The physician and historian, Luke, authored both the gospel bearing his name and the Book of Acts, which together constitute about one quarter of the New Testament. Consequently, an issue comes up whether Luke was a historian who could be trusted to get things right. But the general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. The archaeological discoveries are showing over and over that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.
In his book "The Case For Christ", Lee Strobel interviews John McRay, PH.D, a professor of New Testament and archaeology, and author of the 432 page textbook "Archaeology and the New Testament", explains some of the archaeology finds that prove Luke's accuracy.
In Luke 3:1 Luke refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For years, scholars pointed to this evidence that Luke didn't know what he was talking about, since everybody knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis half a century earlier. But archaeology stepped in. An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus - just as Luke had written. It turned out there had been two government officials named Lysanias! And Luke was exactly right.
Another example is Luke's reference in Acts 17:6 to "politarchs," which is translated as "city officials" by the NIV, in the city of Thessalonica. For a long time people thought Luke was mistaken, because no evidence of the term "politarchs" had been found in any ancient Roman documents.
However, an inscription on a first century arch was later found that begins, "In the time of the politarchs..." You can see this in the British museum today. And then later archaeologists have found more than 35 inscriptions that mention politarchs, several of these in Thessalonica from the same period Luke was referring to. Once again the critics were wrong and Luke was shown to be right.
Then there’s the "contradiction" of Luke and Mark, in which the gospel of Luke states that Jesus was walking into Jericho when He healed the blind man Bartimaeus, while Mark says He was coming out of Jericho. McRay explained "It only appears to be a contradiction when you think in contemporary terms, in which cities are built to stay put. But that wasn't necessarily the case long ago. Jericho was in at least four different locations as much as a quarter of a mile apart in ancient times. The city was destroyed and resettled near another water supply or a new road or nearer a mountain or whatever. The point is, you can be coming out of one site where Jericho existed and be going into another one, like moving from one part of suburban Chicago to another part of suburban Chicago." Mark and Luke are both right, Jesus could have been going out of one area of Jericho and into another at the same time.
One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke's references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake.
The bottom line on all this is: If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting, said one book on the topic, on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?
Matters, for example, like the resurrection of Jesus, the most influential evidence of His deity, which Luke says was firmly established by "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3).
By George Konig
May 8, 2005
www.georgekonig.org
See a list of all of our commentaries