⁴ tc The Greek text as it stands above (i.e., the reading τῷ θεῷ [tō theō] alone) is found in codex A. א 2050 2344 M sy add the term “us” (ἡμᾶς, hēmas), either before or after τῷ θεῷ, as an attempt to clarify the object of “purchased” (ἠγόρασας, ēgorasas). A few mss (1 vg^ms) delete the reference to God altogether and simply replace it with “us” (ἡμᾶς). This too is an attempt to remove ambiguity in the phrase and provide an object for “purchased.” The shorter reading, supported by the best witness for Revelation, best accounts for the other readings.

¹ tc A few significant mss (א B 614 630 1505 1611) lack “Jesus” after “Christ,” while the majority include the name (P⁷² A P Ψ 5 33 81 436 442 1175 1735 1739 1852 2344 2492 M latt). The inclusion is a natural and predictable expansion on the text, but in light of its broad representation a decision is difficult. NA²⁸ lists the longer reading in the apparatus with a diamond, indicating a toss-up as to what the initial text should read.

² tc A few significant and early witnesses mss (א* B sa) lack ἐπισκοποῦντες (episkopountes, “exercising oversight”), but the participle enjoys otherwise good ms support (P⁷² א² A P Ψ 33 1739 M lat bo). A decision is difficult because normally the shorter reading is preferred, especially when found in excellent witnesses. However, in this instance the omission may be due to a hesitation among some scribes to associate oversight with elders, since the later church viewed overseer/bishop as a separate office from elder.

² tc ‡ The reading adopted by the translation follows a few early mss and some versions (P^13,46vid B vg^ms co Ambr). The majority of mss (א A C D Ψ 0243 0278 33 1739 1881 M lat sy) insert “all” (“in all his house”), apparently in anticipation of Heb 3:5 which quotes directly from Num 12:7. On balance, the omission better explains the rise of ὅλῳ (holō, “all”) than vice versa. NA²⁸ puts ὅλῳ in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ A correlative καί (kai, “both you”) is found in a few witnesses (א*^,2 F G 33 104), perhaps either to underscore the value of Onesimus or in imitation of the νυνὶ δὲ καί (nuni de kai) in v. 9. The lack of καί is read by most witnesses, including א^c A C D 0278 1241 1505 1739 1881 M it. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading has a slight edge in both internal and external evidence. NA²⁸ places the καί in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc The Greek conjunction ὅτι usually means “because,” but here it takes the sense “so that” (see BDAG 732 s.v. 5.c). This unusual sense led to textual variation as scribes attempted to correct what appeared to be an error: D* along with a few versional and patristic witnesses read ἀληθὲς ὅτι (“it is true that”), and א² D¹ Ψ 1175 1241 1505 M al sy read δῆλον ὅτι (“it is clear that”). Thus the simple conjunction is preferred on internal as well as external grounds, supported by א* A F G 048 33 81 1739 1881.

¹ tc Most mss (א A C D² F G Ψ 0278 1175 1241 1505 2464 M al) have the plural τύπους (tupous, “examples”) here, while a few significant witnesses have the singular τύπον (tupon, “example”; B D*^,c 6 33 81 104 1739 1881 lat). With ὑμᾶς (humas, “you”) immediately preceding, the plural form looks motivated: Scribes would be expected to change the singular to the plural here. Although the external evidence for the singular reading is not overwhelming, the internal evidence for it is compelling.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially of the Byzantine and Western textual families, though with a few significant Alexandrian witnesses (א A D F G Ψ 0278 M latt sy), add ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) after καρδίας (kardias, “heart”), though it is clearly implied in the shorter (Alexandrian) reading (found in P⁴⁶ B 6 33 1175 1739 1881). The longer reading thus looks to be a clarifying gloss, as is frequently found in the Byzantine and Western traditions. The translation above has “your” because of English requirements, not because of textual basis.

¹ tc The Byzantine text, as well as a few other witnesses (D² [L] Ψ 1881 M) lack this parenthetical material, while geographically widespread, early, and diverse witnesses have the words (so א A B C D* F G P 33 104 365 1175 1505 1739 al latt). The phrase may have dropped out accidentally through homoioteleuton (note that both the preceding phrase and the parenthesis end in ὑπὸ νόμον [hupo nomon, “under the law”]), or intentionally by overscrupulous scribes who felt that the statement “I myself am not under the law” could have led to license.

⁵ tc Some later mss include 28:29: “When he had said these things, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.” Verse 29 is lacking in P^74vid א A B E Ψ 048 33 81 1175 1739 2464 and a number of versions. They are included (with a few minor variations) in M it and some versions. This verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, as it lacks the best credentials. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

¹ tc A few early mss (א* B Ψ [gig] sa [bo]) read περιελόντες (perielontes, “[From there we] cast off [and arrived at Rhegium]”; cf. Acts 27:40). The other major variant, περιελθόντες (perielthontes, “[we] sailed from place to place”), is found in P⁷⁴ א² A 066 1739 M lat sy. Although περιελόντες is minimally attested, it is found in the better witnesses. As well, it is a more difficult reading, for its meaning as a nautical term is uncertain, requiring something like “τὰς ἀγκύρας be supplied = ‘we weighed anchor’” (BDAG 799 s.v. περιαιρέω 1). It thus best explains the rise of the other readings.

⁶ tn Or “the Candace” (the title of the queen of the Ethiopians). The term Κανδάκης (Kandakēs) is much more likely a title rather than a proper name (like Pharaoh, which is a title); see L&N 37.77. A few, however, still take the word to be the name of the queen (L&N 93.209). BDAG 507 s.v. Κανδάκη, treats the term as a title and lists classical usage by Strabo (Geography 17.1.54) and others.

¹ tc The majority of mss (א A D W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M as well as several versional witnesses) begin this verse with an introductory comment, “and the Lord said,” indicating a change in the subject of discussion. But this is apparently a reading motivated by the need for clarity. Some of the best witnesses, along with a few others (P⁷⁵ B L T 1241 2542^c sy^s co), do not contain these words. The abrupt shift is the more difficult reading and thus more likely to be autographic.

² tc Instead of the future indicative δώσουσιν (dōsousin, “they will give”), most witnesses (C D W Θ Ψ ƒ¹ M) have the aorist subjunctive δῶσιν (dōsin, “they might give”). The aorist subjunctive is expected following ἵνα (hina, “so that”), so it is almost surely a motivated reading. Further, early and excellent witnesses, as well as a few others (א A B ƒ¹³ 33 579 1241 2542 al), have δώσουσιν. It is thus more likely that the future indicative is authentic. For a discussion of this construction, see BDF §369.2.

² 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. The point of Luke 20:1-8 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.

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.

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).

⁵ tc A few mss (5 16 348 1071 1216) read ᾿Ισραήλ (Israēl, “Israel”) or ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ (en tō Israēl, “in Israel”), but this reading does not have enough ms support to be considered authentic. More substantial is the reading ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (en Ierousalēm, “in Jerusalem”; found in A D L Θ Ψ 0130 ƒ¹³ 33 M), though the preposition was almost surely added to clarify (and perhaps alter) the meaning of the original. The simple ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, without preposition, is found in א B W Ξ 1 565* lat co.

³ tn Traditionally, “handmaid”; Grk “slave woman.” Though δούλη (doulē) is normally translated “woman servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free woman serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v. δοῦλος). One good translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος) in that it often indicates one who sells himself or herself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

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 Mark 11:27-33 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.