After this is the same vague reference to time that we have seen before in John’s Gospel (see note on 2.12). The exact place where Jesus crossed the lake is likewise vague. The place last mentioned in John’s Gospel is Jerusalem (5.1), which obviously is not intended to be the point from which Jesus crossed the Lake of Galilee. To add to the problem, the Greek text is rather clumsy (literally “Jesus went across the Lake of Galilee of Tiberias”), and some scribes attempted to clear up both the geographical ambiguity and the difficulty of the Greek text. One example of such “corrected” text is represented by New American Bible: “Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee (to the shore) of Tiberias.” According to this reading, Jesus performed the miracle near the city of Tiberias, on the southwest shore of Lake Galilee (see Luther “across the Sea of Galilee where the city of Tiberias was located”). However, if this reading had been the original one, no scribe would have had reason to change it to the more difficult one. The same judgement must be made against other alterations of the Greek text, for example, the reading “Jesus went to the other shore of the Sea of Galilee” (Zürcher Bibel). Each of these readings represents an attempt to smooth out a difficult Greek text. Good News Translation follows the UBS Greek text, as do most other modern translations. That is, Tiberias is simply a second name given to Lake Galilee. Good News Translation, Moffatt, Phillips, and New English Bible include the second name in parentheses, and others set if off by commas or dashes. Herod Antipas built the city of Tiberias in A.D. 26 and named it in honor of Emperor Tiberius. It must have been after that date that the name Tiberias was popularly applied to the lake. Lake Tiberias is next mentioned in 21.1.

The problem of transition at the beginning of Chapter 6 is a serious one in some languages. The phrase after this is indefinite, and there is no indication that Jesus had returned to Galilee. Some translators may wish to insert a clause saying “after Jesus had returned to Galilee,” but to do so would be rewriting, not translating, the text. In a sense it would do violence to the type of literary structure the Gospel writer has employed. He is not really concerned with a biographical account, but rather with a series of vignettes, relating some of the important episodes in Jesus’ life which reflect on aspects of his personality and power. Essentially for that reason, he employs indefinite transitional devices. The problem of transition can be assisted by using a phrase for after this which would suggest a considerable lapse of time, thus making possible an implied shift of location from Jerusalem to Galilee.

Each of the terms Galilee and Tiberias in combination with Lake should be considered simply as part of a proper name, and treated in receptor languages in the same way that such names as Lake Michigan or Lake Tanganyika would be treated. Thus in some languages such a phrase as “the lake called Galilee” or “the lake called Tiberias” would be used.

An additional problem results from the fact that there is no reference to Jesus’ disciples until verse 3. The reader might assume erroneously that Jesus was alone when he crossed Lake Galilee, followed by the crowd, and went up a hill. Obviously the focus is on Jesus, but in some languages it may be awkward to introduce his disciples only in verse 3. The problem may be solved by translating “sat down with his disciples, who had been with him” or “… who had come with him.” It may be necessary to indicate as early as verse 1 that Jesus’ disciples went with him back across Lake Galilee; otherwise, the impression may be given that the disciples had been waiting for him on the other side of the lake, and that he had gone to meet them.

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 .