A Firm Foundation 7

Ladies and gentlemen, will make the notice certisons a fist right here and it will be

now in fireworks and a good Feeling, is it supposed to take Sharp, its finalelapse?

All day.

All day.

We'll get started in just a minute.

A New York minute?

An island minute.

A Connecticut minute.

Whatever that is.

Yeah, Brent knows Connecticut minutes, yes.

We don't want to start early, but we'll probably start.

Yeah, he'll come probably.

Yeah, I think so.

Okay.

Welcome back, everyone.

It's good to be here again.

For those of you who don't know me, my name's Tom Schmidt.

And I've been here a few times talking to you about the reliability of the New Testament.

It's kind of a sub-series within our greater series on Scripture.

And a couple weeks ago when I was with you, we talked about the preservation of the New Testament.

And we looked at how the New Testament has been preserved and passed down to us through the generations.

And how this is done carefully and reliably.

And then the next time I was with you, we talked about the canonicity of the New Testament.

And we looked at how the New Testament books were put together.

Who chose what books were in the Bible?

Why are some books in the New Testament, some books not in the New Testament?

We talked about whether there was some kind of conspiracy theory or something like that.

And we saw how God reliably and superintended this whole process to preserve and pass down the New Testament to us.

Today, we're going to talk about the accuracy of the New Testament.

And we're going to see if what the New Testament says is true.

So we know it might have been reliably preserved.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it contains true things.

So we're going to look at that in our time together this morning.

We'll investigate whether what the New Testament says about Jesus is true and why its claims are factual.

And this pertains especially to the New Testament's central claim that Jesus was crucified, buried, and then resurrected.

So those are some things we'll go over today.

But first, I want to open in a word of prayer.

Father in heaven, we thank you for how you have given your word to us, how you've preserved it and gathered it for us through your saints.

Father, we also thank you for how your word is trustworthy and how you sent your son Jesus to rescue us from our sins.

It's in his mighty name that we pray.

Amen.

All right.

So to begin with, I want to ask a question.

Can we trust that the New Testament is accurate and true?

We sometimes hear accusations that the New Testament is based on myths and folktales, that it's inaccurate and deceptive.

I've heard these claims many times before, sometimes in popular culture, sometimes in the classroom.

I'm sure some of you have heard these claims as well.

And today, what we're going to look at is that the New Testament is not based on rumors or lies or myths.

And indeed, there are several reasons why we can trust its factual claims.

Now, these reasons, they build on one another.

And so we're going to start with perhaps one of the most foundational reasons and then go from there.

So one reason that we can trust that the New Testament is true and accurate is first and foremost because it's based off of eyewitness testimony.

It's not based off of rumor and report or hearsay.

And these eyewitnesses were behind the documents of the New Testament.

And they were in a position to know what Jesus said and did and to report it accurately.

So, for example, John, the disciple of Jesus, says this about Jesus, whom he calls the word of life.

He says,

John tells us here that he's preaching not something that he just heard a rumor about,

but something that he witnessed, that he saw with his eyes, that he touched with his hands, that he heard directly with his own ears.

And Peter, another disciple of Jesus, he tells us the same thing.

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Peter says that in his second epistle.

He says much the same thing in his first epistle.

In chapter 5, verse 1, he also adds that he was an eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ.

And other New Testament authors make similar claims.

For instance, Luke, the gospel writer.

He says,

It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,

to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus,

so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Theophilus was the person to whom Luke wrote, and Luke tells him that he went to the eyewitnesses,

he investigated everything carefully from the beginning,

so that he, Theophilus, and you all may know the exact truth about what you have been taught.

So we've heard from the Apostle John and the Apostle Peter and Luke the evangelist,

but we have more testimony as well.

We have the testimony from the Apostle Paul.

He gives perhaps the earliest account of the resurrection of Jesus.

He says this,

For I delivered to you as a first importance what I also received,

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

and that he appeared to Cephas, that's Peter, then to the Twelve.

Then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time,

most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

The resurrection of Jesus is the essence of our faith,

and Paul gives his own eyewitness testimony here.

And indeed, the Twelve disciples, the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, they concur.

They say in the book of Acts, chapter 2, verse 32,

Acts 2:32

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

The fact that the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony is so well established

that even ancient anti-Christian sources agree.

Now, what do I mean by these ancient anti-Christian sources?

These sources were ancient writers who attacked Christianity in the 2nd through 4th centuries.

They were people like Celsus, Porphyry, Heracles, and Julian the Apostate.

They were highly educated, powerful, extremely hostile to Christianity.

But even when they were attacking the New Testament,

they still attributed its writings to Jesus' disciples.

These ancient skeptics did not believe that the New Testament documents

were written under false names far after the time of Jesus

and were hence based on rumors like some scholars try to maintain today.

They acknowledged that it was the disciples who wrote them.

So if such ancient hostile sources agree

that the disciples were ultimately behind the New Testament documents,

then I think we can safely conclude that the New Testament documents

are not based off of rumor or hearsay.

But I want to ask you something more.

Even if we can be sure that the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony,

how can we be sure that the eyewitnesses were telling the truth?

We all know that eyewitnesses can lie.

So do we have good reason to think that these eyewitnesses are being truthful

and not fabricating their claims?

Well, we have several reasons to trust the claims of these eyewitnesses.

Firstly, they did not have worldly motives to lie about the resurrection of Jesus.

They did not gain materially from their claims.

They did not gain money or fame.

They did not gain power or earthly benefit

by preaching that Jesus was the Son of God and was resurrected.

Not only does the New Testament testify to this,

but even those ancient critics of Christianity I mentioned before,

like Celsus and Julian the Apostate,

even they agree with this.

In fact, if you read their writings,

they mock the apostles for being poor and uneducated,

for being members of the lower class

and friends with slaves and minority groups.

They knew that the apostles did not gain riches or political power

for following Jesus.

They knew they were impoverished and they mocked them for it.

In fact, far from seeking material gain for their beliefs,

the apostles and the authors of the New Testament,

they knowingly risked persecution and humiliation

and scorn and shame and death.

Indeed, many of the disciples of Jesus were executed for their faith in Jesus

or even tortured.

And when the authorities warned them to stop preaching in the name of Jesus

and threaten them with punishment,

they said this in the book of Acts,

we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.

Despite all these threats,

they continued to proclaim that Jesus was resurrected.

And just look at the outcome of their lives.

Peter was executed.

Paul executed.

John was exiled as a prisoner to the island of Patmos.

James, his brother, was beheaded.

Matthew executed.

Thaddeus, Nathaniel, James, the brother of Jesus,

they were all executed.

And we have good historical data to support these outcomes.

And more than this,

we have evidence that many other early Christians suffered the same fate.

The fact that the apostles were terribly persecuted for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus

is so beyond question that, again, as I've said before,

even non-Christian sources agree with this.

They tell us that the apostles were persecuted and executed.

Sometimes they brag about it.

We see this in, for example, the Jewish Talmud, the Jewish historian Josephus.

They both claim that Matthew, that Thaddeus, that Nathaniel and James were executed.

Josephus talks about James and the Jewish Talmud talks about the rest.

Another Jewish document, the Toldot Yeshu,

describes how Jesus was executed,

that his 12 disciples then spread his teaching among the nations,

and that, quote,

they were slain.

And it even criticizes Peter for teaching, quote,

the meek acceptance of suffering.

And the Roman historian Tacitus,

he tells of a persecution of Christians in Rome under Emperor Nero

that sounds exactly like the circumstances under which Peter was executed.

But despite such great persecution,

the apostles and eyewitnesses,

they continued to maintain that Jesus really was resurrected.

These sufferings are not something that so many people would each be likely to endure

for a claim they knew that was a lie.

Instead,

it seems far more likely that the apostles were simply being honest and sincere.

So,

the first reason we can trust the eyewitnesses

is because they don't seem to have worldly motives to lie.

They gained nothing from what they were saying.

And secondly,

they had everything to lose.

They were persecuted for what they said,

yet they preached and continued to preach it.

And this trustworthy character of the apostles,

it was so steadfast that they passed it on down to their own disciples.

Just like Jesus,

the apostles went on to have disciples of their own.

And when we examine the character of these men,

these followers of the apostles,

we see that they also conducted themselves in the same way as Jesus and the apostles did.

They also suffered and were martyred for faith in Jesus.

Take,

for example,

Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna.

Both were disciples of the apostles.

Both have writings that remain for us to read.

And both of them were executed for their faith in Jesus.

In fact,

let's look at Ignatius specifically.

He was a disciple of Peter,

perhaps also Paul.

And while he was awaiting his execution for being a Christian,

he wrote several letters to churches encouraging them.

And in one letter,

he talks about how Peter witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

Here's what he says.

For Jesus suffered all these things for our sakes in order that we might be saved.

And he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself,

not as unbelievers say.

For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection.

When he came to Peter and those with him,

and he said,

Take hold of me,

handle me,

and see that I am not a disembodied spirit.

And immediately they touched him and believed,

being closely united with his flesh and blood.

For this reason,

they too despised death.

Indeed,

they proved to be greater than death.

And after his resurrection,

he ate and drank with them,

like one who is composed of flesh,

though spiritually he was united with the Father.

