Stand to Reason Blog

Why Understanding Criminal Motive Is So Important to Christians

Last night, as part of an apologetics series at Grace Fellowship Church, we examined the alternative explanations for the empty tomb of Jesus. One possible explanation suggests the disciples stole the body and conspired to lie about the resurrection appearances. As a skeptic, I believed this was perhaps the most reasonable explanation for the empty tomb, but the more I came to understand what motivates people to lie, murder (or commit any sin at all), the less reasonable this explanation became. As a homicide detective, “motive detection” became an important part of my work. When entering a murder scene, it’s tempting to become overwhelmed with the possibilities. Why did this happen? Who would do such a thing? What could have motivated this? When I was a young investigator, I was sometimes overcome by the possibilities. But as I worked case after case, however, I came to realize murders occur for only one of three reasons. As it turns out, these same three reasons lie at the heart of every other crime as well. In fact, every time you’ve ever done something wrong, you did it for one of these three reasons:

Financial Greed
This is often the driving force behind the crimes I investigate. Some murders, for example, result from a botched robbery. Other murders take place simply because they give the suspect a financial advantage.

Sexual Lust (or Relational Desire)
I’ve also investigated a number of murders sexually (or relationally) motivated. Some sexual attackers murder their victims so they can’t testify later. Some murders occur simply because a jealous boyfriend couldn’t bear to see his girlfriend dating another man.

The Pursuit of Power
Finally, some people commit murders to achieve or maintain a position of power or authority. It might be a rivalry between two people who are trying to get the same promotion. Others have killed simply because the victim dishonored or “disrespected” them in front of a group of peers.

That’s it. Nothing more. When I enter a murder scene, I simply ask myself a question: Who would have benefited from the perspective of money, sex or power? My suspect will eventually fit into one of these three categories. When presenting this set of motives to groups across the nation, some have offered additional categories. What about jealousy, hatred, revenge or anger? “Motive detection” requires us to ask what is causing the jealousy, hatred, revenge or anger. When we seek the root causes, we end up back in the three simple categories I’ve already described. What about insanity; is this an additional category? No. The mentally insane are a group for which we can’t ask traditional questions of motive. Their actions are unpredictable and often inexplicable simply because of their mental instability.

Why are these three motives so important to us as Christians? “Motive detection” can help us spot heresy and confirm the reliability of the Gospels. Every heretical movement in history was driven by a leader who possessed one of these three simple motives. Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) for example, possessed all three motives. He was repeatedly supported by his followers financially, took over 30 wives as the prophet of the church, and at one time commanded the largest standing militia in the North American continent (with the exception of the United States armed forces). While not everyone who possesses motive actually acts on their desire, I’ve yet to convict a defendant who didn’t have a motive to begin with. The fact Smith possessed sufficient motive does not necessarily make him a liar, but the foundational drives were certainly in place.

When we examine the 1^st Century disciples of Jesus through the lens of motives and desires, we end up in a very different place, however. If the disciples stole the body of Jesus and lied about the resurrection, they did it for one of the same three reasons we’ve already discussed. Which motive could have driven them to do such a thing?

Financial Greed?
None of the disciples or apostles gained anything financially from their claims. In fact, it appears John and James left respectable employment with their family to enter into the financial hardship known to the apostles (as described in the Book of Acts and by Paul in his letters). No one got rich.

Sexual Lust (or Relational Desire)?
Given the repeated admonitions related to sexual purity in the New Testament, the apostles and disciples garnered a reputation for sexual reservation and modesty known to the world around them. No one got girlfriends.

The Pursuit of Power?
Paul was already a respected and established leader within the Jewish religious elite, given the responsibility of persecuting Christians. It’s unlikely the pursuit of power drove him to leave his success to start anew with the very group he formerly persecuted. The apostles became part of a hated class within the Roman Empire. There’s a big difference between seeking fame and enduring infamy. No one got powerful.

Once we understand what motivates us to do what we shouldn’t, it’s a lot easier to examine the history of Christianity (and all the heretical movements along the way). In the end, motives drive actions. As we learn more about motive, we can grow in our confidence related to the apostles, and better understand why heretical splinter movements have emerged over history.

Is Christian Education Simply a Matter of Religious Indoctrination?

My good friend Brett Kunkle and I have been working diligently to address a dilemma facing the Church: the departure of young Christians who walk away from Christianity in their college years. We’ve had great success with youth groups when we’ve been able to convince their leaders to stop teaching and start training. I’ve been writing recently about the model I employed with my own youth group using the acronym T.R.A.I.N. In response to a recent post, however, two commenters described this effort as nothing more than religious indoctrination:

“I wish more parents would teach both sides of the argument, like a good professor would, and let the children decide for themselves. If I'm not mistaken, you're not recommending critical thinking; on the contrary, you're recommending a more rigorous indoctrination strategy.”

“If Christianity is true then I can see how this would help to further its growth, but if it's not true then doesn't this look like indoctrination? …Why not give up trying to control them and start to empower them to make their own decisions? Give them all the opinions and options for religious belief and let them pick what they think is right from a young age.”

Is our effort to train our Christian students nothing more than a biased, aggressive form of religious indoctrination? As someone who was a non-believer for most of my life, I think it’s possible (and necessary) to train students how to think, rather than simply tell them what to think:

A Reasoned Conviction Is Different Than a Prior Bias
As a Christian, I have beliefs, just like all my non-Christian friends. The real question is whether my beliefs are justifiably true. I was inclined against Christianity for 35 years; I entered the investigation with a bias against the Christian worldview. At some point, however, I concluded the truth of the Christian claims were the most reasonable inference from the evidence. I arrived at a reasoned conviction. As I now share what I’ve learned with others, I’m not teaching from a bias (an unfair, unwarranted prejudice in favor of Christianity), but from a reasonable conviction in light of the evidence.

Everyone Teaches From Their Reasoned Convictions
Everyone has a set of personal beliefs they’ve adopted for one reason or another. Hopefully these beliefs are reasonably grounded in evidence. No one teaches without such beliefs. Do we really think professors in the university setting are providing students with “all the opinions and options for religious belief” and allowing students to “pick what they think is right”? Do we really think university professors are accurately or fairly characterizing Christianity to their students? Not likely. The burden to teach fairly from our reasoned convictions (rather than our unwarranted, personal biases) is a shared responsibility. All of us struggle in this area; Christians are not the only ones who bear this responsibility.

Reasonable Christian Convictions Can Withstand Scrutiny
When training young people, I never feel like I have to stack the deck in favor of Christianity. In fact, I typically start by role playing as the old, unbelieving Jim, challenging Christian students with all the objections I frequently offered when I was an atheist. My goal is to show students how unreasonable their defenses are when they aren’t rooted in evidence. I begin by providing the atheistic alternatives in a robust form, being careful not to mischaracterize my old claims or create straw men arguments. I’m very comfortable presenting the alternatives in their strongest formulations because I am confident the Christian worldview provides a more rational explanation in light of the evidence and our common experience as humans. We demonstrate this reality by applying the laws of logic (and examining their origin) to the claims of atheism as they are presented by the atheists themselves. I encourage young Christians to read the best-selling books, websites and blogs of popular atheists. When students learn how to think carefully and examine the foundations of theistic and atheistic claims, they can make decisions about which worldview best represents and accounts for the reality in which they live.

Christian training, as I’ve proposed it here at Cold Case Christianity, is not indoctrination. We don’t want students to accept the claims of Christianity uncritically without consideration of other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. In fact, I believe the comparison of ideas serves the Christian cause powerfully. The strength of theism is often recognized more readily when contrasted with the limits of atheism. While the approach we’ve taken with students has been wildly successful in preparing them and strengthening their Christian beliefs, not every student emerges from this process as a Christian (further evidence the approach we take is fair and non-coercive). Students walk away from Christianity for a number of reasons and many of these have nothing to do with a reasoned examination of Christianity’s truth claims. But those who take the investigation seriously emerge with incredible confidence. They are prepared for whatever they may face in the university setting.

There's No Need to Panic (If What We Believe Is True)

Sometimes it’s hard to stay calm. But composure is typically an external expression of internal confidence. I’ve worked with SWAT officers who were the epitome of calmness in even the most harrowing situations. They never flinched; they never panicked. They knew we were well trained and prepared to address whatever challenge we could face. I think of these officers often as I navigate conversations with people who don’t share my Christian worldview; even people who aggressively oppose something I’ve written or recorded. Those of us who make a public defense of Christianity are likely to encounter strong disagreement on occasion. Sometimes this opposition is pointed, personal, venomous or shrill. I’ve seen some Christian case makers respond in a similar manner, quickly escalating the toxicity of the interaction until both sides are engaged in a frightful slugfest. If our beliefs about Jesus and the worldview He espoused are true, however, there’s really no need for such a panicky response.

Most of us are familiar with the “fight or flight” syndrome we observe in nature. When animals are in a weakened position and facing an eminent danger, they typically fight or run away. They remain calm and unmoved, however, when they are in a superior position and feel unthreatened. When we, as Christians, respond to a challenge with inappropriate aggression or hostility, we expose our own concerns about the strength of our position. This sometimes happens because we haven’t done the important work of examining the evidence to know the truth of Christianity with justifiable certainty. We happen to believe something that’s true without really knowing why it’s true. As a result, minor challenges sometimes seem daunting. Doubt and fear become a factor in our interaction. Panic emerges, and with it, the kind of behavior we sometimes see in the comment sections of popular blogs.

