Is
the Bible Historically accurate?
Historical
and Archaeological
Reliability
Many
critics have challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible
and have been proven wrong. Here's one example. Historians questioned
the accuracy of the accounts surrounding Pontius Pilate's crucifixion
of Jesus. Pilate found nothing wrong with him and was reluctant
to crucify an innocent man. The Jews put pressure on Pilate
saying if you refuse this "you're no friend of Caesar"
(John 19:12). At which point Pilate gave in to the Jews.
This did not fit historical records we had of Pilate who was
a cruel and dominating man, not likely to give in to a group
of Jews whom he hated. Many believed that this account was historically
inaccurate because of the way in which it portrayed Pilate.
Later
it was discovered that Pilate had been appointed by a man named
Sejanus who was plotting to overthrow Caesar. Sejanus was executed
with many of his appointees (Delashmutt, Sejanus,
p. 55, 56). This demonstrated that Pilate was in no position
to get in trouble with Rome. The Jews had him in a corner. If
word returned to Rome that Jerusalem was in rebellion, Pilate
would be the first to go. The gospel account was confirmed
as accurate.
Many
parts of the Bible have been challenged with the same result.
Later archeology confirms the reliability of the biblical records
down to the smallest detail. A respected Jewish archaeologist
has claimed that,
"It
may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery
has ever controverted a biblical reference"
(Shelly, p. 103).
This is a strong statement for any archaeologist because
if it were not true, he would quickly be condemned in his own
field.
The
conclusion that one draws from this material is that the Bible
is a reliable historical document. Its accuracy has been
proven numerous times. Its historical inaccuracy has never been
demonstrated. So that when we approach the Bible, we do so with
confidence that it records what actually happened. In which
case we need to come to terms with the Bible's claims. We can't
dismiss it out of hand because we were not there.
How
do we know anything historically?
There is no "scientific" proof that Lincoln was the
president. We cannot recreate him, bring him back to life or
reproduce the experiment. We cannot calculate an equation that
tells us that he was. But we can assert with a high degree of
probability that Lincoln was indeed president and was assassinated
in 1865. We do this by appealing to historical evidence. Many
people saw Lincoln. We have some of his writings and even his
picture, not to mention his face on our pennies. But none of
this "proves", scientifically that Lincoln ever lived
or was the president.
The
kind of evidence used in historical research is the same used
in a court of law. In a courtroom case certain kinds of evidences
are appealed to in order to determine what exactly happened,
eyewitnesses are questioned, motives are examined, and physical
evidence is scrutinized such as fingerprints or journal writings.
The
evidence we have for Christ's life, death, and resurrection
is not as great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent But it is
better than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many
historical figures that we take for granted.
Christianity
Introduction | The
resurrection of Jesus Christ | the
Bible as history
Christianity and miracles | about
Jesus Christ | the accuracy
of The Bible
The
Bible - is it authentic?
