Mistranslations, corruptions and bias on the “origin” of the Son
As
the saying goes, ‘for those who came in late’, the title of this study takes
after those popular crime shows on television which are involved in Crime Scene Investigations of
all kinds. The Bible is riddled with them. As we will see, these are ‘crimes’ committed
by people not only in the past but also in the present. This article will take
on the style of those shows, in an effort not only to uncover the biblical
crime scene, but to try and bring clarity to the issues at hand.
Crime scenes
Our
first case deals with those texts associated with the “begetting” of the Son of
God, “the man Messiah Jesus” [1Tim 2.5].
As the evidence will show, there is a strong case to be made that very early in
the transmission of the NT letters, people at times sought to obscure and, in
some extreme cases, totally remove evidence relating the unique creation by God of His Son. This took place not in some
“time before time” [as per the Creeds], but in a small Jewish village near
Jerusalem some 2 000+ years ago.
Exhibit A: Ps 2.7
While
our first exhibit does not necessarily show any signs of tampering or indeed
corruption, it is those verses associated with it that will lead us to the first
‘crime scene’.
As
it stands, the text of Ps 2.7 says:
“You
are my son. Today I have begotten
you.” [cp. 2Sam 7.14]
The
verse as it appears in the LXX [Greek translation of the Hebrew c. 300 years
before Christ] translates the Hebrew for “begotten” [yalad] as gennao. Scholars
are adamant that, in its OT usage/background, “the few passages (Dt. 32:[15], 18; Ps. 2.7; LXX 110.3[LXX 109.3]) in
which God appears as subject of [yalad]
must be interpreted figuratively”. So
that in each case these verses allude to the “enthronement of the [Davidic] king”, as opposed to a physical/literal
“begetting” by YHWH. Yet, the verse as used by the NT writers [Acts 13.33; Heb 1.5; 5.5] gives it an
altogether literal, as opposed to figurative, meaning. It is here where we
will discover clear signs of ‘violence’ based on Christological bias.
The
verse is first cited by the writer of Acts [13.33] in a sermon the Apostle Paul gave to a Synagogue in Pisidia,
Antioch. Paul aptly explains how some of
the Jews did not recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah because they could
“not understand the words of the prophets” [v.27]. Though unjustly killed as a criminal, God raised him from the
dead, thus proving to everyone that he was the Messiah. Paul then explains how
these events were fulfilled when God “raised
up Jesus, as it was written” in Ps
2.7.
Crime scene 1: Acts 13.33
Early
on in the translation of v.33, it was taken as a second reference [the first
being at v.30] to Jesus having been ‘raised
up from the dead’. For example the KJV [1611] added the word “again”, whereas
some modern translators paraphrase it as “from the dead”. This has led to its
wide acceptance amongst many noted scholars and commentators.
For
example, the popular Vine’s Expository
Dictionary of the NT, under their definition of gennao in Mat 1.20 makes
the claim that “it is used of the act of God in the birth of Christ, Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5, quoted from Psalm 2:7, none of which indicate that
Christ became the Son of God at His birth.” Yet, when giving us the definition
of the Greek word translated “raise
(up)” [anistemi] they note:
“[It is] said of Christ, Acts 3:26; 7:37; 13:33, RV, ‘raised up
Jesus,’ not here by resurrection from the dead, as the superfluous ‘again’ of
the AV [NCV; WNT] would suggest; this is confirmed by the latter part of the
verse, which explains the ‘raising’ up as being by way of His incarnation, and
by the contrast in ver. 34, where stress is laid upon His being ‘raised’ from
the dead, the same verb being used.”
So,
even though the word can be used in
reference to being “raised up from the dead”, the context dictates the meaning
of the expression. Thus, in Acts 13.33,
God is said to have “raised up” His Son onto the scene; a clear allusion to and
in complete harmony with, the writer’s use of Ps 2.7.
Furthermore,
many have argued [incredibly enough] over the centuries that Ps 2.7 should be understood in
reference to Jesus’ resurrection and not his birth!
A
running debate amongst scholars has to do with the variant reading found in
some ancient manuscripts, as well as patristic writings that quote Ps 2:7 in connection with Jesus’
baptism. (Even though the weight of the manuscript testimony is against this
reading, some still argue for its inclusion.) Most of these obviously agree
with the assumption, as stated above, that Jesus only became Son of God at his
resurrection and not at his virgin birth.
“Ps 2.7 is much used in the NT. At Acts 13.33 the “to-day” of the generation of the Son of God is the
resurrection. At Lk. 3.22 (western reading) it is the baptism…At Hb. 1.5;
5.5…it is again doubtful whether the reference is to his birth or his
baptism…This begetting is more than adoption. For the resurrection, in which it
was consummated, is the beginning [of something new]…”
Crime Scene 2: Matthew 1:18
“The origin [genesis] of Jesus the Messiah was like this…”
[TNIV]
Matthew
records the “origin” of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians who were uncomfortable with
“genesis” (beginning, origin, birth) changed it to “gennesis” (“birth”).
Bart
Erhman, The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture, pgs. 75-76:
“The
first question to be asked, then, is which of the readings the original is more
likely. In addition to claiming the earliest and best manuscript support, the
reading genesis seems to cohere better with the preceding context. Matthew
began his Gospel by detailing the ‘book of the genesis’ of Jesus Christ [i.e.,
his genealogical lineage; 1:1], making it somewhat more likely that he would
here [v.18] continue with a description of the genesis itself. And so the
majority of textual scholars agree that gennesis represents a textual
corruption, created perhaps out of deference to the following account of Jesus’
birth. [Also see Metzger, Textual
Commentary, pg. 8]
At
the same time, something more profound may be occurring here. Both genesis and
gennesis can mean “birth”, so that either one could be appropriate in the
context. But unlike the corrupted reading, genesis can also mean “creation”,
“beginning” and “origination”. When one now asks why scribes might take umbrage
at Matthew’s description of the genesis of Jesus Christ, the answer immediately
suggests itself: the original text could well be taken to imply that this is
the moment in which Jesus Christ comes into [existence]. In point of fact,
there is nothing in Matthew’s narrative, either here or elsewhere throughout
the Gospel, to suggest that he knew or subscribed to the notion that Christ had
existed prior to his birth.
Orthodox
scribes found Matthew’s account useful nonetheless, particularly in conjunction
with statements of the Fourth Gospel supporting the notion of Jesus’ existence
with the Father prior to his appearance in the flesh. The orthodox doctrine, of
course, represented a conflation of these early Christological views, so that
Jesus was confessed to have become “incarnate [Gospel of John] through the
virgin Mary [Gospels of Matthew and Luke]”. Anyone subscribing to this doctrine
might well look askance at the implication that Matthew was here describing
Jesus’ origination and might understandably have sought to clarify the text by
substituting a word that ‘meant’ the same thing, but that was less likely to be
misconstrued.”
NOTE
on Matthew 1.20: Of the 96 times the
Greek word gennaö appears in the New
Testament, this is the only place where it has been rendered ‘conceived’. That
should tell us something. ‘Conceived’ is not the intended meaning of the
original Greek.
Crime Scene 3: Luke 1.35
"The child that will be born will be called
holy, the Son of God". A number of witnesses emend this declaration to
include a significant prepositional phrase: “the child that will be born from you will be called holy…”
Orthodox Corruption, pp 139-141:
“A
different aspect of the Gnostic understanding of Jesus' birth appears to be
under attack in an orthodox corruption of the opening chapter of Luke…Scholars
are virtually unanimous in considering this longer text secondary. Despite its
support in Western, Caesarean, and secondary Alexandrian witnesses, it is not
found in the earliest and best manuscripts, which demonstrate an even more
remarkable range in terms of both geography and textual consanguinity.
Moreover, if the variant were original, it would be difficult to explain its
omission throughout so much of the tradition. It certainly presents nothing
that could be construed as objectionable to the prevailing tastes of early
scribes. The shorter text is therefore more likely original.
Why
was the text changed? …The theological possibilities of the longer text. In
point of fact, the longer text could prove to be significant for opponents of
certain kinds of separationist Christology. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian took
offense at the Valentinian claim that Christ (i.e., Jesus, the so-called
"dispensational" Christ of the Demiurge, upon whom the Christ from
the Pleroma descended at baptism), did not come from Mary, but came through her
"like water through a pipe" (Iren., Adv. Haer. I, 7, 2; Tert.,
dependent on Irenaeus, Adv. Val. 27). In this view, the
"dispensational" Christ used Mary as a simple conduit into the world,
receiving nothing from her, least of all a physical human nature. In contrast
to this, the heresiologists urged that Christ came from Mary, because otherwise
he neither experienced a real human birth nor received a full human nature,
without which he would be unable to bring salvation to those who are fully
human (Adv. Haer. III, 22, 1—2). And
so, in an explicit attack on the Valentinians, Irenaeus urges that:
It is the same thing to say that
he [Christ] appeared merely to outward seeming and to affirm that he received
nothing from Mary. For he would not have been one truly possessing flesh and
blood by which he redeemed us, unless he summed up in himself the ancient
formulation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put
forth their opinions, in order that they may exclude the flesh from salvation,
and cast aside what God has fashioned (Adv.
Haer. V, 1,2).
The
importance of the varia lectio of Luke 1:35 in such controversies, then,
is that it supports the orthodox notion that Christ actually came from Mary.
Tertullian appears to preserve an allusion to this very text. With
characteristic verve he castigates Valentinians who deny that Christ assumed
real flesh:
But to what shifts you resort, in
your attempt to rob the syllable "of" [Latin ex, Greek BK] of its
proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not
found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that he was born through [Latin
per] a virgin, not of [Latin ex] a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb (de carne Christi 20).
And
so the corruption of Luke 1:35
appears to reflect controversies over the Valentinian Christology, which both
asserted a distinction between Jesus and the Christ and posited a Jesus who, as
a direct creation of the Demiurge, did not assume complete humanity. An
anonymous orthodox scribe of the second century inserted the phrase [from you],
a phrase whose theological significance is cloaked by its innocent literary
virtue: it provides a symmetrical balance for the angelic pronouncement to Mary
while confuting the Christology of Valentinian Gnostics.”
NOTE:
According to the IVP Bible Background
Commentary, Luke 1.31 “follows
the typical Old Testament structure for a divine birth announcement”.
The story echoes the miraculous accounts of the patriarch Isaac, whose parents
were too old to conceive [Gen 21],
and Samson, whose story closely parallels that of Jesus [Judg. 13]:
“The point of [Luke] 1:36–37 is that God, who acted for
Elizabeth as he did for Sarah, could still do anything (Gen 18:12–15).”
Crime Scene 4: John 1.18
“The variant reading of the
Alexandrian tradition, which substitutes “God” for “Son,” represents an
orthodox corruption of the text in which the complete deity of Christ is
affirmed: “the unique God [ho monogenes
theos] who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.”…”
It must be acknowledged at the
outset that the Alexandrian reading is more commonly preferred by textual
critics, in no small measure because of its external support. Not only is it
the reading of the great Alexandrian uncials (a B C), it is also attested by
the earliest available witnesses, the Bodmer papyri 66 and 75, discovered in
the middle of the present [20th] century…
Here it must be emphasized at
that outside of the Alexandrian tradition, the reading monogenes theos, has not fared well at all. Virtually every other
representative of every other textual grouping—Western, Caesarean,
Byzantine—attests ho monogenes uious.
And the reading even occurs in several of the secondary Alexandrian witnesses
(e.g., C3 Y 892 1241 Ath Alex). This is not simply a case of one reading
supported by the earliest and best manuscripts and another supported by late
and inferior ones, but of one reading found almost exclusively in the
Alexandrian tradition and another found sporadically there and virtually
everywhere else. And although the witnesses supporting ho monogenes uious cannot individually match the antiquity of the
Alexandrian papyri, there can be little doubt that this reading must also be
dated at least to the time of their production. There is virtually no other way
to explain its predominance in the Greek, Latin, and Syriac traditions, not to
mention its occurrence in fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian,
who were writing before our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced. Thus,
both readings are ancient; one is fairly localized, the other is almost
ubiquitous…
It is on internal grounds that
the real superiority of ho monogenes
uious shines forth. Not only does it conform with established Johannine
usage, a point its opponents readily concede, but the Alexandrian variant,
although perfectly amenable to scribes for theological reasons, is virtually
impossible to understand within a Johannine context.”
“The earliest manuscripts say the
only God (using the same word for “only” as 1:14, meaning “unique,
one-of-a-kind”). John refers to two different persons here as “God,” as he did
in v. 1. John concludes the prologue by emphasizing what he taught in v. 1:
Jesus as the Word is God, and he has revealed and explained God to humanity.” ESV Study Bible
Crime scene 5: Heb 1.5-6
The
“western reading” of the Lukan account of the baptism seems to have affected
the way the parallel accounts of Jesus’ baptism have been transmitted in Mat 3.17; 17.5; Mar 1.11; Luke 3.22; 9.35.
This is the reason why most scholars wrongly connect Ps 2.7 to Jesus’ baptism and/or his
resurrection.
The
context in which these appear “is that Jesus is the Melchizedek
high priest and the catena texts which introduces the letter” points to the uniqueness of his
sonship in contrast to God’s holy angels. The writer does this by citing two
specific OT texts which show YHWH “begetting” a son, the Messianic king.
“This was
the world view of the ancient priests of Israel and owes nothing to Platonism [where Philo had a similar view,
interpreting such priesthood passages like Lev
16.17 as] He shall not be a man when
he enters the holy of holies… (On
Dreams 2.189, 231) For Philo, the
high priest was more than human…The Logos
was the High Priest, the King, the Firstborn, the Beginning, the Name, and the
Man after God’s Image and his archangel.”
But,
as the comment from the ESV Study Bible
shows, “Platonism” did take over the biblical meaning of these passages. The ESV says that it describes how God
entered “into a new phase of that
Father-Son relationship [so that the text] should
not be pressed to suggest that the Son once
did not exist [since God has] begotten the already living Son
‘today’”. At Heb 1.6 they note that “since
only God is worthy of worship (Ex.
20:3–5; Isa. 42:8; Matt. 4:10; Rev. 19:10; 22:9), this is further evidence [where’s the rest?] of the
Son's full deity.”
Such
interpretations of the text go against the language used in the virgin birth
accounts. For example, notice the words in the phrase “the holy child to be born”. The first is the word tikto, variously translated “to bring forth, give birth”. This word is
related to another that is often used in reference to the Son, prototokos [“firstborn”] related to gennao [“cause to exist”] and ginomai [“come into existence”]. This
explains why throughout the rest of the NT Jesus is identified by both
spiritual beings [the Devil, Mat 4.3]
and humans [the Baptist; Nathaniel, John
1.34; 49] as the unique Son of God.
The
same sentiment is reflected under the definition in The Complete WordStudy Dictionary given to the word gennao in Mat 1.20. But in this case the commentators find themselves with no
choice but to ‘confess’ giving the game away:
“The designation of this
relationship by words with a temporal notion [“this day have I begotten
you”, Ps 2.7] has troubled
theologians, who have proffered various
explanations. Origen understood this as referring to the Son's relationship within the
Trinity and was the first to propose the concept of eternal
generation. The Son is said to be eternally begotten by the Father.
Others have viewed the language more figuratively and connected it with
Christ's role as Messiah. Upon Christ's exaltation to the Father's
right hand, God is said to have appointed, declared or officially installed
Christ as a king (Act 13:33; Rom 1:4;
Heb 1:5; 5:5).”
The verdict
What many
fail to see with these interpretations are the clear Gnostic-pagan overtones
that they introduce to the biblical text. As many scholars note, “what we find in Matthew and Luke
is not the story of some sort of sacred
marriage (hieros gamos) or a divine being [“the Son”] descending to earth…in the guise of a man…but rather the story
of a miraculous conception without
aid of any man, divine or otherwise.”[10]
Addendum
“Dr. Kennicott has a very
ingenious conjecture here: he supposes that the Septuagint and apostle express
the meaning of the words as they stood in the copy from which the Greek
translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text is corrupted in the word
אזנים oznayim, ears, which has been
written through carelessness for אז גוה [body]…On this supposition the ancient
copy translated by the Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, must have read
the text thus: ‘Then a body thou hast
prepared me’: thus the Hebrew text, the version of the Septuagint, and the
apostle, will agree in what is known to be an indisputable fact in
Christianity; namely, that Christ was incarnated for the sin of the world.
The Ethiopic has nearly the same
reading: the Arabic has both, "A
body hast thou prepared me, and mine ears thou hast opened." But the
Syriac, the Chaldee, and the Vulgate, agree with the present Hebrew text; and
none of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi have any various reading on
the disputed words.” Clarke’s Commentary
on the Bible
“The reading soma de [a body] could be either a case of an interpretative translation
of the Hebrew idiom, which was subsequently corrected in the revisions of Aquila,
Theodotian, and Symmachus to read stia
[ear], in conformity with the Hebrew text.
Alternatively, the original stia
[ear], chosen by the Gottingen Septuagint as the lectio difficilior, might have evolved to read soma [body] as result of corruption in the transmission of the
Greek text.
Textual evidence suggests that
the reading soma [body] and not stia [ear] was more likely to have been
the text in the Author’s Vorlage.
This variant also provides a more plausible explanation of the development of
the other variant. The Septuagintal reading obviously is more conducive to a Christological
interpretation than the Hebrew parallel text. …the application of this
Scripture to the Incarnation of Christ is directly provided by the Septuagint
of Ps. 39 LXX [40 MT].” R. Gheorghita, The
Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, pp. 48-49, 2003.
“The Greek version cannot well be
explained as representing a variant or corrupted Hebrew reading;
it is rather an interpretative paraphrase of the Hebrew text. The Greek translator
evidently regarded the Hebrew wording as an instance of pars pro toto [(taking) a part for the whole]; the “digging” or
hollowing out of the ears is part of the total work of fashioning a human body. Accordingly he [Hebrews writer] rendered
it in terms which express totum pro parte
[(taking) the whole for the part]. The body which was “fashioned” for the
speaker by God is given back to God as a “living sacrifice”, to be employed in
obedient service to him.
But if our author had preferred
the Hebrew wording, it would have served his purpose almost as well, for in
addition to reminding him and his readers of the psalm from which it was taken,
it might have reminded them also of the Isaianic Servant’s language in the
third Servant Song [Isa 50.4f.].” F.
F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews,
p 240, 1990.
“The early Christians understood
the psalm as messianic prophecy, vv. 6-8
are quoted in Heb 10.5-7 in the LXX
version where the somewhat curious Hebrew ‘ears you have dug for me’ (NRSV ‘you
have given me an open ear’) is replaced by ‘you have prepared a body for me’,
which was taken to be a reference to the incarnation. The origin of the LXX
phrase is uncertain; it may have been internal Greek corruption (the Gk. Words
for ‘ears’ and ‘body’ are not too dissimilar, but could hardly have been
confused except in a damaged MS) or a part of the body (‘ears’) may have been
taken to represent the whole.” J. Barton, J. Muddiman, The Oxford Bible Commentary, p 379, 2001.
Ps 110.3 [MT]; Ps 109.3 [LXX] “…the
clause LXX Ps. 109:3 [“I have
begotten thee from the womb before the morning”, Brenton] is comparable to Ps. 2:7ab.b [MT/LXX]… LXX Ps. 109:3 is easier to read and
comprehend than the MT counterpart… The idea, then, is that it reflects a
Hebrew Vorlage that depicts Yahweh’s
giving birth in a way comparable to Ps.
2:7. Moreover, the difficult MT, on the contrary, assumed to be the result
of a corruption.”
“…refers
to the king’s divine adoption (see
on Ps 2), although the text of verse
3 is obscure and poorly preserved… Verse 3 would be sort of poetic commentary
of Ps 2:7.”
“…the
LXX translation is rather surprising [, though it could be] justified as free
renderings of the Hebrew… Ps 110.3 is
never explicitly cited in the NT period. It was not until Justin took it up in
the middle of the second century AD
(Dial. 63.3; 76.7) that it began to be used as a
prophecy of Christ’s pre-existence.”
“The
interpretation of this verse is so uncertain that it cannot be given a place of
importance…the problem is complicated by extensive corruption [mutilation] of
the text of Ps 110, especially v. 3. Rowley has stated the matter thus: the MT
text is certainly not in its original form; the textual difficulties are so
great as to render restoration impossible.
For
the MT’s “Your youth” several MSS, HO, LXX and Syriac appear to have read, “I
have begotten you.” MT’s form is rare, occurring only in Eccles 11.9 [the
consonants without the vowels]; while LXX’s reading is identical with that of
Ps 2.7 in both MT and the Versions…many recent commentators have preferred the
LXX’s variation.
In
the light of the Versions of Ps 110.3 and of other texts examined in the
present study, a conception of God’s “begetting” the Messiah need not be
regarded as a later messianic interpretation of royal psalms; the conception
was taken over intact from the earlier psalms.
The
king is “begotten” or “brought forth”, by God; he becomes God’s son, receiving
thereby the special status and powers of one in close relationship to God and
in the capacity of standing for or representing the people before God.”
According
to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, gennaö means ‘to beget —
literally to become the father of’ as in Matthew 1:2-16 and Acts 7:8,
29…Fenton's translation says the conception was ‘produced by the Holy
Spirit’. Rotherham's translation says, ‘the source of the pregnancy being the
Holy Spirit’. William's translation renders the passage, ‘for it is through the
influence of the Holy Spirit that she has become an expectant mother’. You could substitute the word ‘produced’
with ‘caused’, ‘generated’, ‘brought forth’ or ‘begotten’ and the meaning would
still be the same. Gennaö refers
here to the action of the Holy Spirit in
producing or causing the conception. Gennaö
does not mean ‘conception’ in this verse any more than it means ‘quarrels’ in 2 Timothy 2:23.
Contrary
to what some have thought, Strong's
dictionary does not say gennaö means
conceived. Strong says the word gennaö
means ‘to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension the mother); fig.
to regenerate’. That's where the definition ends. Strong goes on to cite the
various ways the King James translators render gennaö. But a rendering is
not a definition.”
John 1.13: Douglas Edwards, The Virgin Birth in History and Faith,
1941:
“On
every one of the 6 occasions on which St. John speaks of the Christian as one
who ‘has been born of God’ it is precisely so that he does speak of him—as one
who has been born. In all 6 cases it is the perfect tense, or the perfect
participle, that is used…But of Christ’s birth from God St. John writes as of a
specific event, describing Him as ‘He who was born of God’…[This explains why
in actual fact St. John never speaks of ‘Christians’ as God born; nor again of
any particular Christian.] The point requires laboring because it has become
blunted by familiarity and obscured by prejudice [thus the one] keeping the
faithful [safe] was Himself born of God at a certain point in history [1 John
5.18]…Indeed, in the New Testament…this particular phrase of St. John’s First
Epistle is unique. On the other hand…the earliest written witness to the text
of John 1.13 shows that in the second century almost the identical phrase
(Who…was born…of God) was to be found in St. John’s Gospel also.”
External Evidence
“…the
‘singular’ reading [is] quoted by no less than four 2nd century writers
[Martyr, 1 Apology 22.2; 23.2; 113.10; Dialogue, 111; 116; Tertuallian, De
Carne Christi, 19; 24; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.16.2, 19.2; 5.1.3; Epistula
Apostolorum], from a text itself in all probability derived from Ephesus, is
also intrinsically far more probable than the current reading…the Verona Codex
(Old Latin) stands alone [among the 9 or 10 primary manuscripts—discovered thus
far] in having the reading of John 1.13 attested by Tertullian…[But as Streeter
in The Four Gospels, p. 308, points out] ‘What carries most weight—apart from
considerations of the intrinsic probability of a given reading—is not the
number of manuscripts which support it, but the number of local texts which the
manuscripts supporting it represent, or the age to which by patristic
quotations it can be pushed back…even if every other manuscript is against
it.’…there is the question also of its distribution, that is to say, of the
area or areas in which it was current [2 representing Italy: Tertullian,
Martyr; 1 in Gaul/Spain: Irenaeus; 1 Ephesus: Epistolum]. In this connection,
Streeter has some interesting things to say about the Verona Codex, which is,
he observes, ‘the typical manuscript of the European Old Latin’. According to
him, there is a certain amount of evidence that this text and that used at
Ephesus in the second century are closely akin…
This
digression on the connection traceable between the reading ‘was born’ in John
1.13 and the birthplace of St. John’s Gospel will have been worth making if it
helps to show that what counts in manuscript evidence is not quantity but
quality. In any case it needs to be remembered that there is no passage in the
Gospels for which we have such early and such explicit evidence as we have for
the ‘singular’ reading of John 1.13…Thus the antiquity of this reading is very
great indeed…It is an exhilarating probability that [Martyr], at the time of
his conversion (in mature life, c. A.D. 130) had spoken with men who had
themselves known the author of the Gospel…It will then appear less surprising
[to have Harnack], in his lordly way…speak of the singular reading, quite
casually, and without deigning a word of explanation, as ‘the true text’! [Date
of Acts, p. 148: ‘These ideas [of the Virgin Birth and of Conception by the
Holy Spirit] are declared to be primitive by the fact that at the end of the
first century…they were the common property of Christians, as St. John [Chap.
1, according to the true text] and Ignatius teach us.’]”
Internal Evidence
“Now
the ‘plural’ reading presents at least 3 obvious difficulties.”
- “There is the abrupt
introduction of the phrase His Name into a context where no Name, properly
speaking, has as yet appeared. Later in the Gospel we read of ‘the Name of
the only-born Son of God’ [John 3.18] or of ‘the Name of Jesus’ [John
20.31]. But such an expression as the Name of the Light or the Name of the
Word is unexampled. In the singular reading, on the other hand, this Name
is defined—it is the Name of Him who was born of God. Moreover,
descriptive relative phrases in the singular number are a marked
characteristic of the Gospel—or rather of St. John’s style generally.
- The curious confusion of the
past and present tenses. It is ‘those believing; or ‘those who are
believers’ or ‘those who persevere in believing’—‘who were born’ [it’s
necessary to read ‘His Name’ instead of ‘the Name of Him’, and ‘were’ for
‘was’ to get the current text] When were they born? Were they born of God
as a result of their welcome of the Light: or did they welcome the Light
because, first, they were born of God? If the singular text is read, there
is no such obscurity…the Evangelist answers this urgent question without
an instant’s delay. They, he says, to whom this right was given, are ‘they
who believe on the Name of Him who was born of God’.
- The way in which it
conflicts with the direct and simple yet delicately allusive style of the
Fourth Gospel as a whole.
For
the description there given of ‘the believers in the Name of the Light’ (itself
an odd expression) is cumbrous in the extreme. They were not born, it seems, of
sexual intercourse, fleshly craving, nor male will. On the contrary, they were
born—of God. In this form the passage does one or other of two things. It
either suggests that believers are not creatures of flesh and blood at all, or
else it laboriously points out that a spiritual birth—a birth ‘of God’—has
nothing to do with sexual intercourse, fleshly craving, or male will. But then
who could possibly suppose it had? Does it not become more and more odd the
more one ponders it that a birth which (according to this reading) was either
the cause or the consequence of receiving the Divine Light should be
meticulously differentiated (three times over) from the various stages or
antecedents of physical generation?
Nevertheless,
if the ‘plural’ form is authentic, it must be confessed that St. John’s touch
has for once (inexplicably) failed him. His style, his unique style—at once
profound and delicate—has become crude and clumsy; and that at the one point
where delicacy and directness were most to be expected…In addition, this
reading fits the context. Not only is the [Who…was born] picked up by the
[Only-born from a father or God only-born] of John 1.14,18: besides this, the
‘and’ which joins v.14 to v.13 is then seen to be adversative like the earlier
‘ands’ noted above—‘Not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a male,
but of God was He born: and yet the Word became flesh.’
What
is interesting is that the layman is so impressed by the conflux of manuscripts
that he regards the fact that the plural reading is grammatically easier as
adding to the weight of evidence in its favor. Actually, of course, the
grammatical ease of the phrase would admirably explain how a copyist could come
to write [they] instead of [who] (and then conform the verb by writing [were
born] instead of [was born]). In that case also (as the centuries passed and
endeavors were made to secure a uniform text) this unconscious corruption would
the more easily be accepted as the true text. [This is not necessarily to say
that the Valentians deliberately altered the text, as Tertullian accused them
of doing. More probably, perhaps, they exploited a text which had become
accidentally corrupted because of the grammatical ease od the alteration. After
all, in Greek, the two English phrases ‘His Name’ and ‘the Name of Him’ are
identical. More easily than ‘the Name of Him’ a scribe would understand ‘His
Name’. Having done so, he would then be obliged to go back to ‘those believing’
for the antecedent to the relative. Once the change had thus, in innocence,
been made, the scribe (that is to say, the copyist, whose business precludes
deep thought) would prefer the plural reading because, as Sir Edwyn Hoskyns
well remarked, ‘the plural is grammatically easier’ [The Fourth Gospel, Vol.
1]…True, Tertullian, writing c. 208, bears witness also to the existence of a
‘plural’ reading; but clearly that reading (whether or not a forgery) was at
least an innovation. Before then, the only text known to Tertullian (and his
readers) was the text which has the reading of John 1.13 with the relative and
its verb in the singular.
To
us it is second nature to assume that a birth ‘of God’ must be a purely
spiritual birth and have nothing to do with the flesh at all…the simple verb
gennao is never used in the NT of any other birth than a birth from the
womb…Even in its active form, ‘to beget’, it is only very rarely used except of
physical begetting [1Cor 14.15; Phil 10]…The fact is that gennao (especially on
Jewish lips) is such a predominantly fleshly word that it does not lend itself
to metaphor except in context where any confusion with physical birth or
begetting would be quite out of the question…[For both John and Paul Jesus was
begotten] in the literal, bodily sense—born of God [1 John 5.18]…there has been
a Birth which, albeit a genuine birth from the womb, was none the less a new
Birth—the Birth of One, of whom it could be specifically said that HE was born
of God…
[Even
John] does not record the Virgin Birth [as such, like the Eucharist, his]
constant identification of the Christian with Christ in His Birth corresponds
to St. Paul’s identification of himself with Christ in His Death…An actual
Crucifixion, and an actual Birth ‘of God’, is presupposed in either case. In a
word, St. John’s whole proclamation of the Gospel assumes that Jesus was born
of God in a sense quite other than metaphorical. And this was not a private Johannine
fancy, but a public Christian fact…if the Virgin Birth was not common
knowledge, the arguments lose their point, while the phrases and turns of
speech become confusing instead of illuminating. [The conclusion being] that
the Virgin Birth is no theory, no induction, no poetic idea, but an integral
element of a Primitive, Apostolic tradition.”
1 John 5.18: “He who was born of God
is a reference to Jesus Christ, who in his physical birth was “born of God” in
that he was sent from God the Father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke
1:35) and in his resurrection from the dead was “born of God” in that he was
brought back to life (Col. 1:18).” ESV
Heb 10.6: “a body have
you prepared for me. The ESV translates the corresponding
phrase in Ps. 40:6 as, “you have
given me an open ear.” Literally, the Masoretic (Hb.) text reads, “ears you
have dug for me” (Ps. 40:7–9 MT). The Hebrew
metaphor has been understood by the Septuagint translators (Ps. 39:7–9 lxx)
and by the writer of Hebrews to indicate the
physical creation of a person's body. (NT quotations of OT texts are not
always precise; NT authors often reword
them or adapt them to suit their own purposes, yet always in a way that is
compatible with their original meaning.)” ESV Study Bible
Margaret
Barker, ‘The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus’, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: papers from the St.
Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed., C.C.
Newman, J.R. Davila, G.S. Lewis, p. 99, 1999.
[10] Green, Joel B.; McKnight, Scot; Marshall, I. Howard: Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels. Intervarsity, 1992, S. 70.
L. Sabouring, The Psalms, their Origin and Meaning, pp
360-61, 1969.
Dunn, Christology in the Making, pp. 70-75,
1992.
Cooke, Gerald. ‘The
Israelite King as Son of God.’ ZAW 73
(1961): pp 218-225.
