Episode #343 - Archeology, Jesus, and the Gospel of John with Professor Paul Anderson

Welcome to the Two Cities Podcast, a podcast about theology, culture and discipleship, and this is episode 343. In this episode we're talking about Archaeology, Jesus and the Gospel of John with Professor Paul Anderson. Professor Paul Anderson is professor of biblical and flaker studies at George Fox University. He's the author of a number of books and articles and he's the editor of the book that we're discussing in this episode. Archaeology, Jesus, and the Gospel of John, what recent discoveries show us, published by Erickness. He members on the episode from the Two Cities include the Reverend Dr. Chris Porter and me, Dr. John Anthony Dunne. So, Chris, this conversation with Professor Anderson was a lot of fun hearing about his various views and perspectives on the Gospel of John and the work that he's done on the historicity of the Gospel of John and some of the kind of archaeological evidence and various kind of proposals that he makes to to contend for that perspective. And thinking about this new collection of essays, how that relates to this overall project that Professor Anderson has been a part of for quite some time and hearing a little bit about how it intersects and connects with some of his own views on the Gospel of John. What were some of the takeaways that you had from this conversation? Yeah, this has been a really fascinating discussion on the nature of the Gospel of John and how it fits into broader scholarship, especially the archaeological elements of it and how it works within the broader scholarship that is surrounding the Gospel of John. And if you haven't already, please subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review. You can also follow us on Facebook, X, Instagram, or visit us at our website at thetoocities.com. And with that, here's our conversation with Professor Paul Anderson. [Music] Well, Professor Anderson, thanks so much for joining us. Hey, you bet. Good to be with you. So, you've got this new book that you've edited, "Archaeology Jesus" in the Gospel of John with "Airdmins". It's a collection of essays. If you tell us a little bit about kind of the overview of the volume, maybe a little bit about how the volume came to be as well. Yeah, well, let me tell you kind of my thinking behind this volume. Back in the year 2000, I participated in a conference in Jerusalem at the Notre Dame Center. James Charles were organized. It was on Jesus and archaeology. And that was published by "Airdmins" then in 2006. And so I had an essay on John, Urban or Cam von Walde also had an essay on John. But hearing the 34 papers, it really struck me a curiosity is that over half of the papers were on the Gospel of John. Or dealing with particular features that were in John. And of course, by that time we had begun, or a little bit later on, we began the John Jesus and History Project in 2002. But as the J.A.J.A. project was thinking about different ways to approach things, the idea occurred to me, well, hey, how about if we invite papers on archaeology, John and Jesus. And so I think from the years 2008 to 2011, we invited a number of papers. And then J.A.J.H. wrapped up in 2016. But I had a bunch of these essays together. And I'm thinking, hey, I should probably get those into published volume. So I recruited two or three more essays just to fill out the picture and submitted it actually five years ago. But the fact is that we have over 90 images. And so we had to work with the resolution and also exchanging a few photos of that kind of a thing. So finally, it's out. And it's over 600 pages, two dozen essays. It's the first collection, the first volume on those three subjects together of archaeology and the Gospel of John and historical Jesus. And in some ways, it could be a game changer. So Paul, I was wondering, how do you, in that broader project of John Jason history, how that you've been going through, how, where does this sort of fit in that methodology of embedding John within the history and restoring historicity of John? Yeah, yeah. And of course, as we know, there are huge problems with John's historicity. And I'm aware of those as much as anybody. High, high Christology, high theology, but it's also got mundane material. I don't think that the prologue is the first stroke of the quill. I'll call it the Christ in. How about this? I don't even think it's written by the evangelist. It's more like first John went and went to three. And if the elder is the final editor of the Gospel, well, maybe this person, you know, composes it and adds it. But back to the J.J.H. question. The ways that Tom Thatcher and others and I organized that project and the first three central series volumes were first of all looking at critical appraisals of critical views, strengthen weaknesses, you know, five literature surveys on the dehistoricization of John and the de Johannification of Jesus. So how strong are the 12 planks in these platforms? Well, the first three volumes showed that those planks are really quite we or let me put another way. None of those planks is strong. So yeah, John is different, but it's also got a lot of historical stuff in it. History of the Johannes situation, but it's got early middle and late. And so the first three volumes in the central series, those just argued that this investigation critically should be done in some way. Then the next three volumes, and I'm working on those right now also, how about three aspects of Johannine research? So how about the Johannine situation? It's not just a Johannine community, but it includes a Johannine community, but it's post 70, but it's also pre 70. And so that volume came out two years ago on Jesus remembered within the Johannine situation. We've included sections four and five. How about post Johannine? So we have orthodox and other kind of presentations in terms of how Jesus is remembered in the larger or in the later Johannine situation, but even post Johannine situation. Then volume five, which is impressed right now, is Jesus remembered within the Johannine tradition. So you have early and later understandings, maybe even more than one addition. Volume six is being reviewed right now, really Christianity is literature series, and that's on Jesus remembered among the gospels. So the 20 essays in that volume are Jesus remembered in John and Mark, John and Matthew, John and Luke and John and Cue, if there was a cue. And so it's kind of a Johannine synoptic approach. Volume seven, I'll be gathering those essays this summer, is on methodologies for determining Johannine historicity. So Chris, the larger central series project really does cover the various aspects of the Johannine riddles and critical inquiry, and it asks, you know, what are historical features within all these interdisciplinary ways of doing Johannine studies. Now, the archaeology volume, this is answering your question actually, the archaeology volume is one of six volumes that are just one off topical approaches. The first one was Dead Sea Scrolls in the Gospel of John, and so that came together in 2006, celebrating six decades there. And so John and Cue and Ron, you know, strengthened week, you know, comparisons, contrast, those kinds of things. The next volume was how about C.H. Dodd, and so how does his work in terms of Johannine historicity of the Johannine tradition. And then we actually added Raymond Brown, because we had that conference at St. Mary's, they were hosted by Michael Gorman and others. So that's Dodd and Brown, looking at John's perspective. The next volume, see if I've got these in order, is John and the epistles, how about the epistles, how those relate. The next, I'll call pepper and I edit to that volume. The next volume was, hey, how about John and Judaism. So you've got these tensions, but again, they're late, but they're also early, or my essay in that volume was to say that John is pro-Jewish, which is why you have the tensions or John within Judaism. Although some good scholars will disagree with that. And then the other volume before archaeology was edited by Craig Kester, how about portraitures of Jesus in John. So indeed, the kind of stuff that the G.S. Seminar came up with, that you have a wisdom-propounding sage. You have an institution criticizing cynic. You have a Jewish prophetic figure. You have a holy person. You have even a. So you've got those various typologies represented in John in some ways even more clearly than in the synoptics. And so what Craig did, and these papers are also presented at our national, at the national meetings, is to look at different, you know, portrayals of Jesus, portraitures of Jesus in the Gospel of John. And so those five essays that were followed by archaeology, John, and Jesus, and that will be the six of the Warnoff volumes. And then the seven volumes in the central series, SBL Press, or the Christianity and Slitager, a total of seven we hope in that series, would be a total of 13 of which I will have edited 10 out of the 13. So at the moment, the Gospel of John is being pulled in a couple of interesting directions when it gets to like history and chronology, relative to like the rest of early Christianity. So like for example, on the one end, you've got like Van Kooten's idea that, you know, maybe John might be earlier because of this, you know, there is a pool in John 5, too. And then also potentially Michael Gorman's work about Paul and John and Harmony and possibly thinking about their harmonization leading to the fact that Paul was familiar with John or like precursors to John or something along those lines. But then on the other end of the spectrum, you have the work of like Mark Goodecker and James Barker, you know, arguing that, you know, John isn't independent. But John is late and John is using all these other gospels to as sources, not not in the same way that like Matthew and Luke used Mark, of course, but like nevertheless was familiar and perhaps repurposed redeployed elements of it. Yeah, so how do you see your collection here, sort of maybe waiting into some of those issues, I mean, obviously not necessarily in relation to these different proposals. When we're talking about, you know, archaeology and historicity of John, does it have to hang in a particular direction or do you try to keep it open ended? What, what, how would you sort of articulate how the essays might approach some of these kind of spectrums of how John is being pulled in different directions at the moment? Yeah, thanks, John. That's a great question. And the debates as you, I'm sure no go back for over a century. I mean, so I always go back two centuries. So you've got Sliremacher saying that John is the only gospel going back to eyewitness memory and the synopics are more fragmented. Well, I think he's got some good points. Strauss then in his second book says that he has dedicated all of his energies and all of his publications to overturning Sliremacher. And yet he divorces theology from history, but then he declares his purpose, which is clearly a theological purpose. That's so if he's right, then he's wrong, but the problem is that he's not right to begin with. So I've actually just written six or seven book reviews of of these two books, but then a third by, by, by, by Hugo Mendez. And so what, what I've, and these are long reviews, like an RBL and in interpretation and in Catholic Biblical quarterly, basically what, what I think is arguable is John's familiarity with the other gospels. But I'm going to side with Mark Goodacre here against James Barker. Mark says that John is not dependent on Mark, familiar with Mark, yes, but not dependent in terms of a literary way. The way that I would talk about that and have is say we have dialectical engagement. And, but I think that we have more than one edition of John. So at least two editions, some will go with three editions. Now, let me talk about three editions. So Urban von Walde, James Charles worth at some others, they've gone with, with a pre 70 edition. And that would relate to George Van Couten's work at Cambridge, where he's saying there is a pool here. Now, to some degree, the essays in archaeology, John and Jesus, they will actually concur with that or, or, or, they will support the view of Albright. On the other round, Albright wrote this essay in 1956, that you have pre 70 stuff in John before it gets destroyed by Jerusalem. I'll throw in also the pool of Psylone. And so in, in 2004, this waiting pool is a purification pool outside of the temple was discovered, get this. There are first century coins in that pool. And so it's been covered over since 70 AD, probably. So you really do have pre 70 content in that you hand my narrative. Now, George Van Couten will disagree with me on this. He thinks because I was with him in Cambridge two years ago, where I did a lecture tour around the UK, starting at Cambridge. Concluding then at Oxford, after going to Glasgow, Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Durham, and then back to Oxford. So what, what, what I would say is that we have some early writing, but I think we also have later material. So I'm going to see the first edition of John as pushing back against a mission. I'm going to see, see the first edition as 80 to 85. And so you, you have the confession of Thomas, my Lord and my God, that's going to be anti-demission, because don't mission required people to refer to him in writing and in person as Lord and God. And so that really seems to be anti-demission and the work of Richard Cassidy on that, John's Gospel and new perspective, I think is robust in its argumentation. Now, now, okay, so, so that relates to what, what, what I think is the most plausible way forward. I would see the first edition of John, but we don't have any evidence of it being circulated. Okay, so probably, probably a local recording, which could include some earlier written material. Okay, now, now here, I'm going to build on Jimmy Barker's work. If we have the writing down or like the, the taking of notes, somebody who was preaching or teaching in wax tablets, maybe we have some of that early writing that could include John on five, two, if somebody's preaching early and somebody's taking notes. And then it gets transferred to Papyri or Deparchment or, or however those, you know, tradition development processes may have happened. I really like Jimmy's work along those lines. But so some of that, some early writing that is pre-70, I think is critically plausible. That would go along then with Michael Gorman's view that the Christ hymn of Philippians 2 is actually building on the Servenhood of Jesus in John 13. At the last supper where he watched the people's feet. And so it was a hymnic confession or affirmation of that kind of memory. So I could see some early writing. I could see it being written by the evangelist or, or if the final editor or I'll call him a compiler is someone like the Johanine Elder, who then finalizes the text after the death of the blow. He says he has never seen a wooden die. He said to Peter, what do you have to, if he lives till I come again. So maybe finalized later around a hundred and that goes with Eusebius that John the Apostle or whoever might have written this dies into the reign of Trajan, it becomes emperor in 98. So that if you have a finalized edition of John around 100, then you have familiarity at least with maybe all three synoptic gospels. But how about this? In terms of the Johanine-Marcon relationships, I think and plural. It may have been more than one kind and form and time. So the strongest view, I think, because here I'm going to agree with Barrett, John does not have a copy of Mark like Matthew does. Now I'm going to disagree with Barrett because I don't think John is dependent on Mark. But if there's some kind of familiarity, then the view of Ian McKay I think is the strongest because he looks at the general structure of John and Mark. And it's not just the content, but it's the transitional passages. So he infers, I think, arguably that maybe Mark is performed among the churches, say like Richard Burridge is talking about with his presentation and that kind of thing. So as a performative narrative circulating among the churches, and we also don't which edition might be or whether it's memorized or whatever, but maybe have an oral oral kind of familiarity. And so that kind of oral or familiarity with Mark performed in a post 70 kind of way makes sense of what the first edition might have been if later material is added. Now can I keep going here? OK, OK, so I think that I think critically it's strongest not to argue with what's earliest. I think it's critically strongest to argue to begin with what's latest. and they try to go backwards. to see what might have been earlier. So most scholars will infer that chapter 21 is added later. So a first edition, you know, these things are written in my belief, end of chapter 20, and then chapter 21 is kind of a new ending that is also added by someone who claims not to be the evangelist, after the evangelist dies, whoever these people are. But then if that has been added, I think the second strongest inference is that the Christ hymn has been added. Now, notice how similar versus one to five, and then nine to 14, and then 16 to 18 in John 1. Notice how similar that content is to first John one went to three. Well, we have seen and heard from beginning the word of life, this we were claiming to you. Oh, and also notice this, what we have seen and heard. Now, this is an overlooked first century clue to John's authorship that no one had written on, that I was aware of. I mean, I looked up 20 commentaries on Acts, Craig Keener then finally added it later in his commentary on Acts. But notice the Acts 419 and 20 quote, Peter and John speaking. Now, this is not a chorus. I think it's a composite statement. So working with Sean Adams at Glasgow, his work of composite statements. But so you have a petrined statement, must obey God rather than man. Peter says something similar in Acts 529 and then 1117. But then you have Ken Holtzpil, we have seen and heard. The closest in the entire New Testament, first person plural past tense, is first John one went to three, or first John one three. What we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you the word of life. That presents John the Apostle speaking in a Johannaan trope for non rhetorical reasons. And I'm going, hey, okay, this assured result of critical scholarship that we know that John the Apostle had nothing to do with the gospel of John. Write that down, learn it, his head is in the stars. Well, now wait a minute. What about this kind of stuff? And also anonymity and the love disciple. Therefore that proves that people don't know who it was. Well, you know, the mother of Jesus is also not named. Does that prove it's not Mary? (laughs) That's ridiculous. So maybe non-named appellation, maybe that's because we all know him and we all love him. And his relationship with Jesus and her bunch of John's out there, just like there's a whole bunch of Mary's out there. So anyway, so here I'm going to agree with Mark Goodaker that now the way Mark puts it is that people, the early audiences of the fourth gospel would have associated the blood disciple with John the Apostle. No, that's not claiming that it was that person. And again, there's no way that we can know this. But I think that the cases against any kind of first 10 knowledge because of early death of John, which by the way, had never happened. (laughs) I mean, the fifth century and the ninth century references of Philip C. Deites, Philip Asides, and George Harmer-Tolos, they don't say that James and John died at the same time. They say they suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Jews and they're both quoting the Syrian martyrology. It celebrates their deaths on the same day, December 28th. But they both say, they both follow Eusebia, saying John the Apostle died in Ephesus after Domission. And so this whole, you know, critical scholarship, what a shared result. And therefore there's nothing historical in John. Now again, historical in John, that's a separate case. But all of the argumentation to make things easier for studying the historical Jesus by kicking John out, well, some of those cases are really weak critically. Back though to the question of John's first edition, I think the Christ hymn, therefore, is a response, it originates as a response to the evangelists preaching by someone else, not the evangelist. I'll go with the elder or whoever finalizes the gospel. Now notice it has three verses, one to five, and then nine to 13 and then 14 and 16, 17 and 18, which are roughly of equal length. Therefore, the first edition of the narrative probably began with one to five. Now in that case, that follows Mark, okay? So my friends who say John is, you know, dependent on Mark, well, I'm gonna say the first edition of John echoes Mark, it kind of engages Mark and kind of picks up where Mark is beginning. But then you have, this is before John was thrown into prison, 324, that is pushing back against Mark 114. After John was thrown into prison, then Jesus came ministering. And so in that sense we have a correction against Mark. So I'm gonna push back here against Jimmy Barker and to some degree Mark Goodaker and some others and say that the first edition of John is augmenting Mark, but it's engaging it critically and disagreeing with it in terms of chronology and those kinds of things. Another inference, this would be the third most likely, is that 1431, eventually went into 181, led us to part, they get to the garden later. So maybe 15, 16 and 17, maybe that's later material with Raymond Brown, the editor is preserving the later teaching of the beloved disciple or the evangelist whoever he is. That makes pretty good sense. That would also explain the duplications between chapter 14 and then 15 and 16. Now here, now the final edition I'm going to infer builds on John Ashton and Barnabas Lenders. Actually, Lenders came up with a first before my talk and we John Ashton about this in 1988, as I'm still working on these things. And John might have tracked with me on that. I'm not sure. But you have Jesus in John 7, continuing to debate issues in John chapter five about the healing on the Sabbath in Jerusalem. So we might infer that maybe John 6, instead of disordering and reordering, which is pretty complex. I think Boltman was wrong on that. Oh, and by the way, I tested all Boltman's evidence for signs, for a sign source and Revelation saying source, there's no evidence. So the source theories, there's just no evidence for those existing. And that's in my Christology book. But what we might have here though is augmenting Mark then by adding first of all the five signs that aren't in Mark. So if John 6 is added later and John 21 is added later, the first edition of John has five signs, not eight signs. Okay, so think about the five discourses of Jesus in Matthew, five books of Moses, the five discourses of Jesus. Well, in John, in terms of Jewish argumentation, the five books of Moses hear the five signs of Jesus. And numbers one and two, that's not numerations of a sign source is saying these are before Mark 1. Okay, now notice this in Matthew 8. Matthew places the healing from afar in Copernium before the healing is done in Copernium in Mark chapter 1. Now, okay, so I might argue that Matthew is agreeing with John there. Matthew also references in 2114, the miracles or the signs Jesus had performed in Jerusalem in the temple area on the blind people and the lame people. So apparently Matthew knows of John's stories, okay, either he knows of them independently, which would argue for they're having happened. Or Matthew is depending on John, just a couple more things. You have also Mark quoting Jesus in John twice. In chapter 14 and in chapter 15, you have John 2.19 being quoted in Mark. You who said you would build up this temple and tear it down in three days, you know? Look, how offensive is that? And then at the cross, come down from the cross. You who said you would build it up in three days. So notice that you even have a reference to the miracle power of Jesus, cited in John 2.19 and Mark 14 and 15, which suggests Mark's dependence on John. So that's just a way of saying that, wait a minute, we have influence going in both directions. And so I think a theory of interfluentiality, maybe even some going back and forth in oral stages of tradition is more plausible. Now, just one final point. I'm arguing therefore that BH Street is totally wrong in saying that John, there's nothing historical in John, it's all a theological flourish. Well, the archeology book, there's a whole lot of grounded mundane stuff in John that's nowhere else. It's not in the post-canonicals, it's not in canonical gospels either. This is an empirical fact deal with it. But also, Again, so no, John is not spiritualizing Mark, although you do have John being highly theological. Sometimes, John's disagreement with Mark, though, are mundane and chronological. Three passwords, not just one. Multiple trips to Jerusalem, not just one trip to Jerusalem. So, you have John's departures from Mark, often not being theological, but being mundane. Now, Luke, however, I think, you do have a lot of contacts between Luke and John, and I think the most critically probative question is not, why is John like Luke, but why does Luke depart from Mark in ways that go here with John? And I think the best answer to that is Lamar Cribs, Moody Smith, Mark Manson, which is to say that Luke has at least partial access to some of John's material. And so, Luke moves ahead anointing to a foot anointing. He adds little details like Satan enters Judas. He adds a narrative of a great catch of fish. He puts it early, though, instead of later. He adds little details like the right ear is cut off. He goes with one feeding, not two feedings. He moves Peter's confession from the feeding of the 4,000 in Mark and Matthew to the feeding of the 5,000 like it is in John. So, he prefers John over Mark and over Matthew, if he has access to Matthew. And he also, I think, conflates the confession of Peter in Mark and Matthew and the confession of Peter in John. So, you have you are the Christ in Mark, in John, Holy One of God. And so, Luke puts these together, you're the Christ of God. So, I'm seeing Luke as harmonizing to some degree, John and Mark, because Luke has access to at least some addition or some level of the Johanline witness to Jesus. That's kind of a macro approach to the larger issues. Thanks so much. Paul, we've given us a very broad macro approach, as you say. I wonder if we can focus down in your introduction to this volume on archaeology. Cool. The gospel of John, the mundane gospel. That there is that there is a sort of a mundanity to the events that are recorded within the gospel of John. I was wondering if you could walk us through what you mean by mundane, because from a readers perspective, the events of the gospel of John seem anything but mundane. That's a lovely question. And I would say, Chris, that you have inferences of significance all over the place in John. So, John is highly theological and therefore oriented towards meaning. However, a lot of the references to place and time, they're not developed any. They're just mentioned, like it was this hour or that hour, and it was cold. They're stand by the fire there. And so, you've got a lot of features of like time and place and temperature. You have all five senses being mentioned, like the smell filled the room. But you know, at the anointing of Jesus' feet, but there's no development of well. What's sent, are you smelling nowadays? No, it's just irreverence. Or Thomas is touching the flesh wounds of Jesus. Water and blood came out of his side. Now, I think that's also highly theological. I think that it's anti-decetic. And those are claiming, in first John 4, that Jesus did not come in the flesh. I think it's arguing, yeah, he really did come in the flesh. And the eyewitness saw that, but notice Chris, this is a testimony to the full humanity of Jesus. It's not saying, and therefore he was divine. He said, no, therefore he really suffered and he was human. And Thomas is touching the nail scars in his hand. And Jesus shows him his flesh wounds. And so, yeah, those things are highly theological, but they're also emphasizing physicality. You've got then places that people come from. That person was from over there. Judas was from Iskari. You have Simon, who is related to this person. You have people over there from Bessada. You have So-and-so, and his nickname is this or that. And so, you have a lot of mundane personal information about people. And the name of the place is Golgotha. And there's the stone pavement. And it's a tomb that nobody had ever been buried in. And so, you have 153 fish. And boy, that man, what a huge catch. And man, the net was going to break. And so, you've got all of these mundane references, like a 200-dinnery, 300-dinnery. Now, that's a detail that's also in Mark, but note that Matthew and Luke don't pick up on that. They tend to leave those. About 20% of the time, Matthew and Luke leave out Mark in detail. And so, that raises a question about why do John and Mark sometimes share some detail? Raymond Brown argue that we might have cross influence in the oral stages of tradition, like Peter and John preaching through Samaria in Acts chapter 8. And so, maybe the buzzwords stick, or the details stick. But Luke and Matthew, when they are redacting Mark, or building upon Mark, they tend to leave out details. But some of those details are common to Mark and John. And so, those common details, or how about Aramaic? You have Aramaic references in Mark and also in John, but not in Matthew and Luke. So, these are facts of the Mark and Johanna in presentations, which connect to Aramaic phrases and sayings, that suggest we have two autonomous, self-standing traditions going back to Jesus' memory in ways that Luke and Matthew don't. And that's part of the basis for my, you know, seeing John and Mark as the bioptic gospels. And Matthew and Luke build upon Mark, but John builds around Mark and is different on purpose. The cost of the embalming material. How about this? You have one of the disciples saying, hey, why not save the money and give it to the poor? Only in John do we have the inference that, or the knowledge, that, well, Judas kept the money back. And he was not really virtuous. This was the subversion of virtue because he was dipping into the bag and he was a thief. Okay. Now, that's highly theological. Yes, Judas was a bad guy. He was a thief. But John has details. John adds details of seeming knowingness about Judas being the treasurer. Again, nail holes in the hands and feet of Jesus. That's only in John. No, I don't think that Jesus was crucified with ropes. Those are cheaper. But yes, you do