Does the grammar of John 5:2 support an early date for John's Gospel? What have scholars thought about this passage across the centuries down to the present?
The Historic Present is Common in Ancient Literature
Many scholars arguing for a pre-70 CE date assume that because John 5:2 states “there is (ἔστιν) in Jerusalem a pool,” this must mean that the pool was still standing when the Gospel was written.
However, as seen in Homer’s descriptions of Troy, Herodotus' descriptions of Babylon, and Josephus’ own present-tense references to the Jerusalem Temple even after its destruction, ancient writers frequently used the present tense when describing places that were long gone.
In The Jewish War (7.1.1), Josephus describes the Jerusalem Temple in the present tense, despite it having been destroyed.
Regarding the verb "εἰμί" (to be), which includes forms like "ἐστίν" (estin), Josephus's usage varies. In many descriptions, he employs past tenses, but there are instances where he uses the present tense, possibly for emphasis or stylistic reasons. For example, in Book 5, Section 193, he describes a stone partition:
Translated: "When one proceeds through the cloisters to the second court of the temple, there is a stone partition..."
In this context, "περιβέβλητο" (peribeblēto) is a past perfect form, indicating a completed action in the past. Yet, the act of proceeding ("προϊόντων") is presented in a present participle form, suggesting an ongoing action.
Herodotus, in Histories (5th century BCE), describes Babylon and its famous walls, despite the city already being in decline.
If John’s Gospel were written after 70 CE, it would not be unusual for the author to describe a destroyed landmark in the present tense.
Mark: Mark frequently uses the historical present to describe past events, a feature that is well-documented in New Testament scholarship. This stylistic choice gives the narrative a sense of immediacy and vividness, making the reader feel as if the events are unfolding in real time.
Mark’s Use of the Historical Present
The historical present is a grammatical feature in which a present-tense verb is used to describe a past event. It is particularly common in narrative literature to create a dramatic and engaging effect.
Translation: “And a leper comes to him… and says to him… and being moved with compassion, stretching out his hand, he touches him and says to him…”
Although this describes a past event, Mark uses έρχεται (comes) and λέγει (says) in the present tense instead of the expected aorist (past) tense.
Other examples in Mark
Mark 2:5 – λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ (“he says to the paralytic”) instead of “he said.”
Mark 4:37-39 – A sequence where Jesus rebukes the wind and the storm in the present tense.
Mark 5:15 – The Gerasene demoniac is described in the present tense.
How Does This Relate to John 5:2?
The debate over John 5:2 hinges on whether ἐστιν ("there is") is a historical present or an actual present referring to a still-existing structure. If John used the historical present like Mark, then ἐστιν might not indicate that the pool of Bethesda was still standing at the time of writing.
However, scholars like Daniel Wallace argue that εἰμί (the verb “to be”) is almost never used as a historical present in Greek, including in the New Testament. This is unlike verbs of action (e.g., “he says,” “he comes,” “he does”), which appear in the historical present frequently.
Thus, while Mark provides clear examples of the historical present being used to describe past events, the challenge is whether John 5:2 can be similarly interpreted. The uniqueness of εἰμί in historical narrative makes it a contested case.
2. Archaeological Evidence Does Not Require a Pre-70 Date
The claim that John’s architectural descriptions suggest an eyewitness account before 70 CE ignores that many ancient cities retained their recognizable ruins for centuries.
The Pool of Bethesda has been excavated and shown to have been a real structure, but ruins could still be visible in the late first or even second century CE.
The Romans often destroyed key structures but left partial ruins standing, as seen with the Sheep Gate itself, which is believed to have remained partially intact and destcribed by Christians visiting Jerusalem in the 5th century. Another layer of complexity lies in the fact that john never calls it a “gate” at all. The original text of John literally says “next to the sheepish” (ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ) – in the literal sense of “something pertaining to the sheep.” This could be the “Sheep Market,” the “Sheep Pasture” or even the “Sheep Pool.”
3. Later Writers Also Used the Present Tense to Describe Destroyed Sites
If we followed the logic that a present-tense verb proves a structure still existed at the time of writing, then we would have to assume that all ancient descriptions of vanished cities were contemporaneous with those cities' existence.
This is demonstrably false:
Strabo (1st century BCE - 1st century CE) describes Nineveh as if it were still present, long after its destruction in 612 BCE.
Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) describes Carthage, despite its destruction in 146 BCE.
Pausanias (2nd century CE) describes the ruins of Mycenae in vivid present-tense descriptions, despite the city’s collapse long before his time.
