What are some of the shortcomings in using archaeology to validate the New Testament?

Answer 1

A:

'Biblical Archaeology' began late in the eighteenth century as a way of proving the truth of The Bible. The view was that, since the Bible was known to be true, archaeology would demonstrate that truth. The problem is that general archaeology, with better method and analysis, has done quite the opposite. Of course some of the historical framework of the Bible has been validated, especially during the late monarchy and post-Exilic period, but theologically important differences have emerged in the archaeological record.

A further shortcoming in using archaeology to validate the New Testament is that nothing has been found by archaeologists that is relevant to the New Testament. This is not entirely surprising, as the New Testament covers such a short period in history. Nevertheless we should, for example, be able to find the town of Arimathea, yet it remains as much a mystery as ever. Theologians are sure that it was just to the north-west of Jerusalem, but there is no archaeological evidence for it. Some scholars even note that Arimathea means 'Best Disciple Town' in Greek, and suggest that this name was originally created in Mark's Gospel to show that Joseph was a better disciple than the twelve apostles.

Archaeology can not find the tomb where Jesus was buried, nor his actual place of birth, nor anything to prove the accounts in Acts of the Apostles. This alone does not invalidate the New Testament, but it does not validate it.

Minor finds help to understand but not validate the New Testament. A first-century fishing boat has been found in the Sea of Galilee, but this only shows the type of boats that the disciples would have used. The remains of a crucified man help in understanding a cruel form of execution.