26 / Bibliotheca Sacra - January-March 1979

for this concourse. Still more perplexing is the comment of theman whom Jesus is about to heal, for according to verse 7 hedeclares, "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to putme into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth downbefore me." This comment could only be described as almost im­possibly obscure if no one had ever previously read verse 4. Itwould seem, therefore, that the statement of verse 7 demands thepresence of verse 4 in the narrative's introduction, and that theconclusions of modern criticism ought to be carefully reexamined.It is the intention of the present study to undertake such areexamination.

THE CRITICAL CONSENSUS

It can only be described as disturbing that, despite the internaldifficulties created by the excision of verse 4 from John's text,modern commentators often seem serenely confident that this text­critical surgery is beyond reasonable dispute. Thus Leon MorrisIS categorical in his assertion:

There were many sick people gathered there. The true text saysnothing as to why they so came. Vv. 3b-4 form a very ancientexplanation which has somehow crept into the text. The manu­script evidence makes it certain that it is not part of the originalGospel. But there is no reason for doubting that it explains thepresence of the people (d. v. 7).3

Thus Morris treats verse 4 as an authentic tradition, supportsthis op}nion from the text itself (v. 7), can only say that theaddition "somehow crept into the text," yet entertains no doubtsabout the validity of excluding it! Such certitude is far too sanguine.What Morris in fact reveals is that he is so thoroughly persuadedof the critical weight of the manuscripts supporting omission, thathe is not prepared to call their testimony into question. But thisis a mistake.

Nevertheless, the kind of certainty to which Morris givesexpression is now deeply rooted in the scholarly literature. Accord­ingly, Barrett can affirm (of vv. 3b-4) that "There can be nodoubt that the verses were added (possibly on the basis of old tradi­tion) to explain v. 7 ...."4 And Dodd can say, of the same verses,

3 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to lohn (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd­mans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 302.4 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (London: S.P.C.K.,1962), p. 211.

The Angel at Bethesda -Iohn 5:4 /27

that they "are absent from most of our reputable authorities andare almost universally held to be an interpolated gloss."5

It is needless to multiply such statements. That a critical con­sensus exists for the exclusion of verse 4 from John's text is beyondquestion. What this consensus shows, however, is not that an ir­refragable case exists for omission, but rather that scholars oftenadopt a stance that might justifiably be described as "critical ortho­doxy." The unfortunate result of this tendency is to foreclose for theaverage reader many questions which, at the very least, deserve toremain open.

THE TEXTUAL PROBLEM

In the textual apparatus of UBSGNT the editors give the omis­sion of John 5: 4 an "A" rating which, in their view, "signifies thatthe text is virtually certain."6 The reasons for such an assessmentare succinctly presented in the Textual Commentary prepared byBruce Metzger as a companion volume to UBSGNT,1 and it is tothese reasons that this study must now turn. A careful examinationof each of them will show that they constitute arguments that arefar from conclusive and that, in fact, the evidence is capable ofquite a different construction.

THE ANCIENT WITNESSES

Not surprisingly, the case for excluding verse 4 begins asfollows: "Ver. 4 is a gloss, whose secondary character is clearfrom (1) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses (P66, 75

I'{ B C* 0 W supp 33 itd.t,q the true text of the Latin Vulgatesyrc eOpsa.ho mss, ach 2 geo Nonnus) ...."8

Beyond the evidence cited here, the apparatus of UBSGNTitself adds only the witness of the uncial fragment 0125 (fifth cen­tury), the uncial 0141 (tenth century), and the Old Latin manu­script f. The array of materials is not nearly as impressive as it

might appear. With the exception of the famous Codex Bezae (D),

5 C. H. Dodd, Historical Traditioll ill the FOllrth Gospel (Cambridge: At theUniversity Press, 1963), p. 179,6 Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M, Martini, Bruce M. Met7ger, andAllen Wikgren, cds., The Greek New Tc.\talll('lIt, 3d cd. (New York: UnitedBible Societies, 1975), p. xii. All statements about the textual evidence, unlessolherwise noted, are taken from the apparatus of this edilion of UBSGNT.7 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual COll1l11clltarv on the GrNk Nell' Testament(New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 209.8 Ibid.

28 I Bibliotheca Sacra - January-March 1979

the major manuscript witnesses constitute a group of Egyptian textswhich are known to have many readings in common (notably thetwo papyri' and /'{ and B).9 The Egyptian character of much of thatevidence is further underscored by the Coptic support from Sahidic,Bohairic, and sub-Achmimic materials, as well as by the witnessof Nonnus (fifth century~. Since D is a Graeco-Latin bilingualcodex it is not surprising that there are some Old Latin witnessesthat join with it in the omission. to

To be sure, this evidence is very old since pM and p75 bothgo back, in all probability, to the early part of the third century.But the evidence supporting the inclusion of verse 4 can claim anequal antiquity and at the same time is far more extensive. In theapparatus of UBSGNT it is set forth this way:

A C3 K L X comm' 6. 0 'P063 078 £1 £13 285657008821009 1010

1071 1195 1216 1230124112421253 13441365 154616462148Byz Lee! it i a,aur,b,c.e,ff 2, j,,' vg cl syrP,pal cop bo mss arm Diatessaron

a.carm,i,n Tertullian Ambrose Didymus Chrysostom Cyril.

