There are problems connected with the Greek text in this verse. Even though the UBS Greek Committee rates the reading in its Greek New Testament text as “B” (indicating that it is fairly certain but not “virtually certain” as an “A” reading is), the problems should still be pointed out. The first problem is that a word must be supplied to complete the meaning of the text; the second textual problem is that the word pool may be either the nominative or the dative case, with an attendant difference in grammatical relations.
If pool is in the nominative case (as in the UBS Greek text), it is modified by the participle it is called, but it cannot be modified by the adjective Sheep. This requires the addition of a noun to complete the meaning of Sheep. In Nehemiah 3.1 and 12.39 reference is made to “the Sheep Gate” and of the basis of this reference the UBS Greek Committee supplies the word Gate. This textual choice is followed in translation by Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, Phillips, Zürcher Bibel, Luther, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée.
However, it is possible that the word pool is in the dative case in Greek, and if so it relates to the word Sheep, and the translator must supply a noun to be modified by the participle it is called. New English Bible supplies “place” (“Now at the Sheep-Pool in Jerusalem there is a place”); Jerusalem Bible “building” (“… there is a building”); and Moffatt “bath” (“Now in Jerusalem there is a bath beside the sheep-pool”). Moffatt‘s rendering assumes that in the original text the word “pool” appeared twice, first as dative and then as nominative, and that by an oversight some early scribe omitted the word in one instance as he was copying the manuscript.
No absolute decision can be made, but it is clear that the UBS Committee on the Greek text has the support of most modern translations. The Committee’s judgment is based on the belief that the other readings have arisen as attempts to remove the difficulties occasioned by the original reading (represented by the translation in Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, etc.).
There is also a textual problem related to the name Bethzatha. A number of modern translations accept the same reading that Good News Translation has (Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, Moffatt, Phillips, Goodspeed, Revised Standard Version), but others follow the reading “Bethesda” (New English Bible, New American Bible, La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Zürcher Bibel, Luther). It is possible also to follow a third reading, “Bethsaida,” which has strong textual support. However since the town of Bethsaida on the sea of Galilee is mentioned in 1.44 and elsewhere in the Gospel, it is possible that “Bethsaida” found its way into the text through a scribe who was not familiar with the other names.
“Bethesda” also has strong textual support, as evidenced by the number of translations that accept it. The strongest evidence against it is the belief that it was originally introduced into the text by a scribe who was not familiar with the name “Bethzatha” and so attempted to give the pool a symbolic name. (In Aramaic, Bethesda means “house of [divine] mercy.”) But some modern scholars feel inclined to accept this reading because it seems to have been used in the copper scroll found at Qumran (the Dead Sea Community) in reference to a pool or a region in this general area. If “Bethesda” is accepted, it should be on its merits as a genuine place name, not because John saw any symbolic significance in the Hebrew name. Elsewhere John always gives the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew or Aramaic name of a person or place (see 1.38,41,42; 4.25; 5.2; 9.7; 11.16; 19.13,17; 20.16).
On the whole, the least problematic reading is Bethzatha, which seems to have been the basis for the other readings. But as the “D” qualification in the UBS text indicates, there is a strong degree of doubt about the original reading.
In English the so-called expletive there is a convenient device for providing a “zero subject element” in sentences in which new information is placed in the predicate portion, that is, after the verb is. Many languages treat this type of sentence in a different way to indicate the existence of a particular object (in this case the pool) in a place (Jerusalem). For example, one may translate “a pool with five porches exists in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate” or “in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool with five porches exists.” Sometimes the existence of an object may be described in terms of what can be seen, for example, “in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate one can see a pool with five porches” or “… a pool with five porches can be seen.”
The equivalent of Sheep Gate may be “a gate by which sheep enter the city” or “a gate by which sheep are led into the city” or “… driven into the city.”
There may be a problem in translating a pool with five porches. It would not be accurate to say “a pool with five porches around it,” since this pool did not have the shape of a pentagon. It should be noted that the pool referred to has been discovered and excavated. It is quite large (95 meters [315 feet] long) and has a central partition, dividing it into two sections. On the partition and on the four sides there are colonnades, the five porches spoken of in the Gospel. It is impossible to convey all this information in translation, but the translation should not give the reader a wrong impression. Perhaps one can say “… a pool; there were five porches there.” Information concerning the size and shape of the pool and the location of the five porches may be given in a marginal note.
In some languages even an expression for porches is difficult, but such a construction may be described as “covered areas” or “roofed-over open area.”
The clause in Hebrew it is called Bethzatha may be rendered “people who speak the Hebrew language call the pool Bethzatha” or “the Hebrew name for the place is Bethzatha.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .