How do you think John 1:18 originally read?
Word Magazine # 56: Text Note: John 1:18 "only begotten Son" or "only God"?
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/08/word-m...n-118.html
The Issue:
The textual issue here is of Christological significance. Should it read “the only begotten Son [ho monogenes huios]” (as in the TR) or “only God [monogenes theos]” (as in the modern critical text)?
Compare the KJV and ESV translations:
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; *the only begotten Son,* which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ESV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; *the only God,*[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
ESV Footnotes:
a. John 1:18 Or _the only One, who is God_; some manuscripts _the only Son_
b. John 1:18 Greek _in the bosom of the Father_
External Evidence:
The TR reading [_ho monogenes huios_] is supported by the following Greek mss: Codices A [Alexandrinus], C [Ephraemi, 3rd corrector], Kappa, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, etc. It is the reading of the Majority Text. With regard to versions it is the reading of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Harklean Syriac.
The modern critical text reading [_monogenes theos_] is supported by four Greek mss: p66, Sinaiticus [original hand], Vaticanus, and C [original hand]. Among the versions, it is the reading of the Peshitta Syriac and a marginal reading in the Harklean Syriac.
A variation of the modern critical text reading includes the article: _ho monogenes theos_. This reading is found in three Greek mss: p75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, and 33.
In his _Commentary_, Metzger notes that with the acquisition of p66 and p75, the modern reading is “notably strengthened” (this and all citations below, p. 198). Even this, however, is a reminder that the TR reading was abandoned in the nineteenth century modern text of Westcott and Hort primarily on the basis of the twin heavyweight uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
=================================.
John 1:18
The key word in John 1:18 is "Ekhediya," which means "only/unique," and when used in a theological sense, is according to Younan, a "beautiful theological term employed by many Eastern theologians and poets. It literally means 'THE ONE.'" We'll start by taking a look at some other verses that use the word in a non-theological sense.
Luke 7:12 (based on Younan)
And when he [Yeshua] approached the gate of the medintha [city] he saw a dead man while being escorted d'ekhediya [who the only (son)] was of his mother, and she his mother was a widow.
Luke 8:41-42
And a certain man whose name was Yorash, a chief of the assembly, fell before the feet of Yeshua and was beseeching him that he might enter his house, for he had ekheditha [an only] daughter about twelve years old, and she was about to die.
Luke 9:38
And a certain man from the crowd cried out and he said, "Malpana [Teacher], I beseech you, take notice of me! He is bari [my son] ekhediya [only] to me, and a rukha [spirit] seizes him and suddenly he cries out and gnashes his teeth. . . .
The word is also in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, Hebrews 11:17, and 1 John 4:9. We now look at the controversial verse.
John 1:18 (Younan)
Man has not ever seen Allaha.
The Ekhediya [literally: THE ONE] (of) Allaha,
he who is in the bosom of his Father,
he has declared Him.
Ehrman, 161, states that John 1:18 comes "in two variant forms:
'No one has seen God at any time,
but _the unique Son/the unique God_ who is in the bosom of Father,
that one has made him known.'"
Question: Is it the unique/only Son in the bosom of the Father? Is it the unique/only God in the bosom of the Father?
Aramaic to Arabic to English yielded this:
Diatesseron 4:1
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father,
he hath told of him.
That rendering has it as 'the unique Son, who is God, is in the bosom of his Father.'
Starting with the original Aramaic of the Peshitta, Younan takes the other approach, and supplies an implied "of" to get:
John 1:18 (Younan)
Man has not ever seen Allaha.
The Ekhediya [literally: THE ONE] (of) Allaha,
he who is in the bosom of his Father,
he has declared Him.
One way to construe the verse is the way the Diatesseron has it, where the Son is called God:
"the only Son, God"
Another way to construe the verse is the way the Younan has it, where an implied "of" is supplied to get:
"Ekhadaya [THE ONE] (of) Allaha"
The word "son" is implied but not actually present in John 1:18, just as Yorash "had ekheditha [an only] daughter," and another father spoke of "bari [my son] ekhediya [only] to me."
The verse is ambiguous, with both the Diatesseron's rendition and Younan's rendition seeming-- to me at least-- acceptable. Ehrman speculates that nefarious scribes re-wrote the text, when in fact, the 2 variations are both plausible translations of the original Aramaic.
====================================================================================
How do you think John 14:15 originally read?
Text Note: John 14:15
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2018/11/text-n...-1415.html
The issue:
John 14:15 is an important instruction which Christ gives to Philip and the other disciples in the upper room.
In the KJV (following the traditional text), the verse is rendered as follows:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
In the Greek text, the verse contains a slight textual variant in the apodosis, regarding the verb téreo “to keep.” In the traditional text, as reflected in the KJV, it is an imperative or command: keep my commandments (cf. NKJV, MEV).
In translations based on the modern critical text, however, the verb is in the future tense. Here is the ESV:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
The variation here is slight, but not insignificant. What did Christ say (cf. John 14:26)?
External evidence:
John 14:15 is a third class conditional [probably future sentence] sentence, with the protasis introduced by ean and “you love” in the subjunctive. The apodosis in such constructions can appear in any mood.
According to the NA 28 apparatus there are three primary variations here (given in reverse order from NA 28):
First, there is the reading taken by the modern critical text:
térésete, the future active indicative, second person plural: you will keep
It is supported by the codices B, l, Psi, as well as by the Coptic and by the Church Father Epiphanius of Constantia (d. 403).
Second, there is minority variation:
téréséte, the aorist active subjunctive, second person plural: you should keep
This variation is found in p66, Sinaiticus, 060, 33, and 579
Finally, there is the reading found in the Majority of Greek mss. and included in the TR:
térésate, the aorist active imperative, second person plural: keep
This reading is supported by A, D, K, Q, W, Gamma, Delta, Theta, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, Lectionary 844, and the majority of the remaining extant mss. of this verse.
So, the difference comes down to a single letter: Is it epsilon (making the verb a future active indicative), eta (making the verb an aorist active subjunctive), or an alpha (making the verb an aorist active imperative). The majority reflects a consensus on the latter, while modern reconstructionists prefer the former.
Notice also that here is a place where three of the earliest uncials all have different readings: Alexandrinus: traditional; Vaticanus: modern; Sinaiticus: minority variation.
////////////////////////////////////
John 14:15 (HCSB)
"If you love Me,
you will keep[a: Other mss read
_If you love Me, keep (as a command)] My commands.
The "you will" is absent from the Diatesseron:
Diatesseron 45:43
If ye love me,
keep my commandments.
The phrase "you will" isn't present in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta:
John 14:15 (Younan)
If you love me,
keep my commandments.
====================================================================================
Do you think John 5:3b-4 belongs in the Bible? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have it, except for "of the Lord."
' Edward F. Hills notes that the disputed passage is cited by Tertullian in a theological reference to baptism (see The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146). He quotes Tertullian as saying, “Having been washed in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” He also notes its citation in Didymus (c. 379 AD) and Chrysostom (c. 390 AD). He notes: “These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text.” He adds that the text was also included in the Diatessaron by Tatian (c. 175 AD), “which also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting to its antiquity.” '
John 5:3-4 (ESV)
In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.[a: Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part,
_waiting for the moving of the water;
4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool,
and stirred the water:
whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water
was healed of whatever disease he had_]
Except for the phrase "of the Lord," all of the text in question was present as of A.D. 175, with "diseases" being here "pain":
Diatesseron 22:11-13
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.xxii.html
And there were laid in them much people of the sick, and blind, and lame, and paralysed,
waiting for the moving of the water.
And the angel from time to time went down into the place of bathing,
and moved the water;
and the first that went down after the moving of the water,
every pain that he had was healed.
Except for "of the Lord," all of the text in question was present in the original Aramaic, with "diseases" again being here "pain":
John 5:3-4 (Younan)
And in these were laying many people who were sick, and the blind and lame and crippled,
and they were anticipating the stirring of the waters,
4. for from time to time a malaka [angel] would descend to the place of baptism and would stir the waters,
and whoever would descend first
after the movement of the waters
would be healed [literally: be made whole] (of) every pain that he had.
Text Note: John 5:3b-4
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2015/07/text-n...53b-4.html
Image: Excerpt from John 5 in Codex Alexandrinus (see notes in margin on John 5:3-4)
I. The issue:
The modern critical text, and translations based on it, omits the account of the angel stirring the water in John 5:3b-4. The traditional text, and translations based on it, includes this passage. Compare translations based on the traditional text (disputed portion in bold):
KJV John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, *waiting for the moving of the water. 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.*
NKJV John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, *waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.*
II. External Evidence:
Note: We are dealing here with vv. 3b-4 together but there are some variations, noted below, between vv. 3b and 4 separately among manuscripts.
The traditional text (including vv. 3b-4) is supported in general by the following:
Greek witnesses: A (though NA-28 indicates that v. 3b is missing in the original but it appears in a corrected hand), C (apparently includes in a corrected hand), K, L (apparently includes v.4, but missing v. 3b), Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, 078, family 1, family 13, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, and the vast Majority tradition.
Versions: The Vulgate and part of the Old Latin apparently support the inclusion of v. 3b, while the Old Latin (with minor variations) and the Clementine Vulgate support the inclusion of v. 4. The traditional text is also supported by the Syriac Peshitta and the Syriac Harklean and, in part, by the Coptic Bohairic.
Church Fathers: Of note is the fact that v. 4 is cited in the writings of the Church Father Tertullian (c. 220 AD).
The modern critical text (omitting vv. 3b-4) is supported by the following:
Greek witnesses: p66, p75, Aleph, B, C (original hand), D (though it apparently includes v. 3b), T, W [supplement] (though it apparently includes v. 3b), 33 (though it apparently includes v. 3b).
Versions: Individual Latin mss. f and l (though they apparently include v. 3b), Latin ms. q, the Stuttgart Vulgate (2007), the Curetonian Syriac, and the Coptic.
To help sort out some of the variations on the inclusion/exclusion of vv. 3b and 4, according to the NA-28, compare:
Include v. 3b but exclude v. 4
Greek codex D
Greek codex W [supplement]
Greek codex 33
Individual Latin ms. f
Individual Latin ms. l
Exclude v. 3b but include v. 4
Greek codex A
Greek codex L
Evaluative notes on external evidence:
First, it is obvious that there has been much textual activity around vv. 3b-4, indicating serious early controversy over their transmission.
Second, closer examination of the passage in the online version of Codex Alexandrinus (p. 45 recto, column 2, lines 13-14) indicates that the NA-28 apparatus notes may be somewhat misleading regarding vv. 3b-4. Though some corrections to vv. 3-4 are included in the margin, these verses seem to be part of the original text of Codex A. See this study of John 5:3-4 in Codex Alexandrinus. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5S2j0q...FwdkU/view
Third, one might give weight to the fact that two papyri omit vv. 3b-4. This should be tempered, however, by the following considerations: (a) the recognition that the papyri evidence, in general, is limited, and it reflects traditions from only one general geographical area; (b) the weighing of the two individual papyri cited here. Of p66, in The Story of the New Testament Text (SBL, 2010), Robert Hull notes, “The manuscript contains more than 400 singular readings, nearly half of them the result of carelessness in copying, and most of them corrected by the scribe himself” (p. 116). Of p75, Hull notes “its text is remarkably similar to that of Codex Vaticanus; in fact, p75 and B are more closely related than any other NT manuscripts” p. 117).
Fourth, the conclusion that must be reached, in the end, is that the exclusion of vv. 3b-4, like so many other points of textual difference between the traditional and modern texts, rests primarily on the evidence of two codices: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
III. Internal Evidence:
....
Edward F. Hills notes that the disputed passage is cited by Tertullian in a theological reference to baptism (see The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146). He quotes Tertullian as saying, “Having been washed in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” He also notes its citation in Didymus (c. 379 AD) and Chrysostom (c. 390 AD). He notes: “These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text.” He adds that the text was also included in the Diatessaron by Tatian (c. 175 AD), “which also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting to its antiquity.”
How then did the text come to be omitted? Hills cites a theory by Hilgenfeld and Steck:
These scholars point out that there was evidently some discussion of the Church during the 2nd century concerning the existence of this miracle-working pool. Certain early Christians seem to have been disturbed over the fact that such a pool was no longer to be found at Jerusalem. Tertullian explained the absence of this pool by supposing that God had put an end to its curative powers in order to punish the Jews for their unbelief. However, this answer did not satisfy everyone, and so various attempts were made to remove the difficulty through conjectural emendation. In addition to those documents which omit the whole reading there are others which merely mark it for omission with asterisks and obels.
Hills also point out that the entire passage shows evidence of having been tampered with by “rationalistic scribes” noting as an example the fact that the spelling of the place name for the pool in v. 2 varies widely. Compare:
Bethesda: A, C, K, N, etc. (Majority reading)
Bethsaida: p66 (corrected hand), p75, B, etc.
