Skip to main content
Christanity

John 9:35 Son of Man or Son of God — How One Word Change Turned a Prophecy Verse into a Divinity Claim

12 min read 2679 words
How to Navigate This Note The Verse Under Study — The disputed text and its theological stakes Why Christians Considered This Text Important — Matta El Meskeen and Pope Shenouda Arabic and English Translations That Read Son of Man — The majority position The Greek Words — Man vs. God — ανθρωπου vs. θεου in manuscripts The Oldest Manuscripts All Read Son of Man — P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Beza, Washington Where the Distortion Began — The Alexandrian Codex — Fifth century onwards What the Critical Editions Decided — NA27, UBS Greek NT Notes on the Story — Theological Observations — The blind man’s own testimony Son of God Does Not Imply Divinity — Biblical evidence Conclusion

The Verse Under Study

John 9:35-38 — Van Dyke (traditional text, reads “Son of God”) “And Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he found him, he said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of God?’ He answered and said, ‘Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have seen him, and he who is talking with you is he.’ And he said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshipped him.”

The disputed word is in verse 35. The question Jesus asks the blind man is either:

  • “Do you believe in the Son of GodGreek: θεου (theou) — “of God.” Written in manuscripts in the sacred abbreviation (Nomina Sacra) form.?” — as in the Van Dyke / KJV tradition
  • “Do you believe in the Son of ManGreek: ανθρωπου (anthropou) — “of man/humanity.” The reading of Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, Washingtonianus, and all critical editions.?” — as in the oldest manuscripts and all modern critical translations

The difference is not a matter of translation preference. It is a matter of which Greek word appears in the manuscripts. If the text says “Son of Man,” the blind man’s prostration is before a prophet — not a god. The entire theological argument built by Christian scholars on this passage collapses.

Why Christians Considered This Text Important

Father Matta El Meskeen

“He thought at first that he was a prophet, but when he knew that the one standing before him, whose face he saw and who was talking to him, was the Son of God, the owner of the kingdom, and the bearer of the keys to the door of life, he fell down before him in worship; and immediately his insight was opened and he saw the owner of the light.”

— Explanation of the Gospel of John, Part 1, p. 601, Monastery of Saint Macarius Press, Wadi El Natrun

Father Matta El Meskeen declares explicitly that the blind man’s prostration was not because Jesus was a prophet but because he was the Son of God — and that this title, in his view, indicates the divinity of Christ.

Pope Shenouda III

“Here we are not talking about an ordinary sonship to God that all people share. Otherwise, the man born blind would not have asked: Who is He, Lord? If it were a general sonship, the man born blind would have said: We are all sons of God, and I myself am the son of God. But it was a sonship that required faith and a miracle, and the result was that he prostrated before Him as the Son of God. What increases the importance of this miracle is that it carries a declaration from the Lord Christ Himself that He is the Son of God, and it also carries His call to people to this faith.”

— Theology of Christ, Pope Shenouda III, p. 19, Anba Royes Press, Cairo

Pope Shenouda used this word as the basis for his argument that Christ is the Son of God in a unique, divine sense — and that the blind man’s prostration was on the basis of this divinity.

The Core Problem What would be the case if the reader discovered that the word that appeared in this text is “Son of Man” and not “Son of God”? The meaning would inevitably be that the blind man prostrated before Christ as a human prophet — not as a god. This miracle and others would then indicate the prophecy of Christ, not his divinity as Christians claim.

Arabic and English Translations That Read Son of Man

The overwhelming majority of Arabic translations — and all modern critical English translations — render the word as “Son of Man,” not “Son of God.”

Common Arabic Translation:

“And Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when he met him he said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’”

Jesuit Monastic Translation (The New Testament, p. 320, Dar El Mashreq, Beirut):

“And Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And he found him and said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’”

Catholic Arabic Translation: agrees with the Jesuit in translating with “man.”

Pauline Translation (The New Testament, p. 444, Pauline Library Publications):

“And Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And he found him and said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’”

Simplified Arabic Translation (The New Testament, p. 1125, World Center for Bible Translation):

“And Jesus heard that they had cast the man out. And he found him and said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’”

Translation of the Holy Bible (The New Testament, p. 121, Bible Society, Lebanon) — rendered with an even more explicit translation:

“And Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And he found him, and said to him, ‘Do you believe in him who became flesh?’”

Every one of these translations deletes the word “God” and replaces it with “Man.” The reason is that the oldest and most reliable manuscripts available to the translators do not say “God” — they say “man.”

The Greek Words — Man vs. God

To understand the manuscript evidence clearly, it helps to see the visual difference between the two Greek words.

The word for “man” in Greek is ανθρωπου. In printed form:

Greek word ανθρωπου (anthropou — man) in printed Greek text
Greek word ανθρωπου (anthropou — man) in printed Greek text

And as it appears in the manuscripts in uncial (uppercase) script:

Greek word anthropou as it appears in ancient uncial manuscript script
Greek word anthropou as it appears in ancient uncial manuscript script

Its pronunciation is “anthropou” — the root of the English word “anthropology”:

Pronunciation guide and form of ανθρωπου in manuscript tradition
Pronunciation guide and form of ανθρωπου in manuscript tradition

And its appearance in manuscripts:

Manuscript form of anthropou showing how the word was written by ancient scribes
Manuscript form of anthropou showing how the word was written by ancient scribes

The word for “God” in Greek is θεου (theou). In printed form it looks like this:

Greek word θεου (theou — God) in printed form
Greek word θεου (theou — God) in printed form

In the manuscripts, θεου is written in a sacred abbreviation known as Nomina SacraNomina Sacra (Latin: sacred names) — a scribal convention in early Greek Christian manuscripts of abbreviating certain sacred words such as God (ΘΣ for θεός), Lord (ΚΣ for κύριος), Jesus (ΙΣ for Ἰησοῦς), and Christ (ΧΣ for Χριστός) with a horizontal line above the abbreviation. — a horizontal line over the abbreviated form:

θεου in the Nomina Sacra sacred abbreviation form used in manuscripts
θεου in the Nomina Sacra sacred abbreviation form used in manuscripts

The interlinear Greek-Arabic New Testament (Greek-Arabic Between the Lines, by Paul Al-Feghali, Antoine Awkar, Nimatallah Al-Khoury, and Youssef Fakhry, p. 491, Antonine University edition) shows the text clearly:

Interlinear Greek-Arabic New Testament — John 9:35 showing ανθρωπου (man) in the Greek text
Interlinear Greek-Arabic New Testament — John 9:35 showing ανθρωπου (man) in the Greek text

Interlinear text continued — confirmation that the Greek base text reads Son of Man, not Son of God
Interlinear text continued — confirmation that the Greek base text reads Son of Man, not Son of God

The Oldest Manuscripts All Read Son of Man

Papyrus 66 (𝔓66) — Late 2nd Century

Papyrus 66 dates to approximately 200 CE and is one of the oldest papyri of the Gospel of John in existence.

Papyrus 66 — John 9:35 showing the abbreviated form of ανθρωπου (man), not θεου (God)
Papyrus 66 — John 9:35 showing the abbreviated form of ανθρωπου (man), not θεου (God)

This ancient papyrus dating to around 200 CE contains the abbreviated word for “man” — confirming that the correct reading is “Son of Man” and not “Son of God.”

Papyrus 66 — enlarged detail of the ανθρωπου abbreviation in John 9:35
Papyrus 66 — enlarged detail of the ανθρωπου abbreviation in John 9:35

The abbreviated form visible in the papyrus:

Papyrus 66 — the specific abbreviated form of anthropou in the manuscript hand
Papyrus 66 — the specific abbreviated form of anthropou in the manuscript hand

Papyrus 75 (𝔓75) — Late 2nd / Early 3rd Century

Papyrus 75 — John 9:35, another 2nd–3rd century papyrus reading Son of Man
Papyrus 75 — John 9:35, another 2nd–3rd century papyrus reading Son of Man

Papyrus 75 also contains the word for “man” — a second papyrus witness from the earliest period of manuscript transmission confirming the “Son of Man” reading.

Papyrus 75 — the ανθρωπου abbreviation in John 9:35 confirmed
Papyrus 75 — the ανθρωπου abbreviation in John 9:35 confirmed

Codex Sinaiticus (4th Century) — Symbol א

The Sinaiticus is considered by textual critics to be the most important manuscript of the New Testament.

Codex Sinaiticus — John 9:35 with ανθρωπου (man), 4th-century manuscript
Codex Sinaiticus — John 9:35 with ανθρωπου (man), 4th-century manuscript

The Sinaiticus website provides a complete English translation of the manuscript, stating:

“35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and he found him and said: Dost thou believe on the Son of man?”

Tischendorf’s handwritten copy of the Sinaiticus manuscript — made directly from the original — also supports this:

Tischendorf's copy of the Sinaiticus — John 9:35 transcribed as Son of Man
Tischendorf's copy of the Sinaiticus — John 9:35 transcribed as Son of Man

Tischendorf Sinaiticus copy continued — confirmation of ανθρωπου reading in John 9:35
Tischendorf Sinaiticus copy continued — confirmation of ανθρωπου reading in John 9:35

Codex Vaticanus (4th Century) — Symbol B

Codex Vaticanus — John 9:35 with the abbreviated form of ανθρωπου, 4th-century Vatican manuscript
Codex Vaticanus — John 9:35 with the abbreviated form of ανθρωπου, 4th-century Vatican manuscript

The Vatican manuscript contains the word for “man” — not “God.”

Codex Vaticanus — enlarged detail confirming ανθρωπου in John 9:35
Codex Vaticanus — enlarged detail confirming ανθρωπου in John 9:35

Codex Bezae (5th Century) — Symbol D

Codex Bezae — John 9:35, 5th-century bilingual manuscript reading Son of Man
Codex Bezae — John 9:35, 5th-century bilingual manuscript reading Son of Man

The Beza manuscript testifies to the translation of the word as “man.”

Codex Bezae — detail of ανθρωπου in John 9:35
Codex Bezae — detail of ανθρωπου in John 9:35

The Beza manuscript confirmation of “man”:

Codex Bezae — ανθρωπου abbreviation confirmed in John 9:35
Codex Bezae — ανθρωπου abbreviation confirmed in John 9:35

Codex Washingtonianus (5th–6th Century) — Symbol W

The Washington manuscript contains the abbreviated form of “man” — “the human being.” This is the last of the major 4th–5th century witnesses, and it agrees with all the others.

Where the Distortion Began — The Alexandrian Codex

The distortion of the text from “Son of Man” to “Son of God” first appears in the Alexandrian Codex from the fifth century.

Codex Alexandrinus (5th Century) — Symbol A

Codex Alexandrinus — John 9:35 showing θεου (God) in Nomina Sacra form — the first manuscript to introduce the distortion
Codex Alexandrinus — John 9:35 showing θεου (God) in Nomina Sacra form — the first manuscript to introduce the distortion

The Alexandrian manuscript contains the sacred abbreviation for “God” — θεου in Nomina Sacra form.

Codex Alexandrinus — enlarged Nomina Sacra abbreviation for θεου in John 9:35
Codex Alexandrinus — enlarged Nomina Sacra abbreviation for θεου in John 9:35

This is where the tahrifArabic: تحريف — scribal alteration of the biblical text. In this case the substitution of “God” for “Man” transformed a prophecy verse into a divinity claim. began in the manuscript tradition. From the Alexandrian Codex onward, the word “God” propagated into later manuscripts and eventually into the Textus Receptus — the basis of the KJV and Van Dyke translations.

There is no textual justification for the change. All manuscripts before the Alexandrian — the two papyri, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus — read “Son of Man.” The motive scholars have identified is the same one seen across many New Testament textual alterations: scribes felt free to change and tamper with the manuscripts, and in this case the change served to strengthen a Christological claim.

What the Critical Editions Decided

The editors of the Greek New Testament (4th Revised Edition, p. 718) state:

{A} ανθρωπου — “man” is the original reading of the manuscript.

The grade {A} is the highest level of critical confidence — meaning the committee is fully certain that “Son of Man” is the original text.

The Nestle-Aland 27th edition reads:

εὑρὼν αὐτὸν εἶπεν · σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Translation: “Having found him, he said: Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Father Abdul-Masih Basit Abu Al-Khair records the rule of textual criticism applied here:

Father Abdul-Masih Basit Abu Al-Khair — The Holy Bible Challenges Its Critics, p. 508, Sunday School edition “Scientific textual criticism scholars have made precise comparisons of the New Testament manuscripts… and have found several important and decisive results, which are: the oldest manuscript is the most correct and accurate.”

Based on this rule — which Abu Al-Khair himself transmits from the scholars — the scholars have chosen the reading “Son of Man.” The oldest manuscripts, the best papyri, and the most important 4th-century codices all support it unanimously.

