Where Did v 4 Go in John 5:4? (Monday with Mounce 64)

My wife Robin came home from a Christian speakers conference yesterday and told me about a discussion they had. John 5 was the passage under discussion, and when they arrived at v 4, to their surprise it wasn’t there. I guess it caused quite a stir. Someone found it in the NASB, but nowhere else. (I guess no one had the KJV).

This happens in several occasions in the Bible. There are even verse references “missing” in the KJV. What is going on? Well, either someone left the verse out, or somewhere along the line someone added a verse in. But who ever assigned the verse references, he had v 4.

This is a pretty big issue, and a simple blog can’t do it justice. It can also degenerate into a pretty ugly discussion; many of the people involved in the discussion don’t know much Greek (if any), and in the worst case scenarios the discussion is reduced to a matter of salvation. “If you don’t believe what I believe about the text of the Bible, you aren’t a Christian.” Let’s see if we can steer clear of this type of ungodliness.

This is the basic question of the Greek text, and the technical name for it is “text criticism.” (I am going to stick with the Greek Testament, not the Hebrew.) Here is the basic reconstruction.

1. The writers wrote their gospels and epistles and sent them to their churches.

2. These documents were copied so they could be shared. In the process of copying, changes were introduced. (By the way, this is not academic conjecture; we have these different manuscripts and can see the differences for themselves.)

Some changes were accidental but others appeared to be intentional, but not always for nefarious reasons. It is often to add an explanation, or substitute an easier word to understand, or to harmonize the gospels, etc.

In John 5:4, most believe that a scribe (the person doing the copying) thought it was puzzling why the man would lie there for 38 years. Perhaps he knew a tradition that said the angel periodically came down to stir up the waters and the first person in was healed, and so he added in the verse. (Others would argue that for some reason the verse was dropped off.)

3. As time progressed (and as we can tell from archaeology), biblical manuscripts were collected in five different geographical areas. Since the center of the church was in Rome, this area had the greatest number of copies.

4. Erasmus (1500s) created a Greek text based on two manuscripts from the 12th century (Matthew through Jude) and another 12th century manuscript for all but the last 6 verses of Revelation. He went from the Latin back into Greek to get those last 6. His work became the basis of the King James translation.

5. 150 years ago we started digging up new manuscripts that were in fact must older (by centuries). They came from a different geographical area than the majority of the texts we currently had, and they were different in places. For example, they did not have John 5:4.

And so the science of textual criticism was born, which is the science of determining which of the different “readings” is most likely original.

The general preference is to see scribes as adding verses, not removing them. For that reason, and others, most feel that John 5:4 was added after the fact; there is no good reason why it would have been omitted.

But God in his sovereign love made sure that the differences among the manuscripts would not hinder our faith.

• About 5% of the Greek text is in question
• No major doctrine is brought into question by that 5%.

You can trust your Bible!

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and is the general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation, and is currently on the Committee for Bible Translation for the NIV. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

Comments

[Joe Rutherford]

John wrote this gospel with a Greek and Roman audience in mind. One of several cases in point is 6:1 where he makes it known that the Sea of Galilee is the same as the Sea of Tiberias. So it makes sense that he would give needed bachground information in 5:4 so someone far removed from Jewish customs would understand why those sick and lame persons would want to be the first in the pool after the stirring of the water. It is also of major theological significance because if the Pharisees permitted the sick to wait by the pool on the sabbath for an angel to stir the water, and thus someone be healed on the Sabbath, then how could they condemn Jesus for healing on the Sabbath?

[Rev. Clifton H. Payne, Jr]

This is a very good short blog that serves to explain the difficulties that exist with the Biblical text. As stated this topic is far too extensive to deal with in a short blog; however, that being said, this is one of the best short articles that I have read on the subject.

[Andy]

That 5% statistic can't be right. Out of the 260 chapters in the NT, the amount of material in question would be almost equal to 13 chapters?

[Matt Dabbs]

I blogged on this some time back and it created a real firestorm, exactly as you described. Over 100 comments between these two posts...See the comments for some real knee slappers as well as some of the most ridiculous and poorly thought out comments ever made (several by me, probably. Well, hopefully not!)

http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-case-of-the-missing-verse-john-54/

Here is a list of all the "missing verses" in the New Testament - http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/why-did-the-niv-delete-verses-in-the-new-testament/

I really think this is so we can easily win memory verse competitions. You just say "John 5:4" and then a couple seconds of silence. Then, "Matthew 18:11"...silence. 49 verses of silence later...you win!

[Matt Dabbs]

Andy,

5% is probably accurate. This is not referring to texts that shouldn't be in the texts, rather the sum total of all textual variants with any serious level of question (noted with a C or D in UBS4). It is a very small % considering just how much data is being considered over thousands of manuscripts. Some of these are things as small as whether or not the definite article should be present and some are as large as John 8:1-11.

[Tim Worley]

Thanks, Matt. The so-called "problem" is not due to insufficient evidence, but rather due to the embarrassment of riches we have in terms of ancient manuscripts.

The true problem is when people like Bart Ehrman throw this issue out without context or nuance. For example, Ehrman notes the fact that the NT manuscripts contain around 400,000 textual variants, and implies that we can have no confidence in the text of the NT. However, does this mean that 400,000 of the words in the NT are in doubt? Not on your life. Given the thousands of extant manuscripts, each of those variants will only be found in a certain (generally small) percentage (sometimes one). Many of the differences are so inconsequential (i.e., variant spellings) as to fail to impact the English (or other) translation at all - the variant Greek readings would look the same in English anyway. And those that are reflected in the translated text are usually pretty minor.

So even if the percentage is as high as 5%, the NT we have today is essentially the one Luke, Paul, John, etc. penned.

[Gary Simmons]

If the UBS4 is not the exact replica of the autographs, then the marginal variants are sure to have it.

Thanks, Bill. I recommend as a good explanation for layfolk: Philip Comfort's Essential Guide to Bible Versions. His New Testament Text and Translation Commentary is also excellent for showing layfolk the variants and the basics of textual criticism.

[Joe Rutherford]

If 5:4 was not in the original Latin Vulgate, when was it added to the Vulgate? Do Eastern Orthodox text critics accept 5:4?

[Bill Mounce]

Thanks for all the feedback. Good to see the discussion, and people helping people. Here is a similar answer I wrote to someone.

The answer is that there are many good reasons for a rock solid confidence that 99% (not 95%) is the same as the original, and those few places where we are not sure never impinge on any issue of relative significance. Doubts are on how to spell a few names, or whether the article is present. One thing that is interesting is that this confidence in the text is shared by people of many theological positions; our confidence cuts across conservative/liberal lines, across denominational lines, etc. But we know that we can't use the doctrine of inspiration for the copies of the manuscripts because we can physically see where they are different.

[Joe Rutherford]

This discussion is a blessing. After more study, I've changed my mind about 5:4 and see the possibility that it may have been added to the text. I'm currently exploring New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Also I can honestly recommend Greek for the Rest of Us by Dr. Mounce, as an excellent study aid for the beginning greek student. He explains the subject of textual criticism, as well as the basics of biblical greek.

The Church needs one and only one scripture text. The Lord can give that to us. It is extremely easy for Him to do. After the one true text is accepted by the Church, we then must all interpret the text rightly. God can grant us these blessings! To God be the glory!

[Mick]

If verse four was added then how do you explain the answer given in verse seven?

[Matt Dabbs]

Mick,

5:4 could have been added in anticipation of the question raised in 5:7. Someone reading might ask, "What is he talking about the water being stirred here?" But the text, we assume, didn't give that answer. So someone later added in that bit of tradition to provide an answer for the questions the reader might have based on 5:7. Make sense?