93 Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34 is necessary since P75* does not have it (see below). The scribe of P66 omitted the second occurrence of το θεο in John 11,4 – so this kind of omission is not unheard of, but it is extremely rare. This, however, does not change the meaning of the sentence. This is not so in John 1,34. It does not appear likely that a scribe would omit το θεο here. Granted, Rodgers was probable not aware of the existence of υ ς κλεκτ ς in P75*. Nevertheless, his scenario is unlikely. What about the omission of υ ς, which is required to produce κλεκτ ς το θεο in Rodger’s scenario? It is known that scribes often harmonized the readings to their imme- diate contexts19. Thus, the idea that a deliberate omission of υ ς would produce κλεκτ ς το θεο begs a question since υ ς is found in John 1,49 and scribes would naturally harmonize the parallel passages20. It does not seem likely that scribes would omit it here. It is equally unlikely that an accidental gloss would affect such a large number of manuscripts. As a note, Rodgers does not explain the variant χριστ ς υ ς το θεο found in ms. 2680 either. Would he be ready to add χριστ ς to his all-inclusive proposal? On the whole, I do not find his proposal convinc- ing, though in all fairness it is intriguing. There are other possibilities to explain the variants. Notes on Textual Witnesses There are issues about some witnesses that need to be addressed before turning into the evaluation of different textual variants. There is a debate over P5vid. What exactly does it read? Does it support κλεκτ ς το θεο as most studies presuppose or υ ς το θεο as some recent scholars have argued? The problem is the lacunae in P5 and how to interpret their impact on the conjectured text. A number of scholars21 are of the opinion that P5vid supports κλεκτ ς το θεο because of two reasons. (1) They 19 J.R. Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testa- ment”, in B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds), Status Quaestionis, 239-52. 20 This kind of scribal habit takes away some of the force from the “chiastic structure” argument by Ellis. 21 See, e.g., P.W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI 1990) 107-108; idem, Encountering the Manuscripts. An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN 2005) 337; P.W. Comfort and David P. Barrett (eds), The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. New and Complete Transcriptions with Photographs (Wheaton, IL 2001) 73- 75; Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 305; Wallace, Burer and Harris, New English Translation – Novum Testamentum Graece, 835-36.