Notes on the Story — Theological Observations

Several observations from within the Gospel narrative itself confirm that the blind man understood Jesus as a prophet, not a god.

The blind man’s own testimony (John 9:17):

“I see that he is a prophet.”

The blind man describes Jesus to his neighbors (John 9:11):

“A man, Jesus, made clay and anointed my eyes, and I saw.”

He calls Jesus “a man” — not God, not the Son of God.

The blind man’s theological reasoning (John 9:31–33):

“And we know that God does not listen to sinners. But if anyone fears God and does His will, He listens to him.”

This is the blind man’s own explanation of the miracle: God answered Jesus’ prayer because Jesus feared God and did His will. This is the theology of prophethood — not divinity.

Jesus himself before performing the miracle (John 9:4):

“I must do the works of him who sent me.”

Jesus attributes the miracle to the One who sent him — not to himself. This is consistent with the Quranic understanding of Jesus as a prophet performing miracles by God’s permission.

John 11:42 — Jesus on the relationship between himself and the Father:

“And I know that you always hear me.”

Jesus prays to God and God responds. This is the relationship of a servant and prophet to his Lord — not of one God to another.

Matthew Henry’s commentary on the blind man’s courage:

Matthew Henry — The Complete Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 1, p. 665, Eagles Publications, Cairo “Because he spoke very well, and with great courage and boldness, defending the Lord Jesus.”

The blind man was not timid or confused. He spoke with full conviction — and his conviction was that Jesus was a prophet who performed a miracle by God’s power.

Son of God Does Not Imply Divinity

Even if one were to accept the “Son of God” reading as original — which the manuscripts do not support — the title itself does not imply unique divinity in the biblical context.

Consider who else is called “son of God” or “sons of God” in the Bible:

Adam described as son of God in Luke 3:38, and other biblical uses of the title
Adam described as son of God in Luke 3:38, and other biblical uses of the title

  • Adam: “Adam, son of God.” — Luke 3:38
  • Solomon: “I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.” — 1 Chronicles 17:13
  • The children of Israel: “The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” — Job 1:6
  • Peacemakers: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” — Matthew 5:9
  • All believers: “Children of God: that is, those who believe in His name.” — John 1:12

If “Son of God” implied divinity, then Adam, Solomon, the children of Israel, all peacemakers, and all believers would be divine. The title clearly does not carry that meaning in the biblical context.

Furthermore, the Bible itself contradicts the divinity implied by the title:

Mark 13:32 — The Son does not know the hour “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
1 Corinthians 15:28 — The Son is subject to the Father “The Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected all things to Him.”
John 5:19 — The Son can do nothing of himself “The Son can do nothing of himself.”
John 8:40 — Jesus describes himself as a man “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.”

Conclusion

The manuscript evidence for John 9:35 is unambiguous. The two oldest papyri (𝔓66 and 𝔓75), Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, and Codex Washingtonianus all read “Son of Man.” The critical edition of the Greek New Testament gives this reading a grade of {A} — the highest level of certainty. The Nestle-Aland 27th edition, the standard scholarly Greek New Testament, prints “Son of Man” as the text of John 9:35. The distortion to “Son of God” first appears only in the Alexandrian Codex of the 5th century and propagated from there into the later manuscript tradition and eventually the Textus Receptus.

The theological argument built by Pope Shenouda and Father Matta El Meskeen on this passage — that the blind man prostrated before Christ as the Son of God and that this proves his divinity — collapses entirely on two grounds: first, the oldest manuscripts do not say “Son of God” at all; and second, even if they did, the title “Son of God” does not imply unique divinity anywhere else in the Bible.

The blind man himself called Jesus a prophet, described him as “a man named Jesus,” and reasoned about the miracle in the language of prophethood. His testimony — as an eyewitness who experienced the miracle directly — is more reliable than the theological constructions of people who never saw Jesus at all.

سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي لَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ شَرِيكٌ فِي الْمُلْكِ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلِيٌّ مِّنَ الذُّلِّ وَكَبِّرْهُ تَكْبِيرًا

وَآخِرُ دَعْوَانَا أَنِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

2025 https://www.openislam.wiki/og/john-9-35-son-of-man-or-son-of-god-how-one-word-change-turned-a-prophecy-verse-into-a-divinity-claim.png