¹ tc Instead of an energic ו (nun), the text may have read a third masculine plural suffix ם (mem), “them,” which was confused with ן (nun) in the old script. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:621.

² tn The word translated “mark” is in Hebrew the letter ת (tav). Outside this context the only other occurrence of the word is in Job 31:35. In ancient Hebrew script this letter was written like the letter X.

¹ tc Some prefer to read “the king of Edom” and “for Edom” here. The names Syria (Heb “Aram,” אֲרָם, ʾaram) and Edom (אֱדֹם, ʾedom) are easily confused in the Hebrew consonantal script.

³ tc The MT reads a third masculine singular suffix, which could refer back to David. However, it is possible that an original third feminine singular suffix (יה-, yod-he) has been misread as masculine (יו-, yod-vav). In later Hebrew script a ה (he) resembles a יו- (yod-vav) combination.

² tc This translation accepts the emendation suggested in BHS of בְּרוּם (b^erum, “in the lifting”) for בָּרוּךְ (barukh). The letters mem (מ) and kaf (כ) were easily confused in the old script, while בָּרוּךְ (“blessed be”) implies a quotation, which is out of place here. The word also does not fit the later phrase “from its place,” which requires a verb of motion.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has simply “fury,” but the pronominal element can be assumed on the basis of what immediately follows (see “my anger” in the clause). It is possible that the suffixed yod (י) has been accidentally dropped by virtual haplography. Note that a vav (ו) is prefixed to the form that immediately follows; yod and vav are very similar in later script phases.

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.

² tc The Hebrew text has “for in Yah, the Lord, an everlasting rock.” Some have suggested that the phrase בְּיָהּ (beyah, “in Yah”) is the result of dittography. A scribe seeing כִּי יְהוָה (ki y^ehvah) in his original text would somehow have confused the letters and accidentally inserted בְּיָהּ between the words (bet and kaf [ב and כ] can be confused in later script phases). A number of English versions retain both divine names for emphasis (ESV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, NLT). One of the Qumran texts (1QIsa^a) confirms the MT reading as well.

⁵ tc A few mss (A B 1852 vg) lack καθαρᾶς (katharas, “pure”) and read simply καρδίας (kardias, “from the heart”) ”) or καρδίας ἀληθινῆς (kardias alēthinēs, “from a true heart,” found in א² vgms), but there is excellent ms support (P⁷² א* C P Ψ 33 1739 M co) for the word. The omission may have been accidental. In the majuscule script (kaqaras kardias) an accidental omission could have happened via homoioteleuton or homoioarcton. καθαρᾶς should be considered the initial reading. The NA²⁸ prints καθαρᾶς καρδίας with a diamond, indicating that the decision was a toss-up or, in the words of the preface, “there are two variants which in the editors’ judgement could equally well be adopted in the reconstructed initial text.”

² tc Two viable variants exist at this place in the text: ἁγιότητι (hagiotēti, “holiness”) vs. ἁπλότητι (haplotēti, “pure motives”). A confusion of letters could well have produced the variant (TCGNT 507): In majuscule script the words would have been written agiothti and aplothti. This, however, does not explain which reading created the other. Overall ἁπλότητι, though largely a Western-Byzantine reading (א² D F G M lat sy), is better suited to the context; it is also a Pauline word while ἁγιότης (hagiotēs) is not. It also best explains the rise of the other variants, πραότητι (praotēti, “gentleness”) and σπλάγχνοις (splanchnois, “compassion”). On the other hand, the external evidence in favor of ἁγιότητι is extremely strong (P⁴⁶ א* A B C K P Ψ 0121 0243 33 81 1739 1881 al co). This diversity of mss provides excellent evidence for authenticity, but because of the internal evidence listed above, ἁπλότητι is to be preferred, albeit only slightly.

⁶ sn The double reference in v. 7 to the Aramaic language is difficult. It would not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic. Some interpreters understand the verse to mean that the letter was written in the Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language, but this does not seem to give sufficient attention to the participle “translated” at the end of the verse. The second reference to Aramaic in the verse is more probably a gloss that calls attention to the fact that the following verses retain the Aramaic language of the letter in its original linguistic form. A similar reference to Aramaic occurs in Dan 2:4b, where the language of that book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic, whereas the rest of the book is written in Hebrew.

