apologetic or forensic?

Two words have received some attention lately in my closer circles of discussion: “forensic” and “apologetic”. We found it shameful yet humorous that we could all describe ways in which “forensic” could be used, but no one was able to actually define the word! One person theorized the irony, “if we went to the dictionary and found the definition to be, ‘that exercise by which one sets about to determine the definition of this very word.’”

In case you are wondering, “forensic” can be used as a noun, adverb (“forensically”) or as an adjective. The word “forensic” is from the Latin forensis, meaning “belonging to the market, public” and it’s root forum, meaning “what is out of doors, public in place.” Webster tells us the adjective “belongs to or is used in or is suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate.” Another meaning is “argumentative, rhetorical.” Yet another: “relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems.” As a noun, “forensic” refers to the argumentative exercise, even the art or study of argumentative discourse.

One other word that came to mind was “apologetic” namely that Greek word “apologia” referring to that, “offered in defense or vindication” as opposed to that “regretfully acknowledging fault or failure.” As a singular noun, “apologetics” has become that “systematic argumentative discourse in defense.” Also, “a branch of theology devoted to the defense of divine origin and authority of Christianity.”

I just cannot help but wonder if our application and usage of the terms are correct. If “forensic” includes public discourse, then this is more closely related to lecturing. Since the word also includes that which is in the context of the courts, wouldn’t this imply that the evidence we now have accumulated and present as Christian “apologetics” is really Christian “forensic?” And if this is the case, what is Christian apologetics? What did Peter really have in mind as a rational biblical defense of hope, namely the propositions of scripture: God is holy, man is sinful, the full atoning work of Christ Jesus on the cross, etc.. . .which is clearly not the “evidentialism” as we present as “apologetics” today. I am certain Peter did not have volumes of Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler or Greg Koukel much less any of Augustine's writings sitting on his shelf when he wrote to the persecuted Christians encouraging them to be prepared with an "apologia."

What is the hope of our faith? "The credibility of Christianity based on the preparation, uniqueness and reliability of the Bible, its persons, places and things, as confirmed by archaeology in light of God's work in the lives of men and women throughout history?" (The forensic approach)

OR

The withstanding through suffering because of the hope found in Christ Jesus, that one is saved from the power of sin and will be delivered from the presence of sin because of His finished work on the cross, resurrection from the dead, exaltation at the Father's right hand and immenent return? (apologetic)

Thoughtful discussion ("feedback") is appreciated.