⁵ tc The textual problem here between the present tense βασιλεύουσιν (basileuousin, “they are reigning”; so A 1006 1611 M^K) and the future βασιλεύσουσιν (basileusousin, “they will reign”; so א 1854 2053 M^A lat co) is a difficult one. Both readings have excellent support. On the one hand, the present tense seems to be the harder reading in this context. On the other hand, codex A elsewhere mistakes the future for the present (20:6). Further, the lunate sigma in majuscule script could have been overlooked by some scribes, resulting in the present tense. All things considered, there is a slight preference for the future.

⁴ sn The meaning of the statement that some will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God is clear at one level, harder at another. Jesus predicts some will experience the kingdom before they die. When does this happen? (1) An initial fulfillment is the next event, the transfiguration. (2) It is also possible in Luke’s understanding that all but Judas experience the initial fulfillment of the coming of God’s presence and rule in the work of Acts 2. In either case, the “kingdom of God” referred to here would be the initial rather than the final phase.

³ tc The translation here follows the reading προῆλθον (proēlthon, “they preceded”), found in א B (0187) 892 lat co. Some mss (D 28 33 700) read συνῆλθον (sunēlthon, “arrived there with them”), while the majority of mss, most of them late (P^84vid [A ƒ¹³] M sy^h), conflate the two readings (προῆλθον αὐτοὺς καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν, “they preceded them and came together to him”). The reading adopted here thus has better external credentials than the variants. As well, it is the harder reading internally, being changed “by copyists who thought it unlikely that the crowd on the land could have outstripped the boat” (TCGNT 78).

³ tc ‡ ὑμῖν (humin, “you”) is found in many valuable witnesses (P⁶¹ א F G P 0278 33 1505 1739 1881 al sy co). The witnesses for ἡμῖν (hēmin, “us”) are not as strong (A C D K L P Ψ 048^vid 1241 M), but nevertheless represent a broad base. Internally, ἡμῖν could be favored because of second person pronouns surrounding it, making it the harder reading. On the other hand, the last second person plural pronoun was in v. 3, and the next one will not show up until v. 22, a fact which tends to counter the internal argument on behalf of ἡμῖν. Although a decision is difficult, with the internal evidence being capable of favoring either reading, our preference is based on the external evidence; ὑμῖν is thus slightly preferred.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses, some of them significant (א² A D H 1175 1505 1881 M al lat sy bo), have σοι (soi, “you”) after παραγγέλλω (parangellō, “I charge [you]”), a predictable variant because the personal pronoun is demanded by the sense of the passage (and was added in the translation because of English requirements). Hence, the omission is the harder reading, and the addition of σοι is one of clarification. Further, the shorter reading is found in several significant witnesses, such as א* F G Ψ 6 33 1739. Although the external evidence is evenly balanced, internally the shorter reading is preferred. NA ²⁸ places σοι in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

² tc Most later witnesses (א² D¹ H^c Ψ 1175 1241 1881 M al) have “wise” (σόφῳ, sophō) here (thus, “the only wise God”), while the earlier and better witnesses (א* A D* F G H* 33 1739 lat co) lack this adjective. Although it could be argued that the longer reading is harder since it does not as emphatically affirm monotheism, it is more likely that scribes borrowed σόφῳ from Rom 16:27 (Rom 14:26 in M) where μόνῳ σόφῳ θεῷ (monō sophō theō, “the only wise God”) is textually solid. It is difficult to explain why Alexandrian and Western scribes would omit “wise” in 1 Tim 1:17 while keeping it in Rom 16:27 for a similar benedition.

² tc If the name Nympha is accented with a circumflex on the ultima (Νυμφᾶν, Numphan), then it refers to a man; if it receives an acute accent on the penult (Νύμφαν), the reference is to a woman. Scribes that considered Nympha to be a man’s name had the corresponding masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ here (autou, “his”; so D [F G] Ψ [1505] M), while those who saw Nympha as a woman read the feminine αὐτῆς here (autēs, “her”; B 0278 6 1739^[*^] 1881 sa). Several mss (א A C P 075 33 81 104 326 1175 2464 bo) have αὐτῶν (autōn, “their”), perhaps because of indecisiveness on the gender of Nympha, perhaps because they included ἀδελφούς (adelphous, here translated “brothers and sisters”) as part of the referent. The harder reading is certainly αὐτῆς, and thus Nympha should be considered a woman.

