Papyrus 66 (P66), housing the text of the Gospel of John from 1:1 through 6:11, 6:35b to 14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; and 20:25-21:9, 12, 17, stands as a paramount artifact in New Testament manuscript studies. Initially, its script was ascribed to the early third century, around 200 C.E., based on palaeographic analysis. Subsequent scholarship, notably by Herbert Hunger, proposed an earlier dating to the mid or early second century, reflecting advancements in the understanding of ancient handwriting styles. Philip W. Comfort’s analysis places P66 within a narrower timeframe, approximately between 100 and 150 C.E., aligning with critical scholarly consensus on the early transmission of the New Testament texts.
P66 is particularly significant for its exclusion of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), a narrative absent from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of John’s Gospel, including P45 (tentatively), P75, and the majority of New Testament uncials. This omission is indicative of the passage’s later insertion into the textual tradition. Furthermore, P66 is noted for its consistent application of Nomina Sacra, a scribal practice that underscores the manuscript’s liturgical and theological contexts.
Research by Karyn Berner and Philip Comfort identifies the involvement of three distinct hands in the manuscript’s production and correction: the initial scribe, a professional responsible for the primary text; a thoroughgoing corrector; and a minor corrector, suggesting a complex history of transmission and revision. However, James Royse has more recently argued that except for a possible exception in John 13:19, the corrections appear to originate from the hand of the initial scribe.
The presence of the staurogram, an early christological symbol representing the crucifixion, in at least ten instances within the text (notably within chapter 19), further illuminates the manuscript’s theological significance and the early Christian community’s devotion to the cross. This feature, among others, establishes P66 not only as a critical witness to the text of the Gospel of John but also as a window into the early Christian practice and belief.
125-150: Edward D. Andrews [Being the author, I am not calling myself World-Renowned]
175-225 Bruce M. Metzger
200-250 Eric G. Turner
175-225 Daniel B. Wallace
The New Uncertain and Ambiguous Minded Textual Scholars Date P66
250-325 Pasquale Orsini
300-350 Brent Nongbri
Papyrus 66 (P66), a crucial manuscript in the study of the New Testament, has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate regarding its date of origin. In its initial assessment, Martin positioned P66 around 200 C.E., drawing parallels to P. Oxy. 1074 (Exodus), which was also tentatively placed at the beginning of the third century or potentially earlier.
Herbert Hunger, a leading figure in papyrology, revised this dating significantly. He advocated for placing P66 within the first half of the second century (100–150 C.E.), aligning it chronologically with P52 (P. Rylands 457) and the Egerton Gospel, both dated to the early to mid-second century. Hunger’s reassessment was grounded in the manuscript’s stylistic similarities, particularly in the use of ligatures, with other documents from the late first and early second centuries. This comparison led him to argue against dating P66 later than 150 C.E.
Conversely, Turner proposed a later date for P66, situating it within the first half of the third century (200–250 C.E.). He based his argument on specific letter forms present in P66 that he associated with third-century manuscripts. Turner’s stance was partly a reaction against a trend towards earlier datings that emerged in the mid-20th century, as scholars began to recognize the codex format’s origins in the late first century.
Despite Turner’s arguments, evidence suggests that the handwriting characteristics of P66 can indeed be found in second-century manuscripts. Instances include the wide delta, the specific formation of the theta, and the occasional finial on the epsilon, all of which can be paralleled in documents from the second century. Moreover, the hook (apostrophe) between double consonants, another feature Turner cited, is also present in second-century papyri.
Further analysis reveals that P66 shares significant stylistic similarities with several manuscripts dated to the late first or early second century. This includes P. Oxy. 220, P. Oxy. 841 (dated to the reign of Hadrian, 120–130 C.E.), and P. Oxy. 1434 (108–109 C.E.), among others. Notably, P. Chester Beatty IX and X, dated to the second century, exhibit affinities with P66 in terms of handwriting style.
Comparative paleography, therefore, strongly supports a mid-second-century dating for P66. This is corroborated by the assessments of papyrologists G. Cavallo and R. Seider, who independently assigned P66 to the middle of the second century. Their evaluations, along with the detailed comparison of P66 to other manuscripts from the same period, underline the manuscript’s alignment with second-century textual practices.
In particular, manuscripts such as P. Oxy. 1074 (Exodus), which has been closely compared to P66 and tentatively dated to the early third century by Grenfell and Hunt, exhibits characteristics that are more indicative of second-century origins. This reassessment is further supported by manuscripts like P. Lit. London 132 and P. Berolinenses 9782, both of which share substantial similarities in lettering and overall appearance with P66 and are dated to the second century.
The cumulative evidence from comparative paleography, including the analysis of ligatures, letter forms, and other stylistic features, compellingly suggests that P66 should be dated to the middle of the second century. This dating not only aligns P66 with other early Christian manuscripts but also underscores its importance in understanding the textual transmission and early reception of the New Testament writings. The meticulous examination of P66, through the lens of paleographic analysis, contributes significantly to the broader field of New Testament Textual Criticism by offering insights into the early Christian manuscript culture and the dissemination of biblical texts during this formative period.
Physical Features
P66 originally consisted of 39 sheets of papyrus, folded and arranged in quires to form 78 leaves and 156 pages. The manuscript is made up of 75 surviving leaves and 39 unidentified fragments, indicating that some portions have been lost over time. The nearly rectangular leaves measure approximately 6.4 inches high and 5.6 inches wide, which is a manageable size for a codex.
Page Layout
The number of lines of text per page in P66 varies from 14 to 25, and the number of letters in a line of text runs from 18 to 28. This variation suggests that the scribe was not strictly adhering to a uniform layout, which could be due to the content of the text or the scribe’s own practices.
Handwriting and Punctuation
The handwriting of P66 is described as a good literary uncial, which is a script style characterized by rounded, majuscule letters that were commonly used in Greek manuscripts of the time . Rudimentary punctuation is present, with a high point at the end of sentences and a double point at the end of sections, aiding in the readability of the text.
Nomina Sacra and Abbreviations
Words for God, Jesus, Lord, and Christ are always abbreviated in P66, as are sometimes the words for man, father, spirit, and son. This practice of using nomina sacra, or sacred names, is typical of early Christian manuscripts and reflects a reverence for these terms.
P66 contains 465 corrections across its pages, averaging a little over 3 corrections per page. These corrections took various forms, including erasing with a sponge, placing dots over letters, interlinear insertions, and arrows pointing to corrections in the margins. It is likely that the copyist of the manuscript is responsible for all but one of these corrections.
Preservation and Condition
The preservation level of P66 surprised scholars, with the first 26 leaves being basically fully intact, and even the stitching of the binding remained. However, some letters are missing on the right margin due to the deterioration of the edge of the papyrus sheets. To address this, some pages have a vertical strip placed on the edge to reinforce the sheet, which is a conservation measure to prevent further damage.
Papyrus 66 is a well-preserved early Christian manuscript that provides valuable information about the physical characteristics of early codices. Its size, layout, handwriting, use of nomina sacra, and correction practices all contribute to our understanding of the production and use of early Christian texts.
Textual Character
The textual characteristics of Papyrus 66 (P66) provide fascinating insights into the practices and theological orientations of early Christian scribes. The original scribe of P66 displayed a practiced calligraphic skill, adapting the size of his writing as he progressed through the codex to ensure an even distribution of text. This larger print is indicative of the manuscript’s intended use for public reading within a Christian congregation, suggesting that the scribe was likely a member of such a community.
The scribe’s familiarity with Scriptural texts is evident from how he harmonized certain passages in John’s Gospel with those in Matthew and Luke, reflecting a deep engagement with the broader scriptural narrative. The use of specialized nomina sacra, not only for standard sacred names but also for terms like “cross” and “crucify,” further underscores the scribe’s Christian identity and his theological priorities.
This scribe’s approach to the text was far from mechanical; it was characterized by a degree of freedom and personal engagement that led to several unique readings. While some might interpret the presence of numerous scribal errors as inattentiveness, a closer examination reveals a scribe deeply engrossed in the narrative, leading to deviations from the exact wording of his exemplar. His method of reading in semantic units rather than word by word resulted in both intentional and inadvertent alterations, which were occasionally corrected by a subsequent editor, the diorthōtēs, who focused on substantive accuracy and occasionally adjusted the text for clarity or theological emphasis.
The textual variants introduced by the original scribe often reflect an interpretive engagement with the text, such as aligning current passages with remembered or anticipated scriptural parallels. This scribe’s alterations, ranging from the explicit identification of Jesus as the Son of God to adjustments that enhance narrative coherence or theological understanding, reveal an active process of reader reception and adaptation.
Moreover, the manuscript exhibits omissions that can be categorized as either inadvertent errors or deliberate redactions, with the latter suggesting an attempt by the scribe or his community to refine the text according to their theological understanding or liturgical needs. These modifications, whether inclusions or exclusions, offer valuable insights into early Christian interpretive practices and the dynamic nature of textual transmission during this period.
The case of P66 illustrates the complex interplay between textuality and theology in early Christianity, highlighting the role of scribes not merely as transmitters of a fixed text but as active participants in its ongoing interpretation and application within the life of the community.
The Correctors
(Comfort & Barret, THE TEXT OF THE EARLIEST NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS: Papyri 1-72, Vol. 1, 2019)
Papyrus 66 (P66), officially known as P. Bodmer II, is one of the oldest and most significant manuscripts of the New Testament, particularly of the Gospel of John. Dated to about 125-150 C.E., this papyrus provides valuable insights into early Christian textual traditions and scribal practices. Scholars like Karyn Berner and Philip Comfort have extensively studied 𝔓66, identifying the roles of three distinct individuals in its textual history: the original scribe (C1), a thoroughgoing corrector (C2), and a minor corrector (C3). Here is a detailed examination of these correctors based on conservative evangelical New Testament textual criticism perspectives.
Original Scribe (C1)
The original scribe of p66, referred to as C1, demonstrated a professional level of scribal skill, evident from the high-quality uncial script and systematic layout of the text. C1’s handwriting is consistent and fluid, indicative of a well-trained scribe who was likely part of a professional scriptorium.
Role and Characteristics: C1 was responsible for the initial transcription of the Gospel of John onto papyrus. The script used is a clear and regular form of Greek uncial, which was typical of early Christian manuscripts.
Scribal Features: The scribe made occasional errors typical of a long transcription process, such as dittography (repetition of a letter or word), haplography (omission of a letter or word), and metathesis (reversal of letters).
Textual Significance: The base text produced by C1 is of immense value for understanding the early textual tradition of the Gospel of John, reflecting a text that predates the standardization seen in later manuscript traditions.
Thoroughgoing Corrector (C2)
Shortly after the completion of the initial copy, a thoroughgoing corrector, C2, reviewed the manuscript. C2’s corrections are extensive and suggest a detailed knowledge of the text and a concern for both accuracy and doctrinal clarity.
Scope of Corrections: C2 addressed both accidental scribal errors and made changes for theological clarity or conformity with other textual traditions known to him. This included correcting misspellings, smoothing out grammatical issues, and altering phrases to align with a possibly ‘correct’ theological understanding.
Methodology: C2 often made corrections that reflect a deep engagement with the text, suggesting that this corrector had access to other textual witnesses or a strong doctrinal background that guided the corrections.
Implications: The work of C2 is crucial for textual critics as it reflects an early stage of textual transmission where variants were still being negotiated and the text was in a fluid state.
Minor Corrector (C3)
The third individual, C3, made only a small number of corrections, which were less systematic compared to those of C2 and focused mainly on obvious scribal slips and readability issues.
Nature of Corrections: C3’s corrections are sporadic and minor, mostly addressing clear errors overlooked by the first two correctors. This might include correcting misspelled words, adding omitted words, or clarifying ambiguous readings.
Scribal Intent: The limited scope of C3’s corrections suggests a more casual or less formal review process, possibly done during a later reading or use of the manuscript rather than a formal scribal correction phase.
Textual Impact: While the interventions by C3 are less significant for understanding the development of the textual tradition, they still contribute to the overall integrity and legibility of the manuscript.
Conclusion
The collaborative work of these three correctors on p66 provides a fascinating glimpse into the early Christian scribal culture and the processes involved in the transmission of biblical texts. Each corrector’s contributions reflect different layers of textual engagement—from the professional execution of the text by C1 to the doctrinal and textual refinements by C2, down to the practical adjustments by C3. Understanding these roles enhances our comprehension of the complexities involved in the early Christian text’s transmission and preservation. The detailed study of such manuscripts is foundational in conservative evangelical New Testament textual criticism, helping to affirm the reliability and historical integrity of the biblical text.
About the author
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
