¹ tn Or “of the witnesses to Jesus.” Here the genitive ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou) is taken as an objective genitive; Jesus is the object of their testimony.

⁸ tn The genitive ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou) has been translated as an objective genitive here. A subjective genitive, also possible, would produce the meaning “who hold to what Jesus testifies.”

² tc The shorter reading, κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”), is found in Ì⁴⁶ B 630 1739 pc; κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (kuriou Ihsou, “Lord Jesus”) is read by Ì^61vid א Ψ Ï; κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (kuriou Ihsou Cristou, “Lord Jesus Christ”) by D pc; and κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (kuriou Jhmwn Ihsou Cristou, “our Lord Jesus Christ”) by A F G P 33 al. The shorter reading is preferred as the reading that best explains the other readings, especially in view of the mention of “Jesus” twice in the previous verse.

¹ tc ‡ Several important mss read ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou, “Jesus”) after Χριστῷ (Cristw, “Christ”) in v. 17 (so Ì⁴⁶ א C D¹ 33 1739 al). Western mss have κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ (kuriw Ihsou, “Lord Jesus”; D* F G), while several significant mss, as well as the majority, have only Χριστῷ here (A B D² Ψ Ï 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 original. NA²⁷ includes ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc The reading ὁ κύριος (Jo kurio", “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 pc read ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo kurio" Ihsou", “the Lord Jesus”), while א² C D Ψ Ï sy bo have ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (Jo kurio" Ihsou" Cristo", “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 ‡ A few important mss (א B 614 630 1505 pc) lack “Jesus” after “Christ,” while the majority include the name (Ì⁷² A P Ψ 33 1739 Ï latt). However, the inclusion is a natural and predictable expansion on the text. NA²⁷ includes ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou, “Jesus”) in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity. .

² tc Most witnesses, including some early and important ones (א P 33 Ï sy), have κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”) before ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ihsou Cristou, “Jesus Christ”), but this is a typical scribal addition, motivated by pietistic and liturgical concerns. Further, early and excellent mss (A B Ψ 048 0232 81 323 1739 al) lack κυρίου. Thus, both internally and externally, the shorter reading is strongly preferred.

² tn The prepositional phrase ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ (en Ihsou) could be taken with ὑπομονῇ (Jupomonh) as the translation does or with the more distant συγκοινωνός (sunkoinwno"), in which case the translation would read “your brother and the one who shares with you in Jesus in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance.”

⁵ tn Grk “faith of Jesus.” The construction may mean either “faith in Jesus” or “faithful to Jesus.” Either translation implies that ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou) is to be taken as an objective genitive; the difference is more lexical than grammatical because πίστις (pistis) can mean either “faith” or “faithfulness.”

³ tn It is difficult to determine what kind of genitive ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ihsou Cristou) is. If it is a subjective genitive, the meaning is “a revelation from Jesus Christ” but if objective genitive, it is “a revelation about Jesus Christ.” Most likely this is objective since the explanation in vv. 15-16 mentions God revealing the Son to Paul so that he might preach, although the idea of a direct revelation to Paul at some point cannot be ruled out.

² tc Expansions on the text, especially when the Lord is the subject, are a common scribal activity. In this instance, since the subject is embedded in the verb, three major variants have emerged to make the subject explicit: ὁ κύριος (Jo kurio", “the Lord”; A C D L W 0148 Ë^1,13 Ï lat), τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου (to swma tou kuriou, “the body of the Lord”; 1424 pc), and ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”; Φ). The reading with no explicit subject, however, is superior on both internal and external grounds, being supported by א B Θ 33 892* pc co.

² tn The genitive in the phrase τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou euangeliou Ihsou Cristou, “the gospel of Jesus Christ”) could be translated as either a subjective genitive (“the gospel which Jesus brings [or proclaims]”) or an objective genitive (“the gospel about Jesus Christ”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which Jesus proclaims is in fact the gospel about himself.

