http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1420
Archaeology and the New Testament
Any time a book alleges to report historical events accurately, that
book potentially opens itself up to an immense amount of criticism. If
such a book claims to be free from all errors in its historical
documentation, the criticism frequently becomes even more intense. But
such
should be the case, for it is the responsibility of present
and future generations to know and understand the past, and to insist
that history, including certain monumental moments, is recorded and
related as accurately as possible.
The New Testament does not necessarily claim to be a systematic
representation of first-century history. It is not, per se, merely a
history book. It does claim, however, that the historical facts related
in the text are accurate, with no margin of error (2 Timothy 3:16-17;
Acts 1:1-3). It is safe to say that, due to this extraordinary claim,
the New Testament has been scrutinized more intensely than any other
text in existence (with the possible exception of its companion volume,
the Old Testament). What has been the end result of such scrutiny?
The overwhelming result of this close examination is an enormous cache
of amazing archaeological evidence that testifies to the exactitude of
the various historical references in the New Testament. As can be said
of virtually every article on archaeology and the Bible, the following
few pages that document this archaeological evidence only scratch the
surface of the available evidence. Nevertheless, an examination of this
particular subject makes for a fascinating study in biblical accuracy.
THE PILATE INSCRIPTION
Few who have read the New Testament accounts of the trial of Jesus can
forget the name Pontius Pilate. All four gospel accounts make reference
to Pilate. His inquisition of Jesus, at the insistence of the Jewish
mob, stands as one of the most memorable scenes in the life of Jesus. No
less than three times, this Roman official explained to the howling mob
that he found no fault with Jesus (John 18:38; 19:4,6). Wanting to
placate the Jews, however, Pilate washed his hands in a ceremonial
attestation to his own innocence of the blood of Christ, and then
delivered the Son of God to be scourged and crucified.
 |
| Discovered in 1961, “The Pilate Inscription” offers
remarkable archaeological testimony that a man named Pontius Pilate once
governed Judea. Credit: Zev Radovan, Jerusalem. |
What can be gleaned from secular history concerning Pilate? For
approximately two thousand years, the only references to Pilate were
found in such writings as Josephus and Tacitus. The written record of
his life placed him as the Roman ruler over Judea from A.D.
26-36. The records indicate that Pilate was a very rash, often violent
man. The biblical record even mentioned that Pilate had killed certain
Galileans while they were presenting sacrifices (Luke 13:1). Besides an
occasional reference to Pilate in certain written records, however,
there were no inscriptions or stone monuments that documented his life.
Such remained the case until 1961. In that year, Pilate moved from a
figure who was known solely from ancient literature, to a figure who was
attested to by archaeology. The Roman officials who controlled Judea
during Jesus’ time, most likely made their headquarters in the ancient
town of Caesarea, as evinced from two references by Josephus to Pilate’s
military and political activity in that city (Finegan, 1992, p. 128).
Located in Caesarea was a large Roman theater that a group of
Italian-sponsored archaeologists began to excavate in 1959. Two years
later, in 1961, researchers found a two-foot by three-foot slab of rock
that had been used “in the construction of a landing between flights of
steps in a tier of seats reserved for guests of honor” (see McRay, 1991,
p. 204). The Latin inscription on the stone, however, proved that
originally, it was not meant to be used as a building block in the
theater. On the stone, the researchers found what was left of an
inscription bearing the name of Pontius Pilate. The entire inscription
is not legible, but concerning the name of Pilate, Finegan remarked:
“The name Pontius Pilate is quite unmistakable, and is of much
importance as the first epigraphical documentation concerning Pontius
Pilate, who governed Judea A.D. 26-36 according
to commonly accepted dates” (p. 139). What the complete inscription once
said is not definitely known, but there is general agreement that
originally the stone may have come from a temple or shrine dedicated to
the Roman emperor Tiberius (Blaiklock, 1984, p. 57). A stronger piece of
evidence for the New Testament’s accuracy would be difficult to find.
Now known appropriately as “The Pilate Inscription,” this stone slab
documents that Pilate was the Roman official governing Judea, and even
uses his more complete name of Pontius Pilate, as found in Luke 3:1.
POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA
When writing about the Christians in Thessalonica who were accused of
turning “the world upside down,” Luke noted that some of the brethren
had been brought before the “rulers of the city” (Acts 17:5-6). The
phrase “rulers of the city” (NKJV, ASV; “city authorities”—NASV) is translated from the Greek word
politarchas,
and occurs only in Acts 17 verses 6 and 8. For many years, critics of
the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration accused Luke of a historical
inaccuracy because he used the title
politarchas to refer to the city officials of Thessalonica, rather than employing the more common terms,
strateegoi (magistrates) or
exousiais (authorities). To support their accusations, they pointed out that the term
politarch
is found nowhere else in Greek literature as an official title. Thus,
they reasoned that Luke made a mistake. How could someone refer to such
an office if it did not exist? Whoever heard or read of
politarchas
in the Greek language? No one in modern times. That is, no one in
modern times had heard of it until it was found recorded in the various
cities of Macedonia—the province in which Thessalonica was located.
In 1960, Carl Schuler published a list of 32 inscriptions bearing the term
politarchas.
Approximately 19 out of the 32 came from Thessalonica, and at least
three of them dated back to the first century (see McRay, 1991, p. 295).
On the Via Egnatia (a main thoroughfare through ancient Thessalonica),
there once stood a Roman Arch called the Vardar Gate. In 1867, the arch
was torn down and used to repair the city walls (p. 295). An inscription
on this arch, which is now housed in the British Museum, ranks as one
of the most important when dealing with the term
politarchas. This particular inscription, dated somewhere between 30 B.C. and A.D.
143, begins with the phrase, “In the time of Politarchas...” (Finegan,
1959, p. 352). Thus, the arch most likely was standing when Luke wrote
his historical narrative known as Acts of the Apostles. And the fact
that politarchs ruled Thessalonica during the travels of Paul, now
stands as indisputable.
SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS
Throughout the apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, he and his fellow
travelers came in contact with numerous prestigious people—including
Roman rulers of the area in which the missionaries were preaching. If
Luke had been fabricating these travels, he could have made vague
references to Roman rulers without giving specific names and titles. But
that is not what one finds in the book of Acts. On the contrary, it
seems that Luke went out of his way to document specific cities, places,
names, and titles. Because of this copious documentation, we have ample
instances in which to check his reliability as a historian.
One such instance is found in Acts 13. In that chapter, Luke documented
Paul’s journey into Seleucia, then Cyprus, and Salamis, then Paphos. In
Paphos, Paul and his companions encountered two individuals—a Jew named
Bar-Jesus, and his companion Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man who
summoned Paul and Barnabas in order to hear the Word of God (Acts
13:4-7). This particular reference to Sergius Paulus provides the
student of archaeology with a two-fold test of Luke’s accuracy. First,
was the area of Cyprus and Paphos ruled by a proconsul during the time
of Paul’s work there? Second, was there ever a Sergius Paulus?
For many years, skeptics of Luke’s accuracy claimed that the area
around Cyprus would not have been ruled by a proconsul. Since Cyprus was
an imperial province, it would have been put under a “propraetor” not a
proconsul (Unger, 1962, pp. 185-186). While it is true that Cyprus at
one time had been an imperial province, it is not true that it was such
during Paul’s travels there. In fact, “in 22 B.C.
Augustus transferred it to the Roman Senate, and it was therefore
placed under the administration of proconsuls” (Free and Vos, 1992, p.
269). Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce expanded on this information when he
explained that Cyprus was made an imperial province in 27 B.C.,
but that Augustus gave it to the Senate five years later in exchange
for Dalmatia. Once given to the Senate, proconsuls would have ruled
Cyprus, just as in the other senatorial provinces (Bruce, 1990, p. 295).
As Thomas Eaves remarked:
As we turn to the writers of history for that period, Dia Cassius (Roman History) and Strabo (The Geography of Strabo),
we learn that there were two periods of Cyprus’ history: first, it was
an imperial province governed by a propraetor, and later in 22 B.C.,
it was made a senatorial province governed by a proconsul. Therefore,
the historians support Luke in his statement that Cyprus was ruled by a
proconsul, for it was between 40-50 A.D. when
Paul made his first missionary journey. If we accept secular history as
being true we must also accept Biblical history, for they are in
agreement (1980, p. 234).
