94 Timo Flink consider υ ς too short for the gap in the text, and (2) they note that P5 has some affinities with ), which reads κλεκτ ς. On a contrary note, scholars working for the International Greek New Testament Project on the Fourth Gospel (henceforth IGNTP) support υ ς το θεο on the basis that κλεκτ ς is too long for the gap despite the affinities with )22. Some scholars reframe from supporting either reading and consider the matter too doubtful to be solved. Reuben J. Swanson prints dots in his text indicating the lacunae and Barbara Aland cautions against too certain views on what P5 reads. The recent “Text und Textwert on John 1‐10” does not list P5 at all in this textual variation unit23. There is now new information not available to earlier scholarship. They did not have access to recently found early papyrus P106vid, which supports κλεκτ ς το θεο . There is also a new variant reading available, found in P75*. This papyrus manuscript has been restudied at Münster and they now list P75* as reading υ ς κλεκτ ς. The variant υ ς το θεο is the reading of its corrector (see below)24. This new reading deviates from their Text und Textwert listing for P75. With these notes in mind I will take a closer look at the early papyri. In this I follow the criterion that the knowledge of the manuscripts in conjunction with the knowledge of the scribal habits –their impact on the manuscripts– should precede the discussion on merits of each textual variant25. P5 as a Textual Witness P5 has lacunae in this verse, but it has stoyUY visible for the end of v. 34. It is difficult to know what the reading in this papyrus manuscript was. It has to be reconstructed on the basis of the average length of lines in P5, which appears to be 25-27 letters in the leaf containing the verse. 22 W.J. Elliott and D.C. Parker (eds), The New Testament in Greek IV. The Gospel Ac- cording to St. John. Edited by the American & the British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project (NTTS 20; Leiden 1995) I, 29; Also, it seems that J.K. Elliott implicitly supports this contention as well since he argues that probably just ) and P106 with a few minuscules attest to this variant reading. He does not note the Latin witnesses. See J.K. Elliott, “Five New Papyri of the New Testament”, NovT 41 (1999) 209-13. 23 R.J. Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus, John (Sheffield 1995) 13; B. Aland, “Der textkritische und textgeschictliche Nutzen früher Papyri, demonstriert am Johannesevan- gelium”, 24-26; B. Aland et al, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. V. Das Johannesevangelium 1. Teststellenkollation der Kapitel 1-10. Band 1,2 (ANTF 36; Berlin 2005) 13. 24 See [http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv] 25 W.C. Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition. Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels (SBL Text-Critical Studies 5; Atlanta 2004) 242.