5 Practices to Help You Examine the Claims of Christianity Like a Good Detective
Chapter Three
5 Practices to Help You Examine the Claims of Christianity Like a Good Detective
“Here then, is the real problem of our negligence. We fail in our duty to study God’s Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work. Our problem is not a lack of intelligence or a lack of passion. Our problem is that we are lazy.”
R. C. Sproul
“Every Christian who does not study, really study, the Bible every day is a fool.”
R. A. Torrey
“I’m not so sure you’ve got the right guy this time …”
Keith Morrison, the iconic television journalist and anchor of NBC’s Dateline, leaned back in his chair. His right elbow was propped against his crossed left arm, and he was cradling his chin in his right hand. I’d seen this mischievous, questioning expression many times in the past several years as we chronicled a number of my cold cases. It was difficult to determine if Keith was speaking candidly or just testing me for the sake of the interview.
“Come on, Jim. What makes you so sure Mike’s the killer?”
Michael Lubahn murdered his wife, Carol, in 1981, disposed of her body, and told the police she had run away from home. Carol was twenty-seven years old at the time, and she and Mike had two small children. Everyone believed Mike’s story, including Carol’s family and the detective who was originally assigned the missing-persons case. Over thirty years later, after a long cold-case investigation, we convicted Mike of Carol’s murder, even though both families and nearly everyone who knew Mike didn’t believe he was capable of the crime.
The case was incredibly difficult. There wasn’t a single piece of physical evidence; our agency didn’t begin working the case as a homicide until six years after the murder. We couldn’t answer several key questions for the jury. How did Mike kill Carol? Where in the house did he commit the crime? How did he dispose of her body and move her car? How did he commit the murder (and the subsequent cover-up) without alerting his own children? In spite of these unanswered questions, the jury found Mike guilty after approximately four short hours of deliberation.
A week after the verdict, I found myself taping another episode of Dateline, but this time Keith was challenging my conclusions. He’d read the reports, and the Dateline film crew had been present during the trial. In spite of what the jury might have thought, there were just too many unanswered questions for Keith’s liking.
“This case is just like all the other cases, Keith,” I began. “It’s not any one thing that demonstrates Mike’s guilt; it’s the collection of everything that demonstrates his guilt.”
I soon realized I was more confident of Mike’s involvement in the murder than anyone else in the room. The cameramen, sound technician, and producer seemed to agree with Keith. They were unknowingly evaluating the three forms of belief I described earlier; they were trying to determine if my conclusion about Mike was evidentially “blind,” “unreasonable,” or “forensic.” After four hours of interviewing, I wasn’t quite sure I had convinced them, but I was still confident in my conclusions about Mike. I had been investigating cold cases for many years by this point in my career, and I understood the nature of evidence and reasonable inferences. Even though there may have been unanswered questions, I had more than enough evidence to be certain Mike was guilty.
As it turned out, the skepticism in Keith’s questioning was edited from the final version of the Dateline episode. Weeks after the taping and prior to the final edit, Mike Lubahn removed any doubt about his guilt. At his sentencing hearing, he confessed to the crime and told us where he buried Carol. My certainty about Mike’s guilt was warranted, even though we didn’t have all the answers when we convicted him.
The Relationship between Confidence and Diligence
Evidential confidence is often the result of investigative diligence. I’ve learned to trust the investigative process when making reasonable inferences. I was confident of Mike’s guilt because I did what I always do: I took the necessary, time-tested investigative steps to evaluate the case, collect the evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion. I was far more familiar with my process than Keith or the other members of the Dateline team. Maybe that’s why I was far more certain of Mike’s guilt.
Our Christian confidence can be similarly bolstered if we apply a little investigative diligence to our daily lives as Christ followers. Once we’ve accepted our evidential duty and embraced a commitment to training, we need to learn how to think like detectives. My experience as a cold-case investigator may be helpful in this regard. My cases involve events that occurred in the distant past. None of these cases has ever benefited from DNA or other forensic evidence (that’s often why they went cold in the first place). In many of these cases, the original eyewitnesses are no longer available to us because they died many years ago. Fortunately, their statements were chronicled by detectives at the time of the crime, but, in many instances, these detectives have also died and are similarly unavailable to us. So as I reopen each case, I have the difficult task of trying to determine what happened, even though I have reports in which both the original witnesses and report writers are long dead.
Sound familiar? The New Testament Gospels present a similar challenge. As Christians, we want to understand what happened in the distant past, even though we don’t have any DNA or forensic evidence and even though we don’t have access to the original eyewitnesses or gospel authors.
While this may sound daunting, the skills of a cold-case detective can make it easier. In Cold-Case Christianity, I shared ten investigative principles detectives use to evaluate eyewitnesses as I made the case for the reliability of the New Testament Gospels. In God’s Crime Scene, I described eight investigative principles detectives use to examine crime scenes as I made a case for the existence of God. Here in Forensic Faith, I want to offer five investigative practices detectives adopt when examining (and solving) cold cases. These daily habits will help you transform accidental belief into forensic faith:
Investigative Practice #1:
Read the Casebook Completely
Police officers develop and employ particular “practices” in order to accomplish their goals. The term practice, when used in this way, refers to repeated customary or habitual activities or operations. “Actions” don’t become “practices” unless they are done repeatedly or habitually.
In our agency, the cold cases are bound in red notebooks and stored in our “homicide vault.” When I start an investigation, I pull the casebook and read it from cover to cover, including every original crime report, investigative summary, eyewitness interview transcript, autopsy report, and crime scene investigation report. Before I can begin a new investigation, I need to read and understand the casebook as though I were part of the original investigation. I’ll confess there are times when it’s difficult to stay engaged; some reports are more interesting than others. Some are downright boring. But if I want to understand why the original detectives failed to solve the case “back in the day,” I need to be diligent and attentive “in the here and now.”
I often rearrange the reports in the chronological order in which they were originally written. Old casebooks aren’t necessarily organized in this way (reports are sometimes grouped by “type”), and some old casebooks are a mess. I reorder the reports so I can re-experience the case the way the original detective(s) first experienced it. Many of my foundational questions about a case are answered once I organize the reports in the correct chronological order. I then force myself to read the entire set of reports repeatedly, until I become the best expert on the case I can be. This requires me to be thoroughly familiar with each report; I need to know what each report contains and where the report is located in the larger notebook.
I’ve also learned to resist the temptation to read bits and pieces of the casebook out of context. It’s easy, for example, to overprioritize a portion of a suspect’s statement if you focus on one line from the original interview transcript. Statements that are taken out of context can make a suspect look guiltier (or more innocent) than he really is. I’ve learned the importance of reading through everything, from cover to cover, before returning to any one report, and I’ve learned to read the entire report before isolating any set of lines or paragraphs. It’s all about context, context, context.
Forensic Faith Practice #1:
Read the Bible Completely
Some of my cold cases are so old that the words used by witnesses in the original reports (their “slang” expressions and colloquialisms) are confusing. Unless jurors are familiar with the culture and conditions of the time, they’ll have difficulty interpreting the testimony of these witnesses. In a similar way, biblical authors often use words (and refer to conditions) specific to their unique setting. Unless you become familiar with their culture and language, you’ll have difficulty understanding the biblical text.