In addition to the known fact that Cyprus became a senatorial province,
archaeologists have found copper coins from the region that refer to
other proconsuls who were not much removed from the time of Paul. One
such coin, called appropriately a “copper proconsular coin of Cyprus,”
pictures the head of Claudius Caesar, and contains the title of
“Arminius Proclus, Proconsul…of the Cyprians” (McClintock and Strong,
1968, 2:627).
Even more impressive than the fact that Luke had the specific title
recorded accurately, is the fact that evidence has come to light that
the record of Sergius Paulus is equally accurate. It is interesting, in
this regard, that there are several inscriptions that possibly could
match the proconsul recorded by Luke. The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)
records three ancient inscriptions that could be possible matches (see
Hughes, 1986, 2:728). First, at Soli on the north coast of Cyprus, an
inscription was uncovered that mentioned Paulus, who was a proconsul.
The authors and editors of the ISBE contend that the earliest this
inscription can be dated is A.D. 50, and that it
therefore cannot fit the Paulus of Acts 13. Others, however, are
convinced that this is the Paulus of Acts’ fame (Unger, 1962, pp.
185-186; see also McGarvey, n.d., 2:7). In addition to this find,
another Latin inscription has been discovered that refers to a Lucius
Sergius Paulus who was “one of the curators of the Banks of the Tiber
during the reign of Claudius.” Eminent archaeologist Sir William Ramsay
argued that this man later became the proconsul of Cyprus, and should be
connected with Acts 13 (Hughes, 2:728). Finally, a fragmentary Greek
inscription hailing from Kythraia in northern Cyprus has been discovered
that refers to a Quintus Sergius Paulus as a proconsul during the reign
of Claudius (Hughes, 2:728). Regardless of which of these inscriptions
actually connects to Acts 13, the evidence provides a plausible match.
At least two men named Paulus were proconsuls in Cyprus, and at least
two men named Sergius Paulus were officials during Claudius’ reign.
Luke’s accuracy is confirmed once again.
CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION
Throughout centuries of history, crucifixion has been one of the most
painful and shameful ways to die. Because of the ignominy attached to
this means of death, many rulers crucified those who rebelled against
them. Historically, multiplied thousands have been killed by this form
of corporal punishment. In a brief summary of several of the most
notable examples of mass crucifixion, John McRay commented that
Alexander Jannaeus crucified 800 Jews in Jerusalem, the Romans crucified
6,000 slaves during the revolt led by Spartacus, and Josephus saw
“many” Jews crucified in Tekoe at the end of the first revolt (1991, p.
389). Yet, in spite of all the literary documentation concerning
crucifixion, little, if any, physical archaeological evidence had been
produced from the Bible Lands concerning the practice. As with many of
the people, places, and events recorded in the Bible, the lack of this
physical evidence was not due to a fabrication by the biblical author,
but was due, instead, to a lack of archaeological information.
In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first indisputable remains of a
crucifixion victim. The victim’s skeleton had been placed in an ossuary
that “was typical of those used by Jews in the Holy Land between the end
of the second century B.C. and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.
70” (McRay, 1991, p. 204). From an analysis of the skeletal remains of
the victim, osteologists and other medical professionals from the
Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem were able to determine that the
victim was a male between the approximate ages of 24 and 28 who was
about 5 feet 6 inches tall. Based on the inscription of the ossuary, his
name seems to have been “Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol,” although the
last word of the description is still disputed (p. 204). The most
significant piece of the victim’s skeleton is his right heel bone. A
large spike- like nail had been hammered through the right heel. Between
the head of the nail and the heel bone, several fragments of olive wood
were found lodged. Randall Price, in his book,
The Stones Cry Out,
suggested that the nail apparently hit a knot in the olive stake upon
which this man was crucified, causing the nail and heel to be removed
together, due to the difficulty of removing the nail by itself (1997, p.
