¹ tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (P^45vid א² A C D L W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nēsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most significant witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

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.

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.

³ sn Very few questions could have so completely revealed the wicked intentions of the religious leaders. Jesus’ question revealed the motivation of the religious leaders and exposed them for what they really were—hypocrites. They indicted themselves when they cited only two options and chose neither of them (“We do not know”). The point of Matt 21:23-27 is that no matter what Jesus said in response to their question, they were not going to believe it and would in the end use it against him.

³ tc ‡ Most witnesses, including several key mss (B D N W Γ Δ Θ ƒ^{1, 13} 33^vid 565 579 700 1241 1424 M latt sy) have αὐτοῖς (autois, “to them”) after ἀπόδος (apodos, “give the pay”), but this may be a motivated reading, clarifying the indirect object. The support for the omission, however, is not nearly as strong (א C L Z 085 Or). Nevertheless, NA²⁸ includes the pronoun on the basis of the greater external attestation. A decision is difficult, but regardless of what is original, English style is better served with an explicit indirect object.

³ tc Instead of the singular future indicative ποιήσω (poiēsō, “I will make”), most witnesses (C³ D L W Γ Δ Θ [Φ] 0281 ƒ^[1],13 33 1241 1424 M lat sy co) have the plural aorist subjunctive ποιήσωμεν (poiēsōmen, “let us make”). But since ποιήσωμεν is the reading found in the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, it is likely a motivated reading. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, as well as a few others (א B C* 700* as well as some versional and patristic witnesses) have ποιήσω. It is thus more likely that the singular verb is authentic.

¹ tc Most mss (D L W Δ Θ ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy^(p),h) read “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you,” before “those who persecute you.” But this is surely a motivated reading, importing the longer form of this aphorism from Luke 6:27-28. The shorter text is found in א B ƒ¹ sy^s,c sa bo^pt mae, as well as several fathers.

¹ tc ‡ The earliest mss (א* B sa) lack the name of John here (“but he tried to prevent him,” instead of “but John tried to prevent him”). It is, however, clearly implied (and is thus supplied in translation). Although the longer reading has excellent support (P⁹⁶ א¹ C D^s L W Γ Δ 0233 0250 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat[t] sy mae bo), it looks to be a motivated and predictable reading. Nevertheless, in light of the strong external support for “John,” it is only slightly more likely that the autographic wording of this verse lacked his name.

² tc Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, some mss read אֶל אֵת אֲשֶׁר or אֱלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (ʾel ʾet ʾasher or ʾele ʾet ʾasher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (ʾelay ʾet ʾasher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear—they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable—and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.

³ tn Heb “Lord of armies, just judge, tester of kidneys and heart.” The sentence has been broken up to avoid a long and complex English sentence. The translation is more in keeping with contemporary English style. In Hebrew thought the “kidneys” were thought of as the seat of the emotions and passions, and the “heart” was viewed as the seat of intellect, conscience, and will. The “heart” and the “kidneys” were often used figuratively for the thoughts, emotions, motives, and drives believed to be seated in them.

² tn Heb “in the heart unjust deeds you do.” The phrase “in the heart” (i.e., “mind”) seems to refer to their plans and motives. The Hebrew noun עַוְלָה (ʿavlah, “injustice”) is collocated with פָּעַל (paʿal, “do”) here and in Job 36:23 and Ps 119:3. Some emend the plural form עוֹלֹת (ʿolot, “unjust deeds”; see Ps 64:6) to the singular עָוֶל (ʿavel, “injustice”; see Job 34:32), taking the final tav (ת) as dittographic (note that the following verbal form begins with tav). Some then understand עָוֶל (ʿavel, “injustice”) as a genitive modifying “heart” and translate, “with a heart of injustice you act.”

¹ tn The verb חָמַד (khamad) focuses not on an external act but on an internal mental activity behind the act, the motivation for it. The word can be used in a very good sense (Pss 19:10; 68:16), but it has a bad connotation in contexts where the object desired is off limits. This command is aimed at curtailing the greedy desire for something belonging to a neighbor, a desire that leads to the taking of it or the attempt to take it. It was used in the story of the Garden of Eden for the tree that was desired.

¹ tn Heb “and Jacob answered and said to Laban, ‘Because I was afraid.’” This statement is a not a response to the question about Laban’s household gods that immediately precedes, but to the earlier question about Jacob’s motivation for leaving so quickly and secretly (see v. 27). For this reason the words “I left secretly” are supplied in the translation to indicate the connection to Laban’s earlier question in v. 27. Additionally the order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse have been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons.

⁵ sn This episode is basic to the NT teaching of Paul on justification (Romans 4). Paul weaves this passage and Ps 32 together, as both refer to imputing an attribute, righteousness or guilt. Paul explains that for the one who believes in the Lord, like Abram, God credits him with righteousness but does not credit his sins against him because he is forgiven. Justification does not mean that the believer is thoroughly righteous in motive and conduct; it means that God credits him with righteous standing, so that in the records of heaven (as it were) he is declared righteous. See M. G. Kline, “Abram’s Amen,” WTJ 31 (1968): 1-11.

⁵ tn The prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ (en agapē, “in love”) may modify one of three words or phrases: (1) “chose,” (2) “holy and unblemished,” both in v. 4, or (3) “by predestining” in v. 5. If it modifies “chose,” it refers to God’s motivation in that election, but this option is unlikely because of the placement of the prepositional phrase far away from the verb. The other two options are more likely. If it modifies “holy and unblemished,” it specifies that our holiness cannot be divorced from love. This view is in keeping with the author’s use of ἀγάπη to refer often to human love in Ephesians, but the placement of the prepositional phrase not immediately following the words it modifies would be slightly awkward. If it modifies “by predestining” (v. 5), again the motivation of God’s choice is love. This would fit the focus of the passage on God’s gracious actions toward believers. In Eph 3:17 the same prepositional phrase, ἐν ἀγάπῃ (en agapē, “in love”), occurs in the Greek text ahead of the participles it modifies, presumably for emphasis, and the same could be the case here.

