Ah, That Greenleaf!
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:17:57 -0700 (00898777077, 2.2.32.19980625071757.007618fc@midwest.net)
At 11:18 PM 6/21/98 PDT, David Conklin wrote:
>>>TILL
>>>This is as far as we need to go in Conklin's response, because his
>>"Simon Greenleaf" principle of evidence is one that not even he will
>>accept. Rather than show that this is not true,
>>
>>DJC
>>One nice thing about these "conversations" is how people keep bringing
>up new things all the time--who is Simon Greenleaf? And why can't you
>show that it is wrong? And why wouldn't I agree with it?
>>
>TILL
>Simon Greenleaf was a law professor at Harvard in the 19th century. He
>was a Bible fundamentalist who endeared himself to modern apologists by
>claiming that the testimony in the NT to the resurrection of Jesus would
>be accepted in any modern court of law. He also formulated the
>principle you posted: the authenticity and accuracy of ancient documents
>should be accepted unless they can be disproven.
>
>DJC
>Ah, that Greenleaf! Now what evidence do you have that he was a
>fundamentalist? And what relevance does that have for his principle?
>
TILL
Consider the positions that he took. How are you able to identify
"liberals"? Don't the positions that the critics take tell you whether they
are fundamentalists or liberals?
>TILL
>Why wouldn't you agree with it [Greenleaf's principle]? Because it
>would require you to believe utter stupidities. This principle, for
>example, would require you to accept that the testimony of the Mormon
>witnesses is accurate unless you can prove these documents to be wrong?
>Can you do that? Can you prove that three of the witnesses did NOT see
>the angel Moroni deliver the golden plates to Joseph Smith? Can you
>prove that the other witnesses did NOT handle these plates with their
>hands?
>
>DJC
>I have not studied the Mormon religion so it would be absurd for me to
>rely on third hand claims about that religion.
>
TILL
This is really rich! You guys tout the "eye-witness" testimony to the
resurrection when really all you have are hearsay accounts that probably
weren't even as close as "thirdhand" testimonies, yet the Mormons have
signed affidavits, and you call them "third hand claims" about Mormonism.
Greenleaf's principle states that unless the claims of an ancient document
can be shown to be wrong, they must be considered accurate. You were the
one who brought the matter up, but now you evade the issue when this
argument backfires in your face. Can you prove that the three Mormon
witnesses, who so swore in signed affidavits, did NOT see the angel Moroni
deliver the golden plates to Joseph Smith? Can you prove that the eight
Mormon witnesses, who so swore in signed affidavits, did NOT handle these
plates with their own hands? If you cannot prove that these claims did NOT
happen, then the very rule of evidence that you introduced into this debate
will require you to believe that the Mormon documents are accurate. If not,
why not?
No wonder you're too chicken to accept my debate proposal!
>TILL
>This principle would require you to believe that the inscription of king
>Mesha on the Moabite stone is accurate unless you can prove that the
>inscription is wrong in what it says? Can you prove that king Mesha's
>inscription was wrong in saying that he communicated with the god
>Chemosh, who told him to go "take Nebo against Israel"? Do you believe
>that Chemosh saved Mesha from his adversaries as this inscription says?
>Unless you can prove that these statements are wrong, Greenleaf's
>principle will require you to assume that they are true.
>
>DJC
>In science we construct a hypothesis and _then_ we try to prove it
>wrong; we do not start with the assumption that it is false. And again
>I have not studied the Maobite stone so it would be absurd for me to
>work from third hand claims about the stone.
>
TILL
Again, this is not a "third hand" claim. The stone exists, and the
inscription is on it. Scholars (one of your favorite words) have translated
the inscription, so it is available for you to read. In the inscription,
king Mesha claimed that Chemosh talked to him and gave him commands. Can
you prove that this did NOT happen? If you can't, then your own rule of
evidence will require you to believe that Chemosh existed and that he talked
to Moabites.
Don't look now, David, but you've hanged yourself on your own rope and are
now twisting in the wind.
>TILL
>This principle will also require you to believe that the dominion and
>power of king Assur-Nasir-Pal was manifested by "the great gods" unless
>you can prove that an inscription in an 8th century B. C. Assyrian
>temple at Nimrud was wrong in making this statement (see Crane Brinton,
>*A History of Western Morals,* Harcourt, Brace & Co., p. 48).
>
>We have posted several times on this list the accounts of Tacitus and
>Suetonius, who both claimed that the emperor Vespasian healed a blind
>man by putting saliva on his eyes and healed a crippled man by touching
>him. They both claimed that this was done in the presence of a large
>audience, and Tacitus said that the god Serapis had sent the men to
>Vespasian. Unless you can prove that these claims are untrue, then
>Greenleaf's principle will require you to believe that the reports of
>Tacitus and Suetonius are accurate.
>
>DJC
>As I understand it those reports are believed to be accurate. Do you
>have information that Roman historinas don't that falsify them?
>
TILL
Your last sentence isn't clear, but Terry at least won't think that this
matters. I'm not sure of what you meant. Are you saying that you agree
that the reports of Tacitus and Suetonius are accurate? If so, do you
accept that the god Serapis sent these men to Vespasian? I realize you were
trying to run by this point as fast as you could, but you need to clarify
your position.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net