What is clear from this competing array of data is that John 5:4was certainly known at a very early date and is widely diffused inthe surviving materials, both Greek, versionary, and patristic.

In particular one should note that the evidence of Tertullian,

9 The whole question of the interrelationships between the so-called "Alex­andrian" and "Western" texts is far too complex to be discussed here. But theassumption of many modern critics that they are comparatively independentstreams of transmission has not been adequately demonstrated. Indeed, GordonFee has shown that in John I: 1-8: 38 the famous Egyptian Codex Sinaiticusis in fact "a leading Greek representative of the Western textual tradition"(Gordon D. Fee, "Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A Contributionto Methodology in Establishing Textual Relationships," New Testament Studies15 [1968] :44). Though Fee himself would take firm exception to the i.nf~rence,it seems to this writer that such a study also demonstrates the POSSIbilitIes forinterpenetration between these textual types, not only in blocks of text b.ut inindividual readings. After all, both kinds of texts were apparently availablein close geographical proximity at the time Sinaiticus was written. It shouldalso be kept in mind that D is younger than Aleph.10 The statement that the disputed passage was absent from the "true textof the Vulgate" is predicated on the adequacy of text critical studies of theVulgate up to this point. Perhaps the statement is true, but if so Jerome mayhave been influenced by manuscripts lacking the verses in question. Justexactly what kind of textual influences from the Greek tradition were actuallyinfluential in Jerome's revision has been much debated (cf. Metzger, EarlyVersions, pp. 355-56). It seems to the present writer, however, that any recon­sideration of textual theorv as a whole will demand rethinking all of theaccepted conclusions, inclu'ding the accuracy of modern critical editions ofthe Vulgate itself.

The Angel at Bethesda - John 5:4 / 29

who comments explicitly on John 5: 4, tl carries the attestation backto a period coeval with the production of p66 and PiS. Since Tertul­lian indicates no awareness of manuscripts lacking the verse andtreats it as authoritative, it may be safely assumed that John 5: 4 wasalready well established in the textual tradition with which he wasacquainted. Moreover, the surviving witnesses to Tatian's Diates­saron cited above suggest that the evidence for inclusion can becarried back into the second century, to which time the work ofTatian belongs.J2 There are really no good grounds for questioningthe extreme antiquity of this disputed passage. Rather its appear­ance in an overwhelming number of surviving Greek manuscripts,its diffusion into the Latin and Syriac traditions (plus even somemanuscripts of the Egyptian Bohairic version), along with its cita­tion by fathers in both East and West,13 only serve to underscoreits age if not also its originality.

II Tertullian Homily on Baptism 5.12 Though, of course, Tatian's Diatcssaron is not here extant in Greck, theTatianic witnesses to John 5:4 consist of the Arabic Diatessaron, a quotationfrom the Armenian version of Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron, theTuscan and Venetian Latin harmonies, and the Liege and Stuttgart (Old Dutch)harmonics. The Armenian text of Ephraem's commentary has been called "onthe whole, a reliable rendering of the original" Syriac (Bruce M. Metzger,The Early Vasions 0/ the New Testamelll rOxford: Clarendon Press, 1977 J.p. 13). Though methodological problems plague Diatessaric research (as theydo most areas of textual criticism), Metzger has observed that "even whenIhe Arabic Diatessaron agrees with the Peshitta [as it docs in John 5:4], if theOld Syriac also agrees, such readings are proved to be more ancient than theI'eshitta and may therefore be Tatianic. Such a possibility becomes a probabilitywith overwhelming compulsion when Ephraem and other witnesses unrelated tothe Peshitta add their support" (ibid., p. 27). These conditions seem to be methere except that the Old Syriac does not concur. But with 110 Diatessaric evi­dence on the other side, the grounds for questioning the presence of verse 4 inTatian's original work are slight indeed. (Verse 3b, however, is absent from theI.il·gc harmony, and present in the Arabic.)13 Gordon D. Fee, in a personal communication, has indicated to thepresent writer that in his view UBSGNT is not on solid ground in citing Cyril ofAlexandria in support of the disputed passage. He also recommend's cautionrC,l~arcling Didymus. Fee's studies of the Alexandrian Fathers make these ob­\ervations worth careful consideration, but it remains true that Didymus, atleast, knew the content of the material in question. Given the wide and earlyaltc\tation of these verses, it would be surprising if, by the late fourth century,Didymus knew them only as a tradition rather than having encountered themin some manuscript of the Gospel. In a further communication Fcc has alsopointed out that Amphilochius of Iconium (fourth centllly) shows no signsof John 5: 3b-4 in his homily, oratio ill mesopentecostell, M.39.120. This isnot to be overlooked, but does not really alter the general character of theevidence as a whole. The omission is not to be viewed as hermetically con­fined to Egypt (cf. n. 18).