John could simply be using the same stylistic convention to describe the Jerusalem of memory.
4. A Counterexample: The Sack of Troy
Homer’s Iliad (8th century BCE) describes the city of Troy as if it were a contemporary setting, yet Troy (if it corresponds to Hisarlik) was destroyed around the 12th century BCE.
Later writers like Strabo and Pausanias continued to describe Troy in the present tense despite its ruins being all that remained.
If we were to use the same logic applied to John 5:2, we would have to date the Iliad to the 12th century BCE, which we know is false.
The mere use of present tense does not establish contemporaneity.
5. Selective Application of Evidence
Scholars arguing for an early date based on John 5:2 often ignore similar present-tense descriptions elsewhere in ancient literature.
They also selectively apply evidence from patristic writers. The same scholars who take Irenaeus’ testimony that John was written by the apostle often ignore his claim that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified (Against Heresies 2.22.5).
Similarly, early Christian writers often accepted that Matthew was written in Hebrew (a claim many scholars today reject) while still maintaining that John was written last.
If scholars reject patristic claims about other Gospels, why should they privilege the tradition about John’s date?
6. Conclusion: The Present-Tense Argument is Circular
The argument that John 5:2 necessitates a pre-70 CE date is circular:
Premise: John 5:2 uses the present tense.
Assumption: The present tense must mean the structure was still standing.
Conclusion: Therefore, John must have been written before 70 CE.
This logic ignores abundant ancient examples of places and structures being described in the present tense long after their destruction.
In short, the present-tense argument for John’s early dating is weak and contradicts well-known ancient literary practices. The example of Troy, among others, demonstrates that ancient authors frequently described destroyed cities and structures as if they were still standing. If we were to apply the same reasoning consistently, we would have to radically revise our dating of many ancient texts. Even if John was written 50 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, the memory of the city's architecture would have been passed on through at least the first generation. Not only that, but there would still have been people alive who remembered the temple, it's layout and the larger layout of Jerusalem.
Roberto, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with your initial point about the use of present tense verbs to describe the past. However, the example you gave from Josephus doesn't apply, since the verb "εἰμί" was not used. Instead, the verb in your example was περιβάλλω, which is a verb of action (meaning to erect, or put around). Wallace says that he is unable to find examples εἰμί (or any verb of state for that matter) being used as a historical present.
The logic is the same as in modern English. Recalling Sept 11th, 2001, it doesn't work to say "There is in New York a place called the World Trade Center with twin towers." If we found this statement written in a book, I'm fairly certain you and I both would agree that it was written before the towers fell (even before checking the copyright date). Why? Because we don't use the historical present with the verb "to be."
You also said, “scholars like Daniel Wallace argue that εἰμί (the verb “to be”) is almost never used as a historical present in Greek, including in the New Testament.” Wallace would object to this way of putting it, since he doesn’t use the phrase “almost never.” Instead, he says that he is unable to find ANY example of the verb εἰμί being used as a historical present inside or outside the NT.
In your view, “The uniqueness of εἰμί in historical narrative makes it a contested case.” But the verb εἰμί is not at all unique in historical narratives (since it appears over a thousand times in the narratives of the Gospels). What is unique, however, is the idea that εἰμί has ever been used as a historic present. In short, since examples of it cannot be found outside Jn 5:2, this appears to be an unsupported hypothesis. And when this is put together with other evidence (such as the implications of Jn 11:48-52 or the grammar of Jn 21:19), I think a compelling case can be made for a pre-70 date.
I agree with your point that “Archaeological Evidence Does Not Require a Pre-70 Date.” It certainly supports the fact that the author was an eyewitness, but he could have just as easily recorded his recollections sometime after the fall of Jerusalem.
Concerning the “sheep Gate,” you’re not wrong in suggesting that προβατικῇ could also refer to a sheep market, pasture, or pool. The question is what is the most reasonable conclusion given all the options? We have found the pool, but it wasn’t located near a pasture, and the steps make clear it was designed for people (not sheep). Finally, there is no reference to a sheep market in that area, but there are multiple references to a sheep gate (in the OT and other Jewish sources), which happens to be right there in that general vicinity. Thus, in my opinion, this is the best interpretive option.
Your point that “Later Writers Also Used the Present Tense to Describe Destroyed Sites” fails to engage with Wallace’s main argument. As stated above, the question is whether εἰμί (or any other verb of state) is ever used as a historic present. If you can find examples, I’d love to see them.
