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.
406 Peter M. Head
blank at this point); no beginnings or ends of lines are visible, and the second
fragment is considerably damaged after the first eight lines. It is normally
dated to the end of the third century and contains John 15.25–16,2.21-32.
There are no singular readings in the extant text.
P28 (P. Oxy 1596; Berkeley, Pacific School of Religion, Palestine
Institute, Pap. 2) consists of the lower part of a single leaf (10.7 × 5.2 cm.)
containing John 6,8-12.17-22, and was found with other documents of third-
fourth century. Grenfell & Hunt noted that the text was “not very correctly
spelled†(31); and this manuscript has five singular readings reflecting spelling
variations. In terms of spelling we find the following: pentakis]cileioi (recto
line 7, at 6,10), which is a common enough confusion; eleben (recto line 7, at
6,11): cf. elaben, which seems like nonsense, but which could conceivably
be a confusion caused by pronunciation; engu" (verso line 7, at 6,19): cf.
eggu", which clearly is a spelling which reflects pronunciation; fobeisqai
(recto line 9, at 6,20): cf. fobeisqe, a common error also related to
pronunciation; iden (recto line 13, at 6,22): cf. variants (for eiden with 01 D
lat), also probably due to pronunciation.
Both the original editors and Elliott & Parker agree in a further singular
reading involving the omission of ton (before Ihsoun) at verso, line 6 (6,19),
there not being sufficient space for it to the left of the nu which is extant (32).
Both the original editors and Elliott & Parker also agree on the need for a
singular omission at verso line 2 (6,17), which would otherwise be an
unusually long line. They do not, however, agree on what is proposed:
Grenfell & Hunt suggested that P28 might follow the word order: kai oupw
pro" autou" elhluqei o i–"– (with P75 B N Y 579), but have the shorter ou in
place of oupw; while Elliott & Parker propose a larger singular omission of
pro" autou" (33).
P39 (P. Oxy 1780; formerly: Rochester, Ambrose Swasey Library, Inv.
8864; sold June 2003, current location unknown) contains one side of a
whole leaf from a papyrus codex, of perhaps late in the third century, in
handsome and spacious layout, with pagination numbering 74 on the recto
(text: John 8,14-22). There are no singular readings. Nor are there any
singular readings in P80, which in any case only contains a small portion of
John 3,34 (III-IV or perhaps later).
P6 (Strasbourg, Bibl. Nat. & Univ., Pap. Copt. 379, 381-382, 384)
perhaps barely warrants treatment here on the basis of its date (some scholars
date it as late as VII-VIII; Rösch, the original editor, suggested V; but Aland
has given IV in the Liste); and its general type: it is a bilingual text with
alternating portions of Coptic and Greek (Greek text: John 10,1-2.4-7.9-10;
11,1-8.45-52). It is also somewhat out of character in terms of its singular
readings, which consist of the following: at first page, line 17-18 (John 10,5)
(31) GRENFELL – HUNT, OxyPap XIII (1919) 8.
(32) GRENFELL – HUNT, OxyPap XIII (1919) 9; supported by ELLIOTT – PARKER, John.
The Papyri, 45.
(33) GRENFELL – HUNT, OxyPap XIII (1919) 9, 10; cf. ELLIOTT – PARKER, John. The
Papyri, 45.