Textual variants and internal evidence in 1 John

(Unpublished paper, 2002, Iver Larsen)

Introduction
The science of textual criticism is highly complex and often quite controversial. Most Bible translators rely
heavily on the UBS Greek NT (4th edition) or the Nestle-Aland (27th edition) text (the two are identical in the
text, but differ in the apparatus). But some scholars prefer the majority text tradition. The purpose of this little
article is not to enter into this debate.
Like most Bible translators I normally follow the text given in NA27. It is mainly at those places where I find
it hard to make sense of the Greek text that I look to see if their are alternatives noted in the apparatus. If an
alternative have good manuscript support (external evidence) and is well supported by internal evidence, then I
would be ready to chose the alternative reading as a basis for the translated text and put the other reading in a
footnote. In many cases, the difference between variants are small and many alternative readings are irrelevant
for an idiomatic translation since they often clarify minor points or make something explicit which we would
make explicit anyway in the translation.
However, when I was translating 1 John into Danish recently, I was troubled by the standard Greek text.
When I was first introduced to textual criticism many years ago, I was told that two manuscripts were considered
the most reliable, mainly due to their age. They were Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B). Because of their
superior quality a reading would often be chosen if they had the support of these two, even if almost all the
other mss had a different reading. Although I am far from being an expert in textual criticism, it is my
understanding that this hypothesis is no longer in vogue. At least I no longer hold this view. The two manuscripts
often differ from each other, and they have many readings that appear to be careless errors.
The current NA text is eclectic, so it looks at a vast number of mss and seeks to weigh both external
evidence and internal evidence in each case. When I looked at the variant readings in 1 John, it became clear that
the readings of Aleph and B were very often NOT chosen. If one assumes for the sake of argument that the NA
text is correct as it stands, one can get a measure of the reliability of each of the major mss that are consistently
cited in the apparatus. If a ms has a reading that is different from the chosen text, we can say that the committee
considered it a mistake. A rough count through 1 John indicated approximately 45 mistakes by Aleph, 30 by
B, 30 by M (the NA letter for what they call the majority tradition), 20 by C (But C does not contain the whole
of 1 John and therefore was not always cited, so this number is too low) and 15 for A (Alexandrinus).
The numbers are approximate, but they give an indication that for 1 John the most reliable ms of these major
uncials is A, then C, M and B and the most unreliable is Aleph. This does not mean that A is always right and
Aleph is always wrong, but it tells me that I better look carefully at those instances where A has a reading that
was not chosen.
The internal evidence in 1 John also indicates that A is probably the most reliable ms. I would like to turn to
some of the specific instances now.

Internal evidence in 1 John

1 John 1:4a
NA followed Aleph, B and a few others in adopting the reading  , while A, C and the
majority of mss read  . Apparently, the original A was like B, but was corrected later.
Since the verb form we write already includes the subject reference, to include the independent pronoun we
would indicate an emphasis, probably a contrast between we and someone else. In view of normal word order
in Greek, we would then expect the pronoun we to occur before the verb, not after. A check in 1 John reveals
that there are 9 other occurrences of the pronoun we as subject in 1 John and in each and every instance does
the pronoun precede the verb. It is therefore highly unlikely that John would have used an independent pronoun
after the verb in 1:4.
If we look at the other option that the original pronoun was you-plural, then this fits with Johns writing
and the context very well. There are 12 other instances in 1 John where the verb write is followed by a
personal pronoun, and in each instance, the pronoun is you-plural.
Metzgers commentary gives the main reason for choosing this reading that they believe the Alexandrian
texts are of better quality than others and more reliable. They also appeal to the principle that the most difficult
reading is more likely to be correct. They do this indirectly by saying that copyists would correct the difficult
Alexandrian reading to the easier majority reading. This assumes that copyists would deliberately correct
readings, whereas more recent studies by James Royse have shown that most changes by copyists were
accidental rather than deliberate. Metzger does not mention internal evidence which definitely is against the NA
choice. It is so unlikely and out of style with Johns writing that it is fairly certain that the oringial text here had
  - we write to you. The NA reading is too difficult to be original.

1 John 1:4b
NA followed Aleph, B and other mss in adopting the reading  our joy rather than the reading
 which is found in A, C and many others. The context strongly supports your joy rather than
our joy. John is writing for the benefit of his readers, that their joy may be complete. He is not writing for his
own benefit, that his own joy may be complete.

1 John 1:5
Manuscript A plus several others have the reading    while many others - not listed -
have the awkward word order   . The formula This is x is very common in 1 John. It is
almost a trademark of his. In this formula the word order is always with the demonstrative before the verb as in
A and never with the order chosen for the NA text. Johns style can be checked by looking at all occurrences of
this formula in 1 John which are: 2:22,25; 3:10,11,23; 4:3,9,10,13; 5:3,4,6,9,11,14,20.
In this case the internal evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the A reading, that it gives a major boost
to the trustworthiness of A against the other uncials.

1 John 1:7
The majority of mss have together with A the text Jesus Christ, while Aleph, B and C lack Christ. There
is no strong internal evidence one way or the other, but 1:3; 3:23 and 5:20 seem to favour the inclusion of
Christ as being most likely what John wrote.

1 John 2:8
Ms A and many others have also in us whereas the NA text chose also in you, following most of the
other uncials. I would think that in us is at least as likely to be correct as in you.
This verse also has a reading of A that seems unlikely. The A ms reads shadow rather than darkness. The
two Greek words are similar, and this looks like an error on the part of A, especially since A is the only ms with
this reading.

1 John 2:15
Most mss have the love of the Father, whereas A and C have the love of God. Both are possible, and it is
difficult to make a choice. On the basis of the greater reliability of A and C, I would chose love of God.

1 John 2:20
The two mss A and C plus the majority of other mss have the reading  you know all (things)
whereas Aleph, B and a few others have  (you) all know.
It appears as if the NA text is still based on the questionable assumption that Aleph and B are more reliable
than A and C. Or it may be that they have chosen the most difficult reading, even if that reading has a wrong
word order and is awkward by not having an object for know. 3:20 has a similar phrase with the meaning he
knows all (things). The crucial factor in choosing between variants here as in many other places is how much
weight to put on the assumption that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Based on the carelessness that
is evidenced in both Aleph and B, I would choose the variant reading from A and C.

1 John 2:27
B made a careless mistake by writing instead of . Very few mss copied that mistake
from B.
Later in the same verse the second corrector of Aleph, B, C and others read #  whereas A
and the majority of mss read # . The meaning that very anointing fits the context and Greek
grammar better than his anointing so there are good reasons to chose the variant reading here, too.

1 John 3:13
The NA text has a $' in brackets. Since Aleph is the primary ms with this reading against A, B and the
majority, I would say it is safe to assume that there should be no and here. The same applies to the beginning
of v. 19.

1 John 4:20
The majority of mss together with A have how can you love God whom you have not seen? whereas the
NA text has followed Aleph, B and a minority in saying you cannot love God whom you have not seen. There
is no essential difference in meaning, but again A probably has the original reading.

1 John 5:6
This verse has a great variety of ms readings, probably because the imagery is difficult to understand. In
addition to the two illustrations water and blood, Aleph and A have the Spirit. B and the majority tradition
do not have the Spirit. Because the Spirit is mentioned in the next verse, it seems most likely to me that the
words the Spirit were added by Aleph and A. So in this case I would follow the NA text against A.

1 John 5:18
The original hand of A plus B and a few other mss have him whereas the corrected version of A plus Aleph
and the majority have himself. This text is complicated by an obscure sentence: But the one who has been
born of God, guards him(self). Most English versions and commentators understand the one who has been
born of God as referring to Jesus. In this case the context would support the reading him. However, if the
phrase is taken to refer to a Christian as the variant form of the same word in the first part of the verse does, then
the context would support himself. When the A ms shows corrections, I would normally follow the corrected
version rather than the original hand. So we could turn the argument around and say: Since the most reliable and
the majority of mss have himself, it is most likely that it is the Christian who guards himself. The concept of
pure or without sin would be understood from the preceding context - such words are explicit in 1 Tim 5:22
and James 1:27 where the expression to guard oneself is found. The concept of God keeping the Christians
from sin and from the power of the evil one is found in John 17:11-15. Making a choice between the two
interpretations is not easy.

1 John 5:21
Some mss which are not listed, have ( which does not make sense. The second hand of Aleph, plus A
and many others have (. There is little doubt that the original reading is preserved by A and the corrected
version of Aleph. I find it hard to understand that the NA text accepts so many readings that I see as obvious
errors from questionable mss.

Conclusion:
The purpose of this article was to alert Bible translators to alternative readings in the apparatus which may
well be original. It seems to me that although the people who decide which readings to adopt in the Greek NT
probably do not have the same faith in Aleph and B as was common a few years ago, they have still chosen
readings which are very questionable, probably because they put more weight on the most difficult reading
principle than I would do.