309). [A full-color photograph of the feet portion of the skeleton
(showing the nail) can be seen in an article, “Search for the Sacred” by
Jerry Adler and Anne Underwood in the August 30, 2004 issue of
Newsweek magazine (144[9]:38).]
|
|
| This rare find of a spiked nail through a human heelbone is
the first archaeological evidence that the heels of crucified victims
were nailed to a wooden cross, as described in the Bible. Credit: Zev
Radovan, Jerusalem. |
As to the significance of this find, Price has provided an excellent
summary. In years gone by, certain scholars believed that the story of
Jesus’ crucifixion had several flaws, to say the least. First, it was
believed that nails were not used to secure victims to the actual cross,
but that ropes were used instead for this purpose. Finding a heel bone
with a several-inch-long spike intact, along with the fragments of olive
wood, is indicative of the fact that the feet of crucifixion victims
were attached to the cross using nails. Second, it had been suggested
that victims of crucifixion were not given a decent burial. Certain
scholars even believed that the account of Jesus’ burial in the tomb of
Joseph of Arimathea was contrived, since crucifixion victims like Jesus
were thrown into common graves alongside other condemned prisoners. The
burial of the crucified victim found by Tzaferis proves that, at least
on certain occasions, crucifixion victims were given a proper Jewish
burial (1997, pp. 308-311; cf. Adler and Underwood, 2004, 144[9]:39).
COUNTING QUIRINIUS
The precision with which Luke reported historical details has been
documented over and over again throughout the centuries by
archaeologists and biblical scholars. In every instance, wherever
sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced, Luke has been
vindicated as an accurate and meticulously precise writer. Skeptics and
critics have been unable to verify even one anachronism or discrepancy
with which to try to discredit the biblical writers’ claims of being
governed by an overriding divine influence.
However, observe the above-stated criterion that serves as the key to a fair and proper assessment of Luke’s accuracy:
wherever sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced. Skeptics often level charges against Luke and the other biblical writers on the basis of
arguments from silence.
They fail to distinguish between a genuine contradiction on the one
hand, and insufficient evidence from which to draw a firm conclusion on
the other. A charge of contradiction or inaccuracy within the Bible is
illegitimate, and therefore unsustained, in those areas where evidence
of historical corroboration is either absent or scant.
In light of these principles, consider the following words of Luke:
And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar
Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took
place while Quirinius was governing Syria (Luke 2:1-2).
Some scholars have charged Luke with committing an error, on the basis
of the fact that history records that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was
Governor of Syria beginning in A.D. 6—several years
after
the birth of Christ. It is true that thus far no historical record has
surfaced to verify either the governorship or the census of Quirinius as
represented by Luke at the time of Jesus’ birth prior to the death of
Herod in 4 B.C. As distinguished biblical
archaeologist G. Ernest Wright of Harvard Divinity School conceded:
“This chronological problem has not been solved” (1960, p. 158).
This void in extant information (which would permit definitive
archaeological confirmation) notwithstanding, sufficient evidence
does
exist to postulate a plausible explanation for Luke’s allusions,
thereby rendering the charge of discrepancy ineffectual. Being the
meticulous historian that he was, Luke demonstrated his awareness of a
separate provincial census during Quirinius’ governorship beginning in A.D.
6 (Acts 5:37). In view of this familiarity, he surely would not have
confused this census with one taken ten or more years earlier. Hence
Luke observed that a
prior census was, indeed, taken at the command of Caesar Augustus sometime prior to 4 B.C. He flagged this earlier census by using the expression
prote egeneto
(“first took place”)—which assumes a later one (cf. Nicoll, n. d.,
1:471). To question the authenticity of this claim, simply because no
explicit reference has yet been found, is unwarranted and prejudicial.
No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius
around A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole
authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice. Sir William
Ramsay, world-renowned and widely acclaimed authority on such matters,
stated over one hundred years ago:
[W]hen we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second
census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no
argument against the trustworthiness of Luke’s statement (1897, p. 386).
In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by
Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of
Syria previous to, and during, the time period that Jesus was born. It
is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by
Caesar to instigate a census/enrollment during that time frame, and that
his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat
appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term
legatus—the normal title for a Roman governor. Rather, he used the participial form of
hegemon
that was used for a propraetor (senatorial governor), procurator (like
Pontius Pilate), or quaestor (imperial commissioner) [see McGarvey and
Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the
historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finegan
concluded: “Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely
plausible” (1959, 2:261). Indeed it does.
GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA
Acts chapter 18 opens with a description of Paul’s ministry in the city
of Corinth. It was there that he came into contact with Aquila and his
faithful wife Priscilla, both of whom had been expelled from Rome at the
command of Claudius, and who, as a result, had come to live in Corinth.
Because they were tentmakers, like Paul, the apostle stayed with them
and worked as a “vocational minister,” making tents and preaching the
Gospel. As was usually the case with Paul’s preaching, many of the Jews
were offended, and opposed his work. Because of this opposition, Paul
told the Jews that from then on he would go to the Gentiles. That said,
Paul went to the house of a man named Justus who lived next door to the
synagogue. Soon after his proclamation to go to the Gentiles, Paul had a
vision in which the Lord instructed him to speak boldly, because no one
in the city would attack him. Encouraged by the vision, Paul continued
in Corinth for a year and six months, teaching the Word of God among the
people.
After Paul’s eighteen-month-long stay in Corinth, the opposition to his
preaching finally erupted into violent, political action. Acts 18:12-17
explains.
When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up
against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, “This fellow
persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” And when Paul was
about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter
of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I
should bear with you. But if it is a question of words and names and
your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of
such matters.” And he drove them from the judgment seat. Then all the
Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before
the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things.
From this brief pericope of scripture, we learn several things about
Gallio and his personality. Of paramount importance to our discussion is
the fact that Luke recorded that Gallio was the “proconsul of Achaia.”
Here again Luke, in recording specific information about the political
rulers of his day, provided his readers with a checkable point of
reference. Was Gallio ever really the proconsul of Achaia?
Marianne Bonz, the former managing editor of the
Harvard Theological Review,
shed some light on a now-famous inscription concerning Gallio. She
recounted how, in 1905, a doctoral student in Paris was sifting through a
collection of inscriptions that had been collected from the Greek city
of Delphi. In these various inscriptions, he found four different
fragments that, when put together, formed a large portion of a letter
from the Emperor Claudius. The letter from the emperor was written to
none other than Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Bonz, 1998, p. 8).
McRay, in giving the Greek portions of this now-famous inscription, and
supplying missing letters in the gaps of the text to make it legible,
translated it as follows:
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, of
tribunician authority for the twelfth time, imperator twenty-sixth
time.… Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia
(1991, pp. 226- 227).
And while certain portions of the above inscription are not entirely
clear, the name of Gallio and his office in Achaia are clearly legible.
Not only did Luke accurately record the name of Gallio, but he likewise
recorded his political office with equal precision.
The importance of the Gallio inscription goes even deeper than
verification of Luke’s accuracy. This particular find shows how
archaeology can give us a better understanding of the biblical text,
especially in areas of chronology. Most scholars familiar with the
travels and epistles of the apostle Paul will readily admit that
attaching specific dates to his activities remains an exceedingly
difficult task. The Gallio inscription, however, has added a piece to
this chronological puzzle. Jack Finegan, in his detailed work on
biblical chronology, dated the inscription to the year A.D. 52, Gallio’s proconsulship in early A.D. 51, and Paul’s arrival in Corinth in the winter of A.D.
49/50. Finegan stated concerning his conclusion: “This determination of
the time when Paul arrived in Corinth thus provides an important anchor
point for the entire chronology of Paul” (1998, pp. 391- 393).
A WORD ABOUT OSSUARIES
The
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land provides an
excellent brief description of ossuaries in general. The writers explain
that an ossuary is a box about 2.5 feet long, usually made out of clay
or cut out of chalk or limestone, used primarily to bury human bones
after the soft tissue and flesh have decomposed. Ossuaries, in fact,
are typical of the burial practices in Jerusalem and its vicinity during the Early Roman period, i.e., between c. 40 B.C. and A.D. 135. Ossuaries found in the Herodian cemetery in Jericho are dated by Hachlili to a more restricted time period of between A.D. 10-68 (“Ossuary,” 2001, p. 377).
Ossuary panels often had decorations on them, and many had inscriptions
or painted markings and letters, indicating whose bones were inside.
