Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: John 5:4

Expand Messages
  • Jean VALENTIN
    ... As you already have answers about the Syriac versions, I will pass directly to the Arabic versions. I don t have copies of the Gospel of John in all the
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      > The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the
      >versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse?

      As you already have answers about the Syriac versions, I will pass
      directly to the Arabic versions.

      I don't have copies of the Gospel of John in all the Sinai Arabic
      manuscripts for the moment: these copies are expensive for the moment and
      I'm gathering progressively. So my answer will be fragmentary. here are
      the datas I can give you concerning Arabic:

      (1) Sinai Arabic 71 (Xth cent.), as you already know from my previous
      posts, lacks this Gospel. The apparented lectionary Sin. Arb. 133 (1102
      A.D.) has both the second part of v.3 and v.4.
      As I mentioned, this lectionary, compared with Sin. Arb. 71, is probably
      revised from the Peshitto. As these verses are present also in the
      peshitto, we can't know whether they were already present in Sin. Arb. 71
      or were imported from the peshitto. We can presume though, as the text is
      present in codex Koridethi, that most chances are that Sin. Arb. 71 had
      it also.

      (2) The Alexandrian vulgate of the XIIIth century, as edited by Paul de
      lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, has this text. But it has critical
      notices, the one at the beginning of v.3 saying that "this is not in the
      coptic, neither in the greek", the second one before v.4, saying that it
      is not in the coptic.

      (3) Sin. Arb. 112 (dated 1259) which follows syp in the beginning of Mt,
      greek texts in other parts (and I've not explored it enough to say
      something about John) has also the whole verses 3 and 4.

      (4) Sin. Arb. 69, the oldest (in Sinai) representative of the official
      melkite version of the XIth century, mixing syriac and greek elements,
      has also the whole text.

      That's all I can say for the moment concerning Arabic! Specially, I
      couldn't verify the text in the earliest version, that of Sin. Arb. 74
      and 72, for the reasons I already mentioned.

      -----------------

      Turning to the Georgian versions, we find that (1) both the version of
      the Adysh codex (according to some probably translated from an old, lost
      Armenian version) and the versions of codices ABDE (from a Cesarean Greek
      text) have the whole verse 3, but not verse 4, and (2) the later georgian
      vulgate (revision of ABDE following byzantine texts) has both verses 3
      and 4.

      The armenian version as edited by Zohrab has the whole text of v. 3 and 4.

      All three mss of the syropalestinian lectionary have also the whole text
      of v.3 and 4.



      _________________________________________________
      Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
      e-mail: jgvalentin@... /// netmail: 2:291/780.103
      _________________________________________________
      "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est
      inutilisable"
      "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
      _________________________________________________
    • Jim West
      The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse? There seems no good
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 16, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the
        versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse?

        There seems no good reason for including it. Yet it is, after all, possible
        that it was accidentally dropped fairly early.

        Thanks,

        Jim

        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        Jim West, ThD
        Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
        Managing Editor, The Journal of Biblical Studies
        http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm

        jwest@...
      • Maurice Robinson
        ... According to N27, sy-p and sy-h(**) as well as part of the Bohairic version contains this verse and also the closing portion of 5:3. Note that the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 16, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Jim West wrote:

          > The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the
          > versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse?

          According to N27, sy-p and sy-h(**) as well as part of the Bohairic
          version contains this verse and also the closing portion of 5:3.

          Note that the "overwhelming majority" of all Greek MSS _except_ the early
          minority of predominantly Alexandrian and Western witnesses _include_ the
          verse, along with verse 3b, which is similarly omitted by many of the
          early witnesses, though with less reason. Note that, even among the
          witnesses that include vv.3b-4 there is some minor internal variation.

          > There seems no good reason for including it. Yet it is, after all, possible
          > that it was accidentally dropped fairly early.

