The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Chapter 5. The Scientific Evidence Does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus’ biographies?

The Power of Scientific Evidence • Strobel begins this chapter with an account of his lunch with a soon-to-be convicted murderer on trial for the stabbing of his wife and two young daughters. The defendant’s alibi fell apart when analysis of the blood evidence undermined his story.

The Power of Scientific Evidence • In a similar way, archaeology can provide support for Biblical accounts. The “study of durable rubbish” involves uncovering the remains of ancient culture. Hundreds of artifacts from the first century have been found. Architecture, art, coins, monuments and documents have all been discovered to supplement the Biblical record of ancient times.

The Fourth Interview: John McRay, PH.D. • Dr. McRay is the author of a major textbook: Archaeology and the New Testament. He has also served as a consultant to the Arts and Entertainment TV network and National Geographic. He had been at professor of archaeology and New Testament at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, for fifteen years at the time of the interview. In addition to numerous articles in professional publications and serving on numerous boards of archaeology, he has supervised excavations in Caesarea, Sepphoris, and Herodium in Israel. He has studied Roman archaeological sites in England and Wales, analyzed digs in Greece and retraced much of the apostle Paul’s journeys.

The Fourth Interview: John McRay, PH.D. • Dr. McRay begins by stating that archaeology cannot prove or disprove spiritual truths. Archaeology can support the history and geography in the New Testament, but it cannot prove that what Jesus said was right.

Digging for the Truth • If an ancient historian’s incidental details check out to be accurate time after time, this increases our confidence in other material that the historian wrote but that cannot as readily be crosschecked. • Dr. McRay states that the credibility of the New Testament is enhanced by archaeology. He presents the example of his own excavations at Caesarea that authenticated a description of the harbor of Herod the Great by Josephus.

Luke’s Accuracy as a Historian • Scholars agree that Luke is accurate as a historian. Two notable examples illustrate how archaeology has supported Luke’s accounts even when they were called into question. • In Luke 3:1 he refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. Scholars questioned this because they knew of Lysanias who had been the ruler of Chalcis 50 years earlier. Then an inscription from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 14-37, was found which supported Luke’s account. There were two different officials with the same name. Archaeology proved Luke was correct.

Luke’s Accuracy as a Historian • Another example is found in Acts 17:6. Luke refers to “politarchs” in the city of Thessalonica. The NIV translates this word as “city officials”. Because there was no record of this word in ancient Roman documents, people thought Luke was wrong. Eventually an inscription on a first-century arch was found that begins, “In the time of the politarchs…”. More than 35 such inscriptions have since been found, including several in Thessalonica from the same period Luke was referring to. Once again Luke’s account was supported by archaeological discoveries.

Luke’s Accuracy as a Historian • Strobeloffers a challenge by noting that Luke and Mark seem to contradict one another concerning the healing of a blind man named Bartimaeus. Luke says Jesus was walking into Jericho and Mark says he was coming out of Jericho. The problem is resolved by the fact that Jericho occupied at least four different sites at various times. So Jesus could have been coming out of one area of Jericho and into another at the same time. A modern example would be coming out of one suburban area and into another near a major city. Both Luke and Mark could be right.

Luke’s Accuracy as a Historian • A prominent archaeologist has examined Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands without finding a single mistake. If Luke is painstakingly accurate about incidental details, how do we fault his reporting on something much more crucial? Luke says the resurrection of Christ, the strongest evidence that Jesus was God, was firmly established by “many infallible proofs”.

The Reliability of John and Mark • Archaeological discoveries that substantiate the Gospel of John include: • The Pool of Bethesda in John 5:1-15 • The Pool of Siloam in John 9:7 • Jacob’s Well in John 4:12 • The probable location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate in John 19:13

The Reliability of John and Mark • Dr. McRay reiterated what Dr. Bruce Metzger had said about archaeologists finding a fragment of a copy of John 18 that leading papyrologists have dated to about A.D. 125. By demonstrating that copies of John existed this early and as far away as Egypt, archaeology has effectively dismantled speculation that John had been composed well into the second century, too long after Jesus’ life to be reliable. • In other words, because we have a fragment of a copy of John 18 that has been dated so early, the gospel of John can be accepted as historically reliable.

