³ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (א A C*^,3 D L W Θ Ξ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt), also have “and those together with him” (with two different Greek constructions for the phrase “with him”), while several important witnesses omit this phrase (Ì⁷⁵ B Π 700* al sa). The singular verb εἶπεν (eipen, “he said”) could possibly suggest that only Peter was originally mentioned, but, if the longer reading is authentic, then εἶπεν would focus on Peter as the spokesman for the group, highlighting his prominence (cf. ExSyn 401-2). Nevertheless, the longer reading looks like a clarifying note, harmonizing this account with Mark 5:31.

⁵ tc The majority of mss list a specific object (“their tombs”), filling out the sentence (although there are two different words for “tombs” among the mss, as well as different word orders: αὐτῶν τὰ μνημεῖα (autwn ta mnhmeia; found in A C W Θ Ψ 33 Ï) and τοὺς τάφους αὐτῶν (tou" tafou" autwn; found in Ë^1,[13] 2542 pc). This suggests that early copyists had no term in front of them but felt the verb needed an object. But since a wide distribution of early Alexandrian and Western mss lack these words (Ì⁷⁵ א B D L 579 1241 it sa), it is likely that they were not part of the original text of Luke. Nevertheless, the words “their tombs” are inserted in the translation because of requirements of English style.

² tc Most mss (Ì^75* A D L W Θ Ψ 070 Ë^1,13 Ï) have ἐρεῖ λέγω ὑμῖν (erei legw Jumin; “he will say, ‘I say to you’”) here, while some have only ἐρεῖ ὑμῖν (“he will say to you” in א 579 pc lat sa) or simply ἐρεῖ (“he will say” in 1195 pc). The variety of readings seems to have arisen from the somewhat unusual wording of the original, ἐρεῖ λέγων ὑμῖν (erei legwn Jumin; “he will say, saying to you” found in Ì^75c B 892 pc). Given the indicative λέγω, it is difficult to explain how the other readings would have arisen. But if the participle λέγων were original, the other readings can more easily be explained as arising from it. Although the external evidence is significantly stronger in support of the indicative reading, the internal evidence is on the side of the participle.

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.

² tc Some important Greek witnesses plus the majority of mss (א D L W Ψ Ë¹ Ï) read the aorist imperative κτήσασθε (kthsasqe) here, though some mss (A B Θ Ë¹³ 33 pc lat sa) read the future indicative κτήσεσθε (kthsesqe). A decision is difficult because the evidence is so evenly balanced, but the aorist imperative is the harder reading and better explains the rise of the other. J. A. Fitzmyer assesses the translation options this way: “In English one has to use something similar [i.e., a future indicative], even if one follows the [aorist imperative]” (Luke [AB], 2:1341); in the same vein, although this translation follows the aorist imperative, because of English requirements it has been translated as though it were a future indicative.

¹ tc Many of the best mss, as well as some others (Ì⁷⁵ A B K L T 070 1241 pc sa), lack 23:17 “(Now he was obligated to release one individual for them at the feast.)” This verse appears to be a parenthetical note explaining the custom of releasing someone on amnesty at the feast. It appears in two different locations with variations in wording, which makes it look like a scribal addition. It is included in א (D following v. 19) W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat. The verse appears to be an explanatory gloss based on Matt 27:15 and Mark 15:6, not original in Luke. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

² tc Most mss (Ì^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 Ë^1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupw) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

³ tc Most later witnesses (A Θ^c Ë^1,13 Ï) have at the end of the verse “passing through their midst, he went away in this manner” (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, dielqwn dia mesou kai parhgen {outw"), while many others have similar permutations (so א^1,2 C L N Ψ 070 33 579 892 1241 al). The wording is similar to two other texts: Luke 4:30 (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου; in several mss αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο καί [autwn eporeueto kai] is found between this phrase and παρῆγεν, strengthening the parallel with Luke 4:30) and John 9:1 (παρῆγεν; cf. παράγων [paragwn] there). The effect is to signal Jesus’ departure as a miraculous cloaking. As such, the additional statement has all the earmarks of scribal amplification. Further, the best and earliest witnesses (Ì^66,75 א* B D W Θ* lat sa) lack these words, rendering the shorter text virtually certain.

¹ tc Most mss (Ì^66* A C³ D Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy sa) read “You know where I am going, and you know the way” (καὶ ὅπου [ἐγὼ] ὑπάγω οἴδατε καὶ τὴν ὁδόν οἴδατε, kai {opou egw Jupagw oidate kai thn Jodon oidate). The difference between this reading and the wording in NA²⁷ (supported by Ì^66c א B C* L Q W 33 579 pc) is the addition of καί before τὴν ὁδόν and οἴδατε after. Either assertion on the part of Jesus would be understandable: “you know the way where I am going” or “you know where I am going and you know the way,” although the shorter reading is a bit more awkward syntactically. In light of this, and in light of the expansion already at hand in v. 5, the longer reading appears to be a motivated reading. The shorter reading is thus preferred because of its superior external and internal evidence.

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.

³ tc Codex Bezae (D) as well as 323 614 945 1739 1891 sa and other witnesses have after “sexual immorality” the following statement: “And whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to another/others.” By adding this negative form of the Golden Rule, these witnesses effectively change the Apostolic Decree from what might be regarded as ceremonial restrictions into more ethical demands. The issues here are quite complicated, and beyond the scope of this brief note. Suffice it to say that D and its allies here are almost surely an expansion and alteration of the original text of Acts. For an excellent discussion of the exegetical and textual issues, see TCGNT 379-83.

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 Most mss read the first person singular pronoun με (me) here (A D 1739^c 1881 Ï lat sa). The second person singular pronoun σε (se) is superior because of external support (א B {F which reads σαι} G 1506* 1739*) and internal support (it is the harder reading since ch. 7 was narrated in the first person). At the same time, it could have arisen via dittography from the final syllable of the verb preceding it (ἠλευθέρωσεν, hleuqerwsen; “has set free”). But for this to happen in such early and diverse witnesses is unlikely, especially as it depends on various scribes repeatedly overlooking either the nu or the nu-bar at the end of the verb.

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.

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.

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 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.

² tc Most witnesses (א² D Ψ Ï it sy) have ἀμήν (amhn, “amen”) at the end of the letter. 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. The earliest and best witnesses (Ì⁴⁶ א* A B F G 0278 6 33 81 1175 1241 1739* 1881 sa) lack the particle, giving firm evidence that Ephesians did not originally conclude with ἀμήν.