³ tc Codex Bezae (D) and some Itala mss omit the words “named Jairus.” The evidence for the inclusion of the phrase is extremely strong, however. The witnesses in behalf of ὀνόματι ᾿Ιάϊρος (onomati Iairos) include P⁴⁵ א A B C L M lat sy co. The best explanation is that the phrase was accidentally dropped during the transmission of one strand of the Western text.

¹ tn Mark’s version of the parable, like Luke’s (cf. Luke 8:4-8), uses the collective singular to refer to the seed throughout, so singular pronouns have been used consistently throughout this parable in the English translation. However, the parallel account in Matt 13:1-9 begins with plural pronouns in v. 4 but then switches to the collective singular in v. 5 ff.

¹ tn Or “a revolutionary.” This term can refer to one who stirs up rebellion: BDAG 594 s.v. λῃστής 2 has “revolutionary, insurrectionist, guerrilla” citing evidence from Josephus (J. W. 2.13.2-3 [2.253-254]). However, this usage generally postdates Jesus’ time. It does refer to a figure of violence. Luke uses the same term for the highwaymen who attack the traveler in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30).

¹ tc ‡ Although most witnesses read the genitive plural pronoun αὐτῶν (autōn, “their”), it may have been motivated by clarification (as it is in the translation above). Several other authorities do not have the pronoun, however (א B Δ 073 ƒ¹ 579 700 892 1424 f g¹); the lack of an unintentional oversight as the reason for omission strengthens their combined testimony in this shorter reading. NA²⁸ has the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses (א¹ C D L N W Z Γ Δ Θ 0106 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579 1241 1424 M lat) read αὐτόν (auton, “him”) here as a way of clarifying the direct object; various significant witnesses lack the word, however (א* B 700 ff¹ h q al). The original wording most likely lacked it, but it has been included here due to English style. NA²⁸ includes the word in brackets, indicating reservations about its authenticity.

¹ tc The majority of mss read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”), which clarifies who is the subject of the sentence. Although the shorter text is attested in far fewer witnesses (P²¹ א B D 892* sy^s,c sa bo), both the pedigree of the mss and the strong internal evidence (viz., scribes were not prone to intentionally delete the name of Jesus) argue for the omission of Jesus’ name. The name has been included in the translation, however, for clarity.

¹ sn In light of the confidence expressed by John in Matt 3:14 some have difficulty reconciling the doubts he expresses here about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. From John’s perspective in prison, however, the enemies of God (including Herod Antipas) had not yet been judged with the coming apocalyptic judgment John had preached and had expected Jesus to fulfill. Lack of immediate apocalyptic fulfillment was a frequent cause of misunderstanding about Jesus’ messianic identity (cf. Luke 24:19-21).

² sn For rhetorical reasons, Jesus’ statement is deliberately paradoxical (seeming to state the opposite of Matt 10:13 where the messengers are to bring peace). The conflict implied by the sword is not primarily eschatological in this context, however, but immediate, and concerns the division and discord even among family members that a person’s allegiance to Jesus would bring (vv. 35-39).

¹ sn To shake the dust off represented, on one level, shaking off the uncleanness from one’s feet; see Luke 10:11; Acts 13:51; 18:6. At another level, however, it is similar to a prophetic sign, representing the termination of all fellowship with those individuals or localities that have rejected the messengers along with their message of the coming kingdom of heaven. This in essence constitutes a sign of eschatological judgment, as confirmed in the following verse.

¹ sn The phrase has made you well should not be understood as an expression for full salvation in the original setting; it refers only to the woman’s healing. However, as the note on the previous verse points out, it is possible the evangelist did intend something of a double entendre by the use of the term, suggesting to his readers that for them, faith in Jesus would lead to salvation in the full theological sense.

² sn God is addressed in terms of intimacy (Father). The original Semitic term here was probably Abba. The term is a little unusual in a personal prayer to God. Although it is a term of endearment used in the family circle, it is not the exact equivalent of “Daddy” (as is sometimes popularly suggested). However, it does suggest a close, familial relationship. See also the note on Abba at Rom 8:15.

¹ sn A quotation from Ps 91:11. This was not so much an incorrect citation as a use in a wrong context (a misapplication of the passage). Ps 91 addresses one who has sought shelter in the Lord and assures him that God will protect him from danger. As Jesus points out in his reply, however, this protection does not extend to cases where the intent is to put the Lord to the test.

¹ tn Or “did not have sexual relations”; Grk “was not knowing her.” The verb “know” (in both Hebrew and Greek) is a frequent biblical euphemism for sexual relations. However, a translation like “did not have sexual relations with her” was considered too graphic in light of the popularity and wide use of Matthew’s infancy narrative. Thus the somewhat less direct but still clear “did not have marital relations” was preferred.

² tn There is some question as to whether מַלְאָכִי (malʾakhi) should be understood as a personal name (so almost all English versions) or as simply “my messenger” (the literal meaning of the Hebrew). Despite the fact that the word should be understood in the latter sense in 3:1 (where, however, it refers to a different person), to understand it that way here would result in the book being of anonymous authorship, a situation anomalous among all the prophetic literature of the OT.

¹ sn The first person pronoun refers to Zechariah himself who, however, is a “stand-in” for the Lord as the actions of vv. 8-14 make clear. The prophet, like others before him, probably performed actions dramatizing the account of God’s past dealings with Israel and Judah (cf. Hos 1-3; Isa 20:2-4; Jer 19:1-15; 27:2-11; Ezek 4:1-3).

¹ tn The Hebrew term שָׁמִיר (shamir) means literally “hardness” and since it is said in Ezek 3:9 to be harder than flint, many scholars suggest that it refers to diamond. It is unlikely that diamond was known to ancient Israel, however, so probably a hard stone like emery or corundum is in view. The translation nevertheless uses “diamond” because in modern times it has become proverbial for its hardness. A number of English versions use “flint” here (e.g., NASB, NIV).

³ sn The Hebrew שְׂרֻקִּים (s^eruqqim) means “red” (cf. NIV, NCV, NLT “brown”). English translations such as “speckled” (KJV) or “dappled” (TEV) are based on the reading of the LXX ψαροί (psaroi) that attempts to bring the color of this horse into conformity with those described in Zech 6:2-3. However, since these are two different and unrelated visions, this is a methodological fallacy.

⁴ tn The typical translation “Joshua (the) son of Jehozadak, the high priest” (cf. ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) can be understood to mean that Jehozadak was high priest. However, Zech 3:1, 8 clearly indicate that Joshua was high priest (see also Ezra 5:1-2; cf. NAB). The same potential misunderstanding occurs in Hag 1:12, 14 and 2:2, where the same solution has been employed in the translation.

⁵ tn Heb “ancient ways [or, “doings”] are his.” The meaning of this line is unclear. Traditionally it has been translated, “his ways are eternal.” However, in this context (see vv. 3, 7) it is more likely that the line speaks of the Lord taking the same route as in the days of Moses and Deborah (see Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4). See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 154.

¹ tc The MT reads תִּשְׁכְּרִי (tishk^eri, “you will become drunk”), the Qal imperfect from שָׁכַר (shakhar, “to become drunk”; HALOT 1501 s.v. שׁכר). The editors of BHS suggest emending the MT to read the תִּשָּׁבְרִי (tishav^eri, “you will be broken”), the Niphal imperfect from שָׁבַר (shavar, “to break”; HALOT 1402 s.v. שׁבר). However, there is no external textual support for the emendation. The imagery of drunkenness is a common figure for defeat in battle.