CHAPTER 4 SPEECH ACT READING OF JOHN 9 1. INTRODUCTION Chapter 9 of John’s Gospel, which belongs to the book of signs, is placed within the broader co-text where the controversy between Jesus and those who opposed him, especially the Jewish leaders, gradually became more intense. The polemic started at the Feast of Tabernacles in Chapter 7, and continues between Jesus and his opponents in Chapter 8. In 8:12, Jesus said, ‘I am the light of the world’ and referred to the theme of light and darkness. The miracle portrayed in Chapter 9 is a perfect example of this statement. Furthermore, additional inquiries about the ongoing issues of his origin and identity are made in this chapter. In Chapter 10, the same issues are discussed in a different manner. For instance, not only does 10:21 explicitly refer back to the miracle event, but also the relationships between Jesus, the blind man, and the Jewish authorities are and depicted in the figures of speech. While the thieves and hirelings destroy the sheep, the good shepherd protects and gives life to his own sheep. Being an independent and complete story in itself, Chapter 9, still fits well into the present co-text.1 The author of this Gospel does not intend to furnish the exact date and location of this miracle story. Although this information seems to be of little importance to him in this instance, one can nevertheless assume this from the co-text. The date was sometime between late September/ early October and late December, as can be inferred from the references to the Feast of Tabernacles in 7:2 and to the Dedication Festival in 10:22. The location was somewhere in Jerusalem, as can be inferred from the fact that Jesus left the temple in 8:59 and, from the narration, that he was walking after that in 9:1. Some critics assume that it is the temple area (Schnackenburg [1968] 1980:240; Jones 1997:165). 1 Cf. also Smalley 1978:195; Moloney 1978:142-145; Resseguie 1982:295, 303; Culpepper 1983:73; Holleran 1993a:11; Lieu 1988:83; Menken 1985:195. For a discussion of considering Chapters 9 and 10 as a literary unit, cf. Dodd [1953] 1968:356-357; Beasley-Murray 1987:148-149; Beutler & Fortna 1991:3; Du Rand 1991:94-98; Tolmie 2005:388; Menken 1985:190-191. 91 Ito A speech act reading of John 9 2. OVERALL STRUCTURE The forty-one verses of Chapter 9 can be divided into 52 cola. These cola can be separated to form seven different clusters based on their semantic contents.2 More significant is that these seven clusters can be viewed as a chiastic arrangement: 9:1-7; 9:8-12; 9:13-17; 9:18-23; 9:24-34; 9:35-38 and 9:39-41.3 This rhetorical feature itself reveals the author of this Gospel as an extraordinary literary artist (cf. Haenchen 1984:41-42). As a matter of fact, this chiasm is based on the seven dialogues between the characters, and each dialogue presents very intriguing and vivid interactions between the two (groups of) participants.4 This fact is probably one of the reasons why this Chapter as a whole has such a dramatic effect on the reader.5 Because of the chiasm, the seven clusters can be referred to as cluster A, B, C, D, C’, B’, and A’, respectively (cf. my structural analysis chart in Appendix 4). 3. CLUSTER A: THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES (9:1-7) 3.1 Specific mutual contextual beliefs 3.1.1 Blindness and sin The particular interest in the story of the blind man addresses the issue in terms of blindness and sin. In this instance, I wish to discuss this issue from the perspective of the relationship between human suffering and sin.6 There is no doubt that the characters (Jesus, his disciples and the Jewish authorities) in the narrative of John 9 share the common understanding regarding the connections between sin and suffering held by Jewish people in those days. Blomberg (1992:301) comments on Jesus’ utterance to the man healed at the pool of Bethesda in 5:14: “Jesus presumes the common Jewish view that illness was a punishment for sin”. When Buttrick (1979:338) 2 Cf. also Martyn [1968] 1979:26-27; Resseguie 1982:295; Culpepper 1983:73; Mlakuzhyil 1987:116-117, 205. For six-scene structure, cf. Schnackenburg [1968] 1980:239; Lindars [1972] 1981:341-352; Brodie 1993:343-344; Holleran 1993a:12-14. For a fourfold syntactic division, cf. Du Rand 1991:98. For a threefold division, cf. Westcott [1882] 1978:143-151; Hoskyns 1954:351-352; Lee 1994:164-165. 3 Cf. also MacRae 1978:124; Duke 1982:181-182; Dockery 1988:15; Stibbe 1993:105. For a different demarcation, cf. Howard-Brook 1994:211-214. 