Video Series

I'll forego the preliminaries here and just say it: this is the best introductory apologetics book in regards to the historicity of the Gospels I have ever read. If you are looking for a book in that area, get it now. If you are not looking for a book in that area, get it anyway because it is that good. Now, on to the details.The book maps out an investigative journey through Christian history. How did we get the Gospels? Can we trust them? Who was Jesus? Do we know anything about Him? Yet the way that Wallace approaches this question will draw even those who do not care about these topics into the mystery. As a cold-case homicide detective, Wallace approaches these questions with a detective's eye, utilizing his extensive knowledge of the gathering and evaluation of evidence to investigate Christianity forensically.He begins the work with a section on method. He argues that we must learn to acknowledge our presuppositions and be aware of them when we begin an investigation. Like the detective who walks into a crime scene with a preconceived notion of how the murder played out, we can easily fall into the trap of using our expectations about a truth claim to color our investigation of the evidence for that claim. Learning to infer is another vastly important piece of the investigation. People must learn to distinguish between the "possible" and the "reasonable" (34ff). This introduction to "abductive reasoning" is presented in such a way as to make it understandable for those unfamiliar with even the term, while also serving as great training on how to teach others to reason for those involved in apologetics.Chapter 3, "Think Circumstantially" is perhaps the central chapter for the whole book. Wallace notes that what is necessary in order to provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not necessarily "direct evidence." That is, direct evidence-the type of evidence which can prove something all by itself (i.e. seeing it rain outside as proof for it actually raining)-is often thought of to be the standard for truth. Yet if this were the standard for truth, then we would hardly be able to believe anything. The key is to notice that a number of indirect evidences can add up to make the case. For example, if a suspected murderer is known to have had the victim's key, spot cleaned pants (suspected blood stains), matches the height and weight a witness saw leaving the scene of the crime, has boots that matched the description, was nervous during the interview and changed his story, has a baseball bat (a bat was the murder weapon) which has also been bleached and is dented, and the like, these can add up to a very compelling case (57ff). Any one of these evidences would not lead one to say they could reasonably conclude the man was the murderer, but added together they provide a case which pushes the case beyond a reasonable doubt-the man was the murderer.In a similar way, the evidences for the existence of God can add up to a compelling case for the God of classical theism. Wallace then turns to examining a number of these arguments, including the moral, cosmological, fine-tuning, and design arguments. These are each touched on briefly, as a kind of preliminary to consider when turning to the case for the Gospels. Furthermore, the notion of "circumstantial" or cumulative case arguments hints towards the capacity to examine the Bible and the Gospels to see if they are true.Wallace then turns to examining the Gospels-Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John-in light of what he has learned as a detective. He utilizes forensic statement analysis as well as a number of other means by which to investigate witnesses and eyewitness reports to determine whether the Gospels can be trusted. He first turns to Mark and makes an argument that Mark had firsthand contact with Peter, one of the Disciples and an Apostle. He shows how we can search for and find "artifacts"-textual additions that were late into the accounts of the Gospels. None of these are surprises, because we know about them by investigating the evidence we have from the manuscript tradition. By piecing together the puzzle of the evidences for the Gospels, we form a complete picture of Christ (106ff).It is easy to get caught up in "conspiracy theory" types of explanations for the events in the Bible. People argue that all kinds of alternative explanations are possible. Yet Wallace notes again that there is a difference between possible and reasonable. Simply throwing out possible scenarios does nothing to undermine the truth claims of the Gospels if the Gospels' own account is more reasonable.A very important part of Cold-Case Christianity is the notion that we can trace back the "chain of custody" for the Gospels. By arguing that we are able to see how the New Testament was passed authoritatively from one eyewitness to disciple to disciple and so on, Wallace argues that conspiracy theories which argue the Gospel stories were made up have a much less reasonable explanation than that they are firsthand accounts of what happened. Much of the information in these chapters is compelling and draws on knowledge of the Apostles' and their disciples. It therefore provides a great introduction to church history.Wallace provides a number of other examples and evidences for the New Testament. Each of these could be challenged individually, but to do so would be to miss the forest for the trees.All of these examples are highlighted by real-world stories from Wallace's work as a detective. Readers-even those who are hostile to Christianity-will be drawn in by these examples. It makes reading the book similar to reading a suspense novel, such that readers will not want to put it down. For example, when looking at distinguishing between possible/reasonable, he uses a lengthy illustration of finding a dead body and eliminating various explanations for the cause of death through observations like "having a knife in the back" as making it much less probable that accidental death is a reasonable explanation, despite being possible.The book also has a number of other helpful tools for those interested in learning more. There are sidebars with additional information and definitions, as well as notes from various court cases or law books that explain some of the headier material.Overall, Cold-Case Christianity is the best introduction to the historicity of the Gospels I have ever read. I simply cannot recommend it highly enough. Wallace covers the evidence in a winsome manner and utilizes a unique approach that will cause even disinterested readers to continue reading, just to see what he says next. I pre-ordered two copies to give to friends immediately. I am not exaggerating when I say that this book is a must read for everyone.

J. Warner Wallace writes in a straightforward, approachable manner that is easy for anyone of any background to understand and engage with. He is honest and logical in his approach and assessments, doesn't "sugar coat" anything, and acknowledges the biggest challenges or shortcomings with various pieces of evidence. In the end, it's up to the reader to decide - just like it is with an "case" before a fair and impartial judge and/or jury. Well worth reading.

Some are wondering why a person such as myself should be reviewing a book written by an officer of the law... I mean, what place does a "retired" felon (3-time) have in reviewing such a work as an apologetic one? Let alone by a "retired" police officer? A few reasons.Firstly, in Christianity, the Cross levels the "playing field" by effectively making us all priests and there are no master or slave in the hierarchy of understanding God's grace and its application (1 Peter 2:5; Galatians 4:7). While I am a "convict," I have been set free by the Creator and Organizer of the universe (James 2:5), that is a pardon I am proud to announce by-the-by. Cornered by the law, I might add, and brought to grace by the same (Romans 6:14). And lastly, a police officer found it in his heart while I was in super-max to challenge me to finish school, and to stay out of trouble by checking in [physically] with me at work after my release! Most importantly however, was his giving me a firm foundation that my childhood, subjective, faith did not offer me through a couple of books on worldviews, which led to a large home library and a passion "redirected" (Philippians 1:6). That Sheriff started a chain of events that eventually led me to this point (Proverbs 16:9), reviewing another officers work. God is great.This unique "brush" with the law aside, the Christian worldview, or better yet, this "conceptual system that should be viewed as a total world-and-life view" is still comprised of a variety of subjects and topics ( Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in the World of Ideas , p. 19). Detective Wallace has just proffered an emboldening case for this "total" system of thought by systematizing a portion of this larger concept.-----------------------✂ "I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition." (Morimer J. Adler, "A Philosopher's Religious Faith," in, Kelly James Clark, ed.,  Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers , p. 207.)-----------------------Mr. Wallace cannot be accused of superstition. Albeit some detractors surely view it as such. The book gets a firm five stars from me, but in doing so I must start this review with a small critique. A critique that does not comment on any falsely represented information, but merely a missed opportunity in the first chapter to expand on an idea for the uninitiated reader.The idea that needed a couple extra footnotes or a side-panel is in regard to the varying degrees of methodological naturalism -- soft-and-hard -- would have been helpful. For instance, in a "review of a review" (if-you-will) of a paper in Philosophy Now Issue 44 (Jan/Feb 2004), Peter S. Williams* points out the following:-----------------------✂ "One might therefore suggest that the rule of methodological naturalism should be either discarded or at least stated so as to make a distinction between recognizing intelligent design (which is scientific) and supernatural design (which is not scientific, but philosophical). Call methodological naturalism that does not make this distinction Hard Methodological Naturalism (HMN), and methodological naturalism that does make this distinction Soft Methodological Naturalism (SMN). The Intelligent Design Movement have adopted SMN, because while they allow science to infer intelligent design (unlike those who advocate HMN) they resolutely refuse to admit metaphysical speculations about the ontological nature of the designer[s] into science (unlike 'biblical creationists'). HMN is the mirror image of young-earth creationism, whereas ID takes a middle path. The hard-line methodological naturalist assumes a priori that intelligence had no scientifically detectable effect upon the history of life, while the creationist assumes that it did (and characterizes that intelligence and its activity very specifically a priori). The Intelligent Design theorist, qua design theorist, makes neither assumption. Instead they ask of everything about nature 'Is the best explanation here chance, law, a combination of chance and law, or, failing that, intelligent design?' Since the design theorist approaches nature with an exhaustive set of conceptual categories (chance, necessity, chance & necessity, or design), he or she is in no danger of having to ignore evidence or of forcing nature into a pre-conceived procrustean bed (like those Jesuits of old who ignored Galileo's evidence). Anyone who opposes ID on the grounds of methodological naturalism has to stick with HMN, because ID advocates SMN: 'in science', says Larry Witham, 'the question is not between finding natural causes or supernatural causes, but between natural and intelligent ones.' According to William A. Dembski: 'intelligent design . . . detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence . . .'" (tinyurl[dot]com[FW-slash]paqrmzw)-----------------------The above shouldn't be construed as an attack on young-earth creationism (as I am a young earth creationist and do not consider it so), but merely a separation of ideas [logically] that rely more on religiosity in the one case, and the other more on methodological naturalism ~ the "soft" kind. This latter technique is what is used in forensics, the search for life, and the like. (See for instance:  Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design , pp. 62-64; and tinyurl[dot]com[FW-slash]p3qqmpy)Continuing in yet another article in Philosophia Christi, Professor Williams again points out that "The most extreme version of this [latter] application appears in NASA's Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or S.E.T.I., project," continuing,-----------------------✂ "The observation that personal agency and internal states of agents (human and non-human) are routinely cited as scientific explanations holds true despite the fact that, as Nagel notes, the creativity routinely referenced therein might itself turn out to be beyond the reach of a naturalistically defined science. That is, no one thinks that if some form of mind-body dualism is true, then forensic science isn't a science after all because it explains with reference to something that doesn't fit within a naturalistic worldview! One needn't have a settled view upon the mind-body problem to justifiably count forensic science as a science. Likewise, one needn't assume that design explanations per se are necessarily naturalistic in order to within one's rights in counting such explanations as scientific..." (tinyurl[dot]com[FW-slash]qd6ykyt)-----------------------Hard methodological naturalism is routinely rejected even by the fair minded atheist:-----------------------✂ "If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism - the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations - it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic." ~ Bradley Monton, author of  Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design -----------------------And "true theories" is what Det. Wallace is trained in and good at. Which takes me away from my additional thinking to his first chapter, and into his specialty.In small talk other places on the www., I told Det. Wallace that he "macro'ed" an otherwise "micro" issue that other apologists/authors typically gloss over. Here I am thinking of Josh McDowell ( The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Fully Updated To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today ) and John Warwick Montgomery ( History and Christianity ). While they are great apologists and have contributed MIGHTILY to a defense of the faith, they deal with the topic of disagreeing witnesses and other topics in Mr. Wallace's book in an anecdotal way. Often included with these "dealings" are stories that include a scene with four witnesses on each corner seeing a car accident happen in the intersection. While helpful in explaining just how eyewitnesses can have different degrees of accurate information in regards to the same event, it is by no means anywhere near the thoroughness of the work by Det. Wallace.For example, in  Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels , we find in chapter four an expansion of this idea in a more "real world" situation that excoriates why it counts as a POSITIVE that some histories in the Gospels vary in detail like they do. The example of Paul and Sylvia witnessing a crime was a great example of such. Paul and Sylvia witness an armed robbery, and Mr. Wallace's thoughts and insights into the matter are entertaining as well as intellectually sound. (See the graphic from page 76 showing the divergent nature of the two witnesses testimony to the same event: tinyurl[dot]com[FW-slash]qc4co5d)). While much more can be said/read in regards to the example Det. Wallace gives, this is a good summary from the book:-----------------------✂ "Once I interviewed these two witnesses, I understood why they seemed to disagree on several key points. In the end, many things impact the way witnesses observe an event. A lot depends on where a witness is located in relationship to the action. We've also got to consider the personal experiences and interests that cause some witnesses to focus on one aspect of the event and some to focus on another. Sylvia was older and had difficulty estimating the age of the suspect, but her design interests and experience with her husband helped her to correctly identify the kind of shirt the robber wore. Paul had personal experience with pistols and was sitting in a position that gave him an entirely different perspective as he watched the robbery unfold. As the detective handling the case, it was my job to understand each witness well enough to take the best they had to offer and come to a conclusion about what really happened. Every case I handle is like this; witnesses seldom agree on every detail. In fact, when two people agree completely on every detail of their account, I am inclined to believe that they have either contaminated each others observations or are working together to pull the wool over my eyes. I expect truthful, reliable eyewitnesses to disagree along the way." (p. 77)-----------------------What could be regarded as eyewitnesses from two different events, all build a case for the one event -- in this case a crime -- being historical and placing the suspect at that local, time, and action. Similarly, the Gospels, while divergent in some areas, all describe the same historical events, time period, and persons/Person.I could comment on other chapters as well, the chapters that were amazing in my mind's eye are "Respect the 'Chains of Custody,'" and chapters eleven through fourteen. Pure art.The information in this work is invaluable for the defense of as well as a furthering of understanding and insights into the historicity that is the bulwark of the Christian faith. Detective Wallace merely enters the cast of these deeper thinking men and contributes to The Way in a way that others could never dream of doing.Out of the four books taken with me on my 14-day cruise, Mr. Wallace's was the most enjoyable and original in its application. I cannot recommend a book more highly. ESPECIALLY if you have friends or family (believer or skeptic) that are in law enforcement, what a wonderful gift this would be.S. P. Giordano, M.A.T.S. (AKA, Papa Giorgio)"The man who does not read good books is no better than the man who can't." (Mark Twain)Author of: Religio-Politcal Talk (religiopoliticaltalk[dot]com); and the book, "Worldviews: A Click Away from Binary Collisions (Religio-Political Apologetics)" (tinyurl[dot]com[FW-slash]3pck3pl)============* Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication Kristiansand, Norway

