It is almost universally acknowledged that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written by the beloved physician Luke. The question must be asked how accurate a historian was Luke? One of the greatest archaeologists of all time, Sir William Ramsay, didn’t think Luke was very accurate. In fact, he traveled throughout Asia Minor, Greece, and other places during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in an attempt to refute Luke’s historical records in the Book of Acts.
Before his travels he believed that Luke couldn’t have been very accurate because of a lack of archaeological evidence to support Luke’s claims. Ramsey, after years of study, found the exact opposite to be true, and he completely reversed his position. In fact, Ramsey went on to comment: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense … in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”1
According to (Acts 1:1-3) one of Luke’s key purposes in writing the Book of Acts was to attest to the veracity of who Jesus was and that all of His claims are trustworthy. For we read: “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” Ramsey was so impressed with the historicity of Acts that he eventually became a Christian.
Another famous Roman historian, A.N. Sherwin-White, said: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”2
According to Geisler and Turek: “Luke includes the most eyewitness details. (While Luke may not have been an eyewitness to the Resurrection itself, he certainly was an eyewitness to many New Testament events). In the second half of Acts, for example, Luke displays an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.3
In addition, Geisler and Turek comment: “Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke’s accuracy in the Book of Acts verse by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.”4 I have listed below 25 of these 84 facts to give you a flavor of Luke’s amazing detailed accuracy.5
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports [Acts 13:4-5]
2. the proper location of Lycaonia [14:6]
3. two gods known to be so associated-Zeus and Hermes [14:12]
4. the proper form of the name Troas [16:8]
5. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace [12:14]
6. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing [16:14]
7. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica [17:1]
8. the abundant presence of images in Athens [17:16]
9. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court [17:34]
10. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth [18:12]
11. the bema [judgement seat], which overlooks Corinth’s forum [18:16ff.]
12. the well attested “great goddess Artemis” [19:27]
13. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans [19:35]
14. employment of the ethnic term Asianos [20:4]
15. the appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds [21:3]
16. the flight of steps used by the guards [21:31, 35]
17. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time [22:28]
18. Ananias being high priest at this time [23:2]
19. Felix being governor at this time [23:34]
20. the name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus [24:27]
21. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time [25:26]
22. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the fact of the typical northwest wind [27:7]
23. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea [27:8]
24. the precise term [Bolisantes] for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta [27:28]
25. the conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense” [28:30-31]
It is also important to note that interspersed throughout the Book of Acts are over 30 miracles. The thing that excites me about this fact is that Luke records these miracles without any special embellishments – they are recorded just like the historical accounts are with an eye to detail and accuracy. So, if one believes the historical accounts why do so many dismiss the miraculous? I can only say that many people have an anti-supernatural bias that is uncalled for. Look if you believe that the universe was created by a supernatural force of immense power and intellect (God) then the miracles in the Book of Acts would be clearly possible and not as spectacular.
In conclusion having Luke’s amazingly accurate historical portrayal in the Book of Acts, in my opinion, makes it just as likely that his miracle accounts are also historically accurate. In fact it takes more faith to believe that these miraculous accounts didn’t take place than to believe they did.
1 Luke and the Book of Acts – Drive Thru History®
2 Archaeology Verifies Bible Ch2 (christiantrumpetsounding.com)
3 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004), p. 256.
4 Ibid., p. 256.
5 Ibid., pp. 256-259.
This is so interesting Curt! Amazing!!!