¹ tc A few witnesses, especially of the Western text (D 33 it sy^s Or Eus^syr), do not contain 21:44. However, the verse is found in א B C L W Z (Θ) 0102 Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy^c,p,h co and should be included as authentic.

⁴ tc Most later mss (A Θ 0102 Ï) alter the word order by moving the verb forward in the quotation. This alteration removes the emphasis from “the Lord your God” as the one to receive worship (as opposed to Satan) by moving it away from the beginning of the quotation.

¹ tc Most witnesses have “of God” after “angels,” although some mss read ἄγγελοι θεοῦ (angeloi qeou; א L ˹³ {28} 33 892 1241 1424 al) while others have ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (angeloi tou qeou; W 0102 0161 Ï). Whether with or without the article, the reading “of God” appears to be motivated as a natural expansion. A few important witnesses lack the adjunct (B D Θ {0233} ˹ 700 {sa}); this coupled with strong internal evidence argues for the shorter reading.

⁴ tc ‡ Many witnesses (B C K L W Δ 0102 33 565 892 pm) have δέ (de, “but”) after ταῦτα (tauta, “these things”), while many others lack it (א D Γ Θ Ë^1,13 579 700 1241 1424 pm). Since asyndeton was relatively rare in Koine Greek, the conjunction may be an intentional alteration, and is thus omitted from the present translation. NA²⁷ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

⁴ tc Most mss (A Θ Ξ Ψ 0102 Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat) read εἰς τὴν ἔρημον (ei" thn erhmon, “into the wilderness”), apparently motivated by the parallel in Matt 4:1. However, the reading behind the translation (ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, en th ejrhmw) is found in overall better witnesses (Ì^4vid,7,75vid א B D L W 579 892 1241 pc it).

³ tc Most mss (א¹ A [D W] Θ Ψ 0102 Ë^1,[13] 33 700 2542 Ï it) refer to Jesus being taken up “to a high mountain” (with many of these also explicitly adding “the devil”) here in parallel with Matt 4:8, but both scribal harmonization to that text and the pedigree of the witnesses for the shorter reading (א* B L 1241 pc) is the reason it should be omitted from Luke.

² tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A Θ Ψ 0102 ˹³ Ï it), have “Get behind me, Satan!” at the beginning of the quotation. This roughly parallels Matt 4:10 (though the Lukan mss add ὀπίσω μου to read ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ [{upage opisw mou, satana]); for this reason the words are suspect as a later addition to make the two accounts agree more precisely. A similar situation occurred in v. 5.

³ tc Most mss (A Q Θ Ψ 0102 Ë^1,13 Ï) read “the Christ, the Son of God.” But the earliest and best mss, along with several other witnesses (א B C D L W Ξ 33 579 700 1241 2542 lat sa), lack “the Christ” here. It is likely that later scribes wished to bring the demons’ confession in line with what Luke says they knew later in the verse.

¹ tc The reading Σαλά (Sala, “Sala”) is found in the best and earliest witnesses (Ì⁴ א* B sy^s sa). Almost all the rest of the mss (א² A D L Θ Ψ 0102 [Ë^1,13] 33 Ï latt sy^p,h bo) have Σαλμών (Salmwn, “Salmon”), an assimilation to Matt 1:4-5 and 1 Chr 2:11 (LXX). “In view of the early tradition that Luke was a Syrian of Antioch it is perhaps significant that the form Σαλά appears to embody a Syriac tradition” (TCGNT 113).

¹ tc It is possible that the name Καϊνάμ (Kainam) should be omitted, since two key mss, Ì^75vid and D, lack it. But the omission may be a motivated reading: This name is not found in the editions of the Hebrew OT, though it is in the LXX, at Gen 11:12 and 10:24. But the witnesses with this reading (or a variation of it) are substantial: א B L ˹ 33 (Καϊνάμ), A Θ Ψ 0102 ˹³ Ï (Καϊνάν, Kainan). The translation above has adopted the more common spelling “Cainan,” although it is based on the reading Καϊνάμ.

² tc Most mss (A [D] Θ Ψ [0102] Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt) complete the citation with ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ (ajll’ ejpi panti rJhmati qeou, “but by every word from God”), an assimilation to Matt 4:4 (which is a quotation of Deut 8:3). The shorter reading is found in א B L W 1241 pc sa. There is no good reason why scribes would omit the rest of the quotation here. The shorter reading, on both internal and external grounds, should be considered the original wording in Luke.

¹ tc The most important mss (א B D L Z Θ Ë¹ 33 892* pc and several versional witnesses) do not have 23:14 “Woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You devour widows’ property, and as a show you pray long prayers! Therefore you will receive a more severe punishment.” Part or all of the verse is contained (either after v. 12 or after v. 13) in W 0102 0107 ˹³ Ï and several versions, but it is almost certainly not original. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations. Note also that Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 are very similar in wording and are not disputed textually.

³ tc Most witnesses (C Θ 0102 Ë^1,13 Ï) have “and plagues” (καὶ λοιμοί, kai loimoi) between “famines” (λιμοί, limoi) and “earthquakes” (σεισμοί, seismoi), while others have “plagues and famines and earthquakes” (L W 33 pc lat). The similarities between λιμοί and λοιμοί could explain how καὶ λοιμοί might have accidentally dropped out, but since the Lukan parallel has both terms (and W lat have the order λοιμοὶ καὶ λιμοί there too, as they do in Matthew), it seems more likely that scribes added the phrase here. The shorter reading does not enjoy overwhelming support ([א] B D 892 pc, as well as versional witnesses), but it is nevertheless significant; coupled with the internal evidence it should be given preference.

⁴ tc The majority of mss, especially the later Byzantines, include the phrase “to heal the brokenhearted” at this point (A Θ Ψ 0102 ˹ Ï). The phrase is lacking in several weighty mss (א B D L W Ξ Ë¹³ 33 579 700 892* pc lat sy^s co), including representatives from both the Alexandrian and Western texttypes. From the standpoint of external evidence, the omission of the phrase is more likely original. When internal evidence is considered, the shorter reading becomes almost certain. Scribes would be much more prone to add the phrase here to align the text with Isa 61:1, the source of the quotation, than to remove it from the original.

¹ tc A very difficult textual problem is found here. The most important Alexandrian and Byzantine, as well as significant Western, witnesses (א B C L W 0102 0281 ˹³ 33 Ï lat co) have “and the dish” (καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, kai th" paroyido") after “cup,” while few important witnesses (D Θ Ë¹ 700 and some versional and patristic authorities) omit the phrase. On the one hand, scribes sometimes tended to eliminate redundancy; since “and the dish” is already present in v. 25, it may have been deleted in v. 26 by well-meaning scribes. On the other hand, as B. M. Metzger notes, the singular pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou, “its”) with τὸ ἐκτός (to ekto", “the outside”) in some of the same witnesses that have the longer reading (viz., B* ˹³ al) hints that their archetype lacked the words (TCGNT 50). Further, scribes would be motivated both to add the phrase from v. 25 and to change αὐτοῦ to the plural pronoun αὐτῶν (aujtwn, “their”). Although the external evidence for the shorter reading is not compelling in itself, combined with these two prongs of internal evidence, it is to be slightly preferred.

¹ tc Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. The second son is called the one who does his father’s will. This reading is found in the Western mss (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this texttype, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his father’s will is the one who changes his mind after saying “no”): (2) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his father’s will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in (א) C L W (Z) 0102 0281 ˹ 33 Ï and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son says “yes” but does not go, and the second son says “no” but later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B Θ Ë¹³ 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two readings make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. Matt 23:3). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles and tax collectors and prostitutes were not, collectively, God’s chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didn’t always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. 32).