95 Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34 If P5 supported υ ς το θεο with nomina sacra, the line appears to be a bit short and this could indicate that the papyrus read κλεκτ ς as many scholars have argued (including editio princeps). However, after looking at a photograph of P5, I came to the conclusion that the selec- κλεκτ ς is problematic. If P5 supported the longer reading, tion of κλεκτ ς would have been written in full. As such the line appears to be a bit too long to fit. The lines are relatively of equal length. The editors of the IGNTP have reconstructed the line to read oyiostoyUY, the best match lengthwise. Since P5 preserves only John 1.23-31.33-40; 16,14-30; 20,11-17.19-20.22-25, there is no way to know how its scribe used nomen sacrum for υ ς, but it seems unlikely that the scribe would use it only for το θεο . There is an empty space visible between stoyUY and the next three letters the, which ends the line. This empty space serves as a paragraph marker. It can hold up to two letters, as the letters ai in the next line of the manuscript shows. With this kind of gap the line is close to the average length of the other lines, assuming the shorter reading with nomina sacra is what the papyrus read. With such a gap it is unlikely that κλεκτ ς could fit the line. What follows is my adaptation of the recon- struction of P5 taken from the IGNTP and checked against Comfort’s reconstruction26. I have supplied the same reconstruction with κλεκτ ς to show that the length of the lines slightly favours oYs?toyUY. The Son of God length καταβαινονκαιμεν]onepay[τον 25 ουτοςεςτινοβαπτιζ]vnenP[νιαγ 26 ιωκαγωεωρακακαιμεμ]artyrhkao 27 τιουτοςεςτινου8]StoyUY the 23 (+2 gap = 25) παυριονειςτηκειοιωαν]nhskai ek 28 The Chosen One of God length καταβαινονκαιμεν]onepay[τον 25 ουτοςεςτινοβαπτιζ]vnenP[νιαγ 26 ιωκαγωεωρακακαιμεμ] artyrhkao 27 τιουτοςεςτινοεκλεκτο] StoyUY the 29 (+2 gap = 31) παυριονειςτηκειοιωαν] nhskai ek 28 26 Elliott and Parker, The New Testament in Greek IV, 13; Comfort and Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 75. Comfort disagrees with the edi- tors of IGNTP in his recent publication. He argues that the decision to print oyiostoyUY is wrong. I agree with this estimation, but I also disagree with Comfort’s own reconstruction. It should be noted that the IGNTP reconstruction is possible, because some scribes were not consistent with the use of nomen sacrum. For example, the scribes of P46, P66 and P75 wrote υ ς both with and without nomen sacrum. I disagree with the IGNTP on the grounds that this was a passing phenomenon and most of the biblical manuscripts exhibit a consistency in the use of nomen sacrum. See Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts, 119, 337.