*5:1και f35 (ℵ)A,048 [98%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP[NU]ECM ¦ — B [2%]
†5:2τηρωμεν f35 ℵA [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ποιωμεν B [11%] NU ¦ τηρουμεν 048 [1%]
‡5:4ημων f35 ℵ,A,B (56.4%) RP,OC,TR,NU ¦ υμων 048 (43.2%) HF,CP ¦ — (0.4%) (John is making a general statement, that is properly inclusive—first person.)
§5:5εστιν f35 A,048 [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ δε 1 ℵ [12%] [NU]ECM ¦ 1 δε B
*5:6αιματος f35 B (77.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ 1 και πνευματος ℵA (14.2%) ¦ πνευματος και 1 (4.8%) ¦ πνευματος (3.2%) ¦ two other variants (0.6%)
†5:6ιησους f35 ℵA,B [97%] RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ 1 ο [3%] TR
‡5:6και f35 ℵ [70%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 εν (A)B [30%] NU
§5:7μαρτυρουντες f35 ℵ,A,B (99%) RP,HF,CP,NU ¦ 1 εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισεν και τρεις εισιν οι 1 εν τη γη (1%) OC,TR—the (1%) breaks down like this: (61) [16th], (629) [14th], (918) [16th], 2318 [18th], 2473 [17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other; the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it. The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TRs exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR, omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much. (OC is in very small print.)
*5:9ην f35 [91%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ οτι ℵA,B [9%] NU
*5:13τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου (−του υιου 2.5%) του θεου ινα ειδητε (ιδητε 7%) οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε (εχητε 7%) (εχετε αιωνιον 2.5% TR) f35 (89.9%) RP,HF,OC(TR)CP ¦ ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον (αιωνιον εχετε ℵ) οι πιστευοντες (τοις πιστευουσιν ℵB 1% NU) εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου ℵA,B (3.8%) (NU) ¦ τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου (4.7%) ¦ ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον (1.6%)
†5:13και ινα πιστευητε (πιστευσητε 10.2%, πιστευετε 2.4%) εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου f35 (90.3%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B (4.4%) NU ¦ part of a larger lacuna (5.2%) (The longer form does seem to be awkward—more than sufficient stimulus for Alexandrian editors to delete.)
‡5:20η ζωη η f35 [60%] HF ¦ 2 ℵA,B [26%] RP,OC,CP,NU ¦ 12 [6%] TR ¦ 23 [4%] ¦ — [4%] (The omission of the second article could be an easy case of homoioteleuton. Why the ‘Alexandrians’ omitted the first article is hard to say, but that doesn’t make them right.)
*5:21αμην f35 (82%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B (18%) NU
†5:21The citation of f35 is based on forty-three MSS—18, 35, 141, 149, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 432, 604, 664, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1754, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2221, 2352, 2431, 2466, 2554, 2587, 2626 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 204, 824, 1100 and 2554 are very pure representatives of f35 in 1 John, with not a single variant, and so for the exemplars of 35, 1503, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1864, 1865, 1897 and 2723. For 204, 824, 1100 and 2554 to have no variants after all the centuries of transmission is surely an eloquent demonstration of the faithfulness and accuracy of that transmission. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Meteora, Sparta, Ochrida, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception. ECM collated 132 continuous text manuscripts (MSS) for 1 John, including some fragments, which number represents about 20% of the extant (known) MSS. By a careful comparison of TuT and ECM I believe we can arrive at some reasonably close extrapolations. Thus I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error will hardly exceed ±2%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error will rarely exceed ±10%. However, I guarantee the witness of Family 35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.
και f35 (ℵ)A,048 [98%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP[NU]ECM ¦ — B [2%]
τηρωμεν f35 ℵA [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ποιωμεν B [11%] NU ¦ τηρουμεν 048 [1%]
ημων f35 ℵ,A,B (56.4%) RP,OC,TR,NU ¦ υμων 048 (43.2%) HF,CP ¦ — (0.4%) (John is making a general statement, that is properly inclusive—first person.)
εστιν f35 A,048 [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ δε 1 ℵ [12%] [NU]ECM ¦ 1 δε B
αιματος f35 B (77.2%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ 1 και πνευματος ℵA (14.2%) ¦ πνευματος και 1 (4.8%) ¦ πνευματος (3.2%) ¦ two other variants (0.6%)
ιησους f35 ℵA,B [97%] RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ 1 ο [3%] TR
και f35 ℵ [70%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 εν (A)B [30%] NU
μαρτυρουντες f35 ℵ,A,B (99%) RP,HF,CP,NU ¦ 1 εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισεν και τρεις εισιν οι 1 εν τη γη (1%) OC,TR—the (1%) breaks down like this: (61) [16th], (629) [14th], (918) [16th], 2318 [18th], 2473 [17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other; the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it. The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TRs exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR, omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much. (OC is in very small print.)
ο θεος ημιν f35 B [24%] CP ¦ ~ 312 ℵA [76%] RP,HF,OC,TR,NU
τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου (−του υιου 2.5%) του θεου ινα ειδητε (ιδητε 7%) οτι ζωην αιωνιον εχετε (εχητε 7%) (εχετε αιωνιον 2.5% TR) f35 (89.9%) RP,HF,OC(TR)CP ¦ ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον (αιωνιον εχετε ℵ) οι πιστευοντες (τοις πιστευουσιν ℵB 1% NU) εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου ℵA,B (3.8%) (NU) ¦ τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου (4.7%) ¦ ινα ειδητε οτι ζωην εχετε αιωνιον (1.6%)
και ινα πιστευητε (πιστευσητε 10.2%, πιστευετε 2.4%) εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου f35 (90.3%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B (4.4%) NU ¦ part of a larger lacuna (5.2%) (The longer form does seem to be awkward—more than sufficient stimulus for Alexandrian editors to delete.)
η ζωη η f35 [60%] HF ¦ 2 ℵA,B [26%] RP,OC,CP,NU ¦ 12 [6%] TR ¦ 23 [4%] ¦ — [4%] (The omission of the second article could be an easy case of homoioteleuton. Why the ‘Alexandrians’ omitted the first article is hard to say, but that doesn’t make them right.)
The citation of f35 is based on forty-three MSS—18, 35, 141, 149, 201, 204, 328, 386, 394, 432, 604, 664, 757, 824, 928, 986, 1072, 1075, 1100, 1248, 1249, 1503, 1548, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1754, 1761, 1768, 1855, 1864, 1865, 1876, 1892, 1897, 2221, 2352, 2431, 2466, 2554, 2587, 2626 and 2723—all of which I collated myself. 204, 824, 1100 and 2554 are very pure representatives of f35 in 1 John, with not a single variant, and so for the exemplars of 35, 1503, 1637, 1725, 1732, 1864, 1865, 1897 and 2723. For 204, 824, 1100 and 2554 to have no variants after all the centuries of transmission is surely an eloquent demonstration of the faithfulness and accuracy of that transmission. Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, Constantinople, Bucharest, Aegean, Trikala, Athens, Meteora, Sparta, Ochrida, Mt. Athos [nine different monasteries], Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile—it is reflected in the Text without exception. ECM collated 132 continuous text manuscripts (MSS) for 1 John, including some fragments, which number represents about 20% of the extant (known) MSS. By a careful comparison of TuT and ECM I believe we can arrive at some reasonably close extrapolations. Thus I venture to predict, if complete collations ever become available, that for any non-Byzantine variants listed with 5 to 1% support (in my apparatus) the margin of error should not exceed ±1%; for non-Byzantine variants listed with 10 to 6% support the margin of error will hardly exceed ±2%; where there is some division among the Byzantine witnesses the margin of error will rarely exceed ±10%. However, I guarantee the witness of Family 35. Please see the last footnote for Matthew for further information.