⁷ tc Most later witnesses (P^vid Ψ 5 88 1175 1611 1735 2492 M sy) have θεόν (theon, “God”) after δεσπότην (despotēn, “master”), which appears to be a motivated reading in that it explicitly links “Master” to “God” in keeping with the normal NT pattern (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Rev 6:10). In patristic Greek, δεσπότης (despotēs) was used especially of God (cf. BDAG 220 s.v. 1.b.). The earlier and better witnesses (P^72,78 א A B C 0251 33 81 323 436 442 1241 1243 1739 2344 al co) lack θεόν; the shorter reading is thus preferred on both internal and external grounds.

¹ tn A second causal ὅτι (hoti) clause (after the one at the end of the preceding verse) is somewhat awkward, especially since the reasons offered in each are somewhat different. The content of the second ὅτι clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first ὅτι clause, the one at the end of 5:6, stated the reason why the Spirit is the witness: because the Spirit is the truth. The second ὅτι clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second ὅτι as indicating a somewhat looser connection than the first, not strictly causal but inferential in sense (the English translation “for” captures this inferential sense). See BDF §456.1 for a discussion of this ‘looser’ use of ὅτι.

³ tc The vast bulk of mss adds ἀμήν (amēn, “amen”) at the end of this letter, as they do almost all the rest of the NT books (only Acts, James, and 3 John lack a majority of witnesses supporting a concluding ἀμήν). The omission in B 1241 1243 1739* 1881 2298 appears to be original, although the fact that some of the best and earliest Alexandrian witnesses (P⁷² א A C P Ψ 5 33 81 436 442 1611 1735 1739^c 1852 2344 2492 co), along with several other mss, the Byzantine text, and early versions (vg sy), add the particle renders such a judgment less than iron-clad. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity, while NA²⁸ omits the word.

¹ tc Most witnesses, including some significant ones (א D² 1881 M), read δεσμοῖς μου (desmois mou, “my imprisonment”) here, a reading that is probably due to the widespread belief in the early Christian centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews (cf. Phil 1:7; Col 4:18). It may have been generated by the reading δεσμοῖς without the μου (so P⁴⁶ Ψ 104), the force of which is so ambiguous (lit., “you shared the sufferings with the bonds”) as to be virtually nonsensical. Most likely, δεσμοῖς resulted when a scribe made an error in copying δεσμίοις (desmiois), a reading which makes excellent sense (“[of] those in prison”) and is strongly supported by early and significant witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western text-forms (A D* H 6 33 81 1739 lat sy co). Thus, δεσμίοις best explains the rise of the other readings on both internal and external grounds and is strongly preferred.

³ tc ‡ ὑμῖν (humin, “you”) is found in many valuable witnesses (P⁶¹ א F G P 0278 33 1505 1739 1881 al sy co). The witnesses for ἡμῖν (hēmin, “us”) are not as strong (A C D K L P Ψ 048^vid 1241 M), but nevertheless represent a broad base. Internally, ἡμῖν could be favored because of second person pronouns surrounding it, making it the harder reading. On the other hand, the last second person plural pronoun was in v. 3, and the next one will not show up until v. 22, a fact which tends to counter the internal argument on behalf of ἡμῖν. Although a decision is difficult, with the internal evidence being capable of favoring either reading, our preference is based on the external evidence; ὑμῖν is thus slightly preferred.

¹ tc ‡ The earliest and best mss lack καί (kai) after πολλοί (polloi; so א A C P 088 81 104 365 614 629 630 al sy co), though the conjunction is found in several significant witnesses, chiefly of the Western and Byzantine texts (D F G I Ψ 33 1241 1505 1739 1881 M lat), giving the sense “also many.” Although it is possible that some scribes omitted the word, thinking it was superfluous, it is also possible that others added the conjunction for clarification. Judging by the pedigree of the witnesses and the inconclusiveness of the internal evidence, the shorter reading is considered to be most likely autographic. NA²⁸ puts the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses, some of them significant (א² A D H 1175 1505 1881 M al lat sy bo), have σοι (soi, “you”) after παραγγέλλω (parangellō, “I charge [you]”), a predictable variant because the personal pronoun is demanded by the sense of the passage (and was added in the translation because of English requirements). Hence, the omission is the harder reading, and the addition of σοι is one of clarification. Further, the shorter reading is found in several significant witnesses, such as א* F G Ψ 6 33 1739. Although the external evidence is evenly balanced, internally the shorter reading is preferred. NA ²⁸ places σοι in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Although most witnesses, including some early versions and fathers (D² Ψ 1241 1505 M al sy Cyp Lcf Ambst), have ἀφίστασο ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων (aphistaso apo’ tōn toioutōn, “stay away from such things!”) after εὐσεβείαν (eusebeian, “godliness”; thus, “who suppose that godliness is a way of making a profit; stay away from such things!”), there seems to be little reason for this clause’s omission in some of the oldest and best witnesses (א A D* F G 048 6 33 81 1175 1739 1881 lat co). It is likely that it crept into the text early, perhaps as a marginal comment, but it should not be considered authentic in light of the strong external and transcriptional evidence against it.

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 ‡ δέ (de, “now”) is found in א² B D 0226 6 1505 1739 1881 2464 al, but lacking in א* A F G 33 it. γάρ (gar, “for”) is the reading of the Byzantine text and a few other witnesses (Ψ 0278 1175 1241 M al). Although normally the shorter reading is to be preferred, the external evidence is superior for δέ (being found in the somewhat better Alexandrian and Western witnesses). What, then, is to explain the γάρ? Scribes were prone to replace δέ with γάρ, especially in sentences suggesting a causal or explanatory idea, thus making the point more explicit. Internally, the omission of δέ looks unintentional, a case of homoioarcton (otandelegwsin). Although a decision is difficult, in this instance δέ has the best credentials for authenticity.

² tc ‡ The vast bulk of witnesses, including some very significant ones (א A C D F G H Ψ 075 0278 33 1175 1881 2464 M lat sy), have καί (kai) here, but the shorter reading is supported by some early and significant witnesses (P⁴⁶ B 1739 b m Hil Ambst Spec). The καί looks to be a motivated reading in that it makes ἀφειδία (apheidia) “the third in a series of datives after ἐν, rather than an instrumental dative qualifying the previous prepositional phrase” (TCGNT 556). At the same time, the omission of καί could possibly have been unintentional. A decision is difficult, but the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁸ puts καί in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

² tc A number of significant witnesses have ὑμᾶς (humas, “you”; e.g., א*^,2b A B P 0159 81 1175 al it co as well as several fathers). Other, equally valuable witnesses read ἡμᾶς (hēmas, “us”; P⁴⁶ א^2a D F G Ψ 0278 33 1505 1739 1881 2464 al lat sy). It is possible that ἡμᾶς was accidentally introduced via homoioarcton with the previous word (ἠγάπησεν, ēgapēsen). On the other hand, ὑμᾶς may have been motivated by the preceding ὑμῖν (humin) in 4:32 and second person verbs in 5:1, 2. Further, the flow of argument seems to require the first person pronoun. A decision is difficult to make, but the first person pronoun has a slightly greater probability of being authentic.

