The Power of Prophecy: a Septuagintal Echo in John 20:19-23

The Power of Prophecy: A Septuagintal Echo in John 20:19-23

TOBIAS HÄGERLAND University of Gothenburg SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden

CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS commonly agree that the Council of Trent, although infallibly and definitively establishing the dogmatic meaning of John 20:22-23, did not thereby rule out further discussion concerning the original sense of this passage.' In the terminology ofthe theory of Catholic biblical interpretation, the sacramental understanding of John 20:22-23 could well be seen as an instance of sensus plenior rather than the sensus litteralis to be established by historical-critical means.^ My aim in the present article is to make a new proposal concerning the latter of these two senses of John 20:19-23, that is, the meaning put into this text by its human author. I will draw attention to the possibility of hearing in this scene

' Raymond E. Brown, The Gospei according to Joiin XlIl-XXl: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) 1041; Rudolf Schnacken- burg. Das Johannesevangelium (4 vols.; HTKNT 4; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1986) 3. 388; Joseph Ratzinger, "Congregation for the Doctrine ofthe Faith: Presentation ofthe Apostolie Letter in the Form of Motu Proprio Misericordia Dei: Intervention," May 2, 2002, http://www . Vatican. va/romancuria/eongregations/efaith/doeuments/rc_concfaithdoc_20020502_ ratzinger-penance_en.html (accessed November 17, 2008). For a dynamic discussion ofthe potential of John 20:22-23 within a contemporary hermeneuties of faith, see Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz, The Future of Cathoiic Bihiicai Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 237-48, 257-58. ^For recent discussion of sensus ptenior, see Pontifieal Biblical Commission, The Interpre- tation oftiw Bible in the Church (Boston: St. Paul, 1993) II.B.3; Peter S. Williamson, Cathoiic Prin- ciples for Interpreting Scripture: A Study ofthe Pontifical Bibiical Commission s The Interpretation ofthe Bible in the Church (Subsidia Biblica 22; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblieo, 2001) 204-15; Carolyn Osiek, "Catholic or catholic? Biblical Scholarship at the Center," JBL 125 (2006) 5-22, here 21.

84 THE POWER OF PROPHECY 85

a syntactical and theological echo ofthe LXX version ofthe Balaam cycle of Num- bers 22-24, which is significant for the critical understanding of John 20:22-23 in particular. The phenomenon of intertextual echoes must not be confused with neigh- boring uses of other texts, such as explicit quoting or typological interpretation. An echo is neither as readily distinguishable as a quotation, nor necessarily as thoroughgoing as a typological interpretation. The Gospel of John employs both these techniques of intertextual cross-reference. Quotations from Isaiah, for example, are applied both to John (the Baptist) and to Jesus, in order to align these char- acters with the classic Israelite prophetic experience and to demonstrate how their activities fulfill the prophecies of old (1:23; 12:38,40). Typology is explicit in the comparison between Moses' serpent and Jesus (3:14-15), but is also likely to have played a decisive role in the formation ofthe entire "Book of Signs," which seems to be permeated with Moses typology. Scriptural echoes are fainter and often less exploited than either quotations or typology, and, consequently, they are less demonstrable. Does the advice of Jesus' mother at the wedding in Cana (2:5) echo Pharaoh's endorsement of Joseph to the Egyptians (Gen 41:55)? Is the mention ofthe Sheep Gate in conjunction with Jesus' commanding a paralytic to "take up his pallet and walk" on the Sabbath (5:2-9) an echo of the prophet Jeremiah's fervent warning against carrying any burden through the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath (Jer 17:21 )? Or are these purported echoes of Scripture merely scholarly fantasies, far too subtle and understated to have been intended by the evangelist or recognized by the Gospel's first hearers?^ Richard B. Hays has offered an inventory of seven criteria for assessing the alleged presence of scriptural echoes, which will here be applied to the Johannine pericope. These criteria are (in slightly reformulated terms): (I) availability ofthe "pretext" (the text echoed) to the author and first hearers ofthe "metatext" (the text in which an echo occurs); (2) volume and prominence ofthe echo in the metatext; (3) recurrence of the echo or other echoes of the same pretext in the metatext; (4) thematic coherence ofthe echo with the metatext at large; (5) plausibility ofthe echo being intended and recognized in its historical milieu; (6) previous identification ofthe echo in the history of interpretation; (7) "satisfaction," the degree to which the identification of the echo contributes to a convincing exegesis of the passage in question."*

^ In the words of Vernon K. Robbins (Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio- Rhetorical Interpretation [Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996] 60), "echo does not contain either a word or a phrase that is 'indisputably' from only one eultural tradition. Echo is subtle and indirect. One person may hear it while another does not, and the speaker may or may not have directly intended the echo to be there. The resuh is that interpreters regularly will debate the presence or absence of a particular echo in the text under consideration." '' Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven/London: Yale Uni- 86 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

In the following I will argue that Hays's criteria are met well enough to consider the hearing of an echo of Numbers 22-24 in John 20:19-23 to be something more than sheer imagination. After an overview ofthe interpretation ofthe Balaam cycle in early Jewish literature, 1 will tum to the possible impact of these readings on the theology of John's Gospel and then to 20:19-23 specifically. Finally, 1 will retum to the seven criteria in order to consider the extent to which they have been met in this case.

1. Balaam and Early Jewish Refiection on the Nature of Prophecy Although the Hebrew Bible never calls Balaam son of Beor a "prophet" (K''D]), referring to him only in passing as "the diviner" (QDpn [Josh 13:22]), the oracles ascribed to him in Numbers 23-24 can justly be described as the first extensive instance of prophecy in the narrative timeline of the Pentateuch, set in an epoch when no prophet had yet risen in Israel.' As such, the cycle attains pro- grammatic importance within the biblical narrative, its notion of mantic and oracular prophecy establishing a theological framework within which to understand subsequent occurrences of prophetic activity in the canonical order of Scripture. Balaam is coerced to speak God's "word" ("QI; 22:8, 20, 35, 38; 23:3, 5, 16; cf 23:26; 24:13), however much this confiicts with his own desire or with that of Balak. The third and fourth oracles are introduced with the revelatory DXJ-fomiula characteristic of the scriptural prophets, and Balaam professes to be "a hearer of the words of ^Ël, who sees a vision of Sadday" (24:4, 16). Commenting that prior to Balaam's third oracle, "the spirit of God came upon him" (24:2), the narrator of Numbers unmistakably presents Balaam's speech as tme and inspired prophecy. The character of Balaam himself is rather ambiguous, largely owing to the seem- ing inconsistency in the portrayal of God's own attitude (22:20-22).* Apart from Numbers 22-24, the biblical picture of Balaam is thoroughly negative: his own wish had been to curse Israel (Deut 23:5-6; Josh 24:9-10), and it was he who prompted the Midianite women to lure the Israelites into idolatry (Num 31:16). versity Press, 1989) 29-32; idem. The Conversion ofthe Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 34-48. ^ See Martin Rösel, "Wie einer vom Propheten zum Verfuhrer wurde: Tradition und Rezep- tion der Bileamsgestalt," Bib 80 (1999) 506-24, here 508-10. * For source-critieal analyses ofthe Balaam cycle, see John T. Greene, Balaam and His Inter- preters: A Hermeneutical History ofthe Balaam Traditions (BJS 244; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 17-68; Horst Seebass, "Zur literarischen Gestalt der Bileam-Perikope," ZAW \Q1 (1995) 409-19; Jo Ann Hackett, "Balaam," ABD, I. 569-72. On the Balaam inscriptions from Deir 'Alia, see Michael S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development (SiBLD^ 113; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 66-96; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21-36: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 241-75. THE POWER OF PROPH EC Y 87

None of this seems to have detracted from the validity of his predictive prophecies, since in delivering them he was the mouthpiece of Yhwh. The LXX labels Balaam a "diviner" (liávtic; [Josh 13:22]) and presents him in a less favorable light than does the MT of Numbers 22-24. In various ways, the Greek translator dissociates Balaam from the God of Israel, tuming him into a decidedly pagan soothsayer and a worshiper of some indefinite deity.^ Yet the inspired character of Balaam's speeches is emphasized in the Greek text, which introduces both the first and third oracles with "and the spirit of God came upon him" (KOI èyevriGri [¿YeveTo] Tiveù|ia öeoö en' aÙTÔ) psium 23:7; 24:2]), whereas only the third oracle is prefixed with an equivalent phrase in the Hebrew text. The description of visions having come to Balaam "in his sleep, his eyes being uncov- ered" (èv íJTivü), ànoKEKaXi)|^pévoi oí ô(p9a\|ioi aÙToiJ [24:4, 16]) may indicate a hypnotic or ecstatic state. Whether the oracles lend themselves more easily to eschatological or even messianic interpretations in the Greek version has been debated.^ The temporal indication "in the last ofthe days" (en' èaxaxou tcov f)|iEp(I)v [24:14]), which precedes the fourth oracle, is not peculiar to the LXX but concurs quite literally with the Hebrew. In 24:17, by announcing the coming rise of a "human being" (áv9pü)7io(;) in place ofthe Masoretic "sceptre" (Ü^tt?), the Greek translator has actually made the exegesis of the passage in royal messianic terms less attrac- tive.' On the other hand, "a human being will come forth from his seed and rule many nations" (èÇeÀeuoETai dvöpcünoc; ÈK TOÙ aTrépiiatoc; aùtoû Kal Kupieúasi eöviüv KoXXtüv [24:7]) seems to add a potential of messianic interpretation not present in the Hebrew text. Perhaps this, in combination with the stress on the pneumatic nature of Balaam's speeches, can be said to promote the status ofthe oracles slightly, while simultaneously the character ofthe diviner himself is some- what denigrated. If the value of Balaam's prophecies is not dependent on his own morals and intentions according to the Hebrew text, then it is even less so in the Greek. Early interpreters of Numbers 22-24 usually designate Balaam as a "diviner"

' ó BEÓÍ; ("God") is the translation of mn' ("Yhwh") in Num 22:13, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35; 23;3, 5, 8, 12, 16, 26; 24:13. In 22:18, Balaam speaks of TO pfj^ia Kupíou TOÖ Seoù ("the word ofthe Lord God") in contrast to the suffixed Tl'^N mn' 'D ("the mouth of Yhwh my God") in the MT See John William Wevers, Notes on the Creeic Text of Numbers (SBLSCS 46; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) xxix, 370-75, 377-80, 385, 387, 389, 391, 393, 398, 410. * See Géza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (SPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961) 59-60, 159-60, 165-66; cf. J. Lust, "The Greek Version of Balaam's Third and Fourth Oracles: The ävöpcünoc; in Num 24:7 and 17; Messianism and Lexicography," in VIH Congress of the Internationai Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992 (ed. Leonard J. Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich; SBLSCS 41 ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 233-52. ' Lust, "Greek Version," 240-41. 88 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

([iávTic;), less frequently as a "magician" ([iáYOc;) or "prophet" (npocpiÎTric;)."' His oracular activity is referred to with the verbs "conjure" (£Tri0eiá(eiv), "deliver oracles" (oeaniÍEiv), "foretell" (TipoXÉYeiv), and "prophesy" (7Tpo(pr|T£Úeiv); and with the nouns "divination" (|iavTiKti) and "prophecy" (prophetia).^^ Only the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum grants some sympathetic traits to Balaam, characterizing him as something of a "tragic hero" who does not recognize his fateful mistake until it is too late.'^ The other interpreters ofthe cycle have to grapple with the problem of prominent and divinely inspired prophecies having been delivered by a man who was not only a Gentile but also had recourse to pagan practices of divination and who sealed his career with drawing Israel into licentiousness and idolatry. In the following I will summarize and discuss briefly the theological interpretations ofthe Balaam cycle according to the rewritings of biblical history by Josephus and Philo.'^ Josephus may have had the Balaam cycle at his disposal in three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.''' It is certainly misleading to argue that Josephus does not censure Balaam or even that he views Balaam as "the greatest of the prophets," as has been done by some commentators.'^ In contradistinction to the biblical story, Josephus's Balaam expresses his "eagerness" (Ttpo0u|iia, anouSií) to comply with Balak's request and curse Israel {A.J. 4.6.2 § 105). '^ God's unexpected approval of Balaam's going with the envoys from Balak in the biblical cycle (Num 22:20) is interpreted by Josephus as a deceiving command in response to Balaam's pushy questioning {A.J. 4.6.3 §107). Having delivered, against his own will (4.6.5 §122), an oracle that was favorable to Israel, Balaam has additional sacrifices

'"Josephus^./ 4.6.2 §104; 4.6.4 §112; PhiloMg/^ 114; Moi. 1.276,282,285 (all i Philo Mos. 1.276 ((iáyoc;); 2 Pet 2:16 (npO9iÍTr|i;); cf. Philo Mos. 1.266 (áaTeíCó|i£voc; luc op T(I)V eXXoyinwv npo

" See Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evi- dence from Josephus (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 176-77 n. 75. '* For a diseussion of the Platonic eharacter of these notions, see Feldman, Judean Antiqui- ties 1-4, 373-74 n. 367. " On Philo's reluctance to call Balaam a prophet, despite his statement that Balaam prophesied {Mos. 1.283), see J. R. Baskin, "Origen on Balaam: The Dilemma of the Unworthy Prophet," KC37 (1983) 22-35, here 24. 90 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009 takes place without Balaam's consent or comprehension (1.274, 283). Other treat- ments of prophecy in Philo contain strikingly similar formulations.^" Much as in Josephus, Philo's Balaam is a temporarily possessed diviner whose evil intentions cannot impede the divine oracles from being delivered.

II. Prophets and Prophecy in the Gospel of J^ohn Could the author ofthe Gospel of John have been familiar with these or similar reflections on Balaam's prophetic gift? With regard to the biblical Balaam cycle, it is quite probable that John (by which name I will henceforth designate the author) had access to it in a Greek version. The Gospel may not be entirely con- sistent in its use ofthe OT, hut some ofthe quotations do seem to come from the LXX.-^' Echoes ofthe Book of Numbers can be heard throughout the first part of the Gospel. The mention of manna in John 6:49 may refer the reader back to Num- bers 11, while the sheepfold imagery and the phrase "will come in and go out" (eioEXeúaetai Kai è^eXEUGerai [John 10:9]) appear to echo Num 27:17.^^ Two passages serve to portray Jesus in terms associated with Moses in Numbers: "I cannot do anything of myself ' (où ôuvapai èyà) noieîv an' è[iavTO\) oùôév [John 5:30]) is suggestive of "the Lord sent me to do all these works, for [I do them] not of myself (KÚpioc; àTtéotEiXév JÍE7ToifjaainávTa taepyaxaOxa, öxiOÙKan' £(iauToí3 [Num 16:28]), and the Jews' remark "to Moses God has spoken" (MtuiJasI \£\áXr|KEv ó 0EÓc; [John 9:29]) approximates a direct quotation of Num 12:2. Most obvious is, of course, the typological application of Num 21:8-9 to Jesus in John 3:14-15. This recurring use of Numbers makes it likely that John knew ofthe book in its entirety and thus could have drawn also on the Balaam cycle. Whether he was also aware ofthe interpretation of Balaam's prophetic activity in Hellenistic terms as represented by Josephus and Philo is more difficult to say. The relationship between Philo and John is usually viewed today as one of common Jewish Hellenistic background rather than of direct dependence.^^ Since both Philo and Josephus have placed the Balaam cycle within practically the same interpretative

^^ Philo Her 258-66 (on prophecy in general); Mos. 1.57, 175, 201; 2.246-91 (on Moses); Spec. 1.65 (on the prophet like Moses and prophecy in general); 4.49 (on prophecy in general). ^' John 10:34; 12:38; 19:24. See Bruce G. Schuchatd, Scripture within Scripture: The Inter- relationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John (SBLDS 133; Atlanta: Seholars Press, 1992) 61, 87-88, 126-27, 151-54 (preferring the term "OG" over against "LXX"); Marten J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Stud- ies in Textual Form (CBET 15; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 14-15. ^^ On John 10:9, see Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK; Göttingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1941) 287 n. 6. ^' Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (ed. Francis J. Moloney; Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 129-30. THE POWER OF PROPHECY 91 framework of Hellenistic mantic inspiration, one cannot rule out the possibility that they reflect at this point a eommon tradition of interpretation, which may have been available to John. John does not offer an elaborate theory of prophetic inspiration. In a few passages, TtpocpriTric; is employed with reference to the scriptural prophets of the OT (1:23,45; 6:45; 8:52-53; 12:38). The single mention of prophecy explicitly said to take place within the narrative is the oracle unwittingly delivered by the high priest Caiaphas concerning the benefit of one man dying for the people rather than the whole nation being destroyed (11:49-50). Here the narrator quickly points out, "But this he did not say of himself (àcp' éauToù), but being high priest that year he prophesied (ÈTipocpiÎTEuaev)" (11:51). This notion of prophecy, which insists that the self of the medium is bypassed in the delivery of an oracle, is in harmony with the early Jewish interpretations ofthe Balaam cycle. In the LXX, Balaam tells Balak, "I will not be able to transgress the word of the Lord... by myself (nap' ¿nauTou)" (Num 24:13).^"'Josephus, as already mentioned, says that Balaam prophesied "while not in himself (OÙK ÜV ÈV êauTcI) [A.J. 4.6.5 §118]) and contrasts the all-powerful will ofGod with the impotence of those who claim prognostic ability "by themselves" (nap' eauTtöv [4.6.5 §121]). Philo has Balaam maintain that in his inspired state he speaks "nothing that is his own ('iôiov oùôév), but whatever the deity proposes" (Mos. 1.281), whereas when released from possession he offers "guesses of my [own] thinking" (1.294). 1 noted above that both Philo and Josephus take Balaam not to have understood what he was prophesying. The same holds true for Caiaphas, with the added Johannine twist that his words contain a double entendre: Caiaphas thinks that he is offering practical advice on how to spare the people from Roman destruction by having Jesus executed, but he is unwittingly giving voice to the early Christian doctrine of Jesus' redemptive death (John 11:51-52). The notion of prophecy being delivered by an ignorant medium is not, to be sure, limited to Balaam but is applied also to Israelite prophets in rabbinic literature.^^ Caiaphas, however, is like Balaam in that he is an antagonist in the story, involved in deadly opposition to its hero; only divine action "turned the curse into a blessing" (cf. Deut 23:6; Neh 13:2). Among early commentators on John's Gospel, Origen noticed the resem- blance of Caiaphas to Balaam.^* In his homily on Num 22:15-28, the third-century scholar says that one should not be perplexed on seeing that Balaam prophesied about Christ, "for we read that Caiaphas also did this" (Horn. Num. 14.4.4). In his detailed commentary on John, Origen treats the topic extensively. Admitting that both Caiaphas and Balaam did prophesy (Ttpo9r|T£Úeiv), he argues that this does not

^'' Bultmann {Das Evangelium des Johannes, 187) notices the relevance of this notion of prophecy for John's christology. " See Str-B, 2. 546. ^'On Origen's interpretation of Balaam in general, see Baskin, "Origen on Balaam." 92 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009 make either of these wicked men deserving of the title TTpocpiixrn; {Comtn. Jo. 28.98-105). Furthermore, in view of John's remark that "the Spirit was not yet, since Jesus had not yet been glorified" (John 7:39), Origen thinks that Caiaphas's prophecy cannot have been caused by the indwelling ofthe Holy Spirit (Cotntn. Jo. 28.127-29). Balaam is mentioned, along with other biblical examples, as proof that other spirits may inspire true prophecies (28.130-49). A fmal analogy between Caiaphas and Balaam is to be found in the fact that the prophecies of both were prompted by special circumstances (28.175-77). The prophet par excellence in the Gospel of John is, however, Jesus himself. Both the Samaritan woman and the man bom blind identify Jesus as Kpoipiitric; (John 4:19; 9:17), while his opponents deny this to him because of his Galilean ori- gin (7:52). Other people acclaim Jesus as the prophet, ó Ttpo(pr|Tr|(; (6:14; 7:40), a title that the Baptist did not accept when it was applied to him (1:21, 25).^' This is likely a reference to the "prophet like Moses" (see Deut 18:15-18), since the Gospel portrays Jesus in terms evocative of Moses' prophetic ministry, as mentioned above.^^ Although Jesus' statement that a prophet has no honor in his home- land (4:44) cannot be taken to indicate that the Johannine Jesus views himself precisely as a prophet, it is nevertheless significant that he never declines this des- ignation, unlike the Baptist. He appears to accept being called a prophet, although he is certainly much more than a prophet.^^ John repeatedly associates Jesus with prophetic characteristics that are found also in the LXX Balaam cycle and its ear- liest interpretations. Among these can be mentioned the following: 1. Inspiration by the Spirit. Of Balaam it is said, "the spirit of God (Tiv£ü|ia öeoö) came upon him (en' aÙTô))" (Num 23:7; 24:2). At the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the Baptist sees "the Spirit (TO 7tv£ö|ia) descend and remain on him (en' aÚTÓv)" (John 1:32-33). When later Jesus speaks about the Spirit, some among the crowd recognize him as the prophet (7:39-40). 2. Hearing and seeing hidden things (the mantic function).^" Balaam is "a hearer of God's oracles, one who has seen a vision from/of God (opaaiv 9eoû)"

^' "John the Baptist" ('Iü)ávvr|<; ó ßanTiCcüv/o ßanTiarrii;) is so designated in Josephus and the Synoptic Gospels, but never in the Gospel of John. I employ this un-Johannine appellative only lo distinguish "the Baptist" from the author ofthe Gospel. ^^ See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christoiogy (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967)45-46, 87-99. ^' See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation ofthe Fourth Gospei (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1953) 254-55; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Eariy Christianity and the Ancient Mediter- ranean IVorid (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 155-56. ^^ For a diseussion of the terminological distinction between npocpqTEÍa and pavTEia, see Christopher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Eariy Christianity and its Heilenistic Envi- ronment (WUNT 2/75; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 188-217. THE POWER OF PROPHECY 93

(Num 24:4; cf. 24:16). In Philo, this has escalated into a claim to see "not only the world but also the creator ofthe world" {Mos. 1.272). John states that Jesus, who is from above, testifies to "what he has seen and heard" (John 3:32; cf. 3:11 ; 5:30; 8:26, 38, 40, 47; 15:15). Whatever the Father does he "shows" (ôeiKvuaiv) to his Son (5:20). Moreover, the Johannine Jesus claims that he has actually seen the Father, since he comes from God (6:46; cf. 1:18). 3. Obedience to God's word. Balaam cannot go beyond "the word ofthe Lord God" (T6 pniia Kupiou TOO Geoù [Num 22:18; cf. 22:20, 35, 38; 23:3, 5, 16, 26; 24:13]). Similarly, John writes that the one whom God has sent speaks "the words of God" (TO pr||iaTa TOO öeoö) and ascribes this ability to God's immeasurable gift ofthe Spirit (John 3:34; cf. 6:63, 68; 8:47; 10:21; 14:10; 17:8). 4. Speaking the word (the prophetic function). Balaam is able to speak no more and no less than the word of God. Among the verbs employed by the Greek translator are "speak" (XaXetv [Num 22:20, 35, 38; 23:5, 12]; cf. ÈKXaXeïv in Philo Mos. 1.283) and "proclaim" (àvayYÉXXEiv [Num 23:3]; cf. ànaYYeXia in Josephus A.J. 4.6.5 §122). The Johannine Jesus is also said to speak (XaXeîv [John 3:11, 34; 6:63; 7:17-18; 8:26, 28, 38, 40; 12:48-50; 14:10, 25; 15:22]) and proclaim (àvayyéXXeiv [4:25]; ànayéXXeiv [16:25]) whatever he has seen and heard from God. 5. Distance to the mediated message. As noted above, the LXX, Josephus, and Philo express by various means that Balaam's prophecies do not in any way originate with himself. In this respect, John's Jesus is both like and unlike Balaam. On the one hand, Jesus is an unequivocally good character "in himself: he has life and knowledge "in himself (ev éauTW [John 5:26; 6:61]) and professes to lay down his own life "of himself (àcp' éautoû [cf. 10:18]). On the other hand, he repeatedly stresses that his message is not his own (5:30; 6:38; 7:16; 14:24) and that he does not speak and act "of himself" (àcp' éautoû [5:19; 7:17-18; cf. 5:30; 7:28; 8:28, 42; 14:10]) or "from himself (è^ eauToi [cf. 12:49]).3i 6. Disinterest in personal gain and honor. In the Balaam cycle, Balaam con- stantly declines Balak's persistent attempts to entice him into cursing Israel in exchange for material donations (Num 22:17-18,37-38; 24:13). When Balak real- izes that he cannot buy curses from the diviner, he reproaches Balaam for having failed to earn the promised "glory" (ôoÇa [24:11 ; Philo Mos. 1.293]). Likewise, the Johannine Jesus professes to be disinterested in ôoÇa from human beings (John 5:41; 7:18; 8:50; cf. 12:43). He values no ôo^a apart from that which comes from God(l:14; 7:18; 8:54; 11:4; 12:28; 13:32; 17:1,5,22,24).

' See Bultmann, Das Evangetium des Johannes, 187-8 94 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

By highlighting these common characteristics I do not suggest that they serve to portray the Johannine Jesus in tenns of a Balaam typology. In fact, most of them are to be viewed more properly as emulating Mosaic traditions, as Wayne A. Meeks demonstrated forty years ago.-'^ They do indicate, however, that John knew of Hel- lenistic Jewish reinterpretations of prophecy and that he did not hesitate to employ these categories to characterize Jesus. Like Philo, he could have subsumed the activities of both Balaam and Moses under the heading of "prophecy." And although "prophecy" would certainly not be sufficient to describe fully the unpar- alleled mission of Jesus, some elements of it would fall under this notion.

IIL Commissioning of the Disciples as Prophets (John 20:19-23) Although Jesus' disciples are not labeled prophets in the Gospel of John, in my opinion they are depicted as such in John 20:19-23, a passage that both echoes the Balaam cycle in the LXX version and draws on the portrayal of Jesus' prophetic ministry in the Gospel. I begin by briefly calling attention to how the first part of the Johannine pericope (vv. 19-20) prepares for the narration of how Jesus gives the Spirit to his disciples in the second part (vv. 21-23). Jesus' salutation "Peace to you" (elpiivr| v[ñv) is the first indication of the pneumatological contents of the passage: elptivr| was first used in the Gospel in 14:27, immediately after a mention of the Paraclete to come (14:26). The subsequent "I go away and come to you" (14:28) is a reference to Jesus' departure and the coming of the Spirit (see 16:7). Accordingly, Jesus' statement about his peace in V. 27 should probably be interpreted also as a reference to the giving of the Spirit in the future, the verbs "I leave" (à(pir||ii) and "I give" (5ÍOÍÜ|ÍI) being future in meaning, just as "I come" (£pxo|jai) in v. 28 has a future sense.^^ These promises —to send the Spirit, to give peace, and to come again—are now to be fulfilled. Another pneumatological catchword is "side" (KAeupá), which provides a link to the crucifixion and the piercing of Jesus' side (19:31-36). There are good reasons to view the water that flows from Jesus' side as a symbol of the Spirit: water and Spirit are paralleled in 3:5, and Jesus' death is a necessary prerequisite for the coming of the Spirit (7:39; 16:7). In 7:38-39, John explicitly identifles the rivers of living water, which will flow from Jesus, with the Spirit. This is fulfilled in 19:34.^" Now that Jesus shows his pierced side to the disciples, he not only proves himself to be the very same paschal lamb that died on the cross but has

" Meeks, Prophet-King. 286-319. •'•' See also Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes. 536; Comelis Bennema, "The Giving of the Spirit in John's Gospel—A New Proposal?" EvQ 74 (2002) 195-213, here 211. '''On the reasons for taking the pronoun "his" (aùtoû) in 7:38 as a reference to Jesus, see iVIenken, Old Testament Quotations. 192-93. THE POWER OF PROPHECY 95 subsequently been raised; he also indicates that the Spirit has gushed forth from him and can now be given to the disciples.-'^

A. "As the Father has sent me, I too send you " (20:21) Earlier in his Gospel, John referred proleptically to a sending ofthe disciples that is analogous to Jesus' sending by the Father (13:20; 17:18). God sent Jesus to speak God's words and teaching (3:34; 7:16; 8:26; 12:49; 14:24), to do God's will and works (4:34; 5:30, 36; 6:38-39; 9:4), and to save the world (3:17). By itself, the introductory "as" (KOÖCÜC;) in 20:21 need not imply that the comparison goes beyond the act of sending: the Father has sent Jesus, and now Jesus likewise sends his disciples. But several passages in the Gospel suggest that the analogy reaches further and that the disciples are to function as prophets of Jesus, much as Jesus functioned as the prophet of his Father.^^ As Jesus has seen the Father, so they have seen Jesus; and through this they have, in effect, seen the Father (14:7-9). Since Jesus has made known to them all that he heard from his Father (15:15), what they have heard from him is actually the Father's word (14:24). The words (piÎpaxa) that were given to Jesus by the Father, Jesus has given to the disciples (17:8). Just as Jesus testifies about what he has seen and heard (3:11, 32), so his disciples are to testify concerning him (15:27). As a branch cannot bear fruit of itself (àcp' éauToû) but only by remaining in the vine, so they are to remain in Jesus, "for without me you can do nothing" (15:4-5). Jesus has granted them the ôoÇa that his Father gave to him (17:22). In sum, the prophetic characteristics exhibited by Jesus are attributed to his disciples after his glorious death, resurrec- tion, and ascension. They are sent on a prophetic mission.

B. "Receive holy Spirit" (20:22) John then relates how Jesus "breathed into" (£VE9ÚGr|Gev) the disciples, evi- dently interpreting his own breath as holy Spirit. Just as the descent ofthe Spirit marked the beginning of Jesus' ministry (1:32-33), so now the gift of Spirit inau- gurates the disciples' mission.^^ Jesus spoke earlier of the Spirit of truth, which

•"Temple symbolism appears to be involved also in 19:34 and 20:19-20. See Mary Coloc, "Raising the Johannine Temple (John 19:19-37)," AusBR 48 (2000) 47-58, here 54-57; Sandra M. Schneiders, "The Raising ofthe New Temple: John 20.19-23 and Johannine Ecelesiology," NTS 52 (2006) 337-55, here 347-48. ^* See Gary M. Bürge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 199-204. •" See Martin Hasitschka, "Befreiung von Sünde nach dem Johannesevangelium," in Sünde und Erlösung im Neuen Testament (ed. Hubert Frankemölle; QD 161; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1996)92-107, here 106. 96 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009 remains (névei) with the disciples (14:17) as it remained (£(ieiv£v) on Jesus (1:32). This is the Spirit of prophecy, which is itself depicted in prophetic terms: "For it will not speak of itself, but whatever it hears it will speak, and coming things it will proclaim to you" (où yap XaXqaei à(p' éauToû, àXk' öaa àKouoei XaXiíaei Kai xà èpxo[ieva àvoYYEXEÎ u|iîv [16:13]). Here several prophetic characteristics are applied to the Spirit: it will both hear and speak/proclaim hidden things, and it functions as the medium ofthe message, not as its originator. It will testify to Jesus and thus provide a model for the disciples' testimony (15:26-27). The verb ¿(icpuaiäv ("breathe into") in John 20:22 is used also in LXX Gen 2:7 with reference to God's life-giving breathing into Adam. This has led commentators to interpret it in the light ofthe verse from Genesis. According to this interpretation, the function ofthe Spirit is to cleanse the disciples from sin and to establish them as a new creation.^^ But the position ofthe mention of "holy Spirif indicates that it is given to the disciples not for their own sake but for the sake of others. They receive the Spirit as part of their commission as prophets to the world.^' Origen, as noted above, doubted that Caiaphas could have prophesied by the Holy Spirit, since not even the apostles had received the Spirit prior to Jesus' glo- rification. "But," writes Origen, "when the Savior had risen, he breathed into his disciples and said to them, 'Receive holy Spirit,' and so on" {Comm. Jo. 28.128). We may infer from this comment that Origen took John 20:22 as narrating the bestowal ofthe Spirit of prophecy on Jesus' disciples. Unlike Caiaphas, they are now able to prophesy by the Holy Spirit. The wording "and so on" (xai Ta e^fjc;) seems to imply that Origen viewed John 20:23 as an integral part ofthe same prophetic commissioning, and we will see shortly that this indeed is the case.

C. "If you forgive the sins of any ..." (20:23) The authorization to forgive sins is both the most enigmatic part of the disciples' commissioning and the place where the Balaam cycle comes through most strongly. Klaus Berger, in his extensive treatment of literary forms and types in the NT, places John 20:23 in the category of "conditional clauses concerning the assured result of liturgical words" (Konditionalsätze über den sicheren Erfolg liturgischer Worte). Its characteristic structure is a conditional clause, conditional relative, or imperative clause, followed by a gnomic future or (more rarely) present indicative. Among other passages that Berger includes in this group are Mark 11:23; Matt 18:19; T. Abr. [A] 8:7.'*''An example from John may serve as illustration:

^^ See, e.g., Schneiders, "Raising ofthe New Temple," 351-52. ^' See Thomas R. Hatina, "John 20,22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?" 5/7)74(1993) 196-219, here 217-18; Ben Witherington \U, John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Goi-/»e/(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 342-43. '"' Klaus Berger, Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament (Uni-Taschenbücher 2532; Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 2005) 231-32. THE POWER OF PROPHECY 97

John 14:13-14 A Conditional relative ö TI àv aÍTr|ar|T£ èv TÍI) óvóiaaTÍ \iov Whatever you ask for in my name B Apodosis TOÙT0 Ttotrjocu (ïva ôo^aaofj ó 7taTf)p èv TCU UÍÜ)) this I will do (in order for the Father to be glorified through the Son). A Conditional eáv Tt aÍTiÍ0r|Te [le èv T<¡) ovó[iaTÍ \iov If you ask me for something in my name B Apodosis èyù noir]oui. I will do it.

John 20:23 can, however, be assigned to a more limited subtype to which belong also Matt 16:19b and 18:18.'" The sayings of this type are antithetical. Each member ofthe antithetical saying consists of a conditional clause or conditional relative (A and A'), followed by an apodosis (B and B'). The predicate of A is also the predicate of B, and that of A ' is also that of B ' ; the verb employed in A and B is semantically the opposite ofthat employed in A' and B'. In A and A', the verb is in the second person subjunctive and carries active force, while in B and B', the verb is in the passive third person simple perfect or periphrastic future perfect indicative."*^ Thus:

'" Full diseussion ofthe diachronie relationship of these three sayings would exeeed the lim- its of this article. Matthew 16:19b is commonly thought to be prior to 18:18 (see, e.g., Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Oiiiy Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israei. Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community [ConBNT 24; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994] 359- 60). Schneiders's recent suggestion that John 20:23 is unrelated to the Matthean sayings ("Raising ofthe New Temple," 352-54) is contradicted by the tendency to juxtapose and conflate the sayings in early Christianity (e.g., Cyprian Unit. ecci. 4; Ep. 72[73].7; Firmilian Ep. ad Cyprianum H; Ps.-Cyprian De aieatorihus 1; Origen Comm. Matt. \2.\\; Pi.it. Soph. 141). C. H. Dodd (Historicai Tradition in the Fourth Gospei [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963] 347-49) argued convincingly that the Johannine version is not literarily dependent on Matthew; and Brown {Gospei according to John. 1041 ) thought that "the Johannine formula is more kerygmatie and perhaps pre- serves more ofthe original import ofthe saying than does the juridie fonnula used in Matthew." For a reeent and detailed argument to this effect, see Michael Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannes- evangeiium (HBS 34; Freiburg: Herder, 2002) 174-96. "•^This formal description ofthe subtype distinguishes it from Ernst Käsemann's "sentences of holy law" ("Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament," NTS 1 [1955] 248-60). Like Matt 16:19b; 18:18; and Num 22:6, but unlike the "sentenees of holy law," John 20:23 is neither ehias- tie (as mistakenly asserted by M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Citristian Prophecy and tite Gospei Tradition [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991] 163) nor expressive ofthe principle of ius taiionis. 98 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009

Matt 16:19b Ö èàv oriarjc; tn\ trie; yf\c, A Conditional relative Whatever you bind on earth Eotai ôeôe|iévov èv TOÏC; oùpavoic;, B Apodosis will be bound in the heavens, Kai Ö èàv Xúar|c; èm Tfjç yf\c, A' Conditional relative and whatever you loose on earth \eXu|ièvov èv TOÎÇ oùpavoïc;. B' Apodosis will be loosed in the heavens.

Matt 18:18 oaa èàv 6iíar|Te èni tfjc; yf\c A Conditional relative Whatever you bind on earth taxai Ô£Ô£[ièva èv oùpavô) B Apodosis will be bound in heaven, Kai öoa èàv Xúcrire ènl tríe; yf\c, A' Conditional relative and whatever you loose on earth eatai \eXu|ièva èv oùpavcl). B' Apodosis will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 A Conditional dv Tivíüv àcpfiTe tac; à[iapTÎac; If you forgive the sins of any

B Apodosis à(pèu)VTat they are forgiven for them, A' Conditional dv Tivwv KpaxfJTe if you retain [the sins] of any B' Apodosis they are retained.

Preeisely this structure is exhibited also in Balak's words to Balaam in Num- bers 22:''3

"•^ J. A. Emerton ("Binding and Loosing—Forgiving and Retaining," JTS 13 [ 1962] 325-31) hypothesized a common Aramaic form behind Matt 16:19b; 18:18; and John 20:23, derived from Isa 22:22 but structurally reorganized. Apparently he had not noticed the closer fomial correspon- denee of Num 22:6 LXX to the sayings in Matthew and John. Syntactically, Num 22:6 eomes clos- est to Matt 16:19b; 18:18 in the dependent elauses (whieh are conditional relative elauses, as opposed THE POWER OF PROPHECY 99

Num 22:6 A Conditional relative oüc; èàv EÙÀoyriaric; GÚ. Whoever you bless B Apodosis euXóyrivTai, are blessed, A' Conditional relative Kal oiJc; èàv KaTapàGi] GÚ and whoever you curse B' Apodosis KeKattípavTat. are cursed.

