¹ tn The verb נָסָה (nasah) means “to test, to tempt, to prove.” It can be used to indicate things are tried or proven, or for testing in a good sense, or tempting in the bad sense, i.e., putting God to the test. In all uses there is uncertainty or doubt about the outcome. Some uses of the verb are positive: If God tests Abraham in Genesis 22:1, it is because there is uncertainty whether he fears the Lord or not; if people like Gideon put out the fleece and test the Lord, it is done by faith but in order to be certain of the Lord’s presence. But here, when these people put God to the test ten times, it was because they doubted the goodness and ability of God, and this was a major weakness. They had proof to the contrary, but chose to challenge God.

¹ sn The act of anointing was meant to set him apart for this holy service within the house of Yahweh. The psalms indicate that no oil was spared in this ritual, for it ran down his beard and to the hem of his garment. Oil of anointing was used for all major offices (giving the label with the passive adjective “mashiakh” (or “messiah”) to anyone anointed. In the further revelation of Scripture, the oil came to signify the enablement as well as the setting apart, and often the Holy Spirit came on the person at the anointing with oil. The olive oil was a symbol of the Spirit in the OT as well (Zech 4:4-6). And in the NT “anointing” signifies empowerment by the Holy Spirit for service.

² sn Saw the nakedness. It is hard for modern people to appreciate why seeing another’s nakedness was such an abomination because nakedness is so prevalent today. In the ancient world, especially in a patriarchal society, seeing another’s nakedness was a major offense. (See the account in Herodotus, Histories 1.8-13, where a general saw the nakedness of his master’s wife, and one of the two had to be put to death.) Besides, Ham was not a little boy wandering into his father’s bedroom; he was over a hundred years old by this time. For fuller discussion see A. P. Ross, “The Curse of Canaan,” BSac 137 (1980): 223-40.

¹ sn Verse 12 is merely a transitional note in the narrative (although Capernaum does not lie on the direct route to Jerusalem from Cana). Nothing is mentioned in John’s Gospel at this point about anything Jesus said or did there (although later his teaching is mentioned, see 6:59). From the synoptics it is clear that Capernaum was a center of Jesus’ Galilean ministry and might even be called “his own town” (Matt 9:1). The royal official whose son Jesus healed (John 4:46-54) was from Capernaum. He may have heard Jesus speak there, or picked up the story about the miracle at Cana from one of Jesus’ disciples. The town of Capernaum itself was located on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, 680 ft (204 m) below sea level. It existed since Hasmonean times and was a major trade and economic center in the North Galilean region. The population in the first century is estimated to be around 1,500. In modern times the site was discovered in 1838 by the American explorer E. Robinson, and major excavations began in 1905 by German archaeologists H. Kohl and C. Watzinger. Not until 1968, however, were remains from the time of Jesus visible; in that year V. Corbo and S. Loffreda began a series of annual archaeological campaigns that lasted until 1985. This work uncovered what is thought to be the house of Simon Peter as well as ruins of the first century synagogue beneath the later synagogue from the fourth or fifth century A.D. Today gently rolling hills and date palms frame the first century site, a favorite tourist destination of visitors to the Galilee.

¹ tn The words “And I cried out” are not in the text. It is not altogether clear who the speaker is in vv. 19-25. The words of vv. 19-20 would best be assigned to a personified Jerusalem who laments the destruction of her city (under the figure of a tent) and the exile of her citizens (under the figure of children). However, the words of v. 21, which assign responsibility to the rulers, do not fit well in the mouth of the people but do fit Jeremiah. The words of v. 22 are very appropriate to Jeremiah, being similar to the report in 4:19-20. Likewise, the words of v. 23, which appear to express man’s incapacity to control his own destiny and his resignation to the fate which awaits him, in the light of v. 24 seem more appropriate to Jeremiah than to the people. There has been no indication elsewhere that the people are resigned to their fate or willing to accept their punishment. Though the issue is far from resolved, a majority of commentators see Jeremiah as the speaker, so identifying himself with their fate that he speaks as though he were this personified figure. It is not altogether out of the question, however, that the speaker throughout is personified Jerusalem, though no known commentator takes that view. For those who are interested, the most thorough discussion of the issue is probably found in W. McKane, Jeremiah (ICC), 1:230-35, especially 233-35. Rendering the pronouns throughout as “we” and “our” alleviates some of the difficulty, but some speaker needs to be identified in the introduction to allay any possible confusion. Hence I have opted for what is the majority view.

¹ tc Grk “in Isaiah the prophet.” Instead of “in Isaiah the prophet” the majority of mss read “in the prophets” (A W Γ ƒ¹³ 28 579 1424 M Ir^lat). Except for Irenaeus (2nd century), the earliest evidence for this is from the 5th (or possibly late 4th) century (Washingtonianus and Alexandrinus). The difficulty of Irenaeus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets” (yet in one of the three citations of Mark 1:2 Irenaeus’s Latin has “in Isaiah the prophet”). The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late mss. On the other hand, the witnesses for “in Isaiah the prophet” (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: א B D L Δ Θ ƒ¹ 33 565 700 892 1241 al sy^p co Ir Or Epiph. This evidence runs deep into the 2nd century, is widespread, and is found in the most significant Alexandrian, Western, and so-called Caesarean witnesses. The “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in almost every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from most of the text-forms. Moreover it is most likely the harder reading, since the quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, with the quotation from Isa 40:3 coming in the next verse. Although the reading of the later mss seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty, Robinson has made a good case for “in the prophets” as the original wording (Maurice Robinson, “Two Passages in Mark: A Critical Test for the Byzantine-Priority Hypothesis,” Faith & Mission 13.2 [1996]: 68-80). Part of his argument is that א Θ ƒ¹ 33 erroneously have “Isaiah” in Matt 13:35, and these same mss read “Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2. Consequently, he suggests that their testimony in the Marcan text should be discounted. This may be true but it ignores the rest of the witnesses for the “Isaiah” reading here. All things considered, “Isaiah the prophet” has better credentials for authenticity in Mark 1:2.

¹ tn Once again there is the problem (by now familiar to the interpreter of 1 John) of determining whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ (en toutō) in 3:10 refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. If it refers to what precedes, it serves to conclude the unit which began with 2:28. The remainder of 3:10 would then form a transition to the following material (another “hinge” passage). On the other hand, if the phrase ἐν τούτῳ refers to what follows, then the entirety of 3:10 is a summary statement at the end of 2:28-3:10 which recapitulates the section’s major theme (conduct is the clue to paternity), and provides at the same time a transition to the theme of loving one’s brother which will dominate the following section (3:11-24). Although R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 416) prefers to see the phrase as referring to the preceding material, it makes better sense to refer it to the remainder of 3:10 that follows, and see the entirety of 3:10 as both a summary of the theme of the preceding section 2:28-3:10 and a transition to the following section 3:11-24.

³ tc A number of mss, some of them quite significant (A C K P 5 33 81 442 1243 1505 1611 1735 1739 1852 1881 2344 pm sy^h bo), read ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) rather than ἡμῶν (hēmōn, “our”), which is found in somewhat better witnesses (א B L Ψ 049 436 1175 1241 pm sy^p sa). Although the majority of Byzantine minuscules are split between the two readings, the Textus Receptus reads ὑμῶν. It is possible that ὑμῶν represents a scribal assimilation to John 16:24, where the Greek purpose clause is identical to the wording here with ὑμῶν (“so that your joy may be complete”). As far as the immediate context is concerned, either reading could possibly be original, since the recipients have already been mentioned in 1:2 (ὑμῖν, humin) and 1:3 (ὑμῖν), while it might seem more natural for the author to be concerned about the fulfillment of his own joy than his readers’ (cf. 2 John 4, 12; 3 John 3). Overall, the first person pronoun is preferred on both external and internal grounds. Although previous editions of the UBS text gave the first person pronoun reading an “A” rating, UBS⁵ strips out any rating at all and, along with NA²⁸, ranks ὑμῶν as an equally viable alternative initial reading by placing it in the apparatus with a diamond.

⁴ tc Several witnesses lack παρὰ κυρίῳ (para kuriō; so A Ψ 33 81 436 442 1505 1611 1735 1881 2344 2464 al vg co), while others have the genitive παρὰ κυρίου (para kuriou; so P⁷² 5 1241 al sy^ph,mss,h**). The majority of witnesses (including א B C P 1175 1243 1739 1852 2492 M) read the dative παρὰ κυρίῳ. The genitive expression suggests that angels would not pronounce a judgment on “the glorious ones” from the Lord, while the dative indicates that angels would not pronounce such a judgment in the presence of the Lord. The parallel in Jude 9 speaks of a reviling judgment against the devil in which the prepositional phrase is entirely absent. At the same time, in that parallel Michael does say, “The Lord rebuke you.” (Hence, he is offering something of a judgment from the Lord.) The best options externally are the dative or the omission of the phrase, but a decision is difficult. Internally, the omission may possibly be a motivated reading in that it finds a parallel in Jude 9 (where no prepositional phrase is used). All things considered, the dative is to be preferred, though with much reservation. NA²⁸ has the omission preceded by a diamond in the apparatus, indicating a toss-up as to the initial text.

