² tc ‡ Two early and significant Greek mss along with two versional witnesses (P⁷⁵ B sy^s ac²) lack ἡ γυνή (hē gunē, “the woman”) here; א* has ἐκείνη (ekeinē, “that one” or possibly “she”) instead of ἡ γυνή. It is possible that no explicit subject was in the autographic text and scribes added either ἡ γυνή or ἐκείνη to make the meaning clear. It is also possible that the archetype of P⁷⁵ א B expunged the subject because it was not altogether necessary, with the scribe of א later adding the pronoun. However, ἡ γυνή is not in doubt in any other introduction to the woman’s words in this chapter (cf. vv. 9, 15, 17, 19, 25), suggesting that intentional deletion was not the motive for the shorter reading in v. 11 (or else why would they delete the words only here?). Thus, the fact that virtually all witnesses (P⁶⁶ א² A C D L W^s Θ Ψ 050 083 086 ƒ^1,13 M latt sy^c,p,h sa bo) have ἡ γυνή here may suggest that it is a motivated reading, conforming this verse to the rest of the pericope. Although a decision is difficult, it is probably best to regard the shorter reading as authentic. NA²⁸ has ἡ γυνή in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity. For English stylistic reasons, the translation also includes “the woman” here.

¹ sn They have no wine left. On the backgrounds of this miracle J. D. M. Derrett pointed out among other things the strong element of reciprocity about weddings in the Ancient Near East. It was possible in certain circumstances to take legal action against the man who failed to provide an appropriate wedding gift. The bridegroom and family here might have been involved in a financial liability for failing to provide adequately for their guests (“Water into Wine,” BZ 7 [1963]: 80-97). Was Mary asking for a miracle? There is no evidence that Jesus had worked any miracles prior to this (although this is an argument from silence). Some think Mary was only reporting the situation, or (as Calvin thought) asking Jesus to give some godly exhortations to the guests and thus relieve the bridegroom’s embarrassment. But the words, and the reply of Jesus in v. 4, seem to imply more. It is not inconceivable that Mary, who had probably been witness to the events of the preceding days, or at least was aware of them, knew that her son’s public career was beginning. She also knew the supernatural events surrounding his birth, and the prophetic words of the angel, and of Simeon and Anna in the temple at Jesus’ dedication. In short, she had good reason to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and now his public ministry had begun. In this kind of context, her request does seem more significant.

³ tc ‡ The alternate readings of some mss make the reference to Jesus’ coming clearer. “Into your kingdom”—with εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν (eis tēn basileian), read by P⁷⁵ B L—is a reference to his entering into God’s presence at the right hand. “In your kingdom”—with ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ (en tē basileia), read by א A C*^,2 W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ^1,13 33 M lat sy—looks at his return. It could be argued that the reading with εἰς is more in keeping with Luke’s theology elsewhere, but the contrast with Jesus’ reply, “Today,” slightly favors the reading “in your kingdom.” Codex Bezae (D), in place of this short interchange between the criminal and Jesus, reads “Then he turned to the Lord and said to him, ‘Remember me in the day of your coming.’ Then the Lord said in reply to [him], ‘Take courage; today you will be with me in paradise.’” This reading emphasizes the future aspect of the coming of Christ; it has virtually no support in any other mss.

² tn Or “desert.” The syntactic position of the phrase “in the wilderness” is unclear in both Luke and the LXX. The MT favors taking it with “Prepare a way,” while the LXX takes it with “a voice shouting.” If the former, the meaning would be that such preparation should be done “in the wilderness.” If the latter, the meaning would be that the place from where John’s ministry went forth was “in the wilderness.” There are Jewish materials that support both renderings: 1QS 8:14 and 9.19-20 support the MT while certain rabbinic texts favor the LXX (see D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 1:290-91). While it is not absolutely necessary that a call in the wilderness led to a response in the wilderness, it is not unlikely that such would be the case. Thus, in the final analysis, the net effect between the two choices may be minimal. In any case, a majority of commentators and translations take “in the wilderness” with “The voice of one shouting” (D. L. Bock; R. H. Stein, Luke [NAC], 129; I. H. Marshall, Luke [NIGTC], 136; NIV, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, REB).

² tc The translation follows most mss, including early and significant ones (א A B L). Some copyists, aware that the purification law applied to women only, produced mss (76 it^pt vg [though the Latin word eius could be either masculine or feminine]) that read “her purification.” But the extant evidence for an unambiguous “her” is shut up to one late minuscule (codex 76) and a couple of patristic citations of dubious worth (Pseudo-Athanasius whose date is unknown, and the Catenae in euangelia Lucae et Joannis, edited by J. A. Cramer. The Catenae is a work of collected patristic sayings whose exact source is unknown [thus, it could come from a period covering hundreds of years]). A few other witnesses (D lat) read “his purification.” The KJV has “her purification,” following Beza’s Greek text (essentially a revision of Erasmus’). Erasmus did not have it in any of his five editions. Most likely Beza put in the feminine form αὐτῆς (autēs) because, recognizing that the eius found in several Latin mss could be read either as a masculine or a feminine, he made the contextually more satisfying choice of the feminine. Perhaps it crept into one or two late Greek witnesses via this interpretive Latin back-translation. So the evidence for the feminine singular is virtually nonexistent, while the masculine singular αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) was a clear scribal blunder. There can be no doubt that “their purification” is the authentic reading.

⁴ sn Several suggestions have been made as to the referent for the phrase the kingdom of God come with power: (1) the transfiguration itself, which immediately follows in the narrative; (2) Jesus’ resurrection and ascension; (3) the coming of the Spirit and the inauguration of the kingdom in the present age; (4) Jesus’ second coming and the final establishment of the kingdom. The reference to after six days in 9:2 seems to some interpreters to indicate that Mark had the transfiguration in mind insofar as it was a substantial prefiguring of the consummation of the kingdom. As such, the transfiguration would have been a tremendous confirmation to the disciples that even though Jesus had just finished speaking of his death (8:31; 9:31; 10:33), he was nonetheless the promised Messiah and things were proceeding according to God’s plan. The major problem with this interpretation is that some standing here…will not experience death seems to suggest that some of the hearers would die before the arrival of the kingdom, yet there is no indication any of Jesus’ hearers died in the six days between the statement here and the transfiguration. This suggests either the coming of the Spirit as the inauguration of the kingdom or the second coming with the ultimate establishment of the kingdom are more likely referents.

¹ tn It seems most likely that this refers to a real rooster crowing, although a number of scholars have suggested that “cockcrow” is a technical term referring to the trumpet call which ended the third watch of the night (from midnight to 3 a.m.). This would then be a reference to the Roman gallicinium (ἀλεκτοροφωνία, alektorophōnia; the term is used in Mark 13:35 and is found in some mss [P^37vid,45 ƒ¹] in Matt 26:34) which would have been sounded at 3 a.m.; in this case Jesus would have prophesied a precise time by which the denials would have taken place. For more details see J. H. Bernard, St. John (ICC), 2:604. However, in light of the fact that Mark mentions the rooster crowing twice (Mark 14:72) and in Luke 22:60 the words are reversed (ἐφώνησεν ἀλέκτωρ, ephōnēsen alektōr), it is more probable that a real rooster is in view. In any event natural cockcrow would have occurred at approximately 3 a.m. in Palestine at this time of year (March-April) anyway.

¹ tc The logic of v. 5 would seem to demand that both father and mother are in view in v. 6. Indeed, the majority of mss (C L N W Γ Δ Θ 0106 ƒ¹ 1424 M) have “or his mother” (ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, ē tēn mētera autou) after “honor his father” here. However, there are significant witnesses that have variations on this theme (καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ [kai tēn mētera autou, “and his mother”] in Φ 565 1241 bo and ἢ τὴν μητέρα [“or mother”] in 073 ƒ¹³ 33 579 700 892), which is usually an indication of a predictable addition to the text rather than an authentic reading. Further, the shorter reading (without any mention of “mother”) is found in early and significant witnesses (א B D a e sy^c sa). Although it is possible that the shorter reading came about accidentally (due to the repetition of—ερα αὐτοῦ), the evidence more strongly suggests that the longer readings were intentional scribal alterations.

