103

THE TRUE MEANING OF JN 9, 3-4

J. DUNCAN M. DERRET

Filologa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XVI - 2003, pp. 103-106Facultad de Filosofa y Letras - Universidad de Crdoba (Espaa)

1. Introduction

In this case I do not turn to the Jewish background to explain a dif-ficult passage, but to points of Greek syntax, to a superstition which John knew, and to an early Buddhist adaptation of the Johannine passage. Why did the disciples raise the question why a man was blind from birth, and what does Jess answer really mean?

The words are so punctuated:

, , . ...

All agree, and I too used to agree, that Jesus denied that the Man Born Blind owed his congenital blindness to any sin on the part of his parents, or any sin of his own in a previous life. On the contrary his blindness was evidence of the divine providence, whose programme has two parts: (1) divine miracles include cures even of congenital diseases, and (2) by enlightening that man. physically - with its consequences - Jesus will pro-vide, at one remove, for the enlightening of others after his own miracles cease. Ps 146,8 and Is 35,5 are not terminated by Mt 11,5.

The mans previous history has been summed up in the Pharisees words (9,34b), thou wast entirely born in sin. His condition at birth was contaminated by some sin. His testimony was inadmissible by Jewish law on account of his way of life (9,8)1. Yet he sees Christ (9,37), converses with him (which the Pharisees did not), and believes (9,38) and worships Jesus. The incident, says Jesus, is a crisis-incident. Those unconditioned by worldly sight are capable of truly seeing; those who rely on worldly sight are to be redefined as blind.

1 J.D.M. Derrett, Dost thou teach us? (Jn 9,34c), Downside Review 117 (1998) 183-94.

In Jn 9:5 the relative negative coupled with an ellipsis before reveal that Jesus did not deny hereditary sin or reincarnation in a specific test case.

104

Not long ago it was suggested2 that what was at issue was tbe ancient biblical principie (Ex 20:5, already qualified at Dt 24,l6; 2 Kgs 14,6) that children, grandchildren, etc., must bear the weight of their ancestors sins. This idea that children can vicariously expiate their parents guilt is rabbinic and is a known part of the doctrine of zekkt. Jer 51,29-30 and Ezk 18,2-4.19-20 denied that any but the offender must carry the weight of his sins, a reformists view. Here was an obvious test case: who could be blamed for the youths woeful condition? That Christianity represents the prophets position is not disputed. Taking Jn 9,3 in this sense, Jesus denies such deferred punishment, that children bear their parents guilt.

However, this hardly meets the case. The disciples assume that someone sinned and they are prepared to accept that the Man Born Blind sinned in the womb or in a previous life. Can one prove an unknown person sinless at birth? Jesus seems to deny both propositions, that countered by the prophets and yet another, to which we shall come.

2. Greek syntax

The construction /... is a relative negative3. It appears at Mt 9,13; 15,24; Lk 10,20; Jn 7,16; 12,44; Acts 5,4c; 1Cor 15,10. It indicates a preference and is not a simple denial. In Latin it would be either non solum ... sed etiam as at Mt 18,22, a fine instance; or non tam . . . quam as at Mk 9,37b; Mt 10,20; 15,24. Our meaning is, therefore, it is not so much the case that either this man sinned or his parents, but rather that (he is so) in order that the works of God shall be manifested in (i.e. through) him. We must work the works of him who sent me as long as there is daylight. The phrase beginning in order that is preceded, by an ellipsis4. As parallels one notices Mk 14,4 (cf. Mt 25,56) and Hermas, sim. 8.6.1 . More relevant are Jn 1,8 ... , and Jn 13,l8 Jn 15,25 , also 1 Jn 2,19 .

2 F. A. Garca Romero, Breve comentario a Jn 9,1-3. Objeciones al supuesto cristianis-mo de Trifiodoro, FN 2/1 (1989) 95-97.

3 W.F. Moultons edn. of G.B. Winer, Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament (Edinburgh 31882), pt. III, sect. 558 (a) and (b); F. Blass-A. Debrunner-R.W. Funk, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Cambridge and Chicago 1961) 233 col.1, 448. A. Kuschke, ZNW 43 (1950/1), 262.

4 Winer-Moulton (above), pt. III, sect. 43, p. 398; Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Greek Gram-mar 448 (7). The latter cite our verse.

