² tc ‡ Most mss, including some of the most important ones (B D E Ψ M sy), read αὐτοῖς (autois, “to them”) here, while some excellent and early witnesses (P^45vid,74vid א A 33 81 945 1739) lack the pronoun. Although it is possible that the pronoun was deleted because it was seen as superfluous, it is also possible that it was added as a natural expansion on the text, strengthening the connection between Peter and his listeners. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁸ puts the pronoun in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

⁴ tn Or “Built up.” The participle οἰκοδομουμένη (oikodomoumenē) has been translated as a participle of result related to εἶχεν (eichen). It could also be understood as adverbial to ἐπληθύνετο (eplēthuneto): “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace. Strengthened and living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.” Although some scholars do not regard the participle of result as a legitimate category, it is actually fairly common (see ExSyn 637-39).

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.

¹ tn The traditional interpretation is that Ezekiel embarked on his mission with bitterness and anger, either reflecting God’s attitude toward the sinful people or his own feelings about having to carry out such an unpleasant task. L. C. Allen (Ezekiel [WBC], 1:13) takes “bitterly” as a misplaced marginal note and understands the following word, normally translated “anger,” in the sense of fervor or passion. He translates, “I was passionately moved” (p. 4). Another option is to take the word translated “bitterly” as a verb meaning “strengthened” (attested in Ugaritic). See G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 152.

² sn This refers to the tearing down of buildings within the city to strengthen the wall or to fill gaps in it which had been created by the Babylonian battering rams. For a parallel to this during the siege of Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah, see Isa 22:10 and 2 Chr 32:5. These torn-down buildings were also used as burial mounds for those who died in the fighting or through starvation and disease during the siege. The siege prohibited them from taking the bodies outside the city for burial, and leaving them in their houses or in the streets would have defiled them.

¹ tn The verb בָּטַח (batakh) means “to trust; to have confidence in.” With the subject of the verb being “the heart of her husband,” the idea is strengthened—he truly trusts her. Cf. NCV “trusts her completely”; NIV “has full confidence in her.” The verb בָּטַח (batakh) may be stative or dynamic (the evidence is inconclusive). The perfect form of a stative verb could be past tense or present tense, while a dynamic verb would be past or perfective. Given the context of past time verbs throughout the description, it is best to understand this verb as perfective, “has trusted.”

³ tc The MT reads עֵזֶר (ʿezer, “help, strength”), thus “I have placed help on a warrior,” which might effectively mean “I have strengthened a warrior.” The BHS note suggests reading נֵזֶר (nezer, “crown”), similar to the sentiment of anointing in the next verse. HALOT suggests reading עֹזֶר (ʿozer, “hero”) based on an Ugaritic cognate which means “young man, hero, warrior” (HALOT 811 s.v. II עזר). Craigie treats it similarly, taking עזר as “lad/boy/stripling,” parallel to “young man” in the next line, and seeing either David and Saul or David and Goliath as the historical referent (P. C. Craigie, Psalms [WBC], 19:410).

³ tn Heb “[the one who] lifts my head.” This phrase could be understood to refer to a general strengthening of the psalmist by God during difficult circumstances. However, if one takes the suggestion of the superscription that this is a Davidic psalm written during the revolt of Absalom, the phrase “lift the head” could refer to the psalmist’s desire for restoration to his former position (cf. Gen 40:13 where the same phrase is used). Like the Hebrew text, the present translation (“who restores me”) can be understood in either sense.

³ tn Some commentators think that the second verb should be changed in order to avoid the repetition of the same word and to reflect the different words in the versions. The suggestion is to read יְעַוֵּה (y^eʿavveh) instead; this would mean “to cause someone to deviate,” for the root means “to bend.” The change is completely unwarranted; the LXX probably chose different words for stylistic reasons (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 198). The repetition in the Hebrew text is a common type; it strengthens the enormity of the charge Job seems to be making.

¹ tn The Hebrew construction is infrequent, employing גַּם (gam; “also”) and the noun כַּעַס (kaʿas; “grief, vexation, provocation”), which is a cognate to the verb (Hifil of כָּעַס; kaʿas, “to give grief, to provoke, to offend”). Both גַּם (gam; “also”) and use of the cognate noun strengthen the idea of aggravating her. A similar but negated construction appears in Jer 8:12. It suggests that this syntax speaks of attaining the notion in the verb to a significant level, in this case to the point of provocation or exasperation.

¹ tn The verb about Pharaoh’s heart in v. 35 is וַיֶּחֱזַק (vayyekhezaq), a Qal preterite: “and it was hardened” or “strengthened to resist.” This forms the summary statement of this stage in the drama. The verb used in v. 34 to report Pharaoh’s response was וַיַּכְבֵּד (vayyakhbed), a Hiphil preterite: “and he hardened [his heart]” or made it stubborn. The use of two descriptions of Pharaoh’s heart in close succession, along with mention of his servants’ heart condition, underscores the growing extent of the problem.

³ tc M^A reads “angel” (ἀγγέλου, angelou) instead of “eagle” (ἀετοῦ, aetou), a reading strongly supported by א A 046 M^K and several versions. On external grounds, ἀετοῦ is clearly the superior reading. ἀγγέλου could have arisen inadvertently due to similarities in spelling or sound between ἀετοῦ and ἀγγέλου. It may also have been intentional in order to bring this statement in line with 14:6 where an angel is mentioned as the one flying in midair. This seems a more likely reason, strengthened by the facts that the book only mentions eagles two other times (4:7; 12:14). Further, the immediate as well as broad context is replete with references to angels.

¹ sn I am writing to you. The author appears to have been concerned that some of his readers, at least, would accept the claims of the opponents as voiced in 1:6, 8, and 10. The counterclaims the author has made in 1:7, 9, and 2:1 seem intended to strengthen the readers and reassure them (among other things) that their sins are forgiven. Further assurances of their position here is in keeping with such a theme, and indeed, the topic of reassurance runs throughout the entire letter (see the purpose statement in 5:13). Finally, in such a context the warning which follows in 2:15-17 is not out of place because the author is dealing with a community that is discouraged by the controversy which has arisen within it and that is in need of exhortation.

¹ tc ‡ The majority of mss, including a few significant witnesses (א² D E [Ψ] 1739 M sy sa), have the negative particle οὐ (ou) here, effectively turning the high priest’s words into a question: “Did we not give you strict orders not to teach in this name?” But the earliest and most significant mss, along with some others (P⁷⁴ א* A B 1175 lat bo), lack the particle, making this a strong statement rather than a question. Scribes may have been tempted to omit the particle to strengthen the contrast between official Judaism and the new faith, but the fact that v. 27 introduces the quotation with ἐπηρώτησεν (epērōtēsen, “he questioned”) may well have prompted scribes to add οὐ to convert the rebuke into a question. Further, that excellent witnesses affirm the shorter reading is sufficient ground for accepting it as most probably authentic. NA²⁸ includes the particle in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

⁴ tc Most later witnesses (A Θ^c ƒ^1,13 M) have at the end of the verse “passing through their midst, he went away in this manner” (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, dielthōn dia mesou kai parēgen houtōs), while many others have similar permutations (so א^1,2 C L N Ψ 070 33 579 892 1241 al). The wording is similar to two other texts: Luke 4:30 (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου; in several mss αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο καί [autōn eporeueto kai] is found between this phrase and παρῆγεν, strengthening the parallel with Luke 4:30) and John 9:1 (παρῆγεν; cf. παράγων [paragōn] there). The effect is to signal Jesus’ departure as a miraculous cloaking. As such, the additional statement has all the earmarks of scribal amplification. Further, the best and earliest witnesses (P^66,75 א* B D W Θ* lat sa) lack these words, rendering the shorter text virtually certain.

² sn Ironically, a few decades earlier, Sennacherib engaged in a program of flood control because the Tebiltu River often flooded its banks inside Nineveh and undermined the palace foundations. Sennacherib also had to strengthen the foundations of his palace with “mighty slabs of limestone” so that “its foundation would not be weakened by the flood of high water” (D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, 99-100). At the time of the fall of Nineveh, the Palace of Ashurbanipal was located on the edge of the sharpest bend of the Khoser River as it flowed through the city; when the Khoser overflowed its banks, the palace foundation was weakened (J. Reade, “Studies in Assyrian Geography, Part I: Sennacherib and the Waters of Nineveh,” RA 72 [1978]: 51).

³ sn This verb יְחֹקְקוּ (y^ekhoq^equ) is related to the noun חֹק (khoq), which is a “statute; decree.” The verb is defined as “to cut in; to inscribe; to decree” (BDB 349 s.v. חָקַק). The point the verse is making is that when these potentates decree righteousness, it is by wisdom. History records all too often that these rulers acted as fools and opposed righteousness (cf. Ps 2:1-3). But people in power need wisdom to govern the earth (e.g., Isa 11:1-4 which predicts how Messiah will use wisdom to do this very thing). The point is underscored with the paronomasia in v. 15 with “kings” and “will reign” from the same root, and then in v. 16 with both “princes” and “rule” being cognate. The repetition of sounds and meanings strengthens the statements.

⁴ tc The reading “you received” (παρελάβετε, parelabete) is found predominately in Western witnesses (F G), although the support of B and the Sahidic version (along with 1505 2464) strengthens the reading considerably. The reading “they received” is found in two different forms: παρελάβοσαν (parelabosan; in א* A [D*] 0278 33) and παρέλαβον (parelabon; in א² D¹ Ψ 1175 1241 1739 1881 M). (παρέλαβον is evidently a correction of παρελάβοσαν to the more common spelling for the third person aorist form). The external evidence is divided fairly evenly, with παρελάβετε and παρελάβοσαν each having adequate support. Internal evidence leans toward “they received”: Given the second person reading, there is little reason why scribes would intentionally change it to a third person plural, and especially an archaic form at that. There is ample reason, however, for scribes to change the third person form to the second person form given that in the prior context παράδοσις (paradosis, “tradition”) is used with a relative clause (as here) with a second person verb (see 2:15). The third person form should be regarded as authentic.

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.

² tn The form that introduces this line has raised debate. The form מֵאֵין (meʾen) normally means “without” and introduces a qualification of a term expressing desolation, or it means “so that not” and introduces a negative result (cf. BDB 35 s.v. II אַיִן 6.b). Neither of these nuances fit either this verse or the occurrence in v. 7. BDB 35 s.v. II אַיִן 6.b.γ notes that some have explained this as a strengthened form of אַיִן (ʾayin), which occurs in a similar phrase five other times (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 8:23). Though many, including BDB, question the validity of this solution, it is probably better than the suggestion that BDB gives of repointing to מֵאַיִן (meʾayin, “whence”), which scarcely fits the context of v. 7, or the solution of HALOT 41 s.v. I אַיִן, which suggests that the מ (mem) is a double writing (dittograph) of the final consonant from the preceding word. That would assume that the scribe made the same error twice (also in v. 7) or was influenced the second time by the first erroneous writing.