JOHN 16:4 w[ra auvtw/n mnhmoneu,hte auvtw/n {B} The double auvtw/n is to be preferred both because of the strength of the external evidence (î66vid A B Q P* 33) and because auvtw/n after w[ra was more likely to be removed as superfluous than added by copyists.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:13 o`dhgh,sei u`ma/j evn th|/ avlhqei,a| pa,sh| {B} The construction of eivj and the accusative seems to have been introduced by copyists who regarded it as more idiomatic after o`dhgh,sei than the construction of evn and the dative (a D L W Q ¦1 33 565 1071 _al_).... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:16 o;yesqe, me {A} Wishing to prepare for the disciples’ question in ver. John 16:17 about Jesus’ going to the Father (and overlooking Jesus’ statement in ver. John 16:10), after o;yesqe, me copyists added, with minor variations, o[ti u`pa,gw pro.j to.n pate,ra.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:18 @o] le,gei# {C} The repetitious character of the text in this verse has facilitated the emergence of variant readings, the evaluation of which is correspondingly difficult. In order to represent the balance of the weight of witnesses that support the presence of o] le,gei (a2 A B D2 L Q... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:22 e;cete {B} In the opinion of a majority of the Committee the future e[xete (î66 ac A D W* Q Y 33 _al_) appears to have been introduced by copyists to bring the statement in accord with luphqh,sesqe in ver. John 16:20. The present e;cete is strongly supported by î22 a* B C K Wc D P ¦1 ¦... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:23 a;n ti {B} The thought of the clause is expressed with virtually identical meaning in four slightly different readings. On the basis of the weight of the combination of î5vid B C and D* Y, the Committee regarded a;n ti as most nearly representing the original text.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:25 e;rcetai The abruptness of the shorter reading, supported by early and good witnesses (î66vid a B C* D* L W X Y 1 13 33 69 213 1582 ita, b, d, e vg Syrpal copsa, bo arm), was alleviated by copyists who inserted avllV or avlla, before e;rcetai.... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:27 @tou/# qeou/ {C} The reading tou/ patro,j, though strongly supported by B C* D L X _al,_ is probably secondary, having arisen by assimilation to evxh/lqon para. tou/ patro,j of the following verse. The balance of evidence for and against the definite article is so close that a majority... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 16:28 evxh/lqon para. tou/ patro,j {C} Most members of the Committee regarded the omission in D W itb, d, ff2 syrs copach2 as accidental, and, on the basis of slightly stronger external evidence (î5, 22 a A C2 K D Q P ¦1 ¦13 28 565 700 892 _Byz Lect_), preferred the reading with para,. The re... [ Continue Reading ]