30/ Bibliolheca Sacra - January-March 1979

THE "BEST" MANUSCRIPTS

No doubt in reply to this assessment of the evidence, it willbe objected that insufficient weight is being given to the "bestwitnesses" to the original text - that is, to manuscripts like p66,

p75, B, and N .14 Additionally, it will doubtless be urged that thediffusion of John 5:4 through many manuscripts and versions i..explainable as the resu It of the spr~ad of a more or less standardizedform of the Greek text. Hence, it would be maintained, in processof time the verse came to be added to numerous Greek and version­ary texts which did not originally contain it.

But this rebuttal fails, first because - as the writer has arguedelsewhere l5 - the concept of a "standardized" Greek text sup­planting older, divergent forms is an idea destitute of convincingevidence and apparently belongs to the realm of scholarly "mythol­ogy." But second, the technique of appealing to the "best manu­scripts" as a way of solving textual disputes is currently under veryvigorous discussion. 16 Indeed, the whole field of New Testamenttextual criticism is in such a state of flux that there are few fixedpoints in textual theory which are not now open for reconsidera-

t4 This is how these witnesses are described by Metzger in the Te)(tual Com­/1/entary (p. 209), as quoted earlier in this study.15 Cf. Zane C. Hodges, "Modem Textual Criticism and the Majority Text:A Response," loumal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 143-55;and "Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Surrejoinder," ibid.,pp. 161-64.16 For a very helpful recent summation of the central issues in this contro­versy, see Eldon Jay Epp, 'The Eclectic Method in New Testament TextualCriticism: Solution or Symptom?" Harrard Theological Review 69( 1976) :212­57, and especially 244-56. 1. K. Elliott, who is what Epp would describe as an"cclectic spccialist" concentrating on internal criteria, has written as follows:"It is now obvious that it is impossible to maintain the supremacy of l' B. Onecannot follow the reading of one manuscript or group of manuscripts as ifthese held the monopoly of truth. All manuscripts are equally open to corrup­tion and thus all manuscripts need to be analyzed critically to see where theyyield good readings and where they are corrupt. There is no such thing as a'good' text, only manuscripts with some 'good' readings" (1. K. Elliott, "CanWe Recover the Original New Testament?" ThealoRY 77 r19741: 344). See alsohis critique of the TexlUal COII/mentary in "The United Bible Societies' TextualCommentary Evaluated," NOl'uln TestamelltulI/ 17( 1975): 130-50; and morerecently his continued rejection of the "best manuscripts" concept in "Plaidoyerpour un ccleetisme integral applique 11 la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testa­ment," Revue Biblique 84(1977):5-25. For a recent effort to argue the superi­ority of the Egyptian witnesses, consult Gordon D. Fee, "Rigorous or ReasonedEclecticism - Which?" in Studies ill New Testamellt Lallguage and Text, ed.1. K. Elliott (Leidcn: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 174-97.

The Angel at Bethesda - John 5:4 / 31

tion. 17 Consequently, the position that will be maintained in thisstudy is that, certainly with regard to John 5:4, the so-called "bestwitnesses" are in fact the worst!

An obvious consideration comes into play here. The datasu~porting omission encompasses mOSI of the available EgyptianeVIdence and only some of the Latin. 18 Transmissionally it js nothard to surmise that the Egyptian tradition is the source of theomission and that this tradition has influenced a portion of theLatin witnesses, but by no means the majority of them. This is animmensely easier supposition than its rival that an originally un­authentic passage has somehow penetrated the majority of docu­ments both in the East and in the West, both in the Greek and inthe versionary witnesses, the Coptic alone excepted. The fact isthat, among Greek manuscripts, UBSGNT can cite only a totalof ten that support excision, out of the hundreds that are nowextant. t9

Of course, to trace the omission of John 5:4 to the Egyptiantradition is not quite the same thing as saying that it was actually

