³ tc παραδόσεων (paradoseōn; “traditions, commandments”) is read by D*, while the vast majority of witnesses read παραβάσεων (parabaseōn, “transgressions”). D’s reading makes little sense in this context. πράξεων (praxeōn, “of deeds”) replaces παραβάσεων in P⁴⁶ F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec. The wording is best taken as going with νόμος (nomos; “Why then the law of deeds?”), as is evident by the consistent punctuation in the later witnesses. But such an expression is unpauline and superfluous; it was almost certainly added by some early scribe(s) to soften the blow of Paul’s statement.

³ tc The majority of later mss (א² A^c D¹ Ψ 0243 0278 33 1739 1881 M) as well as some versional witnesses include the pronoun “my” here, but the omission of the pronoun has excellent external support (P^46vid א* A* B D* F G latt). Scribes probably added the pronoun for clarity, making the obvious referent explicit. This would also make “power” more parallel with “my grace.” Though the original text probably did not include “my,” scribes who added the word were following the sense of Paul’s statement.

¹ sn Down payment. The Greek word ἀρραβών (arrabōn) denotes the first payment or first installment of money or goods which serves as a guarantee or pledge for the completion of the transaction. In the NT the term is used only figuratively of the Holy Spirit as the down payment of the blessings promised by God (it occurs later in 2 Cor 5:5, and also in Eph 1:14). In the “already—not yet” scheme of the NT the possession of the Spirit now by believers (“already”) can be viewed as a guarantee that God will give them the balance of the promised blessings in the future (“not yet”).

¹ tc Grk “the brother.” Later witnesses (א² D² M) have ἀνδρί (andri, “husband”) here, apparently in conscious emulation of the earlier mention of ἀνήρ (anēr) in the verse. However, the earliest and best witnesses (P⁴⁶ א* A B C D* F G P Ψ 33 1739 al co) are decisively in favor of ἀδελφῷ (adelphō, “brother”), a word that because of the close association with “wife” here may have seemed inappropriate to many scribes. It is also for reasons of English style that “her husband” is used in the translation.

⁵ tc Some later mss include 28:29: “When he had said these things, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.” Verse 29 is lacking in P^74vid א A B E Ψ 048 33 81 1175 1739 2464 and a number of versions. They are included (with a few minor variations) in M it and some versions. This verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, as it lacks the best credentials. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

⁶ sn Candace was the title of the queen of the Ethiopians. Ethiopia refers to the kingdom of Nubia in the northern Sudan, whose capital was Meroe (not to be confused with Abyssinia, which was later called Ethiopia and converted to Christianity in the 4th century a.d.). Classical writers refer to several queens of Meroe in the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. who had the title Candace (Kandake). The Candace referred to here was probably Amantitere, who ruled a.d. 25-41.

⁴ tn Grk “and have a demon.” It is not clear what is meant by the charge Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις (Samaritēs ei su kai daimonion echeis). The meaning could be “you are a heretic and are possessed by a demon.” Note that the dual charge gets one reply (John 8:49). Perhaps the phrases were interchangeable: Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24) and in later traditions Dositheus, the two Samaritans who claimed to be sons of God, were regarded as mad, that is, possessed by demons.

¹ tc While a number of mss, especially the later ones (A^c C³ D Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M latt sy), include the words τον κραβ(β)ατ(τ)ον σου (ton krab(b)at(t)on sou, “your mat”) here, the earliest and best (P^66,75 א B C* L) do not. Nevertheless, in the translation, it is necessary to supply the words due to the demands of English style, which does not typically allow for understood or implied direct objects as Greek does.

¹ tn Or “a Judean.” Here BDAG 478 s.v. ᾿Ιουδαίος 2.a states, “Judean (with respect to birth, nationality, or cult).” The same term occurs in the plural later in this verse. In one sense “Judean” would work very well in the translation here, since the contrast is between residents of the two geographical regions. However, since in the context of this chapter the discussion soon becomes a religious rather than a territorial one (cf. vv. 19-26), the translation “Jew” has been retained here and in v. 22.

¹ tc Most witnesses have “Jesus” here, either with the article (א^c C² D L W^s Ψ 086 M lat) or without (א* A Θ ƒ^1,13 al), while several significant and early witnesses lack the name (P^66,75 B C* 33^vid). It is unlikely that scribes would have deliberately expunged the name of Jesus from the text here, especially since it aids the reader with the flow of the dialogue. Further, that the name occurs both anarthrously and with the article suggests that it was a later addition. (For similar arguments, see the note on “woman” in 4:11).

⁴ sn Note the remarkable similarity of Jesus’ testimony to the later testimony of the Apostle John himself in 1 John 1:2: “And we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us.” This is only one example of how thoroughly the author’s own thoughts were saturated with the words of Jesus (and also how difficult it is to distinguish the words of Jesus from the words of the author in the Fourth Gospel).

² tc Most mss, including later majority (A C D W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ¹³ 33^vid M it), add ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (hēmōn ho en tois ouranois, “our [Father] in heaven”) here. This makes the prayer begin like the version in Matt 6:9. The shorter version is read by P⁷⁵ א B (L: + ἡμῶν) 1 700 as well as some versions and fathers. Given this more weighty external evidence, combined with the scribal tendency to harmonize Gospel parallels, the shorter reading is preferred.

² tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A C D W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M it), read here “as also Elijah did,” making the allusion to 2 Kgs 1:10, 12, 14 more explicit. The shorter reading has better and earlier support (P^45,75 א B L Ξ 579 700* 1241 lat sa). It is difficult to explain how the shorter reading could have arisen from the longer, especially since it is well represented early on. However, the longer reading looks to have been a marginal note originally, incorporated into the text of Luke by early scribes.

² tc Most mss, especially the later ones, have ἀγαπητός (agapētos, “the one I love”; A C* W ƒ¹³ 33 M it), or ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ᾧ (ἠ)υδόκησα (agapētos en hō (ē)udokēsa, “the one I love, in whom I am well pleased”; C³ D Ψ) here, instead of ἐκλελεγμένος (eklelegmenos, “the Chosen One”), but these variants are probably assimilations to Matt 17:5 and Mark 9:7. The text behind the translation also enjoys excellent support from P^45,75 א B L Ξ (579) 892 1241 co.

² tc The textual tradition here is quite complicated. Most mss, especially later ones (A W Ψ ƒ¹³ M sy), read “Gadarenes,” which is the better reading in Matt 8:28. Some mss (א L Θ Ξ ƒ¹ 33 579 700* 1241) have “Gergesenes.” But early and significant representatives of the Alexandrian and Western groups (P⁷⁵ B D latt) have “Gerasenes,” the reading followed in the translation. The difference between Matthew and Luke may well have to do with uses of variant regional terms.

¹ sn The use of Nathan here as the son of David is different than Matthew, where Solomon is named. Nathan was David’s third son. It is not entirely clear what causes the difference. Some argue Nathan stresses a prophetic connection, but it is not clear how (through confusion with the prophet Nathan?). Others note the absence of a reference to Jeconiah later, so that here there is a difference to show the canceling out of this line. The differences appear to mean that Matthew’s line is a “royal and physical” line, while Luke has a “royal and legal” line.

⁵ tc Most mss, especially later ones (A C Ψ 0130 ƒ¹³ M it), read ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ (Iōsēph kai hē mētēr autou, “[both] Joseph and his mother”), a reading evidently intended to insulate the doctrine of the virgin conception of our Lord. But א B D L W Θ ƒ¹ 33 579 1241 lat sa read οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ (hoi goneis autou, “his parents”) as in the translation. Such motivated readings as the former lack credibility, especially since the better witnesses affirm the virgin conception of Christ in Luke 1:34-35.

⁵ sn This census (a decree…to register all the empire) is one of the more disputed historical remarks in Luke. Josephus (Ant. 18.1.1 [18.1-2]) only mentions a census in a.d. 6, too late for this setting. Such a census would have been a massive undertaking; it could have started under one ruler and emerged under another, to whose name it became attached. This is one possibility to explain the data. Another is that Quirinius, who became governor in Syria for the later census, may have been merely an administrator for this census. See also Luke 2:2.

¹ tc Most later mss add 15:28 “And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘He was counted with the lawless ones.’” Verse 28 is included in L Θ 083 0250 ƒ^1,13 33 M lat, but is lacking in significant Alexandrian and Western mss and some others (א A B C D Ψ). The addition of the verse with its quotation from Isa 53:12 probably represents a scribal assimilation from Luke 22:37. It was almost certainly not an original part of Mark’s Gospel. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

² tc A number of significant mss of various textual families (א B L W Δ Ψ 565 700 892 sa) do not include 11:26 “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your sins.” The verse is included in most later mss (A [C D] Θ [ƒ^1,13 33] M lat) and is not likely to be original. It is probably an assimilation to Matt 6:15. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.