BigJim

Why is this passage removed from some translations? Specifically the NIV leaves it out. On bibleGateway.com there's a a footnote explaining that "some less important documents" add the passage. It seems very important to the context of vs. 7.

Here's the relevant passage. The red text is missing from some translations, but the bolded text doesn't make sense without it.

Julian

The passage has been removed because it lacks support from the best and oldest manuscripts that we have, of particular weight against the passage are p66, p75, א, B, and C*, a pretty impressive lineup for omission. Against it is a long line of byzantine mss, the western texts, and some patristic mss. It would seem that the line should be omitted.

Julian

drewjmore

Young's literal includes it, which implies that it is in LXX, does it not?
-djm [at best an armchair biblical ethusiast]

Julian

The LXX (or Septuagint) is the Greek translation of the old testament, i.e. it doesn't contain GJohn.

Julian

BigJim

...but without it, verse 7 is meaningless. Why would the lame man try to get in the water when it's stirred (or "troubled" KJV)? Also why would the lame & cripled hang out around the pool without the explanation? Later in the chapter, Jesus heals him without putting him in the water at all.

I guess that could explain why it was added in by later authors. One verse The whole passage didn't make any sense, so they inserted some mysticism so it would be meaningful.

Julian

It reads fine without verse 4 except that it doesn't explain the stirring of the water. Based on this we can conclude a number of different things, however, my immediate thought is that the explanation was originally missing because the pool was reasonably well-known and the stirring of the waters probably associated, through some supernatural agency, maybe, with the time when healing was likely to take place. As the gospel and christianity moved along in time and space people eventually weren't so familiar with this pool and/or the concept of intermittent flow (which is what causes the stirring, most likely) and it was a good opening to add some miraculous stuff, a popular thing as the byzantine text type gathered strength.

This is all speculation, of course, but it remains true that the verse was probably missing and if it was then it must be assumed that it wasn't needed. If it wasn't needed then no explanation was necessary. Why? Because people must not have wondered about the mentioning of the stirring. Why? Because people already knew about it.
Which is kinda what I said, except, fewer words. There are other explanations, to be sure.

Julian

drewjmore

:blush:

Hmm. However Young claims to have used the, "original Hebrew & Greek sources," in his translations.

Was his claim fallacious?
or better yet (and I've checked the almighty wiki)
What was/ere his original source(s) for the New Testament?


-djm [thought he knew all this, but not surprised to be confused]

S.C.Carlson

It is also lacking in D and the Curetonian Syriac, so it is not just limited to one text-type but is also true of some of the (early) "Westerns".

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Young's translation was first made in 1862. A lot has happened since then, including major manuscript discoveries. It's obsolete.

Stephen

Julian

Well, the choice of the word 'original' may not be overly fortuitous in this context. Nonetheless, Young's source for the New Testament was, as he states in the preface, the 'received text' or, in other words, the 'textus receptus,' far and away the worst Greek source available. It is the same text that forms the basis for KJV and was originally compiled by Eramus working under considerable time pressure. Don't bother complaining, prax.

As for the Old Testament text, while it is certainly not the LXX since that was in Greek and Young clearly used a Hebrew source, I am not sure what that source was. I don't have the stamina to wade through his entire preface so perhaps someone knows...? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Was it the MT?

Julian