¹ tc A large number of mss, some of them quite significant (P^46vid א² B D F G Ψ 0209 33 1881 M lat sa), read “or to be offended or to be made weak” after “to stumble.” The shorter reading “to stumble” is found only in Alexandrian mss (א* A C 048 81 945 1506 1739 bo). Although external evidence favors inclusion, internal evidence points to a scribal expansion, perhaps reminiscent of 1 Cor 8:11-13. The shorter reading is therefore preferred.

² tc Most mss (א¹ A D¹ Ψ 33 1175 1241 1505 1881 2464 M sy) have θεοῦ (theou) here rather than Χριστοῦ (Christou; found in א* B C D* 6 81 629 1506 1739 lat co). Although the Nestle-Aland apparatus includes P^46vid for this reading, more recent photographs by CSNTM reveal it to be κυρίου (“Lord”), a singular reading. External evidence strongly favors the reading “Christ” here. Internal evidence is also on its side, for the expression ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ (rhēma Christou) occurs nowhere else in the NT; thus scribes would be prone to change it to a known expression.

¹ tc ‡ A number of significant and early witnesses, along with several others (P^46vid א A C F G L Ψ 6 33 81 104 365 1505 al lat bo), read ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) after Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) in v. 34. But the shorter reading is not unrepresented (B D 0289 1175 1241 1739 1881 M sa). Once ᾿Ιησοῦς got into the text, what scribe would omit it? Although the external evidence is on the side of the longer reading, internally such an expansion seems suspect. The shorter reading is thus preferred. NA²⁸ has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

² tc Several mss read ᾿Ιησοῦν (Iēsoun, “Jesus”) after Χριστόν (Christon, “Christ”; א* A D* 630 1506 1739 1881 bo); C 81 104 lat have ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. The shorter reading is more likely to be autographic, though, both because of external evidence (א² B D² F G Ψ 33 1175 1241 1505 2464 M sa) and internal evidence (scribes were much more likely to add the name “Jesus” if it were lacking than to remove it if it were already present in the text, especially to harmonize with the earlier mention of Jesus in the verse).

¹ tc ‡ Some Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (P^94vid א* B C 81 365 1506 1739 1881) have the infinitive “to be” (εἶναι, einai) following “yourselves”. The infinitive is lacking from some mss of the Alexandrian and Western textual clusters (P^46vid A D*^,c F G 33). The infinitive is found elsewhere in the majority of Byzantine mss, suggesting a scribal tendency toward clarification. The lack of infinitive best explains the rise of the other readings. The meaning of the passage is not significantly altered by inclusion or omission, but on internal grounds omission is more likely. NA²⁸ includes the infinitive in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Most mss (B* C E Ψ M sy bo) read θεοῦ (theou, “of God”) here instead of κυρίου (kuriou, “of the Lord”). Other mss, among them some significant early witnesses (P⁷⁴ א A B² 33 81 323 945 1175 1739 al sa), read κυρίου. The external evidence favors κυρίου, though not decisively. Internally, the mention of “God” in v. 43, and especially “the word of God” in v. 46, would provide some temptation for scribes to assimilate the wording in v. 44 to these texts.

¹ tc Several witnesses, two of which are quite ancient (P^66,75 L N ƒ¹ 33 565 892 1241 al lat), have ὡς (hōs, “like”) before φραγέλλιον (phragellion, “whip”). A decision based on external evidence would be difficult to make because the shorter reading also has excellent witnesses, as well as the majority, on its side (א A B Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ M co). Internal evidence, though, leans toward the shorter reading. Scribes tended to add to the text, and the addition of ὡς here clearly softens the assertion of the evangelist: Instead of making a whip of cords, Jesus made “[something] like a whip of cords.”

⁵ tc ‡ Several witnesses (P⁷⁵ A L Θ Ψ 070 ƒ¹³ 33 579 892 al lat co) have “therefore” (οὖν, oun) here. This conjunction has the effect of strengthening the logical connection with the preceding statement but also of reducing the rhetorical power and urgency of the imperative. In light of the slightly greater internal probability of adding a conjunction to an otherwise asyndetic sentence, as well as significant external support for the omission (א B D W ƒ¹ M), the shorter reading appears to be more likely as the earlier wording here. NA²⁸ puts the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

² tc Most mss (א¹ A B L Q W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ^1,13 33 M lat sy^p,h sa^ms bo) read “he would have watched and not let” here, but this looks like an assimilation to Matt 24:43. The alliance of two significant and early mss along with a few others (P⁷⁵ א* [D] e i sy^s,c sa^mss), coupled with much stronger internal evidence, suggests that the shorter reading is authentic.