have nail crucifixions. And so even the breaking of the legs, the crew of Fragmium, the case of the crucifixion victim in Jerusalem, Johannes. And then there's also one that was discovered in Italy. Sometimes the Roman soldiers would use nails. And that detail is only in the Gospel of John. Now, here's an example also where Luke, I think, picks up on that. Where he shows his disciples his hands and his feet. Well, is he showing them his rope burns? No. He's showing them his flesh wounds as another case of Luke, including and expanding upon a detail that's only in John. So you've got across the Jordan, where John is baptizing. You have anon near Salim, where you have pools there in Samaria. You have the temple there in Garizim. And so in our book, we've got great articles on some of these features. James Riley Strange, for instance, does a great job of looking at the geography of Palestine. And so does Alan Culpepper. So the book begins with general overviews of the issues. And that's where my mundane gospel material is. Then you have part two, which looks at the Ministry of Jesus in Galilee. And so Rift Keneer and Joan Taylor, they have provided two essays on the Ministry of John the Baptist. And it's Trans Jordan. location. You have Rami Arrav and then you have Moti Aviyam and Steve Naughtley, who are looking at two different theories of Betheseda, went up on the mountain and went down near the lake shore. Again, two different theories and contesting with each other for a couple of decades. Well, hey, let's include both of those in the volume and see where things go. Then you have Essays on Cana and Stone jars by Tom McCalla and also Roland Dines. You have the worship site on Gerizim, two Essays on this by Robert Bull, who passed away a few years ago. And then Jürgen Zagenberg, also the well of Joseph, they're in Psycar. You have the Copernium Synagogue and its analysis by Jordan Ryan. You have the stone, the decorated migdoll stone there on the Sea of Galilee, just north of Tiberius by Wale Syrophesy. And then you have Casey Hanson riding on the fishing industry in Galilee and his features as represented in John. And then Scott Strumpling is engaging a drone Murphy O'Connor's place names, revisited like Ephraim and other places in the area. Part three then looks at the ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem. And so you have Jürgen Zagenberg doing a second essay on the tomb of Lazarus and burial customs. Craig Kester has a great essay on the archeology of Bethesda. I'll call it Beth Zatha and the interpretations of healing in John V. Gary Burge then has a great essay on the pool of Psylon and Gary Burge has a great essay on the pool of Psylon and ritual purification. Notice that in John 9, Jesus says go and show yourself to the priest. First of all, wash in the pool and it means scent. Yes, you have theology here, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, rather it's just a symbolizing association, but as urban von Walde had pointed out earlier in his 2006 essay that he presented in Jerusalem, even if you were blind, if your shadow falls on somebody else, you would be considered impure and you'd have to get richly purified. So Jesus is presented here as doing a conventional healing action of mud on the eyes and man comes away seeing, but then he says go wash, but then go present yourself to the priests so that they can ascertain that you have been healed and therefore you are now richly clean to be able to engage in society. So just awareness of Jewish customs or they try to get people down off the cross because it was a high day and they are wanting to hurry things up and so they are breaking the legs of people to hurry things up. Then you have Steve Nottley who is doing a second essay on the way of the cross and features in John, Jordy Magnus has a fun piece on food and clothing and so the mundane features there in John, Krithinu, Barley Loes, that connects with Elisha, but also it connects the kind of food people would eat back in that setting and so it's got mundane references even though they might be typological in some of their implications, although the implications are not spelled out, it is just mentioned that it was Barley Loes. I've already mentioned the cure of fragrium, you have Golgotha, the place of the skull and Shimon Gibson has a great piece on the tomb of Jesus and then Urban Bon Walde has a great essay on Golgotha and also the tomb of Jesus. In part four, Craig Evans looks at implications in terms of historical Jesus studies as suggested by the present volume. Craig rightly points out that the essays in this volume I think will challenge in perhaps a long-term way the views that John is theological only, yes John is theological but has a lot of mundane stuff in it as well and so how do we work with them, mundane stuff as well as theological stuff in the Gospel of John. Especially what Evans notes is various similitude, whoever wrote John, however the stuff came together, even if it's finalized in Anatolia or Asia Minor as I think it was, it has memory from Palestine, from Galilee, Samaria, Judea and especially Jerusalem and so it has perhaps the most amount, let me say this way, the Johanna narrative possesses more archeologically attested and mundane content than all the other Gospels combined, both canonical and non-canonical. That's a fact deal with it, yes it has a high Christology, again I don't think that the Christ is the first stroke of the Quill, I think it's a response to the narrative that gets added as a new introduction and that's why it introduces it so well. But I think that there's a lot of mundane stuff in John and therefore implications for historical Jesus studies are that we must have an inclusive quest for Jesus instead of a parsimonious quest. So the first three quests for Jesus have been safe and easy, relatively by excluding John. When you throw John in the mix you've got all kinds of headaches but hey that's not my fault, that's not my problem. But if you're doing good historiography then you have to find ways of including John and that's what Maya say it does at the very end for them, which argues maybe a bioptic perspective of hero ways that I think