⁴ sn The kind of fishing envisioned was net—not line—fishing, which involved a circular net that had heavy weights around its perimeter. The occupation of fisherman was labor-intensive. The imagery of using a lure and a line (and waiting for the fish to strike) is thus foreign to this text. Rather, the imagery of a fisherman involved much strain, long hours, and often little results. Jesus’ point may have been one or more of the following: the strenuousness of evangelism, the work ethic that it required, persistence and dedication to the task (often in spite of minimal results), the infinite value of the new “catch” (viz., people), and perhaps an eschatological theme of snatching people from judgment (cf. W. L. Lane, Mark [NICNT], 67; D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 1:461). If this last motif is in view, then catching people is the opposite of catching fish: The fish would be caught, killed, cooked, and eaten; people would be caught so as to remove them from eternal destruction and to give them new life. With the statement “You will be catching people” Jesus turns the miracle into a metaphor for mission.

² tn Or “desert.” The syntactic position of the phrase “in the wilderness” is unclear in both Luke and the LXX. The MT favors taking it with “Prepare a way,” while the LXX takes it with “a voice shouting.” If the former, the meaning would be that such preparation should be done “in the wilderness.” If the latter, the meaning would be that the place from where John’s ministry went forth was “in the wilderness.” There are Jewish materials that support both renderings: 1QS 8:14 and 9.19-20 support the MT while certain rabbinic texts favor the LXX (see D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 1:290-91). While it is not absolutely necessary that a call in the wilderness led to a response in the wilderness, it is not unlikely that such would be the case. Thus, in the final analysis, the net effect between the two choices may be minimal. In any case, a majority of commentators and translations take “in the wilderness” with “The voice of one shouting” (D. L. Bock; R. H. Stein, Luke [NAC], 129; I. H. Marshall, Luke [NIGTC], 136; NIV, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, REB).

² tc The translation follows most mss, including early and significant ones (א A B L). Some copyists, aware that the purification law applied to women only, produced mss (76 it^pt vg [though the Latin word eius could be either masculine or feminine]) that read “her purification.” But the extant evidence for an unambiguous “her” is shut up to one late minuscule (codex 76) and a couple of patristic citations of dubious worth (Pseudo-Athanasius whose date is unknown, and the Catenae in euangelia Lucae et Joannis, edited by J. A. Cramer. The Catenae is a work of collected patristic sayings whose exact source is unknown [thus, it could come from a period covering hundreds of years]). A few other witnesses (D lat) read “his purification.” The KJV has “her purification,” following Beza’s Greek text (essentially a revision of Erasmus’). Erasmus did not have it in any of his five editions. Most likely Beza put in the feminine form αὐτῆς (autēs) because, recognizing that the eius found in several Latin mss could be read either as a masculine or a feminine, he made the contextually more satisfying choice of the feminine. Perhaps it crept into one or two late Greek witnesses via this interpretive Latin back-translation. So the evidence for the feminine singular is virtually nonexistent, while the masculine singular αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) was a clear scribal blunder. There can be no doubt that “their purification” is the authentic reading.

² tc Instead of “what do you want me to do” several witnesses, including the most significant ones (א B C W Δ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 892), lack θέλετε (thelete, “you want”), turning the question into the more abrupt “what should I do?” Although the witnesses for the longer reading are not as significant (A D Θ 0250 M latt sy), the reading without θέλετε conforms to Matt 27:22 and thus is suspected of being a scribal emendation. The known scribal tendency to assimilate one synoptic passage to another parallel, coupled with the lack of such assimilation in mss that are otherwise known to do this most frequently (the Western and Byzantine texts), suggests that θέλετε is authentic. Further, Mark’s known style of being generally more verbose and redundant than Matthew’s argues that θέλετε is authentic here. That this is the longer reading, however, and that a good variety of witnesses omit the word, gives one pause. Perhaps the wording without θέλετε would have been perceived as having greater homiletical value, motivating scribes to move in this direction. A decision is difficult, but on the whole internal evidence leads toward regarding θέλετε as authentic.