² sn John says simply that the notice was fastened to the cross. Luke 23:38 says the inscription was placed “over him” (Jesus), and Matt 27:37 that it was placed over Jesus’ head. On the basis of Matthew’s statement Jesus’ cross is usually depicted as the crux immissa, the cross which has the crossbeam set below the top of the upright beam. The other commonly used type of cross was the crux commissa, which had the crossbeam atop the upright beam. But Matthew’s statement is not conclusive, since with the crux commissa the body would have sagged downward enough to allow the placard to be placed above Jesus’ head. The placard with Pilate’s inscription is mentioned in all the gospels, but for John it was certainly ironic. Jesus really was the King of the Jews, although he was a king rejected by his own people (cf. 1:11). Pilate’s own motivation for placing the title over Jesus is considerably more obscure. He may have meant this as a final mockery of Jesus himself, but Pilate’s earlier mockery of Jesus seemed to be motivated by a desire to gain pity from the Jewish authorities in order to have him released. More likely Pilate saw this as a subtle way of getting back at the Jewish authorities who had pressured him into the execution of one he considered to be an innocent man.

² tc ‡ Two early and significant Greek mss along with two versional witnesses (P⁷⁵ B sy^s ac²) lack ἡ γυνή (hē gunē, “the woman”) here; א* has ἐκείνη (ekeinē, “that one” or possibly “she”) instead of ἡ γυνή. It is possible that no explicit subject was in the autographic text and scribes added either ἡ γυνή or ἐκείνη to make the meaning clear. It is also possible that the archetype of P⁷⁵ א B expunged the subject because it was not altogether necessary, with the scribe of א later adding the pronoun. However, ἡ γυνή is not in doubt in any other introduction to the woman’s words in this chapter (cf. vv. 9, 15, 17, 19, 25), suggesting that intentional deletion was not the motive for the shorter reading in v. 11 (or else why would they delete the words only here?). Thus, the fact that virtually all witnesses (P⁶⁶ א² A C D L W^s Θ Ψ 050 083 086 ƒ^1,13 M latt sy^c,p,h sa bo) have ἡ γυνή here may suggest that it is a motivated reading, conforming this verse to the rest of the pericope. Although a decision is difficult, it is probably best to regard the shorter reading as authentic. NA²⁸ has ἡ γυνή in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity. For English stylistic reasons, the translation also includes “the woman” here.

¹ tc The majority of Byzantine minuscules, along with a few other witnesses (C³ K L Γ Θ 579 700^txt* 1424^c sa mae), lack νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε (nekrous egeirete, “raise the dead”), most likely because of oversight due to a string of similar endings (-ετε in the second person imperatives, occurring five times in v. 8). The longer version of this verse is found in several diverse and ancient witnesses such as א B C* (D) N 0281^vid ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579^mg lat bo; P W Δ 348 sy^h have a word-order variation, but nevertheless include νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε. Although some Byzantine-text proponents charge the Alexandrian witnesses with theologically-motivated alterations toward heterodoxy, it is interesting to find a variant such as this in which the charge could be reversed (do the Byzantine scribes have something against the miracle of resurrection?). In reality, such charges of wholesale theologically-motivated changes toward heterodoxy are immediately suspect due to lack of evidence of intentional changes (here the change is evidently due to accidental omission).

³ tc The consonantal form להציל is vocalized by the MT as לִהַצִּיל (l^ehatsil), a Hiphil infinitive construct from נָצַל (natsal, “to deliver, rescue”; BDB 664-65 s.v. נָצַל). However, the LXX’s τοῦ σκιάζειν (tou skiazein, “to shade”) reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of לְהָצֵיל (l^ehatsel), a Niphal infinitive construct from צָלַל (tsalal, “to shade”; see BDB 853 s.v. צָלַל). The MT vocalization is preferred for several reasons. First, it is the more difficult form with the assimilated nun. Second, the presence of the noun צֵל (tsel, “shadow”) just two words before helps to explain the origin of the LXX vocalization, which was influenced by this noun in the immediate context. Third, God’s primary motivation in giving the plant to Jonah was not simply to provide shade for him because the next day the Lord killed the plant (v. 7). God’s primary motivation was to create a situation to “rescue” Jonah from his bad attitude. Nevertheless, the narrator’s choice of the somewhat ambiguous consonantal form להציל might have been done to create a wordplay on נָצַל (“to rescue, deliver”) and צָלַל (“to shade”). Jonah thought that God was providing him shade, but God was really working to deliver him from his evil attitude, as the ensuing dialogue indicates.

¹ tc The “therefore” (οὖν, oun) is not found in א 2053 2329 2351 M^A or the Latin mss. It is, however, included in impressive witnesses such as A C 046 1006 1611 sy^p,h co. Though the conjunction looks at first glance like a scribal clarification, its omission may be explained on the basis of its similarity to the last three letters of the verb “repent” (μετανόησον, metanoēson; since οὖν is a postpositive conjunction in Greek, the final three letters of the verb [-σον, -son] would have been immediately followed by ουν). A scribe could have simply passed over the conjunction in his copy when he saw the last three letters of the imperative verb. A decision is difficult, however, because of the motivation to add to the text and the quality of witnesses that lack the conjunction.