New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Blindness in the Johannine Tradition

J. M. Lieu

New Testament Studies / Volume 34 / Issue 01 / January 1988, pp 83 - 95

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500022220, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500022220

How to cite this article:

J. M. Lieu (1988). Blindness in the Johannine Tradition. New Testament Studies, 34, pp
83-95 doi:10.1017/S0028688500022220

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 128.122.253.212 on 01 May 2015

New Test. Stud. vol. 34, 1988, pp. 83-95

J. M. LIEU

BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION

That blindness should be a theme in the Johannine literature need cause

no surprise; with the dualism of light and darkness and with the emphasis
on what has been seen, witnessed and believed, the surprise is rather that
the theme is not more prevalent.1 Only at two places in the Gospel and
one in the Epistles is the language of blindness explicitly used, in John 9,
John 12. 40 and 1 John 2. I I . 2 However, since each of these can be seen
as a focal point or interpretative key to the Johannine tradition the theme
could be held to present in microcosm the history of the Johannine com-
munity. Chapter 9, the healing of the blind man, has played a central role
in recent reconstructions of that history, 3 while the reflection on the effects
of Jesus's public ministry in 12. 37-50, before he turns away to address
'his own', invites similar treatment. Finally, the redirection towards inter-
nal opposition of language originally aimed outwards has long been seen as
a mark of 1 John and as central to its interpretation. 4 The exploration of
the theme may serve in the same way to test in microcosm the presuppo-
sitions and results of such reconstruction. It also does more than this, for
the imagery of blindness is by no means unique to John and raises clearly
the question of the origins as well as of the context of Johannine thought.

JOHN 9

Despite the inconsistencies and unevenness which have led to the search
for sources or redaction behind John 9 as behind the Gospel as a whole,
the twin themes of the revelation and of the judgement present in Jesus
bind the chapter into a unity. As with the Samaritan woman in John 4
and the first disciples in 1. 35-51, the blind man progresses in faith from
his affirmation of Jesus as the one who restored his physical sight (11)
through to Jesus's disclosure of himself (37) which elicits the man's con-
fession and worship (38). 5 By contrast, the development of disbelief
moves from incredulity (8-9) to the division (axta/ia) which is so often
the response to Jesus in this Gospel (16) and thence to the rejection of
Jesus (24) which is in fact their own self-condemnation (41). The 'Johan-
nine' theme of the origin of Jesus is another thread (16, 29, 33), with the
blind man as the only person in the Gospel other than Jesus himself to
describe Jesus as 'from God'. 6
Thus it is not only at the end of the chapter that blindness gains a

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

84 J. M. LIEU
'spiritual' significance; the structural balance between the opening verses
and the conclusion provides a framework for the chapter which shows
that it is there throughout. The disciples' question as to the cause of the
man's blindness elicits Jesus's refusal to attribute responsibility to the sin
either of the man or of his parents (2-3); this leads to the declaration of
Jesus's purpose 'in the world' as 'Light of the world' (5). In reverse, in
39-41 Jesus's purpose in coming 'into the world' is first stated as 'for
judgement' before, in discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees, we
discover that sin and blindness are related after all - in their claim to see.
For Jesus to be Light is also for him to be the source of judgement (3. 19),
for in the presence of Light those who know their blindness receive sight,
while those who claim sight are rendered blind.
Who must bear the responsibility for this? Commentators have been
hard put to provide a background for the disciples' initial question; that a
child might suffer for its parents' sins can be paralleled, despite the protest
against this from the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel,7 but for the man him-
self to be responsible implies sin before birth in the womb and for this
none of the parallels cited prove adequate.8 Is the question a reductio
ad absurdum of the Jewish view to offset Jesus's answer,9 or is there also
a real dilemma here? It is not just that 'man is spiritually blind from
birth';10 is he 'in iniquity from the womb' and did God 'create the wicked
for the time of (His) wrath and vow them from the womb for the Day of
Massacre'?11 The answer of John 9 excludes any direct predeterminism;
the effect of Jesus's coming was indeed that some were constituted blind
while others received their sight, but it is their response which so consti-
tuted them. Sin is not independent of the response to Jesus, but neither
does it determine it. Rather sin is defined by the response to Jesus: it is
not the blind man who sinned but those who claim to possess sight.12
John is not alone in giving a story of blindness and sight a symbolic
significance; OT and more distant parallels can be readily drawn.13 More
immediate to John is the way Mark follows his story of the disciples'
failure to see or hear because of their hardness of heart (8. 14-21) with
the healing, only in this Gospel, of a blind man who only slowly comes to
see clearly (8. 22-26), a healing whose parabolic significance is made plain
by the disciples' confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi which follows.
The use in that miracle as well as in John 9. 6 of spittle may point back to
a common tradition, but it is the way each Gospel relates to its OT hinter-
ground which in due course will give us more insight into John's method.14

JOHN 12.40

As Jesus withdraws from his public ministry, chapter 12 moves from narra-
tive to reflection on that ministry. Since narrative and reflection overlap it

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

 BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 85
is significant that links with ch. 9 are already found in the narrative before
the explicit introduction of the blindness theme, namely in the question
of the crowd 'Who is this Son of Man?' (34; cf. 9. 36) and in the awareness
of the presence of Light as a time soon to be ended (12. 35; cf. 9. 4-5). 1S
The blind man came to believe in Jesus (9. 36) because what he had
done showed him to be from God (9. 33). For the majority it was not so;
despite the many signs Jesus had done they did not believe in him (12. 37).
Not only is this in fulfilment of Scripture (38 quoting Isa 53. 1), but in
fact they could not believe (39-40), as Scripture had also foretold:
He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes and understand with their heart,
and turn, and I will heal them.
The quotation is based on Isa 6. 10 and thus seems to continue an allusion
to Isa 6. 9 in Jesus's words in John 9. 39 that he came 'that those who do
not see might see and those who see might become blind'.16
In the face of the need to explain unbelief, the early church found in
Isa 6. 9-10 a useful proof-text.17 It is alluded to by Mark 4. 11-12 reflect-
ing on Jesus's teaching in parables, whose purpose is that 'they may indeed
see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they
should turn again and be forgiven'. The theme of purpose is softened by
the Matthaean parallel (13. 13-15) into one of cause and of fulfilment, to
which end Isa 6. 9-10 is quoted in full, closely following the LXX. With
only an allusion to the OT text in his section on parables, albeit conveying
the Markan idea of purpose (8. 10),18 Luke reserves the full quotation,
with the same variation from the LXX as Matthew,19 for the end of his
whole account in Luke-Acts. For him the passage explains why Paul in
Rome turned from the Jews to the Gentiles (Acts 28. 25-28); the quo-
tation thus becomes a judgement on the total pattern of Jewish disbelief
in the face of the preaching of the Church.
Like Luke-Acts, John uses the quotation in retrospective comment on
the course of the ministry, in his case of Jesus. Yet although this may
reflect a more 'original' application than Mark's more limited one,20 John
does not stand at the beginning of the development. He too has adapted
the quotation to suit his own needs.21
The original text of Isaiah moves from heart to ears to eyes and then in
reverse from sight to hearing to understanding. John puts seeing first and
omits all reference to hearing; after the reference to 'the signs he had done
before them' in v. 37 this is appropriate and moves directly from sight or
perception to the inner disposition, the heart (2. 25), although it may seem
to accord strangely with the emphasis elsewhere on 'the word'.22 John
comes closest to the LXX in the final 'I will heal them', perhaps because
this allows him an ironic reference to the theme of the healing signs.23
In the MT the prophet is told to achieve by his ministry the reverse of

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

86 J. M. LIEU
his expected goal; he is to 'make the heart of this people fat, their ears
heavy and their eyes shut, lest they . . . turn'. The LXX (followed by Mat-
thew and Luke) circumvents the question of responsibility by replacing
the imperative with a passive, 'their heart is hardened'. In Mark the ques-
tion of responsibility is resurrected by the theme of purpose, in John the
same result is achieved by introducing the third person, 'he has blinded . . .,
he has hardened . . .' 24 Who is 'he'? Most commentators understand 'God',
but more probably it is Jesus. It is Jesus who has done the signs (37), Jesus
who is most probably the 'Lord' of the quotation from Isa 53. 1 (38) and
Jesus whose glory Isaiah saw (41).25 We may compare 9. 41 but here it is
only in the wider context of the chapter26 and Gospel that this can appear
to be other than a relentless determinism: they did not believe, they could
not believe because he - Jesus- had blinded their eyes and hardened their
heart.
Where the LXX and other quotations of the passage use 'Ka/i/ttico' for
'to blind' John has the more common verb 'ru^Xdco'; this too invites cross-
reference to the story of the blind man (ru^Xd?) in ch. 9 and to Jesus'
comment that he has come that those who see may become blind {w<j>\oL,
9. 39). However, it is unlikely that that story has determined John's version
of Isa 6. 10 in 12. 40 27 for John also introduces a new verb for 'to harden'
(Trcjpdco) which is equally foreign to other quotations of Isa 6. 10 and
which has no precedent in the Gospel. We therefore need to look wider
afield for the origins of John's version of his quotation and for the back-
ground of his thought.28

BLINDNESS AND HARDENING

Within the New Testament the appeal to Isa 6. 9-10 to locate unbelief
within God's foreknowledge and purposes has left its mark not only in
explicit quotations but also in allusion and vocabulary, and it is here that
we do find parallels to John's language.
In Mark the disciples are twice described as unable to understand
(ovviriiiL as in Isa 6. 10 LXX and 6. 9 as alluded to by Mark 4. 12) because
their hearts are hardened (irencoptonevri) (6. 52; 8. 17). On the second
occasion Jesus immediately goes on to ask 'Having eyes do you not see,
having ears do you not hear?' (8. 18), words which recall more directly
Jer 5. 21; Ezek 12. 2, although these themselves develop the theme of
Isa 6. 9-10.29 The language is sufficiently similar to 4. 12 to suggest that
the disciples are being implicitly included in the condemnation of 'those
outside' who are blind and deaf and unable to understand. Neither Mat-
thew nor Luke repeats this rebuke to the disciples, and Matthew explicitly
excludes it - for their eyes do see and their ears do hear (13. 16).30Mark

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

 BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 87

here has used the verb 'Trojpdcj' in a context which brings us back to Isa
6. 9-10. 31
As we have seen, Mark follows this incident with the healing of a blind
man (TV<(>\6<;) (8. 22-26). Here he is working in the light of a different
aspect of the Isaiah tradition, although one which probably does have its
origins in Isa 6. 10. Within Isaiah itself the theme of blindness from Isaiah's
call vision is developed first in terms of an obduracy which is self-imposed
and yet ultimately the act of God leading to destruction (Isa 29. 9-10);
next that the people in exile, God's servants, are both blind and deaf (42.
18-20; 43. 8). 32 Yet God's act of salvation must surely reverse his judge-
ment in 6. 10; it will mean the opening of eyes and the gift of hearing,
whether understood metaphorically (29. 18; 42. 7) or literally (35. 5). 3 3
It is this final point of the tradition which Mark picks up, not just by
quotation (as in Matt 11.5), but by deed. The gradual healing and the use
of spittle look back to the similar healing of the deaf stammerer in Mark
7. 31-37 and together the two healings, peculiar to Mark, fulfil the proph-
ecy of Isa 35. 3-6. 34 At the same time Mark thus declares that those who
are blind or whose hearts are hardened may indeed be healed.35
Besides the Markan and Johannine occurrences, the verb 'to harden' is
twice used by Paul in the NT. In Rom 11.7 the context is Israel's failure
to believe: the promises of God have been experienced only by the elect,
'the rest were hardened', fulfilling Scriptural references to eyes and ears
which fail to see or hear 'up to this day', a composite allusion to Isa 29. 10
and Deut 29. 3, both of which stand within the Isa 6. 10 tradition. The
chapter continues to wrestle with 'the hardening' (Trojpcoatc, v. 25) which
has come upon part of Israel.36
In 2 Cor 3. 14 it is the minds (uorjfxaTa)31 of the Jews which have been
hardened (iircopcodr]) at the reading of Scripture like a veil upon their
heart (15) 'up to this day'. In the following chapter Paul speaks more
universally of the Gospel as veiled for those who are perishing, the un-
believers, whose minds (vorniaTa) the 'God of this age' has 'blindened'
(iTv4>\ojaev) - the only non-Johannine use of this verb in the NT (2 Cor
4. 4). The parallel use of 'to harden' and 'to blind' would be particularly
striking for comparison with John's Isaiah quotation were it not that in
2 Cor 4. 4 Paul's 'blinding' language has closer forbears in hellenistic Ju-
daism, notably in Philo and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.38
There it is the mind, heart or soul which may be blinded (ru^Adco) not
by God as in the Biblical tradition but by hatred (T.Gad 3.3), passions
(T.Judah 18.6) or, in closer parallel to 2 Cor 4. 4, 'the ruler of error'
(T.Sim 2. 7; T.Judah 19. 4). 39 The primary background of this language
is probably hellenistic40 rather than Biblical; it presupposes a dualism and
sees blindness as ignorance or an inability to perceive or respond to the
truth. Yet Paul's use of hardening (7rcopdco) does not seem to have similar

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

88 J. M. LIEU
precedent in hellenistic Jewish literature,41 leaving it at least possible that
in the parallel use of the two terms we should see the influence of the Isa
6. 10 tradition known also to John.42
The NT thus points to a continuing tradition of expressing obduracy
or the inability or refusal to respond which owes its ultimate inspiration
to Isa 6. 9-10 but which has remained more constant in theme than in
precise vocabulary. The tradition has developed even within the OT itself
so that NT writers reflect, bring together or merge different parts of it.43
Inevitably this has affected the vocabulary itself. Not surprisingly the rare
word for 'blinding' used in the MT of Isa 6. 10 ( S»tf) is replaced in most
of the later Isaianic references by the more common root (1i»); the
LXX is faithful to this in using «aju/xi)cj in Isa 6. 1044 but TU^XOCJ and its
derivatives in 29. 18; 35. 5 and the references in Deutero-Isaiah.45 That
the more common term should be read back into Isa 6. 10 in the process
of exegesis is only to be expected.
Further support for this is. to be found in the QL. In a passage which
has been held to show particular affinities with the thought of John,46
Isa 6. 10 seems to have influenced the list of characteristics of the 'spirit
of falsehood':
a blaspheming tongue, blindness of eye and dullness of ear, stiffness of neck and heavi-
ness of heart, so that man walks in all the ways of darkness and guile (1 QS 4. I I ) . 4 7

The vocabulary, however, is not precisely that of Isa 6. 10; in 'blindness

of eyes' the common root for blindness ("ny) is used, while in 'heaviness
of heart' the root ( 133) is that used of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart
in the J tradition in Exod 7. 14; 8. 11 etc.48 Isa 6. 10 itself uses a distinc-
tive image, 'make fat the heart' (MT: ptf; LXX: naxvvco), which has no
other parallel in the OT and invited modification. That 1QS 4. 11 offers
an 'interpretation' of Isa 6. 10 may be suggested by the fact that elsewhere
1QS uses a different phrase for 'hardness of heart', adopted from the
Jeremiah tradition in the OT.49 Yet its place in a catalogue of 'vices' and
in a dualist framework reflects the influence of a similar 'hellenistic'
dualism to that of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs showing how
the two traditions of 'blindness' could meet.50
The choice of ircopooo to express the 'hardening' in John's quotation,
however, has no clear precedent in the LXX, other Jewish literature or in
Greek writers.51 Yet the evidence of Mark and Paul also relates the term to
Isa 6. 10 and suggests that it is not a Johannine peculiarity. Rather, John
is part of a wider tradition of interpreting Isa 6. 9-10 in terms of blinding
(ru0Xdco) and hardening (irupocj), a tradition which could speak of judge-
ment and of healing, through word or through miracle-sign.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

 BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 89

BLINDNESS AND EXCLUSION FROM THE SYNAGOGUE

The two passages we have studied in John are united not only by the theme
of blindness but also, curiously, by a reference to 'exclusion from the
Synagogue' (dnoovvaycoyos) (9. 22; 12. 42). The third and final use of the
term in John (16. 2)S2 comes as part of a promise of hostility from the
world in a passage (15. 18-16. 4a) which has other links with John 9 and
12. 37-43 in the consideration of responsibility for unbelief. In 15. 22-24
Jesus states that if he had not come and spoken to them or done among
them (cf. 12. 37) the works which no-one else did (cf. 9. 32-33) they
would have no sin {aytapTtav exew, cf. 9. 41 ),53 but now (cf. 9. 41) they
have no excuse.
What is the relationship between blindness and exclusion from the Syna-
gogue? A natural assumption would be that the experience of the latter
has led to agonising over the unbelief of the Jews and to the development
of the imagery of blindness to interpret it. Yet the texts themselves suggest
a more complex relationship.
We have already seen that in John 9 blindness comes from claiming to
see. The incident introducing exclusion from the Synagogue fits slightly
awkwardly in a narrative which is carefully balanced and, in theme, con-
sistent without it. The paragraph also contains some idiosyncracies of its
own. In 9. 22 the parents of the blind man dare not name the one who
had healed their son 'because they feared the Jews', who had already
agreed that anyone who 'confessed him as Christ was to be excluded from
the Synagogue'. Elsewhere in the Gospel 'fear of the Jews' which leads to
silence needs no further motive (7. 13; cf. 19. 38; 20. 19),54 the verb 'to
confess' (dfioXoyeoi) comes only here, in the similar 12. 42 and on the
lips of John the Baptist (1. 20), while the anarthrous 'xpujrov' is unusual
in John. The incident too has introduced 'the Jews' (18) after the Phari-
sees of the previous scene (13-17), although such variation is not un-
Johannine.55 Finally, it is only in this scene that the man is 'the man who
had received his sight' (d avaffketyasy, elsewhere he is defined in terms of
his previous state (8, 13, 17, 24). While, in the present form of the narra-
tive, the scene contributes to its dramatic development, it does not play
the focal role sometimes assigned it in what is the fundamental encounter
between Jesus and the Pharisees (or simply 'they') between whom the
man must decide.
There is a similar 'roughness' about the second 'diroovvaytoyos' verse,
12. 42. The quotation from Isa 6. 10 has made a fitting verdict on those
who did not, indeed could not, believe (40). In the final paragraph of the
chapter (44-50) it will become clear that the choice is either to believe or
to reject Jesus. Yet in between 42 speaks of those - many of the rulers -
who did believe and yet who failed to confess 'because of the Pharisees -