⁴ tc Several significant witnesses (א B L W Ψ* 579 892) lack the words “and a rooster crowed.” The fact that such good and early Alexandrian witnesses lack these words makes this textual problem difficult to decide, especially because the words receive support from other witnesses, some of which are fairly decent (A C D Θ Ψ^c 067 ƒ^1,13 33 [1424] M lat). The omission could have been intentional on the part of some Alexandrian scribes who wished to bring this text in line with the other Gospel accounts that only mention a rooster crowing once (Matt 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27). The insertion could be an attempt to make the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in 14:30 more explicit. Internally, the words “and a rooster crowed” fit Mark’s Gospel here, not only in view of 14:30, “before a rooster crows twice,” but also in view of the mention of “a second time” in 14:72 (a reading which is much more textually secure). Nevertheless, a decision is difficult.

¹ tc The translation here follows the reading στήσητε (stēsēte, “set up”) found in D W Θ ƒ¹ 28 565 2542 it sy^s,p Cyp. The majority of mss here read τηρήσητε (tērēsete; א A L ƒ¹³ 33 M co) or τηρῆτε (tērēte; B), both translated “keep.” It is hard to know which reading is best: On the one hand, τηρήσητε/τηρῆτε has much stronger external support, but στήσητε is a more difficult reading. What makes “keep” suspect is that it appears in two different forms, suggesting independent alterations of a difficult reading. Further, scribes may have been influenced by the preceding “commandment of God” to change the text toward “keep” (TCGNT 81), a common enough expression (cf. Matt 19:17; John 14:15; 1 Tim 6:1; 1 John 5:3; Rev 14:12). Thus, the more difficult reading is “set up.” Also, the more natural opposite of “reject” (ἀθεῖτε [atheite], literally “you set aside”) is “set up.” However, the Western reading may have been influenced by Exod 6:4 or Heb 10:9, but this likelihood seems remote. Thus, “set up” is more likely to be the earlier reading here.

³ tc Many good mss (P⁴⁵ א D W Θ ƒ^1,13 28 565 700 2542 lat sa) lack τοὺς ἄρτους (tous artous, lit. “the loaves” [here translated “the bread”]). On the other hand, just as weighty mss (A B L 33 M) have the words. Although a decision is not easy, the most satisfactory explanation seems to be that scribes were more prone to delete than to add the words here. They may have been puzzled as to why “the bread” should be mentioned without a corresponding mention of “fish.” Since neither Matt 14:21 or Luke 9:17 explicitly mention the bread, a desire for harmonization may have motivated the copyists as well. On the other hand, D and W are prone to longer, explanatory readings. Since they both lack the words here, it is likely that their archetypes also lacked the words. But given Mark’s pleonastic style, the good witnesses with “the bread,” and a reasonable explanation for the omission, “the bread” is most likely part of the initial text of Mark.

² tc The phrase “whom he named apostles” is lacking in the majority of mss (A C² D L ƒ¹ 33 565 579 1241 1424 M latt sy; SBL). Several primary Alexandrian and other key witnesses (א B C* W Δ Θ ƒ¹³ 28 co) include the phrase, rendering the external evidence strongly in favor of this reading. It is possible that the Alexandrian witnesses have inserted these words to bring the text in line with Luke 6:13 (TCGNT 69), but against this is the internal evidence of Mark’s style: Mark tends toward gratuitous redundancy. However, significant Western and Byzantine mss along with other authorities lack the clause, which is against the Byzantine tendencies. The key issue, however, is that both the wording of the clause and its location in the verse varies significantly among the witnesses, which suggests that it was indeed borrowed from the Lukan parallel. The NA²⁸ puts the words in brackets indicating doubts about their authenticity.

¹ sn The kind of fishing envisioned was net—not line—fishing (cf. v. 16; cf. also BDAG 55 s.v. ἀμφιβάλλω, ἀμφίβληστρον) which involved a circular net that had heavy weights around its perimeter. The occupation of fisherman was labor-intensive. The imagery of using a lure and a line (and waiting for the fish to strike) is thus foreign to this text. Rather, the imagery of a fisherman involved much strain, long hours, and often little results. Jesus’ point may have been one or more of the following: the strenuousness of evangelism, the work ethic that it required, persistence and dedication to the task (often in spite of minimal results), the infinite value of the new “catch” (viz., people), and perhaps an eschatological theme of snatching people from judgment (cf. W. L. Lane, Mark [NICNT], 67). If this last motif is in view, then catching people is the opposite of catching fish: The fish would be caught, killed, cooked, and eaten; people would be caught so as to remove them from eternal destruction and to give them new life.

¹ tc Early and significant witnesses, including the chief Alexandrian mss (א B C L Γ 1010 and some versional witnesses) add a sentence at the end of this verse: “And another [soldier] took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.” This comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 that it was undoubtedly lifted from the Fourth Gospel by some early, well-meaning scribe and inserted into Matt 27:49. The alternative—that this sentence was part of Matthew’s Ausgangstext—has serious difficulties, as Metzger notes: “It might be thought that the words were omitted because they represent the piercing as preceding Jesus’ death, whereas John makes it follow; but that difference would have only been a reason for moving the passage to a later position (perhaps at the close of ver. 50 or 54 or 56), or else there would have been some tampering with the passage in John, which is not the case. It is probable that the Johannine passage was written by some reader in the margin of Matthew from memory (there are several minor differences, such as the sequence of ‘water and blood’), and a later copyist awkwardly introduced it into the text” (TCGNT, 59). Consequently, even though the support for the shorter reading (A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy sa bo) is not as impressive, internal considerations on its behalf are compelling.

¹ tc Although the external evidence for the inclusion of “Jesus” before “Barabbas” (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted virtually to mss of what was formally labeled the “Caesarean” text (Θ ƒ¹ 700* sy^s arm geo²; Or^mss), the omission of the Lord’s name in apposition to “Barabbas” is such a strongly motivated reading that it can hardly be original. There is no good explanation for a scribe unintentionally adding ᾿Ιησοῦν (Iēsoun) before Βαραββᾶν (Barabban), especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (ton legomenon Christon, “who is called Christ”) to ᾿Ιησοῦν in v. 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called “Jesus” (otherwise, a mere “Jesus” would have been a sufficient appellation to distinguish the two). Metzger notes that codex S, a tenth-century majuscule, along with a score of minuscules, have a marginal comment on this verse as follows: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus.’” The attribution of this scholium is variously given as Anastasius, Chrysostom, or even Origen (TCGNT 56).

¹ tc A few witnesses, especially of the Western text (D 33 it sy^s Ir^lat Or Eus^syr), do not contain 21:44. However, the verse is found in א B C L W Z Δ (Θ) 0102 ƒ^{1, 13} 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy^c,p,h co. The NA²⁷ and NA²⁸ put this verse in brackets, which normally indicates some doubt as to its authenticity, but Metzger’s Textual Commentary claims that the committee concluded that the verse was an “accretion,” including it not because of authenticity but because of its longstanding role in the textual tradition (TCGNT 47). Some scholars see the verse as scribally borrowed from the parallel in Luke 20:18, but both the wording and word order are different enough that such an imperfect assimilation cannot account for the great variety of witnesses that have a uniform reading here. In light of the lack of adequate explanation for the rise of this verse as it is written, the longer reading should be preferred.

