Archaeological finds confirming biblical narrative or referring to figures from the Bible are rare
Loaded statement, inaccurate due to overgenerality. It would be truer to say that a wealth of archaeological finds over the last century-plus have confirmed and/or filled out the background for much of the Bible. Someone with no background would get exactly the wrong impression from that naked statement.
Dan
The passage describing Simon is identical to that in a 4th century version of the Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, which was later revised extensively. This (the inscription) shows there were different versions of the Old and New Testament going around, said Zias.
Dan, is this garbled, or what? I'm not familiar with the Codex Sinaiticus.