8 Archaeology

8

Archaeology

Discoveries of various ancient artifacts or inscriptions can add to the verisimilitude, or credibility, of New Testament reports. Accordingly, archaeology provides another angle from which we can understand the New Testament’s reliability. Though many books have been written on the relationship of archaeological discoveries to the Bible, I will briefly present a few examples that have helped add to the authenticity of the New Testament accounts. Like in the previous chapter, here we will consider three examples.

Before we do this, it is important to note that archaeology often adds to the probability of various accounts on a zoomed-out perspective. For example, the discovery of Caiaphas’s ossuary provides evidence of his existence, burial, and, given the quality of the ossuary itself, his elite status. This evidence is consistent with what we find in other ancient sources, including the New Testament. However, archaeological evidence is often limited in what it can affirm. This finding, remarkable as it is, does not confirm any discussions Caiaphas had, nor does it confirm any actions he took as high priest. But this finding is consistent with the literary reports that Caiaphas was a member of the elite class and gives an element of truthfulness to those reports. Thus, there are many archaeological discoveries that tend to add to our wider understanding by increased credibility at the broader (zoomed-out) level.

We also want to be cautious regarding archaeological discoveries because there may have been evidence that was destroyed or lost. Similar to our discussion on New Testament manuscripts, many artifacts have been lost to decay, war, theft, and so on. So we must be careful to avoid the temptation of arguments from silence. In other words, simply because we cannot find archaeological evidence is not, by itself, a reason to contend some event, practice, and so on did not occur. Even today, many events do happen, but no physical evidence remains.

A STERN TEMPLE WARNING

In Acts 21:27-36, Paul is accused of having brought a Gentile into the temple area and as a result defiling the temple. The matter is so serious that the crowd quickly attacks Paul. It takes the intervention of Roman soldiers to ultimately stop the crowds from beating Paul. Josephus, a first-century ancient Jewish writer, reports that a warning was posted alongside the temple, and failure to heed the warning could lead to death (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 15.417; Jewish War 6.125-126). Josephus’s account corroborates the report of Luke mentioned above. Additionally, it provides a second reference (e.g., multiple attestation) that the Jews were protective of the temple.

In 1871, C. S. Clermont-Ganneau discovered an inscription that contained the very temple warning described by Josephus, and in 1935 a second inscription was found with similar but fragmentary wording. The inscription is in Greek and says the following: “NO FOREIGNER MAY ENTER WITHIN THE BARRICADE WHICH SURROUNDS THE TEMPLE AND ENCLOSURE. ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO THANK FOR HIS ENSUING DEATH.” This archaeological find provides insight into the texts of Paul and Josephus. The reports associated with the temple warning are shown to have authenticity with respect to this archaeological find.

Paul was likely well aware of this warning before the incident reported in Acts 21. Despite what his accusers thought, Paul had no desire to defile the temple. After all, Paul was not found to have defiled pagan temples; how much more unlikely would it have been for him to defile the temple of the true God? As Acts indicates, Paul defiled neither.

This inscription might also shed light on Paul’s comment in Ephesians 2:14, when he writes, “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.” Some have understood Paul’s comments here to be a metaphor of the temple barrier, which separated Gentiles and Jews. The wall that separated the two groups at the temple was removed in the work and person of Jesus as he brought reconciliation to the world (see Gal 3:28). This barrier is now gone, and there is no longer a dividing wall between the two groups.

This inscription helps clarify what we find in the New Testament (as well as Josephus). It adds concrete evidence that there were severe repercussions for those who violated the warning. It was a life-and-death matter. Moreover, the warning was perhaps appropriated by Paul and used as a metaphor.

CRUCIFIXION VICTIM: YEHOHANAN

Just over fifty years ago, in 1968, an incredible discovery helped shed light on questions related to ancient crucifixion and burial practices. This discovery occurred at a burial site in Jerusalem where thirty-five bodies were found. These bodies were located within fifteen separate ossuaries. (An ossuary is a box into which an ancient Jewish person or persons would have had their bones placed about a year after death. Typically, a body would initially be placed in a burial location, such as one of the several rock-cut chambers found in Jerusalem, and about a year later the bones would be collected and placed into an ossuary.)

In one of the ossuaries a Jewish man was found who had evidently been crucified before being properly buried. His name, etched on the side of the ossuary, was Yehohanan. Significantly, the contents of this ossuary “date to the late 20s CE, that is, during the administration of Pilate, the very prefect who condemned Jesus to the cross.” The remains clearly show that a nail had gone through the victim’s heel bone.

This nail turned out to be very significant. It was not straight like a normal nail but rather had a hook at the end of it, sort of like a fishing hook. The bend at the end of the nail was created after the nail went into the victim and the wood beam. So as the straight nail went into the bone, it then struck something in the wood, causing it to bend so that it would not come out. Some think that this occurred because the nail hit a knot in the wood as it was driven into the cross. As a result, the executioners were unable to remove the nail and thus took the entire section off so that the body could properly be buried.