² sn There may be a slight wordplay here, as this term can also mean “evil,” so the figure uses a term that points to the real meaning of being careful as to what one pays attention to or looks at. Ancient understanding of vision involved light coming into the body from outside, and “light” thus easily becomes a metaphor for teaching. As a “diseased” eye would hinder the passage of light, so in the metaphor Jesus’ teaching would be blocked from being internalized in the hearer.

² tc Most mss (א¹ A C D W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ¹³ 33 M it sy^c,p,h) add “but deliver us from the evil one,” an assimilation to Matt 6:13. The shorter reading has better attestation (P⁷⁵ א*^,2 B L 1 700 vg sa Or). Internally, since the mss that have the longer reading here display the same tendency throughout the Lord’s Prayer to assimilate the Lukan version to the Matthean version, the shorter reading should be regarded as authentic in Luke.

¹ tc Or, with some mss (P³ [א] B C² L 070^vid ƒ¹ 33 [579]), “few things are needed—or only one” (as well as other variants). The textual problem here is a difficult one to decide. The shorter reading is normally preferred, but it is not altogether clear how the variants would arise from it. However, the reading followed in the translation has good support (with some internal variations) from a number of witnesses (P^45,75 A C* W Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ M lat sa).

² tc ‡ Although the external evidence favors the aorist παρήγγειλεν (parēngeilen, “he commanded”; P⁷⁵ B Θ Ξ Ψ ƒ¹³ 579 700 1241 1424 2542 pm), the internal evidence favors the imperfect παρήγγελλεν (parēngellen, here translated “he had started commanding”; א A C K L W Γ Δ 1 33 565 892 pm). The aorist is suspect because it can more easily be taken as a single command, and thus an immediate exorcism. The imperfect would most likely be ingressive, suggesting that Jesus started to command the evil spirit to depart, and continued the command.

² tc Most mss (A [D] Θ Ψ [0102] ƒ^1,13 33 M latt) complete the citation with ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ (all’ epi panti rhēmati theou, “but by every word from God”), an assimilation to Matt 4:4 (which is a quotation of Deut 8:3). The shorter reading is found in א B L W 1241 sa. There is no good reason why scribes would omit the rest of the quotation here. The shorter reading, on both internal and external grounds, should be considered the autographic wording in Luke.

² tc Most mss, predominantly of the Western and Byzantine texts (A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 2542 M lat), have ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”) as the explicit subject here, while א B L Δ Ψ 892 lack the name. A natural scribal tendency is to expand the text, especially to add the Lord’s name as the explicit subject of a verb. Scribes much less frequently omitted the Lord’s name (cf. the readings of W Θ 565 1424 in Mark 12:17). The internal and external evidence support one another here in behalf of the shorter reading.

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).

¹ tc Western witnesses D W it, instead of reading οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par’ autou, here translated “family”), have περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποί (peri autou hoi grammateis kai hoi loipoi, “[when] the scribes and others [heard] about him”). But this reading is obviously motivated, for it removes the embarrassing statement about Jesus’ family’s opinion of him as “out of his mind” and transfers this view to the Lord’s opponents. The fact that virtually all other witnesses have οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ here, coupled with the strong internal evidence for the shorter reading, shows this Western reading to be secondary.

² tc Expansions on the text, especially when the Lord is the subject, are a common scribal activity. In this instance, since the subject is embedded in the verb, three major variants have emerged to make the subject explicit: ὁ κύριος (ho kurios, “the Lord”; A C D L W Γ 0148 ƒ^1,13 565 579 700 1241 M lat), τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου (to sōma tou kuriou, “the body of the Lord”; 1424), and ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”; Φ). The reading with no explicit subject, however, is superior on both internal and external grounds, being supported by א B Θ 33 892* co.

³ tc Many witnesses, some of them quite significant, have μαθητῶν (mathētōn, “disciples”; א A L W Δ Θ 33 892 1241 1424 pm lat) or μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (mathētōn autou, “his disciples”; 0281 it) after δώδεκα (dōdeka, “twelve”). However, such clarifications are typical scribal expansions to the text. Further, the shorter reading (the one that ends with δώδεκα) has strong support in P^37vid,45vid B D K Γ ƒ^1,13 565 579 700 pm. Thus both internally and externally the reading that ends the verse with “the twelve” is to be preferred.

¹ tc Most witnesses have “of God” after “angels,” although some mss read ἄγγελοι θεοῦ (angeloi theou; א L ƒ¹³ 28 33 892 1241 1424) while others have ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (angeloi tou theou; W Γ Δ 0102 0161 565 579 M). Whether with or without the article, the reading “of God” appears to be a motivated addition. A few significant witnesses lack the adjunct (B D Θ 0233 ƒ¹ 700 sa); this coupled with strong internal evidence argues for the authenticity of the shorter reading.