If you’ve ever caught yourself responding in a harsh, angry or toxic manner, step back and take a deep breath. Ask a few simple questions: Why am I in “attack” or “panic mode” if I possess the truth? Do I still have some unexamined doubt? What does my attitude express about my confidence? What do I need to study or learn to be better prepared so my internal certainty will result in external confidence? I’ve come to recognize times of anxiety as indicators. If I sense a twinge of panic, I look for the place of weakness in my knowledge. Once I’ve identified it, I can begin training. If I apply myself, these areas will shrink in size and my confidence and calmness will begin to grow once again.

If you already see yourself as a Christian Case Maker, you’re probably familiar with 1 Peter 3:15. Most of us, however, are more focused on the first half of this verse than the second:

“… but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”

Most exchanges we see online between Christians and non-believers are anything but “gentle” or “reverent.” Why is this true? I suspect it’s because we fail to see the connection between the first and second part of 1 Peter 3:15. The more you prepare yourself for battle, the calmer and more poised you will be in the height of the struggle. The more “ready” you are, the more “gentle” and “reverent” you will be. The Christian worldview is reasonable and evidential. As Christians, our external demeanor should reflect an internal certainty grounded in this evidence. If we have an informed faith, we’ll be prepared to proclaim passionately without panicking publicly.

What Do "Artificial Life" Projects Demonstrate About the Need for a Divine Creator?

For many years now, scientists have been working feverishly to create “artificial life” in the laboratory. Researchers and scientists expect to announce success within just a few years, declaring victory in the rarified field known as “wet artificial life” research. Their goals are ambitious. They must first create a container (or membrane) for the synthetic cell. This membrane must prevent unwanted or destructive molecules from entering the new synthetic protocell, while allowing beneficial and necessary molecules to enter. The container must also allow these molecules to multiply. Scientists must next create a genetic system capable of guiding and controlling the functions of the new cell. This system must direct and allow reproduction within the cell and regulate sufficient mutation to adapt to environmental changes. Finally scientists must create a metabolism capable of allowing raw materials to be extracted from the surrounding environment so they can be processed as food and converted into energy. These are lofty goals but necessary for life to exist at a minimal level. Even the most primitive single cell organism must be structurally sound, capable of metabolizing and able to reproduce. Scientists may indeed be very close to achieving creating such a synthetic organism, and if they do, their work will demonstrate the level of design and intelligent interaction necessary for life to emerge in the universe.

“Wet Artificial Life” projects require a high degree of intelligent human interaction. Scientists must repeatedly create, catalyze, engage or protect aspects of the design process in order to successfully guide the development of the cell. Their interaction demonstrates the critical need for a powerful Creator:

They’re Controlling the Creative Environment
Before scientists can begin to organize and configure the chemical elements required to build the protocell, they’ve got to create a specific environment friendly to the process of creation. This environment does not reflect the harsh nature of the early earth. As a result, these experiments will not provide answers to the question of life’s origin. In controlling the environment in this way, scientists are acting creatively even before the work begins.

They’re Relying on Pre-Existing “Scratch”
Scientists might claim they are creating life from “scratch” but, in reality, they can’t account for how these “scratch” chemicals and nucleotides entered into existence in the first place. We can’t bake without flour, sugar or basic cooking ingredients. The same is true in these experiments. But, how did these cooking ingredients get in the kitchen to begin with? Scientists draw from a well-stocked pantry without questioning the source of these pantry items.

They’re Using Fatty Acids
Most scientists in this field use fatty acids to shape and create the membrane wall for the artificial cell. When scientists use these building blocks (acids), they are already jumping well ahead of the alleged “evolutionary” curve by employing a relatively complex set of biological components. When employing fatty acids in this way, scientists are no longer building life from base chemicals. They are jumping much farther along in the process, and using building blocks that are themselves incredibly difficult to form naturally. The evolutionary process has the burden of having to account for the initial formation of acids such as these in the first place, and these acids are incredibly difficult to account for, given their chance improbabilities.

They’re Controlling the Probabilities
Controlling this numerical probability appears to be a key strategy for these scientists. Many attempt to “kick start” the process necessary for the creation of a genetic system by adding nucleotides in their proper proportions. But this requires a high degree of intelligent interaction. Philosophical naturalists have to imagine a scenario in which a vast number of nucleotides can combine without any outside intervention, and statistical probability models for this are staggeringly prohibitive. There isn’t enough time in the history of the planet for this to occur randomly. Outside of the controlled laboratory environment, unguided naturalism cannot account for the vast assemblage of highly organized genetic material.

They’re Controlling the Proportions
In addition to this, a creative force is required to provide the proper proportions. Even if scientists could create new genetic bases, these bases would still have to be properly arranged if they are ever to amount to anything. The order of bases must eventually provide information. The arrangement is critical and specific; it requires an intelligent, creative mechanism. Naturalism would require tens of thousands of nucleotides to come together in a prescribed order to have enough genetic information to form even the simplest living cell. The mathematical probability is astronomical.