If you want to develop a forensic faith, you’ll need to take a detective’s approach to our Christian “casebook.” I’m often surprised to find how many Christians still haven’t read the entire New Testament, let alone the Old Testament. Don’t feel bad; we’ve all promised ourselves we’d read through the Bible from cover to cover—and then stalled in Leviticus or Numbers. It doesn’t take long to lose your “inertia.” But while there might be times when it’s difficult to stay engaged, it’s important to push forward. If you want to understand the redemptive history of God’s people “back in the day,” you’ll need to be diligent “in the here and now.” Make a pact with yourself. Find a reliable translation you enjoy, and commit to reading our “casebook” in its entirety. There are a number of free Bible-reading plans available online to help you “stay the course,” but if you just want to keep it simple, commit yourself to four chapters a day. At that pace, you’ll finish the entire Bible in a year, even if you get busy and miss sixty days along the way. That’s doable, especially if you are committed to becoming a biblically literate Christian case maker.
Approach the Bible the way I approach my red notebooks: read each “report” repeatedly, paying attention to the order of biblical texts. Learn what each book contains and where the book is located in the larger “casebook.” The goal here is to become the best expert you can be, to understand the biblical data well enough to help others who have a question. One way to better understand the flow of history and the theological connections between biblical texts is to read the books of the Bible in the order in which the events actually occurred. Our current Bibles aren’t organized in this way. Like my old casebooks, the texts of the Bible are often grouped by “type.” After reading the text from cover to cover, take advantage of online Bible-reading plans that organize the texts and daily readings in the chronological order in which the events actually occurred. You’ll be amazed at how many of your foundational questions about the Bible will be answered once you organize and read the texts in the correct chronological order.
Resist reading bits and pieces of the Bible out of context. While it’s popular to read passages of Scripture as though each verse was written for use in a fortune cookie, reading the Bible in that way often leads to misinterpretation. Biblical statements taken out of context can be incredibly misleading. My friend Greg Koukl has a clever saying: “Never read a Bible verse” (he’s also got a great booklet by the same name ). Greg’s not suggesting you shouldn’t read the Bible, but that you shouldn’t read just one verse of the Bible in isolation. Before you hang your hope on a biblical promise or build your case for a theological doctrine on a single Bible verse, make sure your interpretation is supported by the overarching framework of the passage. It’s all about context, context, context.
Investigative Practice #2:
Think about the Nature of Evidence Broadly
My job as a cold-case detective is to find the evidence other investigators have missed, but if I limit my concept of “evidence” too narrowly, I may not see or read anything of evidential value. That’s why I’ve learned to take a very broad approach when trying to determine what is “evidence” and what is not. Jurors are often unfamiliar with what qualifies as evidence when they are first impaneled, but it doesn’t take long for them to broaden their understanding. Everything has the potential to be considered as evidence. In the many years I’ve been making criminal cases in the state of California, I’ve presented physical objects, statements, behaviors, and much more to make my case. Take a look at the variety of evidences typically presented in criminal jury trials:
Forensic physical evidence
Non-forensic physical evidence
Where the victim was attacked
Where the victim wasn’t attacked
Items discovered at the crime scene
Items missing from the crime scene
Words the suspect said
Words the suspect failed to say
Something the suspect did
Something the suspect failed to do
I could go on and on, but are you starting to see the pattern? Everything has the potential to be part of an evidential case, depending on the nature of the case under consideration. Sometimes the simplest detail (something you might not typically think of as evidence) can make the case. I’ve successfully investigated cases prosecuted with nothing more than statements. These cases didn’t possess a single piece of physical evidence, yet the juries came back with a guilty verdict. As I read through the original casebook of any cold case, I do my best to keep an open mind and examine everything for its potential evidential value.
Forensic Faith Practice #2:
Think about the Evidence for God and the Bible Broadly
When skeptics say the case for Christianity is weak because it can’t be built with scientific, testable, physical, forensic evidence, they simply don’t know how criminal cases are tried every day in America. Everything counts as evidence, including the behavior of the people who originally witnessed the life of Jesus, the testimony of those who listened to the statements of these witnesses, the touch-point corroborative evidence of archaeology, the internal confirmation of geography, politics, proper nouns (more on that in a minute), and the deficiency of alternative explanations. These forms of evidence (or something very similar) are used in criminal trials every day. Read the Christian “casebook” with an open mind and broaden your definition of “evidence.”
Before we move on to the next principle, this is a good place to respond to a common objection. I regularly hear skeptics say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ‘God exists’ is an extraordinary claim. You had better be able to produce extraordinary evidence to support such a claim.” This is, based on my experience, untrue.
In this section, I’ve listed some of the forms of evidence we commonly present in criminal trials. Without opening your Bible, imagine a similar list that could be assembled related to potential evidence in the Christian “casebook.” If you were trying to make a case for the deity of Jesus, what kinds of evidence from the Gospels could you consider as evidentially important? Be as broad and creative as possible. In the next section, you can use this list to take another step in the investigation.
In 1981, there were approximately 24,159,000 people living in the state of California. That year, 3,143 people committed the crime of murder. Most people were law-abiding, peace-loving citizens; very few (only .01 percent of the population) were murderers. That’s an extraordinarily low number if you think about it. One of these 1981 California murderers (representing only .000004 percent of the population) was Michael Lubahn, the man who killed his wife and claimed that she ran away from home. Michael was a beloved member of the victim’s family, and they refused to believe he was responsible for her death. I can understand why they would feel this way.
It was an extraordinary claim, really: Michael Lubahn, a gentle and friendly man, representing only .000004 percent of the entire population, without any history of violence and without any apparent motive, was accused of committing the worst possible crime. The victim’s family repeatedly told me this was an extraordinary claim that they simply could not accept, and even after showing them the evidence I gathered prior to trial, they refused to believe it.
The jury trial lasted about a month. As is the norm with my cases, the evidence was entirely circumstantial; but this case was particularly extraordinary. There was no physical evidence, no body, and no crime scene. Of all my circumstantial cases, this one was definitely the most difficult and “thin.” It was extraordinary on many levels: the unlikely nature of the crime in 1981, the unlikely nature of the suspect, and the unlikely nature of the evidence available to us.
After weeks of testimony and a jury conviction, the family was still unconvinced. This was an extraordinary charge after all; shouldn’t there be some extraordinary evidence before we lock someone up for the rest of his life? Well, that’s the nature of all homicide cases. Thankfully, they are extraordinary and rare. In spite of this reality, jurors draw reasonable conclusions from evidence that is both ordinary and unexceptional. As a result, I’ve learned that extraordinary claims don’t actually require extraordinary evidence. When the ordinary evidence points to an extraordinary conclusion, jurors are within their right to make a reasonable decision. When Michael Lubahn ultimately confessed to this crime (yet another extraordinary event), he proved the jury made the right decision with nothing more than ordinary evidence.
The same people who require extraordinary evidence to demonstrate the existence of God generally fail to see the extraordinary nature of their own claims. Take, for example, atheistic claims about the nature of the universe. Did everything (all space, time, and matter) come into existence from nothing through some natural process involving the laws of physics? Did life emerge from non-life in a similar way? Can immaterial consciousness and true free agency emerge from an entirely physical and deterministic universe? Can the laws of physics provide adequate grounding for moral obligations? When atheistic naturalists form a case for such extraordinary claims, they do it with rather ordinary calculations and evidences. They assemble theories derived from this evidence and they expect all of us to embrace their case. I actually think that’s a fair approach to the issue, but I also think it’s fair to use ordinary evidence to come to an extraordinary conclusion about God’s existence (I do this, for example, in God’s Crime Scene).
As you read through the Christian “casebook,” keep a very open mind about what might qualify as evidence. We can make a case for the reliability of the Bible, the historicity and deity of Jesus, and the existence of God from seemingly unimportant statements and facts. Everything counts as evidence, even the “ordinary” things you might be tempted to overlook.
Investigative Practice #3:
Take Notes and Analyze the Case Thoroughly
Before I begin reading the original cold-case notebook, I make a copy of it. I do this so I can highlight the pages of the copied book and write my own detailed notes in the margins. I generally use colored pens, correlating a particular set of issues to a specific color. This helps me to think through the case more clearly, and it reminds me of those areas needing clarification (or further investigation). It also provides me with a way to form my own summary of the important elements of the case. I then write outlines and summaries of the important details. These outlines will eventually become my finished reports when I file the case with the district attorney.
I try to be as meticulous as possible when citing and noting important aspects of the casebook reports, and much of what I consider to be important is a product of my training in Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA). I describe this discipline in greater detail in Cold-Case Christianity; FSA is an approach to examining the words used by witnesses and suspects in an effort to identify “deception indicators” and other important clues. If there’s one thing about statement analysis you need to know, it’s this: we all have a choice when selecting which words we’ll use to describe something. Every time we choose a particular word, we are, by necessity, choosing not to use an alternative. This book (and every other book) is an excellent example of this process of word selection. I’ve tried to choose my words carefully in an effort to be both succinct and clear. You’ve probably done something similar, especially when deciding how to communicate with the people you love. The words we choose give us away; they often reveal our inner feelings, motives, and desires. Every word matters to detectives. My training in FSA guides the way I examine any report, even if it’s something other than a witness or suspect statement. When I take notes in my cold-case notebooks, I pay special attention to a variety of textual characteristics, including the following:
Proper Nouns (Names) and Pronouns
The way an author, witness, or suspect describes someone is important. Did they use a proper noun? Do they ever change the way they identify the same person? If so, why? Consider the following options:
“Kathy lied to us.”
“That girl lied to us.”
“That crazy fool lied to us.”
The words people use to describe other people are an important indication of how they see or feel about the people in their world, or how they think their audience sees or feels about these people.
Adjectives and Adverbs
Adjectives (describing nouns) and adverbs (describing verbs) are optional. Consider the following examples:
“Kathy lied to us.”
“Kathy told us a malicious lie.”
“Redheaded Kathy vindictively told us another malicious lie.”
The reporter here had a choice in the adjective he used to describe Kathy and the adverb he chose to describe her telling of the lie. He could easily have simply omitted these adjectives and adverbs. His choice to include them may be an effort on his part to express his beliefs about her motive (she was being “malicious”) or an effort to distinguish this Kathy from another (perhaps one who wasn’t a redhead).
Contraction or Expansion of Time
How many words someone uses to describe a period of time may tell you something about the importance of the event in the mind of the reporter or may indicate an effort to conceal something. Consider the following three statements describing the same period of time:
“I ate pizza with Kathy.”
“I drove to Kathy’s from Pizza Hut. I took Hawthorne Boulevard. We ate breadsticks with our pizza.”
“I drove to Kathy’s from Pizza Hut. I decided to take Hawthorne. The roads were a bit slick from the rain. I don’t typically take Hawthorne, but I figured the traffic would be heavy on Sepulveda. I was wrong. When I got to Carson Street, the light took forever to change. I could see the people in the car next to me were getting impatient. I thought for sure they might just blow through the red light. Eventually, it changed, and I drove to Kathy’s. Oh yeah, I did stop at the corner to read my phone texts before I got there. I was late, but she loved the pizza.”
Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA) describes a series of sequential techniques experts use to identify linguistic “signals” separating lies from truthful statements. FSA experts examine the statements of suspects and witnesses to identify indicators revealing subconscious information. FSA is an effective tool when employed by someone who has been trained in the discipline.
In the first statement, the reporter failed to say anything about the drive to Kathy’s house. If the reporter was typically brief in the way he described every period of time that day, this minimal description may not raise any suspicion. If, on the other hand, he included great detail in every other portion of the account except for the drive home, the contraction of time here might be an indication of deception, or simply a reflection of what he finds unimportant. The third statement includes a large amount of extraneous detail about the drive home; if this reporter was brief in the way he described everything else that day, his expansion of time may be an indication he was trying to conceal something else he was really doing, or may simply be a reflection of what he finds important. While the contraction or expansion of information may or may not indicate something nefarious, it does, however, require us to examine the situation further. Does the reporter always compress or expand information? Is there another witness who can confirm any claims of the reporter? Has the reporter been caught lying about something else that would also cause us to doubt him here?
Apparent Illogical or Nonsensical Information
Witnesses, suspects, and report writers often raise as many questions as they answer, particularly if they are describing something they think is common knowledge or something they think has been previously described. Consider the following statements from four different witnesses:
“They brought anchovy pizza to the party, even though everyone hates anchovies.”
“Because of Kathy, they brought anchovy pizza to the party.”
“Kathy lied and said everyone liked anchovies.”
“Kathy’s obnoxious nature got them in trouble.”
Each witness statement, when read in isolation, raises a question. When all the statements are assessed together, however, we begin to understand what happened at the party and why it happened. But the question remains: Why did each of these reporters leave out an important detail? The answer to that question may tell us something about what the reporter assumes is common knowledge, how the reporter prioritizes aspects of the event, or how the reporter really feels about the people involved.
As a result of my experience as a Forensic Statement Analyst, I find myself evaluating every word when I read a casebook. I wish I could say I limited this propensity to my professional work, but if I’m honest, I still find myself examining word choices when I sift through my daily emails, read news articles or blog posts, and even when I’m just engaged in casual conversations.
Forensic Faith Practice #3:
Take Notes and Analyze the Bible Thoroughly
If you want to develop a forensic faith, you’ll need to take a detective’s approach to note taking. When I first became interested in the words of Jesus, I went to my local bookstore to buy a Bible. I’d never owned one before, but I knew what I was looking for. I wanted a Bible with large margins and lots of room on the title pages of each New Testament gospel and epistle. I didn’t want a study Bible or anything fancy. I just wanted space to take notes because I knew my experience with FSA would dictate how I would read the text. My first Bible is nearly impossible to read these days, given the way I’ve filled every margin and every free unprinted space with colored notes. When I ran out of space, I cut new blank pages to match the size of the Bible and glued them in place with all my additional notes and observations.
I was meticulous when citing and noting important aspects of the New Testament accounts, and much of what I considered to be important was once again a product of my training. The authors of the New Testament chose their words carefully. Every time they did so, they were, by necessity, choosing not to use an alternative. Every word mattered to me as I read the New Testament texts. When I took notes in that first Bible, I paid special attention to the same textual characteristics I isolated in my professional work.
Now that I’ve explained some of the areas we consider when analyzing statements in criminal cases, let me show you a few biblical parallels:
Proper Nouns (Names) and Pronouns
How the biblical authors describe someone is important. Paul, for example, when writing to the Galatians, described his visits with Peter and James. Notice the way Paul described these men:
Galatians 1:18–19
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Paul called Peter by his Aramaic name, “Cephas,” rather than “Simon,” perhaps because Jesus referred to Peter in this way or because this region of Galatia was filled with Aramaic speakers. This choice of name may tell us something about the audience Paul was addressing. Paul also clarified which James he was talking about by adding the additional information “the Lord’s brother.” Once again, this may indicate Paul’s audience was familiar with all the apostles, including James, the son of Zebedee. Just a few verses later, Paul again described these men (along with the apostle John), but chose to use different words:
Galatians 2:1–2
Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
Paul’s choice of “them” may simply be due to the fact that he had already introduced Cephas and James in the prior lines of his letter, but Paul’s choice of “those who were of reputation” (now including the apostle John, as seen in verse 9) is strikingly different and important. Paul could have said, “Cephas, James, and John,” “Those who knew Jesus,” or “The apostles.” Instead, Paul called them “those who were of reputation.” Why would Paul choose this expression? If we stopped reading right here, it would seem that Paul wants his readers to remember the important status and knowledge of Cephas, James, and John. Why? If a suspect did something like this in an interview, I would expect him to use the status of these men to support something the suspect said or did. Sure enough, this is what Paul had in mind:
Galatians 2:3–6
But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
Paul changed his term for Cephas, James, and John to highlight their status among the Galatians in order to legitimize Paul’s theological position related to the gospel and circumcision. Paul told these authoritative apostles what he had been preaching to the Gentiles, and they affirmed Paul’s position. They added nothing. Paul then used the status of these men of high reputation to appeal for the legitimacy of his own claims. Paul’s words were an important indication of how both he and his audience saw and felt about the apostles.
Adjectives and Adverbs
If you don’t already own one, purchase a simple, inexpensive Bible with wide margins. Buy one you won’t mind “defacing” with notes and observations. On your first review of the biblical text, feel free to note everything you discover. Include your rational and emotional impressions, reminders of things you want to research, and places where the text offers something puzzling or “troublesome.”
In Cold-Case Christianity, I describe an important adjective used by Luke in the opening lines of his gospel. Luke actually uses a number of adjectives and adverbs in this passage (best seen in the English Standard Version of the text), and each one tells us something important about the noun or verb it is describing:
Luke 1:1–4 (ESV)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke appears to want us to appreciate the diligence with which he investigated the eyewitness accounts of those who knew Jesus. He could easily have omitted the word “closely” but chose instead to include it. When describing Theophilus, the man to whom he wrote both his gospel and the book of Acts, he decided to include the adjective/title “most excellent.” Luke’s use of this optional descriptor tells us something about the nature of Theophilus (or at least something about how Luke regarded this man) because this title is usually reserved for people possessing elevated rank or social status (Paul, for example, used this title when addressing Festus, the governor of Judea, in Acts 23:26).
There’s one adjective that caught my eye when I first read this passage: “orderly.” It wasn’t enough for Luke to tell Theophilus he had written an “account”; he wanted Theophilus to know he had written an “orderly account.” The Greek word used here for “orderly” (kaqezV h~d) means “correct chronological order.” In fact, the New American Standard version translates it as “in consecutive order.” If Luke is writing a history of Jesus based on the eyewitness accounts available to him, why would he feel compelled to say his history is in the correct chronological order? Aren’t all historical accounts in the correct chronological order?
Remember, additional descriptors are often used to distinguish one object or person from another. As we’ve already seen, Paul described James as “the Lord’s brother” to distinguish him from other apostolic leaders named James. Was Luke’s use of “orderly” intended to distinguish his gospel from another “narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us”? I think so. As I point out in Cold-Case Christianity, Papias, the ancient bishop of Hierapolis, described Mark’s gospel narrative in the following way:
Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.
Given this description by Papias, Luke’s use of the word “orderly” makes sense, particularly if he was aware of Mark’s account and wanted to distinguish his own. As it turns out, Luke was clearly familiar with Mark’s work, as he quoted Mark more than any other source (Luke used information found in approximately 350 of Mark’s verses). Luke had a choice in the adjective he used to describe his own gospel, and by describing it as “orderly,” he distinguished it from Mark’s.
Contraction or Expansion of Time
Skeptics sometimes point to differences between the gospel accounts as evidence of their unreliability. When I first read through the Gospels as an atheist, however, the differences between accounts only strengthened my interest in them as eyewitness accounts. Why? Because witnesses always pick and choose between things they elect to report. Everyone compresses or expands time; the only question is whether this contraction or expansion is a sign of deception. Let’s examine an example from the New Testament: the time involving the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew, when writing about this sermon, provided the following information:
Matthew 5:3–12
He [Jesus] opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Notice how Matthew provided a comprehensive list of “blessings” in his account. When Luke, however, described the sermon in his gospel, he shortened the list of blessings and added a list of “woes”:
Luke 6:20–26
And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say,
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets.
But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.
Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.”
Mark and John, when writing their own gospels, contracted time and omitted the sermon altogether. How are we to reconcile these accounts? Does the expansion or contraction of time and information here indicate someone is lying? Did the Sermon on the Mount really occur, and if so, why would Mark and John omit it entirely? While the contraction or expansion of information may or may not indicate something nefarious, it does, however, require us to examine the situation further. We can ask the same kinds of questions we ask in criminal investigations: Does the author always compress or expand information? Is there another witness who can confirm any of these claims? Has the author been caught lying about something else that would also cause us to doubt him here?
It’s difficult to examine the importance of biblical word selection if you’re not familiar with Greek or Hebrew. What was the original word used by the author? Did he use this word elsewhere? How was the word used by other authors at this point in history? As I began to study the biblical texts (and long before I completed my own graduate work in theological studies), I quickly realized I would have to better understand the biblical languages. I invested in several print resources and filled my bookshelves with encyclopedias, lexicons, and commentaries. I eventually purchased Bible study software.
John and Mark’s omission seems to be consistent with the nature of their gospels. Mark’s gospel is remarkably brief in general. Mark typically said less than any other author and recorded events at a much faster pace (see more about the “crime broadcast” nature of Mark’s gospel in Cold-Case Christianity). Mark may have omitted the Sermon on the Mount, but he was clearly aware of the information in the sermon; he repeated elements of Jesus’s teaching throughout the remainder of his gospel (he quoted the Lord’s Prayer, for example, in Mark 11:25). John was also generally selective in what he communicated, and even admitted “there are also many other things which Jesus did.” John clearly intended to tell his readers more about events that weren’t covered by the other three gospels (the vast majority of John’s gospel is unique to John). Nothing in John or Mark’s gospels would lead us to believe Matthew or Luke were lying about the sermon, and we have two additional accounts to verify the event.
Apparent Illogical or Nonsensical Information
Like eyewitnesses in my criminal trials, the gospel authors often raise as many questions as they answer. When we discover something apparently nonsensical, we owe it to ourselves to investigate the account. Here’s an example from Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus. Matthew reported that Jesus was brought before Caiaphas and accused of blasphemy:
Matthew 26:65–68
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”
When read in its entirety, this chapter of Matthew’s gospel presents us with unanswered questions related to Jesus’s attackers. Matthew reported that the men at the trial challenged Jesus to prophesy about the identity of His assailants to prove His claim of deity. But how hard would it have been for Jesus to simply look at His attackers and answer this question? And why would the response to this simple query prove anything about the power of Jesus? Matthew’s account fails to answer these questions. Luckily for us, Matthew’s report is supplemented by another:
Luke 22:63–65
Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming.
Luke answers the questions raised by Matthew. Jesus was blindfolded before He was attacked, and this is why His ability to answer the question posed by His attackers would have been evidence of His power. The Gospels possess many of the same characteristics seen in other reliable eyewitness accounts. While each account, read in isolation, may raise a question, when all the statements are assessed together, we begin to understand the totality of what occurred.
Don’t be afraid to take some notes in your Bible; those margins are there for a reason. You may have been reading past some of the most important evidence in the Scripture. Now that you’ve seen some of the things that are important to me as a detective, I bet you’ll start seeing them on every page of the New Testament.
Investigative Practice #4:
Summarize and Organize the Evidence Usefully
Detectives make lists. After reading through a casebook and noting important aspects of each report, I begin to organize and summarize the evidence I’ve discovered along the way. While investigating a cold case, I make dozens of lists, and these lists generally fall into two distinct categories: evidences and explanations. Cases are solved when one of the explanations on my list accounts for all the evidence on my other list. This process is called “abductive reasoning” and I demonstrate its value in both Cold-Case Christianity (chapter 2) and God’s Crime Scene (chapter 5). My lists aren’t arbitrary; they’re goal oriented and purposeful. Consider the following example adapted from a case I described in Cold-Case Christianity.
A woman was bludgeoned to death in her home; the killer used some kind of large club. A witness saw a man wearing a mask, blue jeans, and work boots run from the location and drive away from the scene. The family suspected her boyfriend, and while investigating this man, detectives assembled the following list of evidences:
1. The boyfriend fit the description of the killer.
He was the same general height and weight.
2. The boyfriend lied about his alibi for the night of the murder.
When interviewed by detectives, he said he was drinking with friends. Detectives then interviewed his friends and learned they hadn’t seen the boyfriend in weeks.
3. The boyfriend had an unexplained baseball bat in his closet.
Detectives served a search warrant and discovered a bat in the boyfriend’s home closet. The bat was dinged and dented as though it had been used as a club, and it had also been soaked in bleach.
4. The boyfriend had an unexplained pair of blue jeans in his home.
The search warrant also uncovered a pair of blue jeans at the boyfriend’s home, a pair that matched the pair described by the witness. The jeans were covered in dirt, but a luminol test revealed an unknown detergent was used to spot-clean something (other than dirt) from the thigh and knee area of the pants.
Cumulative case arguments are typically built on a number of pieces of evidence, each of which may be imperfect or insufficient when considered in isolation. When examined in totality, however, the case becomes strong and reasonable.
5. There was no sign of forced entry at the home of the victim.
Either the victim knew her killer and let him in or the killer had a key so he could let himself in. The boyfriend was one of only three people who had a key.
6. The boyfriend admitted to prior violence.
In a recorded interview, the boyfriend told detectives he commonly beat his girlfriend and often felt bad about it. He also admitted to beating her on the day of the murder because he found out she had been cheating on him. He even threatened in front of her friends to kill her but denied actually carrying out that threat.
7. The boyfriend owned boots like those seen by the witness.
The witness said the killer was wearing an unusual pair of boots. These boots had a vertical strip of leather on the side. After researching similar boots, detectives learned there was only one manufacturer of this kind of boot, and this brand was sold at just one store anywhere in the county. This particular store reported selling only thirty pairs of this boot in the past two years. The boyfriend happened to have one pair in his closet at the time of the search warrant.
8. The boyfriend was feeling suicidal.
When serving the search warrant, detectives also discovered an unfinished suicide note written by the boyfriend. In this note, the boyfriend said he was distraught over something he had done (on the day of the murder) and was so guilt ridden he wanted to kill himself. He admitted to losing his temper and doing something horrific, but he didn’t explicitly say he murdered his girlfriend.
9. The boyfriend’s car matched the suspect’s vehicle.
The witness observed the suspect enter an unusual vehicle as he fled the scene. She described it as a canary yellow 1972–74 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia. When detectives searched the Department of Motor Vehicles database for this model of car, they discovered there were only a few of them still in existence in the entire state. With the search warrant, they discovered that the boyfriend had a yellow 1972 Karmann Ghia parked in his garage.
This list of evidence is useful because it organizes the data so it can be assessed and interpreted. This list makes a case. After reading these facts, the case against the boyfriend is clear. When detectives make lists such as these, we are, in essence, rehearsing our case prior to presenting it to the district attorney for filing consideration. If someone were ever to ask, “Why do you suspect the boyfriend?” this list would help me provide a response like this, by way of summary:
I know the boyfriend is the killer because he fits the physical description offered by the witness and he lied about his alibi. He owned a bat similar to the one seen by the witness, and he suspiciously bleached this bat, probably to destroy any blood or tissue evidence. He also owned jeans matching those worn by the killer, and he effectively spot-cleaned something from these pants (most likely his girlfriend’s blood). The boyfriend’s boots were rare and also matched those worn by the killer, and the boyfriend’s car was an even more remarkable match. He was one of only a few people who could account for the fact there was no sign of forced entry, and he freely admitted to beating her and threatening to kill her. He even had a motive to kill her that day: he found out she was cheating on him.
When I form evidence lists, it’s much easier to form explanatory summaries. Summaries then help me make the case to others when they ask why I believe a particular suspect is the true killer.
Forensic Faith Practice #4:
Summarize and Organize the Biblical Evidence Usefully
When I first began to investigate the claims of Christianity, I heard many of my Christian friends say things about Jesus they had great difficulty supporting. On one occasion, I asked a simple question and offered a challenge: “Did Jesus ever really say He was God? I bet you can’t find a single place in the entire Bible where Jesus said, ‘I am God.’ You know why? Because Jesus never claimed to be God.” This challenge flummoxed more than one of my Christian coworkers.
When I finally became a believer, I decided to investigate the foundational claims of Christianity evidentially from an FSA perspective. I made lists citing some of the FSA characteristics I’ve already described. Here, for example, is a list of evidences demonstrating that Jesus did, in fact, claim to be God. To make it more memorable, I tried to describe each category with the letter P:
1. Jesus Made Statements about His Divine “Place” of Origin
When asked about His place of origin, Jesus repeatedly identified it as the same “place” where God the Father abides. While mere humans are described to come from this temporal world, Jesus said He and God the Father came from another kingdom entirely. When addressing the Jewish leadership, Jesus said this:
John 8:23–24
And he was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will die in your sins.”
Later, when addressing Pontius Pilate’s questions about Jesus’s position as the “King” of the Jews, Jesus confirmed that He was not of human origin and that He and God the Father came from the same spiritual kingdom:
John 18:36–37
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
Start creating “evidence” and “explanation” lists. Begin by identifying some of the foundational claims of Christianity and start listing those places in the Bible where you find related evidence or explanations. Why do we believe God is all-knowing? Is Jesus a created being or the eternal God? Did Jesus demonstrate His deity in some way? What are God’s attributes and how can we defend them from the pages of Scripture?
2. He Made Statements about His Divine Position
In addition to all of this, Jesus said many things that were nonsensical unless Jesus considered Himself to be equal to and of one essence with God. In Matthew 13:41, for example, Jesus said that both the angels and the kingdom were His:
Matthew 13:41 (ESV)
“The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers.”
In other places in the Gospels, the “angels of God” and the “kingdom of God” were described as belonging to God the Father, not Jesus:
Luke 12:8–9 (ESV)
“I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.”
To claim that God’s angels were, in fact, His angels would be highly inappropriate unless Jesus and God are both part of the Godhead. Jesus also made a number of comments about His relationship with God the Father that would be difficult to understand if Jesus did not consider Himself equal in essence with God:
John 14:6–9
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
3. He Made Statements about His Divine Parity
Jesus made several statements that implied His deity, even before He made any direct statements about His deity. Jesus often prefaced His teaching in a way that separated Him from other prophets or important religious leaders. When Old Testament prophets made a proclamation, they would typically begin by saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” or, “The word of the Lord came to me” (from the King James Version), or, “This is what the Lord says” (in modern translations):
Isaiah 10:24
Therefore, this is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: “O my people who live in Zion, do not be afraid of the Assyrians, who beat you with a rod and lift up a club against you, as Egypt did.”
Jeremiah 6:6
This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Cut down the trees and build siege ramps against Jerusalem. This city must be punished; it is filled with oppression.
