¹ tc ‡ A number of witnesses, some of them significant, have the passive ἐβαπτίσθησαν (ebaptisthēsan, “were baptized”) instead of the middle ἐβαπτίσαντο (ebaptisanto, “baptized [themselves]”) in v. 2 (so א A C D F G Ψ 33 al latt). However, the middle is not without its representation (P^46c B 1739 1881 M Or; the original hand of P⁴⁶ read the imperfect middle ἐβαπτίζοντο [ebaptizonto]). The passive looks like a motivated reading in that it is clearer and conforms to typical Pauline usage (his thirteen instances of the verb are all either active or passive). B. M. Metzger, in representing a minority opinion of the UBS Committee, suggests that the middle would have been appropriate for Jewish baptism in which the convert baptizes himself (TCGNT 493). But this assumes that the middle is a direct middle, a rare occurrence in the NT (and never elsewhere with this verb). Further, it is not really baptism that is in view in v. 2, but passing through the Red Sea (thus, a metaphorical use). Although the present editors agree with the minority’s resultant reading, it is better to take the middle as causative/permissive and the scribes as changing it to a passive for clarity’s sake. Translational differences are minimal, though some exegetical implications are involved (see ExSyn 427).

¹ tn Grk “virgins.” There are three main views as to which group of people is referred to by the word παρθένος (parthenos) here, and the stance taken here directly impacts one’s understanding of vv. 36-38. (1) The term could refer to virgin women who were not married. The central issue would then be whether or not their fathers should give them in marriage to eligible men. (This is the view which has been widely held throughout the history of the Church.) (2) A minority understand the term to refer to men and women who are married but who have chosen to live together without sexual relations. This position might have been possible in the Corinthian church, but there is no solid evidence to support it. (3) The view adopted by many modern commentators (see, e.g., Fee, Conzelmann, Barrett) is that the term refers to young, engaged women who were under the influence of various groups within the Corinthian church not to go through with their marriages. The central issue would then be whether the young men and women should continue with their plans and finalize their marriages. For further discussion, see G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 325-28.

¹ tc The oldest and most significant witnesses to this text, as well as a few others (א* B 6 1739 sa^ms bo^pt), lack the words τῷ θεῷ (tō theō, “God”), while the rest have them. An accidental omission could well account for the shorter reading, especially since θεῷ would have been written as a nomen sacrum (eucaristwtwqMw). However, one might expect to see, in some mss at least, a dropping of the article but not the divine name. Internally, the Pauline introductory thanksgivings elsewhere always include τῷ θεῷ after εὐχαριστῶ (eucharistō, “I thank”; cf. Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4; Phil 1:3; Phlm 4; in the plural, note Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2). However, both the fact that this is already used in 1 Cor 1:4 (thus perhaps motivating scribes to add it ten verses later), and that in later portions of his letters Paul does not consistently use the collocation of εὐχαριστῶ with τῷ θεῷ (Rom 16:4; 1 Cor 10:30), might give one pause. Still, nowhere else in the corpus Paulinum do we see a sentence begin with εὐχαριστῶ without an accompanying τῷ θεῷ. A decision is difficult, but on balance it is probably best to retain the words.

¹ tc ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”) is found after the verb συνεργεῖ (sunergei, “work”) in v. 28 in P⁴⁶ A B 81 sa; the shorter reading is found in א C D F G Ψ 33 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 2464 M latt sy bo. Although the inclusion is supported by a significant early papyrus, the alliance of significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses favors the shorter reading. As well, the longer reading is evidently motivated by a need for clarification. Since ὁ θεός is textually suspect, it is better to read the text without it. This leaves two good translational options: either “he works all things together for good” or “all things work together for good.” In the first instance the subject is embedded in the verb and “God” is clearly implied (as in v. 29). In the second instance, πάντα (panta) becomes the subject of an intransitive verb. In either case, “What is expressed is a truly biblical confidence in the sovereignty of God” (C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:427).

³ tn Or “a way.” The grammar of this phrase is a bit ambiguous. The phrase in Greek is ὁδὸν σωτηρίας (hodon sōtērias). Neither the head noun nor the genitive noun has the article; this is in keeping with Apollonius’ Canon (see ExSyn 239-40). Since both nouns are anarthrous, this construction also fits Apollonius’ Corollary (see ExSyn 250-54); since the genitive noun is abstract it is most naturally qualitative, so the head noun could either be definite or indefinite without being unusual as far as the grammar is concerned. Luke’s usage of ὁδός elsewhere is indecisive as far as this passage is concerned. However, when one looks at the historical background it is clear that (1) the woman is shut up (via exorcism) not because her testimony is false but because of its source (analogous to Jesus’ treatment of demons perhaps), and (b) “the way” is a par excellence description of the new faith throughout Acts. It thus seems that at least in Luke’s presentation “the way of salvation” is the preferred translation.