They’re Controlling the Resulting Environment
Finally, scientists admit the resulting protocell is far too fragile to exist in the natural environment of the early earth. In fact, scientists suspect the cell will be weak and unlikely to survive more than an hour in the protection of the lab. The iconic “last universal common ancestor” (LUCA), at the base of the evolutionary tree, appears to be fragile and fleeting.

Artificial life projects repeatedly demonstrate the need for consistent, diligent and aggressive interaction on the part of intelligent agents. These projects fail to replicate the conditions of the early earth or rely upon natural forces alone to accomplish the complex and ambitious biological constructions necessary for primitive life. Wet Artificial Life projects demonstrate the need for a powerful, Divine Creator.

Good Reasons to Believe Peter Is the Source of Mark's Gospel

The authorship of Mark’s Gospel is of great importance to those of us making a case for the reliability of the New Testament. Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. How did Mark get his information about Jesus? Why should we consider his information to be reliable? There are several good reasons to believe Peter is the trustworthy source of information for Mark, beginning with the historical attributions of the early Church Fathers who affirm the relationship Mark and Peter had in the 1^st Century. Beyond this, however, there are additional evidences within Mark’s text supporting the claim Peter (Mark’s mentor in Rome) is the source for Mark’s information. I’ve described the evidential case in much more detail in Cold-Case Christianity, but this brief summary may be helpful:

The Writing Style Is Consistent With Mark’s Background
The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a writing style and literary syntax exposing the author’s first language as something other than Greek. In fact, the writing style seems to indicate the author’s first language was probably a Semitic language such as Aramaic. This would be consistent with the idea Mark, a Palestinian Jew (who most likely spoke Aramaic), was the author of the Gospel. In addition to this, the Gospel of Mark includes a number of vivid and tangential details unnecessary to the narrative, but consistent with observations of an eyewitness to the events. This would indicate the author had access to an eyewitness such as Peter.

The Outline of the Gospel Is Consistent With Peter’s Outline
Papias maintained the Gospel of Mark was simply a collection of Peter’s discourses (or his preaching) as this information was received and recalled by Mark. If we examine the typical preaching style of Peter in the Book of Acts (1:21-22 and Acts 10:37-41 for example) we see Peter always limited his preaching to the public life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel omits the private birth narrative and other details of Jesus’ life described in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew. Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist and ends with the resurrection and ascension, paralleling the public preaching of Peter as we see it summarized in the Book of Acts.

The Omissions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence
There are many details in the Gospel of Mark consistent with Peter’s special input and influence, including omissions related to events involving Peter. How can Mark be a memoir of Peter if, in fact, the book contains so many omissions of events involving Peter specifically? It’s important to evaluate the entire catalogue of omissions pertaining to Peter to understand the answer here. The vast majority of these omissions involve incidents in which Peter did or said something rash or embarrassing. It’s not surprising these details were omitted by the author who wanted to protect Peter’s standing in the Christian community. Mark was quite discreet in his retelling of the narrative (other Gospel writers who were present at the time do, however, provide details of Peters ‘indiscretions’ in their own accounts). Here are some examples of Petrine Omissions grounded in an effort to minimize embarrassment to Peter (see Cold-Case Christianity for a more detailed explanation of the events summarized here):

Peter’s shame at the “Miraculous Catch”
(Mark 1:16-120 compared to Luke 5:1-11)

Peter’s foolish statement at the crowded healing
(Mark 5:21-34 compared to Luke 8:42-48)

Peter’s lack of understanding related to the parable
(Mark 7:14-19 compared to Matthew 15:10-18 and Acts 10:9-16)

Peter’s lack of faith on the lake
(Mark 6:45 compared to Matthew 14:22-33)

Peter’s rash statement to Jesus
(Mark 8:31-33 compared to Matthew 16:21-23)

Peter’s statement related to money
(Mark 10:23-31 compared to Matthew 19:23-30)

Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial
(Mark 14:27-31 compared to Luke 22:31-34 and John 13:34-38)

Peter’s behavior at the foot-washing
(Mark 14:22-26 compared to John 13:2-9)

Peter’s denial and Jesus’ direct stare
(Mark 14:66-72 compared to Luke 22:54-62)

There are a number of places in the Gospel of Mark where details related specifically to the words and actions of Peter have been omitted in what appears to be an effort to protect Peter from embarrassment. This doesn’t mean Peter failed to talk about these things. He may very well have included them in his sermons and teachings. But Mark, his scribe and close friend, simply chose to omit these details related to Peter, either at Peter’s request or on his own initiative.

