Corpus-Paul

[Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>]

I have been following this thread with a degree of interest. (I 
haven't read every post exhaustively - lack of time - I say this as 
an apology if I am being redundant with something already said).

I think the forensic model might have something to offer NT studies - 
but I think that Eric may be risking this contribution by overstating 
its value.

Firstly I have problems with the casual reference to a "scientific 
method" - which seems to me to act as a trump card - an unfortunately 
undefined trump card. What is meant by this term? The scientific 
method means different things in different fields. Talk to a 
geologist and then to an anthropologist and one will get very 
different (yet equally valid) ideas of what is meant by the term.

Secondly - I am not sure the judicial system is truly "scientific". 
Certainly it has a scientific component - but it is interesting that 
the system does NOT let the practitioners with technical expertise 
make any of the final decisions regarding innocence or guilt.

Thirdly - It seems to me that the genius of the judicial system is 
that it not only takes into account a lack of objectivity but in fact 
DEMANDS a lack of objectivity. (This goes back to point two - how 
"scientific" could such a process really claim to be?) One thing 
missing in your model Eric is the various roles that the modern 
judicial system sees as being crucial for justice. Your model seems 
to collapse all the various roles into one - making the "expert" 
witness both prosecutor, defense , judge, and jury. The defense and 
the prosecutor both seek to use the rules of evidence in their favor 
- in fact the system requires that they do so - imagine a defense 
attorney providing a shabby defense because they believed their 
client didn't deserve a good one. It is the judge who decides if the 
rules are being applied or not. In many situations it is not even the 
judge who decides the case - but 12 regular folk - or peers.  It is 
obvious that the judge cannot ALSO be either a defense or prosecuting 
attorney! That simply would not work. In short one person cannot fill 
all the roles and have the system work. There are at least two 
different stories being presented (the defense's and the 
prosecution's) and which is more *plausible* is not decided by either 
of the "story tellers" - in fact any one BUT them. Finally, a jury's 
decision is hardly "scientific" - it is made no more so by the 
contribution of expert witnesses.



Now within the scientific community a similar yet distinct process 
occurs. The court room is often scientific journals and the judge and 
jury are other scientists - peers.

Funny, come to think of it, the same thing happens in biblical studies...

--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS