John’s Gospel & the Worship of Jesus Pt. 1

The Gospel of John reports an incident where a blind man whom Jesus healed worshiped Christ when asked whether he believed in him:

“Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, so he found the man and said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ The man replied, ‘And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?’ Jesus told him, ‘You have seen him; he is the one speaking with you.’ [He said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him. Jesus said,] ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that those who do not see may gain their sight, and the ones who see may become blind.’” John 9:35-39 New English Translation (NET)

However, there some NT textual scholars who question whether vv. 38-39a are original to John since they do not appear in some early witnesses:

John 9:38 sn Assuming the authenticity of John 9:38-39a (see the tc note following the bracket in v. 39), the man’s response after Jesus’ statement of v. 37 is extremely significant: He worshiped Jesus. In the Johannine context the word would connote its full sense: This was something due God alone. Note also that Jesus did not prevent the man from doing this. The verb προσκυνέω (proskuneō) is used in John 4:20-25 of worshiping God, and again with the same sense in 12:20. This would be the only place in John’s Gospel where anyone is said to have worshiped Jesus using this term. As such, it forms the climax of the story of the man born blind, but the uniqueness of the concept of worshiping Jesus at this point in John’s narrative (which reaches its ultimate climax in the confession of Thomas in John 20:28) may suggest it is too early for such a response and it represents a later scribal addition…

John 9:39 tc ‡ Some early and significant witnesses (P⁷⁵ א* W b sams ac2 mf) lack the words, “He said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him. Jesus said,” (vv. 38-39a). This is weighty evidence for the omission of these words. It is difficult to overstate the value of P⁷⁵ here, since it is the only currently available papyrus ms extant for the text of John 9:38-39. Further, א is a significant and early Alexandrian witness for the omission. The versional testimony and codex W also give strong support to the omission. Nearly all other mss, however, include these words. The omission may have been occasioned by parablepsis (both vv. 37 and 39 begin with “Jesus said to him”), though it is difficult to account for such an error across such a wide variety of witnesses. On the other hand, the longer reading appears to be motivated by liturgical concerns (so R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:375), since the verb προσκυνέω (proskuneō, “I worship”) is used in John 4:20-25 of worshiping God, and again with the same sense in 12:20. If these words were authentic here, this would be the only place in John’s Gospel where Jesus is the explicit object of προσκυνέω. Even if these words are not authentic, such an omission would nevertheless hardly diminish John’s high Christology (cf. 1:1; 5:18-23; 14:6-10; 20:28), nor the implicit worship of him by Thomas (20:28). Nevertheless, a decision is difficult, and the included words may reflect a very early tradition about the blind man’s response to Jesus. (NET https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%209&version=NET; emphasis mine)

The NET notes exemplify why this is such an important issue since the longer reading affirms that Jesus is being worshiped as God in the flesh. Since God is the only One who is said to be worshiped in John’s Gospel, for Jesus to therefore receive worship shows that he must also be God in essence. However, as the NET correctly indicates, John’s witness to Jesus’ essential Deity is not solely dependent upon this variant reading. I will have more to say about this in part two.

And here’s what Philip W. Comfort wrote:

TR WH NU Ὁ δὲ ἔφη Πιστεύω Κύριε καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ ³⁹ Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς 

“And he said, ‘I believe, Lord.' And he worshiped him. ³⁹ And Jesus said,

P66 ²א A B D L Δ θ Ψ Maj all

variant omit

P75 א^* W it^b cop^ach2,saMS

TNIVmg NLTmg NETmg

The evidence for the omission of 9:38-39a is impressive, inasmuch as the manuscripts that do not include it are early and geographically dispersed. The three early Greek manuscripts (P75 א* W) would be impressive enough, even without the testimony of the early translations (Old Latin and Coptic).

It is usually argued that the omission was the result of a transcriptional error, but there is nothing in the text to suggest the usual kinds of error, such as homoeoteleuton or homoeoarchton. And even if it was an error, how could this have occurred in so many diverse manuscripts? Furthermore, ἔφη ("I said") is rarely used in John (only in 1:23), and the exact verbal form Πιστεύω ("I believe") occurs nowhere else in John (except in the singular reading of P66 in 11:27). These factors point to a non-Johannine origin.

If John did not write these words, why were they added? Brown (1966, 380-381) suggests that "the words were an addition stemming from the association of John 9 with the baptismal liturgy and catechesis." He then elaborates: "When the catechumens passed their examinations and were judged worthy of Baptism, lessons from the OT concerning cleansing water were read to them. Then came the solemn opening of the Gospel book and the reading of John 9, with the confession of the blind man, “I do believe, Lord' (38), serving as the climax.... After this the catechumens recited the creed." To affirm Brown, it could be pointed out that many Christian teachers in the early church (such as Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Augustine) taught that the blind man's action of "washing at the pool of Siloam" depicted baptism. Furthermore, Beasley-Murray (1987, 151) notes that in early lectionary usage the lesson extended from 9:1 to 9:38, and that 9:38 constituted the confession made at baptism.

Porter (1967,387-394) argues that a similar interpolation found its way into Acts 8:37, which is clearly a baptismal confession inserted into the text. Prior to his baptism, the Ethiopian eunuch says: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." But these words are not found in any of the early manuscripts (see comments on Acts 8:37). The same kind of interpolation found its way into John 9, but at a very early date, for it is present in P66, a second-century manuscript. Interestingly, several second-century depictions in Roman catacombs about baptism include the blind man's washing at the pool of Siloam. Therefore, it is not unlikely that certain manuscripts of the Gospel of John were affected by this addition by the middle of the second century, if not earlier. Thus, this passage is a prime example of how the New Testament text was affected by ecclesiastical practices such as baptismal confession.

Without this portion, the text in 9:35-39 reads as follows:

³⁵ Jesus heard that they threw him out. He found him and said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" ³⁶ The man replied, 'And who is he, sir, that I might believe in him?"

³⁷ Jesus answered, "You have seen him and he is the one speaking with you. ^39b I came into the world to bring judgment—so that those who don't see could see and that those who see would become blind."

The text, without 9:38-39a, presents a continuous statement from Jesus' lips. However, it does not show how the blind man responded to Jesus' question. Of course, this is disappointing for the reader and could very likely be the prime factor that motivated scribes or redactors to insert the addition and thereby fill the gap. The reader wants to know if the blind man became a believer. Indeed, he did, but this is not readily apparent in the shorter text. Yet in saying that "those who don't see could see," Jesus was implying that the blind man had come to see that Jesus was the Messiah (see discussion on 9:35 above and see Comfort 2005, 339).

Having argued for the shorter reading, it is disappointing to observe that not one English version has adopted it. The NET translators were inclined to do so (see note in NET), but they decided to keep the verses in the text. Its omission is noted in NLT and TNTV. (Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary – Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations [Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Il, in 2008], pp. 294-295; emphasis mine)

Keep in mind Comfort’s candid acknowledgment that the longer reading must go back to at least the middle of the second century, and perhaps even earlier, since this works in favor of its authenticity and historicity. It shows that this isn’t something that was simply made up, but is a very ancient tradition – assuming, of course, that it isn’t original to John.

But this is where the problem lies since these assertions in support of the shorter reading ignores the fact that the longer reading of John 9:38-39a is found in approximately of 99.5%+ of the copies of John that contain the 9^th chapter. The foregoing scholars ignore this evidence for a smattering of Alexandrian manuscripts (MSS), due to their erroneous assumption that the textual stream which initially may have originated from Alexandria, Egypt is more reliable and is therefore to be preferred above all else.

Another textual critic James E. Snapp explains why this is a faulty approach:

John 9:38-39a is as follows: “38Then he said, ‘Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him. 39And Jesus said to him –”.  This passage is in the text of all major modern translations. However, it is absent from seven early witnesses:  Papyrus 75, À*, W, an early Coptic (Lycopolitan dialect) manuscript of John produced in the 300’s, a Fayyumic manuscript (P. Mich. Inv. 3521), a Sahidic manuscript (P. Palau Ribes Inv. 183), and Old Latin b (Codex Veronensis).  

Although some textual critics, such as Philip Wesley Comfort, have proposed that the non-inclusion of John 9:38-39a is original, this solution implies that John left the scene in chapter 9 somewhat unfinished:  although the blind man has been asked if he believes in the Son of Man (or, Son of God, in the Byzantine Text), without 9:38-39a, we never hear his answer; instead, Jesus’ words go seamlessly from His affirmation that He is the Son of Man, in verse 37, to the declaration of judgment in v. 39. The notion that John would write such an incomplete story is simply implausible.

But how, then, does one account for the removal of John 9:38-39? I suspect that a very early Greek manuscript of the Gospel of John – early enough that its descendants influenced several Egyptian versions – was the property of a lector, and as such, this copy contained some marks alongside certain passages of liturgical significance. This passage in John 9:38-39 was one such passage. The lector’s

marks, which had been intended to draw attention to the passage, were misinterpreted by a copyist as if to mean that the marked passages were to be excised, and so he excised the passage.

The same phenomenon which caused the loss of John 9:38-39 in a significant branch of the early Alexandrian transmission-stream may have recurred – in a text-line with even greater influence – in Acts 8, where we encounter another passage which lent itself readily for liturgical use in the early church’s baptismal services.

(I note in passing that this factor – the influence of a copyist’s misinterpretation of marks in a lector’s copy – marks alongside certain passages that received special treatment in church-services and in the administration of sacred ordinances such as baptism – is capable of accounting for several shorter readings in the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels and Acts.) (Snapp, “Acts 8:37 – Sorting out the Evidence”: https://www.samshmnthelogy.net/post/acts-8-37-sorting-out-the-evidence; emphasis mine)

Snapp is not alone here since noted NT Evangelical scholar and expositor Donald A. Carson accepts the veracity of the longer reading:

Additional note

9:38–39. Several manuscripts omit all of v. 38, and ‘Jesus said’ from v. 39. Some scholars have justified the omission, partly on the ground that the verb for ‘said’ in v. 38 (ephē) is rare in John (only at 1:23 and some variants at 9:36), while the verb rendered ‘worshipped’ is found only in 4:20–24 (where God is the object; Metzger, p. 229, wrongly says the verb is found only here). These scholars suggest that the words were added for liturgical reasons, perhaps as part of a baptismal catechesis, where the candidate would respond in the terms of v. 38. This presupposes that liturgical forces were influential in shaping the transmission of the text at an astonishingly early date, since one very early papyrus (P⁷⁵) omits it. In view of the overwhelming textual evidence supporting inclusion of the words, it is best to judge them original. One might as easily hypothesize that the omission, if it did not occur accidentally, originated in a lectionary that sought to unify Jesus’ teaching by jumping from v. 37 to v. 39. (Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991], p. 379; emphasis mine)

In the next post (https://www.samshmnthelogy.net/post/john-s-gospel-the-worship-of-jesus-pt-2) I will focus on the evidence proving that Jesus is worshiped as God Incarnate in John’s Gospel, so as to show that this fact does not depend on John 9:38-39a.