³ tn Or “leniency and clemency.” D. Walker, “Paul’s Offer of Leniency of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1): Populist Ideology and Rhetoric in a Pauline Letter Fragment (2 Cor 10:1-13:10)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1998), argues for this alternative translation for three main reasons: (1) When the two Greek nouns πραΰτης and ἐπιείκεια (prautēs and epieikeia) are used together, 90% of the time the nuance is “leniency and clemency.” (2) “Leniency and clemency” has a military connotation, which is precisely what appears in the following verses. (3) 2 Cor 10-13 speaks of Paul’s sparing use of his authority, which points to the nuance of “leniency and clemency.”

¹ tc Although the majority of mss (א A C D Ψ 075 M lat bo) conclude this letter with ἀμήν (amēn, “amen”), such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant. Although far fewer witnesses lack the valedictory particle (B F 0121 0243 33 81 630 1739* 1881 sa), their collective testimony is difficult to explain if the omission is not authentic.

² tc Two viable variants exist at this place in the text: ἁγιότητι (hagiotēti, “holiness”) vs. ἁπλότητι (haplotēti, “pure motives”). A confusion of letters could well have produced the variant (TCGNT 507): In majuscule script the words would have been written agiothti and aplothti. This, however, does not explain which reading created the other. Overall ἁπλότητι, though largely a Western-Byzantine reading (א² D F G M lat sy), is better suited to the context; it is also a Pauline word while ἁγιότης (hagiotēs) is not. It also best explains the rise of the other variants, πραότητι (praotēti, “gentleness”) and σπλάγχνοις (splanchnois, “compassion”). On the other hand, the external evidence in favor of ἁγιότητι is extremely strong (P⁴⁶ א* A B C K P Ψ 0121 0243 33 81 1739 1881 al co). This diversity of mss provides excellent evidence for authenticity, but because of the internal evidence listed above, ἁπλότητι is to be preferred, albeit only slightly.

² tc Many significant mss, as well as several others (א A Ψ 1739 1881 M sy), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (P⁴⁶ B D F G 33 it). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred both because it has somewhat better attestation and because it is slightly more difficult and thus more likely the earlier reading (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus.” As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. Thus, on both external and internal grounds, “Christ Jesus” is the preferred reading here.

¹ tc ‡ Most mss (א* A 1739 1881 M sy) read “I give thanks to God” rather than “Now thanks be to God” (א¹ [B] Ψ 33 81 104 365 1506), the reading of NA²⁸. The reading with the verb (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, eucharistō tō theō) possibly arose from a transcriptional error in which several letters were doubled (TCGNT 455). The conjunction δέ (de, “now”) is included in some mss as well (א¹ Ψ 33 81 104 365 1506), but it should probably not be considered original. The ms support for the omission of δέ is both excellent and widespread (א* A B D 1739 1881 M lat sy), and its addition can be explained as an insertion to smooth out the transition between v. 24 and 25.

⁴ tc In place of ἠπόρει (ēporei, “he was baffled”) the majority of mss (A C D ƒ¹ 33 M lat sy) have ἐποίει (epoiei, “he did”; cf. KJV’s “he did many things.”) The best mss (א B L [W] Θ co) support the reading followed in the translation. The variation may be no more than a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much alike. The verb ποιέω (poieō, “I do”) certainly occurs more frequently than ἀπορέω (aporeō, “I am at a loss”), so a scribe would be more likely to write a more familiar word. Further, even though the reading ἐποίει is the harder reading in terms of the sense, it is virtually nonsensical here, rendering it most likely an unintentional scribal error.

¹ tc ‡ The word ἡμέρας (hēmeras, “day”) is found after σήμερον (sēmeron, “today, this [day]”) in some early and significant witnesses (B D L Θ lat, as well as other versions and fathers), but may be added for emphasis (cf. Acts 20:26; 27:33; Rom 11:8; 2 Cor 3:14). But since the idiom with “day” is unquestionably found only in Paul’s speeches in Acts or his letters, intrinsic evidence is against the addition. The shorter reading (found in א A W 0148^vid ƒ^1,13 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M) is thus preferred. NA²⁸ includes the word in brackets, indicating reservations about its authenticity. Whether authentic or not, the translation is not affected.

