Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by ficino »

arnoldo wrote:From pg 166. . .
Although the Gihon Spring was the only source of water in Jerusalem, and although it regularly delivered abundant water, the Gihon was an intermittent spring. The Hebrew name of the spring is derived from the verb meaning "to gush forth." Thus the name itself seems to reflect its intermittent character. . . The geological reason for this irregularity is that the Gishon Spring is a siphonic spring created by underground water collected in a karst. When the water level reaches the top of the karst, it is siphoned off through crack in the rock. Thus, water gushes out into Hezekiah's Tunnel until the karst is emptied. At that point, the water ceases to flow until the karst fills again and the process is repeated.

Could the "stirring of the water" be the result of this geological phenomenon?
Yes, apparently it is exactly the result of that phenomenon. The articles I mentioned earlier in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1319&start=20#p29745

discuss the issue in depth. Unfortunately, they may not be available outside of JSTOR's pay wall.

The articles also make the point that the healed paralytic's violation of the Torah by carrying his pallet on the sabbath presupposes a location outside the city walls. As I understand it, the walls created an "eruv," inside which various sabbath laws are relaxed. There are eruvim in many places today. So the pool near St. Anne's, being inside the then walls, is an unlikely location of the healing and subsequent controversy depicted in John 5 - even though it seems to have had five porticoes.

I'm not sure exactly how all this helps solve the problem of dating gJohn. As was suggested above, perhaps the writer conflated the two pools.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why the women as first witnesses?

Post by maryhelena »

arnoldo wrote:
maryhelena wrote: edited to add: some links on debate/argument re the gospel of John.

The John, Jesus, and History Project-New Glimpses of Jesus and a Bi-Optic Hypothesis

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml
Paul N. Anderson has also edited a book containing the following article;

“The Pool of Siloam: The Importance of the New Discoveries for our Understanding of Ritual Immersion in Late Second Temple Judaism and in the Gospel of John,” Anderson et al., eds., 2009, 155–73.
My thanks for that link...very interesting re 'living water'. This would confirm that the pool now at St. Anne's was not a pool of 'living water' and would thus not be the Pool of Bethesda re gJohn 5.2. i.e. the water of the gJohn Bethesda Pool was 'stirred' water. The 'living water' coming into Jerusalem was from the Gihon Spring. However, the 'living water' from this spring that arrived at the Pool of Siloam was intermittent. Thus, the Jesus in gJohn could not use the Pool of Siloam for his miracle of the paralyzed man. The 'living water' offered by Jesus was:

John 4.14......those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life'.

(the blind man sent to the Pool of Siloam to wash off the mud Jesus put on his eyes is a ritual cleansing story after Jesus had intervened...a ritual cleansing that would have been in the second, the larger, the southern part of the Pool of Siloam - not the northern part, the smaller part where the 'living water' from the Gihon Spring arrived).

Thus, if the gJohn writer wanted to depict a spring of living water, water that 'stirred' continually - to be in line with, to correspond with, the 'living water' Jesus was providing for 'eternal life' - then he had to draw up, create, a literary spring of 'living water'. 'Living water' that produces 'miracles'....Thus, the Sheep's Gate symbolism, the 5 porticoes, the stirred water and the name Bethesda for this literary creation. Does the name of Bethesda have any connection to Bethsaida ? Keeping in mind that after around 30 c.e, Bethsaida was renamed as Bethsaida Julius.

From the link in the post above to the Anderson article; indication that if the Pool of Siloam structures were destroyed during the war of 70 c.e. - then, the likelihood that whatever Pool structure was situated at the Sheep's Gate would, likewise, have been destroyed.
  • This period ended with the destruction of the city by the Romans in 70 c.e. in fact, Josephus writes that the Romans ‘set all on fire as far as Siloam’ (J.W.6.7.2). That the pool went out of use at this time is attested by the presence of coins dating from the second, third, and fourth years of the first Jewish revolt in debris in the pool. The one commonly shown is a prutah, from the second year of the revolt.

    Fourth Period (70 c.e. – 430 c.e.)

    We know nothing about the pools from the destruction of the city until the early fourth century. With the conversion of Constantine to Christianity and the devotion to the holy sites shown by his mother, Helena, interest in the Holy Land was stimulated, and devote individuals began to visit Jerusalem and to write accounts of their visits. Even so, the only report from this period is the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, who visited Jerusalem in 330 and reported two pools at the site.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by ficino »

This website claims that there was a spring that supplied water to the Pool of Bethesda, near the present St. Anne's, in antiquity. I have not seen this claim made elsewhere.

http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem ... -pool.html

It's also not clear to me that the so-called Virgin's Fountain would have been outside the city walls in the earlier first century, as some writers said, whom I mentioned above. This website locates the Pool of Siloam within the city walls, so maybe the Virgin's Fountain pool was inside the city walls after all. I don't know.

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/rel211/jerusalem.htm

An expert in first-century topography of Jerusalem I am not.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by DCHindley »

ficino wrote:Another point: both Masterman and Paton favor the Virgin's Ftn because in the first century it was outside the city walls. Therefore, it was not legal for the healed man to carry his pallet on the sabbath at that spot because he was not in the special sector inside the walls. I gather the circuit of the walls created an "eruv"? This situation gives rise to the real oomph of the story, the reason for "the Jews'" opposition.
Modern Jews simply connect different structures by ribbon or string to create an enclosure that serves as a dwelling. What was to prevent the pool operators (whether civil employees or private businesspersons) from doing the same, allowing the sick who hung around in hope of a miracle to carry a cot about?

DCH
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why the women as first witnesses?

