Peter M. Head, «The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John», Vol. 85 (2004) 399-408
After an introduction that discusses the role that singular readings have played in the analysis of scribal habits, including an earlier study of synoptic gospel manuscripts by the same author, this study examines singular readings in the early fragmentary papyri of John’s Gospel. The study confirms earlier research showing that the most common singular readings concern spelling and that word order variations, word substitutions and harmonisations to context are also not uncommon. Omission of words is more common than addition.
The Habits of New Testament Copyists
Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John
1. Singular Readings and the analysis of Scribal Habits
This study is a somewhat belated sequel to my 1990 article “Some
Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, especially concerning
the ‘Scribal Habits’†(1). There I discussed fourteen early papyri of the
Synoptic Gospels in terms of their singular readings — readings unique to
the particular manuscript — partly in order to assess the important
dissertation on this subject by J.R. Royse (2). By analysing the singular
readings of the more substantial NT papyri firstly E.C. Colwell and then
Royse had made significant advances in our knowledge of the individual
scribal habits exhibited in the different manuscripts and also offered some
suggestions about generalising rules or principles concerning early Christian
scribal behaviour (3). In relation to the individual characteristics of the scribes,
for example, Colwell showed that the scribe of P66 was undisciplined and
sloppy (copying syllables; with a high proportion of nonsense readings and
variant spellings; although under the overall control of a second text or
reader); the scribe of P45 was free and concerned with communicating the
meaning of text, favouring concision and brevity (copying phrases and
clauses); and that the scribe of P75 intended to be a careful and accurate
reproduction (copying letters one by one), favouring clarity and style (4).
On more general matters Colwell showed that irregularities in spelling
are the most prominent cause of singular readings (although this may be
partly due to the fact that such variations are not always cited in the editions);
and that harmonisation to the immediate context occurs far more often than
harmonisation to remote parallels (i.e. in the gospels).
Royse’s dissertation generally supported Colwell’s results and extended
(1) Bib 71 (1990) 240–247.
(2) J.R. ROYSE, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (ThD, Graduate
Theological Union; UMI 1981); a summary was published: J. R. ROYSE, “Scribal Habits in
the Transmission of New Testament Textsâ€, The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (ed. W.D.
O’FLAHERTY) (Berkeley 1979) 139-161; more generally: J.R. ROYSE, “Scribal Tendencies
in the Transmission of the Textâ€, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Festschrift B.M. Metzger (eds. B.D. EHRMAN
– M.W. HOLMES) (SD 46; Grand Rapids 1995) 239-252.
(3) It is worth noting that although different methods are favoured by different textual
critics — radical or thoroughgoing eclecticism, the so-called reasoned eclecticism and the
more strictly documentary or genealogical methods — they all agree on the importance of
transcriptional probabilities concerning how a scribe might be presumed to have behaved,
that is the “scribal habits†of the era under discussion.
(4) E.C. COLWELL, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the
Textâ€, The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed J.P. HYATT) (Nashville 1965) 370-389;
republished as “Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75â€, ID.,
Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS IX; Leiden
1969) 106-124.