The Greek translator's choice of perfect indicatives to represent the Hebrew pual participle TIDÜ ("is blessed") and qal passive (or possibly hophal) imperfect nxv ("is cursed") has important consequences for how the story is read in the LXX version."*^ According to the Hebrew text, Balak expresses his conviction that "whoever you eurse is cursed," that is, will be cursed through the execration pronounced by Balaam. He has not reckoned with the superior might of Israel's God, without whose consent even a mighty soothsayer like Balaam is unable to bless and curse (Num 22:12; 23:8). In the Greek version, by contrast, Balak's statement in 22:6 takes on an ambiguous sense. It is still possible to interpret eúAóyr|VTai ("are blessed") and KeKatiipavtat ("are cursed") as gnomic perfects, bearing a meaning that is more or less equivalent to the Hebrew participle and imperfect forms. But it is equally possible to read Balak's word as an unwitting confession that only those who are already blessed or cursed by God can be blessed or cursed by Balaam. This is what God tells Balaam: "You shall neither go with them nor curse the people; for it is blessed (EGTIV yap £ÚXoyr||aevov)" (22:12). Balaam cannot curse those who are blessed, from which we can be certain that whoever he does curse are indeed cursed by God. And Balak was right without knowing it. The perfect forms ácpécüvtai ("are forgiven") and KeKpárqvTat ("are retained") in John 20:23 can be understood correspondingly."*^ How these perfects are to be construed is an issue that has been vigorously debated but that cannot be settled on purely grammatical grounds."** Recognizing an echo of the Balaam cycle may. to the Johannine conditional clauses) but to John 20:23 in the main clauses (which employ the simple perfect, rather than the Matthean periphrastic ftiture perfects), '*'' Wevers (Notes. 363) erroneously takes eúXóyrivTai as the present tense. ••^ It has often been noted (e.g., Emerton, "Binding and Loosing," 327) that the use of Kpatelv as an antonym of àcpiévai in the sense "to forgive" demands explanation. The suggestion offered here may open up the possibility of hearing KEKpáTpvTai as a phonetic echo of KeKaxripavxai in Num 22:6. "'^ In at least three articles, Julius R, Mantey ("The Mistranslation ofthe Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18,"yS¿ 58 [1939] 243-49; "Evidence that the Perfect Tense in John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 is Mistranslated," JfFS 16 [1973] 129-38; "Distorted Translations in John 100 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009 however, contribute to a solution ofthe problem. If the phenomenon of Jesus' disciples forgiving and retaining sins by virtue ofthe Spirit parallels that of Balaam blessing and cursing in the spirit of God, then the perfects of John 20:23 do not imply a divine blanket ratification of any forgiveness and retaining of sins pro- claimed "at will" by the disciples. Rather, they express the notion that by the prophetic Spirit given to them, the disciples will be able to forgive the sins of those, and only those, whose sins have been forgiven by God or Jesus.''^ Once again. Origen appears to have understood the passage in the sense that, in my opinion, was originally intended by John. In his treatise on the Lord's Prayer, he makes a distinction between, on the one hand, all Christians' authority and duty to forgive those sins that have been committed against them and, on the other hand, the apostolic authority to forgive and hold sins. Regarding the latter, he writes: But the one inspired by Jesus, like the apostles, who can be known from his fruits to contain the Holy Spirit, and has become spiritual through being led by the Spirit in the way of the Son of God to each of the proper duties, forgives whatever God has forgiven and retains those sins which cannot be cured (à(pir|0iv ü èàv à(ç>f\ ó 6EÓÍ;, Kai KpaTEÎ xà àviaTa TWV ájiapTqiiáxaiv), Thus, just as the prophets [served] God by not speaking things of their own (Ev Ttp Xeyeiv où xà ïôia) but that which pertained to the divine will, he too serves God, who alone has authority to forgive, (Or. 28) Origen then proceeds to deal with the misinformed reading of John 20:22-23 that supposes an apostolic ability to forgive all sins without exception and thus to com- pel God to forgive all human beings. This is not how it works, according to Origen, for just as the Israelite priests are not entitled to sacrifice for grave offenses, the apostles can forgive only what God has already decided to forgive: Now also the apostles, and those who are like the apostles, being priests in accordance with the great high priest and having received knowledge ofthe service of God, know, since they are taught by the Spirit, for which sins they should offer sacrifices, and when, and how, and distinguish [the sins] for which they should not do this. He concludes the section on forgiveness by lamenting those "who have taken upon themselves what is beyond priestly dignity . . . and are proud of their ability to

20:23; Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18," RevExp 78 [1981 ] 409-16) has argued that the perfect tense can only be taken to imply that God's action of forgiving and retaining precedes that ofthe disciples temporally. See, however, the valid objections to this by Henry J, Cadbury ("The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18," JS¿ 58 [1939] 251-54) and J, Duncan M, Derrett ("Binding and Loosing [Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23])," JBL 102 [ 1983] 112-17, here 112-13), The correspondence between Num 22:6 and John 20:23 lessens the probability ofthe suggestion for- warded by Schneiders ("Raising ofthe New Temple," 352-54), who sees in John 20:23 a synony- mous rather than an antithetical parallelism. Against Schneiders, see also Jan Lambrecht, "A Note on John 20, 23b," ETL 83 (2007) 165-68, '" See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Expo- sition and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 847-49, THE POWER OF PROPHECY 101

pardon even acts of idolatry and to forgive acts of adultery and fornication," In a similar vein, Tertullian argued that, although it is true that the church has power to forgive sin (potest ecclesia donare delictum), those who claim to exercise this pre- rogative must also be able to display their prophetic status {Pud. 21,3-8), It is the church ofthe Spirit, Tertullian's church ofthe new prophecy, that can forgive sins, not the church of bishops. For the judgment belongs to God, not to the priest (21,17),''8 Such prophetic proclamation of forgiveness and its opposite is also evocative ofthe Johannine Jesus' ministry,'" In line with his prophetic status, the Son has received the Father's authorization to execute judgment (John 5:22, 27, 30; 8:16, 26; cf, 3:19; 12:31, 48; 16:11), although God's ultimate aim in sending Jesus is not to judge the world but to save it (3:17; 12:47),^" Jesus warns those who do not believe in him that they will die in their sin(s) (8:21,24), Their sin "remains" (nevei [9:41; cf, 15:22, 24; 19:11]),^' In his discourse on the Paraclete that will replace

