Undesigned coincidences in the Bible, A police detective’s perspective
By Joel Furches
Jim Warner Wallace is a Cold Case Homicide detective in California. Decades ago, when Wallace first began reading the Bible out of curiosity, he began spotting benchmarks similar to witness statements he was familiar with reviewing as a Police Detective. These were most obvious within the books that described Jesus’ ministry and claim to be eyewitness accounts. The fact is that, to Jim, they looked like eyewitness accounts.
The claim that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts runs counter to what many current Bible Scholars believe. In his lecture series The Quest: The Historian’s Search for Jesus and Muhammad, scholar F. E. Peters nicely summarized what a significant number of historians believe. He says that the Gospels were produced decades or centuries after Jesus life based on two sources: the Gospel of Mark, which they believe was written early, and contains a rudimentary outline of Jesus’ deeds; and a theoretical document called “Q” which they believed was a mostly oral tradition of Jesus’ teachings.
If this claim is true, then none of the Gospels, except for possibly Mark, were authored by eyewitnesses or anyone that had access to eyewitness statements except for third hand traditions handed down orally.
This is a claim which historians base entirely on textual criticism, a process that involves reading the text and then trying to explain the similarities and differences. What textual criticism does not allow for is the possibility that the similarities and differences could exist because these are, in fact, eyewitness statements.
This columnist recently interviewed Jim Warner Wallace about findings…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
RECOMMENDED RESOURCE FOR FURTHER READING: