³ tn There are wordplays on the terms אִישׁ (’ish) and בַּעַל (ba’al) here. The term אִישִׁי (’ishi, “my man, husband”) is a title of affection (Gen 2:23; 3:6, 16) as the counterpart to אִשָּׁה (’ishah, “woman, wife”). The term בַּעְלִי (ba’li, “my lord”) emphasizes the husband’s legal position (Exod 21:3; Deut 22:22; 24:4). The relationship will no longer be conditioned on the outward legal commitment but on a new inward bond of mutual affection and love.

¹ tc The MT is unintelligible: עַל־טוּב (’al-tuv, “upon a fine [thing]”?). Cf. KJV “I passed over upon her fair neck”; NRSV “I spared her fair neck.” The BHS editors suggest the revocalization עֹל־טוּב (’ol-tuv, “a fine yoke”), followed by many modern English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, NCV, TEV, NLT). The noun עֹל (’ol, “yoke”) also appears in 11:4 in a metaphor which compares Israel to a young heifer as well.

³ tc Heb “on them,” but the antecedent of the masculine pronoun is unclear. It may refer back to the “pasture lands,” though that noun is feminine. It is preferable to emend the text from עֲלֵיהֶם (’alehem) to עַל־הַיָּם (’al-hayyam, “by the sea”) an emendation that assumes a misdivision and transposition of letters in the MT (cf. NEB “They shall pasture their flocks by the sea”). See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 192.

¹ tc The majority of later witnesses (C² D L Z 33 Ï) have “behind me” (ὀπίσω μου; opisw mou) after “Go away.” But since this is the wording in Matt 16:23, where the text is certain, scribes most likely added the words here to conform to the later passage. Further, the shorter reading has superior support (א B C*^vid K P W Δ 0233 Ë^1,13 565 579* 700 al). Thus, both externally and internally, the shorter reading is strongly preferred.

¹ tc L W Θ 0250 Ï it read ἐν τῷ φανερῷ (en tw fanerw, “openly”) at the end of this verse, giving a counterweight to what is done in secret. But this reading is suspect because of the obvious literary balance, because of detouring the point of the passage (the focus of vv. 1-4 is not on two kinds of public rewards but on human vs. divine approbation), and because of superior external testimony that lacks this reading (א B D Z Ë^1,13 33 al).

² tc The textual tradition here is quite complicated. Most later mss (A C ˹³ Ï sy^p,h) read “Gadarenes,” which is the better reading in Matt 8:28. Other mss (א² L Δ Θ Ë¹ 28 33 565 579 700 892 1241 1424 al sy^s bo) have “Gergesenes.” Others (א* B D latt sa) have “Gerasenes,” which is the reading followed in the translation here and in Luke 8:26. The difference between Matthew and Mark (which is parallel to Luke) may well have to do with uses of variant regional terms.

² tc The earliest and best mss read simply ᾿Ιωάννου (Iwannou, “John”) here (Ì⁷⁵ א B L W Ξ Ë¹ 579 pc). Others turn this into “John the Baptist” (K 33 565 al it), “the prophet John the Baptist” (A [D] Θ Ë¹³ Ï lat), or “the prophet John” (Ψ 700 [892 1241] pc). “It appears that προφήτης was inserted by pedantic copyists who wished thereby to exclude Christ from the comparison, while others added τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ, assimilating the text to Mt 11.11” (TCGNT 119).

⁵ tc ‡ Several witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ A L Θ Ψ 070 ˹³ 33 579 892 al lat co) have “therefore” (οὖν, oun) here. This conjunction has the effect of strengthening the logical connection with the preceding statement but also of reducing the rhetorical power and urgency of the imperative. In light of the slightly greater internal probability of adding a conjunction to an otherwise asyndetic sentence, as well as significant external support for the omission (א B D W ˹ Ï), the shorter reading appears to be more likely as the original wording here. NA²⁷ puts the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Several mss (D ˹³ [579] 700 al lat sy) add (with several variations among these witnesses) 17:36 “There will be two in the field; one will be taken and the other left.” It is not well enough attested to be original. Further, it is an assimilation to the parallel in Matt 24:40, which marks the addition as secondary. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

² tc Instead of the future indicative δώσουσιν (dwsousin, “they will give”), most witnesses (C D W Θ Ψ Ë¹ Ï) have the aorist subjunctive δῶσιν (dwsin, “they might give”). The aorist subjunctive is expected following ἵνα ({ina, “so that”), so it is almost surely a motivated reading. Further, early and excellent witnesses, as well as a few others (א A B ˹³ 33 579 1241 2542 al), have δώσουσιν. It is thus more likely that the future indicative is authentic. For a discussion of this construction, see BDF §369.2.

² tc Several mss (א C D L Δ Ψ 070 Ë^1,13 [579] 892 1424 2542 al) read the present participle συγκατατιθέμενος (sunkatatiqemeno") instead of the perfect participle συγκατατεθειμένος (sunkatateqeimeno"). The present participle could be taken to mean that Joseph had decided that the execution was now a mistake. The perfect means that he did not agree with it from the start. The perfect participle, however, has better support externally (Ì⁷⁵ A B W Θ 33 Ï), and is thus the preferred reading.

¹ tc Most witnesses (א* L W^s Ï) read πρῶτος (prwtos) here instead of πρῶτον (prwton). The former reading would be a predicate adjective and suggest that Andrew “was the first” person to proselytize another regarding Jesus. The reading preferred, however, is the neuter πρῶτον, used as an adverb (BDAG 893 s.v. πρῶτος 1.a.β.), and it suggests that the first thing that Andrew did was to proselytize Peter. The evidence for this reading is early and weighty: Ì^66,75 א² A B Θ Ψ 083 Ë^1,13 892 al lat.

¹ tc Several witnesses, two of which are quite ancient (Ì^66,75 L N ˹ 33 565 892 1241 al lat), have ὡς (Jws, “like”) before φραγέλλιον (fragellion, “whip”). A decision based on external evidence would be difficult to make because the shorter reading also has excellent witnesses, as well as the majority, on its side (א A B Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï co). Internal evidence, though, leans toward the shorter reading. Scribes tended to add to the text, and the addition of ὡς here clearly softens the assertion of the evangelist: Instead of making a whip of cords, Jesus made “[something] like a whip of cords.”

¹ tc Most witnesses have “Jesus” here, either with the article (א^c C² D L W^s Ψ 086 Ï lat) or without (א* A Θ Ë^1,13 al), while several important and early witnesses lack the name (Ì^66,75 B C* 33^vid pc). It is unlikely that scribes would have deliberately expunged the name of Jesus from the text here, especially since it aids the reader with the flow of the dialogue. Further, that the name occurs both anarthrously and with the article suggests that it was a later addition. (For similar arguments, see the tc note on “woman” in 4:11).

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.

³ tn Or possibly “Jesus bent down and wrote an accusation on the ground with his finger.” The Greek verb καταγράφω (katagrafw) may indicate only the action of writing on the ground by Jesus, but in the overall context (Jesus’ response to the accusation against the woman) it can also be interpreted as implying that what Jesus wrote was a counteraccusation against the accusers (although there is no clue as to the actual content of what he wrote, some scribes added “the sins of each one of them” either here or at the end of v. 8 [U 264 700 al]).

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 mss (B* C E Ψ Ï sy bo) read θεοῦ (qeou, “of God”) here instead of κυρίου (kuriou, “of the Lord”). Other mss, among them some important early witnesses (Ì⁷⁴ א A B² 33 81 323 945 1175 1739 al sa), read κυρίου. The external evidence favors κυρίου, though not decisively. Internally, the mention of “God” in v. 43, and especially “the word of God” in v. 46, would provide some temptation for scribes to assimilate the wording in v. 44 to these texts.

¹ tc ‡ A number of significant and early witnesses, along with several others (Ì^46vid א A C F G L Ψ 6 33 81 104 365 1505 al lat bo), read ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsous, “Jesus”) after Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) in v. 34. But the shorter reading is not unrepresented (B D 0289 1739 1881 Ï sa). Once ᾿Ιησοῦς got into the text, what scribe would omit it? Although the external evidence is on the side of the longer reading, internally such an expansion seems suspect. The shorter reading is thus preferred. NA²⁷ has the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

³ tc ‡ αὐτό (auto) is found at this point in v. 13 in a number of significant witnesses, including A B C P 33 1739 al. But Ì⁴⁶ א D Ψ 0289 1881 Ï latt lack it. The pronoun could be a motivated reading, designed to intensify Paul’s statement. On the other hand, it could have been deleted because the article alone made the reference already clear. In this instance, the possibility of scribal addition seems more likely than scribal deletion, although a decision is difficult. NA²⁷ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.