⁷ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ M), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ƒ¹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

⁴ tc Most later witnesses (A Θ^c ƒ^1,13 M) have at the end of the verse “passing through their midst, he went away in this manner” (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, dielthōn dia mesou kai parēgen houtōs), while many others have similar permutations (so א^1,2 C L N Ψ 070 33 579 892 1241 al). The wording is similar to two other texts: Luke 4:30 (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου; in several mss αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο καί [autōn eporeueto kai] is found between this phrase and παρῆγεν, strengthening the parallel with Luke 4:30) and John 9:1 (παρῆγεν; cf. παράγων [paragōn] there). The effect is to signal Jesus’ departure as a miraculous cloaking. As such, the additional statement has all the earmarks of scribal amplification. Further, the best and earliest witnesses (P^66,75 א* B D W Θ* lat sa) lack these words, rendering the shorter text virtually certain.

¹ tc ‡ Significant and early witnesses (P⁶⁶ א B C W Θ 579 it) lack the conjunction here, while other witnesses read οὖν (oun, “therefore”; P⁷⁵ D L Ψ 070 ƒ^1,13 33 M lat). This conjunction occurs in John some 200 times, far more than in any other NT book. Even though the most important Johannine papyrus (P⁷⁵) has the conjunction, the combination of P⁶⁶ א B for the omission is even stronger. Further, the reading seems to be a predictable scribal emendation. In particular, οὖν is frequently used with the plural of εἶπον (eipon, “they said”) in John (in this chapter alone, note vv. 13, 39, 48, 57, and possibly 41). On balance, it is probably best to consider the shorter reading as authentic, even though “Then” is virtually required in translation for English stylistic reasons. NA²⁸ has the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

² tc ‡ Significant and early witnesses (א B L W 070 it sy^s,p co) lack the conjunction here, while the earliest witnesses along with many others read οὖν (oun, “therefore”; P^66,75 C D Θ Ψ 0250 ƒ¹³ 33 M). This conjunction occurs in John some 200 times, far more than in any other NT book. Even though the combined testimony of two early papyri for the conjunction is impressive, the reading seems to be a predictable scribal emendation. In particular, οὖν is frequently used with the plural of εἶπον (eipon, “they said”) in John (in this chapter alone, note vv. 13, 39, 48, 57, and possibly 52). On balance, it is probably best to consider the shorter reading as authentic, even though “Then” is virtually required in translation for English stylistic reasons. NA²⁸ has the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc The wording “the sun’s light failed” is a translation of τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος/ ἐκλείποντος (tou hēliou eklipontos/ ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them P⁷⁵ א B C*^vid L 070 579 2542) as well as several ancient versions. The majority of mss (A C³ [D] W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M lat sy) have the flatter, less dramatic term, “the sun was darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisthe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse (see sn below). This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be misunderstood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses rather than the earliest ones adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.

² tc Some significant Western witnesses (D it) lack the words from this point to the end of v. 20. However, the authenticity of these verses is very likely. It is found in a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical base (P⁷⁵ א A B C L T^vid W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M al co), rendering the rise of the shorter reading much easier of explanation than the reverse. Further, the inclusion of the second cup is the harder reading, since it differs from Matt 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25. Further discussion of this complicated problem (the most difficult in Luke) can be found in TCGNT 148-50.

¹ tc ‡ The phrase περίλυπον γενόμενον (perilupon genomenon, “[When Jesus saw him] becoming sad”) is found in the majority of mss (A [D] W Θ Ψ 078 ƒ¹³ 33^vid M latt sy), and it is not unknown in Lukan style to repeat a word or phrase in adjacent passages (TCGNT 143). However, the phrase is lacking in some significant mss (א B L ƒ¹ 579 1241 2542 co). The shorter reading is nevertheless difficult to explain if it is not autographic: It is possible that these witnesses omitted this phrase out of perceived redundancy from the preceding verse, although intentional omissions, especially by several and varied witnesses, are generally unlikely. NA²⁸ places the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

³ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A^[*^] W Θ ƒ^1,13 M sy), have “on the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, tē tritē hēmera) instead of “after three days.” But not only does Mark nowhere else speak of the resurrection as occurring on the third day, the idiom he uses is a harder reading (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31, though in the latter text the later witnesses also have τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Further, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ conforms to the usage that is almost universally used in Matthew and Luke, and is found in the parallels to this text (Matt 20:19; Luke 18:33). Thus, scribes would be doubly motivated to change the wording. The most reliable witnesses, along with several other mss (א B C D L Δ Ψ 579 892 it co), have resisted this temptation.

² tc The majority of mss, mostly Byzantine ([A] ƒ¹³ 33 M), have at the end of v. 8 material that seems to have come from v. 4 and v. 13: “the washing of pots and cups, and you do many other similar things.” A slight variation on the wording occurs at the very beginning of v. 8 in mostly Western witnesses (D Θ 0131^vid 28 565 it). Such floating texts are usually signs of scribal emendations. The fact that the earliest and most reliable mss, as well as other significant witnesses (P⁴⁵ א B L W Δ 0274 ƒ¹ co), lacked this material also strongly suggests that the longer reading is secondary.

¹ tc The problematic citing of Jeremiah for a text which appears to come from Zechariah has prompted certain scribes to alter it. Codex 22 has Ζαχαρίου (Zachariou, “Zechariah”) while Φ 33 and several versional witnesses omit the prophet’s name altogether. And codex 21 and the Latin ms l change the prophet’s name to “Isaiah,” in accordance with natural scribal proclivities to alter the text toward the most prominent OT prophet. But unquestionably the name Jeremiah is the wording of the original here because it is supported by virtually all witnesses and because it is the harder reading. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC 8:562-63, for a discussion of the textual and especially hermeneutical problem.

² tc Most witnesses (C Γ Δ Θ 0102 ƒ^1,13 700 1241 1424 M) have “and plagues” (καὶ λοιμοί, kai loimoi) between “famines” (λιμοί, limoi) and “earthquakes” (σεισμοί, seismoi), while others have “plagues and famines and earthquakes” (L W 33 lat). The similarities between λιμοί and λοιμοί could explain how καὶ λοιμοί might have accidentally dropped out, but since the Lukan parallel (Luke 21:11) has both terms (and W lat have the order λοιμοὶ καὶ λιμοί there too, as they do in Matthew), it seems more likely that scribes added the phrase here. The shorter reading does not enjoy overwhelming support ([א] B D 892 sa, and other Greek and versional witnesses), but it is nevertheless significant; coupled with the internal evidence it should be given preference.

¹ tc ‡ Before οὐκ (ouk, “[am I] not”) a number of significant witnesses read ἤ (ē, “or”; e.g., א C N W Γ Δ 085 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579 1241 1424 M lat co). Although in later Greek the οι in σοι (oi in soi)—the last word of v. 14—would have been pronounced like ἤ, since ἤ is lacking in early mss (B D; among later witnesses, note L Z Θ 700; SBL) and since mss were probably copied predominantly by sight rather than by sound, even into the later centuries, the omission of ἤ cannot be accounted for as easily. Thus the shorter reading most likely belongs to the Ausgangstext. NA²⁸ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Although the majority of witnesses (B C N W Γ Δ 078 087 ƒ¹³ 33 565 1241 1424 M sy^p,h) have αὐτήν (autēn, “her”) after the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”), several authorities lack the αὐτήν. This shorter reading may be due to assimilation to the Markan parallel, but since it is attested in early and diverse witnesses (א D L Z Θ ƒ¹ 579 700 lat) and since the parallel verse (Mark 10:4) already departs at many points, the shorter reading seems more likely to be initial text’s wording here. The pronoun has been included in the translation, however, for clarity. NA²⁸ includes the word in brackets, indicating reservations about its authenticity.