The Inclusions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence
In addition to the omissions we have cited, there are a number of details included in Mark’s Gospel demonstrating Peter’s involvement and connection to Mark. As we describe a few of them, notice these inclusions are relatively minor and don’t seem to add much to the narrative. Their incidental nature is an indicator the author lacked a motive other than to simply include Peter’s perspective in the account. Peter’s involvement appears to have been faithfully recorded by his scribe and assistant, Mark:

Peter’s search for Jesus
(Mark 1:35-37)

Peter’s house in Capernaum
(Mark 2:1-5 and 1:21, 29-31 compared to Matthew 4:13-16)

Peter’s identification of the fig tree
(Mark 11:20-21 compared to Matthew 21:18-19)

Peter’s identification of the disciples
(Mark 13:1-4 and Matthew 24:1-3)

Respecting the limits and brief nature of blog posts, I’ve restricted my description of these internal details (compared to how I’ve described them in the book), but the verse locations should help you discover them for yourself. There is a reasonable, cumulative, circumstantial case pointing to Peter as the source of information for Mark’s Gospel. Remember, circumstantial evidence can be every bit as determinative as direct evidence in a court of law. The strength of such a case is based on the depth, quantity and quality of the individual pieces:

A. Biblical Passages Confirm a Relationship Between Mark and Peter

B. External Sources From History Tell Us Mark Wrote Peter’s Memoir

C. Internal Indicators Reveal Peter’s Direct Influence on Mark’s Gospel

There is sufficient cumulative, circumstantial evidence to conclude Mark did, in fact, form his Gospel from the teaching and preaching of the Apostle Peter. If this is the case, Mark’s Gospel was written within the lifetime of Mark (and likely within the lifetime of Peter). If the Gospel of Mark was written this early, it would have undergone the scrutiny of those who were actually present and could have exposed Mark as a liar:

2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

How to T.R.A.I.N. Christian Students (Rather Than Teach Them)

I’ve written repeatedly about why the Church needs to stop teaching students about their faith. Young Christians are leaving the Church in tremendous numbers during their college years, and our efforts to teach them has been incapable of reducing this rate of attrition. That’s why it’s time to stop teaching students and start training them. There’s a difference between teaching and training. Teaching is about imparting knowledge; training is about preparing for battle. As I explain this principle around the country, I use the acronym, T.R.A.I.N. to help people understand the conceptual difference:

T - Test
Challenge students to expose their weaknesses

R - Require
Expect more from students than we sometimes think they can handle

A - Arm
Provide students with the truth and teach them how to articulate it

I - Involve
Deploy students to the battlefield of ideas

N - Nurture
Tend to students’ wounds and model the nature of Jesus

This week I’m going to briefly describe each step in this process. You may be thinking, “Hey this youth ministry stuff doesn’t really apply to me.” You’re wrong. I think the problem facing young Christians in our culture is indicative of the problem facing all of us as Christians. If we hope to become better Christian Case Makers so we can influence the culture and respond obediently to the command of God (1 Peter 3:15-16), we’ve got to rethink our approach to knowledge and Christian education. So let’s examine the TRAIN paradigm and see what it can provide. We’ll start today with TESTing.

Whenever I work with a youth group for an extended period of time, I begin with a test. This accomplishes two goals. First, it helps me see where specific weaknesses may be so I can focus my efforts. But more importantly, testing helps students understand how much they need to be trained. My experience as a police officer has helped me to understand why this is so important. We have a bar in our city that is a constant source of fights and disturbances. Officers are continually called to the location to handle difficult problems. It’s a perfect place to test new officers. When I was on training, I knew my field training officer (FTO) was going to volunteer our unit for any call that was dispatched to this bar, because he wanted to see if I could handle myself in tough situations. At some point, every new officer has to be tested to see if he or she can do the job; this bar became the perfect test location. Sometimes I held my own, sometimes I didn’t. After a scuffle in which I didn’t fare as well as I would have liked, I understood my need for improvement and started training as a fighter and wrestler. I was determined to do better next time. The test exposed my weakness and encouraged me to train.

That’s why I start by testing Christian students with role-playing. If at all possible, I try to have the host pastor introduce me as an atheist and give me two hours with the group during the first training session. In this first meeting, I present the case against theism calmly (but unflinchingly) to see if the students can make a case for what they believe. Sadly, they are usually unable to hold their own. These first sessions are nerve wracking for students who struggle to respond to my claims and begin to anxiously squirm under the weight of dozens of unanswered objections. They don’t fare well in this bar fight. When it’s over and I finally reveal I am actually a Christian who has come to help train them, the relief in the room is palpable. They are delighted to see I am a Christian (even though I am obviously aware of the many atheistic objections we face), and they are ready and eager to train. Like young officers, there’s a time when every Christian student must be tested. We can either seize the opportunity to test in the setting of our youth ministries, or we can pass on the opportunity and allow the first test to take place in college (when we aren’t available to our students). It’s our choice.