² tc Most mss, predominantly of the Western and Byzantine texts (A D W Θ Ë^1,13 33 2542 Ï lat), have ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”) as the explicit subject here, while א B L Δ Ψ 892 2427 pc lack the name. A natural scribal tendency is to expand the text, especially to add the Lord’s name as the explicit subject of a verb. Scribes much less frequently omitted the Lord’s name (cf. the readings of W Θ 565 1424 in Mark 12:17). The internal and external evidence support one another here in behalf of the shorter reading.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses (Ì⁶⁶ A D L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt co) have ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while generally better witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א B W {0141} 892 1241 pbo) lack the name. Although it is possible that Alexandrian scribes deleted the name due to proclivities to prune, this is not as likely as other witnesses adding it for clarification, especially since multiple strands of the Alexandrian text are represented in the shorter reading. NA²⁷ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubts as to authenticity.

² tc ‡ Strong Alexandrian testimony, along with some other witnesses, suggests that ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou, “Jesus”) follows Χριστοῦ (Cristou, “Christ”; so א A B C I L 0278 33 81 365 629 1175 2464 al lat), but the evidence for the shorter reading is diverse (Ì⁴⁶ D F G Ψ 075 1739 1881 Ï it sy Hier), cutting across all major texttypes. There can be little motivation for omitting the name of Jesus; hence, the shorter reading is judged to be original. NA²⁷ has ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

² tc ‡ Several variants occur at this juncture. Some of the earliest and best witnesses (Ì⁷⁴ א B* C Ψ 33^vid Did^pt) read “Jesus Christ” (᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, Ihsou" Cristo"); others ([A] 36 1175 it) have “the Lord Jesus Christ” (ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, Jo kurio" Ihsou" Cristo"); a few read simply ὁ Χριστός (614 1241 1505); the majority of mss (B² E 1739 Ï Did^pt) have “Jesus the Christ” ( ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός). Although the pedigree of this last reading is relatively weak, it draws strength from the fact that (a) the other readings are much more natural and thus more predictable, and (b) there are several variants for this text. It seems hardly likely that scribes would intentionally change a more common expression into a title that is used nowhere else in the NT (although 1 John 2:22; 5:1 come close with “Jesus is the Christ”), nor would they unintentionally change a frequently used designation into an unusual one. Thus, in spite of the external evidence (which is nevertheless sufficient to argue for authenticity), ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός is the reading that best explains the rise of the others.

⁷ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ˹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

² tc The external evidence in support of the reading ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ihsou Cristou, “Jesus Christ”) is quite impressive: Ì^11vid,46 א B C^vid D* P 33 81 104 365 629 630 1739 1881 2464 al lat bo as well as several fathers, while the reading with merely ᾿Ιησοῦ has significantly poorer support (A D² Ψ Ï sa). Although the wording of the original could certainly have been expanded, it is also possible that Χριστοῦ as a nomen sacrum could have accidentally dropped out. Although the latter is not as likely under normal circumstances, in light of the early and widespread witnesses for the fuller expression, the original wording seems to have been ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

³ tc ‡ Most witnesses, including several early and important ones (Ì⁴⁶ א C H Ψ 0209 1739^c Ï sy), read ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ihsou Cristou, “Jesus Christ”), while other important witnesses, especially of the Western text (D F G 0243 630 1739* 1881 lat Ambst), have Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. The reading with just Χριστοῦ is found in A B 33 {sa} Tert {Or Ath Chr}. Even though the witnesses for the shorter reading are not numerous, they are weighty. And in light of the natural scribal proclivity to fill out the text, particularly with reference to divine names, as well as the discrepancy among the witnesses as to the order of the names, the simple reading Χριστοῦ seems to be the best candidate for authenticity. NA²⁷ reads ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ with ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Several early and important witnesses, chiefly of the Western text (א* D* F G [365]), lack ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ihsou, “Jesus”) here, while most Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (Ì⁴⁶ א¹ A B [C] D¹ Ψ 33 1739 [1881] Ï lat sy bo) have the word. However, because of the Western text’s proclivities to add or delete to the text, seemingly at whim, serious doubts should be attached to the shorter reading. It is strengthened, however, by א’s support. Nevertheless, since both א and D were corrected with the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ, their testimony might be questioned. Further, in uncial script the nomina sacra here could have led to missing a word by way of homoioteleuton (cMuiMu). At the same time, in light of the rarity of scribal omission of nomina sacra (see TCGNT 582, n. 1), a decision for inclusion of the word here must be tentative. NA²⁷ rightly places ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets.