THEODIC TRADITION IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN:

THE CASE OF THE MAN BORN BLIND (JN 9:1-41)

BY
GIOVANNI ESTI
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Claremont Graduate University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate Faculty of Religious Studies
Claremont, California
2008
Approved by:
UMI Number: 3296156
Copyright 2008 by
Esti, Giovanni
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3296156
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2008 by
Esti Giovanni
All rigths reserved.
We, the undersigned, certify that we have read this dissertation of Giovanni Esti
and approve it as adequate in scope and quality for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
Dissertation Committee:
Dennis R. MacDonald, Member
Vincent L. Wimbush, Member
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
THEODIC TRADITION IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: THE CASE OF THE MAN
BORN BLIND (JN 9:1-41)
by
Giovanni Esti
Claremont Graduate University: 2008
In the Gospel of John 9:2 some unnamed disciples ask : "Rabbi, who sinned, this
man or his parents, that he was born blind?" This is a question of theodicy which general
scholarship has considered foreign to the interests of the Fourth Gospel. Concurrently,
topics of divine justice, judgment, the origin of evil and suffering are commonly studied
in Johannine literature. The present research identifies in the man born blind (Jn 9:1-41) a
case through which theodic traditions of the past are echoed in the Gospel of John.
In order to avoid the danger of classifying under theodicy every statement which
attempts to reconcile the enigmas of existence and belief in an ethical God, some criteria
are delineated. In a literary text, the natural environment of theodicy is debate between a
party accusing and another defending divine justice. I have come to separate and explain
these two approaches as theodicy of dissent and theodicy of providence.
Subsequently, I have traced the development of dissent and providence in theodic
traditions preceding or contemporaneous to the Gospel of John. Important samples of
these texts are: Job, Isaiah 6:9-10; 53; Ezekiel 18; the "Theban Plays" of Sophocles,
Plato's Timaeus, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Qumran, Cicero's De
Natura Deorum, Seneca's De Providencia, Philo of Alexandria.
I have come to the conclusion that that the story of the man born blind used its
question of theodicy to arouse interest in the intended Jewish and Hellenistic audiences of
the Gospel of John. Furthermore, the macro theodic context of Jn 9:2 reflects elements of
continuity with the thematic structure of the Gospel at large. Finally, I have assessed that
the issue of theodicy is relevant to understand the early formation of the Johannine
community against its opponents.
Ucub
All-ways
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1. Forschungsbericht on Biblical Theodicy
1 Definition of Biblical Theodicy
2 Theodicy under Judgment
3 Theodicy and Social Analyses
4 An Indication of Methodology
Chapter 2. Theodicy of Dissent and Theodicy of Providence
1 Genealogy of a Theodicy of Dissent
2 Genealogy of a Theodicy of Providence
Chapter 3. Theodic Literature in the Gospel of John
1 Jewish Tradition in the Theodicy of the Gospel of John
1.1 John's Exegesis of Ezekiel 18
1.2 John's Exegesis of Isaiah 6:9-10
1.3 Predestination and Individual Responsibility in Qumran and
1.3.1 Qumran and Theodicy of the Wall
1.3.2 John and Theodicy of the Gate
2 Hellenisitic Tradition in the Theodicy of the Gospel of John
2.1 John and Dissent
2.2 John and Providence
Chapter 4. Johannine Theodicy, History and Literature
1 Theodicy and History in the Gospel of John
2 Theodicy in Johannine Canonical Literature
Conclusion
Bibliography
vii
INTRODUCTION
"What should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a
human way.)" These are the words of Paul in Rom 3:5.
l
It is a rhetorical question which
intends to elicit an obviously expected answer: "Of course not!" But who is raising that
question? From the peculiar literary form it is possible to deduce an imaginary member of
the audience probing the justice of divine retribution. If the law is the measure through
which judgment is passed, how can it be fairly applied to both the Jews and Gentiles?
And if all are under the domination of sin, is God's wrath still justified? There the
possibility for God to be unjust is conceived.
The Jews could claim an advantage since they received the law through election;
the Gentiles did not. Is there partiality from God? Paul firmly denies it (Rom 2:11). This
is Pauline theodicy; he defends God's justice against those who accused God of the
opposite. They do not seem to be Paul's friends; they are dissenters or such is the way
they are portrayed. Here, Paul takes the place, never left vacant, of the much vilified
friends of Job.
2
His appeal that faith maintained even in suffering, testing and against
general trends is worthwhile and grants salvation.
The question reported by Paul is qualified as "spoken in a human way." Human
refers to a wisdom void of the judgment of God (1 Cor 2:13; Gal 1:11). It creates a
dualism similar to the material against spiritual realities. Paul, indirectly, is affirming that
1
Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989), unless
specified otherwise. I have adopted SBL abbreviations for use in biblical studies.
2
Gorringe compares the friends of Job with the sect of the Pharisees and gives them due respect
against the temptation to easily dismiss them in stereotypes. See Timothy J. Gorringe, "Job and the
Pharisees," Interpretation 40, no. 1 (1986): 17-28.
1
2
dissent is not a legitimate expression for one who claims membership in his Christian
community, as human judgment is opposed to God's judgment. These might be almost
undetectable echoes of dissent within the Christian community. Their opinion is only
reported, their voice is silent. The fact is that in the New Testament there is not a Job or
Jeremiah to assert dissent openly and defiantly, or at least if such a one existed, his/her
voice is buried underneath layers of supposed faithful assent. The "menacing" answer
given to Job (38:2-3) is still perceptible in Paul's reply: "but who indeed are you, a
human being, to talk back to God?" (Rom 9:20).
The struggle of theodicy is most frequently a testimony to that particular moment
of overwhelming realization that faith does not produce the blessedness it promises, it
neither protects from unmerited retribution, nor assures punishment on those who
unjustly inflict it on others. The challenge of whoever introduced a new faith, like the
Christians, was to demonstrate that their belief made a difference before the common lot
of suffering and injustice under which the world was subdued. The Christian missionaries
might have very easily found a Gentile audience willing to challenge the old
anthropomorphic representations of the gods, as did Paul in the speech at the Areopagus
(Acts 17:22-34). However, his appeal to a day in which God will "judge the world with
justice" (italics mine) finds scorn.
Theodicy as dissent is usually voiced by outsiders in the New Testament. It does
not find a permanent place within. The only way we might come to know about its
existence is because it is reported, often without the possibility for us to verify the
fairness of the report. Yet, it is a voice which needs to be heard because it represents the
3
inevitable crossroads through which faith grows and the dogmatic security of our
theoretical assumptions may not be divorced from experience.
In the parable of the workers hired at different time of the day, Matthew has the
landowner give the same salary to the last as he did to the first (Mt 20:1-16). Some who
worked longer grumbled: "These last worked only one hour, and you have made them
equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat." One could hear
some of their descendants still grumbling now. Nevertheless, the stunning reply is: "Am I
not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I
am generous?"
The principle of retributive justice, which is still a foundation stone of modern
legal and financial systems, is disregarded in favor of a different principle, that of
distributive justice.
3
The owner claims freedom to apply generosity with his property.
This turns upside down the hierarchical order and grants equality without doing injustice.
The socio-economic implication of the parable is that the kingdom is not an exclusive
privilege but favors distributive justice possible only by generosity. A mentality of
accumulation founded on merit becomes secondary to one which favors an attitude of
gratitude based on the immeasurable generosity of God. God's justice may challenge the
sedimented boundaries of social and economical privileges. Dissent here has indirectly
provided education to those who taught needed it not.
One of the greatest challenges to an ethical God is to affirm that God is
responsible for evil. It is not enough to affirm God's love and righteousness; there are
times when God needs to be exculpated from evil. Matthew, in the parable of the weeds
3
This insight is developed against the ancient view of how "a kingdom" was built; see John
Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 51-97.
4
among the wheat, has provided a powerful explanation: "an enemy has done this"
(13:28). The palimpsest through which history is interpreted is that God is not responsible
for evil, the devil is. The devil fathers children in the world and in the present, they seem
to prosper undisturbed. Justice will prevail only at the end of time in the form of a last
judgment and retribution. The righteous will be rewarded and the evildoers sent to a
frightening punishment. No matter how convincing is this answer, it would never have
come if it were not because someone raised a discordant voice. In fact, the presence of
evil in the "field" of the world brings the disciples to ask: "Master, did you not sow good
seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?" (Mt 13:27).
Dissent may not be popular but may save one's life. In the synoptic version of the
calming of the storm at sea, is Mark's version the one which originally presented the
rougher outcry of the disciples: "Teacher, do you not care (oi> \iikei ooi) that we are
perishing?" (Mk 4:38). The presumption that God may actually not care is the most
appalling and yet who can deny having had at least once that eerie shiver go through the
spine of one's faith? And even more compelling, can we sincerely say that never having
experienced it has made someone's faith more authentic? Jesus' reply: "Why are you
afraid? Have you still no faith?" (4:40) is not a call to numbness or removal from human
emotions. It speaks of faith made of earth and water and all that happens in it. The
disciples protested what appeared to be Jesus' indifference. Their faith may have been
"little" but it was vital. Their lament, if absent, could be object of praise to few of us but
it has also made faith inhuman to many others.
These are compelling questions and therefore one should expect a great deal of
research in this specific area of New Testament studies. Instead, the bibliographical list
5
on the question of biblical theodicy is not particularly extensive. If we then consider only
the New Testament it becomes almost non-existent. This is so because theodicy seems to
belong to a field foreign to biblical studies. However, the question of divine justice, the
problem of evil and how to make sense of failure at all levels, issues which are central to
theodicy, are in fact part of almost every biblical study. It is the word theodicy itself
which might instigate diffidence in biblical scholars.
Biblical theodicy is the compound-term I use for lack of a better one. The
fundamental aim is to inquire if divine justice was sustained or denied in antiquity and
even more importantly, how this was achieved in literary terms. This approach is
historical and it might seem distant from modern debates of theodicy. However, some of
the modern definitions of biblical theodicy justify not so much the use of the term
theodicy applied to biblical studies as much as the need to extend a clearly oriented
scholarship in a field of research which has such trans-historical importance.
The study of theodicy in the Bible has been confined principally to Hebrew
Scripture. In the first chapter, I will give an essential Forschungsbericht on how those
authors have come to characterize the study of theodicy applied to sacred texts. Secondly,
I will attempt to provide what I consider the appropriate perimeter of biblical theodicy,
which is debate. If dissent is equivalent to a question and theodicy somehow to the
answer, then I think that both question and answer have to share equal dignity in the field
of biblical theodicy. More importantly from a methodological point of view, there cannot
be biblical theodicy unless one can reconstruct both voices within that debate. It is debate
that generates transformation in our understanding of God, not questions and answers
reciprocally dissociated.
6
Every debate is related to texts which have existed before and becomes a ground
of new future conversations. If one would trace the "genealogical" progression of this
intertextual discourse, the impression that originally protest and lament had greater
relevance within sacred narratives, would seem convincing. In order to affirm divine
benevolence one had to awaken it through dissent and lament. Then, theodicy goes
through a powerful transition when Plato came to exclude radically the presence of evil in
God. At that point the unacceptable presence of evil in God had to find a place to
"migrate." Human weakness and demonic personality appeared some of the better
dwellings in which to reside.
Nevertheless, divine benevolence did not abandon human beings in the power of
evil but reached out to them in the form of divine providence. Thus, two approaches to
theodicies can be characterized as dissent and providence. The second chapter will read
through texts of antiquity up to the Gospel of John. Through the dialectic progression of
that theodic debate I hope to provide a literary context necessary to inquire whether John
participated in it, at which point he eventually did and for what purpose.
The basic criterion for identifying theodicy is when the text itself reveals it
explicitly. It can be deduced from other parts; however, it should only in a supplementary
fashion to where it is purposely addressed. The questioning of God's justice may be
heartfelt on the part of the reader but if it does not coincide with an identifiable intention
of the author, then, we may actually address our theodic interest with the texts of John but
not John's problem with the justice of God expressed in the text. In the Gospel of John,
however, the question of the unnamed disciples: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his
parents, that he was born blind?" (Jn 9:2) seems to be an obvious question of theodicy.
7
The study of the previous chapter demonstrates that it is inserted in a recognizable
tradition of theodic discussion, that of intergenerational retribution. However this has
found only mild support and interest in scholarship. It is easily dismissed with the
explanation that it represented an ancient belief in intergenerational retribution, without
inquiring how it got there in the first place and whose interest it represented. In the third
chapter I will attempt to demonstrate that even if not in modern scholarship, in antiquity
at least the macro context of the story of the man born blind was capable of appealing to
the Jewish and the Hellenistic intended audience of the Gospel of John, in proven matters
of theodicy.
The last chapter will gather the information collected from the study of theodicy
in the Gospel of John and put them back within the fields of historical research and
Johannine literature. Therefore, in the first part I will assess whether the issue of theodicy
had some relevance in the early formation of the Johannine community. In other words, I
will enter into what is the most hypothetical nature of this dissertation, the possible
identity of the unnamed disciples asking a theodic question to Jesus in the story of the
man born blind. Anonymity and proximity are the two critical terms of reference for that
particular research. They were close to be witnesses of Jesus' miracle and yet, far from a
well defined personality. Do they stand for "anyone" approximately close to Jesus, or is
possible to trace back information about their provenance? If they are not among the
group of the twelve, are they among those who more generically followed him and at
times left him (Jn 6:3,66)? Obviously, what the answer intends to provide is not
presumption of certainty but verifiable investigative leads for a research I consider still
open and exciting.
8
The previous chapters constituted an attempt to enlarge the literary background
within which theodicy in the Gospel of John could be situated. The presupposition was
that Johannine theodicy outside the inherited genealogy of which John was a receptor is a
dubious effort. Finally, in the second part of the last chapter I will sketch some directions
for what is essentially an inverted approach to the one used up to this point. I will
consider how the Gospel's theodicy works once is reversed back into Johannine
canonical literature.
I became originally interested in biblical theodicy when a friend alerted me to a
reading of Carl Jung on the book of Job. There I found that the contrast between Job and
the Almighty is interpreted with a reversal of roles which impressed me profoundly for its
boldness. Job did not only protest, he inquired. Journeying courageously into the
"shadow" side of God and what hypothetically created enmity from God against him, Job
exposed divine weakness within divine omnipotence:
But what does man possess that God does not have? Because of his littleness,
puniness, and defenselessness against the Almighty, he possesses, as we have
already suggested, a somewhat keener consciousness based on self-reflection:
he must, in order to survive, always be mindful of his impotence. God has no
need of this circumspection, for nowhere does he come up against an
insuperable obstacle that would force him to hesitate and hence make him
reflect on himself. Could a suspicion have grown up in God that man
possesses an infinitely small yet more concentrated light than he, Yahweh,
possesses? A jealousy of that kind might perhaps explain his behaviour.
4
The point is not to disclaim God but to arrive to a real point of recognition that in his
journey Job had to expect help from God against God. This complexio oppositorum is
what I recognize to-be the true essence of faith within us and our understanding of God.
Theodicy is exactly a complexio oppositorum whenever experience challenges the
certainties of faith or the contrary. This complexity requires insight not oversimplification
4
Carl Gustav Jung, "Answer to Job," in The Portable Jung, 538.
9
if we wish faith to be vital and credible as well as for experience to be meaningful. What
seems necessary is ongoing debate and not final solutions. My wish for the reader of this
dissertation is to restore trust, if needed, that God still enjoys conversing and debating
with us today as Yahweh did in the original walks: "in the garden at the time of the
evening breeze" (Gen 3:8) without having to hide in shame the questions boiling up
within the hearts of men and women, young and old of past and future generations.
CHAPTER 1:
FORSCHUNGSBERICHT ON BIBLICAL THEODICY
There are two basic orientations in the treatment of biblical theodicy. The first
considers theodicy as the legitimate questioning of God on the part of the original biblical
authors. The second argues that theodicy is not just about pronouncing a verdict on God.
At times theodicy is a powerful guardian to the precincts of constituted privileges. I will
indicate some cases where punishments and rewards attributed to God coincide with
these approaches.
Furthermore, from a methodological point of view, it is possible to analyze
theodicy in two ways: synchronic and diachronic. The first compares similar subjects of
theodicy out of different thematic and historical contexts. The second delineates theodicy
in a progressive flow like a river giving and receiving water in relation to its literary
tributaries. This second approach is the one I have favored. I consider this a summary
journey which intends to reach the Gospel of John, as if it were one of the several outlets
of the New Testament delta.
1. Definitions of Biblical Theodicy
The "why" of suffering appeals to the very core of religion. Attempts to make
sense of it have always been present in the history of biblical studies. The Bible itself is a
collection of texts which intends to reconcile the experience of suffering with faith in a
10
11
benevolent God. In several disciplines such as theology, philosophy and sociology, this is
referred to as theodicy. However, theodicy as a specific subject of research in the field of
biblical criticism can be considered a recent development. James Crenshaw and Walter
Brueggemann above all have dedicated a great deal of their scholarship to this subject,
giving impulse and direction to further inquiries. Their contribution will be object of
consideration in the following section. In the year 2003 a collection of studies was
published in a volume titled Theodicy in the World of the Bible} This work addresses
questions of method and it analyzes theodicy in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near
East, in the New Testament, and in intertestamental writings including Qumran, Philo of
Alexandria and rabbinic Judaism.
2
In spite of increased interest, biblical theodicy still encounters difficulties in
claiming its specific identity and general recognition. Any biblical study dealing with the
origin of evil, judgment, retribution, salvation, etc., is bound to address questions of
theodicy. However, it is not common to relate them explicitly to theodicy. This hesitancy
is justified. For one thing, the term theodicy is a relatively newly coined word which
hardly applies to pre-modern thinking about evil. It is a neologism created by Leibniz
after the analogy of a lawsuit. Secondly, it is too vague: "as if one could classify under
1
Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill,
2003).
2
This is the most comprehensive work on biblical theodicy to date. Particular interest has been
given to the influence of Near Eastern civilizations. However, it is lacking on the Zoroastrian and the
Greco-Roman background of theodicy in the Bible.
3
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in 1710 published Essais de theodicee: sur la bonte de Dieu et la
Liberte de I'homme et I'origine du mal. There he compounded two Greek words (Geoc-SiKn for God-justice)
to deal with the relation between God and evil. In spite of its post-Enlightenment milieu, often the
treatment of theodicy is in debt to Stoic-NeoPlatonic world view, cf, Walter Eichrodt, "Faith in Providence
and Theodicy in the Old Testament," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 17-41. For the provenance of this
term and its applicability to antiquity, see Marcel Sarot, "Theodicy and Modernity," in Theodicy in the
World of the Bible, 1-26.
12
this heading every statement which seeks to maintain faith in God over against the
enigmas of existence."
4
In classical rabbinic literature David Kraemer has studied this subject but he has
explicitly rejected the use of the term theodicy. He considers it alien to Rabbis who did
not compose philosophical (Greek) treatises on evil or justice. This could apply as well to
much of the Hebrew Scripture. He has chosen "suffering" as the more appropriate term
because of its "heuristic" and not doctrinaire nature. In his words: "[a]ll theoretical
treatments, be they discussions of evil, theodicy, or 'destruction' (as category), are
provoked by the primary experience of suffering."
5
Kraemer, then, restricts it to the
subjective, particular context in which ancient literary authors experienced it. However,
this characterization seems to be too exclusive. Human representations of suffering in
classical texts of antiquity have the power to bridge meaning between cultures, ages, and
human experiences of crisis.
Before the current use of the term theodicy in the Bible, scholars used "suffering"
as the typical way to refer to what today we mean by theodicy.
7
At this point I adopt the
term biblical theodicy for the specific and yet hermeneutically creative polysemy of its
two words, God and justice, as these are applied to the field of biblical studies. The
author of this neologism, theodicy, was inspired to write on this subject by the reading of
4
Eichrodt, "Providence and Theodicy," 39.
5
David Kraemer, Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995), 8-9.
6
This according to a notion of "classic" as a category for religious texts, in David Tracy, The
Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 1 -
60.
7
See the bibliography of Jim A. Sanders, "Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament
and Post-Biblical Judaism," Colgate Rochester Divinity School Bulletin Special Issue 28 (1955): 125.
13
a New Testament text : "If our injustice serves to confirm the justice [5u<moai>vr|v] of
God [0eou], what should we say? That God is unjust [CCSIKOC;] to inflict wrath on us?"
(Rom 3:5). In the controversial emphasis contained in the association of these two terms,
God and justice-injustice, I will specify the point of view from which to address the
question of biblical theodicy. In fact, the unstable association of these two words
constitutes a continuum of challenge which creatively interrogates our belief in a
providential God from generation to generation.
While not using the term theodicy, the disconcerting relation between evil and
God was a subject of research for many philosophers and theologians of antiquity. For
instance, in De Ira Dei, (ANFa,13) the often quoted paraphrase of Lactantius (c. 245-325
CE) from a text of Epicurus, captures with sharpness the "threatening" power of a
dissenting theodicy:
God, he [Epicurus] says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or
He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both
willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in
accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is
envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor
able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both
willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are
evils? Or why does He not remove them {cur ilia non tollitj!
9
Epicurus did not intend to deny the existence of God. He denied God's involvement in
the world and the history of human beings. For this he instructed his disciples in the
Garden to live wisely, relying on the evidence of the senses to eliminate superstitions and
This confirms what Sarot sustains, that while a new way of thinking about God and evil has
taken place in modernity, Leibniz did not introduce the word theodicy to indicate a new approach to evil.
Max Weber has identified this new way of thinking about theodicy when human beings applied their moral
norms to the one God. See Sarot, "Theodicy and Modernity," 19-21.
9
The quote with its relative Latin text is taken from Sarot, "Theodicy and Modernity," 7, n. 12.
14
beliefs in supernatural interventions.
10
The contemporaneous approach to the problem of
evil has obviously changed. Sarot lists several changes that affect our view on evil
differently than how, for instance, ancient Christian authors came to reflect upon it.''
After Leibniz, he affirms, evil is perceived as a threat against theism: evil is not only
inconsistent with the principle of a benevolent God but it is actually a denial of the very
existence of God. In the biblical literature God's existence is never denied, and even if
portrayed as an antagonist, God remains always the interlocutor on the question of evil.
12
Secondly, while before the eighteenth century the problem of evil "was aimed at winning
over those within Christianity holdingfalse beliefs . . . from Leibniz onwards, theodicy is
aimed at winning over non- believers
M
Should we then limit its use only to post-
Enlightenment thinking?
Sarot justifies the use of the term theodicy in biblical scholarship. He adduces the
argument that it is an over-simplification to define pre-modern thinking as a unified front
of reference. As well, the way the Hebrew Scriptures thought about God is not so
homogenous as to be univocally contrasted with contemporary standards. While
differences are evident, he gives few instances to demonstrate that sometimes the two are
not far removed from each other. One is from the so called "innocence psalms" (e.g., Pss
17,26,59, etc.), where the punishment of God is contested on a presumption of
The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, ed. M. C. Howatson, 2nd ed. (Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 215, s.v. "Epicurus."
11
Sarot, "Theodicy and Modernity," 5-16.
12
The "practical atheism" of Qoheleth does not constitute a theory against theistic belief; the
purpose of his writing is to see how to attain happiness in spite of evil. The quote of fools: "there is no
God" (Pss 10:4, 14:1, 53:1), likewise is meant to demean their perverse behavior not to deny the existence
of God. However, the skepticism of Qoheleth's inquisitions reveals peculiar Epicurean echoes; cf. 3:19-22,
7:15.
13
Sarot, "Theodicy and Modernity," 6.
15
innocence.
14
Undeserved suffering was a question addressed to God then as it is now.
Likewise Job, who represents theodicy in the Bible per antonomasia, makes use of legal
language to defend his conduct before the "so-called" friends. This is something not
completely dissimilar to the legal motif employed by Leibniz who authored the word
theodicy.
15
What has emerged up to now is that the ineffectiveness of applying the term
theodicy to the Bible may be caused by two problems. One use is too broad, extending
approximately to almost any biblical text. The second use is anachronistic, projecting a
"modern" pre-understanding back to biblical authors, their literary and theological
contexts. This requires certain restrictions and I will indicate some. On the other hand,
the expectation of a rigid and exclusively technical "solution" should not be raised either,
in a discipline that approaches historical criticism and hermeneutic as a field to explore
and boundaries to redefine. Therefore a consideration of some current definitions of this
term in biblical research may give us a necessary sense of perspective.
2. Theodicy under Judgment
James Crenshaw has first defined biblical theodicy "loosely as the attempt to
pronounce a verdict of 'Not Guilty' over God for whatever seems to destroy the order of
society and the universe."
16
In another publication, he asserted that:
Theodicy refers to the attempt to pronounce God innocent of the evil that
befalls human beings. This understanding of the term differs from Post-
14
E.g., Ps 17:1-2, "Hear a just cause, O LORD; attend to my cry; give ear to my prayer from lips
free of deceit. From you let my vindication come; let your eyes see the right."
15
Sarot, "Theodicy and Modernity," 22-6.
16
James L. Crenshaw, "Introduction," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 1.
16
Enlightenment efforts to demonstrate the intellectual credibility of an infinite
being or power and to show that belief in deity can coincide with belief in a
mechanistic universe. Theodicy is therefore an articulate response to the
anomie of existence, one that goes beyond silence, submission, and rebellion
to thoughtful justification of the deity in the face of apparently contradictory
evidence.
17
A reference to a legal form through which theodicy is expressed seems to prevail. God
stands before a humanly created tribunal where time after time (in a very predictable
way) is pronounced "not guilty" or "innocent." Two aspects seem relevant, besides the
warning against anachronistic retrospections. The first is the legal language attributed to
theodicy. While God hardly ever stands in court with a status of inferiority,
18
judicial
proceedings often characterize a dispute over a condition of presumably undeserved
oppression. A dispute has to take place before a resolution comes. Therefore, theodicy
writing is always against the accuser and in favor of the accused or vice versa.
The second is that debate generates transformation in our understanding of God.
Psalm 82, for instance, represents God standing in the divine assembly as prosecutor and
judge. A verdict is delivered against unjust deities and their status is downgraded to a
condition of mortality ( mi o) in 82:7.
19
While on one side the initiative is attributed to
God, Crenshaw's theodic analysis of the psalm clarifies that in fact it is the poet who
evokes a transition: "deferred justice calls for a different deity!"
20
What stands before the
profession of a new faith is the fact that the old one is (implicitly) given a guilty
indictment. The God who leaves no one in a condition of oppression is given an innocent
James L. Crenshaw, "Theodicy and Prophetic Literature," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible,
236.
18
Exception made for Dan 7:9-10, attributed to Persian influence; see James L. Crenshaw,
Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 51, n.
28.
19
The turning of gods into the condition of humankind (mit) implicitly affirms the expectation
that divine justice has to be greater than the one human beings enforce, often disregarding the condition of
the poor.
20
Crenshaw, Defending God, 53.
17
verdict. God is asked to change while the psalmist's understanding of God had already
gone through a transition. While Crenshaw does not make it explicit, the second
significant aspect of his definitions is that there is no verdict unless dissent has preceded
it. Dissent is an integral part of the theodic process.
21
Dissent coincides with a situation of
transition in the traditional definition of God.
3. Theodicy and Social Analyses
Somewhat complementary are the comments of Walter Brueggemann. He relates
theodicy to social analyses. This connection was made previously, among others, by
Peter Berger. He has affirmed that theodicy gives us answers that make living possible
before the threat of anomic phenomena whose power of chaos can completely disrupt the
texture or the canopy of our communal relations. In his analysis, theodicy functions as a
guarantor of a status quo with a relative set of rewards and punishments. These have
always a beneficial effect on a group which adopts them, and defends them. However,
what may constitute a theodicy of happiness for one group may actually be
contemporaneously a theodicy of suffering to another. In the composition of the two
words, SLKTI qualifies the meaning of what precedes it, 9eo<;. A theodic crisis arises when
social consensus on how God legitimates distribution of power and social goods does not
produce the expected benefits. Brueggemann affirms:
21
James L. Crenshaw, "The Human Dilemma and Literature of Dissent," in Tradition and
Theology in the Old Testament, 235-58; James L. Crenshaw, "Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in
Ancient Israel," in Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom,
289-304.
22
Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden
City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1967), 59.
23
This may be the case of Western theodicies giving an innocent verdict to God for the prosperity
experienced at the expense of others who obviously should dissent such judgment.
18
Behind the crisis of theodicy there is an assumed theodicy settlement,
something of a consensus in the community about the kinds of actions that
produce (and deserve) good outcomes (according to God's good pleasure) and
bad outcomes (according to God's displeasure). It is an agreement about who
gets what. The theodic settlement in a community may be implicit, hidden,
and left without articulation. It is nonetheless powerful, insistent, and
characteristically uncompromising. The "settlement" may be highly
theological, rooted in the assured character of God, and therefore highly
idealistic and morally demanding. Or the settlement may be largely practical,
rooted in power relationships, and aimed at the preservation of power
arrangements and the maintenance of social control and privilege, very likely
every serious theodic settlement is a combination of theological and
prudential components, thus claiming both high legitimacy and social
practicality.
24
Following this initial statement, Brueggemann gives some examples of theodicy
settlements in the OT. In the Torah tradition it is found in the legal precepts (Deut 30:15-
20). The prophetic traditions express it in prophetic lawsuits featuring an indictment for
sin committed and sentence given as punishment (Hos 4:14; Amos 4:1-3; Mic 3:9-12).
Wisdom material characterizes it in the contrast between the conduct of the "wise" and
the "foolish," with respective consequences (Prov 8:33-36, 11:8, 12:13, 13:3). The
Psalms compound many genres, drawing from the Torah and the insights of Wisdom.
In these settlements, God presides over human actions, judges them and delivers
reward and punishment accordingly. However, in the case of Job, the covenantal
agreement is challenged. Job does not engage in a speculative struggle. His statements
are dramatically practical, based on his experience. Instead the three friends Eliphaz,
Zophar, and Bildad argue in favor of the old theodic settlement. Their situation is
Walter Brueggemann, "Some Aspects of Theodicy in Old Testament Faith," Perspectives in
Religious Studies 26, no. 3 (Fall 1999): 253.
25
Brueggemann includes another modality of reward and punishment contained within the action
itself. He refers it to Klaus Koch. The latter has disagreed against the common relationship between actions
and consequences as being determined by the retribution of Yahweh. He speaks of "the concept of actions
with built-in consequences." God does not enforce punishment or retribution but facilitates the completion
of something which previous human action has already set in motion. See Klaus Koch, "Is There a Doctrine
of Retribution in the Old Testament?," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 83.
19
different and the challenge of Job not only undermines their theology but challenges the
social privileges of the status quo they represent and its presumed divine legitimation.
26
The "highly theological" and the "largely practical" dimensions of theodicy find here a
critical point of conflagration.
4. An Indication of Methodology
Crenshaw and Brueggemann represent specular views of theodicy, addressing
respectively the implications contained in the two words it compounds. In both cases,
whether protest is made against God for presumed negligence or against "bad justice"
legitimated by God, human experience of adversity is the primary reference in this
theological inquiry. Loprieno indirectly confirms this in his study of theodicy in ancient
Egyptian texts during the reign of Queen Hatshepust (1480-1460 BCE) in the early New
Kingdom. This period of prosperity, after the victory over the Hyksos, coincides with a
relatively insignificant production of texts questioning the benevolence of God. Instead
97
God's providence is praised.
The literary analysis of ancient texts indicates that is possible to characterize
theodicy with a negative, polemic, complaining side attached to it, somewhat at the
opposite pole of the affirmative celebration of God's benevolent activity that is
commonly referred to as divine providence. The anticipation of this conclusion that I
26
Brueggemann proposes that the social context of the book of Job concerns the loss and
restoration of the land. In Job 31:2-4 we hear the voice of those for whom the system produces happiness.
In 21:7 we hear the voice of those for whom the system does not work and produces misery. See Walter
Brueggemann, "Theodicy in a Social Dimension," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985):
13-8.
27
Cited by Antti Laato, "Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History," in Theodicy in the World of
the Bible, 185-235.
20
hope my work will make more evident, is to justify the particular attention I will devote
to the question of dissent. Theodicy's point of departure is dissent against God's justice
due to unmerited suffering, and conversely against how inflicting injustice is justified in
the name of God. Dissent is the "engine" which invalidates a set of theodic answers and
creates the critical conditions for another to eventually take their place. While the
emphasis of theodicy has usually being given to the "answer" aspect, more should be
given to the question and the transitions it produces in the biblical development of
theodicy. While it is possible to find biblical texts that present answers without a clear
identification of the questioners, for instance in the book of Sirach, the answers often
indicate a conservative effort to preserve tradition against the threat of innovation.
Questions are typical expressions of dissent that if denied or ignored may arm the
meaningfulness of the answers a given theological system intends to provide.
Crenshaw, after many years of scholarship dedicated to this subject, has remarked
that: "a comprehensive study of biblical theodicies has yet to appear."
28
Literature winds
across the plain of biblical studies without a defined perimeter and an independent
course. Obviously the variety of textual genres within the Bible, the vast spectrum of
historical contexts in which the sources are located, and the "interference" of theological
interests at stake, make this type of research more fragmented than what a theological or
philosophical analysis of the same subject would.
29
Abstracting general categories for the
purpose of understanding may do violence to the original texts; however, a
Forschungsbericht on this subject needs some organizing principle in order to "stick"
together.
28
Crenshaw, Defending God, 18.
29
For a thorough bibliography on theodicy, see Barry L. Whitney, Theodicy: An Annotated
Bibliography on the Problem of Evil 1960-1990 (New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1993).
21
A. Laato and J. C. de Moor in their editorial introduction to Theodicy in the World
of the Bible choose to make use of general philosophical categories to offer their readers
an interpretative key to the work of their contributors. These are the fundamental
premises: there is one God; this God represents goodness and justice; this God has power
in this world; suffering and evil are a reality of this world. The validity of theodicy is
forfeited whenever any of such premises fails. If they are preserved, then, theodicy is
inherently coherent. In their presentation, the question of theodicy is "answered"
according the following two typologies.
In the first or negative approach, theodicy is dissolved when God cannot be made
responsible for evil. For instance, in some ancient Near Eastern polytheistic beliefs "one
deity is responsible for the evil and suffering and another deity will restore the
sufferer."
31
When the second premise falls, namely God's justice and goodness, there is
no more need to defend. In the case of the Babylonian Theodicy, when God is ultimately
shrouded in mystery, the purpose of theodicy comes to an end. The third cause for the
removal of theodicy is the denial of God's omnipotence. The classical belief system of
Zoroastrianism, with Satan playing opposite to God, can be considered an inevitable
limitation on God's power. Finally, when suffering is considered a consequence of
attachments to illusion, as in the monist reading of the Vedantic tradition, theodicy arrests
again its case.
The second typology is organized as a defense of the four philosophical premises.
This is the umbrella under which all the contributions are made to fit. In the monotheistic
30
Annti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, "Introduction," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, xx-
liv.
31
While the authors acknowledge the over-simplification of this statement they still consider it a
valid summary view, see Annti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, "Introduction," in Theodicy in the World of
the Bible, xxii.
22
Jewish-Christian (and Islamic) context of theodicy, the four premises are upheld through
the following categories: retribution in the framework of covenant theology, suffering for
an educative purpose, recompense deferred to the end of history in the eschaton, the
incapacity of human mind to fathom the mystery of God, suffering as a means to bring
human closer to God, and theodicy based on human determinism or divine fate.
The risk of applying a philosophical frame to biblical research seems to prevail.
Normally it takes place by the use of terminology and concepts which may be foreign to
the biblical texts. It may find justification in the effort to satisfy our need of pre-
understanding; however, our understanding of the text is what may alter the
comprehension of the original context. Possibly, this is elicited by the controversial
power theodicy holds to threaten the worth if not the very existence of God by ascribing a
guilty verdict on the same.
32
In the summary of relevant secondary literature on this subject matter, I have
favored those who have described the dissenting part of theodicy or have underlined the
lack of it. A diachronic reading of the most significant literary sources will attempt to
trace the genealogy of this particular expression within Israel and the neighboring
civilizations. History of religion may be identified with salvation history, where progress
is somewhat equivalent to evolutionary betterment. Regression, however, is also possible
and under changed vestiges the same issues may reoccur in different contexts again and
However, the effort to justify God's ethical character is defined the "foolish business" of
theodicy by Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Emerson Buchanan (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969),
315.
23
again, like traces of a DNA transmitted from one generation to the other.
33
Some
examples may clarify the aforementioned insight.
A long genealogy can be traced in the Christian belief in the devil. The roots sink
parallel into different cultures which represented deities in combat mythologies. While
Yahweh is often portrayed bellicosely in the enforcement of divine rule, there is not a
dualistic opposition between two equivalent powers. Dualism surfaces after the
Babylonian exile due to a prolonged encounter with Persian religion. The result is that a
new insight into the origin of evil is adopted to exculpate God from the accusation of
direct responsibility for evil befalling the righteous. For example, the account of the
census of David, in the pre-exilic account of 2Sam 24:1 shows that it is God's anger
which causes David to sin. However, in the later account of IChr 21:1 the responsibility
is attributed to the devil, identified in Hebrew as Satan (]ttto) and in the LXX as
diufiokoc,.
For pre-exilic Jews, suffering was not caused by the devil but was the legitimate
way through which divine retribution sanctioned sins, according to one's guilt. Instead, in
the preaching of Jesus and his disciples, unmerited suffering, for instance in the form of
persecution, was often caused by the devil precisely because one was a righteous follower
of Jesus (Mk 10:30; Mt 5:11-12; Jn 16:22-23).
35
The combat between two opposing
factions entailed trials on the part of the Christians but at the end, reward would
compensate the innocent suffering previously endured. Meanwhile the old traditional
33
The two methodological approaches of salvation history and genealogy are compared in
Gregory J. Riley, The River of God; A New History of Christian Origins (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 1-16.
34
"For late biblical historiography, of which Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles represent the primary
examples, the belief that 'God is just' is an absolute, undisputable tenet, one of the most fundamental
aspects of God's image." Sara. Japhet, "Theodicy in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles," in Theodicy in the
World of the Bible, 429.
35
Gregory J. Riley, One Jesus, Many Christs (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 20-30.
24
doctrine of earthly compensation had not disappeared. We find in fact that the Sadducees,
the traditionalists most in power at the time of Jesus, did not believe in after-life
compensation (Mk 12:18). Theodicy had to uphold the old standards of earthly
retribution. In conclusion, what appears is that the two views were able to coexist
meaningfully and contemporaneously. What preceded and what followed coexisted not as
paradoxical contradiction but as part of a common genealogy.
What I have gathered from this introductory chapter is that theodicy functions
dialectically between those who challenge the implementations of divine retribution and
those who on the contrary strenuously defend the nature of an ethical God before contrary
evidence. I call the first a theodicy of dissent and the second a theodicy of providence.
Both have contributed to expand our understanding of God as well as the social
implications derivable from these respective definitions. In the following chapter I will
highlight how both have traced a line of reflection which will provide a valuable literary
background for my research on theodicy in the Gospel of John.
CHAPTER 2:
THEODICY OF DISSENT AND THEODICY OF PROVIDENCE
To organize a diachronic reading under subject headings is always a risky
endeavor due to an inevitable tendency to level the differences between items grouped
together. Yet, I have come to realize that two basic tendencies in the study of theodicy are
relevant: accusation and defense. For one who denies justice on the part of God, another
comes to God's defense or vice versa. Debate is the natural context of theodicy;
therefore, both voices have to be represented.
In the diachronic study of theodicy which will follow, there will be issues that
will continue to return as in a genetic code passed from one generation to the next:
questions of innocent suffering, intergenerational retribution, and the origin of evil. In the
problematisation of the question of evil in ancient literature, it seems to me that these are
among the subjects which have attracted most attention.
In this summary progression of theodicy, I have come to make a basic distinction.
Many of the documents studied, expressing accusations against God (dissent) with
greater frequency, precede Plato's metaphysical works. After Plato, texts tend to dwell
more on the defense of God even at the cost of laying excessive responsibility on human
shoulders.
1
Exceptions are present and they will be acknowledged. However, it is
important to recognize a point of transition as an organizing principle without making it
1
In theodic discourse God is saved by imputations of fault when this is thoroughly attributed to
human beings, otherwise referred to as anthropodicy. This is a case in which God's righteousness is
preserved by human supervision of divine ethical comportment.
25
26
absolute. These two approaches to theodicy have been characterized as dissent and
providence.
Theodicy may be a reading of God in the light of experience or, on the contrary, a
reading of experience in the light of doctrines which define God in the upcoming
research. The two views will often seem to stand in a conflictive debate. Yet, if religious
discourse has achieved true advancement, this has happened when dialectic between the
two parts has been favored, not when one tended to be silenced by the other.
1. Genealogy of Dissent
The purpose of a genealogical analogy is to acknowledge the intertextuality
connecting literary works, not to presume that evolution is equivalent to progress.
2
Therefore it is not the intention of this excursus to trace an evolutionary line to indicate a
movement that considers primitive texts as less insightful than later theological
developments.
1 will begin with a selective choice of texts pertaining to people antecedent to the
beginning of Israelite history. Here is possible to find some of the roots of Israel's initial
questions of dissent against God. It is the opinion of Ronald J. Williams that Egyptian
literature lacked interest in the issue of theodicy. He attributes this to the emphasis on
secrecy within its legal system. Retribution is accountable to a given legal code of
expected behavior. Secrecy denied the possibility of argumentation on the part of people,
hiding in mystery the will of the gods. Secondly, ancient Egyptian belief in immortality
2
Riley remarks that "evolution does not guarantee 'progress' in quality, only in survival," {River
of God, 15).
assured justice if not here on earth, then at least at the end of one's life. However,
Loprieno's work has indicated that the "Egyptian 'theodicy of god' . . . displays a
dialectic spectrum wholly compatible with the theodicean debate in biblical literature,
from a recognition of the existence and stability of evil to a concern about God's
negligent administration of its effects."
4
Throughout Egyptian history some of the
recurring themes of theodicy are: the origin of evil attributed to human disobedience,
5
protest against the gods,
6
and retribution.
7
In Akkadian literature around the late second millennium we find the Babylonian
o
Theodicy. The format is that of a dialogue between a sufferer and his friend. Dissent is
expressed against the doctrinal creed defended by a friend. The sufferer's
Erfahrungswissen says the contrary, that the rich and ungodly people prosper while the
righteous do not.
9
Only a statement about the inscrutability of the mind of the gods saves
the sufferer's faith and allows renewed determination to continue. Van der Toorn
3
Ronald J. Williams, "Theodicy in the Ancient Near East," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 42-
56.
4
The citation from Loprieno is in Laato, "Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History," 39.
5
The collections of funerary spells in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom named Coffin Texts and the
Book of the Two Ways in the ANET collection.
6
During the Ramesside era, for instance, the lament of the pseudo-epigraphic sage Ipuwer
questions God in such words: "Where is He today? Is He asleep? Look, there is no sign of His power
around." In Admonitions of Ipuwer, 11,12-12,6; cited Laato, "Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History,"
28. It should be added that God countered these accusations as well, as in Coffin B
3
C dated approximately
around the same time: "1 made every man like his fellow. I did not command that they do evil, (but) it was
their hearts which violated what I had said." ANET, 8.
7
"I committed a sin against the goddess of the Western peak, and she taught me a lesson."
Neferabu stela, Turin CGT 50058, ANET, 52.
8
For a reassessment on the date of origin and authorship, see Karel van der Toorn, "Theodicy in
Akkadian Literature," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, 65-9.
9
So the contrary voices: "[my woes] let me tell you,. . . The wealthy man . . . they have glorified
eagerly, (But) who ever favored the radiant just man? The one who beholds the countenance of a god has
(protecting) Lamassu, the one who reverently worships a goddess heaps up abundance . . . Pay attention a
moment, and listen to my speech. 'They walk on a lucky path those who do not seek [a god], those who
devoutly pray to [a goddess] become poor and weak.' In my childhood I [investigated] the mind of the god,
in humility and piety have I searched for the goddess: (and yet) a corvee without profit I bear like a yoke;
the god brought me scarcity instead of wealth;. . . Like the center of the heavens, so the divine counsel [is
remote]." In "A Dialogue about Human Misery," ANET, 439.
28
considers the capacity to dissent as the signal of a growing individuality. While at the end
faith is reaffirmed, the effect of this dialogue is to acknowledge one's doubts in order to
strengthen one's relation to the gods.
10
A socio-historical reading of the Babylonian Theodicy by Rainer Albertz reveals
that it should be understood as a literary document stemming from a time of social
transformation due to a collapse of traditional social order where the new elite oppresses
the sufferer. In this case theodicy not only reflects a context in which God's justice is
questioned on the base of unmerited suffering, but of unmerited opulence as well.
Suffering expressed in dissent generates new theology. In the words of Van der Toorn:
"[T]he problem of the theodicy gave rise, ultimately, to a theology of revelation. If the
theodicy question is an expression of skepticism, skepticism can be said to have bred the
1 ?
counter-dogma of revelation."
The Hittite tablets from the capital city Hattusa, and the provincial administrative
centers in Sapinuwa, Tapikka, and Sarissa have brought to light a large body of legal
texts. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., inquiring about the subject of theodicy in Hittite literature,
has given a critical reading on the written ethical norms contained there.
13
This type of
literature seems to hold the greatest potential to generate dissent. Usually there is not
dissent if punishment is assigned for a given infraction. Whenever suffering falls outside
Similarly, it is affirmed in Karel van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. A
Comparative Study, Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 22 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 66. "The comparison of
the penitential prayers with the sapiential speculations about the theodicy reveals a common pattern. The
poetization of experiences of downfall and misfortune which created the figure of an emblematic sufferer
was not solely an artistic device to facilitate a comprehensive discussion of a theological problem, but also
served the practical purpose of representing human needs to the gods."
11
Rainer Albertz, "Der Sozialgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Hiobbuches und der 'Babylonischen
Theodizee'," in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fur Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburstag, 349-72.
12
Toorn, "Theodicy in Akkadian Literature," 89. While Van der Toorn supports Rainer's work, he
questions the accuracy of his dating.
13
Harry A. Hoffner Jr., "Theodicy in Hittite Texts," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, 90-107.
29
consensual legally defined boundaries, then claims of innocence in the form of prayers
and oracles arise. The Plague Prayers of King Mursili (1321-1295 BCE) offer such
insight around the third quarter of the fourteenth century BCE. A plague has affected the
family of the king for about twenty years. Therefore, he decides to send his servant to the
Hattaian Storm-god to petition his case. At a crucial point of the prayers he says:
Hattian Storm-god, my lord (and) ye gods, my lords! It is only too true that
man is sinful. My father sinned and transgressed against the word of the
Hattian Storm-god, my lord. But I have not sinned in any respect. It is only
too true, however, that the father's sin has fallen upon me. Now, I have
confessed before the Hattian Storm-god, my lord, and before the gods, my
lords (admitting): 'It is true, we have done it.' And because I have confessed
my father's sin, let the soul of the Hattian Storm-god, my lord, and (those) of
the gods, my lords, be again pacified! Suffer not to die the few who are still
left to offer sacrificial loaves and libations!
14
(italics mine)
The father has sinned by breaking an oath, but the children too are paying the price. The
guilt has to be admitted by the son and a plea needs to be made in order to be spared.
Prayers and sacrifices are made to achieve compensatory restitution. Dissent is not
expressed for a problem which further down the line of history will deeply afflict
theodicy in Israel, namely, intergenerational punishment.
15
The prayer is meant to assure
that once confession and sacrifice are made, God has to comply in bringing the plague to
an end.
In a prayer of Mursili to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, again for a plague scourging
the land, he says:
Whatever rage or anger the gods may feel, and regardless of whoever is not
reverent to the gods, let not the good people perish with the evil! If it is one
town, or one [house], or one man, O gods, destroy that one alone! [Do not
destroy the entire] land of Hatti!
16
14
"Plague Prayers of Mursilis," ANET, 395.
15
"The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." Ezek 18:2; Jer
31:29.
16
Hoffher Jr., "Theodicy in Hittite Texts," 101.
30
Hoffner has noticed that the sequence of 'town . . . household . . . man' in Mursili's
prayer is similar to Joshua's identity search for the culprit of the defeat at Ai.
17
Once
Achan is declared guilty, punishment is inflicted to all his family and property. Mursili
advocates the same for his desperate case.
18
Questioning innocent suffering indirectly is
meant to induce God to an ethical-legal compliance of responsibility in both cases.
The selective excursus of texts pertaining to people antecedent to the documented
beginning of Israelite history coincides with the time of disappearance of the Canaanite
kingdom of Ugarit, a city destroyed by an invasion of the Sea Peoples not long after 1200
BCE and rediscovered in 1929 by a Syrian plowman who accidentally opened a tomb."
