Martijn Steegen, «M. Steegen: To Worship the Johannine 'Son of Man'. John 9,38 as Refocusing on the Father», Vol. 91 (2010) 534-554
Important early textual witnesses show John 9,38-39a to be absent. Because of the use of uncharacteristic vocabulary, the use of rare verb forms such as e¶fh and pistey¥w, and the unique confession of faith and worship of Jesus as “Son of Man” during his earthly life, John 9,38 has been said to stand outside Johannine theology. I argue that, although John 9,38-39a confronts the Gospel’s reader with uncharacteristic vocabulary, this does not necessarily imply that these words were added by a later hand under liturgical influence. Instead of standing outside Johannine theology, the confession of faith and the worship by the man healed from his blindness function as the first fulfilment of the proleptic prediction of the words in 4,23 kaiù gaùr oO pathùr toioy¥toyv zhtei˜ toyùv proskynoy˜ntav ayßto¥n. Then, I confront the absence of 9,38-39a with yet another text-critical problem in the larger pericope 9,35-41 — the replacement of the title yiOoùv toy˜ aßnurw¥ poy in 9,35 by yiOoùv toy˜ ueoy — and argue that these two text-critical problems cannot be separated from one another. Finally, I explore how the designation “Son of Man” functions within the framework of pistey¥w and proskyne¥w. The worship of the Johannine Jesus can hardly be seen as a goal in itself. Instead, it is an acknowledgement that the Father is made known in the person of Jesus (cf. 9,3), and hence is typically Johannine.
540 MARTIJN STEEGEN
Further, Hartwig Thyen argues that the argument of liturgical
addition is unsuitable because third-century use of the narrative
does not say anything about the original form of the narrative 19.
On the use of proskynew with Jesus as object being out of
Â¥
harmony with the Gospel’s teaching, Bruce M. Metzger argues that
although proskynew occurs nowhere else in John concerning
Â¥
Jesus and Brown suggests that the words may be a liturgical
addition, the overwhelming preponderance of external attestations
in favour of the longer text suggests that the omission — if not
accidental — should be regarded as editorial, made to unify Jesus’
teaching in verses 37 and 39 20. In light of the majority of
comments on verses 38 and 39a, one may conclude that there is
general agreement that these verses fit well the context of 9,35-41.
After all, following Jesus’ question to the healed man in 9,35, one
would expect a reaction of the man to Jesus’ self-revelation.
Thus far, we can conclude that although 9,38-39a confronts its
reader with some uncharacteristic Johannine words, this does not
automatically have to lead to the conclusion that these words are
unjohannine and were added to the Gospel’s text. The rare verb
forms eφh and pisteyw are best explained by their context. The
¶ ¥
prostration of the healed man, indicated by the verb proskynew, ¥
might be understood as an emotional and faithful recognition of
Jesus as the yıov toy anurwpoy after his healing. However, it is our
Ωù ˜ß ¥
opinion that this argumentation does not solve the puzzling character
of 9,38-39a within the broader field of Johannine theology.
Porter rightfully indicates in his article that within chapter four
the act of proskynew, true worship, is reserved for the Father
Â¥
(cf. 4,20-26) 21. This exclusiveness seems to be emphasized at the
end of the Gospel; Mary Magdalene is forbidden to touch or
worship Jesus after his resurrection (against Matt 28,9-10). In the
words following the severe prohibition, Jesus directs her attention
to the Father (cf. John 20,17b) 22. How then should we understand
THYEN, Das Johannesevangelium, 472-473.
19
B.M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
20
(Stuttgart 1994) 195.
PORTER, “John IX. 38, 39aâ€, 393.
21
See F. NEIRYNCK, “John and the Synoptics. The Empty Tomb Storiesâ€,
22
Evangelica II 1982-1991. Collected Essays (ed. F. VAN SEGBROECK) (Leuven
1991) 571-600; R. BIERINGER, “‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father,
FOLLOW US