³ tc ‡ The earliest and best witnesses lack “against you” after “if your brother sins.” It is quite possible that the shorter reading in these witnesses (א B, as well as 0281 ƒ¹ 579 sa) occurred when scribes either intentionally changed the text (to make it more universal in application) or unintentionally changed the text (owing to the similar sound of the end of the verb ἁμαρτήσῃ [hamartēsē] and the prepositional phrase εἰς σέ [eis se]). However, if the mss were normally copied by sight rather than by sound, especially in the early centuries of Christianity, such an unintentional change is not as likely for these mss. And since scribes normally added material rather than deleted it for intentional changes, on balance, the shorter reading appears to be autographic. NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

¹ tc Most witnesses have ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”), while a few lack the words (א* D 073 892 ff¹ sy^c sa bo). Although such additions are often suspect (due to liturgical influences, piety, or for the sake of clarity), in this case it is likely that ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς dropped out accidentally. Apart from a few albeit significant witnesses, as noted above, the rest of the tradition has either ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς αὐτοῖς (ho Iēsous autois) or αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (autois ho Iēsous). In majuscule letters, with Jesus’ name as a nomen sacrum, this would have been written as autoisois_ or ois_autois. Thus homoioteleuton could explain the reason for the omission of Jesus’ name. (This same phenomenon occurs in P¹³⁷ at Mark 1:17 where the original text no doubt read αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, but this papyrus accidentally omits the nomen sacrum.)

³ tc Most witnesses, including several significant ones (C³ L Γ ƒ¹ 565 579 700 1424 M lat bo), read “two of his disciples” instead of “by his disciples” (see the tn below for the reading of the Greek). The difference in Greek, however, is only two letters: διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ vs. δύο τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (dia tōn mathētōn autou vs. duo tōn mathētōn autou). Although an accidental alteration could account for either of these readings, it is more likely that δύο is an assimilation to the parallel in Luke 7:18, perhaps motivated by the somewhat awkward Greek in Matthew’s wording (with “by his disciples” the direct object of “sending” [πέμψας] needs to be supplied). Further, διά is read by a good number of early and excellent witnesses (א B C* D P W Z Δ Θ 0233 ƒ¹³ 33 sa), and thus should be considered autographic.

² tn Heb “and a witness to the end and it does not lie.” The Hebrew term יָפֵחַ (yafeakh) has been traditionally understood as a verb form from the root פּוּחַ (puakh, “puff, blow”; cf. NEB “it will come in breathless haste”; NASB “it hastens toward the goal”) but recent scholarship has demonstrated that it is actually a noun meaning “witness” (cf. NIV “it speaks of the end / and will not prove false”; NRSV “it speaks of the end, and does not lie”). See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 106. “The end” corresponds to “the appointed time” of the preceding line and refers to the time when the prophecy to follow will be fulfilled.

⁶ tc The MT reads וַתֵּרֶד (vattered), vav (ו) consecutive + Qal preterite third person feminine singular from יָרַד (yarad, “to go down”). Symmachus has καὶ κατήχθη (kai katēchthē, “and she was brought down”) and Vulgate deposita est, passive forms that might reflect וַתּוּרַד (vatturad, vav consecutive + Pual preterite third person feminine singular from from יָרַד [yarad, “to go down”]). External evidence favors the MT (supported by all other ancient versions and medieval Hebrew mss); none of the other ancient versions preserve/reflect a passive form. Symmachus is known to have departed from a wooden literal translation (characteristic of Aquila) in favor of smooth and elegant Greek style. The second edition of the Latin Vulgate drew on Symmachus; thus, it is not an independent witness to the passive reading, but merely a secondary witness reflecting Symmachus. The MT is undoubtedly the original reading.

³ tn Heb “oath” or “imprecation”; ASV “adjuration.” This amounted to an “oath” or “curse” (cf. NAB “he hears himself put under a curse”; NRSV “one hears the victim’s curse”) either by or on behalf of the victim, that any witness to the crime must testify (cf. Lev 5:1). However, in this legal setting referring to “a victim’s curse” could be misleading (cf. also KJV “he heareth cursing”), since it could be understood to refer to profanity directed against those guilty of the crime rather than an imprecation called down on a witness who refused to testify (as in the present proverb). The present translation specifies this as an “oath to testify.”

³ sn The oath to testify was not an oath to tell the truth before a court of law in the modern sense. Instead it was a “curse” or “imprecation” expressed by the victim of the theft, or by the legal authorities, called down on any witness of the crime who kept silent or refused to testify (as here). According to Lev 5:1, if a witness does not speak up he is accountable for the crime. This person hears the adjuration, but if he speaks up he is condemned, and if he does not speak up he is guilty under the law. The proverb is an unusual one; it seems to be warning against getting mixed up in any way with the thief, for it will create a serious ethical dilemma.