Bethsaidan: p66 (original hand)
Belzestha: D
Bethzatha: Aleph, (L), 33, and the Old Latin (the reading adopted by the modern critical text)
Though Hills’ suggestion is worth consideration, the truth is that the reasons this passage came into dispute are now lost to us in the mists of the past. One might speculate that it concerned disputes over the theology of angels (cf. Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; 22:9). We will likely never know why the passage came into dispute.
In a commentary published in 1947 Edwyn Hoskyns concluded:
The passage is either a gloss added to explain v. 7, or it belonged to the original text of the gospel, and it was struck out in order to avoid giving support to popular pagan practices connected with sacred pools and streams…. (The Fourth Gospel [Faber and Faber, 1947]: p. 265).
Conclusion:
John 5:3b-4 clearly has ancient support. It was known by Tertullian, appeared in ancient codices like Alexandrinus, and was adopted by the majority as the traditional reading. Its absence is supported by the two major heavyweights of modern text criticism: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Though it is missing in two ancient papyri, one of those (p66) is notorious for it omissions, and the other (p75) apparently reflects the same stream as that represented by Vaticanus.
The arguments against the text by Metzger seem to rely on circular reasoning. He assumes that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are “the earliest and best manuscripts” and then reasons that if the passage does not appear in those witnesses it cannot be original. Likewise, he assumes that any less common vocabulary used in disputed passage must necessarily be “non-Johannine.”
Though there is no clear reason known to us as to why vv. 3b-4 might have been omitted, there is also no clear explanation as to why these words might have been added. The ancient church clearly accepted 5:3b-4 as authentic, as did the Reformed Fathers. One wonders if the passage’s exclusion in the modern critical text of the nineteenth century might not have been shaped by an Enlightenment influenced bias against the supernatural. The comment on John 5:3-4 in The Orthodox Study Bible (based on the NKJV text of the Psalms and the NT) notes that these verses are “often omitted from modern English translations,” but adds, “The role of spiritual powers in the world must never be discounted” (p. 224).
I see no compelling reason to exclude John 5:3b-4 from consideration as part of the legitimate text of Scripture.
Word Magazine # 56: Text Note: John 1:18 "only begotten Son" or "only God"?
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/08/word-m...n-118.html
The Issue:
The textual issue here is of Christological significance. Should it read “the only begotten Son [ho monogenes huios]” (as in the TR) or “only God [monogenes theos]” (as in the modern critical text)?
Compare the KJV and ESV translations:
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; *the only begotten Son,* which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
ESV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; *the only God,*[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
ESV Footnotes:
a. John 1:18 Or _the only One, who is God_; some manuscripts _the only Son_
b. John 1:18 Greek _in the bosom of the Father_
External Evidence:
The TR reading [_ho monogenes huios_] is supported by the following Greek mss: Codices A [Alexandrinus], C [Ephraemi, 3rd corrector], Kappa, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, etc. It is the reading of the Majority Text. With regard to versions it is the reading of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Harklean Syriac.
The modern critical text reading [_monogenes theos_] is supported by four Greek mss: p66, Sinaiticus [original hand], Vaticanus, and C [original hand]. Among the versions, it is the reading of the Peshitta Syriac and a marginal reading in the Harklean Syriac.
A variation of the modern critical text reading includes the article: _ho monogenes theos_. This reading is found in three Greek mss: p75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, and 33.
In his _Commentary_, Metzger notes that with the acquisition of p66 and p75, the modern reading is “notably strengthened” (this and all citations below, p. 198). Even this, however, is a reminder that the TR reading was abandoned in the nineteenth century modern text of Westcott and Hort primarily on the basis of the twin heavyweight uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
=================================.
John 1:18
The key word in John 1:18 is "Ekhediya," which means "only/unique," and when used in a theological sense, is according to Younan, a "beautiful theological term employed by many Eastern theologians and poets. It literally means 'THE ONE.'" We'll start by taking a look at some other verses that use the word in a non-theological sense.
Luke 7:12 (based on Younan)
And when he [Yeshua] approached the gate of the medintha [city] he saw a dead man while being escorted d'ekhediya [who the only (son)] was of his mother, and she his mother was a widow.
Luke 8:41-42
And a certain man whose name was Yorash, a chief of the assembly, fell before the feet of Yeshua and was beseeching him that he might enter his house, for he had ekheditha [an only] daughter about twelve years old, and she was about to die.
Luke 9:38
And a certain man from the crowd cried out and he said, "Malpana [Teacher], I beseech you, take notice of me! He is bari [my son] ekhediya [only] to me, and a rukha [spirit] seizes him and suddenly he cries out and gnashes his teeth. . . .
The word is also in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, Hebrews 11:17, and 1 John 4:9. We now look at the controversial verse.
John 1:18 (Younan)
Man has not ever seen Allaha.
The Ekhediya [literally: THE ONE] (of) Allaha,
he who is in the bosom of his Father,
he has declared Him.
Ehrman, 161, states that John 1:18 comes "in two variant forms:
'No one has seen God at any time,
but _the unique Son/the unique God_ who is in the bosom of Father,
that one has made him known.'"
Question: Is it the unique/only Son in the bosom of the Father? Is it the unique/only God in the bosom of the Father?
Aramaic to Arabic to English yielded this:
Diatesseron 4:1
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father,
he hath told of him.
That rendering has it as 'the unique Son, who is God, is in the bosom of his Father.'
Starting with the original Aramaic of the Peshitta, Younan takes the other approach, and supplies an implied "of" to get:
John 1:18 (Younan)
Man has not ever seen Allaha.
The Ekhediya [literally: THE ONE] (of) Allaha,
he who is in the bosom of his Father,
he has declared Him.
One way to construe the verse is the way the Diatesseron has it, where the Son is called God:
"the only Son, God"
Another way to construe the verse is the way the Younan has it, where an implied "of" is supplied to get:
"Ekhadaya [THE ONE] (of) Allaha"
The word "son" is implied but not actually present in John 1:18, just as Yorash "had ekheditha [an only] daughter," and another father spoke of "bari [my son] ekhediya [only] to me."
The verse is ambiguous, with both the Diatesseron's rendition and Younan's rendition seeming-- to me at least-- acceptable. Ehrman speculates that nefarious scribes re-wrote the text, when in fact, the 2 variations are both plausible translations of the original Aramaic.
====================================================================================
How do you think John 14:15 originally read?
Text Note: John 14:15
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2018/11/text-n...-1415.html
The issue:
John 14:15 is an important instruction which Christ gives to Philip and the other disciples in the upper room.
In the KJV (following the traditional text), the verse is rendered as follows:
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
In the Greek text, the verse contains a slight textual variant in the apodosis, regarding the verb téreo “to keep.” In the traditional text, as reflected in the KJV, it is an imperative or command: keep my commandments (cf. NKJV, MEV).
In translations based on the modern critical text, however, the verb is in the future tense. Here is the ESV:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
The variation here is slight, but not insignificant. What did Christ say (cf. John 14:26)?
External evidence:
John 14:15 is a third class conditional [probably future sentence] sentence, with the protasis introduced by ean and “you love” in the subjunctive. The apodosis in such constructions can appear in any mood.
According to the NA 28 apparatus there are three primary variations here (given in reverse order from NA 28):
First, there is the reading taken by the modern critical text:
térésete, the future active indicative, second person plural: you will keep
It is supported by the codices B, l, Psi, as well as by the Coptic and by the Church Father Epiphanius of Constantia (d. 403).
Second, there is minority variation:
téréséte, the aorist active subjunctive, second person plural: you should keep
This variation is found in p66, Sinaiticus, 060, 33, and 579
Finally, there is the reading found in the Majority of Greek mss. and included in the TR:
térésate, the aorist active imperative, second person plural: keep
This reading is supported by A, D, K, Q, W, Gamma, Delta, Theta, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, Lectionary 844, and the majority of the remaining extant mss. of this verse.
So, the difference comes down to a single letter: Is it epsilon (making the verb a future active indicative), eta (making the verb an aorist active subjunctive), or an alpha (making the verb an aorist active imperative). The majority reflects a consensus on the latter, while modern reconstructionists prefer the former.
Notice also that here is a place where three of the earliest uncials all have different readings: Alexandrinus: traditional; Vaticanus: modern; Sinaiticus: minority variation.
////////////////////////////////////
John 14:15 (HCSB)
"If you love Me,
you will keep[a: Other mss read
_If you love Me, keep (as a command)] My commands.
The "you will" is absent from the Diatesseron:
Diatesseron 45:43
If ye love me,
keep my commandments.
