Cold-Case Christianity

Cold-Case Christianity is a book by J Warner Wallace. Wallace is (was?) a detective, and he uses the techniques he learned as a cop to look at the resurrection of Jesus, among other things (a PDF of the book can be found on-line).

The first 35 pages of the book are about thinking like a detective. How to look at clues, how to be logical, and how to avoid presuppositions.

On page 40, we get to Jesus:

An Ancient Death-Scene Investigation

Now it’s time to apply this form of reasoning to a death scene that has been the topic of discussion for over two thousand years. What happened to Jesus of Nazareth? How can we explain His empty tomb? Did His disciples steal His body? Was He only injured on the cross and later recovered? Did He actually die and resurrect from the dead? We can approach these questions as detectives, using abductive reasoning.

And right from the first paragraph, we see the author has presupposed something! He is assuming an empty tomb.

In fairness, he goes on to explain he is using Habermas' "Minimal Facts", but he seems to take that as a given. It certainly is not. Habermas was a little disingenuous with the empty tomb, and has conceded that only about 75% of scholars accept the Empty Tomb, and has implied that that is the Christian scholars. The skeptics, the remaining 25%, reject the Empty Tomb.

In Habermas' own words:

A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event.[39] But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.

Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.

Wallace's entire argument is based on the assumption that the Empty Tomb is true, an assumption built ultimately on the fact that Christians think it is true. He might as well say "Christians believe Jesus was resurrected, therefore he was."

I reject the assumption that the tomb was empty.

Which means all the arguments for the resurrection in his book can be rejected too.

The author does consider the possibility: "The disciples were influenced by limited spiritual sightings"

This seems the most likely to me, so it is worth looking at his objections:

This proposal may begin to explain the transformation of the apostles, but it fails to explain the empty tomb and offers an explanation of the resurrection observations that is inconsistent with the biblical record.

So he is rejecting it because of his assumption of the Empty Tomb and because of his assumption that the Biblical record is accurate. So much for avoiding suppositions!

He goes on:

1. The theory fails to account for the numerous, divergent, and separate group sightings of Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels. These sightings are described specifically with great detail. It’s not reasonable to believe that all these disciples could provide such specified detail if they were simply repeating something they didn’t see for themselves.
2. As many as five hundred people were said to be available to testify to their observations of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:3–8). Could all of these people have been influenced to imagine their own observations of Jesus? It’s not reasonable to believe that a persuader equally persuaded all these disciples even though they didn’t actually see anything that was recorded.
3. This explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or the missing corpse.

Okay... However, if we expand the theory to say that the account was later, over several decades, very much embellished, then the theory passes. The numerous, divergent, and separate group sightings of Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels were made up later - that is why Mark says the disciple would see Jesus in Galilee, but later accounts contradict that by saying actually Jesus was right there is Jerusalem with them.

The claim that 500 were "available to testify to their observations" is highly fanciful in any case. We have only Paul's word about that, nothing to suggest he met any of them or even knew where it happened. Would Wallace accept this sort of testimony when working as a detective? Of course not!

The Empty Tomb was a later embellishment, the corpse was not missing.

When we look at the details, it is the Biblical account that is suspect, with various inconsistencies that just do not add up - but are perfectly explained by a narrative undergoing embellishment and a religion developing its theology.


ETA (10/Dec/19): Just came across this blog post by a Christian scholar, James Tibor, who also has problems with Wallace's argument, and thought it was worth linking to.