The Case for Christmas - Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies? (part 2 of 4) - 10 December 2006

scripture focus

Luke 3:1-6

theme

the peace of christmas

summary

we experience peace at christmas because the scientific evidence confirms Jesus’ existence

As some of you will know, I, fairly regularly, misplace my keys. Often, I have had to call others to come to my rescue (thank you, John) and to let me into my office, my home, my car, etc.

There is little worse than the feeling of anxiety and despair that results from such a loss. To be locked out of my home and unable to prepare my lunch ... even the thought starts my tummy grumbling. To be unable to get into my car and onto my next appointment ... the humility is unbearable. To be unable to get into my office and to finish my work ... well ... a forced coffee-break is not always that bad.

How amazing that such seemingly mundane events can ruin one’s sense of peace. If a whole day can be ruined by the loss of keys, how much more so is our life ruined by the loss of our innocence?

Sadly, the commercialisation of Christmas is an example of just such a loss. This is the time of year to celebrate the birth, two thousand years ago, of a child in a manger in Bethlehem, who became for us the “Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6, NRSV) that was described so far in advance of his actual birth. When we should experience peace, we face stress, unreasonable expectations, and mounting debt. God desires so much more for us.

But who am I to tell you that Jesus is the reason for the season? How can I prove to you that his birth made any difference whatsoever and justify our celebration of his birthday each year?

Well, last week, we discovered that we can indeed trust the biographies of Jesus which were written by eyewitnesses to his life, his teaching, and his resurrection with the help of Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for Christmas.

Today, let’s explore the scientific evidence, particularly in the field of archaeology, to see whether it confirms the eyewitness testimony.

In a court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness is powerful when it is compelling and convincing. Yet, as an alibi is offered, the prosecutors and police will investigate every aspect of the accident or crime so as to corroborate or negate the testimony.

This illustration is no different than the efforts of supporters and detractors of the Christian faith. Each will investigate every aspect of the story of Christmas, and of Jesus’ life, so as to corroborate or invalidate his existence and the testimony about him.

Archaeology is one science which particularly proves useful as a tool for confirming the existence of Jesus and the testimony about him. You may find it surprising that I suggest that archaeology confirms Jesus’ existence, as we are so used to hearing that archaeology calls into question the testimony about Jesus. On the contrary, Lee Strobel interviewed Dr. John McRay, an eminent archaeologist and author of the thorough and dispassionate textbook, Archaeology and the New Testament. As we will see, “the discipline of archaeology has great bearing on the reliability of the gospels”.

1. It is important to admit, at the outset, the limitations of archaeology to our purposes.

“Archaeology has made some important contributions [...] but it certainly can’t prove whether the New Testament is the word of God. If we dig in Israel and find ancient sites that are consistent with where the Bible said we’d find them, that shows that its history and geography are accurate.”

Last week we proved Jesus existence by investigating the trustworthiness of the biographies about him, which were written by authors who were either eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life and teachings, or were companions of such eyewitnesses. Today, we will attempt to confirm the trustworthiness of those biographies by referring to the science of archaeology. If archaeologists confirm the historical and geographical details of the eyewitness testimony about Jesus, then their testimony is strengthened in its authenticity and integrity.

“There’s no questions that the credibility of the New Testament is enhanced, just as the credibility of any ancient document is enhance when you excavate and find that the author was accurate in talking about a particular place or event.”

2. Interestingly, Luke, the author of the gospel that bears his name, and a companion of the apostle Paul, claimed that his biography of Jesus was accurate and credible.

¹Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you [...] ⁴so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed (Luke 1:1-4).

“The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian [...] He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.”

Luke, paid attention to details and locations, is often assumed to have made errors in some of his references. Archaeology now proves different. For instance,

“In Luke 3:1 he refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about AD 27 [...] An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from AD 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus —just as Luke had written [...] It turned out there had been two government officials named Lysanias!

“Another example is Luke’s reference in Acts 17:6 to ‘politarchs’ [...] an inscription on a first-century arch was later found that begins, ‘In the time of the politarchs ...’ [...] archaeologists have found more than thirty-five inscriptions that mention politarchs, several of these in Thessalonica from the same period Luke was referring to. Once again the critics were wrong and Luke was shown to be right.”

One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke’s references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake.

3. The apostle John described a very high Christology in his gospel, but remained questionable to critics because locations that he mentions could not be verified.

