Simon Greenleaf

The following is an excerpt from a debate between a 
Christian,  Fitzpatrick, and Farrell Till on the alleged 
resurrection of Jesus Christ--from the Errancy Discussion 
list, November 15, 1998:

FITZPATRICK

Now let me address the question of whether the NT is 

historically accurate in claiming that the resurrection of 

Jesus of Nazareth took place. In other words, are 

the four Gospels good evidence for the events they 

declare? The inquiry into the goodness of this

evidence is actually a legal question.

One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence 

was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royall Professor 

of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph 

Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. 

The rise of Harvard law School to its eminent position 

among the legal schools of the United States is to be 

ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced 

his famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of 

Evidence, which still is considered one of the greatest single 

authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal 

procedure.

Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the

resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He rigorously

applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on

evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An 

Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the 

Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws

of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence 

for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than 

for just about any other event in history.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf's great work, "An Examination of the 

Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence 

Administered in the Courts of Justice" can be found at the 

following Web page: (no longer available, but check here, 

kwh) Now although I am a Registered Patent Agent, am  

somewhat familiar with legal reasoning, and can practice

Patent Law before the Patent Bar, I am not a regular  

attorney, and am not, therefore, legally competent to 

pass judgement on this work. It is highly convincing to me 

and seems to cover all the bases, legally speaking. Perhaps 

one of your skeptic friends who is an attorney of law can 

assess the strength of Dr. Greenleaf's legal reasoning 

here. If, as I believe, the evidence for the resurrection of  

Jesus Christ is good enough to stand up in any court of law, 

then, on that basis, I re-present the argument of my 

previous e-mail. Mr. Till, what is your answer to the legal 

reasoning of Dr. Simon Greenleaf concerning the strength

of the evidence for the four Gospels and thus for the 

resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead?

TILL

Simon Greenleaf was a [19]th-century professor of law 

at Harvard University, but he was also a devout believer 

in Christianity and the inspiration of the Bible.  That, of 

course, would not prove that his claims that Mr. Fitzpatrick 

summarized above are incorrect, but it does give sufficient 

reason to question his objectivity.  One thing that is very 

evident in apologetic literature is that those who believe in 

the Bible have no difficulty finding reasons to believe that 

it is "the word of God," and so it was with Simon Greenleaf.  

I don't have a copy of Greenleaf's work that Fitzpatrick 

cited above, but I have read quotations from it in apologetic 

literature.  From what I have seen, it is evident that 

Greenleaf, like Fitzpatrick and almost all biblical inerrantists, 

based his defense of the resurrection on the assumption 

that the NT records were historically accurate.  The following 

is a quotation from Greenleaf that can be found in Josh 

McDowell's *Evidence That Demands a Verdict, * p. 192.  

In reading it, please notice that from beginning to end 

Greenleaf assumed the accuracy of the NT.  I will 

interrupt the quotation from time to time to comment on 

Greenleaf's reasoning.