Timo Flink 104 that the scribe changed the better attested κλεκτ ς to μονογεν ς instead of copying it, because there is no κλεκτ ς elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel. The reading is surely a secondary corruption46, for it is virtually certain that this variant reading is not “original”, because it requires a similar transcriptional history as the variant reading (5) in order to be the “original”. The probability for that is too remote. The Variant readings (7) and (8) The variant reading (7) omits the latter part of the verse beginning with τι (codex 732*). The variant reading (8) omits the whole verse (co- dex 2718). In the case of 732, the omission could be accidental, because the words ο τ ς στιν are found in the previous verse. The original scribe’s eye could have slipped to the wrong line and he could have thought he already wrote the phrase, especially if he was interrupted for some rea- son. The corrector added the missing clause in 732c. The omission of the whole verse in 2718 is more likely a deliberate attempt to circumvent the text-critical problem. It is unlikely that the previous κ γ in John 1,33 caused such a long haplography. These variant readings need not be considered further. The Variant Reading (1) The variant reading υ ς το θεο has by far the widest manuscript support. It is found across all the text-types and diverse geographical locales (Rome, Egypt, Syria, Caesarea pc). It is a second century read- ing as attested by the early papyri. It is in harmony with the style and the theology of the Fourth Evangelist with a clear Old Testament back- ground. It is not liable to heterodox teachings and fits the context. If this is the “original” reading, how does one explain the variant readings (2) through (4)? As I already noted, there are those who see κλεκτ ς το θεο as a rewritten harmonisation to other Old Testament background or to parallel texts in the Synoptic Gospels in part of the manuscript tradition. The longer reading, υ ς κλεκτ ς το θεο , could then be taken as a conflation of these readings in part of that tradition (clearly so in ff2c). But how does one explain υ ς κλεκτ ς? For what reason might any scribe change το θεο to κλεκτ ς? It makes no sense in the second century anti-Adoptionistic environment. The reversal is more likely. Scribes would be more inclined to change κλεκτ ς to το θεο to create a familiar reading, which is precisely what happens in P75. The anti-Adoptionistic tendencies also favour the change from κλεκτ ς 46 Morris, The Gospel According to John, 134.