¹ tc Most mss (A Ï bo) change the pronoun “their” to “his” (αὐτοῦ, autou) in order to bring the text in line with the mention of the one seated on the throne in the immediately preceding verse, and to remove the ambiguity about whose wrath is in view here. The reading αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”) is well supported by א C 1611 1854 2053 2329 2344 pc latt sy. On both internal and external grounds, it should be regarded as original.

³ tc The reading “and his dwelling place” does not occur in codex C, but its omission is probably due to scribal oversight since the phrase has the same ending as the phrase before it, i.e., they both end in “his” (αὐτοῦ, autou). This is similar to the mistake this scribe made in 12:14 with the omission of the reading “and half a time” (καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ, kai {hmisu kairou).

¹ tn Or “because of him.” The Hebrew preposition מִמֶּנּוּ (mimmenu) is taken in a causal sense (“because of him”) by NASB, NJPS; however, it is taken in a locative sense (“before him”) by KJV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV. On the other hand, the LXX rendered it in a separative sense: ἀπ' αὐτοῦ (ap autou, “from him”). The parallelism between 1:5a and 1:5b seems to favor the locative nuance: “The mountains quake before him (מִמֶּנּוּ), the earth is laid waste before him (מִפָּנָיו, mifanayv).”

² tc ‡ Most mss have either ἀνθρώπῳ (anqrwpw, “for a man” [so א² C D W Θ 087 Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt]) or ἀνδρί (andri, “for a husband” [1424^c pc]) before the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”). The latter reading is an assimilation to the parallel in Mark; the former reading may have been motivated by the clarification needed (especially to give the following αὐτοῦ [autou, “his”] an antecedent). But a few significant mss (א* B L Γ 579 [700] 1424* pc) have neither noun. As the harder reading, it seems to best explain the rise of the others. NA²⁷, however, reads ἀνθρώπῳ here.

³ tc Many witnesses, some of them important, have μαθητῶν (maqhtwn, “disciples”; א A L W Δ Θ 33 892 1241 1424 pm lat) or μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (maqhtwn autou, “his disciples”; 0281 pc it) after δώδεκα (dwdeka, “twelve”). However, such clarifications are typical scribal expansions to the text. Further, the shorter reading (the one that ends with δώδεκα) has strong support in Ì^37vid,45vid B D K Γ Ë^1,13 565 579 700 pm. Thus both internally and externally the reading that ends the verse with “the twelve” is to be preferred.

¹ tc Western witnesses D W it, instead of reading οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (Joi par’ aujtou, here translated “family”), have περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποί (peri autou Joi grammatei" kai Joi loipoi, “[when] the scribes and others [heard] about him”). But this reading is obviously motivated, for it removes the embarrassing statement about Jesus’ family’s opinion of him as “out of his mind” and transfers this view to the Lord’s opponents. The fact that virtually all other witnesses have οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ here, coupled with the strong internal evidence for the shorter reading, shows this Western reading to be secondary.

² tc ‡ Most mss (Ì⁴⁵ A D W Θ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy) have αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τοῖς μαθηταῖς (toi" maqhtai", “the disciples”), but several excellent witnesses (א B L Δ 33 579 892 1241 1424 2427 pc) lack the pronoun. This kind of variant is often a predictable expansion of the text; further, that many important mss lack the pronoun gives support for the shorter reading. For these reasons, the pronoun is considered to be secondary. NA²⁷ puts αὐτοῦ in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

³ tc Most mss ([A] Θ [Ψ] ˹³ 33 Ï it) read “Joseph,” but in favor of the reading ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (Jo pathr autou, “his father”) is both external (א B D L W 1 700 1241 pc sa) and internal evidence. Internally, the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that “Joseph” is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ, argues strongly for ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ as the authentic reading here. See also the tc note on “parents” in 2:43.

⁵ tc Most mss, especially later ones (A C Ψ 0130 ˹³ Ï it), read ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ (Iwshf kai Jh mhthr aujtou, “[both] Joseph and his mother”), a reading evidently intended to insulate the doctrine of the virgin conception of our Lord. But א B D L W Θ Ë¹ 33 579 1241 pc lat sa read οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ (Joi gonei" autou, “his parents”) as in the translation. Such motivated readings as the former lack credibility, especially since the better witnesses affirm the virgin conception of Christ in Luke 1:34-35.

² tc Most witnesses have after “one” the phrase “which his disciples had entered” (ἐκεῖνο εἰς ὃ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ekeino ei" }o enebhsan Joi maqhtai autou) although there are several permutations of this clause ([א* D] Θ [˹³ 33] Ï [sa]). The witnesses that lack this expression are, however, significant and diffused (Ì⁷⁵ א² A B L N W Ψ 1 565 579 1241 al lat). The clarifying nature of the longer reading, the multiple variants from it, and the weighty testimony for the shorter reading all argue against the authenticity of the longer text in any of its variations.

