I am James Hong and welcome to the Surpassing Value Podcast. The fuel and desire for this podcast was born out of a compulsion to flesh out what's been going on in the midst of an ocean of megaphones that may not actually withstand the test of scrutiny. As a signpost theologian, I will do my best to filter out the impurities and point people in the right direction.

For this episode, I wanted to talk about the reliability of the New Testament documents. For some people, when you hear this, you might think that such talk somehow becomes an impediment to faith that a robust discussion into the empirical evidence surrounding the New Testament documents shouldn't be a conversation to be had because it will somehow add on to faith or perhaps take away from the faith we should have.

Although I agree faith shouldn't be subject to the whims of the intellectual priesthood or external circumstances, that doesn't mean that truth doesn't withstand the test of scrutiny. Moreover, I flatly reject the claim that empirical evidence is somehow contrary to Christianity and/or genuine faith. I'll comment more on that at the closing of this episode.

With that said, let me begin by telling you that the New Testament documents have unparalleled textual reliability. The New Testament documents have unparalleled textual reliability. The three reasons the New Testament documents have unparalleled textual reliability are due to the number of existing manuscripts, the span of time between the originals and the copies, and the internal consistency among the existing copies.

Let me explain. When you study works of antiquity, for good reason and for reasons which I join in, we rightly state that Homer wrote the Iliad, Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex, and the various works of Aristotle, commonly referred to as the Corpus Aristotelicum, were written by Aristotle. The primary reason we do so is because of the reasons I just stated, namely, the number of existing manuscripts, the span of time between the originals and the copies, and the internal consistency among the existing copies.

The number of existing manuscripts for the New Testament stands at about 6,000, whereas for the Iliad it is about 650, and for the various works of Sophocles it is about 200. The New Testament manuscript stands completely alone in that category, which is a prong that academicians use in corroborating the validity of the work itself.

The span of time between the originals and the copies is also well within two generations, and this same fact cannot be said for any other work of antiquity if we are talking about the magnitude of the same and the magnitude of the time. Let me elaborate why it is so crucial that the New Testament documents are written within two generations.

Academies will tell you that in order for a myth to develop, you need at least two generations from the fabricated event. The logic behind that is pretty simple. Let me illustrate. Suppose you and I and a bunch of unsavory wicked fellows decide to start a cult. In this cult, we decide to make you the ultimate demigod, and the lie has its roots in that you are able to lift cars and fly like Superman.

If we decided to perpetrate this myth in the midst of the contemporary generation, what do you think will be the logical reaction to people who are interested in our newly invented cult? People will want verification. People will want empirical proof of our claims. They will want that because we are making extraordinary claims about our cult and if true would lend credibility to an otherwise outlandish statement.

The problem is we are lying and you are not able to lift cars, you are not able to fly like Superman, so the cult should not gather any esteem. However, if the cult has its roots in making claims about irrefutable matters, then at least it has a chance. Notice I didn't say lies, I said irrefutable matters.

So what's an irrefutable matter? Instead of stating that a person alive is able to lift cars and fly like Superman, we state that a person who was no longer alive was able to accomplish such miraculous feats. If the handful of future adherents want to fact check the claims, they will not be able to fact check because that person is dead.

The next step would then be to see if there is anyone alive who knew that dead person who could lift cars and fly like Superman to see if they could corroborate the outlandish statements, the miraculous claims. The more people you have who are brought in to propagate the lie and perhaps have other pieces of evidence to back up those claims, the greater the chance this lie will perpetuate.

Of course, if people alive who are not privy to the lie come in in droves stating that they knew this person and they could accomplish no such feat, you're going to encounter resistance. Which is why I stated earlier that historians will typically tell you it takes at least two generations, but many times more.

How does this relate to the claims made in the New Testament and the New Testament itself? The New Testament claims that its central figure, Jesus of Nazareth, came on the scene and began publicly teaching about the kingdom of God and accomplishing miraculous works. These miraculous works included, but are not limited to, making the mute speak, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, the blind to see, cleansing lepers instantaneously, healing terminally ill people, and even raising the dead.