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

90 J. M. LIEU

lest they be excluded from the Synagogue'. The verse is too oblique to be
immediately clear: the contrast between the 'rulers' and the Pharisees,56
the abrupt 'because of the Pharisees' and the absolute use of 'confess's7
each require elucidation, while the whole verse only makes sense in the
light of the explanation given in 9. 22 or the experience anticipated by
16. 2. Ultimately their failure to confess is ascribed to their 'loving the
glory of men rather than the glory of God' (43), yet elsewhere the Gospel
suggests that it is this which makes belief, and not simply confession,
impossible. In 5. 44 Jesus says to the Jews, 'How can you believe who
receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory which comes
from the one God?'. If we were to bypass 42 we would find the same
theme in 12. 39-43: they could not believe (thus fulfilling Scripture)
because they loved the glory of men rather than that of God (with an
implicit reference back to 'his glory' which Isaiah saw (41 )).58 As in chap-
ter 9 where claiming to see incurs blindness, so here it would be to those
who seek their own glory that Jesus brings blindness.
This suggests that it was not the experience of becoming 'excluded
from the Synagogue'59 which prompted the development of the theology
of 'being blinded'. Rather a theological understanding of unbelief as
blindness, with a degree of tension as to the question of ultimate respon-
sibility, had already been worked out both in direct exegesis of Isa 6. 9-10
and in the interpretation of the healing of the blind in the light of that
tradition. The verbal links John shares with Mark and Paul point to the
origin of that working out in the wider exegetical traditions of the early
church with their background in Jewish exegetical patterns. For Paul, the
hardening of Israel at least is but for a period,60 while Mark may hope for
the healing of those who have been blinded.61 The Johannine tradition,
however, saw the creation of two groups - those who have received their
sight and those who are - permanently - blinded and cannot believe.62 It
is only subsequently that this exegetical tradition has been related to and
modified by both the historical experience of the Johannine community
in becoming 'excluded from the Synagogue' and the ambiguities which
resulted from that experience. Indeed, it may have been that elite or
'sectarian' self-consciousness reflected in the blindness .sight opposition
which left no room for them in the Synagogue and contributed to then-
exclusion.

1 JOHN 2. 11

The themes of blindness and of walking or being in the darkness or light

take a different form in 1 John. Here, in the characteristic antitheses of the
Epistle, love of brother points to being in the light just as hatred of brother
points to being in the darkness, and indeed to walking in the darkness (2.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

 BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 91

9-11). The antithesis elaborates that of 1. 6-8 where walking in the dark-
ness is incompatible with 'fellowship with him', while walking in the light
gives fellowship with each other as well as forgiveness from all sin. The
language echoes that of the Gospel,63 but does not share the Gospel's
christological orientation. Walking in the light is not here determined as
in the Gospel by a relationship with Christ who is the light but is a moral
possibility within the community.64 Yet light and darkness are more than
spheres of moral possibility. God is light (1.5) and the light shines while
the darkness is passing away (2. 8).65 As for him who walks in the darkness,
he does not know where he is going 'because the darkness has blinded his
eyes' (2. 11).
The relationship with the exegetical tradition of Isa 6. 9-10 found
behind John 12. 40 is unmistakeable in the verb 'to blind' (wQXoco) and
in the object of that blinding as 'his eyes'. At least a common tradition is
also indicated by the verbal parallel to the one walking in the darkness not
knowing where he is going in John 12. 35.66 It is, then, the more remark-
able that here the blinding force is unequivocally 'the darkness'. Despite
the identification of God as light, darkness is not here given explicit
demonic force; in fact it does not appear hereafter in the Epistle and is
not invoked when the author later speaks of the (spirit of the) antichrist
(2. 18-22; 4. 1-3). Thus the thought is not the same as 'the ruler of this
age' of 2 Cor 4. 4, but the language does suggest an implicit dualism which
has its verbal parallels both in later gnostic writing67 and in the Jewish tra-
ditions we found in the QL and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.68
If the author has taken over the language of the Gospel here, then he
has not only changed its context and direction, he has also adopted a
radically different theological understanding of the source of blindness.
Blindness 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 mys-
terious workings of God in Jesus, but darkness. Rather than envisaging an
author who has in this way taken a phrase from his source tradition but
signally failed - or refused - to recognise its theological depth, it seems
more likely that his represents an independent exegesis of Isa 6. 10 within
the Johannine tradition. We have already seen reason to suggest that John
9 and 12. 39-43 reflect a developing tradition of interpretation of Isa 6.
9-10 within the Johannine community in the light of its experiences;
1 John 2. 11 appears to present a different thread within that tradition
and one which has become or remained closer to the dualist thought world
of those Jewish sources which have helped provide a background for the
NT theme of 'blindness and hardness'. This would cohere with other
aspects of 1 John, whose 'Jewishness' and 'primitive' thought have often
provoked comment even by those who argue for the priority of the Gos-
pel.69 Perhaps we should take more seriously 1 John's claim to proclaim

