² tc The LXX and Syriac have the 3rd person masculine singular suffix in both places (“his people” and “he will settle”; cf. NAB, TEV) in order to avoid the Lord’s speaking of himself in the third person. Such resort is unnecessary, however, in light of the common shifting of person in Hebrew narrative (cf. 3:2).

¹ tn Heb “under the vine and under the fig tree,” with the Hebrew article used twice as a possessive pronoun (cf. NASB “his”). Some English translations render this as second person rather than third (NRSV “your vine”; cf. also NAB, NCV, TEV).

¹ tn Heb “he.” Since the third person pronoun refers to the Lord, it has been translated as a first person pronoun (“I”) to accommodate English style, which typically does not exhibit switches between persons of pronouns in the same immediate context as Hebrew does.

¹ tn The translation “had better listen!” captures the force of the third person imperative more effectively than the traditional “let him hear,” which sounds more like a permissive than an imperative to the modern English reader. This was Jesus’ common expression to listen and heed carefully (cf. Matt 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8, 14:35).

¹ tn Grk “And if.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style. This is a first class condition, but the next two conditional clauses are third class conditions, so that stylistic variation is probably at work.

⁵ tn The translation “had better listen!” captures the force of the third person imperative more effectively than the traditional “let him hear,” which sounds more like a permissive than an imperative to the modern English reader. This was Jesus’ common expression to listen and heed carefully (cf. Matt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 14:35).

⁴ sn The third day is a figurative reference to being further on in time, not a reference to three days from now. Jesus is not even in Jerusalem yet, and the events of the last days in Jerusalem take a good week.

³ tn The translation “had better listen!” captures the force of the third person imperative more effectively than the traditional “let him hear,” which sounds more like a permissive than an imperative to the modern English reader. This was Jesus’ common expression to listen and heed carefully (cf. Matt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8).

¹ tn Grk “saying that,” but this would be redundant in English. Although the translation represents this sentence as indirect discourse, the Greek could equally be taken as direct discourse: “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee: ‘the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’”

² sn This is best taken as a parenthetical note by the author. Although some would attribute these words to Jesus himself, the switch from first person in Jesus’ preceding and following remarks to third person in v. 46 suggests that the author has added a clarifying comment here.

¹ tn As a third person imperative in Greek, ἀκολουθείτω (akolouqeitw) is usually translated “let him follow me.” This could be understood by the modern English reader as merely permissive, however (“he may follow me if he wishes”). In this context there is no permissive sense, but rather a command, so the translation “he must follow me” is preferred.

⁶ tn Grk “asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be taken down.” Here because of the numerous ambiguous third person references it is necessary to clarify that it was the crucified men whose legs were to be broken and whose corpses were to be removed from the crosses.

¹ tn The verb is a third person imperative, but the common translation “let each of you be baptized” obscures the imperative force in English, since it sounds more like a permissive (“each of you may be baptized”) to the average English reader.

⁵ sn Antioch was a city in Syria (not Antioch in Pisidia). This was probably the third largest city in the Greco-Roman world (Alexandria in Egypt was the second largest, and Rome the largest) and was the seat of government in Syria. Five miles away was a major temple to Artemis, Apollo, and Astarte, major pagan deities.

² tn Three of the four prohibitions deal with food (the first, third and fourth) while one prohibition deals with behavior (the second, refraining from sexual immorality). Since these occur in the order they do, the translation “abstain from” is used to cover both sorts of activity (eating food items, immoral behavior).

² sn In colloquial speech Jerusalem was always said to be “up” from any other location in Palestine. The group probably covered the 65 mi (105 km) in two days using horses. Their arrival in Jerusalem marked the end of Paul’s third missionary journey.

⁴ tn Grk “who” (plural). Because in English the relative pronoun “who” could be understood to refer only to the attorney Tertullus and not to the entire group, it has been replaced with the third person plural pronoun “they.” “And” has been supplied to provide the connection to the preceding clause.

² tn Grk “From whom when you examine him yourself, you will be able to learn…” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, the relative pronoun (“whom”) was replaced by the third person singular pronoun (“him”) and a new sentence begun at the beginning of v. 8 in the translation.

¹ tn Grk “he has been raised/is raised,” using a Greek tense that points to the present effect of the act of raising him. But in English idiom the temporal phrase “on the third day” requires a different translation of the verb.

⁴ tc The reading “you received” (παρελάβετε, parelabete) is found predominately in Western witnesses (F G 1505 2464 pc), although the support of B and the Sahidic version strengthens the reading considerably. The reading “they received” is found in two different forms: παρελάβοσαν (parelabosan; in א* A [D*] 0278 33 pc) and παρέλαβον (parelabon; in א² D² Ψ 1739 1881 Ï). (παρέλαβον is evidently a correction of παρελάβοσαν to the more common spelling for the third person aorist form). The external evidence is divided fairly evenly, with παρελάβετε and παρελάβοσαν each having adequate support. Internal evidence leans toward “they received”: Given the second person reading, there is little reason why scribes would intentionally change it to a third person plural, and especially an archaic form at that. There is ample reason, however, for scribes to change the third person form to the second person form given that in the prior context παράδοσις (paradosis, “tradition”) is used with a relative clause (as here) with a second person verb (see 2:15). The third person form should be regarded as original.