89 Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34 3,17; Mark 1,11; Luke 9,35). The reading is also in disharmony with typical usage of the Fourth Evangelist (it is unique) and therefore more likely the “original”10. These two different positions can be summarized as follows. Arguments for Argument for υ ς το θεο κλεκτ ς το θεο EXTERNAL EVIDENCE Witnesses include P66 P75 A B D Θ Byz vg Witnesses include P5vid P106vid )* 77 218 b e syrh copbo Origen ff2 syrs,c Ambrose Wide geographical distribution: Rome, Wide geographical distribution: Rome, Egypt, Syria Egypt, Syria Second century reading Second century reading Text-types: A, B, C, D Text-types: A, B, D INTRINSIC PROBABILITIES Typical expression in the Fourth Gospel Unique expression in the Fourth Gospel Typical theological term in the Fourth Unique theological term in the Fourth Gospel Gospel TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITIES Has Old Testament background in Ps 2,7 Has Old Testament background in Isa 42,1 LXX Theological harmony with the Synoptic Theological harmony with Synoptic baptismal confession accounts on the heavenly voice Fits the chiastic structure Fits the list of designations and context Messianic title in Scripture An honorific designation in Scripture, and possibly a messianic title in Qumran Arguments against Argument against κλεκτ ς το θεο υ ς το θεο EXTERNAL EVIDENCE N/A Most of the early witnesses are of the D-text. TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITIES Deliberate anti-Adoptionistic change or Harmonisation to Mark (synonym) or to harmonisation to context Septuagint (verbal) INTRINSIC PROBABILITIES Typical expression in the Fourth Gospel Unique expression in the Fourth Gospel Typical theological term in the Fourth Unique theological term in the Fourth Gospel Gospel 10 The concept of “the Chosen One” was important in Judaism. Jews considered them- selves as God’s chosen people on the basis of Scriptural passages (e.g. Exod 19,5-6; Deut 7,7-8; 14,2). As such the application of κλεκτ ς to Jesus would not be a problematic statement per se in pristine Christianity. There is, however, a reason for the desire to change the Scriptural passage during the early second century. There were ideas floating around, which some scribes considered misconceptions regarding the term’s implications for the nature of Christ. It was not the term itself but what some groups deduced from the term