The bit of the article that struck me was this:
These digital collections are so convincing to a jury, fed a constant diet of television forensics, that a Sydney University law professor, Mark Findlay, believes it is leading to cases being increasingly won on circumstantial evidence. "You are going to see a trend in trials away from oral evidence to documentary trials," Professor Findlay said. Such a trend was concerning because documentary evidence was easier to fabricate than that provided by a witness, he said.
Leaving aside the punctuation of SMH jounalists, this raises profound questions about the way we view the historicity of the gospels. People often say that we can't trust the oral and written tradition on which the four gospels are based.
'If only Jesus had lived in the 21st century and then everything could have been captured on film!'
Actually recent developments make it easier to fabricate evidence. Professor Findlay thinks that eye-witnesses make for a much better case. Findlay is arguing for the historicity of the gospels ... but he probably doesn't realise it!?
No comments:
Post a Comment