Papyrus 75

Papyrus 75 (formerly Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV, now Hanna Papyrus 1), designated by the siglum (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus. It contains text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8. It is generally described as "the most significant" papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far. Using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it has been traditionally dated to the third century. It is due to this early dating that the manuscript has a high evaluation, and the fact its text so closely resembles that of the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus (B).

It is currently housed in the Vatican Library (Hanna Papyrus 1) in Rome.

Description
The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book), made of papyrus, in single quire format (a single quire being a collection of pages placed on top of each other, then folded in half to create a book), measuring 27 x 13 cm (10½" x 5"). It has between 38–45 lines per page, containing most of the text of the Gospel of Luke and the beginning of the Gospel of John. It originally contained about 144 pages, 102 which have survived, of which 20 are fragmentary. The papyrus is of a smooth and fine quality, with the verso (vertical striped side) nearly as smooth as the recto (horizontal striped side), and feels like hand-woven linen. The writing is a clear and careful majuscule. is one of the earliest manuscripts (along with ) of the Gospel of Luke, containing most of Luke 3:18–24:53. An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page.

It uses a staurogram (⳨) in Luke 9:23, 14:27, and 24:7.

Text
The Greek text of this codex is considered a representative of the Alexandrian text-type. (The text-types are groups of different manuscripts which share specific or generally related readings, which then differ from each other group, and thus the conflicting readings can separate out the groups, which are then used to determine the original text as published; there are three main groups with names: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine). Textual critic and biblical scholar Kurt Aland placed it in Category I of his New Testament manuscript text classification system. Category I manuscripts are described as being manuscripts "of a very special quality, i.e., manuscripts with a very high proportion of the early text, presumably the original text, which has not been preserved in its purity in any one manuscript."

The text is closer to Codex Vaticanus (B) than to Codex Sinaiticus. Agreement between and B is 92% in John,  and 94% in Luke. It concurs with.

According to Aland, is the key for understanding the primitive textual history of New Testament, but recently palaeographer and religious history scholar Brent Nongbri has argued that restricting the date of  to the late second or early third century is not realistic, and that the similarity of the text of  to that of Codex Vaticanus might be better explained by considering both books as products of the fourth century.

Some notable readings
The manuscript lacks the Pericope of the Adulteress, usually placed in translations at John 7:53–8:11. This omission is supported by:  B A$(vid)$ C$(vid)$ L N T W X Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 3 9* 22 33 72 96 97 106 108 123 131 139 157 179* 249 250 253 565 1241 1333 1424 2768 a f l q sy ly pbo bopt; Or Hiermss; plus according to Tischendorf, at least 50 others (see manuscript evidence against PdA).


 * αυτον (him) –  705 b
 * αυτους (them) – Majority of manuscripts


 * αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil)
 * omit –  $
 * , 2b$ B L ƒ$1$ 700 vg sys sa, bo$bt$
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts


 * Ανθρωπος δε τις ην πλουσιος, ονοματι Ν[ιν]ευης, και ενεδιδυσκετο (There was a rich man, with the name N[in]eue, who clothed himself) – 36 37 sa
 * Ανθρωπος δε τις ην πλουσιος, και ενεδιδυσκετο (There was a rich man, who clothed himself) – Majority of manuscripts


 * (A scholion of uncertain date have ευρον δε τινες και του πλουσιου εν τισιν αντιγραφοις τουνομα Νινευης λεγομενον (There is also found, in certain copies, the name of the rich-man being called Ninevah).)


 * ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν (And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do.)
 * omit –  $2a$ B D$$ W Θ 070 579 1241 a d sy$s$ sa bo$pt$
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts

Luke 22:43–44
 * omit –  $2a$ A B N T W 579 ℓ 844 sy$s$ sa bo$pt$
 * incl. – Majority of manuscripts


 * βασιλειαν (kingdom) – *
 * δοξαν (glory) – majority of mss


 * ο ποιμην} (shepherd) –  sa, ac
 * η θυρα (door) – majority

History
The codex was discovered in the 1950s and once belonged to the Swiss book collector Martin Bodmer (thus its original designation, P. Bodmer XIV–XV). It was sold in 2006 and donated to the Vatican Library, which now refers to the manuscript as "Hanna Papyrus 1 (Mater Verbi)". The history before its discovery is unknown, but it is generally agreed the codex was originally made and used in Egypt. Evidence for this comes from a piece of papyrus stuck to the back of the codex's leather case, on which there was Coptic writing. Its writing appearance and use of paragraphos to indicate a change of speaker, also points towards an Egyptian provenance.

Date
The codex was originally assigned palaeographically to 175–225 CE by Victore Martin and Rodolphe Kasser. They compared the handwriting to manuscripts P.Oxy.XXI 2293, P.Oxy.XXII 2322, P.Oxy.XXIII 2362, P.Oxy.XXIII 2363, and P.Oxy.XXII 2370. However this palaeographical comparison was called into question in 2016, where Brent Nongbri argued on the basis of comparative evidence, that handwriting very similar to that of was still in use in the fourth century. There were also other codicological features which accorded with manuscripts firmly dated to the fourth century.

One of Nongbri's arguments against the original dating was due to the manuscripts used as comprandi were themselves mainly dated based on palaeographical grounds, hence served no independent value for determining the date of. As such, as they're not securely dated manuscripts, having no definitive terminus ante or post quem (before/after) dates gives nothing objective to use when dating undated manuscripts. Martin and Kasser did provide two dateable examples, P.Flor. I 61 and P.FuadUniv. 19, albeit Nongbri argued the writing on either were not as alike as the original editors suggested.

An alternative dating of 225–275 was suggested by Eric G. Turner, however he does not appear to have provided any palaeographical parallels for this dating.

It is currently dated by the INTF to 200–225 CE.