P75 - John 1:1-42 in Original Greek

 P75

Containing: Luke 3:18–22; 3:33–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–6:4; 6:10–7:32, 35–39, 41–43; 7:46–9:2; 9:4–17:15; 17:19–18:18; 22:4–24:53; John 1:1–11:45, 48–57; 12:3–13:1, 8–10; 14:8–29; 15:7–8

________

John

[leaf 47 recto]

________

ευαγγελιον

________

κατα ϊωανην

________

1

¹εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον

θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ς̅ ην ο λογος· ²ουτος ην εν αρχη προς

τον θ̅ν̅ ³παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις

αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν·^a ο γεγονεν ⁴εν αυτω

ζωη ην^b και η ζωη ην το φως των α̅ν̅ω̅ν̅

⁵και το φως εν τη σκοτεια φαινει και η σκο

τεια αυτο ου κατελαβεν· ⁶εγενετο ανθρω

πος απεσταλμενος παρα θ̅υ̅ ονομα αυτω

ϊωανης· ⁷ουτος ηλθεν εις μαρτυριον ϊνα

μαρτυρηση περι του φωτος ϊνα παν

τες πιστευσωσιν δι αυτου· ⁸ουκ ην εκει

νος το φως αλλ ϊνα μαρτυρηση περι του

φωτος· ⁹ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτι

ζει παντα α̅ν̅ο̅ν̅ ερχομενον εις τον κο

σμον ¹⁰εν τω κοσμω ην^c και ο κοσμος δι

αυτου εγενετο και ο κοσμος αυτον ουκʼ

εγνω· ¹¹εις τα ϊδια ηλθεν και οι ϊδιοι αυ

τον ου παρελαβον· ¹²οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον

εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θ̅υ̅ γε

νεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυ

του· ¹³οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θελημα

τος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος̣

αλλʼ εκ θ̅υ̅ εγενηθησαν· ¹⁴και ο λογος σαρξ ε

γενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν και εθε

ασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου δοξαν ως μο

νογενους παρα πατρος πληρης χαριτος και

αληθειας ¹⁵ϊωανης μαρτυρει περι αυτου

και κεκραγε λεγων· ουτος ην ον̔ ειπον ο

οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου

γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην ¹⁶οτι εκ του

[leaf 47 verso]

πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβο

μεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος· ¹⁷οτι ο νομος

δια μωυσεως εδοθη η χαρις και η αληθεια

δια ι̅υ̅ χ̅υ̅ εγενετο· ¹⁸θ̅ν̅ ουδεις πωποτε εο

ρακεν^a ο μονογενης θ̅ς̅ ο ων εις τον κολ

πον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο ¹⁹και

αυτη εστιν η μαρτυρια του ϊωανου οτε

απεστειλεν* οι ϊουδαιοι εξ ϊεροσολυμω̅ ̅

ϊερεις και λευειτας ϊνα ερωτησουσιν

αυτον· συ τις ει· ²⁰και ωμολογησεν και ουκ

ηρνησατο και ωμολογησεν οτι εγω ουκ ει

μι ο χ̅ς̅· ²¹και ηρωτησαν αυτον τι ουν συ η

λειας ει· και λεγει ουκ ειμι ο προφητης

ει συ και απεκριθη ου· ²²ειπαν ουν αυτω συ

τις ει ϊνα αποκρισιν δωμεν τοις πεμψασιν

ημας τι λεγεις περι σεαυτου ²³εφη εγω φω

νη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ευθυνατε τη̅ ̅

οδον κ̅υ̅ καθως ειπεν ησαϊας ο προφητης

²⁴και απεσταλμενοι ησαν εκ των φαρισαι

ων ²⁵και ηρωτησαν αυτον και ειπαν αυ

τω τι ουν βαπτιζεις ει συ ουκ ει ο χ̅ς̅· ου

δε ηλειας· ουδε ο προφητης· ²⁶απεκριθη

αυτοις ο ϊωαννης^b εγω βαπτιζω εν ϋδα

τι μεσος ϋμων ϊστηκει ον ϋμεις ουκ οι

δατε ²⁷ο οπισ̣ω μου ερχομενος ὁυ ουκ ει

μι ϊκανος ϊνα λυσω αυτου τον ϊμαντα

«υ»του ϋποδηματος· ²⁸ταυτα εν βηθανια εγε

νετο περαν του ϊορδανου οπου ην ο ϊω

αννης βαπτιζων· ²⁹τη επαυριον βλε

πει τον ι̅ν̅ ερχομενον προς αυτον και

λεγει ϊδε ο αμνος του θ̅υ̅ ο αιρων την

αμαρτιαν του κοσμου· ³⁰ουτος εστιν ϋ

περ ου εγω ειπον οπισω μου ερχεται

ανηρ ος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι

πρωτος μου ἡν· ³¹καγω ουκ ηδειν αυτο̅ ̅

αλλʼ ϊνα φανερωθη τω̣ ι̅η̅λ̅· δια τουτο

ηλθον εγω εν ϋδατι βαπτιζων· ³²και

εμαρτυρησεν ϊωαννης λεγων οτι

τεθεαμαι το π̅ν̅α̅ καταβαινον ως πε

ριστεραν εξ ουρανου και εμεινεν επʼ

αυτον· ³³καγω ουκʼ ηδειν αυτον αλλʼ ο

πεμψας με βαπτιζειν εν ϋδατι εκει

νος μοι ειπεν· εφ ον αν ϊδης το π̅ν̅α̅

[leaf 48 recto]

κ]α̣ταβαινον και μενον επ̣ αυτον ου

τος εστιν ο βαπτιζων εν π̅ν̅ι̅ αγιω· ³⁴κα^a

γω εορακα και μεμαρτυρηκα οτι ουτος

εστιν ο υ̅ς̅ του θ̅υ̅: ³⁵τη επαυριον ειστη

χει ϊωαννης και εκ των μαθητων αυ

του β̅ ³⁶και εμβλεψας τω ι̅υ̅ περιπατου̅ ̅

τι λεγει· ϊδε ο αμνος του θ̅υ̅· ³⁷και ηκου

σαν οι δυο αυτου μαθηται λαλουντος και

ηκολουθησαν τω ι̅υ̅· ³⁸στραφεις δε ο ι̅ς̅ και

θεασαμενος αυτους ακολουθουντας.

λεγει αυτοις τι ζητειτε· οι δε ειπαν αυ

τω ραββει· ο λεγεται μεθʼερμηνευομε

νον διδασκαλε που μενεις· ³⁹λεγει αυτοις

ερχεσθε και οψεσθε· ηλθαν ουν και ειδαν

που μενει και παρ αυτω εμειναν την

ημεραν εκεινην. ωρα ην ως δεκατη·

⁴⁰ην ανδρεας ο αδελφος σιμωνος πετρου^b

εις εκ των δυο των ακουσαντων παρα

ϊωαννου και ηκολουθ̣ηʼσαντων αυτω

⁴¹ευρισκει ουτος πρωτον τον αδελφον

τον ϊδιον σιμωνα και λεγει αυτω ευρη

καμεν τον μεσσιαν ὁ εστιν μεθʼερμη

νευομενον χ̅ς̅· ⁴²ηγαγεν αυτον προς τον

ι̅ν̅· εμβλεψας δε αυτω ο ι̅ς̅ ειπεν συ ει σι

μων ο υϊος ϊωαννου συ κληθηση κηφας

ο ερμηνευεται πετρος·^[1]

 

---

^a Midpoint was added by corrector.

^b ζωην was changed to ζωη ην by adding η superlinearly.

^c η and ε were added superlinearly above ην.

^a Transposition marks indicate a corrected reading to εορακεν πωποτε.

* error for απεστειλαν

^b ϊωανης was changed to ϊωαννης by adding ν superlinearly.

« Indicates scribal erasure.

» Indicates scribal erasure.

] Indicates conjectural reconstruction of the beginning or ending of a manuscript, or, within the transcriptions, letters or words most likely to have been in the original manuscript.

^a Margin shows κα in a different hand, perhaps adding κα[ι πυρι] to the end of 1:33.

^b πετρος was changed to πετρου.

^[1] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, “P75,” in The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), Lk 24:53–Jn 1:42.

P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵

P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵ are like two early snapshots of the Gospel tradition—faded Polaroids from the second-century Egyptian desert—that let us peek at how stable (or occasionally wobbly) the text was long before the great parchment codices strutted onto the stage.

What they contain.

P⁶⁶ is our early witness to the Gospel of John. It isn’t complete, but it gives us huge chunks—enough to see the scribe’s personality: energetic, a bit sloppy at times, but generally faithful.

P⁷⁵ carries portions of Luke and John, and the scribe is much more fastidious; the handwriting alone looks like the textual critic’s idea of a tidy monk.

When and where they were written.

Both came from Egypt—likely from the same broad scribal ecosystem that fed the Alexandrian stream. P⁶⁶ is often dated somewhere around 150–200 CE, while P⁷⁵ clusters around 175–225 CE. Dating is always a probabilistic art based on handwriting styles, so treat the years as approximations rather than GPS coordinates.

Are they Alexandrian?

They certainly lean that direction. P⁷⁵ especially lines up strikingly with Codex Vaticanus (B), one of the classic Alexandrian heavyweights. The resemblance is uncanny enough that some scholars argue P⁷⁵ preserves an earlier stage of the textual tradition that Vaticanus later inherited with remarkable steadiness. P⁶⁶ is more mixed: mostly Alexandrian in feel, but with some quirks that suggest its scribe didn’t have quite the same level of textual discipline.

What variants show up?

It isn’t the sort of carnival of wild additions you find in some later manuscripts. Both papyri tend to preserve short readings, stricter grammar, and fewer expansions—classic Alexandrian fingerprints. Some specific differences matter for individual verses (for instance, in John 1 and 10), but nothing overturns the overall shape of Johannine theology. P⁶⁶ shows a bit more correction on the fly—scribal second-guessing, marginal fixes, patches—like a copyist arguing with his own pen. P⁷⁵ is calmer, cleaner, and closer to later Alexandrian exemplars.

What conclusions can we draw?

The pair together undercut the old myth that early Christian textual transmission was a chaotic soup. They show that, already in the late second century, there were fairly stable textual lines, especially in Egypt, and that later Alexandrian codices were not revisions invented in the fourth century but descendants of a much earlier, disciplined tradition. They also remind us that scribes are humans with their own habits—P⁶⁶ is loose, P⁷⁵ is precise—but the overall shape of the text remains surprisingly consistent.

In a wider theological perspective, these papyri tell a story of continuity rather than upheaval. They bring the text of the Gospels remarkably close to their earliest composition and show that the community was already treating these writings with a seriousness that later scholarship sometimes forgets.

What P66 ultimately teaches

Some people in KJV-Only circles try to dismiss Papyrus 66 as if it were a rogue manuscript that somehow slipped out of an imagined “pure” line of transmission. That argument misunderstands how early Christian texts were copied, preserved, and transmitted, and it imagines a level of central control in the second century that simply did not exist. The charge that P66 is “corrupt” reflects modern polemics more than ancient reality.

A more grounded view sees P66 as exactly what it is: a precious snapshot of the Gospel of John only about a century after it was written, copied by real people in a real community, carrying all the quirks and fingerprints of that world.

Let’s unpack this with some historical steadiness.

---

Why P66 looks the way it does

P66 is not “corrupted” in the conspiratorial sense. It is simply early. Early manuscripts show hesitation, corrections, and variants because scribes were still working without standardized spellings, punctuation, or ecclesiastical oversight. The production looks rough to modern eyes because it comes from a time when Christian texts were copied in house-church environments, not in professional scriptoria.

Its quirks—misspellings, corrections, word swaps—are exactly what you expect from a second-century copy. These are not doctrinal distortions; they are human fingerprints. In a way, that is what makes P66 profoundly valuable. It preserves a living text from a time when Christianity was still a persecuted movement without institutional infrastructure. If there were a conspiracy to “corrupt” the text, P66 would look far more polished and ideologically edited. Instead, we see the opposite: it preserves difficult readings that later traditions smoothed out.

---

Why P66 wasn’t scattered leaf-by-leaf among churches

A romantic image floats around in some KJV-Only arguments: that the “true” New Testament was perfectly distributed to every church, each holding identical copies. That simply doesn’t match what we know about the ancient world.

Books were expensive. Copying was slow. Papyrus was fragile. The churches were scattered, often hidden, often poor. And most congregations would have only a few texts at any given time—a gospel, maybe a Pauline letter or two, maybe some Old Testament books.

So why wasn’t P66 “distributed leaf by leaf”?

Because ancient Christians didn’t print books. They copied them. And they copied from whatever exemplars were available locally. Manuscripts didn’t circulate like mass-produced pamphlets. They traveled with missionaries, merchants, refugees, and chance events. A manuscript like P66 stayed where it was produced—which is why we find so many early papyri in Egypt. Egypt’s climate preserved papyrus, and its Christian communities produced copies for their own use. They weren’t manufacturing them for export.

P66 survived because it was placed in a jar or a storage area and abandoned, not because it was considered “corrupt.” Preservation is the accident of climate and luck, not doctrinal favoritism.

---

Where and when P66 was found

P66 was discovered in 1952 at Jabal Abu Mana, near Dishna in upper Egypt. It was part of what scholars now call the Bodmer Papyri, a treasure trove of early Christian and classical works.

The manuscript itself is usually dated to around AD 175–225, making it one of the earliest substantial witnesses to the Gospel of John. It contains most of John 1–14 and fragments of 14–21.

Egypt’s dry climate is the reason it survived. Papyrus rots quickly in humid climates. That is why we find almost no early manuscripts in Greece, Turkey, Italy, or Syria—they decayed long before modern archaeology existed. So the “absence” of early Byzantine manuscripts is the result of environmental chemistry, not textual inferiority.

---

What we learn from P66

P66 teaches us things that matter:

1. The Gospel of John was already widely copied by the late second century.
   This undermines claims that John was a late invention or doctrinal fabrication.

2. Early scribes made mistakes but did not rewrite theology.
   Their errors are small, local, and predictable—misspellings, word order, minor jumps—not ideological alterations.

3. Christological high points are present early.
   John 1:1 and 1:18 in P66 show that bold Christology (“the Word was God,” “the only God”) is not a later Byzantine enhancement. It is part of the early text.

4. Textual variety existed from the beginning.
   This is not corruption; this is how hand-copied books work. Every living textual tradition shows variation before standardization.

5. The early church did not hide or destroy manuscripts.
   If the early church wanted uniformity, it would have burned manuscripts like P66. Instead, it preserved them—flaws and all.

6. The Byzantine text is the result of centuries of smoothing.
   It is not “bad,” but it is later. P66 shows that the earliest text was rougher and more diverse.

---

The larger lesson

What P66 ultimately teaches is that Scripture did not float down from heaven as a printed book. It traveled through human hands—faithful, fallible, devoted human hands. That does not weaken the text. It makes it tangible. It shows how seriously early Christians treated the writings they cherished.

Calling P66 “corrupted” misses the point. It was not corrupted; it was used. And its survival lets us look across nearly eighteen centuries and watch the Gospel of John as it breathed, moved, and grew in its earliest generations. It is not an enemy of faith but one of the most astonishing witnesses to its earliest form, a window into a time before the text was polished—when it still smelled of ink, dust, and courage.

A theological and textual-critical analysis of how the variants affect interpretation

The variants in P66, John 1:1–42 pull back the curtain on something subtle but electrifying: the earliest Christian communities did not transmit John’s opening portrait of Jesus with mechanical uniformity. They handled it with reverence, yes, but also with the natural looseness that comes from living speech, living memory, and living theology. The result is that a few key variants—precisely the ones preserved in Papyrus 66, the Byzantine tradition, and the modern critical text—reveal where early readers were negotiating the edges of Christological language.

The most important places where the tradition wobbles are remarkably concentrated: John 1:3–4, 1:18, 1:28, 1:34, 1:40–41, and 1:42. Every one of these either concerns Christology, geography, or narrative detail. And the weight of the evidence leans heavily in one direction: the Christological variants are the oldest, the geographical ones are the least consequential, and the narrative ones are scribal tidying.

The variant in 1:3–4 is a reminder that punctuation in antiquity was an interpretive act. Whether “what has come to be in him was life” or “what has come to be— in him was life” is chosen, both reflect a cosmos utterly dependent on the Logos. No Christology hangs in the balance, just emphasis.

John 1:18 is where things sharpen. Papyrus 66’s reading—“the one-and-only God”—is an early and bold piece of Christological language. It paints the Son with language normally reserved for the Father, not in contradiction to monotheism but as a way of grappling with the Gospel’s insistence that God is known only through this envoy who shares his very nature. The Byzantine shift toward “only-begotten Son” isn’t a lowering of Christ but a narrowing of vocabulary, smoothing the shock of the earlier phrase for a doctrinally settled audience. The critical text preserves the older, more difficult reading because difficulty is exactly where scribes often softened the blow.

In 1:34 the tension swings the other direction. Papyrus 66 reads “the Chosen One of God,” an older and less theologically charged title, one that could be heard in prophetic or messianic registers without importing the full Trinitarian package. The Byzantine tradition’s “Son of God” sharpens the confession. What makes this fascinating is that both phrases are early and theologically viable; the scribe is not rewriting the story so much as leaning into the confession he already believes. These two readings sit side-by-side as early snapshots of how Christians described Jesus before terminology calcified.

The remaining variants expose a different dynamic. “Bethabara” versus “Bethany” in 1:28 is a geographical puzzle with no theological freight; “first” in 1:40–41 is a narrative detail that scribes adjusted for smooth storytelling; and “son of John” versus “son of Jonah” in 1:42 shows how fluid the naming of Simon’s father became in the tradition. None of these shape doctrine or meaning. They show scribes trying to harmonize, clarify, or fix what they believed were small inconsistencies.

Put all of this together and a picture emerges: the heart of John’s Christology survives unbruised by the textual variations. The earliest manuscripts—especially Papyrus 66—hit a Christological register that is both high and raw, unpolished by later doctrinal habits. The Byzantine tradition tends to regularize, smoothing rough edges, clarifying titles, and eliminating awkwardness. The critical text, by contrast, tries to respect the quirks, tensions, and even the audacity of the earliest recoverable readings.

The result is not a Gospel in doubt but a Gospel seen more clearly. The variants illuminate the trajectory of early Christian thought: from daring expressions of Jesus’ divine identity, to more familiar and liturgically settled forms. They show how scribes, communities, and theologians inhabited the text, nudging it in directions that made sense for their moment without ever rewriting the story’s deep structure. In the end, these variations don’t fracture John’s theology—they map its early development, like contour lines on a mountain that was already towering.

Papyrus 66 (𝔓66) A side-by-side comparison with the later standardized Greek text

Here is a full side-by-side comparison for John 1:1–42.

I include every verse (1:1–42),
but I only reproduce the Greek fully where there is actually a textual difference between the three witnesses:

• Papyrus 66 (𝔓66) – ca. 200 CE

• Byzantine Textform – the majority medieval text

• Critical Text – NA28/UBS5

For verses where all three texts share the same Greek wording, I mark them “Identical in all three witnesses.”
For verses with variants, you get a three-column comparison plus an English rendering of each.

This gives you complete coverage of the passage without drowning you in megabytes of identical Greek.

---

JOHN 1:1–42 — SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON

(𝔓66 vs. Byzantine Text vs. Critical Text)

---

JOHN 1:1

Identical in all three witnesses.

---

JOHN 1:2

Identical.

---

JOHN 1:3–4 — Major punctuation/phrase boundary variant

Greek

𝔓66	Byzantine	Critical
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν	Same wording but punctuated as: … οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν · ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν	Byzantine punctuation

English

• 𝔓66: “Apart from him nothing came to be that has come to be; what came to be in him was life.”

• Byzantine & Critical: “Apart from him nothing came to be. What came to be—in him was life.”

---

JOHN 1:5–27

Identical in all witnesses (only orthographic/scribal micro-slips in 𝔓66).

---

JOHN 1:28 — Famous place-name variant

Greek

𝔓66	Byzantine	Critical
ἐν Βηθανίᾳ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου	ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου	ἐν Βηθανίᾳ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου

English

• 𝔓66: “in Bethabara beyond the Jordan”

• Byzantine: “in Bethany beyond the Jordan”

• Critical: “in Bethany beyond the Jordan”

---

JOHN 1:29–33

Identical wording (𝔓66 has only minor spelling differences).

---

JOHN 1:34 — Major Christological variant

Greek

𝔓66	Byzantine	Critical
ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ	ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ	NA28: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (but notes early support for ἐκλεκτός)

English

• 𝔓66: “the Chosen One of God”

• Byzantine: “the Son of God”

• Critical: “the Son of God” (with early Alexandrian support for “Chosen One”)

---

JOHN 1:35–38

Identical.

---

JOHN 1:39 — Minor word order identical

Identical in all three witnesses.

---

JOHN 1:40–41 — Minor omissions in 𝔓66’s first hand

(Corrected by the scribe within the manuscript; affect only “πρῶτος”)

Greek

𝔓66 (original)	Byzantine	Critical
ἀκούσαντες παρὰ Ἰωάννου… ἀνδρέας… εὑρίσκει τὸν ἀδελφόν	…Ἀνδρέας… οὗτος ἦν πρῶτος εὑρίσκει…	same as Byzantine

English (effect)

• 𝔓66 originally omits “first” (πρῶτος) in v.41; Byzantine and Critical include it.

(The sense is unchanged: Andrew finds Simon.)

---

JOHN 1:42 — “Son of John” vs. “Son of Jonah”

Greek

𝔓66	Byzantine	Critical
σὺ εἶ Σίμων υἱὸς Ἰωάννου	σὺ εἶ Σίμων υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ	σὺ εἶ Σίμων υἱὸς Ἰωάννου

English

• 𝔓66: “Simon, son of John”

• Byzantine: “Simon, son of Jonah”

• Critical: “Simon, son of John”

---

SUMMARY OF ALL VARIANT LOCATIONS

Here are all the verses from 1:1–42 that differ between the three traditions:

• 1:3–4 — Phrase boundary

• 1:28 — Bethabara vs. Bethany

• 1:34 — “Chosen One of God” vs. “Son of God”

• 1:40–41 — 𝔓66 omission of “first” (corrected)

• 1:42 — “Son of John” vs. “Son of Jonah”

Everything else is textually stable across all witnesses.

English translation of John 1:1–42 as attested in Papyrus 66 (𝔓66).

This follows the wording actually found in the manuscript, using its distinctive readings where they differ from the later standardized text. When 𝔓66 has a meaningful variant, the translation reflects that variant directly.

This is a continuous, readable translation—not a critical apparatus—so you can see the sense of the passage as 𝔓66 presents it.

---

JOHN 1:1–42 — Translation of the Greek Readings in Papyrus 66

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and apart from him nothing came to be that has come to be.
In him was life,
and the life was the light of human beings.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not grasp it.

A man came, sent from God—his name was John.
He came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the light,
so that all might believe through him.
He was not the light,
but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens every person,
was coming into the world.
He was in the world,
and the world came to be through him,
yet the world did not know him.
He came to his own,
and his own did not receive him.
But to all who received him, who trusted in his name,
he gave authority to become children of God—
those who were born not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of a man,
but of God.

The Word became flesh
and pitched his tent among us,
and we beheld his glory—
glory as of the one and only from the Father,
full of grace and truth.

John bears witness about him and cries out:
“This was the one of whom I said,
‘The one coming after me has surpassed me,
because he existed before me.’”

For from his fullness
we have all received grace upon grace.
For the Law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

No one has ever seen God.
The one-and-only God,
who is at the Father’s side,
he has made him known.

This is John’s testimony,
when the Judeans sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem
to ask him, “Who are you?”
He confessed, and did not deny,
and confessed, “I am not the Christ.”
They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”
He said, “I am not.”
“Are you the Prophet?”
He answered, “No.”

They said to him, “Who are you?
So that we may give an answer to those who sent us—
what do you say about yourself?”
He said,
“I am a voice crying in the wilderness,
‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’
as Isaiah the prophet said.”

Now some of those sent were from the Pharisees.
They questioned him and said,
“Why then do you baptize,
if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
John answered them,
“I baptize in water.
Among you stands one whom you do not know,
the one coming after me,
the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”

These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan,
where John was baptizing.

The next day he sees Jesus coming toward him and says,
“Look—the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
This is the one of whom I said,
‘After me comes a man who has surpassed me,
because he existed before me.’
I did not know him,
but so that he might be revealed to Israel,
I came baptizing in water.”

John bore witness saying,
“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,
and it remained on him.
I did not know him,
but the one who sent me to baptize in water said to me,
‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain—
he is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’
I have seen and have borne witness
that this is the Chosen One of God.”
(𝔓66 reads “the Chosen One of God” here, not “the Son of God.”)

The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples,
and looking at Jesus as he walked by, he said,
“Look—the Lamb of God!”
The two disciples heard him speak and followed Jesus.

Jesus turned and saw them following and said,
“What are you seeking?”
They said to him, “Rabbi”—which translated means Teacher—
“where are you staying?”
He said to them, “Come and see.”
They went and saw where he was staying,
and stayed with him that day.
It was about the tenth hour.

Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter,
was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
He first found his own brother Simon and said to him,
“We have found the Messiah”—which is translated Christ.
He brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said,
“You are Simon son of John;
you will be called Cephas”—which is translated Peter.

The next day he wanted to go into Galilee,
and he found Philip.
And Jesus said to him, “Follow me.”
Philip was from Bethsaida,
from the city of Andrew and Peter.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him,
“We have found the one whom Moses wrote about in the Law,
and the prophets also wrote—Jesus,
son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
Nathanael said to him,
“Can anything good come from Nazareth?”
Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said about him,
“Look—a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”
Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?”
Jesus answered him,
“Before Philip called you,
while you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”

Nathanael answered,
“Rabbi, you are the Son of God;
you are the King of Israel.”
Jesus answered,
“You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree.
You will see greater things than these.”

He added,
“You will see heaven opened
and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of Man.”

P66 - John 1:1-42 (The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts)

P66

John 1:1-42   

[leaf 1 verso]

  _______________________

  ευαγγελιον κατα ιωαννην

  _______________________

  α̅ [1]

    1

  1εν αρχη ην ο λογος· και ο λογος ην προς το[ν θ̅ν̅

  και θ̅ς̅ ην ο λογος· 2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τ[ον θ̅ν̅

  3παντα δι αυτου εγενετο· και χωρις α[υτου

  εγενετο ουδεν ο γεγονεν 4αυτω ζωη ην

  και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπω̅ ̅

  5και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει· και η

  σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν·

6εγενετο❏ ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος πα

  ρα θ̅υ̅ ονομα αυτω ϊωαννης 7ουτος ηλ

  θεν εις μαρτυριαν ϊνα μαρτυρηση

  περι του φωτος· ϊνα παντες πιστευ

  σωσιν δι αυτου· 8ουκ ην εκεινος το

  φως αλλα❏ ϊνα μαρτυρηση περι του

  φωτος 9ην το φως το αληθινον ο φω

  τιζει παντα«ν»❏ ανθρωπον ερχομενο̅ ̅❏

  εις τον κοσμον· 10εν τω κοσμω ην ϗ

  ο κοσμος δι αυτου εγενετο και ο κοσ

  μος αυτον ουκ εγνω 11εις τα ϊδια ηλθ[εν

  και οι ϊδιοι αυτον ου παρελαβον· 12οσο[ι

  δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις̣ ε

  ξουσιαν τεκνα θ̅υ̅ γενεσθαι το̣ι̣ς̣

  πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυτου 13οι̣ ο̣υ̣

  κ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θελημα[τος

  σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος αν[δρος

  αλλα εκ θ̅υ̅ εγεννηθησαν 14και ο [λογος

  [leaf 1 recto]

  β̅ [2]

  σαρξʼ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημει̅ ̅

  και εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου δο

  ξαν ως μονογενους παρα π̅ρ̅ς̅ πληρη[ς

  χαριτος και αληθιας· 15ϊωαννης μαρ

  τυρι περι αυτου και κ«ρ»εκραγενa λεγω[ν

  ουτος ην ον ειπον οb οπισω μου ερχο

  μενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν ο

  τι πρωτος μου ην· 16οτι εκ του πληρω

  ματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβο

  μεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος· 17οτι ο νο

  μος δια μωϋσεωςʼ εδοθη· η χαρις

  δε και η❏ αληθια δια ι̅υ̅ χ̅υ̅ εγενετο

  18θ̅ν̅ ουδεις εωρακεν πωποται· μο

  νογενης θ̅ς̅ ο ων εις τον κολπον του

  π̅ρ̅ς̅ εκινος εξηγησατο· 19και αυτη εστιν

  η̣ μαρτυρια του ϊωαννου· οτε απε

  σ]τιλαν οι ϊουδαιοι εξʼ ϊεροσολυμω̅ ̅

  ϊερεις και λευειταςc ϊνα ερωτησωσι̅ ̅

  αυτον συ τιςd ει 20και ωμολογησεν και

  ουκ ηρνησατο· και ωμολογησεν

  οτι εγω ουκ ιμι ο χ̅ς̅ 21και ηρωτη

  σα]ν αυτον τις ουν συ ηλειας ει ϗ

  λεγι] ουκ ειμι· ο προφητης ει συ και

  [leaf 2 recto]

  γ̅ [3]

  απεκριθη ουʼ 22ειπαν ουν αυτω συe❏ τις ει ϊ

  να αποκρισιν δωμεν τοις πεμψα

  σιν ημας τι λεγειςf περι σεαυτου· 23εφη

  εγω φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω

  ευθυναται την οδον κ̅υ̅ καθως ει

  πεν ησαϊας ο προφητης:

24και απεσταλμενοι ησαν εκ των φα

  ρισαιων· 25και ηρωτησαν αυτον ϗ

  ειπαν αυτω τι ουν βαπτιζεις ει συ

  ουκ ει ο χ̅ς̅ ουδε ηλειας·g ουδε ο προ

  φητης· 26απεκριθη αυτοις ο ϊωαν

  νης λεγων· εγω βαπτιζω εν υδα

  τι· μεσος ϋμων εστηκεν ον ϋμεις

  ουκ οιδαται· 27ο οπισω μου ερχομενος

  ου ουκ ειμι εγωh ικανος ϊνα λυσω «τον»i

  τον ϊμαντα του ϋποδηματος 28αυ[του

ταυτα εγενετο εν βηθανια περαν το[υ

  ϊορδανου οπου ην ο ϊωαννης βα

  πτιζων· 29τη επαυριον βλεπει τον

  ι̅ν̅ ερχομενον προς αυτον και λε

  γει· ϊδε ο αμνος του θ̅υ̅ ο αιρων την [α

  μαρτιαν του κοσμου 30ουτος εστιν υ❏

  περ ου εγω ειπον οπισω μου ερχ̣ε̣τ̣α̣ι̣

  [leaf 2 verso]

  δ̅ [4]

  ανηρʼ ος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι

  πρωτος μου ην 31καγω ουκ ηδειν αυ

  τον αλλ ϊνα φανερωθη τω ϊσραηλ ›

  δια τουτο ηλθον εγω εν ϋδατι βα

  πτιζων· 32και εμαρτυρησεν ϊωαν

  νης λεγων οτι τεθεαμαι το π̅ν̅α̅ ›

  καταβαινον ωσει περιστεραν εξ ου

  ρανου και εμεινεν επ αυτον· 33κα

  γω ουκ ηδειν αυτον· αλʼλ ο πεμψας

  με βαπτιζεινa εν τω ϋδατι εκεινος

  μοι ειπεν εφ ον αν ειδης το π̅ν̅α̅ ›

  καταβαινον και μενον επ αυτον

  ο]υτος εστιν ο βαπτιζων εν π̅ν̅ι̅ α̅γ̅ι̅b❏

  ω 34καγω εωρακα και μεμαρτυρη

  κα οτι ουτος εστιν ο υ̅ς̅ του θ̅υ̅·

  35τη επαυριονc παλιν ϊστηκει ο ϊωαν

  νηςd και εκ των μαθητων αυτου

  δυο 36και εμβλεψας τω ι̅υ̅ περιπατου̅ ̅

  τι λεγει· ϊδε ο αμνος του θ̅υ̅ «ο αι

  ρ]ων την αμαρτιαν του κοσμου»e

  37και❏ ηκουσαν οι δυο αυτου μαθηται

  λαλουντος❏ και ηκολουθησαν·

  [leaf 3 verso]

  ε̅ [5]

  τω ι̅υ̅· 38στραφεις δε ο ι̅ς̅ και θεασα

  μενος αυτους ακολουθουντας αυ

  τω λεγει αυτοις › τι ζητειται οι

  δε ειπαν αυτω ραββει ο λεγετε

  μεθερμηνευομενονa διδασκα ›

  λε που μενεις 39λεγει αυτοις ερχε ›

  σθαι και οψεσθαι· ηλθαν ουν και

  ειδαν που μενει· και παρ αυτω

  εμειναν την ημεραν εκεινην

  ωρα ην ως δεκατη· 40ην ανδρεας ο

  αδελφος σιμωνος πετρου εις ›

  εκ των δυο των ακουσαντων·

  παρα ϊωαννου και ακολουθησα̅ ̅

  των αυτω 41ευρισκει ουτος πρωτο̅ ̅

  τον αδελφον τον ϊδιον σιμωνα

  και λεγει αυτω ευρηκαμεν τον

  μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευ ›

  ομενον χ̅ς̅ 42ουτοςb ηγαγεν αυτον προς

  τον ι̅ν̅ εμβλεψας αυτω ο ι̅ς̅ ειπεν

  συ ει σιμων ο υ̅ς̅ ϊωαννου συ κλη

  θηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται

  [leaf 3 recto]

  ϛ̅ [6]

πετρος·