¹ sn In the English Bible Esther appears adjacent to Ezra-Nehemiah and with the historical books, but in the Hebrew Bible it is one of five short books (the “Scrolls,” Heb Megillot) that appear toward the end of the biblical writings. The canonicity of the book was questioned by some in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. It is one of five OT books that were at one time regarded as antilegomena (i.e., books “spoken against”). The problem with Esther was the absence of any direct mention of God. Some questioned whether a book that did not mention God could be considered sacred scripture. Attempts to resolve this by discovering the tetragrammaton (YHWH) encoded in the Hebrew text (e.g., in the initial letters of four consecutive words in the Hebrew text of Esth 5:4) are unconvincing, although they do illustrate how keenly the problem was felt by some. Martin Luther also questioned the canonicity of this book, objecting to certain parts of its content. Although no copy of Esther was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, this does not necessarily mean that the Qumran community did not regard it as canonical. It is possible that the absence of Esther from what has survived at Qumran is merely a coincidence. Although the book does not directly mention God, it would be difficult to read it without sensing the providence of God working in powerful, though at times subtle, ways to rescue his people from danger and possible extermination. The absence of mention of the name of God may be a deliberate part of the literary strategy of the writer.

¹ tc The ὅτι (hoti) before ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου χρόνου (ep eschatou chronou, “at the end of time”), found in the NA²⁷ text, can either be translated as “that” or left untranslated as a marker of direct discourse. The NA²⁸ has dropped the ὅτι, though with a diamond preceding it in the apparatus indicating a toss-up on the initial wording. Without the conjunction, direct discourse is surely meant, and with it it is just as likely as indirect discourse. The translation above makes no decision on the presence or absence of the conjunction, but renders either variant as direct discourse.

¹ tc ‡ Before μέλος (melos, “member”) the great majority of witnesses read ἕν (hen, “one”; א² C D F G Ψ 0285 33 1881 M latt sy), while the most significant of the Alexandrian mss omit it (P⁴⁶ א* A B 1739). The addition of ἕν appears to be motivated by its presence earlier in the verse with μέλος and the parallel structure of the two conditional clauses in this verse, while little reason can be given for its absence (although accidental oversight is of course possible, it is not likely that all these witnesses should have overlooked it). NA²⁸ has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ sn An Epicurean was a follower of the philosophy of Epicurus, who founded a school in Athens about 300 b.c. Although the Epicureans saw the aim of life as pleasure, they were not strictly hedonists because they defined pleasure as the absence of pain. Along with this, they desired the avoidance of trouble and freedom from annoyances. They saw organized religion as evil, especially the belief that the gods punished evildoers in an afterlife. In keeping with this, they were unable to accept Paul’s teaching about the resurrection.

¹ sn The use of Nathan here as the son of David is different than Matthew, where Solomon is named. Nathan was David’s third son. It is not entirely clear what causes the difference. Some argue Nathan stresses a prophetic connection, but it is not clear how (through confusion with the prophet Nathan?). Others note the absence of a reference to Jeconiah later, so that here there is a difference to show the canceling out of this line. The differences appear to mean that Matthew’s line is a “royal and physical” line, while Luke has a “royal and legal” line.

³ tn Or “the one born holy will be called the Son of God.” The wording of this phrase depends on whether the adjective is a predicate adjective, as in the text, or is an adjective modifying the participle serving as the subject. The absence of an article with the adjective speaks for a predicate position. Other less appealing options supply a verb for “holy”; thus “the one who is born will be holy”; or argue that both “holy” and “Son of God” are predicates, so “The one who is born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

⁴ sn The statement the bridegroom will be taken from them is a veiled allusion by Jesus to his death, which he did not make explicit until the incident at Caesarea Philippi in 16:13ff. For Matthew it is unlikely this statement is meant to refer to fasting in the early church following Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation, since Matthew presents the post-resurrection period as a time of Jesus’ presence rather than his absence (18:20; 28:20). Nevertheless, this passage is frequently cited as a justification of the fasting practices of the early church (such a practice may be reflected in Didache 8:1).

