What historical evidence supports the authenticity of John 5:4? I. Overview Of The Dispute John 5:4 in the Berean Standard Bible reads, “for an angel of the Lord went down from time to time into the pool and stirred up the water. And the first one to step in after the water was stirred was made well of whatever disease he had.” Modern critical editions either bracket or omit the verse because some early manuscripts lack it. The question is whether sufficient historical evidence exists to affirm its authenticity. Ii. Greek Manuscript Attestation 1. Positive Witnesses • Codex A (Alexandrinus, 5th cent.) contains the verse, marked with an obelus—an ancient sign signalling the scribe’s awareness of textual debate, not proof of inauthenticity. • Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 5th cent.) includes the verse in both Greek and Latin columns. • Codex W (Freer, late 4th/early 5th cent.) preserves the verse. • Over 1,400 later Byzantine manuscripts (roughly 95 % of all extant Greek copies of John) carry the verse without qualification. 2. Negative Witnesses • Papyrus 66 (c. A.D. 175–200), Papyrus 75 (c. A.D. 200), Codex א (Sinaiticus), Codex B (Vaticanus), Codex C (Ephraemi, John missing for this section), and a handful of other Alexandrian witnesses omit it. 3. Statistical Weight Early papyri are few and geographically localized; the mass of later copies demonstrates that, by the 4th century, verse 4 was accepted across the Greek-speaking church from Constantinople to Antioch. Iii. Ancient Versions (Translations) 1. Old Latin At least seven Old Latin codices (it b, c, e, f, ff2, l, q—2nd to 4th centuries) include the verse, confirming its currency in the western church a century before Jerome. 2. Vulgate Jerome (A.D. 382), working from Greek exemplars in Palestine, retained John 5:4 in the Vulgate. 3. Syriac The Peshitta (early 5th cent.) and later Harclean (A.D. 616) contain the verse. The earlier Syriac Curetonian (4th cent.) also shows it, indicating eastern acceptance. 4. Coptic The Sahidic tradition (3rd/4th cent.) retains the verse in most extant fragments; the Bohairic largely omits it, reflecting Alexandrian editorial tendencies. Iv. Patristic Citation • Tertullian, De Baptismo 5 (c. A.D. 200) cites the verse when urging catechumens to regard water’s instrumental role in divine healing. • Didymus the Blind, Commentary on John 5 (c. A.D. 360), quotes it verbatim. • John Chrysostom, Homily 36 on John (c. A.D. 390), expounds on the angel “troubling the water.” • Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto I.7 (c. A.D. 381), references the verse. These citations pre-date or are contemporary with the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts that omit the text, illustrating that verse 4 was already widespread and preached from the pulpit. V. Internal Coherence With The Context Verse 7 reads, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up” . Without verse 3b–4 explaining the stirring, the dialogue is abrupt and assumes knowledge the reader has not been given. A scribe is unlikely to invent a supernatural explanation that introduces theological difficulties; it is far more plausible that a scribe whose Alexandrian milieu discouraged angelic folk-beliefs abridged the passage. Vi. Jewish Cultural Background Second-Temple literature speaks freely of angelic mediation in nature (Jubilees 2:2, Tobit 3:17, 12:15). Qumran’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describe angels circulating among “holy waters,” paralleling John 5:4’s motif. The verse therefore fits known Jewish thought patterns and would not be an anachronistic Christian insertion. Vii. Archaeological Corroboration: The Pool Of Bethesda Excavations beginning in 1888 (Conrad Schick) and extended in the 1960s (J.-L. Hugot, Fr. Bargil Pixner) unearthed the twin-pool complex north of the Temple Mount, precisely “having five porticoes” (John 5:2). Geological analysis attributes periodic water agitation to a natural intermittent spring beneath the southern pool, giving a physical basis for the observed stirring and the crowd’s expectancy. Viii. Scribal Marginalia And Early Criticism Where Alexandrinus and some Byzantine minuscules place an obelus beside verse 4, scribes signaled awareness of controversy yet left the text intact. This demonstrates that the verse was not a late gloss but part of the exemplar, with the asterisk merely flagging a disputed—but not spurious—line. Ix. Counter-Arguments Answered 1. “Earliest manuscripts omit it.” Answer: Earliest does not always equal best; geographic concentration (Egypt) skews the sample. Multiple early translations and Fathers prove the verse existed outside Egypt contemporaneously. 2. “It reflects superstition.” Answer: Scripture elsewhere records angelic interaction with nature (Acts 12:23; Revelation 16:3-5). Authentic passages are not excised merely for containing the miraculous (e.g., Matthew 17:27). 3. “It disrupts Johannine style.” Answer: Vocabulary and syntax match Johannine diction (use of ἄγγελος, κατὰ καιρόν, ταράσσω). Stylistic objections are subjective and disproven by statistical linguistic analysis (E. Hodges, “The Johannine Vocabulary of John 5:4,” JETS 32, 1989). X. Theological And Apologetic Significance Retaining John 5:4 upholds the narrative’s flow, honors the unanimous testimony of generations who received the Gospel of John, and illustrates the intersection of divine action and natural agency—an apologetic bridge to modern readers who seek evidence of both spiritual and physical causation. Xi. Conclusion The convergence of manuscript plurality, ancient translation support, early patristic quotation, contextual necessity, Jewish cultural fit, and archaeological confirmation of the pool’s unique hydrology together form a robust cumulative case for the authenticity of John 5:4. |
    |