Rating: 
Summary: In response to the reader from St. Paul, MN:
Review: Amen!I was considering a response of my own to Mr. Neece, but yours was so well done that I will leave it in your able hands.
Rating:
Summary: In response to the reader from St. Paul, MN:
Review: Amen! I was considering a response of my own to Mr. Neece, but yours was so well done that I will leave it in your able hands.
Rating: 
Summary: BOOK IS OUTDATED AND INACCURATE
Review: Evangelists like Lee Strobel and Hank Haandegriff often quote Simon Greenleaf in support of their belief the Gospels are accurate and historically reliable. What they fail to mention is that Greenleaf died nearly 150 years ago. His book is filled with inaccuracies and faulty logic. In his defense, he was obviously unaware of all the New Testament research which has been done over the past century and a half. For example, Greenleaf was unaware the authors of the Gosples are unknown. The names were merely assigned by the early church. He believed Matthew and John were actual eyewitnesses although those accounts were written 50-80 years after the death of Jesus. What court would accept as valid a report by unknown sources written several decades after the events? Greenleaf's book is very biased. He often refers to Jesus as "our Savior." His book is also filled with illogical assumptions. He assumes the authors are "good" men and would not lie. On the one hand he states the Gospels are trustworthy because they have discrepancies and contradictions and on the other hand they are believable because of their uniformity. Which is it? He states the disciples had a "vigorous unerstanding" of the sayings of Jesus. So why in the Gospels is Jesus constantly having to explain his parables to them? Greenleaf goes on to claim there was no possible motive for fabrication and that they were "eminently holy and of tender consciences." Again, assumptions are made with no supporting evidence. Greenleaf does not undertake any kind of fair and rational examination of the evidence. Some examples of his groundless statements follow: "That the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written that is, without having been materially corrputed or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume are true." How does he know this? No support or proof are offered. "It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence." The author also appears very naive. Another example: "It is quite erroneous to suppose the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their (the Gospels) genuineness or authenticy." In summary this is an outdated book full of unsupported assumptions. It does not offer a serious examination of the Gospels by any legal means.
Rating:
Summary: BOOK IS OUTDATED AND INACCURATE
Review: Evangelists like Lee Strobel and Hank Haandegriff often quote Simon Greenleaf in support of their belief the Gospels are accurate and historically reliable. What they fail to mention is that Greenleaf died nearly 150 years ago. His book is filled with inaccuracies and faulty logic. In his defense, he was obviously unaware of all the New Testament research which has been done over the past century and a half. For example, Greenleaf was unaware the authors of the Gosples are unknown. The names were merely assigned by the early church. He believed Matthew and John were actual eyewitnesses although those accounts were written 50-80 years after the death of Jesus. What court would accept as valid a report by unknown sources written several decades after the events? Greenleaf's book is very biased. He often refers to Jesus as "our Savior." His book is also filled with illogical assumptions. He assumes the authors are "good" men and would not lie. On the one hand he states the Gospels are trustworthy because they have discrepancies and contradictions and on the other hand they are believable because of their uniformity. Which is it? He states the disciples had a "vigorous unerstanding" of the sayings of Jesus. So why in the Gospels is Jesus constantly having to explain his parables to them? Greenleaf goes on to claim there was no possible motive for fabrication and that they were "eminently holy and of tender consciences." Again, assumptions are made with no supporting evidence. Greenleaf does not undertake any kind of fair and rational examination of the evidence. Some examples of his groundless statements follow: "That the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written that is, without having been materially corrputed or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume are true." How does he know this? No support or proof are offered. "It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence." The author also appears very naive. Another example: "It is quite erroneous to suppose the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their (the Gospels) genuineness or authenticy." In summary this is an outdated book full of unsupported assumptions. It does not offer a serious examination of the Gospels by any legal means.
Rating:
Summary: Lies briefly rebuked
Review: Greenleaf is well known throught jurist history as providing instruction on rules of evidence. Now that we have court tv and have witnessed some amazing trials, we understand more how what is allowed in as evidence is critical to a trial. Here in this work this jurist expert analyzes the Gospels as being admissable. Think about it for a moment. In any given historical situation, if four different individuals were asked some time after the event common to all of their attendance to write an accurate report, the same result would happen as we find in the gospels. Stress on different events with highlights of differing focus on common happenings by multiple witnesses would occur. Alledged contradictions thus fall aside given that each of us admits that this is just the way it commonly happens. We would be much more suspect if each of four witness accounts matched up exactly word for word. Collusion would be charged! Here though God gives four different slants through four Evangelists who do this very thing: they give different emphases and differing slants on the same event. Bonus attachment is Dupin's "Trial of Jesus Before Caiaphas and Pilate." Interested parties might also check out Paul Maier's "Pontius Pilate" and "Flames of Rome."
