Distortion of the text of John 5:3-4 regarding the moving of the water and the angel of blessing
Series of distortions in the New Testament:
Distortion of the text of John 5:3-4 related to the moving of the water and the angel of blessing.
Summary of the research:
1- The end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4 are not original phrases and were not written by John the Gospel writer.
2- These paragraphs are a marginal interpretation and explanation that was introduced to the text.
3- This addition was added to justify the reason for the sick people gathering at the pool of water + adding verse 4 to justify the problem of moving the water mentioned in verse 7.
4- This addition is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.
5- All critical copies delete this distorted addition, and so do all modern copies and translations based on a critical text.
6- There is a complete consensus among all textual criticism scholars that this addition is distorted and was not written by John.
7- The first appearance of this addition was as an amendment made to the Alexandrian and Ephraimite manuscripts and was not found in their original text.
8_ The decision to delete this addition is supported by most of the rules of textual criticism, as the text is not found in the oldest manuscripts such as Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Beza manuscripts, in addition to the fact that it - i.e. the deletion reading - enjoys geographical diversity from all textual families in addition to being supported by the rules of the shorter and more difficult reading.
👌Let's start searching: _____
🔴 First 👈 The Arabic versions: _
💧* A/ The Van Dyke version: (Traditional text)
In this there were lying a large crowd of sick people, the blind, the lame, and the paralyzed,
👈 Expecting the moving of the water. For an angel would go down at times into the pool and stir up the water. So whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.👉 (John 5:3-4)
💧B/ The Arabic versions that were based on a critical text (a text based on manuscripts and edited and prepared by leading specialized scholars).
* The common Arabic version put the addition between brackets to indicate that it is fake and does not exist in the oldest and best manuscripts:
And there was a group of sick people in the porches, some blind, some lame, and some paralyzed, [waiting for the moving of the water, because an angel of the Lord would go down at times into the pool and stir up the water. So whoever first stepped down after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had].
* The Jesuit (Catholic) version deleted the addition completely - i.e. deleted the added part at the end of verse 3 + deleted verse 4 completely [the same text that the common Arabic put between the brackets]:
3 There lie a multitude of sick people, some blind, some lame, some paralyzed.
5 And there was a man there who had been sick for thirty-eight years.
.
🔴 Second 👈 English versions: _
💧A/ * KJV: (King James Version = Traditional Received Text = Van Dyck Text)
🔸️The texts between brackets are deleted from all critical versions
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, {waiting for the moving of the water. 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}.
💧B/ The English versions that were based on a critical text (a text based on manuscripts and edited and prepared by leading specialized scholars).
🔸️The texts from 3-5 and the addition are deleted from the version (the end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4).
* ASV:
3In these lay a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered.
5And a certain man was there, who had been thirty and eight years in his infirmity.
🔸️The texts from 3-5 and the addition are deleted from the version (the end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4).
* ESV: In these
lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. *GNB: A large crowd of sick people were lying in the porches—the blind, the lame, and the paralysed. A man was there who had been ill for 38 years. *NET Bible: A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. Now a man was there who had been disabled for thirty -eight years. 🔴 Third 👈 The Greek versions: _ 💧A/ Copying the received text Textus receptus (the traditional text - Erasmus text - Van Dyck text - King James) for the text of John 5: 3-4: ⚜#Note - The texts between the brackets here will be deleted in the critical versions. ἐν ταύταις ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, {ἐκδεχομένων τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τᾖ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐάρασσε ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατειχετο νοσήματι}. 💧B/ Critical text's (copies based on textual criticism and manuscript studies supervised by senior specialized scholars): * UBS,5 version: ⚜#Note _ the addition between the brackets in the received text above _ we will find it deleted here in UBS,5 version (the end of issue 3 + issue 4 in full). 3 ἐν ξηρῶν3.4 5 ἔχων ἐν From the critical apparatus of the ubs.5 version, we read that regarding the deletion of the addition from the end of verse 3: {A} ξηρῶν 𝔓66, 75 א A* BC* LT
The committee gave the deletion reading a grade of A, which is the highest critical grade - meaning that the committee is absolutely certain and confident of the correctness of its decision regarding the deletion of this part because it is not present in any of the following manuscripts (P66, P77, Sinaiticus, Alexandrian in the original reading, Vaticanus, Ephraimite in the original reading, Regius, Borjianus).
Regarding the deletion of verse 4 entirely, it says:
{A} omit verse 4 𝔓66, 75 א BC* DT
The committee also gave the deletion reading a grade of A, and it tells us that this entire verse is not present in any of the following manuscripts (P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimite in the original reading, Beza, Borjianus).
* Nestle Aland 28 version:
⚜#Note _ The addition between the brackets in the received text above _ We will find it deleted here in Nestle Aland 28 (the end of number 3 + the entire number 4).
3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος ⸆ τῶν ἀσθενούντων,* τυφλῶν, χωλῶν ⸇. ⸆1 *5 ἦν δέ ⸂τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ⸃ ⸄ριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη⸅ ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ·*
* Westcott_Hort version:
⚜#Note _ the addition between the brackets in the received text above _ we will find it deleted here in the Westcott and Hort version (the end of number 3 + the entire number 4).
3 εν ταυταις τυφλων χωλων ξηρων
5 ην δε τις εκει τριακοντα [και] οκτω ετη εχων αυτου.
* Tschendorf version:
⚜#Note _ The addition between the brackets in the received text above _ We will find it deleted here in Tschendorf version (the end of number 3 + the entire number 4)
. 5. The addition between the brackets in the received text above is deleted here in the Samuel Triggles version (the end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4)
. 3 ἐν ταύταις ἀσθενούντων χωλῶν, ξηρῶν†. 5 † The addition between the brackets in the received text above is deleted here in Michael Holmes' version (end of issue 3 + entire issue 4). 3 ἐν ξηρῶν. 5. The oldest and most accurate manuscripts. The addition is not found in any of the following manuscripts. 🔴 Fourth 👈 Transcription of the text from the oldest and most accurate manuscripts {The addition is not found in any of the following manuscripts} _ (The added part from the end of verse 3 + verse 4 in full is not found in any of the following manuscripts):____ 🔸️ The Sinaiticus manuscript (the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament):_ "εν ην "
🔸️The Vatican Codex:_
" εν τη αϲθενεια αυτου
🔸️The Ephraimian manuscript:_
" εκεν ξηρων * ην δε τιϲ τη αϲθενεια αυτου"
🔸️ Pisa manuscript:_
"εν ταυταιϲ ουν κατεκειντο πληθοϲ των ξηρων παραλυτικων εκδεχομενων την του υδατοϲ κινηϲιν *
The commentary of
the scholar Philip Comfort on the textual problem of John 5:3-4 in his book New
TESTAMENT T€XT AND TRANSLATION COMMENTARY, PHILIP W. COMFORT:_
{This part was probably not written by John because it is not found in the older manuscripts
(Papyrus 66, 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimus, Borgianus), and where it occurs in later manuscripts it is often marked with asterisks to indicate that it is a spurious (as MS 047 did in its marking of Numbers 4:5). The passage is a later addition - even when added to manuscripts such as the Alexandrian and Ephraimus it was not in The original contains it, this false copyist interpretation is a feature of the expansion that occurred in the text of the Gospel after the fourth century. This expansion occurred in two stages: First came the addition at the end of verse 5:3 - inserted to clarify the reason for the sick people waiting, then came after it the addition of verse 4 - which It was introduced to give an explanation and clarification of the problem of moving the waters in verse 7:5. Of course, the second expansion is more complete and creative. All textual critics and translators do not accept this longer part as part of the original text
.
This portion (5:3b-4) was probably not written by John, because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts (𝔓66, 75 א BC* T), and where it does occur in later manuscripts it is often marked with obeli ( marks like asterisks) to signal spuriousness (so II047 syr marking 5:4). The pas sage was a later addition—even added to manuscripts, such as A and C, that did not originally contain the portion. This scribal gloss is characteristic of the expansions that occurred in gospel texts after the fourth century. The expansion happened in two phases: First came the addition of 5:3b-inserted to explain what the sick people were waiting for; and then came 5:4—inserted to provide an explanation about the troubling of the water mentioned in 5:7. Of course, the second expansion is fuller and more imaginative. Nearly all modern textual critics and translators will not accept the longer portion as part of the original text.
_____
♦️The Myth of Textual Criticism by Bruce Metzger atextual guide to the Greek new testament Commentary on the text of John 5:3-4 and the decision to choose the UBS 5 version for the decision to delete the added portion From number 3, and number 4 was deleted entirely, as he says:
{The various evidences add (they wait for the water to be stirred), in any case, this reading is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.
Verse 4 is an addition to the original text, and its secondary character is evident from (1) its absence in the oldest and best manuscript witnesses, (2) the presence of an asterisk* or other distinguishing mark to mark words as non-original in more than twenty Greek manuscript witnesses, (3) the presence of non-Johannine words and expressions (of going to the water), and only the four words here in the New Testament, and (4) the wide variety of readings in which the verse is rendered.
}
. Its secondary character is clear from (1) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses, (2) the presence of asterisks or obeli to mark the words as non-original in more than twenty Greek witnesses, (3) the presence of non-Johannine words or expressions (κατὰ καιρόν, ἐμβαίνω [of going into the water], ἐκδέχομαι, κατέχομαι, κίνησις, ταραχή, δήποτε, and νόσημα—the last four words only here in the NT), and (4) the rather wide diversity of diverse forms in which the verse was transmitted.
____________
♦️
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN by BY JH BERNARD EDITED BY AH McNEILE Volumes I & II T & T CLARK EDINBURGH T & T CLA
Commenting on the text of John 5:3-4:
{Verse 4, like the words (ἐκδεχομένων … κίνησιν), is not part of the original text of John, but is a later interpretation.
The entire verse is omitted from each of the following manuscripts (Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Ephraim, Beza, Washington, Old Syriac, early Coptic versions).
Verse 4, like the words ἐκδεχομένων … κίνησιν, is no part of the original text of Jn., but is a later gloss.
The verse is wholly omitted by אBC*DW 33, the Old Syriac, the early Coptic versions
______________
♦️ The famous scholar Daniel Wallace’s comment in his marginal notes to his Net Bible on the textual problem of John 5:3-4
A New Approach to Translation, Thoroughly Documented, With 60,932 Notes, By The Translators and Editors :_
{Few scholars today accept As for the authenticity of any part of the two verses (end 3-4), because they are not found in the oldest and best manuscript witnesses (P. 66, P. 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimus, Borjianus), they include non-Johannine structures and words, and many of the manuscripts that include these verses mark them as forgeries and non-genuine verses (by marking them with an asterisk *), and because there is a great deal of textual division among the witnesses that include these verses, our version has followed Nestle-Aland's text in deleting these verses, which is also the same procedure that many other modern versions have followed.
Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b–4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (𝔓66, 75 א B.C.* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.
____
♦️ And I will conclude with a brief excerpt from the giant of textual criticism, Wieland Wilker, in
A Textual Commentary ,on the Greek Gospels ,Vol. 4 ,John ,BY WIELAND WILLKER:_
{There is no doubt that this portion is not an authentic part of the Gospel of John. Interestingly, parts 3b and 4 do not have identical support. This might simply be some copying error, but it is also possible that it indicates an independent origin. Indeed, Samuel Triggles (1854, p. 245) explains that: "The words added to v. 3 seem to have been an exegetical comment, and v. 4 another exegetical comment. [...] These exegetical comments originally belong to different manuscripts 《either in the margin or in the text.》" According to Zahn, this may be an interpretation of Papias. He may have been prompted to explain v. 7:
it is generally thought that it may have been an
early marginal comment inserted into the text. So actually Tregelles (Account.., 1854, p. 245): "the words added to verse 3 seem to have been one scholion, and verse 4 another. […] These scholia belonged at first to different manuscripts (whether in margin or text);" According to Zahn this might be an interpretation by Papias. It was probably stimulated to explain verse 7:
It is generally held that it probably was an early marginal comment which made it into the text.
Then Velind Felker concluded his speech, after discussing the textual problem at length, with the statement
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
that Nestle-Aland's decision to delete these passages as forgeries and not from the original Gospel of John was certainly correct.
