(Rex Banks)
Part 3: Archaeology
In an article entitled History, Archaeology and Jesus, Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo wrote:
"A comparatively young discipline only about 125 years old, scientific archaeology has delivered a spectacular amount of "hard evidence" from the ancient world that correlates admirably with information inside the Old and New Testaments....
The existence of Nazareth in Jesus' day had been doubted by critics - until its name showed up in a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea. Augustus' census edicts (in connection with the Nativity) are borne out by an inscription at Ankara, Turkey... That husbands had to register their families for the Roman census was mandated in census papyri discovered in Egypt....
That Herod the Great ruled at the time Jesus was born is demonstrated by the numerous excavations of his massive public works in the Holy Lane, including the great Temple in Jerusalem. That his son Herod Antipas ruled Galilee is shown in similar digs at Sepphoris and Tiberias...
An inscription naming His judge on Good Friday, Pontius Pilate, was discovered at Caesarea in 1961. The very bones of the chief prosecutor at that trial, the high priest Joseph Caiaphas, came to light inside an ossuary (a stone chest used to store bones from burial sites) uncovered in 1990, the first bones of a Biblical personality ever discovered. That they nailed victims to crosses, as in Jesus' case, was proven when another ossuary was open north of Jerusalem in 1968, and a victim's heel bones appeared, transfixed with a seven-inch iron spike." (The Lutheran Witness Magazine [October, 1999])
It is certainly the case that archaeology has proved itself to be a friend of the Bible again and again, and while it is true that this discipline can tell us nothing about the truth or falsity of Christ's claims about Himself, it is also true that in many areas the historical accuracy of the writers of Scripture has been confirmed by the archaeologist's spade over the past century and a quarter. We will make brief mention two discoveries which relate directly to our present study.
i) Dominus Flevit or "The Lord Wept" Catacombs
It used to be asserted by many archaeologists that few followers of Jesus remained living in Palestine after the crucifixion, and that the use of the cross as a symbol did not occur until as late as the third and fourth centuries. Discoveries in and around Jerusalem now suggest that a large Christian community existed in Jerusalem before the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. What's more, various tomb inscriptions left behind by this community provide valuable evidence for the existence of Jesus, because they are thought to date from within just a few years of the crucifixion, and provide evidence that members of the community placed their trust and hope in someone called "Jesus."
In the 1950's well known archaeologist P. Bagatti unearthed over 100 stone coffins dating from the first century upon which were inscribed names, Christian symbols and dedications. Earlier French archaeologist Charles Clermont- Ganneau had discovered similar materials at Bethany, a village close to Jerusalem. A useful summary of this material appears in the journal Jerusalem Christian Review, and the full article is available to subscribers at http://christian.edu/. In the article are told that:
"Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with.. (Bagatti) finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 A.D.) Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century A.D., several years before the New Testament was written." (Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Names, Testimonies of First Christians: Jean Gilman)
We are also told:
Clermont-Ganneau was surprised to find names which corresponded with names in the New Testament. Even more interesting were the signs of the cross etched on several of the ossuaries (stone coffins). As Claremont-Ganneau further investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of "Eleazar"(="Lazarus"), "Martha" and "Mary" on three different coffins.
The Gospel of John records the existence of one family of followers of Jesus to which this tomb seems to belong: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick)..." (11:1, 2)
One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives contains a commemorative dedication to: "Yeshua" = "Jesus". Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century A.D. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first century coffins. He found dozens of inscribed ossuaries, which included the names Jairus, Jonathan, Joseph, Judah, Matthias, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah.
Clearly no mythical figure could have produced such an effect upon those who were living in
Jerusalem and the surrounding area in the same period that Jesus was upon earth, and who had
every opportunity to examine the facts at first-hand. What would induce a group of first century
Jews in and around Jerusalem to endure ostracism, allegations of blasphemy, financial hardship
and the stigma associated with worshipping an executed criminal, in the absence of any real
evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels was an historical figure?
ii) The Nazareth Decree
In Part 1 we mentioned that in Seutonius' Life of Claudius, there is a record of the Emperor's having "banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus." In connection with this edict, we may have another interesting piece of evidence relating to Jesus.
In 1978 an inscribed marble slab was discovered and donated to the Bibliothique Nationale in Paris. The finder stated that it had been discovered at Nazareth. It was dated to the time of Claudius, (mid 40's to mid 50's) and reads as follows:
"Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain perpetually undisturbed for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If, however, anyone charges that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing on other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honour the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of violation I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepulchre."
In an article entitled The Resurrection: Reasons To Believe adapted from his book, Solving Bible Mysteries, Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote:
"The fact of the empty tomb caused an enormous stir in Palestine. We know this not only from the New Testament evidence, but also from historical evidence. For example, an ancient decree of Claudius Caesar (who reigned A.D. 41-54) was found by archaeologists in Nazareth.... Historians believe that the unusual step of decreeing the death penalty for grave robbing is a reaction to the empty tomb of Jesus. The entire Roman Empire was turned upside down by the Christian religion, and Claudius did not want any other resurrection religions springing up and stirring up trouble. The Resurrection is the central issue of the Christian faith. All four Gospels describe Jesus' appearances to the disciples after His crucifixion."
