Subject: Re: John 9:35

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:47:50 -0500 (EST)

At 11:47 PM 4/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Jesus addressed the man who was born blind, after He had healed him: "Do 
>you believe in the Son of *God* (Byzantine Text)" vs. "Do you believe in 
>the Son of *Man* (Alexandrian Text)". (John 9:35).

The "son of man" reading is obviously original.

>
>Which of these two readings are more likely to be the original one?
>
>It would seem that at least _internal evidence_ points to the Byz 
>reading, since Jesus is here addressing a man who is about to come to 
>faith in Him? Is it *more* likely that He would have called Himself "the 
>Son of Man" in front of this man, rather than "the Son of God"??

The problem here is really a "higher critical" one having to do with Jesus'
self perception.  It is, in short, the later Church which called Jesus the
Son of God; as to whether Jesus referred to himself in that way- it seems
highly doubtful.

>Isn´t belief in the "Son of GOD" rather than the "Son of MAN" necessary 
>for salvation?
>

This question seems to indicate a distinction between the two terms.  There
was, indeed, no distinction as far as the early Church was concerned- which
is why the Byzantines had no trouble changing son of man to son of God.

>As regards _external_ evidence, the Byz reading is well attested in 
>number, and is found also in _antiquity_ (i.e. Cod. A).
>

Manuscripts are weighed- not counted.

A is simply wrong here.

>-- 
>- Mr. Helge Evensen

Jim

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

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:11:49 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote:

[quoting Evensen]

> The "son of man" reading is obviously original.

Disputed, for reasons given below. 

> Son of God; as to whether Jesus referred to himself in that way- it seems

Excuse me, Jim?  If this is the case, _WHY_ is it that the Gospel of John
-- uniquely among the Gospels -- makes a _frequent_ and _distinctive_
theological use of the phrase "Son of God" -- and this in almost all cases
with _no_ distinction among the MSS of the Byzantine or Alexandrian or
Western texts (only Jn 6:69 and 9:35 have variants where Byz and Alex
differ).

Nor does this have _anything_ to do with the supposed higher critical
question of the "later" usage of the church, since (a) _only_ John makes
this clear theological distinction, and for certain reasons which should
be obvious in view of the theological theme of his gospel; and (b)  the
supposedly "later" Byzantine MSS did _not_ alter the phrase "Son of Man"
into "Son of God" in _any_ degree whatsoever, whether in John's gospel
where the two phrases are used approximately equally, or in the Synoptics,
where "Son of Man" overwhelmingly predominates, nor in the book of Acts
(which is the last place "Son of Man" occurs in the NT).

Look at the statistics from the entire NT just for the phrase "Son of Man" 
versus "Son of God" (I realize I might be omitting some possible cases
where a "de" or "gar"  might intervene, but the point still is obvious; I
use the Byzantine Text for the base, but include the WH text in () where
it otherwise differs): 

NT Book        Son of Man        Son of God
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mt               32x                 2x
Mk               14x                 2x (1x)
Lk               25x (23x)           2x 
Jo               11x (12x)          10x (8x) 
Ac                1x                 1x  
Paul              0x                 2x 
Heb               0x                 3x
Cath              0x                 8x (7x)
Rev               0x                 1x 

Synoptic usage is simply overwhelmingly in favor of the phrase "Son of
Man". In John, however, when one examines the occurrences of the "Son of
God" vs "Son of Man" phrases, a _pattern of usage_ develops for each, a
pattern which is both fitting and germane to the particular contextual
theme John is presenting about Christ, whether as the incarnate Son of
God, viewed from the aspect of his deity, or as the incarnate Son of Man,
viewed from his full humanity. Look at this pattern in John (given in
summary with references omitted, though these can be easily supplied):

1. Son of Man (SM) used to indicate Christ in his humanity in John:

Angels ascending and descending upon SM
The SM being now in heaven
The SM needs to be lifted up 
The SM will give his flesh as the meat supplying eternal life
You have to eat SM's flesh
You will behold the SM ascending
You will know when you lift up the SM
The hour is come for SM to be glorified
It is necessary to lift up the SM (2x)
Now the SM is glorified

