OLDEST AND BETHESDA

A few new items added to this article. Much of the original material was from Scott Jones, the new additions are from Marty Shue.

OLDEST AND BETHESDA

Due to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., the pool of Bethesda was virtually unknown beyond that generation. Its exact identity and location was a complete mystery. Not even Eusebius got the name right. The actual location of Bethesda was not discovered until the late 19th century, and it was not excavated and fully confirmed until the mid 20th century. Bethesda is now a confirmed FACT.

The pool of Bethesda in the KJV in John 5:2 has been conclusively affirmed as being the correct reading since it has been irrevocably confirmed archaeologically. None of the major Alexandrian manuscripts, have Bethesda, and the modern English versions follow their lead and replace it with Bethzatha or Bethsaida (even though Bethsaida is nowhere near Jerusalem). Codex Bezae (D) renders it Belzetha. They all thought no such place as Bethesda existed, and decided to “correct” this “error” in the KJV.

The Byzantine (TR-KJV) manuscripts could not possibly have known about Bethesda unless they had come from manuscripts PRIOR to the Alexandrian manuscripts. In other words, the superior claim to antiquity goes to the Byzantine manuscripts which take us back to remote antiquity, FAR EARLIER than ANY of the Alexandrian MSS. The KJV (and it's source texts) knew what the situation was BEFORE 70 A.D. The modern versions, and their source texts do not.

Among the scrolls discovered at Qumran was the Copper Scroll (35 to 65 A.D. - BEFORE Titus sacked Jerusalem and 200-300 years before the false witnesses of Aleph and B were penned). The Copper Scroll of Qumran gives the Hebrew word for this pool as "Bethesda". The Hebrew word for "Bethesda" as found in the Copper Scroll is written with a dual ending. The Aramaic "Bethzatha" is not written with a dual ending but carries what is known as an emphatic plural termination.

Thus, the evidence (textual and archaeological) shows that the KJV comes from truly older sources, and is completely accurate.

Here are various renderings for John 5:2 -

KJV - Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

CEV - In the city near the sheep gate was a pool with five porches, and its name in Hebrew was Bethzatha.

RSV - Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za'tha, which has five porticoes.

NRSV - Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes.

TEV - Near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem there is a pool with five porches; in Hebrew it is called Bethzatha.

NWT- Now in Jerusalem at the sheepgate there is a pool designated in Hebrew Bethzatha with five colonnades.

NCV - In Jerusalem there is a pool with five covered porches, which is called Bethzathan in the Jewish language.

BBE - Now in Jerusalem near the sheep-market there is a public bath which in Hebrew is named Beth-zatha. It has five doorways.

MLB - Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheepgate, a bathing pool called in Hebrew Bethzath, with five entrances.

Williams - Now in Jerusalem near the sheep-gate there is a pool called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes.

Moffatt - Now in Jerusalem there is a bath beside the sheep-pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha; it has five porticoes.

ICB - In Jerusalem there is a pool with five covered porches. In the Jewish language it is called Bethzatha.

The  NIV and TNIV get Bethesda right, but they call it an "Aramiac" name rather than a Hebrew name. Also be aware that often the online versions fix some of these things, but they are still wrong in their print versions. I haven't checked all my print versions. The older Catholic Bibles read "Bethzatha", but the newest update corrects that.

Another point from the passage - which word is more difficult and archaic, porticoes, colonnades, or porches?