¹ tc Most later mss (M), along with several versional witnesses, have θεόν (theon, “God”) here instead of κύριον (kurion, “Lord”). Such is a predictable variant since nowhere else in the NT is God described as “Lord and Father,” but he is called “God and Father” on several occasions. Further, the reading κύριον is well supported by early and diversified witnesses (P²⁰ א A B C P Ψ 33 81 945 1241 1739), rendering it as the overwhelmingly preferred reading.

¹ tc Most later mss (L 0281 565 579 700 1241 M lat) have here ὥρᾳ (hōra, “hour”) instead of ἡμέρα (hēmera, “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 ƒ¹³ 33 892 1424, as well as several versions and fathers), the more general term is surely correct.

¹ tn For the meaning “multitude” here rather than “tumult,” see BDB 242 s.v. הָמוֹן 3.c, which says that this refers to a great throng of people under the figure of an overwhelming mass of waves. The word is used of a multitude of soldiers, or a vast army, in 1 Sam 14:16 and 1 Kgs 20:13, 18 (cf. BDB 242 s.v. הָמוֹן 3.a for further references).

² tn Some commentators wish to change this to “his mouth,” meaning God’s response to Job’s complaints. But the MT is far more expressive, and “my mouth” fits the context in which Job is saying that even though he is innocent, if he spoke in a court setting in the presence of God he would be overwhelmed, confused, and no doubt condemn himself.

¹ sn Those who curse the day are probably the professional enchanters and magicians who were thought to cast spells on days and overwhelm them with darkness and misfortune. The myths explained eclipses as the dragon throwing its folds around the sun and the moon, thus engulfing or swallowing the day and the night. This interpretation matches the parallelism better than the interpretation that says these are merely professional mourners.

¹ tc Most mss (א A C D² F G Ψ 0278 1175 1241 1505 2464 M al) have the plural τύπους (tupous, “examples”) here, while a few significant witnesses have the singular τύπον (tupon, “example”; B D*^,c 6 33 81 104 1739 1881 lat). With ὑμᾶς (humas, “you”) immediately preceding, the plural form looks motivated: Scribes would be expected to change the singular to the plural here. Although the external evidence for the singular reading is not overwhelming, the internal evidence for it is compelling.

⁴ sn Men wait eagerly for the dew and the rain, not vice versa. Just as the dew and rain are subject to the Lord, not men, so the remnant of Israel will succeed by the supernatural power of God and not need the support of other nations. There may even be a military metaphor here. Israel will overwhelm their enemies, just as the dew completely covers the grass (see 2 Sam 17:12). This interpretation would be consistent with the image of v. 7.

¹ tn Heb “you bring them to an end [with] sleep.” The Hebrew verb זָרַם (zaram) has traditionally been taken to mean “flood” or “overwhelm” (note the Polel form of a root זרם in Ps 77:17, where the verb is used of the clouds pouring down rain). However, the verb form here is Qal, not Polel, and is better understood as a homonym meaning “to make an end [of life].” The term שֵׁנָה (shenah, “sleep”) can be taken as an adverbial accusative; it is a euphemism here for death (see Ps 76:5-6).

⁴ sn You overwhelm them with the riches they desire. The psalmist is not accusing God of being unjust; he is simply observing that the wicked often prosper and that God is the ultimate source of all blessings that human beings enjoy (see Matt 5:45). When the wicked are ungrateful for God’s blessings, they become even more culpable and deserving of judgment. So this description of the wicked actually supports the psalmist’s appeal for deliverance. God should rescue him because he is innocent (see vv. 3-5) and because the wicked, though blessed abundantly by God, still have the audacity to attack God’s people.

⁵ tn The second colon now refers to people in general because of the plural construct מָרֵי נָפֶשׁ (mare nafesh, “those bitter of soul/life”). One may recall the use of מָרָה (marah, “bitter”) by Naomi to describe her pained experience as a poor widow in Ruth 1:20, or the use of the word to describe the bitter oppression inflicted on Israel by the Egyptians (Exod 1:14). Those who are “bitter of soul” are those whose life is overwhelmed with painful experiences and suffering.

¹ tc A two-letter difference in Greek creates two quite diverse readings: πάντες (pantes, nominative plural in “you all know”) is read by א B P Ψ 1852 sy sa; A C 049 5 33 81 436 1175 1243 1611 1735 1739 1881 2344 2492 M latt bo have the accusative πάντα (panta, “you know all things”). The external evidence favors the nominative reading, but it is not overwhelming. The internal evidence is more compelling in favor of the nominative. Scribes would naturally tend to give the transitive verb a direct object, especially because of the parallel in the first half of the verse. And intrinsically, the argument seems to be in balance with v. 19: The “all” who have gone out and are not “in the know” with the “all” who have an anointing and know that they are true believers. Further, as R. E. Brown points out, “the fact of their knowledge (pantes), not the extent of its object (panta), seems best to fit the reassurance” (Epistles of John [AB], 349). Brown further points out the connection with the new covenant in Jer 31 with this section of 1 John, esp. Jer 31:34—“they all [pantes] shall know me.” Since 1 John alludes to Jer 31, without directly quoting it, this is all the more reason to see the nominative as autographic: Allusions are often overlooked by scribes (transcriptional evidence), but support the intrinsic evidence. Thus, the evidence is solidly, though not overwhelmingly, behind the nominative reading.

⁴ tc There are at least a dozen variants here, almost surely generated by the unusual wording τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ (tou theou, Christou, “of God, [namely,] Christ”; so P⁴⁶ B Hil). Scribes would be prone to conform this to more common Pauline expressions such as “of God, who is in Christ” (33), “of God, the Father of Christ” (א* A C 048^vid 1175 bo), and “of the God and Father of Christ” (א² Ψ 365 945 1505). Several witnesses, especially later Byzantines, read “of the God and Father, and of Christ” (D² K L 075 [0208 0278] M). Even though the external support for the wording τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ is hardly overwhelming, it clearly best explains the rise of the other readings and should thus be regarded as authentic.

¹ tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou haimatos autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule mss (614 630 1505 2464) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 M latt co as well as several other versions and fathers. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

⁵ tc A few significant mss (P^46c B D* it sa) lack γάρ (gar, “for”), while the majority of witnesses have it (א C D¹ F G Ψ 0243 33 1739 1881 M sy bo). Even though P^46* omits γάρ, it has the same sense (viz., a subordinate clause) because it reads the participle βλέπων (blepōn, “seeing”; the Vulgate does the same). A decision is difficult because although the overwhelming external evidence is on the side of the conjunction, the lack of γάρ is a significantly harder reading, for the whole clause is something of an anacoluthon. Without the conjunction, the sentence reads more harshly. This would fit with Paul’s “vehemence of spirit” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 435) that is found especially in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. However, the mss that omit the conjunction are prone to such tendencies at times. In this instance, the conjunction should probably stand.

¹ tc ‡ The words “to God” are absent from some mss (B F G 6 630 1739 1881) but are found in א A C D Ψ 0209 33 1175 1241 1505 M lat sy co. External evidence somewhat favors their inclusion since Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine mss are well represented. From an internal standpoint, however, it is easy to see the words as a scribal gloss intended to clarify the referent, especially as a reinforcement to the quotation of Isa 45:23 in v. 11. Not only that, but the abrupt ending of the verse without “to God” is harsh, both in Greek and in English. In this instance, the internal considerations seem overwhelming on the side of the omission. At the same time, English stylistic needs require the words and they have been put into the translation, even though they are most likely not original. NA²⁸ places the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

² tc Most witnesses (C Γ Δ Θ 0102 ƒ^1,13 700 1241 1424 M) have “and plagues” (καὶ λοιμοί, kai loimoi) between “famines” (λιμοί, limoi) and “earthquakes” (σεισμοί, seismoi), while others have “plagues and famines and earthquakes” (L W 33 lat). The similarities between λιμοί and λοιμοί could explain how καὶ λοιμοί might have accidentally dropped out, but since the Lukan parallel (Luke 21:11) has both terms (and W lat have the order λοιμοὶ καὶ λιμοί there too, as they do in Matthew), it seems more likely that scribes added the phrase here. The shorter reading does not enjoy overwhelming support ([א] B D 892 sa, and other Greek and versional witnesses), but it is nevertheless significant; coupled with the internal evidence it should be given preference.

⁸ sn The phrase trickle away is an example of a hypocatastasis (implied comparison); Nahum compares the destruction of the mighty Assyrians with the trickling away of once high waters. This imagery has strong rhetorical impact because the Assyrians often boasted that they overwhelmed their enemies like a flood. It is ironic then that they would soon dwindle away to a mere trickle! This is also an appropriate image in the light of the historical destruction of Nineveh through the use of flood waters, as predicted by the prophet (Nah 2:7-9) and recorded by ancient historians (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2.26-27; Xenophon, Anabasis 3.4.12; also see P. Haupt, “Xenophon’s Account of the Fall of Nineveh,” JAOS 28 [1907]: 99-107).

¹ sn The streams in the arid south. Y. Aharoni writes of the streams in the Negev: “These usually dry wadis collect water on rainy days from vast areas. The situation is also aggravated by floods from the desert mountains and southern Judah. For a day or two or, more frequently, for only a few hours they turn into dangerous torrents” (Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 26). God’s people were experiencing a “dry season” after a time of past blessing; they pray here for a “flash flood” of his renewed blessing. This does not imply that they are requesting only a brief display of God’s blessing. Rather the point of comparison is the suddenness with which the wadis swell during a rain, as well as the depth and power of these raging waters. The community desires a sudden display of divine favor in which God overwhelms them with blessings.

³ tn The form is the Qal imperfect of the verb “answer.” As the text stands, Job is saying that he cannot answer or could not answer (contend with) God if given a chance. Some commentators think a Niphal fits better here: “I am not answered,” meaning God does not reply to him. This has the LXX, the Syriac, and Theodotion in support of it. The advantage would be to avoid the repetition of the same word from v. 14. But others rightly reject this because all Job is saying here is that he would be too overwhelmed by God to answer him in court. The LXX change to a passive is understandable in that it would be seeking a different idea in this verse and without vocalization might have assumed a passive voice here.

² sn Sarah will have a son. The passage brings God’s promise into clear focus. As long as it was a promise for the future, it really could be believed without much involvement. But now, when it seemed so impossible from the human standpoint, when the Lord fixed an exact date for the birth of the child, the promise became rather overwhelming to Abraham and Sarah. But then this was the Lord of creation, the one they had come to trust. The point of these narratives is that the creation of Abraham’s offspring, which eventually became Israel, is no less a miraculous work of creation than the creation of the world itself.