# "The Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4"



## TeachingTulip (Jan 26, 2010)

I hope this is the correct forum to ask this question, and I also hope it is permissable to even ask the question, but I would appreciate scholarly opinions from the Puritan Board about the work entitled "The Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4" by Gordon Fee.

An advanced search did not provide me with any info or references, so pros and cons of any kind would be most appreciated.


----------



## mossy (Jan 26, 2010)

Ronda,
This isn't a direct answer to your question, but it may provide some insight. This is the note from the NET bible on Jn 5:3b-4.

9tc The majority of later mss (C3 Θ Ψ 078 Ë1,13 Ï) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (Ac D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (Ì66,75 א B C* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

Terry


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 26, 2010)

Probably should be moved to Translations and Manuscripts as it is much debated.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 26, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Probably should be moved to Translations and Manuscripts as it is much debated.


 
Mossy and Bob,

I am aware of the controversy, but am more interested in learning about the exegete (Fee) than debating the subject.

Is Fee a reliable source for Reformers to utilize in their studies? Does this particular article have integrity in the eyes of the PB?

If my question should be moved, that is fine with me.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 26, 2010)

Moved to Translations/Manuscripts which is a moderated forum. Posts and threads will require approval.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 26, 2010)

TeachingTulip said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Probably should be moved to Translations and Manuscripts as it is much debated.
> ...


 
I haven't seen the article in question, nor do I know the state of present debates on that text, but I do know that Fee is one of the major textual scholars writing in North America today. While his work cannot always be taken at face value, I have found that he is responsible enought to routinely support his views with reasons that must be carefully worked through even if one ends by continuing to disagree with him.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 26, 2010)

Fee is a respected scholar, but his popular book on hermeneutics, _How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth_ would be better titled, _How to Read the Bible for 30% of What It's Worth_.

As far as textual issues go, obviously his views would be unacceptable to that segment of the Reformed community that believes in providential preservation a la Francis Turretin.


----------



## MW (Jan 26, 2010)

The paper should be available online; perhaps try a google search.

Robinson's "Case For Byzantine Priority" provides a brief answer.

Even the broader school of evangelical criticism has found fault with Fee's method of reasoned eclecticism in specific places.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 26, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The paper should be available online; perhaps try a google search.
> 
> Robinson's "Case For Byzantine Priority" provides a brief answer.
> 
> Even the broader school of evangelical criticism has found fault with Fee's method of reasoned eclecticism in specific places.



Here is the link that I failed to add to my OP:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/inauthenticity_fee.pdf


----------



## Wayne (Jan 26, 2010)

And here is the link for Robinson's article, as referenced by Rev. Winzer:
Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority


----------

