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.
553
TO WORSHIP JOHANNINE “ SON MAN â€
THE OF
* *
*
In our this study we have argued that the peculiarities of verses
38 and 39a of chapter nine in the Gospel of John do not
necessarily have to lead to the conclusion that these verses were
a d d e d by a later hand, influenced by the early Christian
community’s liturgical use of the narrative of the man born blind.
The rare verb forms eφh and pisteyw — which Porter considered
¶ ¥
to be non-Johannine — are best explained by the context in which
they are used. Moreover, the argument that 9,38-39a should be
considered to be an addition on the basis of these hapax legomena
is unconvincing, since 9,39b also contains the unique noun krıma. ¥
With regard to the confession of faith and the prostration of the
man born blind, we agreed with Porter that this passage is puzzling
within the Gospel, since the man is the only character who
worships Jesus during his earthly ministry. However, against Porter
we argued that the verb fits in well with Johannine theology from
the viewpoint of a strong intertextuality, with the use of the verb
proskynew earlier in chapter four.
Â¥
In our view, the author of the Fourth Gospel brought two
dynamics of the relation between Father and Son together in the
verb proskynew. First, we have argued that the Johannine Jesus
Â¥
opens access to the Father. He reveals and speaks (lalew) of what
Â¥
he has seen and knows from the Father. It is Jesus who “seeks†the
man blind from birth and “finds†him, characteristics which are
attributed to God in 4,23b. Second, in Jesus, God Himself makes
an approach to human beings. The man born blind was not blind
because he sinned. He was blind so that God’s works might be
revealed in him (cf. 9,3). The work that Jesus fulfils is the work of
God. This is made particularly clear in Jesus’ designation as the
“ Son of Manâ€. He is the place among men where it is possible to
experience the manifestation of the Father to human beings.
Therefore, the prosekynhsen of the man can be seen neither as
Â¥
ordinary homage to a human being nor as the adoration of Jesus as
God.
T h e final repetition of the verb proskyne w i n 12,20
Â¥
strengthens our interpretation. The verb proskynew is once more
Â¥
interwoven with the christological title o yıov toy anurwpoy in a
Ω Ωù ˜ß ¥
FOLLOW US