Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

By Kim Fromkin

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Fred Downing, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Article Abstract:

The problem of the literary relationship of the gospel traditions continues to be a debated issue in the scholarship of the New Testament. The relationship of John 1 and the so-called Synoptics is a microcosm of this debate. In translating texts concerning the baptism of Jesus, the Synoptics specify Jesus as the “son” of God by using the Greek term υιός, while the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the “chosen” of God with the use of the Greek term εκλεκτός. Throughout all of John’s gospel, Jesus is identified as the Son of God as seen in the Synoptic accounts except in the baptismal story in John 1:34. The thesis of this article is that there are two common themes of Jewish tradition surrounding the ideologies of “sonship” and “chosen” in connection with the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, this article will analyze works from various scholars to explore the textual variations in John 1:34. The discussion of the two themes “sonship” and “chosen” provides a heuristic introduction to the Synoptic problem and an opportunity to consider the growth of two ideas concerning Jesus which shaped the early church in the first and second centuries.

In translating the Synoptics and the Gospel of John there is a contradiction in the texts concerning the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan River. The Synoptics specify Jesus as the “son” of God by using the Greek term υιός, while the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the “chosen” of God with the use of the Greek term εκλεκτός.1 Throughout all of John’s gospel, Jesus is identified as the Son of God as seen in the Synoptic accounts except in the baptismal story in John 1:34. Several questions arise from such differences. Scholars argue as to why Jesus would be identified as the “chosen” of God in one single account and nowhere else in John’s gospel. Additionally, there are questions on whether the writer intentionally changed the language from “son” to “chosen” or from “chosen” to “son.” It is also possible that the language changed when it was translated. One scholar suggests that the use of the word εκλεκτός predates the word υιός.2 If εκλεκτός predates υιός, and υιός is present in all four gospels, it may be the case that the Gospel of John predates the Synoptics. If John’s work predates the other three gospels, then the question arises as to who composed the texts since most scholars agree that John’s work is uniquely different. Many consider Mark’s account to be written first, and Matthew’s and Luke’s work to be primarily copies of Mark.3 This article analyzes works from various scholars, specifically those of John A. T. Robinson, in order to explore two common themes of Jewish tradition surrounding the ideologies of “sonship” and those “chosen” by God in connection with the sacrament of baptism as a way of understanding the possibilities of the textual variations in John 1:34. The discussion of the two themes “sonship” and “chosen” provides a heuristic introduction to the Synoptic problem and an opportunity to consider the growth of two ideas concerning Jesus which shaped the early church in the late first and early second centuries.

1 See the parallel in the Greek and English translations of Mt. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22; Jn. 1:29-34. 2 Christopher W. Skinner. “Son of God” or “God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem. (Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015) pp. 345. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site. 3 See the Synoptic Problem, Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. (McGrawHill, 2011) p. 350.

Many scholars agree that the Gospel of John is the last gospel to be written. It is assumed that John was written sometime between 90-100 CE with the Synoptics being written between 70-90 CE.4 A close study suggests that like the Synoptics, John was not written by one single author but by various Jewish or Palestinian groups, including Samaritans, Essenes, protoGnostics, and possibly some disciples of John the Baptist.5 John A. T. Robinson has a slightly different perspective on the Gospel of John, especially concerning the date and compilation of the book. His theory is that the book went through a series of developing stages.6 In that process he thinks there were several revisions from an earlier first edition. Robinson argues that the Johannine literature has elements that seem to provide evidence of writings prior to the Jewish War including the written words and works of Jesus dating between 40-60 CE.7 He believes that the first edition of John was authored during this time with that edition being established sometime between 75-85 CE in Palestine with later revisions coming from Asia Minor in 90 CE.8 Based on Robinson’s theory, the writing of John’s gospel began in 40 CE. The first edition circulated from Palestine to Asia Minor with many revisions before the finished work was established in 100 CE. This is a 60-year timespan with a religious war right in the middle. Robinson claims there are too many gaps in the history of the material itself.9 In this time period there were many ideas and theologies throughout the region. As the Jews rebelled against Rome, leading up to the war, seemingly within the religion itself believers were rebelling against various theologies,

4 Ibid. 352. 5 Ibid. 409. 6 John A. T. Robinson. Can We Trust the New Testament? (Mowbrays, 1977) p. 84. 7 The outbreak of the Jewish war was in 66 CE. Robinson sees a mass of evidence leading to a major revaluation of the historical tradition behind the Fourth Gospel concluding that it reflects intimate contact with the Palestinian world that was obliterated in 70 CE. Robinson uses R. E. Brown’s timeline to date the writings of the Fourth Gospel composed in five stages. John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 265, 267, 270. 8 Ibid. 270. 9 Ibid. 267.

