I created a Humble Skeptic YouTube channel, and need your help to get the word out. Please subscribe to this new channel and share my video with others!
See the evidence I shared with a conservative biblical scholar that the Gospel of John need not be early. He agreed with the evidence I shared, namely that the mention of “five porticos” proves little since that “pool” remained in use according to archeologists during the second century Roman period, long after 70 AD. The Romans turned it into a healing center, an Asclepieion. Nor is the earliest papyrus dating for John definitively 125 AD. The scholar’s paper is online. https://theofilos.no/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Theofilos-vol-13-nr-1-2-2021-forum-6-final.pdf (Side note: The paper’s author incorrectly assumed I was an atheist.)
So dating John early remains questionable. Also, the author of John used the present tense when writing his story, not just in reference to the pool, which means he was following a pattern of using the present tense, but that does not prove the story was based on eyewitness testimony. Anyone could have visited Jerusalem after 70 AD and seen the pool and stone columns of the porticos. Romans used the pool for healings by Asclepius in the second century which may explain the origin of the story in John about “angelic” healings at the pool.
AI states: The five porticos (roofed colonnades) of the Pool of Bethesda were constructed from stone, specifically featuring broken columns, stone arches, and plastered stone steps. The central (fifth) portico was built on a broad rock dike or dam that divided the site into two separate rectangular pools.
Key artifacts and findings include:
* Votive Offerings: Archaeologists discovered votive offerings depicting anatomical parts (such as a marble foot with a Greek inscription) in the debris. These were typical items left at shrines of the Greco-Roman god of medicine, Asclepius, as a token of thanks for a cure, indicating the site's use as a pagan healing center (an Asclepieion) during the Roman period (2nd century AD).
The spring-fed pool of Bethesda was not destroyed in 70 AD but also existed when Hadrian (117-138 AD) was emperor and remained visible into the 4th century. See, The Excavations at the Bethesda Pool in Jerusalem: Preliminary Report on a Project of Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis: Shimon Gibson
Even if you're right, the present tense verb (eimi) is associated not merely with the Bethesda pool, but with the city of Jerusalem in general, and the Sheep Gate of the Temple in particular. Cambridge NT scholar George van Kooten has studied the history of the pool closely and has argued that it was destroyed in 70 AD (though it's remains may have been visible). His book should be available soon. John's other present tense participle suggests that the pool still had (exousa) the "roofed colonnades" at the time of writing, which is not the way he would have written if only the remains of the pool were visible. If you're interested, I also cite seven additional arguments for dating John before the start of the Jewish War at the end of this article: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/the-date-of-johns-gospel-revisited
See the evidence I shared with a conservative biblical scholar that the Gospel of John need not be early. He agreed with the evidence I shared, namely that the mention of “five porticos” proves little since that “pool” remained in use according to archeologists during the second century Roman period, long after 70 AD. The Romans turned it into a healing center, an Asclepieion. Nor is the earliest papyrus dating for John definitively 125 AD. The scholar’s paper is online. https://theofilos.no/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Theofilos-vol-13-nr-1-2-2021-forum-6-final.pdf (Side note: The paper’s author incorrectly assumed I was an atheist.)
So dating John early remains questionable. Also, the author of John used the present tense when writing his story, not just in reference to the pool, which means he was following a pattern of using the present tense, but that does not prove the story was based on eyewitness testimony. Anyone could have visited Jerusalem after 70 AD and seen the pool and stone columns of the porticos. Romans used the pool for healings by Asclepius in the second century which may explain the origin of the story in John about “angelic” healings at the pool.
AI states: The five porticos (roofed colonnades) of the Pool of Bethesda were constructed from stone, specifically featuring broken columns, stone arches, and plastered stone steps. The central (fifth) portico was built on a broad rock dike or dam that divided the site into two separate rectangular pools.
Key artifacts and findings include:
* Votive Offerings: Archaeologists discovered votive offerings depicting anatomical parts (such as a marble foot with a Greek inscription) in the debris. These were typical items left at shrines of the Greco-Roman god of medicine, Asclepius, as a token of thanks for a cure, indicating the site's use as a pagan healing center (an Asclepieion) during the Roman period (2nd century AD).
The spring-fed pool of Bethesda was not destroyed in 70 AD but also existed when Hadrian (117-138 AD) was emperor and remained visible into the 4th century. See, The Excavations at the Bethesda Pool in Jerusalem: Preliminary Report on a Project of Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis: Shimon Gibson
https://www.academia.edu/22894959/The_Excavations_at_the_Bethesda_Pool_in_Jerusalem_Preliminary_Report_on_a_Project_of_Stratigraphic_and_Structural_Analysis_Text
Even if you're right, the present tense verb (eimi) is associated not merely with the Bethesda pool, but with the city of Jerusalem in general, and the Sheep Gate of the Temple in particular. Cambridge NT scholar George van Kooten has studied the history of the pool closely and has argued that it was destroyed in 70 AD (though it's remains may have been visible). His book should be available soon. John's other present tense participle suggests that the pool still had (exousa) the "roofed colonnades" at the time of writing, which is not the way he would have written if only the remains of the pool were visible. If you're interested, I also cite seven additional arguments for dating John before the start of the Jewish War at the end of this article: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/the-date-of-johns-gospel-revisited