The Text of John 1:34

Transcription

1 1 The Text of John 1:34 Peter R. Rodgers When I came to New Haven in 1979 to be the pastor of St. John's Church, I was honored to have Professor Childs attend my service of institution. I had met him previously in Cambridge, England, and his lecture there on the church's use of the Psalms had opened my eyes to the history of biblical interpretation. During my first year in New Haven Professor Childs delivered lectures on the New Testament as Canon, which later became his book under that title. Having worked with G. D. Kilpatrick in Oxford, I was especially interested in New Testament textual criticism and had learned through the eclectic method, which he championed, a nonconventional and refreshing approach to the discipline. I found Professor Childs's lecture on the subject especially engaging, and it was one of the factors that led to my beginning to publish my views on textual problems in the New Testament. The invitation to contribute to this volume honoring Brevard Childs offers me the opportunity to thank him for his encouragement and contribution and to engage with his insights on New Testament textual studies. In "Excursus 1" of The New Testament as Canon, an Introduction, Professor Childs speaks of two principles at work in the study of the New Testament text: the critical principle and the inclusive principle. The critical principle represents "the constant effort to preserve the 'best,' 'purest,' and 'oldest' text of the Gospels, a concern which was reflected in the various revisions and recensions of the Greek text." This discipline was best represented by the Alexandrian school. The inclusive principle, on the other hand, "sought to include the widest possible number of variant traditions actually in use by the Christian communities through conflation and harmonization." This effort was represented by the Byzantine tradition. Childs referred to these two principles as "two seemingly contradictory principles, both derivative of canon." 1 How we seek to recover the apostolic witness, which became canonical, while also appreciating the text that functioned as canon in the church, remains a lively issue. Witness the debate over the choice of the textus receptus as the collation base for the International Greek New Testament Project for Luke and John. 2 I offer here a study of the well-known textual problem of John 1:34. It is a singularly interesting problem from the standpoint of text, canon, history of interpretation, and early Christian social history and theology. It also bears on contemporary issues of hermeneutics and translation. Furthermore, I believe that, in a curious way, thorough study of this text and its problems demonstrates that the two principles outlined by Childs are not always as contradictory as they may seem. At the end of the testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus at John 1:34, the KJV, RSV, NRSV, and other translations, following the textus receptus read, "This is the Son of God." The NJB and REV, however, following their predecessors, read "this is the elect of God." The apparatus criticus for UBS 4 sets out the full supports for the variants, and conflated readings. The vast majority of manuscripts read "Son" (ο υιος). These include the early papyri 66 and 75, as well as the great uncials A and B. Those who defend this reading as original point to the age and diversity of the witnesses supporting it and the importance of the Son in the Gospel of John. "Elect" or "Chosen One" is never used elsewhere in John. 3 Those who argue in favor of "Chosen" (ο εκλεκτος) point to the tendency of scribes to alter "Chosen" to "Son" and not viceversa. 4 The echoes of Isa. 42:1 and other parallel passages in the Synoptic accounts of the baptism of Jesus and other hints of the "Servant of the Lord" in John are offered as arguments favoring the reading. This century has witnessed the steady growth in the fortunes of the reading "Chosen" (ο εκλεκτος) in John 1:34. Since Wescott and Hort placed it in their margin as the reading of the original

