In his work
on the Gospel of John, Stephen Smalley wrote the following about typographical evidence supporting the historicity of
the Fourth Gospel:
[R]ecent archaeological excavation has
confirmed the existence of a number of places mentioned by John which might
otherwise be attributed to his inventive genius. If John’s accuracy is
therefore indicated on the occasions when it can be tested, we have less reason
to doubt his topographical reliability when it cannot be established.
Two of the most important sites in Jerusalem
to have been excavated recently are the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2) and the
Pavement (19:13). Until excavations began in 1878 on the Bethesda site, near
what is today called St Stephen’s Gate in the old city of Jerusalem, no
knowledge of this pool existed outside the Fourth Gospel. The fact that it had ‘five
porticoes’, moreover, could have meant that John was using allegory or
symbolism freely, and that he simply invented the name Bethesda to provide a
setting for his sign. But the excavations have put a different light on the
matter. The first stage, completed in 1931-2, uncovered two tank-like pools,
separated by a wall of rock; these are now to be seen very close to the
Crusader church of St Anne. It was thought at first that here was the Bethesda
pool itself; and this impression was confirmed by the fact that a Byzantine
church was built on the site, partly over the tanks (supported by eight columns
which still stand more or less intact) and partly on the solid ground. Fresh
discoveries, however, have convinced the White Fathers in charge of the
excavations that the site of the healing of the sick man in John 5 was located
in shallower pools adjacent to the tanks, and was once associated with the
pagan cult of the healing presided over by the god Aesculapius. The inference
is, in fact, that a pagan sanctuary and probably an Aesculapian temple stood on
this site originally.
This makes considerably more sense of the
situation. It would have been easier to immerse invalids in a shallow pool than
a deep tank; and once the sign mentioned in John 5 had taken place, the holy
place would naturally be preserved by building a church over it as an effective
reminder that Christ the healer had
appeared. Here is impressive support for the historicity of the tradition in
John 5.
The other site of interest for our purposes
is the place where Jesus was tried and condemned by Pilate. John tells us that
this was at a place called the Pavement (Lithostrotos),
in Hebrew (Aramaic) Gabbatha (Jn
19:13). The debate about the exact location of this site continues. Pére Benoit
still favours Herod’s palace, on the western side of Jerusalem, partly on the
grounds that according to Josephus this was the headquarters of a successor to Pilate,
the barbarous Gessius Florus. But nothing like a ‘pavement’ has been discovered
there. On the other hand, beneath the Antonia fortress in the north-west corner
of the temple area, the excavations of Fr L.H. Vincent have revealed a paved
court made up of massive blocks of stone which may well have been the Roman
governor’s temporary praetorium, and a suitable place for its location. The
real problem in this case is whether the excavated pavement formed part of the
Atonia in the time of Jesus. But in any case John’s unique reference to this
site is evidently historical, and even if we still cannot be sure where Gabbatha was to be found, we can be
fairly certain that the fourth evangelist was in touch with early tradition
when he referred to it.
Before we leave the evidence of John’s
topography, it will be instructive to consider for a moment the appearance of
actual place-names in the Fourth Gospel, quite apart from the support given to
the existence of these places by archaeology.
John uses several place-names (such as
Jerusalem, Bethany, Jordan and Galilee) which are common to all the Gospels.
His Gospel also contains names which he alone uses. In addition to those
already mentioned (the pool of Siloam, the Kidron valley, Bethany beyond the
Jordan, Solomon’s portico, Aenon near Salim, Bethesda and Gabbatha), there are
Cana, Tiberias (and the Sea of Tiberias), Sychar and Ephraim. With Luke only he
shares Samaria. From this evidence C.H. Dodd concludes that the setting of John’s
basic tradition was not only Palestinian, and therefore (we may add) close to
the origins of the Jesus story, but also located in Jerusalem and the south
rather than in Galilee and the north (Historical
Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 244f). For, as Dodd points out (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,
245), Cana in Galilee is the only place in northern Palestine known to John but
not the other evangelists, and a large range of northern place-names present in
the synoptic Gospels (such as Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi and the territory of
Tyre and Sidon) cannot be found in the Fourth Gospel. Similarly, although John’s
Gospel lacks the Judean names Bethphage, Gethsemane and (in Luke only) Emmaus,
it includes no less than nine southern place-names unknown to the other Gospel
writers. (Stephen Smalley, John:
Evangelist and Interpreter [London: The Paternoster Press, 1978], 35-37)
Smalley has
the following interesting note about the use of personal names in the Gospel of
John:
John’s use of personal names is as interesting as his use of place-names, and
relates equally to the independent and historical character of the tradition beneath
the Fourth Gospel. He uses (i) synoptic names in a synoptic context (e.g. Andrew and Philip in Jn 6:5-9, and
Peter in 18:10); (ii) synoptic names in a Johannine context (e.g. Philip in Jn 14:8f.; and perhaps also
Judas in 14:22); (iii) Johannine names in a synoptic context (Malchus in Jn
18:10); (iv) Johannine names in a Johannine context (Nicodemus, Jn 3; 19:39;
and Lazarus, Jn 11; 12:1f.). If John knew the other Gospels, the main reason
for adding or dropping or re-locating names would presumably have been literary
and theological. Yet these motives alone cannot account for the personal any
more than the geographical references that are unique to the Fourth Gospel.
(Ibid., 37, n. 102)
For further
reading in favour of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, see:
Craig L.
Blomberg, The
Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary
Richard
Bauckham, Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2d ed.)