This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The conclusion states that there were five porticos. I don't understand the comment. Looking at the picture, there appear to be two adjoining squares, hence seven porticos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcarrington (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, a redirect is now in place. Eli lilly 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an important new discussion about the pools now underway at Society of Biblical Literature and various journals among Shimon Gibson (Jerusalem) and Urban von Wahlde (Chicago). Gibson recently published his findings in Gibson, S., “The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period,” Proche-Orient Chreten 55(2005)270-293. Urban just published his findings at the pools in: von Wahlde, U.C., “The Pool(s) of Bethesda and the Healing in John 5: A Reappraisal of Research and of the Johannine Text,” Revue Biblique 116.1(2009)111-136.
Thus this article needs updating to show the major new theory that the lower pool is actually a ritual bathing pool (mikveh) from the first century. --GBurge (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs a map to help locate the pools. Map
All these details are corroborated through literary and archaeological evidence affirming the historical accuracy of the Johannine account.
There is a reference, which I unfortunately do not have access to. However, this appears like a doctrinal position rather than an archeological/historical one, claiming that if the book of John refers to a historical feature of the time, the whole book must be historical. There is an evident difference in style and goal between gospels and accounts of historians. At the very least, it would be nice to verify if the conclusion matches Charlesworth's conclusion. If so, I suggest to also present the conclusion of an historian or other scholar who does not make the mistake of validating the entire book as historical (I'd have to do some research myself to find these). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
After checking the Gospel of John article, references abund for "Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.", with references supporting "The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed the article has been edited to remove the section, please consider this discussion closed, and thank you, Dougweller. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)