88 Timo Flink Other scholars9 have argued for the reading κλεκτ ς το θεο , also on the basis of several reasons. It has wide enough external attestation to be considered, being found in Egypt, Syria and Latin speaking West. The list of supporting external evidence –as given by the scholars dealing with this variant reading– include P5vid P106vid )* 77 218 b e ff2 syrs,c Ambrose. The external evidence is seen divided enough so that the decision should be made on internal grounds. The internal evidence includes several ob- servations. There are seven honorific designations in the first chapter for Jesus, each different, if the longer variant is permitted: (1) the lamb of God in v. 29, (2) the elect in v. 34, (3) rabbi in v. 38, (4) the messiah in v. 41, (5) the Son of God in v. 49, (6) the king of Israel in v. 49, and (7) the Son of Man in v. 51. This would fit the theology of the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel with its different aspect of Christology, because there are three other titles that are not characteristic to this Gospel, namely, (1) the lamb of God (1,29.36), which occurs nowhere else in the Fourth Gospel, (2) the messiah (1,41), which is predates the Fourth Evangelist in John 4,25, and (2) the king of Israel (1,49), which is predates the Fourth Evangelist in John 12,13. The first chapter appears to be a conflation of titles not specifically those of the Fourth Evangelist. Transcriptionally it is more likely that scribes would change κλεκτ ς to υ ς than vice versa to combat Adoptionism instead of embracing it. A “proof in the pudding” for this contention is seen in the corrector activity of ). The scribe of )c changes κλεκτ ς to υ ς. The longer reading better fits the lamb motif (1,29) for the reason that Jesus is the Elect par excellence, who in turn chooses others. Such a reading should be seen as a conscious reference to Isa 42,1 LXX and to parallel passages about the baptism in the Synoptic Gospels. It was perhaps a messianic title used in Qumran. The 4Q534 speaks of a God’s chosen one, who has a special role in God’s providential plan. It is also in harmony with the early traditions of the heavenly voice (the Evangelist’s version for “the beloved” found in Matt 9 See, e.g., R.V.G. Tasker (ed.), The Greek New Testament Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible 1961 (Oxford – Cambridge 1964) 425; R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB 29; New York 1966) 57, 78; R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannes- evangelium (HTKNT; Freiburg 1967) I, 305; J. Williams, “Proposed Renderings for Some Johannine Passages”, BT 25 (1974) 351-53; G.D. Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testa- ment”, in R.K. Harrison et al, Biblical Criticism. Historical, Literary and Textual (Grand Rapids, MI 1978) 127-55; D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI 1991) 147-52; B.D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford 1993) 69-70; L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, rev. ed. (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 134; A.J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 88; D.B. Wallace, M.H. Burer and W.H. Harris III (eds), New English Translation – Novum Testamentum Graece. New Testament Diglot (Stuttgart – Dallas 2004) 835-36.