- Paperback: 128 pages
- Publisher: Kregel Publications,U.S. (1 Jan 1995)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0825427479
- ISBN-13: 978-0825427473
- Product Dimensions: 21.5 x 14.1 x 0.7 cm
- Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 506,604 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
The Testimony of the Evangelists
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Back Cover
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Back Cover
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Format:Paperback
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) had a distinguished career in American law. He was reporter to the Supreme Court of Maine for twelve years and professor of law at Harvard from 1846. His "Treatise on the Law of Evidence" was a standard textbook during the second half of the nineteenth century. He was therefore well-qualified to write this essay which applies to the Gospels the principles used in relation to witness evidence in American law courts.
Among these principles are:
`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.'
`...if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable.'
`...every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.'
Using these principles, Greenleaf concludes that the Gospel writers should be considered credible witnesses to the events they describe. He points out that, `The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing ... substantial truth, under circumstantial variety.' And, `If these different accounts of the same transactions were in strict verbal conformity with each other, the argument against their credibility would be much stronger.'
In other words, the Gospels agree on the main incidents of Jesus' life but do not always agree on the details. They did not collaborate to make their accounts agree word-for-word and this indicates that they are independent witnesses.
Of course, the authors of the Gospels are not available for cross-examination and historians have additional methods to bring to bear on the manuscripts but, within these limits, Greenleaf makes a sound case.
I disagree substantially with the review by `A Customer'. The names of the four gospel authors are the only ones recorded; the names were assigned on the basis of available evidence, not `merely' assigned. There is a strong historical possibility that Mark wrote Mark, that Matthew wrote the teaching material contained in Matthew, that Luke wrote Luke/Acts and that John wrote the narrative sections of John. Scholars have so many manuscripts of the gospels that they can be confident that we have their texts substantially as the authors wrote them.
Greenleaf states the principles that are used in a court of law. If he says that `every witness is presumed to be credible, until the contrary is shown,' he is not being `very naïve', he is simply stating common legal practice. When Greenleaf says that witnesses agree in substance but disagree in detail, he is simply stating the truth about eyewitness statements.
A Customer's choice of `modern bible researchers' is biased. He does not mention FF Bruce, CL Blomberg, NT Wright, or even EP Sanders.
Among these principles are:
`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.'
`...if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable.'
`...every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.'
Using these principles, Greenleaf concludes that the Gospel writers should be considered credible witnesses to the events they describe. He points out that, `The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing ... substantial truth, under circumstantial variety.' And, `If these different accounts of the same transactions were in strict verbal conformity with each other, the argument against their credibility would be much stronger.'
In other words, the Gospels agree on the main incidents of Jesus' life but do not always agree on the details. They did not collaborate to make their accounts agree word-for-word and this indicates that they are independent witnesses.
Of course, the authors of the Gospels are not available for cross-examination and historians have additional methods to bring to bear on the manuscripts but, within these limits, Greenleaf makes a sound case.
I disagree substantially with the review by `A Customer'. The names of the four gospel authors are the only ones recorded; the names were assigned on the basis of available evidence, not `merely' assigned. There is a strong historical possibility that Mark wrote Mark, that Matthew wrote the teaching material contained in Matthew, that Luke wrote Luke/Acts and that John wrote the narrative sections of John. Scholars have so many manuscripts of the gospels that they can be confident that we have their texts substantially as the authors wrote them.
Greenleaf states the principles that are used in a court of law. If he says that `every witness is presumed to be credible, until the contrary is shown,' he is not being `very naïve', he is simply stating common legal practice. When Greenleaf says that witnesses agree in substance but disagree in detail, he is simply stating the truth about eyewitness statements.
A Customer's choice of `modern bible researchers' is biased. He does not mention FF Bruce, CL Blomberg, NT Wright, or even EP Sanders.
Format:Paperback
Greenleaf's work receives one of two reactions; either it is mocked by those who will at all costs seek to deny the message it brings, which is nothing less than the historical reliability of the resurrection of Christ, or otherwise it is honestly appraised by those who have not decided before even opening the book that they wish to reject every word found within. The work is very slightly dated, and yet in terms of the legal argument, analysis of evidence and precise weighing of arguments it remains faultless. Since the time it was written, additional supportive evidence has come to light, and some of the dates of authorship of various evangelists have been moved forwards so that they are yet more conclusive. Were he alive to redraft it then doubtless a stronger case could be made. Whilst this work relies upon the highest arts of legal analysis and so the great weight and conclusive power of its argument is best understood by lawyers, it still presents its case well to those outside the legal profession and without legal training.
Format:Paperback
I bought this book in order to understand how the witnesses of the life of Jesus wrote and conveyed their message to the people of thier time.It was a great read and i will recommend it for every defender of the gospel.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
pathatic lies
In answear to the work of modern bible researchers like Crossan,Borg and Funk, Fundamentilsts are popping out of the woodwork and using Mr.Greenleafs work to defend thier ideas. Read more
Published on 29 April 1999
BOOK IS OUTDATED AND INACCURATE
Evangelists like Lee Strobel and Hank Haandegriff often quote Simon Greenleaf in support of their belief the Gospels are accurate and historically reliable. Read more
Published on 6 April 1999
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