J. Duncan M. Derret

105

The punctuation does not need to be corrected as proposed5. We retain the comma (not colon) after , and the full point after .

3. Reincarnation or Metasomatosis

Traces exist of a belief amongst contemporaries of Jesus that persons could be reborn as other identifiable people (Mt 14,2; 16,14; Mk 6,14-16; 8,27; Lk 9,7-8.19). We need not attribute to Jews the doctrine that at death souls migrate to other bodies, though the replenishing and expending of the treasury of souls is a Jewish idea. However, Greeks were familiar with the idea since Pythagoras (it appears first in Sicily). It was and remains popular throughout the world6. Therefore, in such cultures to suffer a grave malady suggests sins in a previous life. One culture in which the belief in reincar-nation flourished and flourishes was the Buddhist which adopted and deve-loped early Indian notions of prva-janma (previous birth): in a previous life one has misconducted oneself, therefore one will be disadvantaged in this. A Buddhist would guess that our Man blinded others when he was in a previous body7. At Mishnh, Avt II.6(7) a skull is floating and a rabbi says he must have drowned others in his time - an analogous notion.

Buddhists were clear that sinners after death were reborn not as gods, but as people, ghosts, animals, or hell-dwellers. Jesus in our passsage was not prepared to deny absolutely that sin figured in that scenario on the part of the parents or the man himself before his (present) birth: the accent must be placed on the miracle and its symbolic meaning.

4. The Lotus Stra, a Mahyna Gospel

Our solution is recommended by ch.5 f the Lotus Stra (Saddharma-pundarka)8. Part II of that chapter is devoted to the healing of a man

5 J.C. Poirier, Day and Night and the punctuation of John 9,3, NTS 42/2 (1996) 260-81.

6 G. Obeyesekere, Imagining Karma (Berkley 2002), reviewed by J.D.M. Derrett at JRAS, 3rd. ser., 13/2 (2003) 276-7.

7 Obeyesekere, Imagining Karma, 316. I draw attention to the Buddhas identification of a Blemmy discussed at J.D.M. Derrett, Numen 49 (2002) 460-74.

8 The Sanskrit text is edited (provisionally) by H. Kern and B. Nanjio, Saddharma pun darka (St. Petersburg, 1908-1912). It is translated by H. Kern, Saddharma-Punndarka or the Lotus of the True Law (Oxford 1884) (SBE 21). I use the reprint, New York, 1963. Kern is said to be dated: for our purposes he is quite adequate. On the Lotus Stra itself see H. Nakamura, Indian Buddhism. A Survey with Bibliographical Notes (Delhi, 1989) 183-88.

The True Meaning of Jn 9, 3-4

106

born blind. The story uses the tale of the Blind Man of Bethsaida also (Mk 8,22-26), since the theme of healing by two stages occurs. To cure the physical sight is not enough: one must induce in the former patient the insight whereby one sees reality (Mk 8,25d). Few can doubt that this part of ch.5 is based on our Johannaine story. It is, no doubt, absent from the translation from Sanskrit to Chinese made by Kumrajva in AD 406,9 superseding earlier translations going back to the third century, It is not at all anomalous for portions of the Lotus Stra to reflect gospel passages, a theory which should be handled with caution10. Nevertheless the Stra contradicts our traditional understanding of Jn 9,3 and directly asserts that a man born blind (Kerns trans., 129 28) must have committed sins in a previous life (130 10-11). That does not prevent his being cured in part (he sees outwardly and inwardly: 1315) by a skilled physician who chews far-sought herbs (130 28). Seers (rsis) challenge and ridicule him (131 13). He has no wisdom. Bodhisattvas (in effect Mahyna mis-sionaries) awaken him to perfect enlightenment (132 15-133 3; 134 13).

5. ConclusionAs some highly intelligent readers of long ago understood the passage

we too must use the Greek syntax to make the remarkable rendering:

It is not so much the case that this man sinned, or his parents, but rather that he is so in order that the works of God shall be made manifest in his case. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is still day...

The modern punctuation need not be tampered with, interesting as the proposed repunctuation would be.

J. DUNCAN M. DERRETTHalf Way House, High Street,

Blockley, Moreton in Marsh, Glos. GL 56 9EX (ENGLAND)

9 Now translated by L. Hurvitz, hardly necessary in our context.10 It is not necessary to cite the works of T. Richard and W.E. Soothill, both mandarins

and both missionaries.

J. Duncan M. Derret