The Bible, History & Archaeology
The testimony of the former skeptic historian and archaeologist Sir William Ramsay is one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archaeological evidence for the New Testament. “Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia Minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believed existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archaeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:
‘I began with a mind unfavorable to it...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.’ [1]
The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White also verifies Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:
‘Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted’ [3]
The personal findings of many other historians and archaeologists, many of whom try to test the Bible’s reliability have also found out for themselves how accurate the Biblical account is, as compared with other texts, both religious and ancient historical texts.
“Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that agreed with Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate,just to name a few. The noted Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck summed it up very well:
It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible [4].
When compared against secular accounts of history,the Bible always demonstrates amazing superiority. The noted biblical scholar R.D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, meticulously analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archaeological artifacts. Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, thus offering a means of comparison. Wilson showed that the names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly,down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable. Famous historians such as the Librarian of Alexandria, Ptolemy, and Herodotus failed to document the names correctly, almost always misspelling their names. In many cases the names were barely recognizable when compared to its respective artifact or monument.
In the words of the University of Yale archaeologist Millar Burrows:
...Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine [5].
When persons from whichever field with honest hearts search, God has shown His presence in various ways imaginable – philosophy, archaeology, science, and in everyday life. For some, at times it takes drastic circumstances to hit before they admit God’s existence.
References:
1. William M. Ramsay, St.Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1982, pg 8
2. William M. Ramsay, TheBearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament,1915, pg 222
3. A.N Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in theNew Testament, 1963, pg. 189
4. Nelson Glueck, Riversin the Desert, 1960, pg 31
5. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones,1941, p 1
Sections also adaptedfrom: http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm
'Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...thisauthor should be placed along with the very greatest historians' [2].