The phrase "you will" isn't present in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta:
John 14:15 (Younan)
If you love me,
keep my commandments.
====================================================================================
Do you think John 5:3b-4 belongs in the Bible? Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have it, except for "of the Lord."
' Edward F. Hills notes that the disputed passage is cited by Tertullian in a theological reference to baptism (see The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146). He quotes Tertullian as saying, “Having been washed in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” He also notes its citation in Didymus (c. 379 AD) and Chrysostom (c. 390 AD). He notes: “These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text.” He adds that the text was also included in the Diatessaron by Tatian (c. 175 AD), “which also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting to its antiquity.” '
John 5:3-4 (ESV)
In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.[a: Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part,
_waiting for the moving of the water;
4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool,
and stirred the water:
whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water
was healed of whatever disease he had_]
Except for the phrase "of the Lord," all of the text in question was present as of A.D. 175, with "diseases" being here "pain":
Diatesseron 22:11-13
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.xxii.html
And there were laid in them much people of the sick, and blind, and lame, and paralysed,
waiting for the moving of the water.
And the angel from time to time went down into the place of bathing,
and moved the water;
and the first that went down after the moving of the water,
every pain that he had was healed.
Except for "of the Lord," all of the text in question was present in the original Aramaic, with "diseases" again being here "pain":
John 5:3-4 (Younan)
And in these were laying many people who were sick, and the blind and lame and crippled,
and they were anticipating the stirring of the waters,
4. for from time to time a malaka [angel] would descend to the place of baptism and would stir the waters,
and whoever would descend first
after the movement of the waters
would be healed [literally: be made whole] (of) every pain that he had.
Text Note: John 5:3b-4
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2015/07/text-n...53b-4.html
Image: Excerpt from John 5 in Codex Alexandrinus (see notes in margin on John 5:3-4)
I. The issue:
The modern critical text, and translations based on it, omits the account of the angel stirring the water in John 5:3b-4. The traditional text, and translations based on it, includes this passage. Compare translations based on the traditional text (disputed portion in bold):
KJV John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, *waiting for the moving of the water. 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.*
NKJV John 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, *waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.*
II. External Evidence:
Note: We are dealing here with vv. 3b-4 together but there are some variations, noted below, between vv. 3b and 4 separately among manuscripts.
The traditional text (including vv. 3b-4) is supported in general by the following:
Greek witnesses: A (though NA-28 indicates that v. 3b is missing in the original but it appears in a corrected hand), C (apparently includes in a corrected hand), K, L (apparently includes v.4, but missing v. 3b), Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, 078, family 1, family 13, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, and the vast Majority tradition.
Versions: The Vulgate and part of the Old Latin apparently support the inclusion of v. 3b, while the Old Latin (with minor variations) and the Clementine Vulgate support the inclusion of v. 4. The traditional text is also supported by the Syriac Peshitta and the Syriac Harklean and, in part, by the Coptic Bohairic.
Church Fathers: Of note is the fact that v. 4 is cited in the writings of the Church Father Tertullian (c. 220 AD).
The modern critical text (omitting vv. 3b-4) is supported by the following:
Greek witnesses: p66, p75, Aleph, B, C (original hand), D (though it apparently includes v. 3b), T, W [supplement] (though it apparently includes v. 3b), 33 (though it apparently includes v. 3b).
Versions: Individual Latin mss. f and l (though they apparently include v. 3b), Latin ms. q, the Stuttgart Vulgate (2007), the Curetonian Syriac, and the Coptic.
To help sort out some of the variations on the inclusion/exclusion of vv. 3b and 4, according to the NA-28, compare:
Include v. 3b but exclude v. 4
Greek codex D
Greek codex W [supplement]
Greek codex 33
Individual Latin ms. f
Individual Latin ms. l
Exclude v. 3b but include v. 4
Greek codex A
Greek codex L
Evaluative notes on external evidence:
First, it is obvious that there has been much textual activity around vv. 3b-4, indicating serious early controversy over their transmission.