³ tn Normally the phrase σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν (sebomenoi ton theon) refers to Gentiles (“God-fearers”) who believed in God, attended the synagogue, and followed the Mosaic law to some extent, but stopped short of undergoing circumcision. BDAG 918 s.v. σέβω 1.b lists in this category references in Acts 16:14; 18:7; with σεβόμενοι alone, Acts 13:50; 17:4, 17; the phrase is also found in Josephus, Ant. 14.7.2 (14.110). Unique to this particular verse is the combination σεβόμενοι προσηλύτων (sebomenoi prosēlutōn). Later rabbinic discussion suggests that to be regarded as a proper proselyte, a Gentile male had to submit to circumcision. If that is the case here, these Gentiles in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch should be regarded as full proselytes who had converted completely to Judaism and undergone circumcision. It is probably more likely, however, that προσηλύτων is used here in a somewhat looser sense (note the use of σεβομένας [sebomenas] alone to refer to women in Acts 13:50) and that these Gentiles were still in the category commonly called “God-fearers” without being full, technical proselytes to Judaism. See further K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6:732-34, 743-44. Regardless, the point is that many Gentiles, as well as Jews, came to faith.

⁴ sn He was eaten by worms and died. Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 (19.343-352), states that Herod Agrippa I died at Caesarea in a.d. 44. The account by Josephus, while not identical to Luke’s account, is similar in many respects: On the second day of a festival, Herod Agrippa appeared in the theater with a robe made of silver. When it sparkled in the sun, the people cried out flatteries and declared him to be a god. The king, carried away by the flattery, saw an owl (an omen of death) sitting on a nearby rope, and immediately was struck with severe stomach pains. He was carried off to his house and died five days later. The two accounts can be reconciled without difficulty, since while Luke states that Herod was immediately struck down by an angel, his death could have come several days later. The mention of worms with death adds a humiliating note to the scene. The formerly powerful ruler had been thoroughly reduced to nothing (cf. Jdt 16:17; 2 Macc 9:9; cf. also Josephus, Ant. 17.6.5 [17.168-170], which details the sickness which led to Herod the Great’s death).

² sn Mention of the Father’s name occurs again in 17:11, 12, 26, but not often elsewhere in the Gospel of John (only in 5:43; 10:25; 12:28). In one sense the name represents the person (cf. John 1:12) and thus Jesus by saying that he has revealed the Father’s name is saying that he has fully revealed who God is and what he is like (cf. John 1:18; 14:9). But there is probably a further meaning as well in John’s Gospel: Jesus himself is identified with God repeatedly (10:30; 14:11, etc.) and nowhere is this more apparent than in Jesus’ absolute uses of the phrase “I am” without a predicate (8:24, 28, 58; 13:19). The name of the Father which Jesus has revealed to his disciples is thus the divine Name revealed to Moses in Exod 3:14 (R. E. Brown, John [AB], 2:755-56). See also Isa 62:2; 65:15-16.

³ tc A number of significant mss (P^66c א A B C* D K L W Ψ ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 892 al lat) have ὅτι (hoti) here, while the majority lack it (P^66* C² Θ M). Should the ὅτι be included or omitted? The external evidence is significantly stronger for the longer reading. Most Alexandrian and Western mss favor inclusion (it is a little unusual for the Alexandrian to favor the longer reading), while most Byzantine mss favor omission (again, a little unusual). However, the reading of P^66*, which aligns with the Byzantine, needs to be given some value. At the same time, the scribe of this papyrus was known for freely omitting and adding words, and the fact that the ms was corrected discounts its testimony here. But because the shorter reading is out of character for the Byzantine text, the shorter reading (omitting the ὅτι) may well be authentic. Internally, the question comes down to whether the shorter reading is more difficult or not. And here, it loses the battle, for it seems to be a clarifying omission (so TCGNT 206). R. E. Brown is certainly right when he states: “all in all, the translation without ὅτι makes the best sense” (John [AB], 2:620). But this tacitly argues for the authenticity of the word. Thus, on both external and internal grounds, the ὅτι should be regarded as authentic.

