Source And Function Of Isaiah

Johannine Studies
XIII. THE SOURCE AND FUNCTION OF ISAIAH 6:9-10 IN JOHN 12:40

Subjects reviewed in this chapter:
Source: Examination of the Text Forms, Observations on the Text Forms, Explanations of the Text Forms – Function – Conclusion

We have two major concerns in this essay: (1) the question of the source, or origin, of the passage and (2) the issue of the function and use of the passage. It is hoped that this study will contribute to an understanding of John’s use of the Old Testament as Christian scripture and to an understanding of these two concerns within contemporary scholarship.

Source
The exact form of the Isaiah 6 passage, as it appears in John 12:40, is elsewhere unattested. This can be seen by comparison and examination of the following textual forms.¹

Examination of the Text Forms

Make the heart of this people fat, and make
their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with their heart.
And turn again,
And be healed. (Isaiah 6:9-10, Masoretic Text)
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and
their ears are dull of hearing, and their
eyes they have closed;
Lest haply they should see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears, and understand
with their heart,
And should turn again,
And I should heal them. (Isaiah 6:9-10, Septuagint)
He has blinded their eyes, and he hardened
their heart,
Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with
their heart,
And should turn,
And I should heal them. (John 12:40)

Observations on the Text Forms
The major differences among the readings are underscored. The Hebrew text makes the prophet responsible. Isaiah’s word will cause a hardening of heart in the rebellious people which will culminate in their inability to turn and be healed. The Hebrew text is problematical in that impersonal verbs are used, i.e., “might be healed . . .” No active agent is expressed. The main verbs are in the second person singular imperative mood, so that Isaial is commanded to do certain things. The Septuagint rendering supplies a subject, i.e., “I might heal them,” and places the responsibility on the people.² It uses third person plural forms of the verbs in the indicative mood, so that it is the people who are themselves responsible. They have allowed their hearts to become rebellious and hardened. Isaiah found this to be the case when he initially preached his word to them. The Johannine text appears to place the responsibility on God who has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. John uses the third person singular of the indicative mood, with God being responsible for the action.³ The shift of tense from the third person to the first is striking in that it may refer to different subjects.⁴

The question of source is further complicated by noting Isaiah 6:9-10 as cited elsewhere in the New Testament: Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 4:10-12 (cf. also Mark 8:18); Luke 8:10; and Acts 28:26ff.⁵

Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s use of the passage all occur in the context of Jesus’ reason for speaking in parables. Matthew agrees with the Septuagint; making verbs in the third person plural, indicative mood, locating responsibility on the people for allowing their hearts to grow dull and hardened. Mark’s emphasis is that parables are given to harden hearts so that they will not turn and be healed. Mark may be alluding to the Isaiah 6 text but, says Black, with affinity to the targum.⁶ Luke’s focus is similar to Mark’s.

The question of the source of the citation is important when one considers the differences in meaning and function which are involved. Is God or Satan the one who hardens? Is the prophet the one who hardens? Is it the word he preached? What does this do to human responsibility?

Explanations of the Text Forms
These textual and theological issues have not passed unnoticed in the history of interpretation.⁷ We will attempt to keep this fascinating history in view while recalling that, as a writer in Mediterranean antiquity, John had certain options available to him within which he worked. While his life within the Graeco-Roman world is influential, his context within Judaism and early Christianity largely determined his methodology as a writer.⁸

In first century conceptions, inspiration was a necessary operative in reading and interpreting ancient texts. This expressed itself in various ways such as special speech and insight. While the spoken word was central, serious study of written texts existed in the first century. This is evidenced by the collections of oracle texts, especially the Sibyllines,⁹ and by the existence of spurious oracle books written by Jews and Christians to counter pagan oracle collections.¹⁰

Pagan oracles were often in obscure language which necessitated interpretation. The same was true for much of Greek poetry as well. Some form of inspiration was needed to understand them. The allegorical method came to be used among the Greeks to interpret many of the texts with the end result that a given collection had authority but the original historical meaning was ignored. An ancient text meant whatever an interpreter read into it from the presuppositions which he brought with him.¹¹

The Greek background, while important, is less crucial than the Jewish and Christian usages of the Old Testament for understanding John 12:40. Judaism felt itself under the judgment and control of the sacred text and concerned itself with reading and interpreting them. A rich and marked diversity existed within Judaism. Philo and Alexandrian exegesis¹² most nearly resembled much that one might find in pagan usage of texts over against the rabbinic reading of the scriptures. Just how far apart Philo was from the rabbis remains controversial. It appears that for all his eclecticism, excesses, and philological difficiences, he is not so far from Palestinian methods as some scholars have supposed. In reading and interpreting scripture, Judaism in Palestine and in the Hellenistic world was more nearly alike than previous scholars allowed.¹³

Within his Jewish inheritance, and in addition to the original or literal meaning, John had several options open to him regarding his use of scripture: targum,¹⁴ midrash,¹⁵ pesher,¹⁶ typology,¹⁷ and allegory.¹⁸ These methods often were combined in actual practice, especially pesher, typology, and allegory. Variations existed within all of them.¹⁹ It is nearly impossible to categorize any given sample of ancient exegesis within any one of these groupings.

While all of these approaches can be attested within the New Testament,²⁰ there is no consensus on the degree to which they are found in the Fourth Gospel. Nor is there agreement as to what light they shed on the question of the origin of the particular citation under consideration. Scholarship has offered several alternatives.

1. It appears that John is not following the Hebrew text. Some disagree, arguing that variant forms of the Hebrew text were in existence in John’s day.²¹ C.K. Barrett argued in 1946 that it could not be the Hebrew text; he later reversed himself and held that the citation most nearly follows the Hebrew text.²²

2. It is possible that he is following the Septuagint (hereafter LXX). A stronger argument can be made for his use of the LXX than for the Hebrew text. In support, one notes that the last three words of the citation follow the LXX,²³ variant forms of the LXX may have been available to John,²⁴ the previous citation from Isaiah is from the LXX,²⁵ and the LXX is the text form most frequently cited in the New Testament.²⁶

3. Some posit that the form of the citation existed in the source which John is using. He is then quoting someone else’s citation or translation. Representative of such would be Rudolf Bultmann, who sees a “signs-source” throughout John 2-12. Bultmann compares the two Isaiah passages in John 12:38 and 12:40. While the first is the LXX, the second follows no known text. He also notes that each citation has a different introduction. He then argues that John 12:39ff., along with vv. 42ff., go back to the evangelist. Verse 37ff, he then assigns to John’s source.²⁷

4. It has been suggested that John is following some Targum of Isaiah which was at his disposal. A striking observation is that in the Targum of Isaiah 6:1, “I saw the glory of the Lord” is used rather than “I saw the Lord.” (cf. John 12:41).²⁸

5. Another suggestion is that John is citing from a “testimony book” of Old Testament texts. J. Rendel Harris has argued that a pre-canonical collection of Old Testament “testimonial” texts were collected when early Christian preachers conflicted with Jewish authorities.²⁹ Such collections of testimonies did exist but at a much later date.³⁰

Observing that citations of the Old Testament in Patristic literature sometimes agreed with each other while having no genetic connection, and not agreeing with any extant Old Testament text, J.R. Harris posited a pre-canonical collection of Old Testament texts.³¹ He said the texts were collected around titles relating to Jesus, such as the “stone sayings,” etc. His main reasons were that (1) mixed forms of Old Testament texts existed in more than one writer, (2) different writers improperly identified the Old Testament book being cited, and (3) similar textual variants from all Old Testament texts in Old Testament citations in the New Testament.³²

6. Another possibility is that John is indebted to a “school” of interpreters who used some form of the pesher method. In some circles of Matthean studies this has come to be an “assured result” of critical studies.³³ Since Matthew and John are increasingly viewed as heavily indebted to the Hebraic-Judaic tradition, it is not surprising that many judgments about Matthew find their way into Johannine studies as well.³⁴ Stendahl had argued that Matthew’s gospel grew out of a “school” led by a converted rabbi.³⁵ From this “school” came the fulfillment quotations.³⁶

Some such phenomenon may account for John’s use of the Old Testament.³⁷ However, there is a major difference in what the gospels do in telling a story of Jesus and citing OT citations as fulfilled, and the pesher techniques of Qumran, where the method is a line by line comment on the Old Testament.³⁸

7. Next, there is the suggestion that John stood in a mystical, speculative tradition of allegorical and spiritual use of the book of Isaiah.³⁹ F.W. Young notes that the Targum had trouble with Isaiah’s vision resulting in the rendering “I saw the Lord’s glory.” This opened the door for speculation in Jewish interpretation.⁴⁰ John inherited this considerable pre-Christian speculative tradition relating to Isaiah. Young goes on to relate various parts of John with this speculative tradition.⁴¹

8. There is the possibility that John is not quoting any source but only alluding to the passage. It is expected that a writer would do this since he was rooted in Jewish methods which were saturated with Old Testament thought and imagery. This can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the use there of Old Testament imagery and language mingled in with the texts. It certainly fits the general tenor of the Fourth Gospel, which has few direct quotations but is filled with Biblical imagery.

9. Finally, there is the alternative that John is himself responsible for the rendering. R. Gundry, in his work on Matthew, has argued that Christian preachers orally and freely translated the Hebrew text of their choice into Aramaic and Greek as part of their ministry. On occasion, these translations were original; sometimes they reflect in whole or in part existing Aramaic and Greek translations. John, on this view, was his own translator.⁴²

The cumulative effect of these nine options is to remind us that John stood in a very complex milieu in which he inherited an interpreted Bible flowing from many different methods.

