1 John 2:23

1 John 2:23 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]791
Πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.

MSS: B, 1 (f56v), 5 (f72r), 6 (f126r), 201 (f317rc2), 203 (f50r), 322 (f52r), 699 (f245r), 910, 1720 (f140r), 2926

1 John 2:23 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q89f6vc4
πας ο αρνουμενος τον υν ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υν και τον πατερα εχει

1 John 2:23 [Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS 1 D VIII) (A02) (5th century)]

1 John 2:23 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]1439c1
Πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸ- υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει·

Critical Apparatus :

(1) εχει : B, 1, 5, 6, 201, 203, 322, 699, 910, 1720, 2926
(2) ADD ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει : א




A Textual Commentary On 1 John 2:23

(a) In 1 John 2:23 ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει is omitted in many manuscripts, because τον πατερα εχει had ended the preceding clause: it is not found in our commonly received Greek text, and even in the authorised English version is printed in italics.
(F. H. Scrivener)

(b) To this head will belong omissions arising from what is called Homoioteleuton. If two consecutive lines in the exemplar before the copyist ended with the same word, or even sometimes with the same syllable, his eye caught the second line instead of the first, and he omitted the intermediate words. Occasionally this happens at longer distances than single lines. This is perhaps the reason of the omission in many codices of the words ο ομολογων τον υιον ναι τον πατερα εχει, 1 S. John ii. 23, which are wanting in the Textus Receptus, but which belong to the true text ; and of the words τουτο δε εστιν το θελημα του πεμψαντος με, S. John vi. 39, in Cod. C. In both these cases the clause preceding the omission ends with the same words as the clause omitted. The notes of any critical edition of the New Testament will supply numerous other instances.
(C. E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament, 5th edition, revised, p. 17)

This entry was posted in 23. Ἰωάννου Αʹ. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.