¹ tc Most Western witnesses, as well as the majority of Byzantine mss and a few others (א² D F G Ψ 0278 0285^vid 1175 1505 1739^mg M lat), add the following words to the end of the verse: ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (ek tēs sarkos autou kai ek tōn osteōn autou, “of his flesh and of his bones”). This is a (slightly modified) quotation from Gen 2:23a (LXX). The Alexandrian text is solidly behind the shorter reading (P⁴⁶ א* A B 048 33 81 1739* 1881 co). Although it is possible that an early scribe’s eye skipped over the final αὐτοῦ, there is a much greater likelihood that a scribe added the Genesis quotation in order to fill out and make explicit the author’s incomplete reference to Gen 2:23. Further, on intrinsic grounds, it seems unlikely that the author would refer to the physical nature of creation when speaking of the “body of Christ” which is spiritual or mystical. Hence, as is often the case with OT quotations, the scribal clarification missed the point the author was making; the shorter reading stands as autographic.

¹ tc Many witnesses ([א²] C² K T Ψ^c 083 ƒ^1,13 33 pm sa Or) read Βηθαβαρᾷ (Bēthabara, “Bethabara”) instead of Βηθανίᾳ (Bēthania, “Bethany”). But the reading Βηθανίᾳ is strongly supported by P^66,75 A B C* L W^s Δ Θ Ψ* 565 579 700 1241 1424 pm latt bo as well as several fathers. Since there is no known Bethany “beyond the Jordan,” it is likely that the name would have been changed to a more etymologically edifying one (Origen mistakenly thought the name Bethabara meant “house of preparation” and for this reason was appropriate in this context; see TCGNT 171 for discussion). On the other hand, both since Origen’s understanding of the Semitic etymology of Bethabara was incorrect, and because Bethany was at least a well-known location in Palestine, mentioned in the Gospels about a dozen times, one has to wonder whether scribes replaced Βηθαβαρᾷ with Βηθανίᾳ. However, if Origen’s understanding of the etymology of the name was representative, scribes may have altered the text in the direction of Bethabara. And even if most scribes were unfamiliar with what the name might signify, that a reading which did not contradict the Gospels’ statements of a Bethany near Jerusalem was already at hand may have been sufficient reason for them to adopt Bethabara. Further, in light of the very strong testimony for Βηθανίᾳ, this reading should be regarded as authentic.

¹ tc A few significant mss (א* Θ ƒ^{1, 13} 33) identify the prophet as Isaiah, a reading that is significantly harder than the generic “prophet” because the source of this prophecy is not Isaiah but Asaph in Ps 78. Jerome mentioned some mss that had “Asaph” here, though none are known to exist today. This problem is difficult because of the temptation for scribes to delete the reference to Isaiah in order to clear up a discrepancy. Indeed, the vast majority of witnesses have only “the prophet” here (א¹ B C D L W Γ Δ 0233 0242 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy co). However, as B. M. Metzger points out, “if no prophet were originally named, more than one scribe might have been prompted to insert the name of the best known prophet—something which has, in fact, happened elsewhere more than once” (TCGNT 27). In light of the paucity of evidence for the reading ᾿Ησαΐου, as well as the proclivity of scribes to add his name, it is probably best to consider the shorter reading as authentic.

¹ tc ‡ Most mss (L N W Δ Θ 0233 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy mae) read τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ (tēn basileian tou theou kai tēn dikaiosunēn autou, “the kingdom of God and his righteousness”) here, but the words “of God” are lacking in א B sa bo Eus. On the one hand, there is the possibility of accidental omission on the part of these Alexandrian witnesses, but it seems unlikely that the scribe’s eye would skip over both words (especially since τοῦ θεοῦ is bracketed by first declension nouns). Intrinsically, the author generally has a genitive modifier with βασιλεία—especially θεοῦ or οὐρανῶν (ouranōn), the latter attested by Clement of Alexandria—but this argument cuts both ways: Although the evangelist might be expected to use such an adjunct here, scribes might also be familiar with his practice and would thus naturally insert it if it were missing in their copy of Matthew. Although a decision is difficult, the omission of τοῦ θεοῦ is considered most likely to be the initial text. NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

³ tc The majority of witnesses, including several early and significant ones (א A [D] I 33 1175 1241 1505 2464 M bo), have ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυριοῦ Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (apo theou patros hēmōn kai kuriou Iēsou Christou, “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”) at the end of v. 1. The more abrupt reading (“Grace and peace to you”) without this addition is supported by B F G Ψ 0278 629 1739 1881 lat sa. Apart from a desire to omit the redundancy of the mention of God and Christ in this verse, there is no good reason why scribes would have omitted the characteristically Pauline greeting. (Further, if this were the case, why did these same scribes overlook such an opportunity in 2 Thess 1:1-2?) On the other hand, since 1 Thessalonians is one of Paul’s earliest letters, what would become characteristic of his greetings seems to have been still in embryonic form (e.g., he does not yet call his audience “saints” [which will first be used in his address to the Corinthians], nor does he use ἐν (en) plus the dative to refer to the location of the church). Thus, the internal evidence is overwhelming in support of the shorter reading, for scribes would have been strongly motivated to rework this salutation in light of Paul’s style elsewhere. And the external evidence, though not overwhelming, is supportive of this shorter reading, found as it is in some of the best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western groups.

¹ tc Several early and significant witnesses, along with the majority of later ones (P^66c,75 A B C L W^s Ψ 083 ƒ¹³ 33 M sa), have κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) here instead of ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”). As significant as this external support is, the internal evidence seems to be on the side of ᾿Ιησοῦς. “Jesus” is mentioned two more times in the first two verses of chapter four in a way that is stylistically awkward (so much so that the translation has substituted the pronoun for the first one; see tn note below). This seems to be sufficient reason to motivate scribes to change the wording to κύριος. Further, the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is not without decent support, though admittedly not as strong as that for κύριος (P^66* א D Θ 086 ƒ¹ 565 1241 al lat bo). On the other hand, this Gospel speaks of Jesus as Lord in the evangelist’s narrative descriptions elsewhere only in 11:2; 20:18, 20; 21:12; and probably 6:23, preferring ᾿Ιησοῦς most of the time. This fact could be used to argue that scribes, acquainted with John’s style, changed κύριος to ᾿Ιησοῦς. But the immediate context generally is weighed more heavily than an author’s style. It is possible that neither word was in the autographic text and scribes supplied what they thought most appropriate (see TCGNT 176). But without ms evidence to this effect coupled with the harder reading ᾿Ιησοῦς, this conjecture must remain doubtful. All in all, it is best to regard ᾿Ιησοῦς as the original reading here.

² tc Several significant Greek mss (P⁷⁵ א¹ A B N T W 579 1071*) along with diverse and widespread versional witnesses lack 22:43-44. In addition, the verses are placed after Matt 26:39 by ƒ¹³. Floating texts typically suggest both spuriousness and early scribal impulses to regard the verses as historically authentic. These verses are included in א*^,2 D L Θ Ψ 0171 ƒ¹ M lat Ju Ir Hipp Eus. However, a number of mss mark the text with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating the scribe’s assessment of the verses as inauthentic. At the same time, these verses generally fit Luke’s style. Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus’ humanity and an angel’s help. But even if the verses are not literarily authentic, they are probably historically authentic. This is due to the fact that this text was well known in several different locales from a very early period. Since there are no synoptic parallels to this account and since there is no obvious reason for adding these words here, it is very likely that such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord. Nevertheless, because of the serious doubts as to these verses’ authenticity, they have been put in brackets. For an important discussion of this problem, see B. D. Ehrman and M. A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44, ” CBQ 45 (1983): 401-16.

¹ tc Most mss (A C³ Ψ 33 M) have τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι (to ei dunasai pisteusai, “if you are able to believe”), instead of τὸ εἰ δύνῃ (to ei dunē, “if you are able”; supported by א B C* L N* Δ ƒ¹ 579 892). Others have εἰ δύνῃ (or δυνάσαι) πιστεῦσαι (“if you are able to believe”; so D K Θ ƒ¹³ 28 565 al), while still others have τοῦτο εἰ δύνῃ (touto ei dunē, “if you can [do] this”; so [P⁴⁵] W). The reading that best explains the rise of the others is τὸ εἰ δύνῃ. The neuter article indicates that the Lord is now quoting the boy’s father who, in v. 22, says εἴ τι δύνῃ (ei ti dunē, “if you are able to do anything”). The article is thus used anaphorically (see ExSyn 238). However, scribes could easily have overlooked this idiom and would consequently read τὸ εἰ δύνῃ as the protasis of a conditional clause of the Lord’s statement. As such, it would almost demand the infinitive πιστεῦσαι, producing the reading τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι (“if you are able to believe, all things are possible…”). But the article here seems to be meaningless, prompting other scribes to modify the text still further. Some dropped the nonsensical article, while others turned it into the demonstrative τοῦτο and dropped the infinitive. It is clear that scribes had difficulty with the initial text here, and made adjustments in various directions. What might not be so clear is the exact genealogy of the descent of all the readings. However, τὸ εἰ δύνῃ is both a hard saying, best explains the rise of the other readings, and is supported by the best witnesses. It thus rightly deserves to be considered authentic.

¹ tc Most mss (א M) read “amen” (ἀμήν, amēn) after “all” (πάντων, pantōn). It is, however, not found in other significant mss (A 1006 1841). It is easier to account for its addition than its omission from the text if original. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant.

² tc Several mss (P⁴⁷ א 1 1006 1611 2351 M^K) have the conjunction “for” (γάρ, gar) here so that the phrase reads: “for they are blameless.” Other significant mss (A C P 1854 2053 al lat) lack the word. The shorter reading is to be preferred since the scribes were more likely to make the connection explicit through the addition of “for” than they would have been to omit the conjunction. As it is, the passage without the conjunction makes good sense and evokes a very somber tone.

