How other historical information confirms the New Testament

The external evidence test, the second of Sanders' approach to analysing historical documents, consists of seeing whether statements made in a historical document that can be checked correlate with other evidence, such as that found by archaeology or in other historical writings.

The best story about this concerns the great English archaeologist Sir William Ramsay. He had been totally sceptical about the accuracy of the NT, especially the writings of Luke.

After going to what is now Turkey, and doing a topographical study, he was forced to totally change his mind. Later, he wrote that Luke "should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." He had believed, as per nineteenth century German higher criticism, that Acts was written in the second century.

But he found it must have been written earlier, because it reflected conditions typical of the second half of the first century. Another incident showing the trustworthiness of the NT concerned how some doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate, who had Jesus crucified in 31 A.D., and who was mentioned only in the NT and by a few other Roman and Jewish sources.

But in 1961, an archaeological expedition from Italy was digging in the ruins of Caesarea's ancient Roman theatre. One workman turned over a stone stairway--and found an inscription to Pontius Pilate on the bottom. This case illustrates a principle that disbeliveers in the Bible use time and time again.

They argue from silence, and say that because something mentioned in the OT or NT is mentioned nowhere else, it can't be true (or certainly true).

Archaeological discoveries made after such claims were have repeatedly refuted them. The NT (and OT) have shown themselves trustworthy so often in what can be checked, we can properly infer or extrapolate that the rest of what can't be checked is also reliable. This is not a procedure of blind faith.