Bible and Archaeology

The negative reviews are clearly just disgruntled evangelicals that can’t listen to anything that doesn’t directly reflect their beliefs. When facts get in their face they can’t handle it. This is a great podcast by someone qualified to discuss the facts, they don’t state you can’t believe what you want to believe but they also encourage you to look at the evidence that is there and what is not there. They discuss ideas and evidence with grace.

I listened to a recent episode featuring Paul Anderson (who I’ve never heard of before). I was interested to hear about all this supposed archeological evidence that proves the fourth gospel is historically accurate. Anderson did talk at length about archeological data that confirms some details regarding the setting of the healing miracle told in John 5. I suppose it’s interesting that archeologists have confirmed that pools with 5 colonnades existed in ancient Palestine. I am not sure what it proves regarding the historical reliability of the whole gospel or even the miracle story in question. It’s illogical to say that the miracle described must have happened simply because archaeologists discovered the remains of a pool with 5 colonnades. It’s possible that the author of John made up the miracle story but chose to set the story in a real context in order to make it sound more believable. There’s certainly no archaeological evidence the miracle took place, so I’m not sure what point Anderson was trying to make. Maybe he’s just consoling himself. Then the conversation strayed far away from archaeology and into speculation and theology. Anderson spoke at length about the sayings of John the Baptist in the first and fourth gospels. He didn’t offer a single bit of archaeological evidence to confirm that either writer recorded any actual words of John the Baptist. It’s possible they did. It’s also possible they invented the words they placed into his mouth. It’s also possible they had sources of some kind that contained fictional or legendary sayings of John. We simply don’t know what John actually said, and we certainly don’t have archaeological evidence to confirm what he did say. Why did the host let the guest waffle on for so long with pressing him to provide archaeological evidence to support his claims? Perhaps the producers of this podcast should think of a different name. Bible and Archaeology and Random Speculation seems more fitting for this episode.

I was extremely disappointed in the most recent episode with guest Paul Anderson. I don’t fault the host (Jordan) for some of the claims made by the guest, but I do think it’s important for hosts to politely push back when a guest makes bold claims without evidence -especially on a podcast that seems to pride itself on presenting historical evidence. For example, Anderson explains that there is archaeological evidence that supports some of the details in the healing story found in John 5, but he fails to make a connection between the setting of the story and the point of the story. It may very well be true that John accurately described the details of a place in ancient Jerusalem; that does not mean that the historical Jesus healed a lame man at said place. There is archaeological data that pools with 5 colonnades existed at the time; there is zero archaeological evidence that Jesus healed an invalid at such a pool in Jerusalem. This is not complicated historical analysis. It’s just plain common sense. Perhaps the author of John had visited Jerusalem at some point, saw a pool with 5 colonnades, and decided to use that as realistic setting for a fictional story. This is where I expect a host to step in and press such a point. The host doesn’t have to be rude or combative. He could have simply said, “I understand there is archaeological evidence that supports the details of this story regarding the number of colonnades. Are you also saying there is archaeological evidence that confirms the truth of the story - that the historical Jesus really did heal a man at this specific pool? And if there is such evidence, please lay it out for us.” Anderson then made a somewhat disingenuous transition. He quickly switched from talking about archaeological evidence regarding one particular story in John 5 to a discussion about the sayings of John the Baptist in Mark and John. Let’s be honest: there is zero archaeological evidence regarding what John the Baptist may or may not have said about himself or Jesus. It’s possible that one or both of these gospel writers accurately recorded the actual words of John the Baptist. It’s also possible that one or both of these gospel writers invented the words of John the Baptist and put words into his mouth. It’s also possible that they inherited stories about John the Baptist (what we call hearsay, whether written or oral) that contained fictional or legendary or poorly remembered words of John the Baptist. We simply cannot know with certainty what he actually said in an objective sense. Starting this discussion - about which archaeology can say nothing at present - in the middle of a podcast about archaeology is very close to disingenuous. At best, it’s poor scholarship. Again, the host could have politely said something like this: “Okay, I just want listeners to understand what’s happening. We have moved on from what archaeology can tell us regarding the healing story in John 5 to a different discussion about the sayings of John the Baptist, which is beyond the reach of our current archaeological data.” I expect scholars on podcasts like this to be very clear about distinguishing between evidence and personal, faith-based speculation. When they fail to do that, I expect the host to step in and make such distinctions obvious.

The cherubim are not angels. They are heavenly being but never classified as angels.. they should do some research befor talking about things they don’t know about.