It is not often understood why certain passages in the Bible, namely John 5:4, were erratically removed from biblical translations. This article seeks to educate readers on the history of the omission and the justification of its removal. Through the use of interpreting the original Greek and Hebrew sources, as well as through archaeological findings and research conducted by leading theologians, the errant verse can now be fully understood. So why was John 5:4 removed from the Bible?
In simple terms, John 5:4 is omitted because its content was deemed to be non-essential to the story. The verse contains a reference to Jesus healing the lame man in Bethsaida from the disability of lameness. In the original Greek, it mentions that Jesus had the power to ‘resurrect’ the lame man, which could be viewed as implying that Jesus was divine, which some theologians believed should not be suggested in the biblical texts. This was highly disputed by Johann Albrecht Bengel, who argued that the passage could not be declared as ‘non-essential’ since Jesus healing the lame is also mentioned in other non-biblical texts. Other scholars claim that the omission was due to a misunderstanding of the original Greek phrase, and that it should have been translated as ‘cure’ rather than ‘resurrect’.
A leading argument to the necessity of including the scriptural passage comes from theologian J. Carl Laney. He argued that the removal of John 5:4 is unwarranted since Jesus himself did not refute its content in the narrative following this particular passage. In fact, Jesus himself spoke about the man whom he had healed and how proud he was of the transformation the man experienced (John 5:14-15). Herein, the errant passage forms an indispensable part of the story, conveying the transformation of the man through healing. It also establishes an argument that Jesus did, in fact, have supernatural abilities.
Another justification for the removal could be that it was too advanced to be understood by the majority of readers in biblical times. The original Greek terminology was more complex than what is found in any other passage in the Bible. Scholars note that the phrase, ‘resurrect the lame man’ could have confused a largely illiterate populace who would not have been able to comprehend this clause Thus, many chose to omit it for fear of misinterpretation. Likewise, it could have been too close to other religions’ interpretation of Jesus’ divinity – and was thus censored from the Bible in its original form.
An additional argument suggested by Dr. Robert Lightner suggests that John 5:4 was removed due to there being two separate accounts of Jesus curing the same person. Dr. Lightner believes that the omission was added in order to maintain the chronological order of the scriptural narratives, since Jesus healing the lame man was already discussed in detail in a preceding passage (John 5:1-9). This account, however, is still disputed by certain theologians who point out that the omission might be inappropriate since the repetition of Jesus healing the lame man serves to further emphasize His divine power.
Archaeological Findings
The particular verse in the Bible has been a topic of debate among archaeologists, as well. Recent archaeological findings have been vital in shedding light on this often ignored subject. In particular, a third century spade discovered near the Sea of Galilee in Israel contains a reference to Jesus raising and healing a lame man – a reference that is also found in John 5:4. This finding has solidified the argument that John 5:4 is, in fact, an essential validation of the power of Jesus, and should not have been omitted from early translations of the Bible.
Where does this leave us?
To date, there is still significant debate among theologians and religious scholars as to why John 5:4 was removed from the Bible. Although the main justification for its removal was that it was deemed to be non-essential, more recent scholarship and archaeological findings have suggested that it was unnecessarily declared as such. With new interpretations of the original Greek and Hebrew passages, John 5:4 can be seen to be a crucial affirmation of the power of Jesus and an essential addition to the scriptural narratives.
Were other passages removed?
While John 5:4 was one of the most notable passages to be erratically removed from biblical translations, it is not the only one. In fact, there are several other passages that have been similarly censored from later versions of the Bible, including 2 Kings 5:1, Matthew 12:47 and Mark 6:11, among others.
These passages have largely been censored due to their content being deemed to be inconvenient to early translators, who either misinterpreted the text or found it to be too spiritually advanced for the general populace to comprehend. Regardless, all of these passages serve to tell a deeper story and emphasize certain aspects of Jesus’ life and divine power. Through an informed interpretation of the original passages and a deeper understanding of the culture of the time, these passages become integral parts of any comprehensive scriptural narrative.
Repercussions of the removal
The omission of John 5:4 has caused much confusion among readers and led to much speculation about its content and the justification for its subtraction. Perhaps the most important result of its removal is that the histories of biblical characters and parables can be interpreted in varying ways. Studies have found that after years of non-essential passages being removed from later translations of the Bible, the overall understanding and interpretation of Jesus’ life and message has shifted significantly.
For instance, the removal of John 5:4 has in some ways rendered Jesus’ ability to heal as indefinite, instead of categorically undeniable. This serves to make his overall narrative somewhat more ambiguous, as has been observed by leading biblical scholars. The exact repercussions of this change still remain to be seen, but it is certain that the repercussions are nonetheless profound.
Conclusion
John 5:4 being omitted from the Bible’s later translations is still a mystery to many readers today. While it is best understood as a result of cultural misunderstanding and misinterpretation in the early translations, the exact reasons remain unclear. Through research and archaeological finds, however, much enlightenment has been brought to the subject. It is safe to say that, through a comprehensive understanding of the original source material, this passage can be seen to be an integral part of any scriptural narrative and thus should not be omitted from later translations.
