John 4.46-5.17
|
Second Sign: Nobleman’s Son / Sheep Gate Pool
|
STICKY SPOTS
5:4 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.
(5:3-4) Troubled Waters
The earliest and best manuscripts lack the explanation for the "troubled waters" given in verses 3-4, which was later added by scribes. That's why these verses are omitted from the NRSV.
(5:4) "Whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
Whoever enters a pool after it is stirred up by angels will be cured of "whatsoever disease he had." (Absurdities, Science and History)
I'm always thrilled by the phrase “best and earliest manuscripts,” especially when Bart D. Ehrman is quoted as the source. And indeed, this entire verse is missing in our modern translations. But not always. Sometimes they put it back, and sometimes they remove it. But the explanation in this verse seems to fit quite well within the paragraph. We already have sources at the end of the second century which quote this verse such as Tatian in 175 AD. And the supposed “oldest” manuscripts are in complete disagreement among themselves.
But an author I've come to respect greatly, argues that at least verse four should indeed not be included:
The fact that people like the impotent man believed in such miracles is obviously the reason for the insertion of the explanatory gloss by some later scribe in verse 4 (and possibly verse 3b too). However, the fact that the wording of verse 4 states, not that the sick people believed that an angel came down, but that an angel actually came down, condemns verse 4 as a corruption of the NT text. Verse 3b is theologically unproblematic, has stronger external evidence and perhaps deserves to be retained, however it too could simply be an explanatory insertion.
Dean Burgon argued for inclusion:
Certain of the Church Fathers attached great importance to this reference to the angel's descent into the pool, attributing to it the highest theological significance. The pool they regarded as a type of baptism and the angel as the precursor of the Holy Spirit. Such was the interpretation which Tertullian (c. 200) gave to this passage. "Having been washed," he writes, “in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.” Similarly, Didymus (c 379) states that the pool was "confessedly an image of baptism" and the angel troubling the water “a forerunner of the Holy Spirit.” And the remarks of Chrysostom (c. 390) are to the same effect. These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text. And the fact that Tatian (c. 175) included this reading in his Diatessaron also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting its antiquity.
Given that God has preserved his word and that this text has been included in all scripture coming from trustworthy sources, these verses must be considered genuine.
NET Bible Textual Criticism Note
5:3 A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. 5:4[[EMPTY]] 9
9 tc The majority of later mss (C3 Θ Ψ 078 Ë1,13 Ï) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (AcD 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). 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 (Ì66,75 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 NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.
5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
"Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."
Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."
No text in the Bible says that Jesus believes that all crippled people are crippled because of a particular sin. That it was true in this particular circumstance does not mean Jesus believed it was generally the case. This verse is actually the only verse in the Bible where Jesus makes a link between a particular sin and a particular handicap. And we have far more verses where Jesus says the opposite, that it wasn't a particular sin, see chapter 9:1-3 and Luke 13:1-5.
5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
(5:16, 18) "Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him."
John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the Jews persecuted Jesus and "sought to slay him."
(5:16-17) "Because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Jesus didn't observe the Sabbath, so I guess we don't have to either. Is it necessary to keep the Sabbath?
“John with his usual antisemitism” Yeah, let's check: did the Jews persecute Jesus? Check. Did they seek to slay him? Check. Did they slay him? Check. Was John a Jew? Check.
So John is on quite factual grounds here, if that is cause for a charge of antisemitism the word really has no meaning has it? But perhaps the author of the SAB objects to the word “the Jews”. Not all Jews sought to slay him, clearly John himself didn't, nor the other of the disciples. But it is not unusual to mention the whole for a part in the Bible, very usual in fact, see for example chapter 12:19.
On if it is necessary to keep the Sabbath: yes. Even God himself resteth on the seventh day, so a day of rest is set as an example from the very beginning. And of course repeated in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:8). And Jesus did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17-18).
No comments:
Post a Comment