The Bible Is Confirmed by Archaeology
Second, the Bible accurately reveals historical people, events, and places. Consider the following items described in our article, “
Archaeological Finds.”
- Discovered in Israel, the Tel Dan Stele has been dated to the ninth century BC and mentions the “House of David,” shattering the long-held view of many skeptics that David was a mythical person.
- The Mesha Stele describes Moab’s subjection under Omri, the king of Israel. It also references the personal name of the God of the Bible (Yahweh), and very likely contains a reference to the “House of David” (this is debated due to an unreadable letter).
- The Pilate stone provides archaeological evidence for the existence of the man who sentenced Jesus to death on the Cross. Skeptics frequently denied his existence until the discovery of this stone, which identifies Pontius Pilate as the Prefect of Judea.1
Dr. Nelson Glueck was the president of Hebrew Union College and a highly respected archaeologist whose reliance upon the historical accuracy of Scripture led to the discovery of 1,500 ancient sites. Regarding the Bible and archaeology, he stated the following:
It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries.
2
The distinguished archaeologist Dr. William F. Albright also asserted the accuracy of the Bible’s history.
Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago.
3
Glueck and Albright focused their attention on the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament? Does it enjoy a similar level of confirmation? Actually, perhaps because it is more recent, the evidence consistent with the New Testament is more abundant. Consider the following details in just a single chapter of the Bible that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists:
- The proper location (Amphipolis and Apollonia) of where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (Acts 17:1)
- The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)
- The proper title, “politarchs,” used of the magistrates there (Acts 17:6)
- The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens with favoring east winds of summer sailing (Acts 17:14)
- The abundant presence of images in Athens (Acts 17:16)
- The reference to a synagogue in Athens (Acts 17:17)
- The depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (Acts 17:17)
- The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul, a spermologos(Acts 17:18), as well as the court (areios pagos)
- The proper characterization of the Athenian character (Acts 17:21)
- An altar to an “unknown god” (Acts 17:23)
- The proper reaction of Greek philosophers who denied bodily resurrection (Acts 17:32)
- Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)4
Remember, all of these accurate details are found in just one chapter. This does not prove every word of Scripture is true, but it reveals that the writer (Luke) had intimate knowledge of the people, customs, and places he wrote about. Also, we have no record of any ancient writer denying the historicity of the people and places described in Scripture, but we do have a number of first- and second-century sources from outside the Bible
confirming the existence of Jesus.
Many more archaeologists could be cited who verify the accuracy of the biblical text. Of course we’ll never find archaeological or paleographic evidence to confirm every person, event, or place described in the Bible. For example, historical research can provide corroborating evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus mentions these details in
Annals), but scientific disciplines cannot confirm that His death on the Cross satisfied God’s wrath against sin. However, the abundance of finds matching Scripture perfectly that have already been found show that the Bible was not just “made up.”
5
The abundance of finds matching Scripture perfectly that have already been found show that the Bible was not just “made up.”
Compare the Bible’s accuracy with the miserable archaeological record of the Mormon religion. The Mormon “holy books” teach that Native Americans are really Jews who fled Jerusalem, but DNA studies have falsified this claim. Furthermore, despite millions of dollars spent on excavations in the Americas, archaeologists have not uncovered a shred of evidence to support Mormon claims, and the early Americans did not wield scimitars or ride horses and elephants.
6
Scientists from every discipline could be quoted whose work in their respective fields have either persuaded or further convinced them that the Bible is true. But we should not rely primarily on the conclusions of learned men and women of science. While their statements are helpful, we must recognize that they can err and change their minds. So is there anything we can look at to demonstrate the Bible was not just an invention of man? Indeed there is.