116 John C. Poirier The purpose of the present article is not to revisit my three earlier supports for repunctuating Jn 9,3-5, but rather to provide an additio- nal support for that position, based on narrative-critical considerations. Those considerations revolve around the significance of the terms “day” and “night” in Jn 9,4. Understanding how those terms function within the narrative, I believe, will show that the traditional punctuation of Jn 9,3-5 is most likely wrong, and that the idea of making the works of God visible should be associated with the idea of working during daylight hours rather than at night. “Works” in the Context of the Sabbath Controversy Scholars have often appealed to source theories to explain the fact that the healing accounts in Jn 5,1-18 and 9,1-41 are called “works” (ἔργα), in contradistinction to the “signs” (σημεῖα) found elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (4,54; 9,16; 11,47)7. In so doing, they have overlooked a narrativa- lly more obvious explanation, which is that the term “works” was chosen for its correspondence with the charge of Sabbath-breaking found in both these chapters. Jesus’ healing miracles in John 5 and 9 are labeled “works” because “works” are precisely what one may not do on the Sabbath8. There has been a lot of speculation, over the years, about what “day” and “night” might mean in the context of Jn 9,4, usually settling on a scheme in which the transition from day to night is marked by Jesus’ departure from his disciples at the crucifixion9. Although a metaphorical interpretation along those lines resonates with the style of John’s theo- logizing, I suggest that a more likely candidate for the meaning of “day” and “night” is not far to seek within the narrative: “day” and “night” refer to the literal transition of day into night, a transition that holds significance for the ensuing Sabbath controversy, as it is precisely that assuming human form. Berger overinterprets the evidence in his eagerness to unseat an individualist understanding of personhood: however we understand the reappearance of Elijah in Jesus and/or the Baptist, the phenomenon as such does not complicate the individualizing of the person in the way Berger imagines, and the passage from Philo implies nothing of the sort either. E.g., L. P. Hogan writes, “The use of either σημεῖον or ἔργον may reflect the source of 7 the account” (Healing in the Second Tempel [sic] Period [NTOA 21; Göttingen 1992] 277). See R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament; 3 vols.; New York 1968) 1.518-21; X. Léon-Dufour, “Les Miracles de Jésus selon Jean”, in X. Léon-Dufour (ed.), Les Miracles de Jésus selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris 1977) 269-86, esp. 276-81. I doubt that the relative success of a signs-source hypothesis could impact this 8 judgment. E.g., see the studies cited in S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical 9 Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome 1977) 64 n. 82.