Subject: Re: John 5:4

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:30:39 -0400

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
>
>[email-masked]
>
>
>
>