8. Are the Witnesses Honest? (4)

Internal criteria	External criteria
(1) Did he know what he was talking about?	(1) Motive for falsification?
(2) Are there specific irrelevant details?	(2) Confirmation from other sources?
(3) Self-damaging information?	(3) Confirmation from archaeology?
(4) Are the document consistent?	(4) Could contemporaries verify the testimonies?
(5) Is there evidence of exaggeration?

 

If archaeological findings and/or the historical record can substantiate the testimonies, the document’s trustworthiness is obviously increased. If any of these findings would contradict the accounts, their credibility would be dramatically challenged.

We have already discussed these evidences earlier,[1] therefore I would just like to share a few quotations from renowned archaeologists and Bible scholars to summarize the conclusions:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy.…this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians….Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness”[2] (Sir William Ramsay, 1959-1939, New Testament scholar and archaeologist).

“Archaeological discoveries of the past generations in Egypt , Syria and Palestine have gone far to establish the uniqueness of early Christianity as a historical phenomenon”[3] (W.F. Albright, 1891-1971, archaeologist and Biblical scholar).

“Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution, and not to be minimized”[4] (Millar Burrows, 1869-1980, professor of Biblical literature).

“Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record”[5] (F.F. Bruce, 1910-1990, Biblical scholar).

Start reading about the next criterion: 4) Could contemporaries verify
the testimonies?

 

Internal criteria	External criteria
(1) Did he know what he was talking about?	(1) Motive for falsification?
(2) Are there specific irrelevant details?	(2) Confirmation from other sources?
(3) Self-damaging information?	(3) Confirmation from archaeology?
(4) Are the document consistent?	(4) Could contemporaries verify the testimonies?
(5) Is there evidence of exaggeration?