In 6 the first ὁ is doubtful, though given in à A 35. 92. The usual formula is κ. ὁ θ. as in B P and the cursives generally, as well as the Greek commentators. Chap. 21:22 may be judged favorable to the repeated article. But there need be no hesitation in adopting πνευμάτων τῶν “spirits of the” (instead of the vulgar “holy,” ἁγίων 1. 79. &c.) with the Complutensian on the most ancient and ample authority, all the uncials, &c. The Sinaitic is not quite alone in the addition of με after “sent.” 7 begins rightly with the copulative, as in the Complutensian, though Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini is sustained by many MSS., Versions, &c. The Revisers in 8 correctly say am he that heard and saw,” not saw and heard. It is a characteristic fact apart from time. The best authorities also read τ. at the end of the clause. There are other differences of form not worth recording here. In 9 the γάρ “for” has no known authority in a Greek MS., and is probably due to Latin influence. It is not in the Codex Reuchlini. Of course the Complutensian edition is right. Tischendorf mentions the omission of Ka; by the Codex Reuchlini before “thy crown,” but not again before “of them which keep.” Erasmus supplied them rightly, though not from his copy. In 10 however the Complutensian agrees with Erasmus on the authority of a few copies (1. 49. 91. &c.) in reading ὅτι ὁ κ. instead of ὁ κ. with the best. Some manuscripts, as 4. 16. 27. 39. 48. 68. omit γάρ or ὅτι. In 11 ῥυπῶν of the commonly received text is Erasmus' conjecture, his copy being defective from ὁ ῥ to δικ. ἔκι. The word should be ῥνπωρός as in all the well known Greek copies; but ῥυπωσάτω is likewise a similar guess, though the manuscripts divide between ῥυπανθήτω as in à 18. 32. and ῥυπαρωθήτω as in B and more than 30 cursives. The Alexandrian omits the clause, God. Eph. Resc. is defective. There need be no doubt that δικαιωθήτω as in the Received Text from Erasmus, &c., must give place to the Complutensian reading δικαιοσυνὴν ποιησάτω, which of course the Revisers follow, with the sense “do” or “practice” righteousness, not be justified or “be righteous” as in the Authorized Version. They are right also in rendering ἁγ. “be made holy,” or sanctified. Again, at the beginning of 12 the copulative has no real place, though Erasmus found it in his copy and did not conjecture it; but it is excluded by the mass of MSS., Versions, and cursives. And the true reading is represented by “is,” not “shall be,” though B and more than 20 cursives favor the future form. “Amos” in 13 is all right in sense, but implied rather than expressed in the best copies. Without dwelling on lesser points, the chief difference is in the presence or absence of the article before πρ first and ἔσχ last, as well as before ἀρ. “beginning,” and τ. “end,” which by the best authorities close the sentence. The most extraordinary variant is in 14 where “that wash their robes,” οἱ πλύνοντες (à A 7. 38. Vulg. Aeth., &c.) seems to be the true text. But it got changed into οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ “that do his commandments” in the common texts, Erasmus and the Complutensian, Stephens, Bטza, and Elzevir. One could understand, as in Rom. 2, the unchanging character of God as reflected in His children, if the common reading were assuredly right; as it is, the critical text gives prominence to that washing by grace which supposes not more the shedding of Christ's blood than the guilt that demanded it if expiation were to be righteously. Such are they who have title to the tree of life and go in by the gates into the city. Verse 15 points out who are “without,” the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolators, and every one that loves and makes a lie. There is no evil so desperate as refusing or giving up the truth when the full revelation of grace is come. There is no ascertained authority in any Greek copy for δέ, even the Codex Reuchlini giving no warrant to Erasmus, who transmitted it to our ordinary text. The article is rightly excluded from the last phrase. Tischendorf inverts the making and loving with 14 and half-a-dozen cursives, and a few ancient citations.
In 16 there is the variety of reading ἐτί ἐν, and neither before τ. ἐκκ. respectively, in à B, most cursives, Syr., in A 18. 21. 38. 79. Vulgate, and in 1. 4. 11. 12. 31. 47. 48. Arm., &c. “in” or “for” the churches. The reading καὶ ὀρθρινός is doubtless Erasmus' coinage from the Vulgate, for ὁ πρ. “the morning.” Why in 17 the Sinaitic omits the articles so requisite before πν. and ν. it is hard to say, but so it is. Erasmus knew better without a copy; for the Codex Reuchlini is defective from “David” in 16. But he wrongly introduced ἑλθέ and ἐλθέτω where the Holy Spirit has ἔρχου and ἐρχέσθω. Nor should the copulative precede ο θ. though at least two cursives and many ancient versions &c. favor it. For λαμβ. τὸ ὑδ the copies give λαβ. ὑδ. There is a threefold error in the common text at the beginning of 18: συμμαρτυροῦμαι for μαρτυρῶ, and γάρ, which answers to nothing, as well as the suppression of ἐλώ, the guess-work of Erasmus from following the Latin copies. So also the omission of τῷ. (though some copies omit it), τῆς, τοῦ, and the form ἐπιτιθῇ instead of ἐγώ, and for ἐπ' αὐτά, πρὸς ταῦτα, and ὁ θ before instead of after ἐπ' αὐτόν. The omission of τῷ before β. is due to the same Latinizing source. Aldus, in his reprint of Erasmus' New Testament for his Greek Bible of 1518, did venture on the supply of τοῦ, but not, strange to say, of τῆς, nor of τῷ (his), though of course the principle is the same. So in 19 ἀφαιρῆ is an evidently faulty effort to express the guilt of taking from the words of this inspired book, for which every manuscript has ἀφέλῃ, as βιβλίου is the correct form rather than βίβλου. Again ἀφαιρήσει is not the right expression but ἀφελεῖ. The next error goes beyond the form; for, as the Revisers agree with all critics, it is a question of “the tree,” not of the “book” of life here, an error due to Latin influence, though even then the form would be incorrect as before. Erasmus mistakenly added και before τ. γ. and omitted τῷ in the last clause. All these points are of course rectified in the Revision. The Complutensian edition is right, save in ἀφέλοι, though this is not without good support of MSS. In 20 Erasmus, the Complutensian, as well as Stephens with many cursives, read ναἰ after Αμήν, for which Beza substituted καί “pro οὖν.” But even this was less daring than his notable proposal, founded on wholly unfounded premises, to dislocate verses 12 and 13 from their place and foist them in, the latter before the former, between that which is printed as verse 16 and verse 17, to the utter destruction of the context, and particularly of the vital tie which binds 17 to 16, one of the loveliest touches in a book abounding with beauty in this kind—In 21 à A 26. omit χριδτοῦ, a rather slender ground for excluding “Christ.” Still less (A. and the Amiatine Latin) has Tischendorf for ending with μ. π. Even the Sinaitic says “with the saints,” as B. and the mass of cursives and versions say “with all the saints.” With “you” all is a guess of Erasmus, as far as Greek copies are concerned, though here again he was influenced by some of the Latins. It is not to be supposed that he knew ἡμῶν (30. &c.) for “our” Lord in the earlier part of the verse, but there too was misled by the Vulgate, &c. It is curious how the earliest, as well as the great multitude of copies, and versions &c., add ἀμήν, which nevertheless the critics generally drop.