How the Evangelist John has read Isaiah 6 according to Jn. 12,37ff
Isaiah, said: … my eyes have seen the King of the LORD of hosts!
I Introduction
1. The text form of Isa 6,10 in Jn. 12,40
2. The openness of the Hebrew text for different interpretations
II How John has read Isaiah 6 - thesis and their reasons
1. Thesis
2. Reasons for this thesis
III How the Evangelist John presumably has read the 6th chapter of the prophet Isaiah -
the paraphrased text
IV Isaiah 6 and the language of John
V Once more: Faure and Isa 6
I Introduction
A. Faure has written an article in this magazine1 nearly 80 years ago about the separation of sources in the Gospel of John which has given an impulse up to this day for the research in the Gospel of John, not to be overestimated. After him R. Bultmann 2 has accepted as a Semeiaquelle [n1] what Faure called an “independent literary unity”.
For Faure 3 the verses Jn. 12,37 [n2] and 20,30f [n3] form an effective conclusion of an independent literary unity. For he meant 4 , that Jn. 12,41 [n4] looks back to the first quotation in 12,37 from Isa 53,1, but not to the second one. The second quotation from Isa 6,9f comes from another hand than the first one.
This assumption could not be confirmed, after one has discovered in the Targum [n5] to Isa 6,5 that the glory seen by Isaiah on which Jn. 12,41 alludes must be derived from Isa 6. The question for origin and unity of both O.T. quotations in Jn. 12,37-41 was open again.
Many scholars count since then on this “independent literary unity” , the Semeia-source, even if they determine it differently in its extent. Furthermore, the question is open whether this source has cited both quotations of Jn. 12,37ff or only one of both. Besides those who count on a Semeia-source, there is a row of scholars who deny the existence of such a source 5. Depending on how this source for Jn. 12,37-41- on whose existence I firmly count in spite of the objections - has looked like, the heading about this article could also be: How the Semeiaquelle and the Evangelist John have read Isaiah 6 in accordance with Jn. 12,37ff.
In Jn. 12,39-41 it is quoted from Isa 6,10. 6 The form of the quotation as well as the relation to the previous quotation from Isa 53,1 have been discussed by researchers intensely.7 I want to show only some main points of the discussion as far as they are relevant for the question “How John has read Isa 6 in accordance with Jn. 12,37ff”.
1. The text form of Isa 6,10 in Jn. 12,40
Neither Hebrew text without vocalization, neither Masoretic [n6] text nor Targum or LXX [n7] are the only basis for the text existing in John. The Johannine text, however, goes partly back – regarding the statements “he (sc God) has blinded” and “he (God) has made stubborn” - to the Hebrew text without vocalization. This is backed by the statement of Jn 12,41, that Isaiah has not seen God, but “only” “the glory of God”, when we compare the Targum in accordance with which Isaiah saw the glory of God and heard the voice of the Memra of God 8. In the last words of the quotation from Isaiah – “and I cured them” – we have a literal reproduction of the LXX. John quotes Isa 6,9f in saliently shortened form, so that the words which refer to hearing and not-understanding, are left out in 12,40. I will later speak of the fact that John, however, has not suppressed them.
Some scholars see in this text form tradition before John, others see the quotation from Isa 6,10 and the previous one from Isa 53,1 in connexion with the Evangelist. Again others associate Isa 53,1 with the Semeia- source, Isa 6,10, however, with the Evangelist. I see both quotations - Isa 6,9f in a form not shortened - as belonging to the end of the signs-source or a miracle Gospel. Argumentation for this follows later. And: for the shortening of Isa 6,9f John is responsible for theological reasons which I will show later.
2. The openness of the Hebrew text for different interpretations
The Hebrew text of Isa 6 has presented itself for following reasons to Jews and Christian Jews for different interpretations:
The designation of God is expressed with different names. The LXX solves the problem simply, for it uses always (gr.) kyrios [n8] in V.1-11.However, after in times of the necessary targumic treatment of the Hebrew text an anthropomorphous description of God was rejected, one could interpret anew and call the side of God turned towards the people “glory of God” (TG [n9] to Isa 6,1) or “glory of the Schechina [n10] of the worlds” (Stenning translates: “…for the glory of the Shekinah of the King of ages, the lord of hosts, have mine eyes seen.” ) – and the otherworldliness of the other side of God remained protected.
b) Also the LXX shows considerations against the anthropomorphous description of God, speaking in Isa 6,1 not about the “garment hem” of God, but about the “glory of the Lord which fills the room”. The TG says according to the translation of B. Chilton at this point: “And the temple was filled by the brilliance of his glory.” TG and LXX have in common, that they introduce the notion “glory” into their consideration of Isa 6 - a way of exegesizing, which also John has used (from the Semeia-source?) and has in 12,41 related the glory to Jesus: (Greek.) tauta eipen Esaias hoti eiden taen doxan autou, kai elalaesen peri autou[n11] )
c) Thus, the following questions arise to me in regard to John 12,41: What was it, what Isaiah has “spoken of him” (for John = “spoken of Jesus”) and with which words? Does the “talking of him” only mean the “glory” from Isa 6,1-5 or is “of him” also spoken in other verses of Isa 6? Has John also related the word “king” in Isa 6,5 to Jesus (cf, e.g., Jn. 18,36f[n12] )? In the Gospel of John the unvisible God is never named “king”.
d) The Hebrew text of Isa 6 was also open with regard to the vocalization of V.10: Must I read “He has blinded” and “he has made stubborn” refering this action to God as an action already completed in the present of the prophet or is “blinding…” the approaching task for the prophet and must I vocalize: “Blind!” and “Make stubborn!”? Or does the whole vision actually concern a far future in which the Messiah has come?
