- Two NT papyri (one apparently supporting this reading [hence vid], the other in a correction [hence c])
- Some other Greek witnesses (unspecified, probably minuscules - since uncials would probably be cited if they agreed with P46; could be tracked down if necessary, but won't do that for now).
- Three Old Latin witnesses: ar t v; some manuscripts of the Vulgate (number and identities unspecified);
- The peshitta;
- Clement [of Alexandria] somewhere preserved in a Latin translation.
This is a bit tricky and I'm not really sure there is much of the supposed HMWN visible here; but it is not a good photo so I suppose I'd be marginally inclined to believe that the original editors did see the letters they claimed (they certainly did not know this reading from any other manuscript - also NTTranscripts agrees with the HM[W]N and disagrees with the final word suggesting, as one would expect, that they have looked at it carefully)). It would be nice to have a new picture with the papyrus properly flattened out and spaced correctly (maybe there is one somewhere?). The original editors (Grenfell & Hunt, P. Amherst III, 1900) read this as:
POLUMERWS K(AI) POLU[TRO]PWS
PALE O QS LALHS[A]S TO[IS P]ATRA
[SIN] HM[W]N EN TOIS PRO[F]HTA[IS
The correction in P46 is much clearer: