I did look at your link after I wrote about 1 John 5:13. I find your argument convincing about the the space restriction in the lacuna at P66 John 20:31 being a better fit for PISEUHTE than PISTEUSHTE.
However, when you mentioned this, I had to re-think the argument:
>Regarding P66 one might add that at the places where a PISTEUHTE/PISTEUSHTE >variation occurs, P66 always reads PISTEUSHTE: 8:24 (against P75), 10:38 (alone!), >13:19 (against B).
I think this really trumps the other arguments. If the P66 copyist always prefers PISTEUSHTE over PISTEUHTE where there are variants attesting both readings, that argues pretty strongly in favor of him doing the same in this lacuna.
>But thanks for noting 1.Jo 5:13! An interesting (and also difficult) case.That's probably true.
> PISTEUHTE may be a reminiscence to Jo 20:31, but more probably is simply a >conformation to the preceding EIDHTE.
From a cursory look at 1 John, this would be the only occurence of this form of PISTEUW. Otherwise, I counted one imperative, 3 perfects, and about five present participles.
Of course, I didn't do a formal study: Just a simple search in BibleWorks.
In any case, that has nothing to do with P66.
However, it is of passing interest that the statistics could argue against this form of PISTEUW in 1 John 5:13: In any event, that's just another argument to support that PISEUHTE is not original in 1 John 5:13.
>Interestingly even here a few minuscules have PISTEUSHTE.Thanks! NA27 does not appear to list these cursives in the main apparatus. I appreciate you pointing that out.
All the best,