A Short Analytical Summary and Critique of the Book Cold Case Christianity, by J. Warner Wallace
Cold Case Christianity was written by cold case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace. His purpose was to train and motivate Christians to defend the Gospels by applying the rules of evidence used in investigating cold case homicides. His further purpose was to answer skeptics and critics of the Gospels that they might place their trust in Jesus Christ. The means of this endeavor was to apply cold case investigative techniques and the rules of evidence to the Christian Gospels of the New Testament.
Chapter 1: Don’t Be a “Know-it-All” – Resisting the Influence of Dangerous Presuppositions
Don’t examine the evidence from a crime scene with a preconceived notion of how the evidence fits together, how it should be interpreted, or where it will lead. Instead, allow the evidence to take you where it leads naturally and logically. Presuppositions will usually lead to wrong conclusions, and thereby prevent the investigator from reaching the truth.
Concerning the Gospels, skeptics often take the position that there is no such thing as the supernatural realm, and thus regard the Gospel accounts as either mistaken or contrived. Their bias, or anti-supernaturalism, prevents them from discerning the truth about Christ, since their presupposition precludes the possibility of the existence of God.
This section on the danger of presuppositions helps me remember to call out skeptics and atheists on their presuppositions. It is not a point that has often been drawn out in my studies at Biola. It was very useful, well written, and argued.
Chapter 2: Learn How to “Infer” – Understanding the Role of “Abductive Reasoning”
Abductive reasoning is the process of inferring a logical hypothesis from the observation of reliable data. The process seeks to distinguish the merely possible from the likely or reasonable. Judgments in a court of law should not be based upon what is possible, but upon what is truly reasonable. What is determined to be reasonably true should not be merely supported by the evidence, but should naturally flow from the evidence. Abductive reasoning based upon reliable evidence offers the best means of arriving at the truth.
When applied to the resurrection, the investigator is able to set aside a myriad of possible explanations in favor of the one which is most reasonable based upon the data. Those biased against the most reasonable conclusion will accept almost any competing explanation because they are no longer examining the data with the goal of arriving at the truth, but rather are forcing a conclusion to suit their personal preferences.
I sincerely appreciated the discussion of the possible-reasonable distinction. I have too often chased opponents down the possible road rather than guiding them onto the reasonable road. This section was convicting, compelling, and liberating.
Chapter 3: Think “Circumstantially” – Respecting the Nature of Circumstantial Evidence
Indirect evidence wins most cases, though both direct and indirect or “circumstantial” evidence carry equal qualitative weight. Few homicide cases are made exclusively on direct evidence. Usually, it is the cumulative volume or quantity of circumstantial evidence that wins a case.
Those investigating the Bible’s claims of creation, for example, must avoid the pitfall of demanding direct evidence. There is no video of the events of creation. The circumstantial evidence must be assembled, examined, and vetted in order to reconstruct any historical claim or event. The investigator must accept the weight of the circumstantial evidence of design as being in support of the Bible’s account of creation. To reject the obvious circumstantial evidence of design in the universe would be to err in a most basic matter of jurisprudence, that is, the nature and weight of evidence, and especially the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
Prior to reading this book, I was unaware of the comparative equality of direct and indirect evidence. This section easily cleared up my misconception that circumstantial evidence was somehow inferior to direct evidence. I will be a better apologist for it.
Chapter 4: Test Your Witness – Evaluating the Reliability of Witnesses
Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, if properly corroborated. But, all witnesses are not created equal. Witnesses must be put through a series of tests to either validate or impeach them. However, witnesses should generally be considered as reliable unless proven otherwise.
When tested according to the rules of vetting witnesses, the Gospel writers fare very well and should be accepted as reliable eyewitnesses, or at least as reliable recorders of eyewitness testimony.
Chapter 5: Hang on Every Word – Examining the Choice and Meaning of Language
Embedded in all testimony are clues that can be used to validate or impeach a witness or an accused. Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA) is a scientific investigative tool for determining the truthfulness of written and oral statements. FSA identifies which and how certain words and phrases are used in the testimony to uncover deception.
When the Gospel accounts are examined under the light of FSA, they receive high marks for truthfulness. The Gospels are full of linguistic evidence that supports their claims. For example, though it does not claim to be, Mark’s gospel appears to be the eyewitness account of Peter. This is supported by several internal evidences including the omission of Peter’s embarrassments, the frequent mention of Peter and the apparent familiarity of the writer with him. Peter is presented in a positive light, including mention of his knowledge and recognition of him by the church fathers. If Mark’s gospel was fabricated, there would be little or no evidence of the account being based upon the eyewitness testimony of another person, but would likely have appeared as a straightforward first hand reporting of events.
This section on FSA was fascinating. I was faintly aware of the existence of this method of analysis, but was wholly unaware of its having been applied to the Gospels. It was a very instructive section.
Chapter 6: Separate Artifacts from Evidence – Determining What’s Important Evidentially
Artifacts aren’t necessarily evidence pertinent to an investigation. An artifact is something arranged or fashioned by humans. A knife blade is an artifact, but a blade of grass is not. It is possible for artifacts to be a part of a crime scene and have nothing to do with the crime.
Late additions to the Bible are artifacts and do not undermine the veracity of the original texts. The early manuscript copies of the New Testament that are extant today can be compared with later extant manuscripts to determine which passages are likely to be late additions and which are likely to be original texts.
Chapter 7: Resist Conspiracy Theories – Recognizing the Rarity of True Conspiracies
Conspiracies fail for too many conspirators, lack of communication between the conspirators, extended time spans over which the conspiracy must persist, absence of familial relations among the conspirators, and any number of serious pressures. Thus, most conspiracies fail.
Conspiracy theories aimed at explaining the supernatural claims of the New Testament fail on the same accounts. There would have been hundreds of conspirators without any means of regular communication who had to keep their stories straight over decades of time with virtually no family relationships to hold them together or any viable defense against the persecutions they endured. Conspiracy theories are a poor explanation for the claims of the Bible.
The list of the basic components necessary for successful conspiracies was new to me. On reflection, it seems obvious that large, intricate, and fantastic conspiracies are tough to hold together over a long period of time, and especially in the ancient world. I feel better equipped to confront claims of possible conspiracies as explanations for the Gospels after having studied this section. Another arrow in my quiver. The section on martyrdom, however, seemed a bit unnecessary and somewhat out of context for the chapter on conspiracy theories.
Chapter 8: Respect the “Chain of Custody” – Establishing Reliability by Tracing the Evidence
In criminal cases, it is important for the prosecutors and police to demonstrate that the evidence of a crime has not been contaminated or altered in any way which could adversely affect its interpretation or the outcome of a trial. Evidence must be collected according to certain rules and procedures, and a chain of custody must show that the evidence has been preserved intact for trial.
In the case of the Gospel accounts of the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, we have in the historical record a series of quotations from the Gospels that were recorded by the disciples of the original writers, and the scholars who came after them, down through each successive generation up to the present day. The original eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels, or who compiled eyewitness accounts of Christ for the Gospels, were extensively quoted by their successors throughout history, which demonstrates a pristine chain of custody of the biblical accounts and, thus, shows them to be reliable. In other words, the Gospels were not corrupted over time, nor were they written centuries after the events about which they report.
Chapter 9: Know When “Enough is Enough” – Getting Comfortable with Your Conclusions
Criminal trails almost always have unanswered questions and some details which don’t quite seem to fit together well or may even appear contradictory. That is the nature of the facts of a case. Accordingly, juries must draw conclusions and either set defendants free ,or else send them to prison, or even to their deaths, when there are still unanswered questions, holes in the prosecution’s or defense’s version of events, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the evidence. Few, if any, cases are perfectly cut and dried.
The Gospels leave many unanswered questions. But, the questions they do answer, and the sheer volume of evidential support they contain, as well as the extra-biblical support that exists, lean heavily in favor of their veracity. In fact, the evidence seems overwhelming.
I had a little difficulty seeing the pertinence of the discussion of the problem of evil and theodicy as fitting well into this section on the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a reasonable conclusion. It seemed added as an afterthought, though I can see how it is an example of all things not seemingly fitting together. However, since it was not addressed in Scripture, the rules of evidence do not apply directly to the question, and I feel it could have been presented differently or in another section.
Chapter 10: Prepare for an Attack – Distinguishing Between Possible Alternatives and Reasonable Refutations
Attorneys defend their accused clients by attacking the core aspects of the prosecution’s case, creating alternative theories, focusing on minor and nonessential flaws in the prosecution’s case to distract from the important facts, discrediting or eliminating evidence or witnesses, and unreasonably demanding flawless prosecution cases.
Skeptics and especially atheists employ all these tactics to undermine the claims of Christianity. The core truths of Christianity are well documented and supported by evidence. Alternative theories are neither evidence nor proof. Such theories must be rejected unless they are supported by the evidence. Minor and nonessential issues cannot overturn the case for Christianity because the cumulative weight of direct and indirect evidence for the essentials is overwhelming. Witnesses and evidence for the claims of Christianity must be accepted unless they can be logically and evidentially discredited. The core claims of Christianity withstand all attacks.
Chapter 11: Were They Present? – Were the Gospels Written Early Enough to Have Been Written by True Eyewitnesses?
If the Gospels are either not eyewitness accounts, or at least not based upon eyewitness accounts, then they are not credible. If it can be demonstrated that they were written more than a century after the events which they detail, then they must be abandoned. The internal evidence in the Gospels offers significant clues as to when they were written.
Among the more compelling reasons to accept an early dating of the writing of the Gospels is the fact that the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple by Titus Vespasian are conspicuously absent from the Gospel record, as well as from the rest of the New Testament. Other less significant events were included. Thus, the absence of these two major events suggests that the Gospels were written before they actually. Moreover, the deaths of important figures are included in the New Testament record, yet the deaths of the most prominent leaders of the first century church, Peter, James, and Paul, are omitted, suggesting that the Gospels were written during their lifetimes. Further, Paul quoted Luke’s Gospel, and yet Luke wrote about Paul during Paul’s lifetime. Clearly, these men were contemporaries. Finally, Luke quoted Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, dating theirs prior to his.
