The Pool of Siloam and the Usual Suspects

The L A Times is conveying a report that a pool has been discovered in Jerusalem that is thought to be that of the gospel of John where Jesus instructed the blind man to go and wash (John 9:7). After he washed he came back seeing.

Whether this is actually the biblical pool of Siloam is yet to be determined and may never be actually "proven." My point is not about Archeology nor about the pool itself. Rather, it is concerning the immediate response found in the article by a liberal theologian:

"Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit" to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. "Now we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was."

First of all, it is common knowledge that liberal theology doubts many if not all of the miracles of the Bible. Just as Charlesworth of Princeton confirms, so-called "scholars" believe only what they wish of the biblical account.

Secondly, in terms of archeology, liberal theology takes the approach that anything that has not been found, dated, and 100% confirmed as having existed must not have really existed. Whether a town, a building, a pool, or a person in the Bible, liberal theology has no place except as metaphorical usage for any reference on which they cannot put their hands. Case in point, if the 'pool of Siloam' hasn't been uncovered, it must not have really existed - when John wrote this account, he was simply making an illustration about the washing.

Finally, and quite revealing, is that response of Charlesworth to the report. "It is the pool!" Now, the article may be taking Charlesworth out of context, but it would appear that he is now perfectly willing to accept that this new find is the pool of John 9:7. Where is his skepticism now? I, a conservative, am highly skeptical every time a discovery like this is made. I would love to eventually accept that this is the same pool mentioned in John, but I need a little more evidence. The irony is obvious, is it not?