¹ tc It is difficult to decide between ἐζήτουν οὖν (ezētoun oun, “then they were seeking”; P⁶⁶ א A L W Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 pm lat), ἐζήτουν δέ (ezētoun de, “now they were seeking”; P⁴⁵ and a few versional witnesses), καὶ ἐζήτουν (kai ezētoun, “and they were seeking”; D), and ἐζήτουν (P^75vid B Γ Θ 700 pm). Externally, the most viable readings are ἐζήτουν οὖν and ἐζήτουν. Transcriptionally, the οὖν could have dropped out via haplography since the verb ends in the same three letters. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain the readings with δέ or καί if ἐζήτουν οὖν is autographic; such readings would more likely have arisen from the simple ἐζήτουν. Intrinsically, John is fond of οὖν, using it some 200 times. Further, this Gospel begins relatively few sentences without some conjunction. The minimal support for the δέ and καί readings suggests that they arose either from the lone verb reading (which would thus be prior to their respective Vorlagen but not necessarily the earliest reading) or through carelessness on the part of the scribes. Indeed, the ancestors of P⁴⁵ and D may have committed haplography, leaving later scribes in the chain to guess at the conjunction needed. In sum, the best reading appears to be ἐζήτουν οὖν.

² tc A few witnesses lack με (me, “me”; א A a b e q sy^s,c), while the rest of the tradition has the word (P^66,75vid rell). It is possible that the mss that lack the pronoun preserve the original wording here, with the rest of the witnesses adding the pronoun for clarity’s sake. This likelihood increases since the object is not required in Greek. Without it, however, ambiguity increases: The referent could be “me” or it could be “signs,” reaching back to vv. 26 and 30. However, the oblique form of ἐγώ (egō, the first person personal pronoun) occurs some two dozen times in this chapter alone, yet it vacillates between the emphatic form and the unemphatic form. Although generally the unemphatic form is used with verbs, there are several exceptions to this in John (cf. 8:12; 12:26, 45, 48; 13:20; 14:9). If the pronoun is a later addition here, one wonders why it is so consistently the unemphatic form in the mss. Further, that two unrelated Greek witnesses lack this small word could easily be due to accidental deletion. Finally, the date and diversity of the witnesses for the pronoun are so weighty that it is likely to be authentic and should thus be retained in the text.

³ tc Several early and significant witnesses (P^66,75 B W a b sa) lack θεοῦ (theou, “God”) here, thus reading “the only one,” while most of the rest of the tradition, including some very significant mss, has the name (א A D L Θ Ψ 33 M). Internally, it could be argued that the name of God was not used here, in keeping with the NT practice of suppressing the name of God at times for rhetorical effect, drawing the reader inexorably to the conclusion that the one being spoken of is God himself. On the other hand, never is ὁ μόνος (ho monos) used absolutely in the NT (i.e., without a noun or substantive with it), and always the subject of the adjunct is God (cf. Matt 24:36; John 17:3; 1 Tim 6:16). What then is to explain the shorter reading? In majuscule script, with θεοῦ written as a nomen sacrum, envisioning accidental omission of the name by way of homoioteleuton requires little imagination, largely because of the succession of words ending in -ου: toumonouqMuou. It is thus preferable to retain the word in the text.

² tn Or perhaps “he.” Those who see the participle ἑστηκότα as masculine singular generally understand it to refer to the individual known as the Antichrist, often citing 2 Thess 2:3-4 as a related passage. By grammatical form the participle ἑστηκότα can also be neuter plural, however, and this is sometimes interpreted as referring to various abominations or atrocities committed during the intertestamental period, or to a statue set up in the temple, or to an altar constructed on top of the altar of burnt offering for the purpose of pagan sacrifices. Each of these views is not without difficulties. Confining the issue merely to the grammatical problem, the interpreter is forced to choose between a discrepancy in grammatical gender (the participle ἑστηκότα is masculine singular but the word it modifies, βδέλυγμα, is neuter singular) or a discrepancy in number (the participle ἑστηκότα is neuter plural but the word it modifies, βδέλυγμα, is neuter singular. Given that the issue is one of grammatical gender, however, it is still possible for the neuter head noun (βδέλυγμα) to refer to a masculine individual rather than a set of circumstances or a thing. The present translation uses “it” for the following pronoun, allowing a degree of ambiguity to remain for the English reader.

