1 PETER 2:2 eivj swthri,an The Textus Receptus, following L and most minuscules, omits eivj swthri,an either through an oversight in copying (eic…eie) or because the idea of “growing into salvation” was theologically unacceptable.... [ Continue Reading ]
1 PETER 2:3 eiv {B} The reading eiv, supported by early representatives of the Alexandrian type of text (î72 a* A B), was improved stylistically in later witnesses by using the more subtle ei;per (ac C K P Y 81 614 1739 vg syrh), which among New Testament authors occurs only in Paul.... [ Continue Reading ]
1 PETER 2:5 eivj The Textus Receptus, along with the later uncials (K L P) and most minuscules, omits eivj, probably because its presence seemed to imply that the Christians were not already priests (compare ver. 1 Peter 2:9). Its right to be in the text is strongly attested by î72 a A B C 5 88 30... [ Continue Reading ]
1 PETER 2:19 ca,rij {B} In order to identify more precisely the idea conveyed by ca,rij, scribes have added various supplements, para. tw|/ qew|/ in C (Y 33 omit tw|/) 1739 al, qew|/ in 2464, and qeou/ in 623.... [ Continue Reading ]
1 PETER 2:21 e;paqen {A} The reading e;paqen, which is strongly supported by î72 A B Cvid 33 81 614 1739 itar, t, z vg syrh copsa, bo, fay vid, was replaced in other witnesses (including a Y 209* 2127 syrp arm) by avpe,qanen, probably under the influence of the variant reading in 1 Peter 3:18.... [ Continue Reading ]
1 PETER 2:25 planw,menoi {B} The external evidence for each reading is fairly evenly balanced (&menoi, a A B 1505 2464 _al_; &mena( î72 C Y and most minuscules), but in transcription the tendency to change to the neuter form was very natural in view of the word pro,bata immediately preceding.... [ Continue Reading ]