If you want to make a difference in the lives of Christian students (including your own children), stop teaching them and start training them. Begin the process with a test, and continue through the steps we’ll be talking about on the Cold Case Christianity blog this week [see links below]. We can impact the character and durability of our young Christians, but we’re going to have to be intentional trainers to get the job done.

Read the rest of the posts in this series:

Requiring Young Christians to Raise the Bar
Arming Christian Students with the Truth
Involving Students in the Battlefield of Ideas
Nurturing Christian Students As They Engage the Challenges of Atheism

Is Mark's Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter?

The authorship of the Gospels is a matter of considerable debate amongst skeptics and critics of the New Testament canon. Mark’s Gospel is an early record of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection, but Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts? How did Mark get his information about Jesus? There are several historical clues:

Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord.” In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as ‘the elder,’ (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching
In his book, “Against Heresies” (Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200 AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form.”

Justin identified Mark’s Gospel with Peter
Early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, wrote “Dialogue with Trypho” (approximately 150 AD) and included this interesting passage:

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Justin, therefore, identified a particular Gospel as the ‘memoir’ of Peter and said this memoir described the sons of Zebedee as the ‘sons of thunder.’ Only Mark’s Gospel describes John and James in this way, so it is reasonable to assume that the Gospel of Mark is the memoir of Peter.

Clement said Mark recorded Peter’s Roman preaching
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) wrote a book entitled “Hypotyposeis” (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15). In this ancient book, Clement refers to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginning”:

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.”

Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:

“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”

This additional piece of information related to Peter’s reaction to Mark’s work is important, because it demonstrates that Clement is not simply repeating the information first established by Papias, but seems to have an additional source that provided him with something more, and something slightly different than Papias.

Tertullian affirmed Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark
Early Christian theologian and apologist, Tertullian (160-225 AD), wrote a book that refuted the theology and authority of Marcion. The book was appropriately called “Against Marcion,” and in Book 4 Chapter 5, he described the Gospel of Mark:

“While that [Gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.”

The Muratorian Fragment confirmed Mark’s relationship to Peter
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. Commonly dated to approximately 170 AD, the first line reads:

“But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel]”

This appears to be a reference to Mark’s presence at Peter’s talks and sermons in Rome, and the fact that he then recorded these messages that became the Gospel of Mark.

Origen attributed Mark’s Gospel to Peter
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 25) quoted a Gospel Commentary written by Origen (an early church father and theologian who lived 185-254 AD) that explains the origin of the Gospels. This commentary also attributes the Gospel of Mark to Peter:

“In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13 And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”

An Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirmed Peter’s connection to Mark
There are three Gospel ‘prologues’ that appear in many Latin Bibles from antiquity. Known as the “Anti-Marcionite Prologues,” they date to the 4th century or earlier. The prologue for the Gospel of Mark is particularly interesting:

“Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”

Now, it can be argued that Papias’ description of Mark’s collaboration with Peter in Rome is the earliest description available to us. In fact, skeptics have tried to argue that later Church sources are simply parroting Papias when they connect Mark to Peter. But there is no evidence to suggest that Papias is the sole source of information related to Peter and Mark, particularly when considering the slight variations in the subsequent attributions (such as Clement’s version). The subtle differences suggest that the claims came from different original sources. In addition, Justin Martyr’s tangential reference to the ‘sons of thunder’ strengthens the support for Peter’s involvement coming from a source other than Papias (who never makes this connection). In essence, a claim of dependency on Papias lacks specific evidence, and even if this were the case, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Papias’ original claim in the first place. The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.

The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview

Several weeks ago, a gentleman (we’ll call him “John”) replied to a blog I posted at CrossExamined.org. As a skeptical non-believer, John wasn’t responding to what I had posted, but to fellow atheists who had been interacting with Christians in the comment section. John’s post was controversial but honest. In fact, he clearly delineated the problem of atheistic moral grounding. While the comments on the blog aren’t typically all that courteous, John complained they were too courteous, especially given the atheistic worldview of the people who were posting. Here’s what John had to say:

“[To] all my Atheist friends. 

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to "play nice" and "be civil" you actually do them a great disservice.  

We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they've allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That's it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I'll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I'll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I'll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene's need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy's wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You're just a little bit less evolved, that's all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I'll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it's not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it's time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that's what my genes are telling me to say.”

John bluntly captured the true nature of morality when it is untethered to a transcendent source. Since posting this comment, I’ve been able to peek at John’s life in a very limited way and I’ve had a brief interaction with him. He appears to be a creative, responsible, loving husband and father. In fact, his outward life looks much like the life you and I might lead as Christians. As an atheist, my moral compass was much like that of the Christians I knew. But knowing what is far different than knowing why. I embraced a particular set of moral laws even though I couldn’t account for these laws in a world without a transcendent moral law giver. I typically attributed morality to some form of social or cultural evolution, but as John correctly observes, our selfish genes are not interested in the welfare of others when their personal survival is at stake. Without a true transcendent source for morality (and purpose), skeptics are left trying to invent their own, justifying their subjective moral rules as best they may. In the end, as John rightly observes, they end up “nurturing a new religion” and creating for themselves the very thing they detest.

When John first posted his comment (and I first started talking about it on my podcast), many of the other atheists who post at CrossExamined were infuriated. Some denied John’s identity as a skeptic and accused him of being a disguised Christian. But in my interaction with John, he told me he was weary of hearing fellow atheists mock their opponents for hypocrisy and ignorance, while pretending they had a definitive answer to the great questions of life. He simply wanted his fellow atheists to be consistent. As it turns out, theism provides the consistent moral foundation missing from John’s atheistic worldview.

Testing the Gospels From John to Hippolytus

I am confident the Gospels were written early and were not corrupted or altered over time. As a new investigator of the claims of Christianity, I examined the case for early dating and became convinced the Gospels were written within the generation of the eyewitnesses. But how do we know whether or not the early accounts were corrupted over the years? One way to test the content of the Gospels as they were passed down from generation to generation is to simply compare what was written about the Gospels by those who had direct contact with the eyewitnesses. I’ve written about the New Testament Chain of Custody in Cold-Case Christianity; when testing the validity of a piece of evidence in a particular case, we need to establish who handled the evidence from the time it was first collected to the time it is presented in trial. When it comes to the Gospel eyewitness accounts, we must examine what the students of the Gospel authors said about the text, then what their students said, then what the next generation said, and continue this examination down through history, comparing the statements and quotes to determine if the message of Scripture has changed. Today, I’ll provide an example with the Chain of Custody from the Apostle John (additional “chains” can be found in Cold-Case Christianity).

John (6-100 AD) was the youngest of Jesus’ disciples. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of James. While a young man, John witnessed the life of Jesus and saw firsthand many of the amazing miracles Jesus performed. John also witnessed the Resurrection. John wrote his Gospel as an eyewitness account, accurately reflecting the truth related to what he observed as a disciple of Jesus. This Gospel is a critical piece of evidence from the “crime scene” and John taught three important students and passed his Gospel into their trusted hands. These three men (Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp) became important early Church leaders in their own right and wrote about what they learned from John.

John Taught Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp
Ignatius (35-117 AD) also called himself “Theophorus” (which means “God Bearer”). Church tradition describes Ignatius as one of the children that Jesus blessed in the Gospel accounts. Ignatius was a student of John and eventually became Bishop at Antioch (Turkey), following the Apostle Peter. He wrote several important letters to the early Church and seven of them survive to this day. These letters are important because they demonstrate the New Testament documents were already written and familiar to the early Christians. Ignatius quoted or alluded to many New Testament books (including Matthew, John and Luke, and several, if not all, of Paul’s letters). Ignatius provides us with a link in the Chain of Custody related to the original eyewitness accounts, demonstrating they were written very early and entrusted directly to key disciples who guarded them as Scripture.

Papias (60-135 AD) was described by Irenaeus as a “hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time.” He eventually became the Bishop of Hierapolis (now known as Pamukake in Turkey). He was quite familiar with the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses during the early documentation of their Gospel accounts. These documents were still being written and circulated during Papias’ early lifetime. Papias wrote a lengthy five-volume treatise called “Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord,” but this text has been lost to us. Papias’ work (as quoted later by Eusebius), alludes to many Gospel passages and stories. Papias represents another link in the chain of custody, learning from John and the other eyewitnesses and passing this information down to the next generation.

Polycarp (69-155 AD) was a friend of Ignatius and a student of John. Irenaeus later testified that he once heard Polycarp talk about his conversations with John, and Polycarp was known to have been converted to Christianity by the eyewitness Apostles themselves. Polycarp eventually became the Bishop of Smyrna (now known as Izmir in Turkey) and wrote a letter to the Philippians that references fourteen to sixteen New Testament books (including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter and 1 John, with some scholars observing additional references to 2 Timothy and 2 Corinthians). Polycarp’s letter demonstrates the early texts were in circulation and familiar to the Philippians, making Polycarp’s references in his letter all the more meaningful.

Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp Taught Irenaeus
Irenaeus (120-202 AD) was born in Smyrna, the city where Polycarp served as Bishop. He was raised in a Christian family and was a “hearer” of Polycarp; he later recalled hearing Polycarp talk about his conversations with the Apostle John. He eventually became a priest (and then the Bishop) of Lugdunum in Gaul (presently known as Lyons, France). Irenaeus matured into a theologian and apologist and wrote an important work called “Adversus Haereses” (Against Heresies). This refined response to the heresy of Gnosticism provided Irenaeus with the opportunity to address the issue of Scriptural authority and he identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). Irenaeus provides us with another link in the chain of custody, affirming the established eyewitness accounts and faithfully preserving them for the next generation.

Irenaeus Taught Hippolytus
Hippolytus (170-236 AD) was born in Rome and was a disciple of Irenaeus. As he grew into a position of leadership, he opposed Roman Bishops who modified their beliefs to accommodate the large number of pagans who were coming to faith in the city. In taking a stand for orthodoxy, he became known as the first “anti-pope” or “rival pope” in Christian history. He was an accomplished speaker of great learning, influencing a number of important Christian leaders such as Origen of Alexandria (who heard him preaching while he was a presbyter under Pope Zephyrinus). Hippolytus wrote a huge ten-volume treatise called, “Refutation of All Heresies.” In this expansive work, Hippolytus identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). Unfortunately, Hippolytus was persecuted under Emperor Maximus Thrax and exiled to Sardinia where he most likely died in the mines.

As a result of Hippolytus’ exile and martyrdom, this particular chain of custody ends without a clear “next link,” although it is certain Hippolytus had many important students who preserved the Scripture with the same passion he had as a student of Irenaeus. One thing we know for sure: the Canon of Scripture was already established in the early 2nd Century, as eyewitness accounts were recorded by the Apostles and handed down to their disciples who wrote about them, described them, and identified them for later generations. The following facts about Jesus were affirmed from the earliest “links” in the New Testament Chain of Custody:

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary
A star announced His birth
He was baptized by John the Baptist, taught and had a “ministry” on earth
He was humble, unassuming and sinless
He spoke the words of God and taught the Sermon on the Mount
Ointment was poured on Jesus’ head
He was unjustly treated and condemned by men
He was whipped, suffered and was crucified
This all took place under the government of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch was king
Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected
He had a physical resurrection body
He appeared to Peter and the others after the resurrection
He encouraged the disciples to touch and He ate with the disciples
The disciples were convinced by the resurrection appearances and were fearless after seeing
the risen Christ
Jesus returned to God the Father
He is our only Master and the Son of God
All things are subject to Jesus and all creation belongs to Him
He is the “Door,” the “Bread of Life” and the “Eternal Word”
Jesus is our “Savior,” “Lord” and “God”
Faith in Christ’s work on the cross saves us
This salvation and forgiveness are gifts of grace from God
Jesus will judge the living and the dead

The facts about Jesus were written early and repeated often; they haven’t changed over time. We can be confident we have an accurate, unaltered record of Jesus’ life because it was written early enough to be fact-checked by those who were actually there (as Paul claimed in 1 Corinthians 15:6), and faithfully transmitted (and cited) by those who had direct contact with the eyewitnesses.

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a 19^th century English historian and prolific writer, held a pervasive anti-Biblical bias. He believed the historical accounts in the Book of Acts were written in the mid-2^nd century. Ramsay was skeptical of Luke’s authorship and the historicity of the Book of Acts, and he set out to prove his suspicions. He began a detailed study of the archaeological evidence, and eventually came to an illuminating conclusion: the historical and archaeological evidence supported Luke’s 1^st century authorship and historical reliability:

“(There are) reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank” (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 4).

Ramsay became convinced of Luke’s reliability based on the accurate description of historical events and settings. Ramsay wasn’t the only scholar to be impressed by Luke’s accuracy:

“One of the most remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned . . . Cyprus, for example, which was an imperial province until 22 BC, became a senatorial province in that year, and was therefore governed no longer by an imperial legate but by a proconsul. And so, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Cyprus about AD 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paullus whom they met . . .’ (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 82).

Luke’s narratives include detailed and specific descriptions related to the locations, people, offices and titles within the Roman Empire. In fact, many of Luke’s claims were eventually confirmed by archaeological discoveries:

Related to Quirinius
Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1–3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.

Related to Erastus
In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.” A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.

Related to Lysanias
Luke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14–37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.

Related to Iconium
In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia.

Related to the Pool of Bethesda
John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.

Related to Politarchs
For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.” Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).

Related to the Pool of Siloam
John wrote about the “Pool of Siloam” (John 9:1–12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).

Related to Pontius Pilate
For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26–36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar.

Related to the Custom of Crucifixion
While thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype” tomb.

Related to Sergius Paulus
In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor” rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.

In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:

Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)

Luke includes an accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)

Luke includes a correct depiction of invoking one’s roman citizenship, including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)

Luke includes a accurate description of being in Roman custody and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30-31)

Archaeology is a discipline of “fractions.” Given the nature of archaeology, we shouldn’t expect to find corroboration for every claim of history, regardless of historic author. But in spite of the inherent difficulties and limitations of the discipline, the archaeological evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament is incredibly robust (refer to the Biblical Archaeology Society for additional evidence). As a detective, I’ve also come to respect and recognize the limits of corroborative evidence. Archaeology sufficiently corroborates the history of the New Testament, providing us with “remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy.”