¹ tc Most mss have ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”) as the explicit subject of ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen, “he made”; A D W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M lat sy), while the most significant witnesses, along with a few others, lack ὁ θεός (א B C L Δ 579 co). On the one hand, it is possible that the shorter reading is an assimilation to the wording of the LXX of Gen 1:27b where ὁ θεός is lacking. However, since it is mentioned at the beginning of the verse (Gen 1:27a) with ἐποίησεν scribes may have been motivated to add it in Mark to make the subject clear. Further, confusion could easily arise in this dominical saying because Moses was the previously mentioned subject (v. 5) and inattentive readers might regard him as the subject of ἐποίησεν in v. 6. Thus, both on internal and external grounds, the most probable wording of the Ausgangstext here lacked ὁ θεός.

² tc Most mss, including early and significant witnesses (א A B ƒ^1,13 33 M lat), have here καὶ Σιδῶνος (kai Sidōnos, “and Sidon”). The Western text, as well as several other significant mss (D L W Δ Θ 28 565 it), lack the words. Although the external evidence is on the side of inclusion, it is difficult to explain why scribes would omit the mention of Sidon. On the other hand, the parallels in v. 31 and Matt 15:21 would be sufficient motivation for scribes to add Sidon here. Furthermore, every other mention of Tyre in the Gospels is accompanied by Sidon, putting pressure on scribes to conform this text as well. The shorter reading therefore, though without compelling external evidence on its side, is strongly supported by internal evidence, rendering judgment on its authenticity fairly certain.

² tc Most witnesses, including several significant ones, read καινῆς (kainēs, “new”) here. Homoioteleuton is a possible reason for the omission, since the article, adjective, and noun are all first declension genitive singulars (τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, tēs kainēs diathēkēs, “the new covenant”), but the likelihood of excellent, early, and sufficiently diverse witnesses all making the same mistake is remote. A much more probable scenario is that the addition of καινῆς was motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. It is a natural expansion on the text. Coupled with the fact that the shorter reading is found in such good and diverse witnesses (e.g., P^37,45vid א B L Z Θ 0298^vid 33 mae), it most likely is the initial text.

² tc ‡ Most mss have either ἀνθρώπῳ (anthrōpō, “for a man” [so א³ C D W Δ Θ 087 ƒ^{1, 13} 33 1241 M latt]) τινί (tini, “for someone” 700), ἀνθρώπῳ τινί (anthrōpō tini, “for a man” [565]) or ἀνδρί (andri, “for a husband” [1424^c]) before the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”). “For a husband” is an assimilation to the parallel in Mark; the other readings may have been motivated by the clarification needed (especially to give the following αὐτοῦ [autou, “his”] an antecedent). But a few significant mss (א* B L Γ 579 1424*) have neither noun or the pronoun. In light of the variety of additions that clarify the subject of the infinitive, and especially since the shorter reading is the more difficult, it is likely that none of these additions was present in the autograph. As the harder reading, the shorter reading seems to best explain the rise of the others. NA²⁸, however, reads ἀνθρώπῳ here.

¹ tc Most mss (א*^,2b C L N W Γ Δ 0106 33 565 1241 1424 M) have an expanded introduction here; instead of “For God said,” they read “For God commanded, saying” (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἐνετείλατο λέγων, ho gar theos eneteilato legōn). But such expansions are generally motivated readings; in this case, most likely it was due to the wording of the previous verse (“the commandment of God”) that caused early scribes to add to the text. Although it is possible that other witnesses reduced the text to the simple εἶπεν (eipen, “[God] said”) because of perceived redundancy with the statement in v. 3, such is unlikely in light of the great variety and age of these authorities (א^2a B D Θ 073 ƒ^{1, 13} 579 700 892 lat co, as well as other versions and fathers).

¹ tc ‡ The Greek verb ἔφαγεν (ephagen, “he ate”) is found in a majority of witnesses across a broad geogrphical area (P⁷⁰ C D L N W Γ Δ Θ ƒ^{1, 13} 33 565 579 700 1424 M latt sy co; SBL). NA²⁸ has the plural ἔφαγον (ephagon, “they ate”), the wording found in א B 481. Although it is quite possible that ἔφαγεν was motivated by the parallels in Mark and Luke, both of which have the singular, the minimal—though early and significant—attestation for the plural, coupled with the singular being a more difficult reading (since the context implies that David’s companions also ate), gives the edge to ἔφαγεν as the likely autographic wording.

