by Paul Barnett
It is not right to set the New Testament against archaeology; or vice versa. The New Testament itself is archaeology.
The texts used by Bible translators are just as much artefacts as an inscription on a stone, a papyrus scroll or a coin. It is an authentic replica.
It’s different to a Picasso ‘print’ in your lounge room – though this is also an authentic replica. It matters greatly that the artwork is a reproduction. But what the New Testament reader has in a Bible is text, not pictures. And text is text is text! It is truly an archaeological ‘find’ that we had all along without knowing it!
As it happens, there are also artefacts from the era – original ‘hard copy’. These provide general, direct and primary evidence for the New Testament.
By general evidence I mean artefacts that cast light on the people or things mentioned in the New Testament. From the Galilee region, for example, we have evidence of a fishing industry, including stone anchors, sinkers, and a large timber fishing boat from Jesus’ time. In Caesarea Maritima, archaeologists have reconstructed the harbour from Herod’s time, from which Paul would have embarked on a number of occasions. The case for the reliability of Acts has been strengthened by the discovery of inscriptions mentioning local officials like the ‘Politarchs’ (of Thessalonica), the ‘Town Clerk’ (of Ephesus) or the ‘First Man’ (of Malta). These pieces demonstrate that the New Testament arose authentically from its era. There were fishermen in Galilee in Jesus’ time; there was a harbour from which Paul left Caesarea; there were local bureaucrats with the precise titles mentioned in passing in Acts.
There is also direct evidence, such as coins bearing the names of people we meet in the Gospels: King Herod, his sons Archelaus, Antipas and Philip. Inscriptions refering to Pontius Pilate, military Prefect of Judaea, and the high priest Caiaphas, have come to light. Another found in Yalvac (Pisidian Antioch), mentions Sergius Paulus. This would have been the son or grandson of the governor of Cyprus converted through Saul of Tarsus (and on whose account Saul may have taken the name ‘Paul’).
This direct evidence provides immediate linkages from the New Testament into ‘world history.’ Such links abound in the literature written by Josephus, Philo, Tacitus and Suetonius. Somehow, though, the ‘hard copy’ in stone has its own appeal.
Finally, there is primary evidence. This has dramatically come forth in the past months in the Jerusalem ossuary of James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. Israeli scientists have pronounced the ossuary authentic and epigraphists have reached a similar opinion about the written text. It’s important that Jacov is named as son of Yosef and brother of Yeshua. Ossuary references to X as brother of Y are rare. This is precisely how the New Testament puts it. James is the brother of the Lord.
These three kinds of evidence – general, direct and primary – establish the genuineness of the rise of Christianity as found in the pages of the New Testament. At the same time, however, the text from which translations are made is itself replica-artefact and the basis for what we believe and proclaim. The best artefact is still the written text of the twenty-seven New Testament documents. Other kinds of artefact will remain relatively minor and subsidiary.
Dr Paul Barnett is the author of several books, including Is the New Testament history?