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.

² tc There are three viable variant readings at this point in the text. (1) The reading ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος (hē gunē hē agamos kai hē parthenos, “the unmarried woman and the virgin”) is represented by ancient and important mss, as well as some significant versions (P¹⁵ B 104 365 1505 vg co). (2) The reading ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ ἄγαμος (“the unmarried woman and the unmarried virgin”) is also found in ancient and important mss (P⁴⁶ א A 33 1739 1881). (3) The reading ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ ἄγαμος (“the woman and the unmarried virgin”) is found in Western mss (D F G) and the majority of Byzantine cursives. Based upon external evidence, the first and second readings are the strongest; the readings both reach deep into the second century with strong testimony from mss of the Alexandrian group of witnesses. Internal evidence seems equally balanced: Scribes may have wanted to add ἡ ἄγαμος to παρθένος for stylistic reasons, but they might also have wanted to remove it because it sounded redundant. Because Paul’s meaning is not quite clear, a decision on the proper textual reading is difficult. On the whole scribes tended to add to the text, not take from it. Thus the first reading should be favored as earlier, but this decision should be regarded as less than certain.

¹ tc Some significant Alexandrian and Western mss (א B D*^,c 1506 bo) read νῦν (nun, “now”) here. A few other mss (33 365 sa) have ὕστερον (husteron, “finally”). mss that lack the word are P⁴⁶ A D¹ F G Ψ 81 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 M latt. External evidence slightly favors omission with good representatives from the major text-forms, and because of the alliance of Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (with the Byzantine going against its normal tendency to embrace the longer reading). Internally, scribes could have added νῦν here to give balance to the preceding clause (οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν…αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσιν [|outoi nun ēpeithēsan…autoi nun eleēthōsin; “they have now been disobedient…they may now receive mercy”]). However, it seems much more likely that they would have deleted it because of its seeming inappropriateness in this context. That some witnesses have ὕστερον presupposes the presence of νῦν in their ancestors. A decision is difficult, but νῦν is slightly preferred, since it is the more difficult reading and is adequately represented in the mss.

¹ sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9).

⁴ tc The reading “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ, tou theou) is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy; other witnesses have “of the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου, tou kuriou) here (so P⁷⁴ A C* D E Ψ 33 1739 al co), while the majority of the later minuscule mss conflate these two into “of the Lord and God” (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, tou kuriou kai [tou] theou). Although the evidence is evenly balanced between the first two readings, τοῦ θεοῦ is decidedly superior on internal grounds. The final prepositional phrase of this verse, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου (dia tou haimatos tou idiou), could be rendered “through his own blood” or “through the blood of his own.” In the latter translation, the object that “own” modifies must be supplied (see tn below for discussion). But this would not be entirely clear to scribes; those who supposed that ἰδίου modified αἵματος would be prone to alter “God” to “Lord” to avoid the inference that God had blood. In a similar way, later scribes would be prone to conflate the two titles, thereby affirming the deity (with the construction τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ following the Granville Sharp rule and referring to a single person [see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290]) and substitutionary atonement of Christ. For these reasons, τοῦ θεοῦ best explains the rise of the other readings and should be considered authentic.

² tc ‡ Several variants occur at this juncture. Some of the earliest and best witnesses (P⁷⁴ א B* C Ψ 33^vid Did^pt) read “Jesus Christ” (᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, Iēsous Christos); others ([A] 36 1175 it) have “the Lord Jesus Christ” (ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ho kurios Iēsous Christos); a few read simply ὁ Χριστός (614 1241 1505); the majority of mss (B² E 1739 M Did^pt) have “Jesus the Christ” ( ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός). Although the pedigree of this last reading is relatively weak, it draws strength from the fact that (a) the other readings are much more natural and thus more predictable, and (b) there are several variants for this text. It seems hardly likely that scribes would intentionally change a more common expression into a title that is used nowhere else in the NT (although 1 John 2:22; 5:1 come close with “Jesus is the Christ”), nor would they unintentionally change a frequently used designation into an unusual one. Thus, in spite of the external evidence (which is nevertheless sufficient to argue for authenticity), ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός is the reading that best explains the rise of the others.

³ sn The author concludes the Gospel with a note concerning his selectivity of material. He makes it plain that he has not attempted to write an exhaustive account of the words and works of Jesus, for if one attempted to do so, “the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” This is clearly hyperbole, and as such bears some similarity to the conclusion of the Book of Ecclesiastes (12:9-12). As it turns out, the statement seems more true of the Fourth Gospel itself, which is the subject of an ever-lengthening bibliography. The statement in v. 25 serves as a final reminder that knowledge of Jesus, no matter how well-attested it may be, is still partial. Everything that Jesus did during his three and one-half years of earthly ministry is not known. This supports the major theme of the Fourth Gospel: Jesus is repeatedly identified as God, and although he may be truly known on the basis of his self-disclosure, he can never be known exhaustively. There is far more to know about Jesus than could ever be written down, or even known. On this appropriate note the Gospel of John ends.

³ tc A number of significant mss (P^66c א A B C* D K L W Ψ ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 892 al lat) have ὅτι (hoti) here, while the majority lack it (P^66* C² Θ M). Should the ὅτι be included or omitted? The external evidence is significantly stronger for the longer reading. Most Alexandrian and Western mss favor inclusion (it is a little unusual for the Alexandrian to favor the longer reading), while most Byzantine mss favor omission (again, a little unusual). However, the reading of P^66*, which aligns with the Byzantine, needs to be given some value. At the same time, the scribe of this papyrus was known for freely omitting and adding words, and the fact that the ms was corrected discounts its testimony here. But because the shorter reading is out of character for the Byzantine text, the shorter reading (omitting the ὅτι) may well be authentic. Internally, the question comes down to whether the shorter reading is more difficult or not. And here, it loses the battle, for it seems to be a clarifying omission (so TCGNT 206). R. E. Brown is certainly right when he states: “all in all, the translation without ὅτι makes the best sense” (John [AB], 2:620). But this tacitly argues for the authenticity of the word. Thus, on both external and internal grounds, the ὅτι should be regarded as authentic.

⁴ tc A few significant witnesses lack ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) here (P^66,75 B L W 070), while the majority have the pronoun (א C D Θ Ψ 0250 ƒ^1,13 33 565 892 M al lat sy). However, these mss do not agree on the placement of the pronoun: τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν ποιεῖτε (tou patros humōn poieite), τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν (tō patri humōn), and τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν ταῦτα (tō patri humōn tauta) all occur. If the pronoun is read, then the devil is in view and the text should be translated as “you are practicing the things you have heard from your father.” If it is not read, then the same Father mentioned in the first part of the verse is in view. In this case, ποιεῖτε should be taken as an imperative: “you [must] practice the things you have heard from the Father.” The omission is decidedly the harder reading, both because the contrast between God and the devil is now delayed until v. 41, and because ποιεῖτε could be read as an indicative, especially since the two clauses are joined by καί (kai, “and”). Thus, the pronoun looks to be a motivated reading. In light of the better external and internal evidence the omission is preferred.

¹ tc The majority of later mss (C³ Θ Ψ 078 ƒ^1,13 M) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (A^c D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (P^66,75 א B C* T co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

³ sn John 4:44-45. The last part of v. 45 is a parenthetical note by the author. The major problem in these verses concerns the contradiction between the proverb stated by Jesus in v. 44 and the reception of the Galileans in v. 45. Origen solved the problem by referring his own country to Judea (which Jesus had just left) and not Galilee. But this runs counter to the thrust of John’s Gospel, which takes pains to identify Jesus with Galilee (cf. 1:46) and does not even mention his Judean birth. R. E. Brown typifies the contemporary approach: He regards v. 44 as an addition by a later redactor who wanted to emphasize Jesus’ unsatisfactory reception in Galilee. Neither expedient is necessary, though, if honor is understood in its sense of attributing true worth to someone. The Galileans did welcome him, but their welcome was to prove a superficial response based on what they had seen him do at the feast. There is no indication that the signs they saw brought them to place their faith in Jesus any more than Nicodemus did on the basis of the signs. But a superficial welcome based on enthusiasm for miracles is no real honor at all.