Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Was[hy] Irony: "Witness" in John (part 1)

Expand Messages
  • GustavSym@aol.com
    Dear Kym and John_Lit: [Note:I have decided to post a work-in-progress, a first of many drafts I fear, of a piece I appear to be writing. Your forbearance is
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2003
      Dear Kym and John_Lit:

      [Note:I have decided to post a work-in-progress, a first of many drafts I
      fear, of a piece I appear to be writing. Your forbearance is appreciated as
      your critiques are solicited. Forgive the awkwardness of a first draft and my
      inability to commit to "evangelist," "narrator," "text," "narrative," etc.]

      Kym Smith has suggested a clarity of "witness" in the Fourth Gospel [FG] in
      support of an interesting thesis. In response to KS's contention that the FG
      is a finely woven fabric of witnessed words and deeds, I have suggested that
      the evangelist's interrogation of the concept of witness challenges such
      clarity; the text of the FG is something other than a neatly cleaned and
      pressed, washed and ironed garment, packaged for carefree wear and
      consumption. In the FG, "witness" is more than being there; it also includes
      a kind of being in and engaging the moment, with an eye toward horizons of

      Two pericopes will suffice to illustrate the problem of "witness" in the FG,
      the narratives of the cure of the man born blind and the empty tomb. For
      convenience I will provide
      the translation in the NAB.

      As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth.
      His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
      he was born blind?"
      Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works
      of God might be made visible through him.
      We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is
      coming when no one can work.
      While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
      When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva,
      and smeared the clay on his eyes,
      and said to him, "Go wash 3 in the Pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he
      went and washed, and came back able to see.
      His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, "Isn't
      this the one who used to sit and beg?"
      Some said, "It is," but others said, "No, he just looks like him." He said,
      "I am."
      So they said to him, "(So) how were your eyes opened?"
      He replied, "The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me,
      'Go to Siloam and wash.' So I went there and washed and was able to see."
      And they said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I don't know."
      They brought the one who was once blind to the Pharisees.
      Now Jesus had made clay and opened his eyes on a sabbath.
      So then the Pharisees also asked him how he was able to see. He said to them,
      "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see."
      So some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he does not
      keep the sabbath." (But) others said, "How can a sinful man do such signs?"
      And there was a division among them.
      So they said to the blind man again, "What do you have to say about him,
      since he opened your eyes?" He said, "He is a prophet."
      Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight
      until they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight.
      They asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How does he
      now see?"
      His parents answered and said, "We know that this is our son and that he was
      born blind.
      We do not know how he sees now, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him,
      he is of age; he can speak for him self."
      His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had
      already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Messiah, he would be
      expelled from the synagogue.
      For this reason his parents said, "He is of age; question him."
      So a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, "G
      ive God the praise! We know that this man is a sinner."
      He replied, "If he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know is that I
      was blind and now I see."
      So they said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?"
      He answered them, "I told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want
      to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?"
      They ridiculed him and said, "You are that man's disciple; we are disciples
      of Moses!
      We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this one is from."
      The man answered and said to them, "This is what is so amazing, that you do
      not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes.
      We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does
      his will, he listens to him.
      It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind.
      If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything."
      They answered and said to him, "You were born totally in sin, and are you
      trying to teach us?" Then they threw him out.
      When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, he found him and said, "Do you
      believe in the Son of Man?"
      He answered and said, "Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
      Jesus said to him, "You have seen him and the one speaking with you is he."
      He said, "I do believe, Lord," and he worshiped him.
      Then Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do
      not see might see, and those who do see might become blind."
      Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, "Surely
      we are not also blind, are we?"
      Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you
      are saying, 'We see,' so your sin remains.

      This pericope depicts the conflict between the status quo (the Pharisee's
      conceptual space) and Jesus' message, which seeks to subvert it. The
      evangelist delights in his special brand of irony here, turning the status
      quo inside out as the Pharisees seek witness (seemingly any witness) to the
      truth. The disciples, still participating in the old episteme, ask Jesus who
      had sinned to cause this man to be born blind. Jesus replies with a
      resounding paradigm shift: the man was born blind that the world might see
      the work of God. The sign Jesus performs punctuates the shift from not seeing
      to seeing. The cured man has no footing in the status quo, ( its discourse
      cannot conceive and therefore cannot permit of an ex-blind man) which cannot
      account for this change. The Pharisees know all too well how the man's
      blindness-as-result of sin plays out for their power structure, and Jesus'
      action subverts this power structure and therefore undermines their raison
      d'etre. The narrative contributes to the subversion as it inscribes the
      reasonable doubt of the double witness: the real witness and the look-alike
      witness. Only the witness who can answer the question of "how" eyes open is
      the actual witness.

      In their mad dash for the truth, the Pharisees turn to those condemned by
      the status quo to witness, most unreliable witnesses in this moribund
      episteme; for they are the sinners (according to the system set up by the
      current discourse) who have caused their child to be born blind. The irony
      here is comical and (at least) twofold: the perfectly reasonable witness of
      the ex-blind man is inadequate for the Pharisee's foiled machinations--- he
      offers the plain truth, but the Pharisees want a truth far more baroque. They
      swallow their entire belief system and turn to the parents for their
      testimony. They ask a two part question, and the parents answer plainly: they
      verify that the man is their child and that he was born blind; queried about
      how he is no longer blind, they defer to the better witness, their son. The
      narrator distracts the reader with information that may or may not be
      extraneous (the parents were afraid of persecution for witnessing to
      Jesus-as-Messiah), but the characters are not distracted at all. The parents
      go off unscathed and the Pharisees once again seek the witness of the
      ex-blind man.

      Something remarkable has happened to this witness in the interim-he speaks
      the language of Jesus and the evangelist---his diction is high and he answers
      with a suspiciously Jesus-like and evangelical tone. In this marvelous
      intersubjective repartee of "we" and "you," the ex-blind man holds his own
      court, and lectures the Pharisees on where his healer might hail from. He
      invites them to become disciples, and points out their blindness, their
      inability and unwillingness to see just where this healer is from. The
      Pharisees resoundingly reject the man's invitation to sight and discipleship,
      declaring their discipleship to Moses. The irony is heightened here, as the
      Pharisee accuse the man of being a disciple of Jesus (he will be a disciple
      very soon), and relinquish their role as teaching authority to the man: they
      even acknowledge this deferral of authority by recognizing the dialogue as
      pedagogical, albeit to deride the man for "teaching" them.

      Jeff Staler has already commented on this kind of irony ( specifically in
      John 4) that plays against character and reader. In his "The Sabbath Trick,"
      Thomas Thatcher, taking Print's First Kiss as his point of departure, carries
      JS's analysis a step further by noting that the evangelist's irony is
      "unstable," as it disadvantages the reader as often as it disadvantages some
      characters in the narrative. The narrative's ungrammaticality that usurps
      Jesus' voice by placing such authoritative language on the lips of the
      ex-blind man resolves as Jesus gets the final word, bringing the man's
      critique of the Pharisees to its conclusion: "if you were blind, you would
      have no sin; but now you are saying 'we see' your sin remains." The reader,
      perhaps distracted by the authority and elevation diction of the ex-blind
      man, recognizes she has been had at the moment she realizes Jesus finishes
      what the man had begun a moment earlier; the man's restored sight is ratified
      by his faith's new eyes, as he has "seen" his healer. This contiguity of
      ex-blind man and Jesus underscores the play between witness and event in the
      pericope of the empty tomb. The manner of witness is further refined in this
      story of the discovery of the missing Jesus.

      Joe C. [continued]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.