Here Ignatius,

the disciple of Peter,

proclaims the resurrection of Jesus.

He says that he knows Jesus appeared to Peter.

And for this reason,

Peter and the apostles despised death.

Why?

Because they had seen the one who had conquered death,

and they knew death had power over them no longer.

And Ignatius,

though a man condemned to die,

he joyfully testifies to this,

just as Peter testified to him.

So let me summarize.

Can we trust that the New Testament is accurate and true?

Well,

yes,

we can.

It's based on eyewitness testimony of the apostles,

not on rumor and report.

And these eyewitnesses are trustworthy,

because they did not stand to gain anything materially from their claims.

They did not have motives to lie about the resurrection.

Rather,

they risked persecution and death.

And in fact,

their own disciples went on to do the very same thing.

And these points are so beyond question,

that even ancient non-Christian sources admit to many of them.

Well,

so far,

I've been talking about how the New Testament writers were in a position to know the facts about Jesus,

and how the New Testament documents were written with a backing of eyewitness testimony.

And I've also shown how we can trust that these eyewitnesses were not lying about what they were saying.

But let's not stop here.

Let's see if we can test the reliability of the eyewitnesses in other ways.

Let's not just trust their character or motives.

Let's see if we can test their truthfulness and accuracy a little more scientifically.

After all,

eyewitnesses might still have accidentally put in false information.

They might have gotten carried away in their great passion.

They might have exaggerated things or convinced themselves of something that wasn't actually true.

Even if the eyewitnesses were sincere,

they might have still been inaccurate.

We all know honest people who make wrong statements.

So let's do a more thorough investigation here.

Let's forget about character and motives.

Let's see if the New Testament can hold up to good,

old-fashioned, brass tacks, nuts and bolts, historical scrutiny.

And this is what we're going to do.

Throughout the New Testament, the authors make numerous historical claims.

And we can check these claims against the historical record to see if they're true.

So when the New Testament mentions a person or a place or an event,

we can check that claim against the historical record to see if the New Testament is accurate.

This is just like in a detective case when the testimony of an eyewitness is checked against the facts

to see if their testimony can be corroborated by the evidence.

And when we subject the New Testament writers to historical scrutiny,

we find that the New Testament authors were indeed accurate

and they were not in the habit of making up information.

Let me show you what I mean.

We'll start with some easy, basic stuff,

and then we'll get to more complicated stuff as we go.

So first of all, the New Testament authors report the existence of several Roman emperors.

And we know from various historical sources

that they correctly identify them in their proper historical context.

And this comes from various lines of evidence like historical reports,

the archaeological record, coins, things like that.

You can see a coin of Emperor Augustus on the screen, which Luke talks about.

Emperor Tiberius is also mentioned by Luke.

There he is.

Emperor Claudius mentioned in the book of Acts.

Herod the Great mentioned in the early part of the Gospel of Matthew.

He's the guy who tried to kill baby Jesus.

Herod Archelaus is also mentioned in Matthew.

Herod Philip, Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa, Herod Agrippa II.

There's a lot of Herods.

It's hard to get them all straight, but the New Testament does.

And we could go on for other rulers like Arathos IV.

Paul mentions him.

Pontius Pilate.

This is a famous Pontius Pilate stone.

And I know it might be difficult for you to read it,

but on here it says the name Teos Pilatus.

It's missing the P-O-N.

It's missing from the stone.

But anyway, all scholars agree this is an inscription mentioning Pontius Pilate from his time frame.

Yes.

Very quickly, is that like the back of a seat in a theater?

Oh, I don't know where the stone comes from.

I'd have to check, and we may not actually know.

I'd have to see if we know the provenance of it.

When I was in Israel, when we were like in Caesarea by the seat or something like that,

the tour guide pointed to a seat, you know, and they had their names on it.

They were VIP seats.

At that time, I think in 1999, he claimed that this was the first archaeological evidence

because the seat had a righteous name.

So all I know is it's called the Pilate stone.

It is in Israel.

So this is in Israel.

I don't know if that's part of a back of a chair or not,

but we also have lots of other evidence for Pontius Pilate.

It's not just this stone.

He's mentioned in many historical ancient sources outside of the Bible.

Right, he's saying the only part.

Okay, yes, yes, yes.

But if we're honest here, these names that I've been talking about,

they're a little easy to get right.

It's like naming the correct presidents.

It's not too hard to get those right.

So let's do something a little more challenging.

It's good that the New Testament get these folks right,

but let's see what the New Testament authors do with lesser-known figures

whom someone would likely only know about if they were well-informed.