¹ tc The logic of v. 5 would seem to demand that both father and mother are in view in v. 6. Indeed, the majority of mss (C L N W Γ Δ Θ 0106 ƒ¹ 1424 M) have “or his mother” (ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, ē tēn mētera autou) after “honor his father” here. However, there are significant witnesses that have variations on this theme (καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ [kai tēn mētera autou, “and his mother”] in Φ 565 1241 bo and ἢ τὴν μητέρα [“or mother”] in 073 ƒ¹³ 33 579 700 892), which is usually an indication of a predictable addition to the text rather than an authentic reading. Further, the shorter reading (without any mention of “mother”) is found in early and significant witnesses (א B D a e sy^c sa). Although it is possible that the shorter reading came about accidentally (due to the repetition of—ερα αὐτοῦ), the evidence more strongly suggests that the longer readings were intentional scribal alterations.

¹ tc The majority of Byzantine minuscules, along with a few other witnesses (C³ K L Γ Θ 579 700^txt* 1424^c sa mae), lack νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε (nekrous egeirete, “raise the dead”), most likely because of oversight due to a string of similar endings (-ετε in the second person imperatives, occurring five times in v. 8). The longer version of this verse is found in several diverse and ancient witnesses such as א B C* (D) N 0281^vid ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579^mg lat bo; P W Δ 348 sy^h have a word-order variation, but nevertheless include νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε. Although some Byzantine-text proponents charge the Alexandrian witnesses with theologically-motivated alterations toward heterodoxy, it is interesting to find a variant such as this in which the charge could be reversed (do the Byzantine scribes have something against the miracle of resurrection?). In reality, such charges of wholesale theologically-motivated changes toward heterodoxy are immediately suspect due to lack of evidence of intentional changes (here the change is evidently due to accidental omission).

¹ tc ‡ Most mss (L N W Δ Θ 0233 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy mae) read τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ (tēn basileian tou theou kai tēn dikaiosunēn autou, “the kingdom of God and his righteousness”) here, but the words “of God” are lacking in א B sa bo Eus. On the one hand, there is the possibility of accidental omission on the part of these Alexandrian witnesses, but it seems unlikely that the scribe’s eye would skip over both words (especially since τοῦ θεοῦ is bracketed by first declension nouns). Intrinsically, the author generally has a genitive modifier with βασιλεία—especially θεοῦ or οὐρανῶν (ouranōn), the latter attested by Clement of Alexandria—but this argument cuts both ways: Although the evangelist might be expected to use such an adjunct here, scribes might also be familiar with his practice and would thus naturally insert it if it were missing in their copy of Matthew. Although a decision is difficult, the omission of τοῦ θεοῦ is considered most likely to be the initial text. NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

¹ sn The kind of fishing envisioned was net—not line—fishing (cf. v. 18; cf. also BDAG 55 s.v. ἀμφιβάλλω, ἀμφίβληστρον) which involved a circular net that had heavy weights around its perimeter. The occupation of fisherman was labor-intensive. The imagery of using a lure and a line (and waiting for the fish to strike) is thus foreign to this text. Rather, the imagery of a fisherman involved much strain, long hours, and often little results. Jesus’ point in using the analogy may have been one or more of the following: the strenuousness of evangelism, the work ethic that it required, persistence and dedication to the task (often in spite of minimal results), the infinite value of the new “catch” (viz., people), and perhaps an eschatological theme of snatching people from judgment (cf. W. L. Lane, Mark [NICNT], 67). If this last motif is in view, then catching people is the opposite of catching fish: The fish would be caught, killed, cooked, and eaten; people would be caught so as to rescue them from eternal destruction and to give them new life.

