(Excerpted and slightly modified from our Ready With An Answer (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1997))
The test of external evidence seeks to either corroborate or falsify the documents on the basis of additional historical literature and data. Is there corroborating evidence outside the Bible for the claims made in the Gospels? Or are the claims of the New Testament successfully refuted by other competent reports or eyewitnesses?
Any honest investigation will reveal that the New Testament passes the test. For example, we show in Ready With an Answer that the resurrection itself had never been refuted, even by Jesus’ own enemies, and that Luke’s careful historical writing has been documented from detailed, personal archaeological investigation by former critic Sir William Ramsay.[1] A.N. Sherwin-White, the distinguished historian of Rome, stated of Luke: “For [the book of] Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”[2]
Papias, a student of the apostle John[3] and Bishop of Hierapolis around 130 AD, observed that the apostle John himself noted that Mark, in writing his Gospel, “wrote down accurately... whatsoever [Peter] remembered of the things said or done by Christ. Mark committed no error... for he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things [Peter] had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”[4] Fragments of Papias’ Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, ca. 140 AD, assert that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are all based on reliable eyewitness testimony (his portion on Luke is missing).[5]
The relevant bibliographic, internal and external evidence for the New Testament force us to concede the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospel accounts. They pass persuasive tests which determine their integrity. Even two hundred years of scholarly rationalistic biblical criticism have proven nothing except that the writers were careful and honest reporters of the events recorded, and that these methods attempting to discredit them were flawed and biased from the start.[6]
In conclusion, it is not only a demonstrable historical fact that Jesus lived and taught what the New Testament says He lived and taught, it is also a fact that the Bible is the best-documented and most accurately preserved book of ancient history. That means we can trust what the authors say as true. When we examine the evidence for something like the resurrection of Jesus as reported in the New Testament, there is no logical, historical, or other basis upon which to doubt what is written.
The existence of both Jewish and secular accounts, to a significant degree, confirm the broad picture of Christ we have in the New Testament.[7] For example, scholarly research, such as that by Dr. G.R. Habermas in Ancient Evidences for the Life of Jesus, indicates that “a broad outline of the life of Jesus” and His death by crucifixion can be reasonably and directly inferred from entirely non-Christian sources.[8] Even the resurrection of Christ can be indirectly inferred.
“Using only the information gleaned from these ancient extrabiblical sources, what can we conclude concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus? Can these events be historically established based on these sources alone? Of the seventeen documents examined in this chapter, eleven different works speak of the death of Jesus in varying amounts of detail, with five of these specifying crucifixion as the mode. When these sources are examined by normal historical procedures used with other ancient documents, the result is conclusive. It is this author’s view that the death of Jesus by crucifixion can be asserted as a historical fact from this data....
“The ancient references to the resurrection are fewer and more questionable. Of the seventeen sources, only six either imply or report this occurrence, with four of these works being questioned in our study. Before answering the issue concerning Jesus’ resurrection, we will initially address the cognate point of whether the empty tomb can be established as historical by this extrabiblical evidence alone. There are some strong considerations in its favor.
“First, the Jewish sources which we have examined admit the empty tomb, thereby providing evidences from hostile documents....
“Second, there are apparently no ancient sources which assert that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body. While such an argument from silence does not prove anything, it is made stronger by the first consideration from the hostile sources and further compliments it.
“Third, our study has shown that Jesus taught in Palestine and was crucified and buried in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. These sources assert that Christianity had its beginnings in the same location. But could Christianity have survived in this location, based on its central claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, if the tomb had not been empty?
“It must be remembered that the resurrection of the body was the predominant view of the first century Jews. To declare a bodily resurrection if the body was still in a nearby tomb points out the dilemma here. Of all places, evidence was readily available in Jerusalem to disprove this central tenet of Christian belief.”[9]
There also exists detailed archeological confirmation for the New Testament documents.[10] Archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson, author of New Light on the New Testament Letters, New Light on the Gospels, Rock, Relics and Biblical Reliability, and a three-volume set on the archaeological confirmation of the Bible, writes concerning Luke:
“Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:41; 16:2, 6-8. He identified regions, such as that referred to in Acts 13:49, and various cities, as in Acts 14:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as “the temple-keeper of Artemis” (Acts 19:35).... he refers to different local officers by their exact titles—the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Philippi (Acts 16:20, 35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer at Corinth (Aedile)—which was the title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23)....
“Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11, 12). He knew that Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images (Acts 19:26, 27)....
“At these points, archeology has had something significant to say, sometimes where the biblical record had previously seemed to be in error. One good example relates to those magistrates at Philippi. In Acts 16:20, 35 we read of the magistrates being referred to as ‘praetors.’ Strictly, their title should have been duumvir, but it was as though they called themselves, ‘senior magistrates’ instead of magistrates. Ramsay showed by an inscription recovered in another Roman colony, Capua, that Cicero had spoken of the magistrates: ‘Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wish to be called praetors.’
“This is a point at which critics had thought Luke was in error, but the fact is Luke was better informed than those who opposed him. His writings constantly bear this impress of authenticity. He was an eyewitness of so much that is recorded in the Acts, and the source documents have now been recognized as first-class historical writings.”[11]
This is only a minuscule portion of the data underlying his conclusion that “Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book.”[12]
The complete inability of the numerous enemies of Jesus and the early Church to discredit Christian claims (when they had both the motive and ability to do so) also argues strongly for their veracity, especially in light of the dramatic nature of those claims (e.g., concerning Christ’s messiahship and resurrection) and the relative ease of disproof (documenting Jesus’ failure to fulfill specific prophecies, producing Jesus’ body).
In Part 4 we will discuss the final four facts.