e) Isa 6 is open also for the question whether healing is definitely impossible or whether it to be seen as a real aim before the possibly necessary hardening of hearts.
f) Also the text LXX in Isa 6,8 - (gr.) idou eimi ego[n13] , - could invite to considerations about the connection with the (gr.) ego eimi of Deutero-Isaiah. Whether John has taken into consideration that the envoy from Isa 6,8 is the (gr.) ego eimi [n14] from Dt-Isa, is another possibility. 9
Without wanting to show all possibilities of different interpretations of Isa 6, nevertheless, I wanted to draw attention to the wealth of possible interpretations and thus relate John or his Isaiah text -made known to him by others - to this exegetic tradition. I wanted to show, too, that John’s interpretation had to be taken seriously by Jewish interlocutors and scribes because it was within the range of possible Jewish interpretations.
II How John has read Isaiah 6 - theses and their reasons
First thesis
In previous research Isa 6,9f has been considered largely isolated in regard to the possible use of the whole chapter 6 in the Gospel of John. Only Isa 6,1 and 6,5 have been consulted in the light of TG and LXX. I would like to set up the following new thesis which then leads to a new consideration of the whole chapter Isa 6 in Johannine or pre-Johannine sight and - if critical research can confirm it and supplement it and can underpin it - will concern the exegesis of the whole Gospel of John:
a) John has understood Isa 6,8 as a talk between God and the pre-existent Jesus 10 which Isaiah has heard and handed over. The corresponding text would be:
Then I (i.e. Isaiah) heard the voice of (hebr.) Adonai [n15] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And He (i.e. Jesus), said, "Here am I; send me!"
John has read according to my thesis (hebr.) wajomer [n16] instead of (hebr.) weamar[n17] .
b) John- or the pre-Johannine tradition - has understood Isa 6 not as the vocation of Isaiah to become a prophet 11, but as the vocation of Isaiah to be witness for the talk between God and Jesus 12.
c) The ‘envoy-Christologie’ [n18] of the Gospel of John has its basis in this talk and presents itself in connection with the whole sight of Isa 6 by John as one of the essential sources for the specifically Johannine manner of speaking. 13
2. Reasons for this thesis:
a) Considering the wording of the quotation Isa 6,10 in John, Isaiah has no real task: hardening of hearts has already happened through God and cure would be the task of Jesus. The whole importance of the prophet consists in surviving what he has experienced and heard as the one who has been cleansed, and report judgment to the generation which will have with itself the One, sent by God. If Isaiah does not have to harden and not to heal, he himself is also not the envoy, but the important witness. The task of the envoy is 14 to make belief possible, but also to designate the hardening of the stubborn. The task of the envoy is to endure and to suffer 15, while he can not cure them. In contrast these people, the envoy (gr.) apestalmenos as light of the world 16 can cure blind persons which come to belief, - Jn. 9,1ff - but he cannot heale blinded ones who have seen miracles without believing 9,39-41[n19] .
Rembrandt: Healing of the Blind Youth
„I must work the works of Him who sent Me“ „Go, wash in the pool of Siloam“ (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing.
b) John has a special interest in the talk between God and Jesus: in Jn. 1,51 [n20] he understands Gen. 28,12 [n21] in this way, that the angels of God do not step down unto the stone, but unto the Son of Man 17 - (hebr.) bo [n22] - Jacob is only a dreaming witness 18.
The interest of Mose, too, is concentrated – as is Isaiah’s according to Johannine understanding- upon Jesus: Jn. 5,46 – “for he wrote about Me”.
Like Mose in Jn. 5,46f, Jesus could have said concerning Isaiah: "For if you believed Isaiah, you would believe Me; for he wrote/spoke about Me after God had spoken with me, his Son. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My signs and words?"
Jn. 17 shows in the prayer the special relation of the Son to the Father and speaks about the glory of Jesus in 17,24[n23] .
Jn. 12,27-31 [n24] reports the talk between Son and Father, and God's words are misunderstood by the people as a thunder or a speech of an angel. Just this talk is particularly interesting, because the “thunder” in Jn. 12,29 can be seen on the background of the meetings with God in Ex 20,18 [n25] and Isa 6,4 (hebr Qal from nua ) and because in the following verses it is spoken of the glorification of the king according to Jn. 12,13.15 which means at the same moment judgement for them who do not believe and for the ruler of this world. This judgment is attributed to God in Jn. 12,37ff referring to Isa 6,10. Isa 6 could be seen more extensively as background of Jn. 12, than the quotation from Isa 6,9f allows to suppose 19.
Abraham (Jn. 8,56[n26] ), Jacob, Mose and Isaiah testify to the special relation between God and his Son. Certainly, we can add to these persons also David, according to Ps 2 and Ps 110 ( by the Letter to the Hebrews are both psalms related to Jesus), because the Father-Son-relation in John, too, is likely to have been formed in regard to the talk of God in these two Psalms: “The LORD has said to Me, 'You are My Son,…” and ”The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand…”20
c) When the Gospel of John repeatedly understands Jesus as the pre-existent one and when John reads with this understanding Isa 6, it would not be understandable, when on the question of God, whom he should send, Isaiah would have presented himself and not the pre-existent Jesus would have offered himself, who according to the Gospel of John speaks of his “being with the Father” and, again and again, about his “being sent by the Father”. It is Jesus as the envoy, who experiences impenitence and who, nevertheless, at the same time opens the time of hearing which also continues through his envoys after the end of the miracle activity by Jesus. I think, because of this given possibility of hearing in the future, too, - the following word from Isa 6,9f “Keep on hearing, but do not understand;” and “…Lest they hear with their ears,”is consciously left out in John and by him in Jn. 12,40: This part of the judgement consisting in hearing and not understanding takes place again and again before new listeners - or the judgement does not take place, because he who believes, never more has to expect judgement 21.
d) As I have shown 22, John has understood the O.T. in three other instances on the basis of the Hebrew text divergent from the vocalization of the Masoretes: Gen. 28,12 in Jn. 1,51, Ex 16,15 [n27] in Jn. 6,32 [n28] and Isa 6,10 in Jn. 12,40. The special understanding of Isa 6,8 as related to Jesus being the One who answers God, would then have been seen by John too,, or his tradition, on the basis of a Hebrew text. 23
e) Haackers difficulty with the origin of the concept of an envoy 24 is removed by this new understanding of Isa 6,8: the representation of Jesus as envoy from God has its root in the Johannine understanding of Isa 6,8.
f) Recently,I have made the assumption 25 that LXX Ps 39,8 has been related by John to Jesus - “Then I said, "Behold, I come” (gr.) haeko cf Jn. 8,42 26), “In the scroll of the book it is written of me.”- John would have meant with this “writing” particularly Isa 6: After the expressed fundamental readiness of Jesus to be sent by God (Isa 6,8), more exact executions about this mission to be sent follow for John in accordance with the Psalm. The mission contains the end of performing sacrifices in the temple not demanded by God, and the fulfilment of the will of God through the dedication of the own (gr.) Soma[n29] of Jesus. The refusal of Jesus by the stubborn ones means for him death on the cross, Isa 6,10, contains, however, also the possible cure: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send (cp Isa 6,8) His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”(Jn 3,16f)
III How the Evangelist John presumably
has read the 6th chapter of the prophet Isaiah - the paraphrased text:27
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I, Isaiah,saw the Son of God sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and his glory28 which comes from God filled the temple.
2 Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.
3 And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the Father, the whole earth is full of his glory."
4 The pivots on the thresholds shook at the voices of those who called, and the house filled with smoke.
5 And I, Isaiah, said: "Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King of the LORD of hosts!"
6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, holding a live coal that had been taken from the altar with a pair of tongs.
7 The seraph touched my mouth with it and said: "Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out."
8 Then I heard (in the heavenly council29) the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And He, the Son, said, "Here am I; send me!"
9 And he, the Father, said, "Go and say to this people: 'Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.'
10 Thus, He, the Father, made the mind of this people dull, and stopped their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and I, the Son healed them."
11 Then I, the Son, said, "How long, O Lord?" And he said: "Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is utterly desolate;
12 until the LORD sends everyone far away, and vast is the emptiness in the midst of the land.
13 Even if a tenth part remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains standing when it is felled." The holy seed is its stump.
IV Isaiah 6 and the language of John
About the origin of the special language of John a lot has been speculated up to this day. Although the thesis of the Gnostic influence on the language of the Evangelist keeps to this day 30, nevertheless, it has become much weaker by the growing knowledge of the decisive influence of the O.T. on John. I would like to disclose the weakness of the gnostic thesis still farther by this article, because exactly the “envoy” has often been derived from the Gnosis.
In the previous section, “How John likely has read Isa 6” , I have emphasized O.T. core words or primary words by fat italics.
a) As “core words/primary words” I understand words which John has taken over for his manner of speaking perhaps or directly from Isa 6. They emerge partly also in other texts of the O.T used by John. Under primary words I understand central words of the Johannine language whose origin can be led back with great certainty to a certain O.T. passage - e.g., “send” to Isa 6 31. Therefore one must examine from case to case, on which specific O.T. background John has seen a certain word (cf, e.g., “king” = core word from Isa 6,5 and primary word from Ps 45 - cf Jn. 18,36f). Sometimes one cannot come to a decision about the origin because a certain word equally can be derived from different O.T. texts (cf, e.g., “hear” as a central word in Isa 6,9f and Ps 95,7[n30] ).
b) To the “core words” must be added “derived words” , i.e. those Johannine words which are contained in Isa 6 immanently, even if they are not found as direct words, e.g., “judgment/judging” - cf, e.g., Jn. 9,39[n31] .
c) And: “core words/primary words” and “derived words” are applied by John to specific situations, e.g., to the situation of a speech during a festival in the temple (cf Jn. 7,14-18; 25-29), a judgement speech (cf Jn. 12,27-50) or a prayer (Jn. 17)32.
d) To me it has become clear that Isa 6 is a text of the highest rank for theology and language of John: for the representation of Jesus as the pre-existent one, the envoy, who talks and acts according to the order of God, and who talks and does nothing of himself 33;who heals people and leads them to the knowledge of the glory of the envoy so that they search for God's honour in this way. Searching for the honour of God - not for the own honour- this is a central Johannine request 34. People, who by refusing the envoy, search for their own honour incur their own judgment.The envoy - coming and talking from the area of the heavenly glory, (Isa 6 and LXX Ps 39), experiencing total agreement or refusal - offers to John the possibility to attach to this notion of the envoy other christologic designations with their ever own specific points like to a crystallization core.
e) However, one is not right talking about the outstanding importance of Isa 6 for the Johannine representation of Jesus, without talking at the same moment about LXX Ps 39 (s. II, f) 35
Isa 6 and LXX Ps 39 are two sides of the same medal: if Jesus stresses (again on the background of Isa 6,8f) that he talks and does nothing of himself, but is determined totally by the Father who has sent him and - so the one side of the medal – who had said “go and talk”, likewise LXX Ps 39,6ff stands on the other side of the medal: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, however, you have prepared a body to me. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, “Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.I delight to do Your will, O my God.” While Jesus stresses several times in the Gospel of John that he talks or does nothing of himself (in accordance with Isa 6,8), he uses in accordance with LXX Ps 39,7ff / Jn. 10,17f [n33] (cf Hebr 10,7ff) “I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."
Therefore, in John it is not only spoken of pre-existence 36 and being sent, but of the risk of (gr.) sarx, soma and psyche. That he returns to the Father belongs to the glorification of the Son who was ready to be sent by God,. The glorification of the Son includes also the gift of eternal life for those who have believed that God has sent Jesus. He who talks of Isa 6 in Johannine understanding, must talk at the same time of LXX Ps 39 and he who speaks of this Psalm in Johannine understanding, must have in mind Isa 6 at the same moment to recognize the basis of the special Johannine language which developed itself in meditative exegesis of O.T. texts - and does not have its roots in the Gnosis! John’s language created by the Spirit is a language bound to the O.T. and to the tradition about Jesus.
V Once more: Faure and Isa 6
Was the second quotation of Jn. 12,37ff from Isa 6 already contained in the Semeia-Source? Faure had counted only Isa 53,1 to the end of the source. However, after a long time of investigating the O.T. background of the Gospel of John one can say a little bit more: We know that John, usually, takes over quotations from the O.T. from the tradition, works on them – but does not compile them. Ps 45, Ps 95 and LXX Ps 39 - all used in the Letter to the Hebrews - are treated by John. Thus, both quotations in 12,37ff could also stem from the tradition. We may not imagine the Evangelist to be a researcher who had like in a library before himself the Hebrew Bible text, one text in Aramaic and one in Greek 37. A pursued and poor Christian congregation might only very difficultly have had access to the holy texts. The native language of the Evangelist is Hebrew / Aramaic. Greek he has learned well later in life, even if not rich in variation. However, both quotations move in the area of linguistic combination. To this adds, that John never uses (gr.) noaesosin (cf Isa 6,10: (hebr.) jabin). He loves other words for the same content. Also the (gr). synosin of the LXX is not reproduced in John’s quotation. This points to an origin of the quotation from the tradition. To this fact adds that in both quotations the same situation exists: the talk between Jesus and God. Farther: according to the seven hermeneutical rules, ascribed to Hillel, it is set up as a 6th rule that one word of the Scripture is explained by another one, similar to it. Applied to Jn. 12,37ff, Isa 53,1 is explained by Isa 6,10: the missing believe with which the people react to Jesus and God, deplored in Isa 53,1, is explained in Isa 6,10: God also reacts, making people who do not believe stubborn. Jesus, too, reacts, but in harmony with the reaction of the Father: He can not cure those who are stubborn of their blindness. So, I think that the two quotations, standing now together in John, have already stood together in the tradition given to him. One can be tempted to ascribe the second quotation to John because of the explanation in 12,41 that Isaiah has seen the (gr.) doxa of Jesus. (Gr). Doxa, however, is a favourite word of John. I would like to stress that the notion of the glory has been introduced into Isa 6 by the TG 38 and the LXX and that John has put this word glory into the centre of his statements to announce the intention of Isa 6 in his own time 39. Verses Isa 6,9f, not shortened, quoted against “unbelieving” Jews, probably depict the mood of an end time congregation in the year 70 which understands the quotation as a final point, however, they do not represent the understanding of John - understood one-sidedly as a word of judgment. John knows both possibilities of judgment and salvation and who exactly in 12,42ff attaches his correction of a one-sided understanding of Isa 6,10. In one respect I would like to follow R. Schnackenburg: that the Evangelist is responsible for the omission of the words of hearing from Isa 6,10 40. The whole quotation, however, I assign to the tradition.
The fact that the Evangelist simply does not leave out the words of hearing from Isa 6,10, is not only shown by 12,42ff 41, but is shown particularly in the statement Jn. 8,43[n34] , that listeners (because God made stubborn) can not hear and understand Jesus’ words - here Isa 6,9f is found in Johannine language which, however, can very well speak in other verses about hearing and belief and so can see judgment and salvation as possibilities for all - Jews and Gentiles - according to Isa. 6,10 and LXX Ps 39,11. Especially the story of the Greeks of Jn. 12,20, who are so highly esteemed by John, because they want to see Jesus and the reaction of Jesus to them, show the future openness of the preaching of the Evangelist towards both the honour of God and the salvation of the world - by the Saviour of the world. Through the One who has been sent by God in accordance with Isa 6, Jesus, the holiness of God and his honour, - exclaimed by cherubs in the heavenly realm and heard by Isaiah - are proclaimed among all people inviting into life and protecting against the judgment of God.
Ascension – from: L. Shivkova: Tetraevangeliar des Zaren Alexander
begin of the article
home
1 A. Faure, Die alttestamentlichen Zitate im 4. Evangelium und die Quellenscheidungshypothese, ZNW 21 (1922) 99-121.
2 R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, Göttingen, 141956 zu Joh 12,37ff und 20,30f. Eine gute Übersicht ueber die unterschiedliche Herleitung von Joh 12,37-40(41) aus einer Quelle oder nicht findet sich bei D.M. Smith, Johannine Christianity, Columbia 1984, 90-93. Nach Darstellung der Ansichten von Bultmann, J. Becker, Das Evangelium des Johannes, I, Gütersloh 1979, II, 1981, R. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs, MSSNTS 11, 1970, W. Nicol, The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel, NT.S 32, 1972, R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, Teil I-IV, 31972, 21977, 21976, 1984, R. Kühschelm, Verstockung, Gericht und Heil, Frankfurt/M 1990, meint Smith, 93, selbst: „The semeia-source (or whatever tradition one posits) may have incorporated the quotations from different Old Testament apologetic traditions.“ Kühschelm, 131 führt Joh 12,35-43 auf den Evangelisten zurück. Bei ihm findet man außer einer eingehenden Analyse des Textes viele Literaturhinweise.
