Does Archaeology Support or Contradict the Gospels?
When I was teaching Sunday school, I did a series of classes using Lee Strobel's works. The following is from The Case for Christ, chapter 5. While there may be the stray original item from me, I deserve no credit for what is written in this particular article. It is properly attributed to Lee Strobel in its entirety.
Archaeology has made some important contributions to biblical research, but it certainly can’t prove whether the New Testa-ment is the Word of God. If we dig in Israel and find ancient sites that are consistent with where the Bible said we’d find them, that shows its history and geography are accurate, but it doesn’t confirm that what Jesus said is right. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological studies
So what can it tell us? Journalists and lawyers will test all the elements of a witness’ testimony that can be tested in their efforts to determine if he or she is being truthful. If the person is wrong in those details, then considerable doubt is cast on the veracity of his or her entire story. However, if the minutiae check out, then this is some indication that maybe the witness is being reliable in his or her overall account. Regarding archae-ology, the premise is that if an ancient historian’s incidental details check out to be accurate time after time, this increases our confidence in his other material that can’t be as readily cross-checked
Luke’s Accuracy As a Historian
The gospel of Luke and Acts, together comprise about ¼ of the entire New Testament. The general consensus of both conservative and liberal scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries repeatedly confirm his accuracy. In fact, several instances in which historians initially thought he was wrong only to be vindicated by later archaeological discoveries.
For example, Luke 3:1 establishes Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene in about AD 27. Scholars said everyone knows Lysanias was ruler of Chalcis half a century earlier. An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius (AD 14 - 37) that named Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus - just as Luke had written.
In Acts 17:6, Luke refers to “politarchs.” Historians thought he must be wrong since “politarchs” had never been found in any ancient Roman documents. An inscription on a first-century arch was found later that begins, “In the time of the politarchs…”
Since then, more than 35 inscriptions that mention politarchs have been found.
An objection has been raised because the gospel of Luke says Jesus was walking into Jericho when he healed the blind man Bartimaeus, but Mark says he was coming out. Well, long ago cities didn’t stay put - Jericho was in at least four different locations as much as a quarter mile apart in ancient times. The city was destroyed and resettled near another water supply or a new road or nearer a mountain or what have you. The point is you can be coming out of one site where Jericho existed and be going into another one.
One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands and found zero mistakes. If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting, on what logical basis may we assume he was gullible or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important not only to him but to others as well? What then of his telling of the resurrection, the most influential evidence of Christ’s deity, which Luke says was firmly established by “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3)?
The Reliability of John and Mark
John’s gospel was sometimes considered suspect because he talked about locations that couldn’t be verified, but this has been turned upside down in recent years. John 5:1-15 mentions the Pool of Bethesda; John provides the detail that the pool had 5 porticos (colonnaded porches or walkways). For a long time this was cited as an example of how John was wrong since no such place had ever been found. More recently the Pool of Bethesda has been excavated - it’s maybe 40 feet underground - and sure enough there are 5 porticos.
And there are other discoveries as well:
- The Pool of Siloam from John 9:7
- Jacob’s well from John 4:12
- The probable location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate in John 19:13.
So this challenges the allegation that John was written so long after the fact that it couldn’t possibly be accurate.
Other scholars have attacked the gospel of Mark, generally considered the first account of Jesus’ life to be written. Atheist Michael Martin says Mark was ignorant of Palestinian geo-graphy, demonstrating that he couldn’t have lived in the region at the time of Jesus. He cites Mark 7:31: “Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.” Martin says given these directions Jesus would have been travelling directly away from the Sea of Galilee.
Reading the text in the original language, taking into account the mountainous terrain and probable roads of the region, and considering the loose way “Decapolis” was used to refer to a confederation of 10 cities that varied from time to time, biblical scholar John McRay has been able to trace a logical route on the map that corresponded precisely with Mark’s description. When everything is put into the appropriate context, there’s no problem with Mark’s account.
The Census
The gospels record that Joseph and Mary were required to return to Joseph’s hometown of Bethlehem for the census. Many believed this was myth. Then a government order dated 104 AD was discovered - Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]: Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments. And another papyrus, dated 48 AD, indicates the entire family was involved in the census.