          If it were not originally part of the autograph (as modern eclectic theory
          supposes), how does one make sense out of verse 7, where, after Jesus asks
          the man, "Do you want to become whole?" he responds "I have no man, that
          he should cast me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I
          am [trying to] come, another goes down [into the pool] before me."

          Certainly my position regarding this variant is already known, even if I
          have not spoken on it in this forum (as expected, I will support the
          Byzantine/Majority reading as original). But granting for the sake of
          argument that, since the Egyptian and Western traditions omit the phrase
          3b-4, the shorter form was in fact the original form of the text, there
          still is a major interpretative problem in v.7 which is extremely
          perplexing without _some_ explanation having been previously stated in the
          earlier verses.

          My concern in this regard is _what_ type of exegetical/hermeneutical
          explanation can one make regarding the intent of the autograph of John
          reading as it does in verse 7, if neither vv3b-4 nor any other explanatory
          phrase ever was present originally.

          My own viewpoint is that the omission of vv.3b-4 reflects deliberate
          recensional activity, performed primarily by the orthodox (thank you,
          Bart!) in order to remove a passage which superstitiously might have
          encouraged a false worship of angels, exaggerated claims regarding
          "healing spas" or the like in the early centuries, particularly in Egypt
          and the Western regions of the Empire.

          Accidental omission hardly seems likely in regard to such a variant,
          especially when some witnesses only omit verse 4 while others omit 3b and
          4, and still others include 3b and omit 4. Such "mixed" recensional
          activity was faulty, however, in that it none of it addressed (for
          whatever reason) the problem of the wording of verse 7; yet that easily
          could have been recensionally altered by a similar curtailing and
          replacement of the text into something like "Do you want to become whole?"
          "Sir, I have no man, in order that he should assist me"). Yet recensional
          activity, even when clearly evidenced, is not always wholly rational, so
          this fact occasions me no major difficulty, even when charging recensional
          activity in those early witnesses in regard to vv.3b-4.

          _________________________________________________________________________
          Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
          Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        • William L. Petersen
          Syr-c omits it; Syr-s is defective at this point. Burkitt, Ev. da-Meph. Vol. II, p. 195 says that the size (# of lines on the folio) of Syr-s indicates that
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 16, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            Syr-c omits it; Syr-s is defective at this point. Burkitt, Ev. da-Meph.
            Vol. II, p. 195 says that the size (# of lines on the folio) of Syr-s
            indicates that it too lacked the angel troubling the waters. The date of
            the "interpolation" (if that is what it is) must be very early, for Ephrem
            (died 373) apparently knows and quotes the passage in his *Commentary on the
            Diatessaron* (I have not time to check this now, but the references are as
            above, in Burkitt. Ephrem, in his Commentary, writes: "If they believe
            that the Angel by the water of Shiloah was healing the sick, how much rather
            should they believe that the Lord of the Angels purifies by baptism from all
            stain?" Burkitt notes that it is only in the interpolation that an "angel"
            is mentioned; hence, Ephrem knows the interpolation, and Burkitt assumes it
            was part of the Diatessraon--hence, in the text c. 172 [Baumstark, however,
            pointed out that Ephrem's Diatessaron had already been interpolated and
            revised; it sometimes disagrees with the Arabic Diatessaron, etc., which
            appear to have a more ancient reading than Ephrem's Diatessaron; see E.
            Beck's studies or mine in *Studia Patristics* 20.4 (1989), pp. 197ff.])

            --Petersen, Penn State Univ.



            At 01:58 PM 6/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
            > The overwhelming majority of early Greek mss omit John 5:4. Do the
            >versions (particularly the Syriac and Arabic) contain this verse?
            >
            >There seems no good reason for including it. Yet it is, after all, possible
            >that it was accidentally dropped fairly early.
            >
            >Thanks,
            >
            >Jim
            >
            >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
            >
            >Jim West, ThD
            >Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
            >Managing Editor, The Journal of Biblical Studies
            >http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm
            >
            >jwest@...
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.