Talk:Pool of Bethesda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Porticos[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

The Church of Sainte Anne was actually constructed by the Crusaders and only rebuild by the french in the 19th century!

93.173.147.137 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Should "The Pool of Bethesda" redirect here? I can't tell if they are both referencing the same thing. Eli lilly 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

yes. Deror 23:04, 22 October 2006 (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


dmonty 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

The Conclusion section ends with:

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). 76.10.128.192 (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,[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[9][10][11][12][13][14] 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.[15][16]", 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.[25][26]". 76.10.128.192 (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. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)