99 Son and Chosen. A Text-critical Study of John 1,34 singular readings by omissions as P66, which some view as a product of a careless scribe35. However, the lack of το θεο in P75 is hardly accidental as there are no clear reasons for haplography – except fatigue perhaps. Is it intentional? The scribe of P75 omitted articles (12 cases), pronouns (9 cases), conjunctions (9 cases), verbs (twice) and nouns (twice). Seven times he omitted more than one word and each time the result is a sensical text36. None of them applies directly to my study, though one could argue that with the omission the text in John 1,34 is still sensical, albeit a bit awkward. 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. Furthermore, that omission is a harmonisation to context, which does not apply to John 1,34. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the reading in P75* is a shortened form of υ ς κλεκτ ς το θεο , accidental or intentional. This leads to the question did the scribe invent the reading by harmonizing it to some Synoptic parallel? The scribe of P75 may have conformed John 1,34 to Luke 9,35. Luke reads υ ς μου κλελεκμεν ς (P45 P75 01 B L Ξ 579 892 1241 pc latmss syrs,h-mss cop) or υ ς μου κλεκτ ς (Θ f1 22* pc). This is the closest parallel in the entire New Testament to the variant found in John 1,34. The reading in Luke 23,35 – χριστ ς το θεο κλεκτ ς– is not close enough. Neither is the reading υ ς μου γαπητ ς found in Synoptic parallels (Mark 1,11; Matt 3,17; Luke 3,22), because its meaning is differ- ent, and it is God who speaks such words, not John the Baptist. Mikeal C. Parsons has noted some cross-harmonisations between the text of the Third and the Fourth Gospels in P75, mainly in the resurrec- tion narratives of the Third and the Fourth Gospels, made by the scribe for Christological reasons to combat Adoptionistic views. Philip W. Com- fort has also noted three harmonisations to Matthew: Luke 8,21 to Matt 12,46-50, Luke 10,24 to Matt 13,17 and John 6,5 to Matt 14,15 (and/or Mark 6,36). Thus, occasionally the scribe of P75 did rewrite his text37. It would thus be possible that he harmonized John 1,34 to Luke 9,35. In fact, this option seems attractive just because of the cross-harmonisa- tions in P75. What speaks against this, however, is the fact that υ ς κλεκτ ς is found nowhere else in the Fourth Gospel, or κλεκτ ς for 35 Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament”, 246; Comfort and Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 382. 36 J.R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Ann Arbor 1981) 546-47. All of these omissions are intentional. 37 M.C. Parsons, “A Christological Tendency in P75”, JBL 105 (1986) 463-79; Comfort and Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 504.