554 MARTIJN STEEGEN context in which Jesus’ role as the one who provides knowledge of God is discussed. Finally, we conclude that the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, and even the Greeks are challenged to recognise that the Father is made known in the person of Jesus, the Son of Man and the incarnate Logov (cf. 1,14). Their focus is ¥ drawn on the Father. K.U. Leuven Martijn STEEGEN Sint-Michielsstraat 4/b 3101 3000 Leuven; Belgium SUMMARY 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 eφh ¶ and pisteyw, 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 kaı gar o pathr toioytoyv ùùΩ ù ¥ zhteı toyv proskynoyntav ayton. Then, I confront the absence of 9,38-39a ˜ù ˜ ߥ with yet another text-critical problem in the larger pericope 9,35-41 — the replacement of the title yıov toy anurwpoy in 9,35 by yıov toy ueoy — and Ωù ˜ß ¥ Ωù ˜ 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 pisteyw and proskynew. 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.