19
This hypothesis is not only sustained by recent archeological findings but by literary
evidence as well.
20
Some of the tablets recovered were copied by Ilimalku, a scribe who
also wrote three major literary poems in Ugaritic with the following sequence: Legend of
Kirtu, Myth of Ba'lu, and Legend of Aqhatu. Ilimalku's sagas are related to a deity
called Ilu (El) which is then inherited by the commonly recognized earliest E source of
Josh 7:16-18: "So Joshua rose early in the morning, and brought Israel near tribe by tribe, and
the tribe of Judah was taken. He brought near the clans of Judah, and the clan of the Zerahites was taken;
and he brought near the clan of the Zerahites, family by family, and Zabdi was taken. And he brought near
his household one by one, and Achan son of Carmi son of Zabdi son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was
taken" (italics mine).
18
The implications of corporate personality are frequently seen in the legal treaties between
nations, for instance in the treaty between MurSili and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru, ca. 1280 BCE "20. The
words of the treaty and the oath that are inscribed on this tabletshould Duppi-Tessub not honor these
words of the treaty and the oath, may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Tessub together with his person,
his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his land and together with everything that he owns. 21. But if
Duppi-Tessub honors these words of the treaty . . . may these gods of the oath protect him . . . and his
country" ANET, 205, (italics mine).
19
Michael David Coogan, ed., Stories from Ancient Canaan (Louisville, Kentuchy: Westminster
Press, 1978), 9.
20
Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993), 129.
21
Johannes C. De Moor, "Theodicy in the Texts of Ugarit," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible,
114-6.
31
Hebrew Scriptures.
22
It seems that El and Yahweh will remain two separate gods in the
Bible and only at the time of Second Isaiah did Yahweh take over El's attributes.
23
One of the common threads that unite the sagas of Ilimalku is that gods cannot be
trusted. In the legend of Aqhatu, Dani'ilu's personal patron Ba'lu Ilu gives him a son,
Aqhatu. At the end, however, his patron deity is unable to protect him from the jealousy
of his wife who traps him with the lure of a "romantic" meal. The issue of loyalty seems
to be present in another saga, that of Samson in the book of Judges.
24
Here, however, we
find a sort of inverted situation. Samson symbolizes a negative hero. He exemplifies one
who betrays everything disappointing the meaning of a gift given to a barren woman.
Divided between filial devotion and erotic attachment, Samson is enticed by the surge of
erotic desire and becomes the cause of his own death.
At the final stage of his life, Samson prays in desperation and God assists him in
his final request (Judg 16:28). While Samson does not seem to deserve God's help,
Yahweh remains true to his character and does not abandon him. It is true that Yahweh
lacks the ethical "purity" of later Israelite theology. He is a warrior actively provoking
the Philistines to battle. However, Yahweh watches over his people. For this, Yahweh is
the real hero in the story of Samson, while Ilu is the weak god of Aqhatu's story. While
there were many religious concepts in common with Ilimalku, in the theological
development of early Israel, we witness to the rising of a strong, loyal, and combative
22
Deut 32:8-9 shows how Yahweh is a God subordinate to El: "When the Most High (}r^u)
apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to
the number of the gods; the LORD'S (nirv) own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share."
23
Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come, 135.
24
It is in the book of Judges that the oldest fragments of Hebrew literature, the Song of Deborah
and Jotham's parable of the trees, have being recognized as dependent in their literary forms, on Ugaritic
texts. See W. Thomas Africa, The Ancient World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969), 61. For a
study on theodicy in the story of Samson, see James L. Crenshaw, Samson: A Secret Betrayed, A Vow
Ignored (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978).
32
deity who in turn, demanded exclusive devotion.
Westermann, in his study of lament in Hebrew Scriptures, places Samson's
lament
26
in the early prose of Israel.
27
If on one side, God is characterized as irrational
and instinctive, on the other, there is an equally aggressive directedness in the way God is
confronted by the human counterpart, namely dissent.
28
Samson does not analyze the
contradictions of God's justice but describes the effect they have on him. The function of
the text is not speculative; it intends to bring about change. Westermann affirms that this
form of accusation appears more commonly in the early period, then this "fades gradually
into the background," only to return full force around the time of the great disaster of the
Babylonian exile, in Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Job.
29
The coexistence and eventually the transition from the Canaanite god Elohim to
Yahweh inevitably passes through the patriarchate of Abraham as well as scrutiny over
the morality of God. Two texts have received particular attention in biblical theodicy: the
testing of Abraham and his intercession on behalf of the innocent people of Sodom.
These may be identified among the Urtexte of earliest theodicy in Hebrew Scriptures. In
both cases the issues of corporate retribution and innocent suffering play a significant
role. In one, Abraham is absolutely and silently compliant to the request of human
sacrifice, in the other he dares to question God.
25
De Moor, "Theodicy in the Texts of Ugarit," 150.
26
Judg 15:18b: "You have granted this great victory by the hand of your servant. Am I now to die
of thirst, and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?" This genre belongs to the desert complaining about
God, as in Ex 17:3: "The people thirsted . . . for water; and the people complained against Moses and said,
'Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?"
27
Claus Westermann, "The Complaint against God," in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter
Brueggemann, 233-41.
28
In his study of "why" in the Hebrew Scriptures, one of Barr's conclusions is that "[t]he most
striking fact about 'Why?' . . . is that it is overwhelmingly a term of direct speech." James Barr, "Why? In
Biblical Hebrew," The Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985): 31.
29
Westermann, "The Complaint against God," 240.
33
Genesis 22:1-19 is generally dated in the exilic period for the composite
interaction of E and J traditions. In fact the names of Yahweh and Elohim are
respectively used five times each in the narrative. However, the topic originates at the
earliest layers of the composition. The first questions the ancient cultic practice of
sacrificing the first-born son. The oldest legislation in the Bible, the Covenant code in Ex
20:22-23:33, demanded the offering of the first-born son to God (Ex 22:28b-29). Only
later it is "softened" with the institution of a substitutionary animal victim, according to
Ex 13:2.
31
Many interpreters have thought that the story intended to pass a negative
judgment on the ancient practice of devoting the firstborn to the deity.
Confirming the antiquity of this legal text is the fact that attributing such a role to
God seemed unfitting to later generations. In the case of the narrative prologue of Job, the
role of the tester is not given to Yahweh but to Satan. This will be "pushed" even further
in Wis 10:5 where the interpretation of this same episode attributes to Wisdom the saving
intervention which prevented Abraham from committing a blameful act before God.
Then, in Wis 12:3-6 all the blame for these sacrificial practices will be placed squarely on
"[tjhose who lived long ago in your holy land [namely the Canaanites]."
The practice of sacrificing the firstborn is well attested in the Hebrew Bible and is
a well established practice in the neighboring country. The sacrifice of Jephthah's
daughter belongs to this cultural-religious layer (Judg 11:30-31). However a distinction is
30
Richard A. Freund, "Individual vs. Collective Responsibility: From the Ancient Near East and
the Bible to the Greco-Roman World," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 11, no. 2 (1997): 285.
31
Crenshaw, Defending God, 60-1.
32
The reason for the destruction of the Canaanites is actually attributed to this. See Roman
Garrison, Why Are You Silent, Lord?, The Biblical Seminar, 68 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), 67-8.
33
In Ps 106:38a it is said that: "they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and
daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan"; while the king of Moab sacrificed his son to
obtain the favor of Chemosh (2Kgs 3:27).
34
to be made. The foreign Elohim may require it but not Yahweh. In Deut 12:31 it is said:
"You must not do the same for the LORD your God (mrr
1
?), because every abhorrent
thing that the LORD hates they [the heathens] have done for their gods (Dn
,
r6x
i
?). They
would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods."
Genesis 22 contrasts and opposes two depictions of God, Elohim and Yahweh. On
one side there is an affirmation of the absolute power attributed to Elohim and a dramatic
characterization of Elohim's ignorance about the true intentions of Abraham. At a deeper
level, this indicates a profound mistrust in the establishment of a full allegiance to the
divine.
34
On the opposite, it is the angel of Yahweh (mrr ^ NSQ) who intervenes and stops
the hand of Abraham from striking. Tension between Elohim and Yahweh may be
representative of the wrath and mercy which polarizes their respective personalities.
35
Yahweh's character stands out for his determination to establish communion with the life
of Abraham. At the heart of Yahwism lies in fact: "the belief that Yahweh has chosen
Israel for a special destiny and works toward that goal by active participation in the life of
the elected people."
In the case of Gen 18:22-23, the debate between Abraham and Yahweh before the
destiny of Sodom, may reflect: "exilic discussion about the nature of righteousness in the
community, its status and force."
37
It might also have been subjected to post-exilic
interpolations given the dealing of divine justice in rather abstract terms. While this
34
"After these things God [DT6K] tested Abraham" Gen 22:1.
35
James L. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment; Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive
Presence, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 28-9.
36
Crenshaw, "Literature of Dissent," 246.
37
P. Robert Carroll, "Theodicy and the Community: The Text and Subtext of Jeremiah V 1-6," in
Prophets, Worship and Theodicy, 28.
38
Crenshaw attributes this opinion to Wellhausen in James L. Crenshaw, "The Sojourner Has
Come to Play the Judge: Theodicy on Trial," in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, 81.
35
may be all true, the confrontational mode present in the text and the ethical demands
made on God, may be features already present in the early stages of the J and E
narratives.
Direct address to a presumably culpable deity is a rare feature of ancient Near
Eastern theodicies. In few occasions the hero might be able to intercede on behalf of
most, as Atrahsis in the epic literature of Mesopotamia.
40
However, complete submission
to God allows only indirect, "covered" complaining.
41
Instead, we find that at the earliest
levels of biblical literature, directedness is a trademark. In the J saga of Gideon, an angel
of God announces: "The Lord is with you, you mighty warrior." Against an expected
conventional answer, Gideon replies: "But Lord, if Yahweh is with us, why then has all
this happened to us?" (Judg 6:12-13). Similarly, God's impulsive outbreak of violence
has to be contained in the E narrative of Abimelech in Gen 20. The rushed judgment of
God on him is confronted in a way similar to Abraham's: "Lord, will you destroy an
innocent people?" (Gen 20:4).
39
Cf. Notes 15-17 on Crenshaw, Defending God, 224-5.
40
"[Endowed with w]isdom, the man Atrahasis - his mind alert [to] Ea, his [Lord] - Converse
with his god. His [Lord], Ea, converses with him. Atrahasis opened his mouth, saying To Ea, his lord: 'O
Lord, mankind cries out. Your [an]ger consumes the land. [E]a, O lord, mankind groans. [The anger] of the
gods consumes the land. Yet [it is thou] who has created us. [Let there c]ease the aches, the dizziness, the
chills, the fever!'" ANET, 106.
41
In the Babylonian Theodicy the dialog between the sufferer and the friend suggests exactly this:
"Sufferer: 'Those who do not seek the god go the way of prosperity, while those who pray to the goddess
become destitute and impoverished.' . . . Friend: 'Unless you seek the will of the god, what success can you
have? He that bears his god's yoke never lacks food, even though it may be sparse. Seek the favorable
breath of the god. What you have lost in one year you will make up in a moment.' . . . Sufferer: T have
looked around in the world, but things are turned around. The god does not impede the way of even a
demon.' . . . Friend: 'O wise one, O savant, who masters knowledge, your heart has become hardened and
you accuse the god wrongly. The mind of the god, like the center of the heavens, is remote; knowledge of it
is very difficult; people cannot know it.'" ANET, 602-04.
36
While submission was the highlight of the testing of Abraham, in Gen 18, we find
the opposite characterization.
42
Abraham is the one who dares to challenge the moral
character of God. This reveals the particular theodic concern of J and E, about
conforming God's justice to human standards of fairness.
43
Here Abraham does not
advocate mercy on behalf of an undeserving population. In the following chapter they
will be in fact utterly destroyed. This is not the case of Jonah, where an appeal is made to
universalistic mercy.
44
Fairness is meant to save the innocent and ruthlessly destroy the
heathen, in Yahweh's fiery opposition to evil. God is not asked to comply with standards
of fairness towards the enemies. In the early stages of biblical development divine
responsibility in promoting obduracy does not constitute a problem.
45
There is not a legal
code to make God accountable or to justify the causal connection between sin and
punishment as in the deuteronomistic circles of later time. Instead, in the early genealogy
of biblical dissent, there is the identification of an emerging God demanding exclusive
participation and "allowing" individualized replication in a seeming condition of parity.
Before the encounter with the deuteronomistic view of theodicy, another Gattung
is closer to the earliest period of Israel's development, that of the individual and national
These two chapters are made to be representative of the autonomous and heteronymous
necessary dialectic within theology in Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish
Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 149-53.
43
Credit must be given to Freud for being one of the few to consider questions about theodicy able
to "provide a window into the systematic thinking of a source . . . crucial and not ancillary parts of critical
investigations." See Richard A. Freund, "Thou Shalt Not Go Thither': Moses and Aaron's Punishments and
Varying Theodices in the MT, LXX and Hellenistic Literature," Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament 8, no. 1 (1994): 106. On Yahweh's abiding to a code of human devising, see Crenshaw, "The
Sojourner Has Come," 84.
44
Terrence E. Fretheim, "Jonah and Theodicy," Zeitschriftfur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
90 (1978): 227-37.
45
E.g., Pharaoh (Ex 4:21), Sihon (Deut 2:30), the kings of Northern Canaan (Josh 11: 20), and
Rehoboam(lKgs 12:15).
37
psalm of complaint. In the context of Yahweh's opposition to evil and the particular
relation established with God's devotee, suffering is not interpreted as the consequence of
47
someone's sin. It is instead considered the outbreak of a chaotic power which stands
parallel to God. Complaint is not to be strictly interpreted in terms of unmerited
retribution. The context of complaint psalms is cultic and its aim is to awaken God's
intervention through prayer. Only God can engage the threat of evil and through combat,
achieve liberation or protection for the suffering petitioner.
48
At the earliest level of monarchial theology and Jerusalemite temple theology, the
enemies of Yahweh are not marked by demonological traits as in later biblical
literature.
49
In individual complaint psalms evil is characterized as a threat to someone's
survival, often connected with the hostile forces of primordial Chaos and Death.
50
The
two sphere of power, God and Evil, exist beside each other. God's power is vastly
superior and capable of warding off its incursions. However, God is not omnipotent
because he does not extinguish evil in a definitive way. This results in a perennial
experience of loss and salvation in the presence and the absence of God (Deus praesens -
Deus absconditus). This is what gives motivation to individual complaint psalms. The
enemy (sickness, deathly powers, etc.) can step outside its boundaries for an inexplicable
For a study of psalms in the context of theodicy, see Fredrik LindstrSm, "Theodicy in the
Psalms," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, 256-303. He lists psalms belonging to this genre in Fredrik
Lindstrom, Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms, trans. Michael
McLamb, Coniectanea Biblica - Old Testament Series, 37 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International,
1994), 43-4.
47
Interpretation of suffering in Deuteronomistic theology and in the Psalms of complaint have
been analyzed through the different uses of -in$; see Lindstrom, Suffering and Sin, 14.
48
For instance, Ps 17:8-9: "Guard me as the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of your
wings, from the wicked who despoil me, my deadly enemies who surround me."
49
LindstrSm characterizes this type of dualism as "an area of adversity, which threatens human
existence, and against which YHWH must defend his kingship and his rule." Lindstrom, "Theodicy in the
Psalms," 259.
50
Thus, evil is characterized in a "victim oriented" view more than a morally internalized
dimension.
38
withdrawal of God. This raises the need to protest God's (lack of) intervention in order to
preserve one's survival.
51
One of the psalms protesting God's inactivity is Ps 22 with its accusation: "My
God C^X). . . why have you forsaken me?" The directedness and honesty of this psalm is
typical of this genre.
52
It stresses the existential not the speculative aspect of suffering.
LaCocque considers the enemies in Ps 22 more than just personal foes. The expression
"great assembly"(22:22) may be "a play on words in the sense that the lamenter is
conscious of belonging to a 'great assembly of the afflicted,' different of course from the
Great Assembly of official religion." This social concern plays into Brueggemann's
affirmation that in the compounded word theodicy, ancient Israel is more concerned with
the aspect of justice (5LKT|). Psalms of complaint express a cry for God's intervention but
also point towards situations of injustice and the lamenter's resilience in not submitting to
them.
54
In his theological commentary, Brueggemann classifies the psalms of individual
and communal lament as psalms of "disorientation." These are meant to create a
disruptive break with a theodicy of consensus in order to pass to a new "theodicy of
justice."
55
51
Similarly, Jesus' disciples "lament": "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" (Mk
4:38). The subsequent subduing of the sea on the part of Jesus, evokes the mythological background of this
Gattung.
52
Balentine considers this "loyal opposition" to God, a theodic vehicle that "encourages dialogue,
not monologue, the mutual participation of two partners in the deliberative process, not the domination of
one over the other." Samuel E. Balentine, "Prayers for Justice in the Old Testament: Theodicy and
Theology," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 615.
53
Andre LaCocque, "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?," in Thinking Biblically:
Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, 202.
54
Walter Brueggemann, "The Costly Loss of Lament," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
36 (1986): 57-71.
55
Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis:
Ausburg Publishing House, 1984), 168-76.
39
Perhaps unexpectedly, the protesting character of the psalms of complaint reveals
an underlying assumption of communion, not diffidence. In Ps 5 the petitioner into the
temple of "my King and my God" utters his plea not on the reliance of his moral
qualifications but confiding in the abundance of Yahweh's love (5:8). Psalm 6 describes
the wrath of Yahweh as a potentially destructive force. However, suffering is expressed
in the vocative (Kupie) of God's protection. The fear of punishments due to one's sin do
not prevent the expression of a plea to be rescued. It is within the unbroken bond of
participation that God is approached while at the same time made the object of protest.
56
Evil is characterized as enemy and death (Ps 6:6, 9), thus salvation means deliverance
and destruction of the enemy, not forgiveness or reconciliation.
The identification of evil forces with chaos constitutes the earliest layer within the
later deposited text of the priestly creation story (Gen 1:1-2:3). It reflects the
cosmological mythology of complaint psalms. Creation is not about the extinction of evil
but the ability to guard it off. This is clearly reflected in the ancient monarchical Temple
theology of Ps 74. The combat between the aquatic beasts and God (12-17) is followed
by the victorious ordering of the world. The two myths of the Mesopotamian Enuma
Elish and the Canaanite-Ugaritic Baal stand in the background of several psalms. The
language of the storm God Baal is present in Ps 104:3-4. As Baal overpowers Sea (Yam)
so does Yahweh in Ps 89:9-10 (cf. Job 26:12-13, 39-41; Isa 27:1). In Ps 74:12-17
Yahweh seems to have taken over some of the roles played by Baal and El. This is a
typical case of when different traditions reciprocally merge.
Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 69-70.
Lindstrdm, "Theodicy in the Psalms," 267.
40
In Christianity, creation stories will be interpreted differently, as Levenson
characterizes it: "[bjetween creation and chaos, life and death, there stands neither human
righteousness (which continues to be deficient) nor God's intrinsic unchangeablity
(which this and many other biblical stories belie), but only God's covenantal
faithfulness."
58
Against this background, the traditional Christian view of creation ex
nihilo should rather be interpreted as creation out of chaos.
59
The importance of this late assessment is relevant also for considering the roots of
the question of "being born in sin" in Ps 51:5 (and Ps 58:3).
60
Psalm 51 is attributed to
the encounter of David with Nathan (2Sam 12:13) and presents Second Temple theology.
The aspiration of a radically new heart and spirit is petitioned similarly in Isa 43:25, 44:3;
Jer 31:31-34, 33:4-9; Ezek 36:16-38. However, as we have already noticed, at the earliest
mythological level, sin is not characterized solely in moral terms; what we do against
God. It has a cosmological connotation as to what evil does to us, in a victim-oriented
view. This is so because evil precedes us and it is already existent in the form of chaos.
Thus we are born into sin. Acknowledging one's sins is not just piety. It draws attention
to the need of God's intervention in order to be spared from the overpowering forces of
chaos.
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 14.
59
This is one of the basic foundations of process theodicy, see especially David R. Griffin,
"Creation out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil," in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, 101-36.
60
In New Testament texts this will be relevant as Jn 3:6a affirms in a pejorative sense that "what
is born of the flesh is flesh," or the Jews accuse the man born blind: "You were born entirely in sins" (Jn
9:34). Paul in Rom 5:12 refers to Adam as the man through whom "sin came into the world." For sins of
parents resulting in suffering of children, see Ex 20.5; Num 14.18; Deut 5.9; Jer 31.29; Ezek 18.2; b. Pes
112b. For sins committed in the womb resulting in adult suffering; see Gen 25:22; Pss 51:5, 58:3. These
distinctions and examples are pointed out by Larry P. Hogan, Healing in the Second Temple Period,
Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 281, n. 16.
41
According to Ricoeur, "being born in sin" means that "man is not the origin of
evil; man finds evil and continues it."
61
The nature of sin is pervasive and capable of
intergenerational continuity. The Adamic myth of creation will instead attempt "to set
up a radical origin of evil distinct from the more primordial origin of the goodness of
things." However, at this point of theodic development, there is not a claim to return to
an original condition of sinlessness. While sin remains congenital and in need of being
repeatedly washed (Ps 51:4-7), evil does not assail an individual ex nihilo
64
Sin remains
an existential condition of peril from which only Yahweh can save.
While in the seventh century BCE the Hebrew Bible was in the early stages of its
deuteronomistic redaction, in Greece, centuries before the rise of tragedy and philosophy,
from Homer to Theognis, much concern was also present about good and evil.
65
Epic and
poetic writings do not correspond to the formation of sacred texts as in Israel. However
the early poetic texts were regarded with religious respect and remained an essential point
of departure for the future development of philosophy. One could surmise that "lacking"
sacred writing shaped Greek religion in a way less dogmatic than in the corresponding
deuteronomistic school of Israel.
Even in a superficial overview of Homer, one realizes that themes of retribution,
dissent and intergenerational punishment are vividly present. In the Odyssey, Zeus speaks
of the universal problem of human suffering, indicating a nexus between guilt and evil
61
Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 175.
62
Koch has challenged the traditional idea of retribution in Hebrew Scripture. His concept of
actions with built-in consequences considers the preposition 3 at Ps 51:5 in a locative sense, namely,
children living inside the action of their parents; see Koch, "Doctrine of Retribution," 71.
63
Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 233.
64
Alden L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra, Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 29 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977), 16.
65
William Chase Greene, Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought (New York: Harper &
Row, 1944), 3-46.
fate. Homer does not only describe events but searches for the connections between
causes and consequences. This theodicy affirms that while reckless impulse produced by
divinely induced blindness or air) shapes the destiny of people,
67
human beings may
become responsible for their own destruction due to their lack of moderation-arrogance
oruppic;.
68
Dissent is also present. In the dialogue taking place between Philoetius, the
servant driving some animals for the meal of the suitors, and Odysseus, just returned to
his homeland, the former accuses Zeus of being pitiless and baneful.
69
More moderately,
Achilles' words to the anguish-stricken Priam {Iliad 24.518-533; 549-551) reveal a
philosophy of life based on: "acceptance of the good, resignation before evil, that the
gods bestow, and at last a pity born of fellow-suffering."
70
After Menelaus is wounded,
Agamemnon states his belief in intergenerational retribution. Even if the oaths are broken
(by the Trojans, after the duel) the gods sooner or later will give their punishment and
71
this will extend to the offspring too.
66
"It's astonishing how ready mortals are to blame the gods. It is from us, they say, that evils
come, but they even by themselves, through their own blind folly, have sorrows beyond that which is
ordained." Odyssey 1.32-4.
67
In Homer, this does not correspond to a dualistic view of evil; he has not an absolutely evil god
opposite to goodness. However, &xr\ is what comes closer to the idea of an evil force in Homeric literature.
See Greene, Moira, 13.
68
Werner Jaeger, Paideia: la Formazione dell'Uomo Greco, trans. Luigi Emery and Alessandro
Setti, vol. 1 (Firenze: LaNuova Italia, 1947; reprint, 1991), 270.
69
"Hail, father stranger; may happy fortune be yours in time to come, though now you are gripped
by many evils . . . Father Zeus, no other god is more baneful than you; you have no pity on men when you
have yourself given them sweat broke out on me when I say you, and my eyes are full of tears as I think of
Odysseus." Odyssey 20.195-6.
70
Greene, Moira, 26-7.
71
"Yet in no way is an oath of no effect and the blood of lambs and drink offerings of unmixed
wine and the hand-clasps in which we put our trust. For even if the Olympian does not immediately fulfill
them, yet late and at length he will fulfill them, and with a heavy price do men make atonement, with their
own heads and their wives and their children." 7/;'a<i4.160-163.
43
Hesiod recounted the origins of the world and the gods in the Theogony. Several
similarities appealed to the general pattern of Near Eastern myths.
72
Since many of the
gods coincide with parts of the universe, his theogony is also a cosmogony which
describes the progressive generation of the world out of chaos. Combat among the gods
created an unstable hierarchy which continued to be threatened by sudden outbreaks of
violence. The gods were not omnipotent but in any case they were involved in human
affairs. Everything that happened on earth was a mirror of what happened in the divine
world. The relation between heaven and earth was antagonistic. A pessimistic view of
existence is the wish of never having been born (jo.fi chuvtu) from here on recurring in
Greek and Hellenistic literature.
74
Prometheus obtained freedom for human beings at the
price of his own sacrifice, but, from the point of view of Zeus his is a crime to be
punished with suffering. In Works and Days, social justice instead is the supreme value
and accordingly, the source of reward and punishment from Zeus.
Around the middle of the sixth century, besides the public display of piety,
mystery religion acquire private religious relevance. Orphism in particular will have a
profound influence in the future development of philosophy, because of its proclamation
of the immortality of the soul and the duality of soul and body (the latter being the tomb
of the soul). The doctrine can be summarized in the following sequence: in each one
exists a divine principle, a soul (5cu|i.6viov) which has fallen in the body to expiate an
Africa, The Ancient World, 87.
73
Notable is the corporate level of retribution as well as the association of light-darkness with
righteousness and evil, a characterization rather common in ancient literature: "For whoever knows the
right and is ready to speak it, far-seeing Zeus gives him prosperity; but whoever deliberately lies in his
witness and forswears himself, and so hurts Justice and sins beyond repair, that man's generation is left
obscure thereafter." Theogony 279-85
74
Theogony, 425-428. For the later tradition of this TOTTOC see Greene, Moira, 42, n 189.
44
original fault; this divine principle is not only pre-existent, it does not die in the body
but goes through a series of reincarnations in order to purge the originally inherited guilt;
only the orphic life can free the soul from the body; the initiated to the mysteries will
obtain reward in the life beyond while the rest will receive punishment.
7
The purification
of the divine element from bodily constraints becomes the purpose of one's life.
When we return to Hebrew Scripture around this time we encounter the most
powerful answer to the problem of evil, namely the theodicy of the Deuteronomist. It
covers history from the entrance into the Promised Land up to the loss of the same.
However, most of the writing has taken place during time of the exile onward. It is a
reinterpretation of the past in the light of the dramatic events experienced in the present.
The end of the Davidic covenant, the destruction of the Temple, the loss of land
represented a powerful challenge to inherited insights on the question of evil. As already
seen, they were based on the Yahwistic sense of reverence for God's majesty and at the
same time, of direct confrontation, for the sake of one's survival. The later development
brought the question of divine justice to a greater level of systematization but also of
ideology within what is commonly referred to as the deuteronomistic school.
The early development can be traced in the monarchic period and probably was
influenced by the neo-Assyrian vassal treaties of the seventh century.
77
The Law of
Yahweh stands at the center together with the reciprocal bond of loyalty between God
75
Therefore everyone on earth is guilty due to the unfathomable origin of evil in a previous live.
Ricoeur contrast the Adamic and the Orphic myths. While in the first there is a separation between the one
suffering retribution (Adam) and the one causing it (the serpent), in "the myth of the Titan, instead of
dividing choice and fate between man and demon, concentrates them in a single, ambiguous figure on the
border between the divine and the human." See Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 299.
76
In some orphic laminae one can read: "Rejoice you who have suffered: from man you have
become God" (my translation). Giovanni Reale and Dario Antiseri, IIpensiero occidentale dalle origini ad
oggi, vol. 1 (Brescia: Editrice La Scuola, 1984), 8.
77
Laato, "Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History," 187-98.
45
and Israel. The Law became the charter of the community and the causal connection
between suffering and divine punishment. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of
Israel in 721 BCE became a forewarning of worst events to come. Instead, the
unexpected death of Josiah at Megiddo (609 BCE), only briefly acknowledged in 2Kgs
23:29-30, constituted a traumatic statement of unmerited punishment which had to be
explained for the survival of its doctrine on the justice of God. That event obviously had
the power to break the basic axiom of theodicy in Deuteronomy which is the promise of
covenantic loyalty.
In the death of Josiah, Yahweh's guilt was exposed before everybody's eyes. In
the literature we have examined previously this was a case in which God's involvement
had to be awakened by voices of protest; instead now God's involvement had to be
defended from loss of credibility. The drama of Josiah's death, briefly mentioned and
hardly explained, instead of introducing a degree of elasticity in the doctrine of
retribution, in fact incised and hardened its dogmatic enforcement.
79
The proof is that
what takes central stage on the aftermath of the destruction is not Josiah's holiness but
Manasseh's sin. The latter provided justification for the departure of God from
covenantic responsibility and, for a while, from Israelite history (2Kgs 23:26-26).
Josiah's event is paramount in the development of individual and corporate
retribution. Freund has considered it in the light of an apparent contradiction. The
pronouncements of Ex 20:5b and Deut 5:9b sustain intergenerational retribution.
7
Stanley Brice Frost, "The Death of Josiah: a Conspiracy of Silence," Journal of Biblical
Literature 87 (1968).
79
Eichrodt, "Providence and Theodicy," 31-3.
80
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children nl3N "pi? IpB.
46
Instead, within the same code of law, Deut 24:16 denies it.
81
Freund's source-critical
research demonstrates that the first edition of Deuteronomy can be dated before the death
of Josiah. It is in fact true that some authors interpret the application of collective
retribution in Israel as a necessary though painful measure to limit the infectious
spreading of evil. The second edition, after the exile, however, is particularly influenced
by Jeremiah and Ezekiel who had to debate this question before public dissent.
83
Their
answers will not conclude the ongoing discussion which will carry on in the reflections of
post-exilic prophets.
Robert Carroll has studied the subtext of Jer 5:1-5. In it, he identifies an
ideological interpretation of history typical of the Deuteronomist, according to which: "it
was the community's own fault that it was destroyed." In that passage Yahweh is
portrayed as the one looking for righteous people throughout the city, in a clear reference
to the text of Gen 18:22-23. The search is inconclusive; all have forsaken God. Carroll
sustains the view that the ascertainment of the general guilt of the people is not a
hyperbole but it is actually to be taken in a literal sense. This is how deuteronomic
theodicy functions: to defend God from the accusation of injustice, general guilt has to be
assumed in order to justify general punishment. The Yahwistic conception of history was
81
"Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their
parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death."
82
For instance, Shaye Cohen attributes to texts such as Ex 34:6-7 an intended message of mercy:
"Although God 'forgives iniquity' (a better translation would be 'tolerates iniquity'), he insists that the
guilty party be punished, but through his mercy he allows the punishment to be spread over a span of three
or four generations. From the point of view of the fathers this is real mercy. From the point of view of the
children this might seem to be unjust, but the Israelites (at first) did not think so, because they readily
accepted the fact that an individual was part of a clan and a nation, and that one's fate was indissolubly
linked to that of one's ancestors, descendants, and contemporaries. Later in the pre-exilic period, opinions
changed and the visitation of the sins of the fathers upon the children was reckoned an aspect of divine
anger." In Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, ed. Wayne A. Meeks, Library of Early
Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987; reprint, 1989), 88.
83
Freund, "Individual vs. Collective Responsibility," 288.
84
Carroll, "Theodicy and the Community," 34.
47
teleological, directed to the establishment of the kingdom of David in spite of all his
imperfection. Instead, the Deuteronomist reads history as the realization of the law of
retribution, and in the case of Jerusalem's destruction, of corporate retribution. While this
view was originally influenced by earlier conceptions of sin and bloodguilt, according to
which the appropriate punishment was corporate in nature,
86
now it is utilized to make
theodicy. This justified the moving of all the guilt on people, when necessary, in order to
save God.
This interpretation of events generated public debate. This is evident for
the contrasting views on intergenerational retribution reported in Ezek 18:2, 19.
Here we may find a sign of transition in the genealogy of dissent. Before dissent,
in the form of protest and complaint, was the voice of the petitioner in prima
persona. Often it found expression through God's chosen ones such as Gideon or
Abraham. Now it is originated from outside sources. It is the prophet who reports
it and then repudiates it; all this in order to defend God. While complaint and
praise were at once expressions of the psalmist, at this point it seems that the
prophetic voice is more and more identified with the role of God's defender and
people's prosecutor. This transition gravely contributed to the polarization of
dissent.
Flemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Denteronomistic History,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 251 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1997), 106.
86
Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series, 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 55-66.
87
This is commonly referred to as anthropodicy, cf. James L. Crenshaw, "Introduction: The Shift
from Theodicy to Anthropodicy," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 1-16.
48
Prophets became the object of complaint as the gap between their religious
claims and the actual experience of the people grew much wider.
88
In Ezek 12:22,
God quotes to the prophet a popular proverb that clearly questions the veracity of
prophecy: "The days are prolonged, and every vision comes to nothing." The
reply does not deny the truth of the statement but announces a change: "I will put
an end to this proverb, and they shall use it no more as a proverb in Israel" (Ezek
12:23). The popular level of religion cannot be dismissed as irrelevant: "thus
constituting a handy foil against which to look at the pristine prophetic faith."
89
The validity of the prophetic voice does not depend on people's acceptance.
However, prophetic claims underwent the scrutiny of people's experience
condensed in the form of a proverb. These are the few occasions in which popular
tradition of discontent-dissent, similarly to that of Qoheleth or Jonah, forces the
prophet to look inside the truth of the message and tacitly to acknowledge its
failure, before coming to a revision.
A second popular maxim is reported by Ezek 18:2 and Jer 31:29: "The
parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." The Sitz
im Leben is the shattered world of people living in exile or left back in Judah.
90
This proverb, similarly accounted in Lam 5:7, might have existed at the popular
level for some time. It is caught by the prophets' ear at this particular historical
conjuncture which challenged the older deuteronomic view of corporate and
88
E.g., Isa 40:27, 49:14; Jer 12:4, 33:23-26; Ezek 33:17-20; Zeph 1:12; Mai 2:17; see Crenshaw,
"Literature of Dissent," 239.
89
James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion, Beiheft zur
Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 124 (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 38.
90
Loss of confidence in God by the Jews still in exile may well be reflected in the literary fiction
of the Book of Esther.
49
intergenerational retribution (Ex 34:7). Questioning the justice of God did not
come from theoretical speculation but from life's drastic "heteronomic
inconsistencies" against doctrines which postulated otherwise. Official theology
seemed to resist its evidence at first, and not only as an act of loyalty to God but
due to a possible fear of losing privilege.
91
Around the sixth century BCE the two standards of corporate and
individual retribution did coexist, as in Lam 5:7, Ps 109:13-14 and Job 21:19-21.
When we come to Ezekiel, the emphasis shifts in favor of individual retribution.
Through the voice of the prophet, God (implicitly) seems to acknowledge the
injustice pointed out by the proverb and commits to a new standard of retribution:
"This proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel" (Ezek 18:3). The revision
of a traditional interpretation of intergenerational punishment is also a statement
in defense of innocent suffering, previously justified as a consequence of someone
else's sin (Lam 5:7). Ezekiel 18:4 affirms: "It is only the person who sins that
shall die."
To people in exile, death could be interpreted: "in terms of a loss of
national identity and assimilation in a foreign culture." Jeremiah's invitation to
the deportee not to decrease numerically but to prosper may point to the danger of
disappearance (Jer 29:4-6). More precisely, it may refer to loss of ethnic and
religious identity provoked by the practice of intermarriages and the lack of
institutional leadership. Abolition of intergenerational punishment, therefore, is a
91
This seems to be the obvious context of accusations against false prophecy in Jer 23:9-40. The
struggle to claim true prophecy is also aimed at acquiring social status.
92
Gilbert Nwadinobi Alaribe, Ezekiel 18 and the Ethics of Responsibility. A Study in Biblical
Interpretations and Christian Ethics, Arbeiten zu Text und Spracke im Alten Testament, 77 (St. Ottilien:
Eos Verlag Erzabitei, 2006), 168.
message of hope pointing to the possibility of a new beginning, liberation from
the yoke of submission to "the sins of the fathers." The catalogue of sins in Ezek
18:6-8 represents a situation of cultic and social disruption within the scattered
community in the exile.
The section concerning crimes against the weak probably indicates the
reality of social disintegration and lack of judicial supervision in the aftermath of
the exile. Lack of restitution, robbery, usury, corruption, not giving bread to the
hungry and clothes to the naked, and not executing true justice between
contending parties, require severe punishment (Ezek 18:13). The basic concept of
deuteronomic retribution remains the same in its causal connection. What changes
is that retribution will distinguish between the one who is responsible and the one
who is not, the father and the son.
A second group can be identified; their voice is reported by Ezek 18:19:
"Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?" We may well ask
who are those having an interest in holding the old theodic standards? Alaribe
suggests that these might be the voices of those left in Judah who argued: "that
the deportees had been expelled from the cult community and therefore forfeited
title to the land ([Ezek]ll:15; cf. 33:23-29, 36:2)."
94
They might have claimed
inherited merits for being true descendants of Jewish ancestors. Against those,
Ezek 14:12-23 affirms that membership of the people-tradition of Israel, here
Crenshaw, Defending God, 78-82.
Alaribe, Ezekiel 18 and the Ethics of Responsibility, 139.
51
represented by Noah, Daniel, and Job, is not a deterministic "life insurance,"
which would guarantee admission without individual merit.
95
The question surfaces again at the destruction of the second temple: what
makes a Jew? Is it the land-blood affiliation or the observance of the law? The
answer of Ezekiel is the latter. His message to those deported in a foreign land is
that membership is still available to them. The reference to a new heart and spirit
(Ezek 18:31) indicates that participation in the people of God is now an interior
reality. God does not enjoy the death of people, but if one adopts an oppressive
behavior as in the catalogue of sins, then one ousts him/herself from the
community. In the final redaction of the Deuteronomist,
96
it is noticeable and
puzzling at the same time that the Torah stops before crossing the Jordan. Why
did it not end with Joshua, bringing the people inside the land, so to have promise
and fulfillment? Possibly to affirm to posthumous generations that one did not
need to be on the west side of the Jordan in order to be a Jew.
Gilbert Alaribe argues that Ezek 18 is "a classic example of aggadic
revision in which a popular proverb (v. 2) is rejected (v. 3) by means of an
07
elaborate aggadic reworking (v-4-32)." The immediate source of reference is
Deut 24:16 which prohibits vicarious punishment. Ezekiel 18:2 provides a
sarcastic take on theodicy according to which moral life is framed within an
inexorable understanding of retribution. The mechanistic acceptance of
95
The reference to Daniel "also mentioned together with Noah and Job in Ezek 14, was generally
identified with the legendary hero of the Book of Daniel until the discovery of the Ugaritic texts. But the
spelling of the name in the Hebrew text, its date, and its context make it clear that the Daniel referred to by
Ezekiel is the Canaanite king, the father of Aqhat." Coogan, ed., Stories from Ancient Canaan, 27.
96
The identity of the final redactor is attributed to Ezra, who joins the different parts (JEDP) into a
continuous story, see Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1997), 234-45.
97
Alaribe, Ezekiel 18 and the Ethics of Responsibility, 171.
52
consequences for sin not committed destroys the spine of moral life. The
affirmation that individual responsibility expressed in repentance breaks the
inflexible link between sin and consequence demonstrates that a revision of
traditional theodicy is taking place. While not expressed yet in terms of
determinism vs. freedom, as in late wisdom biblical tradition, the meaning of
repentance introduces the power of someone's choice before God's call to shape
the outcome of history.
The deuteronomistic view of repentance is reflected in the intercession of
Solomon (lKgs 8:46-50) at the dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, clearly composed as
a vaticinium ex eventu. Repentance belongs to a cycle of sin, punishment, repentance and
deliverance. Salvation comes at the end of this succession and prophets are ministers of
denunciation to induce repentance and of consolation to uplift the hope of deliverance.
98
The very first prophetic act is usually characterized as a ministry of judgment. Through
judgment people are indicted of guilt and given a verdict of condemnation. Isaiah in his
tripartite composition, before, during and after the exile, begins his prophetic vocation,
with a particularly harsh message of judgment in 6:9-10:
And [Yahweh] said, "Go and say to this people: 'Hear and hear, but do not
comprehend; See and see, but do not understand.' Make the heart of this
people fat (pwn), and their ears heavy (H3Dn), and smear over (y$n) their
eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and
comprehend with their hearts, and turn and be healed"
The act of denunciation often takes the genre of a law-suit. On the use of this genre in the
context of theodicy, see Brueggemann, "Aspects of Theodicy," 254.
53
Craig Evans has researched the textual transmission of Isa 6:9-10. He affirms that the
original words of First Isaiah emphasized the active role of God in promoting obduracy, a
means to force a crisis for the purpose of judgment and conversion.
100
This description of
God's active use of evil in order to achieve a good result was disturbing to later
generations who inherited this tradition. For instance, the hiphil-causative imperative of
the Hebrew text, to "make fat" (]Q^n), is changed into a passive equivalent in the LXX
(eTTaxuvGn) to indicate that the prophet predicts and does not promote the hardened heart.
In this way God is freed from responsibility (while this is shifted on to the people).
101
Isaiah did not invent this "problematic theodicy" of induced obduracy. He
inserted himself in a well established tradition. The most obvious example is the
hardening of the Pharaoh's heart for the purpose of delivering the Israelites from slavery
(Ex 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, etc.). Obduracy was not only induced on foreigners but even on the
Israelites. For instance, an evil spirit is sent between Abimelech and the citizens of
Shechem to punish him for killing his brothers (Judg 9:23); an evil spirit also tormented
Saul (ISam 16:14, 18:10, 19:9); deception was induced on Absalom in order to provoke
his ruin (2Sam 17:14); and the refusal to listen to the counsel of the elders was brought
Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian
Interpretation, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 64 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1989).
100
Judgment here is typically intended as an attribute of salvation. On this subject see the eloquent
study of John L. McKenzie, "The Judge of All the Earth," in Contemporary New Testament Studies.
Similar is the view that obduracy, deafness and blindness would be the effect of Isaiah's ministry, not his
purpose, which instead was to cause healing; see Frederick F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1983), 271.
101
Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 61-8. However, for the possibility of interpreting the activity
of Isaiah as a call to exercise judgment in response to faithlessness; see John Painter, "The Quotation of
Scripture and Unbelief in John 12.36b-43," in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, 438.
54
on Rehoboam to provoke a secession in Israel (lKgs 12:15).
102
These are texts which
have raised questions about the relation between God and evil.
103
The destruction of the North by the Assyrians in 721 BCE taught Isaiah that God
would have to purge the nation before restoring it. God's sovereignty and absolute
holiness not only allowed this but actually considered it necessary. This purification was
meant to produce restoration, thus, the destructive act of God coincided also with a
creative act (Isa 1:21-26, 14:24-26, 17:14, etc.). The purpose was the preservation of a
faithful remnant which would wholeheartedly submit to God and reject foreign deities
(Isa 4:1-3, 8:11-13). The process envisioned by the tripartite Isaiah is that judgment is the
first step towards redemption, that obduracy and restoration are an "important part of the
dialectic of ruin and future blessedness."
104
Similarly, Jeremiah's view is that people must experience a calamity which will
tear away all obstacles in their relationship with God. In other words, they have to accept
disaster as discipline (~iOin) in order to enter into a new covenant with God.
105
Adversity
was not to be considered synonymous with destruction; instead it was instruction. Close
to this idea is Isaiah's symbolism of fire and water to purge one's life (Isa 28:2). In Jer
18, the parable of the potter and the vessel speaks of remolding. This may provide a
credible explanation about the general lack of dissent expressed against this kind of
"therapy." Moreover the absolute sovereignty of God in a warfare context justified
extreme remedies to counter-act extreme threats.
106
102
Isaiah deals with obduracy also in 29:9-10, 42:18-20, 43:8, 44:18, 63:17.
103
Walter Brueggemann, "Texts That Linger, Not Yet Overcome," in Shall Not the Judge of All
the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, 21-41.
104
Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 42.
105
Cf. Sanders, "Suffering as Divine Discipline."
106
Patrick D. Jr. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1973), 155.
55
While the idea of instrumental suffering in Isa 6:9-10 could have justified the
punishment of the guilty, and one cannot fail to notice the corporate reference of that
language, it could not provide answers to the question of innocent suffering and excessive
severity in the punishment of those accused. The issue of dissent expressed in Ezek 18:2
returns. Half a century later, this question is addressed in the Servant Song of Isa 53 and
it represents another turning point in the development of biblical theodicy. Suffering, if
unjustly inflicted, was something to lament and to dissent. The mysterious servant,
instead, suffered while not guilty and yet, "he did not open his mouth" (Isa 53:7). This
silence represents the furthest opposite end on the spectrum of dissent in the context of
theodicy.
107
Given the great amount of debate over the identity and meaning of Isa 53,
the critical comment of Crenshaw seem properly cautionary: "[b]ecause the
language is poetry and the thought unprecedented, the words must be allowed to
bounce off previous traditions without suggesting a literal extension of old
1 A O
ideas." In the past there were instances of vicarious suffering which could
provide the background of this development. The principle of substitution is
prematurely present in cases such as the death of Uriah (2Sam 12:14), the
sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter (Jud 11:39), the availability of Judah to take the
place of Benjamin (Gen 44:33). The death of Josiah could fit within this category
Ricoeur characterizes the Suffering Servant as the turning point between the Adamic and
Tragic myths, thus: "Only a third figure could announce the transcending of the contradiction, and that
would be the figure of the 'Suffering Servant,' who would make of suffering, of the evil that is undergone,
an action capable of redeeming the evil that is committed . . . he reveals an entirely new possibility - that
suffering gives itself a meaning, by voluntary consent, in the meaninglessness of scandal. . . It is then that
the suffering of the 'Suffering Servant' institutes a bond between suffering and sin, at another level than
that of retribution." Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 324-5.
108
Crenshaw, Defending God, 145.
56
as well.
109
In these instances, commonly "[t]he beneficiaries of these acts . . .
represent humankind - villainous, foolish, and vulnerable" thus paralleling the
undeservedness for the Servant's gifts.
11
In the development that gave birth to the theodicy of the Servant, the
destruction of the temple represented the catalyzing event for a new hermeneutic
of suffering. The temple was the principle means of vicarious substitution to
achieve forgiveness for the sins committed. The dramatic challenge of history
without temple was how to reestablish cultic purity and forgo punitive retribution.
The principle of substitution is brought a step further in the office of prophets like
Ezekiel and Jeremiah whose lives converge in the direction of vicarious
substitution. While earlier symbolic acts were exterior to the prophets, now the
personal life of the prophet himself becomes the place where God's message is
revealed, not just his (verbal) message. Jeremiah in his confessions, lets his
personal suffering be a corporative representation of all those in pain while
innocent.
112
Their sufferings achieve meaning and purpose in the reflection of
Jeremiah's experience of the divine, thus acquiring a vicarious function.
Sanders frames the identity of the Servant Song in relation to the question
of excessive suffering.
113
Proportion between guilt and punishment constitutes the
According to A. Laato, the "tradition-historical background of the Suffering Servant is linked
with the lamentations over the fate of Josiah at Megiddo." Laato, "Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic
History," 230-5.
110
Crenshaw, Defending God, 139.
111
"In the case of Jeremiah something new in God's working through prophets presents itself; this
man serves God not only with the bold proclamation of his mouth (his person), but his very life is
unexpectedly involved in God's cause on earth. Thus the prophet (this is something new with Jeremiah)
now becomes a witness to God not only by virtue of his charisma, but in his very humanity." Gerhard von
Rad, "The Confessions of Jeremiah," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 98.
1,2
Cf. Jer 11:18-12:6, 15:10-21, 17:14-18, 18:18-23, 20:7-12[13], 20:14-18.
113
Sanders, "Suffering as Divine Discipline," 114-6.
57
necessary basis for a fair application of the principle of retribution. If
proportionate suffering was a means to achieve discipline or atonement, excessive
suffering was capable of achieving benefits that extended beyond the individual
merits of the afflicted-innocent person. The example of the Suffering Servant not
only provides an example of religious devotion, later portrayed in the life of
Jewish martyrs (e.g., Eleazar and Seven Brethrens), it also achieves salvation for
the nation of Israel (Isa 53:12).
Crenshaw has critically observed that while the Servant Song had an expiatory
effect on the guilt of larger society, it "remains unclear how someone else's suffering
removes my guilt."
114
Clarity remains shrouded in the silence of the Servant. Once the
traditional concept of retribution is withdrawn, theodicy becomes silent too. Disengaging
God from the mechanics of retribution brings to dissolution the principle of rationality
and verifiability in the relationship with an ethical God. Only what one can see (but not
hear) in the iconic figure of the Servant provides the final insight into the mysterious
achievement of communal salvation reached through unmerited suffering. The silence of
the Servant obliges one to extract subjective meaning.
The vicarious action of the servant does achieve salvation on behalf of the guilty
people. However, his devotion has a redemptive effect on God too. In fact, his
willingness to pay a higher price satisfies a God who demands more than what is due and
absorbs the injustice of God without replying in legitimate dissent and protestation. Thus,
the only one who would eventually have the right to accuse God of injustice remains
silent and introduces a principle of mercy that creates a moral debt on God's part to reply
with an equivalent spirit.
114
Crenshaw, "Theodicy to Anthropodicy," 9.
58
This is a transition from traditional retribution which in turn, forces a
reassessment of the concept of covenant and election. If retribution trusted its rationality
in a legal system of mutual responsibility with a proportionate distribution of rewards and
punishments, the "irrationality" of mercy highlights a new dimension of the divine. The
death of the servant "gives birth," so to speak, to a "new" God; the God who previously
induced obduracy is then induced into a gratuitous act of submission to human frailty in
the model of the Servant's love. In this prophetic tradition is the birth of "grace." Here
God promises to give gratuitously a new heart and spirit to people (Jer 31,33; Ezek
11:19, 36:26) and unilaterally to be loyal to the covenant.
The silence of the Servant "forces" his audience to investigate the meaning of his
trajectory at whose end an impossible reversal takes place, from curse to blessedness,
from the unbearable sight of his presence to the new sight of his vision. It is a portrait
filled with heteronomic invasion, as the role of redemption traditionally attributed to God
has taken possession of his nature, depriving him of the individuality of his word, letting
the "yes" of his consent be captured by the spectator through the sudden vision of his
remission.
The character of the Servant Song will be adopted by Christianity to explain the
drama of Jesus in another temple-less era.
115
Not that the Suffering Servant was the only
option available: another great story of undeserved suffering - giving birth to a new
theophany was available: Job. The choice between the silence of the Servant and the
dissent of Job fell on the former. The Suffering Servant portrayed in a nobler way the
spiritual-religious sentiments of devotion to God. Job's dissent, so much closer to the
115
Tom Holmen, "Theodicean Motifs in the New Testament," in Theodicy in the World of the
Bible, 605-20.
59
spirit of the psalms of complaint, did not find reception in later religious sensitivities.
This might explain why Job remains a rather unobserved presence in later biblical era and
if rescued from oblivion, it is only under the vestige of pious "patience," so much similar
to the attitude of the Servant (Sir 49:9; Jas 5:11).
116
However, the essence of Job's message is much closer to that of the Servant Song
than it may appear to be. The traditional principle of retribution is amply revealed in its
fallacies through the dialogue with the so-called friends. Divine antinomy is revealed in
the confidence of Job to find in God a helper and an advocate against God. The innocent
suffering of Job reveals the animal-like unconscious potentiality of evil in God, who is
apparently unaware of his injustice. Thus, Job: "has discovered that Yahweh is not
human but, in certain respects, less than human, that he is just what Yahweh himself says
of Leviathan (the crocodile): he beholds everything that is high: He is king over all proud
beasts (Job 41:25)."
117
At the same time, by two different roads, the Servant and Job reached similar
ends. The Servant through his silence achieved the capacity to see the continuation of life
in his offspring (Isa 53:10), to experience sight (nK~i) before divine light and
consequently satisfaction through knowledge (Isa 53:11); finally the Servant is vindicated
with a reversed status of greatness and power of intercession (Nfo3) (Isa 53:11-12).
Job through his dissent comes to silence (Job 40:5) which recognizes the
limitation of word vs. theophany (Job 42:3); after his theophanic vision (run) (Job 42:5)
repentance (Job 42:6) and restoration follows (Job 42:10). Job's religious journey is
vindicated against the traditional one represented by his so-called friends. God approves
116
"I am your father Job, fully engaged in endurance (imou-oi/T))" Testament of Job 1:5; James H.
Charlesworth, ed., The OldTestament Pseudepigrapha, 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 839.
117
Jung, "Answer to Job," 547
60
Job's words of dissent and repentance but disapproves those of his friends. Speaking to
Eliphaz the Temanite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for
you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has" (Job 42:7). Finally, Job
is given the status of valid intercessor (x(B2) (Job 42:9). Thus, Job gives piety to legitimate
dissent so that "[wjhether or not later Jews would agree, the canonical status of this view
meant that protest would never again have to be judged unacceptable."
118
The poetic text of Job antedates Isa 53. In its composite literary form, Job
achieves reversal not only in spite of dissent but through it. There is a growth in the story
which provides interpretative ground to the reader. Instead, the Servant's reversal
acquires meaning only retroactively and silence shields in ambiguity his anonymous
personality thus preventing a clear possibility for the reader to investigate. Job instead
before and after the trial of suffering is a person, whose piety journeys before and after
his dissent, providing vital insight. God does not remain immune to transformation at
least in the eyes of Job (and his readers too). The mystery of God is not fully
comprehended but nevertheless is experienced and thus theologized.
The redemptive power of Job's experience does not rest in his silence, but in the
rationality of his word which does not give up what is his due to the limitedness of his
human condition and yet, at the appropriate time, is able to let go of it. He is not just an
icon to be seen but a word to be heard. The two figures, Job and the Servant, are endowed
with vicarious giftedness. Their individualities are characterized by corporate personality
that gives sight and voice to those, life has called to a similar threshold. Job provides a
'
18
Kraemer, Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature, 33.
119
The presence of Satan at the court of God in the narrative section of Job is of posthumous
origin, probably of Persian influences; see Riley, One Jesus, Many Christ, 26-9; Riley, River of God, 93-
108.
61
theodicy of dissent against a God who, at least temporarily, remains inactive before the
disproportionate suffering and unnecessary trial of his faithful servant. Late in the story,
God intervenes as a tragic deus ex machina to bring resolution to innocent suffering and,
through Job, self-redemption to an obvious imputation of guilt.
Around the same time, in the not too far land of Hellas, in a striking parallelism of
poetic inspiration, tragedy took on its mythic tradition and brought it on the stage
(oo5etov).
120
The power of drawing in whomever became spectator was so powerful that
Herodotus reports the case of an early tragedian by the name of Phrynichus (at the end of
fifth century BCE) punished with a fee of a thousand drachmas for the desperation
instigated in the people who assisted at his theatrical representation of the conquering of
Miletus by the Persians in 494 BCE (Histories 6.21.29). The tragic act was not just an
aesthetic endeavor. In antiquity, the vicarious representation of Greek tragedy provided
purification (KdtOapox) and healing from fear and piety (Aristotle, Poetics 1449.27-28).
Cyrus, the king of the Persian empire (559-529 BCE), was hailed by Isa 44:28 as
shepherd of Israel, an instrument of divine salvation by granting the return of the exiled.
On the contrary, the great tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides experienced the
threat of invasion during the Persian wars (490-479 BCE). The unpredictable victory and
the providential reversal, however, were not judged acts of salvation but of divine
Parallels between tragedy and the Hebrew Bible have been highlighted, particularly see Cheryl
J. Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992); Lee W. Humphreys, The Tragic Vision and the Hebrew Tradition, Overtures to Biblical
Theology, 18 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
121
On the influence of tragedy in Herodotus and Deuteronomy; see Nielsen, Herodotus and the
Deuteronomistic History.
122
While Aristotle explains the meaning of fear and piety, he does not define KctGccpoii;. The
common view is that of a medical analogy for which the releasing of bodily humours restores harmony in
the body. See Guido Paduano, Aristotele Poetica (Roma: Editori Laterza, 1998), 74-5, n. 59.
62
retribution against the self-destructive hubris of the assailants. Aeschylus, who took part
in the battle of Marathon, gives this interpretation in the Persians (All BCE).
Sophocles, born at Colonus in 496 BCE, seems to provide a character of
particular relevance to the present research. This is Oedipus, the outstanding protagonist
of two of the "Theban Plays." The tragic story of Oedipus stands in the background of the
history of Thebes, of which he is king. Thebes provided help to the Persian invasion,
attracted the hatred of the neighboring cities particularly Athens and consequent
theatrical-divine retribution.
123
Greek tragedies are eminently focused on questions of theodicy and Oedipus is
one of the most frequently cited in biblical mimesis}
24
The pre-tragic context of Oedipus
draws significant parallelisms to the vicissitudes of Job.
125
Both stand within a "trap,"
due to divine interference. Both audiences are informed about the larger context of events
taking place, while the protagonists remain ignorant up to the last moment of revelation.
Exposed in the "arena" of public judgment, they are tested and examined in a contest of
human and religious motivations. This provides tragic irony in their misplacement of
The negative judgment on Thebes and its theatrical attribution of hubris, attests to
Brueggemann's social dimension of theodicy. Likewise, the theodicy of salvation hailed by Isaiah towards
the Persians becomes a theodicy of judgment in Aeschylus.
124
For instance, Marianne Palmer Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000); Riley, One Jesus, Many Christs; Louis A. Ruprecht, Jr., Tragic
Posture and Tragic Vision: Against the Modern Failure of Nerve (New York: Continuum, 1994); Stephen
H. Smith, "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel," Novum
Testamentum 37 (1995): 209-31; Jerry H. Stone, "The Gospel of Mark and Oedipus the King: Two Tragic
Visions," Soundings 67, no. 1 (1984): 55-69. For an introduction on biblical mimesis, see Dennis R.
MacDonald, ed., Mimesis andIntertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, Studies in Antiquity and
Christianity (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2001).
125
Ricoeur affirms that "[t]he first and principal pre-tragic theme is not specifically Greek; it
appears in all cultures, every time that the initiative in fault is traced back into the divine and that this
divine initiative works through the weakness of man and appears, as divine possession." Ricoeur,
Symbolism of Evil, 231.
126
Oedipus initially takes with religious enthusiasm the search for the culprit, but when suspected
of guilt he reveals a totally different demeanor. Similarly, this is the intended purpose of Job's test in 1:11,
5:2.
63
divine trust (Oedipus the King 145-146; Job 1:21), and in the double entendre of
blindness and sight.
127
The presence of Satan in Job and of a 5ai|j,oov in Oedipus {O.K.
828; 1311) represent an imparted lot well beyond their capacity.
128
Corporate and
intergenerational retribution captivate the dramatic stage of both protagonists. After their
trial, both acknowledge having wanted to see-understand more than what was within their
reach (O.K. 1273-74; Job 42:3). Like Job, Oedipus experiences divine vindication
(Oedipus at Colonus 394) and acquires spiritual vision (O.C. 1549-50).
129
There are significant differences as well. Job's dissent would be judged as hubris
and ineffective by Sophocles. Oedipus is well aware that no one can force compulsion on
the gods (O.K. 263; 280-1; 442; 1080). However Job places his dissent in the realm of
invocation, appealing to God against God in order to achieve a reversal of his condition.
The ethical God of Job not only permits it but requires it. Instead, Oedipus is bound to an
absolute condition of inferiority before the ethical unpredictability of i\)%v\ (O.K. 263;
442; 1080). Oedipus is guilty of crimes while subjectively innocent (O.C. 265-274) and
frees himself by subjective knowledge not by direct confrontation. What he knows brings
reconciliation with his past (O. C. 960-1113) and a sense of religious piety. The
humanistic wisdom achieved through great suffering (pathei mathos) is what comes
For instance, this is present in the prophecy of Teiresias to Oedipus in O.K. 454-55; for a
striking similarity to Isa 6:10 see Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound 446.
128 anp^g
e X
p
r e s s
i
o n
Sai^ wv...[although it developed in the opposite direction from [xoXpa, toward
the personalization and not toward the anonymity of fate and abstract legality, it nevertheless represents the
divine as close to undifferentiated power; and so it provides an apt designation for the sudden, irrational,
invincible apparition of the divine in the emotional and volitional life of man." Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil,
215-6. See also Riley, River of God, 212-5.
129
More properly, the end of Oedipus should be regarded not as a sort of redemption but "a
suspension of the human condition . . . In truth, salvation, in the tragic vision, is not outside the tragic but
within it." Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 229.
130
This is what constitutes the basis for a dynamic relation between fate and freedom.
64
closer to a definition of salvation.
131
Job instead is saved from a direct intervention of
God, who consented to his test but did not implement it. His dissent is not a search for the
truth but a means to reestablish his integrity and a proper relation with the divine. Once
that happens, retribution is given in the form of increased restitution and elderly life.
Instead, Oedipus' elderly life stands at the exact opposite (O.C. 1211-1248).
132
While Oedipus attributes the cause of his self-inflicted blindness to Apollo, god of
light, in no way he can escape his curse (O.K. 1329-1335), neither has he sought it
through invocation. Though apparently predestined to self-destruction, Oedipus refuses to
be just a victim. He actively and autonomously fulfills his destiny. His character does
not disappear to become a mere fold in a plot pulled by divine hands. Therefore,
Sophocles displays both the divine and the human on the trial stand before a "jury"
audience. The chorus instigates and moderates the public arena of debate. For instance, in
Antigone 620-644 the chorus considers oofyia to indict the misleading intentions of the
gods. It instigates Zeus to smite Ares and at the same time, raises divine invocations in
times of need (O.K. 151-215). The choir warns Oedipus against the evil effects of uppic;
(O.K. 872-879) and accuses of it Creon (O.C. 883).
131
Through suffering he has learned contentment and oucj>poouvr|. While Job's resolution takes
place through a theophany, the Oedipus story is thoroughly anthropophanic. On the tragic sense of pathos,
see Ruprecht, Tragic Posture and Tragic Vision, 91.
132
"Not to be born (\ir\ tywai) surpasses everything. Once born, then, to return whence we came is
the second best thing." O.C. 1124-1225.
133
Karl Reinhardt, against a Stoic reading of fate in Oedipus, properly warns that "[t]ere is no
predetermined fate before Stoicism and the victory of astrology. The essential in Oedipus is not
unchangeably of a past as it unfolds itself. . . Rather, it presents an active battle waged for deliverance,
self-assertion, and the defense of an apparent human makeup that is threatened, one which is indeed fused
with a great humanity." Cited in Albert Cook, ed., Oedipus Rex: A Mirror for Greek Drama (Prospect
Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1982), 98. Richmond Lattimore clarifies: "To say he [Oedipus] was
'fated' is to overstate it with prejudice toward the grand designs of heaven; but it is part of his pattern or
story-tyche, which in Greek does not mean 'fate,' 'chance,' or 'fortune' so strictly as it means 'contact,' or,
say, 'coincidence,' the way things are put together." Cited in Cook, ed., Oedipus Rex, 111.
65
While good and evil coexist in Sophocles' gods, they remain unreachable to
human attempts to sway their governance. Therefore, dissent is preemptively voided due
to the lack of a real target against which to aim. It can be traced, however, in the
autonomy of the protagonist. If Job invokes God against God, Oedipus externally is
possessed by divine-demonic destiny but remains interiorly free to face it in complete
autonomy. If Job's dissent is filled with faith in God, Oedipus' dissent is filled with faith
in himself. Dissent brings everything back to Job, instead Oedipus's dissent produces
altruistic wealth. In this is revealed Sophocles' insight: only wisdom and heroic character
and these on behalf of the TTOXK; (O.K. 443) give purpose to the unjustifiable yet
inevitable suffering of Oedipus {Antigone 332-375).
Clever beyond all dreams the inventive craft that he [man] has which may
drive him one time or another to well or ill. When he honors the laws of the
land and the gods' sworn right high indeed is his city; but stateless the man
who dares to dwell with dishonor. Not by my fire, never to share my
thoughts, who does these things.
134
2. Genealogy of a Theodicy of Providence
The victorious achievements of Alexander the Great (334-323 BCE) changed not
only the geographical landscape of military power, but they created the conditions for a
reformation of Greek consciousness. They contributed to transform the ideal concept of
TTO/UC;, which Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics had previously theorized with the
identity of every human being relative to the quality of a citizen. A new identity is shaped
and is that of human beings as individuals. The concentration of philosophical thinking
134
Antigone 362-372, translated by Elizabeth Wyckoff, in David Grene and Richmond Lattimore,
eds., Sophocles I, The Complete Greek Tragedies (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press,
1954), 171.
66
progressively abandons its political interest and acquires a greater concentration on moral
problem of universal significance.
135
The cosmopolitan view of the world gives rise to
what came to be called Hellenism. Different cultures came into contact and among these
is Zoroastrianism.
The Iranian prophet Zarathustra lived probably several centuries before the arrival
of Alexander.
136
His influence has been traced in some of the subjects already studied
such as the idea of the Devil, a divine being opposed, though inferior, to God.
137
Creation
is the place where duality subsists and demons (daevas) exercise their power.
138
Others
will mingle with the apocalyptic view of a final clash between these two powers and the
conclusive victory of goodness over evil. Human beings inhabit a moral world in which
their choices determine their final reward or punishment at the judgment of the dead.
139
After the final battle there will be a bodily resurrection and retribution with paradise or
utter destruction ("second death"). Before the progressive inclination towards
monotheism or philosophical monism, Zoroastrianism continued to exercise profound
Reale and Antiseri, Ilpensiero occidentale, 167-9.
136
Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come, 77-9.
137
Creation is presupposed in the goodness of God: "Ahura-Mazda created the creatures very
good, very fair, very high, very furthering, very lofty. That they might make the world progressive, not
growing old, not dying, not becoming corrupt and stinking.. .that the dead may arise, and there may come
Immortality for the living." Zamyad-Yasht 2.10-11. Arthur Henry Bleeck, ed., Avesta: the Religious Books
of the Parsees (Hertford: Muncherjee Hormusjee Cama - Reprint by Kessinger Publishing, 1864), 126. In
opposition to Ahura Mazda, Angro-mainyus "the death-dealing, created a mighty serpent and snow, the
work of the Daevas." Fargardofthe Vendidad 1.3; cf. Fargard 1.4-5. Avesta, ed. Bleeck, 93.
138
"I announce this for those who desire after what Mazda created for the prudent:.... When both
these Heavenly Beings came together, in order to create at first life and perishability, and as the world
should be at last: the evil for the bad, the Best Spirit for the pure. Of these two Heavenly Beings the bad
chose the evil, acting (thereafter), the Holiest Spirit, which prepared the very firm heaven [chose] the pure
and those who make Ahura contented with manifest actions, believing in Mazda." Yagna 30.1-5. Avesta,
ed. Bleeck, 85.
139
"All good thoughts, words, and works lead to Paradise. All evil thoughts, words, and works
lead to hell." Khordah-Avesta, 13. Vicpa Humata 3-4. Avesta, ed. Bleeck, 14.
140
Riley, River of God, 18-9.
67
influence because of its dualistic view of history based on eschatology.
141
Even more
pertinently to the aim of this research, it made dissent foreign to the realm of divine
allegiance.
The activity of T\)%r\ progressively stands parallel or opposite to that of Ilpovoia.
Greene divides the thinkers of Greece in two groups.
142
One considers the activity of
Nature without plan or purpose. The flourishing of worshipers of Tux^l in the Hellenistic
and Roman age is an expression of this.
143
The other considers the universe not as the
product of blind necessity but of a rational reasonable purpose, hence the centrality of
providence. The Epicureans belong to the first group; Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, with
specific differences, to the second. In the second group the relation between Law (Nou.o<;)
and Nature (OWL;) is interpreted complementarily to validate the ethical ground of
human conduct.
The spectacle of the gods in Sophocles' tragedies cannot claim righteousness or
care for humankind. Acceptance of destiny and endurance under trial were realistically
the only option available. Plato (427-347 BCE) reforms this view in the context of
education (uouSeia) on behalf of his ideal state (Republic 2.376e-377e;).
144
He compares
these mythologies to paintings which by defective resemblance to the original models
(TUTTOL), mislead and cause improper education. Divinity needs to be represented
141
In Mary Boyce, ed., Textual Sources for the Study ofZoroastrianism (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1984; reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.). On the influence of
Zurvanism, a fourth century BCE unorthodox revision of Zoroastrianism, on Qumran writings see James H.
Charlesworth, "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the 'Dualism' Contained in the
Gospel of John," in John and Qumran, 87-9.
142
Greene, Moira, 278.
143
Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2.22.
144
Education here is meant to form citizens. It is only after the cosmopolitan revolution of
Alexander the Great (334-323 BCE) which brought the city-state to an end, that the individual became
"free before oneself." Reale and Antiseri, IIpensiero occidentale, 168.
68
according to models that reveal the deity as it is or nothing at all (Rep. 379a). This applies
to tragedies too.
145
The fundamental contribution of Plato is his faith in the absolute and exclusive
goodness of the divine: what is good (ayaQbv) is the cause (OCLTIOV) only of what is good
(Rep. 378b.9). Evil that occurs on earth is not to be attributed to God as often myths did
with Zeus, dispenser of both good and evil. Therefore the duty of the one who rules
properly is to oppose with maximum strength the statement that a good God is cause of
suffering (Rep. 380b.8).
The cosmology of Plato is the foundation of a progressively transformed
definition of theology. It is sustained on this basic distinction (buxipeoiq): what it is
(eivai) without causal origin and what becomes (ylveaQai) (Timaeus 27d.5-28a.l). God is
not in the realm of becoming, thus is not born but is. Monad is the better definition of
God in its transcendent impersonality without a name.
146
It is invisible to human eyes
because wholly spiritual and it is defined beyond matter or cjjuoit;.
147
Consequently,
Plato's works fall more properly in the realm of metaphysics than theology as we would
normally understand these terms. A Demiurge or divine artificer standing between God
and creation, does not create matter or space (xwpcc), but only crafts order out of primal
Criticism of traditional mythology was categorized in later antiquity as 6ecmpeiTr|c; (in Latin,
dignum deo). Plato exercised a great influence in the origin and development of this concept. See Pieter W.
van der Horst, Jews and Christians in Their Greco-Roman Context., Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament, 196 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 129-30. For instance, in Laws 838c.5, Plato
refers to the OlSCtToScw; with a veil of sarcasm. See also Rep. 379c-380a.
146
Riley, River of God, 45.
147
Plato has dedicated significant texts to oculistics both as a matter of science and analogically
for what is physical and spiritual sight. See Theaetetus 209; Phaedo 65b; Rep. 359d-360d, 484c-d, 514a-
519a; Tim. 45b-46c.
148
It is Plato who by introducing the idea of a "second sailing" (TOV Seuiepov TTAOUV) above the
realm of the sensible world (imepoupavioc;), lays the foundations of western metaphysic {Phaedo 99d.l); cf.
Myrto Dragona-Monachou, "Divine Providence in the Philosophy of the Empire," in Aufstieg und
Niedergang der Romischen Welt, 36/7,4419.
69
material chaos, according to an original divine model (Tim. 28a; 52a-53a). Only if one
had to go up the causal chain of becoming would one find in God its principle (dpxr)
yeveoewcj). Analogically, the soul precedes the body (Laws 892a; Tim. 34b-c) as the
divinity precedes everything, causes movement but it is not caused by movement (Laws
895a-b).
The reason (cdtta) for creation is uniquely the manifestation of God's goodness
(ayaQbc, rjv) (Tim. 29e.l). Divine will is to have everything good, as far as possible (Kara
5uvcqaiv).
14
What is good becomes so through the providence of God (5icc xr\v TTpoyoiccv
TOU 9eou) (Tim. 30b-c).
150
Plato categorically says that "for the good we must assume no
other cause than God, but for the cause of evil we must look in other things and not in
God."
151
In philosophy, this is where formally and explicitly the origin of theodicy can be
traced. He does so as a theodicy of providence: God's justice rests on God's goodness and
it is manifested in God's providence.
In order to succeed Plato's attempt has to respond to the question of the origin of
evil. He does it by "limiting" divine omnipotence, declaring the active presence of two
kinds of causes (Si>' aliiac;): God and necessity, the latter at times standing contrary to
the divine. This is the space given to the realm of evil, acknowledged and yet
unredeemed. At best, in Plato's dualistic epistemology, evil has a purpose. As one
apprehends through opposites, even suffering may serve to lead us to the divine (Tim.
149
Greene finds here one liability of Plato's theodicy: "Thus this is not the best of all possible or
conceivable worlds (as in the philosophies of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and Leibniz), but it is
the best world possible under the conditions given. Only to that extent is Plato an optimist; to that extent
therefore it may by felt that Plato fails to answer man's demand for an explanation of the ultimate 'Why' of
the whole universe." Greene, Moira, 298.
150
Plato is not the first to mention divine providence, for instance Euripides does in Phoenisae
637 and Orestes 1179. However, while the colloquial term -rrpovoia as foresight is widespread, it is Plato
who attributes to it the philosophical meaning of divine providence, see Peter Frick, Divine Providence in
Philo of Alexandria., Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 77 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 16, 70-3.
151
Rep. 379c, translation of Greene, Moira, 298.
70
68e-69a). But if divine benevolence is absolute, the basis for an absolute concentration of
evil in a demonic personality is set. From this point on theodicy will be associated with
devoutness, dissent with ungodliness.
The journey from suffering to blessedness is possible and Plato describes it in the
myth of Er. The possibility of reversibility affirms that human beings are not relentlessly
trapped within a destiny. In fact will not be a daimon to choose for one but one will
choose his/her daimon. Responsibility is on the one who makes the choice (kX6\xvov).
This attempt to protect God's innocence (dvamog) (Rep. 10.617e) leaves only human
beings on the trial stand. Nevertheless, the capacity to make choices according to justice
is rooted in the divine and immortal seed God has placed in human beings through the
agency of those he assigned to create the human race (Tim. 41c). Through proper
education and habits, one is able to journey back to his/her metaphysical origin. Plato
asserts that no one is evil of one's own free will (CKWV) but becomes so because of his/her
materiality, ignorance, bad education, and habits (Phaedo 81b-e; 77w.86d-e).
152
How is the work of providence qualified? Plato addresses the question of whether
the gods care for human affairs or not (Laws 899d). In his philosophical dialogues he
reaches the conclusion that the gods are absolutely good therefore not affected by
laziness (Laws 90le) or indifference (Laws 902c) towards human affairs. However they
do not create everything individually but every part (|iepoc) for the benefit of the whole
(6A.o<;) (Laws 903 c). By taking care of the whole, they let each individual free to
determine the part (Laws 904c). The choice one makes determines destiny and reward or
punishment in the after-life (Laws 905a Phaedo 107c-e). This is the speech that precedes
152
The process of how one moves from a state of ignorance to enlightenment, through the analogy
of visual shadow and full light, is illustrated in the parable of the Cave (Rep. 514a-518b).
71
the throwing of the lots when souls have the chance to choose the "model" in which to be
reincarnated. There is no room for dissent. If one makes the wrong choice, one should
accuse no one else but oneself (Rep. 619c). Plato's theodicy of providence offers
important answers but opens new questions which will come back on those who will
adopt his views.
In comparison to tragedy, Plato has given ethical essence to divinity by making it
perfectly good and infinitely opposite to the material world. Humanity has maintained
radical autonomy as one creates one's destiny by one's choices, against materiality and
necessity. This is analogically portrayed as guiding a winged chariot pulled in opposite
direction by powerful horses {Phaedrus 246a). In the journey of the soul, the trait
d'union between human and divine, the purpose is to escape the estrangement of the
world. Materiality does not await redemption but by way of opposition serves the purpose
of divine reconjunction (Phaedo 70a-72e).
153
Materiality is not originally Kcdog-nitt. This
justifies evil in the world and makes it, in part, acceptable as much as inevitable.
Differently from Orphism, the body is not just a prison but a vector. Through the cycles
of metempsychosis one can reach ultimate blessedness (Laws 906a).
154
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) resolves the problem of evil by denying any failure on
the part of divinity, which he considers totally separated from the realm of matter.
155
Aristotle is a theist and affirms the divine completely removed from allotment of rewards
or punishments. Nature has a teleological finality of itself but its materiality is defective
and this explains the presence of evil (Phys. 192al5). In nature, potentialities present the
153
For the influences of Orphic and Pythagorean philosophy on this view of Plato, see Riley, River
of God, 143-52.
154
Cf. Greene, Moira, 313.
155
The unmoved mover, is separated by all activities except thought and this of the Divine-self; cf.
Phys. 241b34-243al2.
72
possibility of both, good and evil. Good or bad things are so on themselves, not the result
of a transcendentally purposed will. Thus, evil is not a personal entity but a "by-product
in the world-process."
156
Human beings, however, are not enslaved under the causality of
nature's process. They exercise choice (Trpooupeaic) to achieve a moral purpose or
happiness in accordance with virtue, the capacity of their reason and the range of
possibilities available to them. Knowing the cause, our rational capacity to analyze, is
then given the highest value for its closeness to the purest activity of the divine which is
thought.
One of the philosophical schools which was most and unfairly ostracized with
ungodliness (doefkLa) is the Garden of Epicurus (341-270 BCE).
157
Its claims run against
the idea of a providential God and of survival after death.
158
A large inscription erected in
200 CE at Oenoanda (interior of modern Turkey) summarized Epicurus' teaching: "there
is nothing to fear in God, nothing to feel in death; good is attainable, evil endurable."
159
The quote of Epicurus paraphrased by Lactantius, cited at the beginning of this
dissertation, is undoubtedly an emblematic testimony of Epicurus' theodicy of dissent
brought to its consequential extremes. Epicurus deprives theodicy of its basic
interlocutor. His atomistic materialism excluded need of the gods and fostered the idea of
independence in the realm of human responsibility and autonomy in its destiny.
130
Greene, Moira, 320.
157
Cotta's remarks in De Natura Deorum of Cicero, 1.121 are: "Epicurus vero ex animis hominum
extraxit radicitus religionem, cum dis immortalibus et opem et gratiam sustulit." Dante in the Divina
Commedia, writes: "Suo cimitero da questa parte hanno con Epicuro tutt'i suoi seguaci, che l'anima col
corpo morta fanno." Inferno, X, 14.
158
It can be deducted from the principle that an immortal god cannot be disturbed by wrath or
movement, a concept already present in Aristotle's idea of the otiosus "unmoved mover."
159
Quoted from 'H TETPAOAPMAX02, 14; in Epicurus, Epicuro: Scritti Morali, ed. Carlo
Diano, trans. Giuseppe Serra (Milano: BUR, 1997), 78-9.
73
For Epicurus dissent is an expression of historical epistemology, as he assigned
truth to the realm of sensory experience.
160
However, true happiness (euSoajiovaa) was not
void of spiritual content. The community of the Garden provided initiation into this
journey in a manner parallel to mystery religion.
161
Happiness is achieved through a fine
balance between dnovoia (absence of physical pain) and dxapc^la (absence of
psychological disturbance). This explains the school's need of seclusion as if it were an
ante litter am monastic cenacle. Adherence to this lifestyle implied a sort of religious
conversion. Dissent did not entail lack of virtue. Quoting a passage from Sophocles'
Oedipus at Colonus, 1124-1225, his teaching speaks of moderation (acjchpoouvr]) and
benevolence, attributes often unrecognized by his opponents:
The one exhorting the youngster to live well and the elderly to die well is a
person of good disposition, not only because life gives joy of itself, but
because one and the same is the art of living well and dying well. Much
worse is the one who says: "Not to be born (\xr\ c^uvai) is good, and once born
to cross the doors of Hades."
Yet, acceptance of the human predicament cannot hide a stark view of our ultimate
destiny as well as the dramatic context in which humanity is given birth. Lucretius (98-55
BCE), who promoted the doctrines of Epicurus in the Roman world, expresses this view
in an image of poetic lyricism and tragic realism at once:
turn porro puer, ut saevis proiectus ab undis
navita, nudus humi iacet, infans, indigus omni
vitali auxilio, cum primum in luminis oras
nixibus ex alvo matris natura profudit,
vagituque locum lugubri complet, ut aequumst
0
What he defines as a "suspiciousness for the things in heaven (netecopaw UTOI|/I<X)." KYPIAI
AOXAI, XI.
161
Helmut Koester, History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. Introduction to the New
Testament, vol. 1 (New York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 147.
162
A.D. Nock, Conversion (London, New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 171-9.
163
EiriKovpoc MeuoiKelxaipeiv, 126 (my translation).
74
cui tantum in vita restet transire malorum.
Antagonist to the teachings of the Garden was the Stoa of Zeno (336-264 BCE) and his
immediate successors, Cleanthes (304-233 BCE) and Chrysippus (281-208 BCE).
165
According to the Stoics, senses are not the only criterion to ascertain the truth. Assent
(passive principle of self-surrender) to the impact of external objects (active principle of
self-realization) exercise over our senses, place us before inevitable choices. The exercise
of freedom exists within these premises. We are not free to exempt ourselves from the
impact of externalities but we are free to choose what to do with them in a course of
events that is already set in motion beyond control.
166
This is the opposite of the
epicurean atomistic vision which excluded cosmological logos in the relation of cause
and effect. Human freedom is exercised within the limits of divine activity, in a rational
uniformity of one's decision to that of destiny. God penetrates through matter the whole
of reality. The principles of stoic theology are so summarized:
[T]he stoic god is corporeal, immanent in the world, though pantheism
replaces traditional theism, theistic language is not altogether missing; the
stoic God is primarily providential, since providence is part of God's
prolepsis.
1 7
If God was identified with the immanent world-soul or logos, then it came to be
conceived as the seed of everything (oiTepiacmKog Xoyog) inhabiting as a divine portion
inside every human being and endowed with reason. Its manifestation is eminently
providential. Lucillus Balbus, the Stoic representative in the dialogue of Cicero's De
164
De Rerum Natura, 5.222-227.
165
Stoicism presents an eclectic philosophical composition which varies in emphasis according to
its individual representatives.
166
So illustrates the simile attributed to Chrysippus: "just as a dog tied to a cart follows while
being pulled, if it is willing to follow, making its own self-determination comply with necessity; yet it will
be in all respects subject to compulsion if it is unwilling to follow. So it is too with men." A. A. Long, ed.,
Freedom and Determinism in the Stoic Theory of Human Action, Problems in Stoicism (London: Athlone
Press, 1971), 192.
167
Dragona-Monachou, "Divine Providence," 4424.
75
Natura Deorum, introduces his thesis that the world is governed by divine providence
with these words:
Velut a te ipso hesterno die dictumst anum fatidicam Pronoean a Stoicis
induci id est Providentiam. Quod eo errore dixiste, quia existumas ab is
providentiam fingi quasi quandam deam singularem, quae mundum omnem
gubernet et regat.. . plene autem et perfecte sic dici existumato, providentia
deorum mundum administrari.
168
Providence is not intended in a personal sense. It represents universal finality according
to which everything is set in motion for ultimate goodness. It reveals itself as Fate
(El|aap(ievr|), and thus as ineluctable necessity (dvccYKri). Because everything depends on
the immanent logos, everything is necessary and providential. The result of this absolute
faith in providence was that often Stoics came under attack from the material evidence
that interpellated the principle of a provident God. Events of clear atrocity or injustice
provoked debates which in turn contributed to answers articulated with ever greater
complexity and rigidity in order to defend their theodicy of providence. Meanwhile the
ideological distance from a theodicy of dissent became wider while both engaged in
stereotyping the views of their adversaries. Two different fronts faced each other more
distinctively than in the past: providence and dissent, reason and experience, devout
defense and faithless attack.
In the "courtroom" of the defenders of providence arguments such as the following
came to be typical: suffering may serve an ultimate good purpose such as moral training,
testing, teaching for evildoers, discipline, warning, blessings in disguise, and the
necessary coexistence of contraries. At times, providence endowed with ethical
responsibility did not have any other available defense but to minimize or ignore the
168
D.N.D. 2.73-74.
169
Harry Hine, "Seneca, Stoicism, and the Problem of Evil," in Ethics and Rhetoric, 105.
76
gravity of experience in order to maintain credible theoretical coherence. Moreover,
defending providence became synonymous with defending God-self.
170
In the introduction to his short treatise De Providencia, 1.1, Seneca "The Younger"
(c, 4 BCE - 65 CE) takes up the question of Lucilius about unjust retributions on good
people: "quid ita, si providentia mundus ageretur, multa bonis viris mala acciderent."
171
While acknowledging the complexity of the issue, he accepts the challenge and not
without a touch of irony affirms: "faciam rem non difficilem, causam deorum agam."
Seneca becomes the defense lawyer of divinity in the forensic debate of his treatise. The
"quid ita" of Lucilius stigmatizes the epicurean "cur" paraphrased by Lactantius' initial
quote and the most characteristic accusation (intentio) of theodicy of dissent.
172
The
defense (depulsio) of Seneca makes use of some of the typical weapons already
mentioned from the stoic arsenal. The characteristic emphasis of the Roman view,
distinguished from the Greek inherited tradition, is the heroic ethic of the vir fords.
173
Physical and psychological sufferings are incommoda or adversa, sent by God to test our
character and to enhance our moral vigor.
Nobis interdum voluptati est, si adulescens constantis animi inruentem feram
venabulo excepit, si leonis incursum interritus pertulit, tantoque hoc
spectaculum est gratius quanto id honestior feci t . . . ecce spectaculum
dignum ad quod respiciat intentus operi suo deus, ecce par deo dignum, vir
fortis com fortuna mala compositus, utique si et provocavit.
174
(italics mine)
170
So Lucilius Balbus' first argument in his defense of divine providence is: "Quarum prima pars
est quae ducitur ab ea ratione quae docet esse deos; quo concesso confitendum est eorum consilio mundum
administrari." D.N.D. 2.75.
171
Anneo Lucio Seneca, La Prowidenza, trans. Alfonso Traina, 3rd. ed., BUR Classici Greci e
Latini (Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 2000).
172
Seneca quotes the common saying: "Quare multa bonis viris adversa eveniunt?" D.P. 2.1.
173
Cf. D.P. 2.1, 2.9, 4.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.10.
174
D.P. 2.8-9.
77
Another transition has taken place. Suffering has been reconciled with providence.
Before, it was the sign of the adversarial character of human and divine relations. The
moral cbopepoy and eXeeivov which tragedy evokes, according to Aristotle was caused by
tragic oqaaptia, the unforeseen and involuntary failing (Poetica, 13). Oedipus is a victim
of injuries whose ultimate origin resides in the divine. He acquires autonomy not through
the divine but in dissent against it. In the Stoic view, instead, suffering is the means
through which divine providence educates and fortifies the strong, as it were a
paradoxical privilege. Even more, if before suffering aroused the theodic "cwr" in
some, now it is the means through which the divine is recognized and defended. Was it
all devotion on the part of those who assumed the role of God's defenders? Most
probably, it was part of an inevitable polarization not only between philosophical
principles but also between ratio and life's contradictory experience. As Stoics labeled
the adversaries godless (daepeia), they progressively claimed proprietorship of the seat of
religious devotion too.
Meanwhile, theodicy continued its development in the intertestamental period of
Palestine. This did not take place in an isolated manner, as the influence of Hellenism
reached this territory. Alexander introduced Hellenism to Israel, after the victorious battle
of Issus (333 BCE) and Greek became the international colloquial language. After the
death of Alexander, Samaria and Judea came under the rule of Egyptian Ptolemies until
Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BCE) in the 200 BCE made Palestine part of the
Seleucid empire. The leading priestly families of Jerusalem were already Hellenized to a
175
In projection we can see similar analogies in 2Mac 6:30, 7:12; Rom 5:3; Phil 3:10; Col 1:24;
2Thes 1:5; 2Tim 2:3; IPet 4:13. The Christian Latin apologist Minucius Felix (II-III CE) in his Octavius
likewise describes the persecution of Christians, (5.12; 36.8; 38.4). Cf. "Martyrs as Heroes" in Riley, One
Jesus, Many Christs, 179-204.
78
large degree but nevertheless a legitimate Zadokite held the high priesthood of the
Temple.
176
In the Hellenistic period Jews composed many works in Greek literary genres.
177
Several texts present significant material in the field of theodicy. Most important to my
research of this period is the work of Philo of Alexandria, which will be treated in the
next chapter. Some shorter texts also display interest in theodicy. One of these is the
Orphica (c. 155-145 BCE) which "solves" the problem of evil in the world by affirming
that there is one God who is both transcendent and immanent
178
and present in "evil" (i.e.
suffering) as well as in good.
179
Aristeas the Exegete (c. I. BCE) reconstructs a "Life of
Job" which is radically different from the canonical Book of Job. The part of Job seeking
to understand the problem of suffering of the righteous (Job the Questioner) is absent in
Aristeas. He rather emphasizes Job's courageous endurance and God's subsequent
astonishment.
180
The language of dissent has been substituted with that of honor in
enduring persecution and suffering, similarly to 2Mac 6:18-7:42. In the first case evil is
justified against the benevolence of God, while in the second, the goodness of God is
justified against a legitimate expression of dissent.
The book of Jesus, the son of Sirach, was written before the Maccabean revolt
(168-164 BCE) in a context of chaotic process of cross cultural hybridization under
Ezekiel and Ezra had demanded that the descendants of Zadok, the high priest of king David,
should provide the high priesthood; cf. Ezek 40:45; Ezra 7:2. See Koester, History, Culture and Religion,
208-10,29.
177
Such as poetry (Philo the Epic Poet, Theodotus), oracle (Orphica), drama (Ezekiel the
Tragedian), philosophy (Aristobulus), chronography (Demetrius the Chronographer), history (Aristeus the
Exegete, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Cleodemus Malchus), and romance (Artapanus). See James H.
Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 775-903.
178
"He is one, self-generating: all things are brought forth generated from this one," Orphica, 10
(short version).
179
"Out of goodness he brings evil upon mortals." Orphica, 13 (short version).
180
Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2, 855-8.
79
Ptolemaic Hellenism and economical strain due to the introduction of tax-farming.
Originally written in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek by a grandson living in
Alexandria, who also wrote a foreword. He acknowledged the cultural challenge of the
Jewish community: "[fjor what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly
the same sense when translated into another language" (Sirach, Prologue 1:1). There are
some significant changes between the original Hebrew text and the later Greek redaction
probably accountable to the nephew who might have attempted to harmonize differences.
The dialectic of Sirach is that of a self-appointed defender of the justice of God.
The opposite party is addressed and defined in an influential and frequently repeated
debate formula: do not say (\xr\ eiTrrjc;).
181
In the process of stereotypical polarization,
fundamental notions of faith follow the traditional sapiential language which contrasted
the wise and the wicked. The wise affirm the importance of righteousness (40:12),
covenant (17:10), goodness and justice (40:17). The conduct of the adversaries is
characterized in terms such as: sensless (achpcov) (16:23, 19:23, 20:14, etc.), foolish
(|acop6c;) (18:18, 19:11, 22:14), sinner (a\xapxu>Xbc,) (19:22, 32:17), godless (<xoefir\<;)
(21:27), hypocrite (v-noKpivo\ievoc,) (32:15), arrogant (i)Trepr)ctxxv'o<;) (32:18). They seem to
dissent on issues of traditional theodicy (15:11-12) and the effectiveness of retribution
(5:3-6, 16:17) not only in the present but even after death (11:24-26). Their views are
opposed with a firm belief in judgment after death (18:24), the certainty of retribution
(16:14) even if delayed (2:8, 7:16, 17:18).
181
Crenshaw recognizes this typical form consisting of three elements: 1. the prohibition-formula
'al-td'mar, 2. the direct quotation, and 3. the refutation introduced by ki. James L. Crenshaw, "The Problem
of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage," in Theodicy in the Old Testament, 122. On similarities with a
discussion technique used by Stoic philosophers, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, "Theodicy in Wisdom of Ben
Sira," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, 514.
80
The God of Sirach follows Jewish tenets of law and retribution (16:14; 39:25).
Monotheism is sustained even at the cost of making God the source of good and evil
(11:4). However, in a platonic fashion, all the works of God are defended as good (epY
a
Kupiou TOVTCX aY
a
6)<x) (39:33). Evil present in the life of the wicked justifies their
punishment (40:9-10). God cannot be imputed (15:11) in fact God "has not commanded
anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin" (15:20). God may
use suffering to discipline (7:18, 32:14), test (2:1-5, 4:17, 27:5, 33:1), and strengthen
(4:11-19, 39:28). God is declared a just judge (35:12) and even natural disasters follow
just retribution (39:28). The creation of good and evil is the necessary condition for
making moral choices possible. In fact everything comes in pair, one opposite to the other
(42:24,33:14-15).
A non-Jewish audience familiar with Greek philosophy could have followed
Sirach's discourse. God creates out of goodness because that is the nature of God (&Y<X8O<;
fjv) ( Tim. 29e.l). The principle of correlation between good and evil originated in
Heraclitus' concept of the logos as the TTodivxovToc; apuovir). Plato treats it too in his
distinction between ov and \xx\ ov : "It is not possible that evils should cease to be, for it is
necessary that something should always exist contrary to good" (Theaet. 176a). It was
often used by the Stoics to justify that some evils are necessary for good to come. The
principle derived from Plato that one was responsible for his/her own happiness through
the power of choices {Rep. 617e) was common.
182
Johan C. Thorn, "Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus and Early Christian Literature," in Antiquity and
Humanity; Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy, Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th
Birthday, 490.
183
Greene, Moira, 345.
81
Sirach does not use the substantive upovoicc, the Platonic term to identify the
revelation of divine benevolence (Tim. 44c.7). It will be found later in the book of
Wisdom (14:3, 17:2). This should not diminish the significance of providence in Sirach.
For instance, one of the fundamental texts of the Stoic view of providence, Cleanthes'
Hymn to Zeus (c. 280 BCE) develops its insights without using the term TTpovoia as well.
In his treatment, human beings are said to find origin in Zeus (3). He guides the works of
nature (11) and has joined everything into one, the good with the bad (20). Some, blinded
by riches, conduct a life without understanding becoming the cause of their own evil (22-
31); they are called bad (KCCKOI eloi). Zeus, however, can still free from ignorance and
grant insight to govern everything with justice (33-35). Moral responsibility is preserved,
however, as an internal choice human beings have to make.
184
In the Hebrew text there is no trace of judgment after death; blessings and curses
take place within a life span (5:7, 8:7). Instead, eschatology is introduced in the Greek
version of Sirach to solve the problem of success for the wicked and suffering for the
righteous (2:9, 7:17; cf, Wis 1:15-2:1, 3:10, 4:19:20). Punishment of the wicked is not
immediate. This is so that an opportunity to repent and return to God might be given to
all (17:25-26). One has to exercise a choice in order to keep the law (15:14-15, 17:6-7; cf.
Deut 30:19). This is what Timo Eskola calls prospective predestination: "[i]f man sins,
he will be under God's wrath. If he repents and becomes obedient to the law, his end will
be good."
185
184
Thus, in "Stoicism an action is not good or bad in itself; its moral quality depends on the
disposition of the agent. If the latter's disposition is wrong, the action is bad, even if it is outwardly
identical to the action of a wise man with a good disposition." Johan C. Thom, Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus:
Text, Translation, and Commentary. (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 94-5.
185
Timo Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 100 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 47.
82
Notably, the issue of intergenerational retribution is prominent (Sir 16:4, 23:25,
41:5-9, etc.). Error and darkness are said to be formed with sinners from their birth
(12:16a). In a much elaborated text in which both the Hebrew text and the Greek
redaction are blended, the questions of creation and theodicy are addressed (17:1-32).
Sirach's theodicy does not endorse predestination to punishment, though one is born into
an already compromised situation. Change may still be attainable through one's choice
and God's mercy (17:24-25). God is creator and creation is eternal. God created
humanity and gave human beings understanding to make proper decisions.
186
In this
context, the question of the origin of evil (42:19-24) finds its place. Adam was the first
man (49:16) and sin was not the responsibility of God, who after creation warned
humanity: "Beware of all evil" (17:14). Sin began with a woman, who introduced death
on humanity (25:23) and it became associated with a serpent (21:2, 42:2).
187
One should not dissent, accusing God of indifference towards creation: "Say not:
'I am hidden from God; in heaven who remembers me? Among so many people I cannot
be known, what am I in the world of spirits?" (16:15). In fact, as a self-appointed
"defender" of God, Sirach, answers: "Behold, the heavens, the heaven of heavens, the
earth and the abyss tremble at his visitation; the roots of the mountains, the earth's
foundations, at his mere glance, quiver and quake" (16:16-17). The language of this short
dialogue could well be a counterview to Qoheleth's message of skepticism where God
Sirach's appreciation of intellectual inquiry is remarkable to the point that it is considered
equivalent to a life of piety (2:10, 6:28, 14:20, 32:5, 33:11, 39:1). On this subject see Crenshaw, Defending
God, 101-7. For instance, there is rationalistic optimism in the capacity to find remedy in the field of
medicine (39:1-11); see Noorda Sihbolt, "Illness and Sin, Forgiving and Healing," in Studies in Hellenistic
Religions, 223.