³ tc ‡ Grk “so that they will not be persecuted.” The indicative after ἵνα μή (hina mē) is unusual (though not unexampled elsewhere in the NT), making it the harder reading. The evidence is fairly evenly split between the indicative διώκονται (diōkontai; P⁴⁶ A C F G K L P 0278 6 81 104 326 629 1175 1241 1505 2464 pm) and the subjunctive διώκωνται (diōkōntai; א B D Ψ 33 365 1739 pm), with a slight preference for the subjunctive. However, since scribes would tend to change the indicative to a subjunctive due to syntactical requirements, the internal evidence is decidedly on the side of the indicative, suggesting that it is the autographic wording.

⁵ tc A few significant mss (P^46c B D* it sa) lack γάρ (gar, “for”), while the majority of witnesses have it (א C D¹ F G Ψ 0243 33 1739 1881 M sy bo). Even though P^46* omits γάρ, it has the same sense (viz., a subordinate clause) because it reads the participle βλέπων (blepōn, “seeing”; the Vulgate does the same). A decision is difficult because although the overwhelming external evidence is on the side of the conjunction, the lack of γάρ is a significantly harder reading, for the whole clause is something of an anacoluthon. Without the conjunction, the sentence reads more harshly. This would fit with Paul’s “vehemence of spirit” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 435) that is found especially in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. However, the mss that omit the conjunction are prone to such tendencies at times. In this instance, the conjunction should probably stand.

² tc The reading ἤ—τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει (ē—to kauchēma mou oudeis kenōsei, “than—no one will deprive me of my reason for boasting!”) is syntactically abrupt, but fully in keeping with Pauline style. It is supported by P⁴⁶ א* B D*^,c 33 1739 1881 as well as early patristic authors. Most witnesses, especially the later ones (א² C D² Ψ M lat), have a significantly smoother reading than this: ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου ἵνα τις κενώσῃ (or κενώσει); ē to kauchēma mou hina tis kenōsē (or kenōsei), “than that anyone should deprive me of my boasting.” The simple replacement of οὐδείς with ἵνα essentially accomplishes the smoothing out of the text, and as such the ἵνα reading is suspect. Not only is the harder reading in keeping with Pauline style, but it is also found in the earlier and better witnesses.

² tc Most mss read the first person singular pronoun με (me) here (A D 1175 1241 1505 1739^c 1881 2464 M lat sa). The second person singular pronoun σε (se) is superior because of external support (א B (F: σαι) G 1506* 1739*) and internal support (it is the harder reading since ch. 7 was narrated in the first person). At the same time, it could have arisen via dittography from the final syllable of the verb preceding it (ἠλευθέρωσεν, ēleutherōsen; “has set free”). But for this to happen in such early and diverse witnesses is unlikely, especially as it depends on various scribes repeatedly overlooking either the nu or the nu-bar at the end of the verb.

⁶ tc ‡ The first person pronoun ἡμῖν (hēmin, “to us”) is read by A C D E Ψ 33 1739 M lat sy, while the second person pronoun ὑμῖν (humin, “to you”) is read by P⁷⁴ א B 36 453 al co. The second person pronoun thus has significantly better external support. As well, ὑμῖν is a harder reading in this context, both because it is surrounded by first person pronouns and because Stephen perhaps “does not wish to disassociate himself from those who received God’s revelation in the past, but only from those who misinterpreted and disobeyed that revelation” (TCGNT 307). At the same time, Stephen does associate himself to some degree with his disobedient ancestors in v. 39, suggesting that the decisive break does not really come until v. 51 (where both his present audience and their ancestors are viewed as rebellious). Thus, both externally and internally ὑμῖν is the preferred reading.

² tc Some significant Western witnesses (D it) lack the words from this point to the end of v. 20. However, the authenticity of these verses is very likely. It is found in a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical base (P⁷⁵ א A B C L T^vid W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M al co), rendering the rise of the shorter reading much easier of explanation than the reverse. Further, the inclusion of the second cup is the harder reading, since it differs from Matt 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25. Further discussion of this complicated problem (the most difficult in Luke) can be found in TCGNT 148-50.

