Ah, That Greenleaf!
David Conklin djconklin@hotmail.com
Sat, 27 Jun 1998 22:52:30 PDT (00899031150, 19980628055232.12644.qmail@hotmail.com)
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?
DJC
>From what little you have given me I can't tell what is what.
>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.
DJC
It was your claims about Mormonism that are third-hand--not their
claims.
TILL
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.
DJC
I have yet to see a source from which i can verify that what you are
saying is correct.
TILL
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!
DJC
I cannot disprove what I have not studied; I repeat however that Paul
said he had 500 eyewitnesses which is great deal more than 8. I am not
a chicken; just not stupid enough to debate with someone who
consistently misrepresents what i say and who hasn't studied the issue
as thoroughly and carefully as I have--it just wouldn't be fair.
>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.
DJC
I know that the stone exists; it is your claim about it that is
third-hand. Don't look now Till but that stupid look on your face is
back.
>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).
DJC
Ah, finally a source I can check on!
TILL
>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?
DJC
It's really very simple Till; do you have any information that falsifies
the accounts? Did the events occur or did they not? It really doesn't
matter to whom they attribute the cause.
TILL
I realize you were trying to run by this point as fast as you could, but
you need to clarify your position.
DJC
Hmm, what?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com