2 hand of Codex Sinaiticus ( ) in 1881, more testimony has come to light favoring the reading. In their edition of papyrus 5 in 1899, Grenfell and Hunt conjectured that the lacuna at John 1:34 is only filled by the reading ο εκλεκτος. The abbreviation ΥΣ would be too short for the space on the line. 5 F. C. Burkitt, in his edition of the Curetonian Syriac Gospels in 1904, cited the agreement of Syr c and Syr s with the comment, "The accession of s [Syr s ] to the list of authorities for ο εκλεκτος ought, I think, to incline us to accept it." 6 Moreover, Burkitt referred to an evident dislike on the part of later scribes and editors for words that seemed to imply choice or approval of Jesus Christ by the Father and an unwillingness to call Jesus "the Chosen of God" because of adoptionist overtones or the implication of a time or state in which he existed before God chose him. 7 Alexander Souter published his edition of the Greek New Testament in It cited the old Latin Codex b (Veronensis) from the fourth century as an authority for the conflated reading ο εκλεκτος, υιος, "chosen Son." This reading was followed by the British and Foreign Bible Society's 1958 edition, edited by G. D. Kilpatrick. It is the reading given in Bianchini's edition of 1749, reprinted by Migne. 8 In that same year, 1911, E. S. Buchanan brought out his edition of the old Latin Codex b, in which he rejected all but the work of the original copyist "... my object being to give to the reader the Manuscript as it left his hands." He stated that filius, "Son," was the addition of "a cursive corrector using brown ink in the twelfth century." 9 We have already noted that the reading ο υιος, has had its gains, too. In this century it has found the weighty support of the papyri 66 and 75. But "Chosen" or "Elect" increasingly commends itself to commentators and translators. Nor can one imagine that the situation will improve for the reading "Son" in an age of inclusive language. Gordon Fee is among those who favor ο εκλεκτος. Whether or not Fee's argument that "Elect" fits the context of John is convincing, he offers in his discussion what may be a clue for deciding on the text of this crux interpretum. Fee asserts, "The question is whether it reflects the Messianism of such a passage as Psalm 2:7 or that of Isaiah 42:1." 10 The question, then, is whether John 1:34 is alluding to the "Son" text of Ps. 2:7 or to the "Servant" text of Isa. 42:1. Fee opts for the latter. I believe that when the question is put this way, focusing on the allusions to the Old Testament in the voice at the baptism of Jesus, we may want to reconsider the conflated reading "elect Son," ο εκλεκτος υιος. Although it has slender support, I am increasingly convinced that it may point to the original reading. On the surface it looks like a conflation of the kind common in the Byzantine and later church text, but given the combined allusion to Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 42:1 in the three Synoptic accounts of the voice at the baptism, this succinct phrase in John may be a true parallel and not a later conflation. I am especially attracted to the reading "Elect Son" for several reasons. The first is that I believe that the Old Testament allusions or echoes in the voice at the baptism are conscious on the part of the evangelists and provide a clue to their christology. Now the voice at the baptism is clearly quoted in the Synoptics, but only alluded to in John. However, if we look more closely at John's treatment of the Old Testament, we find that he often alludes to a text or theme without citing it as such (e.g. chs. 4 and 7, living water; ch. 15, the vine). The slightest allusion or echo of a word or phrase seems to be enough for his readers to catch the reference. So what I believe John is doing here is saying in shorthand form, to those very familiar with the Old Testament, that this is the Son of Ps. 2:7 and the Servant of Isa. 42:1. But there is more data to be considered, if we are to apply the inclusive principle and survey the broadest range of textual variants considered canonical in the history of the church. The fourth edition of UBS notes that the reading of some manuscripts of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary represents the Greek as ο μονογενης υιος (only begotten son)." That the Syriac (yhidh) represents the Greek μονογενης is a conjecture, and we have no Greek manuscript that gives this reading. We know that μονογενης ("only begotten") is an important word for John, and we are safe in assuming that if this late lectionary preserves what John wrote, then the word μονογενης would have been 2

3 found in this place. On this reading of the matter, we have a third allusion in John 1:34 corresponding to the third Old Testament echo in the Synoptics. Of course, the word is αγαπητος, usually translated "beloved." Now what intrigues me is that the words αγαπητος and μονογενης were frequently found together as synonyms. This is already the case in the LXX, where they appear together in Judg. 11:34 and Baruch 4:16. Furthermore, we notice that in Gen. 22:2 Aquila reads μονογενης instead of αγαπητος, and this is the case for Symmachus in Gen. 22:12, where μονογενης is also a variant in several LXX manuscripts. We note as an example in early Christian literature of the use of the words as synonyms Irenaeus, Against Heresies (του ιδιον μονογενη και αγαπετον υιον) in relation to the sacrifice of Isaac. Now it is generally agreed that the term αγαπητος in the Synoptic accounts of the voice at the baptism is an allusion to Gen. 22:2, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love..." (λαβε του υιον σου του αγαπητου ηγαπητας). Here I-. believe we are right in following the seventeenth-century Dutch scholar D. Heinsius and the twentieth-century British scholar C. H. Turner in arguing that in Mark 1:11 αγαπητος meant "only" rather than "beloved." Under the powerful influence of αγαπη, the word quickly begins to mean "beloved" in Christian circles, but the older meaning is not lost and we find Athanasius appealing to it as he argues against the Arians that Jesus is God's only Son. "From Homer to Athanasius the history of the Greek language bears out... that αγαπητος υιος is rightly rendered 'only son."' 12 Recently Gerard Pendrick has pointed to a similar development with regard to μονογενης. Whereas in Johannine usage the word meant "only," later generations began to take its meaning as "only begotten." 13 If the arguments of Turner and Pendrick are plausible, as I think, then here is another exact correspondence between the Synoptic and Johannine accounts in their allusion to Gen. 22:2. Few will allow, of course, that a reading supported only by late lectionaries should have a claim to originality. Yet the inclusive canonical principle calls us to take all readings seriously, and in this case with surprising results. Here is what happened, as I read the matter: all three Synoptists were influenced by Gen. 22:2, and the word αγαπητος/μονογενης in the voice at the baptism reflects that influence. There, as in classical, LXX, and Hellenistic usage, the word meant "only" but quickly came to mean "beloved" under the pervasive influence of αγαπη. This seems to be the case already by the time Paul writes to the Romans and he uses του ιδιου υιου ("his own son"), rather than του υιου σου αγαπητου, in 8:32 to echo Gen. 22:2. All the more this must be the case when John represents the witness at the baptism of Jesus and chooses μονογενης rather than αγαπητος, to affirm that Jesus is the "only" Son. This is John's special word and is his distinct contribution. So then John's use of μονογενης, at 1:34 is his allusive way of affirming that Jesus is the only Son, in conscious echo of Gen. 22:2. Then came the second century and the harmonizing tendency exemplified in Tatian's Diatessaron. Since John's μονογενης seems to have no discernible parallel in the Synoptics (from the view of some mid-second-century copyists) it drops out of many copies and survives only in that tradition represented by the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries, of which our extant copies are from the eleventh century. One problem remains with the view that all the readings are original. We must still explain' the omission of o υιος from the few manuscripts that do not have it in John 1:34. One possible explanation suggests itself. υιος appeared in the early manuscripts in abbreviated form (ΥΣ), and coming just before θεου (ΘΥ), it is possible that ΥΣ could have slipped out through accidental omission due to similarity. Word order, a factor in the versional evidence, may have played a part too. So then, I am arguing, as a debtor to Professor Childs, that the canonical approach to the text calls us to apply the inclusive, principle and accept the widest range of variants as original. I believe that John wrote something like ουτος εστιν ο μονογενης ο εκλεκτος υιος θεου, "This is the only, the chosen Son of God." In a curious way, because the key to understanding the voice at the baptism of 3