This was a particularly long chapter, but necessarily so. The arguments presented were so original, cogent, thorough, and compelling as to leave the reader breathless.
Chapter 12: Were they Corroborated? – Is the Testimony of the Gospel Writers Confirmed by Outside Sources and Evidence?
Eyewitness testimony is important, but it is most powerful when accompanied by corroboration, and especially by uninterested, third party corroboration, or better still, by unimpeachable physical evidence. If the Gospels are true, one would expect there to be corroboration such as witnesses, both biblical and extra-biblical, as well as physical evidence. If such corroboration and evidence exists and is credible, this would tend to support the claims of the Gospels.
Before getting to extra-biblical sources, Wallace cites a number of internal evidences, that is, evidence within each of the Gospels that corroborates the others. Wallace shows that otherwise odd events and circumstances begging seemingly unanswered questions in one gospel are cleared up or answered satisfactorily in another. This is consistent with the comparative complementary nature of several true accounts of an event. Research concerning the use of common names in non-biblical Palestinian literature of the period is consistent with their use in the New Testament.
Josephus, a Jewish historian and military officer of the period, Thallus, a Samaritan historian of the period, and Tacitus, a Roman senator and proconsul of Asia, also of the period, each wrote certain details about Jesus that corroborate similar details contained in the Gospels. Other ancient writers of the period, including Africanus, Origen, Phlegon, and Serapion, wrote about Jesus or referred to writings which described or mentioned Him. Archaeology routinely corroborates the biblical record with physical evidence. Relatively recent discoveries include the corroboration of the existence of political figures of the period, Quirinius, Lysanias, and Pontius Pilate, as well as physical locations such as the pools of Bethesda and Siloam. Lastly, archaeological discoveries now have validated the Roman’s use of crucifixion at the time of Jesus.
This was another very long chapter, but with excellent examples and argumentation. Wallace has brilliant command of the subject.
Chapter 13: Were They Accurate? – Did the Gospel Writers Falsely Report Anything That Would Invalidate Their Testimony?
If the gospels are full of inaccuracies, they can hardly be relied upon as factual or true accounts of events. When witnesses can’t keep their stories straight over a period of time, the acconts are likely to be false. Witnesses may be impeached if their stories are inaccurate. Moreover, if important falsehoods creep into a witness’s account which are substantive enough to change the meaning and the interpretation of the original, then the original is lost in the falsehoods and is rendered worthless.
New Testament writers, Peter, John, and Paul, each had students who were familiar with the Gospels as contemporary documents of their day, and each authenticated the veracity of the Gospels through their own writings. Their students, Ignatius, Polycarp, Linus, Clement, and Mark, taught the next generation of students, whose subsequent writings corroborated their teachers, and so on. This succession of teacher-student validation continued unbroken until the 4th century when the New Testament was finally canonized at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. This history of the transmission of the original Gospels through the successive writings of multiple generations of students, not only shows that we have reliable copies of the original autographs, but it also equips us to ferret out late additions, corruptions, incorrect copies, and false Gospels.
Though it does not relate directly to prose of the book, I would like to make mention of the illustrations in the book, and in particular, those of this chapter. The illustrations showing timeline and succession were exceptionally helpful in visualizing the faithful transmission of the gospel accounts. I can see how visuals, such as PowerPoint presentations, can be used in courtrooms to great advantage.
Chapter 14: Were They Biased? – Were the Gospel Writers Motivated to Lie About Their Testimony?
The obvious motives for the majority of crimes, and especially for murders, are greed, power, and sexual desire. If the Gospel writers could be shown to have held any of these motives for writing what they did, then their testimony could be impeached. On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that they, in fact, did not hold any of these motivations, then we have a reasonable basis for accepting their accounts as faithful and true.
The New Testament record describes the Gospel writers’ as having been reformed tax collectors, tentmakers and fisherman who lacked material wealth and position. There is no evidence, biblical or extra-biblical, of their having sought or held any political positions. Nor is there any evidence that they acted out of sexual desire or in the pursuit of romantic relationships. On the contrary, their very writings, both their quotes of Christ and their own personal admonitions, condemned the vices of greed, lust, and the pursuit of position and power. The evidence shows that the Gospel writers acted, not out of self interest, but out of obedience to God.
CONCLUSION
The soundness of the logical methods of investigation and the evaluation of evidence presented in this book is patently obvious on its face. These are not new ways of gathering, looking at, or evaluating evidence. There is nothing methodologically controversial here. These are tried and true rules of logic that have dominated modern forensics for more than a century. Now, when applied to the Gospels, they give us a fresh voice and a renewed confidence in the truthfulness of the Scriptures. It is only surprising that someone had not done such a work until now. Strobel used a journalist’s approach, Licona a historian’s approach, and now Wallace a detective’s approach. I applaud this work.
