¹ tc Since “the word of Christ” occurs nowhere else in the NT, two predictable variants arose: “word of God” and “word of the Lord.” Even though some of the witnesses for these variants are impressive (κυρίου [kuriou, “of the Lord”] in א* I 1175 pc bo; θεοῦ [qeou, “of God”] in A C* 33 104 323 945 al), the reading Χριστοῦ (Cristou, “of Christ”) is read by an excellent cross-section of witnesses (Ì⁴⁶ א² B C² D F G Ψ 075 1739 1881 Ï lat sa). On both internal and external grounds, Χριστοῦ is strongly preferred.

¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses, some of them important (א² A D H 1881 Ï lat sy bo), have σοι (soi, “you”) after παραγγέλλω (parangellw, “I charge [you]”), a predictable variant because the personal pronoun is demanded by the sense of the passage (and was added in the translation because of English requirements). Hence, the omission is the harder reading, and the addition of σοι is one of clarification. Further, the shorter reading is found in several important witnesses, such as א* F G Ψ 6 33 1739 pc. Thus, both internally and externally the shorter reading is preferred. NA ²⁷ places σοι in brackets, indicating some doubts 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 The shorter reading “Omega” (ὦ, w) has superior ms evidence ({א¹ A C 1611}) to the longer reading which includes “the beginning and the end” (ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος or ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, arch kai telo" or Jh arch kai to telo"), found in א*^,2 1854 2050 2329 2351 Ï^A lat bo. There is little reason why a scribe would have deleted the words, but their clarifying value and the fact that they harmonize with 21:6 indicate that they are a secondary addition to the text.

² tc Most mss (Ì47 א* Ï sa) lack ἄλλον (allon, “another”) here, but the support for it is stronger (Ì^115vid א² A C P 051 1006 1611 1841 2053 2329 al latt sy bo). The problem that its inclusion represents is that there is no reference to any other angel in the immediate context (the last mention was in 11:15). In this instance, the longer reading is harder. The word was probably intentionally omitted in order to resolve the tension; less likely, it might have been accidentally omitted since its spelling is similar to “angel” (ἄγγελος, angelos).

³ tc Instead of “by his disciples” (see the tn below for the reading of the Greek), the majority of later mss (C³ L ˹ Ï lat bo) have “two of his disciples.” The difference in Greek, however, is only two letters: διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ vs. δύο τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (dia twn maqhtwn autou vs. duo twn maqhtwn autou). Although an accidental alteration could account for either of these readings, it is more likely that δύο is an assimilation to the parallel in Luke 7:18. Further, διά is read by a good number of early and excellent witnesses (א B C* D P W Z Δ Θ 0233 ˹³ 33 sa), and thus should be considered original.

¹ tc Most witnesses have ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsous, “Jesus”), while a few lack the words (א* D 073 892 pc ff¹ sy^c sa bo). Although such additions are often suspect (due to liturgical influences, piety, or for the sake of clarity), in this case it is likely that ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς dropped out accidentally. Apart from a few albeit important witnesses, as noted above, the rest of the tradition has either ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς αὐτοῖς (Jo Ihsous autois) or αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (autois Jo Ihsous). In uncial letters, with Jesus’ name as a nomen sacrum, this would have been written as autoisois_ or ois_autois. Thus homoioteleuton could explain the reason for the omission of Jesus’ name.

¹ tc The phrase “he appointed twelve” is lacking in the majority of manuscripts (A C² D L Θ Ë¹ 33 2427 Ï lat sy bo). Some important witnesses include the phrase (א B C* Δ 565 579 pc), but perhaps the best explanation for the omission of the clause in the majority of witnesses is haplography in combination with homoioarcton: The first word of the clause in question is καί (kai), and the first word after the clause in question is also καί. And the first two letters of the second word, in each instance, are επ (ep). Early scribes most likely jumped accidentally from the first καί to the second, omitting the intervening material. Thus the clause was most likely in the original text. (See 3:14 above for a related textual problem.)

³ tc Most witnesses (א² B² L Θ Ξ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï sy bo) have ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (en anqrwpoi" eudokia, “good will among people”) instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (en anqrwpoi" eudokia", “among people with whom he is pleased”), a reading attested by א* A B* D W pc (sa). Most of the Itala witnesses and some other versional witnesses reflect a Greek text which has the genitive εὐδοκίας but drops the preposition ἐν. Not only is the genitive reading better attested, but it is more difficult than the nominative. “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure” (TCGNT 111).

⁵ tc Most mss (A C D [K] Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt bo) read αὐτούς (autous) instead of αὐτόν (auton) here. If original, this plural pronoun would act as the direct object of the infinitive ἰᾶσθαι (iasqai, “to heal”). However, the reading with the singular pronoun αὐτόν, which acts as the subject of the infinitive, is to be preferred. Externally, it has support from better mss (א B L W al sa). Internally, it is probable that scribes changed the singular αὐτόν to the plural αὐτούς, expecting the object of the infinitive to come at this point in the text. The singular as the harder reading accounts for the rise of the other reading.

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.

⁴ tc Ì⁷⁵ א* D ˹ 565 as well as several versions and fathers lack the phrase “is superior to all” (ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν, epanw pantwn estin). This effectively joins the last sentence of v. 31 with v. 32: “The one who comes from heaven testifies about what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony.” On the other side, the phrase may have been deleted because of perceived redundancy, since it duplicates what is said earlier in the verse. The witnesses that include ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν in both places are weighty and widespread (Ì^36vid,66 א² A B L W^s Θ Ψ 083 086 ˹³ 33 Ï lat sy^s,p,h bo). On balance, the longer reading should probably be considered authentic.

⁴ tc The words “stand up and” (ἔγειρε καί, egeire kai) are not in a few mss (א B D sa), but are included in A C E Ψ 095 33 1739 Ï lat sy mae bo. The external testimony is thus fairly evenly divided, with few but important representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texttypes supporting the shorter reading. Internally, the words look like a standard scribal emendation, and may have been motivated by other healing passages where Jesus gave a similar double command (cf. Matt 9:5; Mark 2:9, [11]; Luke 5:23; [6:8]; John 5:8). On the other hand, there is some motivation for deleting ἔγειρε καί here, namely, unlike Jesus’ healing miracles, Peter raises (ἤγειρεν, hgeiren) the man to his feet (v. 7) rather than the man rising on his own. In light of the scribal tendency to harmonize, especially in immediate context, the longer reading is slightly preferred.

¹ tc ‡ The majority of mss, including a few important witnesses (א² D E [Ψ] 1739 Ï sy sa), have the negative particle οὐ (ou) here, effectively turning the high priest’s words into a question: “Did we not give you strict orders not to teach in this name?” But the earliest and most important mss, along with some others (Ì⁷⁴ א* A B 1175 lat bo), lack the particle, making this a strong statement rather than a question. Scribes may have been tempted to omit the particle to strengthen the contrast between official Judaism and the new faith, but the fact that v. 27 introduces the quotation with ἐπηρώτησεν (ephrwthsen, “he questioned”) may well have prompted scribes to add οὐ to convert the rebuke into a question. Further, that excellent witnesses affirm the shorter reading is sufficient ground for accepting it as most probably authentic. NA²⁷ includes the particle in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc A few mss add 15:34 “But Silas decided to stay there.” Verse 34 is lacking in Ì⁷⁴ א A B E Ψ Ï bo. It is included in a shorter form, with a few minor variations, by (C) 33 36 323 453 614 (945) 1175 1739 1891 al sa, and in a longer form (“But Silas decided to stay with them, and only Judas departed”) by D l. The verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, but was added to harmonize with the statement about Silas in v. 40. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

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.

¹ tc Although the majority of mss (א A C D Ψ 075 Ï lat bo) conclude this letter with ἀμήν (amhn, “amen”), such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. Although far fewer witnesses lack the valedictory particle (B F 0121 0243 33 81 630 1739* 1881 sa), their collective testimony is difficult to explain if the omission is not authentic.

⁵ tc A few important mss (Ì^46c B D* it sa) lack γάρ (gar, “for”), while the majority of witnesses have it (א C D¹ F G Ψ 0243 33 1739 1881 Ï sy bo). Even though Ì^46* omits γάρ, it has the same sense (viz., a subordinate clause) because it reads the participle βλέπων (blepwn, “seeing”; the Vulgate does the same). A decision is difficult because although the overwhelming external evidence is on the side of the conjunction, the lack of γάρ is a significantly harder reading, for the whole clause is something of an anacoluthon. Without the conjunction, the sentence reads more harshly. This would fit with Paul’s “vehemence of spirit” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 435) that is found especially in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. However, the mss that omit the conjunction are prone to such tendencies at times. In this instance, the conjunction should probably stand.

¹ tc The reading “all this time” (πάλαι, palai) is found in several early and important Alexandrian and Western witnesses including א* A B F G 0243 6 33 81 365 1175 1739 1881 lat; the reading πάλιν (palin, “again”) is read by א² D Ψ 0278 Ï sy bo; the reading οὐ πάλαι (ou palai) is read by Ì⁴⁶, making the question even more emphatic. The reading of Ì⁴⁶ could only have arisen from πάλαι. The reading πάλιν is significantly easier (“are you once again thinking that we are defending ourselves?”), for it softens Paul’s tone considerably. It thus seems to be a motivated reading and cannot easily explain the rise of πάλαι. Further, πάλαι has considerable support in the Alexandrian and Western witnesses, rendering it virtually certain as the original wording here.

¹ tc Most witnesses, especially later ones (א² D Ψ Ï lat sy bo), conclude this letter with ἀμήν (amhn, “amen”), while several early and important mss (Ì⁴⁶ א* A B F G 0243 6 33 630 1175 1739 1881 pc sa) lack the particle. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. That so many diverse witnesses lacked the word here is strong testimony to its absence for the original text of 2 Corinthians.