¹ tn The form בְּתָרְמָה (b^etormah) in the Hebrew text, which occurs only here, has traditionally been understood to mean “secretly” or “with deception.” If this is correct, it is derived from II רָמָה (ramah, “to deceive”). Some interpreters object, pointing out that this would imply Zebul was trying to deceive Abimelech, which is clearly not the case in this context. But this objection is unwarranted. If retained, the phrase would refer instead to deceptive measures used by Zebul to avoid the suspicion of Gaal when he dispatched the messengers from Shechem. The present translation assumes an emendation to “in Arumah” (בָּארוּמָה, baʾrumah), a site mentioned in v. 41 as the headquarters of Abimelech. Confusion of ʾalef and tav in archaic Hebrew script, while uncommon, is certainly not unimaginable.

² tn The verb וַיָּרֶק (vayyareq) is a rare form, probably related to the word רֵיק (req, “to be empty”). If so, it would be a very figurative use: “he emptied out” (or perhaps “unsheathed”) his men. The LXX has “mustered” (cf. NEB). E. A. Speiser (Genesis [AB], 103-4) suggests reading with Smr a verb diq, cognate with Akkadian deku, “to mobilize” troops. If this view is accepted, one must assume that a confusion of the Hebrew letters ד (dalet) and ר (resh) led to the error in the traditional Hebrew text. These two letters are easily confused in all phases of ancient Hebrew script development. The present translation is based on this view.

¹ tc The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what happened in the field. It is more likely that the ancient versions (Smr, LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac), which include Cain’s words, “Let’s go out to the field,” preserve the original reading here. After writing אָחִיו (ʾakhiyv, “his brother”), a scribe’s eye may have jumped to the end of the form בַּשָׂדֶה (bassadeh, “to the field”) and accidentally omitted the quotation. This would be an error of virtual homoioteleuton. In older phases of the Hebrew script the sequence יו (yod-vav) on אָחִיו is graphically similar to the final ה (he) on בַּשָׂדֶה.

¹ tc ‡ Some mss read “taken off” (ἐκδυσάμενοι, ekdusamenoi) instead of “put on” (ἐνδυσάμενοι, endusamenoi). This alternative reading would change the emphasis of the verse from putting on “our heavenly house” to taking off “our earthly house” (see the following note regarding the specification of the referent). The difference between the two readings is one letter (ν or κ), either of which may be mistaken for the other especially when written in majuscule script. ἐνδυσάμενοι enjoys strong support from the Alexandrian text (P⁴⁶ א B C 33 1739 1881), Byzantine witnesses, versions (lat sy co), and Clement of Alexandria. The Western text is the only text-form to differ: D*^,c reads ἐκδυσάμενοι, as does ar f^c Mcion Tert Spec; F and G read εκλ for εκδ which indirectly aligns them with D (and was surely due to confusion of letters in majuscule script). Thus “put on” has the oldest and best external attestation by far. Internal evidence also favors this reading. At first glance, it may seem that “after we have put on our heavenly house we will not be found naked” is an obvious statement; the scribe of D may have thought so and changed the participle. But v. 3 seems parenthetical (so A. Plummer, Second Corinthians [ICC], 147), and the idea that “we do not want to be unclothed but clothed” is repeated in v. 4 with an explanatory “for.” This concept also shows up in v. 2 with the phrase “we desire to put on.” So the context can be construed to argue for “put on” as the reading of the initial text. B. M. Metzger argues against the reading of NA²⁸, stating that ἐκδυσάμενοι is “an early alteration to avoid apparent tautology” (TCGNT 511; so also Plummer, 148). In addition, the reading ἐνδυσάμενοι fits the Pauline pattern of equivalence between apodosis and protasis that is found often enough in his conditional clauses. Thus, “put on” has the mark of authenticity and should be considered autographic.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses have καὶ τάς (kai tas; so D¹ Ψ 1241 1505 1881 M al) or simply καί (א² D* F G 6 365 1739) after ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs). A few significant witnesses lack such words (א* A H P 33 81 1175). The evidence is for the most part along “party” lines, with the shortest reading being found in the Alexandrian text, the conjunction in the Western, and the longest reading in the Byzantine tradition. Externally, the shortest reading is preferred. However, there is a good chance of homoiomeson or homoioteleuton in which case καί or καὶ τάς could have accidentally been omitted (note the αι [ai] and αι ας [ai as] in the word that follows, written here in majuscule script): wsautwskaigunaikas / wsautwskaitasgunaikas. Nevertheless, since both the καί and καὶ τάς are predictable variants, intended to fill out the meaning of the text, the shortest reading seems best able to explain the rise of the others. NA²⁸ has the καί in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Several early and significant witnesses, chiefly of the Western group (א* D* F G 365), lack ᾿Ιησοῦ (Iēsou, “Jesus”) here, while most Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (P⁴⁶ א¹ A B C D¹ Ψ 33 1175 1505 1739 [1881] 2464 M lat sy bo) have the word. However, because of the Western text’s proclivities to add or delete to the text, seemingly at whim, serious doubts should be attached to the shorter reading. It is strengthened, however, by א’s support. Nevertheless, since both א and D were corrected with the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ, their testimony might be questioned. Further, in majuscule script the nomina sacra here could have led to missing a word by way of homoioteleuton (cMuiMu). At the same time, in light of the rarity of scribal omissions of nomina sacra (see TCGNT 582, n. 1), a decision for inclusion of the word here must be tentative. NA²⁸ rightly places ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets.

