Deuteronomy 5:29

5:29 If only it would really be their desire to fear me and obey ¹  all my commandments in the future, so that it may go well with them and their descendants forever.

Psalms 81:11-13

81:11 But my people did not obey me; ² 

Israel did not submit to me. ³ 

81:12 I gave them over to their stubborn desires; ⁴ 

they did what seemed right to them. ⁵ 

81:13 If only my people would obey me! ⁶ 

If only Israel would keep my commands! ⁷ 

Psalms 81:2

81:2 Sing ⁸  a song and play the tambourine,

the pleasant sounding harp, and the ten-stringed instrument!

Colossians 1:20

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ⁹  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

[5:29]  ¹ tn Heb “keep” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).

[81:11]  ² tn Heb “did not listen to my voice.”

[81:11]  ³ tn The Hebrew expression אָבָה לִי (’avah liy) means “submit to me” (see Deut 13:8).

[81:12]  ⁴ tn Heb “and I sent him away in the stubbornness of their heart.”

[81:12]  ⁵ tn Heb “they walked in their counsel.” The prefixed verbal form is either preterite (“walked”) or a customary imperfect (“were walking”).

[81:13]  ⁶ tn Heb “if only my people were listening to me.” The Hebrew particle לוּ (lu, “if not”) introduces a purely hypothetical or contrary to fact condition (see 2 Sam 18:12).

[81:13]  ⁷ tn Heb “[and if only] Israel would walk in my ways.”

[81:2]  ⁸ tn Heb “lift up.”

[1:20]  ⁹ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.