especially those pertaining to Jesus. Followers of Jesus sought to establish a defined Christianity. Therefore, much writing took place encompassing vast perspectives in which some of these writings were hidden for preservation and not discovered until much later. Many of these ideas confirm Hebraic and Hellenistic cultures.10 Other earlier writings provide the idea that there are “links between an original apostolic tradition” to earlier times in history that became much of the “later finished gospel.”11 Robinson suggests that in this time gap, there seems to be more of a Jewish background as the writers appeared more dedicated to the study of Jewish tradition.12 One of these traditions is the sacrament of baptism. Another tradition is that some people were “chosen” for such a time as this, as in the story of Esther, as a prophetic voice, a leader of God’s people, kings, and priests.13 These “chosen” ones were selected by God for a generation to bring about his plan and purpose for his children. Not only does the Gospel of John have elements of a Jewish background and the traditions of an old religion, it also has newer ideas rising from “conservative evangelicals” in the first century CE with continued traditions like baptism and persons “chosen of God” spilling over into modernity.14

10 John A. T. Robinson. Can We Trust the New Testament? (Mowbrays, 1977) p. 82. Scholars agree that during the time surrounding the Jewish War there were many diverse groups. Robinson suggests that John’s gospel went through several developing stages and was influenced by writers of these diverse groups including Hellenistic Jews, and Jewish sectarians that made up the Qumran communities such as the Essenes, Nazarenes, and zealots. Scholars concur that the Essenes vacated Jerusalem and fled into the Qumran region because the Temple services had become corrupt. Robinson states that the gospel of John is predominantly a historical book with ancient Jewish language signifying Hebraic cultures and ancient Jewish traditions but is also a by-product of the Dead Sea Scrolls escalating out of the Qumran region, and was written in simple Greek to Hellenistic Greek speaking Jews along with writings from an Ephesian elder. Hebraic cultures would have been the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Qumran communities as mentioned, and the Hellenistic cultures would have been Jewish peoples influenced by Greek philosophies. 11 Robinson uses Brown’s work who sought to make this connection. John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 270. 12 Ibid. 308. 13 E.g. Est. 4:14; Jer. 1:4; Ex. 3:4-10; 1 Sam. 16:1, 1 Sam. 2:28 14 Robinson uses the phrase “conservative evangelicals” as a modern interpretation of an old way of reading. John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 308.

If Robinson’s theory is correct that the Fourth Gospel predates the Synoptics and that there were multiple authors of various authorship over a wide timespan, it could explain the altered titles of Jesus from “chosen” to “son” or vice versa. In looking at John’s prologue, there is “a series of incomplete understandings” of who Jesus is.15 One understanding is that Jesus was the incarnation of God, the Son of God. Another understanding is that Jesus was the Messiah. A final understanding involves the idea that Jesus was chosen by God, hand selected among God’s own children, to lead the people of Israel in a crucial time of history where governmental rulings and the faiths of various religious sects collided. For Robinson, the Gospel of John is a “history of ideas” where the language and thought forms changed through the revision process and the book is an expansion of material based on a group of people’s needs.16 Specifically, in John 1:34 there is evidence of textual variances that seemed to have changed, possibly through one of the revision processes as some translations specify “chosen” and others specify “son.”17 However, scholars debate these variances. Flink, using the works of Bart Ehrman, suggests that “orthodox scribes occasionally altered the text to defend the orthodox theology and what they thought the text meant because some of the readings were prone to be misunderstood and used by heretics.”18 Flink claims there is supporting evidence asserting that the original text of John 1:34 was ο εκλεκτός (chosen) which does not support John’s Christology in the remainder of the gospel but rather other sects of Christianity within the early church that were possibly expelled from the synagogue.19

15 Christopher W. Skinner “Son of God” or “God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem (Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015) p. 345. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site. 16 John A. T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 270, 280. 17 See the discussion on the textual variances. Scholars say it is difficult to determine whether the original translation was “Son of God” or “chosen of God.” There are also other suggestions of the variances of “the Son, the chosen one” and “the Son, the chosen of God.” Timo Flink New Variant Reading of John 1:34 (Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol.45, no. 2, Aut 2007) p. 191 EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001656634&site=eds-live&scope=site. 18 Ibid. 191. 19 Ibid. 192.