4 4 Jesus lies in the allusions to three Old Testament texts, the rigorous application of the inclusive principle causes us to do justice to the critical principle. So my view on the variants at John 1:34 is that all win and all must have prizes. * * * My usual custom with textual notes is to make the text-critical observations and leave the matter there, only venturing a hint with regard to theological or ethical implications. 14 But in an essay honoring Brevard Childs it would be inappropriate and perhaps irresponsible to stop there. As Professor Childs reminds us, "The discipline of text criticism is not a strictly objective, or nontheological activity, but is an integral part of the same interpretive enterprise which comprises the church's life with its scriptures." 15 There can be no isolating of text from history or theology or ethics. So here are some observations of a student of the text, in fellowship with the church, emboldened and encouraged by Professor Childs's teaching. One major issue raised by the unearthing of the Old Testament echoes in the account of the baptism of Jesus in all four canonical Gospels is that the texts thus echoed bespeak a very high christology. If in fact the use of the Old Testament in the New may constitute what C. H. Dodd called "the substructure of New Testament theology," 16 then we may be confident in finding in the voice at the baptism, if anywhere in the Gospels, a clue to the christology of the apostolic church. And a christology that affirms Jesus as the "Son," the "Servant," and the "Sacrifice" is a very high christology indeed. It is worth reflecting on the curious phenomenon that the highest christology may be the earliest! Standard and fashionable theories of developing christology may have to be revised. Another issue is addressed by my observations on the textual complexities of John 1:34. There is something to be learned by both the interpreter and the preacher. The way in which John especially echoes the Old Testament here and elsewhere should provide a model for all who take the church's engagement with its Scripture seriously. The interpreter is on Solid ground the more closely he or she engages with the text of Scripture and allows it to be formative for both thought and phraseology. As their engagement with the Old Testament was formative for the theology of the first Christians, so our engagement with our canonical Scriptures should be formative for our own theology and method. The preacher will seek always to encounter the Scripture and to grapple with it on its own terms, and in its long-term life and growth in the church, and to enter into that rich fellowship. He or she brings the scriptural witness to Christ, in the life of the church, to bear upon the contemporary world. As a preacher I have pondered the voice at the baptism in all its canonical (and original!) richness in all four Gospels. The increasing conviction that John offers an exact parallel, albeit in allusive form, to the Synoptics has caused me to see the baptism of Jesus with the three Old Testament texts at center stage. So in preaching I come to affirm the meaning of baptism for Jesus, and for us, as suggested by the three foundational texts: Baptism means sonship (Psalm 2). Baptism means service (Isaiah 42). Baptism means sacrifice (Genesis 22). I suspect that Professor Childs will be pleased that on this occasion the text critic, interpreter, theologian, and preacher are the same person Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 527.

5 2. D. C. Parker, "The International Greek New Testament Project: The Gospel of John," NTS 36 (1990) B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1966) B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part 2 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1899) 7. Modern commentators supporting "elect" include Spitta, Zahn, von Harnack, Lagrange, Loisy, Windisch, Cullman, Jeremias, Mollet, den Bussche, Boismard, Barrett, Lightfoot, and Schnackenburg. We may now add P. Oxy (London, 1998), which reads εκλεκτος. This third-century papyrus of John is 106 on the international list. 6. F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da Mapharreshe 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904) Ibid., 308. Now see the thorough study by Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), which investigates the influence of doctrinal debates on the text, especially pp on John 1: Patrologia Latina 12: E. S. Buchanan, The Four Gospels from Codex Veronesis (Old Latin Biblical Texts 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911) xi-xii. 10.G. D. Fee, "The Textual Criticism of the New Testament" in The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979) Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson, The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels (London: Clay, ) liii. Ms C adds ο μονογενης αυτου. A and B adds ο εκλεκτος αυτου. See p. 4. D. Heinsius, Exertitationes ad Novum Testamentum (Leiden, 1639). C. H. Turner, JTS 27 (1926) G. Pendrick, "ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ" NTS 41 (1995) See Journal of Theological Studies41 (1990) Childs, op. cit., C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (New York: Scribner, 1953) I am grateful to John Savoie for his help on this, article. 5

6 Originally published in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (1999) and is subject to applicable copyright laws. This edition is for the author s personal website. Do not reproduce without permission. 6