² tn Here the pronoun αὐτόν (auton), referring to Jesus, is in an emphatic position. The one thing they lacked was solid evidence that he was alive.

¹ tn Or possibly “food,” since in a number of extrabiblical contexts the phrase σιτία καὶ ποτά (sitia kai pota) means “food and drink,” where solid food is contrasted with liquid nourishment (L&N 3.42).

¹ tn Heb “[This is] the ephah.” An ephah was a liquid or solid measure of about a bushel (five gallons or just under twenty liters). By metonymy it refers here to a measuring container (probably a basket) of that quantity.

² tn The verb has to be defined by its context: it can mean “falsify” (Exod 23:8), “make tortuous” (Prov 19:3), or “plunge” into misfortune (Prov 21:12). God overthrows those who seem to be solid.

³ tn The word כַּבִּיר (kabbir, “great”) implies both abundance and greatness. Here the word modifies “wind”; the point of the analogy is that Job’s words are full of sound but without solid content.

³ tc This parenthetical clause is absent in several later witnesses (D² Ψ 1175 1241 2464^vid M al), but it may have been expunged for sounding redundant. The longer text, in this instance, is solidly supported by א A B D* F G 0183^vid 0278 33 81 104 326 365 629 al co and should be unquestionably preferred.

² tc Codex Bezae (D) and several other witnesses lack the words εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (eis ton ouranon, “into heaven”) here, most likely by way of accidental deletion. In any event, it is hardly correct to suppose that the Western text has intentionally suppressed references to the ascension of Christ here, for the phrase is solidly attested in the final clause of the verse.

² sn There is no need to think of Nebuchadnezzar’s image as being solid gold. No doubt the sense is that it was overlaid with gold (cf. Isa 40:19; Jer 10:3-4), with the result that it presented a dazzling self-compliment to the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar’s achievements.

⁴ tn The form מֻצָק (mutsaq) is a Hophal participle from יָצַק (yatsaq, “to pour”). The idea is that of metal being melted down and then poured to make a statue, and so hard, firm, solid. The LXX reads the verse, “for thus your face shall shine again, like pure water, and you shall divest yourself of uncleanness, and shall not fear.”

¹ sn More recent studies have concluded that these supports were made of two long uprights joined by cross-bars (like a ladder). They were frames rather than boards, meaning that the structure under the tent was not a solid building. It also meant that they would have been lighter to carry.

⁴ tc The Kethib is the imperfect of כּוּן (kun), “he establishes.” This reading has the support of the Syriac, Latin, and Tg., and is followed by ASV and NASB. The Qere is the imperfect tense of בִּין (bin), “he understands; he discerns.” It has the support of the LXX and is followed by NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT. The difficulty is that both make good sense in the passage and both have support. The contrast is between the wicked who [merely] puts up a bold front and the upright who either [actually] discerns his ways (Qere) or makes his ways solid (Kethib). And whichever reading is chosen, the meaning of the other is implied. It would not make sense for the verse to talk about someone who understands but does not act accordingly; on the other hand, to make his/her way solid, the upright person must understand it.

² tc Most witnesses (A C² D Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M lat and other versions) have “in me” (εἰς ἐμέ, eis eme) here, while the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac versions read “in God.” These clarifying readings are predictable variants, being motivated by the scribal tendency toward greater explicitness. That the earliest and best witnesses (P^66,75vid א B C* L T W Θ 892) lack any object is solid testimony to the shorter text’s authenticity.

⁵ tn Heb “a lie.” Some see the metonymic language of v. 2b (“emptiness, lie”) as referring to idols or false gods. However, there is no solid immediate contextual evidence for such an interpretation. It is more likely that the psalmist addresses those who threaten him (see v. 1) and refers in a general way to their sinful lifestyle. (See R. Mosis, TDOT 7:121.) The two terms allude to the fact that sinful behavior is ultimately fruitless and self-destructive.

⁴ sn The word means a “young bull” and need not be translated as “calf” (although “calf” has become the traditional rendering in English). The word could describe an animal three years old. Aaron probably made an inner structure of wood and then, after melting down the gold, plated it. The verb “molten” does not need to imply that the image was solid gold; the word is used in Isa 30:22 for gold plating. So it was a young bull calf that was overlaid with gold, and the gold was fashioned with the stylus.

² tc Most later witnesses (א² D¹ H^c Ψ 1175 1241 1881 M al) have “wise” (σόφῳ, sophō) here (thus, “the only wise God”), while the earlier and better witnesses (א* A D* F G H* 33 1739 lat co) lack this adjective. Although it could be argued that the longer reading is harder since it does not as emphatically affirm monotheism, it is more likely that scribes borrowed σόφῳ from Rom 16:27 (Rom 14:26 in M) where μόνῳ σόφῳ θεῷ (monō sophō theō, “the only wise God”) is textually solid. It is difficult to explain why Alexandrian and Western scribes would omit “wise” in 1 Tim 1:17 while keeping it in Rom 16:27 for a similar benedition.

¹ tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou haimatos autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 M latt co as well as several other versions and fathers. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

² tc ‡ φόνοι (phonoi, “murders”) is absent in such significant mss as P⁴⁶ א B 33 81 323 945 sa, while the majority of mss (A C D F G Ψ 0122 0278 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 2464 M lat bo) have the word. Although the pedigree of the mss which lack the term is of the highest degree, homoioteleuton may explain the shorter reading. The preceding word has merely one letter difference, making it quite possible to overlook this term (φθόνοι φόνοι, phthonoi phonoi). At the same time, φθόνου φόνου (phthonou phonou, “envy, murder”) is solidly attested in Rom 1:29, suggesting that scribes were not necessarily prone to dropping “murder” accidentally. A decision is difficult, with a slight preference for phonoi here.

¹ tc The vast majority of witnesses (א A C L W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M lat sy co) have καὶ προσεύχεσθε after ἀγρυπνεῖτε (agrupneite kai proseuchesthe, “stay alert and pray”). This may be a motivated reading, influenced by the similar command in Mark 14:38 where προσεύχεσθε is solidly attested, and more generally from the parallel in Luke 21:36 (though δέομαι [deomai, “ask”] is used there). As B. M. Metzger notes, it is a predictable variant that scribes would have been likely to produce independently of each other (TCGNT 95). The words are not found in B D a c d k. Although the external evidence for the shorter reading is slender, it probably better accounts for the longer reading than vice versa.

¹ tc A two-letter difference in Greek creates two quite diverse readings: πάντες (pantes, nominative plural in “you all know”) is read by א B P Ψ 1852 sy sa; A C 049 5 33 81 436 1175 1243 1611 1735 1739 1881 2344 2492 M latt bo have the accusative πάντα (panta, “you know all things”). The external evidence favors the nominative reading, but it is not overwhelming. The internal evidence is more compelling in favor of the nominative. Scribes would naturally tend to give the transitive verb a direct object, especially because of the parallel in the first half of the verse. And intrinsically, the argument seems to be in balance with v. 19: The “all” who have gone out and are not “in the know” with the “all” who have an anointing and know that they are true believers. Further, as R. E. Brown points out, “the fact of their knowledge (pantes), not the extent of its object (panta), seems best to fit the reassurance” (Epistles of John [AB], 349). Brown further points out the connection with the new covenant in Jer 31 with this section of 1 John, esp. Jer 31:34—“they all [pantes] shall know me.” Since 1 John alludes to Jer 31, without directly quoting it, this is all the more reason to see the nominative as autographic: Allusions are often overlooked by scribes (transcriptional evidence), but support the intrinsic evidence. Thus, the evidence is solidly, though not overwhelmingly, behind the nominative reading.

¹ tc Most Western witnesses, as well as the majority of Byzantine mss and a few others (א² D F G Ψ 0278 0285^vid 1175 1505 1739^mg M lat), add the following words to the end of the verse: ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (ek tēs sarkos autou kai ek tōn osteōn autou, “of his flesh and of his bones”). This is a (slightly modified) quotation from Gen 2:23a (LXX). The Alexandrian text is solidly behind the shorter reading (P⁴⁶ א* A B 048 33 81 1739* 1881 co). Although it is possible that an early scribe’s eye skipped over the final αὐτοῦ, there is a much greater likelihood that a scribe added the Genesis quotation in order to fill out and make explicit the author’s incomplete reference to Gen 2:23. Further, on intrinsic grounds, it seems unlikely that the author would refer to the physical nature of creation when speaking of the “body of Christ” which is spiritual or mystical. Hence, as is often the case with OT quotations, the scribal clarification missed the point the author was making; the shorter reading stands as autographic.