Forum Biblical Criticism & History Forum

Part 1 John's gospel has for centuries been relegated to last position as the least reliable historically, largely based as having the highest Christology. However archeology in the 20th century "threw a spanner in the works" demonstrating that it had in fact the most precise local geography of the four. I need help of AI for detail: "Key Archaeological Corroborations: ​Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2): John describes a pool near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem with "five porticoes/colonnades." Critics long viewed this as an allegorical number (representing the 5 books of Moses). Archaeology in the 20th century excavated the site and uncovered a double-pool structure with four surrounding porticoes and one dividing the two pools—exactly five. ​Pool of Siloam (John 9:7): Uncovered during construction work in Jerusalem in 2004, matching John’s description. ​Gabbatha / The Stone Pavement (John 19:13): Specific local landmarks surrounding Pontius Pilate's judgment seat. ​Minor Villages: Mentions obscure locations unknown in OT texts, such as Sychar near Jacob’s Well (John 4:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (John 1:28), and Ephraim near the wilderness (John 11:54). ​Historical Assessment: Scholars across the spectrum (e.g., Richard Bauckham, Martin Hengel) note that John's author possessed firsthand, intimate knowledge of Jerusalem prior to its destruction by the Romans in 70 CE." We can therefore re-order the gospels according to knowledge of local geography. Mark - awkward outsider perspect

Hi Giuseppe i think it's disputed. There's mention in the TF and James passages; and an Arabic/Syriac TF version w/out interpolations.

Several of Evans' 2011/2013 observations still point to Smith. His later, 2025 and 2026, scenarios introduce vague hypotheticals, which I and Mark Goodacre at his NT blog previously noted, go against the razor of William of Ockham (a Franciscan, not a "Lord"), parsimony. Good catch on William of Ockham. And I want to emphasize that the issue is not just an extra step (Smith finds a pre-existing forgery) but that the new, extra step has no real logical explanation. It is all special pleading designed to get Smith off the forgery hook.

I think aspects of other Simons/Shimons may well be reflected in Christian-mentioned Simons, eg. some of the Simons of the Gamliel family, eg. Simeon/Shimon ben Gamliel I,* died 70 AD/CE; or even reflections on or conflations with Simeon, the founder of the Israelite tribe of Simeon; or members of that tribe, Simeonites (which includes, fwiw, his descendant Shaul/Saul, as per Numbers 26:13; origin of the clan of Shualites/Saulites). * or even his grandfather, Shimon/Simeon ben Hillel

In my view, in the very early Christ movement, there were several Messiahs (Christs) in different locations (1 Corinthians 1:12). Alexandria had a Messiah, Antioch had a Messiah, Ephesus had a Messiah, Rome had a Messiah, etc. Messiah simply meant the "anointed high priest" of that specific location. The Pope today is essentially the Messiah of Rome. Mark was the Messiah of Alexandria. But originally for Jews, the Messiah had to be warrior/fighter. All the 2nd temple Messiah claimants were attempting to start wars and gather soldiers to fight for Israel. Romans did not like having to constantly fight these rebellions so they helped push a peaceful Messiah which later became Jesus Christ. With this peaceful Messiah now in position nobody else could come later claiming to be the Messiah and start another "Messiah war." https://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.com ... ssiah.html

This would explain why Paul was a wanted man... Assuming Paul was associated with Simon bar Giora.

Maybe worth quoting, from the Smith Clement Harvard U p1973 book page 88 note 1: "In his last long letter to me, dated September 20, 1962, A. D. Nock wrote: "I don't think that anyone could suggest that Clement had written the secret Gospel." Instead, Nock continued, it was written as "mystification for the sake of mystification."

How did Evans strengthen the case that the "letter" was forged by Morton Smith?

Now that I have access to a recording of Evans' recent talk, on second hearing, my view is that Evans, apparently without intending to do so, has in fact, in part by relying on Peter Jeffery, strengthened the case that the "letter" was forged by Morton Smith.

Without claiming a solution, it may be worth mentioning that Annie Jaubert offered a proposal. Though that specific proposal may now deservedly be a minority view, it made a reasonable observation, namely, that not all late second temple Jews agreed on calendar determinations, as Qumran texts show.

There's some notable objections and counterarguments to synoptic gospel priority. Haven't got time now but hope to explain tomorrow. Realise a minority view. Looking forward to it. Best, Ken

Why believe that GJohn truly preserves accurate traditions? GJohn never names its alleged source (who appears in no other gospel), GJohn is regarded by both traditional scholarship and modern scholarship as the last gospel written, There's some notable objections and counterarguments to synoptic gospel priority. Haven't got time now but hope to explain tomorrow. Realise a minority view.