by Dr. J. K. Elliott, University
of Leeds
Is Jesus described at the end of the Johannine
Prologue as 'God' or as 'Son'? This well-known text-critical problem
is drawn to many Bible readers' attention by its being included
in the marginal notes to many a modern version. Also, it is thoroughly
debated in learned commentaries. The textual evidence is clearly
set out in modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament.
The apparatus does not need repeating in extenso here, suffice
it to say that the issue boils down to whether the original reading
was 'God' with or without the article as read in our earliest
surviving witnesses (P66 P75 Sin B C) or 'Son' with the majority
of manuscripts. The Patristic writers know both readings, and
some fathers sometimes use the form with 'God' sometimes the form
with 'Son' when citing this verse in their writings. Note that
the reading 'Son' is also ancient, being known to Irenaeus, Tertullian
and Cyprian, and is behind the Latin and Syriac versions. The
reading 'God' at John 1:18 is especially interesting because it
is found virtually exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition. We
are not dealing, as we sometimes are, with "Maj." versus
the rest; here it is "Alex." alone against other readings.
Metzger's Textual Commentary, that first port of call for many
scholars to help them resolve textual cruces, shows here that
although the majority of its editors favoured 'God' one signed
a dissentient comment in favour of 'Son'. Members of the Majority
Text Society presumably support 'Son' here, read as it is by the
bulk of the Byzantine witnesses and thus follow a reading known
to and used by a large swathe of Christian tradition, especially
now by Orthodox communities.
Theologians traditionally expect textual critics to pronounce
categorically on the originality and secondariness of
every variant in the New Testament. That expectation is
unrealistic and unachievable. Several readings seem impervious
to satisfactory resolution, whatever one's methodological
proclivities.
|
|
The internal arguments are well rehearsed. 'Son',
we are told by commentators, seems to be required by the following
clause and that it fits Johannine style (Jn 3:16, 18 and cf. 1
Jn 4:9). But that may make it the 'easier' i.e. the secondary
reading introduced by scribes. 'God' is certainly the harder reading
and one may understand why in certain quarters at certain times
readers objected to Jesus being described as the only-begotten
God, especially as this uniqueness seems to be contradicted in
the context. But the author of the Fourth Gospel may have deliberately
returned to 'God' at the end of his Prologue to balance the introductory
line where the Logos is described as God, and is identified in
v. 14 as the begotten Son.
On the other hand it may have been that some scribes, reflecting
the theological concerns of their communities and determined to
enhance Jesus' status, altered an original 'Son' (with all the
subordinationist baggage that title carries) to 'God', thereby
affirming his divinity and deity.
Two minor points are often raised but may be summarily dismissed.
One states that stylistically conscious scribes may have bridled
at a text that repeated 'God' in the sentence and thus altered
the second occurrence. Another minor comment refers to the ease
with which careless scribes could have misread the abbreviated
form of 'God' as 'Son' or vice versa. Arguments having recourse
to the claim of carelessness do not help us here, especially as
in this case the change could have been made in either direction.
Carelessness and change encouraged by stylistic considerations
are unlikely to have played a part in what is an obvious and theologically
sensitive sentence.
If we cannot resolve the variant using internal or external criteria
what is to be done?
Theologians traditionally expect textual critics to pronounce
categorically on the originality and secondariness of every variant
in the New Testament. That expectation is unrealistic and unachievable.
Several readings seem impervious to satisfactory resolution, whatever
one's methodological proclivities. In any case it may perhaps
be a better function of textual criticism if it alerts readers
to the sheer variety of viable options in a text that has had
a theologically rich history. Most theologically sensitive readings
reflect early Christological debate and thus bear valuable historical
testimony. If the results of textual criticism promote only the
supposed original reading, the danger is that the secondary readings
are jettisoned as flawed and spurious. We thus forget that all
readings were once used as canonical by the owners of each manuscript.
The pious who had a manuscript of Mark that ended at 16:8 would
consider their text canonical, just as another owner whose manuscript
ended at 16:20 would also cherish its text as the canonical word
of God.
We may compare that to owners of an English version of the Bible,
who will regard its text as representing the canonical scriptures.
Those favouring the KJV, for instance, accept its text at Acts
9:5-6; 10:6; Rev. 22:19 (not to mention the Comma Johanneum!)
without realising that its eccentricities here are the product
of early printed editions' including bogus readings from the Latin.
(Not that the society favouring the text of the majority of manuscripts
could ever fall into such traps!)
The dilemma of what to do with apparently unresolvable problem
cases has encouraged me to suggest - most recently in the Delobel
Festschrift in relation to the complex textual tradition of the
Parable of the Two Boys in Matt 21:28-32 - that sometimes it may
be wisest to print all the viable alternatives, without favouring
any one of them as the original. To do this at John 1:18 would
invite readers to explain both differing meanings of the verse
and thereby to appreciate the complex history revealed in the
transmission of this gospel.
I leave readers to consider this proposal and to assess the logistics
of applying such a suggestion. I note that the new Münster
series Editio Critica Maior occasionally signals (by means of
a bold dot) words that are offered to readers as equally acceptable
alternative readings.
<<
Previous
-- Next
>>
