CC BY
16Does he who has been born of God
t^pei eauton or t^pei auton?
© Taras Dyatlik Taras DYATLIK, Rovno, Ukraine
1. Introduction
Taras Dyatlik holds a Bachelor of Theology degree from Donetsk Christian University (1997) and a Master of Theology degree with an emphasis in Greek New Testament textual studies (2005) from Evangelische Theologische Faculteit (Leuven, Belgium). Presently he is a Ph.D. candidate at ETF specializing in philosophy of theological education. Since 2008 he has been Coordinator of the EAAA Research Center, and since 2011 Overseas Council Regional Director in Eurasia. He is married with two children. Additional information is available at http://dyatlik.net.
The First Epistle of John ends with three affirmations, each of which is introduced by the phrase oidamen..: o'i5qj,ev oil paj o Yeyevvhrnenoj 4k tou 0eou ouc qmapTaveL (5.18); oi5qj,ev oil 4k tou 0eou eomen (5.19); and oi5qj,ev 54 oil o uloj tou 0eou hkei Kai 545wK6n hmin Siavoiay (5.20).
Thus John takes up the theme of 5.13, what we should know (tauta egpaya umin ina eldhte), and the theme of 5.15, what we do know (kai ean oidamen oti akouei hmwn o ean
j ' f\ v £ v v j ' <> j ' j j
aitwmeSa, oioamen oti e/omen ta aithmata a hthKamen ap autou); and 'in a series of three affirmations he declares the content of this Christian knowledge which should characterize his readers' (Marshall 1978: 251).1
John's first affirmation consists of three parts: (1) oidamen oti paj o gegennhmenoj 4k tou 0eou ou/ amaptanei, (2) ail' o yennhOeij 4k tou 0eou thpei auton (3) Kai o ponhpoj ou/ aptetai autou. Amongst New Testament scholars there is more-or-less unanimous agreement on what the first and the third parts mean. However, this is not the case with regard to the second part, since it has a few variant readings that in different ways influence its interpretation and consequently its meaning.
Therefore, the purpose of this short study is to conduct a textual and lexical-syntactical analysis of 1 Jn 5.18, looking at both external and internal textual evidence in order to determine which of the present variants reflects the original reading.
1 See also, for example, Boice (1979: 177-78), Brown (1982: 637), Stott (1964: 191), Huther (1882: 479), Ross (1963: 222-23), and Kistemaker (1986: 365).
2. External evidence: Minor variant readings
In 1 Jn 5.18 there are three minor variant readings in the phrase o yennhQeic 6k: (a) eyennhQh" o 56 yennhQeic 6k; (b) h yennhoic, and (c) o yeyennhm6noc.
2.1. ...but he was born; and he who has been born of God keeps himself...
Oidamen on pa? o yeyennhm6noc 6k tou 0eou ouc ¿mKPTavei, ¿11' eyennhQh" o 56 ymnhQiic 6k tou 0eou thpei 6auton...
This reading is witnessed to only by one MINUSCULE 33IX. It is most likely a dittography, allegennhqhodegennhqeisek. The appearance of the conjunction de may also be explained within the bounds of dittography. Since this manuscript was written with minuscule script, a scribe might confuse the letters a and o, as well considering the letters le as the conjunction de while copying the text. If this is the case, then it can be depicted in the following way: alle ^ ode. Or de might be simply an addition. However that may be, no value can be attached to this variant reading.
2.2. 'but the birth of God keeps him safe'
Oidamen oti pa? o yeyennhm6noc 6k tou 0eou ouc ¿maptanei, ¿11' h yinnhoic tou 0eou thpei auton...
This reading is attested with the following witnesses: MINUSCULES 1505XH 1852xm 2138XI; OLD LATIN VERSIONS as itar IX itl VII itq Vn it' XI; OTHER VERSIONS as Vulgate syh VII copbo; CHURCH FATHERS of V century such as Chromatius, Jerome, and Vigilius.
As it is obvious, along with other witnesses, this variant reading is for the most part witnessed to only by the later manuscripts such as Family 2138.