¹ tc Most witnesses have ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”), while a few lack the words (א* D 073 892 ff¹ sy^c sa bo). Although such additions are often suspect (due to liturgical influences, piety, or for the sake of clarity), in this case it is likely that ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς dropped out accidentally. Apart from a few albeit significant witnesses, as noted above, the rest of the tradition has either ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς αὐτοῖς (ho Iēsous autois) or αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (autois ho Iēsous). In majuscule letters, with Jesus’ name as a nomen sacrum, this would have been written as autoisois_ or ois_autois. Thus homoioteleuton could explain the reason for the omission of Jesus’ name. (This same phenomenon occurs in P¹³⁷ at Mark 1:17 where the original text no doubt read αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, but this papyrus accidentally omits the nomen sacrum.)

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.

⁵ tc The MT reads אִם־שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים (’im-sh^elemim v^ekhen rabbim, “Even though they are strong and numerous”). The complicated syntax of this line led to textual confusion and several textual variants among the versions. For example, the LXX’s κατάρξων ὑδάτων πολλῶν (katarxōn hudatōn pollōn, “ruler of many waters”) reflects מֹשֵׁל מַיִם רַבִּים (moshel mayim rabbim, “ruler of many waters”) which redivides the words, and omits the letter א (aleph) and the word וְכֵן (v^ekhen). Similarly, the Syriac reflects אֶל מֹשְׁלֵי מַיִם רַבִּים (ʾel mosh^ele mayim rabbim, “to the rulers of many waters”). The MT is the most difficult reading and therefore best explains the origin of these textual variants. Moreover, the LXX of Nahum is well-known for its unusual mistranslations of the Hebrew text of Nahum. The LXX butchers v. 12 in several other places (see below). All major English versions follow the MT here.

⁶ sn Joppa was a small harbor town on the Palestinian coast known as Yepu in the Amarna Letters (14^th century b.c.) and Yapu in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions (9th-8th centuries b.c.). It was a port through which imported goods could flow into the Levant (Josh 19:46; 2 Chr 2:15 [16]; Ezra 3:7). It was never annexed by Israel until the Maccabean period (ca. 148 b.c.; 1 Macc 10:76). Jonah chose a port where the people he would meet and the ships he could take were not likely to be Israelite. Once in Joppa he was already partly “away from the Lord” as he conceived it.

² tn Heb “the king of Sheshach.” “Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans, which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41, where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it.

¹ tn According to BDB (1043 s.v. שָׁעָה), the verb תִּשְׁתָּע (tishtaʿ) in the second line of the poetic couplet is a Hitpael form from the root שָׁעָה (shaʿah, “gaze,” with metathesis of the stem prefix and the first root letter). Taking the Hitpael as iterative, one may then translate “do not anxiously look about.” However, the alleged Hitpael form of שָׁעָה (shaʿah) only occurs here and in verse 23. HALOT 1671 s.v. שׁתע proposes that the verb is instead a Qal form from the root שׁתע (“fear”). Its attestation in cognate Semitic languages, including Ugaritic (discovered after the publishing of BDB), suggests the existence of this root. The poetic structure of v. 10 also supports the proposal, for the form in question is in synonymous parallelism to יָרֵא (yareʾ, “fear”).

¹ tc The Leningrad Codex (the basis of BHS) reads אֲנִי (ʾani, first person common singular independent personal pronoun): “I obey the king’s command.” Other medieval Hebrew mss and all the versions (LXX, Vulgate, Targum, Syriac Peshitta) preserve an alternate textual tradition of the definite accusative marker אֶת (ʾet) introducing the direct object: אֶת־פִּי־מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹר (ʾet pi melekh sh^emor, “Obey the command of the king”). External evidence supports the alternate textual tradition. The MT is guilty of simple orthographic confusion between similar looking letters. The BHS editors and the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project adopt אֶת as the original reading. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:582-83.