Of interest is the fact that many of the ossuaries discovered to date
contain the same names that we find in various biblical accounts. And,
while we cannot be sure that the bones contained in the ossuaries are
the bones of the exact personalities mentioned in the Bible, the
matching nomenclature does show that the biblical writers at least
employed names that coincided accurately with the names used in general
during the time that the New Testament books were written.
Coming down the direct descent on the Mount of Olives is the site known as
Dominus
flevit, “the name embodying the tradition that this is the place where
‘the Lord wept’ over Jerusalem” (Finegan, 1992, p. 171). In 1953,
excavations began in this area, and a large cemetery was discovered,
consisting of at least five hundred known burial places. Among these
many burial sites, over 120 ossuaries were discovered, more than 40 of
which contained inscriptions and writing. Among the labeled ossuaries,
the names of Martha and Miriam appear on a single ossuary. Other names
that appear on the ossuaries are Joseph, Judas, Solome, Sapphira,
Simeon, Yeshua (Jesus), Zechariah, Eleazar, Jairus, and John (Finegan,
1992, pp. 366-371). Free and Vos, in their brief critique of Rudolph
Bultmann’s “form criticism,” used ossuary evidence to expose a few of
the flaws in Bultmann’s ideas. They wrote:
[S]ome scholars formerly held that personal names used in the gospels,
particularly in John, were fictitious and had been selected because of
their meaning and not because they referred to historical persons. Such
speculations are not supported by the ossuary inscriptions, which
preserve many of the biblical names (1992, p. 256).
|
|
| The ornate nature of this ancient Jewish ossuary with the
name “Caiphas” inscribed on it leads many biblical archaeologists to
connect this burial box to the Caiaphas of the Bible. Credit: Zev
Radovan, Jerusalem. |
Along these same lines, Price discussed several ossuaries that were
found accidentally in 1990, when workers were building a water park in
Jerusalem’s Peace Forest. Among the twelve limestone ossuaries
discovered, one
was exquisitely ornate and decorated with incised rosette. Obviously it
had belonged to a wealthy or high-ranking patron who could afford such a
box. On this box was an inscription. It read in two places Qafa and Yehosef bar Qayafa (“Caiphas,” “Joseph, son of Caiphas”) [1997, p. 305].
Price connected this Caiphas to the one recorded in the Bible, using
two lines of reasoning. First, the Caiaphas in the biblical record was
an influential, prominent high priest who would have possessed the means
to obtain such an ornate burial box. Second, while the New Testament
text gives only the name Caiaphas, Josephus “gives his full name as
‘Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood’ ” (1987, p.
305). Of further interest is the fact that the ossuary contained the
bones of six different people, one of whom was a man around the age of
60. Are these the bones of the Caiaphas recorded in the New Testament?
No one can be sure. It is the case, however, that many ossuary finds, at
the very least, verify that the New Testament writers used names that
were extant during the period in which they wrote.
A note of caution is needed regarding attempts to prove a direct
connection between ossuary finds and biblical characters. The most
famous such attempt thus far comes from the “James” ossuary that
captured the world’s attention in late 2002. The inscription on that
particular bone box reads: “James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
Was this the ossuary that contained the bones of Jesus Christ’s
physical brother? In 2002, the answer remained to be seen. In a brief
article I authored on this matter in December 2002, I wrote: “At
present, we cannot be dogmatic about the ossuarial evidence” (
Butt,
2002). Currently, the inscription still finds itself embroiled in
debate. After analyzing the inscription, a committee appointed by the
Israeli Antiquities Authority declared it to be unauthentic. According
to Eric Myers, a Judaic-studies scholar at Duke University, “the
overwhelming scholarly consensus is that it’s a fake” (as quoted in
Adler and Underwood, 2004, 144[9]:38). However, Hershel Shanks, the
distinguished editor of
Biblical Archaeology Review, insists that
the inscription remains antiquated and may possibly be linked to the
Jesus and James of the Bible (Shanks, 2004; cf. Adler and Underwood, p.
38).