Well, the New Testament authors speak about many people like Bernice,

Drusilla, Judas the Galilean, Festus,

people even like James the brother of Jesus, John the Baptist,

Caiaphas the high priest, Herodias, and her daughter Salome,

and the list goes on.

And when we check the historical record,

we see that all of these folks are mentioned outside of the Bible

by non-Christian sources,

and that the New Testament correctly places every one of them

in their proper historical context.

The New Testament is even correct about a minor person named Erastus,

Paul's fellow partner from Corinth.

And if you go to Corinth today,

you can still see his name emblazoned on one of the paving stones.

Erastus seems to have been one of the ministers of public works.

And I know it might be hard to see,

but the beginning of the E is there,

R-A-S-T-U-S.

The U looks like a V.

Erastus.

How do we know that's the Erastus that Paul would refer to?

Erastus mentions him as a Corinthian minister of,

I think,

of public works,

or maybe of some kind of official.

And we know that when this name was put down,

that that's what the public officials who were responsible for laying these things

and arranging it would put their names on.

So the place matches,

the name matches,

the profession matches,

and the time matches.

A person in the ancient world wouldn't likely know about these things

unless they were actually there

and witnessed many of these people.

And we can even go to the names in the New Testament

of humble peasants and workers.

Even they can be verified.

Now, they can't be verified on an individual basis,

but it turns out that,

but they can be verified statistically.

And let me tell you what I mean.

It turns out that every generation and every location

has a frequency rate in their choice of names.

So when people have children,

they choose certain names,

and every generation has a frequency rate.

So for instance,

in the United States,

100 years ago,

Betty,

Sally,

those were popular names.

Not so popular these days.

We have different names that children tend to have.

And you can line up these statistics,

figure out what names are popular,

look at the frequency rate.

And some scholars have done this

with ancient names from first century Israel.

And they have found

that the frequency rate of those names

matches up with the New Testament's reports

of a lot of Marys

and a lot of Simons.

If you read the New Testament,

you're like,

everybody's named Mary.

Everybody's named Simon.

Well, that's exactly what was going on

in first century Palestine.

And so even those names

can be roughly corroborated.

Now we can also test

the accuracy of the eyewitnesses

in other ways too,

aside from references to people.

We can examine geographic references

in the New Testament.

This map shows dozens of locations

mentioned in the New Testament.

And guess what?

The New Testament correctly locates all of them.

It's even correct about little towns

near and around Jerusalem,

like Arimathea and Bethlehem.

And it's also correct about villages in Galilee,

even tiny fishing villages

around the Sea of Galilee,

like Capernaum.

Remember back then,

folks didn't have maps or atlases

or the internet or encyclopedias

to look up little places like this.

The only way to know about

an insignificant fishing village

was if you were actually there

or you knew someone who was.

And the New Testament gets them right.

And this is in great contrast

to other documents we've mentioned

in past courses,

some of those false gospels.

They will mention villages and towns

that seem to have no bearing

with historical reality.

But let's go even smaller.

The Gospel of John in chapter four

mentions Jacob's well.

Here it is.

The Gospel of John speaks of the pool of Siloam,

where Jesus tells a man to go and wash.

There it is.

The Gospel of John mentions huge stone water jars.

Now, this is kind of strange

because you think of water jars as smaller

and not made out of stone,

made out of clay.

But these are big and made out of stone.

But apparently that's not what they used to do

in first century Judea,

because here we go.

We still have some of them.

John did know what he was talking about.

And we could continue doing this for hours

about New Testament events, customs,

contemporary beliefs,

various historical phenomenon,

and all sorts of other things

that the New Testament reports

is occurring in the first century.

And you'll see that

when the New Testament talks about events,

we're able to historically verify them.

It seems then that the authors

were not in the habit of making up information.

It also implies that

the original New Testament documents

must have been well preserved,

because if later scribes were in the habit

of messing about with them,

then these historical claims

would have tended to have been altered

and therefore would have tended

to not be so precise.

But they are precise.

Now, it must be said

that there are a handful of instances

where historical claims in the New Testament

seem to be contradicted

by what we know from other sources.

And I would say that the most prominent,

the most egregious example of this

is with Theudis the Galilean,

whom Luke mentions in the book of Acts,

Acts 5 · chapter mention

chapter 5.

And Luke seems to clearly date this guy

to before 39 AD.

The problem with this

is that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus,

he also mentions Theudis,

but he dates him several decades later.

But rather than concluding

that Luke and the New Testament are wrong,

I would caution us to withhold judgment,

given how accurate the New Testament is elsewhere.

Perhaps there was a second Theudis,

or perhaps Josephus himself was wrong.

And in fact, we know Josephus is often wrong.