This was a great read and gave a very unique and detailed approach to investigating the claims of the gospels! Would highly recommend to anyone looking to fortify their faith like a detective!

Wallace has a serious analytical review of the internal and external evidence of the Gospels. Are they valid? Do they make sense? Were they current to Jesus's life on earth? Is there evidence to support them?You bet! Read this book to see for yourself!

O que um experiente detetive ateu descobriria se utilizasse os princípios de investigação criminal para averiguar as afirmações do Novo Testamento e do Cristianismo? Quem sabe que os apóstolos conspiraram para obter fama e ganho financeiro? Ou que os depoimentos das testemunhas oculares se contradizem entre si? Ou que o sepulcro de Jesus foi encontrado vazio porque seus seguidores roubaram e esconderam o corpo?J. Warner Wallace já foi apresentado como um expert na resolução de homicídios pela NBC, Fox 11 e Court TV. Recebeu prêmios e honrarias por seu desempenho profissional. Seu livro "Cold-Case Christianity" (2013, 288 p.) é dividido em duas seções. A primeira seção apresenta "dez princípios importantes que todo aspirante a detetive precisa dominar". A segunda seção aplica esses princípios à uma investigação dos textos dos Evangelhos.Wallace conclui que "a inferência mais razoável das evidências é que os Evangelhos são incrivelmente confiáveis, especialmente considerando a natureza de tais relatos. Poucos registros antigos foram tão criticamente examinados quanto os Evangelhos do Novo Testamento. Poucos outros documentos da antiguidade foram tão fortemente contestados e escrutinados. Esse escrutínio prolongado nos deu um conjunto robusto e detalhado de evidências que podemos examinar com raciocínio abdutivo. Se aceitarmos a [...] explicação que os Evangelhos são confiáveis [...] podemos integrar e abraçar todas as evidências, sem qualquer contradição ou atrito entre as peças" (p. 210).Como resultado de sua investigação, Wallace tornou-se um seguidor de Jesus Cristo."Caso encerrado."

This book was actually my very first entry on the world of apologetics, and I have to say it is a very good introduction. Presenting compelling cases for the authenticity of the Gospels in an understandable language, this book is recommended for every Christian of any denomination out there.

So much argument for Christianity is based upon personal anecdote and a blanket mistrust of science, this book looks at it from a rational point of view. A must read for any thinking Christian or agnostic.

This is a very well written book. Using his experience as a cold case detective, the author shows that the differences of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be seen as a way of confirming that these are eye witness accounts as opposed to errors to be identified from Gospel to Gospel. Additionally, the author shows how the Gospels often compliment each other in a similar way that different witnesses of a crime will help paint a full picture of said crime. In the end, all the evidence points to the reliability of the Gospels and thus the reliability of Jesus Christ. An excellent read, I definitely recommend it to all whether Christian, of another faith, agnostic or atheist.