The Historic Present is Common in Ancient Literature
Many scholars arguing for a pre-70 CE date assume that because John 5:2 states “there is (ἔστιν) in Jerusalem a pool,” this must mean that the pool was still standing when the Gospel was written.
However, as seen in Homer’s descriptions of Troy, Herodotus' descriptions of Babylon, and Josephus’ own present-tense references to the Jerusalem Temple even after its destruction, ancient writers frequently used the present tense when describing places that were long gone.
In The Jewish War (7.1.1), Josephus describes the Jerusalem Temple in the present tense, despite it having been destroyed.
Regarding the verb "εἰμί" (to be), which includes forms like "ἐστίν" (estin), Josephus's usage varies. In many descriptions, he employs past tenses, but there are instances where he uses the present tense, possibly for emphasis or stylistic reasons. For example, in Book 5, Section 193, he describes a stone partition:
"διὰ τούτου προϊόντων ἐπὶ τὸ δεύτερον ἱερὸν δρύφακτος περιβέβλητο λίθινος..."
Translated: "When one proceeds through the cloisters to the second court of the temple, there is a stone partition..."
In this context, "περιβέβλητο" (peribeblēto) is a past perfect form, indicating a completed action in the past. Yet, the act of proceeding ("προϊόντων") is presented in a present participle form, suggesting an ongoing action.
Herodotus, in Histories (5th century BCE), describes Babylon and its famous walls, despite the city already being in decline.
If John’s Gospel were written after 70 CE, it would not be unusual for the author to describe a destroyed landmark in the present tense.
Mark: Mark frequently uses the historical present to describe past events, a feature that is well-documented in New Testament scholarship. This stylistic choice gives the narrative a sense of immediacy and vividness, making the reader feel as if the events are unfolding in real time.
Mark’s Use of the Historical Present
The historical present is a grammatical feature in which a present-tense verb is used to describe a past event. It is particularly common in narrative literature to create a dramatic and engaging effect.
Example in Mark 1:40-41 (literal Greek)
Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς… καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ… καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ…
Translation: “And a leper comes to him… and says to him… and being moved with compassion, stretching out his hand, he touches him and says to him…”
Although this describes a past event, Mark uses έρχεται (comes) and λέγει (says) in the present tense instead of the expected aorist (past) tense.
Other examples in Mark
Mark 2:5 – λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ (“he says to the paralytic”) instead of “he said.”
Mark 4:37-39 – A sequence where Jesus rebukes the wind and the storm in the present tense.
Mark 5:15 – The Gerasene demoniac is described in the present tense.
How Does This Relate to John 5:2?
The debate over John 5:2 hinges on whether ἐστιν ("there is") is a historical present or an actual present referring to a still-existing structure. If John used the historical present like Mark, then ἐστιν might not indicate that the pool of Bethesda was still standing at the time of writing.
However, scholars like Daniel Wallace argue that εἰμί (the verb “to be”) is almost never used as a historical present in Greek, including in the New Testament. This is unlike verbs of action (e.g., “he says,” “he comes,” “he does”), which appear in the historical present frequently.
Thus, while Mark provides clear examples of the historical present being used to describe past events, the challenge is whether John 5:2 can be similarly interpreted. The uniqueness of εἰμί in historical narrative makes it a contested case.
2. Archaeological Evidence Does Not Require a Pre-70 Date
The claim that John’s architectural descriptions suggest an eyewitness account before 70 CE ignores that many ancient cities retained their recognizable ruins for centuries.
The Pool of Bethesda has been excavated and shown to have been a real structure, but ruins could still be visible in the late first or even second century CE.
The Romans often destroyed key structures but left partial ruins standing, as seen with the Sheep Gate itself, which is believed to have remained partially intact and destcribed by Christians visiting Jerusalem in the 5th century. Another layer of complexity lies in the fact that john never calls it a “gate” at all. The original text of John literally says “next to the sheepish” (ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ) – in the literal sense of “something pertaining to the sheep.” This could be the “Sheep Market,” the “Sheep Pasture” or even the “Sheep Pool.”
3. Later Writers Also Used the Present Tense to Describe Destroyed Sites
If we followed the logic that a present-tense verb proves a structure still existed at the time of writing, then we would have to assume that all ancient descriptions of vanished cities were contemporaneous with those cities' existence.
This is demonstrably false:
Strabo (1st century BCE - 1st century CE) describes Nineveh as if it were still present, long after its destruction in 612 BCE.
Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) describes Carthage, despite its destruction in 146 BCE.
