Understanding the Times
rolling stones
 

Derek Thomas
 

When you repair sewage pipes in Jerusalem you could be unearthing more than dirt. A recent edition of Biblical Archeology Review claims that workers in Jerusalem have uncovered the Pool of Siloam, fed by the famous ‘Hezekiah Tunnel’ and mentioned in John’s Gospel in connection with the healing of the man who had been blind from birth (John 9:7, 11). The disciples asked who had sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind. Jesus dismissed the question pointing instead to another reason for this man’s predicament—that in the hands of God he would be an instrument of blessing to others. Jesus bid the man go and wash ‘in the Pool of Siloam.’

For decades, Bible critics dismissed its existence as a Johannine fiction. (I recall a series of lectures on John given at a seminary in Wales I attended 30 years ago in which the existence of the Pool was dismissed as ‘pure fiction’).

Of course, as visitors to Jerusalem will protest, “I have seen the Pool of Siloam,” but almost everyone agrees that this is not the Pool Jesus referred to but a later one, a reconstruction built between AD 400 and 460 by the Empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several biblical sites. The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards away from this one. The site of yet another Pool of Siloam, which predated the version reputedly visited by Jesus, is still unknown.

The first pool was constructed in the 8th century BC by King Hezekiah, who foresaw the likelihood that the Assyrians would lay siege to Jerusalem and knew a safe water supply would be required to survive the attack. He ordered workers to build a 1,750-foot-long tunnel under the ridge where the City of David was located. The tunnel connected Gihon Spring in the adjacent Kidron Valley to the side of Jerusalem less vulnerable to an attack. The Pool of Siloam then functioned as a reservoir holding the water brought into the city. It was presumably destroyed in 586 BC when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar razed the city.

The pool of Jesus' time—the one recently discovered by a sewage pipe repair team—was built early in the 1st century BC and was destroyed by the future Roman Emperor Titus about AD 70.

Christians are haling this discovery as yet another validation of the Bible’s claim to be the infallible Word of God. However, some cautionary points need to be made before we laud this discovery with too much praise.

The FIRST is to point out that the Bible is true in itself. It does not require external proofs for its claim to authenticity to be true. In the words of the Reformer John Calvin, the Bible is self-authenticating. True external ‘proofs’ of Scripture’s authority are available: such things as the consent of all ots parts, the magnificence of its writings, …. And for that matter, archeological discoveries of great significance corroborating the existence of the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the ancient city of Ur of Chaldea, or that a man called Jesus lived from around 4 b.c. to 30 a.d. But these are by way of additional, confirmatory signs and do not in any way prove or disprove Scripture’s authority. Holy men of old wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet.1:21). All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, Paul says using a word that suggests that the Bible is the product of the out-breathing of God (2 Tim 3:16). Because the Bible is God’s Word nothing outside of that word can verify it and give it authority. Its authority comes from itself as the divine word of God.

SECOND, the Bible is not a typical work of historical narrative.  It often leaves out details that would otherwise fascinate us. Archaeology provides useful information that helps illuminate passages of Scripture. Bible commentaries are now full of details suggesting what kind of food people ate and what kind of houses they lived in at various periods. One of the most important areas of research has been the corroboration provided by Ancient Near-Eastern treaties or covenants to the very fabric of the way the first five books of the Bible were written. Far from being unique, the Pentateuch mimics in style ancient formulas of treaty-making.

THIRD, Christians have nothing to fear from archeological discoveries. The Hittites were once thought by critics to be a myth until archeologists uncovered their existence in Turkey. It was claimed that no such king as Sargon existed in the Assyrian dynasty (as Isaiah 20:1 claims) until the discovery of Sargon’s palace in Korzabad, Iraq. The very mention of his capture of the city of Ashdod was found carved on the palace wall. Similar doubts existed about the existence of the Babylonian king, Belshazzar until tablets bearing his name were unearthed.

One of the more famous examples of archaeology "proving" that the biblical account was false is with regards to the conquest described in the Book of Joshua. In the 1950's British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon declared that the traditional dating of the exodus and later conquest of Canaan could not possible have taken place in the mid 1400s, the traditional date for the conquest based upon an extrapolation from 1 Kings. 6.1.  

Her discovery has led to a shifting of opinion on the date of the exodus from the 15^th to the 13^th century b.c. Many evangelical scholars, even some at my own seminary, have adopted this later dating of the exodus. However, as often occurs in this discipline, archeological evidence in this area has become increasingly ambiguous and the stubbornness of those who insisted on an exodus in c. 1446 (like myself—no scholar, just stubborn!) seems not to be without merit.

Then came the famous discovery of the Bedouin at a cave in Qumran in 1947. A magnificent picture of this cave sits in my office in the dungeons of First Presbyterian Church. Suddenly our oldest texts of the Bible pre-dated the advent of Jesus. Scholars have now dated most of the biblical texts found at Qumran to the 2nd or 1st century B.C. (All books of the Hebrew Bible except Esther are attested, in addition to many extra-biblical texts). In this instance, a fortuitous archaeological find has demonstrated that the scribes had done a remarkable job of preserving the text. The differences between the biblical texts at Qumran and those of the Masoretic tradition are important only to linguists and textual scholars and have no serious bearing upon the meaning and context of the text.

In the case of the Pool of Siloam, then, we may have an interesting and welcome discovery that helps us trust the Scriptures, slow as we often are to believe the Bible to be the Word of God. But even if it proves to be false, the Bible remains infallible, inerrant and utterly trustworthy.