Abstract
Towards the end of chapter 9 of St. John's Gospel, which narrates the healing by Jesus of a man born blind, there is a dialogue between Jesus and the healed man (H), during which Jesus asks whether H believes in the Son of Man, H responds by asking who the Son of Man is, Jesus answers identifying Himself as the Son of Man, and H responds by expressing his faith and falling to the ground before Jesus in worship of Him. In this work I argue that, in order to undestand H's question and subsequent worship response, it is necessary to consider H's epistemic state regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question, which consists of either his knowledge or his ignorance of each of 3 facts: F1: that he is talking with Jesus, F2: that Jesus is the Son of Man, and F3: that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship. Since in 9:36 H must ignore at least one of these facts (or otherwise he would not have asked the question), there are 3 possible epistemic states of H in 9:36, each of which gives rise to a respective scenario comprising the meaning for H of his question, the meaning for H of Jesus' answer, and the motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer. I study each scenario and evaluate its probability and theological acceptability, concluding that the first (AFAIK never considered before) is highly probable and theologically perfect, the second is extremely unlikely and theologically acceptable, and the third (notably the one usually assumed) is highly probable but theologically unacceptable.
1. Introduction
Chapter 9 of St. John's Gospel narrates the healing by Jesus of a man blind from birth. Towards the end of that chapter, Jesus (J) finds the healed man (H) and has with him a dialogue which I reproduce verse by verse below, omitting all the words in the text that were not pronounced by the speakers, with the exception of the narration of the final action of H, and adding the indication of the speaker:
9:35. J: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
9:36. H: “And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; He is the One speaking with you.”
9:38. H: “I believe, Lord.” And he worshiped Him.
To note, whereas in Matthew's Gospel the Greek verb prosekyneo is used also to mean prostration as homage to a human person without implying worship, as e. g. a slave to his king in Mt 18:26, the Apostle John uses that word, both in his Gospel and in the book of Revelation, exclusively to mean worship directed to God.
2. Textual issues witnessing the perception of the exegetical problem since at least the III century
There are two well-known textual issues (TI's) with this passage:
TI1: Verse 9:38 is omitted in 3 MSS of Alexandrian text-type, listed below preceded by their codes and followed by their century between ():
- P75 (III),
- 01 Aleph_* Sinaiticus non-corrected (IV),
- 032 W Washingtonianus (V).
To note, those 3 MSS have "Son of Man" in 9:35 and omit also the ending of Jn 3:13, "who is in heaven".
TI2: In some of the MSS that do have verse 9:38, "Son of Man" in 9:35 is changed to "Son of God". These are 2 of the 4 great uncials plus a whole text type:
- 02 A Alexandrinus (V),
- 04 C Ephraemi Rescriptus (V),
- Byzantine text-type (Majority Text).
Of course, there are also MSS which both have "Son of Man" in 9:35 and include 9:38:
- P66 (III, c. 200),
- 03 B Vaticanus (IV),
- 05 D Bezae Cantabrigensis (V).
In my view, the most plausible explanation of both textual issues is that the original text both had "Son of Man" in 9:35 and included 9:38, and both the change in 9:35 in some MSS and the omission of 9:38 in others were introduced by different NT scribes to try to solve, in different directions, the perceived challenge, even to the point of scandal, resulting from H worshiping a man who, for all H APPARENTLY knew about him, had only these two qualifications:
- he had healed H from congenital blindness, and
- he called himself "the Son of Man".
Faced with that challenge, the scribes of the MSS with TI1 decided to take out the worship verse, wheras the scribes of the MSS with TI2 decided to change Jesus' self-given title to make the case for worship of Jesus by H more acceptable given H's APPARENT knowledge of Jesus at that moment.
