¹ sn 1,700 gold shekels would be about 42.7 pounds (19.4 kilograms) of gold.

¹ tc Again, as in v. 16, the name “Jesus” is supplied before “Barabbas” in Θ ƒ¹ 700* sy^s Or^mss (Θ 700* lack the article τόν [ton] before Βαραββᾶν [Barabban]). The same argument for accepting the inclusion of “Jesus” as the earlier reading in the previous verse applies here as well.

⁵ tc Most mss (P⁴⁵ Ψ 070 ƒ¹³ 33 M) supply the pronoun ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) here, although several significant and early witnesses omit it (P⁷⁵ א A B D L Q W Θ ƒ¹ 700 2542 al lat). Externally, the shorter reading is superior. Internally, the pronoun looks to be a scribal clarification. In context the article can be translated as a possessive pronoun anyway (ExSyn 215), as it has been done for this translation.

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.

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.

³ tc Most mss ([A] Θ [Ψ] ƒ¹³ 33 M it) read “Joseph,” but in favor of the reading ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (ho patēr autou, “his father”) is both external (א B D L W 1 700 1241 sa) and internal evidence. Internally, the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that “Joseph” is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ, argues strongly for ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ as the authentic reading here. See also the note on “parents” in 2:43.

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.

² tc The phrase “or under a basket” is lacking in some significant and early mss (P^45,75 L Γ Ξ 070 ƒ¹ 700* 1241 2542 sy^s sa). It is hard to decide in this case, since the inclusion of “or under a basket” is widely attested by some early and decent witnesses, as well as the overwhelming majority of mss (א A B C D W Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ M latt). The parallel passage in Luke 8:16 does not include “under a basket.” If the phrase “under a basket” were added as a harmonization with Mark 4:21 and Matt 5:15, it is perhaps surprising that scribes did not add the phrase at Luke 8:16 as well. It seems somewhat more likely that a scribe copying Luke would be inclined to harmonize 11:33 with 8:16 by omitting the phrase here. Thus, the words “or under a basket” seem to have the marks of authenticity.

¹ tc Although the external evidence for the inclusion of “Jesus” before “Barabbas” (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted virtually to mss of what was formally labeled the “Caesarean” text (Θ ƒ¹ 700* sy^s arm geo²; Or^mss), the omission of the Lord’s name in apposition to “Barabbas” is such a strongly motivated reading that it can hardly be original. There is no good explanation for a scribe unintentionally adding ᾿Ιησοῦν (Iēsoun) before Βαραββᾶν (Barabban), especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (ton legomenon Christon, “who is called Christ”) to ᾿Ιησοῦν in v. 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called “Jesus” (otherwise, a mere “Jesus” would have been a sufficient appellation to distinguish the two). Metzger notes that codex S, a tenth-century majuscule, along with a score of minuscules, have a marginal comment on this verse as follows: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus.’” The attribution of this scholium is variously given as Anastasius, Chrysostom, or even Origen (TCGNT 56).

¹ tc A very difficult textual problem is found here. The most significant Alexandrian and Byzantine, as well as key Western, witnesses (א B C L W Γ Δ 0102 0281 ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 1241 1424 M lat co; SBL) have “and the dish” (καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, kai tēs paropsidos) after “cup,” while a few major witnesses (D Θ ƒ¹ 700 and some versional and patristic authorities) omit the phrase. On the one hand, scribes sometimes tended to eliminate redundancy; since “and the dish” is already present in v. 25, it may have been deleted in v. 26 by well-meaning copyists. On the other hand, as Metzger notes, the singular pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou, “its”) with τὸ ἐκτός (to ektos, “the outside”) in some of the same witnesses that have the longer reading (viz., B* ƒ¹³ al) hints that their archetype lacked the words (TCGNT 50). Further, scribes would be motivated both to add the phrase from v. 25 and to change αὐτοῦ to the plural pronoun αὐτῶν (autōn, “their”). Although the external evidence for the shorter reading is not compelling in itself, combined with these two prongs of internal evidence, it is to be slightly preferred.