the synopics are superior, I think Jesus spoke in parables about the kingdom of God, I think he died with the sinners, I think he healed lepers and those guys with legs. So in many ways the synopics I think are superior to John, but I think John's chronology is superior to the synoptics or at least it's more knowing. I think that you have the spirituality of Jesus coming through in John in ways that augment the synoptics, how about this? Jesus ministering alongside women, I think that's got huge implications, Holy Spirit available to multiple people, not just the Petrine Hierarchy. And so I think that finding ways of including the Johanna and Narrative within the quest for Jesus of Nazareth is going to lead to what I'm calling the 4th quest for Jesus. You've talked about the nature of the historicity of John, often being awkwardly integrated with theology and so sometimes we get interpretations such as the 153 fish representing all sorts of different numismatic, sorry, not numismatic, also 153 fish representing all sorts of numerological interpretations. We have the early, the early Nostec interpretations of the 6th, what husbands of the Samaritan woman being her engagement with a demigodal evil or all the 6 kingdoms of the world, the presence of the water jars being having certain theological emphasis. I was wondering how do these essays and how do you make or get the mundane sort of details of eyewitness sort of testimony to mesh with the theological import that has been given that both by John and also by John's interpreters. Hey, thanks, Chris. I think that we have to separate critically what is theologically developed in the text from what people do with material, theologically in their own ways. You might have someone in the 2nd century saying, "Well, the 6th husband, what was he like?" Well, the text doesn't expand on that, but later people do. But even though later people do, you have to appreciate the fact of theological innocence in the text when it's not developed. Just leave it that way. Can I give an example which actually came out in South Africa? Last month or actually in March, I was providing the keynotes for the South African New Testament Society, the first presentation, and these will be published in Neo-Testimentech later this year. The first presentation was on Jesus in bioptic perspective. How do we do Jesus in Mark, or John in Mark, in John in the synoptics? The second paper was on how do we engage an inclusive quest for Jesus? And what are the flabels of that and what are the issues involved? Anyway, one of the comments that I made in a final discussion of a panel session was that the content of John the Baptist behold the Lamb of God who takes the lives of the world, out of that might be connected with Revelation, with Revelation 17 as an apocalyptic reference. And so scholars, for instance, have said, well, the Lamb of God taking the lives of the world, that's the Tonement Orient. And so that's, oh, that's why the Johanna narrative has an early Passover because it is theologically located early to connect the ministry of Jesus with an atonement motif. And so therefore, John the Baptist and his statement, Lamb of God, that's atonement oriented, and that's why we have an early temple incident. Well, if it's apocalyptic, then that will go along with the Baptist's prophetic engagement of worldly power. And I think there's more historical plausibility along those lines. And so when you look at Richard Warbach and you look at others who have seen John's narrative in social sciences perspective, then that kind of apocalyptic theme of God's judgment will be final in terms of political, worldly authorities, I think that makes some good sense in terms of the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist. Now that being the case, I think an early temple incident might be historically more plausible than one, then a temple incident at the very end. Maybe Mark is hearing this stuff and he sticks all at the end, so Mark's chronology may be a general chronology, not a knowing chronology, you know, early, middle, and late, and all the stuff in Jerusalem just stack it up there at the very end, and of course it's a beginning. The Johanna narrative though, I think is more connected with historical plausibilities in that it shows the temple incident as an inaugural prophetic sign along with John the Baptist who is challenging the status quo, the Roman soldiers, the Sadducees, challenging Herod, and others calling for repentance. And so I think that the Johanna presentation of an early temple incident is rooted in historical knowledge. I might even say it's more accurate. Note this fact. Well, at the end of John IV, they had seen the signs he'd done in Jerusalem. They saw what he had done there in the temple. And then in John V, they went to kill him already. Well, yeah, healing on the Sabbath, yeah, that's offensive. But it seems like this is the second visit, and he's built up some resistance there in Jerusalem. So I think an early temple incident is historically accurate, and in that sense you have a reference to if John knows of Mark, then is saying, no, this is a corrective to Mark. And you see, be us three, three, thirty nine, fifteen, and twenty five, where you have a reference to John including early material or material content in the early ministry of Jesus. That's what you see, be us sites. And then the reference to Mark, notice you see this is quoting papius. Papius is quoting the elder. It's the Johanine elder that's being quoted here. So this is a Johanine opinion, which coheres with three facts of John's comparison contrast with Mark. Number one, Mark's pretty good. It contains Peter's preaching not written by an eyewitness is John Mark from Alexandria. It's pretty good, but it's in the wrong order. So John having different chronology and two in from Jerusalem. And the last supper is on a Thursday, not on a Friday. And also in Mark, he's not crucified on the Passover. So even though Mark presents it as Passover meal, he has crucified the day before the Passover. Okay. So even Mark agrees with John in terms of the dating of the Passover. And Mark presents it as Passover meal, not for chronological