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 tc ‡ Most mss read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after “servant.” It is unlikely that the pronoun was accidentally overlooked by such diverse witnesses as א B 0250 0281 ƒ¹ 33 latt bo. More likely is the probability that Western, Byzantine, and some other scribes added the word for clarification (so C L N W Γ Δ Θ 0233 ƒ¹³ 565 579 700 1241 1424 M sy^h sa). NA²⁸ has the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Heb “Does one plow with oxen?” This obviously does not fit the parallelism, for the preceding rhetorical question requires the answer, “Of course not!” An error of fusion has occurred in the Hebrew, with the word יָם (yam, “sea”) being accidentally added as a plural ending to the collective noun בָּקָר (baqar, “oxen”). A proper division of the consonants produces the above translation, which fits the parallelism and also anticipates the answer, “Of course not!”

¹ tc Heb “to the one who rides through the skies of skies of ancient times.” If the MT is retained, one might translate, “to the one who rides through the ancient skies.” (שְׁמֵי [sh^eme, “skies of”] may be accidentally repeated.) The present translation assumes an emendation to בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִקֶּדֶם (bashamayim miqqedem, “[to the one who rides] through the sky from ancient times”), that is, God has been revealing his power through the storm since ancient times.

¹ tn The Hebrew has repeated here “like the days of,” but some scholars think that this was an accidental replacement of what should be here, namely, “like the years of.” D. J. A. Clines notes that such repetition is not uncommon in Job, but suggests that the change should be made for English style even if the text is not emended (Job [WBC], 221). This has been followed in the present translation.

¹ tc Heb “The first lot went to Asaph, to Joseph.” Apparently the recurring formula, “and his sons and his relatives, twelve” has been accidentally omitted from the Hebrew text at this point (see vv. 10-31; the formula is slightly different in v. 9b). If the number “twelve” is not supplied here, the total comes to only 276, not the 288 required by v. 7.

¹ tc Some LXX mss add “Ner” here (cf. 1 Chr 9:36 and v. 33 below, where Ner is mentioned as the father of Kish). The form וְנֵר (v^ener) could have been accidentally omitted by homoioarcton since each name in the list has the conjunction prefixed to it. Some English versions follow the LXX here and add “Ner” (e.g., NAB, NIV, NLT).

¹ tc The words “until the day he died” do not appear in the MT, but they are included in the parallel passage in Jer 52:34. Probably they have been accidentally omitted by homoioteleuton. A scribe’s eye jumped from the final vav (ו) on בְּיוֹמוֹ (b^eyomo), “in his day,” to the final vav (ו) on מוֹתוֹ (moto), “his death,” leaving out the intervening words.

¹ tc The MT lacks “the twelve bronze bulls under ‘the Sea,’” but these words have probably been accidentally omitted by homoioarcton. The scribe’s eye may have jumped from the וְהָ (v^eha) on וְהַבָּקָר (v^ehabbaqar), “and the bulls,” to the וְהָ on וְהַמְּכֹנוֹת (v^ehamm^ekhonot), “and the movable stands,” causing him to leave out the intervening words. See the parallel passage in Jer 52:20.

¹ tc The Hebrew text reads, “and in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, and [or, ‘while’?] Jehoshaphat [was?] king of Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah became king.” The first reference to “Jehoshaphat king of Judah” is probably due to a scribe accidentally copying the phrase from later in the verse. If the Hebrew text is retained, the verse probably refers to the beginning of a coregency between Jehoshaphat and Jehoram.

³ tn Heb “offered his voice.” In this poetic narrative context the prefixed verbal form is best understood as a preterite indicating past tense, not an imperfect. Note the preterite form in the preceding line. The text of Ps 18:13 adds at this point, “hail and coals of fire.” These words are probably accidentally added from v. 12b; they do not appear in 2 Sam 22:14.

² tn The word order is different in the Hebrew text, which reads “and Jonathan cut with the house of David, and the Lord will seek from the hand of the enemies of David.” The translation assumes that the main clauses of the verse have been accidentally transposed in the course of transmission. The first part of the verse (as it stands in MT) belongs with v. 17, while the second part of the verse actually continues v. 15.

² tc The phrase “by a rope” is omitted in the LXX. It may be a later clarifying addition. If original, the omission in the LXX is likely due to an error of homoioarcton. A scribe’s or translator’s eye could have jumped from the initial ב (bet) in the phrase בַּחֶבֶל (bakhevel, “with a rope”) to the initial ב on the immediately following בְּעַד (b^eʿad, “through”) and accidentally omitted the intervening letters.

¹ tn The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life. See J. H. Yoder, “Exodus 20, 13: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’,” Int 34 (1980): 394-99; and A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26.

² tc The MT spells the name of the merchants as מְדָנִים (m^edanim, “Medanites”) rather than מִדְיָנִים (midyanim, “Midianites”) as in v. 28. It is likely that the letter י (yod) was accidentally omitted in the MT. The LXX, Vulgate, Smr, and Syriac read “Midianites” here. Some prefer to read “Medanites” both here and in v. 28, but Judg 8:24, which identifies the Midianites and Ishmaelites, favors the reading “Midianites.”

³ tc א* Θ 28 l2211 sa^ms Or lack υἱοῦ θεοῦ (huiou theou, “Son of God”), and both Irenaeus and Epiphanius additionally lack ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστου while virtually all the rest of the witnesses have the words (א B D L W Γ latt sy co Ir^lat; A Δ ƒ^1,13 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M also have τοῦ [tou] before θεοῦ), so the evidence seems to argue for the authenticity of “Son of God.” Most likely, the words were omitted by accident in some witnesses, since the last four words of v. 1, in majuscule script, would have looked like this: iu_c_r_u_u_u_q_u_. With all the successive upsilons an accidental deletion is likely. Further, the inclusion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ here finds its complement in 15:39, where the centurion claims that Jesus was υἱὸς θεοῦ (huios theou, “son of God”). Even though א is in general one of the best NT mss, the scribes of this codex were often quite sloppy. When an accidental omission is possible, its voice is significantly diminished. א’s testimony thus is not quite as preeminent in this situation. There are several other instances in which it breaks up chains of genitives ending in ου (cf., e.g., Acts 28:31; Col 2:2; Heb 12:2; Rev 12:14; 15:7; 22:1), showing that there is a significantly higher possibility of accidental scribal omission in a case like this. This christological inclusio parallels both Matthew (“Immanuel…God with us” in 1:23/“I am with you” in 28:20) and John (“the Word was God” in 1:1/“My Lord and my God” in 20:28), probably reflecting nascent christological development and articulation.

² tc Most mss (P47 א* M sa) lack ἄλλον (allon, “another”) here, but the support for it is stronger (P^115vid א² A C P 051 1006 1611 1841 2053 2329 al latt sy bo). The problem that its inclusion represents is that there is no reference to any other angel in the immediate context (the last mention was in 11:15). In this instance, the longer reading is harder. The word was probably intentionally omitted in order to resolve the tension; less likely, it might have been accidentally omitted since its spelling is similar to “angel” (ἄγγελος, angelos).

¹ tc The reading ὁ κύριος (ho kurios, “the Lord”) is well supported by א* F G 33 1739 1881 sa, but predictable expansions on the text have occurred at this point: A 104 614 read ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho kurios Iēsous, “the Lord Jesus”), while א² C D Ψ 1175 1241 1505 M al sy bo have ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (ho kurios Iēsous Christos, “the Lord Jesus Christ”). As B. M. Metzger notes, although in a late book such as 2 Timothy, one might expect the fuller title for the Lord, accidental omission of nomina sacra is rare (TCGNT 582). The shorter reading is thus preferred on both external and internal grounds.

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 tc The Byzantine text, as well as a few other witnesses (D² [L] Ψ 1881 M) lack this parenthetical material, while geographically widespread, early, and diverse witnesses have the words (so א A B C D* F G P 33 104 365 1175 1505 1739 al latt). The phrase may have dropped out accidentally through homoioteleuton (note that both the preceding phrase and the parenthesis end in ὑπὸ νόμον [hupo nomon, “under the law”]), or intentionally by overscrupulous scribes who felt that the statement “I myself am not under the law” could have led to license.