(http://www.crministries.org/about_djk.htm#)
Now although some have pointed out that evidence linking the decree to the village of Nazareth
is inconclusive, the suggestion that Claudius was reacting to the dissension caused by the
resurrection of Jesus is certainly most reasonable. Certainly such a decree from Caesar suggests
that an issue has arisen in this context which affects the Roman state, and turmoil among the
Jews concerning the empty tomb would fit the bill.
The Patristic Writers
Under the heading Patristic Literature we have the following in Britannica:
"(B)ody of literature that comprises those works, excluding the New Testament, written by Christians before the 8th century A.D. Patristic literature is generally identified today with the entire Christian literature of the early Christian centuries, irrespective of its orthodoxy or the reverse. Taken literally, however, patristic literature should denote the literature emanating from the Fathers of the Christian Church, the Fathers being those respected bishops and other teachers of exemplary life who witnessed to and expounded the orthodox faith in the early centuries."
According to conventional reckoning, the earliest examples of patristic literature are the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers; the name derives from their supposed contacts with the Apostles or the apostolic community.
We need to add that these early Christian writers were certainly not inspired, and in fact some of their views on doctrinal matters were suspect. However in the context of our present study, their writings do provide another strand of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. In particular the writings of those closest to the apostolic period are of great value, and so we will site some relevant examples from what is called the ante-Nicene period. Keep in mind that the writers whom we cite lived at a time when devotion to Christ invited all sorts of negative reactions from both the Jewish and Gentile communities. With some modification, Origen's words concerning those disciples who viewed the risen Christ can also be applied to the early "church fathers." In his Against Celsus he comments:
"And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples - if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity - were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus." (1:31) (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm#)
Let's keep in mind that the disciples of Jesus whom we cite below lived close to the time of
Christ and were so convinced of the truth of the Gospel message that they proclaimed it in the
face of hardship and persecution.
1) Clement of Rome (30 -100 A.D.) According to Eusebius in his Church History (chapter 4), "Paul testifies (that Clement was) his co-laborer and fellow-soldier"(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm). In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, written after either the persecution of Nero or Domician Clement speaks of the birth and resurrection of Jesus:
"For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the sceptre of the twelve tribes of Israel. Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh." (chpts 31, 32)
"Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead." (chapter 24)
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841)
Born about the same time as the crucifixion, and living during the age of the apostles, Clement
had every opportunity to assess the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses of the events
described in the Gospels.
2) Ignatius of Antioch
According to Britannica Ignatius was "bishop of Antioch, Syria, known mainly from seven highly regarded letters that he wrote during a trip to Rome." He died a martyr in the cause of Christ. The following quotes tell us something of Ignatius' beliefs concerning Jesus, beliefs which he would not deny in the face of death:
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. The cross of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to the believing it is salvation and life eternal. (Ephesians 18) (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499)
"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly assumed a body; for 'the Word was made flesh' and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, 'Which of you convicteth me of sin?' He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." (Trallians 9)
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1725_293735)
3) Polycarp of Smyrna (died 156 - 168) is another who shows a martyr's death rather than deny Christ. His letter to the Philippians is of particular interest because "It probably is the first to quote passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and the first letters of St. Peter and St. John". (Britannica) The opening words of this letter reveal Polycarp's unshakeable conviction that his Lord died for the sins of mankind and was raised from the dead. He writes:
"I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because ye have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endureth even until now, and bringeth forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] whom God raised froth the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave."
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-11.htm#P770_145457)
4) Justin Martyr (c.100-165 A.D.) In Part 1 we spoke about Justin Martyr and the fact that he
appealed to official Roman records in support of his contention that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
at the time of Cyrenius, and was crucified under Puntius Pilate (Apology 1.34.2; 1.35. 7-9)
[http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967]) So certain was this man
of the reality of the faith, that he too chose a martyr's death rather than deny Jesus.
Concluding Comment
Clearly there are other areas of fruitful investigation open to those involved in this kind of study. The Roman catacombs, the apocryphal Gospels and the gnostic writings are all sources of information about the ideas and practices of the early Church. I have not touched upon them here, because these materials are not always easy to date with any degree of certainty.
Non-Christian historian Will Durant made the following insightful comment in his The Story of Civilization:
"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels."
Norman Geisler brings out an interesting point when he says: "The irony of the situation is that today the professional historians accept the historicity of the New Testament. It is the critics who use pre- archaeological and philosophical presuppositions that reject the historicity of the New Testament." (Christian Apologetics) To those not blinded by such philosophical presuppositions the evidence is clear - extra biblical sources establish the historicity of Jesus Christ as well as any historical event can be established. Home|Contents