⁶ tc Most mss, especially later ones (A C D Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï latt), read “because he built [it] on the rock” rather than “because it had been well built” (Ì^75vid א B L W Ξ 33 579 892 1241 2542 pc sa). The reading of the later mss seems to be a harmonization to Matt 7:25, rendering it most likely secondary.

³ tc The aorist imperative ἰαθήτω (iaqhtw, “must be healed”) is found in Ì^75vid B L 1241 sa. Most mss (א A C D W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt bo) have instead a future indicative, ἰαθήσεται (iaqhsetai, “will be healed”). This is most likely an assimilation to Matt 8:8, and thus, as a motivated reading, should be considered secondary. The meaning either way is essentially the same.

² tc The translation follows the reading that has Luke’s normal imperfect here (ἐκωλύομεν, ekwluomen; found in Ì^75vid א B L Ξ 579 892 1241). Most mss, however, have an aorist (ἐκωλύσαμεν, ekwlusamen; found in A C D W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï co), which would be translated “we forbade him.” The imperfect enjoys the best external and internal support.

² tc Most mss (א A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat sy^c,p,h bo) have “bread, does not give him a stone instead, or” before “a fish”; the longer reading, however, looks like a harmonization to Matt 7:9. The shorter reading is thus preferred, attested by Ì^45,75 B 1241 pc sy^s sa.

² tc Most mss (Ì⁴⁵ A D¹ Q W Θ 070 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat sy) read τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou, “of God”) instead of αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”; found in א B D* L Ψ 579 892 pc co). But such a clarifying reading is suspect. αὐτοῦ is superior on both internal and external grounds. Ì⁷⁵ includes neither and as such would support the translation above since the article alone can often be translated as a possessive pronoun.

² tc Most mss (א¹ A B L Q W Θ Ψ 070 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat sy^p,h sa^ms bo) read “he would have watched and not let” here, but this looks like an assimilation to Matt 24:43. The alliance of two important and early mss along with a few others (Ì⁷⁵ א* [D] e i sy^s,c sa^mss), coupled with much stronger internal evidence, suggests that the shorter reading is authentic.

² tc Here “son,” found in Ì^45,75 (A) B W Ï, is the preferred reading. The other reading, “donkey” (found in א K L Ψ Ë^1,13 33 579 892 1241 2542 al lat bo), looks like an assimilation to Luke 13:15 and Deut 22:4; Isa 32:20, and was perhaps motivated by an attempt to soften the unusual collocation of “son” and “ox.” The Western ms D differs from all others and reads “sheep.”

¹ tc Most mss (A W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat) have the words, “took the wife and this one died childless” after “the second.” But this looks like a clarifying addition, assimilating the text to Mark 12:21. In light of the early and diverse witnesses that lack the expression (א B D L 0266 892 1241 co), the shorter reading should be considered authentic.

¹ tc The text reads either “two other criminals” or “others, two criminals.” The first reading (found in Ì⁷⁵ א B) could be read as describing Jesus as a criminal, while the second (found in A C D L W Θ Ψ 070 0250 Ë^1,13 33 Ï) looks like an attempt to prevent this identification. The first reading, more difficult to explain from the other, is likely original.

¹ tc Most mss (A C³ W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat) read εἰ σὺ εἶ (ei su ei, “If you are”) here, while οὐχὶ σὺ εἶ (ouci su ei, “Are you not”) is found in overall better and earlier witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א B C* L 070 1241 pc it). The “if” clause reading creates a parallel with the earlier taunts (vv. 35, 37), and thus is most likely a motivated reading.

² tc The Western text (D it) has αἰνοῦντες (ainounte", “praising”) here, while the Alexandrian mss (Ì⁷⁵ א B C* L) have εὐλογοῦντες (eulogounte", “blessing”). Most mss, especially the later Byzantine mss, evidently combine these two readings with αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (A C² W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat). It is more difficult to decide between the two earlier readings. Internal arguments can go either way, but what seems decisive in this instance are the superior witnesses for εὐλογοῦντες.

¹ tc Was this dispute between the Baptist’s disciples and an individual Judean (᾿Ιουδαίου, Ioudaiou) or representatives of the Jewish authorities (᾿Ιουδαίων, Ioudaiwn)? There is good external support for the plural ᾿Ιουδαίων (Ì⁶⁶ א* Θ Ë^1,13 565 al latt), but the external evidence for the singular ᾿Ιουδαίου is slightly stronger ({Ì⁷⁵ א² A B L Ψ 33 1241 the majority of Byzantine minuscules and others}).

² tc Most witnesses (A C² D Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat and other versions) have “in me” (εἰς ἐμέ, eis eme) here, while the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac versions read “in God.” These clarifying readings are predictable variants, being motivated by the scribal tendency toward greater explicitness. That the earliest and best witnesses (Ì^66,75vid א B C* L T W Θ 892 pc) lack any object is solid testimony to the shorter text’s authenticity.

² tc Although most witnesses (A L Θ Ψ 070 0250 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat) have θεοῦ (qeou, “of God”) instead of ἀνθρώπου (anqrwpou, “of man”) here, the better witnesses (Ì^66,75 א B D W sy^s) have ἀνθρώπου. Not only is the external evidence decidedly on the side of ἀνθρώπου, but it is difficult to see such early and diverse witnesses changing θεοῦ to ἀνθρώπου. The wording “Son of Man” is thus virtually certain.

¹ tc The majority of mss (A C² Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï sy) read “Simon, the son of Jonah” here and in vv. 16 and 17, but these are perhaps assimilations to Matt 16:17. The reading “Simon, son of John” is better attested, being found in א¹ (א* only has “Simon” without mention of his father) B C* D L W lat co.

² tn Or “whose older brother was Japheth.” Some translations render Japheth as the older brother, understanding the adjective הַגָּדוֹל (haggadol, “older”) as modifying Japheth. However, in Hebrew when a masculine singular definite attributive adjective follows the sequence masculine singular construct noun + proper name, the adjective invariably modifies the noun in construct, not the proper name. Such is the case here. See Deut 11:7; Judg 1:13; 2:7; 3:9; 9:5; 2 Kgs 15:35; 2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:30; Jer 13:9; 36:10; Ezek 10:19; 11:1.

¹ tn The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense of שָׁמַע (shama’). The meaning of the verb is idiomatic here because it is followed by “to the voice of Yahweh your God.” When this is present, the verb is translated “obey.” The construction is in a causal clause. It reads, “If you will diligently obey.” Gesenius points out that the infinitive absolute in a conditional clause also emphasizes the importance of the condition on which the consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

² sn For this brief passage, see A. Phillips, “The Case of the Woodgatherer Reconsidered,” VT 19 (1969): 125-28; J. Weingreen, “The Case of the Woodgatherer (Numbers XV 32-36),” VT 16 (1966): 361-64; and B. J. Bamberger, “Revelations of Torah after Sinai,” HUCA 16 (1941): 97-113. Weingreen argues that there is something of the Rabbinic method of setting a fence around the Law here; in other words, if this sin were not punished, the Law would have been violated in greater ways. Gathering of wood, although seemingly harmless, is done with intent to kindle fire, and so reveals a culpable intent.

¹ sn A concubine was a slave woman in ancient Near Eastern societies who was the legal property of her master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with her master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (2 Sam 21:10-14; 1 Kgs 11:3).

¹ sn A concubine was a slave woman in ancient Near Eastern societies who was the legal property of her master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with her master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (2 Sam 21:10-14; 1 Kgs 11:3).