RE: [textualcriticism] John 1:37 in 157
- Thanks for the confirmation Wieland.
Unfortunately, there are several places in the space of 3 or 4 verses where Swanson does not indicate that a word was probably not in P5.
In John 1:35 PALIN is probably missing, but the dots imply that Swanson thought it was there. As mentioned, the same is true of AUTOU in v. 37. The probable absence of these words should have been indicated by an absence of dots (or some other system). That would make the reader go back to check the editio princeps.
In the case of AUTW in v. 38, it was written by P5* and then cancelled by P5c. But Swanson still has dots in his P5c reading.
It is always best to check his readings against original editions, and when doubt remains, against the MSS themselves.
>I think Swanson iscorrect, because Hoskier and T&T (9) are
>noting the omission, too.<><
>> Since Swanson overlooks the omission of the word in P5vid,
>I don't think that he is overlooking this. The papyrus is
>very fragmentary and the reading is not secure. Swanson only
>represents what is extant.
>I agree though that space considerations make it probable
>that P5 omits AUTOU.
>Compare the online commentary.