Wallace's Eyewitness Testimony Of A Crime Scene

The author achieved his purpose to investigate the gospels (as well as other New Testament books) in the same manner he would an eyewitness testimony of a crime scene. In the first half of the investigation, Wallace teaches his reader how to be a detective. Initially, he tends to describe detective work like emphasizing the power of circumstantial evidence, the danger of presuppositions, and the critical use of abductive reasoning (distinguishing reasonability versus possibility). He later ties in the process with the Biblical writings, for example, he examines the characteristics of accurate eyewitness, to which the gospels interestingly line up with (the witnesses, who clearly had no motive to lie, were present for the Christ events and gave
accurate and honest testimonies which could be verified by evidence). Wallace insists that we follow the truth (which is generally feasible, straightforward, exhaustive, and logical). The second part of the book is where the bulk of the case-making material can be found. As Wallace put it in a nutshell, “All four accounts are written from a different perspective and contain unique details that are specific to the eyewitnesses.” He lays out the gospels, like actual crime eyewitness testimonies, are distinctive, idiosyncratic, personal, and reliable. He addresses many of the attacks, such as the “Q argument,” and how these while possible are simply unreasonable. The author does an excellent job pointing out how a naturalistic worldview will create a biased presupposition and therefore an unfair analysis. Wallace gives a concise overview on separating artifacts from evidence, testing the reliability of witness, and resisting conspiracy theories. Though he mentions and describes the “Chain of Custody,” he does not actually analyze it until part 2 of the book. With the reader now counseled on how to read the gospels like detectives, Wallace delves into the gospels with a detailed, comprehensive, and objective analysis. He was able to reasonably conclude that the gospels were present, corroborated, accurate, and unbiased (the crucial prerequisites of an accurate eyewitness testimony). The gospels were written early (in the 1st century during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses) and recited to the students of the apostles. The texts we have today are consistent. The gospel writers reported what they observed, and the claims are the gospels are consistent with the claims of other contemporary evidences. The explanation that the gospels are feasible, straightforward, and logical…exhausting all the evidence, and is a superior story to the alternative explanations. What stuck out most to me was how the author addressed the issue of textual artifacts in Chapter 6.
It troubles me how insertions were added to the canon by scribes, but that many versions of the Bible fail to separate these late additions from the original gospel material. These artifacts should be treated not as the holy scripture (inspired by God), but rather as what they are. Brackets and footnotes are great tools that can be used for separating comments (which are usually in place to clarify Biblical context) from authentic sound doctrine. In fact, I really wish he had given ALL the textual insertions just so I could know what is what. However, Wallace gives a very helpful illustration of why we skeptics shouldn’t let missing and extra pieces to the puzzle discount the reliability and authenticity of the Bible. We have plenty enough of the puzzle pieces to see the big picture, and while there are some parts that either are absent (that do belong) or extra parts (that don’t), we can still easily make out the main idea. Critics will focus on the “micro” to distract from the “macro.” In Chapter 11, the author lays out a simple, helpful timeline of the gospels in chronological order: Mark writes his gospel (AD 45-50), Luke writes his gospel, (AD 50-3), Paul quotes Luke in his letters (53-7), Luke writes Acts (57-60). In the book, The Case for Christ, the author (Lee Strobel) stated that Acts was the first book of the New Testament to be written. I found this to be a confusing contradiction between apologists. In Chapter 9, the author makes a great argument for theism on the topic of the problem of evil. In summary, he concludes that because all of mankind possesses a transcending sense of right and wrong, the reasonable explanation is God is the “good standard” to which we measure “bad.” In his own words, “the existence of true evil necessitates the presence of God as a standard of true virtue.” This was extremely helpful for me because the problem of evil was
and probably is still the biggest emotional/spiritual issue holding back my faith. The book’s main strength was that it gave a nonbiased, thorough, and user-friendly analysis of the influential books in history, making it a very helpful read for Christians, atheists, and everyone in between. I would highly recommend this book in every apologetics class, as it holds the gospels to the same fair trial as people would with any other historical manuscript or actual court case. In a way, all Wallace had to do was provide historical circumstantial evidence, and the case for the gospels pretty much made itself. Even though it would significantly elongate the book, I think its only weakness was that it gave many, but not all examples of evidence supporting the reliability of the gospels. Since he went into intensive detail on many things, he might as well address all relating pieces of evidence. In conclusion, his main message was that some Christians are gifted with evangelism, prophecy, or service, we should all be case-makers for the Christian worldview and its source, the Bible.