3 s. Anm. 1, 108
4 s. Anm. 1, 104f
5 G. Van Belle, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven 1994, 359ff bringt Auswertung und Darstellung vieler Möglichkeiten vieler Forscher zur Semeiaquelle, lehnt jedoch selbst, 376, eine Semeiaquelle ab. Vgl. weiter: W. J. Bittner, Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium, Tübingen 1987. W. Kraus, Johannes und das Alte Testament. Überlegungen zum Umgang mit der Schrift im Johannesevangelium im Horizont Biblischer Theologie, ZNW 88 (1997) 1-23, hier: 8-13. Er beschäftigt sich mit Joh 12,37-43 und spricht sich gegen Quellenscheidung und den Bezug der Semeia auf eine Semeiaquelle aus.
6 G. Reim, Jochanan, Erweiterte Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums, Verlag fuer Mission und Ökumene, Neuendettelsau 1995, 37-39.
7 Vgl. u.a. R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (HThK IV,4, s. Anm. 2), 143-152. M. J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, Kampen 1996, 99-122, untersucht Joh 12,37ff und sagt, 101, „I hope to reinforce, to complete, and, when necessary, to correct the results of Schnackenburg and others.“ 104: Johannes ist für die jetzige Form des Zitates aus Jes 6,9f verantwortlich. 118: Von ihm stamme auch die nicht aus der LXX stammende Form (gr.) strafosin . 119:“It is Jesus who addresses the prophet in Isa. 6:9-10.“ Menken führt viel Literatur zu Joh 12,37ff an.
8 B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, The Aramaic Bible Vol. 11, Wilmington, Del. 1987, bemerkt in seiner Anm. zu seiner Uebersetzung des Targums zu Jes 6,1-6,6:“From the outset, it is made clear that God´s „glory“ is seen, which is consistent with orthodox rabbinic thinking (cf. also John 12:41). In a passage associated with the Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 49a), R. Judah ben Ilai is portrayed as warning against translations which speak of seeing God directly (cf. Exodus 33:20), and against those which speak of seeing some angelic substitute. Rather, the use of the term „glory“ is recommended. Ich bin überzeugt, dass der Evangelist Johannes es mit jüdischen bzw. jüdisch-christlichen Gesprächspartnern zu tun hatte, die die johanneische Deutung alttestamentlicher Stellen wie Gen 28,12, Ps 45,7f oder 82,6 auf Jesus als Sohn Gottes ablehnten und die Deutung auf Engel vertraten. Sie mögen das auch hinsichtlich Jes 6,1ff getan haben, wogegen Johannes seine christologische Deutung setzt. Er steht damit Aussagen des Hebräerbriefes nahe.
9 Anders J. Becker, (s. Anm. 2), 208.
10 Die Anwesenheit bei der himmlischen Ratsversammlung ist fuer Johannes eher von dem zu erwarten, der nach Joh 1,18 im Schoß des Vaters ist, als von Jesaja.
11 So H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BK X.1, Neukirchen Vluyn 21980, 236: „Der Prophet fungiert als göttlicher Bote. Als solcher war er dabei bei der himmlischen Ratsversammlung...“. 238: „Jes 6 ist Jesajas prophetischer Legitimationsausweis..“.. Zum traditionellen Verständnis von Jes 6 als Berufungsvision des Propheten s. auch W. Werner, Vom Prophetenwort zur Prophetentheologie. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch zu Jes 6,1 - 8,18, BZ NF 29 (1985) 1-30, hier: 29 „...spricht nichts dagegen, dass in Jes 6,1-11 von der Berufungsstunde des Jesaja die Rede ist.“
12 Wildberger, (s. Anm. 11), 240, weist darauf hin, dass nirgends im AT ein Prophet Jahwes Gesandter genannt wird. „Wo von der ‘Sendung eines Propheten’ geredet wird, handelt es sich in älteren Stücken regelmässig um Beauftragung in einer konkreten Angelegenheit...“
13 Diese Sprechweise werde ich in einem gesonderten Aufsatz untersuchen. Wichtig ist die Bemerkung Wildbergers (s. Anm. 11), 249: „Die Übersetzung von (hebr.) kabod bereitet Schwierigkeiten. Gewiss meint das Wort „Herrlichkeit“ im Sinn der objektiven Erscheinung, andererseits ist gerade an einer Stelle wie der vorliegenden nicht zu verkennen, dass das Wort zugleich „Ehre“ meint, und zwar sowohl die Ehre, die Gott für sich einlegt, als auch diejenige, die von ihm seinen Kreaturen entgegengebracht wird.“ Im Johannesevangelium findet man in der gleichen verwandten Doppelheit, die von (hebr.) kabod herkommt, (gr.)doxa .
14 Mit Becker, (s. Anm. 2), 510 spricht man hinsichtlich Joh 17 besser vom Gebet des scheidenden Gesandten - nicht des scheidenden Erlösers - so O. Michel, ZSTh 18 (1941) 521-534.
15 Wichig im Hinblick auf dieses „Erleiden“ ist die komplementäre Schriftstelle zu Jes 6: LXX Ps 39 in der Form „einen Leib aber hast du mir bereitet“ (vgl Hebr 10,5). Vgl. E. Schweizer, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der „Sendungsformel“ Gal 4,4f; Rm 8,3f; Joh 3,16f; I Joh 4,9. ZNW 57 (1966), 199-210, hier: 210. „Damit sind wir bei der Sendungsaussage selbst. Man wird, insbesondere bei Paulus und Johannes, wo Präexistenzaussagen... sicher vorliegen, nicht bestreiten, dass die Vorstellung von der Sendung des präexistenten Sohns vom Himmel her vorausgesetzt ist. Man muss dies aber sofort dahin präzisieren, dass diese nur noch dienende Funktion ausübt für eine ganz andere Aussage. Tatsächlich will in Gal 4,4f die Verkündigung der Sendung des Gottessohnes die eschatologische Relevanz und den Charakter des alles vollendenden Gotteshandelns für das Ereignis der Kreuzigung festhalten. Rm 8,3f kann daher dieselbe Aussage so machen, dass die Sendung nur noch im untergeordneten Partizip erscheint, während das am Kreuz vollzogene Gottesurteil die Hauptaussage wird. Ähnlich interpretiert Joh 3,16f das Heilsereignis der Kreuzigung Jesu (V.14) und erklärt mit der Sendungsformel, dass sich darin die weltrettende Liebe Gottes selbst erwiesen hat. Vgl auch U. Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, NTD 4 1998, 338. „Von Anfang an lenkt der Joh.Evangelist den Blick seiner Leser auf den Kreuzestod als auf das Ziel seines Sendungsweges.“ 348: „Es war der aktuelle Streit zwischen Christen und Juden in der Zeit nach dem katastrophalen Ende Jerusalems, vor allem der jüdische Blasphemie-Vorwurf gegen den Glauben an Jesus als den Sohn Gottes und einzigen Lehrer und Erlöser, der den Johannes-Evangelisten zu jenem tiefgreifenden theologischen Nachdenken herausgefordert hat.“
16 Vgl Reim, Jochanan, Joh 9 - Tradition und zeitgenössische messianische Diskussion (s. Anm. 6), 321-330 und: Johannesevangelium und Synagogengottesdienst - eine Beobachtung (s. Anm. 6), 331-333.
17 Vgl Reim, Jochanan (s. Anm. 6), 100-104.
18 Vgl. dazu den Aufsatz von C. Rowland, John 1,51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition NTS 30 (1984) 498-507: 503 „The central feature of the targumic interpretation is the conviction that the features...of Jacob are set on the throne of glory.“
19 A.T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel. A Study of John and the Old Testament, Edinburgh 1997, 170, geht nicht auf Jes 6,8 ein, zeigt jedoch Verbindungen auf, die seiner Meinung nach zwischen Jes 6,1ff und Joh 12,1ff bestehen. Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass schon Joh 11,42 – die Rede Jesu um des Volkes willen, damit es glaubt, dass er von Gott gesandt ist - auf dem Hintergrund von Jes 6,8f gesehen werden muss.
20 Vgl auch Reim, Jochanan (s. Anm. 6), 348-351, Jesus as God in the Fourth Gospel. The Old Testament Background. Nach Ps 45 spricht Gott zu Gott. Nach johanneischem Verständnis spricht gemäß Jes 53,1 (vgl Jes 52,13) Jesus zu Gott.
21 Joh 5,24
22 Vgl Reim, Jochanan. (s. Anm. 6), 100-104; 12-15; 37-39.
23 Wildberger, (s. Anm. 11), 261: „Nur Joh 12,40 weiss noch darum, dass Jesaja Gott selbst als Urheber der Verstockung gesehen hat.“
24 K. Haacker, Die Stiftung des Heils. Untersuchungen zur Struktur der johanneischen Theologie, Stuttgart 1971, 94 „Wir müssen uns also dem Textbefund stellen und fragen, warum Johannes den allerdings nicht spezifisch christologischen und nicht einmal spezifisch biblischen Gedanken der Sendung trotzdem so häufig verwendet.“ Außer den Kommentaren, haben sich viele eingehend mit der Sendung Jesu beschäftigt, u.a. J. P. Miranda, Die Sendung Jesu im vierten Evangelium. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den johanneischen Sendungsformeln. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Christologie und Ekklesiologie, Bern 1972; J.- A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium, Tübingen 1978. C. Mercer, (gr.) APOSTELLEIN und PEMPEIN in John, NTS 36 (1990) 619-624 vergleicht besonders die feinen Unterschiede zwischen der Anwendung von (gr.)apostello und (gr.)pempo bei Johannes. Keiner der Autoren geht auf Jes 6 als Quelle für den johanneischen Gesandten ein.
25 G. Reim, Vom Hebräerbrief zum Johannesevangelium, anhand der Psalmzitate BZ NF 44 (2000) 92-99
26 Wichtig ist auch, dass in Joh 8,42 neben dem (gr.) haeko aus LXX Ps 39,8 die Sendung gemäß Jes 6,8 in einem Verse steht:
(gr.)eipen autois ho Jesus, ei ho theos pater hymon aen aegapate an eme, ego gar ek tou theou exaelthon kai haeko. Oude gar ap emautou elaelytha, all ekeinos me apesteilen.
27 Die kursiv gedruckten Worte aus Jes 6 – Biblia Hebraica oder Tg - weisen auf besonders betonte johanneische Aussagen hin.
28 E. Jacob, Esaïe 1-12. Genève 1987, 100: „Les LXX, d’autres versions et le Targum ont essayé d’éliminer l’anthropomorphisme que constituait la mention du vêtement de Dieu et l’ont remplacé par la gloire (gr.) plaeraes ho oikos taes doxaes autou (v.1) ce qui est après tout la bonne explication...“ C. Hergenröder, Wir schauten seine Herrlichkeit. Das johanneische Sprechen vom Sehen im Horizont von Selbsterschliessung Jesu und Antwort des Menschen, Würzburg 1996, 140, betont, dass als Textbasis für die verschiedenen johanneischen Begriffe vom Sehen die Epiphanieterminologie firmiert.
29 Wildberger, (s. Anm. 11) 253: „Jedenfalls spricht Jahwe nie von sich im pluralis majestaticus und (hebr.) lanu ist als Relikt der Vorstellung, dass Jahwe von einem Hofstaat dienender Geister umgeben ist und mit diesen zu Rate geht, auf zufassen (vgl. Gn 1,26; 3,22; 11,7).“
30 Aber vgl z.B. Becker, (s. Anm. 2), 208f. Er meint, dass man die Formel (gr.) ego eimi nicht nur auf Deuterojesaja zurückführen könne, weil dort die spezielle Sendungsterminologie fehlt. Jüdische Tradition sei gnostisierend verarbeitet. 240: Für die Gesandtenvorstellung und die Vater-/Sohn-Terminologie seien dualistisches Weltbild und gnostisierendes Milieu Hintergrund.
31 Bühner, (s. Anm. 24) der Jes 6 nicht diskutiert, bemerkt jedoch, 425, „...die juedische Umwelt nötigte die johanneische Gemeinde, Jesu Sendung mit im ‘normativen’ Judentum anerkannten Kategorien darzustellen.“ Bühner weist auf die Parallelen der jüdischen Propheten und Engel mit dem verbundenen Repräsentations- und Vollmachtsverständnis hin. Dann heißt es, 427, : „Die ursprünglich jüdisch-esoterisch und rabbinisch nachwirkende Verbindung von ‘Prophet’ und ‘Engel’ ist damit die grundlegende religionsgeschichtliche Voraussetzung der johanneischen Christologie vom ‘Weg des Gesandten’;...“ Schnackenburg, IV (s. Anm. 2), Paulinische und Johanneische Christologie, 105f, sieht die Sendungschristologie - nach Diskussion der Position E. Schweizers (s. Anm.15) und W. A. Meeks’, The Prophet King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NT. S 14), 301-305 in der jüdischen Weisheitsspekulation beheimatet. Neben Bühners Untersuchungen (s. Anm. 24) bleiben weiter die Ausführungen von K.H. Rengstorf, Art. (gr.) apostello in ThWNT 1, 1933 wichtig. Bedeutsam ist z.B. die Beobachtung, 420, dass die Bezeichnung ‘Gesandter’ nicht auf die Schriftpropheten angewandt worden ist. Dagegen galten, 419, Mose, Elia, Elisa und Ezechiel als Gesandte Gottes, „weil durch sie Dinge geschahen, die sonst Gott vorbehalten sind“ – Wunder, wie z.B. dass Mose Wasser aus dem Felsen fließen lässt (bBM 86b). „Was diese vier Männer aus ganz Israel heraushebt, ist das Wunder, zu dem Gott sie ermächtigt..“. Ich denke, dieses Verständnis erleichterte es Christen, den Wunder tuenden Jesus als „Gesandten“ zu verstehen. J. Seynaeve, Les Verbes (gr.) apostello et (gr.) pempo dans le vocabulaire théologique de Saint Jean, in: M. De Jonge (ed.), L’Évangile de Jean, Sources, rédaction, théologie, Gembloux – Leuwen 1977, 385-389 hat eine kurze linguistische Studie vorgelegt, in der er jedoch auf die Herkunft der untersuchten Verben aus dem AT nicht eingeht. Vgl. auch Mercer, (gr.)APOSTELLEIN (s. Anm. 24). Dass auch (hebr.) lecha weamarta laam hasae aus Jes 6,9 von Johannes verwendet worden ist, zeigen meiner Meinung Joh 6,24 und 12,(9ff). 34-36. F. Hauck/ S. Schulz, Art. (gr.) poreuomai, ThWNT 6 (1959) 571 heisst es: „Dieser göttliche Sendungsimperativ tritt bes hervor an bedeutsamen Sendungen in der Gesch zwischen Gott u seinem Volk u erhebt Menschen zu Trägern göttlicher Aufträge wie Abraham..., Elia, ...Jesaja Js 6,8f;...“
32 Bei einer ausführlicheren Behandlung der Herkunft der johanneischen Sondersprache werde ich in einem gesonderten Artikel nicht nur auf Jes 6 genauer eingehen, sondern auch die mir bekannten anderen alttestamentlichen Quellorte fuer diese Sondersprache berücksichtigen.
33 Zu (gr.) ap emautou vgl. Joh 5,30; 7,17; 7,28; 8,28; 8,42: 14,10 und - betont anders - 10,18. An die Sendung von Jes 6,8 schließt die Beauftragung mit der Rede - Jes 6,9 - an. Deswegen kann diese Rede bei Johannes nie in Jesus selbst ihren Ursprung haben (gr.) ap emautou ), sondern in Gott, der Jesus gesandt hat.
34 Becker, (s. Anm. 2) I,57 „Alles ist nun bei E ausgerichtet auf das Heilsziel des ewigen Lebens." Ich meine, dass man unbedingt ergänzen muss: Alles ist nun bei E ausgerichtet auf die Ehre Gottes und, damit verbunden, auf das Heilsziel des ewigen Lebens. Vgl. R. Schnackenburg (s. Anm. 2) I, 350 "...dass Gott Ursprung und Ziel aller Jesus eignenden Herrlichkeit ist.“
35 Wenn U. B. Müller, Zur Eigentümlichkeit des Johannesevangeliums. Das Problem des Todes Jesu, ZNW. 88 (1997) 24-55, hier: 54 schreibt: „Nicht, dass der Logos Fleisch geworden ist im Menschen Jesus, leitet die Aussagen des Evangeliums...sondern dass Jesus sich als den einzig legitimen Offenbarer himmlischen Lebens bezeichnen kann“ - entscheidet Müller sich für den einen Leitgedanken bei Johannes gegen den anderen. Ich meine im Hinblick auf die enge Verflechtung der Aussagen auf Grund von Jes 6 (einzig legitimer Offenbarer) und LXX Ps 39 (Fleischwerdung), dass beide Leitgedanken gleichwertig sind.