Whether or not the inscription is actually authentic remains to be
seen. Yet, even if the inscription does prove to date to approximately
the first century, that still would not prove that the ossuary contained
the bones of Jesus’ physical brother. It would prove that names like
Joseph, James, and Jesus were used during that time in that region of
the world, which would, at the very least, verify that the biblical
writers related information that fit with the events occurring at the
time they produced their writings. As Andrew Overman, head of classics
at Macalester College, stated: “Even if the [James] Ossuary is genuine,
it provides no new information” (as quoted in Adler and Underwood, p.
39). When looking to archaeology, we must remember not to ask it to
prove too much. The discipline does have limitations. Yet, in spite of
those limitations, it remains a valuable tool that can be used to shed
light on the biblical text. As Adler and Underwood remarked, the value
of archaeology is “in providing a historical and intellectual context,
and the occasional flash of illumination on crucial details” (p. 39).
GENTILES AND THE TEMPLE
Near the end of the book of Acts, the apostle Paul was making every
effort to arrive in the city of Jerusalem in time to celebrate an
upcoming Jewish feast. Upon reaching Jerusalem, he met with James and
several of the Jewish leaders, and reported “those things which God had
done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (Acts 21:19). Upon hearing
Paul’s report, the Jewish leaders of the church advised Paul to take
certain men into the temple in order to purify himself along with the
men. While in the temple, certain Jews from Asia saw Paul, and stirred
up the crowd against him, saying,
Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere
against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also
brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place (Acts
21:28).
In the next verse, the text relates the fact that the men had seen
Trophimus the Ephesian with Paul in the city, and they “supposed” that
Paul had brought him into the temple (although the record does not
indicate that anyone actually
saw this happen).
In response to the accusation that Paul had defiled the temple by
bringing in a Gentile, the text states that “all the city was disturbed;
and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the
temple; and immediately the doors were shut” (Acts 21:30). The next
verse of Acts states explicitly what this violent mob planned to do with
Paul: “Now as they were seeking to kill him, news came to the commander
of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.” Under what law or
pretense was the Jewish mob working when it intended to kill Paul?
|
|
| The stone inscription forbidding Gentiles from entering the
sanctified area of the temple in Jerusalem. Credit: Zev Radovan,
Jerusalem. |
A plausible answer to this query comes to us from archaeology. In his
description of the temple in Jerusalem, Josephus explained that a
certain inscription separated the part of the temple that Gentiles
could enter, from the portions of the temple that they
could not enter. This inscription, says Josephus, “forbade any foreigner to go in, under pain of death” (
Antiquities,
15:11:5). A find published in 1871 by C.S. Clermont- Ganneau brings the
picture into clearer focus. About 50 meters from the actual temple
site, a fragment of stone with seven lines of Greek capitals was
discovered (see Thompson, 1962, p. 314). Finegan gives the entire Greek
text, and translates the inscription as follows:
No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and enclosure around the
temple area. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death
which will follow (1992, p. 197).
In addition to this single inscription, another stone fragment was
found and described in 1938. Discovered near the north gate of Jerusalem
(also known as St. Stephen’s Gate), this additional stone fragment was
er than the first, and had six lines instead of seven. The partially
preserved words clearly coincided with those on the previous
inscription. Finegan noted concerning the preserved words: “From them it
would appear that the wording of the entire inscription was identical
(except for
aut instead of
eautoo)….” As an interesting
side note, Finegan mentioned that the letters of this second inscription
had been painted red, and that the letters still retained much of their
original coloration (1992, p. 197).
In light of these finds, and the comments by Josephus, one can see why
the mob in Acts 21 so boldly sought to kill Paul. These inscriptions
shed light on the biblical text, and in doing so, offer further
confirmation of its accuracy.
CORBAN
On several occasions, Jesus was accosted by the Pharisees and other
religious leaders, because He and His disciples were not doing exactly
what the Pharisees thought they should be doing. Many times, the
religious leaders had instituted laws or traditions that were not in
God’s Word, but nonetheless were treated with equal or greater reverence
than the laws given by God. In Mark 7:1-16, the Bible records that the
Pharisees and other leaders were finding fault with the disciples of
Jesus because Jesus’ followers did not wash their hands in the
traditional manner before they ate. The Pharisees said to Jesus: “Why do
your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but
eat bread with unwashed hands?” (Mark 7:5).
