Subject: Re: John 9:35

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:57:30 -0500 (EST)

At 07:23 PM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote:

>
>First of all, I want to thank Dr. Robinson for his very able reply to Jim West 

I too thank Maurice for his detailed response; however I must simply state
that the reasoning appeared circular to me.  that is, the Byzantine scribes
would not (!) have changed son of man to son of God (!!!!!); and therefore
they did not.

(p.s., I too hold an earned Doctorate (in Theology, admittedly not in
Philosophy)).  I think the respect one shows to a person one agrees with is
also due to a person one disagrees with; this is simply common courtesy).

>and in general for his useful discussion of the textual problem at John 9:35. 
>Personally, I believe the points he raised are conclusive in favor of the Byz 
>reading! I wonder: Are these points any _less_ "hard evidence" than the fact 
>that the Alex reading is found in the oldest extant witnesses???
>

No- the scribes were much more prone to change a reading if they believed it
would clarifiy the context.  That is what was done here- in accord with your
reasoning below!  (You would have made an excellent redactor in the middle
ages!!)  (Redaction, by the way, is what occurs in the byzantine manuscripts
more than real copying).

>I just want to comment upon another point of internal evidence in favor of the 
>Byz reading at John 9:35.
>
>In verse 38 the "ex-blind" man said to Jesus: "Lord, I believe!" The verse 
>continues: "And he worshiped Him". 
>*Before* Jesus told him that He was the Son of God, he didn´t know that He was 
>the Messiah, just a prophet (v.17) and that His name was Jesus (v.11) and 
>furthermore, that He was "from God" (v.33).
>
>My question is: Is it really likely that this man, who probably didn´t know 
>much of the Holy Scriptures, would have _worshiped_ Jesus *if* He just had 
>called Himself "the Son of MAN"?? 
>Isn´t it more likely that Jesus´ statement was: "Do you believe in the Son of 
>GOD?" and that the "ex-blind" man (based on Jesus´ own statement) acknowledged 
>and recognized Jesus as DEITY and _therefore_ bowed down in worship??
>

As mentioned above- this reasoning is the "very" reason that the scribes
would have changed son of man into son of God!

>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:43:51 -0700

> would not (!) have changed son of man to son of God (!!!!!); and therefore

Well, in TC one is looking at what is more _likely_, since we do not have 
the originals. And Maurice´s suggestions are *far more* likely than those 
of the "eclectic camp"! The only _real_ argument of the eclectics 
regarding this reading is the argument from age. And that argument in 
itself does not prove anything. It does not even seem more _likely_ that 
the oldest MSS are better representatives of the original text. There´s 
too many things which must be taken into consideration.

> ages!!)  (Redaction, by the way, is what occurs in the byzantine manuscripts

"Much more prone". But you cannot _know_. Just like I told you: You do 
not have access to the *autographs*!
Why argue about "redaction" in the Byz MSS when the problem can be solved 
in a much more reasonable way? To me it seems that it is prejudice rather 
than real investigation of the facts that leads eclectics into 
dismissing the Byz MSS so easily!

> would have changed son of man into son of God!

It is _equally_ as possible to imagine that the scribes of the earlier 
centuries would _avoid_ this likelihood when they were confronted with 
the two competing readings, because of the canon "more difficult - more 
likely original". 

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:26:35 -0400 (EDT)

> would not (!) have changed son of man to son of God (!!!!!); and therefore

Somehow this is not what I stated, Jim.  The point was that you accused
the Byzantine scribes of making this change, and stated that this was
"typical" of what the Byzantine scribes were wont to do. I pointed out all
of the other instances where "Son of Man" appears and that the Byzantine
scribes did _not_ make any change of the sort.  Therefore the likelihood
of their making that precise change in Jn 9:35 is greatly lessened from
what you were claiming.

> also due to a person one disagrees with; this is simply common courtesy).

I hope we all have common courtesy in regard to the persons on this list.
Ideas may be right or wrong, intelligent or wacko, but I hope we do have
the proper level of respect for each other at all times. Note that the Ph
for Philosophy is still a misnomer, since my specialization has nothing
whatever to do with Philosophy, but with NT, Greek, and Textual Criticism,
in that order.

> would clarifiy the context.  That is what was done here- 

And why did they not choose to "clarify the context" in regard to any
other occurrences of "Son of Man"?

> (Redaction, by the way, is what occurs in the byzantine manuscripts
> more than real copying).

I strongly object to this caricature of the Byzantine scribes. My own
dissertation study of "Scribal Habits among MSS of the Apocalypse" showed
that almost all Byzantine-era scribes were _non-editorial_ in nature. If
you have some data which demonstrates the contrary, I never saw or heard
of it during or since my research.

> would have changed son of man into son of God!

And all those places where Jesus healed people in the Synoptics and spoke
of himself as "Son of Man" were not sufficient to warrant such a "typical"
Byzantine alteration?  I don't think so.....

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~