³ tc Most witnesses, including several significant ones (C³ L Γ ƒ¹ 565 579 700 1424 M lat bo), read “two of his disciples” instead of “by his disciples” (see the tn below for the reading of the Greek). The difference in Greek, however, is only two letters: διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ vs. δύο τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (dia tōn mathētōn autou vs. duo tōn mathētōn autou). Although an accidental alteration could account for either of these readings, it is more likely that δύο is an assimilation to the parallel in Luke 7:18, perhaps motivated by the somewhat awkward Greek in Matthew’s wording (with “by his disciples” the direct object of “sending” [πέμψας] needs to be supplied). Further, διά is read by a good number of early and excellent witnesses (א B C* D P W Z Δ Θ 0233 ƒ¹³ 33 sa), and thus should be considered autographic.

¹ tc The LXX of Jer 38:15 (31:15 ET) has “lamentation, weeping, and loud wailing”; most later mss (C D L W Γ Δ 0233 ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M) have a quotation in Matthew which conforms to that of the LXX (θρῆνος καὶ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμός; thrēnos kai klauthmos kai odurmos). But such assimilations were routine among the scribes; as such, they typically should be discounted because they are both predictable and motivated. The shorter reading, without “lamentation and,” is thus to be preferred, especially since it cannot easily be accounted for unless it is the reading that gave rise to the other reading. Further, it is found in the better mss along with a good cross-section of other witnesses (א B Z 0250 ƒ¹ lat co).

³ sn Both options for the start of the line (“how?” and “yet” or “surely”) fit the ironic portrayal of Jonah in the prayer (see also vv. 8-9). Jonah, who had been trying to escape the Lord’s attention, here appears remarkably fond of worshiping him. Is there perhaps also a hint of motivation for the Lord to rescue this eager worshiper? Confession of disobedience, on the other hand, is absent. Cf. Ps 31:22, where the first half (describing the plight) is very similar to the first half of Jonah 2:3, and the second half starts with “nevertheless” (אָכֵן, ʾakhen) and is a positive contrast, a report that God heard, using four words that appear in Jonah 2:2 (cf. Job 32:7-8; Ps 82:6-7; Isa 49:4; Zeph 3:7).

¹ tn Heb “he arose to flee.” The phrase וַיָּקָם לִבְרֹחַ (vayyaqam livroakh, “he arose to flee”) is a wordplay on the Lord’s command (קוּם לֵךְ, qum lekh; “Arise! Go!”) in v. 2. By repeating the first verb קוּם the narrator sets up the reader to expect that Jonah was intending to obey God. But Jonah did not “arise to go” to Nineveh; he “arose to flee” to Tarshish. Jonah looks as though he was about to obey, but he does not. This unexpected turn of events creates strong irony. The narrator does not reveal Jonah’s motivation to the reader at this point. He delays this revelation for rhetorical effect until 4:2-3.

² tn Heb “Because of [or out of fear of] the sword of the oppressor, let each of them turn toward his [own] people and each of them flee to his [own] country.” Compare a similar expression in 46:16, where the reference was to the flight of the mercenaries. Here it most likely refers to foreigners who are counseled to leave Babylon before they are caught up in the destruction. Many of the commentaries and English versions render the verbs as futures, but they are more probably third person commands (jussives). Compare the clear commands in v. 8 followed by essentially the same motivation. The “sword of the oppressor,” of course, refers to death at the hands of soldiers wielding all kinds of weapons, though the specific reference has been to the bow (v. 14).

¹ tn Heb “O glorious throne, O high place from the beginning, O place of our sanctuary, O hope of Israel, Lord.” Commentators and translators generally understand these four lines of verses 12-13a as two predications, one eulogizing the temple and the other eulogizing God. However, that does not fit the context very well and does not take into account the nature of Jeremiah’s doxology in Jeremiah 16:19-20 (and compare also 10:6-7). There the doxology is context-motivated, is focused on God, and calls on relevant attributes in the form of metaphorical epithets. That fits nicely here as well. For the relevant parallel passages see the study note.

² tn Heb “for his knowing.” Traditionally the preposition has been translated in a temporal sense, “when he knows.” However, though the preposition ל (lamed) can sometimes have a temporal force, it never carries such a nuance in any of the 40 other passages where it is used with the infinitive construct of יָדַע (yadaʿ, “to know”). Most often the construction indicates purpose/result. This sense is preferable here. The following context indicates that sour milk and honey will epitomize the devastation that God’s judgment will bring upon the land. Cultivated crops will be gone, and the people will be forced to live off the milk produced by their goats and the honey they find in the thickets. As the child is forced to eat a steady diet of this sour milk and honey, he will be reminded of the consequences of sin and motivated to make correct moral decisions in order to avoid further outbreaks of divine discipline.