⁵ tc The textual problem here between the present tense βασιλεύουσιν (basileuousin, “they are reigning”; so A 1006 1611 M^K) and the future βασιλεύσουσιν (basileusousin, “they will reign”; so א 1854 2053 M^A lat co) is a difficult one. Both readings have excellent support. On the one hand, the present tense seems to be the harder reading in this context. On the other hand, codex A elsewhere mistakes the future for the present (20:6). Further, the lunate sigma in majuscule script could have been overlooked by some scribes, resulting in the present tense. All things considered, there is a slight preference for the future.

¹ tc The shorter reading “Omega” (ὦ, ō) has superior ms evidence (א¹ A C 1611) to the longer reading which includes “the beginning and the end” (ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος or ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, archē kai telos or hē archē kai to telos), found in א*^,2 1854 2050 2329 2351 M^A lat bo. There is little reason why a scribe would have deleted the words, but their clarifying value and the fact that they harmonize with 21:6 indicate that they are a secondary addition to the text.

³ tc ‡ Most witnesses ([א] A P 1739 M sy) have καί (kai, “also”) before the article τόν (ton). But the external evidence for the shorter reading is significant (B Ψ 048 33 sa), and the conjunction looks to be a motivated reading in which scribes emulated the wording of 4:21 (ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τόν, agapa kai ton [“(should) also love the”]). NA²⁷ places the conjunction in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity, while NA²⁸ keeps the conjunction but omits the brackets.

² tc A few significant and early witnesses mss (א* B sa) lack ἐπισκοποῦντες (episkopountes, “exercising oversight”), but the participle enjoys otherwise good ms support (P⁷² א² A P Ψ 33 1739 M lat bo). A decision is difficult because normally the shorter reading is preferred, especially when found in excellent witnesses. However, in this instance the omission may be due to a hesitation among some scribes to associate oversight with elders, since the later church viewed overseer/bishop as a separate office from elder.

² tc Most witnesses (D¹ M) have “various washings, and external regulations” (βαπτισμοῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν, baptismois kai dikaiōmasin), with both nouns in the dative. The translation “washings; they are…regulations” renders βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα (baptismois, dikaiōmata; found in such significant mss as P⁴⁶ א* A I P 0278 33 1739 1881 al sa) in which case δικαιώματα is taken as the nominative subject of the participle ἐπικείμενα (epikeimena). It seems far more likely that scribes would conform δικαιώματα to the immediately preceding datives and join it to them by καί than they would to the following nominative participle. Both on external and internal evidence the text is thus secure as reading βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα.

⁴ tc ‡ Most texts, including some early and significant ones (א² A B* D Ψ 0122 0278 1881 M sy Cl), have καί (kai, “and”) immediately preceding οὐ (ou, “not”), but other equally significant witnesses (P⁴⁶ א* B² C 33 81 1739 lat Or Did) lack the conjunction. As it was a natural tendency for scribes to add a coordinating conjunction, the καί appears to be a motivated reading. On balance, it is probably best to regard the shorter reading as authentic. NA²⁸ has καί in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

³ tn The Greek is somewhat awkward here. It appears as though the text reads “…the love and faith which you have for the Lord Jesus and for all the saints.” In other Pauline letters the emphasis seems to be “faith in Christ Jesus and love for all of the saints.” Some ancient mss have altered the wording to produce a smoother reading; scribes changed the wording to resemble the more readable versions in Eph 1:15 and Col 1:4, “your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which you have to all the saints.”

² tc Most mss (א² C D F G Ψ 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al latt sy co) have ἐθνῶν (ethnōn, “of the Gentiles”) after “teacher” (διδάσκαλος [didaskalos ]). The shorter reading has poorer external credentials (א* A I 1175), though codex 33 has a reading apparently generated from διδάσκαλος alone (διάκονος (diakonos, “servant”]). The “teacher” without adjunct is preferred both because ἐθνῶν probably represents a gloss added by scribes familiar with 1 Tim 2:7 and because there is no easy explanation for the omission of ἐθνῶν if it were original here.

¹ tc The Greek conjunction ὅτι usually means “because,” but here it takes the sense “so that” (see BDAG 732 s.v. 5.c). This unusual sense led to textual variation as scribes attempted to correct what appeared to be an error: D* along with a few versional and patristic witnesses read ἀληθὲς ὅτι (“it is true that”), and א² D¹ Ψ 1175 1241 1505 M al sy read δῆλον ὅτι (“it is clear that”). Thus the simple conjunction is preferred on internal as well as external grounds, supported by א* A F G 048 33 81 1739 1881.

¹ tc Most mss (א A C D² F G Ψ 0278 1175 1241 1505 2464 M al) have the plural τύπους (tupous, “examples”) here, while a few significant witnesses have the singular τύπον (tupon, “example”; B D*^,c 6 33 81 104 1739 1881 lat). With ὑμᾶς (humas, “you”) immediately preceding, the plural form looks motivated: Scribes would be expected to change the singular to the plural here. Although the external evidence for the singular reading is not overwhelming, the internal evidence for it is compelling.