¹ tc ‡ The majority of witnesses read ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) here, perhaps to clarify the subject. Although only a few Greek mss, along with several versional witnesses (א* D Z^vid 579 1424 e k sy^s,c,p sa bo), lack the name of Jesus, the omission does not seem to be either accidental or malicious and is therefore judged to be most likely the original reading. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult. NA²⁸ has the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

¹ tn Or “shirt” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). The name for this garment (χιτών, chitōn) presents some difficulty in translation. Most modern readers would not understand what a “tunic” was any more than they would be familiar with a “chiton.” On the other hand, attempts to find a modern equivalent are also a problem: “Shirt” conveys the idea of a much shorter garment that covers only the upper body, and “undergarment” (given the styles of modern underwear) is more misleading still. “Tunic” was therefore employed, but with a note to explain its nature.

² tc The MT of v. 5 reads “with the word which I cut with you when you went out from Egypt and my Spirit [which] stands in your midst, do not fear.” BHS proposes emending “with the word” to זֹאת הַבְּרִית (zoʾt habb^erit, “this is the covenant”) at the beginning of the verse. The proposed emendation makes excellent sense and is expected with the verb כָּרַת (karat, “cut” or “make” a covenant), but it has no textual support. Most English versions (including the present translation) therefore follow the MT here.

³ tc The MT reads יַדּוּ (yaddu, “they cast [lots]”) from יָדַד (yadad, “to cast [lots]”). On the other hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah) read ירו (“they threw, cast [lots]”) from יָרָה (yarah, “to throw, cast [lots]”) (e.g., Josh 18:6). The textual variant arose due to orthographic confusion between ד (dalet) and ר (resh)—two Hebrew letters very similar in appearance. The root יָדַד is relatively rare—it occurs only two other times (Obad 11; Joel 4:3 [3:3 ET])—therefore, it might have been confused with יָרָה which appears more frequently.

³ tn Heb “they turn aside the way of the destitute.” Many interpreters take “way” to mean “just cause” and understand this as a direct reference to the rights of the destitute being ignored. The injustice done to the poor is certainly in view, but the statement is better taken as a word picture depicting the powerful rich pushing the “way of the poor” (i.e., their attempt to be treated justly) to the side. An even more vivid picture is given in Amos 5:12, where the rich are pictured as turning the poor away from the city gate (where legal decisions were made, and therefore where justice should be done).

⁸ tc The MT reads נּוּגוֹת (nugot, “are grieved”), Niphal participle feminine plural from יָגָה (yagah, “to grieve”). The LXX ἀγόμεναι (agomenai) reflects נָהוּגוֹת (nahugot, “are led away”), Qal passive participle feminine plural from נָהַג (nahag, “to lead away into exile”), also reflected in Aquila and Symmachus. The MT reading is an unusual form (see translator’s note below) and best explains the origin of the LXX, which is a more common root. It would be difficult to explain the origin of the MT reading if the LXX reflected the original. Therefore, the MT is probably the original reading.

³ tn Heb “Hamath and Arpad.” There is no word for people in the text. The cities are being personified. However, since it is really the people who are involved, the present translation supplies the words “people of” both here and in v. 24 to aid the reader. The verbs in vv. 23-25 are all to be interpreted as prophetic perfects, the tense of the Hebrew verb that views an action as though it were as good as done. The verbs are clearly future in vv. 26-27, which begin with a “therefore.”

¹ tn Heb “the one who dwells forever.” שֹׁכֵן עַד (shokhen ʿad) is sometimes translated “the one who lives forever,” and understood as a reference to God’s eternal existence. However, the immediately preceding and following descriptions (“high and exalted” and “holy”) emphasize his sovereign rule. In the next line, he declares, “I dwell in an exalted and holy [place],” which refers to the place from which he rules. Therefore it is more likely that שֹׁכֵן עַד (shokhen ʿad) means “I dwell [in my lofty palace] forever” and refers to God’s eternal kingship.

⁴ tn The Hebrew text reads “my people,” a reading followed by most English versions, but this is problematic in a context where the first person plural predominates, and where God does not appear to speak again until v. 11b. Therefore, it is preferable to read with the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a עמו (“his people”). In this case, the group speaking in these verses is identified as the servant’s people (compare פְּשָׁעֵנוּ [p^eshaʿenu, “our rebellious deeds”] in v. 5 with פֶּשַׁע עַמִּי [peshaʿ ʿammi, “the rebellion of his people”] in v. 8).

⁵ tc The MT reads the singular noun with first person common singular suffix רִמֹּנִי (rimmoni, “my pomegranate”). However, many Hebrew mss preserve an alternate textual tradition of a plural noun without the first person common singular suffix רִמֹּנִים (rimmonim, “pomegranates”), which is also reflected in the Aramaic Targum. However, LXX ῥοῶν μου (hroōn mou, “the nectar of my pomegranates”) reflects both the plural noun and the first person common singular suffix. Therefore, R. Gordis suggests that MT רִמֹּנִי is an apocopated plural with a first person common singular suffix: “my pomegranates.”

