¹ tc ‡ Several significant mss read ᾿Ιησοῦ (Iēsou, “Jesus”) after Χριστῷ (Christō, “Christ”) in v. 17 (so P⁴⁶ א C D¹ 33 1739 al). Western mss have κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ (kuriō Iēsou, “Lord Jesus”; D* F G), while several significant mss, as well as the majority, have only Χριστῷ here (A B D² Ψ M sa). Once ᾿Ιησοῦ got into the text, it would continue to be copied. There is however no easy explanation for the word lacking in so many witnesses. Thus the shorter reading appears to be autographic. NA²⁸ includes ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ There is some dispute over whether τῇ πίστει is here or not. Several decent witnesses lack the words (B D F G 0220 sa Ambst) while they are found (with ἐν preceding the article in some) in other witnesses, some of which are very good (א [+ ἐν in א¹; lacking in א*, omitted in א^c] A [also with ἐν] C Ψ 33 1739 1881 lat). On balance, the shorter reading has stronger external witnesses. As well, (ἐν) τῇ πίστει strikes the reader as mildly redundant and certainly as a clarification. As such, it seems to be a motivated reading. It is thus best to delete the words from the text.

⁴ tn The words “at Jerusalem” are not in the Greek text, but are implied by the participle ἀναβάς (anabas). The expression “go up” refers almost exclusively to the direction of Jerusalem, while the corresponding “go down” (κατέβη, katebē) refers to directions away from Jerusalem. Both expressions are based on a Hebrew idiom. Assuming Jerusalem is meant, this is another indication of keeping that key church informed. If Jerusalem is not referred to here, then Caesarea is in view. Paul was trying to honor a vow, which also implies a visit to Jerusalem.

¹ tn Grk “men who,” but this can be misleading because in English the referent could be understood to be the men sent along with Barnabas and Paul rather than Barnabas and Paul themselves. This option does not exist in the Greek original, however, since ἀνθρώποις (anthrōpois) is dative and must agree with “Barnabas and Paul,” while ἄνδρας (andras) is accusative. By omitting the word “men” from the translation here, it is clear in English that the phrase refers to the immediately preceding nouns “Barnabas and Paul.”

⁷ tn On the term translated “personal assistant” BDAG 554 s.v. κοιτῶν states, “used as part of a title: ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος the one in charge of the bed-chamber, the chamberlain.” This individual was not just a domestic servant or butler, but a highly respected person who had considerable responsibility for the king’s living quarters and personal affairs. The English word “chamberlain” corresponds very closely to this meaning but is not in common use today. The term “personal assistant,” while it might convey more business associations than management of personal affairs, nevertheless communicates the concept well in contemporary English.

² tc ‡ Most mss, including some of the most important ones (B D E Ψ M sy), read αὐτοῖς (autois, “to them”) here, while some excellent and early witnesses (P^45vid,74vid א A 33 81 945 1739) lack the pronoun. Although it is possible that the pronoun was deleted because it was seen as superfluous, it is also possible that it was added as a natural expansion on the text, strengthening the connection between Peter and his listeners. Although a decision is difficult, the shorter reading is slightly preferred. NA²⁸ puts the pronoun in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tn While ζώννυμι (zōnnumi) sometimes means “to dress,” referring to the fastening of the belt or sash as the final act of getting dressed, in this context it probably does mean “put on your belt” since in the conditions of a prison Peter had probably not changed into a different set of clothes to sleep. More likely he had merely removed his belt or sash, which the angel now told him to replace. The translation “put on your belt” is given by L&N 49.14 for this verse. The archaic English “girdle” for the sash or belt has an entirely different meaning today.

¹ tc A number of early mss (א¹ B C* D L co) read πατρός (patros, “Father”) here instead of θεοῦ (theou, “God”; found in P⁵ א*^,2 A C³ W Θ Ψ 33 ƒ^1,13 M). Although externally πατρός has relatively strong support, it is evidently an assimilation to “I came from the Father” at the beginning of v. 28, or more generally to the consistent mention of God as Father throughout this chapter (πατήρ [patēr, “Father”] occurs eleven times in this chapter, while θεός [theos, “God”] occurs only two other times [16:2, 30]).

¹ tn Or “that.” It is very difficult to determine whether ὅτι (hoti; 3 times in 16:9, 10, 11) should be understood as causal or appositional/explanatory: Brown and Bultmann favor appositional or explanatory, while Barrett and Morris prefer a causal sense. A causal idea is preferable here, since it also fits the parallel statements in vv. 10-11 better than an appositional or explanatory use would. In this case Jesus is stating in each instance the reason why the world is proven guilty or wrong by the Spirit-Paraclete.

³ sn Many interpret the imagery of fruit here and in 15:2, 4 in terms of good deeds or character qualities, relating it to passages elsewhere in the NT like Matt 3:8 and 7:20, Rom 6:22, Gal 5:22, etc. This is not necessarily inaccurate, but one must remember that for John, to have life at all is to bear fruit, while one who does not bear fruit shows that he does not have the life (once again, conduct is the clue to paternity, as in John 8:41; compare also 1 John 4:20).

⁴ tn Or “trims”; Grk “cleanses” (a wordplay with “clean” in v. 3). Καθαίρει (kathairei) is not the word one would have expected here, but it provides the transition from the vine imagery to the disciples—there is a wordplay (not reproducible in English) between αἴρει (airei) and καθαίρει in this verse. While the purpose of the Father in cleansing his people is clear, the precise means by which he does so is not immediately obvious. This will become clearer, however, in the following verse.

³ sn The statement I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold almost certainly refers to Gentiles. Jesus has sheep in the fold who are Jewish; there are other sheep which, while not of the same fold, belong to him also. This recalls the mission of the Son in 3:16-17, which was to save the world—not just the nation of Israel. Such an emphasis would be particularly appropriate to the author if he were writing to a non-Palestinian and primarily non-Jewish audience.

⁵ tc Some significant mss (P⁶⁶ B* [700]) have the present imperative ποιεῖτε (poieite) here: “If you are Abraham’s children, then do,” while many others (א² C K L N Δ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 565 579 892 pm) add the contingent particle ἄν (an) to ἐποιεῖτε (epoieite) making it a more proper second class condition by Attic standards. The simple ἐποιεῖτε without the ἄν is the hardest reading, and is found in some excellent witnesses (P⁷⁵ א* B² D W Γ Θ 070 0250 1424 pm).

³ tn Grk “How does this man know learning since he has not been taught?” The implication here is not that Jesus never went to school (in all probability he did attend a local synagogue school while a youth), but that he was not the disciple of a particular rabbi and had not had formal or advanced instruction under a recognized rabbi (compare Acts 4:13 where a similar charge is made against Peter and John; see also Paul’s comment in Acts 22:3).

³ sn You both know me and know where I come from! Jesus’ response while teaching in the temple is difficult—it appears to concede too much understanding to his opponents. It is best to take the words as irony: “So you know me and know where I am from, do you?” On the physical, literal level, they did know where he was from: Nazareth of Galilee (at least they thought they knew). But on another deeper (spiritual) level, they did not: He came from heaven, from the Father. Jesus insisted that he has not come on his own initiative (cf. 5:37), but at the bidding of the Father who sent him.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses (P⁶⁶ A D L Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M latt co) have ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) here, while generally better witnesses (P⁷⁵ א B W {0141} 892 1241 pbo) lack the name. Although it is possible that Alexandrian scribes deleted the name due to proclivities to prune, this is not as likely as other witnesses adding it for clarification, especially since multiple strands of the Alexandrian text are represented in the shorter reading. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubts as to authenticity.

¹ tc While a number of mss, especially the later ones (A^c C³ D Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M latt sy), include the words τον κραβ(β)ατ(τ)ον σου (ton krab(b)at(t)on sou, “your mat”) here, the earliest and best (P^66,75 א B C* L) do not. Nevertheless, in the translation, it is necessary to supply the words due to the demands of English style, which does not typically allow for understood or implied direct objects as Greek does.

¹ tc Most witnesses have “Jesus” here, either with the article (א^c C² D L W^s Ψ 086 M lat) or without (א* A Θ ƒ^1,13 al), while several significant and early witnesses lack the name (P^66,75 B C* 33^vid). It is unlikely that scribes would have deliberately expunged the name of Jesus from the text here, especially since it aids the reader with the flow of the dialogue. Further, that the name occurs both anarthrously and with the article suggests that it was a later addition. (For similar arguments, see the note on “woman” in 4:11).

² sn Is the manager dishonest because of what he just did? Or is it a reference to what he had done earlier, described in v. 1? This is a difficult question, but it seems unlikely that the master, having fired the man for prior dishonesty, would now commend those same actions. It would also be unusual for Jesus to make that point of the story the example. Thus it is more likely the reference to dishonesty goes back to the earliest events, while the commendation is for the cleverness of the former manager reflected in vv. 5-7.

² tc The earliest and best mss read simply ᾿Ιωάννου (Iōannou, “John”) here (P⁷⁵ א B L W Ξ ƒ¹ 579). Others turn this into “John the Baptist” (K 33 565 al it), “the prophet John the Baptist” (A [D] Θ ƒ¹³ M lat), or “the prophet John” (Ψ 700 [892 1241]). “It appears that προφήτης was inserted by pedantic copyists who wished thereby to exclude Christ from the comparison, while others added τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ, assimilating the text to Mt 11.11” (TCGNT 119).