The word “Christ” is absent in most modern translations of 1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (ESV)
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (KJV)
There are 2 words in the Received Text (TR) not used in the Critical Text (NU):
ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ,κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦαὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας (TR)
ἐὰν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. (NA 28)
My understanding is that primary difference between the Received and Majority Texts from the NU Text stems from the acceptance of the Alexandrian text type manuscripts as the best representation of the original text. Since "δὲ" and “Χριστοῦ” are missing from these manuscripts, they have been deleted from the text thought to be original.
What seems odd about this decision is that one point of the Epistle is that Jesus is the Christ:
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? (2:22a ESV)
Including “Christ” in verse 7 seems logical given this message, while removing it raises the question, what blood cleanses?
Does the blood of Jesus cleanse?
Does the blood of Jesus Christ cleanse?
It is easy to explain the change as a scribal addition of “Christ.” Yet it is difficult to see why the writer, trying to defend their position that Jesus is the Christ would forget to include it.
Question 1: in contrast to the "blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin", what is the significance of the "blood of Jesus cleanses is from all sin" in the context of this Epistle? Also are the 2 additions δὲ and Χριστοῦ related?
Alexandria was the location from which Gnostic and the Arian heresy originated. For me, that raises a concern over the fidelity of any manuscript (of the period) associated with Alexandria or the Alexandrian school which taught scribes.
Question 2: is it accurate to see Alexandrian text type manuscripts as originating, either directly from Alexandria or from the school(s) in Alexandria?
Question 3: if there is a connection between Alexandria and the Alexandrian text manuscripts, what evidence is there that the manuscripts of 1 John presumed to be the best representation of the original text were not influenced by Gnosticism and Arianism in Alexandria?