17 F?r commendably candid statements about the uncertainties which afflicttext-cntlcal methodology, cf. Epp, "Eclectic Method," pp. 249,256-57. See alsoby the same author, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testamen;Textual Criticism," loumal of Biblical Literaturc 93( 1974) :386-414, butespeCially the passage on pp. 390-9\ wherc Epp affirms, "One response to thefact that our popular critical texts are still so close to that of Westeott-Hortmight be that thc kind .of text arrived at by them and supported so widely bysubsequent cntlclsm IS In fact and without question the best attainable NT text.yet every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather thatwe have made !JUle progress in textual Ihc(lry since Westcott-Hort; thi;t weSimply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the besttext IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and altcration ofthe text In the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that thc Wcstcott-Hort kindof text has maintained its dominant position largely by default."IS Beyond th~ Egyptian and latin evidence in UDSGNT, one finds also the(uretonlan Synac an.d the GeOf"gian vcrsion. Thc one manuscript containingthe Cureto~lan text ~s dated only In about the middle of the fifth century(Metzger, F,arly VerSIOns, p. 3S). Though its text is widely thought to 'be olderthan the Peshltla (which exists in many manuscripts), this conclusion ought tohe regarded as very doubtful, especially since the Peshitta _ which must havebeen well established by 431 (ibid., p. 60) - is held by Syrian tradition to becxtlcmely ilnClenl. The Georgian version may have existed before thc middle(~.l~e fifth <:enlury (ibid., p..184), hut hardly very much before. Obviously,I.e Gieck eVidence for. the om.lsslon of John 5:4 is early enough to have had a~c.lttered Impact on SCribes. editors, and translators here and there19 W"""" h d .m t e ata of LJBSGNT points to the wOlk of a later scribe whoreplaced a missing portion of the original manuscript. Whether or n~t Wongmally omItted the verse is not known.

32/ Bibliotheca Sacra - January-March 1979done in Egypt. That might well be the case, but alternatively thedeletion might have been made elsewhere in an archetype [romwhich the surviving Egyptian witnesses are all descended.

2oIn any

case it appears that th is form of text was an early, if not the earliest,arrival all the Egyptian scene and formed the textual basis of theCoptic translations. Why the omission should have been made inthe first place, is a question to be considered very shortly.

FURTHER TRANSMISSIONAL MATTERS

Two more of the reasons for omission adduced in Metzger's

Textual COll1mentary may be considered briefly at this point. Thefirst of these is as follows: "... (2) the presence of asterisks orobeli to mark the words as spurious in more than twenty Greekwitnesses (including S t\ n 047 1079 2174) .... "21 But this con­

sideration cuts both ways. For such data also' demonstrates that inmanuscripts that dready contained John 5:4, text-critical symbolswere sometimes introduced which might lead to its disappearance

from subsequent copies and thus falsely enlarge the evidence foromission. Of course, this in no way shows that those who intro­duced the asterisks and obeIi had any special knowledge about theoriginal text, it only shows that they were suspicious of the traditionwhich included this verse. This may well have been due to the factthat they were acquainted with texts in which !he verse was not found,but beyond this little can he said with certainty. As an argumentfor omission, this consideration adds virtually nothing to the direct

evidence already cited for excluding 5:4.The second argument to be considered here is this: " ... (4)

the rather wide diversity of variant forms in which the verse wastransmitted (see footnotes 6 to 10 on p. 338 of the text-volume forvariant readings within ver. 4) ...."22 The reader who refers tothe page of UBSGNT in question may indeed be struck by the arrayof variants listed there. But the impression he receives will be whollymisleading. Since UBSGNT rarely goes into detail of this kind,

20 Repeated textual agreements between K B, and the major papyri suggestthe strong possibility that all are descended from a single parental manuscriptwhich may have been as old as the first part of the second century. But anantiquity greater than that for this form of text is hardly demonstrable. PS2(first half of second century), thollgh sometimes described as "Neutral" or"Alexandrian" in type, is far too fragmentary to determine its textual affinities.21 Metzger, Tex/Ilal COII/mel/tary, p. 209.22 Ibid.

\

\

The Angel at Bethesda - John 5:4 / 33

anyone wh~ .has spent little time perusing much larger and morecomplete cntlcal apparati will not know that there are many NewTestament verses whose authenticity is not in doubt for whichsimilar lists of variants could be displayed.23 The amount of varia­tion is not surprising at all, especially when it is considered thatjust as 5: ~ was undoubtedly excised from some manuscripts onthe authofJ~y of others which omitted it, in the same way it musthave sometimes been added where it did not originally appear. Butthe transfe~ence of a whole verse from one exemplar to a copyactual.ly being made from another would be likely enough to pro­duce Its own crop of errors. Especially would this be so if transla­tion from one language to another occurred, as must sometimes havebeen the case (as, for example, when the addition was made froma Greek. text to a Latin one). On the whole there is really nothingextraordlllary about the actual amount of textual variation for averse which suffered excision at a relatively early junction in thetransmissional history.