2. Son of God (SG) used to indicate Christ in his deity in John:

Have seen and testify that this is SG
You are SG
Believe in name of monogenhs SG
Dead will hear voice of SG
You are Christ the SG (WH has Holy One of God)
Do you believe in the SG (WH has SM)
Believe me when I say I am SG
That the SG might be glorified
You are the Christ the SG
These are written that you might believe Jesus is the Christ the SG

Note _especially_ among these distinct references that in the Byzantine
Textform the ones which contain a mention of "believing" _all_ connect
with the SG phrase, and 3 out of 4 of these "belief" mentions remain
_identical_ in the Alexandrian text. Why then should I not suspect that
the Byzantine majority is once again correctly preserving the theological
distinction which John _fully intended_ in his gospel, and that the
minority of MSS in Jn 9:35 which read SM simply accommodated to the _far_
more familiar and prevalent phraseology found over 80x in the gospels as
opposed to a phrase which (even including John) only occurs a mere 16x in
the four gospels?

John 9:35 is a case where I fully consider the regional Alexandrian
witnesses (P66 P75 Aleph B), one Western witness (D) and one "mixed"
witness (W) along with the single sy-s version and the Coptic versions
minus the Bohairic simply to be dead wrong, and out of touch with "normal" 
Johannine style and theological emphasis on this single occasion, likely
caused by an error (with no malicious or even positive theological intent) 
of misreading the nomina sacra YYQY and writing YYANOY instead. 

I also note that the Byzantine reading here is supported by Alexandrian (L
Psi) and Caesarean (Theta f1 f13) witnesses, along with the Latin
versions, the sy-p sy-h and Bohairic. 

Herman Hoskier said long ago that there were far too many conclusions
drawn in NT textual criticism on the basis of hasty generalizations which
did not take account of all the facts; I suspect this Jn 9:35 passage is
another such conclusion. 

> >Isn't belief in the "Son of GOD" rather than the "Son of MAN" necessary 
> >for salvation?
 
> is why the Byzantines had no trouble changing son of man to son of God.

If there was _no_ distinction between the two terms, _why_ then didn't the
the Byzantine scribes make such changes all over the place, Jim?  _Why_ in
fact is SM _utterly dominant_ in the gospels among _all_ MSS of _all_
texttypes?  One variant unit does not exactly confirm a "later Byzantine
tendency".  

My plea to the modern eclectics of whatever variety is this:  please stop
accusing the Byzantine scribes of doing on a regular basis what they in
fact did _not_ do, as demonstrated by the MS evidence. Also, if there was
"no distinction" between the terms SM and SG, why then is there such an
unequal balance in the gospels which tilts almost completely in the
Synoptics to SM and is split almost evenly in John between SM and SG? The
answer is obvious, and is has nothing to do with the usage of the later
church, but only with the specialized theological usage of John as opposed
to the specialized theological usage of the synoptics.

> Manuscripts are weighed- not counted.

A convenient cop-out, I suspect.  So let me weigh the evidence: P66, P75,
Aleph and B, though "early", are all Alexandrian, and I can readily
suggest that these should count only as a single-source witness, equal in
themselves to the opposing single source witness of A and the Byzantines.

But I will oppose the Alexandrian L and Psi as a single source against the
other Alexandrians; I will also oppose the single source Western witness
of D standing alone versus the single source witness of the remaining
Latins opposing D; and also add the Caesarean f1 f13 as a single Caesarean
source opposing W (if it indeed is Caes here).  Further, the Sahidic
single witness can stand against the Bohairic + Memphitic, and sy-s can
stand against sy-p and sy-h.  So, totally apart from counting, precisely
_what_ specific "weight" is overwhelming on either side once _all_ the
witnesses of whatever texttype are taken into account?  Even the
principle of the "oldest" witness (p66 or p75) does not fare well again
the united Old Latin testimony, so what "weight" are we talking about from
your perspective.

> A is simply wrong here.

Simple and simplistic, just like taking the reading of the oldest MS and
proclaiming all others as well as internal criteria to be invalid. I
suspect you should be able to do better, Jim. I would suggest that it
might be _you_ who is simply wrong here, except that the modern eclectic
position also seems to agree with you (though for far different reasons).
That's ok with me; everyone has a right to be wrong from my perspective.
:-) 

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

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:23:14 -0700

> Jim

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

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??

