² tc The words “in their hurry to flee” are not in the text but appear to be necessary to clarify that the stumbling and falling here are not the same as in vv. 6, 12, where they occur in the context of defeat and destruction. The referent here appears to be the mercenary soldiers who, in their hurried flight to escape, stumble over one another and fall. This is fairly clear from the literal translation: “he multiplies the stumbling one. Also [= and] a man falls against a man, and they say [probably = saying; an epexegetical use of the vav (ו) consecutive (IBHS 551 §33.2.2a, and see Exod 2:10 as a parallel)] ‘Get up! Let’s go…’” A reference to the flight of the mercenaries is also seen in v. 21. Many of the modern commentaries and a few of the modern English versions follow the Greek text and take vv. 15a-16 very differently. The Greek reads, “Why has Apis fled from you? Your choice calf [i.e., Apis] has not remained. For the Lord has paralyzed him. And your multitudes have fainted and fallen; and each one said to his neighbor…” (reading רֻבְּךָ כָּשַׁל גַּם־נָפַל וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ instead of כּוֹשֵׁל הִרְבָּה גַּם־נָפַל אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ). One would expect אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ (ʾish ʾel reʿehu) to go with וַיֹּאמְרוּ (vayyoʾm^eru) because it is idiomatic in this expression (cf., e.g., Gen 11:3; Judg 6:29). However, אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ (ʾish ʾel-reʿehu) is also found with singular verbs as here in Exod 22:9; 33:11; 1 Sam 10:11. There is no doubt that the Hebrew text is the more difficult and thus probably original. The reading of the Greek version is not supported by any other text or version and looks like an attempt to smooth out a somewhat awkward Hebrew original.

¹ tn Verses 16-18a are a long, complex sentence in the Hebrew text with some rather awkward placements of qualifying terms. In the Hebrew text these verses read, “41:16 And he took, Johanan…and all the army officers with him, all the people who were left alive that he [Johanan] had taken back from Ishmael son of Nethaniah from Mizpah after he [Ishmael] had killed Gedaliah…men, men of war, and women and children and court officials that he [Johanan] had brought back from Gibeon, 41:17 and they went and stayed at Geruth Kimham…to go to enter Egypt 41:18 because of the Chaldeans, because they were afraid of them because Ishmael…” The sentence has been broken down and restructured to reflect all the relevant data in shorter sentences that better conform with contemporary English style. There are a couple of places where the text and syntax are debated. Many modern English versions and commentaries read, “They led off/took control of/took all survivors of the people whom Ishmael…had taken captive [reading שָׁבָה אֹתָם (shavah ʾotam) in place of הֵשִׁיב מֵאֵת (heshiv meʾet), “whom he (Johanan) had taken back/rescued from Ishmael] from Mizpah after he had…” This is a decidedly smoother text, but there is no manuscript or versional evidence for it, and so it has been rejected here. Some commentators and English versions see the words “men of war” (“soldiers”) following the word “men” as appositional to that word and hence see only one category. However, there are no parallels to these words used in this kind of apposition. So the translation reflects two categories.

¹ tn Traditionally, “kiss the son” (KJV). But בַּר (bar) is the Aramaic word for “son,” not the Hebrew. For this reason many regard the reading as suspect. Some propose emendations of vv. 11b-12a. One of the more popular proposals is to read בִּרְעָדָה נַשְּׁקוּ לְרַגְלָיו (birʿadah nash^equ l^eraglayv, “in trembling kiss his feet”). It makes better sense to understand בַּר (bar) as an adjective meaning “pure” (see Pss 24:4; 73:1 and BDB 141 s.v. בַּר 3) functioning here in an adverbial sense. If read this way, then the syntactical structure of exhortation (imperative followed by adverbial modifier) corresponds to the two preceding lines (see v. 11). The verb נָשַׁק (nashaq, “kiss”) refers metonymically to showing homage (see 1 Sam 10:1; Hos 13:2). The exhortation in v. 12a advocates a genuine expression of allegiance and warns against insincerity. When swearing allegiance, vassal kings would sometimes do so insincerely, with the intent of rebelling when the time was right. The so-called “Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon” also warn against such an attitude. In this treaty the vassal is told: “If you, as you stand on the soil where this oath [is sworn], swear the oath with your words and lips [only], do not swear with your entire heart, do not transmit it to your sons who will live after this treaty, if you take this curse upon yourselves but do not plan to keep the treaty of Esarhaddon…may your sons and grandsons because of this fear in the future” (see J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East, 2:62).

¹ tc Most mss (א M) read “amen” (ἀμήν, amēn) after “all” (πάντων, pantōn). It is, however, not found in other significant mss (A 1006 1841). It is easier to account for its addition than its omission from the text if original. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant.

² tc Most mss (P47 א* M sa) lack ἄλλον (allon, “another”) here, but the support for it is stronger (P^115vid א² A C P 051 1006 1611 1841 2053 2329 al latt sy bo). The problem that its inclusion represents is that there is no reference to any other angel in the immediate context (the last mention was in 11:15). In this instance, the longer reading is harder. The word was probably intentionally omitted in order to resolve the tension; less likely, it might have been accidentally omitted since its spelling is similar to “angel” (ἄγγελος, angelos).

¹ tc The past tense of “they existed” (ἦσαν, ēsan) and the order of the expression “they existed and were created” seems backwards both logically and chronologically. The text as it stands is the more difficult reading and seems to have given rise to codex A omitting the final “they were created,” 2329 replacing “they existed” (ἦσαν) with “have come into being” (ἐγένοντο, egeneto), and 046 adding οὐκ (ouk, “not”) before ἦσαν (“they did not exist, [but were created]”). Several mss (1854 2050 M^A sa) also attempt to alleviate the problem by replacing ἦσαν with “they are” (εἰσιν, eisin).

³ tn The indicative mood indicates that the verb ἐσμέν (esmen) at the end of 3:1a is not governed by the ἵνα (hina) and does not belong with the ἵνα clause, since this would have required a subjunctive. If the verb ἐσμέν were subjunctive, the force of the clause would be “that we should be called children of God, and be (children of God).” With ἐσμέν as indicative, the clause reads “that we should be called children of God, and indeed we are (children of God).”

² tn 2 Pet 1:17-18 comprise one sentence in Greek, with the main verb “heard” in v. 18. All else is temporally subordinate to that statement. Hence, more literally these verses read as follows: “For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted,’ we ourselves heard this voice when it was conveyed from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain.”

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 Most mss ([C] P 0246 5 436 442 1611 M) al read ὁ κύριος (ho kurios, “the Lord”) here, while others have ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”; 4 33^vid 323 945 1175 1243 1735 1739 1852 2492 al). However, several significant and early witnesses (P⁷⁴ א A B Ψ 81 2344 co) have no explicit subject. In light of the scribal tendency toward clarification, and the fact that both κύριος and θεός are well represented, there can be little doubt that the original text had no explicit subject. The referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity, not because of textual basis.

¹ tc The majority of mss, especially the later ones (א² 0278^vid 1739 M lat), have ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”) at this point, while most of the earliest and best witnesses lack such an explicit addressee (so P⁴⁶ א* A C D K P Ψ 33 1175 1881 2464 al). The longer reading is apparently motivated in part by the wording of Ps 40:8 (39:9 LXX) and by the word order of this same verse as quoted in Heb 10:7.

² tc Most witnesses (D¹ M) have “various washings, and external regulations” (βαπτισμοῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν, baptismois kai dikaiōmasin), with both nouns in the dative. The translation “washings; they are…regulations” renders βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα (baptismois, dikaiōmata; found in such significant mss as P⁴⁶ א* A I P 0278 33 1739 1881 al sa) in which case δικαιώματα is taken as the nominative subject of the participle ἐπικείμενα (epikeimena). It seems far more likely that scribes would conform δικαιώματα to the immediately preceding datives and join it to them by καί than they would to the following nominative participle. Both on external and internal evidence the text is thus secure as reading βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα.

