108 Timo Flink directly that Aland’s “rule” 7 is “dubious and debatable”. He notes that sheer change is involved in the survival of any given manuscript and our present documents represent only a partial picture54. This rather enigmatic statement means that though the reading I’m arguing for is singular (at present), it may not have been so in the past. It is quite certain it existed in at least two documents: P75* and its exemplar. I agree with the general principle that singular readings are scribal cor- ruptions but is this always the case? I concur with Holmes’ principle and Elliott’s note on the partial picture regarding the documents55. Therefore I have sought to demonstrate how the transcriptional probabilities could have lead to a very early distortion of the text in this particular textual variation unit. I conclude that attention to singular (and sub-singular) readings may be needed to solve some perennial problems and such read- ings should not be tossed out of the airlock at first sight (pace Colwell). The passage in John 1,34 is a test case that demonstrates such a need. This implies that the text-critical decisions should always evaluate the transcriptional probabilities of readings with even a scant manuscript support. It also implies the need to verify our critical texts and change them if necessary. What does this mean for the theology of the Fourth Evangelist? George Eldon Ladd points out that “the Son of God” is the most impor- tant messianic phrase in the study of the self-disclosure of Jesus. Gener- ally speaking, this term’s nativistic use refers to Adam (Luke 3,28), and moral-religious use to Israel as a chosen people of God, an object of God’s love and purpose (Exod 4,22). Term’s messianic use refers to the Davidic king (2 Sam 7,14), and theological use to the deity of Jesus. The last one is a special emphasis in the Fourth Gospel56. Its existence in the manuscript tradition is therefore not a surprise. The new reading in John 1,34 sup- plements this theme and places the emphasis on Jesus as the new Israel, the new object of God’s love and purpose. It carries with it the theme of Israel’s election as God’s son and supplements those statements in the Fourth Gospel that speak about the close relationship between the Father and the Son. Election itself is not a major theme in the Fourth Gospel –it appears almost like an explanatory footnote, yet it does exist. It is one of the motifs introduced in the first chapter and developed elsewhere in the 54 J.K. Elliott, “Thoroughgoing Eclecticism”, 321-35. 55 This of course betrays my text-critical leanings. In general terms I subscribe to the reasoned eclecticism but I find some concepts from the thoroughgoing eclecticism appealing. One could say I stand halfway between the reasoned and the thoroughgoing eclecticisms. 56 G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev ed. (Grand Rapids, MI 1993) 158- 60; See also G.R. Beasley-Murray, John, LXXXI-LXXXIV.