¹ tc ‡ A difficult textual problem is found here, involving three different variants: καὶ λέγουσιν (kai legousin) is found in א; οἱ δὲ εἶπον (hoi de eipon) is the reading of P⁴⁵ A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 M it; and καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (kai legousin autō) is supported by B C L (Δ 579 892). The first two variants would not be translated differently; the third reading, however, would add “to him” after “they replied.” What complicates the issue is that the external evidence is fairly evenly split between the second and third readings, though the first reading is in agreement with the second reading in lacking the dative pronoun. Indeed, another layout of the problem here could treat this as two distinct problems: καὶ λέγουσιν vs. οἱ δὲ εἶπον and αὐτῷ vs. omission of the word. In this second arrangement of the problem, the reading without the pronoun has slightly stronger support (P⁴⁵ א A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 M it). Internally, Mark never elsewhere uses the form εἶπον for the third person plural indicative form of this verb (it is always εἶπαν [eipan]). And although only one other time in Mark is the object lacking after λέγουσιν (6:38), it is a similar context (viz., the disciples’ response before Jesus feeds the 5000). Very tentatively, the reading that is followed here is καὶ λέγουσιν. NA²⁸ puts αὐτῷ in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

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.

¹ tc ‡ The witnesses here support several different readings: αὐτῇ πολλά (autē polla, “to her insistently”) is found in D Θ 565 700 it; πολλά is the reading of P^45vid 28; both words are lacking in L; and א A B C^2vid ƒ¹³ 33 M lat have just αὐτῇ. The best candidates for authenticity, on external grounds, are αὐτῇ πολλά and αὐτῇ. So the issue revolves around whether πολλά is part of the text. On the one hand, πολλά used adverbially is a distinctive Markanism (10 of the 16 NT instances are found in Mark; of the other Gospels, Matthew alone adds a single example [Matt 9:14]). It could be argued that such an unremarkable term would go unnoticed by the scribes, and consequently would not have been inserted in imitation of Mark’s style observed elsewhere. On the other hand, the largest cluster of instances of an adverbial πολλά are in Mark 5-6, with the most recent example coming just three verses earlier (Mark 5:23, 38, 43; 6:20). Scribes may well have imitated the usage so recently and so frequently seen. Further, the best Alexandrian witnesses, as well as good representatives of the Western and Byzantines texts, lack πολλά. On the whole, though a decision is difficult, it is probably best to read the text without πολλά. NA²⁸ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

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 tn In vv. 3-15 there is a mixture of eleven prefixed verbal forms (without vav [ו] consecutive or with vav conjunctive), sixteen suffixed forms, and three prefixed forms with vav consecutive. All of the forms are best taken as indicating completed action from the speaker’s standpoint (all of the prefixed forms being regarded as preterites). The forms could be translated with the past tense, but this would be misleading, for this is not a mere recital of God’s deeds in Israel’s past history. Habakkuk here describes, in terms reminiscent of past theophanies, his prophetic vision of a future theophany (see v. 7, “I saw”). From the prophet’s visionary standpoint the theophany is “as good as done.” This translation uses the English present tense throughout these verses to avoid misunderstanding. A similar strategy is followed by the NEB; in contrast note the NIV and NRSV, which consistently use past tenses throughout the section, and the NASB, which employs present tenses in vv. 3-5 and mostly past tenses in vv. 6-15.

³ tc The MT reads the Niphal imperfect third person masculine plural יִכָּשְׁלוּ (yikkash^elu, “they stumble”) from the root כָּשַׁל (kashal, “stumble”). G. R. Driver argues that the MT makes little sense in the portrayal of a successful assault; the motif of stumbling warriors usually connotes defeat (Isa 5:27; Jer 46:6). Driver argues that MT’s יִכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumble”) arose from metathesis (reversal of consonants) from an original יִשָּׁלְכוּ (yishal^ekhu, Niphal from שָׁלַךְ [shalakh, “to cast forth”]) which also appears in 1 Kgs 13:24, 25, 28 (“hurled himself,” i.e., rushed headlong). Driver suggests that this is related to Arabic salaka VII (“to rush in”). He notes that the emendation would produce a tighter parallelism with the following noun: יְמַהֲרוּ (y^emaharu, “they hasten”). See G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets II,” JTS 39 (1938): 270. On the other hand, Armerding argues that the anomalous MT reading יִכָּשְׁלוּ (“they stumble”) can be explained without recourse to textual emendation. The stumbling of the attacking army is caused, not by their weakness, but by the corpses of the Assyrians strewn in their path which obstructs their advance. Armerding suggests that this motif appears in Nah 3:3 (C. E. Armerding, “Nahum,” EBC 7:475).

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?”