Book Club Questions for Cold-Case Christianity

1.Wallace describes himself as a "professional skeptic" who came to faith not through an emotional experience but through an investigation. What is your own starting posture toward the claims of Christianity — believer, skeptic, or somewhere in between? How does knowing the author's background affect the way you approach this book?

2.Wallace distinguishes between "faith" as blind belief and faith as "trust based on evidence." Why does this distinction matter for how we engage with Christianity? How have you previously understood the relationship between faith and evidence?

3.The book is built on the analogy of Christianity as a "cold case" — an event from the distant past with no living eyewitnesses available for cross-examination. What makes cold cases uniquely difficult to prosecute? What tools does a detective still have available, and how might those tools apply to evaluating historical claims about Jesus?

1.Wallace opens with the idea of "presuppositions" — the background beliefs we bring to any investigation that can skew our interpretation of evidence before we even look at it. What presuppositions about Christianity or religion do you recognize in yourself? Are they helping you think clearly or getting in the way?

2.He introduces the concept of "methodological naturalism" — the assumption that only natural explanations can ever count as valid in an investigation. Why is this a problem if you are trying to investigate whether a miracle occurred? Is it possible to investigate the supernatural fairly while assuming it cannot exist?

3.Wallace argues that the best investigators enter a scene with an "open but not empty" mind. What is the difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed? How can you hold your existing beliefs loosely without abandoning them prematurely?

1.Wallace introduces "abductive reasoning" — reasoning to the best explanation — as the primary logical tool of the detective. In your own words, how does abductive reasoning differ from deductive reasoning (which moves from guaranteed premises to certain conclusions)? Which do you use more often in daily life?

2.He uses the example of arriving at a crime scene and "reading" the evidence to infer what happened, even though no one saw the crime occur. How does this analogy apply to reading the New Testament accounts of the Resurrection? What kind of "evidence" would a detective look for?

3.Wallace argues that inference to the best explanation is not guesswork — it is disciplined, eliminative, and accountable to the facts. What disciplines or guardrails keep abductive reasoning from becoming mere speculation? How would you apply those guardrails to a theological or historical claim?

1.Wallace argues that circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence — it can actually be more reliable in certain respects. What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence? Why might multiple independent pieces of circumstantial evidence be more convincing than a single eyewitness account?

2.He gives the illustration of a "chain" of circumstantial evidence, where each link on its own might be weak but the combined chain becomes very strong. What are some of the circumstantial evidences he identifies for the reliability of the New Testament? Which do you find most compelling at this stage?

3.Wallace applies this thinking to cases he has personally prosecuted, demonstrating that juries convict — and should convict — based on circumstantial evidence all the time. Does this change the way you think about what counts as sufficient evidence in matters of faith? Why or why not?

1.Wallace lays out several criteria detectives use to evaluate whether a witness is telling the truth. What are those criteria? Which ones do you think are most important, and why?

2.He introduces the concept of evaluating whether a witness had the opportunity to observe what they claim to have observed. How does this apply to the Gospel writers? What evidence suggests the authors — or their direct sources — were in a position to witness the events they describe?

3.Wallace discusses the importance of asking whether a witness has a motive to lie or exaggerate. What would the disciples have gained, in worldly terms, by fabricating the Resurrection story? What did they actually stand to lose by telling it? How does this affect your assessment of their credibility?

1.Wallace describes the detective discipline of paying close attention to the specific, unguarded details in a witness's statement — the throwaway remarks that a liar would never think to fabricate. What examples does he give from his case work? What makes incidental details so diagnostically valuable?

2.He applies this principle to the Gospel accounts, pointing to details that seem unnecessary but reflect deep eyewitness familiarity — things like specific names, geographic descriptions, and exact numbers. Can you identify one or two examples he gives? Why would a forger be unlikely to include this kind of detail?

3.Wallace discusses the phenomenon of "undesigned coincidences" — places where two Gospel accounts, read independently, each supply a detail that only makes complete sense when both are read together. Have you encountered this kind of interlocking detail before? What does it suggest about the independence and reliability of the sources?

1.Wallace introduces the distinction between an "artifact" — something present at the scene that is incidental to the crime — and genuine "evidence" that actually bears on the case. How does this distinction apply when reading the Gospels? What kinds of difficulties or apparent contradictions might be artifacts rather than evidence of dishonesty?

2.He discusses the phenomenon of witnesses who tell the same event differently — focusing on different details, sequencing events differently, emphasizing different aspects. Why is some degree of variation between accounts actually a mark of independent testimony rather than collusion? When does variation become contradiction?

3.Wallace draws on his experience with the "telephone game" — how a story degrades as it passes from person to person — to evaluate how quickly the Gospel traditions were recorded and circulated. What evidence does he cite for early dating of the New Testament documents? Why does early dating matter for their reliability?

1.Wallace now shifts from general detective principles to applying them specifically to the Gospel accounts. The first question he asks is whether the Gospel writers — or their immediate sources — were eyewitnesses to what they report. What is the traditional identification of the four Gospel authors, and what evidence supports placing them (or their primary sources) at the scene?

2.He draws particular attention to the Gospel of Mark as likely reflecting the eyewitness testimony of the Apostle Peter. What evidence does he cite — from both early church sources and from the internal texture of Mark's Gospel — for this connection? Why would a detective find this kind of "chain of custody" significant?

3.Wallace uses the metaphor of an artist painting a portrait: someone close to the subject will include details that only proximity could supply. What "proximity details" does he identify in the Gospels — moments where the text seems to carry the texture of personal memory rather than secondhand report?

