06_Biblica_1_D_Callan_Layout 1 13/11/12 11:42 Pagina 433 433 READING THE EARLIEST COPIES OF 2 PETER of tou qu Ihu tou kuriou hmwn (God, Jesus our Lord), rather than tou qeou kai Ihsou tou kuriou hmwn (God and Jesus our Lord) as in the likely original text. While the latter apparently distinguishes Jesus from God, the text in P72 identifies Jesus as God. This peculiarity of P72 has often been noted. Because it coheres with peculiarities of two other documents copied by the same scribe, namely Jude and 1 Peter, it may be an intentional change, or at least seems to be one that reflects the views of the scribe. In Jude 5 P72 speaks of qeoj xristoj as having saved Israel from Egypt, while the probable original text speaks of kurioj. And in 1 Pet 5,1 P72 speaks of the sufferings of qeou, while the likely original text speaks of the sufferings of Xristou 12. All three of these pe- culiarities have the effect of presenting Jesus as God 13. What is not always noted is that this omission of kai from 2 Peter 1,2 in P72 extends a presentation of Jesus as divine that is al- ready prominent in the likely original text of 2 Peter. This is clearest in 1,1 which speaks of tou qeou hmwn kai swthroj Ihsou Xris- tou (our God and savior Jesus Christ), probably identifying Jesus Christ as God. However, there are many other elements of 2 Peter that support this same identification 14. The likely original text of 2 Peter 1,2 probably distinguishes Jesus from God. This moderates the identification of Jesus as God in 1,1, indicating that the identification of Jesus as God is not a sim- ple, straightforward matter 15. The version of 1,2 found in P72 elim- inates this moderation of the identification of Jesus as God and so makes it a more simple, straightforward matter. 12 On this passage see F.W. BEARE, “The Text of 1 Peter in Papyrus 72”, JBL 80 (1961) 253-260, 255; MARTINI, Beati Petri Apostoli Epistulae, xxiv. 13 See M. A. KING, “Notes on the Bodmer Manuscript of Jude and 1 and 2 Peter”, BSac 121 (1964) 54-57;” EHRMAN, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 85-86; T. NIKLAS ‒ T. WASSERMAN, “Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani?”, New Testament Manuscripts. Their Texts and Their World (eds. T.J. KRAUS ‒ T. NIKLAS) (Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 2; Leiden ‒ Boston, MA 2006) 161-188, especially 184-185; ROYSE, Scribal Habits, 609- 14. Ehrman suggests that the P72 version of 2 Peter 1,2 is anti-Adoptionistic. 14 On this see T. CALLAN, “The Christology of the Second Letter of Peter”, Bib 82 (2001) 253-263. However, if the kai in the likely original text is understood as epexegetical, 15 this text too can be seen as restating the identification of Jesus with God ― “God, even Jesus our Lord”. It is not ordinarily understood this way, probably because simple identification of Jesus as God is not common in the New Testament.