91 Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34 is faced is a stalemate unless one selects text-critical criterion or criteria, which favour certain outcome on a priori basis (best manuscripts, best readings etc)14. The uncertainty has led some commentators like Barnabas Lindars to reframe from pronouncing a definitive verdict on this textual variation unit15. This begs a question regarding the “B” rating of this textual variation unit in the UBS4. The editorial committee seems to have been too optimistic about the certainty of their decision. The problem is that there are unanswered questions regarding the canons of criticism16 and they are looming behind this discrepancy. This impasse demands a fresh look at other possibilities to solve the textual dilemma with an eye on the criteria of textual criticism. A Recent Proposal Dissatisfied with these results Peter R. Rodgers has offered a com- pletely different approach to this crux interpretum17. He argues that second century scribal tendencies for harmonisations split the “original” text to smaller chunks. This splitting is the cause for different variants when each chunk was made to harmonize the text to some Old Testa- ment and/or Synoptic parallel. He notes that some manuscripts read κλεκτ ς υ ς το θεο without specifying which ones do so, and argues against a notion that such a reading is a Byzantine harmonisation. Rodg- ers notes that some manuscripts of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionaries read the Greek equivalent of μονογεν ς υ ς, though he admits it is a contested translation. The Syriac reading (yhͅidh) may not represent μονογεν ς. Still, he proceeds with this understanding in mind. Rodg- ers correctly notes that μονογεν ς is an important word for the Fourth Evangelist. With it John 1,34 corresponds to a third Old Testament echo 14 This “best manuscript” approach is best known from the works of reasoned eclectics like B.F. Westcott, F.J.A. Hort and K. Aland. The “best readings” is an approach usually found within the thoroughgoing eclectic school best presented by G.D. Kilpatrick and J.K. Elliott. The “best manuscript” approach places the emphasis on external evidence while the “best readings” places the emphasis on internal evidence. 15 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI 1972) 111-12. 16 E.J. Epp, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism”, in D.A. Black (ed.), Rethink- ing the New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI 2002) 19-21. 17 P.R. Rodgers, “The Text of John 1:34”, in C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight (eds), Theological Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (Grand Rapids, MI 1999) 299- 305. For the meaning of γαπητ ς in Greek literary (and in Mark 1.11), see C.H. Turner, “HTOC”, JTS 27 (1926) 113-29; G. Pendrick, “ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ”, NTS 41 (1995) 587-600; BDAG entry for γαπητ ς.