reasons, but for religious reasons, because now Christians have their own, you know, Passover meal, you know, maybe building on first Corinthians 11 there. That kind of thing. So if John knows of Mark, then John might be correcting Mark's chronology on the dating of the last supper and makes it, it's more sacramentally innocent in terms of emphasizing servitude as opposed to here, here's a new Passover right, then how about this? It's the, it's the sixth hour that Jesus crucified, not the third hour. And that might be also a chronological corrective to Mark. And also, I mean, there's a whole lot of stuff that happens before nine o'clock in the morning, even in the Mark and there. So that might be more realistic as well in terms of a noon crucifixion. There in John. Okay. So, but notice that John the elder says Mark's pretty good, but it's in the wrong order. So John's different order seemed, you know, if Mark, if there's familiarity with Mark, then John's chronology might be setting the records straight chronologically, at least against Mark and then eventually against Matthew and Luke. Of course, Matthew, you know, I mean, I mean, I mean, they're just following Mark. Notice the second criticism. Mark really isn't history, it's just a bunch of stuff stuck together. It's not a coherent narrative. Well, if you have oral tradition, you know, stacking things up, yeah, here's a parable, here's a parable, here's a parable, here's a parable, here's a miracle, here's a miracle, here's a miracle. That's a kind of a thing that would result from hearing someone preach and then categorizing it like a list of this, list of that, list of that. And here's the reaction. A disreaction is like the other reaction, notice how many people came, that's kind of a thing that always happens. And so, but in contrast to the Johanna narrative, you have about 14 scenarios where something happens, people comment on it, that leads to a discussion and that leads to a discourse. Some of these are short, but some of them are drawn out, you know, the dialogue with Nicodemus or the dialogue there at the feeding of the 5,000 and get you in discussion and certainly the debates in Jerusalem or over the healing and then the second healing and these kinds of things. So here, here do we say that we have a critique of Mark because it's just stuff stacked together not a coherent narrative like Schliermacher observed, which suggests a fuller view of historical memory as opposed to stuff stacked together like is in Mark and to some degree the Matthew and tradition and to some degree the Luke and tradition. And then the third criticism, defends Mark, it says, hey, Mark made no mistake in his duplications, two feedings, two C crossings, you know, several healings of this or that. He just was conservative and didn't want to leave anything out. So this might also explain the feeding of the 4,000 in Mark chapter 8. And so even if you have Petrine preaching in most of Mark or whoever Mark's primary source was and I see five elements of Petrine features in Mark, Peter's preaching in Acts and in the Petrine of Pistols, it doesn't prove it but you can't say you don't have commonalities. There are five features and this is my introduction to the Testament from Christ to Christ. There it is, hanging on a tree, you know, kingly stuff, rock, priest, you know. You have Petrine features in these four writings which I think support factually what UCBS is quoting from Papias and therefore John the Elder about a Petrine memory underlying Mark, which a Johanline memory is engaging dialectically maybe from day one, okay. And so again, a bioptic hypothesis, you know, we have two memories of Jesus that are agreeing and disagreeing with each other. Now to me that's realism, to me that's the way history works instead of, you know, nobody knowing who is preaching or writing or whatever, no, different perspectives. But Mark the feeding of the 4,000 though in chapter 7 and 8 in the material before that seems to be representing a different memory of the feeding. And so you have seven baskets picked up. Now I might guess, not just I, but some other scholars might guess, that that represents the way the feeding narrative has circulated among the Gentile churches. And so you have the seven deacons in Acts chapter six that are ministering to the Gentile believers because they're being neglected and so the seven baskets might be the way that the story was told among the Gentile communities in the diaspora. Now, this stuff comes back to the mark. Now, why 4,000? Oh, maybe that could hear us with the 4,000 people who were going to storm Jerusalem with the Egyptian. Things fall apart and the guy escapes and later on they ask the Apostle Paul, "Are you the Egyptian?" Again, who knows? But by the time it gets to mark, it has traditional clout and so he's conservative and doesn't want to leave it out. And so here we have a criticism of Mark's duplications, feeding of the 4,000, more than one see-crossing, debate, etc., etc. But let's be generous. He was just trying to be inclusive. He didn't want to leave anything out. So the fact is, those three Johanine critiques of Mark are supported exactly by the evidence in a bioptic hypothesis. And I don't think that John the Elder had read Anderson. And I didn't come up with my theories on the basis of that. I just discovered it later and presented a paper on it at the Vatican at the Lateran in 2013 on the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Notice how this overturned strouse in terms of, you know, siding with John the Elder in that reference to a dialectical appreciation for Mark's rendering. Well, thanks so much for Professor Anderson. I know we could keep going with this and there's so much to talk about, but appreciate all the work that you've done in the Gospel of John and especially how you've tried to highlight its historicity and its relevance to the historical Jesus. And, you know, towards that end, your new edited volume. We hope listeners will check out Archaeology Jesus and the Gospel of John where recent discoveries show us published by Eridman's. Thanks again for joining us. Hey, thank you. Great, we're going to gather and let's be in touch.