actually have any truth to them?

Absolutely. And Greenleaf was an expert on evidence and would have known well the epistemological difference between "admissible as evidence," "demonstrable," and "true."

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Jon.
new drkitten: It is one thing to rely on ancient documents that contain direct observation. It is another to rely on ancient documents that contain hearsay. The gospels, to the extent that their authors say "I saw Jesus do thus and such" might be admissible evidence; however, when they say "So and so saw Jesus do thus and such", they would be hearsay.

Absolutely. So what?

Under Federal Rule 807 (or any similar rule), the hearsay would still be admissible as evidence, because it's the best available evidence. It would be really nice if we could subpoena an authenticating witness directly -- I suppose in theory the Wandering Jew might be around somewhere, but I don't know where to serve the papers -- but that's clearly impossible. The authenticating witnesses are long-dead. Even the authenticating witnesses to the authenticating witnesses -- the people who can testify that the hearsay was accurately reported -- are long dead.

In this case, the "best evidence" is astonishingly weak. But so is the "best evidence," as I pointed out, to the murder of the Emperor Caligula. Funny how something can be "the best" without actually being very good.



Also, consideration should be given to the weight to be accorded to the gospels. While they might not be hearsay, they were clearly written by interested parties, namely those who were starting a new religion (or confirming the prophecies of an old one, if you prefer) based on the writings in question. Because they were trying to convince people, rather than trying to record what was happening, they should be given little weight.

Of course. Just because something is admissible as evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion that the lawyer wants to draw from it is true. That's part of why there are formal rules regarding what is and is not admissible, and why the judge makes determinations regarding those rules, while the facts of the case are usually left to the jury.

[Piscivore]

This thread makes me think of Cypress Hill.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Piscivore
This thread makes me think of Cypress Hill.

Cypress Hill?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by c4ts
Cypress Hill?

Cypress Hill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Hill)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by ungoliant
i am having a discussion with a christian friend of mine about the historical jesus, if any, and he brought up this guy:

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence," considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated, "it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."(p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!



what does anyone know about him? is he for real?

Yeah... if it's so convincing that even a Harvard Law professor can figure out THE RESURRECTION WAS REAL, confounded by OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, why doesn't the Christian just prove it instead? It would be so much simpler.

[Yahweh]

Wow. I knew I had seen the story from the opening post before.

That is really a story template: [insert prominent apologist here] was a former atheist, who tried to disprove the resurrection but subsequently became Christian.

Stories like that exist at a dime a dozen:

Wikipedia - Josh McDowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell):
As an atheist at college he decided to prepare a paper that would examine the historical evidence of the Christian faith in order to disprove it. However he converted to faith and subsequently enrolled at Wheaton College, Illinois, where he was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree.

CS Lewis and others (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Resurrection_Query3.htm):
CS Lewis. Lew wallace. Frank Morison. The latter two became christians while working on disproving christianity. Brilliant men, all.

I've seen the above story quoted verbatim for several other apologists, however maybe someone can find better examples than the ones I found in two minutes of Google searching.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Assume, for a moment, that I am an a-Claudian -- that I do not believe that the emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar Drusus ever existed. How would you prove his existence to me?

There is physical evidence: coins, sculptures, inscriptions, his writings.

But I don't blame you for a-Claudianism. Messalina was an a-Claudianist herself, and she was married to the guy.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
There is physical evidence: coins, sculptures, inscriptions, his writings.I was under the impression that there were no existing copies of his writings.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Wow. I knew I had seen the story from the opening post before.

That is really a story template: [insert prominent apologist here] was a former atheist, who tried to disprove the resurrection but subsequently became Christian.

Stories like that exist at a dime a dozen:

Wikipedia - Josh McDowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell):


CS Lewis and others (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Resurrection_Query3.htm):


I've seen the above story quoted verbatim for several other apologists, however maybe someone can find better examples than the ones I found in two minutes of Google searching.

Again, here I am with still no evidence of a resurrection, and stories about other people who did the same thing and suddenly became Christian aren't going to provide me with the facts needed prove the friggin' resurrection in the first place! Why does anybody think these stories matter? They don't tell you anything other than "people can change their minds all the time," which I already know.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
There is physical evidence: coins, sculptures, inscriptions, his writings.

"All later forgeries." You can't carbon-date silver or marble, you know. And none of Claudius' writings survived, and even if they did, they would all be copies-of-copies-of-copies.

How do you "authenticate" a coin?

But I'm willing to defer to my learned (and legally trained) colleague ceo_esq: "My lord, I object to the introduction of this coin from the British Museum, dated by the museum experts [who are available to testify, if necessary] to the year 50 CE, purporting to bear the likeness of the then-ruling Emperor Claudius. This coin has not been properly authenticated, and no chain of custody has been established linking it to the actual Emperor Claudius. It is clear that no proper foundation has laid, and it should not be admitted into evidence."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Not quite. There are actually special rules of evidence regarding, for example, "ancient documents," in similar fashion to the way the hearsay rule may be waived in special cases such as deathbed confessions. In the US, for example, Federal Rule 803 (16) declares that "Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established" are not hearsay. SImilarly, 803 (11) specifically allows for "regularly kept records of religious organizations,"

But can you really argue that the bible contains "regularly kept records of religious organizations"?

By their own admission, the stories in the bible were selected because they said the things the religions wanted people to believe, and they threw out things (Gospel of Thomas, for example) that said things they didn't like. That's not a "regularly kept record" any more than the debits page is a full financial disclosure.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by new drkitten
But I'm willing to defer to my learned (and legally trained) colleague ceo_esq: "My lord, I object to the introduction of this coin from the British Museum, dated by the museum experts [who are available to testify, if necessary] to the year 50 CE, purporting to bear the likeness of the then-ruling Emperor Claudius. This coin has not been properly authenticated, and no chain of custody has been established linking it to the actual Emperor Claudius. It is clear that no proper foundation has laid, and it should not be admitted into evidence." You should write courtroom dramas. :D