John 5:4 and Interpolations

There is so much more to our New Testament translations that might appear to any student new to a serious study of the text. For starters, all translations have in some ways added to the text to fill in gaps or to amplify and/or clarify (in the opinion of the translators) what is written.

The King James Version of 1611 (see note below by Bible translator Uriel ben-Mordechai[1]), used italics in some places where the translators added words for such clarity (called interpolations).

A massive issue arises though where the interpolation leads to a serious doctrinal error either as a result of a flawed Greek or Latin version being used as the basis for the translation or alternatively, to a flawed theological understanding by the translators. Such errors may be the result of genuine and honest endeavour, yet they can lead to very significant misunderstandings. A good example in the KJV is the word ‘covenant’ (added in italics) in Hebrews 8:7,13 and 9:1.

To quote Frank Selch: ‘… Therefore, when the translators arbitrarily insert the word covenant in 8:7 and 13; as well as in 9:1, it is entirely out of context― it is an unwarranted and misleading distortion of the topic. It is especially significant, since the word Covenant (διαθήκη) does not appear in ANY of the Greek texts, nor in the Latin Vulgate, from which those verses are translated….’. – see http://circumcisedheart.info/frank/The%20Covenant%20in%20Hebrews%208%20&%209.pdf

But I want to highlight here another aspect of the redactions and interpolations of the NT text by considering the case of the Gospel of John chapter 5 verse 4, which reads in the modern 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.”.

Many modern versions do not contain this verse at all. Though much in their versions is based on the KJV, this verse does not appear in any Greek manuscript prior to the 11^th century, so many more recent translators have seen fit to remove it entirely.

Bruce Metzger for example calls it a ‘gloss’ and omits it, and clearly a number of modern scholars support him in this. What is intriguing to me though is that Ann Nyland in her ‘The Source New Testament’ includes it based primarily on the argument that some text is needed between verses 3 and 5 to make sense of the narrative. I consider ‘The Source’ to be the second best English translation of John’s Gospel, yet here I would disagree with her re-inserting this verse.

My reasoning for rejecting it is primarily the most obvious one and that is that it is not found in any of the earliest extant manuscripts found to date.

However, I would also argue against it based on the content of the verse.

The argument that an angel would stir or ‘trouble’ the water is firstly problematic in that angels [messengers of God – Hebrew Malʾakh (מַלְאַךְ)] are usually seen as spiritual beings and not physical (for example, Maimonides argued that the angels are incorporeal). Their interaction with the physical (corporeal) world is therefore a little problematic.

But more significantly, the whole tenor of the Bible is around community and cooperation, not competition. The statement that the ‘first shall be last’, (Matthew 20:16) and the Parable of the Workers in Matthew 20 both suggest that a race to see who could be first into the water to be healed is not in the spirit of the Biblical narrative.

Further Yehovah shows no partiality (Deut 10:17, Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11).

This verse sounds much more like another Hellenistic interpolation than anything coming from a Hebraic and Biblical foundational perspective.

So it is encouraging to observe that most modern translators and scholars support its omission. It is hoped that such integrity and critical thinking may grow and many other redactions and interpolations may be properly addressed.

---

[1] Excerpt on the KJV from the Introduction to ‘El Ha’Galatim – From Tzi’yon Torah Goes Forth’ (https://above-and-beyond-ltd.com/store/books/if.html) by Uriel ben-Mordechai:

“… In May 1601, at a General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English. Two years later in 1603, King James I ascended to the throne of England, and in January 1604, he convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived and commissioned in response to the perceived political and theological problems of the earlier translations. This gave birth to the King James Version [KJV], which was completed in 1611.

The Greek text behind the KJV was based on about half-a-dozen Greek manuscripts, compiled and published by Erasmus from Rotterdam, some 95 years earlier, in 1516 CE, which later became known as the “Textus Receptus” [TR] (Latin for the “Received Text”). It should be noted that there were a number of occurrences where gaps existed in the Greek that produced the TR. Erasmus solved the dilemma by back-translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek, in order to fill in those gaps.

What else should a translator do, when faced with missing concepts and theologies that might or might not have been penned 1,470 years previously? Nevertheless, his work became the “tried and proven” Textus Receptus, that today, whenever translated into English, presents an unrecognizable message to Jews, as well as one that cannot be attributed to Jewish authorship.”