Greenleaf: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists

Back in the mid-nineteenth century an eminent lawyer, Simon Greenleaf, published a book with the snappy title: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. With an Account of the Trial of Jesus. The book is out of copyright, and so freely available.

"Ancient Documents"

A major thrust of the work is that the gospels can be considered "ancient documents" in the legal sense. For more on what that means see here.

Thus, on page 70:

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writing, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

He then quotes the "ancient documents" rule, so we are in no doubt about where this is from:

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

Of course, he omits to tell us that this ruling refers to the manuscript itself. That is not his job as a lawyer. It is only his job to present his side of the argument, using any scheme or trick he can. In a court of law it is up to the judge to decide if evidence is admissible or not. In this case it clearly is not - but he presents it in a venue where there is no judge.

Indeed, Greenleaf goes on to say (page 71):

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.

And yet by publishing in a book, he is ensuring there is no objection present.

What makes this especially obnoxious is that his work is then presented as an authority on the subject!

Real "Ancient Documents"

I have no doubt that he is fully away of his trickery, as he then goes on to compare the Bible to actual documents:

They come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statutes of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith.

The Domesday Book is an actual manuscript held at the National Archives at Kew, London. It is admissible in court because we have the original document, and it can be examined for evidence of forgery. As required by the "ancient documents" rule, the paper and ink can be examined.

Not "Ancient Documents"

That is very different to the gospels, which have been translated and edited numerous times. While we have some  fragments, the oldest dates to around AD 125; the oldest complete New Testament dates to the fourth century. The document itself definitely cannot be examined to ensure it is not a forgery.

Greenleaf is play fast and loose with the truth here.

Furthermore, we KNOW the gospels were edited and added to later, as early manuscripts are missing verses that will be in modern Bibles, such as the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae in John. Does Greenleaf mention that fact? Of course not (though in fairness he may not have known about it).

Assuming Christianity is True

More damning, on page 73, he admits that he is assuming God has specially preserved these works!

Supposing, therefore, that it is not irrational, nor inconsistent with sound philosophy, to believe that God has made a special and express revelation of his character and will to man, and that the sacred books of our religion are genuine, as we now have them; we proceed to examine and compare the testimony of the Four Evangelists, as witnesses to the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ...

Sure, if we assume Christianity is true, then it is easy to prove that Christianity is true. But it is a little circular. Again, this would be inadmissible in a court of law, but Greenleaf has chosen a venue where there is no judge to point that out.

The Gospels

Page 74, he says of Matthew:

He is generally allowed to have written first, of all the evangelists; but whether in the Hebrew or the Greek language, or in both, the learned are not agreed, nor is it material to our purpose to inquire; the genuineness of our present Greek gospel being sustained by satisfactory evidence. The precise time when he wrote is also uncertain, the several dates given to it among learned men, varying from A.D. 37 to A.D. 64.

Time moves on, and what Greenleaf claims here is no longer true. Pretty much all Biblical scholars now think Mark was written first, and that Matthew was originally written in Greek. It is dated to around AD 80, and generally Matthew is not believed to be the author.

Does Greenleaf note that Mark and Luke were not present at the events they recorded in their gospels? I have not read his book closely, so I do not know, but even if the gospels bearing their names were written by them (which is certainly plausible), and we had the original documents they wrote (which we assurely do not), these works are still hearsay.

As for John, he assumes the disciple was the author of the gospel, because, well his name is on it right, and he is after all assuming all this is God's inspired word. He also assumes John is the author of Revelation; it is uncertain who the author of the Gospel of John is, but scholars pretty much universally agree it was not the same guy that wrote Revelation. He would not know that, but the point here is that he is making assumptions without good cause, and in at least some cases we have very good reason to suppose some of those assumptions are wrong.

Conclusion

This is the work of a Christian wanting to promote Christianity. As a Christian, he assumes the Bible is true, and then goes on to prove the claims of the Bible are true.

It is not impartial, it is a very long way from impartial. And that is part of being a lawyer. Lawyers are not expected to be impartial, they are expected to promote their own side exclusively. In a court of law that would be balanced by the lawyer on the other side and moderated by the judge. In the context of this book, there is no one to present the other side, and no one moderating. Greenleaf is free to present any nonsense he wants without fear of objections.