86 Timo Flink In reality the issue is not as clear-cut as this. There are eight variant readings in this textual variation unit. This includes a recently noted original reading of P75*, which its scribe had erased and corrected to a better known reading. This new reading appears on the on-line New Tes- tament transcripts prototype by Münster4. I will show that this discovery changes the transcriptional probabilities, which play a key role in the evaluation of this textual variation unit. This unit appears in a rather crucial position at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel. The selection of the variant is not of little consequence, because it affects the understand- ing of the theology of the Fourth Evangelist5. This in turn affects the evaluation of the intrinsic probabilities, not only in this variation unit but elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. I will argue that the reading chosen for the NA27 is not what the Fourth Evangelist originally wrote. Instead, I will argue for a singular reading found in P75* despite the fact that such an outcome begs methodological questions. This makes the end of John 1,34 to read τι ο τ ς στιν υ ς κλεκτ ς. This reading best explains the rise of textual variants on the basis of various scribal habits like har- monisations and doctrinal considerations. I will argue that attention to singular readings may still be needed to solve some perennial problems and such readings should not be tossed out of the airlock at first sight. “Standard” Proposals First I will give a brief description of previous proposals. What fol- lows is not an exhaustive but a representative treatment of the scholarly opinions. Those, who consider υ ς το θεο as the “original” reading6, argue for it on the basis of several reasons. It has wide external support across all early text-types. Manuscript evidence for this reading –as given 4 See [http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/Anaserver?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv], and select John 1,34 and P75. 5 B.D. Ehrman, “The Text As Window. New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity”, in B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Comtemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Festschrift Bruce M. Metzger (SD46; Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 365. 6 See, e.g., R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen 1978) 64; E. Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar (Tübingen 1980) 168-69; B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart 1994) 172; G.R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2d ed. (WBC 36; London 1999) 21; B. Aland, “Der textkritische und textgeschictliche Nutzen früher Papyri, demonstriert am Johannesevangelium”, in W. Weren and D.-A. Koch, Recent Developments in Textual Criticism. New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature. Papers Read at a NOSTER Conference in Münster, January 4-6, 2001 (Assen 2003) 34; C.S. Keener, The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Pea- body, MA 2003) I, 464-65.