Second, closer examination of the passage in the online version of Codex Alexandrinus (p. 45 recto, column 2, lines 13-14) indicates that the NA-28 apparatus notes may be somewhat misleading regarding vv. 3b-4. Though some corrections to vv. 3-4 are included in the margin, these verses seem to be part of the original text of Codex A. See this study of John 5:3-4 in Codex Alexandrinus. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5S2j0q...FwdkU/view
Third, one might give weight to the fact that two papyri omit vv. 3b-4. This should be tempered, however, by the following considerations: (a) the recognition that the papyri evidence, in general, is limited, and it reflects traditions from only one general geographical area; (b) the weighing of the two individual papyri cited here. Of p66, in The Story of the New Testament Text (SBL, 2010), Robert Hull notes, “The manuscript contains more than 400 singular readings, nearly half of them the result of carelessness in copying, and most of them corrected by the scribe himself” (p. 116). Of p75, Hull notes “its text is remarkably similar to that of Codex Vaticanus; in fact, p75 and B are more closely related than any other NT manuscripts” p. 117).
Fourth, the conclusion that must be reached, in the end, is that the exclusion of vv. 3b-4, like so many other points of textual difference between the traditional and modern texts, rests primarily on the evidence of two codices: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
III. Internal Evidence:
....
Edward F. Hills notes that the disputed passage is cited by Tertullian in a theological reference to baptism (see The King James Version Defended, pp. 145-146). He quotes Tertullian as saying, “Having been washed in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” He also notes its citation in Didymus (c. 379 AD) and Chrysostom (c. 390 AD). He notes: “These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text.” He adds that the text was also included in the Diatessaron by Tatian (c. 175 AD), “which also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting to its antiquity.”
How then did the text come to be omitted? Hills cites a theory by Hilgenfeld and Steck:
These scholars point out that there was evidently some discussion of the Church during the 2nd century concerning the existence of this miracle-working pool. Certain early Christians seem to have been disturbed over the fact that such a pool was no longer to be found at Jerusalem. Tertullian explained the absence of this pool by supposing that God had put an end to its curative powers in order to punish the Jews for their unbelief. However, this answer did not satisfy everyone, and so various attempts were made to remove the difficulty through conjectural emendation. In addition to those documents which omit the whole reading there are others which merely mark it for omission with asterisks and obels.
Hills also point out that the entire passage shows evidence of having been tampered with by “rationalistic scribes” noting as an example the fact that the spelling of the place name for the pool in v. 2 varies widely. Compare:
Bethesda: A, C, K, N, etc. (Majority reading)
Bethsaida: p66 (corrected hand), p75, B, etc.
Bethsaidan: p66 (original hand)
Belzestha: D
Bethzatha: Aleph, (L), 33, and the Old Latin (the reading adopted by the modern critical text)
Though Hills’ suggestion is worth consideration, the truth is that the reasons this passage came into dispute are now lost to us in the mists of the past. One might speculate that it concerned disputes over the theology of angels (cf. Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; 22:9). We will likely never know why the passage came into dispute.
In a commentary published in 1947 Edwyn Hoskyns concluded:
The passage is either a gloss added to explain v. 7, or it belonged to the original text of the gospel, and it was struck out in order to avoid giving support to popular pagan practices connected with sacred pools and streams…. (The Fourth Gospel [Faber and Faber, 1947]: p. 265).
Conclusion:
John 5:3b-4 clearly has ancient support. It was known by Tertullian, appeared in ancient codices like Alexandrinus, and was adopted by the majority as the traditional reading. Its absence is supported by the two major heavyweights of modern text criticism: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Though it is missing in two ancient papyri, one of those (p66) is notorious for it omissions, and the other (p75) apparently reflects the same stream as that represented by Vaticanus.
The arguments against the text by Metzger seem to rely on circular reasoning. He assumes that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are “the earliest and best manuscripts” and then reasons that if the passage does not appear in those witnesses it cannot be original. Likewise, he assumes that any less common vocabulary used in disputed passage must necessarily be “non-Johannine.”
Though there is no clear reason known to us as to why vv. 3b-4 might have been omitted, there is also no clear explanation as to why these words might have been added. The ancient church clearly accepted 5:3b-4 as authentic, as did the Reformed Fathers. One wonders if the passage’s exclusion in the modern critical text of the nineteenth century might not have been shaped by an Enlightenment influenced bias against the supernatural. The comment on John 5:3-4 in The Orthodox Study Bible (based on the NKJV text of the Psalms and the NT) notes that these verses are “often omitted from modern English translations,” but adds, “The role of spiritual powers in the world must never be discounted” (p. 224).
I see no compelling reason to exclude John 5:3b-4 from consideration as part of the legitimate text of Scripture.