² tc ‡ Although most mss, including several important ones (Ì⁶⁶ א C D L W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat), read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τῶν μαθητῶν (twn maqhtwn, “the disciples”), the pronoun is lacking in A B K Δ 0250 al. The weight of the witnesses for the inclusion is somewhat stronger than that for the exclusion. However, the addition of “his” to “disciples” is a frequent scribal emendation and as such is a predictable variant. It is thus most likely that the shorter reading is authentic. NA²⁷ puts the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

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 Ï lat), add the following words to the end of the verse: ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (ek th" sarko" autou kai ek twn ostewn autou, “of his body and of his bones”). This is a (slightly modified) quotation from Gen 2:23a (LXX). The Alexandrian text is solidly behind the shorter reading (Ì⁴⁶ א* A B 048 33 81 1739* 1881 pc). 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 original.

¹ 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.

³ tn The phrase “his [God’s] love is perfected (τετελειωμένη ἐστίν, teteleiwmenh estin) in us” in 4:12 is difficult. First it is necessary to decide whether αὐτοῦ (autou), which refers to God, is (1) subjective (God’s love for us) or (2) objective (our love for God). It is clear that a subjective genitive, stressing God’s love for us, is in view here, because the immediate context, 4:11a, has believers as the objects of God’s love (ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, Jo qeo" hgaphsen Jhma"). The entire phrase ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν τετελειωμένη ἐστίν (Jh agaph autou en Jhmin teteleiwmenh estin) then refers to what happens when believers love one another (note the protasis of the conditional sentence in 4:12, ἐάν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους [ean agapwmen allhlou"]). The love that comes from God, the love that he has for us, reaches perfection in our love for others, which is what God wants and what believers are commanded to do (see 3:23b).

³ tc The MT reads the 1st person common singular suffix on the noun יְגִיעַי (yÿgi’ay, “my labors/gains”; masculine plural noun + 1st person common singular suffix). The LXX’s οἱ πόνοι αὐτοῦ ({oi ponoi autou, “his labors”) assumes a 3rd person masculine singular suffix on the noun יְגִיעַיו (yÿgi’av, “his labors/gains”; masculine plural noun + 3rd person masculine singular suffix). The BHS editors suggest adopting the LXX reading. The textual decision is based upon whether or not this line continues the speech of Ephraim (1st person common singular suffix) or whether these are the words of the prophet (3rd person masculine singular suffix). See the following translator’s note for the two rival lexical meanings which in turn lead to the textual options for the line as a whole.

² tc Some very important mss (Ì⁷⁵ B D it sa) lack the words ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ (en th Jhmera autou, “in his day”), but the words are included in א A L W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy bo. On the one hand, the shorter reading is impressive because it has some of the best Alexandrian and Western witnesses in support; on the other hand, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα αὐτοῦ is unusual (found nowhere else in the NT), and may be considered the harder reading. A decision is difficult, but it is probably best to retain the words. NA²⁷ rightly has the words in brackets, expressing doubt as to their authenticity.

¹ tc ‡ Most later mss (C E Ψ 33^vid Ï sy) read “In his humiliation,” adding αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after ταπεινώσει (tapeinwsei, “humiliation”), while the earlier and better witnesses lack the pronoun (so Ì⁷⁴ א A B 1739 pc lat). However, the LXX of Isa 53:8 also lacks the pronoun, supplying motivation for scribes to omit it here. At the same time, scribes would also be motivated to add the pronoun both for clarity’s sake (note the similar impulse that led to the addition of δέ [de] by many of the same mss at the beginning of the next line) and to give balance to the lines (the pronoun is indisputably used five other times in vv. 32-33 in quoting Isa 53). On balance, the shorter reading is preferred.

¹ tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou {aimato" autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464 al) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: {א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 Ï latt co as well as several other versions and fathers}. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

² tc If the name Nympha is accented with a circumflex on the ultima (Νυμφᾶν, Numfan), then it refers to a man; if it receives an acute accent on the penult (Νύμφαν), the reference is to a woman. Scribes that considered Nympha to be a man’s name had the corresponding masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ here (autou, “his”; so D [F G] Ψ Ï), while those who saw Nympha as a woman read the feminine αὐτῆς here (auth", “her”; B 0278 6 1739^[*^] 1881 sa). Several mss (א A C P 075 33 81 104 326 1175 2464 bo) have αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”), perhaps because of indecisiveness on the gender of Nympha, perhaps because they included ἀδελφούς (adelfou", here translated “brothers and sisters”) as part of the referent. (Perhaps because accents were not part of the original text, scribes were particularly confused here.) The harder reading is certainly αὐτῆς, and thus Nympha should be considered a woman.

¹ tc A very difficult textual problem is found here. The most important Alexandrian and Byzantine, as well as significant Western, witnesses (א B C L W 0102 0281 ˹³ 33 Ï lat co) have “and the dish” (καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, kai th" paroyido") after “cup,” while few important witnesses (D Θ Ë¹ 700 and some versional and patristic authorities) omit the phrase. On the one hand, scribes sometimes tended to eliminate redundancy; since “and the dish” is already present in v. 25, it may have been deleted in v. 26 by well-meaning scribes. On the other hand, as B. M. Metzger notes, the singular pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou, “its”) with τὸ ἐκτός (to ekto", “the outside”) in some of the same witnesses that have the longer reading (viz., B* ˹³ al) hints that their archetype lacked the words (TCGNT 50). Further, scribes would be motivated both to add the phrase from v. 25 and to change αὐτοῦ to the plural pronoun αὐτῶν (aujtwn, “their”). Although the external evidence for the shorter reading is not compelling in itself, combined with these two prongs of internal evidence, it is to be slightly preferred.