36 Ich unterstreiche Schnackenburgs Kritik in BZ NF 35 (1991), 272-274, hier: 273 an der von Kühschelm (s. Anm. 2), 201 geäußerten Anschauung, dass mit der „Herrlichkeit Jesu“ ausschließlich die Wahrnehmung dieser Herrlichkeit in Jesu „irdisch-historischem Wirken“ gemeint sei. Auch Menken, (s. Anm. 7), 119 und Hanson, (s. Anm. 19), 83 betonen, dass Jesus als der Präexistente begegnet ist. Hanson, 83, „We have then in chapter 5 a daring claim that Jesus is God the Word, that he has known the works of God in creation, and that it was he in the person of the pre-existent Word whom Moses and all Israel heard and saw at Sinai.“ Vgl. zum Problem der Präexistenz auch: Reim, Jochanan, (s. Anm. 6), 154f; 490-492; 495.
37 Anders denkt Menken (s. Anm. 7), 209 zum Zitat des Evangelisten in Joh 12,40: „Der Text der LXX ist nicht für seinen Zweck, das Herausstellen der göttlichen Determination als Grund des Unglaubens, brauchbar. Er arbeitet jedoch selektiv: Er wählt eine ihm passende Vokalisation des Hebräischen, er folgt am Ende der LXX, da diese ihm bessere Anwendungsmoeglichkeiten gibt...“. 121, Anm. 83 meint Menken, dass die Textformen in 12,38 und 12,40 nicht auf Abhängigkeit von einer Quelle zurückzuführen seien.
38 D. Muños. Léon, Gloria de la Shekiná en los Targumim del Pentateuco, Madrid 1977, 487, weist darauf hin, dass „Gloria (aram. 'Iqara und genaue Übersetzung von (hebr.) Kabod de la Shekinah“ im Codex Neofiti ca 90 mal gebraucht wird, während diese Formulierung bei Onkelos fehlt. Er erklärt das mit der Aversion orthodoxer Rabbinen gegen jede Art von Hypostasen wegen der Aufrechterhaltung des reinen Monotheismus.
39 Schnackenburg, (s. Anm. 2), II, 509 weist darauf hin, dass Johannes die Kabod-Erscheinung aus dem Logoslied übernommen hat. Ich frage mich, ob man nicht im vorjohanneischen und johanneischen Umfeld im Anschluss an Ex 34,6 und Jes 6 viel über die Kabod nachgedacht und sie dann mit Jesus in Verbindung gebracht hat.
40 Schnackenburg, (s. Anm. 2), IV, 149. Mit diesem Artikel korrigiere ich gleichzeitig meine Aussagen in Jochanan, (s. Anm. 6), 38f.
41 C. Dietzfelbinger, Der Abschied des Kommenden, Tübingen 1997, 94 spricht mit Recht davon, dass hinter Interpretationsvorgängen immer Interpretationsbedürfnisse stehen. Ich meine, dass sich die Situation in der johanneischen Gemeinde gegenüber derjenigen in der Semeiaquelle grundlegend geändert hat: Für Johannes geht das Zeitalter des Hörenkönnens unbedingt weiter, deswegen Joh 12,42ff! Auch G. Röhser, Prädestination und Verstockung, Tübingen/Basel, 1994, 240 sagt: „Durch die Feststellung von V.42a wird die absolute Aussage von V.38 faktisch wieder zurückgenommen.“ Dass Joh 12,44-50 unbedingt von Johannes stammen, betont mit Recht J. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie III, WUNT 117, Tübingen 2000, 310: “Gegen die redaktionelle Herkunft des gesamten Abschnittes spricht die johanneische Sprachgestalt.“
Startseite
EXPLANATIONS OF SPECIAL WORDS FOR STUDENTS
[n1]source containing miracles of Jesus
[n2] 37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him,
[n3] 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
[n4] 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.
[n5] translation of biblical writings from Hebrew into Aramaic
[n6]The Masoretes of about the 9th century a.d. added vowels to the original Hebrew text, consisting only of consonants. Often they had to decide between several possibilities. (s m could be read as sum, some, same)
[n7]translation of biblical texts into Greek
[n8]Lord
[n9]Targum
[n10]difficult to translate. Dwellling (see Jn 1:14)
[n11] 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.
[n12] 36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
[n13]here am I
[n14]I am. cp. Isa 43,11
[n15]God
[n16]and he said
[n17]and I said
[n18]designation of Jesus as the one who has been sent by the father. Often used in the Fourth Gospel.
[n19] 39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." 40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" 41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
[n20] 51 And He said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."
[n21]12 Then he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
[n22]unto him (unfortunately, the printed German article in ZNW has a mistake: the printer changed hebr. bo into hebr. bar -which means “son”)
[n23] 24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
[n24] 27 " Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour.
28 "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." 29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
[n25]18 Now all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off.
[n26] 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
[n27]15 So when the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, "This is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.
[n28] 32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
[n29]body
[n30] 7 For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:
[n31] 39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind."
[n32]God’s medal is different: On one side: Whom shall I send (to heal), on the other side: I come to do your will. Giving the body – not taking live in war, leaving widdows on the ground and winners in winning pose. Isa 6 on one side – Ps LXX 39 on the other one.
[n33] 17 "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."
[n34] 43 "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
Deutsch
Français