Josephus actually talks about,

he wrote multiple books,

and he talks about the same period of time,

three different times,

so you can compare his own reports to one another.

And he contradicts himself several times.

So in fact,

since the advent of modern scholarship,

there's always been some historical claims

in the New Testament

that skeptical scholars dismissed as wrong,

or made up,

or otherwise fictitious.

They would seize on these

and argue

that the New Testament authors

were historically incorrect,

and that they were fabricating information,

and therefore untrustworthy.

But time and again,

later discoveries have proved

the New Testament right,

and the skeptical scholars wrong.

Let me show you what I mean.

Back in the day,

certain scholars believed

that Nicodemus,

who came to Jesus by night

in the Gospel of John,

they believed that he was fabricated

by the Gospel of John.

Some of them claimed

that John must have made up

the name Nicodemus

to function as an allegory,

because Nicodemus

literally means ruler of the people.

And these skeptical scholars

thought that John wanted

to make a kind of greater point

about how even rulers of the people

were coming to Jesus,

so he made up this guy named Nicodemus.

Now John gives six data points

about Nicodemus.

He tells us that Nicodemus

was a member of the ruling class,

that he was a Pharisee,

that he was a teacher of the law,

that he was very wealthy,

that he was associated with Jerusalem,

and that he lived

in the early first century.

And certain scholars thought

that this was nonsense,

and that there was no Nicodemus.

But then,

other scholars

started realizing

that according to

ancient Jewish literature,

there was, in fact,

a rich,

ruling family in Jerusalem

in the first century

that did have Pharisees

and teachers of the law

as members,

and do you know

what name

was popular

for men

in that family?

Nicodemus.

It may also be

that the Jewish Babylonian Talmud

mentions Nicodemus' execution

as a disciple of Jesus.

The Talmud seems,

this is a little tentative,

but the Talmud seems

to use a nickname

for Nicodemus,

a nickname that we know

is used for people

with the name Nicodemus.

So we can't be totally sure

of that one.

But in either case,

no scholar can really

truthfully claim

that Nicodemus never existed

because he seems like

an entirely plausible

historical person.

Let me give you

some more examples.

In the Book of Acts,

Luke tells us

that there was

an empire-wide famine

during the reign

of Emperor Claudius.

For a long time,

scholars dismissed this

as a pious exaggeration.

There was one

or two local famines,

but no famine gripped

the whole Roman Empire

during the reign

of Claudius,

they said.

Yet archaeological excavations

discovered ancient records

on papyrus in Egypt

documenting the annual

flooding of the Nile

when the Nile

would irrigate farmland.

Now, it's important to know

that Egypt was the breadbasket

of the Roman Empire.

That's where they got

most of their food from

when the Nile

would do its annual flood

and irrigate all the farmland.

And it would provide

incredibly fertile ground

for crops.

Well, it turns out

that during the reign

of Claudius,

these papyrus records

document that in one year

the Nile badly overflooded,

which would have invariably

caused the destruction

of the crops of Egypt

and invariably would have caused

a severe famine

throughout the empire.

In fact, one scholar,

Ken Sperber Gap,

he says that the official documents

found amongst the papyri in Egypt,

quote,

so supports Luke's count

of the universal famine

that the accuracy

of the statement

can no longer be challenged.

We can keep going.

The Pool of Bethesda,

mentioned in John chapter 5,

John 5 · chapter mention

John says that it had five sides,

each equipped

with an overhanging porch.

Now, this is kind of weird.

Normally, when you think of a pool,

you think of four sides

or you think of a circular pool.

And this one is extra special

because each side

had like an overhanging porch.

For a long while,

scholars accused John

of making up

this piece of information

because we had no

archaeological record

of its existence.

Scholars said

that the five porches

were fictitiously crafted

by John

to represent

five stratas of society

or the five books of Moses

or some other thing like that.

But then,

in 1948,

archaeologists found this,

a pool that scholars

now admit

is the Pool of Bethesda

and indeed

had five sides.

The picture is showing

one half of the pool

and the archaeological

reconstruction,

you can see that

it actually is

a four-sided pool,

but then it has

a porch going between it,

making five porches.

So, four on the outside,

one through the middle,

just like John reported.

Or,

we could talk about Galio.

Galio

was the man

to whom Paul

had a trial before

in the book of Acts.

Scholars routinely claim

that Luke's chronology

in the book of Acts

was, quote,

hopeless and false

regarding Paul's trial

before Galio

in Acts chapter 18.

Acts 18 · chapter mention

Other scholars insisted

that Luke,

the author,

most likely placed

this trial

somewhere between

51 and 54 AD.

But these scholars

were dismissed.