¹ tc ‡ Several significant witnesses have ὁ θεός (ho theos) after εὐδόκησεν (eudokēsen; so א A D Ψ 0278 33 1175 1241 1739 1881 2464 M co) while the shorter reading is supported by P⁴⁶ B F G 629 1505 lat. There is hardly any reason why scribes would omit the words (although the Beatty papyrus and the Western text do at times omit words and phrases), but several reasons why scribes would add the words (especially the need to clarify). The confluence of witnesses for the shorter reading (including a few fathers and versions) adds strong support for its authenticity. It is also in keeping with Paul’s style to refrain from mentioning God by name as a rhetorical device (cf. ExSyn 437 [although this section deals with passive constructions, the principle is the same]). NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses have ὑμῖν (humin, “to you”) either after (א² A [D* ὑμᾶς] 6 33 326 614 945 1881 M Tert^pt Ambst) or before (P^51vid B H 0278 630 1175 [1739* ἡμῖν]) εὐαγγελίζηται (euaggelizētai, “should preach” [or some variation on the form of this verb]). But the fact that it floats suggests its inauthenticity, especially since it appears to be a motivated reading for purposes of clarification. The following witnesses lack the pronoun: א* F G Ψ ar b g Cyp Mcion^T Tert^pt Lcf. The external evidence admittedly is not as weighty as evidence for the pronoun, but coupled with strong internal evidence the shorter reading should be considered the earliest. Although it is possible that scribes may have deleted the pronoun to make Paul’s statement seem more universal, the fact that the pronoun floats suggests otherwise. NA²⁸ has the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc The reading “all this time” (πάλαι, palai) is found in several early and significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses including א* A B F G 0243 6 33 81 365 1175 1739 1881 lat; the reading πάλιν (palin, “again”) is read by א² D Ψ 0278 M sy bo; the reading οὐ πάλαι (ou palai) is read by P⁴⁶, making the question even more emphatic. The reading of P⁴⁶ could only have arisen from πάλαι. The reading πάλιν is significantly easier (“are you once again thinking that we are defending ourselves?”), for it softens Paul’s tone considerably. It thus seems to be a motivated reading and cannot easily explain the rise of πάλαι. Further, πάλαι has considerable support in the Alexandrian and Western witnesses, rendering it virtually certain as the autographic wording here.

² tc The reading ἤ—τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει (ē—to kauchēma mou oudeis kenōsei, “than—no one will deprive me of my reason for boasting!”) is syntactically abrupt, but fully in keeping with Pauline style. It is supported by P⁴⁶ א* B D*^,c 33 1739 1881 as well as early patristic authors. Most witnesses, especially the later ones (א² C D² Ψ M lat), have a significantly smoother reading than this: ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου ἵνα τις κενώσῃ (or κενώσει); ē to kauchēma mou hina tis kenōsē (or kenōsei), “than that anyone should deprive me of my boasting.” The simple replacement of οὐδείς with ἵνα essentially accomplishes the smoothing out of the text, and as such the ἵνα reading is suspect. Not only is the harder reading in keeping with Pauline style, but it is also found in the earlier and better witnesses.

¹ tc ‡ Several significant Alexandrian witnesses (א A B C 048) have the relative pronoun ἥν (hēn, “the faith that you have”) at this juncture, but D F G Ψ 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 M lat co lack it. Without the pronoun, the clause is more ambiguous (either “Keep the faith [that] you have between yourself and God” or “Do you have faith? Keep it between yourself and God”). The pronoun thus looks to be a motivated reading, created to clarify the meaning of the text. Even though it is found in the better witnesses, in this instance internal evidence should be given preference. NA²⁸ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

³ tc Codex Bezae (D) as well as 323 614 945 1739 1891 sa and other witnesses have after “sexual immorality” the following statement: “And whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to another/others.” By adding this negative form of the Golden Rule, these witnesses effectively change the Apostolic Decree from what might be regarded as ceremonial restrictions into more ethical demands. The issues here are quite complicated, and beyond the scope of this brief note. Suffice it to say that D and its allies here are almost surely an expansion and alteration of the original text of Acts. For an excellent discussion of the exegetical and textual issues, see TCGNT 379-83.

² tc Codex Bezae (D) and a few other witnesses have “and walk” here (i.e., instead of τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωϋσέως [tō ethei tō Mōu>seōs] they read καὶ τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωϋσέως περιπατῆτε [kai tō ethei tō Mōu>seōs peripatēte]). This is a decidedly stronger focus on obedience to the Law. As well, D expands vv. 1-5 in various places with the overall effect of being “more sympathetic to the local tradition of the church at Jerusalem” while the Alexandrian witnesses are more sympathetic to Paul (TCGNT 377). Codex D is well known for having a significantly longer text in Acts, but modern scholarship is generally of the opinion that the text of D expands on the original wording of Acts, with a theological viewpoint that especially puts Peter in a more authoritarian light. The expansion in these five verses is in keeping with that motif even though Peter is not explicitly in view.

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.