The relevant detail here is that much of the New Testament documents claim that Jesus of Nazareth performed these acts and that people who witnessed these events were still alive. There was a high likelihood that one saw these events themselves or heard from a living eyewitness. The New Testament documents also claim that Jesus of Nazareth was executed but rose bodily three days later and appeared not just to a fringe group of people, but to large chunks of people at the same time.

After 40 days, the New Testament states that he ascended, or to put it in less religious terms, he vanished and was never seen bodily again. The New Testament claims that Christians began to multiply while suffering under heavy persecution from the outside world because they could not deny these claims, while dealing with those at times within the church taught an aberrant version of Christianity.

The renowned church historian, Philip Schafe, stated it like this, "The persecutions of Christianity during the first three centuries appear like a long tragedy, first foreboding signs, then a succession of bloody assaults of heathenism upon the religion of the cross. Amidst the dark scenes of fiendish hatred and cruelty, the bright exhibitions of suffering virtue, now and then a short pause, at least a fearful and desperate struggle of the old pagan empire for life and death, ending in the abiding victory of the Christian religion.

Thus, this bloody baptism of the church resulted in the birth of a Christian world. It was a repetition and prolongation of the crucifixion, but followed by a resurrection." Schafe further remarks on the first four centuries of the church, under Roman rule, stating it like this, "From the fifth century it has been customary to reckon ten great persecutions, under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximus, Decius Valerian, Aurelian, and Diocletian.

This number was suggested by the ten plagues of Egypt, taken as types, which however befell the enemies of Israel, and present a contrast rather than a parallel, and by the ten horns of the Roman beast making war with the lamb, taken for so many emperors. But the number is too great for the general persecutions, and too small for the provincial and local.

Only two imperial persecutions, those of Decius and Diocletian, extended over the empire, but Christianity was always an illegal religion from Trajan to Constantine, and subject to annoyance and violence everywhere. Some persecuting members, Nero, Domitian, Galerius, were monstrous tyrants, but others, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius, Diocletian, were among the best and most energetic emperors, and were prompted not so much by hatred of Christianity, as by zeal for the maintenance of the laws and the power of the government.

On the other hand, some of the most worthless emperors, Commodus, Caracalla, and Heliogabalus, were rather favorable to Christians from sheer caprice. All were equally ignorant of the true character of the new religion. The long and bloody war of heathen Rome against the Church, which is built upon a rock, utterly failed.

It began in Rome under Nero. It ended near Rome at the Milvian Bridge under Constantine. Aiming to exterminate, it purified. It called forth the virtues of Christian heroism, and resulted in the consolidation and triumph of the new religion. The philosophy of persecution is best expressed by the terse word of Tertullian, who lived in the midst of them, but did not see the end.

"The blood of the Christians is the seed of the church." Let's begin to piece what we have together so far. The claims made in the New Testament are that its central figure, performed and taught publicly and the verification of who he was, lied in the miracles that he performed and the substance of what he taught.

Of high importance was that he claimed to be God. To prove his claims, instead of exacting his power upon what the eye could see, he came to offer his own life as a substitution for the required life of all who do not live perfectly, which is everyone that has ever lived.

Upon this, he stated that even death would not be able to hold him, and substantiated this claim by rising bodily. His adherents would spread this message, but were met with great hostility. If all of this is indeed true, it would stand to reason that there would be outside records of all this taking place in some shape or form, and indeed there was.

Listen to what Josephus, a Jewish historian commissioned by Rome, wrote. Mind you, Josephus was compelled to be objective and trustworthy since he was commissioned by Rome. He wasn't a Christian. Josephus states this, "Now some of the Jews thought the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist.

For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism." If you are unfamiliar with the New Testament, Josephus here is validating claims made in the New Testament.

This is an outside record validating what is contained within the New Testament. Josephus elsewhere states, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.

He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Here are some more outside records validating the claims of the New Testament from people who are no friends of Christians.

Tacitus writes this, again, no friend of Christians. He writes, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abomination, 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 Pilate." Lucian, a Greek writer, writes this, "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites and was crucified on the account.

You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them, and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment that they are converted and deny the gods of Greece and worship the crucified sage and live after his laws.

All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them as merely common property." Earlier I mentioned that the New Testament documents exhibited a remarkable consistency among the existing copies. That was the second prong. I just finished the first prong. Now on to the second prong.

The New Testament documents exhibited a remarkable consistency among existing copies. The textual agreement between the existing copies stands at about 99.5% and the 0.5% is merely Scrivener error that does not change anything of substance. To put that into perspective, no other work of antiquity exhibits anything close to this.

Yet we still claim, with good reason, that Homer wrote the Iliad, Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex and so on, which I join in. But my point is, if we're going to be logically consistent, then we also have to claim that the New Testament documents also should be taken for what they are stating not based upon the documents themselves necessarily, but also based upon the corroborating evidence that we see from outside.

There is also remarkable touchpoint corroboration of the times and places mentioned in the New Testament. That's important because, again, it would stand to reason that if the claims made in the New Testament of our actual times and places, those times and places should exist outside the documents in the New Testament and indeed they do.

I'll be quoting from J. Warner Wallace who wrote a book called Cold Case Christianity. He is a former homicide detective and lifelong atheist. Before his conversion, he examined the empirical claims of Christianity at the age of 35, applying his detective skills when undertaking his own personal investigation. J. Warner Wallace writes, "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. Archaeological discoveries in the 19th century revealed Quirinius for someone with the same name was also a pro-consul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C.

to the death of Herod. Quirinius' name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time and on the base of a statue erected in Sidon, 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 discovered 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 A.D. 1437, identifies Lysanias as a tetrarch in Abila near Damascus. There were many other examples, but I thought a sample would suffice if this topic interests you. Feel free to get his book, "Cold Case Christianity." Another book I would recommend on this issue is "Jesus Under Fire" edited by Michael Wilkins.

That book is a collection of essays from multiple different academicians in response to the Jesus Seminar, where another group of academicians came together in an attempt to reinvent the historical Jesus. The final book I would recommend is Craig Blomberg's "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament." In an essay he wrote, responding to questions regarding the reliability of the New Testament, he makes two important points regarding the historicity of Acts and the questions of miracles.

This is Craig Blomberg regarding the historicity of Acts. He writes, "The New Testament contains only one book with the genre or contents of Acts of the Apostles. This is a theologically rich and artistically refined work of history. The number of characters and places in this selective account of key events in the first generation of church history that have been confirmed is staggering.

From non-Christian works alone, we know of Annas, Claudius, Gamaliel, Caiaphas, James, Galileo, Agrippa I and II, Sergius Paulus, Felix Drusilla, Festus, Bernas, and others. Every city and location which has been excavated has been shown to be as Acts describes them, complete with specific synagogues, theaters, ports, roads, rivers, and more, particularly significant is how Luke gets right the names of the rulers in the various locations especially since in some instances they varied quite a bit in a given region or from one period to the next.

These include the Sanhedrin, the Italian Regiment, Tetrarchs, Pro-Councils, Magistrates, Politarchs, the Areopagus, City Clerk, and the Chief Man on the Island of Malta. The very fact that one can mesh Acts with more fragmentary and sometimes called incidental allusions to Paul's life in his letters sets Acts off from historical novels, modern and ancient.

That one can generate a plausible detailed chronology of the events depicted in Acts, again especially in comparison with Paul's letters, and chart his missionary journeys as coherent and sensible travels further suggests Acts is historical." The book of Acts in the New Testament contains all the hallmarks of reliability and trustworthiness.

Regarding the question of miracles, Blomberg writes "Can we believe in documents as filled with miracles as the New Testament is? If one a priori postulates an anti-supernatural worldview then no, but then one is no longer engaging in historical investigation. The claim that natural explanations are always more probable even if one does not rule out supernatural explanations up front is itself a belief that cannot be demonstrated empirically and that unduly denigrates the role of trustworthy testimony as the bedrock of historiography.

It also flies in the face of thousands of modern day experiences of ordinary people all around the globe who have witnessed instantaneous healings and similar events after public concerted Christian prayer. Claims about miracles should neither be written off a priori nor uncritically accepted. They should be tested like any other historical affirmations.

What sets the New Testament miracles off from accounts in many other kinds of literature is their consistent link to the arrival or inauguration of God's reign in the person of Jesus and the movement he began. Claims about similarities with other ancient miracle stories break down on careful inspection. The closest parallels are all post-Christian, too late to have influenced the New Testament writers.

Partially, similar pre-Christian parallels usually cluster around gods or goddesses or heroes from some dim, mythical past and are not attached to recent people known to have lived real human lives. This is especially the case when one examines the resurrection of Jesus. The most spectacular and significant of the foundational Christian miracles." If you reject the New Testament claims prior to the investigation of the New Testament claims, because the New Testament claims miracles, then what you've done is you've stated before even looking into the claims that it must be false.

But wouldn't something as incredible, as uncommon, as outlandish as miracles be the exact source of confirming something that is other-worldly true, that is supernatural? Doesn't it stand to reason that if there is indeed a supernatural realm, the way to confirm that would be something akin to miracles? The question is whether or not miracles are actually the source of the confirmation of these claims.

The question is, did these miracles actually happen? Did those miracles actually happen? Is there evidence for such miracles? In conclusion, I want to comment on the nature of what I articulated in the beginning of this episode as it relates to genuine faith, as if somehow they should be held in exclusion.

Remember, I'm not advocating that anything I said in this episode is salvific or necessary for salvation, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating for something a lot more narrow. What I'm advocating is that interest in the substance of what was articulated in this episode or an investigation into these claims or even a desire to do that further research somehow is contrary or is detrimental to faith.

Just a few comments on that narrow point. In the last episode, we talked about John 10, 37-38, but let me read this passage again and comment on why it's relevant here. "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." That is Jesus in John 10 verses 37-38.

Christ himself pointed at works as proof of who he was. He didn't come on the scene, preach, and then state "believe or else." He absolutely could have in one sentence, but my point is that even Christ used empirical evidence as validation that he was indeed the promised Messiah and pointed towards that evidence as proof of who he was, which was reflective of Isaiah 61 and Isaiah 35.

When God sent Moses to free Israel from Pharaoh, God used Moses to perform many miracles as validation that God was the one true God of the universe and not the gods of Egypt. You also see this same pattern with Elijah, that miracles accompanied his message as proof of the substance of what Elijah was testifying to.

By God's grace, God has left a trail of breadcrumbs that corroborates the claims made in the New Testament and also to the validity of the New Testament itself. I want to make this point clear because this same point also applies to how you think about the canon of scripture.

I'm not saying that our reasoning, our minds, and our external evidence should be catapulted to a level that's higher than scripture. That's not what I'm saying. The greater confirms the lesser. Revelation is greater than reason. I am in no way advocating for an elevated Rene Descartes line of reasoning here.

I think therefore I am. To advocate for that would then be advocating that anything we could prove physically is what is true, or that the greatest form of validation is empirical, which would be essentially arguing for a form of naturalism. What I am advocating, though, is that the scriptures themselves speak to a validity contained within empirical proofs.

This is usually coordinated with future prophecies, and they were also used to even shut the mouths of people who state that, had there actually been a miracle, they wouldn't be entangled in unbelief. God's not going to jump and dance for you every time you ask him to at the same time.

He has left a vast body of evidence that corroborates and eliminates excuses even for the most hardest of skeptics. It is absolutely true that God saves those whom he foreknew, however, what is also true is that the empirical evidence for the claims of the New Testament are at the very least adequate and, in my humble opinion, compelling.

It's almost as if there is this mountain of evidence that demands a verdict, a la Josh McDowell, and to look over it, you would have to forcefully ignore that and the evidence of creation. Thanks for making it to the end, I'll continue to try to make the journey worth it.

To him be honor, glory, and eternal dominion, James Allnell. Amen. Amen. (upbeat music)