pharoah

Most modern translations omit the bolded part of the above scripture quote. I've always assumed that it was a scribal interpolation, but it seems to me that if a scribe added that portion then he surely added verse 7 also, since it makes little sense without the interpolation. So is verse 7 also disputed?

CJD

The text in verse 7 is actually not disputed. So, the (probable) marginal gloss noted in bold above might simply be reflecting popular belief about the cause of the water's disturbance. Supposedly the pool of Bethesda was fed by intermittent springs, which probably caused the disturbance. I've read too that some ancient witnesses speak of the redness of the water (iron-rich?), which was popularly thought to be medicinal. The invalid in verse seven, then, apparently held to this popular belief (that the first person in the pool when the waters were disturbed, and him only, would be healed).

Best,

CJD

yalla

Apparently not.
John Marsh, in his book 'St John' Pelican NT Commentaries, has a note that your bold above is "inserted, wholly or in part by other ancient authorities".
So it seems to vary according to other texts but not including 1.7.
Marsh also omits any discussion of this in his text.
Interesting observation pharoah.
Worth some research.

Amaleq13

This seems to suggest that the original author assumed knowledge of the nature of the pool on the part of his audience while a subsequent editor felt that his contemporaries lacked it.

IIRC, the reference to the pool is often understood by scholars as one of the indications that the original form of John has the potential to be as old, if not older, than Mark.

jakejonesiv

Hi Amaleq,

Right. Even though 5:3b-4 is a gloss, there is no reason to assume that verse 7 is an interpolation.

yalla

Yoo hoo jake
Yoo hoo pharaoh
While I've got you two in the same place can I ask you to check out this post of mine.
It's a topic I would like to explore with you, if you are willing.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=122

cheers
yalla

Steven Avery

Hi Pharoah,

Well noticed.
An excellent example of the contradictory and confused
nature of the modern textcrit approach.

In this case Professor Maurice Robinson did in fact point out
the problem highlighted on this thread.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/downlo...t/tc-list.9706
Accidental omission hardly seems likely in regard to such a variant, especially when some witnesses only omit verse 4 while others omit 3b and 4, and still others include 3b and omit 4. Such "mixed" recensional activity was faulty, however, in that it none of it addressed (for whatever reason) the problem of the wording of verse 7; yet that easily could have been recensionally altered by a similar curtailing and replacement of the text into something like "Do you want to become whole?" "Sir, I have no man, in order that he should assist me"). Yet recensional activity, even when clearly evidenced, is not always wholly rational, so this fact occasions me no major difficulty, even when charging recensional activity in those early witnesses in regard to vv.3b-4.

Wieland Willker then attempted to justify the original omissions of
verse 3 and/or 4 in the context of the verse 7 problem. However it
reads like a patchquilt attempt so I will pass it by.

On top of this verse 7 issue, we have Tertullian clearly affirming
the content of the verses of John at issue, as early as any
manuscripts omitting parts of the two verses.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...P11508_3256043
On Baptism - Chapter V.-
Use Made of Water by the Heathen. Type of the Angel at the Pool of Bethsaida.

Lest any think it too hard for belief that a holy angel of God should grant his presence to waters, to temper them to man's salvation; while the evil angel holds frequent profane commerce with the selfsame element to man's ruin. If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida.

For those who want to read about more of the problems in the modern
versions in the Bethesda story (especially their having the name wrong,
as demonstrated by recent archaeology) I would suggest going over
Martin Shue's discussion on WhichVersion :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichv.../message/26253
Help, I'm Confused...

This next page confirms how archaeology not only confirmed the Bible,
(which was being attacked on the basis of the supposed non-existence
of the pool as described .. hmmm, maybe they thought it was in Nazareth ) but we see that archaeology also confirms the historic Byzantine Text rather than the socalled "earliest and most reliable" manuscripts, which were simply wrong in the name.

http://www.bible-history.com/jerusal..._bethesda.html
Pool of Bethesda

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Here is a little post from Teno Groppi discussing the textual
significance of the naming error in the alexandrian versions
versus the accuracy of the Received Texts.

John 5:2 (KJB)
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda,
having five porches.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichv.../message/26273
Re: [W-V] Help, I'm Confused...

This is one of the great proofs for the KJV and the true antiquity of the texts that led to it. Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the pool of Bethesda would've been destroyed then, or shortly after. Any records of it would likely have been destroyed as well. In a generation, most, if not all, memory of the pool would be gone. For a text to refer to the pool of Bethesda, it would have to know what was there BEFORE 70 A.D. - or at least before the passing of the generation that would've known about it, say 150 A.D. A text that would replace Bethesda with one of the other words would be dating itself at 200 A.D. or so, at the earliest.

Of course the exactness of various dates that Teno gives can be questioned, however the sense is clear and strong. The Received Text of John had to have an ancient knowledge while the error gives evidence that the socalled "earliest and most reliable" manuscripts were significantly later.

And the name issue is very complementary to the understanding that those same texts that are wrong in having changed 'Bethesda' are the ones that have the 'difficulty' of removing part or all of verses 3 & 4 (while verse 7 remains as fully supported in all texts). Demonstrating strongly that we are dealing with an omission, not an addition. The Tertullian reference is simply a cake-icing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I wonder if anybody, especially those who tend to think of Vatiancus
and Sinaiticus and papyri as the -
"earliest and most reliable manuscripts" -
would like to comment on what this thread has demonstrated.

On both issues, the name of Bethesda and the internally strange
omission (taking out some or all of v3 and/or v4 while leaving in v7).

We see that by recently discovered archaeology they aren't so early.
And by internal evidence they are not so reliable.

It is hard to get cases (on any side) as simple and clear as these two.

Your thoughts welcome.

Shalom,

Dave31

I didn't want to start an entire new thread - I just wanted to add a question concerning the evidence.

I'm aware of the claim that the pool at Bethesda existed before 70 CE. My question concerns the archaeological evidence and dating of the "five porticoes" (RSV) or "five porches" (KJV) mentioned in the New Testament.

I'm specifically interested in this quote by Dr. James Charlesworth:

After the destruction of Judea in 135 CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to Aesclepius/Serapis, the Greek God of healing, on the same site where the pool had been. Asclepius had five daughters, hence the five porches. From this evidence, it would appear that this part of John could not have been written until after 135 CE.