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 tn Punctuating vv. 6 and 7 is difficult. One must consider the difficult textual problem of v. 7 (see tc note on the word “children” in that verse) as well as the grammar of the verse. In the translation above, “little children” is understood to be a predicate nominative connected to the verb “became.” This allows a full stop to be placed at the end of v. 6 and before the phrase “like a nursing mother” in v. 7. This separates the two metaphors which impact the textual problem and allows for greater clarity in the way the sentence is read.

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 ‡ A few significant witnesses have the future indicative φορέσομεν (phoresomen, “we will bear”; B I 6 630 1881 al sa) instead of the aorist subjunctive φορέσωμεν (phoresōmen, “let us bear”; P⁴⁶ א A C D F G Ψ 075 0243 33 1739 M latt bo). If the original reading is the future tense, then “we will bear” would be a guarantee that believers would be like Jesus (and unlike Adam) in the resurrection. If the aorist subjunctive is original, then “let us bear” would be a command to show forth the image of Jesus, i.e., to live as citizens of the kingdom that believers will one day inherit. The future indicative is not widespread geographically. At the same time, it fits the context well: Not only are there indicatives in this section (especially vv. 42-49), but the conjunction καί (kai) introducing the comparative καθώς (kathōs) seems best to connect to the preceding by furthering the same argument (what is, not what ought to be). For this reason, though, the future indicative could be a reading thus motivated by an early scribe. In light of the extremely weighty evidence for the aorist subjunctive, it is probably best to regard the aorist subjunctive as autographic. This connects well with v. 50, for there Paul makes a pronouncement that seems to presuppose some sort of exhortation. G. D. Fee (First Corinthians [NICNT], 795) argues for the originality of the subjunctive, stating that “it is nearly impossible to account for anyone’s having changed a clearly understandable future to the hortatory subjunctive so early and so often that it made its way into every textual history as the predominant reading.” The subjunctive makes a great deal of sense in view of the occasion of 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote to combat an over-realized eschatology in which some of the Corinthians evidently believed they were experiencing all the benefits of the resurrection body in the present, and thus that their behavior did not matter. If the subjunctive is the correct reading, it seems Paul makes two points: (1) that the resurrection is a bodily one, as distinct from an out-of-body experience, and (2) that one’s behavior in the interim does make a difference (see 15:32-34, 58).

¹ tc ‡ μου (mou, “my”) is found after ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) in a number of significant witnesses (א A B* D¹ 048 326 1175 2464 al), but lacking in most other witnesses (P⁴⁶ B² D* F G Ψ 0243 33 1739 1881 M lat). Every other time Paul says “So then, brothers (and sisters)” he adds “my” (ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου; hōste, adelphoi mou). There is no good reason why scribes would intentionally omit “my” here but not elsewhere. Thus, the longer reading is in conformity with Paul’s general style and as such seems to be scribally motivated. NA²⁸ has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses, including some significant ones (א A D^s Ψ 048 M lat sy bo), have γάρ (gar, “for”) here, while an equally impressive array of witnesses lack the conjunction (P⁴⁶ B F G 0243 1739 1881 sa). This conjunction was frequently added by scribes in epistolary literature as a clarifying word, making the connection with the preceding more explicit. As such, it has the earmarks of being a motivated reading and thus should be rejected. NA²⁸ places the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Before μέλος (melos, “member”) the great majority of witnesses read ἕν (hen, “one”; א² C D F G Ψ 0285 33 1881 M latt sy), while the most significant of the Alexandrian mss omit it (P⁴⁶ א* A B 1739). The addition of ἕν appears to be motivated by its presence earlier in the verse with μέλος and the parallel structure of the two conditional clauses in this verse, while little reason can be given for its absence (although accidental oversight is of course possible, it is not likely that all these witnesses should have overlooked it). NA²⁸ has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

³ tc ‡ αὐτό (auto) is found at this point in v. 13 in a number of significant witnesses, including A B C P 33 1739 al. But P⁴⁶ א D Ψ 0289 1881 M latt lack it. The pronoun could be a motivated reading, designed to intensify Paul’s statement. On the other hand, it could have been deleted because the article alone made the reference already clear. In this instance, the possibility of scribal addition seems more likely than scribal deletion, although a decision is difficult. NA²⁸ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.