Upon hearing this accusatory interrogation, Jesus launched into a
powerful condemnation of the accusers. Jesus explained that His
inquisitors often kept
their beloved traditions, while ignoring
the commandments of God. Jesus said: “All too well you reject the
commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition” (Mark 7:9). As a
case in point of their rejection of God’s Law, Christ went on to say:
For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “He who
curses father or mother, let him be put to death.” But you say, “If a
man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have
received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift to God),” then you
no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the
word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed
down. And many such things you do (Mark 7:11-13, emp. added).
In this passage, Jesus repudiated the Pharisees’ ungodly insistence
upon their own traditions, and at the same time included a reference
that can be (and has been) authenticated by archaeological discovery.
Jesus mentioned the word
corban, a word that the writer of the
gospel account felt needed a little explanation. Mark defined the word
as “a gift to God.” In a discussion of this term in an article by
Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer, the word comes into sharper focus. They
documented a fragment of a stone vessel found near the southern wall of
the temple. On the fragment, the Hebrew word
krbn (korban—the
same word used by Jesus in Mark 7) is inscribed (1992, p. 41). Of
further interest is the fact that the inscription also included “two
crudely drawn birds, identified as pigeons or doves.” The authors
mentioned that the vessel might have been “used in connection with a
sacrifice to celebrate the birth of a child” (Ritmeyer, 1992, p. 41). In
Luke 2:24, we read about Joseph and Mary offering two pigeons when they
took baby Jesus to present Him to God. Since these animals were the
prescribed sacrifice for certain temple sacrifices, those who sold them
set up shop in the temple. Due to the immoral practices of many such
merchants, they fell under Jesus’ attack when He cleansed the temple and
“overturned the tables of the moneychangers and seats of those who sold
doves” (Mark 11:15).
CONCLUSION
Over and over, biblical references that can be checked, prove to be
historically accurate in every detail. After hundreds of years of
critical scrutiny, both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible have
proven their authenticity and accuracy at every turn. Sir William
Ramsay, in his assessment of Luke’s writings in the New Testament,
wrote:
You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other
historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest
treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does
not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (1915, p. 89).
Today, almost a hundred years after that statement originally was
written, the exact same thing can be said with even more certainty of
the writings of Luke—and every other Bible writer. Almost 3,000 years
ago, the sweet singer of Israel, in his description of God’s Word, put
it perfectly when he said: “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm
119:160).
REFERENCES
Adler, Jerry and Anne Underwood (2004), “Search for the Sacred,”
Newsweek, 144[9]:37-41, August 30.
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1982),
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Blaiklock, E.M. (1984),
The Archaeology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), revised edition.
Bonz, Marianne (1998), “Recovering the Material World of the Early Christians,” [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/arch/re covering.html.
Bruce, F.F. (1990),
The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third revised edition.
Butt, Kyle (2002), “James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus,” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/495.
Eaves, Thomas F. (1980), “The Inspired Word,”
Great Doctrines of the Bible, ed. M.H. Tucker (Knoxville, TN: East Tennessee School of Preaching).
Finegan, Jack (1959),
Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), second edition.
Finegan, Jack (1992),
The Archeology of the New Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), revised edition.
Finegan, Jack (1998),
Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992),
Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Hughes, J.J. (1986), “Paulus, Sergius,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition),
Antiquities of the Jews, in
The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, transl. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), “Cyprus,”
Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date),
New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Y. Pendleton (no date),
The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Foundation).
McRay, John (1991),
Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
“Ossuary” (2001),
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, ed. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson (New York: Continuum).
Price, Randall (1997),
The Stones Cry Out (Eugene, OR: Harvest House).
Ramsay, William M. (1897),
St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962 reprint).
Ramsay, William M. (1915),
The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).
Ritmeyer, Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer (1992), “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,”
Archaeology and the Bible: Archaeology in the World of Herod, Jesus and Paul, ed. Hershel Shanks and Dan P. Cole (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Review).
Shanks, Hershel (2004), “The Seventh Sample,” [On-line], URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingseventh.html.
Thompson, J.A. (1962),
The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Thompson, J.A. (1987),
The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third edition.
Unger, Merrill (1962),
Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wright, G. Ernest (1960),
Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
