The Case For Christ

e
exactly right."
Another example is Luke's reference in Acts 17:6 to "politarchs,"
which is translated as "city officials" by the NIV, in the city
of Thessalonica. "For a long time people thought Luke was
mistaken,
because no evidence of the term 'politarchs' had been found in
any ancient Roman documents," McRay said.
"However, an inscription on a first-century arch was later found
that begins, 'In the time of the politarchs . . .' You can go to
the British Museum and see it for yourself. And then, lo and
behold, archaeologists have found more than thirty-five
inscriptions that mention politarchs, several of these in
Thessalonica from the same period Luke was referring to. Once
again the critics were wrong and Luke was shown to be right."
An objection popped into my mind. "Yes, but in his gospel Luke
says that Jesus was walking into Jericho when he healed the blind
man Bartimaeus, while Mark says he was coming out of Jericho.'
Isn't this a clear-cut contradiction that casts doubt on the
reliability of the New Testament?"
McRay wasn't stung by the directness of my question. "Not at
all," came his response. "It only appears to be a contradiction
because you're thinking in contemporary terms, in which cities
are built and stay put. But that wasn't necessarily the case long
ago. Jericho was in at least four different locations as much as
a quarter of a mile apart in ancient times. The city was
destroyed and resettled near another water supply or a new road
or nearer a mountain or whatever. The point is, you can be coming
out of one site where Jericho existed and be going into another
one, like moving from one part of suburban Chicago to another
part of suburban Chicago."
"What you're saying is that both Luke and Mark- could be right?"
I asked.
"That's correct. Jesus could have been going out of one area of
Jericho and into another at the same time."
Again archaeology had answered another challenge to Luke.
And given the large portion of the New Testament written by him,
it's extremely significant that Luke has been established to be a
scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details.
One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke's references