But another problem arises. It says the census was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria and during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius didn’t begin ruling Syria until 6 AD. A coin with the name Quirinius places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11BC until after the death of Herod. It means there were apparently 2 Quiriniuses. Another archaeologist concluded there was only 1 Quirinius but that he ruled on 2 separate occasions. Others have pointed out that Luke’s text could be translated as before Quirinius was governing Syria. The point is there are reasonable explanations.
The Existence of Nazareth
Skeptics have been asserting for a long time that Nazareth never existed during the time when the New Testament says Jesus spent his childhood there. Atheist Frank Zindler noted that Nazareth isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament, by the apostle Paul, by the Talmud (although 63 other Galilean towns are cited), or by Josephus (who listed 45 other cities and villages of Galilee, including Japha, which was located just over a mile from present-day Nazareth). No ancient historians or geographers mention Nazareth before the beginning of the 4th century. The name first appears in Jewish literature in a poem written about the 7th century AD.
Dr. James Strange describes Nazareth as being very small, about 60 acres, with a maximum population of about 480 at the beginning of the 1st century. When Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, priests were no longer needed in the temple because it had been destroyed. Priests were therefore sent to various other locations, even up into Galilee.
Archaeologists have found a list in Aramaic describing the 24 “courses,” or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having moved to Nazareth. That shows this tiny village must have been there at the time.
Archaeological digs have uncovered 1st-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth, which would establish the village’s limits because by Jewish law burials had to take place outside the town proper. Two tombs contained objects such as pottery lamps, glass vessels and vases from the 1st, 3rd, or 4th centuries. Renowned archaeologist Jack Finegan said, “From the tombs… it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period.”
There has been discussion about the location of some sites from the 1st century, like the exact location of Jesus tomb, but archaeologists have never been in doubt about the location of Nazareth. The burden of proof ought to be on those who dispute its existence.
Slaughter at Bethlehem
In Matthew, Herod the Great sends his troops to murder all the children under the age of two in Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel and escaped to Egypt. They return to settle in Nazareth after Herod dies (thus fulfilling 3 ancient prophecies about the Messiah).
The problem is there is no independent confirmation that this mass murder ever took place. There’s nothing in the writings of Josephus or other historians. There’s no archaeological support. There are no records or documents.
It’s easy to believe an event of this magnitude would have been noticed by someone other than Matthew since today an event like that would be splashed all over CNN and the rest of the media. But you have to put yourself back in the 1st century and keep a few things in mind.
First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would there be in a village of 500-600 people? Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few.
Second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king. He killed members of his own family. He executed lots of people he thought might challenge him. So the fact he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world.
Third, there was no television, radio, newspapers - it would have taken a long time for word to get out (especially from a backwater village in the middle of nowhere), and historians had much bigger stories to write about.
Essentially, a madman killing everyone who seems to be a potential threat to him was business as usual for Herod - it was probably not going to raise a lot of eyebrows.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
We can’t discuss the archaeology of the 1st century without mentioning the Dead Sea scrolls. They are hundreds of manuscripts dating from 250 BC to 68 AD that were found in caves 20 miles east of Jerusalem in 1947. They were apparently hidden by a strict sect of Jews called the Essenes before the Romans destroyed their settlement.
Some bizarre claims have been made about the scrolls, including John Marco Allegro’s absurd theory that Christianity emerged from a fertility cult in which members tripped out on hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Jesus isn’t specifically mentioned in any of the scrolls; primarily they provide insights into Jewish life and customs. However, there is a development involving a manuscript called 4Q521 that could tell us something about who Jesus was claiming to be.
Matthew describes how John the Baptist was still wrestling with Jesus’ identity and therefore sent his followers to ask Jesus if He was the one who is to come, or should they expect someone else. Instead of directly answering, Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (Matt. 11:4-5). Jesus’ response is an allusion to Isaiah 35, but for some reason Jesus included the phrase “the dead are raised,” which is conspicuously absent form the Old Testament text.
This is where 4Q521 comes in. This non-biblical manuscript from the Dead Sea collection, written in Hebrew, dates back to 30 years before Jesus was born. It contains a version of Isaiah 61 that does include the missing phrase “the dead are raised.”
Dr. Craig Evans has pointed out that this phrase in 4Q521 is unquestionably embedded in a Messianic context. It refers to the wonders the Messiah will perform when he comes and when heaven and earth will obey him. So when Jesus gave his response to John, he was not being ambiguous at all. John would have instantly recognized the words as a distinct claim that Jesus was the Messiah.