Metzger’s observation that 5:3b
contains two “non-Johannine” words is lightweight, considering that John had
few other occasions to use either ἐκδέχεσθαι or κίνησις.
(I commend to readers both the
article written by Zane
Hodges in 1979 in Bibliotheca Sacra
136, pp. 25-39, and the article by Gordon Fee which appeared in Evangelical
Quarterly 54 (pp. 207-218.)
Before reaching a conclusion about
John 5:3b, let’s investigate 5:4. Dr.
Bill Mounce addressed this variant briefly, but his treatment is extremely
oversimplified. More is required. First, we must get an idea of how much
textual variation there is within this verse.
In A K L Y Δ Π, κυρίου (ΚΥ) appears after αγγελος γαρ (or, in L,
αγγελος δε). And instead of κατέβεινεν,
A K Π Ψ 579 have ἐλούετο. And A (supported
by some Bohairic manuscripts) has ουν between δήποτ’ and κατείχετο. Instead of δήποτε, K and Π have δ’ αν. In Cc H M U Y Δ Λ Π 078 and at
least 17 lectionaries, instead of ἐτάρασσεν, the text reads ἐταράσσετο. The Ethiopic version also supports
ἐταράσσετο. Swanson erroneously lists Δ
as if it reads ἐταράσσετο and
ἐτάρασσεν; a check of
the manuscript show that it supports ἐταράσσε το (the το being the το before ὕδωρ).
The external evidence mostly aligns with the
external evidence for 5:3b – but not
quite. D Wsupp 33, 2718, and the Armenian and Georgian versions,
which include 4:3b, do not imclude 5:4. 5:4
is supported by Tatian’s Diatessaron
(as demonstrated by a comment by Ephrem in his commentary ), by Ambrose, by
Tertullian, by Chrysostom (who was listed in UBS1 as a witness for both
inclusion and non-inclusion), and Cyril.
Tertullian, in De
Baptismo 5, near the end of the
chapter, wrote, “If it seems an unheard-of thing
that an angel should interfere with water, there was a precedent for that which
was to be. The pool of
Tertullian goes on to say, “Those
who healed bodily defects now heal the spirit.
Those who worked temporal salvation now restore for us everlasting
salvation. Those who freed one once a
year, [this indicates how Tertullian understood κατά καιρόν] now daily
save communities, death being destroyed by the washing away of sins.” Tertullian clearly had no problem reading
this verse and applying it to the life of the church.
Chrysostom commented on 5:3b-4 in
detail in his commentary
on John, perceiving in the paralytic’s healing a thematic template of
baptism and salvation.
Tertullian,
in Latin, and Chrysostom, in Greek, demonstrate the antiquity of the passage in
the text, as early as two papyri from c. 200 and c. 400 would. Chrysostom also shows that John 5:4 was read
in the text of the church in
What
phenomenon, occurring sometime between 90 (when the Gospel of John was written
– unless John Robinson’s redating to pre-70 – in light of (among other things)
5:2 – is adopted) and 200, could elicit one transmission-stream to include John
5:4 (in the case of Tertullian’s text of John), and another transmission-stream
to not include John 5:4 (in the case of P75, À, and B)?
I
am willing to posit that an anomaly in the autograph of the Gospel of John
itself elicited different treatments of John 5:3b-4. Picture John reading
chapter 5 to his listeners from the autograph for the very first time – without
5:3b-4. Inevitably, someone would ask, “John, why
were these sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people waiting near the pool
instead of swimming in its water?” And I
can imagine that John added an explanatory note in the margin, “waiting for the
moving of the waters.”
And
then someone asked, “What agitated the pool’s water?”. And John, realizing that his listeners in
In
the ancestor of Byzantine manuscripts, the notes were either blended into the
main text (as John 21 has been), or else copies just the way they appeared in
the autograph, in the margin with symbols to connect them to John 5:3-5. In the ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts,
receiving the text of the autograph slightly later (being in
Another
consideration might have been in play in the mind of the early Alexandrian
scribe who decided not to include verse 4:
a desire to protect John from the charge of promoting superstition. A scribe who thought he knew that water in
the pool of Bethesda was agitated by entirely natural forces could easily
persuade himself that the marginal note in his exemplar, stating that an angel
of the Lord bathed in the pool of Bethesda, could not have been written by an
inspired author; in addition, he did not wish to appear to commend
Asklepieions.
The
testimony of P and its relatives which have John 5:4 with asterisks
commends family P as an excellent representative of the autograph of the text
of the Gospels. The form of verse 4 that
appears in Codex P is the form which should be adopted, instead of the readings
found in the majority of manuscripts.
An
addition question is sure to be asked:
what should English Bible editors do with John 5:3-4? I have no objection to the inclusion of 5:3-4
in the main text, or in the margin, with a note stating that the passage
appears in the margin, or not at all, in a few early manuscripts. But to omit it entirely would guarantee that
English readers would perpetually ask, as John’s first listeners did, “Why
weren’t they all swimming?” or, “Who or what stirred up the waters?”
Another
question may be on the minds of some readers:
Would an inspired author expand on his own narrative in this way, adding
marginalia? I see no reason why not. Many a Spirit-led preacher reading from a manuscript he wrote has spontaneously
clarified himself mid-sermon. Even