187
"Adamic fall speculation is also rather sparse in the earlier sources from Hellenistic Judaism. In
some respects, Hellenism had less need to explain man's sinfulness, for a metaphysical dualism was readily
available as at least a partial answer." Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra, 32.
83
seems close to an abstract definition of fate (3:19-22). It could also be representative of
two schools of philosophy in antiquity, one declaring the indifference of God to human
affairs (Epicureans) and the other defending the presence of God in the world of creation
(Stoics).
189
The book of Wisdom was written about 100 BCE and continues the debate on
theodicy in the typical contrast between the wicked and the wise. Some themes are
common. The ungodly (doepelq) consider life to be product of chance (ccuTooxeSiwc;
kyevrfim^v) (Wis 2:2) and deny life after death (2:5). Their sinfulness is transmitted even
to the following generations (3:12-13, 16).
190
They persecute the righteous and test them
(2:10,17,19, 3:5, 11:10), but unmerited suffering is justified for the purpose of education
(12:2). The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and the power of evil cannot
prevail over them even if they endure suffering (3:1). Then, at the end, a dramatic
reversal will take place (11:5,16, 12:27). In the day of judgment the wicked will reflect
upon their wasted lives and repent (5:1-3). They will remember their lives of wickedness
and at that point only understand it as a state of anticipated death (5:13) as a sort of
James L. Crenshaw, "The Birth of Skepticism in Ancient Israel," in The Divine Helmsman.
Studies on God's Control of Human Events, 1-19.
189
Alfonso Traina in his introduction to Seneca's De Providentia speaks of these confrontations:
"Vigorosi attacchi alia teodicea stoica vennero dalla nuova Accademia e dall'epicureismo . . . La voce di
Epicuro echeggio presto a Roma, e attraverso il piu diffuso mezzo di comunicazione che avesse l'antichita:
il teatro. In una (perduta) tragedia di Ennio, il Telamone, un personaggio esclamava...: "Ho sempre detto e
diro che esistono gli dei, ma credo che non si curino delle azioni umane: perche, se se ne curassero,
andrebbe bene ai buoni e male ai malvagi {bene bonis sit, male malls'), il che e lungi dall'essere." E il
pubblico, informa Cicerone che ci ha conservato il frammento, applaudiva (Div. 2,104)." Seneca, La
Prowidenza, 10-1. Similarly, Jerome H. Neyrey finds similar polemics in a Midrash of the Palestinian
targums of Gen 4:8 in Tgs. Pseudo Yerusalmi II and Neofiti 1. In it Cain debated with Abel against divine
judgment given the presence of injustice in the world. In a similar context he places the polemic about
delayed Parousia and denied judgment in 2Pe 3:9 and in the questions of judgment and post-mortem
retribution in Act 17 and 23 in Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 99, no. 3 (1980): 407-31; Jerome H. Neyrey, "Acts 17, Epicureans, and
Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes," in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J.
Malherbe, 509-42.
190
The author, considering the effect of wickedness, compares it to blindness (<xiroTi4A6w) (2:21;
cf. 5:6, 19:17). The relation between blindness and wickedness will come back in the story of the man born
blind (Joh 9:2).
84
retrospective definition of "negative realized eschatology." They will cowardly face the
anguish caused by their conscience (oweiSnoLg) (17:11).
191
Instead the life of the righteous will be eternal (el<; TOV cdwvcc) (5:15), their hope
full of immortality (3:4). Stretching theodicy to a limit, the book of Wisdom arrives to
affirm that even if the righteous died at an early age, this is not necessarily evil as it may
have actually prevented their souls from making wrong choices that would have lead
them astray (4:11). And yet, after the privilege of choice has been thus deprived, in this
instance it continues affirming that providence is not chained to fate and moral options
are given to people.
192
The history of humankind is interpreted as the uninterrupted
providential intervention of the divine which rescues humanity from its inclination to evil
and self-destruction.
193
This is the case of Cain and it is the evidence of those who died in
the flood (10:3-4). On the other hand, wisdom has preserved Abraham from wickedness,
delivered Lot, guided Jacob, saved Joseph and entered in the soul of Moses (10:1-16)
thus generating an elected people.
The theodicy of Wisdom is based on creation. God is not the author of evil but
governs all things righteously (12:15). God is like a Father towards his children.
194
Providentially he guides the journey of his children (r\ 5e or\ tTatep SiaKuftepvoc iTpovoia)
(14:3).
195
God is a creator who has breathed the soul and a living spirit in the creatures
(15:11). God protects through grace (xccpig) the one elected (3:9; 4:15) while punishes the
191
The section dedicated to the death of the first born in Egypt, declares that the forewarning
dreams were given so that they might not perish "without knowing why they suffered" (18:19).
192
Wisdom treats with particular interest the story of the Pharaoh but noticeably leaves out the
case of God's hardening of his heart.
193
This will be part of the basic plot of the Johannine prologue (Joh 1:11).
194
The essential goodness of God, Father and Creator of the world, will be a frequent statement of
Philo of Alexandria (Op. 2\\Agr. 128-30).
195
In the LXX, the term upovoia is used nine times (Wis 14:3, 17:2; Dan 6:19; 2Mac 4:6; 3Mac
4:21, 5:30; 4Mac 9:24, 13:19, 17:22 ). Philo employs it 66 times; see Op. 9-10; Spec. Leg. 3.189; Praem.
42. Less frequently, he also expresses the idea of providence with the terms eiu^poouvr) and eTU|i6A.eia.
85
wicked (3:10) particularly in the day of judgment (3:18). God's mercy does not rejoice in
the death of the wicked and gives people time to repent (11:23-26). Evil in fact has
entered through the envy of the devil (2:24).
1%
God is not unaware that evil struck
humanity at its very origin (Trovrjpa f] ykveoiQ airrwv) (12:10-11). It is wisdom which is
entrusted the providential care of humanity (10: l).
197
We can summarily conclude that wisdom literature endorses a theodicy of
providence. Once God's goodness is declared, it has to be defended before whatever and
whoever contradicts it. The origin of such works may originate as a rebuttal of dissent.
When benevolent, they assume the mood of teacher-pupil instruction but more frequently
as devoutness against godlessness. A hierarchy is established where doctrines are
imparted "from above," while assessment of what happens "below" in the world of
experience is further removed. Obviously the story is one-sided because the voice of the
antagonists is only reported and at best we can only presume their identity. The "social"
dualism of a world characterized as a debate between the fool and the wise will find
correspondence in the cosmological dualism of the apocalyptic solutions to the problem
of theodicy. At that point, however, debate will have reached the intensified level of
outright warfare.
Apocalypticism is a theology of crisis. It was meant to console the righteous not
just to declare the pending doom of the wicked. Similarly to wisdom tradition, adversity
had to be endured, while inner tranquility could be obtained through faith in divine
196
This is the only reference to the devil in Wisdom. The adoption of a metaphysical dualism in
Wisdom made unnecessary to attribute evil to an evil personality because the inherent evilness of matter
was a sufficient explanation. For a discussion of this in the context of fate and providence, see David
Winston, "Theodicy in Wisdom of Solomon," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, 526-9. Much of this
language and concepts will return in the next chapter addressing the prologue of the Gospel of John.
197
In Philo, providence is exercised through God's powers which at times are referred to as the
activity of the divine logos {Op. 20; Quod Deus 11; cf. Wis 18:15).
86
retribution. Apocalyptic tradition, however, declared that a final resolution was at hand.
Insight was revealed and active participation in the violent confrontation with the
adversary in some cases was expected. It can be traced from 1 Enoch (6-11), dated
around the time of the Hebrew Sirach, and extends to 4 Ezra which postdates the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
198
Theodicy is a central theme as in wisdom literature
but the emerging theology reveals a prevalent Jewish background.
199
The main element is
not God's goodness and providence in creation but God's eschatological justice revealed
in the Day of Wrath.
200
The second century of the Hellenistic epoch was signed by several instances of
revolutionary movements. In Jewish territory, the Maccabean revolt was initiated by a
controversy between the pro-Syrian and the pro-Egyptian parties over control of the high-
priestly office and the financial-religious power of the temple. The immediate motif was
the entrance in the Temple of Jerusalem of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, obviously interested
in its treasury. This sparked a violent reaction and consequently brought persecution upon
the pious Jews, the Hasidim, to which the family of the Maccabees belonged. Information
about these events is gathered in the Books of the Maccabees. Though portrayed in
legendary fashion, the suffering of the righteous attests the religious quality of that
For an overview of theodicy in Jewish Apocrypha, Pseudoepigrapha and Qumran Scrolls under
the voices of divine retribution, cosmic destruction, Israel's unfaithfulness and the gift of the Torah,
unresolved questions and mystery, eschatology and Apocalypticism, proleptic fulfillment, human free will
and human determinism; see James H. Charlesworth, "Theodicy in Early Jewish Writings," in Theodicy in
the World of the Bible, 470-508.
199
A significant difference lies in the criticism of the Temple, particularly in the writings of The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TLevi 18) and Qumran (lQpHab VIII,8-13, IX,4-6; 1 QS IX, 3-6).
Interest in astronomy, medicine and meteorology indicates familiarity with Greek education. Cohen affirms
that "[t]ese works are not so much attempts at imitating Greek wisdom as exercises in emulating and
surpassing it." Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come, 178.
200
Qumran belongs to this context but will be treated in the next chapter for the purpose of
ascertaining its impact on the Gospel of John.
201
Koester assiciates the slave insurrection of Aristonicus of Pergamum (133-130 BCE) against
Rome with some of the Utopian ideas of his time. On the adherents of the "Commonwealth of the Sun," see
Koester, History, Culture and Religion, 138.
87
persecution (IMac 1:47, 54; 2Mac 6:2, 10). Jewish population was divided between those
who were loyal to tradition and those who compromised with the ruling powers; among
these was Menelaus, the high priest appointed by Antiochus. In 164 BCE organized
resistance achieved political independence. The office of the high priest, left vacant, was
occupied by Jonathan and his brother Simon, members of the Hasmonean family. This is
the time when a group of Hasidim, the Essenes, went into voluntary exile against the evil
priest who occupied the seat belonging to the Zadokite priesthood. The party of the
Pharisees, whose origins are traced back in the Hasidic group, decided to remain but still
stood against the leadership of the country.
Apocalyptic theodicy differs from the deuteronomistic. The latter affirmed that
God is justified by events of past history. Even the destruction of the Temple in the sixth
century BCE was explained as the outcome of the accumulated guilt of Israel. History
and not insight (revelatory wisdom) gave divine knowledge. Prophetic literature
reinterpreted the past indicating that repentance would soon provide a new beginning.
The future could be different as in the mythological and cosmological images of the
apocalypses of Isa 24-27 and Zech 9-14. The influence of Hellenism found blending
territory with the dualistic concept of creation and chaos, direct divine interventions
without human agency, negative anthropology as place of demonic invasions, divine and
satanic angels filling astrological and earthly spheres, struggles of rival powers and
combat myths, progressive degradation of history from its origin, dissolution at the end of
combat, the transfer of the concept of election from ethnicity to normative morality,
resurrection and post mortem retribution.
202
Levenson has characterized apocalyptic
Cf. Koester, History, Culture and Religion, 232-3.
88
literature as: "in large part, born of the contradiction between the rhetoric of the First
Temple period and the reality of the Second."
203
1 Enoch, a collection of Palestinian works composed between the third century
BCE and the first century BCE, wrestled with apocalyptic theodicy. In 1 Enoch sinners
are those who socially, politically and religiously exploit others. They are called
hypocrites (91:4), heathen (91:9), sinners (91:11), builders of oppression and injustice
(94:6), enriched exploiters (96:4-8, 97:8), liars (97:10), fools (98:9), obstinate and hard of
heart (98:11, 100:8), etc.
204
Their voice is reported down into Sheol, now a place where
the dead assembled before a final judgment:
As we die, so do the righteous die. What then have they gained by their
deeds? Behold, like us they died in grief and in darkness, and what have they
more than we? From now on we have become equal. What will they receive
or what will they see forever? Behold they have surely died; and from now
on they shall never see light forever (lEn 102:6-8, cf. 104:7).
205
The author replies that reversal will take place. Those who now suffer one day will
rejoice in devout "vendetta" witnessing and actually participating in the destruction of the
wicked (97:1-2). Those who were born in the light, but were oppressed, will receive back
light and honor (5:7, 108:11-15). Instead, those born in darkness, who satiated themselves
in riches, will perish. The innocent sufferers, though tested (108:9), will be rewarded
because nothing of their good deeds was forgotten. Their actions were, in fact, written in
the "holy writings" (103:1-4; cf. Rev 20:12). This will take place after their death and
having undergone great tribulations (50-51). Thus, the righteous are exhorted to remain
steadfast in their uprighteousness (91:3), to uphold virtue in times of trouble (94:1-5),
203
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 32.
204
The list continues in the woes against the sinners, in lEn 94:6-100:9.
205
Texts in quotations are taken from Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.
Abbreviations are from SBL style.
89
because deliverance is near (96:1, 104:1-4). At a given time, the Lord will emerge in
wrath and execute judgment upon the earth (1:8, 35, 91:7, 100:4). He will punish the
evildoers with eternal pain (5:5, 53, 91:9-10) and reward the righteous with eternal light,
goodness (92:2-5), and a new heaven and earth (45).
206
The lamentations of the righteous are not reported. Instead the just are instructed
not to dissent:
Do not say, "In the days of our toil, we have surely suffered hardships and
have experience every trouble. We have faced many evil things and have
become consumed. We have died and become few, (characterized) by the
littleness of our spirit. . . We have hoped to be the head and have become the
tail. . . Then, in our tribulation, we brought a charge against them before the
authorities, and cried out against them before authorities, but they (the
authorities) neither would pay attention to our cries nor wish to listen to our
voice. But (on the contrary) they were assisting those who were robbing and
devouring us, those who were causing us to diminish." (lEn 103: 9-15)
(italics mine)
God is not the author of evil. God comes to aid with wisdom and revelation (105:1)
particularly through his servant Enoch (1:1-2, 106-108). The heavens become inhabited
by evil spirits in the story of the fallen angels (6, 64, 69)
207
giving birth to evil giants (7;
cf. Sir 16:7; Wis 14:6). The oppressed, righteous ones can count on good angels
(Michael, Raphael and Gabriel) who fight on behalf of God and intercede for them (9-10,
68). They will bring Satan into chains (53:3-4). For a certain time, some measure of
Enoch will actually make a tour of hell (prison house), purgatory and heaven up to the holy
throne of God (17-36).
207
"The further God was removed from the world, the more the 'fullness' in between (called the
pleroma in Greek) had to be populated with divine beings." Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah.,
86.
208
The language of sexual defilement and abstinence will progressively characterize this literature;
see lEn 12:4, 15:7 and Rev 14:4. On the appearance of "divine" evil in this and future texts, the following
comment seems appropriate: "the tendency is toward an exculpation of the deity. The reverse side of the
coin should not, however, be overlooked: as God is exculpated, evil is divinized." Levenson, Creation and
the Persistence of Evil, 44.
90
independent power is allotted to Satan and evil spirits to introduce corruption on earth.
Then, a mysterious figure, a pre-existent Son of Man will be entrusted under the
deposition of the kings from their thrones (46, 48). A cosmic and earthly battle will
vindicate the rejection of heavenly Wisdom:
Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell; but a place was
found (for her) in the heavens. Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the
children of the people, but she found no dwelling place. (So) Wisdom
returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels (lEn
42:l-2).
210
While the earth is left vacant, iniquity inhabits it (42:3). Voluntary suffering is the lot and
the trademark of the righteous (108:8-9). They are expected to endure persecution in
patient silence; dissent is not reported though presumably it is present. In Enoch, theodicy
does question distribution of power and privileges in the present, but postpones justice
into a further future. The righteous are called to trust the vision of a final reversal at the
end of time. This revelation is not directly extended to all, but is a secret vision imparted
to a few. Visual analogies such as light and darkness will produce a moralization of sight
and blindness to qualify the life of the righteous and the wicked (41:8; cf. Wis 2:21).
2
"
What one sees does not correspond to reality but it requires an extension in the
beyond of what is apparently visible. Angelic mediation indicates also a farther removal
of God from history. God is in control but this is not verified by experience; it is a
For the first time a personification of an active enemy of God supported by an army of demons
appears in a Jewish context. The origin is described in the first part, the section known as the Book of
Watchers. The book of Jubilees presupposes it.
210
The date of this parable is sometime after the incursion of Pompey (66-64 BCE) according to
Charlesworth, "Theodicy in Early Jewish Writings," 486, The analogies and differences with the prologue
of the Gospel of John are vivid. In John the logos is rejected but does not return (ascend) back to the Father
before having rescued "his own" (Jn 13; 1).
211
Enoch recounts the story of Israel with the analogy of animals. Blindness symbolizes sin. For
instance, there is blindness at the time of Judges (83:41, 44) and the Maccabean period (90:6-9). The
implication is that to be a member of God's people is not enough ethnic identity. In a Palestinian world torn
by divided loyalties the emphasis rests now on moral requirements.
91
requirement of faith rooted in secret and mysterious visions.
212
If dissent is "silenced,"
defection of the so-called righteous is submitted to an even graver retribution. Of those
who have denied the name of the Lord it is said that "it would have been better for them
not to have been born" at all (38:2).
213
The book of Jubilees is a Midrash on Genesis 1 - Exodus 12, emphasizing the
preservation of Jewish cultic and legal tradition like the importance of the Sabbath,
circumcision, the keeping of a solar calendar, and avoiding intermarriages with gentiles.
It was probably written around the first century BCE and presumably it represented an
effort to warn against foreign influences. What is most significant in terms of theodicy is
derived from Jewish tradition. For instance, evil is attributed to the works of Mastema
(Jub 10:8), thus exculpating God from its responsibility.
214
The most significant example
is the recasting of the episode of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22) in a literary and
theological frame similar to that of Job. Mastema tests Abraham while an angel of God
saves him from committing a crime (Jub 17:15-18:13). Likewise, Moses himself is saved
by God from the attack of Mastema (cf. Ex 4:24). It is the Devil who induces the Pharaoh
to persist in his opposition to the Israelites and not God to promote obduracy of his heart
(48:3,12,17).
215
The perfection of nature is described to prove that God is not the creator of evil, this is due to
human sin and those who commit it are under a great curse (5). The effects of Adam's sin are still ignored.
213
Cf. the use of UT) 4>uvca in O.C. 1124-1225 and EnUovpoQ MevoiKelxaCpeiv, 126.
214
Mastema is otherwise called Satan or Beliar. Texts are taken from Charlesworth, ed., Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2. Abbreviations are from SBL style.
215
In an allusion to Is 6 9:10 the author says of the gentiles: "[a]nd all their deeds are worthless
and vain. And they have no heart to perceive, and they have no eyes to see what their deeds are" (Jub
22:18). The element of induced obduracy of the heart is lacking while their blindness is characterized in
term of ignorance.
92
Sin, devil possession, and sickness were connected. Polluted demons cause
Noah's grandchildren to be led astray and to be blinded.
216
At this point, Noah in a prayer
acknowledges the powerlessness of people before the actions of evil spirits and intercedes
for his own people only to be spared. In the reply, he is instructed to succor the suffering
people by means of medicinal herbs (10:113). God remains in control and the power of
evil is allowed to operate but not outside the limits set by God (10:7-14).
The cosmological dualism between Mastema and the angelic world (48:4) has a
social correspondence. Good people are an elect minority of the Israelites. On the
opposite camp are the gentiles, the apostate, and the "children of destruction" (15:26).
Repentance is provided for the first (5:17) but the rest are cursed and bound to
destruction. The general view remains pessimistic, as a progressive degradation of
history is evidenced by decline in longevity (23; cf. lEn 85-90; Dan 2:31-45). Probably
the author belonged to a priestly congregation and intended to guard the "normative"
doctrine, though unsuccessfully, since his battle against the use of the rival lunar calendar
91 X
was lost at the end. Nevertheless, violation of a given norm is sanctioned as
disobedience to God and thus subjected to divine retribution. The underlined assumption
is that God served the purpose of guaranteeing social stability and status. Whoever
threatened it with dissenting practices would have been associated with the work of the
The subject of blindness induced by demons is very frequent in the late period of
intertestamental literature; see TReu 2:8-9; TSim 2:7; TJud 11:1; TLevi 13:7; TJud 18:2-3; TJud 19:4;
TDan 2:2,4; TGad 3:3; TJos 7:4-5. However, if consenting to evil spirits produces blindness, an element of
choice remains: "God has granted two ways to the sons of men, two mind-sets, two lines of action, two
models, and two goals. Accordingly, everything is in pairs, the one over against the other. The two ways
are good and evil; concerning them are two dispositions within our breasts that choose between them"
(TAsher 1:3-5).
217
Cf. Jub 10:32, 29:11, 24:28-33, 30:4-6, 34:1-9, 38:1-10.
218
This is the conclusion reached by O. S. Wintermute in his introduction to the book of Jubilees,
thus providing the sectarian nature of the authorship; in Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
2,48.
93
devil and for that reason destined to condemnation at the time of the last judgment (Jub
5:10, 9:15).
219
The Testament of Job unites only a few apocalyptic features in the testament form
such as combat myth and cosmological dualism. The first century BCE and CE is the
period in which this literary genre flourishes. Testament does not stand for Jewish
covenant but the Hellenistic notion of spiritual legacy contained in a legal will.
220
Differently from the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, it is characterized by a
"novelized" style.
221
Job's zeal to destroy a shrine dedicated to idols attracts demonic
persecution. Satan dominates the scene but, similarly to the canonical account, he is
allowed to exercise his deceptive power under the authority of God (TJob 8:1-3) and only
against his body, not the soul (20:1-3). The "autonomy" of the soul allows him to
continue having "realized eschatology" in ecstatic access (48-50). Emphasis is given to
the persecutory action of the Devil, attracted by the devout behavior of God's servant (5;
9-11; 15; 17:3-4).
222
An angel comes to the help of Job and at the very beginning
instructs him on what is to come (4). The devil, in his deceptive trials, adopts even
theological insights of retribution as the so-called friends do in the canonical book of Job.
In order to induce discouragement, he says to Job's wife Sitis: "Unless you deserved the
evils, you would not have received them in return" (23:6). Job does not seek the help of
God against God, as in the canonical text. He portrays patient confidence against dissent.
219
This applied purpose of social theodicy in the development of devil theology in Judaism and
Christianity is the basic insight in Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Random House, 1995).
220
For instance, Diogenes Laertius, Testamentum Platonis 3.41-43.
221
See introduction of R. P. Spittler in Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1, 832.
222
From a sociological point of view, the persecutory complex is typical of sectarian movements:
"Sects suffer from both persecution and a persecution complex, which uses the sufferings of the present to
prove loyalty to God. Alienated from the rest of society, they create in their minds (that is, the heavens) an
ideal world that in the end time would be realized on earth and vindicate them in the eyes of their
opponent." Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnak, 98.
94
Though asked to speak against the Lord, Job answers: "Rather, let us be patient till the
Lord, in pity, shows us mercy" (26:5).
The basic aim of this text is to exculpate God from responsibility over the reality
of unmerited suffering, which instead, is interpreted as persecution. Job remains immune
from human sentiments of rebellion and within himself finds a source of power ever
superior to the threats of the devil. In a scene similar to the Johannine passion narrative,
when fellow kings ask if he were Job, after his answer "I am" (eyw ei|ii) they faint to the
ground (30: l).
223
They disparage him by asking how could a good person be "fallen in
such a deathly state" (30:5) and bear such a loss: "where is the splendor of your throne?"
(32). In an ecstatic song of praise, Job responds by praising the heavenly throne one day
he will receive from the Father (33). This "second" Job offers insight into early Christian
texts where a "providential" plan of God justifies a purpose in suffering: "Indeed we call
blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance (xr\v b-no\xovr\v)
of Job, and you have seen the purpose (TO xekoq) of the Lord, how the Lord is
774
compassionate and merciful" (Jas 5:11).
In the genealogy of theodicy, providence and dissent make respectively a
controversial reappearance in the aftermath of the temple's destruction with the authors
of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra?
25
In their literary fictions, the motif is provided by the tragic fall
of 587 B.C.E. In reality it is the second one (70 CE) which is meant (4EzralO:21) with all
the horrific consequences brought on the Jewish people (2Bar 62:4).
223
There other similarities such as the seizing of a purple robe (cf. TJob 39:7), the mocking about
Jesus kingship, and the final testament of Jesus (Jn 19:26-27).
224
For a background on the theme of perseverance and patience, see Cees Haas, "Job's
perseverance in the Testament of Job," in Studies on the Testament of Job, 138-51.
225
For quotes see Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1. Abbreviations are from
SBL style.
95
The author of Sibylline Oracle 4:130-136 interpreted the destruction of
Herculaneum and Pompeii by the eruption of the Vesuvius as an act of retribution against
the Romans after the destruction of Jerusalem.
226
2 Baruch, instead, interpreted the
tragedy of 70 CE as a verdict on the guilt of the people (2Bar 1:1-5). Those deserving it
are punished, only the righteous are spared (2). Everything is declared to fulfill the plan
of God. In this way, the enemies are deprived of the power to claim autonomous credit
for such an outrageous action. God willed it and the enemies are only instruments in the
hands of God. The angels of God are the one carrying the destruction of the temple and
the city. Ironically, when the adversaries arrive they find the temple already emptied of
the holy vessels at their arrival (8:2).
Baruch does not dissent against God but seeks understanding into the mystery of
divine plans. If sin caused retribution, why was the righteousness of few not able to
prevent it? (14:7). However, the questions seem only to be a set-up for catechetical
answers. The justice of God is preserved at all costs as part of a providential plan. God is
omnipotent and evil does not work outside God's control. God's ways are mysterious
(14:8, 21:9-10, 44:6, etc.). Even if punished, God did not reject the elected people (13:9-
10). The righteous will rise and will receive reward (14:13, 44:13, 84:6). Sinners will be
thrown into fire (30:4-5, 44:15, 51:6, etc.). When the time is ripe (22:1-8) the judgment of
God (5:2, 48:27, 85:9) will come. On that day the written record of individual actions will
be opened (24:1) and darkness and affliction brought by Adam's sin (18:2, 56:6-8) will
be finally dispelled.
226
"But a firebrand, turned away from a cleft in the earth in the land of Italy, reaches to broad
heaven, it will burn many cities and destroy men . . . Know then the wrath of the heavenly God, because
they will destroy the blameless tribe of the pious.'" In Charlesworth, "Theodicy in Early Jewish Writings,"
488.
96
Dissent, marred by ignorance, is bound to find all its accusations vain. However,
dissent is given a pedagogical purpose as it elicits teaching and provides understanding.
In turn, this creates an enriched moral awareness for the reader's responsibility. Human
beings, though limited, have to choose between light and darkness (19, 54:15, 85:7). The
Law has given moral responsibility to Israel (15:6, 19:3) but also the capacity to endure
its most difficult trials (32:1-7).
It is fair to acknowledge that answers do not seem to remove from the text a
sensible veil of existential pessimism, stigmatized by Baruch sitting before the doors of
the destructed Temple and uttering like Jeremiah: "Blessed is he who was not born, or he
who was born and died" (10:6). Life is struggle (15:1-8, 16:1) and pain (48:50). If faith in
God and righteousness do not improve one's life, at least they give understanding now
and future reward at the end. Baruch's theodicy speaks of providence without naming it.
Everything stands within an inscrutable divine script, God never declares loss of control,
and God's benevolence is mysteriously maintained. This is affirmed, however, not by the
stark evidence of a mourning population before a ruined city but by a faith reaffirmed
against experience and sustained by deferred expectations.
Instead, dissent finds a remarkable "come back" in 4 Ezra though the final outcome
does not change significantly. God is accused of neglect (4Ezra 4:1-5,15) by allowing
evil to enslave Jewish people under foreign nations (5). Natural evil is not a concern of
this author. He, rather, ponders over human morality and its aptness to stand before
God's disconcerting retribution. Uriel, an angel turned God's defense representative,
exculpates God from responsibility. His basic strategy consists in the affirmation that
97
God neither planted the evil seed (4:30) in the heart of humanity nor made it grow.
227
God's righteousness in judgement is thus preserved (14:32). Observance of the law is
said to be what makes the good seed grow (9:34-37). Time is given for each one to
exercise moral responsibility, but only up to a point. At the end one will face individual
judgment
228
and retribution in the form of Hell or Paradise (7:36).
This evidence, however, is unconvincing. Ezra's experience and his dissenting
remarks indicate otherwise:
And my heart failed me, for I have seen how you endure those who sin, and
have spared those who act wickedly, and have destroyed your people, and
have preserved your enemies, and have not shown to anyone how your way
may be comprehended.
Uriel attempts his defense by shifting his strategy. Instead of explaining what will happen
at the end he describes what happened at the beginning, in a shift from eschatology to
protology. He elucidates that evil has entered history through the transgression of Adam
and from him to his descendants (3:7). Evil progressively degenerated and infested
humanity with disease and an ever shorter life span (5:1-4,55, 7:48). Ezra is still
unconvinced and believes that God shares responsibility, if nothing else because God did
not take away from humanity "their evil heart" (3:20-27). While retribution is justified
(7:72-74), 4 Ezra is convinced that responsibility should be shared at least.
231
227
"Yetzer is the theory that God is responsible for evil. God created two tendencies in man, a
good one and an evil one. The evil tendency, when uncontrolled by man, is responsible for leading him into
sin." In Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra, 19.
228
"[F]or then everyone shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness" (7: [103-105]).
229
4Ezra 3:30-31; cf. 4:24-25, 5:28-30, 6:57-59, 7:46[116]-48[118], 8:15.
230
Hypothetically, Paul's rethorical questions could have found an imaginary counterpart in
4Ezra: "What should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (Rom 3:5) What then are we to
say? Is there injustice on God's part? (Rom 9:14)" and "Why then does he [God] still find fault? For who
can resist his will?" (Rom 9:19).
231
This finds confirmation in the Apocalypse of Sedrach, a posthumous text with striking parallels
to 4 Ezra. Sedrach asserts that God is guilty too: "It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my Master.
You commanded your angels to worship Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your
order and did not worship him; and so you banished him, because he transgressed your commandment and
98
Ezra's accusations are met by using a familiar arsenal. For instance it is said that no
one can comprehend God's ways (4:1-2; cf. 5:33-37). Similarly to Job in the theophany,
the mystery of creation indicates the inscrutability of God's plans. Suffering is a test
through which the preciousness of metal, like gold, is manifested (16:73; cf. 7:11-14). At
the end evil will be blotted out (6:27-28), after a temporary messianic kingdom (7:26).
The time of harvest will come when it is ripe (4:36-37), as the case of a woman reaching
the time of delivery. The signs of the coming end are certain but also hidden in
mysterious apocalyptic answers.
232
Repentance is made available (7:[82], 62[132]-
68[138]) and even from a condition of disadvantage, individual responsibility is upheld:
This is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth
shall wage, that if he is defeated he shall suffer what you have said, but if he
is victorious he shall receive what I have said. For this is the way of which
Moses, while he was alive, spoke to the people, saying, 'Choose for yourself
life, that you may live!' But they did not believe him, or the prophets after
him, or even myself who have spoken to them. Therefore there shall not be
grief at their damnation, so much as joy over those to whom salvation is
assured.
233
Ezra is aware that salvation is only possible through God's mercy; human beings cannot
save themselves because the struggle against evil is uneven (4:38-39, 8:31-36). But is
God willing to help?
234
If so, Ezra cannot understand why God punished people, given
did not come forth (to worship) the creation of your hands. If you loved man, why did you not kill the
devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like
a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can
pitiful man do against him?" (ApSedr 5:1-6) in Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, /, 610.
The accusation of deception on the part of God (ApSedr 7:9-13) will find further adoption in later gnostic
texts.
232
Cf. 4Ezra 6:20-24 and Dan 7:10; 12:1; Mai 3:16; Rev 20:12. However, "blessings of the future
are virtually unattainable because of man's inability to attain the necessary level of morality which would
qualify him for the age to come." Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra, 288.
233
4Ezra7:57[127]-61[131];cf. 8:55-59.
234
Given the contemporariness of 4 Ezra to Paul, this characterization of ancient theodicy applies:
"The ideas of Jewish theology and Paul's thought differ from the modern philosophical problem of
theodicy. The former do not call into question God's ability to help. God's sovereign power is not at issue
as it is in modern discussion. Instead Paul and other Jewish theologians are concerned with God's
willingness to help." Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination, 100.
99
the defectiveness of their moral capacity. Moreover, in the "light of this sinfulness, what
good are promises of retribution in the future, since righteousness is the prerequisite of
inheriting the promises?"
235
Given these conditions, the better fate is not to be born (5:35,
7:[63]cf.ApSedr 4:1-3).
The author stop short of declaring God a deceiver, as it will be in the Apocalypse of
Sedrach 7:9-13, a hybrid composition which stands border-line between mainstream and
sectarian texts of later time. However, all the premises except the conclusion are there.
236
Only the expectation of an immanent judgment grants an absolution to God.
237
Ezra remains an intercessor on behalf of humankind, particularly those whose
suffering is undeserved (8:26). Though he is already assured of his future salvation
(8:53), this hardly satisfies his anxious inquiries and provides us with the view of an
outstanding defender of the human cause. While God's omnipotence is never questioned
for the things of heaven, it remains doubtful over the things taking place on earth. Only
Ezra's visionary experience provides satisfaction similar to the theophanic resolution of
the canonical Job.
238
At the end, the benevolence of God is only credible to the one who
235
Tom W. Willet, Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, Journal for the Study of
the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 4 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 123.
236
In Thompson's summary: "For those who have no convictions about a righteous God, theodicy
is of no concern . . . The author of II Baruch was evidently satisfied on a rather superficial l evel . . . IV Ezra
plunged to such great depths in his search for answers makes his return all the more remarkable, even if he
did not find a satisfactory rational solution, his experience will remain as a noble witness to the resilience
of the Jewish spirit in a time of crisis." Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra, 342.
237
Kirschener affirms that "[ajmong the varieties of Judaism in late antiquity, two basic theodicies
emerged from the catastrophe of 70: divine transcendence and divine identification. According to the first,
God engineered the Temple's destruction; according to the second, he could not prevent it." Robert
Kirschener, "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," Harvard Theological Review
(1985): 44. The lack of the apocalyptic genre in rabbinic compositions is the reason for lack of dissent in
the aftermath of the 70 CE. This according to the study of Kraemer, Responses to Suffering in Classical
Rabbinic Literature, 223.
238
Vision, however, is not to be taken as synonymous of special gnosis in philosophical or
mystical terms. The interest of Ezra remains God's action in the arena of history and acceptance of God is
to be achieved in spite of mundane circumstances.
like Ezra is able to see: "the kingdom is already prepared for you; watchl" and "let the
blind man have a vision of my glory" (2:13,21) (italics mine).
This selective excursus, has hopefully demonstrated how the ongoing debate over
God's goodness and God's justice continued to constitute an unfinished exchange
standing at the very core of religious thinking and believing. Unverified responses
generated dissent and yet, dissent still required affirmative inquiring to give faith
credibility. It is on this journey:
.. .between the Scylla of simplistic faith and the Charybdis of stoic
resignation that the lament runs its perilous course. The cognitive pressure on
faith and realism to fly apart from each other is, in every generation, so
intense that the conjunction of the two in these texts continues to astound.
The cri de coeur of the complainants is unsurpassable testimony not only to
the pain of their external circumstances, but also to the pain of their internal
dissonance, which only the creator God of old can heal.
Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 25.
CHAPTER 3:
THEODIC LITERATURE IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
I have previously indicated that the basic criterion to identify theodicy in the
Bible is when the text reveals it explicitly. It could be deduced from other parts but
mostly in a supplementary fashion to where it is clearly identified. The questioning of
God's justice may be heartfelt on the part of the reader but if it does not coincide with an
identifiable intention of the author, then, in such a case we may actually address our
theodic interest with the texts of John but not John's problem with the justice of God
expressed in the text. This restriction avoids a problem for biblical theodicy which has
been already indicated, namely when: "one could classify under this heading every
statement which seeks to maintain faith in God over against the enigmas of existence."
1
It seems obvious that theodicy finds explicit expression in Jn 9:2: "Rabbi, who
sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Some unnamed disciples
question Jesus over an issue profoundly inserted in a tradition of theodic discussion, that
of intergenerational retribution. However this has found only mild support in
scholarship.
2
One testimony of how ambiguous can be the use of the term theodicy
1
Eichrodt, "Providence and Theodicy," 39.
2
Schnelle's comment represents a common view: "As far as the evangelist is concerned, the man
born blind serves solely to demonstrate Jesus' power as a worker of miracles (cf. 11:4) and not as an
occasion for discussing a relationship between sin and sickness." Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in
the Gospel of John. An investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School, trans.
Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 117. Likewise, Rein's overview of scholarship on
Jn 9 hardly mentions the issue of theodicy; see in particular Matthias Rein, Die Heilung des
Blindgeborenen (Joh 9): Tradition und Redaktion, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament. 2. Reihe, 73 (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995), 106-8. However, the relation
between sin and sickness raised in Jn 5:14 continues in the question of Jn 9:2. Therefore, greater attention
has to be given the fact that "e proprio il tema del peccato che mette in moto e sospinge tutta la narrazione."
101
102
applied to biblical texts, is Dodd's position on this subject matter. He is one of the few to
note that Jn 9:2 raises a question of theodicy in terms of "divine justice apportioning
suffering to men."
3
However, he continues, it is an isolated question given the fact that
the Fourth Gospel shows no interest in the problem of theodicy. This seems to run oddly
against the abundance of Johannine references to divine judgment, retribution and the
origin of evil. Therefore the explicit question of theodicy will be investigated within the
macrocosm of the Fourth Gospel.
Craig R. Koester recognizes that the question of the disciples is related to an
interest of the Evangelist in matters of divine retribution and moral responsibility.
However, in his opinion, the answer of Jesus to the disciples (9:3-4) dismisses a
traditional approach to theodicy: "The disciples wanted to know what caused the man's
condition, but Jesus refused to pursue that line of questioning; their interpretative
framework did not fit the situation . . . Instead of trying to look back to determine what
lay behind the blindness, Jesus looked ahead to what he might do with the blindness."
4
If
this is true, one still needs to inquire why Jesus dismisses the question of the unnamed
disciples.
It will be the aim of this chapter to prove that the story of the man born blind is
inserted in a significant tradition of theodicy. Its development is meant to arouse interest
in the intended audience of the Gospel of John which is both Jewish and Hellenistic.
Furthermore, the macro context of Jn 9:2 reflects elements of continuity with the thematic
Maurizio Marcheselli, "Peccato e Peccatori in Gv 9," in "Generati da una Parola di Veritd! (Gc 1:18).
Scritti in onore di Rinaldo Fabris nel suo 70 Complenanno, 152-3.
3
Charles H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Universtiy Press,
1963), 186-7. The relevance of theodicy in this passage was already given attention by Edwyn Clement
Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1940), 352.
4
Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed.
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 104.
103
structure of the gospel at large. This indicates internal coherence and clarity of intent.
Secondly, from the point of view of historical criticism, I will assess whether the issue of
theodicy had some relevance in the early formation of the Johannine community. This
means that the possible identity of the unnamed disciples has to be addressed with greater
attention than has been given thus far.
5
1. Jewish Tradition in the Theodicy of the Gospel of John
In the first part of my study I will consider a popular saying reported in Ezekiel
which disparaged the fairness of God. This seems to be contained in the inquiry of the
unnamed disciples. Secondly, a problematic quote from Isaiah 6:9-10 apparently
attributed to God the utilization of evil means to achieve good purposes. John refers to it
twice and in both cases he defers eschatological destiny to individual responsibility.
These references to Ezekiel and Isaiah were already studied in the previous chapter.
Instead, for the first time, I will give attention to a broad comparison between Qumran
and the Gospel of John and the way they treated the problematic question of
predestination. My analysis will reaffirm what is commonly agreed in modern
scholarship that in this Gospel individual responsibility is not exclusive of divine
initiative, but in fact can only be consequent to it.
5
The healing story of Jn 9:1, 6 and 7 can be easily traced back to Synoptic traditions (Mk 8:22-26;
10:46-52 // Lk 18:35-43 // Mt 9:27-31, 20:29-34). However, I will not pursue comparative work with the
Synoptics, to limit the extension of my work. Secondly, I will not inquire about the redaction of Jn 9:2-5,
whether it belongs to the original stratum or was added later. They are not essential part to the basic aim of
my research. I defer the detailed review of this debate in modern scholarship to Peter W. Ensor, Jesus and
His > Works<: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 85 (Tubingen: J.C. B. Mohr - Paul Siebeck, 1996), 98-129.
104
1.1 John's Exegesis of Ezekiel 18
The question of the unnamed disciples touches on the issues of innocent suffering
and intergenerational or vicarious retribution. The possibility that a man be born blind for
the sins of the parents was an answer already contemplated in the Mosaic tradition. It
could also be easily contrasted with a well known proverb: "The parents have eaten sour
grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Ezek 18:2). This is one view; the other
represents the opposite stand in Ezekiel's debate. Consequences of one's behavior do
invade the lives of following generations, thus: "Why should not the son suffer for the
iniquity of the father?" (Ezek 18:19). Belief in the infectiousness of sin with its perverse
power of producing sickness not only in one's own life but also in one's children is closer
to the declaration of the Pharisees. In Jn 9:34 I find correspondence to Ezek 18:19. There
the Pharisees declare that the blind man has been wholly generated in sin, thus assuming
that his situation was already compromised from the beginning and that it excluded him
from the benefits derived from Jewish privileges, as in Ezekiel.
Similarities with the 18
th
chapter of Ezekiel can be traced in structure, content and
conclusion. After the initial remarks of Ezek 18:2 and Jn 9:2, the development of the
respective chapters assumes the traits of an aggadic exegesis on the question of
transferability of guilt and merits within Jewish tradition.
6
Then, it is followed by
6
E.g., Ex 34:6-7; Num 14:18; Deut 7:9-10, 24:16. Fishbane considers this passage of Ezekiel an
aggadic exegesis. He offers this distinction between halakhic and aggadic exegesis "Both legal and aggadic
exegesis utilize pre-existing legal materials. But whereas legal exegesis is confined to the reinterpretation,
extension or reapplication of pre-existing legal texts, aggadic exegesis ranges over the entire spectrum of
ideas, genres, and texts of ancient Israel. Again, as part of a prescriptive corpus of rule regulating
covenantal behaviour, legal exegesis is concerned - both theoretically and practically - with actions based
on the received traditum or its revised traditio. By contrast, aggadic exegesis is primarily concerned with
utilizing the full range of the inherited traditum for the sake of new theological insights, attitudes, and
speculations. Action may follow the new and creative reworking of the traditum when this is rhetorically
105
individual units focused on specific and contrasting arguments which progress through
case inquiries. In Ezekiel it takes the form of three different generations: the innocent
parent, the evil son of the first (good) generation, and the good son of the second (bad)
generation. In John, they are identified with three different groups of belonging:
neighbors, parents, and Pharisees.
Klaus Bieberstein has recognized a particular structure in Ezek 18 that is
sustained in two essential questions. The first is defined as a thesis {These) of the people
(A 18:2); the other represents the objection (Einwand) of the people (A' 18:19ab).
8
Against these two is built the Gegenthese of Yahweh (B 18:34 with the case study of the
three following generations in 18:5-18) and the Antwort of Yahweh (B' 18:19c-20). It
seems that a similar structure can be identified in the narrative of Jn 9. The first question
of the disciples asks about responsibility but does not dismantle the basic belief in
retribution for which sickness is due to sin; this is their thesis in Jn 9:2 (A). The antithesis
(B) of Jesus 9:3-7 brings the question from what might have happened before to what is
happening now. The blind man's reaction to Jesus provides similar comparative case
studies with his three groups of belonging (9:8-39). The second question of the Pharisees
(9:40) might be qualified as an objection to what Jesus has asserted (A'). The final
addressed to the covenantal community, but this is not a necessary characteristic of aggadic exegesis.
Finally, while legal exegesis proceeds from a perceived lack or inadequacy in the traditum, aggadic
exegesis utilizes the potential fullness of the received traditum and draws forth latent and unsuspecting
meanings." Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1985), 282-3.
7
These are respectively the subdivisions of Ezek 18:5-9, 10-13, 14-18; and Jn 9:8-12, 13-17, 18-
23, 24-34.
8
Klaus Bieberstein, "Leiden ErzSlen. Sinnfiguren der Theodizee im Alten Testament. Nur eine
Skizze," in Gott Mensch Sprache, 8-9.
106
statement of Jesus at 9:41 (B') provides an answer that is applicable to them and those
who might hold a similar view.
9
There are similarities also in the thematic contexts of the two related passages.
Ezekiel at the beginning of the chapter, makes one's merit and guilt directly related to the
consequences one endures. Individual responsibility, however, does not annul traditional
belief in corporate responsibility and punishment. They stand close to each other in Ezek
18 and 20, 33 and 34. Likewise, John asserts that blindness or sight depends on individual
responsibility. The Pharisees are responsible for their own blindness since they reject
Jesus (Jn 9:41). At the same time, John does not dismantle corporate retribution. In the
section immediately preceding the episode of the man born blind, Jesus declares that
some "Jews" will die in their sins (8:21) and their inability to believe is explained
"corporatively" because their father is the devil (8:44).
10
Both authors address a current
debate about divine retribution and both intend to exclude any divine responsibility from
the appearance of unmerited punishments, which is the basic aim of a theodicy of
providence. Ezekiel reports God's reassurance: "I have no pleasure in the death of
anyone" (18:32). Similarly, Jesus subsequently declares: "I came that they may have life,
and have it abundantly" (10:10).
The historical context of Ezek 18 was the divided interests of two groups who
claimed ownership of land and ethnic privileges: the Jews left in Judah and the ones
9
The elaborateness of Jn 9 structure is the object of sophisticated study in Gilberto Marconi, "La
Vista del Cieco. Struttura di Gv 9,1-41.," Gregorianum 79, no. 4 (1998).
10
It is opportune to report the conclusion of Wrdbel's study on Jn 8:44: "the harsh words used by
Jesus in Jn 8:44 are not directed against Jews as an ethnic or religious group but are an expression of a
growing polemic between two communities emerging out of the first century Judaism: the Jewish-
Christian community and the community that would become rabbinic Judaism at the end of the first
century." Miroslaw Stanislaw Wrdbel, Who are the Father and his Children in JN 8:44? A Literary,
Historical and Theological Analysis ofJN 8:44 and its Context, Chaiers de la Revue Biblique, vol. 63
(Paris: J. Gabalda et C
ie
Editeurs), 233.
107
returning from exile. Similarly, the Johannine community had to face the threat of
exclusion and the consequent loss of ethnic privileges in the Jewish community." The
corporative personality of the man born blind, once expelled from the synagogue,
represented the Johannine community in the aftermath of the separation from its "parent,"
the Jewish religious community.
12
The conflicting interests of two groups both claiming
legitimacy and respect is the nature of their contrast. Here social theodicy applies.
Brueggemann's understanding of a theodic settlement dealing with the redress of power
may in fact represent a powerful tool in the hands of John in order to shape identity and
status for his (re-born) community.
Ezekiel affirmed that membership in Judaism was not determined by geography
but by a life coherent with prophetic standard of justice and holiness. The one who did
not worship idols, who respected purity rules, and lived a life of justice in giving food to
the hungry, clothes to the naked, etc., would acquire membership in the true people of
God and consequent land privileges (18:5-9). This and not geography (being on one or
the other side of the Jordan) made one part of the true people of God.
13
The sour reactions
of those left in Judah (18:19) consisted in a claim to legitimacy for properties gained
when they were left vacant at the time of the exile. In their opinion, the ones returning
could not have them back because once removed from their lands they also lost their
ethnic rights. God could be claimed by both sides for the sake of land ownership;
11
Martyn, J. Louis indicates a two-level drama in John 9. One (the einmalig level) situated at the
time of the historical Jesus and a second which corresponds to the continuation of ministry of the Risen
Lord in the Johannine community. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville:
Parthenon Press, 1979), 29-30. While much of modern scholarship agrees on this point, from a narrative-
critical perspective, it is fair to acknowledge that the fear of the parents in 9:22-23 can be simply
considered a literary means to enhance the testimony of the man born blind.
12
Brueggemann, "Aspects of Theodicy," 253.
