(2) We also learn of several abnormal points of crucifixion procedure that the man in the shroud had in common with Jesus. Such include: the scalp wounds caused by sharp objects, the absence of broken ankles, the post-mortem chest wound, and the flow of blood plus watery fluid.
(3) Afterward, an individual but hasty burial in fine linen for one convicted as a “criminal” is also rather odd.
(4) There is strong evidence that the man in the shroud had to move up and down in order to breathe. The blood from each wrist proceeded down each arm and formed a V-shaped blood flow, which is one evidence that suggests that two major bodily positions were taken on the cross.
(5) There is evidence that the man buried in the shroud was very possibly raised from the dead, such as the absence of decomposition, an apparent lack of unwrapping the body, and a probable scorch from a dead body. If the man in the shroud is Jesus, as indicated by the similarities in dissimilar areas pointed out in (2), then (4) becomes possible evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
Other Archaeological Data
A few additional finds bear on the historicity of Jesus, if only indirectly. The existence of the pools of Bethesda and Siloam “can be identified with certainty” due to archaeological discoveries.29 Although the very existence of these two pools does not prove anything in Jesus’ life, it is still interesting that the Gospel of John associates one of Jesus’ healing miracles with each site (John 5:1-9; 9:1-41).
One other note concerns the historical existence of Pontius Pilate. Coins have been discovered, minted to honor Pilate’s rule, dated AD 30–31.30 Additionally, an inscription containing his name was discovered at Caesarea.31 Again, this does not prove anything specifically concerning Jesus. However, the historical connection between Pilate and the crucifixion of Jesus is well established by such ancient historians as Tacitus and Josephus.32
Synopsis of Archaeological Sources
From these archaeological sources we learn numerous facts that are beneficial in a study of Christ’s life, especially with regard to his death and possibly his resurrection. But unless the shroud is Jesus’ burial cloth, the sources chiefly provide background information that helps verify the Gospel accounts.
Concerning the taxation-census reported in Luke 2, data from archaeological discoveries reveal several facts. Such processes were fairly common in the ancient Roman Empire, involving persons traveling to their own cities. This taxation-census began during Augustus’ reign (37 BC–AD 14) and continued to the third century AD, often at fourteen year intervals. One such taxation-census was apparently enacted at approximately the same time as Jesus’ birth.
With regard to crucifixion, much depends on one’s conclusions concerning Yohanan and the Shroud of Turin. If they can be taken at face value, we learn that victims had their wrists and feet nailed to the cross (shroud; cf. Yohanan), and were apparently made to carry part of the cross to the crucifixion site, which often resulted in falls (shroud). Normal crucifixion procedure usually involved breaking the victim’s legs (Yohanan). The shroud corresponds to Jesus’ death by numerous agreements in points of abnormal crucifixion procedure, such as the crown of thorns, the severe whipping, the absence of broken ankles, the post-mortem chest wound and the flow of blood and watery fluid. Other “odd” similarities in the burial include an individual burial for a crucified person, yet a hasty burial in fine linen. We also learn much about medical factors, such as the cause of death being closely related to asphyxiation, as the victim pushed up and down in order to breathe (shroud; cf. Yohanan).
The Jewish burial process sometimes involved a sealed tomb, and usually the presence of a large stone. There were apparently reports in Palestine that caused the emperor to issue an exceptionally strong warning against grave robbing, which was punishable by death (Nazareth Decree).
If the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ burial garment, then we have strong evidence for the resurrection, derived from the information on the cloth. In particular, the lack of bodily decomposition, indicative of a rather hasty bodily departure, the apparent lack of unwrapping, and the probable presence of an image caused by a scorch from a dead body, all reveal the probability of Jesus’ resurrection.
Conclusion
While archaeological evidence numerically includes only a comparatively few examples, we still find some helpful items that can provide insight into several aspects of the life of Jesus. As France points out, this subject contributes indirect material, usually of a background nature, that helps to confirm what we know about him.33
The skeleton of Yohanan is quite valuable in relating some of the details of crucifixion, including both mechanical and medical factors. The Nazareth Decree provides some insight into Jewish burial. As long as it is not a fake, the Shroud of Turin is an excellent witness to most of the details involved in the processes of crucifixion and burial. If it is the burial garment of Jesus, these facts of crucifixion and burial apply directly to him. Additionally, the shroud would then supply some strong evidence for the resurrection.
1See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example.
2Ibid., pp. 193-194.
3Ibid., p. 194.
4Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), p. 175.
5Cf. Bruce, Christian Origins, pp. 193-194 with Boyd, Tells, p. 175. Bruce prefers the date 10-9 BC for the empire-wide census, with that which took place in Judea occurring a few years later. Boyd places the date of the earlier census at 6-5 BC, which coincides closely with the accepted dates for Jesus’ birth.
6Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192.
7While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke’s account, while still finding more problems than does Bruce (pp. 162-171).
8Vasilius Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 38-59.
9N. Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 38-59.
10J. Zias and E. Sekeles, “The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,” Israel Exploration Journal, 35 (1985), pp. 22-27; cf. the list of objections in Joe Zias and James H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Charlesworth, ed., Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 279-280.
11See especially Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 25, 31-32 in particular.
12See the discussion of the Swoon Theory (along with the listed sources) in Chapter 4.
13On the administering of the coup de grace in these executions, see Hengel, The Atonement, p. 70.
14See P. Maier, First Easter, p. 119.
15Ibid., pp. 119-120.
16Suetonius, Claudius, 25; cf. Acts 18:2.
17See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 196; Maier, First Easter, pp. 119-120; Boyd, Tells, p. 185.