John 5: to foontote or not to footnote

[pelagius]

Last week while preparing my gospel doctrine lesson (#12) I noticed the following footnote associated with John 5:1 in the LDS edition of the King James Bible (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/5/1a):

The verse:

1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

The footnote:

1a The Koine Greek manuscripts of the Gospels (Byzantine) read ‘the feast,’ implicitly the Passover. Some earlier manuscripts do not make this identification.

It is the first time I have noticed a footnote in the LDS edition of the King Jame Bible that pointed out so explicitly variation in the Greek manuscripts. The note seems to imply that the best reading is "the feast" and hence the healing of the paralytic took place during Passover. I don't think that the majority of the scholars agree with this suggestion; my understanding from the commentaries I read is that "a feast" is the preferred reading. However, to me that wasn't the important thing. The important thing to me was a mention of variation in the Greek manuscripts.

Now if we look at verse 4, there is no footnote:

4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

However, this is a verse where there is strong agreement among scholars that it is not original. It is omitted from all of the best Greek manuscripts including all manuscripts dated prior to the 4th century. Most modern translations just skip the verse. Here are how the first five verses read in the NIV (which is pretty conservative and tends to be used by evangelicals):

1 Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie--the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.

Questions:

1) Why a footnote in verse 1 that mentions manuscript variation but no footnote in verse 4 when there is a large amount of consensus that verse 4 is a late addition?

2) Is it because variation in a single word ("a" or "the") is no big deal, but a whole verse would be a big deal (particularly without providing a lot more context)?

[creekster]

As you know, I really have no idea, but perhaps it is because the footnote for verse 1 assists in setting a chronology but neither the suggested interpretation nor the implied alternative changes the substance of the event or the import of the described actions, whereas removing a verse might be seen as doing so and, as you note, would be much harder to explain without much more significant exposition.

[MikeWaters]

What you are really asking is what was the process used to create the footnotes in this modern edition of the scriptures. It was before my time. Maybe SU can tell us. He may have still been active then.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

As you know, I really have no idea, but perhaps it is because the footnote for verse 1 assists in setting a chronology but neither the suggested interpretation nor the implied alternative changes the substance of the event or the import of the described actions, whereas removing a verse might be seen as doing so and, as you note, would be much harder to explain without much more significant exposition.

I think you might be on to something with that suggestion. Identifying with "passover" locks down the time period. Maybe linking it with passover makes it easier to harmonize the chronology of John with the other gospels because it puts the healing a year later than the events of the John 2-4 (I think).

[Solon]

That is an excellent question.

Do we know (specifically) who wrote the footnotes in the LDS KJV of the Bible?

I've often thought they were less than systematic, and we don't even need to start with the chapter headings.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What you are really asking is what was the process used to create the footnotes in this modern edition of the scriptures. It was before my time. Maybe SU can tell us. He may have still been active then.

Yes, I would like to see an interview of the committee and what they saw as the overriding principles when it come to these issues. However, I suppose I also wanted to get a sense of whether a footnote that suggested a whole verse was "an addition" would be problematic? Is a whole verse too much to explain with "the translated correctly clause?" Is it because a typical member would expect a JST correction if the verse was really a "late addition?"

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

That is an excellent question.

Do we know (specifically) who wrote the footnotes in the LDS KJV of the Bible?

I've often thought they were less than systematic, and we don't even need to start with the chapter headings.

I thought it was parley p pratt who did the footnotes

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I thought it was parley p pratt who did the footnotes

Orson Pratt edited the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon and is responsible for the footnotes in that edition. I have a 1879 edition and the footnotes are fun. For example, he identifies the location of Zarahemla in one of the footnotes.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Solon

That is an excellent question.

Do we know (specifically) who wrote the footnotes in the LDS KJV of the Bible?

I've often thought they were less than systematic, and we don't even need to start with the chapter headings.

There is some information in this talk:

Wm. James Mortimer, “The Coming Forth of the LDS Editions of Scripture,” Ensign, Aug 1983, 35.

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

here is an excerpt

The initial “Bible Aids Committee,” as it was first known, included Elder Thomas S. Monson as chairman, Elder Boyd K. Packer, and Elder Marvin J. Ashton. Later, Elder Ashton was reassigned and Elder Bruce R. McConkie joined the committee.

Elder Monson possesses great organizational and administrative abilities; he is also a skilled printer, having spent his career in the printing industry before becoming a General Authority. Elder Packer spent many years teaching from the scriptures in the Church’s education system. He knows the needs of teachers; he also has a special feeling for Church members whose means are limited and who need less expensive editions. Elder McConkie has established himself as a student of scripture.

To provide staff support to the committee, several specialists were called in 1972 by Elder Spencer W. Kimball, then Acting President of the Council of the Twelve. These included Ellis T. Rasmussen, Robert Patch, and Robert J. Matthews of Brigham Young University; Daniel H. Ludlow, then director of correlation for the Church; and myself, then serving as general manager of Deseret Book.

Brother Rasmussen possessed skills in Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament. Brother Patch was skilled in Greek, the language of the New Testament. Brother Matthews had experience with the Latter-day scriptures and had just published an authoritative book on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. Brother Ludlow was skilled in Book of Mormon studies, as well as in Hebrew and in Old and New Testament studies. All four of these brethren had years of experience teaching the scriptures at Brigham Young University and elsewhere. From the very first meeting there continued a spirit of love and brotherhood as the staff worked under the careful supervision and direction of Elder Monson and his committee.

After careful, prayerful study, the committee recommended that work on the Bible should have the highest priority, and that work on the individual volumes of the Triple Combination could follow. The committee also recommended that the Latter-day Saint edition of the Bible (1) should contain cross-references to all the standard works, (2) should have chapter headings which emphasized the doctrinal content, (3) should utilize the Joseph Smith Translation, and (4) should contain some type of subject index. Later conclusions called for a doctrinally oriented Bible dictionary, Bible maps, and running heads at the top of each page which would clearly identify the specific content of each page.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Solon

That is an excellent question.

Do we know (specifically) who wrote the footnotes in the LDS KJV of the Bible?

I've often thought they were less than systematic, and we don't even need to start with the chapter headings.

One more and then I will stop. It is oft repeated that Bruce R. McConkie is responsible for or wrote the headings. Here is where that idea comes from:

Lavina Fielding Anderson, “Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible,” Ensign, Oct 1979, 9 (bonus points if you recognize the author of the Ensign article's name)

Readers will probably first notice new chapter headings summarizing the contents of each chapter rather than the running heads along the page tops of previous versions. Prepared by Elder McConkie, these headings are especially helpful to Latter-day Saints. For example, the chapter heading for Isaiah 29 links this prophecy to the Nephites and the Book of Mormon, which Isaiah is saying will come forth in the future. “The typesetters had a few questions for us on that one!” said Sister Knowles.