13
"Ezekiel now stresses that the people in exile are also responsible for their religious destiny are
not the victimized recipients of the demerits of anyone else." Michael A. Fishbane, "Sin and Judgment in
the Prophecies of Ezekiel," Interpretation 38, no. April (1984): 142.
108
therefore Ezekiel had to declare what God expected before the implementation of divine
justice could be considered.
Similarly, John establishes a new criterion of membership against those who
defended privileges inherited simply by belonging to a given group. The choice to believe
in Jesus was the necessary step in order to become children in the "family" of God. In the
aftermath of the expulsion from the synagogue, the Johannine community faced a similar
question of ownership. What gives a Jew membership of the chosen people: genealogy
(affiliation to an ethnic group) or observance of the law (affiliation to a religious group,
the synagogue)? Either case would find the (expelled) Johannine community excluded
from the privileges of the elective status belonging to the descendant of Abraham
(8:33,39,56) and the disciples of Moses (9:28). The counter argument introduced by John
is that membership depends upon a personal decision one has to make before Jesus.
Curiosity (neighbors), fear (parents) or outright enmity (Pharisees-Jews) placed one in a
condition of moral blindness (9:39). Rejection of Jesus brought one under God's wrath
from the present up to final judgment (3:31,36).
In conclusion, it seems that the larger unit of John 8-10 may represent an aggadic
reworking of two issues developed in Ezekiel 18 and 34 dealing with the question of sin
and retribution at the individual and corporate levels. John addresses similar issues in the
narrative of the man born blind (Jn 9) and the metaphor of the good shepherd (Jn 10:1-
5).
1
Retribution and membership are the two interconnected perspectives of theodicy: to
14
The unity between 9:1-41 and 10:1-21 is proved by the facts that the audience remains the same
and that there is no change of place or time between 9:41 and 10:1-18. The first part (Jn 9) is a juridical
controversy which began in chapter 5 on the question of the Sabbath. The second part is a juridical parable
(10:1-5) and its application to the juridical controversy (10:6-18) of Jesus' identity. The reference to the
healing of the man born blind and the division it provoked (10:19-21) seals by inclusion the unity of the
two chapters. This is the convincing opinion of Martin Asiedu-Peprah, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as
109
justify God in order to justify one's rights and privileges. These two aspects are central to
the thematic development of Johannine literature. Rejection of Jesus assigns one to the
realm of darkness (8:47) and confirms the acquired privileges of those who declared their
belief in Jesus (1:12).
1.2 John's Exegesis of Isaiah 6:9-10
Ezekiel in the final section of chapter 18, affirms that repentance-conversion
determined one's condemnation or reward before the judgment of God (Ezek 18:24-30).
For John it is not repentance but one's condition before the judgment brought by Jesus's
coming in the world: "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see
may see, and those who do see may become blind" (Jn 9:39). The question of
responsibility over one's destiny is central to theodicy. In biblical tradition we have
already found cases when one's choice seemed conditioned by God's active role in the
promotion of apparent evil. John 9:39 is, in fact, an allusion of Isaiah 6:9: "Go and say to
this people: 'Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not
understand."
15
Later in the Gospel (12:39-40), the second part of the divine injunction (Isa 6:10)
will be cited, signaling to the attentive reader an element of continuity with the episode of
the man born blind: "Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their
eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and
Juridical Controversy, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 132 (Tubingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 2001), 155.
15
The term "allusion" is taken from Martin Hengel, "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel," in
The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, 392-33.
110
comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed." John 12:39-40 is introduced as if
it were a direct quotation of Isa 6:10: "And so they could not believe, because Isaiah also
said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not look with
their eyes, and understand with their heart and turn and I would heal them.'" The
differences between the two verses are obvious and suppose the editorial work of the
Evangelist.
Isaiah 6:9-10 stands within a tradition of divinely induced obduracy which has
been already analyzed.
16
Here is sufficient to make some remarks on the nature of these
two quotations in order to establish the theodic relevance of the aforementioned passages
in the Gospel of John.
17
First of all, Jn 9:39 cannot be considered a quotation of Isa 6:9
given the fact that it only repeats the use of fikeneiv:
Isa 6:9c (LXX) Jn 9:39
pAirrovTec PAii|/eTe (Ind. Fut.) Iva oi \xr\ pAetTovxec pAiiruxuv (Sub. Pres.)
K<xi oi) \xr\ iSnie (Sub. Aor.) pAiiTovxec; xucbAol ykvu>vxai (Sub. Aor.)
Destructive actions including blindness are attributed to God in Hebrew Scripture as well as the
NT, for instance Num 14:11-12; Deut 28:28, 29:4; Isa 29:10; Jer 1:10, 31:28; 2Tehs2:10. This becomes a
theodicy question in Rom 9:18, 11:7-10. The act of blinding is attributed also to "the god of this world"
(2Cor 4:4) and darkness (Un 2:11). God also heals from blindness and this is a sign of fulfillment of
messianic expectations: Isa 29:18, 35:5-6, 42:6-7, 61:1-2. The condition of those who have eyes and do not
see is referred to idols (Pss 115:5, 135:16). Blindness is not only a physical condition but it is used
symbolically to describe a condition of separation from God on the part of the people: Isa 43:8, 44:18; Jer
5:21; Ezek 12:2; or disciples Mk 8:18.
17
On the citation of Isa 6:9-10 in John, see Craig A. Evans, "Isaiah 6:9-10 in Rabbinic and
Patristic Writings," Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982): 275-81; Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 129-35;
Judith M. Lieu, "Blindness in the Johannine Tradition," New Testament Studies 34, no. 1 (January 1988):
83-95; Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament
Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 159-67; Painter, "Unbelief in John 12.36b-43," 429-
58; Bruce G. Schuchard, Scripture Within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the
Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
133 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 91-106.
I l l
The editorial hand of John is however present in Jn 12:39-41 which introduces Isa 6:10 as
a direct quotation from the prophet while it is so only approximately because changes are
made in the tense and person of the verbs:
Isa 6:10 Jn 12:39-41
etTaxuvGri yap T) xapSux TOU A,aou TOUTOU B. eiTupaxjev auxwv tf|V KccpSica-
xoXg walv OCUTQV Papecog f|KOuaav
toug cxbGodnoix; OCUTWV k.K0L\i\ivoav A. Ttuc))A.WKev auxwv xoix; ocbGcdiiouc.
HifroTe tSuoiv IOIQ o^GcdnoIc; C. Iva [xf] TSuotv roXg o^eaXnoic
TOI<; walv (XKOUOCOOLV
if] KapSia OWWOLV Kai hioxp^bdoiv D. vorjowoLV tfj KapSia KCCI oipa(J)cooLv
taoonai akoug E. Laao|_ica autoug
First I will consider Jn 9:39 and then Jn 12:40. They need to be interpreted within the
particular architecture of the Fourth Gospel. Moving from chapter 9 forward, there are
two explicit retroactive references to the episode of the man born blind. The first is the
posthumous recollection of the healing in Jn 10:21. The divisive question of the identity
of Jesus makes some reply: "These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a
demon open the eyes of the blind?" The second is the quotation of Isa 6:10 in Jn 12:39-
41. These references are set in the context of the expulsion of the Johannine community
from the synagogue. This traumatic event is relevant in terms of theodicy because God's
This has prompted Evans to consider John's quotation a means to suit his theological context,
"possibly reflecting an early Christian testimonium." Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 132.
19
These links are by no means exclusive or rigid. They constitute one of the hermeneutic variables
offered by the author's literary skills, amazingly capable of offering a pluralism of connecting lines and
suggestive meanings to the reader. On the use of gezera sawa (rnti rntJ), the mutual relationship of the
same words in two passages, see Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, "Jesus and Israel's Scriptures," in
Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, 288-9.
112
justice and retribution were advocated on both sides in order to explain them and
hoarding social consensus and status.
Another common thread in these passages is the acceptance or rejection of the
message of Jesus defined as: Kpi|acc (9:39), Xoyia (10:19) (kor| (12:38). It is not
inopportune to be reminded that in Isaiah and John these are vaticinia ex eventu, onward
projection of something already happened.
20
This is explicit in the opening act of the
Gospel where the origin and conclusion of Jesus' story is recapitulated. The rejection of
Jesus is perpetrated by "his own," (Jn 1:11). However some did accept Jesus previously
identified as true light (1:9). To these he has given the power to become children of God
(1:12). It is obvious that message (Kp[(a,a - Xoyva - (XKOII) and messenger work similarly in
the mind of the Evangelist.
21
Acceptance of the message or the messenger becomes
equivalent to membership in a new people. This "theology" is ex eventu and it intends to
interpret exclusion not in terms of punishing retribution but actual fulfillment of what
was already predicted in the past. This is what makes relevant the quotation of Isa 6:9-10
in the mind of John.
In the book of Isaiah this corresponds to the opening event of the prophet's call to
ministry. Retrospectively, it wanted to reach two goals: first, to explain the destruction of
God's people and second, to deliver hope to those who survived it. Using an already
established tradition of divinely induced obduracy, enhancing God's active role in the
shaping of history, it gave insight into Israel's utter defeat. God was not absent but played
the surgeon in creating a dramatic incision in the body of the people for healing and re-
20
"[I]t is likely that the account [of Is 6] was written several years after the experience, probably
during or shortly after the SyroEphraimite crisis." Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 37.
21
Most probably when reference is placed on hearing the message, the evangelist refers to his
contemporaneous situation, where Jesus cannot be seen, but his message can be heard through the
confession of the Christian community (Un 1:1-3).
113
birth to take place.
22
Obviously to reduce Isaiah's message only to a ministry of obduracy
would be a gross reduction. The purpose of judgment meant that salvation came only
after repentance (cf. 8:14, 28:16, 30:15, 31:6). Therefore, judgment effected obduracy
and rejection in some but others responded with repentance and healing.
Instead, reversal and not repentance is what matters to John. Therefore, we find a
slightly different qualification. Judgment is not to affect blindness (KCU ou u.f| iSnie in Isa
6:9), it is meant to generate reversal (pAiiromeg TUC|)AOI ykvwzai in Jn 9:39). In the
Gospel of John "yivofiai." in its different verbal forms generally indicates transformation,
for instance from water to wine (2:9), from "regular" water to the water of Jesus (4:13-
14). In the ninth chapter of John, "becoming" is referred to the possibility of entering into
Jesus' discipleship (yeveoQai in 9:27) or having one's situation reversed into a condition
of blindness (TU4>A,OI yeuwvxai) as in the case of 9:39. In the larger context of the Gospel
to become blind stands opposite to those who accept the light of Jesus (1:9) thus
becoming children of God (yeveoGoa in Jn 1:12). Jesus creates a reversal where those who
"seem" to have sight in fact will have their blindness revealed. It is self-inflicted
blindness which saves God from evil responsibility.
23
Who are those who will receive healing, eventually? Isaiah indicates a remnant
(Isa 10:20-21) which has come out of destruction with power to see and to hear
restored.
24
Their survival coincides with the creation of a new people and John uses this
literary and theological thread and joins it to the condition of his community in the
aftermath of the expulsion. The possible dissent about God's "strange" means to elicit
22
This reminds a medical practice similar to the physical amputations taking place in Mt 5:30 or
the act of pruning in Jn 15:2, the song of the vineyard.
23
The theme of self-inflicted blindness is also present in Isa 29:9-10.
24
E.g., Isa 29:18,24, 32:3-4, 35:5, 42:7,16, 49:9, 61:1.
114
repentance had already been addressed in a theodicy of mystery in Isa 55:8-9: "for my
thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts
than your thoughts." However, the Johannine Jesus does not hide in secrecy divine plans;
he reveals them.
A similar quotation conjoining Isa 6:9-10 and 29:10 is found in Rom 11:7-10. The
purpose is to transfer election to a new remnant of Jewish Christians. The allusion to Isa
6:9 sets a transition between old and new covenant. Likewise, in 2Cor 3:12-18, the veiled
vision of Moses comes to fullness in Christ.
25
The difference is that for Paul the hardened
heart of Israel has provided a delay of the eschaton for the sake of the Gospel's message
to be extended to the Gentiles. In John the quote of Isaiah affirms that the eschaton is
realized whenever the message of Jesus forces one to make a choice in favor of or against
him and consequently to define his/her sphere of belonging, namely darkness or light.
The allusion of Jn 9:39 indicates that the purpose (iva) of Jesus is to judge.
26
The
element of intentionality is common to the use of the qal and hiphil imperatives of Isa
6:9-10. However, the effect is different from the Hebrew Vorlage. In the MT it is
consistently implemented by the messenger. In Jn 9:39 it is the reception of the message
that generates the possibility of alternate implementations. This become evident in the
continuation of 9:39. The self-presumed sight of the Pharisees is actually what causes
their state of blindness. On the contrary, in the case of the man born blind judgment
"You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses" (Jn 9:28). The obduracy of the Jews is
similar to the obduracy of the people to Moses according to Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth
Gospel, 38.
26
The use of the conjunction 'iva in this case reminds of Jesus' programmatic statement of his
mission in Jn 3:17 (oi>. . .'iva Kpivn. xbv KOO|J.OV, aXX' 'iva oco6f| 6 KOO[IOC 6I ' autou).
115
generates healing. Jesus' judgment more properly reveals what is within the heart of a
person and in the case of rejection it affects reversal.
27
John 9:39 is the climax of the preceding narrative and the passage leading to the
juridical parable about entering the sheepfold through the gate (10:1-5). In the preceding
dialogues a search for truth is orchestrated as an anticipation of the trials awaiting the
future Johannine community. The final testimony of the man born blind (9:38) prompts
Jesus to declare that judgment has been fulfilled. This is demonstrated by the restored
vision of the man who corporatively represents those professing faith in Jesus in times of
trial/
0
The man born blind concludes here the process of acquisition of membership into
the sheepfold of Jesus. On the other hand, the "adversaries" are those who find their
blindness exposed by Jesus' judgment (iixhAol yevwvxai). This is the case of the
Pharisees, whose reply to Jesus' pronouncement (Xoyiov) becomes the hermeneutical key
of the same.
The function of the paradox demonstrates the reversibility of one's situation and
this depends on individual responsibility. This seems to me the best paradigm to explain
the rather perplexing statement of Jesus to the lame: "Do not sin any more, so that
nothing worse happens to you" (Jn 5:14). At first, it seems a contradiction to the reply of
Jesus to the question of the unnamed disciples: "neither this man nor his parents sinned"
(9:3). Is the basic axiom of retribution, connecting sin to punishment, still valid for John?
This prompts a short analysis of the two miracles stories.
27
Hogan's study of healing miracles differentiate the Synoptics from John because in the first case
the person approaching Jesus has already faith while in the second the signs more often result in faith or
rejection of Jesus. See, Hogan, Healing in the Second Temple Period, 278-79.
28
Werck considers the blind a "typ des radikal Glaubenden" in Christian Welck, Erzdhlte Zeichen.
Die Wundergeschichten des Johannesevangeliums literarisch untersucht. Mit einem Ausblick aufJoh 21,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 69 (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1994), 190.
29
What is defined as "selbstverschuldetes Gericht" in Ibid., 191.
116
There are evident similarities between the healing episodes of the lame and the
blind/
u
These are the progressive passages in the story of the first: Jesus sees him (5:6),
gives him an order (5:8) which finds fulfillment in the action of the healed man (5:9a). At
this point notice is given that the healing has taken place on a Sabbath. Consequently, the
premise of a potentially trying confrontation with Jewish authorities is set (5:10). Jesus
leaves him alone for witness to take place (5:13) and finds him afterward (eupcbv autov)
and delivers judgment (5:14). This sequence echoes that of the blind man. Jesus sees him
first (9:1), gives him an order (9:7a) and obedience complementarily effects the healing
(9:7b). Then, what begins as a simple inquiry turns into a trial on the imputation of
Sabbath-breaking.
31
The healed man sustains it with courage even if left alone.
32
Jesus
finds him afterward (eupwv auiov) and delivers judgment (9:39).
There are several differences too. The answer of the invalid misses the question of
Jesus and reveals hesitation (5:7). This corroborates the coherence of the narrative. In the
"[I]n the case of lame man and the blind beggar, John's Gospel shows the miracle story to be
the first ofa sequence of scenes." Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 21. Culpepper
considers the story of the man born blind "serves as counterpart and contrast to the lame man." R. Alan
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983),
139-40. See also Jeffrey L. Staley, "Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in
John 5 and 9," Semeia 54 (1991); Herman C. Waetjen, The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple (New York,
London: T&T Clark, 2005), 249-59. The contrast can be detected also from the difference "between this
Succoth healing by the life-giving waters of Siloam and that last year by the shrine of Asclepius-Serapis
next to the stagnant waters of the Sheep Pool." Bruce E. Schein, Following the Way: The Setting of John's
Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980), 126. Interestingly, contemporaneously to the
Gospel of John, the story of the lame man and the blind man found evidence in rabbinic literature
(Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 91a,b) and in the writings of Epiphanius {Against Heresies 64.70, 5-17).
The analogy of the narrative is that the lame and the blind represent the body and soul in their conflictive
relation which will be judged together for their earthly deeds; see The Apocryphon ofEzekiel in
Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1, 492-4. While in John the lame and the blind are
contrasted to each other, they both are called to represent individual response to the initiative of Jesus.
Furthermore, judgment is not supposed to take place in heaven and in the future but on earth and in the
present. On this locus classicus see Chaim Milikowsky, "Which Gehenna? Retribution and Eschatology in
the Synoptic Gospels and in Early Jewish Texts," New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 240. On Jn 9 being a
resumption of the two-party juridical controversy initiated at the Sabbath healing of the lame (Jn 5:1-18),
see Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 130-3.
31
On the technical breaches of the Sabbath in the narrative of the man born blind, see Bruce, The
Gospel of John, 480, n. 17.
32
Verses 8-34 represent the longest absence of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.
117
report given to the Jewish authority, the lame man affirms to have just followed the order
received (5:11; cf. 9:11) as if it were something void of his assent. The process of
acquisition of membership into the sheepfold of Jesus has been interrupted at the very
first test and this was due not to moral failure but lack of faith. Consequently, rejection of
faith produces an act of delation which inaugurates the beginning of the persecution
against Jesus (5:16). Therefore, it goes unsaid that the premonition of something worse
has already began to take place, in a reversal of the lame man's condition as Jesus
afterward warns him (5:14). The structure of the warning (iva \xr\ xeipov COL TL Y^rrcai)
is similar to 9:39 in which negative finality (iva \ir\) and selbstverschuldetes Gericht
(Yevrrrai) confirms the self-inflicted paradox of Jesus's judgment: that those who do see
may become blind.
Jesus' warning to the invalid (5:14) is bracketed between hesitation to witness and
delation, even if not directly intended. An opportunity is missed, a test is failed and a
course of events is reversed to a (spiritual) condition of paralysis. The second case of
healing, instead, reveals another reversal which anticipates what is then declared in Jesus'
judgment (9:39). His choice to become a follower of Jesus, while enabled by the
encounter with the same (Jesus-Siloam), was carried through steadfastness in trial and
juridical controversy (9:8-34). Thus, membership was not simply the result of an
exclusion from the synagogue but the outcome of his determination. This is the necessary
step to the process of becoming a child of God, therefore the gate has been opened to the
people Jesus calls "his own" (13:1). For individuals such as these, salvation is already
fulfilled in the present (3:36; 5:24; cf. 1 Jn 3:9).
33
While the first two signs in John do not report persecution but belief, after the healing of the
lame, opposition and divided adhesion follow consistently all the remaining signs up to 8:59 where Jesus
himself is expelled from the Temple, just before the expulsion of the blind man from the synagogue 9:34.
118
Two more indications may reveal John's use of reversal in coherence with
prophetic tradition, particularly Isaiah. The rejection of the waters of SiAwqj, (Isa 8:6)
causes judgment and retribution to the people of Israel.
34
Acceptance of the same waters
(o epnr|veiJ6TaL dbeaiaA-fjivot;) in Jn 9:7 causes the blind man to gain sight. Once again,
the intention of Jesus is healing but this does not take effect by itself, it requires
acceptance. Only after the man born blind, on his own, washes in the water of Siloam,
then, he is healed. Healing produces witnessing and witnessing leads back to Jesus who
reveals his identity in fullness. The final assent expressed in his act of worship before
Jesus, concludes the process of acquisition of membership into the Johannine community.
Less explicit but nevertheless particularly intriguing, is another association
between Jesus' act of smearing (ki\expioev) with mud (Jn 9:6) and the blinding by
smearing over the eyes (hiphil of yi?$) in Isa 6:10. We have already noticed that the hiphil
imperative yen was translated with xexxxfyXuKev in Jn 12:40 instead of keeping the
kK&[i[i\)oav of the original LXX version, as for instance in Mt 13:15 and in Acts 28:27 do.
Furthermore, in Isa 29:10 and 33:15 Ka\x\ivoei and Ka\i[i\xs>v are respectively a translation
for oai? (to shut the eyes) not WW. John preferred "cetucbA.toKer' to connect smearing both
to the effect of healing and induced blindness, in a linguistic double play of reversals. In
Rev 3:18 the church of Laodicea is advised to buy ointment to smear (eyxptoai) on "your
34
"Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah (r6$n) that flow gently, and melt in fear
before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters
of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory" (Isa 8:6-7). The original form of the Hebrew r6tZ) (qal
infinitive) would be better rendered as "sending forth." The presence of the consonants of the verb to send
in the name Siloam might have created the popular association attributed to Jesus. See Asiedu-Peprah,
Sabbath Conflicts, 125, n. 33.
119
eyes so that you may see." John's use of kTtk%pioev is an hapax legomenon in
Scripture.
36
The smearing of the eyes in the MT which produces blindness in Jn 12:40, if
given by Jesus and accepted by the receiver effects the opposite. This proves more
convincingly that the whole episode of the man born blind was written with a question of
Isaianic theodicy on the background of the author's mind.
In conclusion, the text of Isaiah was reinterpreted by John with a double purpose.
The problematic issue of induced obduracy which indicted God of responsibility over an
act associated to evil is rejected. Yet, God did not renounce initiative in a cosmological
reality of darkness represented by the human predicament of blindness.
37
This is not to
say that Jesus' intervention is by itself capable of a final resolution. It requires human
cooperation in the form of an explicit and autonomous choice of acceptance which in turn
becomes equivalent to membership in him and Johannine fellowship. This finds
confirmation in Jesus' answer to the question of the unnamed disciples: blindness is the
locus where God's works are revealed in Jesus' initiative and glorified in the response of
the healed man who worships him. After the encounter with Jesus, human beings are
ultimately the cause of their own permanence in a state of blindness but only to God's
T O
initiative belongs the power to reverse it into sight. In the allusion of Isa 6:9 two
On the relation between anointing and acquisition of knowledge, see 1 Jn 2:20,27. On the use of
anointing for healing purposes, see Tob 11:8. Cf. Hogan, Healing in the Second Temple Period, 21-21,
298-300.
36
This and its cognates are frequently used medical terms, as in Pedanio Dioscoride (I. CE) De
materia medica, 1.26.2.8, 3.3.2.8; and Claudius Galenus (II. CE) De compositione medicamentorum
secundum locos librix, 12.447.2, 12.447.2. The use of CTexpujev is the most frequently used reading (see
p66 p 75
N
^ C D L etc.) against the eireenKev in Codex Vaticanus.
37
The anarthrous avGponrov TUCJJAOV (9:1) is commonly intended as a reference not to an individual
person but a general characterization of the human condition.
38
This interpretation would find appropriate accord with the proposed new punctuation of Jn 9:3-4
of Poirier:
3
Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man or his parents sinned.
[3b
"
41
But in order that the works
of God might be made manifest in him, we must work the works of him who sent me while it is yet day;
night comes in which no one can work.' This would relieve the text of a "bizarre theodicy." John C. Poirier,
120
theodicies are adopted. In the first, God is the only source of goodness while human
beings are the cause of their own evil. Theodicy of providence and dissent stand at the
opposite ends. In the second, theodicy produces a redistribution of status in which not
legal observance (the Jews), but acceptance of Jesus (Johannine community), confirms a
legitimate claim into the family of God (1:12).
1.3 Predestination and Individual Responsibility in Qumran and John
While the importance of choice appears relevant in John's treatment of judgment,
an ambiguous use of predestinarian language seems to contradict it. John Painter has
given considerable attention to the issue of predestination and the question of unbelief in
Jn 12:36b-43. He compares the quotation of Isa 6:10 in the parables of Jesus contained in
Mk 4:12 and the conclusive remarks of Jn 12:40. Mark uses it to explain the privileged
status of disciples who stand as insiders within the circle of Jesus. The purpose is to
prevent outsiders to acquire insights which only members could understand. John,
instead, seems to use the same quote with duplicity of intention. First he wants to give
outsiders the opportunity to become insiders. However, for those who decide to remain
outside, rejection results in judgment.
Painter indicates an alternative interpretation to free God from a possible
accusation of (malevolently) predestining some to destruction. He considers that "[i]n the
Masoretic Text the prophet is instructed to 'shut' the people's eyes, while in the LXX the
people shut their own eyes, thus portraying them as being responsible for their own
"Day and Night' and the Punctuation ofJohn 9:3," New Testament Studies 42, no. 2 (April 1996). Cf.
Koester, Symbolism, 105.
121
failure to see."
39
If in Isa 6:10 (MT) the subject of blinding is the prophet and in the LXX
it is the people, how to identify the subject of zexxx^XwKev in John? To Painter this is the
devil, "the prince of this world" (Jn 12:31). He reaches this conclusion by exclusion. It
cannot be Jesus because he is the subject of lcbo|j,oa. Then, a search for the verb zvtyXou)
results in only two more other cases besides Jn 12:40. These are the already mentioned
passages of 2Cor 4:4 and Un 2:11; the respective subjects are: the "god of this world"
and "darkness". The obvious conclusion is that the devil is the subject of Jn 12:40 since it
fuses consistently in the typical Johannine theme of conflict between light and darkness.
Painter affirms:
In spite of the many signs Jesus did before the people they failed to believe in
him. But how could this be? The Evangelist's answer is that they were unable
to believe because the prince of this world, the power of darkness, had
blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.
Painter's view makes the people "victim" of the prince of this world but this is only
partially correct given the clear Johannine indications in favor of individual
responsibility. The situation is complex. If theirs is a case seemingly equivalent to a
demonic possession, then John "freezes" their condition in a projection of radical
determinism and predestination. They are and remain unable to hear the message or see
the messenger because of the active presence of the devil in their lives. Was theirs a
deliberate choice of transferred loyalty to the devil encampment? Was that situation
reversible? The answers must be negative, given their alienated capacity to decide.
Painter, "Unbelief in John 12.36b-43," 449.
Ibid., 458.
122
The case of Judas Iscariot would seem to support such a negative view.
41
The
devil's presence in him is an act of invasion as his tragic portrayal seems to indicate in
terms of development of intention and its implementation. Moreover, it is supported by
Jesus' permission (Jn 13:2,27). In his case, predestination seems to be declared from the
incipit of its appearance (Jn 6:71).
In Jn 8:43-44, the answer to why people do not understand Jesus' message is
developed in three subsequent and consequential sentences. The first is: because (OIL)
they cannot (oi> SuvaaGe) hear his word.
42
Secondly, it is said that they are from the devil,
their father, which explains their incapacity to receive his word. Thirdly, for this reason,
they choose (QkXexe) to do the desires of their father, a process which is diametrically
opposite to that of being children of God where doing the will of the Father is paramount
(5:30, 6:38, 7:17).
43
Instead, they hate the truth since the devil is called father of lies.
44
41
Ruprecht comments the figure of Judas in Jn 18:1-1 las a role similar to that of the Jews: "The
first point to be noticed is the prominent place Judas occupies in the scene. Whereas the Synoptics
performances customarily define him solely by his activity (ho paradidous, the betrayer), John gives
prominence to his name. He is in fact, just like Antigone, being defined by his name. It is his character, his
Destiny. The name Judas (loudas) sounds virtually identical to the Greek word for 'Jew' (Ioudaios). This
might be clearer were we to spell the betrayer's name phonetically, 'Jewdas.' Now, we cannot know how
such a proper name would have been heard in antiquity... .What is clear is that John very carefully links
the name (Jewdas) to the action (betrayal) - a not so very surprising fact in this gospel, which goes to such
extraordinary lengths to intensify the polemic against a Jewish community that has seen, but refused to
believe." Ruprecht, Tragic Posture and Tragic Vision, 209.
42
The question of capacity (Suvqxai) to hear is a clear association to the question of origin in 1:10
where the world does not know (YIVWOKQ) the Word, thus cannot accept him (1:11). For some of the Jews
that capacity is prevented by their being from the devil as to become children of God is a power (eouoicc)
given by God and not a human property (1:12).
43
Jesus does not impose his initiative. For instance, he asks an explicit choice to the lame in order
to be healed (6eA,ei<; 5:6). In typical Johannine fashion, the healed man of Jn 9:27 makes irony of the
inability of the Pharisees to hear his testimony about Jesus with a question to test their willingness (GeXeie)
to become his disciples.
44
"Liar" is not a frequent word in New Testament. However, it is found often in 1 Jn (1:10, 2:4,22,
4:20, 5:10) with those who affirm faith but then contradict it with an incoherent lifestyle. Liar may be a
"technical word" to indicate a person who once a member of the Johannine community, then withdrew; see
Wes Howard-Brook, Becoming Children of God. John's Gospel and Radical Discipleship, The Bible &
Liberation Series (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 206.
123
These seem clear indications that what prevents hearing and belief is a predestined
affiliation to the one who is said to be a murderer from the incipit (8:44). This
impediment to side with Jesus produces murderous plans against him. In fact,
immediately before the narrative of the man born blind, John portrays the Jews in a
premeditated decision of assassination by stoning which Jesus escapes by hiding in the
temple (8:59). Such a premise would forfeit individual responsibility and cast a problem
over the fairness of retribution. How is membership acquired and maintained within the
division between Jesus and the devil? This will be investigated with another congregation
dealing with a similar issue of divided loyalties: the faithful community of Qumran.
1.3.1 Qumran and Theodicy of the Wall
The crisis which gathered the first group of supporters to the Teacher of
Righteousness in the desert of Judah was the passage of priesthood from the Zadokite
family to the Hasmoneans (IMac 13:41-42). There, they expected the messiahs of Israel
and Aaron at the coming of the final judgment.
45
They took residence among the ruins of
a fortress built in the seventh or eight century BCE and later abandoned. Archeological
findings indicate that the occupation increased during the final period of the reign of John
Hyrcanus (135/134-104 BCE).
46
A second phase is characterized by reconstruction after a
sudden earthquake or a fire around 4 BCE and 1 CE. Then, the community continued its
45
Cf. 1QSIX, 10-11; CD XII, 22-23; 13:20-22; XIX, 9-11; XIX, 34-XX, 1. The texts of the
manuscripts and their relative nomenclatures and abbreviations will follow Florentino Garcia Martinez, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (New York, Cologne: E. J. Brill Leiden, 1994).
Mine is a summary view of the texts from Qumran. The apparent harmonization should not mislead the
perception against a more fragmented composition given the different strata of the writings
46
This is demonstrated by the construction of buildings, workshops, an aqueduct, cisterns, and a
square tower to guard the entrance to the encampment, cf. Ibid., xxxix.
124
residency up to the year 68 CE, when it was finally destroyed by the Romans in the
course of the first Jewish War. This is also the year in which the manuscripts were stored
in the caves and remained hidden up to 1952 when the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique
Francaise, the American School of Oriental Research and the Palestine Archaeological
Museum began the recovery process.
The new priesthood in Jerusalem was considered godless and introduced the
challenge of a new loyalty.
4
They represented the symbolic incarnation of the power of
evil and a theodicy of retribution against them derived from this ideological contrast. The
followers of the Man of lies do not believe in the Teacher of Righteousness and violate
the covenant. For this they will be punished by God (lQpHab II) and God's people, too
(lQpHab V, 4-5). A descriptive context of radical dualism between the community of
Qumran and the opposite faction is semantically characterized by the image of a wall
built in between (CD IV, 12).
49
Meanwhile the Community (yahad) was reinterpreted as
the true temple and the place of priestly ministry (1QS VIII, 1-10). In an haggadic
comment to the Levite service due to the Temple in Ezek 44:15, the priests are the
converts of Israel who left the land of Judah while the sons of Zadok are the chosen of
Israel. An irreconcilable state of conflict is inevitably declared when members are
In fact they represent the group against which the strongest statements of predestined damnation
seem to apply, while the rest belong to a "third group" in which dualism still represented a choice to
reverse destiny, see Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination, 82.
48
In apesher of Hab 1:4 ("the wicked surround the righteous, therefore judgment comes forth
perverted") the interpretation given is: "the evildoer is the Wicked priest and upright man] is the Teacher of
Righteousness" (lQpHab I, 13).
49
Radical dualism is not absolute as God is the one appointing the 'two Spirits' in 1QS III, 18-19.
The temporary nature of dualism is demonstrated in the fact that it will come to an end at the time of
visitation. Moreover, the light-darkness leitmotif'is not common to all the Qumran documents, see James H.
Charlesworth, Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon., Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Supplement Series, 22 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 197-9. For the possible influences of
Zurvanism on Qumranic cosmic dualism see Charlesworth, "Dualism," 87-8.
125
identified as sons of light while outsiders are the sons of darkness (1QS I, 8-10),
respectively the camps of the saved and condemned (CD III, 17, 20).
In spite of the language, the community was not embracing violence or
advocating military confrontation, in spite of symbolic terminology evoking apocalyptic
combat myth. In reality, while the expected holy war did not materialize, the immediate
finality was meant to produce separation rather than active confrontation. Separation was
mostly emphasized in the poetic flair of certain early Qumran texts, such as the Hodayof.
A language of inflexibility was meant to build boundaries and prevent mixture. The risk
of overlapping boundaries between outsiders and insiders, both claiming the same
tradition, is underlined by the emphasis on repentance and atonement for those who came
and stayed while a veiled admission of internal dissent is implicitly acknowledged when
defection is mentioned.
50
Literature with eschatological content expressed the conviction that the end of
time was an event imminent or already at its initial stage: "The first attack by the sons of
light will be launched against the lot of the sons of darkness, against the army of Belial"
(1QM I, 1) and "[the sons of jusjtice shall shine in all the edges of the earth, they shall go
on illuminating, up to the end of all the period of darkness" (1QM I, 8). Yet, the
protraction of that attendance forced them to organize the inner life of the community for
a longer permanence to be sustained. Hierarchy was preserved with ranking divisions and
a code of conduct was enforced through proportionate punishments to the eventual
offenders.
51
An Inspector was entrusted with teaching and correction, and he "will heal
50
Zadokite priests generally were strict observant of the same purity rule of Second Temple
Jewish tradition.
51
Cf. 1QS VI, 3-9; VIII, 1; CD XIV, 1-6 and 1QS VI, 23- VII, 27.
126
all the strays.. .like a shepherd his flock" (CD XIII, 9). At the top stood the Teacher of
Righteousness to whom all the mysteries of God had been entrusted (lQpHab VII).
The wall meant separation between light and darkness, insiders and outsiders. The
community was a place of light which preserved in harmony and reciprocal love (CD VI,
20; IX, 1). The members were encouraged in their experience of hardships: "do not be
afraid or [tremble, may your hearts not weaken], do not be startled, or hesitate in front of
them, do not turn back, or [...] For they are a wicked congregation and all their deeds are
in darkness" (1QM XV, 8-9). Boundaries between insiders and outsiders are frequently
reinforced. The members of the community "should keep apart from men of sin in order
to constitute a Community in law and possession, and acquiesce to the authority of the
sons of Zadok" (1QS V, 1-2; CD IV, 1).
In reality, the wall of separation was not uncrossable since the outsiders could
convert and join. However, before conversion one remained wicked from birth (1QH XII,
29 [amn]) unless belonging to the yahad. This seems to presuppose that membership was
not predestined and entrance was not forced either. It was the fruit of a free choice:
"Whoever enters the council of the Community enters the covenant of God in the
presence of all who freely volunteer (craniinon)" (1QS V, 7-8). This is approved
progressively through testing and examination (1QS V, 20). In this context,
predestination remains a language which presupposes retrospective reading. Membership
did not mean perfection and sin did not mean expulsion. Experience taught that "[o]nly
by your goodness is man acquitted, [purified] by your abundant compa[ssion]" (1QH V,
23) and that God is "someone who forgives those who turn away from sin and someone
127
who punishes the depravity of the wicked" (1QH VI, 24). However, forgiveness is a
privilege extended only to the loyal members of the community, not the outsiders.
53
Dualism meant identity and status:
My eyes have observed what always is, wisdom that has been hidden from
mankind, knowledge and understanding (hidden) from the sons of man, fount
of justice and well of strength and spring of glory (hidden) from the assembly
of flesh. To those who God has selected he has given them as everlasting
possession; until they inherit them in the lot of the holy ones (IQS XI, 5-7).
The internal character of conflict between good and evil established by the presence of an
evil inclination (IT) could represent a challenge to inner purity and univocal assignment
of guilt to outsiders (1QH XIII, 6).
54
Therefore, repentance and conversion preceded
membership into the predestined group of the saved (IQS I, 7). Likewise, one was
predestined to salvation only whether a choice to join the Community was maintained
with coherent behavior (CD XX, 25-27).
55
Once inside the community, the member
would then acquire the privilege of accessing God's mercy through ritual purification.
Perseverance and salvation were ultimately attributed to divine grace.
The defection of some members from the community was probably the most
painful though veiled admission and the object of the most violent condemnations.
56
Failure is to be assumed whenever God's mercy is acknowledged and praised (IQS IV, 4; cf.
1QH IV, 11). The author describes it in a personal note: "As for me, if I stumble, the mercies of God shall
be my salvation always; and if I fall in the sin of the flesh, in the justice of God, which endures eternally,
shall my judgment be" (IQS XI, 11-12; cf. 1QH XII, 34-37).
53
The participants were given a favorable status which facilitated moral austerity and implied a
certain ethical determinism: "However, I have understood that [you establish] the path of the one whom
you choose and in the insight [of your wisdom] you prevent him from sinning against you, you restore his
humility through your punishments, and by your ord[deals strengthen his heart.. .for your servant is a spirit
of flesh" (1QH IV, 21-25).
54
The Hymns generally present the strongest statements about predestination. However, the
communal liturgical use for which they were composed intended to reinforce dogmatic belief rather than
promoting individual speculation.
55
This is defined "weak" predestination in Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination, 92.
56
Cf. IQS I, 11; CD XII, 2-3; CD XIX, 13-18; CD XX, 14-25. Elliott observes that it "is a
peculiarity of the covenantal language and beliefs of Qumran that little distinction is drawn between a
breach of Mosaic covenant known to all Israel and a failure to acknowledge the unique covenant of the
128
They obviously represented the greatest threat to the self-justifying ideology of
separation and election. If inner integrity was honored by the language of persecution,
defection was conceded only in terms of deception. The spirit of deceit was generally
characterized by familiar terminology such as: "blindness of eyes, hardness of
hearing.. .hardness of heart in order to walk in all paths of darkness" (1QS IV, 9-11).
57
Furthermore, against them the greatest punishments were stored by God who "shall have
no mercy for all those who deviate from the path" (1QS X, 20-21; CD XX, 34).
58
In this context, radical - retrospective - predestination represented a way to
absorb such contradictory event of election and deception:
You, you alone, have created the just man (p
,,r
i25). F
r
him, from the womb
(Dmrai), you determined the period of approval, so that he will keep your
covenant and walk on all (your paths), to [empty] upon him your plentiful
compassion, to open all the narrowness of his soul to eternal salvation and
endless peace, without want. Upon flesh you have raised his glory. Blank But
the wicked (o
,
l?2h) you have created for the time of wrath, from the womb
(Drnm) you have predestined them for the day of annihilation.
59
yahad." Mark Adam Elliott, The Survivors of Israel. A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian
Judaism. (Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000),
59, n. 11.
57
On the use of blindness and its moralization, see CD II, 14- 16; 1QM I, 8-9; lQMSa II, 1-12;
11Q19 XLV, 12-14; 4Q204 frag. 4, 1-6. Charlesworth observes that perverse personality described in
bodily terms such as tongue, eye, ear, etc. is essentially Jewish rather than the bifurcated Greek concept of
body and soul, in Charlesworth, "Dualism," 79.
58
While members can be cleansed by the waters of repentance and "look at the light of life" (1QS
III, 6-9), instead forgiveness and atonement are withdrawn from the unrepented one "who declines to enter
[the covenant of Go]d in order to walk in the stubbornness of his heart" (1QS II, 25-111, 5). Walking in the
stubbornness of one's heart is referred also to the one abandoning the community in 1QS VII, 21-24.
Punishments varied in degree before readmission was conceded. Only the case of straying by a member of
the community council and fraternization with those expelled were met with final expulsion (1QS VII, 25-
27).
59
1QH VII, 18-21; cf. VI, 11-12; XV, 12-21.VanLandingham advises to interpret those passages
affirming predestination in their particular literary microcosm as in the larger context they are bound to be
contradicted. In his words: "[a]ttempting to reconcile statements of predestination with those espousing free
will present ongoing and vexing problems for commentators." Chris VanLandingham, Judgment &
Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers,
Inc., 2006), 114.
129
The greatest danger is not persecution but mixture. Those who left never belonged, those
who stayed proved divine benevolence and ultimately boundaries were preserved.
The Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran introduced modifications to the text of Isa 6:9-
10 in lQIsaiah
3
.
60
The purpose of the variants is to warn the members of the Community
to protect themselves from evil: "keep on listening, because you may understand, keep on
looking, because you may perceive! Make the heart of this people appalled. ...let it
understand in its heart and return and be healed." The prophetic message of induced
obduracy cannot be addressed to the chosen people of Qumran and so the message of
condemnation is changed into an encouragement to keep righteousness. The example of
the sons of Egypt who "walked in the stubbornness of their heart" provided a warning not
to disobey God's precepts (CD III, 5-6).
Historical hermeneutics cohered with the secessionists' outlook. The present was
characterized as a time of persecution, the future by a rhetoric glorifying final victory.
Before the visitation of God and under God's permission, Belial or the Devil would force
people to stray and defile the temple.
61
At the end time "the sons of light and the lot of
darkness shall battle.. .it will be a time of suffering fo[r al]l the people redeemed by God"
(1QM I, 11-12); for the spirits of Belilal "are the lot of darkness and the lot of God is for
everlasting light" (1QM XIII, 5).
62
The theodic kerygma enforced through worship would
offer reassurance: "For you are just, and all your chosen ones are truth. All sin and
60
The use of the causal bs (because) instead of the negative particle bx (not) and the omission of
the l from p e n introduce a variant which changed 'make fat' into 'make appalled.' Then the replacement
of i with 3 in fa produces 'let it understand' instead of 'and (lest) it understand.' Evans, To See and Not
Perceive, 53-60.
61
In CD IV, 13; V, 6; cf. 1QM XIII, 11; 4QM
e
; 1QS I, 17-18; II, 18-19; 1QM XIV, 9; 1QH XI,
27-29.
62
At the time of final visitation of God's wrath, the wicked will receive punishment and utter
destruction (1QS IV, 12-14, 17-19; V, 13).
130
wickedness you obliterate for ever, and your justice is revealed to the eyes of all your
creatures" (1QH VI, 15-16).
The interpretation of the past comforted their present. Biblical history
demonstrated that when the Israelite "were unfaithful in forsaking him, he hid his face
from Israel and from his sanctuary" (CD I, 3). Only when they recognized to be like
"blind persons" (oniy^ ) in their sins and repented, God "raised a Teacher of
Righteousness, in order to direct them in the path of his heart" (CD I, 9-11). The fact
that the community withdrew was not a rejection of Israelite traditions (CD XI). Before
transferring to the desert of Judea, God had already transferred election upon them in
continuity with prophetic tradition. They were the chosen remnant of Israel upon which
an old promise was regenerated (CD III, 13-20).
In apocalyptic language, persecution generally honors the persecuted and it
provides association to divine righteousness: "They-they attack my life on your account,
so that you will be honoured by the judgment of the wicked, and you will make yourself
great through me before the sons of man because through your compassion I do subsist"
(1QH X, 23-25). The promise of final reward of the righteous member of the community
was not endangered by divine forgetfulness because all their deeds would be written "in a
book of remembrance" which will preserve the record of the just and the wicked.
64
These
were the one "who have kept the covenant in the midst of wickedness to atone [for the
e]arth" (4QSa, 3).
3
Qumran presumed a unique capacity to have insight into the events of history: "now my sons,
listen to me and I shall open your eyes (DDTS? n^ Ni) so that you can see and understand the deeds of God"
(CD II, 14-15).
64
Cf. CD XX, 19-22; cf. 1QH VIII, 18.
131
Suffering was not questioned but given insight. The traditional appeal to pedagogy
and of testing for the sake of strengthening are most common: "On account of the offence
of the wicked I have been the target of slander in the mouth of violent men, and the
scoffers grind their teeth. You have made me into a laughing-stock for sinners, the
assembly of the wicked is roused against me" (1QH X, 10-12)... and this in order "to put
to the test [all the men of] truth, to refine those who love learning. To those who spread
fallacies I am a man of dissent, [but a man of peace] to all true observers" (1QH X, 14-
15; XIII, 16). Inner dissent is detested while external attacks in the form of accusations
reinforced self/perception: the righteous Qumranites did not deviate from the right path or
doctrine; instead they were suffering because of loyalty to it.
Theodicy in Qumran did not dwell in abstract speculations. It fulfilled the purpose
of building internal social consensus and challenge external dissent. God's justice was
not questioned because idealized ethical perfectionism exempted them from the punitive
damages of retribution. God's justice was not protested but invoked and evoked. Dualism
served the purpose of making evil personalized and externalized in a linguistic landscape
of heightened drama and ensured results.
65
Vision and blindness, light and darkness,
mercy and punishment needed a wall to justify an exclusive theodic perception and the
related privileges. Predestination provided ideal inflexibility to boundaries associated
with divine and demonic warfare. Ideally, acceptance and rejection were aligned along
On the question of the origin of evil in Qumran, it is relevant to note that "while in other
intertestamental texts there is a possible attribution of evil to an angel's free will (lEnoch, Jubilees) or to
Adam's own responsibility (Apocalypse of Adam) or to man's own failure to control his 'evil inclinations'
(yeser ha-ra') by means of his yeser hat-tob, 'good inclination', (Mishnah at Berakoth 9:5), there is in 1QS
3:13 ff. no similar recourse, for it is clearly stated that God created the 'Spirit of Darkness', i.e. he was evil
from the instant he was created, he did not fall from an original state of purity." Charlesworth, "Dualism,"
80.
132
trenches demonizing doubts and sanctifying loyalty.
66
In reality, an ethic of choice and
repentance alleviated determinism with the necessary process to acquire membership and
the inevitable experience of failure and defection.
1.3.2 John and Theodicy of the Gate
The question of Johannine predestination and determinism finds elements of
contact but also of distinction from the previous summary view. Qumran originated by a
deliberate choice of withdrawal against the Hasmonean regency and in fulfillment of the
Isaianic call to prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness (Isa 40:3 cf. 1QS 8-9). The
Johannine community presumably experienced ejection as the episode of the man born
blind indicates. The active and prolonged separation of Qumran induced a deeper rift that
meant radical isolation for the core members. However, separation was not equivalent to
the creation of an alternative view to its original identity. While John had to elaborate
difference in search of identity, Qumran intended to claim ownership of the older but
same tradition "usurped" by the Hasmonean priesthood. The contrast radicalized identity
through the adoption of an apocalyptic worldview. The enemies are called apostate.
Qumran claimed pristine authenticity and waited for a final and violent resolution of the
ideological conflict.
The community of John instead reacted to the experience of ejection with a far
greater revolutionary view of an alternate "ethnic" genealogy to claim, that of the
children of God (Jn 1:12; 11:52). The Sabbath works of Jesus were judged a violation of
66
The idea of predestination generally applies to corporate identity more than individual, see
Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, trans. Kevin Smith, 3 vols., vol. 1 (New York:
Crossroad, 1980), 266.
133
the Law by the "Jews." Instead John described them as participation in an ongoing
creative work of God. The mud made and spread by Jesus on the eyes of the man born
blind, evokes it (9:6). The creative act of God summarized in the Johannine prologue has
not reached its end but finds completion in Jesus.
67
Darkness precedes light but
light/Jesus is the Kpi(m which opposes the power of darkness in the world.
Therefore, the question is not that of loyalty to the original tradition but its radical
reinterpretation. The true children of God are those whom God has made so and whose
identity is revealed through faith in Jesus. The rest live in a worldly context in which
rejection gives Satan the power to operate.
68
On one side, Qumran dualism is based on
divided loyalties which heightens the belief in a divided cosmology in order to claim
legitimacy.