The other reason offered in the Textual Commentary for re­jecting verse 4 is not really transmissional in nature and will beconsidered at the appropriate juncture in the material to follow.~t1ffice it to say here that - if one sets aside the modern predilec­~Ion for t1~e Egyptian witnesses - the external evidence fer accept­Ing the dIsputed passage as part of John's original Gospel is notat all unimpressive.

THE THEOLOGICAL PROBl.EM

It is sometimes suggested that the idea of an angel periodical­ly visiting a pool of water and imparting to the water a healinO'

. 0

property, IS redolent of paganism and religious superstition. Ac-cording to Rudolf Bultmann, "The belief" that angels or spiritsbelong to a particular source, or that they endow streams or riverswith healing powers at particular times, is widespread ...."24 Sur­

~)risingly, however, there are grounds for concluding that there wereIII fact Christians in ancient times who, like many moderns, viewed

23 One might instance Revelation 20: 12, the variations in which take nearlythree pag s' H k' ,. '. ' e In os ler s apparatus to display. Yet the authenlicity of the verseIS undoubted. Cf. H. C. ~-Joskier, CO/lcemil/g the Text of the Apocall'p.re, 2 vols.(l.ondon: Bernard Quantch, 1929), 2: 563-66. .24.. Rudolf Bultmann, The Co.rpel of John: A COlllmentary, trans. G. R.~'lsle~-Murray (gen. ed.), R. W. N. Hoare, and 1. K. Riches (Philadelphia'

estmlnster Press, 1971), p. 241, n. 4. .

The Angel at Bethesda - John 5:4 / 35From this discussion by the famous Carthaginian it emerges

clearly that (J) he feels constrained to refute the notion that hisview of baptism is tinged with heathen superstition, and that (2) he

feels able to appeal to John 5:4 as an authoritative example of theimpartation of supernatural benefits through water. But theSe factslead to two further considerations. First, evidently as far as Ter­

tullian knows no one is likely to rebut his case with the observationthat, after all, "the statement about the angel is not found in some

(or, many) manuscripts." At least he does not entertain this asa possible objection, and it is therefore natural to conclude that hewas ignorant of any textual problems related to this passage. Butsecond, equally plain is the fact that if an antipathy to heathensuperstitions about water was strong enough to call forth this

apologetic from Tertullian, it would be in no way surprising if

someone, somewhere, entertaincd a similar objection to the account

of the angel at Bethesda and undertook to eliminate this "vestigeof paganism" from his manuscript of John's Gospel. All the moremight this be the case if John 5:4 was being employed polemically,as Tertullian cmployed it, in a fashion uncongenial to certainearly Christian circlcs.

While it is not essential to suppose that the omission wasoriginally made in Egypt, it is certainly evident that the intellectualatmosphere of ancient Alexandria might Jwve provided just theright milieu for such an act of textual emendation. This is evenmore conceivable if one recalls the strong tradition of textual crit­icism in the Greek classics to which the city of Alexandria was heir.In any event, it is 110t difficult to postulate a potential reason forthe deletion of this verse from Some witnesses to the Fourth Gos­

pel and it is by no means true that scribes and editors always addedto rather than subtracted from the texts they had before them,26

26 The famous text-critical dictum about preferring the shorter reading is nowfrequently - and rightly - challenged. For example, Kilpatrick has observcd,"On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer tcxt, other thingsbeing equal, is prcferable,' have we any reason for thinking that lh'is is moremistaken than the eonvenlioral /eetio hrCl'ior potio,.'! We are used to this lastbut the fact that it is traditional is no argument for its being true" (G. D. Kil­patrick, "The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textlls ReCepl/ls,"in Tire New Testamelll ill Historica/ (Jlld COfllclIlporary Pcrspccti\'e, cds. HughAnderson and William Barclay !Oxford: H:lsil Blackwell, )9651. p. 196). Cf.also Colwell's finding that the scribe of p45 "favors brevity" and "shortens thete,t in at least fifly places in sillgu/ar rcadings a/ol/c" (F. C. Colwell, "Methodin Evaluating Scribal Habits: a StUdy of /,45, 1'66,1'75," in S/lillies ill Method­a/oRY ill Texllla/ Crilici.l'l/l oj Ilrc Ncll' Te,I1(IIIICIII IGrand Rapids: Will. B. Eel'd­mans Publishing Co., 19691, p. 119, and cf. the whole discussion on rp. t 18-21).To be noted here also is the growing preference for the longer text in the case

34 / Bibliotheca Sacra - January-March 1979

with suspicion the claim that water could have supernatural. effectsrIndeed, a close reading of Tertullian's defense ?f the efficacy 0

the waters of baptism indicates distinctly that this must have beenthe case.

waters have in some sense acquired healing powerThus when the , . . 't' in those waters corporallyby an angel's intervention, the SpIrl IS "'t lIy cleansed

h d while the flesh is in those same waters spm ua d' .was e , "'1 t gers to all understan Ing"But" you ohject, the genlJ es, s ran. h . 'd I "

" 'b r of equal effectiveness to t elr lOS.of spiritual things, ascr!. c powe h . t are barren. In certainThey te!' themselve~ ~I~S, for t:~~n:~fe~s bath [so as to belong talsacred fltes they ~re InitIated ~ . thcir gods out [in procession]

Isis perhh~ps or~~:~~~~'r~~:o/ri~~a~~r~UrifY their country and towdnfor was Ings. 'f b carrying water about anho~seksl" the.i; ~:;i~~~iya~~ t~:o~ep~;I:~;ria~ and Pelusi~n games t~eyspnn I~g I . . u ose they are doing this with a viewget baplIzed wholes<lle, and s p~ , h If they suppose

I I f om their hroken oat s....to rebirth ane re ease r· r ' e what more effec-water receives healing powher frokm re IlgdIOgUeSnl~~atgo'f the living God?. . th re than t e ac now e

tlVC usage IS e h d T zeal in hostility to the things of God,Here too we observe t e eVI. s h' I have set down

. b t m an'ong IS own ....in that he also practices. ap IS .' t 'those who reject the faith, inthese remarks for a. tesllmony agalns h' ' f God though they doIhat they give too lillie credence to t Ings a d h God's enemy.

. t t to reproduce them ma e y . .give credit /0 a\~:np~ithout any sacred significance, unclean spintsAlso apart rom IS, t nding to reproduce that primordial rest-do settle upon waters, pre e h' witness shady springs anding of the divine SpIrIt upon t em. as . b'th' laces andall sorts of unfrequented. st~eams, po~ISth~~e ~elll;~afJ;d ~~atch­channels or st~rage tanks l~atcOhus~s, ~ne viol~nt action of a malig­ing-wells-obvlOusly they s y h tters? So that no one

. . . Why have I referred to sue ma .nant splnt. . . . , hi. I t be present toshould think it over-difficult ~or God.s 0\ ange t~nholY angel ofset waters in motion for man s sa.lvatlOn, w en an with a viewthe evil one often docs business With that same element d do

' d'tion II it is thauRilt strallRe that all angel sholllto man s per I . h already occurre,d a prece­thill/:s to waters [italics added], there as I' d th'ngs when he

. . h An angel use( to a I .dent of that which I~ t~ ,cd Th'ose wh~ complained of ill-healthmoved the Pool of ct .Sal fa. . who got down there before

d t watch out for him, or anyone . Th'~~: ot~ers after washing had no further reas?~ to complall1

bthl~

I of bodily healin-g was prophetic of splr~ttJal healing, y f~~~~~Ie rule that carnal things always come first as examples 0

things spiritual.25 •

. E t Evans Tertul/ian's Homily on Baptism25 TranslatIOn taken from _rne~ 15 It ~ill be noted that Tertullian has(London: S.P.C.K" 1964), pp. 1· : d' »75 B W"'I'" 0125 and

. " f "B th da") a reading atteste In"Beths:llda (or e es .'. f 4' 3b-4 But see the discussion of theprobably older than the omiSSIOn 0.. .

Copper Scroll above.

36 / Bibliotheca Sacra - January-March 1979

Today, the most widely accepted location for the pool ?fBethesda is that of the twin pools which have been excavated Inthe compound of the Church of Saint Anne, a site situated in whatwas the northeastern part of first-century Jerusalem not far fromthe Temple Mount. The authenticity of the site is ably argued by

h· b' t 27Joachim Jeremias in an important monograph on t IS su Jec.It may be noted, in passing, that Jeremias holds that t~e CopperScroll discovered in Cave I II at Qumran settles the question of theactual name of the pool in favor of Bethesda ( p11Swoa ) as r~adby the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts, ~s over a~~Inst

the testimony of the Egyptian witnesses an?llr~ WhIch. are dlv~dedbetween Bethsaida ( pTJSaui:bU ,p75 B W 0125, PTJSaULOUvP66';), Belzetha ( [3EA~Eea D), and Bethzatha (~rtesaea 'tl. 33)

which is actually read by UBSGNT. That the evidence of. theCopper Scroll is weighty indeed appears from Jeremias's observation:

What makes the testimony of the Copper Scroll so important isthat palaeography tells us that it ~a~ inscribed het'Yeen A.~. 35. ,~nd65, that is, between the life and mmlstry of Jesus and John s ~ntmgof his Gospel, indeed before the destruction of Jerusalem In A.D.

