³ tc Several witnesses (A C^vid 88 1243 1846 2492 al), influenced by the parallel in 2 Pet 2:13, read ἀπάταις (apatais, “deceptions”) for ἀγάπαις (agapais, “love-feasts”) in v. 12. However, ἀγάπαις has much stronger and earlier support and makes much better sense in the context; it should therefore be considered authentic.

¹ tn Grk “knowing all things.” The subject of the participle “knowing” (εἰδότας, eidotas) is an implied ὑμᾶς (humas), though several ancient witnesses actually add it. The πάντα (panta) takes on an adverbial force in this context (“fully”), intensifying how acquainted the readers are with the following points.

¹ tc Several significant witnesses omit καταστροφῇ (katastrophē, “destruction”; such as P^72* B C* 442 1175 1241 1243 1739 1881 bo), but this is probably best explained as an accidental omission due to homoioarcton (the word following is κατέκρινεν [katekrinen, “he condemned”]).

⁴ tc A few witnesses (א Ψ 442 vg^mss sy^ph sa) read κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”) for θεοῦ (theou, “God”) in v. 1, perhaps due to confusion of letters (since both words were nomina sacra), or perhaps because “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” is an unusual expression (though hardly because of theological objections to θεοῦ).

³ tc Most witnesses have the perfect participle κεκοιμημένων here (“who have fallen asleep” [D (F G) Ψ 1241 1505 1881 2464 M al]), but the present participle κοιμωμένων (“who are asleep”) is better supported by early and significant mss (א A B 0278 33 81 1175 1739 al) and should be considered the Ausgangstext.

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 The witnesses for the shorter reading (in which the verb “submit” is only implied) are minimal (P⁴⁶ B Cl Hier^mss), but significant and early. The rest of the witnesses add one of two verb forms as required by the sense of the passage (picking up the verb from v. 21). Several of these witnesses have ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (hupotassesthōsan), the third person imperative (so א A I P Ψ 0278 33 81 1175 1505 1739 1881 2464 al lat co), while other witnesses, especially the later Byzantine cursives, read ὑποτάσσεσθε (hupotassesthe), the second person imperative (D F G M sy). The text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms, but the often cryptic style of Paul’s letters argues for the shorter reading. The chronology of development seems to have been no verb—third person imperative—second person imperative. It is not insignificant that early lectionaries began a new day’s reading with v. 22; these may have caused copyists to add the verb at this juncture.

² sn Paul does not explain this reference to the angels, and its point is not entirely clear. It seems to reflect an awareness that angels are witnesses to church life (cf. Eph 3:10) and would be particularly sensitive to resistance against God’s created order.

¹ tc Most later witnesses (א² M sy) add “fasting and” (τῇ νηστείᾳ καί, tē nēsteia kai) before “prayer.” But such an addition is motivated by ascetic concerns; further, its lack in P^11vid,46 א* A B C D F G P Ψ 33 1739 1881 2464 al latt co argues decisively against its authenticity.

² tn The verb διαμαρτύρομαι (diamarturomai) can mean “warn” (BDAG 233 s.v. διαμαρτύρομαι 2 has “solemnly urge, exhort, warn…w. dat. of pers. addressed”), and this meaning better fits the context here, although BDAG categorizes Acts 20:23 under the meaning “testify of, bear witness to” (s.v. 1).

⁴ sn Proclaiming to you the way of salvation. The remarks were an ironic recognition of Paul’s authority, but he did not desire such a witness, possibly for fear of confusion. Her expression the Most High God might have been understood as Zeus by the audience.

³ tn Grk “who.” The relative pronoun (“who”) was replaced by the demonstrative pronoun “these” and a new sentence was begun in the translation at this point to improve the English style, due to the length of the sentence in Greek and the awkwardness of two relative clauses (“who for many days appeared” and “who are now his witnesses”) following one another.

¹ tc Codex Bezae (D) and a few other Western witnesses here lack ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”), perhaps because these scribes considered the Holy Spirit to be the gift of Christ rather than the gift of God; thus leaving the subject implicit would naturally draw the reader back to v. 16 to see the Lord Jesus as the bestower of the Spirit.

⁴ tn Grk “whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” The two consecutive relative clauses make for awkward English style, so the second was begun as a new sentence with the words “to this fact” supplied in place of the Greek relative pronoun to make a complete sentence in English.

¹ tc Codex Bezae (D) and other Western witnesses have “he proposed,” referring to Peter, thus emphasizing his role above the other apostles. The Western text displays a conscious pattern of elevating Peter in Acts, and thus the singular verb here is a palpably motivated reading.

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.

¹ tc A few isolated witnesses omit v. 8 (D sy^s), part of v. 8 (P⁷⁵), or vv. 7-8 ({0250}). The latter two omissions are surely due to errors of sight, while the former can be attributed to D’s sometimes erratic behavior. The verse is secure in light of the overwhelming evidence on its behalf.

⁴ tc Although most mss (C W Θ Ψ 0250 ƒ^1,13 33 M) have the imperfect ἦτε (ēte, “you were”) here, making this sentence a proper second class condition, the harder reading, ἐστε (este, “you are”), is found in the better witnesses (P^66,75 א B D L 070 lat).

¹ tn Grk “Then they were saying to him.” The imperfect verb has been translated with ingressive force here because of the introduction of a new line of questioning by the Pharisees. Jesus had just claimed his Father as a second witness; now his opponents want to know who his father is.

² tc A few witnesses lack με (me, “me”; א A a b e q sy^s,c), while the rest of the tradition has the word (P^66,75vid rell). It is possible that the mss that lack the pronoun preserve the original wording here, with the rest of the witnesses adding the pronoun for clarity’s sake. This likelihood increases since the object is not required in Greek. Without it, however, ambiguity increases: The referent could be “me” or it could be “signs,” reaching back to vv. 26 and 30. However, the oblique form of ἐγώ (egō, the first person personal pronoun) occurs some two dozen times in this chapter alone, yet it vacillates between the emphatic form and the unemphatic form. Although generally the unemphatic form is used with verbs, there are several exceptions to this in John (cf. 8:12; 12:26, 45, 48; 13:20; 14:9). If the pronoun is a later addition here, one wonders why it is so consistently the unemphatic form in the mss. Further, that two unrelated Greek witnesses lack this small word could easily be due to accidental deletion. Finally, the date and diversity of the witnesses for the pronoun are so weighty that it is likely to be authentic and should thus be retained in the text.