Eusebius, the early church historian, recorded what Papias said about the writings of Mark. Papias, a disciple of John, said that Mark recorded the words of Peter in a careful way. "So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."{19}

Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (c.180), also recorded a brief account of the writing of the Gospels.{20}

Archaeological findings have yet to discredit the Bible. It must be noted that interpretations of the findings vary, and there is still disagreement over some dates, names and the like. Among liberal scholars, unfortunately, there is often found a "guilty until proved innocent" attitude toward Scripture. That is, until there is independent confirmation of scriptural accounts, such accounts are not accepted as true. Thus, the burden is on those who believe the Bible to be historically trustworthy to prove it.

It is important to note, however, that nothing in Scripture has been proved false. The findings of archaeology continue to affirm the accuracy of the Bible. Archaeologist William F. Albright said this: "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the 1,21 value of the Bible as a source of history. {21}

Accusations about the Bible's historicity have to be dealt with as they come. Here, we'll just note one finding which supports a conservative view as an illustration of how archaeology is our friend.

One of the favorite criticisms of biblical critics was that Moses couldn't have written the Pentateuch because writing wasn't known in his day. This belief was proved false by the finding of the Ebia tablets. The Ebia Kingdom flourished in 2300 BC in present-day Syria. These tablets proved that there was writing in the time of Moses. They also showed that cultures in the time of Moses weren't as primitive as critics had believed. Incidentally, they also supported the account of Abraham's victory over the Mesopotamian kings recorded in Gen. 14, a story considered fictitious by critics.

There are still more evidences to support the dependability and thus the truth of the Bible: the survival of Scripture through history despite attempts to destroy it at various times; the continuity of the church itself which stands on the Bible; the positive effect that Scripture has on individuals and cultures; the accuracy of Scripture in its portrayal of human nature, and its ability to impart wisdom for living which is proved constantly; the accuracy of Scripture in its descriptions of the faults and sins of even the most loved and respected biblical characters; etc. Such evidences don't by themselves directly prove the truth of the Bible. But by showing it to be accurate in all other points, we now have more reason to believe it with respect to spiritual matters.