Evidence for the Resurrection

In an earlier post (Feb. 1, 2017), I made reference to Steve, who wrote in response to an article in The Daily Bell entitled, "Increasingly, Evolution Has No Proof":

"The authors of this piece need to not only read about the theory of punctuated equilibrium that addresses the main issues raised but also be aware that 'proof' is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science."

I should have jumped on the last part of that statement sooner, maybe in my original reply.  My original reply camped on the theory of punctuated equilibrium and neglected the other point.  So proof is relevant in jurisprudence, he says?  I say, Good point!

Such an expert in the law as Simon Greenleaf, the "Father of American Jurisprudence", investigated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and came to the conclusion that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead:

"As a legal scholar, Greenleaf wondered if Jesus’ resurrection would meet his stringent tests for evidence.  He wondered whether or not the evidence for it would hold up in a court of law. Focusing his brilliant legal mind on the facts of history, Greenleaf began applying his rules of evidence to the case of Jesus’ resurrection.

"Contrary to what skeptics might have expected, the more Greenleaf investigated the record of history, the more evidence he discovered supporting the claim that Jesus had indeed risen from the tomb.

"After evaluating all the evidence, Greenleaf accepted Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion.

"To this legal expert, the case for Jesus’ resurrection was so compelling that he had no doubt it would hold up in a court of law. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf documents the evidence supporting his conclusion. He challenges those who seek the truth about the resurrection to fairly examine the evidence."  ("Harvard Law Professor Puts Jesus' Resurrection on Trial",  http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/)

I wonder if Steve would be so quick to assert that "proof is relevant in jurisprudence", knowing that?
I wonder.