A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament
by J. Warner Wallace
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a 19th-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-second 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 first-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 Roman Citizen,” p. 4.
Ramsay became convinced of Luke’s reliability based on the latter’s 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…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>