Real people, real places - Evidence from Archaeology
Someone wrote to this web site recently saying
I find it funny that you claim archaeological evidence supports the bible. It's actually a well known fact that archaeology is the Achilles heel of religion...
They could hardly have been more wrong. In fact there is so much archaeological evidence supporting the historical accuracy of the Bible that our problem has been how to make it easily accessible on these pages. This page is a kind of 'home page' for the archaeological evidence - expect us to add more to it as time goes on.
There is a growing mass of evidence from archaeology that the Bible accounts deal with real people living in real places. But what can this evidence from archaeology do?
The examples above either provide direct confirmation of something in the Bible, or provide background information that helps us to understand what the Bible says.
Other Archaeological discoveries
The NIV Study Bible includes a chart listing more than thirty major archaeological finds relating directly to the New Testament. These include Herod's temple and winter palace, an early synagogue in Capernaum, the pool of Siloam, an inscription about Pontius Pilate, and many others. The 'Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels'[i] has a 13-page article on 'Archaeology and Geography' listing archaeological information about the background to various places mentioned in the Gospels.
When were the New Testament Documents written?
Jesus was probably crucified in spring AD 30. In 'Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?' professor F F Bruce says that the writing of the New Testament was complete by about 100 AD at the latest.
However, the Gospels may all have been written significantly earlier than that. (For example, they could all be dated before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.) In any event, they were written within one lifetime of the events they described. When they were written, many people were still living who remembered the events described.
Not only that, but scholars today generally agree that at least some of the Gospels (particularly Matthew and Luke) used earlier written sources - sources which go back even closer to the events they describe. Some of Jesus's teaching may even have been written down while he was still alive.
For much of the New Testament, we do not have any independent evidence one way or the other. However, the writers claimed that they were writing accurate history, and they claimed that what they wrote was based either on first hand experience or on careful research.
A number of small touches in the Gospel accounts sound like the recollections of eye-witnesses. (For example, John's Gospel chapter 12 verse 3, in an account of Mary anointing Jesus's feet, says 'the whole house was filled with fragrance.'). These touches do not appear to have any theological significance - nothing is made of them. So why are they there? The simplest explanation is that the writers included them because that is how they remembered things happening. Anyone who has tried to write accurately about something they have not experienced first hand knows how difficult this is. You get all kinds of details wrong. Of course, some of the details do not matter, but others are important.
So if the New Testament documents had been made up much later (as scholars have sometimes claimed), we would expect that many of their incidental details would not be accurate, and that as our knowledge of western Asia in ancient times grew, we would discover more and more discrepancies.
In fact, exactly opposite has happened. As more archaeological evidence has been discovered, the accounts in the New Testament have been confirmed again and again. This tends to show that they really are based on the testimony of eye-witnesses.
Although archaeology cannot prove that the Bible's accounts are
it certainly does not disprove them, and recent archaeological
have tended to confirm the accuracy of many background details in
Bible narratives. This in turn tends to support both
historical reliability, and the claim that they are based on the
of eye-witnesses. (It is very difficult to fake the appearance of
eye-witness if you do not really know first-hand what you are
[i] 'Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels', IVP 1992, edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall
Web sites can appear, disappear, and change their addresses - specially on less well-established sites. If you cannot find the article you want, try looking for the title of the article using a search engine, e.g. Google.com. If you find any of these articles have moved, we would really appreciate it if you could let us know.
Although not mentioned in the New Testament, Sepphoris is an important archaeological site. It was a major town in Galilee, four miles from Nazareth, built by Herod Antipas during the time when Jesus was a young man. As Jesus followed Joseph's trade of a carpenter, he would almost certainly have worked on the vast building project so close to home. It may be that when the work on the new town came to an end, Jesus took this as his moment to start his public ministry.
This book order facility in partnership with
Download a 2-minute audio presentation introducing 'Facing the Challenge'
'The Passion of the Christ'
Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' ignited strong feelings even before it was released, with some Christian and Jewish groups accusing it of anti-Semitism, while Churches block-booked tickets. Our review page has links to a wide range of resources, both for those who see the film and have questions, and for followers of Christ who want to make the most of the opportunity this film represents. Read more...
Have scientists created life?
The belief that scientists have succeeded in creating life from lifeless matter has become part of our current mythology. Yet the Miller-Urey experiment, on which this belief is based, never proved as much as was claimed for it, and is now regarded as seriously flawed. Read more...