Let’s consider the following quotes from Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists in history. In his life he did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Entering into this work he was an unbeliever who was thoroughly convinced that the book of Acts was the product of the 2nd Century (a theory taught in the German schools of higher criticism). As a matter of fact, one of his goals was to prove that the history given by Luke was inaccurate. However, his beliefs were drastically changed as his archaeological finds proved that the book of Acts was accurate to the minutest detail. As a result Sir William Ramsay became a Christian. He writes:
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 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. 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 [14]
Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. [15]
In the 19th century, Acts 14:6 was consistently presented as an example of a historical error in the book of Acts. The reason for this is that the verse portrays Paul and Barnabas as entering the province of Lycaonia when they came to Lystra and Derbe. The problem with this was that Iconium, the city they had fled from, was also in Lycaonia. However, this is one of the passages Sir William Ramsay checked for the historical accuracy of Acts. His archaeological finds showed that Iconium was made a part of Phrygia only during A.D. 37-72, both before and after this it was part of Lycaonia. [17] Thus we find that Luke’s statement was written in the one and only period of history that it would be accurate!
At one time, Luke was thought to be totally inaccurate regarding details surrounding the birth of Christ in Luke 2:1-3. The critics once argued that there was no census, Quirinius was governor of Syria at a later date and that citizens did not have to return to their homelands. However, archaeology has shown that the Romans did hold censuses every 14 years. Furthermore, it is now known that Quirinius was likely governor of Syria twice, once around 6 A.D., but the other around 7 B.C., which would correspond to the time of the census of Luke 2. Finally, a papyrus was found in Egypt which gives directions for a Roman census and orders all people away from home to return in preparation of the coming census. [18]
In 1962, two Italian archaeologists dug up a Latin inscription in the town of Caesarea. It read “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans.” [19]
This article is archived in the University of Clemson’s online archives. It was submitted by the Spurgeon Foundation of Clemson. http://www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/ap…
Personally I think it is not only foolish to try to explain away such definite evidence, but it contradicts any kind of honorable approach to the method of interpretation. But I will not count my opinion as better than any others. What do you think?