⁴ tn Heb “cannot be counted” or “cannot be numbered.” The term הִמָּנוֹת (himmanot, Niphal infinitive construct from מָנָה, manah, “to count”) is rendered literally by most translations: “[cannot] be counted” or “[cannot] be numbered” (KJV, ASV, RSV, MLB, NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, JPS, NJPS). However, the nuance “count” might function as a metonymy of effect for cause, that is, “to supply.” What is absent cannot be supplied (cause) therefore, it cannot be counted as present (effect). NAB adopts this approach: “what is missing cannot be supplied.”

³ tn The syntax of the line is somewhat difficult because “grace of his lips” seems to be intruding on the point of the verse with little explanation. Therefore the LXX rendered it “The Lord loves the pure in heart; all who are blameless in their ways are acceptable to him.” This has very little correspondence with the Hebrew; nevertheless commentators attempt to reconstruct the verse using it, and the NAB follows the first clause of the LXX here. Some have suggested taking “king” as the subject of the whole verse (“the king loves…”), but this is forced.

¹ tn The Hiphil imperfect תַּכֶּה (takkeh) is followed by another imperfect. It could be rendered: “strike a scorner [imperfect of instruction] and a simpleton will become prudent.” But the first of the parallel verbs can also be subordinated to the second as a temporal or conditional clause. Some English versions translate “beat” (NAB “if you beat an arrogant man”), but this could be understood to refer to competition rather than physical punishment. Therefore “flog” has been used in the translation, since it is normally associated with punishment or discipline.

⁵ tn Heb “he will not be visited” (so KJV, ASV). The verb פָּקַד (paqad) is often translated “visit.” It describes intervention that will change the destiny. If God “visits” it means he intervenes to bless or to curse. To be “visited by trouble” means that calamity will interfere with the course of life and change the direction or the destiny. Therefore this is not referring to a minor trouble that one might briefly experience. A life in the Lord cannot be disrupted by such major catastrophes that would alter one’s destiny.

⁵ tn The Hebrew verb (חָמַד, khamad) is often translated in the future tense to match the other verbs in the verse. But “will love” and “will hate” are both imperfect forms of stative verbs which must be future. In contrast, the verb “to take pleasure; to delight” (חָמַד, khamad) is in the perfect conjugation and is morphologically dynamic (as indicated by its imperfect form ‏יַחְמֹד, yakhmod). Therefore it is past or perfective. By switching the time frame, the rebuke embedded in the question looks forward and back, both at what should not continue and what should not have been done.

¹ tn Heb “but you, Lord, Master, deal with me for the sake of your name” or “on account of your name.” Here “name” stands metonymically for God’s reputation. The Psalmist’s appeal is for God to act consistently with, and therefore maintain, his reputation (as a deliverer of the righteous and one who punishes evildoers). Note that “for your name’s sake” is paralleled by “because your loyal love is good.” The point is that the Psalmist is making an appeal not based on his own personal whim or vendetta but is calling for judicial penalties (or the fulfillment of prior prophetic indictment).

¹ tn Heb “the butter-like [words] of his mouth are smooth.” The noun מַחְמָאֹת (makhmaʾot, “butter-like [words]”) occurs only here. Many prefer to emend the form to מֵחֶמְאָה (mekhemʾah, from [i.e., “than”] butter”), cf. NEB, NRSV “smoother than butter.” However, in this case “his mouth” does not agree in number with the plural verb חָלְקוּ (khal^equ, “they are smooth”). Therefore some further propose an emendation of פִּיו (piv, “his mouth”) to פָּנָיו (panayv, “his face”). In any case, the point seems to that the psalmist’s former friend spoke kindly to him and gave the outward indications of friendship.

⁶ sn The difference between what they said and what Job said, therefore, has to do with truth. Job was honest, spoke the truth, poured out his complaints, but never blasphemed God. For his words God said he told the truth. He did so with incomplete understanding, and with all the impatience and frustration one might expect. Now the friends, however, did not tell what was right about God. They were not honest; rather, they were self-righteous and condescending. They were saying what they thought should be said, but it was wrong.

² tn There is a slight difficulty here in that vv. 6 and 7 seem to be saying the opposite thing. Many commentators, therefore, emend the Niphal יוּלָּד (yullad, “is born”) to an active participle יוֹלֵד (yoled, “begets”) to place the source of trouble in man himself. But the LXX seems to retain the passive idea: “man is born to trouble.” The contrast between the two verses does not seem too difficult, for it still could imply that trouble’s source is within the man.

² tn The MT reads יָמָיו אֲשֶׁר (yamayv ʾasher, “all his days which…”). The LXX says “all the days which Jehoiada the priest enlightened him,” implying either יָמִים (yamim, “days”) or יְמֵי (y^eme, “days of”), without the pronominal suffix. Lev 13:46 demonstrates that יְמֵי can be in construct with an אֲשֶׁר clause, but an אֲשֶׁר clause can also follow יוֹם (yom “day”) when it has a pronominal suffix. In either case the אֲשֶׁר clause restricts the time period that יוֹם describes. Therefore this verse does not contradict 2 Chr 24:2 which limits its praise of the king to “all the days of Jehoiada the priest.”