¹ tn Heb “the splendid will congeal.” This difficult phrase (MT יְקָרוֹת יְקִפָּאוֹן, y^eqarot y^eqippaʾon) is not clarified by the LXX which presupposes וְקָרוּת וְקִפָּאוֹן (v^eqarut v^eqippaʾon, “and cold and ice,” a reading followed by NAB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV). Besides the fact that cold and ice do not necessarily follow the absence of light, the idea here is that day will be night and night day. The heavenly sources of light “freeze up” as it were, and refuse to shine.

² tc The LXX reads “neither tumult nor birth pains.” The LXX varies at many points from the MT in this chapter. The context suggests that one or both of these would be present on a day of judgment, thus favoring the MT. Perhaps more significant is the absence of “the mountains” in the LXX. If the ר (resh) in הָרִים (harim, “the mountains” not “on the mountains”) were a ד (dalet), which is a common letter confusion, then it could be from the same root as the previous word, הֵד (hed), meaning “the day is near—with destruction, not joyful shouting.”

¹ tn Heb “among the nations.” With the exception of this phrase, the different verb in v. 46a, the absence of a suffix on the word for “land” in v. 45d, the third-plural suffix instead of the third-singular suffix on the verb for “chase…off,” this passage is identical with 49:19-21, with the replacement of Babylon or the land of the Chaldeans for Edom. For the translation notes explaining the details of the translation here, see the translator’s notes on 49:19-21.

² tn Heb “he rescued from their traps.” The Hebrew word שְׁחִית (sh^ekhit, “trap”) occurs only here and in Lam 4:20, where it refers to a trap or pit in which one is captured. Because of the rarity of the term and the absence of an object with the verb “rescued,” some prefer to emend the text of Ps 107:20, reading מִשַּׁחַת חַיָּתָם (mishakhat khayyatam, “[he rescued] their lives from the pit”). Note also NIV “from the grave,” which interprets the “pit” as Sheol or the grave.

³ tn Here is another word that occurs only here, and in the absence of a completely convincing suggestion, probably should be left as it is. The verb is רָזַם (razam, “wink, flash”). Targum Job and the Syriac equate it with a verb found in Aramaic and postbiblical Hebrew with the same letters but metathesized—רָמַז (ramaz). It would mean “to make a sign” or “to wink.” Budde, following the LXX probably, has “Why are your eyes lofty?” Others follow an Arabic root meaning “become weak.”

¹ tc ‡ Some significant witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western mss (א*^,2b B D Θ ƒ¹³ it vg^mss Ir^lat Hier^mss), have the additional words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός (oude ho huios, “nor the Son”) here (so NA²⁸). Although the shorter reading (which lacks this phrase) is suspect in that it seems to soften the prophetic ignorance of Jesus, the final phrase (“except the Father alone”) already implies this. Further, the parallel in Mark 13:32 has οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, with almost no witnesses lacking the expression; significantly, Mark does not add “alone” to the Father. It is thus doubtful that the absence of “nor the Son” is due to pious scribal motives. In keeping with Matthew’s general softening of Mark’s harsh statements throughout his Gospel, it is more likely that the absence of “nor the Son” is part of the autographic text of Matthew, being an intentional change on the part of the author. Further, this shorter reading is supported by א^2a as well as L W Γ Δ ƒ¹ 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M al vg sy co Hier^mss. Although the external evidence is not as impressive for the shorter reading, it best explains the rise of the other reading (in particular, how does one account for virtually no mss excising οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός at Mark 13:32 if such an absence here is due to scribal alteration? Although copyists were hardly consistent, for such a theologically significant issue at least some consistency would be expected on the part of a few scribes). Further, although some have claimed that the doubled οὐδέ is “necessary on internal grounds” (Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament [New York: OUP, 1993], 92; see also Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, SP 1 [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991], 342: “…the syntax of the sentence (‘neither the angels … but the Father alone’) demands it.”), this is hardly the case. Indeed, apart from one quotation from the LXX, Matthew never elsewhere uses the correlative οὐδέ construction. Thus, on a redactional, intrinsic, and source-critical basis, the shorter reading is to be strongly preferred. See D. B. Wallace, “The Son’s Ignorance in Matthew 24:36: An Exercise in Textual and Redaction Criticism,” Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Michael W. Holmes, ed. Daniel Gurtner, Paul Foster, and Juan Hernández (Leiden: Brill) 182–209.

