Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The received account explains the waiting sick and the moving water; the critical text omits the end of verse 3 and all of verse 4.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The sick wait for the moving of the water, and an angel descends at a season to trouble it.
Authorized Version
“Waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water.” — John 5:3–4
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
The narrative moves from the list of sick people directly to the man infirm for thirty-eight years.
Translation or explanation
The narrative moves from the list of sick people directly to the man infirm for thirty-eight years.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 2 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, the comparative difficulty of the readings; the printed confidence rating represented here is {A}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on John 5:3, 5:4
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in John, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
The theology requires restraint. Yet the received passage coheres with verse 7, enjoyed extensive ecclesiastical use, and is no doctrinally convenient insertion.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Doctrinally significant variant listJohn 5.4
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 24
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
The early Fathers Tertullian and Ambrose both used this history as an elegant picture of the cleansing and healing waters of baptism. The very early testimony of Tatian and Tertullian as to the authenticity of this verse, along with the universal inclusion of it by the Byzantine Text and by the Old Latin and Syriac warrants our continued inclusion of it.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
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. (John 5:4 Authorised)
Critical reading reported
[Omit]
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The omission of this verse is supported by the Alexandrian papyri and codices – 𝔓66, 𝔓75, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and others. The inclusion of this verse is supported by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, by the Old Latin Text, by the Curetonian Syriac, by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century, by Tertullian of the 3rd century, and by Ambrose of the 4th century.
Editorial qualification: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At John 5:3–4, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at John 5:3–4 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
No meaningful doctrinal effect: The theology requires restraint. Yet the received passage coheres with verse 7, enjoyed extensive ecclesiastical use, and is no doctrinally convenient insertion.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
The words are absent from early papyri and important majuscule witnesses, and copies that include them display notable variation. The longer reading also has broad Greek, Latin, and versional reception.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
— John 5:3–4 The omission has formidable early support. A marginal gloss could supply that knowledge, but so could an accidental loss of material that copyists later reconstructed imperfectly. Mineral springs or intermittent flow might describe means; they cannot settle the textual sentence.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The longer reading also has broad Greek, Latin, and versional reception. Yet the received passage coheres with verse 7, enjoyed extensive ecclesiastical use, and is no doctrinally convenient insertion. John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, on omissions and marginal matter.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at John 5:3–4. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 2 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 95
Burgon directly discusses John 5:4. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 24
John 5.4: It sets “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. (John 5:4 Authorised)” against “[Omit].” Its stated doctrinal argument is that The early Fathers Tertullian and Ambrose both used this history as an elegant picture of the cleansing and healing waters of baptism. The very early testimony of Tatian and Tertullian as to the authenticity of this verse, along with the universal inclusion of it by the Byzantine Text and by the Old Latin and Syriac warrants our continued inclusion of it. The compilation appeals to The omission of this verse is supported by the Alexandrian papyri and codices – 𝔓66, 𝔓75, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and others. The inclusion of this verse is supported by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text going back to Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, by the Old Latin Text, by the Curetonian Syriac, by Tatian's Diatessaron of the 2nd century,cix by Tertullian of the 3rd century,cx and by Ambrose of…
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
The theology requires restraint. John does not endorse magic. The healing is attributed to an angel under divine providence, and Jesus’ sovereign word surpasses the pool: the impotent man is restored without entering it. Nor should archaeology be asked to prove an angelic action. Mineral springs or intermittent flow might describe means; they cannot settle the textual sentence.
The early omission makes this one of John’s difficult units, and a confessional conclusion should acknowledge that rather than hide it. Yet the received passage coheres with verse 7, enjoyed extensive ecclesiastical use, and is no doctrinally convenient insertion. It should remain in the text while the significant opposing evidence is plainly documented.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At John 5:3–4, the received text reads “The sick wait for the moving of the water, and an angel descends at a season to trouble it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water.” — John 5:3–4”. The assessed critical reading is “The narrative moves from the list of sick people directly to the man infirm for thirty-eight years.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At John 5:3–4, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The sick wait for the moving of the water, and an angel descends at a season to trouble it.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water.” — John 5:3–4”. The assessed critical form is “The narrative moves from the list of sick people directly to the man infirm for thirty-eight years.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At John 5:3–4, the received text reads “The sick wait for the moving of the water, and an angel descends at a season to trouble it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water.” — John 5:3–4”. The assessed critical reading is “The narrative moves from the list of sick people directly to the man infirm for thirty-eight years.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 95 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 24 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: John 5:3–4
Received reading: The sick wait for the moving of the water, and an angel descends at a season to trouble it.
Principal competing reading: The narrative moves from the list of sick people directly to the man infirm for thirty-eight years.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Without the disputed words, the sick lie in the porches and the
narrative introduces a man who has suffered thirty-eight years. With
them, the reader is told why they wait and why the man later complains
that another steps into the pool before him.
“Waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a
certain season into the pool, and troubled the water.” — John 5:3–4
The omission has formidable early support. The words are absent from
early papyri and important majuscule witnesses, and copies that include
them display notable variation. That instability is commonly explained
as the growth of a marginal note: a reader supplied the popular reason
for the water’s movement, and the explanation entered the text in
several forms.
The longer reading also has broad Greek, Latin, and versional
reception. Verse 7 is not self-explanatory without some prior knowledge
of the disturbance. A marginal gloss could supply that knowledge, but so
could an accidental loss of material that copyists later reconstructed
imperfectly. Once the clause disappeared, its restoration from memory or
parallel copies would naturally produce variation.
The theology requires restraint. John does not endorse magic. The
healing is attributed to an angel under divine providence, and Jesus’
sovereign word surpasses the pool: the impotent man is restored without
entering it. Nor should archaeology be asked to prove an angelic action.
Mineral springs or intermittent flow might describe means; they cannot
settle the textual sentence.
The early omission makes this one of John’s difficult units, and a
confessional conclusion should acknowledge that rather than hide it. Yet
the received passage coheres with verse 7, enjoyed extensive
ecclesiastical use, and is no doctrinally convenient insertion. It
should remain in the text while the significant opposing evidence is
plainly documented.
Sources and further reading
- John 5:1–9.
- Scrivener and the SBLGNT apparatus at John 5:3–4.
- John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the
Traditional Text, on omissions and marginal matter.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2143
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the current SBLGNT text and apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the principal variation unit and representative evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, or patristic citation.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “John 5:3–4 — The Angel Who Troubled the Water: Is the Passage Authentic?,” VAR-2143, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas