Charisma News
published a web article last week with the bold headline "Pool Where Jesus
Healed a Blind Man Discovered, Proves Gospel of John Is True." It opens with the
claim "Archaeological evidence now proves the Gospel of John is true," then
references both Eric Metaxas and a
Los Angeles Times article that quoted
Princeton New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth. The claim is
irresponsible.
Before we go too far, let me first say that the discovery of
the pool of Slioam is a significant find for biblical archaeology. Discovered in
2004, it offers additional evidence that the author of John's gospel had
first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, just as the discovery of the pool
of Bethsaida (the setting of the healing in John 5) was found with its five
porticoes, just as John described them. Since the 5th century, Christians had
thought Siloam was the outlet of Hezekiah's tunnel, but this discovery shows a
much larger, grander pool,
according to the Biblical Archaeological Society.
1 As
Charlesworth stated in a
Los Angeles Times interview which was cited by
Charisma
News, "Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was
using a religious conceit… Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly
where John said it was."
2
Both Metaxas in his
commentary and Charlesworth are correct to say the discovery lends credence to
the level of historical reliability the Gospel of John holds. But that is a
completely different claim than the one leading the
Charisma News article. Both
the article and the headline trumpeted "Archaeological evidence now proves the
Gospel of John is true." Proves? It proves the truth of the entire Gospel?
That's a troubling oversimplification that is actually dangerous to the message
of the Gospel, as we can see by looking at a parallel story in the
Los Angeles
Times.
Are You Willing to Believe in Greek Gods?
The well-developed
pantheon of gods in Greek mythology is familiar to most people. Much of that
familiarity comes from the required reading of Homer's epic
The Illiad. It is
Homer's tale that provides the narrative of Helen of Troy ("the face that
launched a thousand ships"), Achilles and his heel, the Trojan War and the
accompanying Trojan horse. We read how the Greek gods work for or against the
story's heroes and for or against each other.
Of course, Troy and Sparta are
real places, but many scholars also held the Trojan War references in The Iliad
were just as mythical as the references of the Greek gods. Troy was considered
at first to be "entirely mythical."
3 But in 1993, the Los
Angeles Times
reported "Archeologists have uncovered strong evidence that the Trojan War
described by the poet Homer in 'The Iliad,' one of the first and most important
books in Western literature, actually occurred."
4
The
article then reports the archaeological advancements at Troy:
In the 1870s,
German merchant Heinrich Schliemann identified what he believed to be its site,
a large mound on the Anatolian Peninsula about 15 miles from the modern city of
Canakkale. The mound, about 600 feet long, 450 feet wide and more than 100 feet
tall, is called Hisarlik (Place of Fortresses) and is accepted as the site of
Troy…
But archeologists from Blegen's generation and later ones argued that
the citadel was too small to be the Homeric Troy. "People believed there was a
kernel of truth in the (Homeric) story, but the citadel was too small to be an
important place," Korfmann said. 5
In the 1990s, when
excavations resumed after a fifty year hiatus, archaeologist can now show the
Trojan War was not merely possible, but maybe even probable.
Sauce for the
Goose, Sauce for the Gander
Given this, does archaeology prove Homer's
Iliad
is true? Would any Christian claim such? Of course not. It shows Homer was
familiar with the area of Troy. In fact, the article quotes archaeologist
Korfmann postulating "Homer might have written down his story while viewing this
ruins of this city. The ruins available in this landscape could have been the
stage for an epic."
6
Similarly, the archaeological
evidence for the Siloam Pool demonstrates it is implausible to believe the
Gospel of John was wholly invented in Asia well after the fall of Jerusalem by
someone who has never visited the city. It adds credence to the claim that John
was an eyewitness to Jesus' miracles at the Pool of Siloam or Bethsaida. But one
cannot claim it proves the Gospel of John. Otherwise, a well-informed atheist
can simply ask why you don't also believe in Achilles, and the Greek gods, since
archaeology has proven the Iliad in exactly the same manner.
There are many
things
archaeology can tell us and many things
archaeology cannot tell us about the Bible. But let's be careful in how much
we assume.
References
.jpg){kind=link}