⁴ tn The Hebrew has “seekers of death,” meaning “[they that seek them] are seekers of death,” or that the fortune is “a fleeting vapor for those who seek death.” The sense is not readily apparent. The Greek and the Latin versions have “snares of death”; the form מוֹקְשֵׁי (moq^eshe) was read instead of מְבַקְשֵׁי (m^evaqq^eshe). This reading does not make a more credible metaphor, and one must explain the loss of the letter ב (bet) in the textual variant. It is, however, slightly easier to interpret in the verse, and is followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). But whether the easier reading is the correct one in this case would be difficult to prove.

² tc The idea expressed in the second colon does not make a strong parallelism with the first with its emphasis on seeking knowledge. Its poetic image of feeding (a hypocatastasis) would signify the acquisition of folly—the fool has an appetite for it. D. W. Thomas suggests the change of one letter, ר (resh) to ד (dalet), to obtain a reading יִדְעֶה (yidʿeh); this he then connects to an Arabic root daʿa with the meaning “sought, demanded” to form what he thinks is a better parallel (“Textual and Philological Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 285). But even though the parallelism is not as precise as some would prefer, there is insufficient warrant for such a change.

¹ tn Heb “like sheep to Sheol they are appointed.” The verb form שַׁתּוּ (shattu) is apparently derived from שָׁתַת (shatat), which appears to be a variant of the more common שִׁית (shit, “to place; to set”; BDB 1060 s.v. שָׁתַת and GKC 183 §67.ee). Some scholars emend the text to שָׁחוּ (shakhu; from the verbal root שׁוּח [shukh, “sink down”]) and read “they descend.” The present translation assumes an emendation to שָׁטוּ (shatu; from the verbal root שׁוּט [shut, “go; wander”]), “they travel, wander.” (The letter tet [ט] and tav [ת] sound similar; a scribe transcribing from dictation could easily confuse them.) The perfect verbal form is used in a rhetorical manner to speak of their destiny as if it were already realized (the so-called perfect of certitude or prophetic perfect).

² tc The meaning of the MT (כִּיקַר כָּרִים [kiqar karim], “like what is precious among the pastures/rams”) is uncertain. One possibility is to take the noun כָּרִים as “pastures” and interpret “what is precious” as referring to flowers that blossom but then quickly disappear (see v. 2 and BDB 430 s.v. יָקָר 3). If כָּרִים is taken as “rams,” then “what is precious” might refer to the choicest portions of rams. The present translation follows a reading in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpPs37), כיקוד כורם (“like the burning of an oven”). The next line, which pictures the Lord’s enemies being consumed in smoke, supports this reading, which assumes confusion of the Hebrew letters ר (resh) and ד (dalet) at the end of the first word in the sequence.

² tn The verb עָקַר (ʿaqar) appears only here (and possibly in Job 30:17). Several translations render this as “they gnaw the dry ground” (NASB, ESV, NRSV), but it is not typical to gnaw on dirt. Suggested emendations include adding יְרַק (y^eraq from yereq, “vegetation, greenery of”) or עִקָּרֵי (ʿiqqare from ʿiqqar, “roots of [the parched land]”), either of which could be a food to gnaw on. They propose to restore a word with letters so similar to the verb that it may have been omitted in copying due to haplography. But the verb in Aramaic can also mean “to roam” (KJV “fleeing into the wilderness;” NIV “they roamed”), making an emendation unnecessary (see J. Hartley, The Book of Job [NICOT], 396).

¹ tc The verb indicates that after he oppressed the poor he abandoned them to their fate. But there have been several attempts to improve on the text. Several have repointed the text to get a word parallel to “house.” Ehrlich came up with עֹזֵב (ʿozev, “mud hut”), Kissane had “hovel” (similar to Neh 3:8). M. Dahood did the same (“The Root ʿzb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 306-7). J. Reider came up with עֶזֶב (ʿezev, the “leavings”), what the rich were to leave for the poor (“Contributions to the Scriptural text,” HUCA 24 [1952/53]: 103-6). But an additional root עָזַב (ʿazav) is questionable. And while the text as it stands is general and not very striking, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Dhorme reverses the letters to gain בְּעֹז (b^eʿoz, “with force [or violence]”).