Talk:Pool of Bethesda

Porticos

The conclusion states that there were five porticos. I don't understand the comment. Looking at the picture, there appear to be two adjoining squares, hence seven porticos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcarrington (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

The Church of Sainte Anne was actually constructed by the Crusaders and only rebuild by the french in the 19th century!

93.173.147.137 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Should "The Pool of Bethesda" redirect here? I can't tell if they are both referencing the same thing. Eli lilly 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

yes. Deror 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, a redirect is now in place. Eli lilly 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an important new discussion about the pools now underway at Society of Biblical Literature and various journals among Shimon Gibson (Jerusalem) and Urban von Wahlde (Chicago). Gibson recently published his findings in Gibson, S., “The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period,” Proche-Orient Chreten 55(2005)270-293. Urban just published his findings at the pools in: von Wahlde, U.C., “The Pool(s) of Bethesda and the Healing in John 5: A Reappraisal of Research and of the Johannine Text,” Revue Biblique 116.1(2009)111-136. Thus this article needs updating to show the major new theory that the lower pool is actually a ritual bathing pool (mikveh) from the first century. --GBurge (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have added these refs to the article, though I have not seen them. I presume the Jewish ritual use is supposed to have preceded the adoption of the site for Roman pagan use. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article needs a map to help locate the pools. Map

dmonty 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

The Conclusion section ends with:

All these details are corroborated through literary and archaeological evidence affirming the historical accuracy of the Johannine account.

There is a reference, which I unfortunately do not have access to. However, this appears like a doctrinal position rather than an archeological/historical one, claiming that if the book of John refers to a historical feature of the time, the whole book must be historical. There is an evident difference in style and goal between gospels and accounts of historians. At the very least, it would be nice to verify if the conclusion matches Charlesworth's conclusion. If so, I suggest to also present the conclusion of an historian or other scholar who does not make the mistake of validating the entire book as historical (I'd have to do some research myself to find these). 76.10.128.192 (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

After checking the Gospel of John article, references abund for "Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[9][10][11][12][13][14] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.[15][16]", with references supporting "The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[25][26]". 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed the article has been edited to remove the section, please consider this discussion closed, and thank you, Dougweller. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pool of Bethesda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725005230/http://www.facingthechallenge.org/bethesda.php to http://www.facingthechallenge.org/bethesda.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Vulgate textual tradition

It should be noted more clearly that while the text presented by the editors of the Weber-Gryson Biblia Sacra Vulgata Editio quinta does not include the troubling of the waters in the main text, the apparatus criticus does testify to widespread appearances of this episode in the Vulgate manuscript tradition; for example, the details about the angel and the pool of Bethesda are found in A (codex Amiatinus, s. VIII), F (Fuldensis), M (codex Mediolanensis, s. VI), P (Split capituli s. VI-VII), G (codex Sangermanensis, s. IX), C (codex Cavensis, s. IX), Φ (the Alcuin Carolingian recension group), even the Clementine Vulgate! It is likely that most medieval MSS of the Vulgate, therefore, included Io 5.4. Dylanw59 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious sections with citations needed

The tale that Queen Victoria was offered the site before 1856, and lobbying by the Church of England, seems implausible, if the location of the site had in fact been unclear until the 1870s. Cyprus was not transferred to British control until 1878. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am wondering whether the purported "Beth Zeta" valley exists, or is just a speculation based on a purported etymology of the name "Bethesda". Myopic Bookworm (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Despite the claims in some tourist websites, I am dubious about the idea that there was large basilica built by Eudocia and dedicated to "Mary where she was born". Although there may well have been a church of St Mary at the Probatic pool in the 5th century, according to Panou, the first written identification of the Probatic church and the birthplace of Mary is in the 6th century, in the writings of Antonios (570), a century after Eudocia's death. 82.46.182.164 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Updates

If I get the time I will aim to update this entry to reflect both theories of the use of the pool and the Byzantine history of the site. I think there may be a case for moving to the entry for The Healing of the Paralytic the discussion of the textual problems of the narrative, and its relation to Christian interaction with the Aesculapius cult. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

description of the meaning of the name is opaque

"This meaning may have been thought appropriate, since the location was seen as a place of disgrace due to the presence of invalids, and as a place of grace due to the granting of healing."

I think this is using a secondary definition of the word "disgrace" meaning the opposite of grace. Hot take: nobody understands the meaning of "grace" to start with, it has too much societal and religious baggage; dis-grace is consequently meaningless.

Additionally, "place of dis/grace" is not a common english idiom. "State of grace" _might_ be, but afaik it is a purely christian concept and does not really have a well-understood meaning beyond 'godly' (whatever that means).

I think that the statement being made here is that the presence of the invalids (another poor word choice imo) leads to an association with disease and low social status, but that the associated miracle transforms it into the opposite. However I honestly cannot unpack if that is the desired intent.

Someone who does understand the intent of the statement should rewrite the section in plain, non-esoteric language. Biblicabeebli (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

? בית חדתא

The article says "Beth-zatha = בית חדתא". One of these must be wrong, since the Hebrew/Aramaic is pronounced Beth Hadetha and means Newton (literally, New House), unlike Beth-zatha which means House of Olives and would be written בית זיתא. 85.64.171.215 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Era to Common Era

I suggest a change of the era to be updated to Common Era for this article in conforming to majority modern academic practice, especially on subject matter such as this. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

oppose - why on earth "especially on subject matter such as this" - did you actually look at rthe article? Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)