¹ tc There are three significant variant readings at this point in the text. Some mss and versional witnesses (Θ ƒ¹³ it) read, “Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary, being betrothed, bore Jesus, who is called Christ.” This reading makes even more explicit than the feminine pronoun (see sn below) the virginal conception of Jesus and as such seems to be a motivated reading. The Sinaitic Syriac ms alone indicates that Joseph was the father of Jesus (“Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ”). Although much discussed, this reading has not been found in any Greek witnesses. B. M. Metzger suggests that it was produced by a careless scribe who simply reproduced the set formula of the preceding lines in the genealogy (TCGNT 6). In all likelihood, the two competing variants were thus produced by intentional and unintentional scribal alterations respectively. The reading adopted in the translation has overwhelming support from a variety of witnesses (P¹ א B C L W Γ [ƒ¹] 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M co), and therefore should be regarded as authentic. For a detailed discussion of this textual problem, see TCGNT 2-6.

⁵ tn The term אֻמְלַל (ʾumlal, “withers”) occurs twice in this verse in MT. The repetition of אֻמְלַל is also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The BHS editors suggest emending the first occurrence of אֻמְלַל (“withers”) to דָּלְלוּ (dal^elu, “languishes”) to recover the letter ד (dalet) in the partial acrostic. Several versions do, in fact, employ two different verbs in the line (LXX, Syr, Targum, and Vg). However, the first verb at the beginning of the line in all of the versions reflects a reading of אֻמְלַל. Although several elements of an acrostic are present in Nahum 1, the acrostic is incomplete (only א [alef] to כ [kaf] in vv. 2-8) and broken (several elements are missing within vv. 2-8). There is no textual evidence for a complete, unbroken acrostic throughout the book of Nahum in any ancient Hebrew mss or other textual versions; it is most prudent simply to leave the MT as it stands.

⁴ tn Heb “Those among men who offer sacrifices.” The genitive construct זֹבְחֵי אָדָם (zovkhe ʾadam, “the sacrificers of men”) is misunderstood by NIV as an objective genitive phrase: “they offer human sacrifice.” Such a classification is questionable: (1) nowhere else in the book does Hosea accuse Israel of human sacrifice, and (2) archaeological evidence does not provide any evidence of human sacrifice in the Northern Kingdom during Iron Age I (1200-722 b.c.). This phrase should be classified as a genitive of species: the genitive represents the whole class or kind of a species (men). The construct represents a part of the whole or subspecies within the whole (those who sacrifice): “those among men who offer sacrifice” (those who offer sacrifices). The expression “a fool of men” in Prov 15:20 provides a similar example. The genitive represents the whole class/species (men), and the construct represents a part of the whole/subspecies (a fool): “a foolish man.” This is the tactic adopted by most English versions: “the men that sacrifice” (KJV), “the men who sacrifice” (NASB), and “they appoint men to sacrifice [to them]” (NJPS).

⁵ tc The MT reads, “[in] all my gains, they will not find guilt in me that would be sin.” The LXX reflects a Hebrew Vorlage that would be translated, “in all his labors, he cannot offset his guilt that is sin.” Some translations follow the LXX: “but all his riches can never offset the guilt he has incurred” (RSV), “None of his gains shall atone for the guilt of his sins” (NEB), and “All his gain shall not suffice him for the guilt of his sin” (NAB). Most follow the MT: “In all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin” (KJV); “In all my labors they will find in me no iniquity, which would be sin” (NASB); “With all my wealth they will not find in me any iniquity or sin” (NIV); “All my gains do not amount to an offense which is real guilt” (NJPS); “No one can accuse us of getting rich dishonestly” (TEV); and “I earned it all on my own, without committing a sin” (CEV). See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:262-63.

¹ tn The word גִּלּוּלִים (gillulim) refers to idols with contempt. Thirty-nine of its forty-eight biblical occurrences are found in Ezekiel. It may be related to either of two roots (גלל; gll). The more common root (1-גלל) is concerned with rolling and round things, producing words like “wheel,” “bowl,” “skull,” “heap of stones,” and “dung.” The other root (2-גלל) means “to be soiled.” A possible cognate in Babylonian (gullultu) refers to a “misdeed, crime, sin” (CAD G, 131; see also gullulu, “to sin”). The pejorative use of the term may come from one of several possibilities. The basic cylindrical shape of many idols lends itself to a term from 1-גלל. As a pejorative it may be emphasizing that idols are simply blocks of wood (cf. Isa 44:19). It has also been suggested that the term plays off of the word for dung, גֵּל (gel), as little round things. Possibly it is related to 2-גלל with overtones of being soiled. Some relation to the Babylonian word would also suit a pejorative and may have been intended by Ezekiel as he prophesied in a Babylonian context. In any case the word carries a negative connotation.

¹ tn The verb סָלַה (salah) occurs only twice in OT, once in Qal (Ps 119:118) and once here in Piel. It is possibly a by-form of סָלַל (salal, “to heap up”). It may also be related to Aramaic סלא (slʾ), meaning “to throw away,” and Assyrian salu/shalu, meaning “to hurl (away)” (AHw 1152) or “to kick up dust, shoot (arrows), reject, throw away?” (CAD 17:272). With people as its object shalu is used of people casting away their children, specifically meaning selling them on the market. The LXX translates סָלַה (salah) as ἐξῆρεν (exēren, “to remove, lead away”). Thus God is either (1) heaping them up (dead) in the city square, (2) putting them up for sale in the city square, or (3) leading them out of the city (into exile or to deprive it of defenders prior to attack). The English “round up” could accommodate any of these and is also a cattle term, which fits well with the use of the word “bulls” (see following note).

¹ tn The meaning and the derivation of the word translated “false prophets” is uncertain. The same word appears in conjunction with the word for “diviners” in Isa 44:25, and probably also in Hos 11:6 in conjunction with the sword consuming them “because of their counsel.” BDB 95 s.v. III בַּד b sees this as a substitution of “empty talk” for “empty talkers” (the figure of metonymy) and refers to them as false prophets. KBL 108 s.v. II בַּד emends the form in both places to read בָּרִים (barim) in place of בַּדִּים (baddim), and defines the word on the basis of Akkadian to mean “soothsayer” (KBL 146 s.v. V בָּר). HALOT 105 s.v. V בַּד retains the pointing, derives it from an Amorite word found in the Mari letters, and defines it as “oracle priest.” However, G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 368) call this identification into question because the word only occurs in one letter from Mari, and its meaning is uncertain there. It is hazardous to emend the text in two places, perhaps even three, in light of no textual evidence in any of the passages, and to define the word on the basis of an uncertain parallel. Hence the present translation opts here for the derivation and extended definition given in BDB.

¹ tn Or “Their children and relatives will all be destroyed. And none of their neighbors will say, ‘Leave your orphans with me, and I’ll keep them alive. Your widows can trust in me.’” This latter interpretation is based on a reading in a couple of the Greek versions (Symmachus and Lucian) and is accepted by several modern commentaries (J. Bright, J. A. Thompson, W. L. Holladay, and G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers). However, the majority of modern English versions do not follow it, and, lacking any other Hebrew or versional evidence, it is probably an interpretation to deal with the mitigation of what seems a prophecy of utter annihilation. There have been other cases in Jeremiah where a universal affirmation (either positive or negative) has been modified in the verses that follow. The verb in the second line תִּבְטָחוּ (tivtakhu) is highly unusual; it is a second masculine plural form with a feminine plural subject. The form is explained in GKC 127-28 §47.k and 160-61 §60.a, n. 1 as a pausal substitution for the normal form תִּבְטַחְנָה (tivtakhnah), with a similar form in Ezek 37:7 cited as a parallel.

