Why is John 5:4 omitted in many modern Bible translations? The Verse in Question John 5:3b–4 in the King James Version reads: “waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred the water. Whoever first entered after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.” (BSB wording where retained.) Most modern translations place the sentence in a footnote or omit it from the running text. What the Earliest Greek Manuscripts Show • Papyrus 66 (c. AD 175) and Papyrus 75 (early 3rd century)—our two oldest witnesses to John—move directly from 5:3a to 5:5 with no text of v. 4 and no blank space indicating loss. • Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ, 4th century) do the same. • Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, 5th century) and Codex Washingtonianus (W, 5th century) likewise omit. • By contrast, the first Greek manuscripts that contain the words appear in the Byzantine stream beginning in the late 5th–6th centuries (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus’ revision in its corrected hand). Patristic Citations and Early Versions No Greek-speaking church father prior to the late 4th century quotes the sentence, though several comment on the passage (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom) and pass directly from v. 3 to v. 5. The Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitta Syriac, and Georgian versions eventually adopt the words, but only in later revisions, confirming a gradual diffusion rather than an original reading. How the Sentence May Have Entered the Text Scribes faced a difficult phrase in v. 3a—“a multitude of the infirm was lying there”—followed immediately by v. 5’s introduction of a single invalid. To explain why the sick waited, a marginal gloss describing the traditional belief about an angel stirring the waters was likely added. With time, copyists folded the gloss into the biblical text, producing the longer reading preserved in the Textus Receptus and the KJV. Internal Evidence and Linguistic Markers The disputed sentence contains two vocabulary items and one syntactical construction that occur nowhere else in John, an anomaly in a Gospel marked by a consistent style. In addition, John elsewhere presents Jesus, not angels, as the exclusive agent of healing signs (cf. 4:46-54; 9:1-7), so an explanatory note about an angel is more plausibly external to the author’s flow of thought. Majority-Text vs. Early-Text Principle Later Byzantine manuscripts outnumber the earlier Alexandrian witnesses; hence the verse survives in the numerical “majority.” Modern critical editions (NA/UBS, ECM) weigh manuscripts by age, geographical distribution, and demonstrable independence instead of mere count. This is the primary reason most contemporary translations follow the early-text tradition and place v. 4 in a footnote. Miracles at Bethesda Remain Credible John 5 goes on to record Jesus’ instantaneous healing of a 38-year paralysis—well attested in every manuscript line. Archaeologists have located the Pool of Bethesda (excavations by Conrad Schick, 1888; final confirmation, 1964) precisely where John describes, validating the historical framework of the event regardless of the disputed sentence. What Footnotes Actually Communicate Modern footnotes typically read: “Late mss add, wholly or in part, ‘waiting for the moving of the water… was made well.’” Far from erasing Scripture, the note invites every reader into the textual-critical data so that faith is grounded in verifiable history rather than obscured tradition. Practical Pastoral Reassurance Believers may confidently proclaim that God heals, that Jesus is Lord of every infirmity, and that the Gospel of John is historically reliable. The presence of transparent footnotes models intellectual honesty, demonstrating that Christianity welcomes scrutiny because truth has nothing to fear. Summary John 5:4 is absent from the earliest and best Greek witnesses, likely originated as a marginal explanation of local tradition, and was later absorbed into the copying stream. Modern translations omit or footnote it to reflect the earliest recoverable text. This careful scholarship strengthens—rather than weakens—trust in the Bible’s supernatural origin and flawless message of redemption through the risen Christ. |
    |