Post by arnoldo »

maryhelena wrote:
arnoldo wrote:
maryhelena wrote: edited to add: some links on debate/argument re the gospel of John.

The John, Jesus, and History Project-New Glimpses of Jesus and a Bi-Optic Hypothesis

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml
Paul N. Anderson has also edited a book containing the following article;

“The Pool of Siloam: The Importance of the New Discoveries for our Understanding of Ritual Immersion in Late Second Temple Judaism and in the Gospel of John,” Anderson et al., eds., 2009, 155–73.
My thanks for that link...very interesting re 'living water'. This would confirm that the pool now at St. Anne's was not a pool of 'living water' and would thus not be the Pool of Bethesda re gJohn 5.2. i.e. the water of the gJohn Bethesda Pool was 'stirred' water. The 'living water' coming into Jerusalem was from the Gihon Spring. However, the 'living water' from this spring that arrived at the Pool of Siloam was intermittent. Thus, the Jesus in gJohn could not use the Pool of Siloam for his miracle of the paralyzed man.
Was the Pool of Siloam used to heal the paralyzed man?
maryhelena wrote: The 'living water' offered by Jesus was:

John 4.14......those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life'.

(the blind man sent to the Pool of Siloam to wash off the mud Jesus put on his eyes is a ritual cleansing story after Jesus had intervened...a ritual cleansing that would have been in the second, the larger, the southern part of the Pool of Siloam - not the northern part, the smaller part where the 'living water' from the Gihon Spring arrived).

Thus, if the gJohn writer wanted to depict a spring of living water, water that 'stirred' continually - to be in line with, to correspond with, the 'living water' Jesus was providing for 'eternal life' - then he had to draw up, create, a literary spring of 'living water'. 'Living water' that produces 'miracles'....Thus, the Sheep's Gate symbolism, the 5 porticoes, the stirred water and the name Bethesda for this literary creation. Does the name of Bethesda have any connection to Bethsaida ? Keeping in mind that after around 30 c.e, Bethsaida was renamed as Bethsaida Julius.
The Johannine writer clarifies what the living water represents in John 7:39

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why the women as first witnesses?

Post by maryhelena »

arnoldo wrote:Was the Pool of Siloam used to heal the paralyzed man?
No.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

a few sketches by Rousée and Kroll

„Der Schafsteich mit seinen fünf Hallen“ - sheep pool with five halls
"Straße" – street
„Byzantinische Basilika St. Maria an der Probatica (Schaftseich) - Byzantine Basilica St. Mary at the Probatica (sheep pool)“
Image


Image
top down
Bethesda-Teich – pool of Bethesda
Nord-Teich – north pool
Kreuzfahrer-kirche – church of the crusaders
Zisterne – cistern
Jüdische Heilbäder – Jewish health spas
Byzant. Kirche - Byzantine church
Röm. Asklepios-Heiligtum – Roman sanctuary of Asclepios
Fels-stufen – rock-steps
Stützpfeiler-bogen - abutement arch
Mauer – wall
Unterirdischer Kanal zum Tempel – underground canal to the temple
Süd-Teich – south pool
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by ficino »

DCHindley wrote:
ficino wrote:Another point: both Masterman and Paton favor the Virgin's Ftn because in the first century it was outside the city walls. Therefore, it was not legal for the healed man to carry his pallet on the sabbath at that spot because he was not in the special sector inside the walls. I gather the circuit of the walls created an "eruv"? This situation gives rise to the real oomph of the story, the reason for "the Jews'" opposition.
Modern Jews simply connect different structures by ribbon or string to create an enclosure that serves as a dwelling. What was to prevent the pool operators (whether civil employees or private businesspersons) from doing the same, allowing the sick who hung around in hope of a miracle to carry a cot about?

DCH
Yes, there was a big eruv created in a park near my old apartment. But not just any Jew creates an eruv.

I don't know whether there was the equivalent of today's rabbinical establishment back in c. 30s CE who could have created an eruv around the Pool of Bethesda. And if they had done so, if it was a big eruv, its existence would have nullified the theological point of the story in John 5. The paralytic is criticized by "the Jews" for carrying his pallet on Shabbat. Wherever he was walking, he was not within an eruv. If it was a little eruv, its existence would be irrelevant, since the paralytic would have to leave the eruv to make it over to the Temple.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by ficino »

Hi KK, thanks for this very clear drawing. My problems with the St. Anne's pool/s are:

1. did the water undergo periodic movement as described in the story? I've come across only one claim that a spring fed that pool, and it was on an apologetical website.

2. wasn't that pool within the city walls in the earlier first century? If so, was it in an "eruv," such that "the Jews" would have no reason to accost the paralytic for carrying his pallet on the sabbath?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Dating gJohn & John 5:2

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

ficino wrote:My problems with the St. Anne's pool/s are:

1. did the water undergo periodic movement as described in the story? I've come across only one claim that a spring fed that pool, and it was on an apologetical website.

2. wasn't that pool within the city walls in the earlier first century? If so, was it in an "eruv," such that "the Jews" would have no reason to accost the paralytic for carrying his pallet on the sabbath?
My interest is quickly dispelled. I wanted to add the sketches here, because they offer a nice overview.

Instead of this pool I checked a famous locality: Solomon's porch. But outside of the New Testament, I found no evidence that there was a porch or whatever in the temple with that name. I found Josephus (Antiq. 15.11.3-5, §391-420; JW 5.5.1 §184-185), but he only mentions a columned hall that was built by Solomon. So it would be easy to imagine that John had read Josephus. Maybe he claimed not that the hall is named after Solomon. Only Acts claimed that. Therefore, I simply do not trust the descriptions of places in the NT.
Post Reply