One may suggest that the appearance of h y6nnhoic is a scribal error. That is, a copyist might mistakenly consider two letters qe as one letter s while copying the text; thus, ogennhqeis became hgennhsis , although the question about the change of the article from o to h remains open, since it seems unlikely that one would confuse the letters o and h). Nevertheless, it is yet difficult to explain this variant, since it looks like h y6nnhoic was first attested with Church Fathers in V century, then with Latin and some other versions in VII-XI centuries, and afterwards with minuscules of Family 2138 in XI-XIII centuries. Therefore, it could also be a doctrinal adjustment by the Church Fathers.
If it is accepted that h yennhoic was the doctrinal adjustment, then it may correspond with opepma in 3.9,2 since The Jerome Biblical Commentary states that 'this could well be original, corresponding to the less precise "anointing" and
2 pac o yeyennrnjinoc 6k tou 9eou amaptian ou poiei, oti opepma autou en autw iminei, cai ou dunatai amaptanein, oti 6k tou 9eou yeyennhtai.
"seed" previously used to designate the Spirit of God' (Brown 1968: 412). Harnack, for example, also holds the opinion that all other readings were corrupt, and suggests h yennhsij tou 0eofi thpei aUton to have been the correct reading.3 However, Robinson regards this variant as one of 'typical accidental errors of phoneme or sound-alike confusion.'4
Nevertheless, since this variant has relatively poor attestation, it can lay no claim to priority.5
2.3. 'but he who is born of God'
Oiôqmen oti p&ç 0 yeyennhmenoç 4k tou 0eofi ouc ¿maptanei, ail' o yeyennhmenoç 4k tou 0eoU thpei...
This variant is not supported in even a single manuscript, but is found only in Origen (doctrinal adjustment too?). Therefore, no value can be attached to this reading either.
Thus, it is evident that amongst three variants o yennhOeiç is the reading strongly attested by witnesses of all textual types, and the other readings arose either because scribes made mistakes while copying the text, or they were 'prompted to introduce one or another change in the interest of clarification of meaning' (Metzger 1994: 650).
3. External evidence: Major variant readings
There are two major variant readings in the text following the verb thpei: auton, and eauton.
3.1. 'but he who has been born of God keeps himself
Olôamen oti pâç o yeyennhmenoç 4k tou 0eou ouc amaptanei, all' o yennhOeiç 4k tou 0eou thpei eauton.
The reading thpei eauton is witnessed to by the following manuscripts and versions: UNCIALS © A** KIX LIX PIX YVIII/IX 049IX 056X 0142X; MINUSCULES 6XI11 33IX 69XV 81XI 206XIII 322 (XV), 323 (XI), 436 (XI), 623 (XI), 630 (XIV), 876 (XII), 945 (XI), 1067 (XIV), 1175 (XI), 1241 (XII), 1243 (XI), 1292 (XIII), 1409 (XIV), 1611 (XII), 1735 (XI/XII), 1739 (X), 1846 (XI), 1881 (XIV), 2298 (XI), 2344 (XI), 2464 (IX), 2492 (XIII);6 BYZANTINE witnesses, the majority of lectionaries; EARLY VERSIONS such as Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and
3 See Bultmann (1973: 88).
4 Maurice Robinson to TC-List, 18 June 1997 (http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/downloads/tc-list/tc-list.9706).
5 See also, for example, Marshall (1978: 252), Strecker (1996: 208), and Smalley (1984: 292-93).
6 As well as by the following minuscules: 5, 38, 97, 177, 181, 201, 216, 223, 226, 319, 356, 424, 440, 462, 479, 483, 489, 547, 582, 635, 642, 643, 917, 920, 927, 959, 999, 1022, 1240, 1245, 1248, 1311, 1315, 1319, 1424, 1522, 1597, 1610, 1738, 1799, 1827, 1829, 1835, 1845, 1854, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1876, 1888, 1889, 1891, 2143, 2401, 2423 (Richards 1977: 261).
Slavonic; amongst CHURCH FATHERS it is supported only by Origen. This reading is also followed in the editions of Bover, Hodges & Farstad, Lachmann, Merk, von Soden, and Vogels.
Thus thpel 4auton is attested with the following text-types: Alexandrian, Families 1739 and 2138, and Byzantine, as well as with a few early versions.
