Archaeology and Luke

For years the gospel of Luke was a good one to take potshots at because of its “wrong history” and its “misuse of words.” Within the last century, however, archaeology has vindicated the book of Luke.

People thought Luke was wrong for several reasons. Many of the things he wrote were not supported by archaeological research, even into the 1900s.

In 1910, Sir William Ramsey found a monument that showed that Iconium was a Phrygian city, not a Lycaonian city as previous archaeologists had thought.

An archaeological find, dated between AD 14 and 29, near Damascus confirmed the existence of Lysanias the Tetrarch. Prior to this archaeologists had claimed that Luke was wrong because there was only one Lysanias in any of the information available.

Luke referred to Gallio as a proconsul. But Greek language and Roman civilization scholars insisted that such a man, in such a position, would never have been called a proconsul. However, at the beginning of the last century (20th) an inscription was found which read in part, ?As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia??

Luke used the word politarch to refer to the city officials at Thessalonica. However, the word is not found in classical Greek literature. In recent years, however, more than a dozen inscriptions have been unearthed which use that title.

1 thought on “Archaeology and Luke

  1. Magician, Raymond E Feist ( the whole series actually – this is a great opener). Rise of a boy to powerful key figure spanning two worlds. I particularly liked that they did the series from both sides. The same events handled very differently by two very different cultures. Get the chance – pick it up 🙂

    Visit me @

Comments are closed.