3. The epistemic state of H regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question in 9:36
As seen in the previous section, the issue of H's knowledge of Jesus at the moment of worshiping Him in 9:38 poses a serious exegetical challenge, which has been noted since at least the III century. Now, it is evident that, in order to know H's REAL (as opposed to apparent) epistemic state regarding Jesus in 9:38, it is necessary to know first of all his epistemic state when he asked his question in 9:36, because that will enable us to understand the meaning for H of that question and the specific way in which Jesus' answer in 9:37 advanced H's knowledge of Him.
The epistemic state of H regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question in 9:36, which is relevant to understanding
- the meaning for H of that question,
- the meaning for H of Jesus' answer in 9:37, and
- the motive of credibility for H of that answer.
is comprised of either his knowledge or his ignorance of each of the 3 following facts, for each of which I indicate its respective epistemic level:
F1. He is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him. (Practical level).
F2. Jesus is the Son of Man. ("Jesu-christological" level).
F3. The Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship. ("Christo-theological" level).
Denoting H's knowledge or ignorance of fact Fn as Kn and ¬Kn respectively, there are 3 possible epistemic states of H regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question in 9:36:
ES1=(¬K1, K2, K3),
ES2=(K1, ¬K2, K3),
ES3=(K1, ¬K2, ¬K3).
The epistemic state (K1, K2, ¬K3) is not possible in 9:36 because, if H had already known that Jesus was the Son of Man, Jesus' answer in 9:37 would have added nothing to H's knowledge and actually would have made no sense whatsoever.
The epistemic state (K1, K2, K3) is not possible in 9:36 because, if H had already known the 3 facts, he would not have asked any question.
4. Study of the scenarios resulting from each of the 3 possible epistemic states
4.1. Scenario 1, from ES1=(¬K1, K2, K3). Highly probable, theologically perfect.
4.1.1. Description of H's epistemic state at 9:36
¬K1. H does NOT know that he is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him,
K2. H knows that Jesus is the Son of Man,
K3. H knows that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.
4.1.2. Plausibility of this epistemic state
¬K1 is wholly plausible, as H had never seen Jesus until that moment.
(K2 & K3) is plausible if we assume that:
- Several hours elapsed between the moment when H was cast out by the Pharisees (9:34) and his encounter with Jesus (9:35).
- During that time, Nicodemus had mercy of H (who, having been born blind, lacked elementary practical knowledge to manage in life, and who was now avoided by everyone because of the Pharisees) and gave him a hand at the practical and spiritual levels, in the latter teaching H Who Jesus was, what Nicodemus could do because Jesus had previously taught him that He was "the Son of Man" "Who descended from heaven" and "Who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13), Who is God's only begotten Son (Jn 3:16-18) Who had assumed a human nature. This is highly probable, as discussed in section 4.1.5.
4.1.3. Meaning for H of his question and of Jesus' answer
I indicate the meaning
for H by glossing "who" in the question and replacing "He" in both the question and the answer with appropriate text within [].
9:36. H: “And who [i.e. which concrete man
around here now] is [
Jesus, who I already know is the Son of Man], Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; [
Jesus, who you already know is the Son of Man,] is the One speaking with you.”
4.1.4. Motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer
From the viewpoint of H, the self-identification of his (until that moment) unknown interlocutor as Jesus may have been credible if at that moment he recognized that the voice of his interlocutor was the same voice he had heard tell him "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (Jn 9:7).
4.1.5. Evaluation of this scenario: highly probable, theologically perfect.
In a previous passage of John's Gospel, when the officers whom the chief priests and Pharisees had sent to arrest Jesus (7:32) return to their bosses, who are gathered in one place, and are scolded by them for having let themselves be impressed by Jesus' words (7:45-49), Nicodemus, who was one of the Pharisees present at that time (7:50), spoke in Jesus' defence at the procedural level: "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" (7:51).
In the passage of the healing of the man born blind, in turn, "others" of the Pharisees spoke in Jesus' defence, not at the procedural but at the substantial level:
Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But
others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" And there was a division among them. (Jn 9:16)
Since not many Pharisees were likely to speak in Jesus' defence, it is highly probable that Nicodemus was one of those "others" who did in this passage.