This finding is significant for at least two reasons. First, here is archaeological evidence corroborating that nails were used in crucifixion practices. In ancient literature, reports that attest to the use of nails during crucifixion are plentiful. This finding provides an additional layer of confirmation to these reports.

Second, and more importantly, this finding is significant because it validates what other literary texts indicate—namely, crucifixion victims could receive a proper burial and would ultimately be placed into an ossuary. Jews during this period were very concerned with burial practices. This followed from Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which states, “If a person has committed a sin carrying a sentence of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body is not to be left overnight on the tree, but you shall certainly bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is cursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.” Accordingly, an important and biblical concern was to bury the dead, even the crucified, to keep the land undefiled.

Such victims would not have been thrown into a pit or mass grave, where their bodies could not be distinguished from one another, as has occasionally been suggested. Princeton professor James Charlesworth concludes that the “old hypothesis that Jesus’ corpse must have been dumped into a pit set aside for the corpses of criminals and insurrectionists and not buried is disproved. Jehohanan’s bones had received a proper Jewish burial.” Similarly, Jewish scholar Shimon Gibson states that this finding contradicts “the notion that crucified criminals were subsequently buried disgracefully like dogs and without the dignity of a final repose.”

Additionally, Jewish communities during this time were familiar with placing a body in a rock-cut tomb in such a way that it was identifiable a year later. The bones of that body could then be properly placed into an ossuary. Yehohanan provides archaeological evidence of just such practices. Craig Evans concludes that the “reburial of the bones of Yehohanan . . . demonstrates that the Jewish people knew how to note and remember the place of primary burial.” This finding adds that crucifixion victims were also included in the group of Jews who were able to, and did, receive a proper burial.

FIVE PORTICOES

John 5:2 states, “In Jerusalem, by the Sheep Gate, there is a pool which in Hebrew is called Bethesda, having five porticoes.” This description was often dismissed as a fictional creation of John designed to function as a theological truth. Perhaps the five porticoes reflected the Pentateuch, and John’s meaning referred to something other than an actual location. Indeed, Charlesworth notes that this text of John was “dismissed as allegorical theology.” Part of the reason for this is that there were no other ancient descriptions of such a pool, nor were there any archaeological findings of a pool with five porticoes.

However, this all changed once the pool with five porticoes was discovered. Within the Sheep Gate were found two pools with four porticoes around and one separating the two pools. Shimon Gibson, who personally worked on the site, explains that it was used “specifically for ritual purity” and that it could not have been used to collect drinking water or as a pool for mere entertainment. Interestingly, Gibson also points out that “the landings at different intervals would evidently have been used for the placing of the beds of disabled people, as John implies (5:3).” Those with physical disabilities would have been unable to use normal steps, and if John’s depiction is accurate, then we would expect to find exactly the types of landings mentioned by Gibson. Thus, not only does the discovery of the pools and porticoes confirm that John was making historically accurate remarks regarding this location, but the fact that those with disabilities could use this pool also gives further credibility to John’s account.

OTHER FINDINGS

There are several other significant archaeological discoveries that I can mention only in brief here. One of them is the Delphi inscription, which provides information about when Gallio was proconsul of Corinth. The inscription says the following: “Tiberius [Claudius] Caesar Augustus Germanicus . . . [in his tribunician] power [year 12, acclaimed emperor] the twenty-sixth time, father of the country. . . . [Lucius] Junius Gallio my friend and [pro]consul [of Achaia wrote] . . .” As Everett Ferguson concludes, “Gallio’s governorship must have occurred between the summer of 51 and the summer of 52.” We know this because a proconsul served only a one-year term.

As we saw in

Other significant findings might include archaeological evidence related to Pontius Pilate. Some of the coins minted during his reign shed light on how he ruled (whether seeking to be a provocateur or not), while a stone in Caesarea Maritima has his name and position inscribed. I noted in the introduction above that Caiaphas’s ossuary was discovered and is important given his status as high priest during Jesus’ trial (e.g., Mt 26:3, 57).

Another archaeological discovery is an inscription found on a marble slab in Nazareth that warns against grave robbing or tampering with the seal of a tomb and is dated to the first century. Last, the Palatine graffito is a picture of a crucifixion victim with a donkey’s head. Below the image are inscribed the words, “Alexamenos worships (his) God,” which is likely a mocking reference to Jesus. The list could go on, with several findings of varying significance for the New Testament.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter I sought to highlight some archaeological findings and how they add another level of reliability to the New Testament. Indeed, William Ramsay provides a helpful illustration of this reality. Though Ramsay approached the archaeological data from a skeptical position, he was ultimately compelled to change his mind as he observed the archaeological evidence. Here I have been able to provide only a small introductory sample of the archaeological evidence, but even in this brief discussion, we have seen how archaeological findings corroborate details in the New Testament. Accordingly, archaeological findings provide another reason for considering the New Testament reliable.

KEY TAKEAWAYS: ARCHAEOLOGY

RECOMMENDED READING

Charlesworth, James H. Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Evans, Craig A. Jesus and the Remains of His Day: Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015.

Price, J. Randall, and H. Wayne House. Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology: A Book by Book Guide to Archaeological Discoveries Related to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

↑ Back to top