“John 5:1-15 records how Jesus healed an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda. John provides the detail that the pool had five porticos [...] recently the Pool of Bethesda has been excavated —it lies maybe forty feet below ground— and sure enough, there were five porticoes [...] And you have other discoveries —The Pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacob’s well from John 4:12, the probable location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate in John 19:13, even Pilate’s own identity— all of which have lent historical credibility to John’s gospel.”

Despite John’s gospel having been written last, these findings support its credibility by validating its accuracy.

4. There are three long-standing riddles associated with the story of Jesus’ birth with which Strobel also challenges Dr. McRay. The first relates to the question of the census: “How could the government possibly force all its citizens to return to their birthplace?”

According to Dr. McRay, there have been several census forms of the ancient Roman empire that have been found. For instance, a governmental order (circa AD 104) states:

Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]: Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.

Another papyrus, according to Dr. McRay, from AD 48 demands that the entire family was involved in the local census. Thus, this ancient practice is confirmed as is its description in the gospels.

Of course, the question remains over who demanded the census which forced Joseph to travel with his pregnant wife, Mary. The identity of Quirinius had been questionable until

“An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman [...] found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it [...] this places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod [...] there were apparently two Quiriniuses.”

5. Another puzzle raises the question of the existence of Nazareth in Jesus’ time.

“Dr. James Strange [...] describes Nazareth as being a very small place, about sixty acres, with a maximum population of about four hundred and eighty at the beginning of the first century.”

When the temple was destroyed during the Jewish revolt of 70 AD, the temple priests were subsequently sent out to various locations around Galilee. Nazareth was indicated as one of those locations. Thus, Nazareth must have existed at that time and have been large enough to justify sending a priest of the Jerusalem temple to minister there.

[Dr. Strange also notes that] there have been archaeological digs that have uncovered first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth, which would establish the village’s limits [...]

Thus, we have every reason to believe that Nazareth was a fairly strong Jewish settlement during the lifetime of Jesus, but not particularly big or significant.

6. The slaughter of the children at Bethlehem seems as if it would have been significant enough an event to have been noticed by others besides Matthew, but there is no corroborating evidence for this event.

Dr. McRay challenges our assumptions about this event, however, when he outlines a different perspective:

First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies [under two years] would there be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people? [...] Second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king [...] that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world [...] And third, there was no television, no radio, no newspapers. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about.

These facts do not belittle the event, but that it became significant to Christians, insofar as it fulfilled three ancient prophecies about the Messiah (cf. Matt. 2:13-23), does not change its lack of significance to the rest of the ancient Roman world.

While there are certainly questions that we will ask of these biographies written two thousands years ago, the scientific evidence supports their accuracy as much as the historical evidence supports their credibility. Even Australian archaeologist Clifford Wilson states that “those who know the facts now recognise that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book”.

Giving the final word to Dr. McRay,

“Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible [...] On the contrary, as we’ve seen, there have been many opinions of sceptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong.”

Too often, even Christians are swayed by scepticism and we reduce the basis for our faith to, “Well, the story of Jesus’ birth is a nice story, but ...” In these cases, no effect is realised on such a person’s life.

Archaeology provides pieces to the puzzle of Jesus’ life. As each piece is discovered, our picture and understanding of his life and teaching becomes increasingly complete. We can experience peace this Christmas because we can know, beyond doubt, that Jesus walked this earth, that he both healed and loved people, that he taught people how to love God and how to love their neighbours. Jesus was a real person who tread the roads that we walk, both literally and figuratively. This fact changes our perspective on our life.

If we have a healthy and whole relationship with God and a healthy and whole relationship with our neighbours, then we will experience peace. A lack of a sense of peace arises when all is not well in our world or in our life. That we can have a relationship with a living person who represents a living God, rather than just some interesting idea, does make all the difference to the way that we approach the Christmas season.

I want to encourage you with the peace of God who loves you, who really sent the Son to earth in the form of a baby. Just as we smile at the coos of a newborn infant, Jesus smiles at us as we reflect on the story of his birth. This story brings joy to the soul and peace to the heart. Be open to Jesus this Christmas and consider the implications of this story’s scientific credibility for yourself.

Lift up your heart to God; let him fill you with hope as you celebrate Christmas.

sermon delivered by Ian Forest-Jones
at Hurstville Church of Christ
on Sunday, 10 December 2006 at 10am
[email]