Terrance Callan, «Reading the Earliest Copies of 2 Peter», Vol. 93 (2012) 427-450
An examination of the three earliest extant copies of 2 Peter (namely those found in Papyrus 72, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) is made in order to determine how the meaning of 2 Peter is affected by differences among the three copies, especially the textual variations among them. These textual variations produce significantly different understandings of Jesus in the three copies of 2 Peter, as well as other less prominent differences in meaning.
		
			06_Biblica_1_D_Callan_Layout 1 05/11/12 12:20 Pagina 438
                438                           TERRANCE CALLAN
                Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Readers of this
                copy of 2 Peter would have been informed by the codex that they
                were reading part of the Bible.
                   The scribe who wrote 2 Peter in Codex Sinaiticus was much
                more adept than the scribe of P72. Nevertheless, Codex Sinaiticus
                has more scribal errors than Codex Vaticanus. I count 55 itacisms
                and other errors based on replacing a letter or letters with similar
                sounding letters in 2 Peter 19.
                1. The Work of the Scribe
                   There is one case of misspelling where part of a word is omitted,
                namely hran instead of hmeran in 2,9. A n is mistakenly added to
                th in 1,7. In 2,18 the letters qh have been mistakenly added to the
                word mataiothtoj; there are dots over these letters, presumably
                to mark the error.
                   In 2,12 gegenhmena may be a misspelling of gegennhmena, re-
                placing a double n with a single n. In 2,14 moixaliaj may be a
                misspelling of moixalidoj, perhaps based on misunderstanding
                the word as it was read. Although moixaliaj is found at this same
                point in two other manuscripts, namely A and 33, it does not seem
                to be part of the vocabulary of the Greek language.
                   Twice a word is repeated by mistake: oud is repeated after
                akarpouj in 1,8 and eleuqerian is repeated in 2,19. In both cases
                there are dots over the repeated word.
                   A number of other errors have been corrected in the manuscript:
                   1. The most extensive such correction is found in 1,12-13. The words
                      kaiper idotaj kai esthrigmenouj en th paroush alhqia. dikaion
                      de hgoumai, ef oson eimi en toutw tw skhnwmati, diegirin umaj
                      were omitted from the original text and have been added at the bottom
                      of the page with an arrow to indicate where they should be inserted.
                   2. A similar but less extensive correction is found in 3,12 where the
                      words kai speudontaj were omitted and have been added in the
                      margin with a tilde to indicate where they should be inserted.
                   3. In a rather large number of cases a missing letter or word has been
                      written above the line. Thus the epi missing from xorhghsate has
                   19
                        See IV. Appendix B.