92 Timo Flink in the Synoptic Gospels, namely Gen 22,2. He calls attention to the fact that Greek γαπητ ς meant “only”, not “beloved”, in classical, Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek. Aquila and Symmachus use μονογεν ς in place of γαπητ ς in Gen 22,2, as do some Septuagintal manuscripts. They ap- pear to be synonyms. Rodgers argues that scribal habits akin to those that produced Tatian’s Diatessaron resulted a dropping out of μονογεν ς from the Greek manuscript tradition, because the second century scribes could not find a discernible parallel to it in the Synoptic Gospels. It sur- vived only in the Syriac tradition. He explains the omission of υ ς as accidental in part of the Greek manuscript tradition, because it was writ- ten as YS followed by US. He argues that the Fourth Evangelist originally wrote something like ο τ ς στιν μονογεν ς κλεκτ ς υ ς το θεο . This reading makes the baptism mean sonship (Ps 2,7), service (Isa 42,1), and sacrifice (Gen 22,2). Methodologically his approach is quite a radical departure from the method employed by the editorial committees of the NA27 and the UBS4. It is a conjectural emendation18. Although Rodgers argues only for this one verse, not for general text-critical principles, it would seem that in this case the manuscript traditions are simply repositories of different read- ings produced by scribal habits for him. In effect, such an approach seems like a radical thoroughgoing eclecticism in which the external evidence has little bearing on the decision over the variant readings. In my view, he does not adequately explain how the harmonisation process would create the known variants (listed below). For instance, the omission of κλεκτ ς is understandable in an anti-Adoptionistic environment, but why would any scribe omit το θεο from the phrase? Such an omission 18 This outcome is quite radical, or at least unconventional, because several scholars demur against conjectural emendations for various reasons. For example, J.K. Elliott argues that the original reading is always found somewhere within the manuscript tradition. Kurt Aland maintains that any scholar using conjectural emendations has simply capitulated before the textual difficulties. On a more caution note, G.D. Kilpatrick admits that conjec- tural emendations should not be seen inadmissible on a priori basis, but maintains that such corrections are only one way to deal with textual problems and other solutions are more plausible. B.M. Metzger allows conjectural emendations but notes that the vast manuscript tradition means that the need for them is reduced to the smallest dimensions. Similarly, C.-B. Amphoux accepts the concept but urges for caution. See K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids – Leiden 1989) 280; J.K. Elliott, “Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism”, 322; G.D. Kilpatrick, “Conjectural Emendations in the New Testament”, in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (eds), New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis (Oxford 1981) 349-60; B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 3d ed. (Oxford 1992) 185; L. Vaganay and C.-B. Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (2d ed., Cambridge 1991) 85.