1 tn The word “people” is supplied in the translation to clarify that the Greek pronoun and verb are plural.
2 tn Many translations read “You are of your father the devil” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB) or “You belong to your father, the devil” (NIV), but the Greek preposition ἐκ (ek) emphasizes the idea of source or origin. Jesus said his opponents were the devil’s very offspring (a statement which would certainly infuriate them).
3 tn Grk “the desires of your father you want to do.”
4 tn Grk “That one” (referring to the devil).
5 tn Grk “he does not stand in the truth” (in the sense of maintaining, upholding, or accepting the validity of it).
6 tn Grk “Whenever he speaks the lie.”
7 tn Grk “he speaks from his own.”
8 tn Grk “because he is a liar and the father of it.”
9 tn Grk “abounded unto.”
10 tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).”
11 tn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation.
12 tn A figurative extension of ὀψώνιον (oywnion), which refers to a soldier’s pay or wages. Here it refers to the end result of an activity, seen as something one receives back in return. In this case the activity is sin, and the translation “payoff” captures this thought. See also L&N 89.42.
13 tc The words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (epi tou" Juiou" th" apeiqeia", “on the sons of disobedience”) are lacking in Ì46 B b sa, but are found in א A C D F G H I Ψ 075 0278 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy bo. The words are omitted by several English translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV). This textual problem is quite difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the parallel account in Eph 5:6 has these words, thus providing scribes a motive for adding them here. On the other hand, the reading without the words may be too hard: The ἐν οἷς (en |oi") of v. 7 seems to have no antecedent without υἱούς already in the text, although it could possibly be construed as neuter referring to the vice list in v. 5. Further, although the witness of B is especially important, there are other places in which B and Ì46 share errant readings of omission. Nevertheless, the strength of the internal evidence against the longer reading is at least sufficient to cause doubt here. The decision to retain the words in the text is less than certain.