Now, Nicodemus had probably learned from Jesus not only that He was the Son of God but also the way in which Jesus' disciples must live, which essentially is, regarding what one must do, to love God with all our being and to love our neighbour as ourselves, which is also the essence of the Law (Mk 12:28-33). He had also probably learned that, in Jesus' way, loving our neighbour goes beyond what is required by the Law, and involves feeling compassion and practicing mercy towards him (Lk 10:25-37), thus imitating the Heavenly Father who is "merciful and compassionate".
With that mindset, Nicodemus sees H being cast out of the synagogue and probably also being avoided by people. H is in good health and able to work, but since he was born blind he has no clue about how to go on with his life, where to find lodging, where to learn and find a job. He could physically work in a workshop or in the field, but he does not know how to use any tools, or even the location of workshops and fields. So Nicodemus, seing H in such complete intellectual indigence, feels compassion for him, reaches out to him, and starts teaching him the basic knowledge necessary to go on with his life. While at that, it would be just natural that the conversation turns at some time to the subject of this "prophet" who had healed him. And Nicodemus, being aware of the immense good that knowing Jesus is, starts telling H what he had learned about Jesus from Jesus Himself (Jn 3:10-21): that He is much more than a prophet, that He is "the Son of Man" "Who descended from heaven" and "Who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13), predicted in Dan 7:13, Who is God's only begotten Son (Jn 3:16-18) Who had assumed a human nature.
4.2. Scenario 2, from ES2=(K1, ¬K2, K3). Extremely unlikely, theologically acceptable.
4.2.1. Description of H's epistemic state at 9:36
K1. H knows that he is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him,
¬K2. H does NOT know that Jesus is the Son of Man,
K3. H knows that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.
4.2.2. Plausibility of this epistemic state
K1 is plausible, as H might have recognized that the voice of his interlocutor was the same voice he had heard tell him "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam".
¬K2 is directly supported by the previous Gospel narrative, specifically by H stating before the Pharisees his view of Jesus, namely that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33).
K3 requires that H had previously heard and believed the doctrine of a divine Son of Man, presumably from people who had read the book of Parables of 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) and believed its contents. This is extremely unlikely.
4.2.3. Meaning for H of his question and of Jesus' answer
I indicate the meaning
for H by glossing "who" in the question and replacing "He" in both the question and the answer with appropriate text within [].
9:36. H: “And who [i.e. which concrete man
wherever and whenever] is [
the Son of Man], Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; [
the Son of Man] is the One speaking with you.”
4.2.4. Motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer
From the viewpoint of H, the self-identification of Jesus as the Son of Man is credible because he already knows that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33), and therefore it is wholly reasonable to assume that he speaks the truth.
4.2.5. Evaluation of this scenario: extremely unlikely, theologically acceptable.
This scenario requires that H, a man born blind who had spent most of his life "sitting and begging" (9:8), had learned from his circle a doctrine of full pre-Jesusian binitarism with incarnation (if the divine nature is held to be absolutely simple and immutable and the humanity of the Son of Man is held to be real), which is hinted, but not explicitely stated, in the vision of the heavenly Son of Man of Dan 7:13 and its development in the book of Parables of 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) (see Appendix). This is clearly extremely unlikely.
4.3. Scenario 3, from ES3=(K1, ¬K2, ¬K3). Highly probable, theologically unacceptable.
4.3.1. Description of H's epistemic state at 9:36
K1. H knows that he is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him,
¬K2. H does NOT know that Jesus is the Son of Man,
¬K3. H does NOT know that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.
4.3.2. Plausibility of this epistemic state
K1 is plausible, as H might have recognized that the voice of his interlocutor was the same voice he had heard tell him "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam".
¬K2 is directly supported by the previous Gospel narrative, specifically by H stating before the Pharisees his view of Jesus, namely that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33).