3.2. 'but he who has been born of God keeps him safe'
Oidamen oti paj o yeyennhminoj 4k tou 0eou ou/ amaptanei, ail' o gennhOelj 4k tou 0eou thpel auton...
The variant thpel auton is supported with the following witnesses: UNCIALS A*, B2; MINUSCULES 330 (XII), 451 (XI), 614 (XIII), 794 (XIV), 1505 (XII), 1852 (XIII), 1898 (X), 2138 (XI), 2412 (XII), 2495 (XIV/XV); OLD LATIN VERSIONS as itar (IX), itl (VII), itt (XI); CHURCH FATHERS of V century as Chromatius, Jerome, and Vigilius. This reading is also followed in the editions of New English Bible (Tasker), Revised Version (Souter), Tischendorf eighth edition, UBS, Westcott & Hort.
Thus tepel auton is found in the following text-types: Alexandrian, and Family 2138, as well as in a few Old Latin versions, and three Latin Church Fathers. One also should note, first, that this reading is absent in such text-types as Family 1739 and Byzantine, and, secondly, that thpel auton is also witnessed to by the same minuscules supporting h g4nnhoij (Family 2138) as well as by the same Old Latin versions (itar, itl, itq, itt), and Latin Church Fathers (Chromatius, Jerome, and Vigilius).
3.3. Short analysis of the variants rnpel eautov and T^pel aixov
In order to show more clearly the distribution of the manuscripts supporting these two readings, the variants and their witnesses are summarized in the following table:7
Text-types Tnpei Wcon Tnpei aUrov
Alexandrian ® A**, 33, 81, 436, etc. B2 A*
Byzantine K, L, 049, 056, 0142, pm —
Family 1739 6, 323, 945, 1241, 1243, 1739, 1881 —
Family 2138 206, 630, 1611 614, 1505, 2138, 2412, 2495
Early versions Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic Old Latin versions such as if (IX), it1 (VII), itt (XI)
7 See also the letter of Robert B. Waltz to TC-List, 17 June 1997 (http://rosetta.reltech.org/ TC/downloads/tc-list/tc-list.9706).
Church Fathers Origen Chromatius, Jerome, and Vigilius
Critical Editions of the New Testament Bover, Hodges & Farstad, Lachmann, Merk, von Soden, Scrievener, Stephanus, and Vogels Tischendorf (8th ed.), Friberg, UBS, and Westcott & Hort
From this table it appears that the variant thpei 6auton predominates in Family 1739 and Byzantine texts,8 while the reading thpei auton predominates in Family 2138 and Latin witnesses.
What are then the possible explanations for the appearance of these two variant readings? A first possibility is that if the text was copied by a scribe by means of transcription, he might either mistakenly leave out 6 from 6&YTON (THpeieayTON ^ THpe laYTON), or add e to aYTON (THpeiaYTON ^ THpe leaYTON). A second possibility is that if the text was copied by scribes by means of dictation, then, as Robinson suggests, the appearance of the variants might be a phonetic error:
It is quite possible that the minority of copyists ... may simply have omitted the "E" due to the phonetic error of hearing THREI and HEAUTON sounded together in pronunciation. it is a likely accidental omission of a single letter in a minority of witnesses, occasioned primarily by phonetic slurring and blending of the -EI and HEAU- phonemes, merging the blended sound in such a way as to write -EI AU- instead of the normal -EI HEAU-.9
Although Robinson's explanation provides only possible reasons for the loss of 6, it is also possible that 6 was added because of the phonetic error. Thus, when analyzing the possibility of either loss or addition of 6, it seems more plausible that the mistake was caused by phonetic error than by transcriptional error.
However, it should be recognized that solely on the basis of the external evidence, it is almost impossible to determine with confidence the original reading with thpei - 6auton or auton - since the witnesses are more-or-less evenly divided between the two variants. Therefore, examining internal evidence may help one to decide between these two readings.
4. Internal evidence: Lexical-syntactical analysis
Amongst New Testament scholars there are two widespread interpretations of o yennhQeic 6k tou 0eou: the phrase 'who has been born of God' refers to either (1) the Christian, or (2) Jesus Christ. There are a few scholars who do not accept
8 One should note that the Byzantine witnesses are not divided here as, for example, the Alexandrian.
9 Maurice Robinson to TC-List, 18 June 1997.
either of these interpretations. For example, O'Neill, suggests the reading thpel auton, but with the meaning that 'in the case of sin in the community, a perfect member is always ready to intercede and to protect the sinner, thpel auton, so that the Evil One does not touch him' (O'Neill 1966: 63). Robinson, on the other hand, proposes that this statement
could be understood as saying that Christ, "the one having been begotten by God", keeps or guards _himself_ (following the Byzantine reading, obviously). This then connects with the subsequent statement that "the Evil One does not touch him" = Christ, and not the believer per se. This also ties in well (as I read it) with v. 19, in which "the whole world lies in the Evil One," followed by v. 20, in which the attention turns once more to Christ -the one who "keeps himself" in v. 18, as the one who "has given to us understanding that we might know the truth", and so combat the Evil One.' (Maurice Robinson to TC-List, 18 June 1997)
The interpretations of O'Neill, Robinson, and a few others demand thorough and careful study, but since these views are so rare, they will not be considered in this article. Rather, only the views that the phrase refers to the Christian and to Christ will be considered.
4.1. o YewhQeU 4k tou 0eou = the Christian10
If this is the case, o yennhOelj 4k toU 0eoU is a stylistic variant,11 or simply a synonym for the preceding o yeyennhminoj 4k toU 0eoU. Therefore, one would then expect thpel 4auton rather than aUton. Thus, what are the possible arguments in favor of this reading?
(1) The aorist participle o yennhOelj is used with regard to the human being in the New Testament in Gal. 4.29,12 and Heb. 11.23.13 However, Jesus Christ is never elsewhere spoken as o yennhOelj (with the exception of the Western variant in Jn 1.13, Oj ... 4k 0eoU 4y4nnh0h itb, Irenaeuslat, Origenlat 1/2; Tertullian, Ambrose25, Jerome13, Augustine114, and Sulpiciusvid). Therefore, on the basis of the usage of this particular form it may be concluded that by o yennhOelj John means the Christian.
(2) The subject of the verb thp4w in the First Epistle of John (1 Jn 2.3-5; 3.22, 24; 5.3, as well as in his Gospel) is always the believer obeying the commandments and God's word. Therefore, if John means the believer when he uses this verb elsewhere, he is likely to mean the Christian in 1 Jn 5.18 as well.
10 See Brown (1982: 637-38), Bultmann (1973: 88; with hesitation), Calvin's Commentaries (1979: 312), Houlden (1973: 133), Huther (1882: 480), Kysar (1986: 115-16), Law (1968: 409), O'Neill (1966: 63), and Scrivener (1894: 408).
11 Or, according to O'Neill, 'a poetic variant' (O'Neill 1966: 63).
12 all' wopep tote o Kara aápKa yennröeij ediwKen ton Kara pneO|ma, oOtwj Kai nOn.
13 niotei MoOo|j yennröeij eKpOßr tpimrnon Opo twn patepwn aOtoO...
(3) Thp6w is used with reflexive pronouns not only in 1 Jn 5.18, but also in, for example, 1 Tim. 5.22 (oeauton aynon thpei), Jas. 1.27 (aopilon 6auton thpein ¿po tou coomou), and Jude 21 (6autoUc 6n ayaph QeoU thphoate), as well as in 1 Jn 5.21. In addition, Huther states that it is not always necessary to supply a predicate to thp6w (Huther 1882: 480). Brown also argues that 'the ongoing role of Christ is more that of a Paraclete for sinners than of a protector for the sinless.' He refers to Jn 17:12, and 15, where Jesus 'turns the protective role over to God when he leaves the earth' (Brown 1982: 638). Therefore, it follows that the task of keeping the Christian is God's, not Christ's. However, the Christian should keep himself from sin, or hold fast to God so that the wicked one does not touch him.
(4) Since in 3.3 John asserts that pac o ecwn thn 6lpi5a tauthn 6p' aUtw ayniZei 6auton, caGwc 6Keinoc aynoc 6otin, it may be said also that the Christian 'keeps himself from sinning' because these two ideas are virtually identical (Law 1968: 409).
(5) There are other passages in the First Epistle of John where the perfect and the aorist points of view are exchanged, such as for example in 1 Jn 3.9, 10 (compare ap6otalKen and ap6otei1en; hyaphiamen and hyaphoamen) (Law 1968: 409). However, in the case of the perfect hyaphiamen, many of the witnesses support the reading of the aorist hyaphoamen. Nevertheless, John might use o yennhQeic and o yeyennhm6noc interchangeably as well.
(6) It does not seem logical that John, having just described the Christian as o yeyennhm6noc, would immediately expect the reader to understand by o yennhQeic Jesus Christ. If this had been what he meant, he would probably have written o uioc autou or some similar phrase, because 'there is nothing in o yennhQeic, any more than in o yeyennhm6noc, by which it is intrinsically a fitting appellation for the Divine Son' (Law 1968: 408).
4.2. o Yewn0ei<S 6k tou 0eou = Jesus Christ14
If by o yennhQeic 6k toU 0eoU John really means Jesus Christ, then one would expect thpei aUton rather than 6auton. Therefore, what are the arguments in favor of this interpretation?
(1) If one were to hold to the interpretation that o yennhQeic 6k toU 0eoU = the Christian, then it would be too difficult to explain the shift John makes from the perfect participle o yeyennhm6noc to the aorist participle o yennhQeic. However, there is logic in such a change of tense if one believes that by this shift, John wants to draw the Christian's attention to Jesus Christ. Though it is
14 See Boice (1979: 179), Brooke (1957: 148), Bruce (1970: 125-26), Bultmann (1973: 88), Dodd (1961: 138), Gore (1928: 670), Grayston (1984: 145), Haas (1972: 128), Metzger (1971: 719; 1994: 650), Plummer (1980: 125), Ross (1963: 223), Smalley (1984: 303), Smith (1967: 198), Stott (1964: 192), Strecker (1996: 208), and Westcott (1960: 194).
true that this particular form in nominative case does not refer to Christ elsewhere in the New Testament, it should be recognized that, for example, in Mt. 1.20 and 2.1 the aorist participle derived from yennaw is used of Jesus' birth. The Nicene Creed speaks as well about Christ as KUpion 'IhooUn Xpioton, ton Ylon toU QeoU, yennh04nta 4k toU natpOj. Plummer contends, 'On any other interpretation S. John's marked change of tense appears arbitrary and confusing.' Regarding the shift in tense he suggests that
the perfect expresses a permanent relation begun in the past and continued in the present; the aorist expresses a timeless relation, a mere fact: the one signifies the child of God as opposed to those who have not become His children; the other signifies the Son of God as opposed to the evil one. (Plummer 1980: 125)
(2) When John uses the same verb yennaoGai regarding the Christian and Christ, he may intend 'to emphasize the identity of God's Son with his disciples' (Smalley 1984: 303). Boice also states,
No doubt John emphasized the birth of Jesus Christ for two reasons: first, to stress our kinship with Christ and, second, to remind us that the One who is to keep us from temptation was Himself also tempted. (Boice 1979: 179)
He is supported as well by Haas saying 'it may have been a matter of theology, which means that the author used the two almost identical phrases to emphasize that the Son identifies himself with his followers' (Haas 1972: 128). One should also note that in his Gospel and the First Epistle John usually uses the perfect passive forms derived from the verb yennaw to speak of the Christian (see Jn. 3.6, 8; 1 Jn 2.29; 3.9; 4.7; 5.1, 4, 18.), but he never uses the aorist participle o yennhOelj (with the exception of Jn. 8.41, and 9.32 speaking about the human being, and 18.37 speaking of Christ).
(3) The idea of disciples being 'kept' (thp4w) by Jesus is found particularly in Johannine literature in Jn. 17.12,15 and Rev. 3.10,16 and the idea of believers being 'protected' by God is found in Jn. 17.15,17 1 Pet. 1.5,18 and Jude 24.19
(4) Since the verb thp4w used with reflexive pronouns is followed by adverbial adjectives in 1 Tim. 5.22 (aynon), and Jas. 1.27 (aopilon), and by an indirect object in Jude 21 (4n ayaph GeoU), correspondingly thpel 4auton would demand some predicate expansion, or explanation 'of that from which the Christian "keeps" himself (Smalley 1984: 293).20
15 Ot4 hmhn met' aUtwn 4yw 4thpoun aUtoUj 4n tw Onomatl sou w 545wKaj moi, Kai 4$Ula£a...
16 oti 4thphoaj ton logon thj Upomonrj mou Kayw oe Thphow 4k thj wpaj tou peipaomoU...
17 oUk 4pwtw ina aphj aUtoUj 4k tou Koomou ail ina thphohj autouj 4k tou ponhpoU.
18 toUj 4n Sunamei 9eoU fpoupoum4nouj Sia plotewj elj owthplan...
19 Tw S4 Sunam4nw fuiaXai aUtoUj aptalotouj...
20 See also 2 Cor. 11.9: Kai 4n panti apaph 4mauton Umin 4thphoa Kai thphow.
5. Conclusion: thpei aUton
Taking into account the considerations of the external along with internal evidence for both variants, the author of this article is inclined to think that the reading thpei aUton reflects the original, rather than the variant thpei 6auton. Yet it is still difficult to decide between these two readings since the case from internal considerations is more-or-less equally strong for either variant, and the external evidence is evenly divided.
Thus the probable translation of 1 Jn 5.18 would be as follows: WE KNOW THAT WHOEVER IS BORN OF GOD DOES NOT SIN (does not live constantly in sin), BUT HE WHO HAS BEEN BORN OF GOD (Jesus Christ) KEEPS HIM (the Christian) SAFE (from constant sinning), AND THE WICKED ONE DOES NOT TOUCH HIM (the Christian).
However, this article is only a starting point in the author's task of looking for the original reading with regard to thpei. (Since he does not yet read German and French, only English sources were consulted.) In further study one should also consider and carefully analyze the interpretations of Latin and Greek Church Fathers, as well as the Reformers.
Bibliography
Alford, Henry.
1884 The Greek Testament. Vol. IV (London: Rivingstons). Boice, James Montgomery.
1979 The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House). Brooke, A. E.
1957 [1912] A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Brown, Raymond E.
1982 The Epistles of John (The Anchor Bible. Vol. XXX. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company). Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds.
1968 The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Vol. II (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Bruce, F. F.
1970 The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company). Bultmann, Rudolf.
1973 The Johannine Epistles (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Dodd, C. H.
1961 The Johannine Epistles (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, ed. J. Moffatt. London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited). Gore, Charles, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, eds.
1928 A New Commentary on Holy Scripture Including the Apocrypha (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge). Grayston, Kenneth.
1984 The Johannine Epistles (New Century Bible Commentary, eds. R. E. Clements, and M. Black. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.). Haas, C., M. de Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel.
1972 A Translator's Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for Translators Series. Vol. XIII. London: United Bible Societies).
Houlden, J. L.
1973 A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (Black's New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick. London: Adam & Charles Black).
Huther, J. E.
1882 Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of James and John (Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. H. A. W. Meyer. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Kistemaker, Simon J.
1986 Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John (New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Kysar, Robert.
1986 1, 2, 3, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House).
Law, Robert.
1968 [1909] The Tests of Life: a Study of the First Epistle of St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Marshall, Howard I.
1978 The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).
Metzger, Bruce M.
1971 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies).
1994 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).
O'Neill, J. C.
1966 The Puzzle of1 John (London: S.P.C.K.).
Plummer, Alfred.
1980 [1886] The Epistles of St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Richards, W. L.
1977 The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles (SBL Dissertation Series, 35. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).
Ross, Alexander.
1963 The Epistles of James and John (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott).
Scrivener, F. H. A.
1894 A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Vol. II (London: George Bell & Sons).
Smalley, Stephen S.
1984 1, 2, 3 John (Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. LI. Eds. David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books).
Smith, David.
1967 The Epistles of John (The Expositor's Greek Testament. Vol V. Ed. W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).
Stott, J. R. W.
1964 The Epistles of John: an Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).
Strecker, Georg.
1996 The Johannine Letters: a Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
Torrance, D. W., and T. F. Torrance, eds.
1979 Calvin's Commentaries: The Gospel According To St. John and the First Epistle of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).
Westcott, Brooke Foss.
1960 [1883] The Epistles of St. John: the Greek Text with Notes and Essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).
