The readings with the 2nd person of the personal pronoun (2C, 3B) would refer to the salvation or life that is generally promised to Christians (Koivf) acoTTipia or Cwi^), as a common good only to the addressee group and are therefore certainly itazist formations.
According to the readings with fipüi», salvation or life is common to us Christians, according to the majority reading this restriction also ceases to apply and salvation appears to be universally given. This turn of phrase hardly fits with the fact that the addressees in verse 1 were addressed as k\t|to( and now in verse 3 the subject of the letter, the call to fight for the duaf napa6o0claa -röis’ dYloi? rricm?, is placed in the context of the author's constant effort to proclaim to the same addressees the common salvation - of course the salvation common to us Christians. In reading 3, with Curns* instead of oo)Tnptas', community life or the common life of all Christians appears as the theme of this and earlier letters by the author. In relation to the present letter, this is certainly not inappropriate, as it is essentially about the truly Christian way of life and the correct behavior towards false teachers. It is therefore obvious to explain reading 3 as a clarification of reading 2. Finally, reading 5 is nonsense.
Readings 2C (<2) and 3B (<3) are due to itacism and were probably passed down because they are distortions that are hardly noticeable in a letter. Reading 5 is also likely to be an itacist spelling of tt\s Koivns*; because of the ending -tis*, one can assume that a reading with Cwffc at the end is the basis. With regard to the context, the majority reading is undoubtedly lectio difficilior: the (possibly spontaneous) addition and majority reproduction of is definitely closer than the omission. However, the majority reading may be based on the view, still occasionally held in modern times, that the author was interrupted by the current need to admonish the addressees when writing a document uept t% kchaojnpta?291. In this case, however, not only f|p<3v but also üpiv after ypdcfieiv would be superfluous. It is therefore unclear why the personal pronoun was omitted in the majority reading; that it was omitted can, however, be concluded from the superior attestation of the readings with fipüv or updiv after Koii/fj?, even if internal and external criteria point in different directions.
The attestation of the majority reading is almost exclusively limited to Koine manuscripts. Because of the Koine attestation, 2B is to be explained as a sub-variant of Reading 1, i.e. as a spontaneous addition to the contextual personal pronoun, not as a change due to Reading 2.
Readings 3 and 3B are special property of the core of the group Hk (other members, staggered according to distance from the Koine, at 2 and 1). The attestation of the mixed reading 4 by 01 proves that readings 3 and 3B are old.