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

92 J. M. LIEU

'that which was from the beginning'70 and allow the Epistle a voice in our
search for the origins of Johannine thought. This need not make the
Gospel subsequent to and dependent on 1 John; rather Gospel and Epistle
together point to a rich and complex tradition process within Johannine
Christianity, having roots in other forms of Christianity and Judaism and
being worked out in distinctive ways in new settings.
If the blindness theme allows no easy path through the history of the
Johannine community, preventing us passing from John 9 to John 12.
39-43 and then to 1 John 2. 11, it does provide some useful signposts.
The map is a complex one, directing us to the background and theologi-
cal presuppositions of the exegesis of Isa 6. 9-10, and to the interaction
of that exegesis, worked out perhaps in the light of other parts of the
Isaiah tradition, with the narrative traditions about Jesus. There has also
been an interaction between all this and the historical circumstances and
experiences of the community, including the exclusion from the Syna-
gogue. With all this, room must be made for the Evangelist's own literary
craft and theological interests, for the very different route taken by
1 John prohibits identifying the Gospel's course with that of the com-
munity as a whole. Examination of other themes may produce new sign-
posts, allowing us to use our map to plot something of the history of the
community behind the Johannine traditions.

NOTES
[I] Theie is also an imbalance between 'darkness' vs. 'light': see J. Blank, Krisis (Freiburg im
Breisgau: Lambeitus 1964) 96.
[2] Also with literal reference John 5. 3; 10. 21; 11. 37. The last two refer back to the healing of
the blind man in ch. 9 and underline its importance for John.
[3] See especially J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed. Nashville:
Abingdon 1979) esp. 24-62.
[4] See R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday 1982) 92-3.
[5] If 38-39a is omitted with P 7 5 N* W b then we are left with Jesus's self-revelation, inviting
a response. The man's 'stages of faith' include recognition of Jesus as a prophet (17) and as from
God (33), compare the Samaritan woman in 4. 19 and 4. 25-26.
[6] Compare 17. 7 and contrast 7. 27; the 'traditional' theme of the Sabbath-healing (14) serves
only to underline this question.
[7] Jer 31. 29-30; Ezek 18. 1-4; for the continuing theme see Str-B. 11.529.
[8] As is already recognised by Str-B. II.527-9.
[9] As suggested by R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell 1971) 331.
[10] C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed. London: SPCK 1978) 356.
[II] 1QH 4.29-30; 15. 17. E.T. in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth:
Penguin 1962) 163, 195.
[12] Elsewhere in John there may be more deterministic-sounding pronouncements, e.g. 3. 20-21;
12. 39-40 (see below).
[13] 2 Kings 6. 15-17; for a different use of the image in Greek drama see J. Gregory, 'Some
Aspects of Seeing in Euripides' Bacchae', Greece & Rome 32 (1985) 23-31.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

 BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 93
[14] See below pp. 86-7.
[15] 12. 35 speaks of 'walking in the darkness' as does 8. 12; 11. 9-10 speaks of 'walking in the
day or night', while 9. 4-5 speaks of 'working in the day or night'; the common theme of the
presence of the light unites these passages. The question 'Who is he/the Son of Man?' is interesting
because there are no other close parallels in the Gospel.
[16] John 9. 39 appears more like an allusion to Isa 6. 9 when it is compared with Mark 4. 12,
clearly intended as a reference, together with the parallels in Luke 8. 10 and particularly Matt 13.
13, the latter of which may also be influenced by Jer 5. 21 or Mark 8. 18; see n. 29 below.
[17] See B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM 1961) 159-61. For what follows
see also J. Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels (Munich: Kosel 1961).
[18] In language Luke is closer to Matthew here but in the idea of purpose he follows Mark; see
Gnilka, Verstockung, 17.
[19] Namely the omission of 'airrtiv' after '&olv'; on these and other grounds it is often held
that Matt 13. 14-15 are a redactional addition to the Gospel, see Gnilka, Verstockung, 103-5.
[20] Lindars, Apologetic, 161.
[21] On the question whether John works from the MT or LXX see E. Freed, Old Testament
Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovT Sup XI. Leiden: Brill 1965) 85-6.
[22] However, 'hearing' is not as important as 'seeing' in John; the quotation of Isa 53. 1 in 12.
38 does allow for hearing and seeing in parallel.
[23] So Lindars, Apologetic, 161. Matthew and Luke also follow the LXX here while Mark 4. 12
is closer to the Targum in the plural (aiiroic) and the idea of forgiveness; see Gnilka, Verstockung,
16.
[24] On the question whether this is a possible interpretation of the MT see C. F. Burney, The
Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon 1922) 121.
[25] So also Freed, OT Quotations, 84, 87. Blank, Krisis, 301-5 argues for 'the devil' on the-
ological grounds, but there is no warrant in the text for this.
[26] 12. 47-48; see below p. 90 on whether 43 originally gave the human side of 39-40.
[27] So R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (New York: Cross Road 1968-82)
II, 271.
[28] On the wider question of the theme of predestination and hardening in John and its back-
ground see Schnackenburg, John II, 259-74.
[29] See W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel I (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress 1979) 269-70. Matt 13. 13,
Matthew's parallel to Mark 4. 12, is perhaps closer to Mark 8. 18 (which is not paralleled in Mat-
thew), although it is unclear whether this is deliberate or due to the common influence of the
other OT passages.
[30] So too at the end of the parables Matthew alone has the disciples affirm that they do under-
stand (13. 51). Matthew has no parallel to Mark 8. 18 and again closes the incident by affirming
the disciples' understanding (16. 12; contrast Jesus' final question in Mark 8. 21, 'Do you not yet
understand?'); so also Matt 17. 13 (Matt only). Where Mark says the disciples did not understand
because of their hardened hearts in 6. 52, Matthew has them confess Jesus as Son of God.
[31] Mark also uses the noun 'hardness (TTCJPOHJKT) of heart' of the Jewish opposition in 3. 5.
H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan 1898) 50 sees the influence
of Isa 6.10 in the version known to John here. Neither Matthew nor Luke use TTOJPOLJ or nibpcjoK.
[32] It is not important here whether the Servant stands for Israel or for an individual.
[33] Isa 30. 19-21 and 32. 3 belong to the same tradition; see R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 (NCB.
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott 1980) 260. I am grateful to Professor Clements for raising the
question of the significance for the NT of this developing tradition in Isaiah.
[34] See E. Hoskyns & F. N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament (London: Faber 1931)
119-20.
[35] See E. Best, Following Jesus (JSNT.S 4. Sheffield: JSOT 1981) 134-9; on the Markan
narrative see also E. S. Johnson, 'The Blind Man from Bethsaida', NTS 25 (1979) 370-83.
[36] On Isa 29. 10 and Deut 29. 3 as part of the Isa 6. 10 tradition see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 269-
70. With Rom 11. 25 compare CD 16. 2 (ed. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents [Oxford: Clarendon
1954]), 'the epochs of Israel's blindness' ('wrn yir'l).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

94 J. M. LIEU

[37] John 12. 40 uses Voew' where LXX, Matt and Luke use 'o
[38] Philo, Quaest. in Gen. 21 (the eyes of the soul); 40 (the soul is blind to the most holy visions).
In addition to the following examples see TJudah 11. 1; 18. 3; T.Dan 2. 4.
[39] d dpxw rrj« it\dvrt<;.
[40] See W. Schrage, Vu0\dtj', TDNT 8.270-94, 275-9. In the LXX TW/IAOCJ is used at Tobit 7. 7;
Wis. 2. 21 besides Isa 42. 29, possibly suggesting hellenistic influence.
[41] Some MSS at T.Levi 13.7 read izujpuiaK hixapriai; for nripcjoK hiiapriai; in parallel with
7ii0Xuai<; dffe(3eunr. The latter is accepted by recent editors although -nr\piooi<; does occur as a
variant for nwpwoK in the NT MSS tradition (see Mark 3. 5; John 12. 40; Rom 11. 25); see also
J. A. Robinson, St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Macmillan 1928) 264-74; J. A. de
Waard, A Comparative Study of the OT Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the NT (Leiden: Brill
1966) 7-8.
[42] So, more confidently, Lindars,/lpo/o£efjc, 162-3.
[43] Mark 8. 18; Rom 11.7. See above nn. 29, 36.
[44] Also at 29. 10; 33. 15 translating 'sm.
[45] n>0Adcjonly at Isa 42. 2 9 ; ™ / ^ at 29. 18; 35. 5; 42. 7, 16, 18, 19; 43. 8;cf. 61. 1.
[46] J. Charlesworth, 'A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3. 13-4. 26 and the "Dual-
ism" contained in the Gospel of John', in John and Qumran, ed. idem (London: Chapman 1972)
76-106, esp. 101-3.
[47] E. T. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, 77. For 'stiffness of neck' cf. Exod 32. 9 etc.
[48] Exod 7. 14; 8. 11, 28; 9. 7, 34; 10. 1 (all of Pharaoh); 1 Sam 6. 6 (Israel compared with
Pharaoh). Jkhd is used of the ears in Isa 6. 10 as here in 1 QS 4. 11. The LXX usually translates
by fiapiivcj.
[49] srrwt lb: 1QS 1.6; 2.14; 3.3; 5.4 etc. as at Jer 3. 17; 7. 24; 9. 13; 11. 38 etc. The LXX
apparently did not recognise this as a 'hardness' term and offers a number of translations. The
phrase may be reflected in the last NT use of ITU>P<JJOK at Eph 4. 18.
[50] See also S. Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament (BZNW 25. Ber-
lin: Topelmann 1959) 30-42, 56-8. So also Gnostic literature can use blindness and deafness in a
dualist framework; cf. Apoc. Peter (NH VII.3) 73.12-13; 76.21-23.
[51] Freed, OT Quotations, 88 suggests the influence of Wisdom language because of the use of
•nu>p6u> in Job 17. 7 (B only); NB n. 41 above.
[52] Passive with yivofiat in 9. 22; 12. 42; active with woie'u) at 16. 2.
[53] huaprlav e\ea> comes only at John 9. 41; 15. 22, 24; 19. 11; 1 John 1. 8 (see below) in the
NT.
[54] On these occasions the phrase is Sia TOP <)>6pov TCJV 'lovbauov; here the verb is used: 4<jx>-
poOvro robs 'louSavovt;.
[55] Compare 7. 31-5. In ch. 9 the protagonists remain anonymous until 9. 40 (the Pharisees)
although they are probably in view immediately at 9. 24.
[56] Martyn, History and Theology, 86-9 seeks to explain this by identifying the 'rulers' as those
within the local council who were sympathetic, while the Pharisees represent the 'Jamnia loyalists';
this depends on his reconstruction and is not easy to sustain. See, however, 7. 48.
[57] See above p. 89 on dfio\oyeu> in John.
[58] Although we have argued that' here 'his glory' refers to Jesus; yet Jesus's glory is God's glory.
[59] There is no need to identify this further although it is hazardous to see here a reference to
the Birkath-haminim; see R. Kimelman, 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-
Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity' in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition ed. E. P. Sanders
etal. (London: SCM 1980-82) II, 226-44.
[60] Rom 11. 25-26; but 2 Cor 4. 4 offers less hope to 'those who are perishing'.
[61] See above p. 87; this must qualify seeing in Mark 4. 11-12 a sign of sectarian consciousness.
[62] Note the perfect tense TerixpXwKev.
[63] 'dfiapriav 'exew' (1. 8) cf. n. 53 above; 'walking in the light' (1. 6, 7; 2. 11) cf. n. 15 above.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212

 BLINDNESS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION 95

[64] So also 'to have sin' in John is christologically centred but in 1 John is a moral claim. See
further J. M. Lieu, The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark 1986) 197, 206-7.
[65] On this see G. Klein, 'Daswahre Licht scheint schon', ZThK 68 (1971) 261-326.
[66] John 12. 35 b vepmarCjv &v T-Q oKorvf-oiK olSevirov vit6.yei,
1 John 2. \\ 4vrrj oKminf. nepiitareiKaXOVK oTSev vox) inayeu
[67] See above n. 50; also Gospel of Truth 29. 26-30. 16; NB 30. 15-16 'And blessed is he who
has opened the eyes of the blind' (E.T. in ed. J. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English
[Leiden: Brill 1977] 43).
[68] See above p. 87 and n. 39 NB TJudah 18.6 '. . . because they have blinded his soul and he
walks in the day as in the night'.
[69] See Brown, Epistles, 33-5. [70] 1 John 2. 7, 24; 3. 11.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 May 2015 IP address: 128.122.253.212