##### End ####
Attached above is a picture of the text from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts (the two oldest manuscripts of the Bible).
Summary of the research:
1- The end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4 are not original phrases and were not written by John the Gospel writer.
2- These paragraphs are a marginal interpretation and explanation that was introduced to the text.
3- This addition was added to justify the reason for the sick people gathering at the pool of water + adding verse 4 to justify the problem of moving the water mentioned in verse 7.
4- This addition is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.
5- All critical copies delete this distorted addition, and so do all modern copies and translations based on a critical text.
6- There is a complete consensus among all textual criticism scholars that this addition is distorted and was not written by John.
7- The first appearance of this addition was as an amendment made to the Alexandrian and Ephraimite manuscripts and was not found in their original text.
8_ The decision to delete this addition is supported by most of the rules of textual criticism, as the text is not found in the oldest manuscripts such as Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Beza manuscripts, in addition to the fact that it - i.e. the deletion reading - enjoys geographical diversity from all textual families in addition to being supported by the rules of the shorter and more difficult reading.
👌Let's start searching: _____
🔴 First 👈 The Arabic versions: _
💧* A/ The Van Dyke version: (Traditional text)
In this there were lying a large crowd of sick people, the blind, the lame, and the paralyzed,
👈 Expecting the moving of the water. For an angel would go down at times into the pool and stir up the water. So whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.👉 (John 5:3-4)
💧B/ The Arabic versions that were based on a critical text (a text based on manuscripts and edited and prepared by leading specialized scholars).
* The common Arabic version put the addition between brackets to indicate that it is fake and does not exist in the oldest and best manuscripts:
And there was a group of sick people in the porches, some blind, some lame, and some paralyzed, [waiting for the moving of the water, because an angel of the Lord would go down at times into the pool and stir up the water. So whoever first stepped down after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had].
* The Jesuit (Catholic) version deleted the addition completely - i.e. deleted the added part at the end of verse 3 + deleted verse 4 completely [the same text that the common Arabic put between the brackets]:
3 There lie a multitude of sick people, some blind, some lame, some paralyzed.
5 And there was a man there who had been sick for thirty-eight years.
.
🔴 Second 👈 English versions: _
💧A/ * KJV: (King James Version = Traditional Received Text = Van Dyck Text)
🔸️The texts between brackets are deleted from all critical versions
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, {waiting for the moving of the water. 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}.
💧B/ The English versions that were based on a critical text (a text based on manuscripts and edited and prepared by leading specialized scholars).
🔸️The texts from 3-5 and the addition are deleted from the version (the end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4).
* ASV:
3In these lay a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered.
5And a certain man was there, who had been thirty and eight years in his infirmity.
🔸️The texts from 3-5 and the addition are deleted from the version (the end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4).
* ESV: In these
lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. *GNB: A large crowd of sick people were lying in the porches—the blind, the lame, and the paralysed. A man was there who had been ill for 38 years. *NET Bible: A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. Now a man was there who had been disabled for thirty -eight years. 🔴 Third 👈 The Greek versions: _ 💧A/ Copying the received text Textus receptus (the traditional text - Erasmus text - Van Dyck text - King James) for the text of John 5: 3-4: ⚜#Note - The texts between the brackets here will be deleted in the critical versions. ἐν ταύταις ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, {ἐκδεχομένων τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τᾖ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐάρασσε ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατειχετο νοσήματι}. 💧B/ Critical text's (copies based on textual criticism and manuscript studies supervised by senior specialized scholars): * UBS,5 version: ⚜#Note _ the addition between the brackets in the received text above _ we will find it deleted here in UBS,5 version (the end of issue 3 + issue 4 in full). 3 ἐν ξηρῶν3.4 5 ἔχων ἐν From the critical apparatus of the ubs.5 version, we read that regarding the deletion of the addition from the end of verse 3: {A} ξηρῶν 𝔓66, 75 א A* BC* LT
The committee gave the deletion reading a grade of A, which is the highest critical grade - meaning that the committee is absolutely certain and confident of the correctness of its decision regarding the deletion of this part because it is not present in any of the following manuscripts (P66, P77, Sinaiticus, Alexandrian in the original reading, Vaticanus, Ephraimite in the original reading, Regius, Borjianus).
Regarding the deletion of verse 4 entirely, it says:
{A} omit verse 4 𝔓66, 75 א BC* DT
The committee also gave the deletion reading a grade of A, and it tells us that this entire verse is not present in any of the following manuscripts (P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimite in the original reading, Beza, Borjianus).
* Nestle Aland 28 version:
⚜#Note _ The addition between the brackets in the received text above _ We will find it deleted here in Nestle Aland 28 (the end of number 3 + the entire number 4).
3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος ⸆ τῶν ἀσθενούντων,* τυφλῶν, χωλῶν ⸇. ⸆1 *5 ἦν δέ ⸂τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ⸃ ⸄ριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη⸅ ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ·*
* Westcott_Hort version:
⚜#Note _ the addition between the brackets in the received text above _ we will find it deleted here in the Westcott and Hort version (the end of number 3 + the entire number 4).
3 εν ταυταις τυφλων χωλων ξηρων
5 ην δε τις εκει τριακοντα [και] οκτω ετη εχων αυτου.
* Tschendorf version:
⚜#Note _ The addition between the brackets in the received text above _ We will find it deleted here in Tschendorf version (the end of number 3 + the entire number 4)
. 5. The addition between the brackets in the received text above is deleted here in the Samuel Triggles version (the end of verse 3 + the entire verse 4)
. 3 ἐν ταύταις ἀσθενούντων χωλῶν, ξηρῶν†. 5 † The addition between the brackets in the received text above is deleted here in Michael Holmes' version (end of issue 3 + entire issue 4). 3 ἐν ξηρῶν. 5. The oldest and most accurate manuscripts. The addition is not found in any of the following manuscripts. 🔴 Fourth 👈 Transcription of the text from the oldest and most accurate manuscripts {The addition is not found in any of the following manuscripts} _ (The added part from the end of verse 3 + verse 4 in full is not found in any of the following manuscripts):____ 🔸️ The Sinaiticus manuscript (the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament):_ "εν ην "
🔸️The Vatican Codex:_
" εν τη αϲθενεια αυτου
🔸️The Ephraimian manuscript:_
" εκεν ξηρων * ην δε τιϲ τη αϲθενεια αυτου"
🔸️ Pisa manuscript:_
"εν ταυταιϲ ουν κατεκειντο πληθοϲ των ξηρων παραλυτικων εκδεχομενων την του υδατοϲ κινηϲιν *
The commentary of
the scholar Philip Comfort on the textual problem of John 5:3-4 in his book New
TESTAMENT T€XT AND TRANSLATION COMMENTARY, PHILIP W. COMFORT:_
{This part was probably not written by John because it is not found in the older manuscripts
(Papyrus 66, 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimus, Borgianus), and where it occurs in later manuscripts it is often marked with asterisks to indicate that it is a spurious (as MS 047 did in its marking of Numbers 4:5). The passage is a later addition - even when added to manuscripts such as the Alexandrian and Ephraimus it was not in The original contains it, this false copyist interpretation is a feature of the expansion that occurred in the text of the Gospel after the fourth century. This expansion occurred in two stages: First came the addition at the end of verse 5:3 - inserted to clarify the reason for the sick people waiting, then came after it the addition of verse 4 - which It was introduced to give an explanation and clarification of the problem of moving the waters in verse 7:5. Of course, the second expansion is more complete and creative. All textual critics and translators do not accept this longer part as part of the original text
.
This portion (5:3b-4) was probably not written by John, because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts (𝔓66, 75 א BC* T), and where it does occur in later manuscripts it is often marked with obeli ( marks like asterisks) to signal spuriousness (so II047 syr marking 5:4). The pas sage was a later addition—even added to manuscripts, such as A and C, that did not originally contain the portion. This scribal gloss is characteristic of the expansions that occurred in gospel texts after the fourth century. The expansion happened in two phases: First came the addition of 5:3b-inserted to explain what the sick people were waiting for; and then came 5:4—inserted to provide an explanation about the troubling of the water mentioned in 5:7. Of course, the second expansion is fuller and more imaginative. Nearly all modern textual critics and translators will not accept the longer portion as part of the original text.