69
The double predestination of the Hodayoth does represent a contradictory
view against an ethic of choice present in the 1QS and CD. However, if interpreted as a
retrospective reading, it meant to resolve the dilemma of apostasy and defection. On the
other, the Johannine community was based on divided cosmologies which gave rise to the
birth of a new genealogy and new loyalty, which also claimed status and plausibility.
70
In
the latter it is the "ethical" element of choice what reveals one's affiliation:
67
Cf. TeXeiwow in 4:34, 5:36.
68
This is similar to Qumran where, before entrance in the yahad, one remained wicked from birth
(1QH XII, 29 [omo]). The difference lies in the moral responsibility the two communities attributed to it.
For John there is not responsibility and therefore retribution cannot be presumed.
69
Qumran and Johannine dualism is not absolute since the evil spirit has been subjugated to one
God who created all things (1QS 3:15b) and without whom nothing came to be (Jn 1:3b); see Charlesworth,
"Dualism," 80-92. By incision, the same author reaches the conclusion that in the Odes of Solomon we do
not find a theory concerning dualism tough it was indirectly inherited from predecessors or contemporaries
to the Gospel of John; see James H. Charlesworth, "Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon," in John and
Qumran, 117-22.
70
1 consider this definition to be partially similar to the conclusion of Charlesworth: "The
differences between these two dualistic systems may be summarized as follows: the Qumranic dualism is
based upon belief in two warring cosmic spirits; the Johannine 'dualism' evolves out of an assumed belief
in a spiritual world above and an evil world below." Charlesworth, "Dualism," 99. What is assumed in
John, however, is already present and essentially final. Out of this, the consequent evolution is the rise of a
new offspring: the children of God. Instead Charlesworth's view of a prominent cosmic dualism at the basis
134
Thus the "blind" and the "seeing", for whom Jesus' coming means the Kpt^a,
do not refer to any particular definable groups which were present before his
coming. Rather everyone must face the question to which of the two groups
he wants to belong. In fact till now they were all bl i nd; . . . blindness is
synonymous with being in darkness which before the coming of the Revealer
was the only possibility open to man (cp. 12,46). But all men were blind only
in a temporary sense; through the coming of the light both seeing and
blindness receive a new and definitive meaning.
The story of the man blind from birth is a recasting of the genesis story. He is blind
because darkness precedes him and continues in his blindness. In the sequence of Jn 9:1-
3 Jesus takes notice of the man blind from birth. This coheres with the Johannine
progression of light taking initiative into darkness. The unnamed disciples, with their
question, "limit" the possible cause of blindness to the sin of the parents or the man (9:2),
using a Mosaic understanding of retribution. In their view, sin creates darkness/blindness.
Jesus' answer affirms that it precedes them both. "Neither he nor his parents" could mean
that blindness preexisted both of them; it does not address a question of moral
responsibility from which a need to justify retribution was expected.
God encounters and penetrates preexisting darkness with the intention to save the
world out of darkness. In the obscurity of the man born blind, light is revealed and God's
works are displayed (9:3). The coming of Jesus changes the moral landscape with his
Kpifxa generating subsequent moral responsibility, namely a call to faith, but the
possibility of rejection too (9:39). In the case of the Pharisees' rejection, sin "remains"
(\ikve\.) as the preexisting condition in which they lied (9:40-41); however, the dramatic
consequence is that of being now exposed to demonic initiative. The Pharisees consider
of Qumran is somewhat made relative by the fact that the warring spirits have not finalized the outcome of
their conflict; therefore, a future resolution is still to be waited. Divided loyalties in the present, will find
resolution only in a (presumed) future cosmic victory.
71
Rudolf K. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N.
Hoare, and J.K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 341.
135
Jesus a sinner according to Mosaic law (breaking the Sabbath 9:16, 24). Jesus replies that
if the Pharisees were blind (pre-existing state of darkness) they would have no sin (9:41).
Moral sin does not create cosmological darkness but reveals it when one decides to reject
Jesus (3:20). Sin does not create blindness but manifests one's dwelling in the realm of
darkness. The appearance of light is what qualifies personal moral responsibility.
God did not create the righteous and the wicked from the womb as it is affirmed in
1QH VII, 18-21. It is true that Jesus came to "his own" (Jn 1:11) and this could give rise
to an interpretation of radical double predestination. However, it is acceptance, and
therefore a question of moral responsibility, what gives rise to a new genealogy, that of
those who through faith become "children of God" (1:12). In another passage, "his own"
(13:1) represents those who have already made a decision, while remaining in a world
which is under the power of darkness and hostile to them. They are the ones whom the
good shepherd calls by name (10:3) and whom Jesus loves to the end. The process of
acquisition of membership into the sheepfold required progressive acceptance in which
motivation and loyalty were to be tested, similarly to the prospects of the community of
Qumran. Differently from Qumran, however, they are not born children of light but have
become so. More properly, John affirms conditional predestination which requires human
response without excluding divine responsibility.
In the case of the man born blind, the initial encounter does not accomplish
immediate discipleship. Similarly, the original transfer of the disciples of the Baptist to
Jesus' movement is progressively acquired in the dynamism of "coming in order to see"
(Jn 1:39).
72
The juridical controversy which ensues the healing of the blind puts him
72
While John the Evangelist never uses "Baptist" to refer to John, I will use it even in the context
of the Fourth Gospel to differentiate him from its author.
136
under test. His testimony before the Pharisees demonstrates affirmative reception of what
has taken place at the outset of the story. It is the final encounter with Jesus that brings to
completion the initial restoration of physical sight with spiritual illumination.
73
At the
end of that progression he is "born from above."
The acquisition of rebirth is not exempted from the possibility of moral
shortcomings. The case of Peter's denial is a demonstration (Jn 18:27). While a sinner,
his re-entrance is not precluded, similarly to the process of re-admission into the yahad.
Missing, however, in the Gospel of John is the element of repentance. Peter does not
weep as in the Synoptics. In his case, moral fault is not equivalent to rejection of the
original choice to believe, or loss of the benefits originally inherited. Significantly, Jesus
at the washing of the disciples' feet, in a clear allusion to the imminent denial of Peter
(13:7), refuses Peter's request to be completely washed because, he explains, whoever
has already bathed needs only partial washing while remaining clean over all (13:10).
Peter's betrayal does not withdraw his decisive break with the world. He has already
given public testimony to Jesus being the holy one of God and refused to leave him
(6:67-69). Conversely, the case of the man born blind needs complete bathing, which
means rebirth as becoming offspring of God. Quoting the word Siloam and its messianic
translation (9:7) is not a capricious initiative on the part of John. It stands for that original
transition from the world into the sheepfold through the proper gate, washing in the one
God has sent.
74
This accomplishment corresponds to the second stage of Jesus mission. First he is sent by the
Father to bring light to the world; secondly is to deliver judgment in the sequence already indicated: "My
food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete (TeXeiwou) his work" (Jn 4:34),
74
On the messianic interpretation of the word Siloam, in Judaism and early Christianity, see
Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel A Study of John and the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1991), 131-4.
137
Everyone else who enters into the sheepfold of Jesus by climbing in elsewhere is a
thief and a robber (10:1). Such one comes only to steal and destroy. It is not a fortuitous
coincidence that Judas is declared a thief (12:6) while the Jews are those who want to kill
him (5:18, 7:1, 8:37). The indication of moral fault on the part of Judas is not what
produced betrayal. Instead, his act of betrayal is a demonstration that though apparently
a member, he never really belonged. This duplicity has kept him in the power of the
world but, having climbed inside from elsewhere than through Jesus, has heightened the
risk of him being victim and perpetrator of aggression at once.
Judas is labeled a betrayer from the beginning. The process of rebirth and
acquisition of membership has not succeeded. The execution of handing over Jesus at
"night" (13:30), while the works of God can be performed only "while it is day" (9:4),
reveals his realm of belonging. A divided cosmology has confirmed the old loyalty
(14:22). A grey area between insiders or outsiders is inexistent in the Gospel. One can
either be born of the flesh or of the spirit, from above or from below (3:6). Entrance into
the world of Jesus is equivalent to a rebirth into a world which shares no contact with the
one of origin.
As Judas represents betrayal to the insiders so do the "Jews and Pharisees" for the
outsiders. Their sin remains (9:41) because although Jesus' light has pierced the darkness
in which they lived and his judgment has confronted them, they have chosen to reject it
(15:22, 24). Both of them, by their rejection, become receptors of Satan's influence. The
devil fathers in them respectively, betrayal and murderous plans. Once "possessed" they
75
"If we take into account the remark that Satan entered into Judas (13:27; cf. 13:2), the traitor
becomes an unhappy figure, who seems to be burdened by a 'doom', a destiny waiting for him particularly.
On the other hand, John suspects him [Judas] of a moral defect: he is a 'thief who embezzles the money
from the common found (12:6). The area of darkness between being chosen and being rejected has not been
reduced." Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 263.
138
become instruments of the devil, but not his victims as their responsibility remains
outstanding in the original denial of acceptance of the light. In the "Jews" this is evident,
while in Judas it can only be presumed. The doubt of radical predestination in the case of
Judas remains, given the fact that he rests motionless as a captive of darkness throughout
the whole Johannine palimpsest.
John does not sustain a belief in what later on will be addressed as the question of
fixed natures in the doctrinal debate between Origen and Heracleon.
76
John does not
preclude the possibility of a change for individual human beings. Nicodemus, a Jew and a
Pharisee, is portrayed in the Gospel as one progressively coming to acceptance of Jesus,
though not openly.
77
He first comes at night, a common connotation of origin (3:2) and
addresses Jesus as Rabbi. Then he gives witness in controversy (7:50-51). Finally, he
comes to give reverence to Jesus after his death (19:39). In the progression of acquiring
rebirth, the Samaritan first greets him as a prophet (4:19) then gives witness (4:39) and
finally utters the declaration that Jesus is the savior of the world (4:42). In the metaphor
given by Jesus to Nicodemus, one born of the spirit is like the wind: while people might
The sides of this debate and their respective interpretations are treated in Bart D. Ehrman,
"Heracleon, Origen, and the Text of the Fourth Gospel," Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993); Edmondo F.
Lupieri, "John the Gnostic: The Figure of the Baptist in Origen and Heterodox Gnosticism," in Studia
Patristica; Elaine Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John,
Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 17 (Nashville & New York: Abingdon Press, 1973);
Jeffrey A. Trumbower, "Origen's Exegesis of John 8:19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon over the Idea of
Fixed Natures," Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989). Trumbower considers the apparent denial of connection
between sin and blindness in the story of the man born blind (9:3), evidence of the Gospel's emphasis on
the fixed origins of human beings: "the problem of this blind man, as a paradigmatic believer, was only
blindness and not sin." Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John,
Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Tehologie, 29 (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992), 97. The
problem of his reading is that he denies "with Jesus" the association between darkness and moral
responsibility. In his view, therefore, Jesus comes only to get his own. Rejection demonstrates that some
simply do not belong to that group; theirs is not a choice of moral nature but a disclosure of their natures.
77
On the typologies of responses to Jesus in the minor characters of the Gospel of John, see
Culpepper, Anatomy, 132-44.
78
Meeks considers this an intermediate stage similar to that of the man born blind when he asserts
that Jesus is a prophet (9:7); see Wayne A. Meeks, "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, no. 91 (1972): 54.
139
not know the origin and destination, direction is not by chance or predestination but by
choice (Qklei in 3:8).
The great confidence of the Johannine message is that once one has been reborn in
the world of Jesus he/she experiences salvation in a present continuous which reaches
eternity. Failure is not excluded as in the case of some of Jesus' disciples such as Peter or
Thomas, but it does not endanger permanence in the affiliation already acquired.
However if one reneges on membership, the only possible explanation is that he/she
never belonged. Here is the "perverse use" the Evangelists and John in particular have
made of Judas. They have made him the symbolic embodiment of defection and betrayal
for the insiders. A terrible "ministry" of dissuasion has been forced upon him on the stage
of Johannine representation. After him all modalities of betrayal will be reconducted to
Judas and his miserable destiny. His falsely acquired membership is incorporated with
cosmological grandeur as Satan himself finds reciprocal indwelling equivalently opposite
to that of Jesus and his disciples (13:27; 15:4).
Judas stands in a category of his own and cannot be placed at the same level of
anyone else in the Gospel of John except the corporate representation of evil in "the
Jews." The doubt that Judas was actually needed to protect the Johannine community
from the shame of defection, finds specular confirmation in the recently published Gospel
of Judas, where the roles of the twelve and Judas are inverted from those of the
Johannine Gospel.
79
Before the crucible of defection, even the community of Qumran
79
Judas represents a determined choice from the part of God to use him as an instrument to fulfill
a salvific plan: "as for you [Judas], you will surpass them all. For you will sacrifice the human being who
bears me." Gospel of Judas 15:3-4; translation of Karen L. King in Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King,
Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity (London: Pinguin Group, 2007), 121.
The second paradoxical contribution of this Gospel is that it fought over a question of theodicy; it defended
belief in a loving God against a "particular idea other Christians held at the time: that God desired the
bloody sacrificial death of Jesus and his followers." Pagels and King, Reading Judas, xvi. Both sides of
140
adopted a similar resolution.
80
This is a typical case of anthropodicy, when human beings
"save" God from the accusation of guilt by assuming it all upon themselves. Judas makes
an equivalent service to the Johannine community by taking upon himself the totality of
evil in order to render the community of John free from it. God is paradoxically saved by
Judas. Retrospectively, Judas represents all instances of betrayal to preemptively exempt
God from responsibility over those who appear to have being divinely chosen.
For the Johannine community the wall could be crossed, the gate climbed over
from elsewhere, but ultimately ineffectively. Membership is true solely if faith accepts
divine generation. Judas can only be explained away as one who never belonged because
betrayer from the beginning. Thus, theodicy accomplishes his service of perseveration for
the social status and aggrandizement for the self-identity of the Johannine community.
The honor of the community was saved and internal dissent was discouraged if not
demonized.
At this point, I return to Painter's view, namely that responsibility for blinding is
ascribed to the prince of this world (Jn 12:31). In my opinion, this is only partially true.
For instance, John accuses the Jews of being fathered by the devil. Yet, the Johannine
Jesus still imputes to them the choice to do (GeXexe Troieiv) the desires of their father
(8:44). If choice falls on them how could they be predestined to evil? The only available
option for John not to lose internal coherence is to conclude that the devil is only the
place where they find consequent affiliation or where that affiliation is revealed.
this acrimonious debate tried to disprove the adversary. In the case of Judas the accuse was that the twelve
were, in fact, under the services of Satan (Saklas in the Gospel of Judas).
80
The "solution" is that defectors did not belong from the very beginning because "the wicked
(Qipttf-)) you have created for the time of wrath, from the womb (amoi) you have predestined them for the
day of annihilation" (1QH VII, 18-21). Qumran portrayed them as a case in which divided loyalties
generated conflictive cosmologies and it execrated them with utter condemnation and despise.
141
Reception-rejection are the essential components for the fulfillment of judgment. Thus,
the subject of TeTucbAcoKev can only be Kpi|ict (9:39), Aoyicc (10:19, 12:48) (kof| (12:38).
The choice to be made is not between the prince of this world or Jesus and his
Q 1
message. The world is already in a state of darkness before the coming of light (1:5a). It
is Jesus who implements duality and instigates conflict (1:5b). The light enlightens
everyone (1:9) but does not get the same reaction from everyone. The wpa and vw (5:25)
posed by the light exhibit that some loved darkness rather than light (3:19). However, it is
light to oppose darkness (7:7) and its supporters (8:44). Those who chose to accept and
believe (1:12), find their will reciprocated by the decision of God (1:13) which in turn,
makes possible a passage (yeveoQai) into a new "family," that of the children of God
(1:12), namely the Johannine community. Neutrality is not possible once Jesus and/or his
word are encountered. This is the unavoidable choice posed by his judgment (5:30). Only
in this context one can affirm that the basic axiom of retribution, connecting sin to
punishment, is still valid for John: "if I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they
would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" (Jn 15:22).
John has transformed judgment from an act of God to an act of human
responsibility. Refusal to believe or to make a choice becomes assent to the realm of
darkness by default, as in the case of the parents (9:21) or the invalid (5:11). At the same
time, it is not autonomous will (9eA.r||ia) which acquires membership, it is made possible
by the will of God (6:39) who grants it (6:65) and of which Jesus himself is an extension
and not just an emissary (5:30). Membership is reciprocal indwelling (14:23, 15:4a) made
81
Charlesworth considers dualism in the gospel not of cosmic but of ethical nature, thus, the
"devil in John is not primarily a cosmic spirit and the struggle between good and evil is not portrayed as
Jesus versus an evil angel, hence there is no unqualified metaphysical dualism." Charlesworth, "Dualism,"
96.
82
McKenzie, "The Judge of All the Earth," 295-300.
142
possible not only by assent on one side, but by Jesus' hospitality on the other too (1:39)
as the gate of the sheepfold are opened (10:3, 9). The essential difference between the
theodicy of the gate and the theodicy of the wall, is that the former is there to create
judgment (KPLOK;) for people in order to avail the possibility of entrance while the latter is
there to prevent admittance to those judgment has already condemned.
Judgment is obviously a key word in theodicy as it relates to a consequent
retribution. Apparently, there seems to be lack of coherence in John's treatment of
judgment. The following is a summary highlighting of the apparent incongruities. On
one side, judgment is realized because those who do not believe are already judged (3:18)
and those who believe are exempted by judgment-condemnation having passed already
from death to (eternal) life (5:24). The spirit also will convict the world by having already
judged its ruler (16:8, 11). Yet, there is also a final judgment with a resurrection of life
and a resurrection of judgment (5:29). The word which Jesus has spoken judges
unbelievers on the last day (12:48). However, in 3:17 and 12:47, Jesus comes not to judge
but to save. Jesus says that he judges no one (8:15) and yet, his judgment is valid (8:16a)
and he has much to judge (8:26). Again, the Father judges no one but has given judgment
to the Son (5:22,27) and yet, God is the judge (8:50) and Jesus judges as he hears the
Father (5:30) so that the Father and the one he has sent (Jesus) give judgment (8:16b).
The questions to be addressed are about the subject and the time of judgment.
I will indicate a possible harmonization of these different passages. First, John
presupposes God's judgment in the intimate unity between the Father and the Son (3:35,
5:17,19,23, 10:30). This clarifies the apparent abstention of judgment attributed to God in
Wayne Meeks speaks of John's difficult literary procedure as "elucidation of themes by
progressive repetition." Meeks, "Man from Heaven," 55.
5:22,27. More problematic, instead, is the attempt to reconcile what appears to be the
nature of a dual judgment, one already realized (3:18, 5:24) and one yet to come (5:29,
12:48). They seem to coexist in the past and future tense of Jn 5:24-25:
Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent
me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from
death to life. Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when
the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
(italics mine)
Hearing the word of Jesus (or of the Johannine community) creates an eschatological
now (vuv) in which acceptance of faith fulfills redemptive judgment. Therefore one
does not need to submit to it again. Instead, rejection creates already a final judgment in
the present, in a way that is reminiscent of the traditional apocalyptic judgment described
in Ezek 37:4 and Dan 12:2.
85
Conversely, he speaks of an already (f|5r|) judgment-
condemnation for those who do not believe (3:18-21). This hour that can be now (Jn 4:23
epxexoa upa KCU. vuv koxiv), is also an hour that is coming (epxeica wpa) in which
traditional end time retribution is fulfilled based on one's deeds (5:29 cf. Rev 20:12-13).
Emphasis on present-realized eschatology is part of the nouvelle contribution of the
Gospel. However, traditional future eschatology is not something introduced later; the
Book of Revelation indicates this as part of the original background of John.
On hearing being the first step towards faith in Jesus, Koester affirms that "[g]enuine faith,
according to the Fourth Gospel, is engendered through hearing . . . those who did manifest a genuine faith,
did so after an initial experience of hearing. Those whose initial perception of Jesus was based on seeing
regularly failed to come to true faith . . . At the same time, 'signs faith' cannot be understood as a first step
toward genuine faith, since the characters who manifest signs faith consistently fail to move beyond it. The
evangelist makes clear that Jesus' actions were rightly perceived only by those who already responded with
faith or trusting obedience to what they had heard from or about Jesus. The evangelist would say that' in
the beginning was the Word', which evoked responses to Jesus that were confirmed by signs, led to proper
perception of signs, and could grow into genuine faith without signs." Craig R. Koester, "Hearing, Seeing,
and Believing in the Gospel of John," Biblica 70, no. 3 (1989): 347-8.
85
John evokes it also in the image of harvest (4:35) and the role of the Son of Man (5:27).
144
The story of the man born blind comes to our help once again. In Jn 9:4-5 Jesus
contrast two times: day and night. The present is the equivalent of day, when Jesus and
the Johannine community can do the works of the Father. However, this is going to come
to an end and that is equivalent to night, when one cannot work and therefore the
opportunity to exercise choice and be given membership, expires. That is yet to happen,
as Jesus and the Johannine community are still present. Light is the time of witnessing,
and if the choice to witness is made and endured, one's status is already reversed as in the
care of the man healed from congenital blindness. At the same time, though it is day,
some are already in a state of darkness and therefore accomplish evil deeds (3:19-20; cf.
Un 3:8, Rev 2:5).
That the encounter with Jesus is once and for all, seems clear in the description of
the call to discipleship in Jn 1:39. It is an encounter that is characterized as an experience
of seeing (epxeoGe Km 6i|/eo8e) framed within the Johannine's understanding of the hour
(wpa fjv WQ SeKairi). Therefore it is an event of eschatological relevance. Once that event
has taken place, one's situation is forever changed, there is no turning the "hour-clock"
backward. In the case of the Pharisees/Jews, they have seen and yet, have not believed
(6:36). If they had not seen then there would not be judgment of sin (15:24). The
blindness of the Pharisees is not due only to a false presumption of seeing (9:39b). They
did see Jesus and rejected him, thus their condition is judged consequently as one of
blindness and darkness (9:41). The man born blind was in a condition of blindness and
this from his origin; once he sees Jesus ("you have seen him" 9:37)
86
and believed in the
In the narrative, this is the moment in which he sees him for the first time after coming back
from the Pool of Siloam, before he just heard his injunctions. John 9:37 confirms it in the fact that hearing
("the one speaking with you") has preceded seeing, as the indication after which seeing follows. The
145
eschatological Son of Man (9:35), we can legitimately extend to him the Johannine
privileges. They are: to have passed from death to life (5:24), to have eternal life and to
be raised on the last day (6:40) to a resurrection of life (5:29). To be sure, such a theodic
view may save God's judgment from the accusation of unfairness but not everyone in the
Johannine audience might have agreed. Could "human shoulders" be strong enough to
sustain such an enormous responsibility? Were human beings left alone to face their
destiny? Could one rely on such a thing as divine benevolence? Or, more desolate but
true, one had to defend oneself from malevolent interference coming from the realm of
divinity or simply from fate?
2. Hellenistic Tradition in the Theodicy of the Gospel of John
Craig R. Koester sustains the view that: "the final form of the Gospel presupposes
a spectrum of readers who came from various backgrounds" and speaks differently to
them all, particularly Jewish, Samaritan and Greek. The use of the term "Greeks" in
John (7:35, 12:20) signifies all the people who were not of Jewish background; they
cannot be identified with a philosophical school or religious group. He also notices that
"[t]he evangelist divided scenes, portrayed characters, and used dramatic irony in ways
hearing is presumably more relevant to the Johannine community, when Jesus is not seen anymore (Jn
20:29, cf. Un 1:1-3).
87
This associates the figure of the Son of Man to 1:51 ('you shall see') and to the logos in 1:14
('we have seen') in his descent from heaven. Cf. Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel. The Theology of
the Fourth Evangelist, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 107 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 116-29. The forensic context of v. 39 conditions the use of Son of Man,
Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology, 123. On the preferable choice of Son of Man over Son of God, as
contained in several manuscripts, see Bruce, The Gospel of John, 494. For the role of the Son of Man as an
intermediary and not just an emissary, see John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1991), 347-8.
88
Koester, Symbolism, 18-9.
146
similar to the Greek tragedians and followed Greco-Roman rethorical patterns in some of
the discourses."
89
In this section I will first consider one of the most popular tragedies of
ancient time, one which could have presumable association with the story of the man
born blind. Secondly I will consider how a Hellenistic Jew from Alexandria
contemporaneous to John, Philo, addressed similar questions of theodicy and found
comparable answers.
2.1 John and Dissent
Oedipus is the symbol of greatness before the adversities of life. Contrary to the
man born blind, he attributes the cause of his self-inflicted blindness to Apollo, god of
light. Though apparently predestined to self-destruction, Oedipus refuses to be just a
victim and defies his destiny. Was such a powerful literary parallel part of the shared
literary background of John?
A literary technique of antiquity that attained particular artistic sophistication and
was able to exercise formative influence on its intended audience was the practice of
mimesis,
90
In essence, this literary artistry related different texts in order to achieve
intertextual transvaluation. On the "improvement" of the original object imitationis,
Quintilian (b. c, 35 CE) writes: "Turpe etiam illud est, contentum esse id consequi quod
89
Ibid., 30. Furthermore, about character portrayal in antiquity, he writes: "The evangelist
followed the practice of dividing scenes so that only two active characters appear on stage at any one time .
. . When groups of people speak with a single voice, they function like the chorus in a drama. The Gospel's
pervasive use of dramatic irony, in which the contrast between appearance and reality is underscored by the
unwitting speeches of the characters, also resembles the irony in Greek tragedy. For such irony to be fully
effective in a drama, audiences needed to know at the outset how the play would end." Koester, Symbolism,
36.
90
Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven & London:
Yale University Press, 2000), 1-9.
147
imiteris. Nam rursus quid erat futurum si nemo plus effecisset eo quern sequebatur?"
91
Mimesis did not rely exclusively on a hypotext of reference but delved in the wealth of
available literary sources. Lucius Annaeus Seneca in the Epistulae Morales 84, asks how
the transition from reading to writing is supposed to take place. Using the familiar
example of the bees gathering honey from different flowers, he extends that analogy by
instructing his friend that one is not supposed simply to imitate the authors met in the
reading process, but to transform the content into a homogeneous new creation.
92
Imitatio
is more than a lifeless picture. Actually, Seneca argues that if the copy is original, it is
impossible to see the imitated parts stand out as lonely voices in a chorus: "Unus tamen
ex omnibus redditur."
Riley, on the application of mimesis to early Christianity, comments: "Christians
almost never quote directly from the classical tradition... .Christians could not possibly
quote Homer or the tragedians or Plato as 'scripture' without legitimizing the inspiration
and authority of those texts."
93
This should correct a misplaced expectation that mimesis
of classical ideals should be validated by direct quotations or univocal analogies only.
The sharing of a common cultural context is obviously not sufficient to invest implicit
allusions or general references with a seal of certainty. While the risk of subjectivity in
such an endeavor should be accounted, at the same time a degree of reasonableness to
Institutio Oratoria, 10.2.7.
92
In his own words: "[I]n unum saporem varia ilia libamenta confundere, ut eniam si apparuerit,
unde sumptum sit, aliud tamen esse quam unde sumptum est, appareat."
93
Gregory Riley, "Mimesis of Classical Ideals in the Second Christian Century," in Mimesis and
Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, 96.
148
prove intertextuality is achievable by the accumulation of evidence, in a literary
environment which prized it with artistic dignity.
94
Several studies demonstrating intertextuality between tragedy and the Gospel of
Mark have already appeared.
95
MacDonald is the first to argue in detail a case of mimetic
analogy between the narrative of the healed blind men in the Gospel of Mark (8:22-26,
10:46-52) and the epic and tragic tradition which enshrouds the figure of the blind seer
Tiresias.
96
The transvaluation intended by Mark was to "open the eyes" of the disciples of
Jesus to the cost of discipleship. Bartimaeus portrays an ideal of discipleship. While blind
he saw by faith and with his recovered sight he decides to follow Jesus on the way to
martyrdom. His name reveals and yet conceals at once his identity: "Bartimaeus was an
oxymoron, a liccvug alaoc,, "blind seer."
97
Tiresias is the hypo-character of reference:
In Oedipus Tyrannus Oedipus mocked Tiresias for being "blind in your ears,
in your mind, and in your eyes." The blind seer retorted that it was Oedipus
who was blind: "[Y]ou have sight, but cannot see what trouble you are in."
When the king finally recognized the outrage he had inflicted on his father
and mother, he blinded himself. Ironically, in Oedipus at Colonus the blind
king himself became clairvoyant, playing a role similar to that of Tiresias."
98
Brant makes some important distinctions on how a work of play is imitated in a narrative text,
particularly see Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama. Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 108-10.
95
For instance Smith, "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of
Mark's Gospel," 209-31; Stone, "The Gospel of Mark and Oedipus the King: Two Tragic Visions," 55-69.
On internal mimesis between John and Mark on the healing of the blind's narratives, see Thomas Louis
Brodie, The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel. A Source-Oriented Approach (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 48-66.
96
The association of healing of the blind in Mark with Oedipus was addressed by Stone with an
alternative view: "Mark's parable of the healing of the blind man from Bethsaida is a remarkable metaphor
for the gradual dawning of recognition in both Oedipus and Peter." Stone, "The Gospel of Mark and
Oedipus the King: Two Tragic Visions," 59.
97
MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 98. Earle Hilgert infers that uloc TI|I<XIOU could be understood by
an insightful reader as "son of the most honored," referred to Plato's Timaeus, with its praise of eyesight,
Earle Hilgert, "The Son of Timaeus. Blindness, Sight, Ascent, Vision in Mark," in Reimagining Christian
Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack, 191. Brodie sees in Jn 9 a dramatization of the vision
theme in Mk 8:11-9:8, Brodie, Origin of John's Gospel.
98
MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 98. In Clement of Alexandria's Protrepticus 12.119.3, Christ calls
Tiresias to recover his sight and promises him to see heaven. See, MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 101.
149
Therefore, the purpose of this section is to verify intertextuality between the
narrative of Jn 9 and the hypotexts and character of Oedipus in the Theban tragedies. If
intertextuality contained in the narrative of the man born blind enabled some of the
Johannine readers to resonate with some of the questions of theodicy raised by
Sophocles, this would enlarge the theodic context of John 9 further. The emulative
context however was not at the literary level. It was instrumental to the communication of
a religious message to a potentially receptive audience. The principle intent of John was
not to demonstrate that his God was greater than Apollo in Sophocles' tragedies. John's
Gospel was not a philosophical treatise either. In reaching out to a non-Jewish
community, he intended to use viable means to introduce his Gospel.
The tragic concepts of hamartia and peripeteia presented a common ground of
interpretation. To the Jewish community the idea of congenital sin is not new: "Indeed, I
was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me. You desire truth in the inward
being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall
be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Ps 51:5-7; italics mine). However,
this predicament did not necessarily mean utter damnation. The unexpected change of
events in the story of the fourth Servant Song shows it. While people declared him
completely destined to destitution and death (Isa 53:8), unexpectedly one reads: "out of
his anguish he shall see light" (Isa 53:11); he becomes source of salvation (Isa 53:12).
Comparatively, Oedipus is born in a situation already compromised, conceived by a
mother who will become his wife. At the end, however, he will make purifying libations
with water at the wood consecrated to the Eumenides and is therefore spared from
150
chastisement (O.C. 466-492)." He will even become a source of salvation for the city of
Athens.
A strict application of precise criteria to test a case of emulation between the two
texts may leave doubts on a clear mimetic intention on the part of John.
100
Nevertheless
in a more generic way, a case of topical analogies is able to produce significant mimetic
intertextual transvaluation. In the judgment of Jesus (9:39), the two protagonists of the
artistic reversal of play between sight and blindness are the Pharisees and the man born
blind. These two are the composite characters that find association with the figure of
Oedipus.
1
' The journey of Oedipus evokes and contrasts both these figures portrayed in
the Gospel of John. The structure of the narrative can be divided in two sets of events
which run parallel to each other. Both deal with hamartia and both are subjected to
1 09
reversal. The first section is bracketed in Jn 9:1 -7 and 35-41. It regards the man born
blind. The second section is the juridical controversy of Jn 9:8-34, and the judgment of
Jesus in 39-41. It focuses on the Pharisees. Of course, the tragic character of the Pharisees
runs through the Gospel but even in the isolated narrative of John 9, some relevant
characteristics are placed in evidence.
The tragic story of Oedipus was very accessible, as his name appears hundred of
times in written texts in the immediate centuries before and after the Gospel of John.
Eleftheria A. Bernidaki-Aldous, addresses the topic of blindness as death in a culture
9
In this context the Eumenides are called acoiripiouc in O.C. 487.
100
Six criteria are listed in MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 8-9. These are accessibility, analogy,
density, order, distinctiveness, and interpretability.
101
A phenomenon that in literary criticism is classified as "decomposition." According to James
Schroeter it takes place when "attributes of one individual are disunited and several other individuals are
invented, each endowed with one group of the original attributes." See, Cook, ed., Oedipus Rex, 121.
102
Peripeteia in its tragic context would more properly apply only to the Pharisees whose
indictment is not of recovered sight but of self-inflicted blindness.
151
where light is viewed as life itself. The Chorus in O. T. mourns blinding more than
incest and patricide. Blindness is an enduring topos. Plato affirms that to be blind (xixblcoc;
exeiv) and to be ignorant (dyvo^lv) can be taken as synonyms (Gorgias 479.b.7). The
myth of the Cave was the narrative analogy of this philosophical truth. Every Greek was
acquainted with theatrical characters as Oedipus, blind seers as Teiresias and blind poets
as Homer. There is meaningful relation between blind seers and Apollo, god of light.
104
Blindness and punishment is commonly treated. Punishment may come from violation of
hospitality (e.g., Polymestor, Polyphemus) or the accidental glimpse by Tiresias of
Athena who was naked while bathing.
105
While his trespass was punished with blindness,
his innocence was vindicated with the gift of prophecy. Even graphic art gave widespread
access to similar themes and motifs:
The pathos of blindness as punishment is depicted in the scene of a Lapith
gouging out the eye of a Centaur. The very familiar blinding of the Cyclops
Polyphemus is also preserved in painting on a mixing bowl of the fifth
century, on an Attic funerary urn of the seventh century, and on an Argive
mixing bowl of the same period. The figure of the blind harpist found in an
Egyptian grave can be considered characteristic of the Greek way of
imagining such a figure.
106
Seneca "The Younger" wrote a tragedy entitled "Oedipus," just a few decades before the
Gospel of John. One of the differences he introduced from the original text was a lengthy
description of the plague at Thebes, an historical event which happened in Athens around
Eleftheria A. Bernidaki-Aldous, "Blindness in a Culture of Light: Especially the Case of
Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles" (Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 1985).
104
Jesus portrays a role with similarities to Tiresias. While being the light himself, he is the one
who confronts the Pharisees and declares their blindness as in Oedipus O. T. 412-413.
105
Pseudo-Apollodorus Myth, in Bibliotheca 3.69 significantly describes that Athena touched his
eyes (TT)V Se talg x
e
P
0>l T 0
^ o^GaAjioui; ociiraO KaTaXapouwriv) and made him blind. Healing by touching
is also present as in Inscriptions Graecae 4.1.121-122: Stele 1.18, where Alcetas dreams that Asclepius
opened his eyes with his fingers; see Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for
the Study of New Testament Miracles Stories (New York, London: Routledge, 1999), 18. Paul himself is
healed by the laying of hands of Ananias in Acts 9:12.
106
Bernidaki-Aldous, "Blindness", 9.
152
429 BCE and took the life of the great statesman Pericles.
107
Of the rare cases in which
subjects of classical literature were cited in early Christianity, one appears in Irenaeus of
Lion (c. 115-c. 202 CE). In the Adversus Haereses 5.13.4 he writes "Vain, therefore, and
truly miserable, are those who do not choose to see what is so manifest and clear, but
shun the light of truth, blinding themselves like the tragic Oedipus." Interestingly, the
emphasis of his reference is joined with one of the central themes of the Theban tragedy
which is the nexus of recognition. Irenaeus uses it in a context of words which underline
the element of choice vs. predestination, the analogy of light with truth and self-inflicted
retribution. Oedipus addresses the question of voluntary and involuntary sin. On this
subject Aristotle in Ethica Nicomachea 3.5.1114a affirms that a man blind because of
nature, disease or wound was not blameworthy, because blame requires moral
responsibility such as the case of blindness induced by drunkenness.
108
The name characterized identity. Oedipus ("swell-foot") is related to his destiny.
His feet were pierced and tied as a child (O. T. 1034). After the sight of Jocasta hung by
her neck he takes her golden brooch pins and struck his own eyeballs (O. T. 1269-70). The
word pins (iTepovou) does not refer only to the means of fastening the outer garment. This
substantive also refers to the ankle. Oedipus' feet pinned together returned in the blinding
The beginning of 0.7! 27-28 is set in a city afflicted by pestilence. However, the historical
certainty of that traumatic event immediately preceding the writing of Oedipus Tyrannus, though
suggestive, is still debated.
108
Philo, in his commentary to the sixth commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery," affirms
that Moses detested the customs of the Persians which include for the magistrates to marry even their own
mothers (De Specialibus Legibus III 3,13). He then makes reference to the case of Oedipus. He says that his
actions "were committed out of ignorance and not voluntary." Nevertheless, this brought war and all sorts
of calamities on the successive generations.
153
of himself. The name Oedipus can also be taken as a pun on the verb to know (oiSa).
He is the man set on a journey of seeing/knowing and yet, ignorance and blindness.
The Gospel of John makes frequent use of "seeing."
110
In the narrative of the man
born blind, John makes a sophisticated use of a spectrum of verbs referred to sight. God's
words are revealed (9:3 avepuQf\). Jesus sees first the man born blind (9:1 elSev), and
when he requests Jesus to reveal his identity, Jesus answers: you have seen him (9:37
eoSpaKou;). ewpelv is used to indicate the curious and yet inquiring observation of those
who saw him casually or frequently (9:8 ol Gecopouvieg). The faculty of sight is referred
to with the verb fikemiv (9:7,15,19,21,25,39,41). For the recovering of sight avufilkiieiv is
used(9:ll,15,18).
m
In John 9 o!5a is related to the man born blind (and his parents) and the Pharisees.
In the former it indicates lack of knowledge about the identity of Jesus (9:12,25a) while
confession about the restoration of sight is made (9:25b). Conversely, he confronts the
obtuse attitude of the Pharisees who lack knowledge about the identity of Jesus and yet
do not want to confess the evidence of his recovered sight (9:30). The Pharisees first
affirm that Jesus is a sinner (9:24,31) while in obvious contradiction they admit not to
know where he comes from (9:29). At the end of this process of identity search, Jesus
decrees that it is the man born blind the one who sees him (ewpaKCcg ambv).
OiSa is the perfect of the obsolete el5w. It is not used in the active present, in this case 6p<xw is
used instead. Strictly speaking it means to see, however it is more frequently used as coming to a
perception or realization of something, similarly to the equivalence of knowing or understanding. Duke
notices that "in chapter 9 the prominent motif of knowledge is always expressed by oida, rather than
gindskd." Paul D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 119.
110
On the interrelatedness of seeing as faith perception and knowing/believing in the Fourth
Gospel, see Robert Kysar, John the Maverick Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976), 65-83.
' "On the use of dvapXeiTw as "regaining sight," or "looking up" in a physical or metaphorical
sense, see Sherman E. Johnson, "Mark 8:22-26: The Blind Man from Bethsaida," New Testament Studies
25 (1979): 370-83.
154
In conclusion, the identity of Oedipus seems to be more properly associated with
the lack of recognition of the Pharisees and conversely with the knowledge granting
salvation to the man born blind. Like Oedipus, they had sufficient evidence to reach
sight/knowledge and yet, failed to recognize the true identity of the object of their
inquiry, that is, Jesus. The hastiness of their conclusions before the undisputable evidence
is similar to the tyrannical obsession displayed by Oedipus who first journeys to Delphi
and then rushes away indignant with Apollo (O. T. 787-97). Instead the man born blind, in
his search for knowledge, reaches its fulfillment at the end.
1 n
Another element which provides intertextual density is the expulsion of the man
born blind by the Pharisees and the tragic ejection and self-imposed exile of Oedipus
once he is identified as the culprit of miasma (pollution). Oedipus, in his sincere and
honorable attempt to purify the city afflicted by pestilence (O. T. 27-28), sends his brother
in law Creon to Pytho to receive an oracle from Apollo. The message delivered is that the
city will be saved if the culprit will be found and punished. Once he discovered that he
was the origin of the evil afflicting the city, Oedipus will ask to be ejected (O. T. 1436,
1449-50,) in coherence with his original plan. However, later he will recollect that
memory as an ignominious act of expulsion (O.C. 428-30, 440-44). Yet, in an incredible
reversal, Oedipus will be asked to return, as the place where he will be buried will
procure salvation for the city. From being a culprit he will be come a savior (uiyav
owTfip' dpeloGe) (O.C. 459-60). Unexpectedly, this outcome will not be reserved for the
city of Thebes but for Athens. Its king Theseus, himself a fugitive (O.C. 562-63) who
112
In these two processes is possible to identify the dual journey of Oedipus, blind while seeing in
O. T. and then seeing while blind in O.C.
155
searched and found his land of origin and his father Aegeus after a perilous journey,
welcomed Oedipus, honoring his status and alleviating his suffering.
Likewise, in the juridical controversy of John 9 the man born blind is cross-
examined by the Pharisees who, considering the breaking of the Sabbath, declare
repeatedly that Jesus is a sinner (9:16,25,31a) and indirectly accuse him of daepeicx
i n
(9:31b). Later on, the man born blind, who progressively takes Jesus' defense, is
declared as "being born entirely in sin" (ev au-apuoa<; oh eyewr|9i-|<; OXOQ) thus
demonstrating a flagrant act of misrecognition in what before they had denied, namely his
condition of cecity (9:18). This is also a case of tragic irony.
114
The Pharisees associate
him to the destiny of Jesus, by expelling him (9:34). This runs parallel to the fact that
Jesus in the Gospel is affirmed from outsiders to be the "Savior of the world," (4:42) and
from insiders as the one whose sacrifice could save the holy place and the nation (11:47-
53), similarly to the case of Oedipus.
The man born blind however does not remain homeless. Expelled from the
synagogue, he finds in Jesus a new place of worship (9:38). As already mentioned, the
facts of the Gospel are vaticinia ex eventu (2:21-22). In the light of the Temple's
destruction, a verdict had been already declared in which retribution found in this
narrative corroborative justification, in Jewish terms of traditional theodicy and tragic
peripeteia in Hellenistic terms. The punishment was inflicted on a guilt defined likewise
as hamartia in Jewish terms or miasma in Hellenistic terms.
The dramatispersonae of 'the man born blind' and 'Oedipus' provide insight into
a puzzling issue of research in the field of NT studies and rabbinic literature, namely the
113
The term Qto(x$r\c, is an haphax legomenon in the New Testament.
114
Their declaration indirectly brings an answer to the question of the unnamed disciples about the
cause of his blindness.
156
lack of direct reflection on the most dramatic destruction of the second temple. The
events of 587 BCE, constituted the greatest effort to reinterpret theodicy both in the
deuteronomistic and prophetic movements. Not so after the 70 CE. As David Kramer
poignantly affirms:
What does the Mishnah say about the experiences of the prior century or so?
How does it explain the seemingly unending suffering of the people,
individual and collective? . . . [T]he Mishnah says virtually nothing about
these things. Nor does it say much about the more theoretical questions of
divine justice or evil.... By and large, the Mishnah simply does not take note
of the destruction. Moreover, on only one occasion does the Mishnah even
voice hope that the Temple will be rebuilt, and this only in a final coda on a
tractate (Tamid). The sense that the temple even needs to be rebuilt is
glaringly absent from the Mishnah.
116
The two "cities," the temple and the expelled community, could not coexist peacefully.
Retribution had to take place and consequently one had to disappear. In a tragic case of
peripateia, Athens is saved by Oedipus, and a theodicy that justified the Johannine
community over its antagonists, the Jews, was declared. However, while Oedipus'
suffering is a case of intergenerational retribution within Labdacus' family, in the
narrative of the man born blind the course of events made individual responsibility a
radical break in the link of genealogical consequentiality. A new child was born free from
the consequences of the sin of the parents. Both were abandoned by their genitors,
Oedipus at birth and the man born blind at the juridical controversy. Oedipus pays the
price of that event while the man born blind is spared. The destruction of the temple was
the most evident implementation of deuteronomistic theodicy which justified his
salvation.
115
See, Kirschener, "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70," 27-46;
Adreas J. Kostenberger, "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth
Gospel," in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, 69-108.
116
Kraemer, Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature, 8, 60.
157
However, the wall built in between was not only constructed by the Pharisees, it
had Johannine hands on it too. It constituted a powerful line of non return."
7
Ejected,
they in fact left and while they were portrayed as victims of a tragic course of events,
tragedy struck back on the perpetrators. The "imposed" exile was in fact the direct
consequence of a choice that grew in consciousness as time passed. The condemning and
unilateral portrayal of the delinquent Jews confirmed the "good conscience" of the
Johannine tribunal. In the narrative, blindness is moralized by John in terms of sin but
was not just related to a question of ethical obedience. It was also hamartia, in the
Hellenistic sense of truth denied and a mark missed by lack of recognition.
Apollo could not forgive sins but only wash away the stains of defilement, because
the tragic vision of the world excluded forgiveness of sin. Likewise, forgiveness of sins
for the enemies is not explicitly indicated in John, there is only the entrustment of a
ministry of selective forgiveness to the disciples (Jn 20:23, see 1 Jn 1:9).
119
The enemies
of Jesus are not excused on the cross (cf. Lk 23:24), rather, the selective bond of inner
membership is reinforced under the Johannine cross (Jn 19:26). In the community of John
one did not enter through a ritual of purification which maintained intergenerational
connection. As in the dialogue with Nicodemus, birth in the Johannine community breaks
the genealogical and geographical links with the Jewish community (3:3), and this is
what neither blood nor flesh can achieve (1:13).
117
Meeks comes to a similar conclusion when he says: "coming to faith in Jesus is for the
Johannine group a change in social location. Mere belief without joining the Johannine community, without
making the decisive break with 'the world,' particularly the world of Judaism, is a diabolic 'lie.'" Meeks,
"Man from Heaven," 69.
118
Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 230.
119
As in Qumran, forgiveness is a privilege extended only to the loyal members of the community,
not the outsiders.
158
The corporate personality of the man born blind sets a model of discipleship in the
Johannine community. Oedipus, in ritual terms, begun as an initiate and exits as a
hierophant, teaching Theseus eternal things {O.C. 1518 kyw 8iSaG>) leading him by
virtue of exegesis (O. C. 1520 kl\\yr\oo\ia,\) into secret revelations (O.C. 1526 a 5'
kE,uyiaTct) that at the end he will entrust only to the one who is worthy (O.C. 1532
TQTTLOVTL 5eiKvuTG)).
12
Likewise, while initiated by Jesus through a ritual that evoked a
rite of initiation, the narrative of the man born blind becomes a catechetical instruction in
which the journey of a man, blind at first, progressively arrives at the identification of
Jesus as the eschatological Son of Man and the Lord of worship (9:35-38). These are the
elements that, through the narrative, provide intertextual transvaluation for those who are
or intend to become members of the Johannine community.
The tragedy of what may appear predestination to darkness and blindness is
turned into an experience of salvation. The man born blind is not only a passive receptor
but also a participant. Faith is prized over dissent. However, the story does not extinguish
tragedy but transfers it onto the shoulders of the condemned city of Jerusalem as in
Sophocles is reassigned on Thebes. Access to light remains available and the man born
blind is there to invite people in. His testimony is not only a tribute to human resilience in
the face of overwhelming disaster. It sheds light on the salvific intent of the God Jesus
reveals. This beneficial divine identity is not irreconcilable which the philosophical
tradition of Hellenism. Fate and providence, predestination and human responsibility
were bound not to remain subjects of a debate exclusively in the hands of Greco-Roman
philosophical schools.
Bernidaki-Aldous, "Blindness", 227.
159
2.2 John and Providence
Typically, theodicy takes issue with questions of undeserved suffering or
undeserved reward. God's justice in the administration of retribution comes under doubt
and accusation. Theodicy confronted also the meaning and purpose of human freedom.
Are merit and guilt dependent only on us or are there conditions beyond our capacity to
affect our ability to decide? These questions were vehemently discussed before, during
and after the time of the Gospel of John. Several philosophical texts were written under
headings such as fate and providence. In particular, two philosophical schools of
antiquity addressed these issues: the Academy and the Stoa. The common point of
departure was belief in the utter goodness of God in creation, though the final outcome
was divergent. For the followers of Plato, the premises of our freedom were
compromised from the very beginning. Creation, with its intrinsic limitedness (matter),
was delegated to the work of a demiurge, a being inferior to the mind of God. Instead to
the followers of Zeno, who considered the divine logos immanent into nature, we are
continuously assisted by divine benevolence even before the experience of evil. Activity
was ceaseless up to the time of the final destruction of the world.