² tc Most mss (א P 5 436 442 1611 1735 1739^c 1852 2492 M sy) have ἀμήν (amen, “amen”) at the end of 1 Peter. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. Further, the absence of such a conclusion to the epistle in such witnesses as P⁷² A B Ψ 81 323 945 1175 1241 1243 1739* 2344 co seems inexplicable unless the word is not authentic.

³ tc The Byzantine text and a few other mss (P 5 33 436 442 1243 1611 1735 1852 2344 2492 M) have the intransitive κατῴκησεν (katōkēsen) here, which turns τὸ πνεῦμα (to pneuma) into the subject of the verb: “The spirit which lives within us.” But the more reliable and older witnesses (P⁷⁴ א B Ψ 049 1241 1739 al) have the causative verb, κατῴκισεν (katōkisen), which implies a different subject and τὸ πνεῦμα as the object: “The spirit that he causes to live within us.” Both because of the absence of an explicit subject and the relative scarcity of the causative κατοικίζω (katoikizō, “cause to dwell”) compared to the intransitive κατοικέω (katoikeō, “live, dwell”) in biblical Greek (κατοικίζω does not occur in the NT at all, and occurs much less frequently than κατοικέω in the LXX), it is easy to see why scribes would replace κατῴκισεν with κατῴκησεν. Thus, on internal and external grounds, κατῴκισεν is the preferred reading.

² tc Most witnesses, especially later ones (א² D Ψ M lat sy bo), conclude this letter with ἀμήν (amēn, “amen”), while several early and significant mss (P⁴⁶ א* A B F G 0243 6 33 630 1175 1739 1881 sa) lack the particle. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. That so many diverse witnesses lacked the word here is strong testimony to its absence for the original text of 2 Corinthians.

² sn It is difficult to discern Pilate’s attitude when he asked, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Some have believed the remark to be sarcastic or incredulous as Pilate looked at this lowly and humble prisoner: “So you’re the king of the Jews, are you?” Others have thought the Roman governor to have been impressed by Jesus’ regal disposition and dignity, and to have sincerely asked, “Are you really the king of the Jews?” Since it will later become apparent (v. 38) that Pilate considered Jesus innocent (and therefore probably also harmless) an attitude of incredulity is perhaps most likely, but this is far from certain in the absence of clear contextual clues.

¹ tn Again, μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is a vague temporal reference. How Jesus got from Jerusalem to Galilee is not explained, which has led many scholars (e.g., Bernard, Bultmann, and Schnackenburg) to posit either editorial redaction or some sort of rearrangement or dislocation of material (such as reversing the order of chaps. 5 and 6, for example). Such a rearrangement of the material would give a simple and consistent connection of events, but in the absence of all external evidence it does not seem to be supportable. R. E. Brown (John [AB], 1:236) says that such an arrangement is attractive in some ways but not compelling, and that no rearrangement can solve all the geographical and chronological problems in John.

³ tn Heb “The lying pen of the scribes has made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e., it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.

⁴ sn The Hebrew verb (טָהֵר, taher) means to “be clean; pure” and may refer to physical cleanliness or the absence of disease, mildew, infectants, or blemishes. As a Levitical term it normally refers to cleanness from infectants or religious ceremonial cleanness (though often the two are related). The term is applied morally (specifically “clean from sin” as in this verse) in Lev 16:30 as part of the Day of Atonement. After the High Priest confesses the sins of the people and makes the sacrifice on their behalf, the people are considered “clean.” So on the one hand, the question sounds rhetorical—no one can claim to be pure on their own merit. On the other hand, the cultic answer would be those who have confessed sin and offered a sacrifice are cleansed.