RECENT ARTICLES ON NEW TESTAMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

I would like to highlight four articles in the Spring 2026 issue of Biblical Archaeology Today magazine dealing with New Testament issues.

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch Mark Wilson rehearses the meeting of these two as given by Luke in Acts 8:26-40. The major issue here concerns the identity of the Eunuch. Since he lives in Ethiopia, what we would now call the Sudan, it is usually assumed that he is not Jewish, but should be considered a dark-skinned Gentile. That poses two major problems since this man has traveled a very long way from home just in order to worship at the Temple. However, he should have been well aware that neither Gentiles nor eunuchs could properly do that. The latter is prohibited in Deuteronomy 23:1. In addition, the former is unlikely since Acts 10-11 clearly states that Cornelius and his family were the first Gentile converts to Christianity.

Therefore Wilson proposes that:

1. “Eunuch” can also refer to high officials who were not necessarily castrated (see the early Greek version of Genesis 39:1).

2. This man must have been a proselyte to Judaism, or a Jew who was captured by the Nubians on one of their raids on southern Egypt.

These are by no means new ideas. Wilson himself cites the writings of Willimon dating to 1988. And Fitzmyer in his 1997 commentary on Acts echoes these ideas and adds to the first proposal above the Old Testament examples of Genesis 40:2 and I Samuel 8:15. Also, he suggests that perhaps even if the man had been castrated, this event could be considered the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 56:3-4 in which a time is envisioned in which even eunuchs can come into the Lord's house. Then concerning Proposal 2, he points out that the Ethiopic language is related to both Aramaic and Hebrew so that neither the eunuch not Philip would have had any trouble reading the passage in the “chariot.” That last word, both Wilson and Fitzmyer agree, should probably much better be translated as a carriage.

The Last Supper: How Should It Be Pictured? Matthew Grey attempts to make the case that Matthew and Mark's accounts differ considerably from those later versions written by Luke and John. He feels that this crucial meal was conducted just like the ordinary Jews of that time would have eaten a family meal together – namely, by rolling out mats on the floor and sitting cross-legged together over a shared pot of food and one drinking cup. Grey feels that this picture is consistent with the two earlier Gospel accounts whereas the later two versions seem to indicate the more formal Roman custom of dining in a triclinium style. This latter involved reclining around a low U-shaped table.

On the surface, his thesis might have something in favor of it since not only was Matthew in actual attendance (unlike Luke), but also it is highly likely that the dining room was owned by Mark's mother and that Mark was the anonymous young man who followed the party out of the room to the Garden of Gethsemene and who had to flee naked when the Roman soldiers tried to arrest him. On the other hand, Luke was definitely not there, and both Luke and John were writing more to a Gentile audience than a Jewish one. Therefore, both may have used terms and customs which would be more familiar to those reading their accounts.

The evidence Grey presents is, however, anything but persuasive. For one thing, he seems to ignore the great importance attached to the Paschal Feast compared to an ordinary meal. It could have certainly been carried out whenever possible in a more formal setting than that used for usual dining. Remember that few of the Apostles, and certainly not Jesus, had a dwelling in Jerusalem suitable for feeding the whole group. Secondly, the text indicates that this meal took place not in a private home, but in a special dining area probably available for different groups to rent out. Thus, it could easily have been fitted out for either the higher-class Jews who had begun to imitate Roman customs or the many Roman Gentiles in the city in the triclinium manner. Even Grey admits that evidence for such dining establishments has been found in Jerusalem dating to the time in question.

Secondly, Grey criticizes those modern translations of passages such as in Mark 14:18 who substitute “reclining at table and eating” for the more accurate “sitting and eating.” But, as other commentators point out, the Greek word in question (anakeimai) can be equally rendered as sitting” or “reclining.”

Lastly, the consistent evidence of Luke 22:24-26 and John 13:23-26 describes an event which would be physically impossible to carry out if everyone was seated cross-legged. So either Luke and John made up that passage out of thin air, or the seating was really in the triclinium style – take your pick .

The Jewish Revolt on Cyprus The recently departed Thomas Davis left behind an interesting article concerning the little known revolt against Rome occurring on this island during 115-117 AD during which Roman soldiers killed almost a quarter million inhabitants. The presence of such a large Jewish population on that island is confirmed not only by the large percentage of Jewish coins found there by archaeologists but also by the presence of multiple synagogues as stated in Acts 13:5

What is unusual, however, is that Rome carried out no such drastic measures against the Jews living in Syria and Asia Minor. Davis feels that this might have been due to the fact that those areas had been heavily evangelized, causing the Jews there to have been converted to Christianity to a large extent. See Acts 9:20-22; 13:43; and 14:1 for such evidence. He concludes: “Indeed, the lack of resistance in these diaspora communities may be our best evidence of Christian expansion in Syria and Asia Minor by the beginning of the second century.”

The 70 AD Siege of Jerusalem Gyozo Voros recaps some of the well-known evidence left behind, which witnesses to all the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Roman forces. That included the 2015 uncovering of a number of circular stones launched from Roman catapults. Then in 2024, his Hungarian team combined a 19^th century topographical map of the area with Josephus' account in his Jewish War of the siege in order to draw a fairly accurate picture of where the Roman camps must have been located as they circled the city. And the final step was to utilize a twentieth-century German military photograph taken before more recent building projects had taken place there. Together, we now have a complete picture of what the area must have looked like during this crucial siege.