1.Wallace argues that the Gospel accounts can be tested against external, non-Christian sources — both Roman and Jewish — that corroborate key details about Jesus, his ministry, his execution, and the early church's claims. What specific external sources does he cite, and what do each of them confirm?

2.He discusses the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others. Why is it significant that hostile or indifferent sources — people with no stake in promoting Christianity — confirm core facts about Jesus? How does this parallel the way detectives weigh reluctant witnesses?

3.Wallace introduces the idea that the Gospels corroborate each other as independent sources — meaning the same event, reported by different authors who did not simply copy one another, provides stronger confirmation than a single account. How does he establish that the Gospel writers are functioning as independent witnesses rather than copying a single source?

1.Wallace examines whether the Gospels are internally consistent — meaning they do not contradict themselves in ways that would disqualify a witness in court. How does he handle the apparent discrepancies between Gospel accounts (for example, different details about the women at the tomb or the wording of the inscription on the cross)? Are his harmonizations convincing to you?

2.He stresses the importance of distinguishing between a contradiction and a "different perspective on the same event." Two accurate witnesses describing an accident from different angles will describe different details. How do you apply this principle when you encounter a difficult passage in the Gospels?

3.Wallace points out that the Gospel writers include details that were publicly verifiable in their own day — naming specific people, places, and events that contemporary readers could check. How does this public accountability affect the likelihood that the authors would have included false or embellished material?

1.Wallace acknowledges that the Gospel writers were not neutral observers — they were passionate believers in what they had witnessed. Does passion or personal investment automatically invalidate a witness's testimony? How do detectives navigate testimony from witnesses who clearly care deeply about the outcome?

2.He distinguishes between bias that distorts testimony and perspective that simply shapes which details a witness notices and emphasizes. Can you think of examples from your own experience where two people both told the truth about the same event but emphasized completely different aspects of it?

3.Wallace argues that the disciples' bias actually works against the fabrication hypothesis: if they were making up the story, they would have constructed a more flattering version — one where they don't fall asleep in the garden, where Peter doesn't deny Jesus three times, where none of them abandon Jesus at the cross. Why do these embarrassing details actually increase the credibility of the accounts?

1.Wallace introduces the cosmological argument — the argument from the existence and beginning of the universe to the existence of a First Cause. How does he frame this as a detective problem? What "evidence at the scene" points toward a cause that is outside the universe?

2.He argues that the universe had a beginning — supported by the Big Bang cosmology — and that whatever began to exist must have a cause. Walk through this argument step by step. Where do you find it most persuasive? Where do you have questions or objections?

3.Wallace asks: what must the First Cause be like, given what we observe about the universe? What properties does he infer — timelessness, spacelessness, immense power, non-material existence? How does this description compare to the God described in Genesis 1 and John 1?

1.Wallace introduces the fine-tuning argument: the observation that the fundamental constants of physics are calibrated to an astonishing degree of precision to permit life. What are some of the examples he gives of these "just right" conditions? How fine is the tuning, and what are the odds of it occurring by chance?

2.He uses detective reasoning to argue that the appearance of design is most reasonably explained by an actual designer. How is this different from claiming that everything we don't understand must have a designer? What specific features of the universe push the argument beyond mere appearance?

3.Wallace addresses the multiverse hypothesis — the idea that if there are infinitely many universes, at least one of them would have life-permitting constants by chance. How does he evaluate this as an alternative explanation? What are its strengths and weaknesses as a response to the fine-tuning argument?

1.Wallace presents the moral argument for God's existence: the observation that objective moral truths (e.g., torturing children for fun is wrong) seem to exist independently of what any individual or culture believes. How does he develop this argument in detective terms? What "evidence at the scene" of moral experience points toward a moral Lawgiver?

2.He distinguishes between moral relativism (morality is culturally constructed) and moral realism (some things are genuinely, objectively wrong regardless of what anyone thinks). Where do you land on this spectrum? Have you ever encountered a situation where you felt something was wrong — not just that you disliked it — but genuinely, universally wrong?

3.Wallace points out that moral relativists typically argue from moral absolutes — they say things like "it is wrong to impose your morality on others," which is itself a moral absolute. Have you noticed this self-refuting tendency in conversations about morality? How would you press on it gently in a real conversation?

1.Wallace introduces what philosophers call the "hard problem of consciousness" — the difficulty of explaining why and how purely physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective, first-person experience. Why is this a problem for a purely materialist worldview? Why doesn't "the brain does it" fully answer the question?

2.He argues that the existence of consciousness — of minds that have beliefs, intentions, and subjective experiences — is best explained by a conscious Creator who designed conscious creatures. How does this argument complement the cosmological and design arguments from the previous chapters? What does it add that they don't supply?

3.Wallace points out the irony that atheists use their rational minds to argue that rational minds are nothing more than the accidental byproduct of non-rational physical forces. Does this undermine the atheist's ability to trust their own reasoning? How would you press on this in a conversation?

1.Wallace frequently says that a good detective doesn't just collect evidence — they eventually have to reach a verdict and act on it. Having worked through the entire book, what is your verdict? Has your confidence in the reliability of the Gospels and the existence of God increased, decreased, or remained the same? What moved you most?

2.Look back over the detective principles from Section 1 (don't be a know-it-all, learn to infer, think circumstantially, test your witnesses, hang on every word, separate artifacts from evidence). Which of these principles has most changed the way you read the Bible or think about faith? Give a specific example.

3.Wallace applies four witness tests to the Gospel writers in Section 2: were they present, corroborated, accurate, and unbiased? Which of these four tests do you find most reassuring? Which raises the most questions in your mind that you still want to explore?