HISTORICALLY ACCURATE!
If the Bible is but a fairy tale it is one with a catalog of confirming historical and archeological evidence for both the Old and New Testaments. Repeatedly, critics have questioned the accuracy of the biblical accounts only to be proven wrong. Doubters said the Hittites, mentioned dozens of times in Scripture, never really existed. Then archaeologists found records of this people in Turkey. Abraham’s home city of Ur has been found. Among the artifacts unearthed not far from that site, were examples of ancient Sumerian writings. These records speak of the dynasty then in power as being the third one after the flood. In another example, scientists have confirmed that not only did the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah exist, but were located just as described and ultimately suffered through a great conflagration. An archaeological team, dug “down to about 1650 BC—when Sodom was believed destroyed—they uncovered a five-foot layer of soot. Randomly scattered throughout this vast “destruction matrix” were bits of melted brick, burned fragments of human bones and other baffling detritus.” Pottery found there with a “glossy green glaze” was taken to a lab that “concluded that the pottery had been melted by super-intense heat lasting a very short period of time.” Scientists believe that the destruction was caused by a “cosmic airburst/impact event.” An article published in the scientific journal, Nature, described what scientists found. “(i) stones fell from the sky; (ii) fire came down from the sky; (iii) thick smoke rose from the fires; (iv) a major city was devastated; (v) city inhabitants were killed; and (vi) area crops were destroyed.”[i]
The discovery of the Babylonian chronicles substantiates the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. And archaeology has confirmed elements of 2 Kings regarding the rebellion of the Moabites. Literally thousands of archeological finds have repeatedly confirmed details of the Biblical narrative.[ii] [iii] Among others, Got Questions lists these among the summary of archaeological discoveries that support the biblical narrative. “Egypt’s invasion of Israel (1 Kings 14:25); the Assyrian siege of Lachish (2 Kings 18-19); the trade relations between Israel and Sheba (1 Kings 10); the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem; and the reigns of Kings Omri, Ahab, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Ahaz, Jeroboam II, and Jehoiachin (1 and 2 Kings)”[iv]
Time and again Luke, author of the Gospel that bears his name as well as the Book of Acts, has proven to be a model of historical accuracy. This was found to be true even when confronted by the doubts of more modern scholars. Here are some examples. An inscription unearthed from an area northwest of Damascus verified Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene, confirming Luke 3:1 Luke’s use of the term ‘politarchs’ in Acts 17:6 was similarly questioned and later confirmed. As more details are confirmed, the perception of validity increases. If true in the small details, it is more likely to be true in the important message it is trying to convey. In fact, Luke’s writing has been found to be accurate down to the prevailing direction of winds and currents described in the Book of Acts.[v] [vi]
There are other examples. The Pool of Bethesda talked about in the fifth chapter of John’s Gospel has been discovered complete with the five porticoes described. So was the Pool of Siloam and Jacob’s Well.[vii] The ossuary of Caiaphas, who played such a prominent role in the trial of Jesus, along with an inscription referring to Pontius Pilate, is on display at the Israeli Museum in Jerusalem. Inscriptions on Christian burial memorials referring to Jesus as Lord, and ‘Jesus Christ the Redeemer’ have been found dating back to as little as 10 years after the crucifixion. This testifies to the fact that even at that early date Christ was being accepted as the Son of God. This was not, as some critics have asserted, a later invention that crept in over the centuries. The name of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned in Marks’s Gospel as the man put into service to help Jesus to carry the cross is found on yet another ossuary. Finally, and most eerily perhaps, a discovery was made in a cave just off the Bethany road and near the site of that village. Again, found on ossuaries, along with the sign of the cross were three very familiar names from the gospels; those of Martha, Mary and Lazarus whom Jesus called back to life.[viii]
EARLY GOSPELS – NO ROOM FOR MYTHOLOGY
One of the keys to testing the historical accuracy of the New Testament is dating the gospels. If indeed they were written long after Jesus death that would allow time for inaccuracies and mythical elements to creep into the accounts. Even in liberal circles now, the dating of the gospels runs to about 90 – 100 AD. This is still within the lifetimes of Jesus’ contemporaries. These witnesses would have either corroborated or contradicted the gospel accounts. A movement based upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and using for evidence his crucifixion and his miracles, would have had a hard time generating any momentum if it was being successfully contradicted in its most basic facts.
