97 Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34 Bart D. Ehrman, in his famous study of the effect of the early Christo- logical controversies on the text of the New Testament, has convincingly shown that several textual locations of the Fourth Gospel in P66 suffer from intentional alterations. In John 1,18 the scribe changed μονογεν ς υ ς to μονογεν ς θε ς to combat the idea that Jesus was merely a man adopted by God, and by dropping the article, to combat potentially Patripassionistic ideas. In John 1,49 the scribe added ληθ ς to make Nathaniel say “Rabbi, you are truly the Son of God” in order to com- bat potentially Separationistic concepts. In John 6,42 the scribe altered a question ο χ ο τ ς στιν ‘Ιησο ς υ ς ‘Ιωσ φ by changing ο χ to τι. This changes the question into a statement that heightens the irony of unbeliever’s misconception of Jesus’ origins. In John 10,33 the scribe added τ ν to θε ν to make sure that the crowd says Jesus makes himself God, not just a god. In John 19,5 the scribe dropped κα λ γει α το ς δο νθρωτος altogether. Pilate no longer says that Jesus is a human being. These three changes (6,42; 10,33; 19,5) were directed against the Adoptionists. In John 19,28 the scribe omitted να τελειωθ γραφ to combat Docetists by making Jesus plain thirsty, not only apparently thirsty to fulfill Scripture, as Docetists claimed30. Wayne C. Kannaday has argued that apologetic discourse affected the copying process as well. In John 4,25 there is a change from ο δα to ο δαμεν by the first διορθωτ ς of P66 –contemporary to the original scribe– to downplay the role of women in Scripture in order to mirror the social conventions of the apologetic era. In John 7,8 there is a change from ο κ to ο πω to circumvent the problematic statement by Jesus that 30 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 57, 79, 84, 94, 160, 194. The variant reading in John 1,18 is disputed but I have opted to follow Ehrman, because the transcrip- tional probability favours his choice of a variant. The variant reading in John 1,49 could also be a harmonisation to the immediate context, but it seems that a better case can be made for an alteration based on doctrinal considerations. These doctrinal alterations have to do with the nature of Christ. Scribes subscribing to a position similar to that of later Trinitarian position rewrote Scripture to make it say what they believed the passage meant in order to combat what they perceived a misapplication of such passages by groups they considered heretical. Such groups include the following: Adoptionists denied the divinity of Jesus by believing that he was an ordinary man adopted by God as His Son at baptism (or at resurrection), who became the Son of God instead of being one inherently as in the Trinitarian position. Separationists denied the humanity of Christ by separating Jesus (a human) from Christ (a divine spirit who entered Jesus according to them). Separationism was a form of Christian Gnosticism. Another Gnostic Christian group, Docetists, denied the real humanity of Jesus by making him a phantom that only appeared to have a body and bodily needs. Patripassionists held that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person. On each case the result is the same. The rewritten text (1) supports the position later known as Trinitarianism, and (2) removes the ambiguity of the text used by the groups seen as heretical to defend their position.