John 5:2-9

5:2 Now there is ¹  in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate ²  a pool called Bethzatha ³  in Aramaic, ⁴  which has five covered walkways. ⁵  5:3 A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. 5:4 [[EMPTY]] ⁶  5:5 Now a man was there who had been disabled for thirty-eight years. ⁷  5:6 When Jesus saw him lying there and when he realized ⁸  that the man ⁹  had been disabled a long time already, he said to him, “Do you want to become well?” 5:7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, ¹⁰  I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up. While I am trying to get into the water, ¹¹  someone else ¹²  goes down there ¹³  before me.” 5:8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up! Pick up your mat ¹⁴  and walk.” 5:9 Immediately the man was healed, ¹⁵  and he picked up his mat ¹⁶  and started walking. (Now that day was a Sabbath.) ¹⁷ 

[5:2]  ¹ tn Regarding the use of the present tense ἐστιν (estin) and its implications for the dating of the Gospel of John, see the article by D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 71 (1990): 177-205.

[5:2]  ² tn The site of the miracle is also something of a problem: προβατικῇ (probatikh) is usually taken as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple. Some (R. E. Brown and others) would place the word κολυμβήθρα (kolumbhqra) with προβατικῇ to read “in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is (another pool) with the Hebrew name.” This would imply that there is reference to two pools in the context rather than only one. This does not seem necessary (although it is a grammatical possibility). The gender of the words does not help since both are feminine (as is the participle ἐπιλεγομένη [epilegomenh]). Note however that Brown’s suggestion would require a feminine word to be supplied (for the participle ἐπιλεγομένη to modify). The traditional understanding of the phrase as a reference to the Sheep Gate near the temple appears more probably correct.

[5:2]  ³ tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (Ì^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] pc vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet áEsdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ᾿Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet áEsdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, the fundamental problems with the Bethesda reading are that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]), and is minimally attested. Apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

[5:2]  ⁴ tn Grk “in Hebrew.”

[5:2]  ⁵ tn Or “porticoes,” or “colonnades”; Grk “stoas.”

[5:4]  ⁶ tc The majority of later mss (C³ Θ Ψ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (A^c D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (Ì^66,75 א B C* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

[5:5]  ¹¹ tn Grk “who had had thirty-eight years in his disability.”

[5:6]  ¹⁶ tn Or “knew.”

[5:6]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “he.” The referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:7]  ²¹ tn Or “Lord.” The Greek κύριος (kurios) means both “Sir” and “Lord.” In this passage the paralytic who was healed by Jesus never acknowledges Jesus as Lord – he rather reports Jesus to the authorities.

[5:7]  ²² tn Grk “while I am going.”

[5:7]  ²³ tn Grk “another.”

[5:7]  ²⁴ tn The word “there” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[5:8]  ²⁶ tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” Some of these items, however, are rather substantial (e.g., “mattress”) and would probably give the modern English reader a false impression.

[5:9]  ³¹ tn Grk “became well.”

[5:9]  ³² tn Or “pallet,” “mattress,” “cot,” or “stretcher.” See the note on “mat” in the previous verse.

[5:9]  ³³ tn Grk “Now it was Sabbath on that day.”