Luke's reliability as an historian is unquestionable. Unger tells us that archaeology has authenticated the Gospel accounts, especially luke. In Unger's words, "The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century and to involve the labors of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources."
Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid-19th century. As a result, he believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century AD. He was firmly convinced of this belief. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke. AS a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said: "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."
Concerning Luke's ability as a historian, Ramsay concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Ramsay adds: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."
What Ramsay had done conclusively and finally was to exclude certain possibilities. As seen in the light of archaeological evidence, the New Testament reflects the conditions of the second half of the first century AD, and does not reflect the conditions of any later date. Historically it is of the greatest importance that this should have been so effectively established. In all matters of external fact the author of Acts is seen to have been minutely careful and accurate as only a contemporary can be.
It was at one time conceded that Luke ahd entirely missed the boat in the events he portrayed as surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3). Critics argued that there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home.
First of all, archaeological discoveries show that the Romans had a regular enrollment of taxpayers and also held censuses every 14 years. This procedure was indeed begun under Augustus and the first took place in either 23-22 BC or in 9-8 BC. The latter would be the one to which Luke refers.
Second, we find evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 BC. This assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing to Quirinius this post. As a result of this finding, it is now supposed that he was governor twice - once in 7 BC and the other time in 6 AD (the date ascribed by Josephus).
Last, in regard to the practices of enrollment, a papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conduct of a census.
It reads: "Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them."
Archaeologists at first believed Luke's implication wrong that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia and Iconium was not (Acts 14:6). They based their belief on the writings of Romans such as Cicero who indicated that Iconium was in Lycaonia. Thus, archaeologists said the Book of Acts was unreliable. However, in 1910, Sir William Ramsay found a monument that showed that Iconium was a Phrygian city. Later discoveries confirm this.
Among other historical references of Luke is that of Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) at the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry in 27 AD. The only Lysanias known to ancient historians was one who was killed in 36 BC. However, an inscription found near Damascus speaks of "Freedman of Lysanias the Tetrarch" and is dated between 14 and 29 AD.
In His Epistle to the Romans written from Corinth, Paul makes mention of the city treasurer, Erastus (Romans 16:23). During the excavations of Corinth in 1929, a pavement was found inscribed: ERASTVS PRO:AED:S:P:STRAVIT ("Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense"). According to Bruce, the pavement quite likely existed in the first century AD and the donor and the man Paul mentions are probably one and the same.
Also found in Corinth is a fragmentary inscription which is believed to have borne the words "Synagogue of the Hebrews". Conceivable it stood over the doorway of the synagogue Paul debated in (Acts 18:4-7). Another Corinthian inscription mentions the city "meat market" which Paul refers to in I Corinthians 10:25.
Thus, thanks to the many archaeological finds, most of the ancient cities mentioned in the Book of Acts have been identified. The journeys of Paul can now be accurately traced as a result of these finds.
Luke writes of the riot of Ephesus and represents a civic assembly (Ecclesia) taking place in a theater (Acts 19:23ff.). The facts are that it did meet there as borne out by an inscription which speaks of silver statues of Artemis (Diana) in KJV) to be placed in the "theater during a full session of the Ecclesia." The theater, when excavated, proved to have room for 25,000 people.
Luke also relates that a riot broke out in Jerusalem because Paul took a Gentile into the temple (Acts 21:28). Inscriptions have been found which read, in Greek and Latin, "No foreigner may enter within the barrier which surrounds the temple and enclosure. Anyone who is caught doing so will be personally responsible for his ensuing death." Luke is proved right again!
Also is doubt were Luke's usages of certain words. Luke refers to Philippi as a "part" or "district" of Macedonia. He uses the Greek word meris which is translated "part" or "district." F. J. A. Hort believed Luke wrong in this usage. He said that meris referred to a "portion" not a "district," thus, his grounds for disagreement. Archaeological excavations, however, have shown that this very word, meris, was used to describe the divisions of the district. Thus, archaeology has again shown the accuracy of Luke.
Other poor word usages were attached to Luke. He was not technically correct for referring to the Philippian rulers as praetors. According tot he "scholars" two duumuirs would have ruled the town. However, as usual, Luke was right. Findings have shown that the title of praetor was employed by the magistrates of a Roman colony.
His choice of the word proconsul as the title for Gallio (ACts 18:12) is correct as evidenced by the Delphi inscription which states in part: "As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia..."
The Delphi inscription (AD 52) gives us a fixed time period for establishing Paul's ministry of one and a half years in Corinth. We know this by the fact, from other sources, that Gallio took office on July 1 and that his proconsulship lasted only one year and that one year overlapped Paul's work in Corinth.
Luke gives to Publius, the chief man in Malta, the title "first man of the island" (Acts 28:8). Inscriptions have been unearthed which do give him the title of "first man".
Still another case is his usage of politarchs to denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Since politarch is not found in the classical literature, Luke was again assumed to be wrong. However, some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of the title. Interestingly enough, five of these are in reference to Thessalonica.
In 1945, two ossuaries (receptacles for bones) were found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. These ossuaries exhibited graffiti which their discoverer, Eleazar L. Sukenik, claimed to be "the earliest records of Christianity." These burial receptacles were found in a tomb which was in use before 50 AD.The writings read Iesous iou and Iesous aloth. Also present were four crosses. It is likely that the first is a prayer to Jesus for help and the second, a prayer for resurrection of the person whose bones were contained in the ossuary.
Is it no wonder that E. M. Blaiklock, professor of Classics in Auckland University, concludes that "Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks."
The Pavement. For centuries there has been no record of the court where Jesus was tried by Pilate (named Gabbatha or the Pavement, John 19:13).
William F. Albright in The Archaeology of Palestine shows that this court was the court of the Tower of Antonia which was the Roman military headquarters in Jerusalem. It was left buried when the city was rebuilt in the time of Hadrian and not discovered until recently.
The Pool of Bethesda, another site with no record of it except in the New Testament, can now be identified "with a fair measure of certainty in the northeast quarter of the old city (the area called Bezetha, or 'New Lawn') in the first century AD, where traces of it were discovered in the course of excavations near the Church of St. Anne in 1888."
After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.
One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. One needs to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious.
Having done this, I believe one can hold the Scriptures in his hand and say, "The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable."
This section can be appropriately summarized by the words of Sir Walter Scott in reference to the Scriptures:
| Home | Site Index | Bible Index |
| Kingdom Dynamics | Truth in Action | Links |
