The Testimony of the Evangelists
The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence
Introduction
Simon Greenleaf (1783–1853) was one of the great minds in American legal history. He not only taught law at Harvard University and produced the standard three-volume study of legal evidence (A Treatise on the Law of Evidences, 1842–53) used to teach lawyers the rules of legal evidence and the means by which the authenticity of documents and witnesses can be tested.
When challenged to apply these rules to the New Testament documents, Greenleaf produced a volume (The Testimony of the Evangelists) which defends the authenticity of the New Testament. It defends an important link in the overall apologetic argument for Christianity—the trustworthiness of the New Testament witnesses.
An Authentic New Testament
Greenleaf’s conclusions include strong points of evidence. The following quotations are from throughout his work:
- “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,” Greenleaf wrote.
According to this “Ancient Document Rule” the New Testament would qualify as authentic, since it bears no marks of forgery and has been in the proper custody of the church down through the centuries, as shown by manuscript evidence. - “In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs,” Greenleaf wrote.
Applied to the New Testament witnesses, this would mean that the books coming from them must be presumed authentic, since they were speaking of their own affairs, with which they were conversant. - “In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true,” Greenleaf wrote.
Since there is probable evidence that the New Testament witnesses told the truth, the possibility that they could have been lying does not outweigh the truth of their witness. - “A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence,” Greenleaf wrote.
There is competent and satisfactory evidence for the facticity of the New Testament record. - “In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector,” Greenleaf wrote.
The New Testament, like other books, must be presumed innocent. This is just the opposite of the “presumed guilty until proven innocent” principle used by negative critics. - “The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances,” Greenleaf wrote.
In accordance with these principles the New Testament is an authentic record.
Moral Certainty
Of the nature of moral certainty, Greenleaf wrote (24):
But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; by which is meant not merely that species of evidence which we do not obtain either from our own senses, from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd.
On the whole, Greenleaf found himself persuaded of a high level of probability that the accounts are true:
Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts are to be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of the intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuitry of the investigation.The narratives of the sacred dwellers, both Jewish and Christian, abound in examples of this kind of evidence, the value of which is hardly capable of being properly estimated. It does not, as has been already remarked, amount to mathematical demonstration; nor is this degree of proof justly demandable in any moral conduct. In all human transactions, the highest degree of assurance to which we can arrive, short of the evidence of our own senses, is that of probability. The most that can be asserted is, that the narrative is more likely to be true than false; and it may be in the highest degree more likely, but still be short of absolute mathematical certainty. [45]
Conclusion
Greenleaf’s conclusion speaks for itself:
The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader’s perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already stated. . . . His business is that of a lawyer, examining the testimony of witnesses by the rules of his profession, in order to ascertain whether, if they had thus testified on oath, in a court of justice, they would be entitled to credit; and whether their narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents, coming from the proper custody. If so, then it is believed that every honest and impartial man will act consistently with that result, by receiving their testimony in all the extent of its import.
Sources
Simon Greenleaf, A Treatise on the Law of Evidences and The Testimony of the Evangelists
http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html
Gary: In service of my risen Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Maranatha!