“Sonship” and “chosen” are two different yet common themes that circulated in various groups within Jewish traditions. Both can be seen in the Jewish tradition of the sacrament of baptism. One group, those of the mystery religions, believed in the idea of “divine sonship.”20 This group of believers had a “wide influence” in the Greco-Roman world during the days of Jesus.21 Members of this group observed communal and baptismal rituals with other groups of the early church where their god was invisibly present, allowing them to absorb the divine body into themselves, “housing a god within” where the human is awakened to their divine potential and shares in God’s eternal life through purification.22 While sonship is said to be of Jewish tradition, the words “Son of God” are not mentioned in the Old Testament, only “sons of God” in Genesis 6 when they had intercourse with the daughters of men and in Job 1 when the “sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord.”23 Sonship is however, a common theme in all four gospels. Throughout the New Testament the word υιός (son) is heavily used. In the Fourth Gospel alone υιός appears 52 times, 42 of which refer to Jesus identified as the “Son of God.”24 Elements of the mystery religions could have influenced the Johannine writing in what Robinson calls this “gap in history” and could have been revised later by orthodox leaders of the early church, who could have adopted some aspects of the “divine sonship” idea from the mystery religions giving John’s gospel the divine human of Jesus. According to Ehrman, orthodox writers not only altered passages but accentuated their own views of the divinity of Jesus in which he became the Son of God at his baptism.25

20 Paul Carus The Greek Mysteries, A Preparation for Christianity (The Monist, vol. 11, no. 1, 1900) p. 122 JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27899193. 21 Stephen L. Harris Understanding the Bible (McGraw-Hill, 2011) p. 322. 22 Ibid. 322. 23 E.g., Gen.6 The sons of God were considered fallen angels; Job 1:6 Satan was one of the sons of God coming before the Lord. 24 Christopher W. Skinner “Son of God” or “God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem (Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015) p. 343. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site. 25 Bart D. Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early

For other groups observing the sacrament of baptism in Jewish tradition, the ceremony was a consecration ceremony, an ancient Jewish ritual, especially for priests. Only after this consecration and a series of others could a priest enter the Holy of Holies and begin ministry performing liturgical functions.26 For some early Christian writings after the baptism processional, the “gates of the heavenly Temple are opened,” then the priest “sees the Glory within where God then gives him a blessing of the priesthood” where the angels speak, “Now see how we have elevated you above all and how we gave you the anointing of eternal peace.”27 This ritual seems to confirm the “chosen of God” ideology and seems to reflect the moment of Jesus’ baptism when he comes up out of the water and God speaks “this is my son in whom I am well pleased.”28 However, John’s version says “this is the chosen of God” spoken not by angels or God as in the Synoptic accounts, but by John himself as he was quoting an earlier prophecy given to him by the Spirit.29 In Jewish tradition, baptism was a holy sacrament in becoming a high priest which may suggest that Jesus’ baptism represented his becoming a high priest, chosen by God. If Robinson’s timeline of the writings of the works and words of Jesus dating back to 40-60 CE is correct, it would seem that the baptismal ceremony of Jesus in John 1:34, a priestly tradition, would have been required before Jesus’ ministry could begin as required by Jewish tradition. This supports the idea that “chosen” was used first, which is supported by Robinson’s “gap in history” theory.

Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 63. 26 It is suggested that the Fourth Gospel has elements of and has been considered Gnostic. In the footnotes of DeConick’s article she claims that Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan was a transference into the priesthood as part of the Christian baptism originating from Syrian tradition. April D. DeConick. The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the Gospel of Philip (Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 55, no. 3, 2001) p. 235, 236. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/1584809. 27 Ibid. 235. DeConick gives several different references on the sacrament of baptism throughout Jewish tradition (specifically esoteric Jewish traditions) in her work. This reference is taken from the Testament of Levi which originates in an apocryphal and pseudepigraphal text known as The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs that scholars believed to have been completed around the 2nd century CE by the Essene sect. Fragments of this material was found along with the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran. 28 E.g. Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22. 29 Jn 1:34 based on the SBL Greek New Testament version.

There were other groups and writers present in this 60year period that shared (similar yet different) ideas with all four gospels such as the Essenes that dwelled in Qumran. They believed there was more than one Messiah and that each Messiah was an “elect of God.”30 Some scholars see a close relationship with John’s prologue in the Fourth Gospel with the Qumran texts indicating Essene influences found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and suggesting a connection with other “esoteric Jewish writings such as the Odes of Solomon and rabbinical texts of a mystical character.”31 The tradition of a “chosen one” was a title used in Qumran and Hebrew literature, having Old Testament roots in the figureheads of Moses, David, Samuel, Noah, Jacob, and others.32 According to these ancient Jewish roots, Israel was a “chosen” peculiar community of people above all nations which makes its way through the New Testament in 1 Peter as “the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.”33 While some later writers describe Jesus as the “Son of God,” the ancient roots of one being “chosen” appears only at the baptism of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and seems to be “more in harmony with what seems to have been the early Gospel tradition” stemming from early Jewish traditions with the idea of a heavenly voice speaking at the baptism.34 The Essene group believed in this “chosen” or “elect of God” ideology. The term “Messiah” was a title referring to this ideology at Qumran of an expected one, a Messiah to come later.35

30 Joseph A. Fitzmyer Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965) p. 353. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA000 0702943&site=eds-live&scope=site. 31 Oscar Cullmann. The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 74, no. 4, 1955) p. 222. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3261667. 32 Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965) p. 366. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000702943&site=edslive&scope=site. 33 Deut. 14:2; 1 Pet. 2:9 34 Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965) p. 349. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000702943&site=eds-live&scope=site. 35 Ibid. 349. Originally the term “Messiah” meant God’s anointed and was applied to Israel’s kings and later applied to coming leaders. For further information, see Sigmund Mowinckel He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in The Old Testament and Later Judaism (Abingdon Press, 1954).

