John 1:1–42 contains dozens of minor variations, but only a handful rise to the level of meaningful textual significance. What follows is a curated set: the variants that matter, the ones scholars discuss, and the ones that show us how the early Alexandrian line (P66 and P75) sometimes diverges from later medieval manuscripts.
For clarity, I’ll give each example in this format:
• Verse
P66 reading | P75 reading | Later majority text (Byzantine)
Impact / significance
1. John 1:3–4 – The punctuation/sense-division variant
This is one of the most famous textual puzzles in the prologue.
P66: panta di’ autou egeneto kai chōris autou egeneto oude hen. ho gegonen / en autō zōē ēn…
P75: Same as P66
Later Byzantine: …oude hen ho gegonen. en autō zōē ēn…
What’s going on?
The issue isn’t different words; it’s where the sentence breaks.
Early manuscripts (P66, P75, B) read ho gegonen with the previous clause. Later manuscripts attach it to the next verse.
Impact:
Small grammatical shift, but the theological resonance changes:
-
Early reading: creation “came to be,” period.
-
Later reading: “What has come to be in him was life,” which sounds more mystical.
This is a classic example of early scribes preserving a simpler, less polished structure.
2. John 1:18 – “Only-begotten God” vs. “Only-begotten Son”
The heavyweight variant of the chapter.
P66: monogenēs theos (“only-begotten God”)
P75: monogenēs theos
Later Byzantine: monogenēs huios (“only-begotten Son”)
Impact:
This is the big one. P66 and P75 witness a bold early christological expression. Byzantine scribes seem to have softened it to the more familiar “Son.” Modern translations split on which reading to adopt. This is one of the clearest signs that P66 and P75 align with the Alexandrian textual backbone.
3. John 1:28 – Bethany vs. Bethabara
A geography switch.
P66: Bethania
P75: Bethania
Later Byzantine (especially TR tradition): Bethabara
Impact:
Bethabara appears to be a later attempt to correct what some scribes thought was a geographical problem. The early manuscripts preserve the more historically difficult reading, which is typically considered earlier and more authentic. Almost all modern translations follow P66 and P75.
4. John 1:34 – “Son of God” vs. “Chosen One of God”
A subtle but intriguing variant.
P75: ho eklektos tou theou (“the Chosen One of God”)
P66: Uncertain—there is damage, but most reconstructions read ho huios tou theou
Later Byzantine: ho huios tou theou (“the Son of God”)
Impact:
If P75 preserves the original reading, “Chosen One of God” may be the older form. “Son of God” is more familiar but arguably the result of scribal smoothing toward standard christology. This is one of those variants where manuscripts split early and force interpreters to think historically instead of devotionally.
5. John 1:9 – Word order difference
“Every person coming into the world” can be arranged two ways.
P66: phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon (standard early word order)
P75: Same
Later Byzantine: Slight shifts in word order in some witnesses (panta anthrōpon phōtizei… etc.)
Impact:
No doctrinal shift, but this shows how Byzantine scribes often altered word order for smoother Greek. Early manuscripts tend to preserve the more awkward constructions.
6. John 1:13 – Singular vs. plural birth
A variant with theological ripples.
P66: plural (“they were born…”)
P75: plural
Some early patristic citations & a few manuscripts: singular (“he was born…”)
Byzantine: plural
Impact:
The singular reading would refer to Christ’s supernatural birth rather than the believer’s spiritual rebirth. Since both early papyri support the plural, it strongly implies the singular form arose accidentally or theologically in the second century.
7. John 1:32 – Minor addition
A tiny but real variation.
P66: tetheamai to pneuma katabainon…
P75: Same
Later Byzantine: Some witnesses add hōs peristeran (“like a dove”) earlier or with variation
Impact:
The note “like a dove” seems to have been expanded or harmonized in later texts. Early manuscripts keep the shorter phrasing.
8. John 1:38 – Rabbi translated
Small explanatory differences.
P66: ho legetai methermēneuomenon didaskale
P75: Same
Later Byzantine: Adds small particles, smoother grammar, sometimes flips order.
Impact:
Stylistic. Shows scribes polishing the text rather than altering meaning.
9. John 1:42 – Cephas/Peter naming formula
P66 and P75 preserve slightly rougher Greek.
P66: su klēthēsē Kēphas ho hermēneuetai Petros
P75: Same
Later Byzantine: Often adds articles or rephrases to “you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”
Impact:
Again, later scribes are tidying up John’s less elegant Greek. Early manuscripts preserve the rawer style.
What these examples show
P66 and P75 consistently present:
• shorter readings
• more difficult readings
• less harmonized wording
• more primitive constructions
• christological “boldness” (especially 1:18)
• fewer expansions
These are classic features of the early Alexandrian textual tradition.
And taken together, the variants tell a consistent story: the text of John was already highly stable by the early third century, even though scribes disagreed about how polished a gospel ought to sound.
No comments:
Post a Comment