(1) τὴν ἀγάπην B.
(2) τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε A א C D* F G P 17, 37, 47; the Old Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harclean Syriac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), and others.
(3) τὴν ἀγάπην τήν. Dc K L; the Peshito Syriac (apparently), and Armenian (apparently) Versions; Chrysostom, Theodoret and others.
If the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we could not hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms to the parallel passage Philem. 5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις, while (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes. i. 15 καὶ [τὴν ἀγάπην] τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἅγιους. Thus, though ἣν ἔχετε is so highly supported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to suspicion. Still the omission in B may be an instance of that impatience of apparently superfluous words, which sometimes appears in this MS.
i. 7 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δίακονοϲ.
i. 7 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.
Here there is a conflict between MSS and Versions.
(1) ἡμῶν A B א* D* F G, 3, 13, 33, 43, 52, 80, 91, 109. This must also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary (though the editors make him write ‘pro vobis’), for he explains it ‘qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice Apostoli.’
(2) ὑμῶν אc C Db K L P, 17, 37, 47, and many others; the Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic, Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respective texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there is nothing decisive in their comments), with others.
The Old Latin is doubtful; d, e having vobis and g nobis.