Saturday, May 18, 2019

Stephen Smalley on the Gospel of John and Evidence Supporting its Accuracy


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: