(0.21) | (1Co 14:39) | 1 tc ‡ μου (mou, “my”) is found after ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) in a number of significant witnesses (א A B* D1 048 326 1175 2464 al), but lacking in most other witnesses (P46 B2 D* F G Ψ 0243 33 1739 1881 M lat). Every other time Paul says “So then, brothers (and sisters)” he adds “my” (ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου; hōste, adelphoi mou). There is no good reason why scribes would intentionally omit “my” here but not elsewhere. Thus, the longer reading is in conformity with Paul’s general style and as such seems to be scribally motivated. NA28 has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (1Co 14:14) | 1 tc ‡ Most witnesses, including some significant ones (א A Ds Ψ 048 M lat sy bo), have γάρ (gar, “for”) here, while an equally impressive array of witnesses lack the conjunction (P46 B F G 0243 1739 1881 sa). This conjunction was frequently added by scribes in epistolary literature as a clarifying word, making the connection with the preceding more explicit. As such, it has the earmarks of being a motivated reading and thus should be rejected. NA28 places the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (1Co 12:26) | 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. |
(0.21) | (1Co 3:13) | 3 tc ‡ αὐτό (auto) is found at this point in v. 13 in a number of significant witnesses, including A B C P 33 1739 al. But P46 א D Ψ 0289 1881 M latt lack it. The pronoun could be a motivated reading, designed to intensify Paul’s statement. On the other hand, it could have been deleted because the article alone made the reference already clear. In this instance, the possibility of scribal addition seems more likely than scribal deletion, although a decision is difficult. NA28 includes the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (1Co 4:17) | 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. |
(0.21) | (Rom 8:34) | 1 tc ‡ A number of significant and early witnesses, along with several others (P46vid א A C F G L Ψ 6 33 81 104 365 1505 al lat bo), read ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) after Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) in v. 34. But the shorter reading is not unrepresented (B D 0289 1175 1241 1739 1881 M sa). Once ᾿Ιησοῦς got into the text, what scribe would omit it? Although the external evidence is on the side of the longer reading, internally such an expansion seems suspect. The shorter reading is thus preferred. NA28 has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (Rom 6:11) | 1 tc ‡ Some Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (P94vid א* B C 81 365 1506 1739 1881) have the infinitive “to be” (εἶναι, einai) following “yourselves”. The infinitive is lacking from some mss of the Alexandrian and Western textual clusters (P46vid A D*,c F G 33). The infinitive is found elsewhere in the majority of Byzantine mss, suggesting a scribal tendency toward clarification. The lack of infinitive best explains the rise of the other readings. The meaning of the passage is not significantly altered by inclusion or omission, but on internal grounds omission is more likely. NA28 includes the infinitive in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (Rom 4:25) | 2 sn The verb translated given over (παραδίδωμι, paradidōmi) is also used in Rom 1:24, 26, 28 to describe God giving people over to sin. But it is also used frequently in the gospels to describe Jesus being handed over (or delivered up, betrayed) by sinful men for crucifixion (cf., e.g., Matt 26:21; 27:4; Mark 9:31; 10:33; 15:15; Luke 20:20; 22:24; 24:7). It is probable that Paul has both ideas in mind: Jesus was handed over by sinners, but even this betrayal was directed by the Father for our sake (because of our transgressions). |
(0.21) | (Act 28:30) | 3 tn Or perhaps, “two whole years at his own expense.” BDAG 654 s.v. μίσθωμα states, “the customary act. mng. ‘contract price, rent’…is not found in our lit. (Ac) and the pass. what is rented, a rented house is a mng. not found outside it (even Ammonius Gramm. [100 ad] p. 93 Valck. knows nothing of it. Hence the transl. at his own expense [NRSV] merits attention) ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι in his own rented lodgings Ac 28:30 (for the idea cf. Jos., Ant. 18, 235).” |
(0.21) | (Act 28:12) | 1 tn Grk “And putting in.” The participle καταχθέντες (katachthentes) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style. On the meaning of the participle, BDAG 516 s.v. κατάγω states, “Hence the pass., in act. sense, of ships and seafarers put in εἴς τι at a harbor…εἰς Συρακούσας Ac 28:12.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here. |
(0.21) | (Act 22:29) | 6 sn Had him tied up. Perhaps a reference to the chains in Acts 21:33, or the preparations for the lashing in Acts 22:25. A trial would now be needed to resolve the matter. The Roman authorities’ hesitation to render a judgment in the case occurs repeatedly: Acts 22:30; 23:28-29; 24:22; 25:20, 26-27. The legal process begun here would take the rest of Acts and will be unresolved at the end. The process itself took four years of Paul’s life. |
(0.21) | (Act 12:17) | 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 (P45vid,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. |
(0.21) | (Act 11:22) | 4 tc ‡ Most mss read the infinitive “to travel” after “Barnabas.” διελθεῖν (dielthein) is found before ἕως (heōs) in D E Ψ 33 M and some versional mss. It is lacking in P74 א A B 81 1739 and some versional mss. Although the infinitive with ἕως fits Lukan style, it has the appearance of a scribal clarification. The infinitive has the earmarks of a Western expansion on the text and thus is unlikely to be autographic. NA28 has the infinitive in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (Act 8:12) | 1 sn The kingdom of God is also what Jesus preached; see Acts 1:3. The term reappears in Acts 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31. The nature of the kingdom of God in the NT and in Jesus’ teaching has long been debated by interpreters and scholars, with discussion primarily centering around the nature of the kingdom (earthly, heavenly, or both) and the kingdom’s arrival (present, future, or both). An additional major issue concerns the relationship between the kingdom of God and the person and work of Jesus himself. See also Luke 6:20; 11:20; 17:20-21. |
(0.21) | (Act 7:43) | 3 tc ‡ Most mss, including several significant ones (P74 א A C E Ψ 33 1739 M h p vg syh mae bo Cyr), have ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) here, in conformity with the LXX of Amos 5:26. But other significant and diverse witnesses lack the pronoun: The lack of ὑμῶν in B D 36 453 gig syp sa Irlat Or is difficult to explain if it is not the autographic wording here. NA28 has the word in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (Joh 20:30) | 2 tc ‡ Although most mss, including several significant ones (P66 א C D L W Θ Ψ ƒ1,13 33 M lat), read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τῶν μαθητῶν (tōn mathētōn, “the disciples”), the pronoun is lacking in A B K Δ 0250 al. The weight of the witnesses for the inclusion is somewhat stronger than that for the exclusion. However, the addition of “his” to “disciples” is a frequent scribal emendation and as such is a predictable variant. It is thus most likely that the shorter reading is authentic. NA28 puts the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity. |
(0.21) | (Joh 20:25) | 3 tn The word “it” is not in the Greek text but is implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context. The use of “it” here as direct object of the verb πιστεύσω (pisteusō) specifies exactly what Thomas was refusing to believe: that Jesus had risen from the dead, as reported by his fellow disciples. Otherwise the English reader may be left with the impression Thomas was refusing to “believe in” Jesus, or “believe Jesus to be the Christ.” The dramatic tension in this narrative is heightened when Thomas, on seeing for himself the risen Christ, believes more than just the resurrection (see John 20:28). |
(0.21) | (Joh 16:27) | 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 ƒ1,13 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]). |
(0.21) | (Joh 16:29) | 2 sn How is the disciples’ reply to Jesus now you are speaking plainly and not in obscure figures of speech to be understood? Their claim to understand seems a bit impulsive. It is difficult to believe that the disciples have really understood the full implications of Jesus’ words, although it is true that he spoke to them plainly and not figuratively in 16:26-28. The disciples will not fully understand all that Jesus has said to them until after his resurrection, when the Holy Spirit will give them insight and understanding (16:13). |
(0.21) | (Joh 16:5) | 1 sn Now the theme of Jesus’ impending departure is resumed (I am going to the one who sent me). It will also be mentioned in 16:10, 17, and 28. Jesus had said to his opponents in 7:33 that he was going to the one who sent him; in 13:33 he had spoken of going where the disciples could not come. At that point Peter had inquired where he was going, but it appears that Peter did not understand Jesus’ reply at that time and did not persist in further questioning. In 14:5 Thomas had asked Jesus where he was going. |