The Case Of The Missing Verse

[Starise]

So I've been studying angels lately and I ran across John 5:4 . 

KJV- 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.

While I'm not a staunch KJV only sort of person, interestingly the KJV is one of the versions that has this verse in it while several of the other modern versions omit the verse. This would make sense to me if the text really means something else, however if we remove verse 4 then verse 7 has no point of reference yet often it isn't removed. Verse 7 mentions the water being "stirred". 

Some arguments say the verse was never in the original Greek and might have been put there later. I don't dispute that angels have the ability to heal if they are directed to do so. 

Some say that the scripture really has no bearing on the outcome of the passage. While I agree with this if looking at Jesus healing the man, I can't totally discount something that is said to be "inert" data. I think it's a pretty important point if and angel comes to a certain place and somehow makes the water capable of healing.

The grown up part of me thinks it sounds a bit absurd as something I would be apt to believe if it weren't in the Bible. I am tempted to side with those who think it was added, yet God often works in mysterious ways so why couldn't His angels do something as unorthodox as this? 

I have read people trying to put this into a symbolic sort of meaning or maybe more accurately, meanings are to be gleaned from it. Personally I can see at least one concept here. Jesus is greater than the angels. We don't need to wait or "take a number" with him. The whole thing seems sort of like an angel healing lottery. You get in by sheer chance you are healed. If you don't , oh well..we wait for the next time. The text doesn't say if this was a good angel or a bad angel. I don't think a good angel would be playing these games. Seems to me like maybe something a bad angel would do to divert the attention to an angel and not to God. Angel worship?

Thoughts?

[Jedi4Yahweh]

KJV is based on the Masoretic Text (Hebrew) & Textus Receptus (Greek) but most modern day bible versions use a wide verity of other Text to include dead sea scrolls. Sometimes these other text are not in agreement or missing text and in those cases some bible versions will leave out the section of text in dispute such as in this case.  I am not a KJV only person either by far but I have found the KJV/NJKV text is more reliable than most modern versions of the English bible but is not without errors.  This is why I don't rely on any one version of the bible.

John 5:4 is in the Textus Receptus.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/5/4/t_conc_1002004

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Jedi4Yahweh

[Starise]

Thanks Jedi4Yahweh.  This is also what I gathered about it. I rely on cross examination of the "evidence" the best I can understand it.

Some things in scripture we won't totally understand until we reach the other side. One day we will see things clearly. 

I had always understood that the KJV was derived from the most accurate texts available at the time. Not that it's a perfect translation either. I think one of the main things with regard to the KJV is getting past the "old king's English" in it. As an English speaking person with no other language training, most especially ancient versions of languages and common translation rules, I only have bible commentaries, reference books, cross reference of versions and reliability of texts as they were translated. Of course the easy question for me to always ask is, God came to save the common man... i.e. me. Basic Biblical principles should be something we can grasp.Following that idea the Bible talks about teachers. We all need them.  Some of these things are easily cleared up with a more informed educated view while some still remain vague. 

In my view so far on this passage, to omit the John 5:4 takes away from the narrative. Even removing some of it changes the story because there is a reason the man was there in the first place. Was he just hanging out getting a sun tan?  Going there for over 30 years is a real commitment. I think you need to be pretty dedicated to something to show up for that amount of time. Seems the pond could have used a referee of some kind. "Hey you guys will need to make room for Bob over there. Take a number and wait your turn." Apparently no one cared enough to see to it he made it in time. If you were sick you only cared about you. If you weren't in bad health it wasn't your problem. I'm getting a cold feeling about Ancient Israel during this time. Thankfully Jesus came around. To Jesus this man was important. 

Back OT- There seem to be only two possibilities about some original translations deleting it or adding it. Some scribe or scribes felt the need to "juice up" the Bible  with a fanciful angel story. If that happened the scribe didn't deserve his title. This is a real whopper too because you pretty much need to change the whole story.Making up a bunch of stuff. Why would a scribe do that when their job was to be accurate?

On the other side of the coin, if you take it away what would the motive be? If you say, "We looked at texts 1 and 2 and neither of those contain the story, text 3 however has the story". I could justify that if said texts 1&2 were proven to be reliable. If the texts weren't 100% credible I don't see an argument to remove it, or if only one text had the story deleted while another credible text has it, exclusion then becomes a matter of personal opinion. 

What I find interesting is we tend to find omissions in more recent translations. This apparently with emphasis on "apparently" is based on a more recent way  the translators have chosen to see scripture based on other information they think they have which must be much different than the way older translating techniques went about it.

It would appear to me on the surface of this, that translators tried to keep the meaning of Jesus healing a lame man intact while leaving out the angel story. Since we don't read what seems to be the whole story it would appear a man is laying by a pond, reason unknown...he's just laying there.....but wait! The water gets stirred up and he was waiting for something. We don't know what it is. I have read that a few think this really isn't important. To me it is.

[Jayne]

I have a differing view than many and that's OK.

The King James translators used newer documents - none older than a few hundred years before their time.

Between the translation of the King James MUCH older manuscripts of the Bible have been found.  MUCH older - some just 100-200 years past John writing the Revelation.

The oldest of manuscripts do not have these verses.  The newer ones - that the KJ translators used - do.

It's not that the modern versions leave out verses.  It's that the King James added verses from marginal notes and more.

I have no problem with this.  I like the King James, but I read mostly the NIV and ESV.  Sometimes I read them all together.  All of the additional verses in the King James do not go against anything taught in the Bible.

Some people have TREMENDOUS problems with these "missing verses".  And modern versions most always have footnotes that tell that some manuscripts have he extra verses or that some manuscripts say it a different way.  So, in reality, nothing is left out.

The modern verse ACKNOWLEDGE these verses in the King James.  They just put them in the footnotes.

One has to remember.  God is sovereign.  

[Justin Adams]

Remember that the Masorites were commissioned to rewrite the Hebrew versions making sure the LXX verses about the 'two powers' doctrine was left out. The LXX was barred and much of it considered heresy after Yeshua's resurrection. The 'two powers in heaven' doctrine was well established in Jewish thought and study - until the Christians came along.

Understand the political/religious implications that the Qumran texts do not have. Take special care with any theological dogmas, Jewish or otherwise after about 200 AD.

Study scriptures - ALL OF IT - and study second temple writings as well as the 'verboten' books included in the LXX and Enoch. You may be surprised at what you learn. Do not be swayed by those that seem to want you in ignorance. Any scroll that Yeshua and the apostles read should be read by us as well. It is a well known fact.. FACT.. that many of the apostles writings allude to and often quote 1st Enoch and other non-canon writings. Thus we should read them all and be guided by the Spirit and not by man's restrictive doctrines and dogmas.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Justin Adams

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Jayne said:

I have a differing view than many and that's OK.

The King James translators used newer documents - none older than a few hundred years before their time.

Between the translation of the King James MUCH older manuscripts of the Bible have been found.  MUCH older - some just 100-200 years past John writing the Revelation.

The oldest of manuscripts do not have these verses.  The newer ones - that the KJ translators used - do.

It's not that the modern versions leave out verses.  It's that the King James added verses from marginal notes and more.

I have no problem with this.  I like the King James, but I read mostly the NIV and ESV.  Sometimes I read them all together.  All of the additional verses in the King James do not go against anything taught in the Bible.

Some people have TREMENDOUS problems with these "missing verses".  And modern versions most always have footnotes that tell that some manuscripts have he extra verses or that some manuscripts say it a different way.  So, in reality, nothing is left out.

The modern verse ACKNOWLEDGE these verses in the King James.  They just put them in the footnotes.

One has to remember.  God is sovereign.  

Question:  what happened to ancient manuscripts that were trustworthy?

Answer: they were used, read, wore out and were copied.

Question: what would be most likely to happen to ornate but corrupt ancient manuscripts?

Answer: they would be tucked away somewhere, mostly unused, and be far more likely to survive for many hundreds of years, especially in a dry climate like, let's say, Egypt.

Question:  are the oldest extant manuscripts (which are riddled with corrections) likely to be the best?

Answer: this is unlikely in the extreme!

[Jayne]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Question:  what happened to ancient manuscripts that were trustworthy?

Answer: they were used, read, wore out and were copied.

Question: what would be most likely to happen to ornate but corrupt ancient manuscripts?

Answer: they would be tucked away somewhere, mostly unused, and be far more likely to survive for many hundreds of years, especially in a dry climate like, let's say, Egypt.

Question:  are the oldest extant manuscripts (which are riddled with corrections) likely to be the best?

Answer: this is unlikely in the extreme!

As I said, my belief is different than some.

Just a question.  What happened between your first assertion that the original manuscripts were trustworthy and your second assertion that as they were being copied they became corrupt?

And....if those early copies did get put away somewhere not to be found for centuries - what happened to later manuscripts that made them perfect?  Did God come down and say, "Ya'll scribbled too much on the originals and copied them too many times, so I am going to inspire it all over again."

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

Question:  what happened to ancient manuscripts that were trustworthy?

Answer: they were used, read, wore out and were copied.

Question: what would be most likely to happen to ornate but corrupt ancient manuscripts?

Answer: they would be tucked away somewhere, mostly unused, and be far more likely to survive for many hundreds of years, especially in a dry climate like, let's say, Egypt.

Question:  are the oldest extant manuscripts (which are riddled with corrections) likely to be the best?

Answer: this is unlikely in the extreme!

I think the chances of corruption are very limited being there have been literally 1000's of ancient copies discovered.  Most observant Jews through the centuries would not allow a corrupted version of their sacred scriptures' go unaware and this is also true for the NT writings passed down from church fathers. Yes, people may have tried to fraudulently alter the scriptures but it would be easily recognized as a fraud compared in light 1000 upon 1000's of known copies of true scriptures being made and passed around among them.  For instance, say I wanted to produce a fraudulent bible today, who in their right mind would accept it?  It would be quickly discarded as fraudulent in light of billions of accurate copies.  The only way to pass off a fraudulent text would have to start at or near its origins where there are no copies or very limited copies.  This was not the case with Old or New Testament text.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Jedi4Yahweh

[David1701]

11 hours ago, Jayne said:

As I said, my belief is different than some.

Just a question.  What happened between your first assertion that the original manuscripts were trustworthy and your second assertion that as they were being copied they became corrupt?

What???  I said nothing of the sort!

There were sound copies and corrupt copies (this is obvious, since some copies are full of errors and corrections).  Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (two of the oldest reasonably complete manuscripts) disagree with each other more than 3,000 times, in the gospels alone, although some of these differences make no difference to translation.  Dean Burgon, who studied them carefully, said that it was hard to find two verses in a row that were the same in these two manuscripts; yet, these are the main two that are supposedly "best" and relied upon by the collators of the Critical Text, which is used by most modern translators (not all, thankfully).

If these two had really been excellent, they would not be so full of errors, they would not disagree with each other to such a huge extent, they would not have been so heavily corrected and they would have been worn out and copied long before now.

The sound copies were the ones used by the Church in general.  They would naturally become worn out and be copied, so that the majority of manuscripts we have now should support the true original readings.  The fact that the majority are more recent, is because of becoming worn out and copied.  This is an over simplification, but the general principles are sound.

Quote

And....if those early copies did get put away somewhere not to be found for centuries - what happened to later manuscripts that made them perfect?  Did God come down and say, "Ya'll scribbled too much on the originals and copied them too many times, so I am going to inspire it all over again."

I meant the earliest copies that still exist are generally less trustworthy.  The early copies that were sound, were used, wore out and were copied again.

 

[David1701]

8 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

I think the chances of corruption are very limited being there have been literally 1000's of ancient copies discovered.  Most observant Jews through the centuries would not allow a corrupted version of their sacred scriptures' go unaware and this is also true for the NT writings passed down from church fathers. Yes, people may have tried to fraudulently alter the scriptures but it would be easily recognized as a fraud compared in light 1000 upon 1000's of known copies of true scriptures being made and passed around among them.  For instance, say I wanted to produce a fraudulent bible today, who in their right mind would accept it?  It would be quickly discarded as fraudulent in light of billions of accurate copies.  The only way to pass off a fraudulent text would have to start at or near its origins where there are no copies or very limited copies.  This was not the case with Old or New Testament text.

That is exactly my point!  This is why the majority readings should normally be trustworthy, whilst aberrant readings from a very small number of ancient manuscripts should be rejected.  Sadly, the reverse has happened with the Critical Text.  The majority is treated as unimportant and a tiny handful of heavily corrected, ancient manuscripts, from one, non-Greek speaking area only (Egypt) is treated as "best".  It's incredible that the wool has been pulled over some people's eyes so easily.

Edited September 26, 2020 by David1701