Separately, no....not revealing.
But cumulatively? As they pile up? Then, they are.
They aren't.
Why wouldn't these stories mention or reference cities, places, people, events,... that actually occured?
If 2000 years of now you would investigate a film like Oceans 11, it wouldn't be any different.
It mentions real places, casino's, mob bosses, politicians, hospitals, events,....
One thing no archeological dig supports though: supernatural claims.
So a better analogy might be a Marvel super hero movie.
It takes place in New York and mentions / visits plenty of other very real places, references tech companies, us presidents, events, etc etc etc.
But that doesn't mean that Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Hulk are real................
Nore does it make it any more probable that these characters are real. Not even by a long shot.
Why would then finding out that Pontius Pilates was an actual government representative in Judea at the right time make it any more likely that Jesus is a god that resurected the dead and what not?
Circumstantial evidences become more powerful and can be conclusive, when there's many of them to reinforce each other!
No amount of this type of "circumstantial evidence", is ever enough to make such outlandish claims more credible.
Finding out 2000 years from now that Manhatten was a real place AND finding actual records of a Peter Parker living there, doesn't mean that this dude actually WAS Spiderman.
In the same way, such "evidence" doesn't lend any creedence at all to super-Jesus claims.
You must also understand that all these things, while in the same story, are
seperate distinct claims.
It's not that they are linked!
Let's go back to Spiderman.
There's no connection here that ties Spiderman to New York in the sense that "
IF New york exists THEN spiderman must exist". The existance of New York doesn't in any way shape or form make it more likely that a human gained spider-like powers after being bitten by some exotic spider.
They become CORROBORATIVE evidences!
That's where you are wrong. It would be corroborative, if there was an actual causal link between these things, but there isn't.