² tc Some significant Greek witnesses plus the majority of mss (א D L W Ψ ƒ¹ M) read the aorist imperative κτήσασθε (ktēsasthe) here, though some mss (A B Θ ƒ¹³ 33 lat sa) read the future indicative κτήσεσθε (ktēsesthe). A decision is difficult because the evidence is so evenly balanced, but the aorist imperative is the harder reading and better explains the rise of the other. J. A. Fitzmyer assesses the translation options this way: “In English one has to use something similar [i.e., a future indicative], even if one follows the [aorist imperative]” (Luke [AB], 2:1341); in the same vein, although this translation follows the aorist imperative because of English requirements it has been translated as though it were a future indicative.

² tc Some very significant mss (P⁷⁵ B D it sa) lack the words ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (en tē hēmera autou, “in his day”), but the words are included in א A L W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M lat sy bo. On the one hand, the shorter reading is impressive because it has some of the best Alexandrian and Western witnesses in support; on the other hand, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ is unusual (found nowhere else in the NT), and may be considered the harder reading. A decision is difficult, but it is probably best to retain the words. NA²⁸ rightly has the words in brackets, expressing doubt as to their authenticity.

⁵ tc Most mss (A C D [K] Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M latt bo) read αὐτούς (autous) instead of αὐτόν (auton) here. If original, this plural pronoun would act as the direct object of the infinitive ἰᾶσθαι (iasthai, “to heal”). However, the reading with the singular pronoun αὐτόν, which acts as the subject of the infinitive, is to be preferred. Externally, it has support from better mss (א B L W al sa). Internally, it is probable that scribes changed the singular αὐτόν to the plural αὐτούς, expecting the object of the infinitive to come at this point in the text. The singular as the harder reading accounts for the rise of the other reading.

³ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A^[*^] W Θ ƒ^1,13 M sy), have “on the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, tē tritē hēmera) instead of “after three days.” But not only does Mark nowhere else speak of the resurrection as occurring on the third day, the idiom he uses is a harder reading (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31, though in the latter text the later witnesses also have τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Further, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ conforms to the usage that is almost universally used in Matthew and Luke, and is found in the parallels to this text (Matt 20:19; Luke 18:33). Thus, scribes would be doubly motivated to change the wording. The most reliable witnesses, along with several other mss (א B C D L Δ Ψ 579 892 it co), have resisted this temptation.

⁴ tc In place of ἠπόρει (ēporei, “he was baffled”) the majority of mss (A C D ƒ¹ 33 M lat sy) have ἐποίει (epoiei, “he did”; cf. KJV’s “he did many things.”) The best mss (א B L [W] Θ co) support the reading followed in the translation. The variation may be no more than a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much alike. The verb ποιέω (poieō, “I do”) certainly occurs more frequently than ἀπορέω (aporeō, “I am at a loss”), so a scribe would be more likely to write a more familiar word. Further, even though the reading ἐποίει is the harder reading in terms of the sense, it is virtually nonsensical here, rendering it most likely an unintentional scribal error.

¹ tc The problematic citing of Jeremiah for a text which appears to come from Zechariah has prompted certain scribes to alter it. Codex 22 has Ζαχαρίου (Zachariou, “Zechariah”) while Φ 33 and several versional witnesses omit the prophet’s name altogether. And codex 21 and the Latin ms l change the prophet’s name to “Isaiah,” in accordance with natural scribal proclivities to alter the text toward the most prominent OT prophet. But unquestionably the name Jeremiah is the wording of the original here because it is supported by virtually all witnesses and because it is the harder reading. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC 8:562-63, for a discussion of the textual and especially hermeneutical problem.

² tc ‡ Most mss have either ἀνθρώπῳ (anthrōpō, “for a man” [so א³ C D W Δ Θ 087 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 1241 M latt]) τινί (tini, “for someone” 700), ἀνθρώπῳ τινί (anthrōpō tini, “for a man” [565]) or ἀνδρί (andri, “for a husband” [1424^c]) before the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”). “For a husband” is an assimilation to the parallel in Mark; the other readings may have been motivated by the clarification needed (especially to give the following αὐτοῦ [autou, “his”] an antecedent). But a few significant mss (א* B L Γ 579 1424*) have neither noun or the pronoun. In light of the variety of additions that clarify the subject of the infinitive, and especially since the shorter reading is the more difficult, it is likely that none of these additions was present in the autograph. As the harder reading, the shorter reading seems to best explain the rise of the others. NA²⁸, however, reads ἀνθρώπῳ here.