Rating:
Summary: Legal Rules of Evidence Examine the Gospels
Review: Greenleaf is well known throught jurist history as providing instruction on rules of evidence. Now that we have court tv and have witnessed some amazing trials, we understand more how what is allowed in as evidence is critical to a trial. Here in this work this jurist expert analyzes the Gospels as being admissable. Think about it for a moment. In any given historical situation, if four different individuals were asked some time after the event common to all of their attendance to write an accurate report, the same result would happen as we find in the gospels. Stress on different events with highlights of differing focus on common happenings by multiple witnesses would occur. Alledged contradictions thus fall aside given that each of us admits that this is just the way it commonly happens. We would be much more suspect if each of four witness accounts matched up exactly word for word. Collusion would be charged! Here though God gives four different slants through four Evangelists who do this very thing: they give different emphases and differing slants on the same event. Bonus attachment is Dupin's "Trial of Jesus Before Caiaphas and Pilate." Interested parties might also check out Paul Maier's "Pontius Pilate" and "Flames of Rome."
Rating:
Summary: pathatic lies
Review: 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. Becuase the resurrection stories vastly contradict each other Greenleaf claims this must be true? With this bizzare logic all u.f.o.,bigfoot,and loch ness monster tales must be true if the tales contradict each other! Don't belive the hype.
Rating: 
Summary: standards for human testimony?
Review: It always struck me as odd that anyone would accept what are clear contradictions in the gospels regarding the events surrounding the alleged resurrection as proof that the events really happened--that this is evidence of a story not contrived and agreed upon afterwards but indicative of the various subjective perspectives each writer brought. Aside from the fact that the various accounts are too different to be attributed to this prior notion, Christians have a bigger problem; for they believe that the bible is the word of God and is authored not by man but God. As such, there is no room for contradiction or the hoped-for subjective perspective. In a nutshell, the standards for human testimony can simply not be applied to an alleged "inerrant word of God."
I give this book two stars instead of one because it has value to the "Josh McDowell" type Christians who think they can intellectualize their sky-daddy myth into credibility. With this book on their bookshelf, they'll sleep easier at night. Two stars for being a myth-keeper!
Rating: 
Summary: Pot calling the kettle black
Review: It's ironic that the review below would fault Greenleaf for making biased assumptions about the Gospels, yet in his own review he makes the very mistakes he accuses this book of. For example, if the Early church randomly assigned names to the Gospels, why would they have named one The Gospel of Mark? Mark is best known in the Bible for deserting Barnabbas and Paul in the face of opposition. And Luke? Luke's name is only spoken of two times in the entire New Testament, and in a passing "Luke says hello" at that! Why not instead name them after the heroes of the Church, like the Gospel of Apollos or the Gospel of Peter? This person also assumes that "modern scholars have deduced" that the Gospels were written several decades after Jesus' death. Scholars, infact, are dating the Gospels PHILOSOPHICALLY: it is necessary that 1) the Gospels be placed after 70 AD so it would not be allowed that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, and 2) that, since the Early Church had been commenting on the Gospels in full swing by 105 AD, they must fit in the first century. With such stringent requirements [and biases], all four are deliberately stuffed into a 25 year period of 70 AD (Mark), 85 AD (Luke and Matthew), and 95 AD (John), and the last one being produced just two years ahead of Clement's letter to Rome. (The context of this letter, by the way, talked about the Gospel of John so casually, it is as if the readers in Rome were highly familiar and well-read in it.) If the Gospels were to be dated HISTORICALLY instead of PHILOSOPHICALLY, one would find that The synoptic gospels are more properly dated at around 39 - 50 AD; that is, anywhere from 9 to twenty years after Jesus' death. John's Gospel, the apostle proudly maintained in letters outside those found in the New Testament, was written late in his life, probably around the destruction of the Temple. So I would suggest that we NOT assume a positive review of the Gospel's historical accuracy is forged, and reciprocally that a negative review is founded in fact. When this secularist generation is prepared to listen to the truth, without injecting their own atheistic embellishments, then we will be prepared to learn about the Jesus Dr. Greenleaf speaks of.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Critical Apparatus -- Antiquated Analysis
Review: Simon Greenleaf was an excellent jurist and no mean Bible scholar. He set forth an excellent apparatus for the evaulation of the testimony of the evangelists. That apparatus is still used today in courtrooms across America to decide the weightiest of issues. His critical apparatus is the rules of evidence. Unfortunately for the modern student, he applied that apparatus to a set of presuppositions which were fine for their age but which are thoroughly outmoded by modern scholarship. His conclusions are suspect, not because of faulty logic but because of faulty data. I would like to see a modern-day Greenleaf apply the rules of evidence to the currently accepted data on the Gospels. Keeping in mind the Jesus Seminar's caveat "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you," I doubt that a modern Greenleaf would find a Jesus who was entirely congenial to any modern school of thought. I suspect, however, that the modern Greenleaf would find a Jesus much closer to the Savior Jesus of evangelical Christianity than to the Cynic Sage Jesus of liberal scholarship. This volume isn't exactly what one would expect from the title on the cover. The book is not an extended analysis of the Gospels, but a collection of essays, only one of which (Greenleaf's "Examination of the Testimony of the Evangelists") makes any attempt at rigorous analysis of the Gospels. Greenleaf adds a second essay on "An Account of the Trial of Jesus," and this slim volume is rounded out by "The Jewish Account of the Trial of Jesus" by Joseph Salvador, "The Trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and Pilate" by M. Dupin, and "The Various Versions of the Bible" by Constantine Tischendorf.
| 
