The argument from archaeology in support of the claims of Christianity is rather indirect, but still significant. The Book of Acts frequently has the early Christian leaders being brought up before various government potentates, and in many, many, cases, archaeology has confirmed that the city in question had the exact governmental structure that Acts said that it does.
Now think about this for a moment. I live in the metropolitan Phoenix area, in the city of Glendale. There are five people on our city council, there are, I think nine on Phoenix’s council, but as for Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, Peoria, Avondale, Goodyear, and Tolleson I have no idea. I could Google these city’s websites to find out how their governments are run, but the author of Acts didn’t have the Internet. Yet, his reports of what kind of governmental structures existed in lots of cities was invariably accurate. His account of what would have happened on board ship fits with what a land-dwelling person would say about a sea voyage that encountered the kinds of problems they had.
So how did he know this stuff? I think the sensible explanation was that he was there. There are actually passages in which the author of Acts uses the word “we”, and some scholars think he actually means “we.” Others do not, but I think his knowledge of what went on had to have been either first-hand or nearly so.
And yet these passages in Acts are just as miracle-laden as the Gospels. Miracle claims were made concerning Paul using his handkerchief to raise the sleeping Eutychus who fell out of a window. What you have are people with lots of access to the information about what happened, who don’t have much motive to lie about it that I can see, (they were putting their lives at risk by continuing to follow someone who the powers that be had put to death) saying that many miracles happened.
With the story of Apollonius of Tyana, there is no realistic style. Some of the incidents in there are set in Nineveh, which had been destroyed seven centuries before. The Book of Mormon would cause us to expect all sorts of archaeological artifacts from the Book of Mormon peoples near the Hill of Cumorah, which are simply not there. We should expect a close DNA connection between American Indians and Jews, not Orientals, but the reverse is true. With these two cases, when I ask the question “If the story’s not true, then what did happen” seems easy. With the Christian story, the founding of Christianity has to be very puzzling to anyone who wants to reject the Christian story itself. All the theories look very problematic. Now if our methodological naturalism is strong enough we might say “Well, anything but a miracle, so maybe we just have to say we don’t know what happened.” But if we are prepared to give miracles a chance, then I think the Christian account of what happened is very plausible.