96 Timo Flink A brief explanation is in order since my reconstruction, based on the text of NA27, differs slightly from the ones found in the IGNTP and Comfort. I have reconstructed the end of the line two as PNIag while the IGNTP has it as PNIa and Comfort has it as PNIagiv. The reconstruction in the IGNTP is possible, but there seems to be room for one more letter, though lacuna prevents certainty. Comfort’s reading is too long. There is no room for at least the last omega unless the scribe wrote past the right margin, which is unlikely. After measuring the width of the lacuna until the right margin seen in the few lines below the one under consideration, and after checking the scribe’s handwriting style, I came to the conclu- sion that the line originally had PNIag. This means that the line is of the average length, which seems to be 25-27 letters on the recto side of the first leaf. With the exception of one line, no line appears to be over 28 letters (pace Comfort). The one exception may have 29 letters, but this is in doubt due lacunae. Even lines with 28 letters are not so numerous on the recto side. Some lines appear to be only 23-24 letters. It looks like the reading κλεκτ ς requires too much space to fit the line (29 letters + 2 for the gap, that is, 31 letters). I therefore submit that P5vid more likely supports υ ς το θεο with nomina sacra (pace editio princeps, Com- fort, the IGNTP). Since uncertainties remain due to the fact that it is not known if the scribe wrote the reconstructed text, I agree with Swanson and Aland that this witness is too doubtful to be used reliably. Hence, I do not include it in my list of the external evidence. P66 as a Textual Witness One of the earliest manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel is a well-known papyrus manuscript P66. It has been variously dated to the early third century27, to the turn of the second/third century28 and to the middle of the second century29. Be that as it may, this papyrus offers an early support for υ ς το θεο . Yet P66 is infamous for scribal blunders and altera- tions. For our study, what is of interest is that the scribe that produced P66 made several interesting doctrinally and apologetically meaningful changes to his text. If it can be shown that the scribe of P66 altered texts elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, it is possible that υ ς το θεο in John 1,34 is an intentional alteration based on anti-Adoptionistic tendencies. 27 See, e.g., Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 57; E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (London 1987) 108, n. 63. 28 V. Martin, Papyrus Bodmer II. Evangile de Jean chap. 1-14 (Cologny – Geneva 1956), which is the editio princeps for P66. See also the NA27. 29 Comfort and Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 65-66. See also G. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla Maiuscola Biblica (Florence 1967) 23; R. Seider, Paläographie der griechichen Papyri (Stuttgart 1967-90) II, 121.