But then,

in 1913,

this inscription

was found

which mentions Galio

and precisely dates him

to 51 or 52 AD

exactly as Luke claimed.

Here's another one.

Sergius Paulus,

Acts chapter 13,

Acts 13:7

verse 7.

Another guy

whom Paul preached before.

Scholars for many years

said there was no evidence

that Sergius Paulus

was a proconsul in Cyprus

like Luke claims

in the book of Acts.

But then,

this inscription

was discovered.

And then this one.

And these clearly show

that a Sergius Paulus

was proconsul in Cyprus

sometime in the first century.

Exactly like Luke claims.

Skeptical scholars

also accused Luke

of making up the census

mentioned in Luke chapter 2

Luke 2 · chapter mention

when Mary and Joseph

went to Bethlehem

to be registered

for Jesus' birth.

Our historical sources

tell us

that the census

actually happened

years later.

Skeptical scholars

said Luke

was wrong.

But other scholars

thought maybe

there was more

than one census.

But they were ignored.

But then we found

this inscription

which was shown

to clearly speak

about not one census

but many censuses.

And Luke

was vindicated.

The same happened

with Quirinius.

Skeptical scholars

also said that Luke

was wrong about

the governorship

of Quirinius

in Luke chapter 2.

Luke 2 · chapter mention

The ancient historian

Josephus

placed his governorship

years later

than Luke did.

Some scholars

tried to solve this

by hypothesizing

that perhaps Quirinius

was governor

more than once.

But this seemed

like special pleading.

But then

this inscription

was deciphered

and then this one

and then this one

and it showed

that there was

a governor

in the very,

very early part

of the first century A.D.

or the end

of the first century B.C.

there was a governor

of Syria

who did have

two terms

that were not consecutive

and that the most

likely candidate

for this governor

was in fact Quirinius

who therefore

seems to have been

governor more than once.

Luke was right again.

And by the way

that was not

an uncommon thing

in the ancient world.

People were often

being shuffled in and out.

We can say

the same thing

about Luke's reference

to Lysanius the Tetrarch

in Luke chapter 3.

Luke 3 · chapter mention

Scholars said

for many years

that Luke

contradicted

the historical record

by placing Lysanius

some 50 or 60 years

after he really existed.

Some faithful scholars

suggested that

maybe there was

more than one

Lysanius the Tetrarch.

But again,

this seemed like

special pleading.

But then in 1912

we found this inscription

and it proved

that there actually

were two

Lysanius the Tetrarchs.

And Luke was right

again.

And once more

that's not all that

unusual in the ancient world.

You'll have someone

who's a ruler

or a governor

or a powerful figure

and they often name

their son the same name

and that son often

goes on

or grandson goes on

to do the same job.

So it's not unusual

to find situations

like this.

You can for instance

see this

with the Roman emperors

where every single

Roman emperor

adopts the name

Augustus or Caesar.

So they all have

the same names

all dozens of them

again and again.

same thing happened

in other parts

of the world too.

All right.

These instances

teach us

that it is

never wise

to bet

against the

historical reliability

of the authors

of the New Testament.

It is true

that Luke

and Josephus

contradict one another

about the dates

of that guy

Theutis

I mentioned to you.

But we may yet

find evidence

that Luke

was right

about Theutis

and that Josephus

was the one

who was wrong

or we may find

that both were right

and there were two

figures of the same name.

After all

it's happened before

hasn't it?

But I have to say

about Theutis

that if it turns out

that Luke

is the one

who's incorrect

would this one

minor error

concerning a minor

marginal figure

really undermine

the overall credibility

of the New Testament

given how historically

reliable it is

with its other claims

especially

its important claims.

Indeed

the historical reliability

of the New Testament

is so strong

that

by some measurements

it gets better

every year.

Just a few years ago

a ring

was found

inscribed

with the name

Pontius Pilate

dating to the first century

in Jerusalem

and this once again

supports the New Testament

narrative

and it once again

bolsters the reliability

of the New Testament.

Like I say though

Pontius Pilate

is a well established

historical figure

even if we were missing

the ring

and the inscription

I showed you

he's mentioned

in many historical sources

other than those.

And this is similar

to what we saw

with the preservation

of the New Testament

where every year

every few years

we make more discoveries

that enhance

our confidence

in the preservation

of the New Testament

the same thing

happens with the accuracy

of the New Testament

also.