Pausanias (2nd century CE) describes the ruins of Mycenae in vivid present-tense descriptions, despite the city’s collapse long before his time.
John could simply be using the same stylistic convention to describe the Jerusalem of memory.
4. A Counterexample: The Sack of Troy
Homer’s Iliad (8th century BCE) describes the city of Troy as if it were a contemporary setting, yet Troy (if it corresponds to Hisarlik) was destroyed around the 12th century BCE.
Later writers like Strabo and Pausanias continued to describe Troy in the present tense despite its ruins being all that remained.
If we were to use the same logic applied to John 5:2, we would have to date the Iliad to the 12th century BCE, which we know is false.
The mere use of present tense does not establish contemporaneity.
5. Selective Application of Evidence
Scholars arguing for an early date based on John 5:2 often ignore similar present-tense descriptions elsewhere in ancient literature.
They also selectively apply evidence from patristic writers. The same scholars who take Irenaeus’ testimony that John was written by the apostle often ignore his claim that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified (Against Heresies 2.22.5).
Similarly, early Christian writers often accepted that Matthew was written in Hebrew (a claim many scholars today reject) while still maintaining that John was written last.
If scholars reject patristic claims about other Gospels, why should they privilege the tradition about John’s date?
6. Conclusion: The Present-Tense Argument is Circular
The argument that John 5:2 necessitates a pre-70 CE date is circular:
Premise: John 5:2 uses the present tense.
Assumption: The present tense must mean the structure was still standing.
Conclusion: Therefore, John must have been written before 70 CE.
This logic ignores abundant ancient examples of places and structures being described in the present tense long after their destruction.
In short, the present-tense argument for John’s early dating is weak and contradicts well-known ancient literary practices. The example of Troy, among others, demonstrates that ancient authors frequently described destroyed cities and structures as if they were still standing. If we were to apply the same reasoning consistently, we would have to radically revise our dating of many ancient texts. Even if John was written 50 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, the memory of the city's architecture would have been passed on through at least the first generation. Not only that, but there would still have been people alive who remembered the temple, it's layout and the larger layout of Jerusalem.
Roberto, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with your initial point about the use of present tense verbs to describe the past. However, the example you gave from Josephus doesn't apply, since the verb "εἰμί" was not used. Instead, the verb in your example was περιβάλλω, which is a verb of action (meaning to erect, or put around). Wallace says that he is unable to find examples εἰμί (or any verb of state for that matter) being used as a historical present.
The logic is the same as in modern English. Recalling Sept 11th, 2001, it doesn't work to say "There is in New York a place called the World Trade Center with twin towers." If we found this statement written in a book, I'm fairly certain you and I both would agree that it was written before the towers fell (even before checking the copyright date). Why? Because we don't use the historical present with the verb "to be."
You also said, “scholars like Daniel Wallace argue that εἰμί (the verb “to be”) is almost never used as a historical present in Greek, including in the New Testament.” Wallace would object to this way of putting it, since he doesn’t use the phrase “almost never.” Instead, he says that he is unable to find ANY example of the verb εἰμί being used as a historical present inside or outside the NT.
In your view, “The uniqueness of εἰμί in historical narrative makes it a contested case.” But the verb εἰμί is not at all unique in historical narratives (since it appears over a thousand times in the narratives of the Gospels). What is unique, however, is the idea that εἰμί has ever been used as a historic present. In short, since examples of it cannot be found outside Jn 5:2, this appears to be an unsupported hypothesis. And when this is put together with other evidence (such as the implications of Jn 11:48-52 or the grammar of Jn 21:19), I think a compelling case can be made for a pre-70 date.
I agree with your point that “Archaeological Evidence Does Not Require a Pre-70 Date.” It certainly supports the fact that the author was an eyewitness, but he could have just as easily recorded his recollections sometime after the fall of Jerusalem.
Concerning the “sheep Gate,” you’re not wrong in suggesting that προβατικῇ could also refer to a sheep market, pasture, or pool. The question is what is the most reasonable conclusion given all the options? We have found the pool, but it wasn’t located near a pasture, and the steps make clear it was designed for people (not sheep). Finally, there is no reference to a sheep market in that area, but there are multiple references to a sheep gate (in the OT and other Jewish sources), which happens to be right there in that general vicinity. Thus, in my opinion, this is the best interpretive option.
Your point that “Later Writers Also Used the Present Tense to Describe Destroyed Sites” fails to engage with Wallace’s main argument. As stated above, the question is whether εἰμί (or any other verb of state) is ever used as a historic present. If you can find examples, I’d love to see them.