Ezekiel 5:5
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.”
These prophets began their proclamations in this way because they were speaking for God, not as God. But this is never how Jesus spoke when making similar proclamations. Jesus typically began His proclamations with expressions such as, “Verily, verily, I say to you …” (from the King James Bible) or “I tell you the truth …” (in modern translations). Jesus didn’t qualify His words to claim the authority of God as did the Old Testament prophets. Instead, Jesus spoke authoritatively in the first person using “I” as the only description for the source of His wisdom. The prophets spoke for God, but Jesus spoke as God:
Matthew 5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
My criminal arrest warrants are typically divided into three sections. In the first section, I simply describe the chronology of the investigation, recapping what was done when. In the second section, I provide a list of the evidences I believe point to the guilt of my suspect. In the final brief paragraph, I summarize the case based on the prior evidences I’ve described. While the first two sections are expansive, the third section is designed to be as brief and as powerful as possible.
Matthew 11:11
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Mark 11:23
I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, “Go, throw yourself into the sea,” and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.
4. He Made Statements about His Divine Power
Speaking again to nonbelievers, Jesus made the argument that His miracles alone should have been enough to demonstrate His deity. These miracles were proof that He was, in fact, God:
John 10:25–29
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
The Jewish leaders knew what Jesus meant here; they knew that He claimed equality with God. That’s why they sought to stone Him for blasphemy:
John 10:31–33
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
5. He Made Direct Statements about His Divine Personhood
Finally, Jesus made a direct statement about His identity as God, although it may appear hidden to those who don’t understand the historical context of His words. When God first appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Moses was adept enough to ask God for His name. And God gave Moses an interesting reply:
Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
The Israelites revered the name of God (“I AM”) as a precious title that was not to be slandered or given to anyone other than God Himself. Then along came Jesus. One day, when the Pharisees were questioning the power, authority, and teaching of Jesus, they actually accused Him of being demon possessed. Look at how Jesus responded:
John 8:49–58
“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?” Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus made two remarkable statements. First, He claimed to be eternal and to have existed before Abraham. Just as importantly, Jesus picked a unique pronoun to identify Himself. He used the ancient title ascribed only to God: “I AM.” The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus meant by this. From their perspective, Jesus said specifically, “I am God.” How do we know this was their interpretations of His words? We know it from their reaction. Once again, they responded by attempting to stone Jesus.
When I first started making lists like this one, I glued them into my tattered, note-filled Bible. Like my homicide list, this list of evidences is useful because it makes a case. After reading these facts, it’s clear that Jesus did, in fact, claim to be God. When, as Christians, we make lists such as these, we are, in essence, rehearsing our case prior to presenting it to others. If someone were ever to ask, “Did Jesus ever claim He was God?” this list would help me provide a response like this, by way of summary:
Yes, Jesus definitely claimed to be God. He made statements about His divine place of origin, repeatedly telling His listeners that He was not of human origin and that He and God the Father came from the same spiritual kingdom. He made statements about His divine position as He claimed equality with God. He made statements revealing His divine parity, refusing to preface His proclamations the way Old Testament prophets did (with something like, “Thus sayeth the Lord”) and saying instead, “I tell you the truth.” Jesus also made statements reminding people of His divine power, offering His miracles as proof of His deity, and more importantly, He used the divine title of God Himself, calling Himself the great “I AM.”
My list made it easier for me to form my summary, and a summary such as this is helpful when making the case to others. If my Christian coworkers had been list-making believers back when I was a questioning skeptic, they would have been ready for my objections and better able to make the case.
Investigative Practice #5:
Add to the Case Evidentially
There’s a reason why my cold cases were originally unsolved: there simply wasn’t enough evidence to “make the case” when the crime was first investigated. Even though some of the first detectives may have focused on a particular suspect, they couldn’t assemble enough evidence to file the case with the district attorney. Although I begin the cold-case investigation by searching inside the casebook to find something these detectives might have missed, I know I’m eventually going to have to find additional evidence outside the notebook if I hope to file the case. I’ll eventually fill another notebook with material from my secondary investigation as I conduct new interviews and collect new evidence.
The passage of time sometimes helps me accomplish this goal. I’m often able to use new technology to examine old evidence, and witnesses who were once hesitant may become cooperative over time. The suspect may even say something important over the years or may do something to give himself away. The only way to discover this additional evidence is to start looking outside the casebook.
One of my well-publicized cases is an excellent example of this. The murder was one of many featured on Dateline, and I wrote extensively about it in chapter 4 of God’s Crime Scene. A woman in our city named Lynne Knight was murdered in 1979. The killer used a garrote (a strangulation device constructed with wire and two wooden handles) to commit the crime. The case went cold within a year of the initial investigation, even though the detectives were focused on one primary suspect, Douglas Bradford, a man who dated our victim prior to the murder. The suspect left the garrote at the scene of the crime, but the original detectives couldn’t find any evidence to connect the weapon to Douglas. We reopened the case in 2003 and finally convicted Mr. Bradford in 2014.
The first investigators never conducted a search warrant, but I did many years later. We served the warrant at the home of Bradford’s mother because he lived with her at the time of the crime. Amazingly, we recovered wire from the garage, and this very unusual form of picture-hanging wire was identical to the wire used in the construction of the garrote. Interestingly, Bradford’s mother was a painter, and she kept a large roll of this wire for over three decades, using it to hang her artwork. Bradford evidently used the wire available to him.
In the time that passed between the murder and his arrest, Bradford formed a new relationship with another woman. This second female companion was willing to talk to me and described her conversations with Bradford over the years. These statements implicated him in the murder. In addition, this woman described how Bradford had stalked her in the past. We quickly recognized the similarity with our case: the suspect who killed our victim would have needed to stalk her prior to the murder in order to make sure she was alone. Bradford’s more recent stalking behavior was strikingly similar.
By looking outside the casebook, we were able to collect several key pieces of evidence that strengthened the case against Douglas Bradford. When added to the evidence inside the casebook, we had enough to file the case and convict him.
Forensic Faith Practice #5:
Add to the Biblical Case Evidentially
As an ardent atheist, I scoffed at my Christian friends who continually made the case for what they believed about the Bible by limiting their arguments to verses from the Bible. “Okay, even if you think Jesus said he was God, based on verses from the Bible, why do you believe these verses in the first place? Why do you believe the Bible can be trusted at all? Do you trust the Bible just because the Bible says you can trust it?”
This form of reasoning was less than persuasive for me, and it continues to be less than persuasive for those who question the reliability of the Bible. When that happens, we need to apply this cold-case investigation principle by adding to the biblical case evidentially. The Bible is our Christian “casebook,” and while there is plenty of good evidence inside the book, there will be times when the skeptics will demand more evidence, and they’ll likely want additional evidence from outside the book.
As in my criminal cases, the passage of time can sometimes help us accomplish this goal. If you’re making the case for the existence of Jesus or the reliability of the New Testament, the years have also been kind to your mission. Christian authors weren’t the only people who wrote about Jesus. Over the years, many ancient authors added to the evidential case for Christianity. Once you start looking outside the Christian “casebook,” you’ll be amazed at what you find (I described a small portion of this evidence in Cold-Case Christianity):
Unfriendly “Pagan” Accounts from Outside the Christian “Casebook”
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from non-Christian sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity; some ancient authors denied the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events surrounding His life. But they also provided us with additional evidence supporting the claims of Christianity:
Thallus (ca. AD 5–60)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus, and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But another historian, Sextus Julius Africanus, writing around AD 221, quotes Thallus’s attempt to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’s crucifixion:
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.