³ tc Several early and significant witnesses (P^66,75 B W a b sa) lack θεοῦ (theou, “God”) here, thus reading “the only one,” while most of the rest of the tradition, including some very significant mss, has the name (א A D L Θ Ψ 33 M). Internally, it could be argued that the name of God was not used here, in keeping with the NT practice of suppressing the name of God at times for rhetorical effect, drawing the reader inexorably to the conclusion that the one being spoken of is God himself. On the other hand, never is ὁ μόνος (ho monos) used absolutely in the NT (i.e., without a noun or substantive with it), and always the subject of the adjunct is God (cf. Matt 24:36; John 17:3; 1 Tim 6:16). What then is to explain the shorter reading? In majuscule script, with θεοῦ written as a nomen sacrum, envisioning accidental omission of the name by way of homoioteleuton requires little imagination, largely because of the succession of words ending in -ου: toumonouqMuou. It is thus preferable to retain the word in the text.

² tc Most witnesses, including some significant ones (א² A Ψ 33 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 2464 M ar vg sy bo), read “holy” before “brothers [and sisters]” (ἁγίοις ἀδελφοῖς, hagiois adelphois). It is possible that ἁγίοις dropped out by way of homoioteleuton (in majuscule script the words would be written agioisadelfois), but it is equally possible that the adjective was added because of the influence of ἁγίῳ (hagiō) in v. 26. Another internal consideration is that the expression ἅγιοι ἀδελφοί (hagioi adelphoi, “holy brothers”) is not found elsewhere in the corpus Paulinum, though Col 1:2 comes close. But this fact could be argued either way: It may suggest that such an expression is not Pauline; on the other hand, the unusualness of the expression could have resulted in an alteration by some scribes. At the same time, since 1 Thessalonians is one of the earliest of Paul’s letters, and written well before he addresses Christians as saints (ἅγιοι) in 1 Corinthians for the first time, one might argue that Paul’s own forms of expression were going through something of a metamorphosis. Scribes insensitive to this fact could well impute later Pauline collocations onto his earlier letters. The internal evidence seems to support, albeit slightly, the omission of ἁγίοις here. Externally, most of the better witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western families (א* B D F G 0278 it sa Ambst) offer sufficient diversity for the shorter reading. Although the rating of “A” in UBS⁴ and UBS⁵ for the omission seems too generous, this reading is still to be preferred.

³ tc א* Θ 28 l2211 sa^ms Or lack υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “Son of God”), and both Irenaeus and Epiphanius additionally lack ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστου while virtually all the rest of the witnesses have the words (א B D L W Γ latt sy co Ir^lat; A Δ ƒ^1,13 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M also have τοῦ [tou] before θεοῦ), so the evidence seems to argue for the authenticity of “Son of God.” Most likely, the words were omitted by accident in some witnesses, since the last four words of v. 1, in majuscule script, would have looked like this: iu_c_r_u_u_u_q_u_. With all the successive upsilons an accidental deletion is likely. Further, the inclusion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ here finds its complement in 15:39, where the centurion claims that Jesus was υἱὸς θεοῦ (huios theou, “son of God”). Even though א is in general one of the best NT mss, the scribes of this codex were often quite sloppy. When an accidental omission is possible, its voice is significantly diminished. א’s testimony thus is not quite as preeminent in this situation. There are several other instances in which it breaks up chains of genitives ending in ου (cf., e.g., Acts 28:31; Col 2:2; Heb 12:2; Rev 12:14; 15:7; 22:1), showing that there is a significantly higher possibility of accidental scribal omission in a case like this. This christological inclusio parallels both Matthew (“Immanuel…God with us” in 1:23/“I am with you” in 28:20) and John (“the Word was God” in 1:1/“My Lord and my God” in 20:28), probably reflecting nascent christological development and articulation.