The Reliability of John and Mark • Atheist Michael Martin has challenged the geographic accuracy of Mark 7:31. He interprets the passage in such a way as to have Jesus traveling away from the Sea of Galilee in contradiction to the statement in the gospel account. But when Dr. McRay reads the text in the original language, takes the mountainous terrain and probable roads into account, and considers the loose way “Decapolis” was used to refer to a confederation of 10 cities that varied from time to time, he was able to trace a logical route that matches Mark’s description.

The Reliability of John and Mark • Dr. McRay states that archaeology has not produced anything that directly contradicts the Bible. He further adds that archaeology has confirmed biblical accounts even when scholars have had well-established opinions contrary to the Bible. • In the face of this strong statement of archaeological support for the scriptures, Strobel presents three long-standing riddles.

Puzzle 1: The Census • What support can be found for the census that required Mary and Joseph to return to Bethlehem?

Puzzle 1: The Census • Three points support the account: • 1. Ancient official census forms have been discovered; one example from A.D. 104 is given. • 2. The question of when Quirinius was governing Syria can be resolved by a coin discovered with the name on it. The date on the coin means that either there were two officials by the same name, or the official ruled Syria on two different occasions. • 3. Some scholars have translated the passage about the census in Luke as taking place before Quirinius ruled Syria. • The main point is that there is archaeological support for the census in ancient times.

Puzzle 2: Existence of Nazareth • Skeptics question the existence of Nazareth because it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, by the apostle Paul, by the Talmud or Josephus. The first mention of Nazareth by historians or geographers is in the 4th century and in Jewish literature in the 7th century.

Puzzle 2: Existence of Nazareth • Archaeologists have found a list in Aramaic describing a family of priests that were relocated to Nazareth after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Tombs have been excavated with objects in them that help define the boundaries of Nazareth. It was a small and insignificant place of about 60 acres and 480 people. Consider the words of Nathanael in John 1:46. “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?”

Puzzle 3: Slaughter at Bethlehem • There is no independent confirmation that Herod ever killed the babies in Bethlehem in an attempt to kill Jesus. Skeptics conclude that it must not have occurred.

Puzzle 3: Slaughter at Bethlehem • The problem is resolved when we consider three things: • 1. Bethlehem was a small village so only a few babies were killed. • 2. Because Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king, killing members of his own family, the fact that he had some babies killed would not have been significant. • 3. Before television, radio, newspapers and the Internet, it would have taken a long time for word of this incident to travel from this minor village in the back country and there were much more important things for historians to write about. • Back in those days a madman killing everyone who threatened him was business as usual.

Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls • Although none of the Dead Sea Scrolls mention Jesus, one document unlocks a mystery concerning who Jesus claimed to be. The scrolls date from 250 B.C. to A.D. 68. One manuscript called 4Q521 is a non-biblical manuscript written in Hebrew and dating 30 years before Jesus was born. It includes a version of Isaiah 61 that includes the phrase, “the dead are raised.” It is part of a messianic passage that talks about what the Messiah will do when he comes.

Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls • The mystery of this phrase is found in Matthew 11:3. John the Baptist, from his prison cell, sends some of his followers to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah. Jesus does not answer directly but quotes Isaiah 61. “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.” The phrase, “the dead are raised” does not appear in the Old Testament text, but it appears in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It took modern archaeology to unlock the significance of Jesus’ statement.

“A Remarkably Accurate Source Book” • While archaeology repeatedly supports the Bible, the same cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. • The Smithsonian Institute states that there is no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the Book of Mormon.

“A Remarkably Accurate Source Book” • According to John Ankerberg and John Weldon, none of the following have ever been found to support the Book of Mormon: • No cities • No person, place, nation or name • No artifacts • No scriptures, no inscriptions • By contrast, all who know the facts accept the New Testament as a remarkably accurate source book.

Discussion Question • After having considered the eyewitness, documentary, corroborating, and scientific evidence in the case for Christ, where would you rate yourself on a scale of 0 to 10? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • No confidence in the reliability of the gospels/Full confidence • What are some reasons you chose that number?

The Case for Christ