70.28

of the famous "Western non-interpolations" (d. Klyne Snodgrass, "'WesternNon-Interpolations,' ,. JOt/mal of Biblical Liter~tllre 91 r19721: 369-79)."If theconclusions of the present study arc accepted, It w~1\ then appear that recen­sional aClivity" can be predicatcd of the text transmitted by ~75and B, contraryto what Gordon D. Fee has maintaincd in "p75, p66, and On~en: The Myth ofE ly Textual Recension in Alexandria," in New DimellslOlls 1/1 New Testal1~e/ltS~~dv, eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill c. Tenney (Gran? .Raplds:Zon(1ervan Publishing House, 1974), pp. 19-45. Of course, such ~ctlYlty m~lstbe placed deep into the second century, but so also must many editorial vana-tions that arc often lahelled "Western." ...27 Joachim Jeremias, Tile Rediscovery of Betllesda: Joll/l 5:2 (Gottln?en:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19661. The identification was regarded by D~vld J.Wieand as "virtually established" ("John V. 2 and the Pool of Bethesda,. NewTestament Studies 12119661:397). However, discussion of the actual site hasbeen stirred anew, especially by Antoine Duprcz, due to the d,s~overy of.acomplex of grottos and baths to the east of the twin pool~ of Satnt Anne, 10

which a pagan healing sanctuary is thought to have been. situated. Del Verme,for example, in defending this newest suggested. I~catlon de~ends also theoriginality of John 5:3b-4! (M. Del.Verme,. "~a plsclna.probatlca: G~. 5,!-9.Un problema di eritica testuale e dl esegesl dl fronte. ai, nsultatl degh ultimascavi," Bibbia e Oriente 18119761:109-19). For JereffiIaSS rebuttal of Dupre.z,cf. his review of Duprez's Jesus et les diellx ~Ilhi.uellr:s. A Propos de Jean, V mBihlica 54( 1973): 152-55. For a fairly recent diSCUSSIOn of the whole problemin English, see W. D. Davies. The Gospel 01111 tile La/ld (Berkeley an~ LosAngeles: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 308-13. In t~e opinion ofthe present wri ter, however, Jeremias's position has. not been s~r~ollsly shaken,:The new site, for example, offers no viable explanation for the ftve porticoes.28 Jeremias, RediscOI'ery of Bethesda, p. 36.

I

The Angel at Bethesda - John 5:4/37

Hence there are substantial grounds on which one many entertaindeep suspicions about the reliability of the Egyptian evidence inthis part of John's Gospel.

The rediscovery of the Pool of Bethesda has, of course, con­firmed John's knowledge of the topography of ancient Jerusalem.29

The reference to the somewhat strange number of "five colonnades"(AV = "five porches") is now explainable due to the fact that thepool was a double pool surrounded by Herodian colonnades on allfour sides, while the fifth colonnade stood on the dividing wallthat separated the northern and southern pools. But it is naturalto suppose also that the author was equally well informed aboutthe traditions concerning the miraculous powers with which thepool was at times invested. This needs to be kept in mind in regardto another objection usually raised against the authenticity of John5:4.

According to the Texlual COll1mentary yet another reason forrejecting the originality of verse 4 is this: " ... (3) the presence ofIlon-Johannine words or expressions (KaTeL Kl1l rOY, i:pBULvru [of go­ing into the water], EKDtxopUl, K(LrEXO~WI, KLvllmc;, TupaX;'l, a:ldd)(Jrtpn - the last threc words only here in the New Testament).

"30

But this argument has no real force. Special subject mattcroften elicits special vocabulary so that, for example, John 2: 15­(he authenticity of which is not in doubt - contains four wordsIlot lIsed elsewhere in John, two of which occur nowhere else in theNew Testament. If John 2: 14 and 16 are added, this total rises tosevcn words found only here in John including three hapax legomenaill the New Testament. 31 Obviously it is trivial to imply that Johnought to have used in 5: 3b-4 words he employed in other passageswhcn no other passage describes a scene of this character.

But in addition to this, John is an eyewitness of the situationhe reports and nothing is more probable than that he would report

29 Thus Brown, who accepts Jeremias's identification of the site with thetwin pools of Saint Anne's, observes that "The factual details found in theintroduction [to the Evangelist's narrative I ... are very accuratc. They betraya knowledge of Jerusalem that militates against a late or non-Palestinian originof the story" (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel accordill~ to John (i-xiii)IGarden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 19661, p. 209).30 Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 209.~ I In the three verses in question, the words unique to the Fourth Gospelarc: 1[1tlA.Cltl (14,16), /30\;<; (14,15), axolviov (15), KoHuBICHll<; (15). Thoseunique to the New Testam<!nt are KLp~l(m<H~; (14), <pPUyi:A}dO\, (15), Ktppa( 15).

38 / Bibliotheca Sacra - January-March 1979

it in language which was commonly employed in the environs ofBethesda itself. After all, a pool like this obviously had a traditionthat was handed on from mouth to mouth and from year to yearand which served to explain what transpired there. Like most suchtraditions, it no doubt took on a certain verbal sameness in whichvarious words and expressions tended to reoccur however differentthe form of the actual statement might be. An author like theFourth Evangelist, who is very much alive to the local color ofthe settings he describes (compare his treatment of the Lord'svisit to Samaria), would be strongly inclined to employ verbiagehe himself had heard at thc very scene of the event.32 Therefore,the kind of stylistic objection to John 5:4 which the Textual Com­mentary raises is, after aJl, completely valueless in terms of proof.

Finally it must be said that the miraculous intervention ofangels in- human life is so well established in the Bible, and sovariegated, that only those who are uncomfortable with super­naturalism itself are likely to be genuinely troubled by the contentof the verscs under consideration. Indeed it may even be proposedthat the refercnce to the angel is functional for 10hannine theology.Already the Fourth Evangelist has pointed to the subservience of

angels to the person of Christ by citing the Lord's memorable wordsto Nathaniel, "Hcreafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angelsof God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" (1: 51).But here too the angelic ministration at the pool of Bethesda ismarkedly inferior to the ministry of God's Son. Indeed, the seasonaland limited character of the healings the angel performed - andwhich were of no avail to the invalid described in this passage - arean appropriate backdrop for the instantaneous deliverance whichJesus brought to a man who had virtually lost all hope (cf. v. 7)while he lay forlornly in a place where God's mercy seemed alwaysto touch others, but never himself.)3 The concept that Messiah is

32 Of course liberal scholars who reject authorship of the Fourth Gospel byJohn, the son of Zebedee, will object to this point. But it would not be uncon­genial to their perspectives to suggest simply that the Evangelist here utilizedtraditional materials to which he had access. Indeed, this is actually held byDodd with regard to verses 2-3a (Historical Tradition, PPo 179-80). The exten­sion of this idea to verses 3b-4 would be easy.33 Some writers see in the Pool of Bethesda a Johannine symbol of the Torah,or of Judaism, which - if valid - would give additional significance to therole of the angel, since the Law was given by angels (cf. Gal. 3:19). Cf. alongsuch lines, C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourtll Gospel (Cambridge:At the University Press, 1953), pp. 319-20; and John Bligh, "Jesus in Jeru­salem," Heytllmp Joumal 4(1963): 121-22.

greater than the . The Angel at Bethesda -John 5:4 /39

pointed activitiesang~:~S-i~e;~~ti~l;he.rea~ty ~f their divinely ap­lohannine text. That this wa . IJ1 t e ackground of theity no one will doubt h s:n Important theme for early Christian­Book of Hebrews It W a as read the opening chapters of the

, s appearance here, therefore, is hardly surprising.

CONCLUSION

The confidence with whi h dfrom the text of th F c mo .ern s~holars dismiss John 5: 4contrary, there are eexc~~r:l~tGospel JS senously .mis~laced. On thethcntic and original Th grounds for acceptll1g It as both au­(I) All know G' k

esegroull~S may be summarized as follows:

n ree manuscflpts of Joh' G .exception of less than ad' . n s ospel, With theomittin witnesses o~en, Illclude the verse. Most of the;'\Jlothe; in ma~y 'o~~~ reco~~lzed as being textuaJly related to onepassage is vouched fa; rea Illgs. as, well. (2) The antiquity of thecentury and by 't by t~e clt~tlOn from TertuJlian in the thirdsecond (3) Th J S aPd~arent mc!uslOn in Tatian's Diatessaron in the

. . e lea IJ1g was Widely d'ff d' bthe West as is c1earl shown 0 I use III oth the East and(4) In view of J't Y.' by the eVidence of versions and fathers

s 1I1l1que contcnt db"traditions of Bethesda itself the ve:~e pro ab~e c?nnection with thcgrounds. (5) Th d I'b .' ..' IS unobjectIonable on stylistic

e C I cr<lte otmsslon of th .,as quite possibly motivated b " f'l e pass~,ge can be explained(6) Finally, the statemcnt abo~t~h d scly ~ercel~ed ."pagan tinge."still more the response of tIle' l'd

e. assem led Sick III verse 3, and

f '. Inva J III verse 7 dema d tho· verse 4 in order to n1'lke J h'. . '. (n e presence"1'1 ( 0 n s text gcnull1cly com lObI

le Evangelist is not at aJl lik I. . prc lenSI e.of obscurity which th ." c Y to hdve left tIllS story in the kind

e eXCISion of the verse ent'l H .a narrator for that. al s. e IS too good

While it is unfortunate that som '. . .tion to this 0 'f' . e anCIent redactor took excep-

, stgnl Icant passage III th fl' .unsllccessful since the e'd 'f .e Illa analySIS hIS work was

. VI ence or Its authcllf 't .and compelling. ICI Y remaIns. strong