¹ tc There are three significant variant readings at this point in the text. Some mss and versional witnesses (Θ ƒ¹³ it) read, “Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary, being betrothed, bore Jesus, who is called Christ.” This reading makes even more explicit than the feminine pronoun (see sn below) the virginal conception of Jesus and as such seems to be a motivated reading. The Sinaitic Syriac ms alone indicates that Joseph was the father of Jesus (“Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ”). Although much discussed, this reading has not been found in any Greek witnesses. B. M. Metzger suggests that it was produced by a careless scribe who simply reproduced the set formula of the preceding lines in the genealogy (TCGNT 6). In all likelihood, the two competing variants were thus produced by intentional and unintentional scribal alterations respectively. The reading adopted in the translation has overwhelming support from a variety of witnesses (P¹ א B C L W Γ [ƒ¹] 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M co), and therefore should be regarded as authentic. For a detailed discussion of this textual problem, see TCGNT 2-6.

⁶ tc Heb “of the pagan priests with the priests.” The first word (כְּמָרִים, k^emarim) refers to idolatrous priests in its two other appearances in the OT (2 Kgs 23:5, Hos 10:5), while the second word (כֹּהֲנִים, kohanim) is the normal term for “priest” and is used of both legitimate and illegitimate priests in the OT. It is likely that the second term, which is omitted in the LXX, is a later scribal addition to the Hebrew text, defining the extremely rare word that precedes (see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah [OTL], 167-68; cf. also NEB, NRSV). Some argue that both words are original; among the modern English versions that include both are NASB and NIV. Possibly the first word refers to outright pagan priests, while the second has in view once-legitimate priests of the Lord who had drifted into idolatrous practices. Another option is found in Adele Berlin, who translates, “the idolatrous priests among the priests,” understanding the second word as giving the general category of which the idolatrous priests are a part (Zephaniah [AB 25A], 75).

³ tc The MT reads סִירִים סְבֻכִים (sirim s^evukhim, “entangled thorn bushes”), and is supported by the Dead Sea text from Murabba`at: סירים סבכים (see DJD 2:197). The noun סִירִים (“thorn bushes”) is from סִיר (sir, “thorn, thorn bush,” BDB 696 s.v. II סִיר; HALOT 752 s.v. *סִירָה), e.g., Isa 34:13; Hos 2:8; Eccl 7:6. The Qal passive participle סְבֻכִים (s^evukhim) is from סָבַךְ (savakh, “to interweave,” BDB 687 s.v. סָבַךְ; HALOT 740 s.v. סבך), e.g., Job 8:17, which is related to Assyrian sabaku (“to entwine,” AHw 2:999.a) and Arabic sabaka (“to entwine”; Leslau, 51). The MT is supported by several LXX translators, e.g., Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. It is also reflected in Vulgate’s spinarum perplexi (“thorn bushes entangled”). On the other hand, the Syriac Peshitta reflects סָרִים סוֹרְרִים (sarim sor^erim, “your princes are rebels”) which points to orthographic confusion and a different vocalization. Similar textual confusion is apparent in Origen: θεμελίου αὐτοῦ ξερσωθήσεται (themeliou autou xersōthēsetai, “his foundation shall be laid bare”) seems to reflect יְסֹדָם יְכָבֵּס (y^esodam y^ekhabbes, “their foundation shall be washed away”) which was caused by orthographic confusion and transposition of consonants. The MT should be retained.

² tn Heb “one who,” a substantival participle. The descriptions in the rest of vv. 18-19 fill out the rhetorical question, “Who is a God like you?” That is, they provide descriptions of God as reasons that make him without equal. This context uses two participles, e.g. “who forgives” and “who pardons,” and then independent clauses with third person verbs. A similar construction occurs in Ps 113:5-9, with participles and a third person finite verb in v. 7. Here, making the two participles grammatically dependent on the rhetorical question and then switching to the third person is confusing English style. It masks that all these descriptions are serving the same function as a list of unique qualities of God, who is addressed in the second person. To tie these together in English, all the descriptions can be made into second person statements (so NIV), though this does not clarify the distinction of when the original text deliberately switches back to second person in v. 20. Another approach would be to translate the third person clauses as indefinite and dependent, e.g. “Who is…like you, someone who does X, someone who does Y?” Or the interrogative force can be be extended, e.g. “Who is the one who does not stay angry?”