² sn Moab was a country east of the Dead Sea whose boundaries varied greatly over time. Basically, it was the tableland between the Arnon River, about halfway up the Dead Sea, and the Zered River, which is roughly at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites entered Palestine, they were forbidden to take any of the Moabite territory, but they did capture the kingdom of Sihon north of the Arnon, which Sihon had taken from Moab. Several of the towns mentioned in the oracles of judgment against Moab here are in this territory north of the Arnon and were assigned to Reuben and Gad. Several are mentioned on the famous Moabite Stone, which details how Mesha king of Moab recovered from Israel many of these cities during the reign of Joram (852-841 b.c.; cf. 2 Kgs 3:4-5). It is usually assumed that Moab submitted to Nebuchadnezzar after the battle of Carchemish and that it remained loyal to him throughout most of this period, though representatives were present at Jerusalem in 594 b.c. when plans for revolt were apparently being discussed (Jer 27:3). Moabite contingents were used by Nebuchadnezzar in 598 b.c. to harass Jehoiakim after he rebelled (2 Kgs 24:2), so they must have remained loyal at that time. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Moab in 582 b.c. and destroyed many of its cities.

¹ tc The translation here follows the reading of the Greek version. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain; some understand it to mean “because of Gedaliah [i.e., to cover up the affair with Gedaliah],” and others understand it to mean “alongside of Gedaliah.” The translation presupposes that the Hebrew text reads בּוֹר גָּדוֹל הוּא (bor gadol huʾ) in place of בְּיַד גְּדַלְיָהוּ הוּא (b^eyad g^edalyahu huʾ). The meaning of בְּיַד (b^eyad) does not fit any of the normal ones given for this expression, and those who retain the Hebrew text normally explain it as an unparalleled use of “because” or “in the affair of” (so NJPS), or as a rare use meaning “near, by the side of “ (see BDB 391 s.v. יָד 5.d, where only Ps 141:6 and Zech 4:12 are cited). BDB suggests reading with the Greek version, as the present translation does (so BDB 391 s.v. יָד 5.c[3]). For the syntax presupposed by the Greek text that has been followed, consult IBHS 298 §16.3.3d and 133 §8.4.2b. The first clause is a classifying clause with normal order of subject-predicate-copulative pronoun, and it is followed by a further qualifying relative clause.

² tc The reading here is based on an emendation following the parallels in Jer 52:13 and 2 Kgs 25:9. The Hebrew text here does not have “the temple of the Lord” and reads merely “house of the people.” The text here is probably corrupt. It reads וְאֶת בֵּית הָעָם (v^eʾet bet haʿam, “and the house of the people”), which many explain as a collective use of בַּיִת (bayit). However, no parallels are cited by any of the commentaries, grammars, or lexicons for such a use. It is more likely that the words יְהוָה וְאֶת־בָּתֵּי (y^ehvah v^eʾet bate) have fallen out of the text due to similar beginnings. The words וְאֶת בֵּית יהוה (v^eʾet bet yhwh) are found in the parallel texts cited above. The Greek version is no help here because vv. 4-13 are omitted, probably due to the similarities in ending of vv. 3 and 13 (i.e., homoioteleuton of מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל, melekh bavel).

² tn There is a little confusion in the syntax of this section because the nominal phrase “the calf” does not have any accompanying conjunction or preposition to show how it relates to the rest of the sentence. KJV treats it and the following words as though they were a temporal clause modifying “covenant which they made.” The majority of modern English versions and commentaries, however, understand it as a second accusative after the verb + object “I will make the men.” This fits under the category of what GKC 375 §118.r calls an accusative of comparison (compare usage in Isa 21:8; Zech 2:8). Stated baldly, it reads, “I will make the people…the calf.” This is more forceful than the formal use of the noun + preposition כּ (kaf; “like”), just as metaphors are generally more forceful than similes. The whole verse is one long, complex sentence in Hebrew: “I will make the men who broke my covenant [referring to the Mosaic covenant containing the stipulation to free slaves after six years] [and] who did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me [referring to their agreement to free their slaves] [like] the calf which they cut in two and passed between its pieces.” The sentence has been broken down into shorter sentences in conformity with contemporary English style.