In Jewish tradition, the concept of many Messiahs was common. These Messiahs were “righteous teachers” that held many titles such as “son of man, elect one, servant, and elect of God” as seen in John 1:34 as the titles were interchangeable.36 In looking at the consensus of the Dead Seas Scrolls, the Qumran region was inhabited by priests that had been “expelled from the Temple in Jerusalem” that were led into the Judean desert by a man they called “the Righteous Teacher.”37 However, the terms Messiah and Jesus are not specified within the texts. Some scholars suggest that “ancient authors expanded existing composition by adding further material,” making Jesus into what they wanted him to be.38 Ο εκλεκτός του θεός (chosen of God) suggests a larger theme of Qumran Messianism.39 Though there were ideas of divine sonship in some of the groups involving Jewish tradition, it seems that the idea involving the “chosen of God” had more of a Jewish background than ο υιός του θεός (son of God). For years, scholars have suggested that Mark was the first gospel and much of Matthew and Luke were copies of Mark, with John being the final gospel written. Robinson, however, argues that John’s account was first as there was a first edition and many revisions over a wide period before the completion of the final book.40 Based on this theory, along with other scholarship, it seems that ο εκλεκτός του θεός (chosen of God) was an ancient Jewish tradition that could have been written originally in John’s prologue concerning the baptism of Jesus prior to the Synoptics and prior to a more orthodox version in early Christianity. Some of these “newer conservative evangelicals” as Robinson mentioned could have been the cause of these revisions in the Fourth Gospel (from 60-100 CE) making Jesus into what that group needed and wanted him to be which was ο υιός του θεός, the Son of God, a

36 Ibid. 353, 366. 37 For an introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls see James H. Charlesworth Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Doubleday, 1997). 38 Ibid. 354. 39 Ibid 349. 40 John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 270.

divine human, and God incarnate. Ehrman proposes that these revisions are “textual corruptions” of orthodox scribes and with their transcriptions left future generations of readers and interpreters with “theological controversies.”41 Robinson suggests that the finished book of the Fourth Gospel is written for a different tradition for the church for the first time.42 He asserts that as the times were changing in the then “modern world,” the message to the church was also changing. Robinson proposed that ancient Jewish traditions were crossing over into the ideas of Christianity, mainly from “conservative evangelicals” of the day. Consequently, it appears that as the early Church was being established into a newer, more orthodox religion, the language of an old orthodox religion was evolving and expanding, adding definitions and material to its doctrine to create what the more powerful group of the day needed. That need was a Savior, a Messiah, one chosen by God, someone with divine power who could bring about divine order and salvation to humanity in the times of governmental and religious crises. There is a common Savior who was the Son of God named Jesus in all four gospels. However, what John’s gospel reveals is that there were many groups and mixtures of ideas surrounding the identity of Jesus interwoven in its fabric. Regardless of whether John was written first or last, or the priority of “chosen” versus “son” in John 1:34, the ideologies and theologies of who Jesus was from diverse groups of an old religion and a new religion can still be seen today through the textual variances in the translations.

41 Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 63. 42 John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 306.

Bibliography

“BibleGateway.” BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 150 Versions and 50 Languages., www.biblegateway.com/. Carus, Paul. “The Greek Mysteries, A Preparation for Christianity.” The Monist, vol. 11, no. 1, 1900, pp. 87–123. JSTOR, www. jstor.org/stable/27899193. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls Doubleday, 1997. Cullmann, Oscar. “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 74, no. 4, 1955, p. 213.EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3261667. DeConick, April D. “The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the ‘Gospel of Philip.’” VigiliaeChristianae, vol. 55, no.3, 2001, p. 225. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/1584809. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 2011. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave IV.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965, pp. 348–372. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh &AN=ATLA0000702943&site=eds-live&scope=site. Flink, Timo. “New Variant Reading of John 1:34.”Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol.45, no. 2, Aug.2007, pp.191–193. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001656634&site=e \\ds-live&scope=site. Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2011.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in The Old Testament and Later Judaism. Abingdon Press, 1954. Robinson, John A. T. Can We Trust the New Testament? Mowbrays, 1977. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. S.C.M. Press, 1977. Skinner, Christopher W. “‘Son of God’ or ‘God’s Chosen One’ (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a TextCritical Problem.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no.3, 2015, pp. 341–357. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN =ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site.