John 5:4 inspired or uninspired?

[OpenDoor]

3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
John 5:3-5 (NIV)


3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For 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. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
John 5:3-5 (KJV)


What happened to verse 4?
The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse.


The KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD.


The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.


so do you think John 5:4 is inspired or uninspired?

 

[ebia]

NET footnotes:
"Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of [John 5:3b-4], for they are not found in the earliest and best witnessess [...], they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the MSS that include the verses mark them as spurious, and because there is a great deal of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses".

Basically, it looks like a later addition added to help explain the text.

 

[laconicstudent]

My ESV skips that verse, and has it in the footnotes at the bottom and notes that it is disputed. I think that is the correct response to that.

But I would like to point out that omitting the verse entirely is a bit of a bad choice, because when the sick man goes on in verse 7 to explain that he has no one to put him in the water, it makes no sense in a narrative sense without first explaining that there is an angel stirring the waters which then heals the bathers.

Without that verse, you'd read verse 7 and go: "What? Why is he talking about "stirring the waters"?"

 

[ebia]

My ESV skips that verse, and has it in the footnotes at the bottom and notes that it is disputed. I think that is the correct response to that.

But I would like to point out that omitting the verse entirely is a bit of a bad choice, because when the sick man goes on in verse 7 to explain that he has no one to put him in the water, it makes no sense in a narrative sense without first explaining that there is an angel stirring the waters which then heals the bathers.

Without that verse, you'd read verse 7 and go: "What? Why is he talking about "stirring the waters"?"

That's presumably why someone added it in, but if the original text didn't have it, is it right to keep it and assume an angel?

 

[laconicstudent]

It probably wasn't, but the verse is confusing without it. I support having it in the margins with a cautionary note.


And its not like it in any way changes the impact of the story. Its just a literary relic that was used to make the sick man's mention of the waters being stirred up make sense. So yeah, I like my ESV has done by cutting it and setting it in the margins.

 

[wildboar]

There a variety of ways of explaining the textual differences, one of which is to argue that John himself issued a revision of his original Gospel which also could explain some of the other interesting textual differences in John. What we do know is that the verse was accepted by the church in its transmission. When Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament they weren't obsessed with the "original autographs" like modern textual scholars are today. The quoted freely from the textual traditions that were circulating and in use at the time. They regarded them as the Word of God. I think we should take the same attitude and should put greater weight on those manuscripts copied and transmitted within the church rather than go on the fruitless quest for the original autographs.

 

[steve4.truth]

There a variety of ways of explaining the textual differences, one of which is to argue that John himself issued a revision of his original Gospel which also could explain some of the other interesting textual differences in John. What we do know is that the verse was accepted by the church in its transmission. When Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament they weren't obsessed with the "original autographs" like modern textual scholars are today. The quoted freely from the textual traditions that were circulating and in use at the time. They regarded them as the Word of God. I think we should take the same attitude and should put greater weight on those manuscripts copied and transmitted within the church rather than go on the fruitless quest for the original autographs.

I heartily agree. Jesus and the apostles knew Hebrew, yet they quoted from the greek septuigant because it was more commonly understood. That's why we often read a quote from the OT in the NT and they are quite different. This, I feel, is a lesson for us. Don't get obsessed over details. Every major teaching of the scriptures is clearly taught all over the Bible in a way that anyone can understand.

 

[God&me]

3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
John 5:3-5 (NIV)


3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For 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. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
John 5:3-5 (KJV)

What happened to verse 4?
The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse.


The KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD.


The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.


so do you think John 5:4 is inspired or uninspired?

Jn 5: 4, was in the original manuscripts, And it was one way that God healed during the 400 silent years.
Other wasy of being healed was to believe the Old Testament munuscripts such as, "I am the Lord the healeth thee" and "Who healeth all thine diseases".