Okay

so let me summarize

we can be sure

that the New Testament

is true and accurate

because it is based

off of eyewitness testimony

and those eyewitnesses

were reliable

because they don't

seem to have gained

anything

from their claims

and therefore

had no motive

to lie

in fact

they gained suffering

and persecution

because of their claim

about the resurrection

of Jesus

yet they persisted

in maintaining

that Jesus

actually was resurrected

and furthermore

their disciples

suffered the same things

and even non-Christians

admit to much of this

as we saw with writers

like Celsus

and Porphyry

and Julian the Apostate

and lastly

we've just seen

how we can historically

verify dozens

if not hundreds

of the claims

that the New Testament

writers make

showing that the authors

of the New Testament

were not in the habit

of making up information

but were quite accurate

in their reports

and this even includes

instances

where scholars

charged the New Testament

with being wrong

and sometimes

they would maintain

these claims

for decades

or generations

but time and again

the New Testament

has been proven correct

through various

archaeological

and historical

discoveries

but let's do better

than this

all I've been doing

so far

is showing

that the New Testament

authors made

accurate claims

about mundane

normal

everyday events

and activities

but mundane evidence

gives only so much reason

to believe

super mundane things

the New Testament

is right

regarding normal

natural claims

but what about

supernatural claims

we want

extraordinary evidence

for extraordinary claims

can we

I wonder

can we

corroborate

the miracles

attributed to Jesus

yes I think

we can

this is because

the miracles

of Jesus

were so

impressive

and so indisputable

so beyond doubt

that non-Christians

and even

anti-Christians

admitted

that Jesus

and his disciples

worked miracles

let me show you

what I mean

and

what we're going to do here

is I'm going to

walk you through

some claims

from some

non-Christian writers

about Jesus

and we're going to go

in sort of

reverse chronological order

starting with the latest

and then getting

to the earliest

so we'll start with

a document called

the Toldoth Yeshu

scholars agree

this was probably

compiled

around

600 A.D.

it's a

Jewish account

of Jesus

however

we can track

the information

in the Toldoth Yeshu

and that information

matches up

with early

2nd century

claims about Jesus

made by other

Jewish sources

so in other words

this document

seems to have been

compiled

around 600 A.D.

but it's compiled

from earlier traditions

and those traditions

go way way earlier

if that makes sense

well the Toldoth Yeshu

it's very interesting

it's a highly

negative

account

of Jesus

trying to portray him

as a

terrible

terrible person

but it explicitly

admits

that Jesus

had the power

to raise the dead

and that his

disciple

Peter

was able to

heal

in the name

of Jesus

or this source

the Jewish Talmud

this is earlier

200 to 400 A.D.

again it has

traditions that are

probably even earlier

the Jewish Talmud

speaks about Jesus

and it mentions

that he had the power

to heal people

porphyry

now we're moving

from Jewish

into pagan territory

porphyry

wrote around the year

300 A.D.

we can date him

pretty precisely

and he was a

virulent

anti-Christian writer

he also

was perhaps

the most famous

philosopher

in the Roman Empire

at that time

and he wrote

an entire work

against Christians

he called

for Christians

to be persecuted

but in his writings

he also admitted

that Jesus

worked wonders

just like

the Bible

says

around the same

time

Heracles

was writing

as well

he was not

a philosopher

he was a

Roman governor

he was a very

powerful man

he called for

Christians to be

persecuted

and as a Roman

governor

he actually

had them

arrested

and executed

and he

like Porphyry

also wrote a book

against the Christians

and in this

just like with

Porphyry

he too

acknowledges

that Jesus

seems to have

worked

miracles

and let's

keep going

the Tosephtha

this is an

early Jewish

manual of

traditions

it talks

of a certain

James

whom it

calls

a disciple

of Jesus

who claimed

that he could

heal

in the name

of Jesus

and it

relates a

story

about how

a rabbi

desperately

tried to

get to

James

in order

to be

healed

because

he was

convinced

that James

truly had

this power

or the

oracle

of Hecate

Hecate

was a

goddess

a

Greco-Roman

goddess

and these

oracles

would

give out

statements

people would

come to

them

and make

an offering

and the

oracle

would give

out

advice

and the

oracle

Hecate

confessed

that Jesus

was immortal

it's one of

those oracles

that have been

preserved for

us

Celsus

writing around

the year

175

here's another

anti-Christian

writer

he wrote

an entire

book

against the

Christians

and in it

he acknowledges

that Jesus

worked wonders

and that early

Christians had

authority

over demons

if we go to

the year

137

to 140

Phlegon

Phlegon

is a

Greco-Roman

writer

he's a

chronographer

he's also

the fancy term

is also

a paradoxographer

he liked

cataloging

unusual

mysterious

or supernatural

happenings

and he's

writing in

137

or 140

but he

talks about

a strange

an unusual

darkness

as well as

an earthquake

that occurred

in 33

AD

just like

the gospels

say happened

at the

crucifixion of

Jesus

Phlegon also

says elsewhere

he mentions

Jesus

and he says

that Jesus

correctly predicted

the future

again

just like

the gospels

say

moving earlier

around the year

95

Josephus

he's a

Jewish historian

I've mentioned

his name

several times

he's got

a paragraph

about Jesus

and in it

he says

that Jesus

worked

miracles

and we

could perhaps

go even

a little

earlier

with a guy

named

Thalos

he wrote

between 50

and 100

AD

we're a little

unsure

of his

dates

and he

also reports

an unusual

darkness

and we

don't know

the context

of this

one

so this

one's a

little tentative

but he

seems to

have placed

this

around

the time

or around

the year

of Jesus'

crucifixion

as well

but we

still have

to talk

about

one of

the earliest

critics

of Christianity

and one

of the

greatest

someone

who murdered

Christians

and then

who became

a Christian

himself

and I'm

speaking

of someone

you all

know

of Saul

of Tarsus

he says

in his own

words that he

was trying

to destroy

the followers

of Jesus

but then

Jesus

appeared

to him

and demonstrated

his miraculous

power

and after

this Saul

of Tarsus

changed his

name to

Paul

and he

went on

to write

many of

the letters

of the

New Testament

and there

Paul talks

about how

he was a

persecutor

of Christians

and how

he was a

violent man

and how

he was a

witness of

the resurrected

Jesus

and after

many years

of ministry

and suffering

for the name

of Jesus

Paul was

executed

for his

faith in

Jesus

and we

can say

similar

things

about

others

who did

not

believe

in

Jesus

but then

changed

their

mind

after

Jesus

appeared

to them

people

like James

and Jude

whom the

Bible

testifies

did not

believe

in Jesus

when he

was

ministering

but who

were

persuaded

after

Jesus

was

resurrected

and he

appeared

to them

and these

two men

also went

on to

write

letters

in the

New

Testament

this

is

extraordinary

remember

that

ancient

authors

were

more

than

capable

of

denying

miracles

we see

this

for instance

with

Cicero

with the

Epicureans

with the

Atomists

the followers

of Democritus

with the

Jewish

Sadducees

all of whom

denied many

or even

all

supernatural

things

but Jesus

his

miracles

seem to

have been

so beyond

question

that non-Christians

and even

hostile

anti-Christians

admitted

that they

occurred

and some

of them

even seem

to have

become

Christians

themselves

so can

we trust

that the

New Testament

is true

and accurate

yes we

can

the New

Testament

is based

off of

eyewitness

testimony

and we

can trust

these

eyewitnesses

because they

don't seem

to have

a worldly

motive

to lie

they had

nothing

to gain

in fact

they risked

persecution

for their

claims

and

furthermore

their

own

disciples

suffered

the

same

and on

top of

that

the

claims

of the

eyewitnesses

can be

historically

verified

and we

can even

verify

their

miraculous

claims

and even

non-Christian

sources

admit

to many

of these

facts

but

if

this is

not

enough

for you

then

you

yourself

contest

the

authenticity

of Jesus

miraculous

powers

all

you

have

to

do

is

look

around

the

world

right

now

and

this

is

because

the

prophecies

of Jesus

Christ

contained

in the

New

Testament

are

being

remarkably

and

miraculously

fulfilled

among

us

for example

Jesus

predicted

in Matthew

24

14

he says

this

gospel

of the

kingdom

will be

preached

in the

whole

world

as a

testimony

to

all

nations

and

if

we

examine

our

world

today

we

see

that

there

is

no

other

message

on

earth

that

has

reached

so

many

people

there

is

no

message

that

has

gone

to

so

many

nations

and

so

many

countries

there

is

no

message

except

the

message

of

Jesus

that

has

been

translated

into

so

many

languages

and

has

been

adopted

by

so

many

cultures

and

has

changed

so

many

lives

Jesus

is

prophecy

is

being

to

this

and

keep

in

mind

that

when

Jesus

said

this

he

was

not

famous

or

powerful

or

popular

or

influential

when

he

predicted

these

things

he

was

a

member

of

the

underclass

a

carpenter

from

a

backwater

in

Galilee

and

he

predicted

that

his

message

would

go

into

all

the

world

and

so

far

it

has

spread

farther

than

any

other

and

against

all

odds

his

prophecy

is

being

fulfilled

Jesus

predicted

many

other

things

correctly

he

said

that

many

false

prophets

and

false

Christs

would

come

in

his

name

and

if

you

look

through

history

I

don't

think

there's

a

single

person

who

has

existed

who's

had

more

people

come

in

their

name

and

say

they

represent

them

or

they

are

them

Jesus

said

that

his

followers

would

be

brought

before

kings