In the NET (1st ed), we find the following note to John 1:34 and whether the text should read “the son of God” or “the elect of God”:
85 tc ‡ What did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this
occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ, houtos
estin ho huios tou theou), or “This is the Chosen One of God” (οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ, outos
estin ho eklektos tou theou)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive
because of their diversity in age and locales, read “This is the Son of God”
(so {𝔓66,
75
A B C L Θ Ψ 0233vid f1, 13 33 1241 aur c f l g bo as well as the majority of
Byzantine minuscules and many others}). Most scholars take this to be
sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to
reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest mss for
this verse, {𝔓5}
(3rd century), evidently read οὖτός
ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ. (There is a gap in the ms at the point
of the disputed words; it is too large for υἱός especially if written, as it surely
would have been, as a nomen sacrum [Υ Σ].
The term ἐκλεκτός was
not a nomen sacrum and would have
therefore taken up much more space [ΕΚΛΕΚΤΟΣ].
Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what 𝔓5
read.) This papyrus has many affinities with א*, which here also has ὁ ἐκλεκτός. In addition to their combined testimony 𝔓106vid b e
ff2* sys,c also support this reading. 𝔓106 is
particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of
ὁ ἐκλεκτός. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (electus filius in ff2c sa and
a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for ἐκλεκτός is not as impressive as that for υἱός, the reading is found in early
Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the
Chosen One” clearly comes out ahead. “Son of God” is a favorite expression of
the author (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31); further, there
are several other references to “his Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be
naturally motivated to change ἐκλεκτός to υἱός since the latter is both a Johannine
expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in 1:34. On the other
hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. The term never occurs in John; even
its verbal cognate (ἐκλέγω, eklegō) is never affirmed of Jesus in
this Gospel. ἐκλεκτός
clearly best explains the rise of υἱός.
Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of
the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. Thus, ὁ υἱός τοῦ
θεοῦ is almost certainly a motivated
reading. As R. E. Brown notes (John
[AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendency … it is difficult to imagine
that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’
while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible.
Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my
beloved Son’) would also explain the
introduction of ‘the Son of God’ into John; the same phenomenon occurs in 6:69.
Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems best—with Lagrange,
Barrett, Boismard, and others—to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
