² tc Most witnesses (C L Θ 0233 ˹³ Ï) have ἐθαύμασαν (eqaumasan; “marveled, were amazed”) instead of ἐφοβήθησαν (efobhqhsan) here, effectively turning the fearful reaction into one of veneration. But the harder reading is well supported by א B D W 0281 ˹ 33 892 1424 al lat co and thus is surely authentic.

¹ tc ‡ Most mss read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after “servant.” It is unlikely that the pronoun was accidentally overlooked by such diverse witnesses as א B 0250 0281 ˹ 33 latt. More likely is the probability that Western, Byzantine, and some other scribes added the word for clarification (so C L W Θ 0233 ˹³ Ï sy sa). NA²⁷ has the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Most later mss (L 0281 Ï lat) have here ὥρᾳ ({wra, “hour”) instead of ἡμέρα (Jemera, “day”). Although the merits of this reading could be argued either way, in light of the overwhelming and diverse early support for ἡμέρᾳ ({א B C D W Δ Θ Ë¹³ 33 892 1424, as well as several versions and fathers}), the more general term is surely correct.

³ tc Instead of the singular future indicative ποιήσω (poihsw, “I will make”), most witnesses (C³ D L W Θ [Φ] 0281 Ë^[1],13 33 Ï lat sy co) have the plural aorist subjunctive ποιήσωμεν (poihswmen, “let us make”). But since ποιήσωμεν is the reading found in the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, it is almost surely a motivated reading. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, as well as a few others (א B C* 700 pc) have ποιήσω. It is thus more likely that the singular verb is authentic.

² tc The majority of mss (א L W 058 0281 Ë^1,13 33 Ï it sy^p,h co) begin the slave’s plea with “Lord” (κύριε, kurie), though a few important witnesses lack this vocative (B D Θ 700 pc lat sy^s,c Or Chr). Understanding the parable to refer to the Lord, scribes would be naturally prone to add the vocative here, especially as the slave’s plea is a plea for mercy. Thus, the shorter reading is more likely to be authentic.

³ tc Many witnesses, some of them important, have μαθητῶν (maqhtwn, “disciples”; א A L W Δ Θ 33 892 1241 1424 pm lat) or μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (maqhtwn autou, “his disciples”; 0281 pc it) after δώδεκα (dwdeka, “twelve”). However, such clarifications are typical scribal expansions to the text. Further, the shorter reading (the one that ends with δώδεκα) has strong support in Ì^37vid,45vid B D K Γ Ë^1,13 565 579 700 pm. Thus both internally and externally the reading that ends the verse with “the twelve” is to be preferred.

² tc Most mss (A C W Θ 0250 Ë^1,13 Ï latt) have Ποντίῳ (Pontiw, “Pontius”) before Πιλάτῳ (Pilatw, “Pilate”), but there seems to be no reason for omitting the tribal name, either intentionally or unintentionally. Adding “Pontius,” however, is a natural expansion on the text, and is in keeping with several other NT and patristic references to the Roman governor (cf. Luke 3:1; Acts 4:27; 1 Tim 6:13; Ign. Magn. 11.1; Ign. Trall. 9.1; Ign. Smyrn. 1.2; Justin Martyr, passim). The shorter reading, supported by א B L 0281 33 pc co, is thus strongly preferred.

¹ tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff¹ sy^s,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א² C D L W Ë^1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

³ tc ‡ The earliest and best witnesses lack “against you” after “if your brother sins.” It is quite possible that the shorter reading in these witnesses (א B, as well as 0281 ˹ 579 pc sa) occurred when scribes either intentionally changed the text (to make it more universal in application) or unintentionally changed the text (owing to the similar sound of the end of the verb ἁμαρτήσῃ [Jamarthsh] and the prepositional phrase εἰς σέ [eis se]). However, if the mss were normally copied by sight rather than by sound, especially in the early centuries of Christianity, such an unintentional change is not as likely for these mss. And since scribes normally added material rather than deleted it for intentional changes, on balance, the shorter reading appears to be original. NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

³ tc ‡ The majority of mss (C W ˹ 33 Ï and several versional witnesses) read κύριε (kurie, “Lord”) after ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς (elehson Jhma", “have mercy on us”). But since this is the order of words in v. 30 (though that wording is also disputed), and since the κύριε-first reading enjoys widespread and early support (א B D L Z Θ 085 0281 ˹³ 892 pc lat), the latter was considered original. However, the decision was by no means easy. NA²⁷ has κύριε after ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς here; a majority of that committee felt that since the placement of κύριε in last place was the nonliturgical order it “would have been likely to be altered in transcription to the more familiar sequence” (TCGNT 44).

¹ tc The majority of Byzantine minuscules, along with a few other witnesses (C³ K L Γ Θ 700* al), lack νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε (nekrou" ejgeirete, “raise the dead”), most likely because of oversight due to a string of similar endings (-ετε in the second person imperatives, occurring five times in v. 8). The longer version of this verse is found in several diverse and ancient witnesses such as א B C* (D) N 0281^vid Ë^1,13 33 565 al lat; P W Δ 348 have a word-order variation, but nevertheless include νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε. Although some Byzantine-text proponents charge the Alexandrian witnesses with theologically-motivated alterations toward heterodoxy, it is interesting to find a variant such as this in which the charge could be reversed (do the Byzantine scribes have something against the miracle of resurrection?). In reality, such charges of wholesale theologically-motivated changes toward heterodoxy are immediately suspect due to lack of evidence of intentional changes (here the change is evidently due to accidental omission).

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).