4 For the principle of duality, cf. Culpepper 1998:174; Martyn [1968] 1979:26-27; Painter 1986:36; Dockery 1988:15; Brodie 1993:344. 5 Smalley 1978:196; Painter 1986:36; Mlakuzhyil 1987:115; Howard-Brook 1994:212. 6 For the issue of blindness in the ancient world, cf. Salier 2004:114-117. 92 Acta Theologica Supplementum 21 2015 gives his exposition on the account of the healed leper in Matthew 8:1-4, he states: “The rabbis usually regarded it [leprosy] as a direct punishment for various sins.” Quast (1991:72) points out the background: when “a child was born with a sickness, the traditional retributive link between sin and suffering was challenged”. This traditional link can be traced back to Old Testament passages such as Exodus 20:5 (also Nm 14:18; Dt 5:9; Is 65:7; Jr 32:18), which indicates that the fathers’ sins were the cause of the punishment of the children; Job 4:7-8 where the retribution based on cause and effect is suggested, and Genesis 25:22 with Psalm 58:3 which helps to build the implication that sin could be induced by the babies even in their mothers’ wombs (Brown 1966:371; Ps 51:5). Barrett (1955:295) further refers to the case that “when a pregnant woman worships in a heathen temple the foetus also commits idolatry”. Edersheim’s ([1967] 1976:163) remark reinforces Quast’s point and mentions that “children benefited or suffered according to the spiritual state of their parents was a doctrine current among the Jews ... And sickness was regarded as alike the punishment for sin and its atonement”. Schnackenburg ([1968] 1980:496) comments on the possibility that “malformations and physical illnesses present from early childhood were explained and used as the basis for admonitions to a pure married life”. On the other hand, I wish to point out that there was a counterargument against this commonly held view: “From as far back as the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel there was opposition in Israel to the idea that children have to pay for the sins of their parents” (Schnackenburg [1968] 1980:241; cf. Jr 29-30; Ezk 18:1-4, 19-20). Furthermore, the vast majority of expositors agree that the gnostic doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul was not under consideration in the exchange between Jesus and his disciples in 9:2-3.7 I can conclude that the view in question was common in the days of both the characters and the author. This means that the reader is also aware of this link between human suffering and sin. 3.1.2 Miracles The subject of miracles has undoubtedly provoked one of the most heated discussions in New Testament studies. In such discussions, scholars often express their concern about the danger of viewing the miraculous events in the first century CE from our modern point of view (Vorster 1986:49; 7 Cf. Wis 8:19-20; Plummer [1882] 1981:204; Bernard 1928:325; Hendriksen [1954] 1973:73; Bultmann 1971:330-331, footnote 8; Morris 1971:478, footnote 7; Haenchen 1984:37; Trumbower 1992:97. For general comments on this issue, Carson (1991:361) mentions additional biblical references: Job; Psalm 89:32; Romans 1-2, 3:10ff.; 2 Corinthians 12:7; Galatians 4:13. 93 Ito A speech act reading of John 9 Pilch 1992:30; cf. Elliott 1993:11). Drawing attention to a distinction between miracles and miracle stories, Vorster (1986:48) stresses that “the miracle traditions in the New Testament were meant to serve as propaganda for faith in Jesus and in Christianity” (cf. Theissen 1983:259). Following this view, I shall discuss, in this section, the way in which the author presents miracles as signs in comparison with the synoptic presentation of miracle accounts. In addition, I shall refer to the knowledge of the reader and the characters concerning Jesus’ miracles and the author’s use of some finer details (e.g., spittle). At the outset, I shall introduce the definitions of miracles and miracle stories. “In biblical scholarship the English word miracle normally denotes a supernatural event, that is, an event which so transcends ordinary happenings that it is viewed as a direct result of supernatural power” [Blackburn’s italics] (Blackburn 1992:549). On the other hand, “miracle stories denote[s] relatively self-contained narratives in which an individual miraculous happening constitutes the, or at least a, major focus of the account” [Blackburn’s italics] (Blackburn 1992:549). In the realm of Johannine miracles, Blackburn (Blackburn 1992:555) makes a good observation: “Jesus’ miracles ... are set within the context of the one grand miracle, the incarnation of the Logos” (John 1:14). This observation is significant in two ways.