If more of Thallus’s record could be found, we might find additional confirmation of Jesus’s crucifixion. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, He was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of His crucifixion.
Tacitus (ca. AD 56–117)
Cornelius Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. He is among the most trusted of historians. In his Annals (written in AD 116), he described Emperor Nero’s effort to blame Christians for the great fire in Rome:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.
Mara Bar-Serapion (ca. AD 70–?)
A Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion wrote to his son and compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other famous philosophers. Mara Bar-Serapion referred to Jesus as the “wise king”:
What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king? … After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men … The wise king … lived on in the teachings he enacted.
This account adds to our understanding of Jesus: He was a wise and influential man who died for His beliefs. The Jewish leadership was somehow responsible for Jesus’s death. Jesus’s followers adopted His beliefs and lived their lives accordingly.
Phlegon (ca. AD 80–140)
Julius Africanus also mentioned a historian named Phlegon, who wrote a chronicle of history around AD 140. Like Thallus, Phlegon also described the darkness surrounding the crucifixion:
Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.
Phlegon was also mentioned by Origen, an early church theologian and scholar born in Alexandria:
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events … but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.
And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place …
Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.
These accounts add even more to our understanding: Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and demonstrated His wounds after He was resurrected.
Pliny the Younger (ca. AD 61–113)
Early Christians were also described outside the Bible, and these descriptions provide us with more information about Jesus. Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) was a lawyer and imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor, he described the lifestyles of early Christians:
They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break any promise, and not to withhold a deposit when reclaimed.
This early description of the first Christians confirms several claims about the person of Jesus: the first Christians believed Jesus was God, and they believed He taught a high moral code.
Suetonius (ca. AD 69–140)
Suetonius (born Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus) was yet another Roman historian (he served under Emperor Hadrian). His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54):
He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus [Christ].
From this account, we know Jesus had an immediate impact on His followers: they were committed to their belief Jesus was God and withstood the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire.
Celsus (ca. AD ?–180)
Celsus was a Greek philosopher who was quite antagonistic to the claims of the Gospels, but in his criticism, he unwittingly affirmed and reinforced the very claims he sought to undermine. His arguments were quoted by the Early Church Father Origen. Celsus referenced nearly eighty different biblical quotes as he railed against Christianity, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admitted the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early second century. The following excerpt is from Origen’s defense against Celsus (the portions of the text that are derived from Celsus are italicized):
He [Celsus] portrays the Jew having a conversation with Jesus himself, refuting him on many charges. First, he [Jesus] fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who made her living by spinning. He says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, when she was convicted of adultery. Then he says that after she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering disgracefully, she secretly bore Jesus. He says that because [Jesus] was poor he hired himself out as a laborer in Egypt, and there learned certain magical powers which the Egyptians are proud to have. He returned full of pride in these powers, and gave himself the title of God.
While Celsus was clearly hostile to the claims of the Christians, he provided yet more evidence of the Christian claims early in history: Jesus was reportedly born of a virgin, had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed “magical powers,” and claimed to be God.
Unfriendly Jewish Accounts from Outside the Christian “Casebook”
In addition to classical “pagan” sources chronicling the life of Jesus and His followers, there are a number of ancient Jewish sources describing Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians, and leaders who were equally hostile to the Christian claims:
Josephus (ca. AD 37–101)
Titus Flavius Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at an early age, became a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century AD. Under the rule of Roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. He included the following passage related to Jesus:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
From this text, we can conclude the following: Jesus lived in Palestine. He was a wise, virtuous man and a teacher with many Jewish and non-Jewish disciples. He was condemned and crucified under Pontius Pilate. His followers reported seeing Him alive three days after the resurrection and believed this was confirmation of His status as the Messiah.
Jewish Talmud (AD 400–700)
While the earliest Talmudic writings of Jewish rabbis appear in the fifth century, the faithful rabbinic copying practices may have delivered reliable teachings from the early “Tannaitic” period (first century BC to the second century AD). Scholars believe there are a number of Talmudic writings referring to Jesus (many of these writings are said to use code words to describe Him). The following passage, however, refers to Jesus in a more direct way:
It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover.
From this single Talmudic passage (ignoring dozens more) we can conclude the following: Jesus had “magical powers,” led many away from their Jewish beliefs, was tried for His actions and claims, and was executed on the day before the Passover.
Take another look at all the evidence for Jesus we’ve discovered outside the “casebook.” The passage of time helped us to collect this additional data, just as it often does in my cold-case investigations. You may have noticed we employed the prior investigative principle here as well: we made a list. If someone were to ask you, “Why do you believe Jesus actually lived and that you can trust what the Bible says about him?” you could now respond by way of a summary:
If every Bible ever printed was destroyed and the only ancient documents we had mentioning Jesus were those written by hostile non-Christians, we’d still know the following: Jesus was a real man who lived in history. He was reportedly born of a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He lived in Judea, in the region known as Palestine. He was wise and righteous. His teaching was so influential that He developed a large following of Jewish and Gentile disciples. He taught His disciples to live with the same virtue He exhibited, and His moral code was exceedingly high. But Jesus was more than a moral teacher: He possessed “magical powers” and had the ability to predict the future accurately. His supernatural acts and teachings persuaded many Jews to walk away from their beliefs. Jesus claimed to be God, and His disciples readily accepted this claim. The Jewish leadership ultimately brought charges against Jesus based on His actions and teachings. He was prosecuted and crucified under Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. There was an earthquake and darkness at the point of the execution. Jesus’s followers reported seeing Him resurrected three days after the crucifixion, however, and Jesus even showed them His wounds. His followers believed the resurrection proved Jesus was the Messiah. They adopted Jesus’s moral teaching and lived their lives accordingly, holding to their belief in His deity, even though it meant they would suffer greatly at the hands of the Roman Empire. They were ultimately persecuted for their faith in Christ. That’s a lot of information from ancient non-Christian sources, and it happens to agree with what the Bible says about Jesus.
The case for the historicity of Jesus is strong. The record found inside the Christian “casebook” is a reliable account of Jesus’s life and ministry, and it is strengthened by the passage of time as additional evidence emerged outside the book. There are many other time-assisted forms of evidence we could examine outside the Christian “casebook.” In Cold-Case Christianity, I offer several examples, including evidence from archaeology. The evidence from additional sources outside the Bible strengthens the case made inside the Bible.
If you’re making the case for God’s existence, the passage of time will also assist your investigation. Current discoveries in science and philosophy only strengthen the case for God’s existence. In God’s Crime Scene, I offer eight pieces of evidence from four very distinct investigative categories, all of which are outside the biblical text:
1. Cosmological Evidence
a. Our universe had a beginning.
b. Our universe appears to be fine-tuned for human life.
2. Biological Evidence
a. Life in our universe emerged from non-life.
b. Biological organisms appear to be designed.
3. Mental Evidence
a. Nonmaterial consciousness emerged from unconscious matter.
b. As humans, we are “free agents” in our otherwise “cause and effect” universe.
4. Moral Evidence
a. Transcendent, objective moral truths exist in our universe.
b. Evil and injustice continue to persist, in spite of our best efforts.