We do well to remind ourselves of the often cited words of T.W. Manson: “We are long accustomed to distinguish carefully between the text, which – in more senses than one – is sacred, and the commentary upon it or the expositions of it. We tend to think of the text as objective fact and interpretation as subjective opinion. It may be doubted whether the early Jewish and Christian translators and expositors of Scripture made any such sharp distinction . . . accurate reproduction of the traditional wording of the Divine oracles took second place to publication of what was held to be their essential meaning and immediate application. Odd as it may seem to us, the freedom with which they handled the Biblical text is a direct result of the supreme importance which they attached to it.”⁴³

We know today that a number of textual traditions existed in John’s day in both the Hebrew and Greek traditions. There was no one accepted Hebrew text. There was no single LXX text. There were Aramaic Targums along with many Greek translations of them. There were differing Hebrew wordings. Some of these were closer to the Masoretic text than to the Septuagint. It is unlikely, unless some new evidence surfaces, that we can find a single written source which will settle the use of Isaiah 6:9-10 at John 12:40. While the likelihood of a non-literary origin for the citation seems highly probable, especially John’s interpretative rendering of the text, we cannot opt for any of these options as the solution.⁴⁴

Function
The Isaiah 6:9-10 passage is used in John 12:36b-43 to help explain the reason for the unbelief manifested towards Jesus in previous chapters. The quotation's location within the paragraph serves as an explanation to the reader as to why this happened. In so doing, John is addressing a major problem in ancient Christianity: “If Jesus was the son of God and the Christ, why didn’t most of the Jewish leaders accept him?”⁴⁵ Why did he come to his own and his own did not receive him? (1:14). John 12:36b-43 is the author’s explanation of the problem of unbelief.⁴⁶ Furthermore, “the purpose of the final summary of the public ministry of Jesus is . . . to point out that the rejection of the Messiah by His own people ought not to surprise those familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures.”⁴⁷

Prior to this, John collected a series of clashes or conflict stories between Jesus and various representative types. In each case, unbelief predominates. As the conflict stories progress, the unbelief increases, especially in chapters 5-12. B.F. Westcott long ago observed that the clue to the structure of these chapters is the conflict with unbelief.⁴⁸

John 1:1-18 serves as a prologue which sets forth presuppositions for the story John is about to write.⁴⁹ It “lets the cat out of the bag.” There the reader learns who Jesus is, how he was received, etc.

John 1:19-4:54 collects together a series of witnesses regarding who Jesus was/is in terms of claims made by Jesus and things others affirmed regarding him.

John 5-12 is the author’s collection of the conflict stories. While the growing faith of the disciples and apostles is present, it is the unbelief of the multitudes and the leaders which is central. As this story progresses, the conflict heightens and Jesus' theological reflections become more intense. During all of this the crowds begin to thin out. This process is vivid as early as John 6 with the crisis in Galilee where it looks as though even the apostles might exit.⁵⁰ Then, at the end of this, in a few words, John gives his reasons why people did not believe in Jesus, 12:36b-43.⁵¹

Verse 36 is a word of command from Jesus giving the imperative for the hearers to believe while they have occasion. Verse 37 then begins with a connective, “but though,” forming an antithesis to verse 36. What transpires is the opposite of what is commanded. “Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe . . .” “He had done” is in the perfect tense underscoring the author's belief that there had been abundant opportunities to understand and believe. Note that Jesus had done “so many signs.” It was more than enough for a lover of light and truth. Furthermore, these things were done “before them,” not in some hidden place obscured from view.

This is John’s way of underscoring the deeds which God has done. Yet, “they did not believe in him.” Now the verb tense shifts to the imperfect. Here the imperfect is used with a negative probably suggesting they were not about to believe because the intentionality was nonexistent. The idea is that they don’t believe and are not in the mood or habit of believing, i.e., they had no intention of believing him.⁵² Again, the focus is that they are responsible and accountable for their own unbelief. John has been carefully describing in chapters 1-12 a process at work in which evidence is presented and rejected. The end product was that “they had no intention” and “they showed no tendency to believe.”

In 12:38, Isaiah 53:28 is cited from the LXX, "Lord who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" The Isaiah passage indicates an awareness that when people hear truth, they will not believe since they have formed a personal disposition which renders it difficult, if not impossible, to believe.

The “therefore” in verse 39 is a connective relating to what has preceded. What is the result of their refusal? “They could not believe.” The judgment of God upon them came after they had rejected the light. The tenor of the paragraph is that God is not the cause of the rejection but rather has done more than enough for an honest heart to accept.

At 12:42, there is a reference to some of the rulers who “believed.” The verb here is an aorist stressing fact and point of action. Viewed in the framework of the entire gospel, this is not true belief. John says they “were not in the process of confessing it.” Verse 43 tells us why. “They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.”⁵³ This is a human reason for why they would not openly believe. They feared their peers more than they feared God, which is part of unbelief in this gospel. Man is free and responsible for his own unbelief.

But this is not the entire story. John is saying something else as well. In citing Isaiah 6:9-10 at 12:40 he affirms that the unbelief of the Jews fulfills the prophetic word and that God stands behind this unbelief in a causal sense. 12:39 affirms “the basic thought is not that the unbelief resulted in the fulfillment of the prophecy, but that the prophecy brought about the unbelief.”⁵⁴

Given this context, what is the function of Isaiah 6:9-10 at John 12:40? At face value, and without looking at the context, it simply says the rejection occurred to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy and that God is the cause of the rejection.

In a sense, this tension, which is inherent in the Biblical materials, is one of our choosing and creation. Too often in the history of interpretation, a purely psychological explanation is given in which the text is dismissed with a slight of hand: “they would not, therefore, they could not.”

Observe that in Isaiah 6, strong imagery is used to describe God’s action in hardening the heart. Isaiah's message would make the heart of the people fat, and their ears dull, and their eyes would be plastered over, so that they might see and hear but not come to understand.⁵⁵ Are such images to be understood as secondary or primary? Were they results brought upon themselves or were they primary causes instituted by God? Von Bad cites with disapproval W. Eichrodt,⁵⁶ “Deliberate neglect of God’s truth and habitual deafness to God’s warnings inevitably bring indifference to God's working in their train.”

If one does not opt for some such psychologizing exegesis, how does one deal with God hardening the hearts of his chosen people? “How is it that in Isaiah’s message Yahweh suddenly withdraws into an obscurity such as Israel had never before experienced?”⁵⁷

John’s use of the citation has to be viewed in light of the Old Testament theological context which informs it. In the story of the Pharoah and the exodus, it is said that “Pharoah hardened his heart,” “God hardened Pharoah’s heart,” and “Pharoah’s heart was hardened.” In Isaiah 6, he was to “make the heart of this people fat and their ears heavy and shut their eyes . . .” In Isaiah 29:9ff., “Stupefy yourselves and be in a stupor, blind yourselves and be blind!” Here responsibility rests with Israel. Then follows, “For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.” Here God is the cause.

A common motif in Deuteronomy is that Israel has chosen the way of forsaking the covenant with God because God has blinded them.⁵⁸ In the Old Testament the responsibility is sometimes placed on man and sometimes on God. The same thing is true with the use of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the New Testament.

The history of interpretation witnesses to the hesitancy of ascribing God a causal role. The LXX softened the MT. The rabbis were equally bothered by the notion.⁵⁹ “The early church fathers often wanted to keep man’s freedom opting for God’s foreknowledge as a solution.”⁶⁰ Others have opted for some form of predestination to salvation or damnation. Every imaginable variation on these themes has been proposed. All share in common a concern to avoid making God the cause.

John doesn’t have this problem. He is sourced in the thought of the Old Testament. He is thinking of God’s hardening in terms of the history of God’s salvation and mercy.⁶¹ God hardens that he might redeem. God, in his freedom, remains faithful.⁶²

The Old and New Testaments both know that a divine mystery is at work with both God and man involved in the process. At times, a Biblical author will focus on one against the other. Von Rad is correct to criticize a psychologizing exegesis and to source interpretation in the context of Old Testament theology.⁶³ God hardens but it is not his last word. It was at the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry that God hardened hearts yet Isaiah later affirmed, “I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him.” God hardens to warn and to have mercy.

Conclusion
Isaiah 6:9-10 has had an interesting history of usage. The majority of Jewish textual traditions, from the LXX thought the rabbis, soften the harshness of the Hebrew text. The same has been done within Christian interpretation from the early fathers to the present day.

Within the New Testament, it is the classic text to explain the rejection of the gospel on the part of the Jews. Writer after writer makes use of the text in this manner.

We cannot, with our present knowledge, know if John had a textual source before him when he wrote. It is probable that he did not but was making his own, creative, use of the Isaiah passage to warn the readers of the devastating power of unbelief in their lives and to remind them of God’s hardening of hearts and continuing redemptive work in judgment and mercy.

Footnotes:
¹We are placing these in English translation but our remarks will be based upon the original languages. Cf. R.G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament 2d. rev. ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1984), for the English translations. For comparison of the textual forms in the original languages, Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965), remains the most useful source. Of older works, C.H. Toy, Quotations in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884). W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Die Alttestamentlichen Parallelen des Neuen Testaments im Wortlaut der Urtexts und der Septuaginta Zusammengestellt. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899-1903). D.M. Turpie, The NT View of the Old (London: Williams and Norgate, 1872), are the best works for comparing Hebrew and Greek texts. For more recent discussion of the text traditions cf. F. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975). K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1966-1977, for the Hebrew text. E. Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, Rev. by E. Nestle and K. Aland, 26th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), for the Greek text. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935), for the Greek of the Septuagint.
²The Latin Vulgate does the same.
³Cf. Robert G. Brateher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (London: American Bible Society, 1984), p. 24, footnote 6.
⁴John Painter, John: Witness & Theologian (London: S.P.C.K., 1975), makes much of this. He makes the point that the Isaiah text has some modifications by John. John alters the text so that the one who has blinded the Jews is separate from the one who would heal them. John adds to the text “He has blinded . . .” Painter then argues that only one interpretation fits the context, shows why the Jews failed to see the glory of Jesus’ signs and believe, and shows itself consistent with the theology of the Fourth Gospel. Painter affirms that “He,” the prince of this world, referring to John 12:31, is the one who has blinded the Jews so that Jesus may not heal them. He justifies this interpretation on the following grounds: (1) the two other New Testament uses of “he has blinded” (II Cor. 4:4 and I Jn. 2:11), refers to Satan as the one doing the blinding, (2) the dualism is found in the Qumran texts which is significant because Qumran, he feels, offer the best source of material with affinity to the fourth gospel, (3) and the scene in John 8 has the people refusing to believe in Jesus’ signs, having mistaken the works of Jesus for the works of the devil. Such an interpretation can be found as early as Cyril of Jerusalem. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971). The view is vulnerable in that it doesn’t explain why the textual tradition is so divergent. Furthermore, it is not necessary in light of the theology of the Old Testament wherein God is often described as hardening hearts.
⁵The passages from the gospels can best be compared in Kurt Aland (ed.), Synopsis of the Four Gospels (New York: United Bible Societies, 1985). The passages, along with parallels from non-canonical sources, can be compared in Robert Funk, New Gospel Parallels, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
⁶Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press., 1954), p. 186.
⁷For a collection of how the fathers viewed the concerns, cf. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea which is a Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers (Oxford: John Parker, 1845), Vol. IV., Part II, pp. 412-415. W. Sanday and A. Headlam, Romans (London: T. & T. Clark, 1895), pp. 269-272. For a further insightful summary of such concerns in the history of interpretation, especially in the twentieth century, cf. E.E. Ellis, “Quotations in the NT,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4, edited by G.W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), pp. 18-25 with bibliography. Craig Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9-10 in Mark and John,” Novum Testamentum XXIV:2 (1982), 124-138, contains materials pertinent to the history of the use of the Isaiah passage.
⁸Scholars have recognized that the Gospel of John, as well as Matthew, is a very Hebraic document while, at the same time, noting that Judaism had become very Hellenized in the period prior to the New Testament. Cf. especially G. Delling, “Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenismus und Judentum,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, edited by H. Wolfgang and H. Temporini, Vol. 20.1, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987, pp. 3-39, and Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974); with his sequel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). For statements regarding Jewish and Christian exegesis cf. “Contemporary Jewish Exegesis,” in E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1957), pp. 39-45 remains one of the best succinct summaries. J.D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977). Chapter V deals with the use of the Old Testament in Judaism in the first century and then goes on to show Christian use inherited and growing out of this milieu. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975). G.R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1987), pp. lviii-lxvi contains a current summary.
⁹On oracles in general in the religions of the Hellenistic world, cf. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), pp. 166-171. On the Sibyls in particular, cf. pp. 367-368. Cf. especially Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, edited by M. Black, G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman., Vol. III. 1 (London: T. & T. Clark., Ltd., 1986), pp. 618-654 with bibliographies. Basic to any such study is J.J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1972), and “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang . . . , op. cit., Volume 20.1, pp. 421-459.
¹⁰C.K. Barrett, “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P.R. Ackroyd and G.F. Evans, Vol. I (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), p. 378. Schürer, op. cit., pp. 617-618.
¹¹Ibid., p. 379.
¹²Philo was an Alexandrian Jew who made allegory a principle method of interpretation. He was aware of literal meanings but, in practice, these were less important than other ideas he found in scripture. On Philo, cf. Ferguson, op. cit., 380-385. On Philo’s principles of exegesis cf. F.W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), pp. 149-151. Farrar’s lectures were given as the Bampton Lectures in 1885. But cf. especially Jenny Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, edited by M. Black, G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman., Vol. Ill. 2 (London: T. & T. Clark, 1987), pp. 809-889 with bibliographies. The most important source is Aufstieg und Niedergang . . . , Volume 21.1, 1984, pp. 2-553 with several articles on Philo.
¹³Barrett, “The Interpretation of . . .” op. cit., p. 383.
¹⁴The term is from the Aramaic and means “interpretation” or “translation.” The major characteristics of these “paraphrases” of the Hebrew text are (1) they adhere closely to the Biblical text, (2) they were intended for the unlearned, (3) they explained difficult and contradictory passages, (4) they were reverential in speaking of God, (5) they showed great respect for the elders of Israel, (6) they often read later doctrine back into the interpretation and (7) they contained homiletic materials. Cf. M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), pp. 69-78. There is much interest in the targums today among both Jewish and Christian interpreters. Targums exist for all Old Testament books except Daniel and EzraNehemiah. They appear in several different collections. From the vast literature, cf. especially M.G. Steinhauser, “The Targums and the New Testament,” Toronto Journal of Theology 2 (1986), 262-278. M. Miller, “Targum, Midrash, and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 2 (1971), 29-82. P. Nickels, Targum and New Testament: A Bibliography (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967). E.E. Ellis, “Midrash, Targum and the New Testament Quotations,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), pp. 61-69. Beyond these, cf. Schürer, The History of . . . , op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 105ff.
¹⁵The term is from the Hebrew meaning “to inquire” or “to search.” Its meaning is an interpretation or explanation of some scripture. Cf. II Chronicles 13:22; 24:27. In practice it involved exegetical, narrative, and literary comments upon scripture. A great deal of diversity and freedom existed in practice with this method. It included comments on scripture, detailed exegesis, cryptic allusions to scripture passages, and retelling of scripture stories. It was “. . . the composition of edifying or doctrinaire enlargement or embroidery upon the text of sacred scripture, in the form of anecdote or of narrative or of the addition of circumstantial detail.” Barrett, “The Interpretation of . . .” op. cit. p. 413. It has come to include a modern literary way of interpreting the Bible. Cf. Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), pp. 204-209. Cohen’s book is an excellent entry level text for seeing how modern scholars have been re-evaluating Judaism in the period 200 B.C.E to 200 C.E. Further bibliography on Midrashim may be conveniently found in Schürer, The History of . . . , op. cit. Vol. I, pp. 90-99. Cf. also, Vol. II, pp. 339-355 for discussion of the nature of Midrash and its actual method and practice, etc. From the prolific Jacob Neusner, reference should be made to Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Cf. his bibliography on pp. 197-207. G. Porton, “Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the Graeco-Roman Period,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang . . . , op. cit., Volume 19.2, pp. 103-138. This way of using the Bible is similar to what happened among the Greeks in interpreting Homer and among the Romans in interpreting various documents from their tradition. The earliest known extensive use of it in Judaism is in the Dead Sea Scrolls; later it was used by the great rabbis. It is debatable whether they borrowed it from the Qumran group. It is thought by some that the rabbis borrowed it from the Greeks and made it uniquely their own.
¹⁶The term is from the Hebrew meaning “interpretation” or “commentary.” It is a reading of the Old Testament in such a prophetic manner that it speaks directly of events and circumstances in the commentator’s own day. What was going on in the prophet's own day is unimportant. What is of issue is to decode the ancient text so as to show it was speaking to the day of the interpreter. K. Stendahl conveniently shows the thirteen principles of interpretation involved in the method in The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), pp. 191-192. This has been central in scholarly discussion since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The best example of the method at Qumran is the Habakkuk Commentary. The Damascus Document also furnishes us with examples. Helpful from the vast literature is F.F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale, 1960), especially pp. 7-11 and 75-88. This method of reading scripture sheds light on the New Testament use of the Old Testament in passages such as concerns us in this study. E.P. Sanders’ discussion in Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 239-321 is a useful survey of the scrolls in terms of the themes and ideas present. J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the OT Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the NT (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965). Romans 10:6ff., with its treatment of Deuteronomy 30:12ff., is a good example of the method used in the New Testament. Cf. also Hebrews 10:5-10; Romans 9:7ff.; I Corinthians 15:54-56; II Corinthians 6:2; Ephesians 4:8-11; Hebrews 2:6-9; 3:7-19.
¹⁷The term is from the Greek meaning “archetype” or “pattern.” In typology, the Old Testament is read with a view to finding events “back there” which foreshadow events, persons, or things in the New Testament. Examples in the New Testament include I Corinthians 10:1-6; Romans 15:14; Hebrews 7, etc. Typology takes seriously the historical dimension of the Old Testament text. It simply sees it as an archetype reading Christian meanings into both persons and events foreshadowing things Jesus said and did. A classic example of Jewish use of the method can be seen in how the rabbis interpreted the Song of Solomon, not to mention the Psalms. G.R. Osborne, “Type; Typology,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, op. cit., pp. 930-932 offers a brief orientation. Basic to all study of typology is L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, translated by D. Madvig (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982) and the ‘Foreword’ by E. Earle Ellis where pp. 179-194 are especially important. Goppelt’s article in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Volume VIII (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), pp. 246-259 serves to update his book, originally done in German in 1939.
¹⁸The term is from the Greek meaning “saying something other than what one seems to say.” It reads the Old Testament searching for a deeper, hidden spiritual meaning. It sets itself apart from typology in not centering on the original historical meaning of the text. It searches for a meaning beyond and behind the text. Galatians 4:22-31 and I Corinthians 10:1-4 are examples in the New Testament. R.P.C. Hanson’s Allegory and Event (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959), while a study of the sources and significance of Origen’s interpretation of scripture, contains a long history of the method on pp. 11-129 that remains essential.
¹⁹Cf. Ellis, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, op. cit., pp. 1922 and his Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1980), pp. 147-172. The issue was likely much more complex than previous scholars postulated. Still, common presuppositions about the Bible and its use existed: (1) the written law contained the revealed will of God, (2) the writings were uniquely from God, (3) the original meanings were important but multiple meanings were inherent in the text, and (4) the use and interpretation of all scripture was for a practical use in the lives of the people of God. Cf. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 1975, pp. 19-20.
²⁰As demonstrated by Dunn, op. cit., pp. 87-93.
²¹See S.K. Soderlund, “Text and MSS of the OT,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume Four, op. cit., pp. 803-805, who characterizes the period from 300 B.C. to 100 A.D. as a “Period of Textual Diversity.” A current bibliography is on p. 814.
²²His earlier viewpoint was expressed in an article entitled, “The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” in The Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946), 155-169. Cf. his The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: S.P.C.K., 1965), pp. 359-360, where he argues that John is closer to the Hebrew than anything else.
²³“. . . and I should heal them.”
²⁴On this, and all others aspects of LXX research, cf. the most recent analysis of Emanuel Tov, “Jewish Greek Scriptures,” Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, edited by R. Kraft and G. Nickelsburg (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 223-237.
²⁵John 12:38 cites Isaiah 53:1 as in the LXX.
²⁶For the most compelling argument in favor of the LXX forming the background for the citation, cf. E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), pp. 428-429. He explains the variations from the LXX in light of the author’s theological concerns. Charles Goodwin, “How Did John Treat His Sources,” Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (June 1954) 61-75 remains a major source in favor of the LXX. “Therefore, we have no reason to doubt that the LXX was the source he knew, and we need not consider seriously the possibility of his using some freak version that rendered the Hebrew in this way,” (p. 71).
²⁷R.Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 452-453 and footnote 2 where Bultmann, correctly, observes that the difference in introductory formulae cannot demonstrate separate sources.
²⁸For one of the most lucid arguments in favor of this position, cf. John Wick Bowman, The Fourth Gospel and the Jews (Pittsburg: Pickwick Press, 1975), especially pp. 86-89; 196-197; and 266-271. Cf. McNamara, op. cit., “The Targums and the Johannine Literature,” pp. 142-159.
²⁹Harris’ theory enjoyed a period of popularity as the secondary literature shows, but it fell into disfavor or neglect. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was revived in different forms. Cf. Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1977), p. 101, footnote 10. Cf. further his “Apocrypha; Dead Sea Scrolls; Other Jewish Literature,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer and R. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.), pp. 550-551, numbers 79-80.
³⁰It is in the third century A.D., with Cyprian, that a collection of texts for apologetic texts was collected. Cf. these in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V, edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 1965, pp. 507-557. Harris took the name Testimonia from this work.
³¹J R. Harris, Testimonies, 2 vols. (Cambridge: University Press, 1916-1920). This theory found supporters, as a glance at the secondary literature following Harris’ work indicates. But doubts were expressed against the notion because the concept of a pre-canonical work of such size was so conjectural. Cf. T.W. Manson, “The Argument From Prophecy,” in Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1945), 132. Also, the idea of a collection of “proof texts” standing out of their context would be no use in anti-Judaic polemic. Further, C.H. Dodd, arguing against a written testimony book, affirmed that Old Testament citations were orally known in the early church and were pointers or reminders of a broad context from which the passage came. A good example of this is Matthew 1:23 quoting Isaiah 7:14. The context of Isaiah 6:1-9:7 recalls the theological notion of “God is with us” and trust in Him. Cf. his According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952). After Manson, Dodd, and others the idea of a testimony collection faded out. But it is striking to observe that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, testimony collections were found showing that written collections existed prior to Christianity. Many note that serious attention to these necessitates reconsideration of Harris’ theory.
³²Harris, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 18. For the best critique of the whole history cf. A.C. Sundberg, Jr., “On Testimonies,” Novum Testamentum III (1959), 268-281. Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), pp. 207-217 summarizes the work on testimonies. Aware that Harris’ theory is in tandem with Matthew's use of the Old Testament, Stendahl judges against Matthew’s use of scripture being dependent upon a testimony collection. Negative judgments on Harris' work have functionally rendered it ineffective in solving the problem of text or source of New Testament citations of the Old Testament.
³³Especially cf. K. Stendahl, School of St. Matthew . . . , op, cit. Various writings of E. Earle Ellis and R. Gundry also assume this is a fait accompli.
³⁴Cf. especially the work of Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), and his “Other Sheep Not of This Fold: The Johannine Perspective on Christian Diversity in the Late First Century,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978) 5-22.
³⁵See Matthew 13:52, where Jewish methods of teachings and study were applied to the new faith.
³⁶“In these quotations Mt. applies rules for interpretation similar to those used at Qumran and arrives at a substantiation of the claim that the church is right in hailing Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, and his believers as the true heirs to the prophecies and their promises.” Stendahl, op. cit., p. 770.
³⁷Stendahl’s analogy to Qumran aided him in explaining the OT as used in Matthew. The pesher method at Qumran does shed some light on the New Testament’s use of the Old, especially in certain instances. Stendahl is correct that such use of the OT did exist among rabbinical schools. But the analog to the Qumran group is the closest. “However, there is a significant difference between Matthew’s technique of telling a story about Jesus and accompanying it with OT citations which find fulfillment therein, and the pesher technique of Qumran, where the method is a line by line analysis of the OT.” R. Brown, The Birth of . . . , op, cit., p. 102, footnote 13.
³⁸So, correctly, Raymond Brown, The Birth of . . . , op. cit., p. 102, footnote 13. Cf. also the critique of Stendahl in W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1964) pp. 208ff. Cf. also, J.A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula: Scholar’s Press, 1974).
³⁹The definitive work on this remains F.W. Young, “A Study of the Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde, der Alteren Kirche, Heft 3-4 (1955) 215-233.
⁴⁰Young cites Wisdom of Sirach 48:22-25 as an example where additions and deletions are made to the Isaiah 6 text. He argues that the readers would be familiar with what Sirach was doing and would understand him, that speculation of this type was normative, and that this sort of use of the Old Testament continued for the next 200 years. Ibid., pp. 215-221. He next searches the Dead Sea Scrolls for speculative traditions relating to Isaiah. Finally, he refers to the life of Isaiah as found in Lives of the Prophets. It contains a legend of Isaiah regarding a miracle story which is called a sign. This illustrates further the speculative tradition which Young describes and relates to interpreting the fourth gospel.
⁴¹Ibid., pp. 221-230. Young’s conclusions are that John’s Isaiah quotations are more than allusions while not being direct quotations from Isaiah. He is part of a symbolical, even allegorical tradition in using Isaiah. Some use of testimonia may be involved but even these are not quoted but read in light of the speculative tradition's methods. John was already part of an “Isaiah tradition.” Much of this speculation was already known for up to two centuries before John ever wrote. “There is good reason to believe that the author of the Fourth gospel was one of a group who related themselves to Isaiah in a unique way and drew upon this book for religious inspiration.” Ibid., p. 231.
⁴²R. Gundry, “The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel,” in Supplements to N.T., Vol. XVIII (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), pp. 172-174.
⁴³T.W. Manson, “The Argument From . . .”, op. cit., p. 135.
⁴⁴This seems plausible since equally competent Hebraists and Aramaists have judged the issue differently, since we don’t know what forms of the MT or the LXX actually existed, since the New Testament itself makes diverse use of the passage, and since the present form of the text of the Fourth Gospel is not a first century form. One can hazard scholarly guesses but they must remain that.
⁴⁵Paul gives his discussion of this in Romans 9-11; the author of Hebrews attempts to explain it, etc.
⁴⁶Cf. D. Moody Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Sources, and Theology (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 90-93.
⁴⁷Hoskyns, op. cit., p. 429.
⁴⁸B.F. Westcott, Gospel of St. John (London: John Murray, 1908), p. 80.
⁴⁹From the sea of writings cf. Joachim Jeremias, “The Revealing Word,” in The Central Message of the New Testament (New York: Charles Seribner’s Sons., 1965), pp. 71-90. Morna Hooker, Studying the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1979), pp. 19-22. Both these treat how the prologue functions in relation to the gospel.
⁵⁰Many of the issues over which conflict occurs can be found in the Synoptic gospels, (such as the Sabbath), but many are unique to this gospel.
⁵¹Cf. Barclay Newman, “Some Observations Regarding the Argument, Structure, and Literary Characteristics of the Gospel of John,” in The Bible Translator 26:2 (April 1975).
⁵²Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906), pp. 336-339. “With a negative ... may imply ‘I showed no tendency to do.’” “In John . . . the imperfect is frequently used in many shades of meaning not briefly expressible in English.” (p. 336). “With a negative, the imperfect may mean ‘was not beginning to do,’ and this may often mean ‘had no intention of doing.’” (p. 338). “In ii:23-4, ‘many believed . . . in his name . . . but Jesus himself did not trust himself to them,’ the meaning is ‘did not even begin to trust to him,’ because He knew their character from the first. It might almost be rendered ‘would not trust.’” (p. 338). “The same phrase, applied to nonbelieving Jews in xii. 37 means ‘they showed no tendency to believe,’ ‘did not even make a beginning to believe,’ and it is followed by xii.39 ‘they were not able to believe.’” (p. 338). “Nearly the same meaning is in xxi. 12 ‘no one showed a tendency to venture, or ‘so much as began to venture.’” (p. 338). Cf. also his Johannine Vocabulary (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1905), pp. 56-57. Cf. A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), p. 885 and the discussion there of “The ‘Negative’ Imperfect.” As examples, he cites Mt. 18:30; Lk. 15:16; 15:38; John 2:24; 7:1; 21:12; Acts 19:30; Mt. 22:3. Cf. also B.L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek From Homer to Demosthenes, Vol. I (New York: American Book Company, 1900), pp. 95ff. and discussion there of the “Negative Imperfect.” “The negative imperfect commonly denotes resistance to pressure or disappointment. Simple negation is aoristic.” Cf. further, Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963), p. 91, #270.
⁵³C H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), p. 380, footnote 2, “The contrast of the true glory and the false echoes v. 44, with all the additional depth given to it by the treatment of the true glory in xii. 23-33. The mark of the true glory is precisely renunciation of personal security.”
⁵⁴R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966), p. 483.
⁵⁵A healthy corrective to a psychologizing exegesis devoid of an Old Testament orientation is found in G. von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967), pp. 122-126, to which much of the present discussion is indebted.
⁵⁶W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. II (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), pp. 380ff.
⁵⁷von Rad, op. cit., p. 123.
⁵⁸Compare and contrast Deuteronomy 29:24ff. “All the nations shall say, ‘why has the Lord done thus to his land?’ . . . Then men would say, ‘It is because they forsook the covenant of the Lord’ . . .” and Deuteronomy 29:4: “The Lord has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.” Israel is responsible for hardness of heart yet God has sent hardness to their hearts.
⁵⁹Cf. the study of R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. 2 (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), pp. 265-270.
⁶⁰For an excellent discussion, to which we are indebted, cf. Lester J. Kuyper, “The Hardness of Heart According to Biblical Perspective,” Scottish Journal of Theology 27 (1974), 459-474. In addition, G. von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967), pp. 122-126.
⁶¹Cf. the excellent remarks of Brown, John, op.cit., pp. 484-486.
⁶²Two further considerations sharpen this: (1) the notion of God’s hardening hearts is found in the most ancient sources within the Old Testament (Judges 9:23; I Samuel 16:14; 18:10; 19:9; II Samuel 17:14; I Kings 12:15, etc.) and (2) the attribution to a deity of a terrible situation was normative in the ancient near eastern world.
⁶³ Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967), pp. 122-126.