The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH 103
reassessment. Among them the most important are our renewed appreciation
of the Fourth Evangelist’s keen knowledge of topography and the
debates we now know were raging within Early Judaism. We are
impressed with the Evangelist’s physical descriptions (esp. of Bethesda)
and his understanding of the Samaritans, their territory, and the costly
provisions for the Jewish rites of purification. 21
In the endeavor to understand the Fourth Gospel and assess the level
of influence from the Essenes, we cannot avoid some subjectivity. And
obviously some imagination is demanded in any attempt to reconstruct
the past. As we strive to be objective, we need to be cognizant of prejudices
and presuppositions that could distort and undermine the results of
our detailed research. 22
THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
For decades scholars thought it obvious that the Fourth Gospel contained
false or at least historically misleading information. The
Evangelist referred to a monumental pool inside the Sheep Gate of
Jerusalem, but no ancient descriptions of Jerusalem supported this
report. This pool is not mentioned in the Old Testament Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, or in other early descriptions of Jerusalem.
Yet the Evangelist described the pool of Bethesda (or Beth-Zatha) as having
five porticoes. His report was judged to be misinformed, because no
ancient building resembled a pentagon. It seemed to follow that the
Evangelist could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. He seems to
be an author interested in symbolism and ignorant of the physical
description of pre-70 Jerusalem.
Archaeologists, however, decided to dig exactly where the Evangelist
claimed a pool was located and designated for healing. Their excavations
revealed an ancient pool with shrines probably dedicated to the Greek
god of healing, Asclepius. The pool had porticoes (open areas with large
columns): one to the north, one to the east, one to the south, one to the
21. See the contributions to the millennium celebration in Jerusalem in James H.
Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
22. I agree with E. P. Sanders that subjectivity “cannot be avoided in anything we
do,” and that in “the humanities in the United States today, subjectivity is …
embraced far too enthusiastically.” Indeed, each scholar should aim “at objectivity.”
See Edward P. Sanders, “How do We Know what We Know about Jesus?” in Jesus
Two Thousand Years Later (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver; Faith and
Scholarship Colloquies; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 53.