¹ sn It is difficult to know for certain what these four things had in common for the sage. They are all linked by the word “way” (meaning “a course of action”) and by a sense of mystery in each area. Suggestions for the connections between the four include: (1) all four things are hidden from continued observation, for they are in majestic form and then gone; (2) they all have a mysterious means of propulsion or motivation; (3) they all describe the movement of one thing within the sphere or domain of another; or (4) the first three serve as illustrations of the fourth and greatest wonder, which concerns human relationships and is slightly different than the first three.

² tn Heb “I will be satisfied, when I awake, [with] your form.” The noun תְּמוּנָה (t^emunah) normally carries the nuance “likeness” or “form.” In Job 4:16 it refers to a ghostlike spiritual entity (see Job 4:15) that revealed itself to Eliphaz during the night. The psalmist may anticipate a mystical encounter with God in which he expects to see a manifestation of God’s presence (i.e., a theophany), perhaps in conjunction with an oracle of deliverance. During the quiet darkness of the night, God examines the psalmist’s inner motives and finds them to be pure (see v. 3). The psalmist is confident that when he awakens, perhaps sometime during the night or in the morning, he will be visited by God and assured of vindication.

⁵ tn Heb “they make smooth their tongue.” Flattering, deceitful words are in view. See Ps 12:2. The psalmist’s deceitful enemies are compared to the realm of death/Sheol in v. 9b. Sheol was envisioned as a dark region within the earth, the entrance to which was the grave with its steep slopes (cf. Ps 88:4-6). The enemies’ victims are pictured here as slipping down a steep slope (the enemies’ tongues) and falling into an open grave (their throat) that terminates in destruction in the inner recesses of Sheol (their stomach). The enemies’ קֶרֶב (qerev, “inward part”) refers here to their thoughts and motives, which are destructive in their intent. The throat is where these destructive thoughts are transformed into words, and their tongue is what they use to speak the deceitful words that lead their innocent victims to their demise.

² tn Heb “were becoming Jews”; NAB “embraced Judaism.” However, the Hitpael stem of the verb is sometimes used of a feigning action rather than a genuine one (see, e.g., 2 Sam 13:5, 6), which is the way the present translation understands the use of the word here (cf. NEB “professed themselves Jews”; NRSV “professed to be Jews”). This is the only occurrence of this verb in the Hebrew Bible, so there are no exact parallels. However, in the context of v. 17 the motivation of their conversion (Heb “the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them”) should not be overlooked. The LXX apparently understood the conversion described here to be genuine, since it adds the words “they were being circumcised and” before “they became Jews.”

⁵ tn Heb “stirred the spirit of.” The Hebrew noun רוּחַ (ruakh, “spirit”) has a broad range of meanings (see BDB 924-26 s.v.). Here, it probably refers to (1) “mind” as the seat of mental acts (e.g., Exod 28:3; Deut 34:9; Isa 29:24; 40:13; Ezek 11:5; 20:32; 1 Chr 28:12; cf. BDB 925 s.v. 6) or (2) “will” as the seat of volitional decisions (e.g., Exod 35:5, 22; Pss 51:12, 14; 57:8; 2 Chr 29:31; cf. BDB 925 s.v. 7). So also in v. 5. The entire phrase “stirred the spirit” has been rendered as “motivated” to better reflect normal English.

³ tn Heb “stirred the spirit of.” The Hebrew noun רוּחַ (ruakh, “spirit”) has a broad range of meanings (see BDB 924-26 s.v.). Here, it probably refers to (1) “mind” as the seat of mental acts (e.g., Exod 28:3; Deut 34:9; Isa 29:24; 40:13; Ezek 11:5; 20:32; 1 Chr 28:12; cf. BDB 925 s.v. 6) or (2) “will” as the seat of volitional decisions (e.g., Exod 35:5, 22; Pss 51:12, 14; 57:8; 2 Chr 29:31; cf. BDB 925 s.v. 7). So also in Ezra 1:5. The entire phrase “stirred the spirit” has been rendered as “motivated” to better reflect normal English.

¹ sn Jezebel associates Jehu with another assassin, Zimri, who approximately 44 years before had murdered King Elah, only to meet a violent death just a few days later (1 Kgs 16:9-20). On the surface Jezebel’s actions seem contradictory. On the one hand, she beautifies herself as if to seduce Jehu, but on the other hand, she insults and indirectly threatens him with this comparison to Zimri. Upon further reflection, however, her actions reveal a clear underlying motive. She wants to retain her power, not to mention her life. By beautifying herself, she appeals to Jehu’s sexual impulses; by threatening him, she reminds him that he is in the same precarious position as Zimri. But, if he makes Jezebel his queen, he can consolidate his power. In other words through her actions and words Jezebel is saying to Jehu, “You desire me, don’t you? And you need me!”