¬K3 is the most plausible assumption for a man born blind who had spent most of his life "sitting and begging" (9:8).
4.3.3. Meaning for H of his question and of Jesus' answer
I indicate the meaning
for H by glossing "who" in the question and replacing "He" in both the question and the answer with appropriate text within [].
9:36. H: “And who [i.e. which concrete man
wherever and whenever] is [
the Son of Man], Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; [
the Son of Man] is the One speaking with you.”
4.3.4. Motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer
From the viewpoint of H, the self-identification of Jesus as the Son of Man was credible because he already knows that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33), and therefore it is wholly reasonable to assume that he speaks the truth.
4.3.5. Evaluation of this scenario: highly probable, theologically unacceptable.
This scenario implies that H makes an epistemic jump which can be stated as:
If "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), a man who is "from God" (9:33), calls himself "the Son of Man", then that man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.
Or in practical terms:
If someone who heals a man born blind calls himself "the Son of Man", then fall on your face before Him and worship Him!
Clearly the transition from regarding Jesus as a prophet to regarding Jesus as a divine Person incarnate on the sole basis of Jesus calling himself "the Son of Man" would have been a completely unwarranted epistemic jump. On the other hand, worshipping Jesus without regarding him as a divine Person incarnate would have been outright idolatry. Therefore this scenario is theologically unacceptable.
5. Conclusion
The intervention of Nicodemus to help H between 9:34 and 9:35 is a most reasonable inference from the Gospel narrative, specifically from Nicodemus' previous defence of Jesus before his fellow Pharisees in 7:50-51 and the defence of Jesus by some unnamed Pharisees in 9:16 in this event. By doing that, Nicodemus would have been an instrument in the hands of God "so that the works of God might be displayed in him [i.e. the blind man]" (Jn 9:3). Moreover, this intervention might have been hinted by John to the readers of his Gospel, and by Jesus to Nicodemus if he was present at that time and place, by Jesus' use of "we" in "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day;" (Jn 9:4), which would be unusual in John's Gospel if Jesus were referring exclusively to Himself. By positing Nicodemus' intervention, the unwarranted epistemic jump implicit in the worship response of the healed blind man to Jesus' self-identification as "the Son of Man" (which had been noted by early NT scribes who had tried to solve it by amending the text) is fully avoided.
Note
The thesis developed in this article was first presented in my 2014 article "The trial of Jesus: a response to J. H. H. Weiler", within its thesis 3.
http://thetrialofjesus.blogspot.com/
Appendix: the Son of Man in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch
The Son of Man, also called "the Elect One", is mentioned in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch, in chapters 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 55, 61, 62 and 69.
In 45:3, 51:3, 55:4, 61:8, 62:2,3,5 and 69:29, the Elect One sits on the throne of glory, explicitely stated to be God's throne in 51:3.
In 48:3, 48:6 and 62:7, the Son of Man exists from before the creation of the world.
In 48:5 and 62:9, the Son of Man is worshipped. Note that both chapters are the same two which affirm the preexistence of the Son of Man, and that both do that before narrating the action of worship.
Chapter 48
2. And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.
3. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.
5. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.
6. And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.
Chapter 62
7. For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,
And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,
And revealed him to the elect.
8. And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,
And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.
9. And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth
Shall fall down before him on their faces,
And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,
And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm
Benjamin E. Reynolds, "The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John", Mohr Siebeck, 2008, p. 178.
https://books.google.com/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC
Also
Delbert Burkett, "The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation", Cambridge University Press, Jan 13, 2000.
https://books.google.com/books?id=uAvQeGSbTJMC
Gabriele Boccaccini (ed.), "Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables", Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kc6mzRRrkrIC
Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth (ed.), "Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift", Bloomsbury Publishing, Jan 31, 2013.
https://books.google.com/books?id=4-wRBwAAQBAJ
