¹ sn The statement the truth will set you free is often taken as referring to truth in the philosophical (or absolute) sense, or in the intellectual sense, or even (as the Jews apparently took it) in the political sense. In the context of John’s Gospel (particularly in light of the prologue) this must refer to truth about the person and work of Jesus. It is saving truth. As L. Morris says, “it is the truth which saves men from the darkness of sin, not that which saves them from the darkness of error (though there is a sense in which men in Christ are delivered from gross error)” (John [NICNT], 457).

² tn Grk “reveal this to you.” The referent of the pronoun “this” is the fact that the person is thinking differently than Paul does. This has been specified in the translation with the phrase “the error of your ways”; Paul is stating that God will make it known to these believers when they are not in agreement with Paul.

¹ tc A few isolated witnesses omit v. 8 (D sy^s), part of v. 8 (P⁷⁵), or vv. 7-8 ({0250}). The latter two omissions are surely due to errors of sight, while the former can be attributed to D’s sometimes erratic behavior. The verse is secure in light of the overwhelming evidence on its behalf.

¹ tn Heb “his.” This should not be viewed as a textual error but as a distributive singular use of the suffix, i.e., the wives of each of the kings of Judah (cf. GKC 464 §145.l and the usage in Isa 2:8 and Hos 4:8).

³ sn Heb “a scribe’s razor.” There is some irony involved here since a scribe’s razor normally trimmed the sheets to be sewn together, scraped them in preparation for writing, and erased errors. What was normally used to prepare the scroll served to destroy it.

⁴ tn Heb “you have spoken.” The text here דַּבֶּרְכֶם (dabber^ekhem, “you have spoken”) is either a case of a scribal error for דַּבֶּרָם (dabberam, “their speaking”; preceding יַעַן [ya‘an] would function as a preposition meaning “because of”) or an example of the rapid shift in addressee which is common in Jeremiah.

² tc The Hebrew text has חָדֶל (khadel), which appears to be derived from a verbal root meaning “to cease, refrain.” But the form has probably suffered an error of transmission; the original form (attested in a few medieval Hebrew mss) was likely חֶלֶד (kheled, “world”).

⁴ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “he despises cities.” The term עָרִים (ʿarim, “cities”) probably needs to be emended to an original עֵדִים (ʿedim, “[legal] witnesses”), a reading that is preserved in the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a. Confusion of dalet (ד) and resh (ר) is a well-attested scribal error.

³ sn In this verse Job asks whether or not God is liable to making mistakes or errors of judgment. He wonders if God has no more insight than his friends have. Of course, the questions are rhetorical, for he knows otherwise. But his point is that God seems to be making a big mistake here.

¹ tn The LXX of this verse offers special problems. It reads, “But if there had been any truth in your words, none of these evils would have fallen upon you; shall not my ear receive excellent [information] from him?” The major error involves a dittography from the word for “secret,” yielding “truth.”

¹ sn The list of names and numbers in this chapter of Ezra has a parallel account in Neh 7:6-73. The fact that the two lists do not always agree in specific details suggests that various textual errors have crept into the accounts during the transmission process.

³ tc Heb “in it he walked.” The singular verb (הָלַךְ, halakh) is probably due to an error of haplography and should be emended to the plural (הָלְכוּ, hal^ekhu). Note that a vav immediately follows (on the form וְגַם, v^egam).

¹ tc The Hebrew text has simply “the Lord God of Israel.” On the basis of the Syriac version, many reconstruct the text to read “[is] my witness,” which may have fallen out of the text by homoioarcton (an error which is entirely possible if עֵד (ʿed, “witness,”) immediately followed דָּוִד, “David,” in the original text).

³ tc The translation follows the ancient versions in reading “choose,” (from the root בָּחַר, bakhar), rather than the MT. The verb in MT (בָּרָה, barah) elsewhere means “to eat food”; the sense of “to choose,” required here by the context, is not attested for this root. The MT apparently reflects an early scribal error.

¹ tc The MT as it stands has a singular noun, but if one moves the prefixed mem (מ) from the beginning of the next word to the end of סוּס (sus), the expected plural form is achieved. Another possibility is to understand an error of scribal haplography here, in which case the letter mem should appear in both places.

² tc The form נִשְׁתָּוָה (nishtavah) may be a rare Nitpael form or a scribal error for the Niphal of the root שָׁוָה (shavah, “to be like, comparable to.” BDB classifies it as a Nitpael perfect from (BDB 1001 s.v. I שָׁוָה) with metathesis before the sibilant, a phonetic factor also known in the Hitpael. HALOT suggests that the metathesis is a scribal error such that the form should be נִשְׁוָתָה (nishvatah), a standard Niphal perfect third feminine singular. Either form should be understood with a reflexive meaning. She “makes herself like” an annoying dripping. The LXX concocts a further illustration: “Drops drive a man out of his house on a wintry day; so a railing woman also drives him out of his own house.”

³ tc The reading “set free” (λύσαντι, lusanti) has better ms support (P¹⁸ א A C 1611 2050 2329 2351 M^A sy) than its rival, λούσαντι (lousanti, “washed”; found in P 1006 1841 1854 2053 2062 M^K lat bo). Internally, it seems that the reading “washed” could have arisen in at least one of three ways: (1) as an error of hearing (both “released” and “washed” are pronounced similarly in Greek); (2) an error of sight (both “released” and “washed” look very similar—a difference of only one letter—which could have resulted in a simple error during the copying of a ms); (3) through scribal inability to appreciate that the Hebrew preposition ב can be used with a noun to indicate the price paid for something. Since the author of Revelation is influenced significantly by a Semitic form of Greek (e.g., 13:10), and since the Hebrew preposition “in” (ב) can indicate the price paid for something, and is often translated with the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) in the LXX, the author may have tried to communicate by the use of ἐν the idea of a price paid for something. That is, John was trying to say that Christ delivered us at the price of his own blood. This whole process, however, may have been lost on a later scribe, who being unfamiliar with Hebrew, found the expression “delivered in his blood” too difficult, and noticing the obvious similarities between λύσαντι and λούσαντι, assumed an error and then proceeded to change the text to “washed in his blood”—a thought more tolerable in his mind. Both readings, of course, are true to scripture; the current question is what the author wrote in this verse.

⁵ tc Heb “their sins.” The LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate read “our sins.” The shape of the letters in the first person plural suffix נו (nun and vav) look very much like ם (a final mem), which makes the third person plural suffix. Confusing the two is not an uncommon copying error. It may also be an enclitic ם rather than a pronominal suffix. In that case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.

⁴ tc The MT reads “like the light” (כָאֹר, khaʾor; note this term also appears in v. 9), which is commonly understood to be an error for “like the Nile” (כִּיאוֹר, kiʾor). See the parallel line and Amos 9:5. The word “River” is supplied in the translation for clarity. If this emendation is correct, in the Hebrew of Amos “Nile” is actually spelled three slightly different ways.

¹ tc Heb “Does one plow with oxen?” This obviously does not fit the parallelism, for the preceding rhetorical question requires the answer, “Of course not!” An error of fusion has occurred in the Hebrew, with the word יָם (yam, “sea”) being accidentally added as a plural ending to the collective noun בָּקָר (baqar, “oxen”). A proper division of the consonants produces the above translation, which fits the parallelism and also anticipates the answer, “Of course not!”