•"* T, Worden's article on the sacrament of penance ("The Remission of Sins," Scr 9 [ 1957] 65- 79, 115-27) may, unfortunately, leave the impression that interpreters of John 20:22-23 before Cyril of Alexandria generally took the passage as a reference to baptism. It is true that Cyprian and his associates interpreted the passage as a command to baptize {Ep. 72[73].7; 75[69]. 11 ; Fimiilian Ep. ad Cyprianum 16; cf. Worden, "Remission of Sins," 67), but this is hardly enough to warrant Worden's assertion that "the early Fathers saw in this text a reference to the power ofthe apostles to remit sins through Baptism" (pp. 67-68). As a matter of fact. Worden (pp. 65-66 n. 2) concedes that Origen Or 28 does apply John 20;23 to the forgiveness of postbaptismal sins, but points out that "Origen does not see in this text the conferring of a juridical power." This is certainly correct inso- far as the power is prophetic, not juridical. Worden also notes (pp. 66-67 n. 3) that Tertullian Pud. 21 constitutes evidence that Matt 16:17-19 was read as an authorization to forgive posthaptismal sins; as 1 noted ahove (n. 41), the Matthean and Johannine sayings were frequently conflated in early Christianity, and Tertullian too appears to combine them. In addition, there are some third-century texts that cite or allude to John 20:22-23 without specifying the exact nature ofthe apostolic authority (Ps.-Cyprian De alealorihiis 1 ; Hippolytus Trad. ap. 3,4-5; Acts Thom. 94 [possibly]; Pisl. Soph. 141). In sum, the interpretation of John lO-.ll-li in the first centuries was more manifold than an uncritical reading of Worden's essay might allow, and the exegesis ofthe passage in prophetic terms belongs to a very early epoch, perhaps one that came to an end as a result ofthe Montanist crisis. ""See Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes. 537; Brown, Gospel according to John, 1042-43; Steven E. Hansen, "Forgiving and Retaining Sin: A Study ofthe Text and Context of John 20:23," HBT 19 (1997) 24-32, here 28-29. f Balaam's words, "I was taken hold of for blessings, not curses" (napEXii(p9i-|v 6' en' c;, où KaTÓpaic, iy¿i [Philo Mos. 1.283]). See also Hartwig Thyen, Studien zur Sünden- vergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen und jüdischen Voraussetzungen (FRLANT 96; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 248-49. '' Donald A. Carson (The Gospel according to John [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 656)correctly observes that Jesus'"retention of sins" as well as the Paraclete's continuation ofthat mission through the disciples is "both description and condemna- tion." In neither case can the retaining and forgiving of sins be reduced to mere statements of facts; this prophetic activity effectuates forgiveness and its opposite, just as Balaam's oraeles actually worked to bring blessing on Israel. 102 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71,2009 him, Jesus says that the Spirit will continue his ministry of judging and dealing with the world's sin of unbelief (16:8).^^ This takes place in a context where, as noted above, prophetic characteristics are applied to the Paraclete itself. It is rea- sonable to view 20:21-23 as Jesus' commissioning ofthe disciples to put into prac- tice the ministry ofthe prophetic Spirit, a ministry that includes a prophetic ability to identify and proclaim sinñilness and forgiveness.

IV. Conclusion: Checking the Criteria By way of conclusion, I will employ the criteria adopted from Hays as a checklist to assess my argument that John 20:19-23 echoes the language and theology ofthe LXX Balaam cycle. 1. Availability ofthe pretext. This criterion is definitely met. John made use ofthe Greek OT and accordingly, in all probability, had access also to the LXX version of Numbers. Some passages in the Gospel allude to Numbers, most promi- nently the typological reading of Num 21:8-9 in John 3:14-15. 2. Volume and prominence. This criterion is probably met. Numbers 22:6, to my knowledge, parallels John 20:23 more closely than any other textual specimen in early Jewish or Christian literature as far as syntax is concerned. This, com- bined with the theological correspondence between the Gospel pericope and the Balaam cycle, warrants the conclusion that the echo is prominent. 3. Recurrence. This criterion is met to some extent. As mentioned, the Gospel of John echoes the book of Numbers in several places. Possibly John's concepts of prophecy and prophets draw on reflection on the Balaam cycle, but the evangelist's failure to mention Balaam weakens the case, and Moses typology frequently provides a better explanation. 4. Thematic coherence. This criterion is definitely met. The interpretation of John 20:19-23 as a narration ofthe disciples' commissioning to a prophetic ministry including the proclamation of sin and forgiveness is coherent with the depic- tion ofthe prophetic activities of Jesus and the Spirit in the Gospel. 5. Plausibility. This criterion is definitely met. Early Jewish interpreters ofthe Balaam cycle saw it as paradigmatic for the understanding of all prophetic activity. John's Gospel seems to have been written by and for people familiar with eariy Hellenistic Judaism as represented by, for example, Philo. 6. History of interpretation. This criterion is met to some extent. I know of no commentator, ancient or modem, who has drawn a link between John 20:19-23

^^ See Hansen, "Forgiving and Retaining Sin," 28-29. THE POWER OF PROPHECY 103 and the Balaam cycle. Even the syntactical parallel between Num 22:6 and John 20:23 appears to have gone unnoticed. But Origen noticed the similarity between the prophecies of Balaam and the Johannine Caiaphas. He also indicated that the bestowal ofthe Spirit in John 20:22 enabled prophetic activity and, like Tertullian, Origen interpreted the disciples' empowerment to forgive and retain sins in 20:23 as prophetic. 7. Satisfaction. Whether this criterion has been met is for others to judge. If the line of argumentation here is accepted, however, it may offer a contribution to the solution of an exegetical problem. The question whether historical-critical exegesis of John 20:23 supports or reñites the doctrine of sacramental absolution may be less meaningñil, for it is really a question of what would happen if the disciples hypothetically chose to forgive or retain a person's sins independently of, or con- trary to, the will of God. Such a possibility does not exist for John. The disciples, like Balaam, do not speak of themselves but by the inspiration ofthe Spirit. They speak the living and strong word that the risen Lord places in their mouths (cf. Num 22:38; 23:5, 12, 16). And herein lies the true power of prophecy.