² tc Most mss, especially later ones (A C [D] Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 33 Ï), have “the sick slave” here instead of “the slave.” This brings out the contrast of the healing more clearly, but this reading looks secondary both internally (scribes tended toward clarification) and externally (the shorter reading is well supported by a variety of witnesses: Ì⁷⁵ א B L W ˹ 579 700 892* 1241 2542 it co).

⁴ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A C W Θ Ψ 0115 ˹³ 33 892 Ï al), actually supply ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsous, “Jesus”) here. Since the earliest and best witnesses, along with many others (Ì⁷⁵ א B D L Ξ Ë¹ 579 700 1241 2542 pc lat), lack the name, and since scribes were unlikely to intentionally omit it, the shorter reading is preferred as the original reading.

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.

⁴ tc Most mss (א A C D W Θ Ψ 070 ˹³ 33^vid Ï it) read at the end of the verse “may your will be done on earth as [it is] in heaven,” making this version parallel to Matt 6:10. The shorter reading is found, however, in weighty mss (Ì⁷⁵ B L pc), and cannot be easily explained as arising from the longer reading.

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.

⁵ tc Most mss (Ì⁴⁵ Ψ 070 ˹³ 33 Ï) supply the pronoun ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “your”) here, although several important and early witnesses omit it (Ì⁷⁵ א A B D L Q W Θ Ë¹ 700 2542 al lat). Externally, the shorter reading is superior. Internally, the pronoun looks to be a scribal clarification. In context the article can be translated as a possessive pronoun anyway (ExSyn 215), as it has been done for this translation.

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 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.

⁶ tc Some Western mss (D it) lack 24:12. The verse has been called a Western noninterpolation, meaning that it reflects a shorter authentic reading in D and other Western witnesses. Many regard all such shorter readings as original (the verse is omitted in the RSV), but the ms evidence for omission is far too slight for the verse to be rejected as secondary. It is included in Ì⁷⁵ and the rest of the ms tradition.

⁴ tc The reference to the ascension (“and was taken up into heaven”) is lacking in א* D it sy^s, but it is found in Ì⁷⁵ and the rest of the ms tradition. The authenticity of the statement here seems to be presupposed in Acts 1:2, for otherwise it is difficult to account for Luke’s reference to the ascension there. For a helpful discussion, see TCGNT 162-63.

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.

² tc The phrase “he runs away” is lacking in several important mss (Ì^{44vid,45,66,75} א A*^vid B D L [W] Θ 1 33 1241 al co). Most likely it was added by a later scribe to improve the readability of vv. 12-13, which is one long sentence in Greek. It has been included in the translation for the same stylistic reasons.

¹ tn The verb form is יְכַסְיֻמוּ (yÿkhasyumu) is the Piel preterite. Normally a vav (ו) consecutive is used with the preterite, but in some ancient poems the form without the vav appears, as is the case frequently in this poem. That such an archaic form is used should come as no surprise, because the word also uses the yod (י) of the root (GKC 214 §75.dd), and the archaic suffix form (GKC 258 §91.l). These all indicate the antiquity of the poem.

² sn Every leafy tree. This expression refers to evergreens which, because they keep their foliage throughout the year, provided apt symbolism for nature cults such as those practiced in Canaan. The deity particularly in view is Asherah, wife of the great god El, who was considered the goddess of fertility and whose worship frequently took place at shrines near or among clusters (groves) of such trees (see also Deut 7:5). See J. Hadley, NIDOTTE 1:569-70; J. DeMoor, TDOT 1:438-44.