We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
That blindness should be a theme in the Johannine literature need cause no surprise; with the dualism of light and darkness and with the emphasis on what has been seen, witnessed and believed, the surprise is rather that the theme is not more prevalent. Only at two places in the Gospel and one in the Epistles is the language of blindness explicitly used, in John 9, John 12. 40 and 1 John 2. 11. However, since each of these can be seen as a focal point or interpretative key to the Johannine tradition the theme could be held to present in microcosm the history of the Johannine community. Chapter 9, the healing of the blind man, has played a central role in recent reconstructions of that history, while the reflection on the effects of Jesus's public ministry in 12. 37–50, before he turns away to address ‘his own’, invites similar treatment. Finally, the redirection towards internal opposition of language originally aimed outwards has long been seen as a mark of 1 John and as central to its interpretation. The exploration of the theme may serve in the same way to test in microcosm the presuppositions and results of such reconstruction. It also does more than this, for the imagery of blindness is by no means unique to John and raises clearly the question of the origins as well as of the context of Johannine thought.
[1] There is also an imbalance between ‘darkness’ vs. ‘light’: see Blank, J., Krisis (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus 1964) 96.Google Scholar
[2] Also with literal reference John 5. 3; 10. 21; 11. 37. The last two refer back to the healing of the blind man in ch. 9 and underline its importance for John.
[3] See especially Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.Nashville: Abingdon 1979) esp. 24–62.Google Scholar
[4] See Brown, R. E., The Epistles of John (Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday 1982) 92–3.Google Scholar
[5] If 38–39a is omitted with P75Ν* W b then we are left with Jesus's self-revelation, inviting a response. The man's ‘stages of faith’ include recognition of Jesus as a prophet (17) and as from God (33), compare the Samaritan woman in 4. 19 and 4. 25–26.
[6] Compare 17. 7 and contrast 7. 27; the ‘traditional’ theme of the Sabbath-healing (14) serves only to underline this question.
[7] Jer 31. 29–30; Ezek 18. l–4;for the continuing theme see Str-B. II.529.
[8] As is already recognised by Str-B. II.527–9.
[9] As suggested by Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell 1971) 331.Google Scholar
[10] Barrett, C. K., The Gospel accordingto St. John (2nd ed.London: SPCK 1978) 356.Google Scholar
[11] 1QH 4.29–30; 15. 17. E.T. in Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1962) 163, 195.Google Scholar
[12] Elsewhere in John there may be more deterministic-sounding pronouncements, e.g. 3. 20–21; 12. 39–40 (see below).
[13] 2 Kings 6. 15–17; for a different use of the image in Greek drama see Gregory, J., ‘Some Aspects of Seeing in Euripides’ Bacchae', Greece & Rome 32 (1985) 23–31.Google Scholar
[14] See below pp. 86–7.
[15] 12. 35 speaks of ‘walking in the darkness’ as does 8. 12; 11. 9–10 speaks of ‘walking in the day or night’, while 9. 4–5 speaks of ‘working in the day or night’; the common theme of the presence of the light unites these passages. The question ‘Who is he/the Son of Man?’ is interesting because there are no other close parallels in the Gospel.
[16] John 9. 39 appears more like an allusion to Isa 6. 9 when it is compared with Mark 4. 12, clearly intended as a reference, together with the parallels in Luke 8. 10 and particularly Matt 13. 13, the latter of which may also be influenced by Jer 5. 21 or Mark 8. 18; see n. 29 below.
[17] See Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM 1961) 159–61Google Scholar. For what follows see also Gnilka, J., Die Verstockung Israels (Munich: Kösel 1961).Google Scholar
[18] In language Luke is closer to Matthew here but in the idea of purpose he follows Mark; see Gnilka, , Verstockung, 17.Google Scholar
[19] Namely the omission of ‘αύτ
ν’ after ‘ώσν’; on these and other grounds it is often held that Matt 13. 14–15 are a redactional addition to the Gospel, see Gnilka, , Verstockung, 103–5.Google Scholar
[20] Lindars, , Apologetic, 161.Google Scholar
[21] On the question whether John works from the MT or LXX see Freed, E., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovT Sup XI. Leiden: Brill 1965) 85–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] However, ‘hearing’ is not as important as ‘seeing’ in John; the quotation of Isa 53. 1 in 12. 38 does allow for hearing and seeing in parallel.
[23] So Lindars, , Apologetic, 161Google Scholar. Matthew and Luke also follow the LXX here while Mark 4. 12 is closer to the Targum in the plural (αύτοϊς) and the idea of forgiveness; see Gnilka, , Verstockung, 16.Google Scholar
[24] On the question whether this is a possible interpretation of the MT see Burney, C. F., The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon 1922) 121.Google Scholar
[25] So also Freed, , OT Quotations, 84, 87Google Scholar. Blank, , Krisis, 301–5 argues for ‘the devil’ on theological grounds, but there is no warrant in the text for this.Google Scholar
[26] 12. 47–48; see below p. 90 on whether 43 originally gave the human side of 39–40.
[27] So Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John (New York: Cross Road 1968–1982) 2, 271.Google Scholar
[28] On the wider question of the theme of predestination and hardening in John and its back-ground see Schnackenburg, , John II, 259–74.Google Scholar
[29] See Zimmerli, W., Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress 1979) 269–70Google Scholar. Matt 13. 13, Matthew's parallel to Mark 4. 12, is perhaps closer to Mark 8. 18 (which is not paralleled in Matthew), although it is unclear whether this is deliberate or due to the common influence of the other OT passages.
[30] So too at the end of the parables Matthew alone has the disciples affirm that they do understand (13. 51). Matthew has no parallel to Mark 8. 18 and again closes the incident by affirming the disciples' understanding (16. 12; contrast Jesus' final question in Mark 8. 21, ‘Do you not yet understand?’); so also Matt 17. 13 (Matt only). Where Mark says the disciples did not understand because of their hardened hearts in 6. 52, Matthew has them confess Jesus as Son of God.
[31] Mark also uses the noun ‘hardness (πώρωσις) of heart’ of the Jewish opposition in 3. 5. Swete, H. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan 1898) 50 sees the influence of Isa 6. 10 in the version known to John here. Neither Matthew nor Luke use πωρόω or πώρωσις.Google Scholar
[32] It is not important here whether the Servant stands for Israel or for an individual.
[33] Isa 30. 19–21 and 32. 3 belong to the same tradition; see Clements, R. E., Isaiah 1–39 (NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott 1980) 260. I am grateful to Professor Clements for raising the question of the significance for the NT of this developing tradition in Isaiah.Google Scholar
[34] See Hoskyns, E. & Davey, F. N., The Riddle of the New Testament (London: Faber 1931) 119–20.Google Scholar
[35] See Best, E., Following Jesus (JSNT.S 4. Sheffield: JSOT 1981) 134–9Google Scholar; on the Markan narrative see also Johnson, E. S., ‘The Blind Man from Bethsaida’, NTS 25 (1979) 370–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[36] On Isa 29. 10 and Deut 29. 3 as part of the Isa 6. 10 tradition see Zimmerli, , Ezekiel, 269–70Google Scholar. With Rom 11. 25 compare CD 16. 2 (ed. Rabin, , The Zadokite Documents [Oxford: Clarendon 1954]), ‘the epochs of Israel's blindness’ (‘wrn yśr’l).Google Scholar
[37] John 12.40 uses ‘νοέω’ where LXX, Matt and Luke use ‘συνιήμι’.
[38] Phio, Quaest. in Gen. 21 (the eyes of the soul); 40 (the soul is blind to the most holy visions). In addition to the following examples see T.Judah 11. 1; 18. 3; T.Dan 2. 4.
[39] ό ρχων τής πλάνης.
[40] See Schrage, W., ‘τνøλόω’ TDNT 8.270–94, 275–9Google Scholar. In the LXX τυøλόω is used at Tobit 7. 7; Wis. 2. 21 besides Isa 42. 29, possibly suggesting hellenistic influence.
[41] Some MSS at T.Levi 13.7 read πώρωσις άμαρτίας for πήρωσις άμαρτίας in parallel with τύøλωσις άσεβείας. The latter is accepted by recent editors although πήρωσις does occur as a variant for πώρωσις in the NT MSS tradition (see Mark 3. 5; John 12. 40; Rom 11. 25); see also Robinson, J. A., St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Macmillan 1928) 264–74Google Scholar; Waard, J. A. de, A Comparative Study of the OT Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the NT (Leiden: Brill 1966) 7–8.Google Scholar
[42] So, more confidently, Lindars, , Apologetic, 162–3.Google Scholar
[43] Mark 8. 18; Rom 11. 7. See above nn. 29, 36.
[44] Also at 29. 10; 33. 15 translating ‘sm.
[45] τνøλόω only at Isa 42. 29; τνøλός at 29. 18; 35. 5; 42. 7, 16, 18, 19; 43. 8; cf. 61. 1.
[46] Charlesworth, J., ‘A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in IQS 3. 13–4Google Scholar. 26 and the “Dualism” contained in the Gospel of John’, in John and Qumran, ed. idem (London: Chapman 1972) 76–106, esp. 101–3.
[47] Vermes, E. T., Dead Sea Scrolls, 77. For ‘stiffness of neck’ cf. Exod 32. 9 etc.Google Scholar
[48] Exod 7. 14; 8. 11, 28; 9. 7, 34; 10. 1 (all of Pharaoh); 1 Sam 6. 6 (Israel compared with Pharaoh). jkbd is used of the ears in Isa 6. 10 as here in 1 QS 4. 11. The LXX usually translates by βαρύνω.
[49] šrrwt lb: 1QS 1.6; 2.14; 3.3; 5.4 etc. as at Jer 3. 17; 7. 24; 9. 13; 11. 38 etc. The LXX apparently did not recognise this as a ‘hardness’ term and offers a number of translations. The phrase may be reflected in the last NT use of πώρωσις at Eph 4. 18.
[50] See also Wibbing, S., Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (BZNW 25. Berlin: Topelmann 1959) 30–42, 56–8Google Scholar. So also Gnostic literature can use blindness and deafness in a dualist framework; cf. Apoc. Peter (NH VII.3) 73.12–13; 76.21–23.
[51] Freed, , OT Quotations, 88 suggests the influence of Wisdom language because of the use of πωρόω in Job 17. 7 (B only); NB n. 41 above.Google Scholar
[52] Passive with γίνομαι in 9. 22; 12. 42; active with ποιέω at 16. 2.
[53] àμαρτίαν ἓχеω comes only at John 9. 41; 15. 22, 24; 19. 11; 1 John 1. 8 (see below) in the NT.
[54] On these occasions the phrase is δμα τόν ϕόνβον τ
ν ‘Iονδαιων; here the verb is used: εφϕοβούντο τούς ‘Iονδαιονς.
[55] Compare 7. 3 1–5. In ch. 9 the protagonists remain anonymous until 9. 40 (the Pharisees) although they are probably in view immediately at 9. 24.
[56] Martyn, , History and Theology, 86–9 seeks to explain this by identifying the ‘rulers’ as those within the local council who were sympathetic, while the Pharisees represent the ‘Jamnia loyalists’; this depends on his reconstruction and is not easy to sustain. See, however, 7. 48.Google Scholar
[57] See above p. 89 on όμολογεω in John.
[58] Although we have argued that here ‘his glory’ refers to Jesus; yet Jesus's glory is God's glory.
[59] There is no need to identify this further although it is hazardous to see here a reference to the Birkath-haminim; see Kimelman, R., ‘Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’ in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition ed. Sanders, E. P. et al. (London: SCM 1980–1982) 11, 226–44.Google Scholar
[60] Rom 11. 25–26; but 2 Cor 4. 4 offers less hope to ‘those who are perishing’.
[61] See above p. 87; this must qualify seeing in Mark, 4. 11–12 a sign of sectarian consciousness.Google Scholar
[62] Note the perfect tense τετύφλωκεν.
[63] ‘άμαρτιαν άχεω’ (1. 8) cf. n. 53 above; ‘walking in the light’ (1. 6, 7; 2. 11) cf. n. 15 above.
[64] So also ‘to have sin’ in John is christologically centred but in 1 John is a moral claim. See further Lieu, J. M., The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1986) 197, 206–7.Google Scholar
[65] On this see Klein, G., ‘Das wahre Licht scheint schon’, ZThK 68 (1971) 261–326.Google Scholar
[66] John 12. 35 όεριπαπατν ρέ σκούκ οιϕεν ύπαγελ 1 John 2. 11 έν ρσκοτια περιπατει και οιϕεν ύπαγρλ
[67] See above n. 50; also Gospel of Truth 29. 26–30. 16; NB 30. 15–16 ‘And blessed is he who has opened the eyes of the blind’ (E.T. in ed. Robinson, J., The Nag Hammadi Library in English [Leiden: Brill 1977] 43).Google Scholar
[68] See above p. 87 and n. 39 NB T.Judah 18.6 ‘…because they have blinded his soul and he walks in the day as in the night’.
[69] See Brown, , Epistles, 33–5.Google Scholar
[70] 1 John 2. 7, 24; 3. 11.