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:41:23 -0400 (EDT)

> and recognized Jesus as DEITY and _therefore_ bowed down in worship??

I question the viability of this particular argument in favor of "Son of
God."  Text critics need to make a distinction between what might have
happened historically and what might have happened in the process of the
transmission of the text.  To my mind, the question of how the man might
have addressed Jesus is irrelevant to the question of what the original
text of John might have read at this point.  The reason is this: when the
gospel came to be written many years after these events occurred (setting
aside entirely questions of historicity as not germane to my argument),
it seems unlikely that the exact words of the dialog were preserved.

Instead of wondering what the man might have said, the real question
should be "What would the author of John have said?"  Maurice has
offered an argument for "Son of God" on the basis of the theological
perspective of the author of the gospel.  One might counter with the
observation that author of John doesn't always show great consistency in
his use of vocabulary (cf. his use of AGAPAW and FILEW)--rather, he often
seems to strive for variety for the sake of variety (here cf. Jn
21:15-19).  If the author shows a tendency toward varying his vocabulary
in other places, then perhaps he does here as well.  If that is the case,
then one could argue on the basis of internal evidence that "Son of God"
is an example of Bart's "orthdox corruptions," since some scribes might
have considered "Son of God" a higher theological affirmation than "Son of
Man."  To preempt Maurice's complaint that scribes didn't correct other
such statements, I will suggest that scribes weren't very consistent in
their corrections.  Admittedly, however, the internal argument for "Son of
Man" is not the strongest in the world; I am simply trying to give a
counter-argument.

When external evidence is considered, the argument for "Son of Man" (from
a tradition eclectic viewpoint, of course) is stronger than for "Son of
God."  Older and stronger Alexandrian witnesses for "Son of Man," support
from D (although Western support _is_ weakened by the defection of the OL
witnesses), and older and stronger support from the other versions (syr-s
vs.  syr-p,h; cop-sa+ vs. cop-bo) give the edge to "Son of Man" on the
bases of text-type diversity, geographical distribution, and age of
readings.  Having said all this, though, I do think that Maurice's
argument about the author's theology should be given ample consideration.

The main point of this post is not to offer an argument for the
originality of "Son of Man" (though such can obviously be made) but to
demonstrate the problem with confusing "real history" with the question of
authorship and the history of transmission. 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:15:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, James R. Adair wrote:

> 21:15-19).  

Actually, I would counter this with the notion that John clearly and
deliberately varied the use of AGAPAW and FILEW in this passage, despite
the views of those who maintain that merely because they are synonyms that
the exact same thought is being expressed.  Rather than Peter becoming
disturbed over the THIRD repetition of the "do you love me" question, I
would maintain it was particularly the use of FILEW in the third question
which so concerned him.  Others may exegete the passage differently, and I
know they do, but I consider John extremely deliberate and particular in
his choice of words in any given context, and not merely "varying his
vocabulary" just for the sake of style.

> Man."  

I for one would be interested in Bart's comment on this point; I suspect
he will concur with Jimmy, but, in light of his comment in _Orthodox
Corruption_ on Jn. 1:18, I'm not all that sure _what_ he might say.  Bart? 

> To preempt Maurice's complaint that scribes didn't correct other
> their corrections.  

No pre-emption needed. The evidence that scribes did not make such
wholesale changes in regard to the "Son of Man" phrase in either John or
the 80+ times in the Synoptics speaks for itself.  It is not a matter of
inconsistency, but the strong _consistency_ of transmission of the "Son of
Man" term _without_ it being amplified into "Son of God" which is the
point.

> argument about the author's theology should be given ample consideration.

Thanks, Jimmy :-)  (I would love to hear Keith Elliott's rigorous eclectic
reasoning on this variant as well. Are you out there, Keith?)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:39:35 -0700

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
wrote, in part:

>deliberately varied the use of AGAPAW and FILEW in this passage [...]
>and not merely "varying his

I doubt we'll settle this question here -- and it isn't really a textual
question anyway -- but I'm inclined to agree with Robinson. At least
in his essential point. I think the author used the two verbs as he
did for some deliberate reason. I'm not as sure I know what it is --
but I think in Chapter 21 the variation has a purpose.

(I'm not as certain in John's other uses of the two roots.)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)