_____
♦️The Myth of Textual Criticism by Bruce Metzger atextual guide to the Greek new testament Commentary on the text of John 5:3-4 and the decision to choose the UBS 5 version for the decision to delete the added portion From number 3, and number 4 was deleted entirely, as he says:
{The various evidences add (they wait for the water to be stirred), in any case, this reading is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.
Verse 4 is an addition to the original text, and its secondary character is evident from (1) its absence in the oldest and best manuscript witnesses, (2) the presence of an asterisk* or other distinguishing mark to mark words as non-original in more than twenty Greek manuscript witnesses, (3) the presence of non-Johannine words and expressions (of going to the water), and only the four words here in the New Testament, and (4) the wide variety of readings in which the verse is rendered.
}
. Its secondary character is clear from (1) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses, (2) the presence of asterisks or obeli to mark the words as non-original in more than twenty Greek witnesses, (3) the presence of non-Johannine words or expressions (κατὰ καιρόν, ἐμβαίνω [of going into the water], ἐκδέχομαι, κατέχομαι, κίνησις, ταραχή, δήποτε, and νόσημα—the last four words only here in the NT), and (4) the rather wide diversity of diverse forms in which the verse was transmitted.
____________
♦️
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN by BY JH BERNARD EDITED BY AH McNEILE Volumes I & II T & T CLARK EDINBURGH T & T CLA
Commenting on the text of John 5:3-4:
{Verse 4, like the words (ἐκδεχομένων … κίνησιν), is not part of the original text of John, but is a later interpretation.
The entire verse is omitted from each of the following manuscripts (Sinaitic, Vaticanus, Ephraim, Beza, Washington, Old Syriac, early Coptic versions).
Verse 4, like the words ἐκδεχομένων … κίνησιν, is no part of the original text of Jn., but is a later gloss.
The verse is wholly omitted by אBC*DW 33, the Old Syriac, the early Coptic versions
______________
♦️ The famous scholar Daniel Wallace’s comment in his marginal notes to his Net Bible on the textual problem of John 5:3-4
A New Approach to Translation, Thoroughly Documented, With 60,932 Notes, By The Translators and Editors :_
{Few scholars today accept As for the authenticity of any part of the two verses (end 3-4), because they are not found in the oldest and best manuscript witnesses (P. 66, P. 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimus, Borjianus), they include non-Johannine structures and words, and many of the manuscripts that include these verses mark them as forgeries and non-genuine verses (by marking them with an asterisk *), and because there is a great deal of textual division among the witnesses that include these verses, our version has followed Nestle-Aland's text in deleting these verses, which is also the same procedure that many other modern versions have followed.
Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b–4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (𝔓66, 75 א B.C.* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.
____
♦️ And I will conclude with a brief excerpt from the giant of textual criticism, Wieland Wilker, in
A Textual Commentary ,on the Greek Gospels ,Vol. 4 ,John ,BY WIELAND WILLKER:_
{There is no doubt that this portion is not an authentic part of the Gospel of John. Interestingly, parts 3b and 4 do not have identical support. This might simply be some copying error, but it is also possible that it indicates an independent origin. Indeed, Samuel Triggles (1854, p. 245) explains that: "The words added to v. 3 seem to have been an exegetical comment, and v. 4 another exegetical comment. [...] These exegetical comments originally belong to different manuscripts 《either in the margin or in the text.》" According to Zahn, this may be an interpretation of Papias. He may have been prompted to explain v. 7:
it is generally thought that it may have been an
early marginal comment inserted into the text. So actually Tregelles (Account.., 1854, p. 245): "the words added to verse 3 seem to have been one scholion, and verse 4 another. […] These scholia belonged at first to different manuscripts (whether in margin or text);" According to Zahn this might be an interpretation by Papias. It was probably stimulated to explain verse 7:
It is generally held that it probably was an early marginal comment which made it into the text.
Then Velind Felker concluded his speech, after discussing the textual problem at length, with the statement
Rating: 2 (NA clearly original)
that Nestle-Aland's decision to delete these passages as forgeries and not from the original Gospel of John was certainly correct.
##### End ####
Attached above is a picture of the text from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts (the two oldest manuscripts of the Bible).
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment