*4:1και f35 [90%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ και ποθεν ℵ(A)B(C) [10%] NU (The unnecessary repetition of the adverb is not characteristic of the Alexandrians, but that doesn’t make it right.)
†4:2ουκ εχετε f35 𝕻100A,B [64%] RP,HF,NU ¦ και 12 ℵ [35%] OC,CP ¦ 12 δε [1%] TR ¦ one other variant (OC is in small print.) (I suppose the conjunction was added in an effort to make a parallel to “you murder and covet and are not able to obtain.”)
‡4:4μοιχοι και f35 (97.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻100ℵA,B (2%) NU ¦ 1 (0.4%) (The Alexandrian variant is an easy case of homoioarcton: ΜΟΙΧ … ΜΟΙΧ.)
§4:4αν f35 A [93%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ εαν ℵB [7%] NU
*4:4ουν f35 ℵA,B [58%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ — [42%] (The omission would be an easy case of homoioteleuton.)
†4:5κατωκησεν f35 [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ κατωκισεν ℵB [10%] NU ¦ κατωκεισεν A [2%]
§4:7αντιστητε f35 [47.5%] OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 δε ℵA,B [50%] RP,HF,NU ¦ 1 ουν [2.5%] (The conjunction looks to me like an infelicitous gloss. The conjunction at the beginning of the verse links it to the prior context, but the string of imperatives—‘submit’, ‘resist’, ‘draw near’, ‘cleanse and purify’, ‘lament and mourn and weep’—are not linked by conjunctions.)
*4:9μεταστραφητω f35 ℵA [93.5%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ μετατραπητω 𝕻100B [6%] NU ¦ two other variants
†4:10του κυριου f35 𝕻100 [82%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 2 ℵA,B [16%] NU ¦ 1 θεου [2%] (The article is correct.)
‡4:11γαρ f35 [26%] ¦ — ℵA,B [74%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU (The conjunction makes the reason for the exhortation overt; without it that semantic connection is not clear.)
§4:11και f35 (84.3%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ η 𝕻100ℵA,B (15.3%) NU ¦ — (0.4%)
§4:12ος κρινεις f35 [85%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ο κρινων 𝕻100ℵA,B [15%] NU
*4:12ετερον f35 [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ πλησιον ℵA,B [12%] NU [The Alexandrian variant destroys the point of the paragraph. Each person is different (background, experiences, personality, training) and we must recognize that God can and will deal differently with different people. He uses one ‘law’ with me, another ‘law’ with you, and so on. A law is a set of rules or demands, so when I judge a brother I am questioning the way (‘law’) that God is working on him. As He is both Lawgiver and Judge, I will have to answer to Him for how I judged my ‘brothers’.]
†4:13και f35 A [95%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ η ℵB [5%] NU
‡4:13πορευσωμεθα f35 A [76%] RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ πορευσομεθα 𝕻100vℵB [24%] OC,NU ¦ one other variant
†4:15ποιησωμεν f35 [89%] RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ ποιησομεν 𝕻100vℵA,B [11%] OC,NU ¦ one other variant
και f35 [90%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ και ποθεν ℵ(A)B(C) [10%] NU (The unnecessary repetition of the adverb is not characteristic of the Alexandrians, but that doesn’t make it right.)
ουκ εχετε f35 𝕻100A,B [64%] RP,HF,NU ¦ και 12 ℵ [35%] OC,CP ¦ 12 δε [1%] TR ¦ one other variant (OC is in small print.) (I suppose the conjunction was added in an effort to make a parallel to “you murder and covet and are not able to obtain.”)
μοιχοι και f35 (97.6%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ — 𝕻100ℵA,B (2%) NU ¦ 1 (0.4%) (The Alexandrian variant is an easy case of homoioarcton: ΜΟΙΧ … ΜΟΙΧ.)
αν f35 A [93%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ εαν ℵB [7%] NU
ουν f35 ℵA,B [58%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ — [42%] (The omission would be an easy case of homoioteleuton.)
κατωκησεν f35 [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ κατωκισεν ℵB [10%] NU ¦ κατωκεισεν A [2%]
ο θεος f35 ℵA,B [94%] RP,HF,OC,TR,NU ¦ κυριος [6%] CP
αντιστητε f35 [47.5%] OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 δε ℵA,B [50%] RP,HF,NU ¦ 1 ουν [2.5%] (The conjunction looks to me like an infelicitous gloss. The conjunction at the beginning of the verse links it to the prior context, but the string of imperatives—‘submit’, ‘resist’, ‘draw near’, ‘cleanse and purify’, ‘lament and mourn and weep’—are not linked by conjunctions.)
μεταστραφητω f35 ℵA [93.5%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ μετατραπητω 𝕻100B [6%] NU ¦ two other variants
του κυριου f35 𝕻100 [82%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ 2 ℵA,B [16%] NU ¦ 1 θεου [2%] (The article is correct.)
γαρ f35 [26%] ¦ — ℵA,B [74%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP,NU (The conjunction makes the reason for the exhortation overt; without it that semantic connection is not clear.)
και f35 (84.3%) RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ η 𝕻100ℵA,B (15.3%) NU ¦ — (0.4%)
ο f35 ℵA [96.5%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP[NU] ¦ — 𝕻100B [3.5%]
και κριτης f35 ℵA,B [62%] OC,NU ¦ — [38%] RP,HF,TR,CP (The omission could be the result of homoioteleuton: -ΤΗϹ … -ΤΗϹ.)
δε f35 𝕻100ℵA,B [94%] RP,HF,OC,CP,NU ¦ — [6%] TR
ος κρινεις f35 [85%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ ο κρινων 𝕻100ℵA,B [15%] NU
ετερον f35 [88%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ πλησιον ℵA,B [12%] NU [The Alexandrian variant destroys the point of the paragraph. Each person is different (background, experiences, personality, training) and we must recognize that God can and will deal differently with different people. He uses one ‘law’ with me, another ‘law’ with you, and so on. A law is a set of rules or demands, so when I judge a brother I am questioning the way (‘law’) that God is working on him. As He is both Lawgiver and Judge, I will have to answer to Him for how I judged my ‘brothers’.]
και f35 A [95%] RP,HF,OC,TR,CP ¦ η ℵB [5%] NU
πορευσωμεθα f35 A [76%] RP,HF,TR,CP ¦ πορευσομεθα 𝕻100vℵB [24%] OC,NU ¦ one other variant