John dealt with similar issues. The Gospel begins with a prologue in which the
original creative event is accounted by use of a term "word," present both in the Jewish
"13T and Hellenisitic logos traditions. Another concern was about the question of
determinism. While human freedom is affirmed and retribution is consequent to our
121
In Stoic terminology this is called a universal conflagration (eKirupuoK;), see Greene, Moira,
339. Philo will oppose this view in De Aeternitate Mundi 47-51 where creation has a temporal beginning
but continuous existence.
160
choices, on the other side, we find cases such as the "Jews" and Judas where
predestination seems to hamper the exercise of freedom. The question of the unnamed
disciples (9:2) is filled with ambiguity. If responsibility lay with the parents, the son was
fated to illness though not because of his guilt. If however responsibility fell on the man
himself, assuming that sin took place in the pre-natal stage, the proportion between fault
and consequence seemed excessive and unfair.
122
Jesus did not answer whose fault it was
but this did not mean that an answer was not forthcoming.
123
It needed to be sought and
derived by reading backwards the whole narrative of the man born blind. However, now
it is necessary to consider how others could have answered a similar question, in order to
place John in a larger ayopa.
A Stoic like Chrysippus could have answered similarly to Jesus, that the fault lay
with neither of them. It was determined by fate. Whether through the parents or through
the son, if the man was destined to become blind, nothing could have changed the course
of those events. Diogenianus reports that Chrysippus made use of the case of Oedipus'
parents to prove determinism.
124
The parents of Oedipus were forewarned, yet, they were
unable to prevent the terrible course of events. Their failure was predetermined.
Obviously, his position became an object of criticism. Cicero reports that this reasoning
was defined by philosophers as ignavia ratio (dpyoc; Aoyoc;).
125
It presented this weakness:
if fate has destined one to die, it is useless to call a doctor. However, if fate has destined
122
That possibility is attested in Rabbinic tradition and it is reported in L. Hermann Strack and
Paul Billerbeck, Das Evangelium nack Markus, Lukas und Johannes und die Apostelgeschichte, vol. 2
(1974), 527-9. See the interpretation of Gen. 25:22 in Genesis Rabbah 63.6; also Songs of Songs Rabbah
1.41. The rabbis affirmed that there was not death without sin in B. Shabbath 55a, commenting Ezek 18:20.
However, Schnackenburg considers these references remote in Jewish thought, Schnackenburg, The Gospel
according to St John, 240-1.
123
In any case, it is difficult to conjecture that Jesus would have endorsed either of the two options
given by the unnamed disciples.
124
Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 4.3.
125
DeFato 12,28-13,30.
161
one to be healed it is still useless to call a doctor. Therefore one would be discouraged
from doing anything at all. However, if a human being is granted moral responsibility,
fate cannot deprive volition in realm of moral choices. It would only be the neutral link
connecting cause to consequence, and one would not be a mere passive agent of fate,
A Stoic could have replied that while the man was destined to be born blind,
providence worked to promote good out of evil as in the Hymn to Zeus of Cleanthes.
Zeus, in spite of human blindness, grants insight to rescue those who go astray from
ignorance.
126
After all, the answer of Jesus: "he was born blind so that God's works might
be revealed in him" (9:3) could be interpreted as the common Stoic position that
providence may even use evil in order to achieve a good purpose. The list is long:
suffering may be instrumental to testing, discipline, education, etc. Events such as war
may counter overpopulation or earthquakes may be used to inflict punishment on the
wicked.
127
Plutarch ofChaeronea (46-120 CE), a Middle-Platonist sympathetic to the Stoic
view, treats the problem of intergenerational retribution in his philosophical writing De
sera numinis vindicta. Timon introduces this subject in a dialogue quoting a passage from
Euripides, that the gods visit "the sins of parents on the children."
128
Plutarch
immediately discredits stories of intergenerational retribution, based more on folklore
than reality (557). Nevertheless, he takes up the issue and presents a rather sophisticated
reasoning to counteract the accusation. First, he says, if one accepts the reward coming
from the virtue of those who preceded us so one should do likewise for the punishment of
126
Thom, Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus: Text, Translation, and Commentary., 33-5.
127
Plutarch De Stoic. Repugn. 1049a-d.
128 [rp-j^
T(5y TeK
6vTowv cKfxUficn:' dc, TOIX; eKyovoix; ol 6eo! Tperroucuv." (Euripides, Fragmenta
980.1)
162
previous vices. If an individual suffers the misdeeds of a city, one should not be surprised
if he/she suffers from the misdeeds of a previous family member. Instead, he observes
ironically, most are amazed at the intervals in time, not those in space (558). Moreover,
the punishment of descendants serves preventively to deter following generations from
doing evil (561). Finally, providence, related to the survival of the soul, comes to our aid
so that we must expect that "due in honor and in punishment is awarded after death rather
than before." (560.18) A theodicy of providence did not hesitate to lay responsibility for
evil on human shoulders while granting divine providence absolute benevolence.
The case of intergenerational retribution was also considered by an eclectic
intellectual: Cicero. In De natura deorum a dialogue ensues over the nature of gods. One
of the participants, Cotta, dissents from the Stoic views presented by Balbus according to
which intergenerational retribution confirms divine justice: "etiam si quis morte poenas
sceleris effugerit, expetantur eae poenae a liberis a nepotibus a posteris." Cotta rightly
affirms that guilt or merits should lay on oneself. Balbus' last defense invokes divine
providence to affirm the infinite power of God to transform the inherent limitation of
primal matter (materiam rerum). In this he finds a point of conjunction with other
philosophers according to which: "vos enim ipsi dicere soletis nihil esse quod deus
efficere non possit."
131
The dialogue ends abruptly with Cicero's (unconvincing)
approval of Balbus' position.
132
The evidence showed that the more accusations against
Cf. "Seel urgetis identidem hominem esse istam culpam non deorum." (Cicero, D.N.D. 3.76)
130
Cicero, D.N.D. 3.90.
131
Cicero, D.N.D. 3.92 (cf. Mk 10:27).
132
The adhesion of Cicero to the Stoic thesis of Balbus is, if nothing less, timid; while at times he
seems more inclined to present Cotta's position with greater conviction, he avoids any endorsement for fear
of being accused of atheism.
163
such conception of fate became strong the more Stoic explanations climbed the heights of
sophistication, unfortunately alien from ordinary experience.
133
In the Greco-Roman world around the time of the Gospel of John, philosophical
positions and literary genres were often blended together. Virgil (70-19 BCE) is closer to
Epicureanism in the Bucolics and Georgics while in the Aeneid the protagonist faces with
stoical fortitude the obstacles that he encounters on a journey nevertheless providentially
guided to the foundation of Rome. Tragic genre prevails in the narratives of Dido and
Turnus.
134
Stoic views are upheld when suffering is a means to achieve heroic status,
resounding Seneca's statement that "calamitas virtutis occasio est."
135
In Judaism, Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE -50 CE) reinterprets his tradition in
the light of Hellenism. He was a contemporary of Jesus and John. His effort to
harmonize Judaism and Hellenism was already encountered in the books of Sirach and
Wisdom. Philo represents Middle Platonism, the Platonic tradition between Plato's
immediate successors and the rise of third century CE Neoplatonism. In his effort to
harmonize Judaism, it does not come as a surprise that providence represented the best
This is the case of Chrysippus' principle of confatalia according to which in all free human acts
volition is united {con) to external circumstances (fatum), De Fato 30. Such a rigid position to defend
divine justice in retribution is sarcastically commented by Cotta's quote of Diagoras. Presumptuously
accused by sailors of being the cause for the storm in which their lives were seriously at risk, Diagoras
replied if there were other Diagoras on the ships contemporaneously on the sea. Cotta's conclusion is:
"[t]he fact is that your character and past life make no difference as regards your future, whether good or
bad." (Cicero, D.N.D. 3.89)
134
Greene, Moira, 366-7.
135
De Providentia 4.6.
136
Texts and translations of Philo's writings, except the two treatises on Providence, are taken
from Philo, The Works of Philo, trans. Charles Duke Yonge (United States of America: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1995). The two treatises on Providence have survived in a complete form only in an Armenian
translation. The extant work in Greek is cited from Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica. Typically of
treatises on Providence it begins with questioning dissent on the working of Providence. For references to
these treatises I have used David T. Runia, "Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria," in Theodicy in the World of
the Bible.
164
asset to address questions of theodicy.
137
What follows is a summary highlight of his
theodic insights.
Philo's theology of providence rests on his theory of creation (Op. 170-172). He
refers that Moses, having reached the highest levels of philosophy, acquired
consciousness that in the universe there is an active and a passive cause (cdita) (Op. 8-9;
Deter. 161). The active cause is the transcendent and eternal intellect (Voug) of the
universe which moves the passive cause or the sensible which is per se inanimate
(ai|/uxog) and incapable of movement.
139
To deny this is equivalent to deprive humanity
from the fatherly and providential care of the Creator.
40
Providence reveals God's benevolence. It is exercised through God's power
(5uvoqj.i<;) (Conf. 134-140), which at times is referred to as the activity of the divine logos
(Op. 20; Quod Deus 77) or as the angel which guides our steps (Quod Deus 182; Som.
1.141).
141
God is "always acting" (TTOLWV del) (Gig. 42).
42
Thus, the only way we come
to know God is through the exercise of providence.
143
It is the divinely generated logos
which sustains creation (Plant. 8-9). God is not obliged to act but does so as an act of
137
Peter Frick notes that "Philo refrains from presenting the idea of providence along the Middle
Platonist lines of Pseudo-Plutarch, Nemesius and Apuleius who distinguish between three irpovoiai each of
which operates on a different level in the universe." However he recognizes that from Middle Platonism he
takes the idea of the indestructibleness of the world due to God's providence. Frick, Divine Providence, 57,
93.
138
The danger of selective quotes to prove one's point is insidious. However, I have tried to make
use of Philo's significant terminologies or concepts relatively to their particular contexts.
139
In Op. 129; Quod Deus 105, he uses the analogy of a seal impressing its character on matter.
140
This is attributed to Epicurean thinking, though he does not declare it explicitly, Som. 2.283; cf.
Quaest. in Gn. 4.87.
141
Philo defines God as the biblical God who acts, rather than the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover or
the Stoic world-soul; see Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series, 231 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 82. However, Philo
"makes use of the Stoic idea that god fills the universe with his powers and the idea of divine agency in the
world connoted by the terms Xoyoq and c|>i)ai.<;." Frick, Divine Providence, 26.
142
Plato affirmed that God cannot be lazy; rather, he must be provident, Laws 90a-903a.
143
Thus, the idea ofavayKn as the Stoic principle of causation (chain of cause-effect) is rejected in
Philo, cf. Quis Her. 300; Mig. 179.
165
grace (x PK) (Quod Deus 106-8). In an explicit reference to Timaeus 29e, he affirms that
this fundamental presupposition lies in the essential goodness of God, Father and Creator
of the world (Op. 2\;Agr. 128-30).
144
Goodness is exclusively attributed to God, at times
compared to the activity of a shepherd (jroiuriv) (Agr. 49-53).
145
How does Philo account for the presence of evil? The responsibility of evil is
found again in the process of creation. Human beings are created in the image of God.
However, the fact that they are of mixed nature (TO 5e TT\C, \XIKTX\C, eoti ctouaeux;),
combining good and evil in their voug and Xoyoc,, shows that it was not God who molded
them, unless they would be perfect (Quis Her. 45-6). Imperfections are due to
collaboration of other fellow-workers (owepyol) (Op. 72-75) also called lieutenants
(uTTccpxovTeg) (Conf. 168-83) and, secondly, to the recalcitrance of matter (uA.r|) which is
of inferior quality and opposite to reason (Fug. 198-99; Leg. All. 1.47; Prov. 2. 82).
m
The
plural of Gen 1:26: "let us make (nfc?I73) humankind in our image, according to our
likeness," is a clear indication that creation did not happen through God alone.
What is divine in humankind, then? How is God dealing with our imperfections?
The only similitude established is between divine or universal intelligence and the soul or
individual intelligence (Op. 69). Philo refrains from the anthropomorphic description of
God in Hebrew Scriptures; rather he speaks of God as pure intelligence in a way similar
For a study on the similarity of terminologies between Timaeus 29d-e and Philo's Op. 21, see
Frick, Divine Providence, 64.
145
God is not the metaphysical perfect divine being of Platonic philosophy or the monad of
Pythagorean philosophy. Philo draws the idea of God from his Jewish background, however polished from
all anthropomorphisms. God is the personal and relational God of the Jews. Divine activity is identified
with grace, in the sense of God's gratuitous and active love for the world, cf. Quod Deus 104-108; Leg. All.
3.78.
146
Philo disagrees with the Stoic view that God is the origin of both good and evil; even when evil
may be used for a positive purpose (Agr. 128-129). However, Philo remains vague on the origin of matter
and the identity of its creator/s.
166
to Stoicism (Op. 8).
147
For the rest, humanity is subjected to the devastating effects of
passions (Op. 152) which are progressively revealed in the degrading quality of
subsequent generations (Op. 140). This is what required expulsion from the original
garden for in human beings, there was an innate propensity to roguery ("rravoupyta) (Op.
155). Therefore, wrath (opyri) in God (Op. 156) is an act of inevitable justice.
148
All the
same, even in punishment, divine love is at work uniting justice to mercy (Quod Deus
76). Suffering may provide education (iTtuSeuto), admonition (vouBeteco) and correction
(ococjjpovL^w) (Congr. 172).'
God is not responsible for evil (Prov. 2.82); this statement is paramount for Philo.
To clarify it, he introduces two distinctions. The first adopts the Stoic separation of evil
in two categories: physical evil (matter) and moral evil (vice).
150
The only true evil is
moral evil which entails human decision. However, even in the field of moral evil Philo
provides another distinction, separating voluntary from involuntary actions (Quod Deus
128-30; Agr. 176-181; Fug. 71-2). Only voluntary evil finds accusation within the
conscience (owei6r\aiQ) of an individual. Philo's nephew questioned him on disasters
such as earthquakes and pestilences. The answer provided is that they are due to "changes
147
However, Philo rejects the idea of the material immanence of God, which would make God
identical to matter, cf. Mig. 179,181. Scripture provides Philo with the idea of God being immanently
involved in the world.
148
Philo does abhor from subjecting God to irrational human passions. Wrath is to be interpreted
metaphorically (Quod Deus 52, 70-1) and it underlines preferably the evidence of the power and
sovereignty of God. God's wrath is motivated not only by anger against sinners but by compassion to the
rest of humankind, too; cf. Abr. 137 and Eve, Jesus' Mircales, 79. Moreover, already in Greco-Roman
culture the concept of theoprepes, (in Latin, dignum deo) indicated criticism of traditional mythology in
which gods submitted to human emotions, see Horst, Jews and Christians in Their Greco-Roman Context.,
129.
149
The concept of irpovoict in the application of just retribution is more common in Josephus than
Philo, see Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the 'Antiquitates Judaicae' of
Falvius Josephus, Harvard Theological Review, 7 (Missoula, Montana: Scholar Press, 1976), 168.
150
Frick, Divine Providence, 143-5.
167
in the elements," similarly to the Stoic concept of confatalia or secondary circumstances
(Prov. 2.102).
151
There is no mythological dualism in Philo. Evil is not a metaphysical entity which
stands on the same level with God. The nature of evil resides in defectiveness. Therefore,
matter is recalcitrant but not actively opposed to God. In the case of moral evil,
responsibility is attributed to the tension between the rational and irrational part of the
soul, which includes passions and senses.
152
Conflict between good and evil is innate and
the need to exercise freedom begins from the moment of birth.
153
How to face this uphill battle? Philo affirms that through meditation and a
virtuous life, one is rewarded with sight from the source of light itself: God (Praem. 50-
l).
154
If passions gain control over one's life, then the mind is overcome and one is
similar to a blind person. Blindness however cannot be considered a punishment of God.
Rather, it is self-inflicted punishment since a condition of darkness implies the
withdrawal from God's providence which is light (QuodDeus 58; Som. 1.75). Whether
these answers satisfied the inquiry of his dissenting nephew we do not know.
155
Even in Philo, the severely compromised condition of human nature is far from
the original divine utterance about the goodness of creation (Gen 1:10). Evil people are
151
Tiberius Iuius Alexander was Philo's nephews. He married Bernice, the daughter of Herod
Agrippa (mentioned in Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30). Tiberius Alexander became an apostate from Judaism, held
the office of procurator of Judea (46-48 CE) and was prefect in Egypt (66-70 CE).
152
There is similarity to the Hebrew notion of the good and evil inclination in a person ("lir), Gen
6:5,8:21.
153
This can be deduced from his comment on the twin children of Isaac. Philo gives the following
allegorical interpretation: "for every man has at the beginning simultaneously with his birth, a soul which is
pregnant with twins, namely, good and evil, bearing the impression of both of them" (Praem. 63).
154
It was Plato who affirmed that according to proper education and habits, one is able to journey
back to his/her metaphysical origin (Phaedo 81b-e; 7>'m.86d-e).
155
Runia's comment in this regard is: "Philo is preoccupied with questions of theodicy, but. . . his
solutions for the problem are marked by a rather disappointing superficiality." Runia, "Theodicy in Philo of
Alexandria," 596-7.
168
somewhat excused because their determination to wickedness is also due to their
"hampered" nature which does not allow them to behave honestly (Spec. Leg. 1,246; cf.
Leg. All. 3.76). Given their double nature, human beings must exercise their freedom to
choose good over evil. Philo comes to this conclusion by interpreting the famous
deuteronomic speech of Moses at the renewal of the covenant in Moab (QuodDeus 47-
50; Leg. All. 3.104; Prov. 1.83).
156
God come to succor human beings by delaying
punishment and giving them the opportunity to repent (Leg. All. 3.106).
We can deduce that in Philo there are two kinds of human beings: those who live
in the spirit of God, in communion with divine intelligence and those who live according
to blood (<xl|ia), flesh (odpQ and pleasure (fjSovr)), a contraposition clearly indebted to the
sapiential antagonistic characterization of the wise and the fool. To Philo, one is not
"fixed" in his nature. Changes are possible if one accepts divine providence, which
defends and sustains humanity (Quis Her. 57-8). If this is achieved, the virtuous person
lives in a present state that can be called eternal life (TO 6' diJ/euSet; ovo|aa aiwvoc; r)
orpepov) (Fug. 57).
The analogy of sight and blindness returns frequently. Human beings with
irrationality are similar to people deprived of sight (Quod Deus 93). Only the coming of
light makes darkness disappear (Quod Deus 123). In the episode of the covenant with
Abraham, Philo comments on the injunction to look up (dvapAeiTco) to heaven (Gen 15:5)
as a rebuke (eA.eYX
o
0 to the vulgar (dye^aiog) blind (xvfyloc,) human race which believes
itself to see even though it doesn't because its eyes are fixed on the things below. Only
the virtuous one sees and looks up, like Israel, whose etymology to Philo is "the one who
156
Carson rightly notes that Deut 30:15,19 excludes "any notion of freedom as entailing absolute
power to contrary." D. A. Carson, "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Philo: Analysis and
Method," Novum Testamentum 23, no. 2 (1981): 157.
169
sees God" (Quis Her. 75-9).
157
This language brings us back to the Gospel of John. Two
comments may be helpful in this transition. In the first, Philo describes the rewards
received by Jacob:
In this company is the man who in the Chaldaean language is denominated
Israel, but in Greek 'seeing God;'(6pd)v Qeov) not meaning by this expression
seeing what kind of being God is, for that is impossible, as I have said before,
but seeing that he really does exist; not having learnt this fact from anyone
else, nor from anything on earth, nor from anything in heaven, nor from any
one of the elements, nor from anything compounded of them, whether mortal
or immortal, but being instructed (neiocKA/nGelg) in the fact by God himself,
who is willing to reveal (dvachfivoci) his own existence to his suppliant.
(Praem. 44)
In the second, he comments on Jacob's vow after his vision at Bethel (Gen. 28:21):
Now is it not fitting that even blind men should become sharp-sighted in their
minds to these and similar things, being endowed with the power of sight by
the most sacred oracles, so as to be able to contemplate the glories of nature,
and not to be limited to the mere understanding of the words? But even if we
voluntarily close the eye of our soul and take no care to understand such
mysteries, or if we are unable to look up (dvapAeiTeiv) to them, the hierophant
himself stand by and prompts us. And do not thou ever cease through
weariness to anoint (eyxptwv) thy eyes until you have introduced those who
are duly initiated (\ivoxay^yQv) to the secret light of the sacred scriptures,
and have displayed to them the hidden things therein contained, and their
reality, which is invisible to those who are uninitiated. (Som. 1.164)
158
This excursus through Philo's significant terminology and concepts, reveals compelling
affinity as well as differences to the Gospel of John. Jesus is not the Philonic logos
inferior to God (Jn 1:1). However the Johannine logos participates in creation (1:3) and is
likewise sent by the Father. Through Jesus one can see the Father for what God is
157
On the frequent use of this etymology in Philo, see Leg. All. 2.34; Quod Deus 144; Conf. 146;
Abr. 57; Leg. 4; Praem. 44; etc. Jacob's name is reconstructed as the one who struggled in order to come to
the vision of God {Mut. 81). On eyes of the body and eyes of the soul which alone can see God, cf. Mut. 1-
6; Congr. 135; Quis Her. 89.
158
Earle Hilgert sees in this passage an analogy with Plato's encomium on eyesight (Tim 47a-c)
and Jesus' healing of Bartimaeus in Mk 10:46-52. The theme of ascent culminating in a vision is achieved
through the portray of Jesus as mystagogue who reveals ultimate apocalyptic realities, see Hilgert, "The
Son of Timaeus. Blindness, Sight, Ascent, Vision in Mark."
170
because the Father dwells in him (12:45; 14:10).
159
In fact Jesus himself claims
fatherhood towards those who have believed in him (12:36). God is not defined with the
Platonic concept of goodness. God is spirit and is revealed as love through Jesus (3:16;
4:24; 16:27). To the philosophical abstraction of goodness, John uses the Jewish
relational definition of God as love. John does not use the term Trpovoioc. However, God is
a "providential" Father who cares for the children, giving bread, providing for their
requests, caring for the dispersed, and protecting them from evil (6:33; 11:22, 52; 17:15).
Is this extended to everyone, as in Philo, or only to a selected group?
To enable people to become children of God is the purpose of Jesus' mission.
While in Philo one is originally a child of God, not so in John. One becomes so only
through acceptance and faith in Jesus (1:12). Even before that, to be a child of God is not
a self-acquired state; it is a condition given by an act of divine grace (6:44,65). Outside
the mediation of Jesus one remains an orphan (14:18). Those who reject Jesus vainly
claim to be children of God (8:41). Instead, they are accused of being fathered by the
devil (8:44). However, there is a process similar to that of Philo. In the duality of active
and passive causes, Jesus is the active cause. He takes the initiative, as the one sent by the
Father. He impresses himself on the sick man through a creative act of spreading mud on
his eyes. While receptor of divine activity, a choice is requested by the latter typically
characterized as acceptance of faith. Once this takes place, parenthood is transferred from
the "natural" one to that of the One who sent Jesus.
Philo instead refers that Abraham never ceased investigating the one God "till he arrived at a
more distinct perception, not indeed of his essence (ouoia), for that is impossible, but of his existence, and
of his over-ruling providence (tfje urap^eox; KCU -rrpovoiac; aiiiou) as far as it can be allowed to man to
attain to such. For which reason he is the first person who is said to have believed in God." (Virt. 215-6)
171
Some of Philo's moral distinctions provide insight into the answer of Jesus to the
unnamed disciples. Philo interprets the relation between Esau and Jacob within Rebecca's
womb as the conflict between good and evil which from birth requires the exercise of
freedom.
160
Only moral responsibility is punishable. The answer of Jesus "neither this
man or nor his parents" would make sense once blindness is taken as physical evil for
which there is no moral responsibility.
161
Actually, God can even use physical evils such
as pestilence and earthquakes in order to achieve something good. So it would not
surprise a reader of Philo to conclude that the man's blindness is a case of confatalia
which divine providence may transform in something good or in the words of John: "so
that God's works might be revealed in him" (9:3c).
Differently from Philo, "sight" is not the reward of a virtuous life of study but the
acceptance of Jesus, light of the world. In the equivalence of light-life and darkness-
death, acceptance or rejection places one in the realm of eternal life or anticipated death.
Therefore, while blindness is initially characterized in terms of natural evil, in the
progression of the narrative it is moralized by acquiring metaphoric equivalence to
describe the falsity of the Pharisee's sight as well as the actual vision of the one they
considered blind. God is not responsible for "moral blindness," and while opportunities
are repeatedly offered (10:32, 12:37), there is going to be a moment in which the day
comes to an end and the opportunity is definitely missed (9:4).
160
This is a typical case of Philo's allegorical mode of interpretation. In rabbinic literature, more
literally, this is considered a proof that sin can already take place in the mother's womb, thus the possibility
that the sin of a man born blind might be previous to his birth.
161
A similar lack of interest in the connection between guilt and natural disaster is present in the
texts about the slain Galileans and those killed by the falling tower (Lk 13:1-5). The double oi>xi, A.<=YW
UU.LV, &XX' kav [ir\ |ieiayof|T6 indicates that the interest of Jesus is not to justify God before the tragic events
of the past but to alert the decision which faces the present of everyone, namely repentance; see Marius.
Reiser, Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context., trans. Linda M.
Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 245-9. Interestingly, even in Lk 13:1-5 the problem is raised
by unnamed people (TLVEC).
172
Philo's anthropology was based on the concept of mixed nature. Not so for the
Gospel of John. Human beings are either from above or below. Theirs is not a mixed
anthropology. No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above and no
one who is from above can speak about earthly things (3:31). No one is a child of God in
origin but it can only become so (yevkoQai) through acceptance of the grace of God
revealed in Jesus. The metaphorical condition of blindness from birth requires an act of
grace to make rebirth possible. Jesus returns sight to a man by spreading a mixture of
mud and saliva over his eyes, entrance door for the light to reach the interiority of a
person. The man born blind in contrast with the Pharisees, can be associated with the
Philonic reading of Jacob, who is "reborn-renamed" into Israel, (opcov 9eov) while Esau
loses his primogeniture. The birth of the Johannine community does not come from
Jewish genealogy. The expulsion of the man from the synagogue is actually an act of
self-exclusion from providential grace.
The story of the man whose eyes are opened is paradigmatic to all future
followers of the Johannine Jesus and, as the hierophant of Som. 1.164, he shows the way
towards membership into Jesus' sheepfold. Human understanding is not sufficient if
unsupported by faith. This is proved by the failure of neighbors, parents and Pharisees to
become acquainted with what has taken place. People like Nicodemus may affirm
presumption of knowledge about Jesus (3:2), yet, his ignorance is soon exposed by the
same: "are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" (3:10).
John's interest in theodicy is not immediately concerned with the fulfillment of
divine justice. Warfare is not with God who is above. Warfare is for dominion on the
realm below. Only those reborn from above, however, can declare with Jesus: I have
173
conquered the world! (16:33). Theodicy first needs to justify that conquering and this is
equivalent to the establishment of the legitimacy of the Johannine community. Once
primacy is declared on earth, the loving and righteous judgment of God is made manifest
before the world (17:23-25). The suffering of the disciples in the form of persecution
from the world does not imply abandonment on the part of God, but association into the
destiny of Jesus. In conclusion, John's use of a theodicy of providence leaves little space
for dissent while it provides a solid foundation to the acquisition of religious and social
privileges (5:24, 8:51-52).
Philo used the concept of mixed nature in order to explain the presence of evil. A
particular understanding of the origin of evil is what offers insight and sustainability in
the way it manifests itself in the present. In the case of John, by circumventing the
question of responsibility of the man born blind or his parents in the past, he resolves the
understanding of evil by prospecting a new eschatological avenue in the ethical copa Km
vvv. Nevertheless he leaves the past unexplained. If their lack of sin means abstention
from retributive interventions, why the man was blind from birth? Who created darkness
or the modality in which separation between below and above has taken place? If God is
creator (1:3) what is the "material" used in the creative act? We can only suppose that all
things came to be through God who is light, and thus darkness was not God's creation
though already subsistent. It is precisely at this point that Johannine dualism leaves us in
the dark.
In Philo dualism is limited since the material and the author of creation are of
inferior nature, thus "[pjhysical reality is simply unable to become fully the same as
174
divine reality."
162
Likewise in John evil does not have the force to overcome God. Evil is
there, no one can deny it. However, the doubt remains if evil provides also a valuable
"service" to explain rejection or to pave a way to ascent to the world above. In the
Johannine community theodicy and warfare are necessarily bound to each other to justify
the "intrusion" of light into darkness and yet to give moral dignity to the demonizations
of the latter.
163
This might work well in the apologetics of John but it does not silence the
question of the unnamed disciples: whose responsibility is the congenital blindness of the
man standing before Jesus? If rejection of Jesus keeps one in darkness and if darkness
preexisted rejection, who has given birth to darkness? Jesus answers that the parents and
the man born blind have not sinned. One could argue that in this he does not negate the
relation between sin and the administration of punishment, something at the very core of
biblical theodicy. However, by saying that neither the parents or the man born blind have
sinned, while the (apparent) punishment stands before their eyes, leaves a question
unanswered in the mind of the audience, namely, why was he born blind? If the question
keeps coming back, we need to address it from the point of view of the questioners. Who
are they? This can only be addressed if one accepts the (responsible) risk of stepping on
the shaky ground of hypothesis.
164
162
Runia, "Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria," 390-1.
163
This was intuitively appreciated by Meeks: "One of the primary functions of the book,
therefore, must have been to provide a reinforcement for the community's social identity, which appears to
have been largely negative. It provided a symbolic universe which gave religious legitimacy, a theodicy, to
the group's actual isolation from the larger society." Meeks, "Man from Heaven," 70.
164
There is not presumption of certainty. Nevertheless, the attempt is valid and necessary; even
more because generally this quest is quickly dismissed by exegetes.
CHAPTER 4:
JOHANNINE THEODICY, HISTORY AND LITERATURE
The question of the disciples gives us one certainty: punishment follows sin. This is
the "orthodox" doctrine of theodicy. A second clue comes from the fact that while
unnamed they are identified as "his disciples" (ol laaGnxal autou). Anonymity and
proximity are the two critical terms of reference. Close enough to be witnesses of Jesus'
miracle and yet, far from a well-defined personality, as in the case of some of the twelve.
Do they stand for "anyone" reasonably close to Jesus or is possible to trace back
information about their provenance? If they are not among the group of the twelve, are
they among those who more generically followed him and at times left him (Jn 6:3,66)?
1. Theodicy and History in the Gospel of John
Let us start again with a "classical" theodic question: whose fault is this? (Jn 9:2)
The first consideration is obvious, it is not just a single disciple who is asking the
question; they are two or more.
1
Secondly, the aim of the question should be restricted
only in two different directions: either it is a question "against" Jesus or an internal
dispute which Jesus is asked to settle. Are they trying to make Jesus part of a debate or
are they trying to test him? We do not know. However, the format of the question speaks
of two sides to the same issue. For instance, one could have opted in favor of individual
1
Usually in the Fourth Gospel, when a single disciple is mentioned, this is generally identified by
a name or by character traits as in the case of the beloved disciple (18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-8; 21:7-24).
175
176
responsibility, against the man born blind. Another might have sustained that he was the
"victim" of someone else's sin, namely his parents. This difference reveals contrasting
theological assumptions and therefore it creates an argument.
1 will consider the form of the question before its content. This is characterized by
a disjunctive or (r\) standing between two options (ohioc, f\ ol yovelc, auxou). This is a
questioning model present in other texts of the New Testament. Some examples may help
to appreciate it.
The or question takes place when the interlocutor is given a choice between two
options. The setting is normally a debate usually of a public and legal nature.
2
Two
options are given and they constitute a challenge in which one attempts to prevail over
the "competitor" by forcing the equivalent of what could be called a verbal checkmate.
This may aim at revealing the presumably wrong opinion of the adversary, on a subject
directly or indirectly related to the intended argument. Once the answer was elicited, it
would be obviously met with a final accusation in which the other, once exposed, would
be left with a public admission of error or a humiliating silence. In both cases it would
comport a loss of honor.
A good case is the healing of the man with a withered hand (Mk 3:1-6). Jesus asks
the Pharisees: "is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to
kill?"
3
They remain silent and heir silence implicitly gives victory to Jesus. Similarly, in
the synoptic episode of the healing of the paralytic, the or question (Mk 2:9) places the
2
About the agonistic culture of Mediterranean society in regards to loss and acquisition of honor
and shame in debate Malina says: "Challenge and response is a sort of social pattern, a social game, if you
will, in which persons hassle each other according to socially defined rules in order to gain the honor of
another." Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville:
John Knox Press, 1981), 29.
3
In this section, the frequent use of italics is mine in order to make emphasis.
177
power of Jesus on the stage and, once successfully displayed, brings him honor through
the utterance of the audience: "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mk 2:12).
The challenging nature of these questions is well revealed in the verbal exchange
between the religious leaders and Jesus on the theme of his authority (Mk 11:27-33). The
leaders make the first move: "By what authority are you doing these things?" Jesus turns
the situation upside down; he will answer but only after they reply to him: "Did the
baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?" The refusal to give a
response on the part of the leaders exposes their wicked intentions. Jesus' silence is a licit
way to resist their subtle intrusion. Silence would normally be the trademark of the
defeated, but in this case it validates Jesus' superiority.
Jesus is not the only one making use of this form; the adversaries are too. In one
episode, some Pharisees and Herodians were sent to trap Jesus by way of a debate. The or
question was meant to test him. The legal issue of contention was about paying the tribute
to Caesar (Mk 12:13-17). The or question is repeated twice: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to
the emperor, or not?" The reply of Jesus reveals that they are not seeking legal
informations as it would seem. The adversaries have hidden intentions: "Why are you
putting me to the test?" They are revealed and shamed.
In the case of Lk 13:1 -5 the or question is positioned within an explicit context of
theodicy. This is the narrative of the "mingled blood and the fallen tower." If we were to
place the two parts of the question close to each other, they would be: "Do you think that
because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other
Galileans... or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them, do
you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem?"
Similarly to Jn 9:2, the question is about theodicy and the "orthodox" equation between
sin and punishment. Differently, in Luke, the threat of retribution is expressed as a call to
repentance: "Unless you repent, you will perish just as they did." John instead does not
address the question of repentance.
The disciples asking Jesus the question of Jn 9:2 use a form which is within the
parameters of the preceding examples. Jesus does not respond, does not accept the
challenge, but provides an answer which "upgrades" the level of the conversation-debate.
Jesus does not indicate any maliciousness on their part nor does he reveal contentiousness
in the answer he provides. However, their form invites debate. Before attempting to
identify who stands on the different sides in the debate, there are still two cases that add
information to the one already provided. Here the question is asked by people closer to
the inner circle of Jesus.
One of them is Peter, on the theme of watchfulness. He asks: "Lord, are you
telling this parable for us or for everyone?" (Lk 12:41) This material is peculiar to Luke
alone and it seems to elicit instructions concerning church leadership. The Q. source (Lk
12:42-461| Mt 24:45-51) has been used by Matthew to contrast, in a more general way,
the wise and the wicked servant entrusted by God to the cure of the household. Luke
seems to reflect actual contrasts inside the community and its leadership about the delay
of the Lord's coming. In this case, the question of Peter surfaces the argument of those
who might have justified moral lassitude on the basis of eschatological incertitude. The
episode is meant to warn against irresponsible behavior.
The second case brings us even closer to the situation portrayed in Jn 9:1-7. The
disciples of the Baptist are sent by their leaders with a revealing question: "Are you he
179
who is to come, or shall we look for another? (Q. Mt 11:3 || Lk 7:19-20).
4
It indicates
second doubts on the part of the Baptist about the messianic identity of Jesus. This has
devastating potential for the Baptist's mission. The answer of Jesus is associated, among
others, to the healing of the blind: "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind
receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are
raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Mt 11:4-5).
Luke makes the episode even more redundant. First the disciples of the Baptist
report on the activities of Jesus. Then the Baptist summons two of his disciples and sends
them to Jesus with a question which they again repeat before Jesus (Lk 7:19b, 20c).
Twice the question is asked and twice the Gospel replies through the voice of the narrator
and of Jesus himself: "Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and
evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind. And he answered them, 'Go and
tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought
to them'" (Lk 7:21-22; italics mine). Like the case of John 9, the Q. source has the or
question answered by the evidence of the healing the blind. The object of such instruction
is the Baptist, but it provides a further challenge directed to his disciples and other
witnesses of Jesus' activities about their ability or inability to actually see and hear what
has taken place.
In conclusion, it seems evident that the question of the unnamed disciples is set in
the context of a debate. They ask to inquire and this in order to settle debated views.
Paradoxically, after their question, they seem to disappear from the narrative and the
4
The subjects of this question are "his disciples" in Mt 11:2 and "two of his disciples" in Lk 7:18.
180
reader might assume that at a certain point after the answer of Jesus they just left. If that
was the case we would see a pattern similar to another occurrence. The disciples of the
Baptist ask the question, receive the answer and report it back to their place; no more is
said of them. There the question was about messianic identity; here a question of
theodicy provides Jesus with an opportunity to reveal his messianic identity (9:7); in both
instances this has taken place through healing of the blind, among others.
It was said that both of the options concord in one "orthodox" assumption: sin
meets punishment. Jesus does not repudiate this truth as the episode of the healing of the
lame demonstrates (Jn 5:14). Now he applies the same principle against the Pharisees
(9:41). With whom is Jesus talking on this subject, the unnamed disciples or the
Pharisees? Who are the interlocutors in the debate about sin and punishment - disease
and responsibility? In my opinion, the evidence seems to indicate the followers of John
the Baptist, whose position is not far removed from that of the Pharisees.
The Fourth Gospel, more than others, presents an ongoing relation between the
disciples of the Baptist and those of Jesus.
6
The first and most evident observation is that
some of the disciples of Jesus are coming from the Baptist. The transition happened when
the Baptist saw Jesus and identified him as the Lamb of God. Right away, two of his
disciples departed and commenced their discipleship under the guidance of Jesus (Jn
Their disappearance from the scene is not important to John for a "circular reason" which
hopefully will become more evident in the progression of this chapter. In short: the unnamed disciples are
the disciples of the Baptist arguing with the historical-Johannine Jesus, the Johannine community however
argues with the Pharisees who, in turn, are very close to the disciples of the deceased Baptist.
6
According to Taylor, it is inappropriate to consider the group of the Baptist a "movement." The
Baptist did not have an exclusive community such as the one at Qumran, with practices such as holy meals,
frequent ablutions and a host of rules for communal living. "While his baptism took place in the wilderness,
people were expected to go home to their regular occupations." Joan Taylor, John the Baptist Within
Second Temple Judaism: A Historical Study (Melksham, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press, 1997), 48. Expectation
of an imminent judgment constituted an incentive to righteous behavior. However, immersion in water did
not create an eschatological community of the saved, while the others were doomed to damnation, as in
Qumran. See Taylor, John the Baptist, 132-49.
181
1:35-42). Naturally, they did not transfer only their physical presence to Jesus, but their
views as well, shaped by the teaching of their much respected Rabbi.
The departure of the disciples did not mean the immediate end of the Baptist's
ministry. He continued to baptize up to the moment of his arrest. While the other
Evangelists indicate his arrest as the starting point of Jesus' mission (Mk 1:14), in the
progression of the Gospel of John, we find that for a while the two protagonists worked
contemporaneously. While John was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, Jesus is said to be
baptizing too (Jn 3:23-36). Presumably, it was a case of similar or competitive practices.
They are similar if we consider that Jesus was with the Baptist across the Jordan (Jn
3:26); but somewhat different, if it attracted more people than the latter. This note is a
stunning distinction from the Synoptics if we take into account that the actual baptism of
Jesus is missing in the Gospel of John.
Apparently the distance between the two was filled by some disciples that moved
from one to the other. Not all those who left the Baptist went after Jesus to stay. Some of
his members were following Jesus just to "spy" on him.
7
These appear to witness the
work of Jesus and then reported back to their Rabbi. Of course, this is a set up situation
created by the Evangelist to elicit the testimony of the Baptist. Nevertheless, in what
seems to be an internal conversation between the Baptist and his disciples, the Evangelist
makes sure that his audience hears about it, too. The same happens when some of the
Jews, who apparently believed in Jesus after the resurrection of Lazarus, do the same and
report the event to the Pharisees (Jn 11:46). In this context, one could postulate that when
some of Jesus' disciples deserted him (6:66) they searched for other similar affiliations or
went back to a previous one. Leaving Jesus did not necessarily mean the end of their
7
Luke 20:20 has also the Pharisees do this.
182
religious zeal. After all, some of them where those who "believed in him" (2:11) and with
him performed baptism (3:22).
The already discussed Q. source (Mt 11:2-61| Lk 7:18-23), in the version of Luke,
says that after one of these reports, the Baptist sends his disciples back to Jesus with a
question about his identity. Immediately before, Jesus had been performing miracles for
gentiles, like the healing of the slave of a centurion and the raising of a young man from
Nain. The crowds exclaim: "a great prophet has arisen in our midst!" (Lk 7:16) Is Jesus a
prophet or a messiah? The rumors spread and caused scandal to some sensitive ears like
the disciples of the Baptist. If Jesus were just a prophet, the Baptist could have been
involved in a case of mistaken identity. If Jesus were not the messiah, the mission of the
Baptist himself would have been voided.
The episode reported by Q. concludes with a saying: "Blessed is anyone who
takes no offense at me" (Lk 7:23 || Mt 11:6). The ensuing question is: who is getting
offended? The direct intended receiver was the group of the Baptist which originally
doubted because of the fear of misplaced expectations with regard to the mission and
identity of the messiah. They were not the only one to be "scandalized." A similar case of
expectations then turned sour, took place with the habitants of Nazareth. If the Baptist
identified him as messiah and feared him to be like "anybody else," the people of
Nazareth identified him as "anybody else" and became offended when he proclaimed
himself to the be the messianic figure portrayed in the words of Isaiah: "He has sent me
to proclaim . . . the recovering of sight to the blind . . ." (Lk 4:18-19; cf. Isa 58:6, 61:1-2).
The Messianic identity of Jesus is the issue underneath the questions of the offended
ones, and healing the blind is the way Jesus replies in both cases.
183
The group of the Baptist and that of Jesus had some clear differences, at least in
the theological agenda of the Evangelists. The most evident is that the first, apparently,
lived in the wilderness of Judea and people went to him to receive a baptism of
Q
repentance. Jesus instead took his teaching and healing to a wider geographical area.
Even though baptism is attributed to Jesus, repentance is a word that is absent in the
Gospel of John. The Baptist contrasted himself to Jesus in rank ("I am not worthy to untie
the thong of his sandals" Jn 1:27); their ministries were different ("He baptized with
water while Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit" Mk 3:11); Jesus called the Baptist a
prophet (Lk 7:261| Mt 11:9) and Elijah (Mt 11:14; 17:10|| Mk 9:12) but the Baptist
denied it (Jn 1,21). Jesus says that the least in the kingdom of God is greater than him (Lk
7:281| Mt 11:11) and that the testimony of the Father is greater than the Baptist (Jn 5:36).
Some of those differences reflect the Q source's view in the people of its time: "For John
the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a
demon;' the Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and
a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!" (Lk 7:33-341| Mt 11:18-19)
There is another yet opposite case of missing identity, that between disciples of
the Baptist and an unnamed "Jew." The issue was purification (KaGapiqioc;) (Jn 3:25).
9
8
Josephus characterizes the baptism of John not as a rite which affected forgiveness of sins but a
symbolic action celebrating repentance and conversion already established before the immersion (Jewish
Antiquities 18.116-19). This is different from the "ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity's
sake" that Josephus himself, according to his Life 11, had practiced with Bannus in the desert. Thiering
traces the distinction between inner and outer cleansing to Qumran; see B. E. Thiering, "Inner and Outer
Cleansing at Qumran as a Background to the New Testament Baptism," New Testament Studies 26 (1980):
266-77; B. E. Thiering, "Qumran Initiation and New Testament Baptism," New Testament Studies 27
(1981): 615-31.
9
In the Fourth Gospel, "purification" and "baptism" appear to mean the same. For the Baptist, the
principal function was not initiation within an exclusive movement but to celebrate inner repentance and
this "is rather the return to a state in which the person should have been all along." Taylor, John the Baptist,
69. The idea of ritual initiation seems to be more at home within the framework of Hellenistic mysteries;
see John Ferguson, Greek and Roman Religion: A Source Book (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes, 1980), 167-8;
184
The group of John seemed to be adamant about their ideas and they did not hesitate to
confront divergences with discussions or questions. We cannot say with certainty who
that Jew was. However, once the debate was concluded, the disciples of the Baptist went
to their Rabbi and reported: "the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you
testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him" (Jn 3:26). How does Jesus come
up in the conversation, if he was not part of it? If nothing else to offer once again to the
Baptist (and the Evangelist) an opportunity to give testimony to Jesus: "You yourselves
are my witnesses that I said, 'I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him'"
(3:28).
Why the contrast between the two groups is portrayed in such an unclear yet
suffused manner, unlike what happens with other groups? One possible explanation is
that the influence of the Baptizer remained present in the group of Jesus and some of the
disciples of Jesus still felt a sense of loyalty to their former master so as not to let him be
directly ostracized in a way similar to the blazing criticism that we find towards the
Pharisees. Secondly, John intended to preserve the figure of the Baptist for the
attachment it had to the historical Jesus.
Of that remaining sense of allegiance to the Baptizer, the Gospel of John tacitly
points to Simon son of John, renamed Cefas. The less prominent role of Simon Peter
within the Johannine group of disciples is evident. Simon is presented in a way that is
strikingly different from the Synoptics, particularly the Gospel of Matthew. He is not a
fishermen, he is a disciple of the Baptist. He is not the first to be seen by Jesus as in Mk
1:16; rather his brother Andrew is (Jn 1:40). Matthew calls him "Simon son of Jonah"
Elbert Russel, "Possible Influence of the Mysteries on the Form and Interrelation of the Johannine
Writings," Journal of Biblical Literature 51, no. 4 (1932): 336-51.
185
(Ei|iwv Bapieova) (Mt 16:17) just before his mandate to be the rock of the church. Why is
he identified as Simon the son of John (6 ulog 'Iwccvvou) in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1:42),
instead?
Peter is probably called son of John because he was a prominent figure within the
group of the close disciples of the Baptist, before obeying the indication of his Rabbi to
go after the "Lamb." So much so that he had the honorary recognition of being "his
son." His underground memory surfaces again when a ritual use of water is
performed.
11
At the last supper he resists at first the washing, then, wants it all. It is on
the particular question of purification. Jesus corrects him: "One who has bathed does not
need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean (K<x6ap6<;). And you are clean..."
i j
(Jn 13:10). Peter followed Jesus but his mind took time to let go of his previous
affiliation: "You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand" (Jn
13:7).
The last words of the Baptist recorded in the Gospel are John 3:27-36 or 3:27-30.
They are the exit strategy devised by the Evangelist, so to speak. This section is also one
of the most difficult to interpret since it is filled with missing links, repetitions, reversed
roles and swerves. I consider Jn 3:30 the last direct words of the Baptist: "He must
increase, but I must decrease." Verse 3:31 recalls the beginning of the Baptist's speech
"given from heaven" (3:27) with the catch sentence "coming from above". However, the
10
Jesus himself is called son of David, meaning that he belonged to that messianic king tradition.
The followers of Jesus are called children of God and when some Jews call themselves "children of
Abraham" they claim affiliation. Jesus will reply that they are children of the devil instead (8:39, 44).
" The interest of Peter on water rituals is frequently accounted (e.g., Act 2:38, 10:47, 11:16; IPet
3:21).
12
According to Lindars, Jn 13:1-11, and 15:3 are indications that the efficacy of the cleansing
achieved by the sacrifice of Jesus, does not need to be repeated. It is "an act done once and for all" which,
however, is not inconsistent with the allegory of the vine where cleansing seems to be a repeated process.
Barnabas Lindars, "Word and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel," Scottish Journal of Theology 29 (1976):
54-5.
186
speaker is not anymore the Baptist. It is the voice of the Evangelist who honors the role
of the Baptist: "He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his
testimony. Whoever has accepted his testimony has certified this, that God is true" (Jn
3:32-33). The typical words of the Baptist come back once again in the use of "wrath"
but not applied to the lack of repentance but to the lack of belief in Jesus the son of God
(3:36). The Baptist is truly the best man who rejoices but he does not have the bride; she
belongs to the bridegroom, namely the Johannine community (3:29).
The analogy of the friends/guests of the bridegroom is common to all four gospels
but in John alone it is the Baptist and not Jesus the one to make use of it. More
particularly, the answer of the Baptist in the Gospel of John corresponds inversely to that
of Jesus in Mt 9:14-15.
13
He has mourning (Trev9elv) instead of fasting (Mk 2:19 and Lk
5:34) which makes it closer by contrast to the theme of joy, a subject that in the Fourth
Evangelist expresses realized eschatology (Jn 16:20-22). The issue is not to determine
when fasting will begin, even if fasting is an important subject to express apocalyptic
expectation. Instead of supporting a penitential attitude, the Baptist in John places
emphasis on the joy which is complete for those who have become disciples of Jesus
(15:11).
Why is he so frequently "forced" to portray himself in negative terms if not
because someone within the Johannine group might easily fall back on him? John is not
just appealing to whoever out there inherited the Baptist's ministry. He is giving internal
instruction. This strategy was not that of Jesus, who was, most probably, an erstwhile
13
"Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but
your disciples do not fast?' And Jesus said to them, 'The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the
bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and
then they will fast.'"
187
disciple of the Baptist.
14
It belongs to the Evangelist, who treats an ambivalent figure that
in his view, needs not to be completely endorsed and yet, he cannot do without. It seems
obvious that in the eyes of the Evangelist, the threat is not represented by the Baptist
himself but by his disciples. They are the one resisting the decreasing. The Evangelist
needs the Baptist, but much less his hard core loyal disciples. Since they do not listen
easily to the voice of the Evangelist, the latter makes the Baptist to be his advocate.
In the Synoptics, the basic message of the predecessor of Jesus was declared at the
very outset of his presentation: repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 1:4; Mt 3:2; Lk
3:3). Repentance preceded water immersion. This seems to be the originality of his
baptism, so much so that he was commonly referred to as the "Baptist." Instead, when we
search the Gospel of John we find that repentance is never mentioned and John is never
called the Baptist. The "baptism in water" in the Gospel of John is not for repentance but
so that Jesus may be manifested to Israel (Jn 1:31). Once Jesus is manifested, John does
not baptize him but utters: Behold! (1:29). The Baptist does not take away the sin of the
world; Jesus does (1:29). He repeatedly declares himself inferior to Jesus, he does not
know him but recognizes him as the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1:31-33).
A discussion arose about purification (irepl KaGaptau-oO) between the disciples of
the Baptist and a Jew (Jn 3:25). We do not know what the terms of the dispute were but
the context indicates that it had to do with water and baptism and some approved the
immersion of the Baptist while rejecting that of Jesus (his disciples). Most likely we find
here the representation of an ongoing to and fro of two sides of a debate. In Jn 9:2 it was
14
John's teaching was effectively influential to the origin of the movement of Jesus. Luke 11:1,
for instance, reports Jesus' disciples asking him to teach them to pray "as John taught his disciples." Meyer
affirms that "some early Christians in the Johannine community did actually stem from the circle of John
the Baptist and carried these traditions with them when they gave their allegiance to Jesus (or to the early
church)." John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 119.
188
the case of unnamed disciples and Jesus, and here it is an unnamed Jew and the disciples
of the Baptist. Messianic identity and ministry stand in the background of both.
The preceding and following passages reiterate the interest of the Evangelist in the
theme of water and baptism. At Cana Jesus turns into wine the water contained in six
stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification (Kara xbv Ka9apia|_i6v) (2:6). The traditional
means to achieve purification are declared insufficient for the bridal "hour" of Jesus. The
next event is the cleansing of the Temple. The water is changed into wine and the temple
into Jesus (2:21). Then, at the encounter with Nicodemus, Jesus speaks of being born of
the Spirit, with a clear reference to the prediction of the Baptist about Jesus baptizing
with the Spirit (3:8; 1:33). In the community of John one does not enter through a ritual
of purification which maintained intergenerational continuity. It has been already said,
birth in the Johannine community breaks the genealogical and religious links with the
Jewish community (3:3).
After the last words of the Baptist we have the pericope of the Samaritan woman.
15
Jesus tells her: "The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing
up to eternal life" (4:14). The water of Jesus is superior to the water of the Baptist (4:1)
and it does not come from Joseph's well but from Jesus himself (4:12). The healings of
the lame and the man born blind are achieved through bathing in the respective pools of
Bethesda and of Siloam (whose messianic meaning is emphasized by the Evangelist with
the translation "Sent").
At the last supper, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples and at the resistance of
Peter, he declares them entirely clean (KocGocpo? 6A,o<;), except Judas (13:10). At the end of
15
The gradual progression through which the Samaritan woman is initiated into discipleship
makes her the Samaritan equivalent to what the man born blind is for the Jewish community. Interestingly,
in both cases the disciples do not seem very receptive or participant (Jn 4:27).
189
his life, out of the pierced heart flows blood and water, again symbols of the new life
Jesus has brought (19:34). If the topic of the discussion between a representative of the
Baptist and someone sympathetic towards Jesus was purification, then most probably this
was to reaffirm to the Baptist's group that what Jesus did was greater because he came
from heaven (3:27).
16
In the strategy of the Evangelist, this seemed to work. In fact, when
Jesus "went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing
earlier.. .many came to him, and they were saying, 'John performed no sign, but
everything that John said about this man was true.' And many believed in him there."
(10:40-42)
In the Gospel Jesus baptized too. Actually it is written that his baptism was more
popular than the Baptist's (Jn 3:22,26). On the other hand, redactional notes were
introduced to state that it was not he who did it, but his disciples (Jn 4:2). This indicates a
question that internally within the Johannine community, seemed far from being settled.
17
It is safe to say that while baptizing was central to the ministry of the Baptist, it did not
have the same relevance for Jesus then and even less for John the Evangelist. In the
healings of the paralytic and the man born blind, the initial stage of the miracles takes
place by washing at a pool. However it is not performed by Jesus and is not conclusive
for the acquisition of membership in the Johannine community.
The evidence may provide some conclusions. Divided cosmologies give rise to
divided genealogies and separate loyalties. The immersion of the Baptist would make one
16
A question about the origin of the baptism of John, whether from heaven or from human origin,
is reported in Mk 11:30; Mt 21: 25; Lk 20:4.
17
On the possibility that Jesus did baptize, I find agreement with Meyer's characterization: "I
would also suggest that Jesus' baptizing activity, especially if it did extend throughout the whole of his
ministry, cuts through a great deal of speculation about the origins of Christian baptism. If the Baptist did
baptize while Jesus emphatically broke at some point with the practice of baptism, then we must construct
hypotheses about why and when the early church reinstituted the practice of John's baptism, with a notably
different meaning given to it." Meier, A MarginalJew, 129.
190
a faithful child of Abraham who accomplished the will of God and kept loyalty to the
chosen people. It should not come as a surprise why the Baptist is stripped of two things:
the attribute of Baptist and the basic content of his message, which is repentance. If it is
not water baptism but belief that gives eternal life, then traditional baptism can only play
a secondary role. If darkness precedes us, and if before the coming of Jesus, we are not
morally responsible for our sins, then, what is the purpose of repentance? If the man born
blind is not blind because of sin, then how can it be explained outside the merits of
retributive justice?
In John what was before does not matter, what matters instead is the choice one is
asked to make in the present. Once one has surrendered in faith to Jesus, one is reborn in
the new life of Jesus' followers. He has departed from the world and absolved then from
the cycle of sin-punishment-repentance before achieving deliverance and admission in
the Johannine community. The Baptist affirmed that repentance of sins is what admitted
one into the eschatological community of God. John affirms that it is belief in Jesus. Such
a radical transition from the powerful tradition which the Baptist represented was not
easily let go. Notwithstanding this is what the Gospel of John attempts to achieve and he
does it without searching for a frontal clash with the "parent" community of the Baptist.
Martyn affirmed that the seam between verses 9:7 and 8, in the healing of the man
born blind, indicates two levels of a drama taking place: that of the historical Jesus and,
1 O
secondly, that of the disciples who continued his ministry after the resurrection. I think
that the evidence also indicates that the unnamed disciples belong to that second level, as
indeed does their question. If so, then, what is the place of the Pharisees in Jn 9? And
what is the relation between the disciples of the Baptist and the Pharisees?
18
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 29-30.
191
It is obvious that the Evangelist reads the role of the Pharisees into the age of Jesus,
before the destruction of the Temple. In fact, they are contemporaneous to the time of the
composition of the Gospel.
19
Their status is relevant as they are in league with the chief
priests (7:32, 11:47, 18:3). Their identification with the "Jews" (ol 'IouSouoi) is not clear
but easily inferred from certain texts. The Jews send some of them to investigate the
Baptist (1:19) and later they are identified as the Pharisees (1:24). Nicodemus is "a
Pharisee" and a "leader of the Jews" (3:1).The writer of the Gospel needed a
confrontation with the Pharisees to define his message as much as they did to contain its
diffusion. Their stereotypical characterization makes them feared by some of the Jews
themselves (7:13, 9:22, 19:38, 20:19) and many of the rulers (12:42). However they held
the Baptist in high consideration: "you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light"
(5:35b).
20
It is difficult to presume that the disciples of the Baptist endured the same hostility
experienced by the early Johannine community. Actually several groups might have
searched for association with the martyred Baptist to claim authoritative status. Evidently
the Pharisees could only look positively upon someone who ultimately affirmed the
orthodox prophetic message of repentance and observance of the law.
21
The Johannine
groups, by contrast, held to a message according to which "the law indeed was given
The period of Yavneh (Jamnia) in rabbinic tradition (c. 70-130 CE) absorbs the time in which
the Fourth Gospel was written.
20
Taylor summarizes the two levels in this way: "since the 'Ioufiatoi here are really the synagogue
authorities of the writer's own age - read back into the narrative as the Jerusalem authorities - we should
not conclude that the Jerusalem court (chief priests, elders, and scribes) of John's time did in fact approve
of him. Rather, the Jewish authorities of the writer's own time approved of John, and these stood in the
Pharisaic tradition." Taylor, John the Baptist, 195.
21
In deuteronomistic history, the role of the prophets was to call Israel to repentance and to return
to the Law (Neh 9:26, 30:2; 2Kgs 17:13). The Baptist's identity fits that traditional function (Lk 3:7, 7:24-
26), though he denies it in Jn 1:21. The declaration of Jesus being prophet by the man born blind is just
transitional (Jn 9:17). I assume that Josephus does not characterize him as a prophet, probably to clear him
of any affiliation with a political threat to the regime (Jewish Antiquities 18.116-19).
192
through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17). At this point we can
understand better how Jews and Pharisees seem to be much closer in their identity during
the trial of the man born blind (9:15, 18); their statement: "you are his disciple, but we
are disciples of Moses" (2:28) again represents different affiliations in conflict. Yet, even
among them a divided front was available and the Johannine Jesus appealed to it (9:16).
The division among the different groups was not so clear and in some ways
affiliations could temporarily overlap. Originally, the proximity of the Baptist's group to
the Pharisees and the Jews would have made the entire narrative of Jn 9 flow with a
greater degree of harmony for the original reader, than it does for us, much less aware of
its social-religious context. We are left with a story in which the Johannine Jesus does not
answer directly the question of the unnamed disciple and yet, addresses it in the
remaining narrative: sin evidently causes blindness but not as one of his contemporaries
would have understood.
The Evangelist knew who were the questioners and the use of language is geared
particularly to them. It was said that Jesus is the true light which enlightens everyone
(1:9) while the Baptist identifies him as the sacrificial lamb who takes away the sin of the
world (Jn 1:29).
22
Jesus does not take away the sin of the man born blind or that of his
parent in order to heal him, but by making visible the works of God through himself who
is the light of the world (9:5) removes the blind from the realm of darkness. The Baptist
never speaks of Jesus as the light (the Evangelist does), but as the sacrificial lamb who
takes away the sin of the world (1:29), the sin that presumably caused congenital
22
Crossan, in this regards, notices that the declarations of the Baptist in Jn 1:26b-27, 29-31
suggest that the presumed baptism of Jesus was not "for remission of his own sins" but to proclaim that
Jesus is the one who takes away the sins of the world. John Dominic Crossan, The HistoricalJesus: The
Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 235.
193
blindness in the opinion of the questioners of Jn 9:2, but that Jesus attributes only to the
eyes of the Pharisees (9:34).
The theodicy of the Gospel of John flows between two banks. On one side it does
not reject traditional theodicy: indeed sin generates consequence in the form of
retribution. This is the Baptist's theodicy, for which God's wrath is inflamed (3:36).
Divine judgment at the end will be traditionally fulfilled: "those who have done good (TO
dyaOa), to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil (xa fyavXtx), to the
resurrection of condemnation" (5:29). Yet, on the other side, judgment is not meant to
produce repentance but faith. There is no punishment for a sin not committed. Judgment
is not fulfilled only through the Law of Moses but through the grace of God (1:17).
Outside the providential activity of the Father of Jesus, Mosaic law could at best
condemn the world but not save it (12:47). Salvation requires more than being a disciple
of Moses; one has to become a disciple of Jesus through belief (9:28). Entrance into
eternal life begins right at the moment in which one has entered through the gate of Jesus
(10:1, 11:26). With these premises, if repentance was not applicable in the past, it did not
have much space even in the future of a Johannine disciple. For all practical purposes,
this was a death sentence on the Baptist's message and his future disciples and
sympathizers. Thus their theodicy: it did not matter if the man or the parents were the
cause of blindness as long as "Mosaic" sin was upheld and consequent retribution
maintained. It goes by itself that beside the defense of an orthodox truth, social theodicy
intended to give preservation to their identity and ministry as well.
194
2. Theodicy in Johannine Canonical Literature
In this section I reverse the process applied heretofore. From an effort to see the
impact of theodic literature in the Gospel of John, here I intend to see the theodic impact
of the Gospel of John on the rest of Johannine literature. I assume that the Gospel stands
between the Book of Revelation and the Letters of John. Therefore, the first exploration
will inquire into one of the most evident elements of contrast between the Gospel and
Revelation, which is the different emphasis given to repentance. Then in the letters I will
highlight how the Gospel's certainties faced the test of time.
Theodicy in the Book of Revelation is set within the parameters of traditional
apocalyptic material in which two conflictive warring fronts faced each other in final
combat: Satan and the Lamb with their respective cohorts of demonic and angelic
personalities (Rev 17:14). While the battle is of a cosmic nature and involves creatures
of the earth, sky and water, it is the suffering it causes to innocent people that implies a
theodic perspective. The challenge is similar to that of some of the late Palestinian Jewish
and Hellenistic sources previously studied: how to justify innocent suffering and at the
same time, sustain the fairness and validity of divine retribution?
The aim of Revelation is to give secretly imparted information on divine plans in
order to alleviate doubts and reassure members on the final result of the combat taking
place. This "insight" is what makes martyrs go cheerfully to their death. To them, dying
for the sake of faith, gives access to a deserved reward (12:11) and strengthens the
urgency of a divine punishment on those who only apparently seem to be victorious
195
(16:6). It is a plot of a reversed outcome, imminent but not yet fulfilled. The time in
between origin and the end (22:13) is where testimony, even to the point of martyrdom, is
expected (6:9,) and to this extent must be chosen (12:11).
It is possible to see the evolution of a context which structurally alludes to that of
Job. Satan is addressed as "the accuser of our brothers" (12:10), standing at the court of
Yahweh day and night (cf. Job 1-2). Demonic incursions are similarly granted by God,
although with explicit restrictive instructions (7:2-3). Evil has power because God
bestows it (eSoGr)) (6:2,4,8) for a limited time. Thus, a lamentation genre finds typical
expression: "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long (ecoq -note) will it be before you
judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?" (6:10 cf. Job 19:2) However,
lamentation is not conveying dissent, but a heartfelt request for divine intervention. The
answer is to be patient a little longer for the imminent end is coming. Job does not know
of divine intentions; only the audience does. What happens to Job at the end gives him a
retrospective reading of what has taking place. In the Apocalypse of John, by contrast,
the roles of the loyal adherent and the audience are assimilated in such a way that from
the beginning, they are never allowed to second guess the presence of a providential plan
of ensured results.
25
This seems to be Simojoki's view: "All God's words must be fulfilled" is the background
against which theodicy in the book of Revelation has to be understood. She suggests this passage as an
important interpretative key: "There will be no more delay, but in the days when the seventh angel is to
blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as he announced to his servants the prophets" (Rev
10:6-7). See Anssi Simojoki, "The Book of Revelation," in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, 677.
24
This are vaticinia ex eventu. To this extent is proper the caveat of Charlesworth according to
which in the Apocalypse of John there can be no "tested" theodicy, because the drama is not yet over and
what may seem unjust retribution to some may actually be the necessary stage before the final triumphant is
achieved. Charlesworth, "Theodicy in Early Jewish Writings," 504-6. However, it is properly the
uncertainty of a (secretly revealed) unfailing result based on Jesus' message, what gives a peculiar
character to this theodicy so much imbued in drama.
25
According to Osborne, the theme of divine control over this world which is typical of wisdom
theodicy, together with the prophetic view of a future oriented deliverance is what has given rise to
196
The historical situation behind the text may be the aftermath of the Roman
destruction of Jerusalem and the experience of persecution against the early Christian
communities. In the apocalyptic dualism between God and Satan, the Johannine
community participates not only in declaring that the end is near, but that "the reign of
the satanic powers on earth has been broken through the death of Christ, who through his
blood created a new kingdom, a new basileia for God."
27
Therefore, the endurance of the
faithful Christian has theodic value bringing witness to the righteousness of God. Divine
punishment is righteous because it vindicates unmerited suffering while reaffirming the
sovereignty of God over the power of evil.
Suffering is also given an alternate meaning, which gives testimony to the mercy
of God. In accordance with Judaic and Hellenistic tradition, suffering may be for the
purpose of education, discipline, and testing (2:10, 3:10,19). Delay in retribution is meant
to offer a time for repentance and the opportunity of conversion in order to avoid
punishment, particularly in the epistolary material.
I gave her [Jezebel] time to repent (iva netavoriari), but she refuses to repent
of her fornication. Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who
commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent
of her doings; and I will strike her children dead (2:21-23a).
apocalyptic genre present in the book of Revelation; see Grant R. Osborne, "Theodicy in the Apocalypse,"
Trinity Journal 14 (1993): 64.
26
A. Collins considers it more a subjective perception. John, rather than consoling his fellow
persecuted Christians, is highlighting a crisis that many of them did not perceive. Basing her analysis on
historical evidence she comes to the conclusion that conflict with Jews, mutual antipathy toward
neighboring gentiles, conflict over wealth, precarious relations with Rome, were present, but not all
experienced it in such a great degree of violence as the decades before. John's banishment made him read
reality more through his own experience. His own theological view enters in conflict with his environment,
not vice-versa. The book of Revelation is thus a product of the interaction between a kind of pre-
understanding and the socio-historical situation in which John lived; see Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis &
Catharsis, The Power ofthe Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 77, 107.
27
Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation, Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985), 50-1.
197
When the "window of opportunity" comes to an end, and judgment will be final, then the
dead will be judged accordingly to their deeds (21:11-15).
The theme of repentance is to account for a striking difference between
Revelation and Gospel. In the original development of the Johannine community,
closeness to the Baptist's view may be indicated by this thematic consistency. In
Revelation the frequent injunctions to repent as the only means to avoid punishment are
central to its theodicy. Repentance according to prophetic literature belonged to a cycle of
conversion and reconstitution of election. Refusal to convert gives God a right to
implement punishment (20:11-15).
Obviously the experience of harassment for some represented a confirmation of
righteousness, for others it highlighted distance between theological convictions and
reality. Differently from the Gospel of John, in which the final outcome has begun
already in present history, there is no apparent comfort to the tested members if not
knowledge of divine plans and participation in the heavenly community which has
already declared the victory of the Lamb (5:12-13).
29
The choice to abstain from
commercial enterprise and to assume withdrawal (7:3) as a mode of coexistence was not
commonly agreed or observed. The reference to the church of Satan indicates the
Brown has affirmed that the emphasis of John 9 on realized eschatology is reflective of the self-
consciousness of the Johannine community. Most probably, the traditional presentation of a final judgment
(Jn 5:25-29) belonged to the earliest level of the Gospel formation, in greater syntony with traditional
apocalyptic material. The delay of the second coming brought the Johannine community to develop a new
theological insight in which the present hour and the final hour (Un 2:18; Rev 18:10) are interpreted as an
interrupted line of continuity. This is Brown's theory of progressive redactions; see Raymond E. Brown,
The Gospel according to John I-XII, The Anchor Bible, 29-29A, vol. 1 (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday, 1966-70), XXXV-XLII. The Gospel does in fact keep some of the apocalyptic images of
Revelation such as the wrath of God (Jn 3:36; Rev 6:16-17) and the imminent time for the harvest (Jn 4:35;
Rev 14:15).
29
This is Aune's view of worship in the Spirit as a proleptic experience of eschatological
existence; in David Edward Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity,
Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 28 (Netherlands: Leiden E. J. Brill, 1972), 14; David Edward Aune,
"The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre," Semeia 38 (1986): 85-90.
198
2 A
presence of internal dissent. Dissent received and inflicted will alternatively run through
the Book of Revelation and the Gospel before being reversed once again in the Letters of
John.
How to explain that the divine message failed to transform those who had come to
believe? As in the Gospel, the argument is that defectors never rejected what they had
received; how could it be, if in fact they never belonged from the beginning (Un 2:19)?
Since the devil has been sinning from the beginning it goes unquestioned that apostates,
the devil's children, cannot be otherwise (1 Jn 3:8). Somehow they belong to a category of
their own. Their characterization as "antichrists" associates them with the function of the
Jews and Judas in the Gospel to the point that predestination to damnation seems hard to
disprove (Un 2:18,22, 4:3; 2Jn 1:7). Their condition seems irreversible and for them not
even prayer is advised (Un 5:16). If this mortal sin cannot be identified with moral faults,
if not even the advocatory mediation of Jesus is efficacious (Un 2:1) then what is this if
not the greater sin of Judas, the sin that the Spirit-advocate will reveal, which is not lack
of enduring faith, but absolute refusal to believe in him (Jn 16:9)?
If in the Gospel the traumatic experience of rejection generated a new religious
worldview in the Letters, it is the equally devastating experience of defection that forced
a new reassessment. The situation of the Letters displays a hardening which is closer to
the Qumranic theodicy of the wall than to the Johannine theodicy of the gate. The double
predestination of the Hodayoth seemed to contradict the ethic of choice present in the
1QS and CD; so do the Letters in relation to the Gospel. However, as that rigid dualism
was resolved in a retrospective reading which in part resolved the dilemma of apostasy
30
Thus the effort of the author to maintain the superiority of his prophetic view; see Fiorenza,
Revelation, 196.
199
and defection, so in the Johannine Letters, demonic affiliation is not contrasted to an ethic
of choice:
Whoever says, "I am in the light," while hating a brother or sister, is still in
the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light, and in such
a person there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates another believer
is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go,
because the darkness has brought on blindness (on f) OKOTUX eiucbAoooev XOVQ
6$QaX\iobc, aircou). (Un 2:9-11)
This passage is reminiscent of the Gospel's views. Like the Pharisees in the narrative of
the man born blind, the new adversaries are the ones indulging in the same error of self-
deception, declaring themselves to be in the light (sight), while in fact, being in the
darkness (blind) (cf. Jn 9:39-41). Belief in Jesus was the criterion of the Gospel, now a
new one has been added: it is love towards the members of the community (Un 3:23).
This is the area of moral responsibility over one's eschatological destiny. The use of the
verb TixbXoco has already been studied in relation to Isa 6:9-10. Is it possible to conceive
that what hardens the heart and blinds the eyes (Isa 6:9) is the prince of this world (Jn
12:31) or darkness (Un 2:11)? Again this would "freeze" one's condition in a projection
of radical determinism and predestination. However, the instruction given by 1 John is
that demonic possession cannot overpower someone without access being given by a
conduct contradicting one's presumption of being in light, which is hating one's brother
or sister. Therefore one is not demonically possessed but ultimately consents to it in an
act of self-deception.
31
Johannine exclusivism is still present. Forgiveness of sins for the enemies is not explicitly
indicated in the Gospel, there is only the entrustment of a ministry of selective forgiveness to the disciples
(Jn 20:23, see Un 1:9). Lieu affirms that in the Letters, "[b]lindness is no longer to do with belief and with
Jesus as the Revealer, but with behaviour and with the community; its source is no longer the mysterious
working of God in Jesus, but darkness. . . [I]t seems more likely that this represents and independent
exegesis of Isa 6.10 within the Johannine tradition." Lieu, "Blindness in the Johannine Tradition," 91.
200
This is not equivalent to the assertion that a member of the community would not
sin and for this be subjected to retribution (Un 1:8; 2:1). Moral failure, particularly
against the commandment of loving one another, has to be confessed (1 Jn 1:9). For the
author of the 1 John, lack of faith in Jesus has become lack of faith in the community in
which Jesus' word abides (Un 2:14, 24; cf. Jn 15:4). Reciprocal indwelling acquired
through faith is such a powerful condition that it allows the author of 1 John to affirm that
"those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they
cannot sin, because they have been born of God" (3:9). The only possibility to give
coherence to such antithetical statements, is that once final acquisition of membership is
obtained, while moral failures may still be possible, saving faith in Jesus and his presence
in the community would grant readmission. This criterion is similar to the distinction
between the failure of Judas and that of Peter or Thomas in the Gospel of John.
The presence of a parallel community appealing to the same authority to justify
their status blatantly assailed the original congregation not with the threat of persecution
but of mixture. The immediate finality of 1 John was to highlight the perimeter which
identified and distinguished insiders from outsiders. This corresponds to inner
communion if one reads it form the point of view of the insiders. It is demonic possession
if it is an outsider who explains it. Withal both claim to be guardians of the same
inherited Johannine tradition (1 Jn 1:1-4).
The others are liars (Un 1:10, 2:4,22, 4:20, 5:10) worthy children of the father of
lies identified in the Gospel (8:44). Against them instruction is given forbid greeting "for
32
A similar conclusion, through a distinction between sin (moral faults) and "anomia" (the sin of
rebellion), is reached by Colin G. Kruse, "Sin and Perfection in 1 John.," Australian Biblical Review 51
(2003). Once inside the community, the members would then acquire the privilege of accessing God's
mercy on account of Jesus' name (1 Jn 2:12).
201
to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person" (2Jn 1:10-11). To each
respectively the other is "the outsider" but in fact they are more similar to each other than
what they would want to admit. Ultimately separation prevailed, salutation ceased and
this could not have happened without a theodic outlook to enforce self-preservation while
predicting outer-destruction.
CONCLUSION
Ricoeur poignantly wrote that: "faith of the Christian believer is not concerned
primarily with an interpretation of evil, its nature, its origin, and its end; the Christian
does not say: I believe in sin, but: I believe in the remission of sins."
1
Sin acquires
meaning only retrospectively against a moral vision of the world. Personal or communal
failures commonly identified as sins, as well as retribution in the form of proportionate
suffering, are not original beliefs but derived perspectives. In the tribunal of history, God
is the judge assigning pleasures and pains. This gives human beings the necessary tools to
dwell in an existential environment otherwise overwhelmed with unpredictability and
anxiety. As long as retribution is implemented accordingly, this vision remains preserved.
When innocent suffering or underserved pleasures are questioned, whoever has assumed
the role of defender of that Welthanshauung, needs to restore religious meaning for that
to continue. This is the world of theodicy.
In order to avoid the danger of classifying under theodicy every statement which
attempts to reconcile the enigmas of existence and belief in an ethical God, some criteria
were delineated. The most important is that in a literary text, the natural environment of
theodicy is debate between a party accusing and another defending divine justice. I have
come to separate and explain these two approaches as theodicy of dissent and theodicy of
providence.
I have studied the issue of theodicy in the Gospel of John not from the point of
view of the answers, but from the insights provided by the questioners. This is the case of
1
Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, 307.
202
203
the unnamed disciples (Jn 9:2) in whose interrogation rests one of the most debated topics
of theodicy in antiquity, that of intergenerational retribution. The Gospel proposes it in
the relation between the community of John and the "parent" community of origin. After
the traumatic event of ejection, Johannine theodicy alters the Jewish criterion of election
by affirming that it is acquired through assent to Jesus and not through blood. Free from
the past affiliation and its association to the realm of darkness, the Johannine community
experiences rebirth in the true family of Jesus, light of the world.
What remains obscure in this theodicy is to evaluate the real weight of human
responsibility. When exclusion from salvation appears too close to an impeachment of
predestined damnation for the corporate character of the Jews, representing outside
rejection, and for Judas, the radical embodiment of internal dissent and defection, one is
left to ponder. Both of them in fact share responsibility in the final assassination of Jesus.
By their rejection, both of them become Satan's affiliate. The only possible solution to
protect the self-identity of the Johannine community is to radically exclude Judas'
membership by making him a betrayer from the beginning. Thus, the honor of the
community is saved and internal dissent is discouraged if not demonized. Along this line,
in the Letters of John, defectors did not reject what they received; they never belonged
from the beginning (Un 2:19).
In my dissertation I have promoted the providential benefits of loyal dissent. I also
wish to caution against the temptation of "new ultimate" answers on matters of theodicy.
Biblical theodicy if nothing else, reveals that presumed ultimate answers to the problem
of evil are only prolegomena for new ones to come. The beauty of biblical faith is to
discover that a "broken god" is not the end of faith as much as a "brand new god" is not
204
an insurance policy for the inevitable hurdles in the journey of a disciple. More
provocatively, it urges one to acknowledge that the world of human injustice is more
often than not the specular product of one's view of divine justice in such a manner that it
is probably "demonic" to expect to change one and still leaving the other untouched. In
Johannine language, it would be equivalent to declare sight while in fact, being blind.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Africa, W. Thomas. The Ancient World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969.
Alaribe, Gilbert Nwadinobi. Ezekiel 18 and the Ethics of Responsibility. A Study in
Biblical Interpretations and Christian Ethics Arbeiten zu Text und Spracke im
Alten Testament, 77. St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag Erzabitei, 2006.
Albertz, Rainer. "Der Sozialgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Hiobbuches und der
'Babylonischen Theodizee'." In Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fur Hans
Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburstag, ed. Jorg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt, 349-72.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981.
Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Asiedu-Peprah, Martin. Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 132.
Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2001.
Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the 'Antiquitates Judaicae'
ofFalvius Josephus Harvard Theological Review, 7. Missoula, Montana: Scholar
Press, 1976.
Aune, David Edward. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity
Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 28. Netherlands: Leiden E. J. Brill, 1972.
. "The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre." Semeia 38 (1986): 65-
96.
Balentine, Samuel E. "Prayers for Justice in the Old Testament: Theodicy and Theology."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 597-616.
Barr, James. "Why? In Biblical Hebrew." The Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985):
1-33.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. "Theodicy in Wisdom of Ben Sira." In Theodicy in the World of
the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 525-45. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1967.
Bernidaki-Aldous, Eleftheria A. "Blindness in a Culture of Light: Especially the Case of
Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles." Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University,
1985.
205
206
Bieberstein, Klaus. "Leiden Erzalen. Sinnfiguren der Theodizee im Alten Testament. Nur
eine Skizze." In Gott Mensch Sprache, ed. Andreas Michel and Hermann-Josef
Stipp, 1-22. St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag Erzabtei, 2001.
Bleeck, Arthur Henry, ed. Avesta: the Religious Books of the Parsees. Hertford:
Muncherjee Hormusjee Cama - Reprint by Kessinger Publishing, 1864.
Bonz, Marianne Palmer. The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2000.
Boyce, Mary, ed. Textual Sources for the Study ofZoroastrianism. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1984. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1990.
Brant, Jo-Ann A. Dialogue and Drama. Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth
Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.
Brodie, Thomas Louis. The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel. A Source-Oriented
Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John I-XII. Vol. 1 The Anchor Bible, 29-
29A. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966-70.
Bruce, Frederick F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co.,
1983.
Brueggemann, Walter. The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary.
Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1984.
. "Theodicy in a Social Dimension." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
33 (1985): 3-25.
. "The Costly Loss of Lament." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36
(1986): 57-71.
. "Texts That Linger, Not Yet Overcome." In Shall Not the Judge of All the
Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L.
Crenshaw, ed. David Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt, 21-41. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
. "Some Aspects of Theodicy in Old Testament Faith." Perspectives in
Religious Studies 26, no. 3 (Fall 1999): 253-68.
Bultmann, Rudolf K. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G.R. Beasley-
Murray, R.W.N. Hoare and J.K. Riches. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.
Carroll, P. Robert. "Theodicy and the Community: The Text and Subtext of Jeremiah V
1-6." In Prophets, Worship and Theodicy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984.
Carson, D. A. "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Philo: Analysis and
Method." Novum Testamentum 23, no. 2 (1981): 148-64.
Charlesworth, James H. "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the
'Dualism' Contained in the Gospel of John." In John and Qumran. London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.
. "Qumran, John and the Odes of Solomon." In John and Qumran. London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.
. Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon. Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998.
. "Theodicy in Early Jewish Writings." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible,
ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 470-508. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983.
, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Chilton, Bruce , and Craig A. Evans. "Jesus and Israel's Scriptures." In Studying the
Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Leiden and New
York: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Library of Early Christianity,
ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Reprint, 1989.
Conn, Norman. Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of
Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. Crisis & Catharsis, The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1984.
Coogan, Michael David, ed. Stories from Ancient Canaan. Louisville, Kentuchy:
Westminster Press, 1978.
Cook, Albert, ed. Oedipus Rex: A Mirror for Greek Drama. Prospect Heights, Illinois:
Waveland Press, Inc., 1982.
Cotter, Wendy. Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New
Testament Miracles Stories. New York, London: Routledge, 1999.
208
Crenshaw, James L. Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion Beiheft zur
Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 124. Berlin, New York: Walter
deGruyter, 1971.
. "The Human Dilemma and Literature of Dissent." In Tradition and Theology
in the Old Testament, ed. Douglas A. Knight, 235-58. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1977.
_. Samson: A Secret Betrayed, A Vow Ignored. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978.
. "The Birth of Skepticism in Ancient Israel." In The Divine Helmsman. Studies
on God's Control of Human Events, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sandmel, 1-19.
New York: KTAV Pub. House, 1980.
. "Introduction." In Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 4.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
. "Introduction: The Shift from Theodicy to Anthropodicy." In Theodicy in the
Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 1-16. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
. "The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage." In Theodicy in the
Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 119-40. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983.
. A Whirlpool of Torment; Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive
Presence Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
. "Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel." In Urgent
Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom, ed.
James L. Crenshaw, 289-304. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1995.
. "The Sojourner Has Come to Play the Judge: Theodicy on Trial." In God in
the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K.
Beal, 83-92. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
. "Theodicy and Prophetic Literature." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible,
ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 263-55. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
. Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones,
Behind the Texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
De Moor, Johannes C. "Theodicy in the Texts of Ugarit." In Theodicy in the World of the
Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 108-50. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Dodd, Charles H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Universtiy
Press, 1963.
Dragona-Monachou, Myrto. "Divine Providence in the Philosophy of the Empire." In
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, 36/7, ed. Wolfgang Haase, 4418-
90. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.
Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.
Ehrman, Bart D. "Heracleon, Origen, and the Text of the Fourth Gospel." Vigiliae
Christianae 47 (1993): 105-18.
Eichrodt, Walter. "Faith in Providence and Theodicy in the Old Testament." In Theodicy
in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 17-41. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983.
Elliott, Mark Adam. The Survivors of Israel. A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-
Christian Judaism. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
Ensor, Peter W. Jesus and His >Works<: The Johannine Sayings in Historical
Perspective Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe,
85. Tubingen: J.C. B. Mohr - Paul Siebeck, 1996.
Epicurus. Epicuro: Scritti Morali. Translated by Giuseppe Serra, ed. Carlo Diano.
Milano: BUR, 1997.
Eskola, Timo. Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 100. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Evans, Craig A. "Isaiah 6:9-10 in Rabbinic and Patristic Writings." Vigiliae Christianae
36 (1982): 275-81.
. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian
Interpretation Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 64.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.
210
Eve, Eric. The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series, 231. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Exum, Cheryl J. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Ferguson, John. Greek and Roman Religion: A Source Book. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes,
1980.
Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schiissler. The Book of Revelation, Justice and Judgment.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Fishbane, Michael A. "Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel." Interpretation 38,
no. April (1984): 131-50.
. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York: Oxford University Press,
1985.
Fretheim, Terrence E. "Jonah and Theodicy." Zeitschriftfur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 90 (1978): 227-37.
Freund, Richard A. "Thou Shalt Not Go Thither': Moses and Aaron's Punishments and
Varying Theodices in the MT, LXX and Hellenistic Literature." Scandinavian
Journal of the Old Testament 8, no. 1 (1994): 105-25.
. "Individual vs. Collective Responsibility: From the Ancient Near East and the
Bible to the Greco-Roman World." Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
11, no. 2 (1997): 279-304.
Frick, Peter. Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. Texts and Studies in Ancient
Judaism, 77. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1997.
Frost, Stanley Brice. "The Death of Josiah: a Conspiracy of Silence." Journal of Biblical
Literature 87 (1968): 369-82.
Garrison, Roman. Why Are You Silent, Lord? The Biblical Seminar, 68. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Gorringe, Timothy J. "Job and the Pharisees." Interpretation 40, no. 1 (1986): 17-28.
Greene, William Chase. Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought. New York:
Harper & Row, 1944.
211
Grene, David, and Richmond Lattimore, eds. Sophocles I, The Complete Greek
Tragedies. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Griffin, David R. "Creation out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil." In Encountering Evil:
Live Options in Theodicy, ed. T. Stephen Davis, 101-36. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1981.
Haas, Cees. "Job's perseverance in the Testament of Job." In Studies on the Testament of
Job, ed. A. Michael Knibb and Pieter W. Van der Horst, 63, 117-54. New York,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Prophetic Gospel. A Study of John and the Old Testament.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Harris, Elizabeth. Prologue and Gospel. The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist Journal
for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 107. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994.
Hengel, Martin. "The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel." In The Gospels and the
Scriptures of Israel, 380-95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Hilgert, Earle. "The Son of Timaeus. Blindness, Sight, Ascent, Vision in Mark." In
Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack, ed.
Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig, 185-98. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania:
Trinity Press International, 1996.
Hine, Harry. "Seneca, Stoicism, and the Problem of Evil." In Ethics and Rhetoric, ed.
Doreen Innes, Harry Hine and Cristopher Pelling, 93-106. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1995.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. "Theodicy in Hittite Texts." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible,
ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 90-107. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Hogan, Larry P. Healing in the Second Temple Period Novum Testamentum et Orbis
Antiquus. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Holmen, Tom. "Theodicean Motifs in the New Testament." In Theodicy in the World of
the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 605-51. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Horst, Pieter W. van der. Jews and Christians in Their Greco-Roman Context.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 196. Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2006.
Hoskyns, Edwyn Clement. The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey. London: Faber
and Faber Limited, 1940.
212
Howard-Brook, Wes. Becoming Children of God. John's Gospel and Radical
Discipleship The Bible & Liberation Series. New York: Orbis Books, 2001.
Humphreys, Lee W. The Tragic Vision and the Hebrew Tradition Overtures to Biblical
Theology, 18. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Jaeger, Werner. Paideia: la Formazione dell'Uomo Greco. Translated by Luigi Emery
and Alessandro Setti. Vol. 1. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1947. Reprint, 1991.
Japhet, Sara. "Theodicy in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles." In Theodicy in the World of
the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 410-28. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Johnson, Sherman E. "Mark 8:22-26: The Blind Man from Bethsaida." New Testament
Studies 25 (1979): 370-83.
Jung, Carl Gustav. "Answer to Job." In The Portable Jung, ed. Joseph Campbell. New
York: Penguin Books, 1976.
Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series, 196. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995.
Kirschener, Robert. "Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70."
Harvard Theological Review (1985): 27-46.
Koch, Klaus. "Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?" In Theodicy in
the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 57-87. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983.
Koester, Craig R. "Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John." Biblica 70, no.
3 (1989): 327-48.
. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. 2nd ed.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Koester, Helmut. History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. Introduction to the
New Testament. Vol. 1. New York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987.
Kostenberger, Adreas J. "The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of
the Fourth Gospel." In Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, 69-108.
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Kraemer, David. Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
213
Kruse, Colin G. "Sin and Perfection in 1 John." Australian Biblical Review 51 (2003):
60-70.
Kysar, Robert. John the Maverick Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976.
Laato, Annti, and Johannes C. de Moor. "Introduction." In Theodicy in the World of the
Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, vii-liv. Leiden - Boston: Brill,
2003.
Laato, Antti. "Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History." In Theodicy in the World of the
Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 182-235. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Laato, Antti, and Johannes C. de Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
LaCocque, Andre. "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?" In Thinking
Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, ed. Andre LaCoque and Paul
Ricoeur, 187-209. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Lieu, Judith M. "Blindness in the Johannine Tradition." New Testament Studies 34, no. 1
(January 1988): 83-95.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old
Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.
. "Word and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel." Scottish Journal of Theology 29
(1976): 49-63.
Lindstrom, Fredrik. Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual
Complaint Psalms. Translated by Michael McLamb Coniectanea Biblica - Old
Testament Series, 37. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994.
. "Theodicy in the Psalms." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti
Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 256-303. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Long, A. A., ed. Freedom and Determinism in the Stoic Theory of Human Action,
Problems in Stoicism. London: Athlone Press, 1971.
Lupieri, Edmondo F. "John the Gnostic: The Figure of the Baptist in Origen and
Heterodox Gnosticism." In Studia Patristica, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 19,
322-7. Leuven: Peeters Press, 1989.
MacDonald, Dennis R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven &
London: Yale University Press, 2000.
, ed. Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, Studies in
Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International,
2001.
Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology.
Louisville: John Knox Press, 1981.
Marcheselli, Maurizio. "Peccato e Peccatori in Gv 9." In "Generati da una Parola di
Verital (Gc 1:18). Scritti in onore di Rinaldo Fabris nel suo 70 Complenanno,
ed. Santi Grasso and Ermenegildo Manicardi, 47, 141-54. Bologna: Edizioni
Dehoniane Bologha, 2006.
Marconi, Gilberto. "La Vista del Cieco. Struttura di Gv 9,1-41." Gregorianum 79, no. 4
(1998): 625-43.
Martinez, Florentino Garcia. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Translated by Wilfred G.
E. Watson. New York, Cologne: E. J. Brill Leiden, 1994.
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Nashville: Parthenon Press,
1979.
McKenzie, John L. "The Judge of All the Earth." In Contemporary New Testament
Studies, 295-303. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1965.
Meeks, Wayne A. "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism." Journal of
Biblical Literature, no. 91 (1972): 44-72.
Meier, John P. A MarginalJew. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Minkowsky, Chaim. "Which Gehenna? Retribution and Eschatology in the Synoptic
Gospels and in Early Jewish Texts." New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 238-49.
Miller, Patrick D. Jr. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1973.
Neyrey, Jerome H. "The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter." Journal of
Biblical Literature 99, no. 3 (1980): 407-31.
. "Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy: A Study in Stereotypes." In Greeks,
Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David L.
Balch, Everett Ferguson and Wayne A. Meeks, 118-34. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990.
215
Nielsen, Flemming A. J. The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic
History Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 251.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Nock, A.D. Conversion. London, New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Osborne, Grant R. "Theodicy in the Apocalypse." Trinity Journal 14 (1993): 63-77.
The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. 2nd ed., ed. M. C. Howatson. Oxford,
New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Paduano, Guido. Aristotele Poetica. Roma: Editori Laterza, 1998.
Pagels, Elaine. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on
John Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 17. Nashville & New
York: Abingdon Press, 1973.
. The Origin of Satan. New York: Random House, 1995.
Pagels, Elaine, and Karen L. King. Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping
of Christianity. London: Pinguin Group, 2007.
Painter, John. "The Quotation of Scripture and Unbelief in John 12.36b-43." In The
Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner,
429-58. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Philo. The Works ofPhilo. Translated by Charles Duke Yonge. United States of America:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.
Poirier, John C. "Day and Night' and the Punctuation of John 9:3." New Testament
Studies 42, no. 2 (April 1996): 288-94.
Rad, Gerhard von. "The Confessions of Jeremiah." In Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed.
James L. Crenshaw, 88-99. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Reale, Giovanni, and Dario Antiseri. Ilpensiero occidentale dalle origini adoggi. Vol. 1.
Brescia: Editrice La Scuola, 1984.
Rein, Matthias. Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen (Joh 9): Tradition undRedaktion
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 73.
Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995.
Reiser, Marius. Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish
Context. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
216
Ricoeur, Paul. The Symbolism of Evil. Translated by Emerson Buchanan. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1969.
Riley, Gregory. "Mimesis of Classical Ideals in the Second Christian Century." In
Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, ed. Dennis R.
MacDonald, 91-103. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001.
Riley, Gregory J. One Jesus, Many Christs. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
___. The River of God: A New History of Christian Origins, San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.
Runia, David T. "Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria." In Theodicy in the World of the
Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 576-604. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Ruprecht, Louis A., Jr. Tragic Posture and Tragic Vision: Against the Modern Failure of
Nerve. New York: Continuum, 1994.
Russel, Elbert. "Possible Influence of the Mysteries on the Form and Interrelation of the
Johannine Writings." Journal of Biblical Literature 51, no. 4 (1932): 336-51.
Sanders, Jim A. "Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-Biblical
Judaism." Colgate Rochester Divinity School Bulletin Special Issue 28 (1955).
Sarot, Marcel. "Theodicy and Modernity." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed.
Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 1-26. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Schein, Bruce E. Following the Way: The Setting of John's Gospel. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1980.
Schnackenburg, Rudolph. The Gospel according to St John. Translated by Kevin Smith.
Vol. 1. 3 vols. New York: Crossroad, 1980.
Schnelle, Udo. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John. An investigation of the
Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School. Translated by Linda M.
Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Schuchard, Bruce G. Scripture Within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and
Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 133. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Seneca, Anneo Lucio. La Provvidenza. Translated by Alfonso Traina. 3rd. ed. BUR
Classici Greci e Latini. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 2000.
Sihbolt, Noorda. "Illness and Sin, Forgiving and Healing." In Studies in Hellenistic
Religions, ed. M. J. Vermaseren, 215-24. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979.
217
Simojoki, Anssi. "The Book of Revelation." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed.
Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 652-84. Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2003.
Smith, Stephen H. "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of
Mark's Gospel." Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 209-31.
Staley, Jeffrey L. "Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in
John 5 and 9." Semeia 54 (1991): 55-80.
Stone, Jerry H. "The Gospel of Mark and Oedipus the King: Two Tragic Visions."
Soundings 61, no. 1 (1984): 55-69.
Strack, L. Hermann, and Paul Billerbeck. Das Evangelium nack Markus, Lukas und
Johannes und die Apostelgeschichte. Vol. 2, 1974.
Taylor, Joan. John the Baptist Within Second Temple Judaism: A Historical Study.
Melksham, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press, 1997.
Thiering, B. E. "Inner and Outer Cleansing at Qumran as a Background to the New
Testament Baptism." New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 266-77.
. "Qumran Initiation and New Testament Baptism." New Testament Studies 27
(1981): 615-31.
Thorn, Johan C. "Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus and Early Christian Literature." In Antiquity
and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy, Presented to Hans
Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M.
Mitchell, 477-99. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
. Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Thompson, Alden L. Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 29. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press,
1977.
Toorn, Karel van der. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. A Comparative Study
Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 22. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.
. "Theodicy in Akkadian Literature." In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed.
Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 90-107. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of
Pluralism. New York: Crossroad, 1981.
218
Trumbower, Jeffrey A. "Origen's Exegesis of John 8:19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon
over the Idea of Fixed Natures." Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989): 138-54.
. Born from Above: The Anthropology of the Gospel of John Hermeneutische
Untersuchungen zur Tehologie, 29. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992.
VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul.
Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006.
Waetjen, Herman C. The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple. New York, London: T&T
Clark, 2005.
Welck, Christian. Erzdhlte Zeichen. Die Wundergeschichten des Johannesevangeliums
literarisch untersucht. Mit einem Ausblick aufJoh 21 Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 69. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1994.
Westermann, Claus. "The Complaint against God." In God in the Fray: A Tribute to
Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal, 233-41.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Whitney, Barry L. Theodicy: An Annotated Bibliography on the Problem of Evil 1960-
1990. New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1993.
Willet, Tom W. Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra Journal for the
Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.
Williams, Ronald J. "Theodicy in the Ancient Near East." In Theodicy in the Old
Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 42-56. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Winston, David. "Theodicy in Wisdom of Solomon." In Theodicy in the World of the
Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 525-45. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Wrobel, Miroslaw Stanislaw. Who are the Father and his Children in JN 8:44? A
Literary, Historical and Theological Analysis ofJN 8:44 and its Context. Vol. 63
Chaiers de la Revue Biblique. Paris: J. Gabalda et C
ie
Editeurs.