But more careful scholarship has put the writing of the gospel accounts at an even earlier point in history. After reexamining the evidence, Cambridge scholar Dr. John Robinson believes they were completed by AD 64, less than a generation after Christ’s death. Archaeologist Dr. William Albright dates them at between 50 and 75 AD. Scholars point to the abrupt ending of the Book of Acts, Luke’s second work, and the failure of any New Testament writings to mention the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in the year 70. The Gospels were entirely silent on this event that would have given added credence to Christ’s prophecy. So, they were finished before the start of the Jewish-Roman War in AD 66-70. Because we find portions of Mark’s gospel in Luke’s work, we know that it must have been written earlier than that. Further, the writing of the major epistles of Paul pre-dated even these earliest Gospels, dating back to the 40’s and 50’s. Contained in those works are clear unambiguous statements of the divinity of Christ and the saving nature of his death and resurrection.
Now there is good evidence that belief in the resurrection can be documented back to within two years of the crucifixion. Almost all of the witnesses would still have been alive. It would have been impossible for this new movement to have grown up in Jerusalem, where so much of its history had taken place, if the Christian message had been based on distortions or outright lies. In fact, opponents of nascent Christianity never claimed that the miracles of Jesus did not happen. In the face of the thousands of witnesses to his teaching and his many works, they could not do so. There was no room here for the encroachments of mythology.[ix] [x]
FOLLOWED TO THE DEATH
Consider this. The Apostles and Gospel writers had nothing to gain by promoting this new religion. They were flawed, weak men. James and John tried to set aside for themselves the choice places of power and prestige in the Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37, Matthew 20:20-21) Peter denied Jesus three times during the crisis of his ministry. The others abandoned Christ completely at his time of trial. In sum, Jesus’ closest disciples were; weak, vacillating and scheming. They had been witnesses to His many signs and wonders, His healings, His mastery over nature. Still their faith failed. Then something changed. They saw the risen Christ! It was the Resurrection that changed them. They had seen Jesus beat the very forces of death, fulfilling the ancient prophecies. Yet just a short time after his crucifixion they were speaking out boldly for the truth of his resurrection from the dead. They did so in the face of institutional opposition that they knew was not beyond seeking their very lives. And to what gain? There was none. This wasn’t about money ore position. To the contrary, many faced persecution wherever they went.
They were witnesses to His crucifixion and burial. But once they had seen Him, and touched Him, and eaten with Him, and later received the Holy Spirit, – they were transformed. The Truth was alive in them. They witnessed the martyrdom of many contemporaries of their movement. Yet they persisted. And when they preached they called as witnesses the people to which they spoke. In their message they pointed to the public miracles Christ had performed. And the movement grew because the people knew that evidence first hand.
Almost all eventually paid with their lives, going to their deaths proclaiming the reality of Jesus and His message. Peter was crucified in Rome, – upside down. Nathaniel was whipped to death in Armenia. Andrew hung on a cross for two days, preaching to his executioners all the while. Thomas was speared to death in India. Jesus’ brother James, (not an apostle but a major church leader), was thrown from the top of the Temple and then beaten to death with a club. Matthew was martyred in Ethiopia, Gospel author Mark was dragged by horses through the streets of Alexandria, Egypt. There is something else. ‘The Faith’ grew up in Jerusalem. Christianity was born right there where Jesus conducted much of His ministry: Where if it were not true, – it could have easily been destroyed. After the claimed Resurrection the authorities could have produced the body and put an end to the young movement. They didn’t: Because they couldn’t! If the apostles were telling lies, the Christian Faith could have never got off the ground.
[i] Eric, Metaxas, Is Archaeology Proving the Bible?, Newsweek, October 4, 2021
[ii] Lee Strobel, The Case For Faith, Zondervan, 2000, pgs 83-85
[iii] Paul E Little, Know Why You Believe, Chariot Victor, 1999, pgs 78-85
[iv] How does archaeology support the Bible?, Got Questions, viewed April 5, 2025
[v] Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, pgs 130-132
[vi] Paul E Little, Know Why You Believe, Chariot Victor, 1999, pgs 76-77
[vii] Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, pgs 132-133
[viii] Grant Jeffrey, The Great Debate, Frontier Research, 1999, pgs 84-91
[ix] Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, pgs 40-44 & pg 66
[x] Grant Jeffrey, The Great Debate, Frontier Research, 1999, pgs 50-54
Leave a Reply