From this evidence list, it is possible to create another important list describing the characteristics of the one “suspect” who could account for this evidence. Based on what we find in the universe, our “suspect” is …
1. “external” to the universe
2. non-spatial, a-temporal, and non-material
3. uncaused
4. powerful enough to create everything we see in the universe
5. specifically purposeful enough to produce a universe fine-tuned for life
6. intelligent and communicative
7. creative and resourceful
8. a conscious mind
9. free to choose (and create) personally
10. the personal source of moral truth and obligation
11. the standard for good by which we define evil
Once again, these lists can help you create a summary, and this summary can help you make the case for God’s existence. If someone were to ask you, “Why do you believe God exists?” you could answer by saying something like this:
The cosmological, biological, mental, and moral evidence in the universe points to a particular kind of suspect who possesses specific characteristics. The evidence is best explained by an “external” suspect who is clearly non-spatial, a-temporal, non-material, and uncaused. Our suspect is also powerful enough to create everything we see in the universe and purposeful enough to produce a universe fine-tuned for life. Our suspect is intelligent and communicative, creative and resourceful. As a conscious Mind, our suspect is the personal source of moral truth and obligation and the standard for goodness. Only one Being can be described in this way; only one suspect can reasonably explain the evidence in the universe. God is the best explanation, based on the evidence from science and philosophy, without any reference to the Bible. This description of God does, however, happen to match the description offered in Scripture.
As before, the evidence outside the Christian “casebook” supports and confirms the evidence inside the “casebook.” With each passing year, the scientific and philosophical evidence continues to grow and point to the existence of a divine creator. So don’t be afraid to look outside the Bible as you examine its claims. Scripture refers to two kinds of divine revelation. The first is available to everyone: God’s existence is obvious from the general revelation of nature:
Psalm 19:1–4
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world.
Romans 1:18–20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
As you read the answer I’ve provided to the question “Why do you believe God exists?” are you able to articulate the categories of evidence I’ve described? Can you make the case for God’s existence from the cosmological, biological, mental, or moral evidence? If not, now is the time to better prepare yourself.
The evidence we see outside the Christian “casebook,” in the universe and in creation, is sufficient for anyone to conclude God exists. We are all “without excuse.” But God has given us even more explicit (and specific) information and evidence. We have the special revelation of the Bible itself:
2 Peter 1:20–21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Timothy 3:16–17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
The special revelation of the Bible is consistent with and confirmed by the natural revelation of the world surrounding us. The case made from inside the Christian “casebook” is made even stronger by the evidence we find outside the book. The evidence we observe in nature (including the scientific evidence) is not opposed to the God described in special revelation. In fact, the evidence points to the existence of God (as I described in God’s Crime Scene).
Does All This Evidence Really “Say” Anything?
At the jury trial of Douglas Bradford, both the prosecutor and defense attorney did their best to convince the jurors that the evidence “said” something about Bradford’s guilt or innocence. This idea, that evidence “says” something, is a commonly repeated claim. I recently conducted a brief Internet search, for example, and discovered the following articles:
“Health Benefits of Tea? Here’s What the Evidence Says”
“Making a Difference in Education: What the Evidence Says”
“Is Print Advertising Dead? The Evidence Says No!”
In each of these stories, the authors wrote as though the evidence had something clear, emphatic, and unmistakable to say. Scientific facts are also often expressed in a similarly unwavering manner, as witnessed in the following online articles:
“ADHD in Adults: What the Science Says”
“The Business Cost of Climate Change: What the Science Says”
“Tumors and Cell Phone Use: What the Science Says”
Ernst Haeckel, the famous German naturalist biologist, once wrote, “Where faith commences science ends.” Have you ever heard someone say something similar when they argue science is incompatible with your Christian beliefs? Have you ever been told, as a Christian, that your beliefs contradict what we know is true scientifically? How would you respond to this common objection about the relationship between Christianity and science? Can you think of two or three things you might say to someone who makes this kind of claim?
These authors also wrote their stories as though there was little room for negotiation—as if the science has spoken definitively without any room for controversy. There is, however, a great deal of controversy related to many of these topics (just as there was disagreement between the attorneys in the Bradford case). Why? Because, as my good friend Frank Turek (author of Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case) points out: “Science doesn’t really ‘say’ anything; scientists do.”
Scientific experiments provide us with data. Historical investigations (including criminal investigations) provide us with facts. The raw data and facts don’t speak, say, or tell us anything. Observers and thinkers assess the data and facts, interpret them, and provide “findings” and “conclusions.” The problem, of course, is that observers and thinkers (whether they are scientists, historians, or just common jurors like you and me) hold presuppositions, and these presuppositional biases affect the way they form conclusions.
If, for example, you are part of a post-enlightenment scientific community, committed to philosophical naturalism (the idea that nothing exists outside the natural realm of the material universe), you’ll find a way to interpret every piece of data to confirm your naturalistic presuppositions, even if the best inference from evidence points to something supernatural. If you are already committed to a particular answer before you investigate a question, you’ll find a way to arrive at the answer you started with.
As a detective, I learned to assemble a “call-out” bag so I would be ready when I was summoned to investigate a murder. My bag included (among other things) note-taking materials, a camera, audio recorder, flashlight, and latex gloves. My bag has become an essential part of my investigative experience.
Let me give you an excellent example. Two young men (B1 and B2) were raised as Christians. Both attended youth groups and pursued their interest in the Bible in their college years. Both attended Christian undergraduate schools (B1 at Wheaton College and B2 at Lebanon Valley College) and earned degrees in biblical studies. Both eventually found their way to Princeton. B1 earned a master’s degree in divinity; B2 earned a bachelor’s and master’s degree in theology. Both men continued their Princeton educations and eventually earned PhDs in biblical studies and ancient languages. Both married believing wives and became authorities on the Bible, examining the same ancient manuscripts and texts. Although both men have examined the same evidence, one is a devout Christian believer, while the other is not.
B1 is Bart Ehrman, the popular bestselling agnostic author of many skeptical books challenging the reliability of Scripture and the deity of Jesus. He presently heads the Bible Department at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, although he is a committed nonbeliever. His authoritative position has contributed to his considerable influence in our culture. Many nonbelievers point to Ehrman when making the case against Christianity.
B2 is Bruce Metzger, the iconic Bible scholar and longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. Bruce’s authority as a biblical scholar was unassailable. Before his death in 2007, he served on the boards of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies, and was considered one of the best biblical scholars of his generation. Bruce was Bart’s professor and mentor at Princeton; Bruce was the master when Bart was the pupil. Both men knew the evidence thoroughly, yet apparently didn’t hear it “say” the same thing.
That’s why it’s so important to be familiar with the evidence itself, as well as what experts say about the evidence. I’ve never seen a jury trial where the expert witnesses got to vote on whether or not the defendant was guilty. Instead, jurors assessed the evidence (along with the experts themselves) and came to their own conclusion. As I described in Cold-Case Christianity, there are several reasons why people (even experts) might reject a truth claim, and not all of them are rational. Emotional and volitional objections are often powerful motivators, and these secondary impetuses are often the reason why someone rejects a claim.
Jesus understood this reality. When His disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables, Jesus cited the prophet Isaiah:
Matthew 13:13–15 (ESV)
This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.
Jesus knew that many of His hearers had a heart problem rather than a head problem. While the evidence was clear, their presuppositions and closed hearts wouldn’t allow them to determine the truth.
So when someone attempts to discredit the Christian worldview or the case for God’s existence by claiming the science or the evidence has already “spoken,” remember: nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence and science haven’t “said” anything; the evaluators have been doing all the talking. If these evaluators are committed to a philosophically natural worldview, it shouldn’t surprise us they would find a way to interpret the evidence to meet their expectations and presuppositions. If you’re careful about your own assumptions and biases, you’ll be able to separate truth from error. I’m confident such an investigation will confirm the truth of theism and the validity of Christianity.