Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

by J. Warner Wallace

“Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

All of us hold presuppositions that can impact the way we see the world around us.

When we smuggle our conclusions into our investigation by beginning with them as an initial premise, we are likely to beg the question and end up with conclusions that match our presuppositions rather than reflect the truth of the matter.

As investigators, we just employed a methodology known as abductive

reasoning (also known as “inferring to the most reasonable explanation”) in order to determine what we had at this scene.

I am hesitant to embrace any theory that requires the conspiratorial effort of a large number of people, over a significant period of time, when there is personally little or nothing to gain by their effort.

I came to understand that the biblical definition of faith is a well-placed and reasonable inference based on evidence.

“Causal” Evidence The Cosmological Argument: 1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. 4. This cause must be eternal and uncaused. 5. God is the most reasonable explanation for such an uncaused first cause.

As Gottfried Leibniz famously wrote, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”12

“If the proton-neutron mass difference were not about twice the mass of the electron, one would not obtain the couple of hundred or so stable nucleides that make up the elements and are the basis of chemistry and biology.”13 The forces in our universe, both small and large, appear to be fine-tuned to make life possible.

The Anthropic Principle: (1) The physical constants and laws of the universe appear to be uniquely and specifically related to one another (fine-tuned), making life possible on earth. (2) The fine-tuned relationships of these laws and constants appear to be designed (as their existence by natural, unguided means seems improbable and unlikely). (3) A design requires an intelligent

designer; an incredibly vast and complex design requires an incredibly intelligent and powerful designer. (4) God is the most reasonable explanation for such a vast, universal designer (and fine-tuner).

The Teleological Argument: (1) Structures and systems that (a) cannot be explained by some natural law

requiring their appearance, (b) exist in spite of the high improbability they could result from chance, and (c) conform to an independently existing and recognizable pattern are most reasonably explained as coming from the design efforts of an intelligent agent. (2) Biological systems possess characteristics (e.g., the information contained in the DNA code) that (a) cannot be explained by

some natural law requiring their appearance, (b) exist in spite of the high improbability they could result from chance, and (c) conform to an independently existing and recognizable pattern of specified complexity. (3) Biological systems are, therefore, most reasonably explained as coming from the design effor...

incredibly wise, all-powerful, intel...

If an object or event (1) cannot be explained by some natural law that necessitates its appearance, (2) exists in spite of the high improbability that it could occur as the result

of chance, and (3) conforms to an independently existing and recognizable pattern, the most reasonable inference is that it is the product of an intelligent designer.15

The Axiological Argument: (1) There is an objective, transcendent moral law. (2) Every moral law has a moral lawgiver. (3) Therefore, there

is an objective, transcendent moral lawgiver. (4) God is the most reasonable explanation for such a transcendent moral lawgiver.

I learned many years ago the importance of separating witnesses. If eyewitnesses are quickly separated from one another, they are far more likely to provide an uninfluenced, pure account of what they saw.

Everyone will offer the same story. While this may be tidier, it will come at the sacrifice of some important detail that a witness is willing to forfeit in order to align his or her story with the other witnesses.

witnesses who are already aware of what has been offered are far more likely to simply supply the missing details. While this witness may offer something that’s critical to the case and was previously unknown, he or she may also offer a version that is less detailed in many ways.

We all choose the words we use. Sometimes we choose as a matter of habit. Sometimes we choose words that reflect, either consciously or subconsciously, the truth about how we feel or the truth about what really happened. I’ve learned to hang on every word.

I routinely asked suspects to write down what they did back on the day of the murder, accounting for their activity from the time they got up in the morning to the time they went to bed.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise

King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.58

The Meticulous Masoretes The Masoretes established comprehensive procedures to protect the text against changes: When they noted an obvious error in the text, they labeled it as a “kethibh” (“to be written”) and

placed a correction called a “qere” (“to be read”) in the margin. When they considered a word textually, grammatically, or exegetically questionable, they placed dots above the word. They kept detailed statistics as a means of guarding against error. Leviticus 8:8, for example, was identified as the middle verse of the Torah. In Leviticus 10:16, the word “darash” was identified as

middle word in the Torah, and the “waw” located in the Hebrew word gachon in Leviticus 11:42 was identified as the middle letter of the Torah. They also placed statistics at the end of each book, including the total number of verses, the total number of words, and the total number of letters. By assembling statistics such as th...

(Refer to Gleason Archer’s A Survey of Old Testame...