Ross Clifford, who is a former Australian barrister and a theologian, has often written about the subject of legal apologists. Clifford affirms the case for the resurrection of Jesus. He states that it may appear to opponents that legal apologists like Greenleaf have at different points overstated their case. In his first book "Leading Lawyers' Case for the Resurrection" he devoted a brief chapter on Greenleaf's life and work. In that text he raised a technical question about the ancient documents rule and suggested that hypothetically a court could admit the gospels as ancient documents, but that does not mean that their specific contents are automatically acknowledged as facts (p. 141). However, the trier of fact is allowed to weigh the evidence of the contents of the writings. Clifford clarifies the purpose of the ancient documents rule in his book "John Warwick Montgomery's Legal Apologetic" (pp. 51–65). Clifford says that apologists may appear to their opponents to have overstated their conclusions based on the ancient documents rule. But Clifford supports Greenleaf's and Montgomery's legal apologetic approach. Clifford states:"The 'Ancient Documents' rule at common law has traditionally related more to the authentication of the document than with the admissibility of its contents. It does not automatically lead to admission of the substance of the document irrespective of its credibility. (It can be argued this is even true today for the United States, even though the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 states statements in Ancient Documents are admissible as exemptions to hearsay). Greenleaf takes no cognisance of this position and asserts that when an instrument is admitted under the said rule the court is bound to receive into evidence its substance as well unless the opposing party is able to impeach it ... The question as to whether the authentication of the gospels under the 'Ancient Documents' rule leads to receiving their substance into evidence is contentious. It could be strongly pleaded there is justification for doing so. Yet, it should be noted such pleading would be met by the adverse party's strong rejoinder" (pp. 60-61 & 63).