³ tn Heb “knives.” The Hebrew noun מַחֲלָפִים (makhalafim, “knives”) is found only here in the OT. While the basic meaning of the term is fairly clear, what it refers to here is unclear. The verb II חָלַף (khalaf) means “to pass through” (BDB 322 s.v. חָלַף) or “to cut through” (HALOT 321 s.v. II חלף; see also Judg 5:26; Job 20:24); thus, the lexicons suggest מַחֲלָפִים means “knives” (BDB 322 s.v. מַחֲלָף; HALOT 569 s.v. *מַחֲלָף). The related noun חֲלָפוֹת (khalafot, “knife”) is used in Mishnaic Hebrew (HALOT 321 s.v. II חלף), and חֲלִיפוֹת (khalifot, “knives”) appears in the Talmud. The noun appears in the cognate languages: Ugaritic khlpnm “(“knives”; UT 19) and Syriac khalofta (“shearing knife”; HALOT 321 s.v. II חלף). The Vulgate translated it as “knives,” while the LXX understood it as referring to replacement pieces for the offering basins. The English translations render it variously; some following the Vulgate and others adopting the approach of the LXX: “knives” (KJV, NKJV, NRSV), “censers” (RSV), “duplicates” (NASB), “silver pans” (NIV), “bowls” (TEV), “other dishes” (CEV). Verse 11 lists these twenty-nine objects among the “gold and silver vessels” brought back to Jerusalem for temple worship. The translation above offers the intentionally ambiguous “silver utensils” (the term מַחֲלָפִים [“knives”] would hardly refer to “gold” items, but could refer to “silver items”).

¹ tn Here the word אִם (ʾim, “if only”) begins an oath formula (see HALOT 60 s.v. and GKC 151e, 159dd, 167a). A full reporting of the oath would include both the request made of God and the promise made to God (cf. Gen 28:20; Num 21:2; Judg 11:30; 1 Sam 1:11; 2 Sam 15:8; Ps 81:9-14). Jabez’ promise is not recorded here, only that God granted his request. Perhaps Jabez’ vow in return had not been preserved by tradition and so the author could not include it, or perhaps those details were simply less important to the purpose of the book. Likely the author wants to emphasize to the post-exilic community (the original audience of the book) that God answers prayer, including concerns for their borders. That God granted his request implies that Jabez was faithful to his vow, so that his destiny was different than the expectation arising from his namesake. This should challenge the audience to consider their own faithfulness to God.

² tn Heb “him and his nurse in an inner room of beds.” The verb is missing in the Hebrew text. The parallel passage in 2 Chr 22:11 has “and she put” at the beginning of the clause. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (II Kings [AB], 126) regard the Chronicles passage as an editorial attempt to clarify the difficulty of the original text. They prefer to take “him and his nurse” as objects of the verb “stole” and understand “in the bedroom” as the place where the royal descendants were executed. The phrase בַּחֲדַר הַמִּטּוֹת (bakhadar hammittot), “an inner room of beds,” is sometimes understood as referring to a bedroom (HALOT 293 s.v. חֶדֶר), though some prefer to see here a “room where the covers and cloths were kept” for the beds (HALOT 573 s.v. מִטָּת). In either case, it may have been a temporary hideout, for v. 3 indicates that the child hid at the temple for six years.

¹ tc The consonantal text (Kethib) reads, “Go, say, ‘Surely you will not (לֹא, loʾ) live.’” In this case the vav beginning the next clause could be translated “for” or “because.” The reading tradition (Qere) has, “Go, say to him (לוֹ, lo), ‘You will surely recover.’” In this case the vav (ו) beginning the next clause would be translated “although” or “but.” The Qere has the support of some medieval Hebrew mss and the ancient versions, and is consistent with v. 14, where Hazael tells the king, “You will surely recover.” It also fits the immediate context. The sentence “you will live,” to be told to Ben Hadad and meaning to recover from the sickness contrasts telling Hazael that Ben Hadad will die. The missing component is the means of Ban Hadad’s death. So Elisha looks at Hazael until he is embarrassed because as a prophet he knows that Hazael will kill Ben Hadad (not the sickness). It is possible that a scribe has changed לוֹ, “to him,” to לֹא, “not,” because he felt that Elisha would not lie to the king. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 90. But it is possible that Hazael, once he found out he would become the next king, decided to lie to the king to facilitate his assassination plot by making the king feel secure.

¹ tc The parallel text in Ps 18:12 reads “from the brightness in front of him his clouds came, hail and coals of fire.” The Lucianic family of texts within the Greek tradition of 2 Sam 22:13 seems to assume the underlying Hebrew text: מִנֹּגַהּ נֶגְדּוֹ עָבְרוּ בָּרָד וְגַחֲלֵי אֵשׁ (minnogah negdo ʿav^eru barad v^egakhale ʾesh, “from the brightness in front of him came hail and coals of fire”) which is the basis for the present translation. The textual situation is perplexing and the identity of the original text uncertain. The verbs עָבְרוּ (ʿav^eru; Ps 18:12) and בָּעֲרוּ (baʿaru, 2 Sam 22:13) appear to be variants involving a transposition of the first two letters. The noun עָבָיו (ʿavayv, “his clouds”; Ps 18:12) may be virtually dittographic (note the following עָבְרוּ), or it could have accidentally dropped from the text of 2 Sam 22:13 by virtual haplography (note the preceding בָּעֲרוּ [baʿaru], which might have originally read עָבְרוּ). The term בָּרָד (barad, “hail”; Ps 18:12) may be virtually dittographic (note the preceding עָבְרוּ), or it could have dropped from 2 Sam 22:13 by virtual haplography (note the preceding בָּעֲרוּ, which might have originally read עָבְרוּ). For a fuller discussion of the text, see R. B. Chisholm, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983), 74-76.

² sn The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually suspect. The Chronicles text appears to have misread “Bethlehemite” (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (ʾet lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text appears to have misread the word for “brother” (אַח, ʾakh) as the accusative sign (אֵת, ʾet), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”

¹ sn Hebrew has more than one word for foreigners. Since the Amalekites were obviously not Israelites and were “inhabitants of the land” (1 Sam 27:8), adding the description ger (גֵּר) must carry more significance than just “foreigner” and “resident.” In Mosaic Law the ger (גֵּר) could join the covenant, be circumcised, offer sacrifices to the Lord, celebrate the festivals with Israel, were given equal protection under the law, and received some social welfare along with the Levites. (See notes at Exod 12:19 and Deut 29:11.) These ger (גֵּר) appear to be converts or naturalized citizens with minimally different rights (they could not own land, just houses). The young man is probably positioning himself as someone loyal to Israel, consistent the description that he came from the camp of Saul/Israel (vss 2-3). He certainly would not want to be considered one of the Amalekites that David had just fought against (vs 1). This may also explain David’s expectation that he should know better than to slay the Lord’s anointed (as Saul’s armor-bearer would not do in the true account in 1 Sam 31:4).

² sn Here it appears that the acquisition of Ruth along with the land was an obligatory package deal (“When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth…”). On the other hand, Boaz viewed marriage to Ruth as voluntary in 3:13 (“If he does not want to redeem you, I will redeem you”), and presented the acquisition of the field as voluntary in 4:4 (“If you want to exercise your right…but if not, tell me!”). Initially, Boaz makes the transaction appear to be a mere land deal in 4:4. When the nearest relative jumped at the land offer, Boaz confronted him with the attendant social/family obligation of marrying Ruth to raise up an heir for the deceased to inherit this very land. By conducting the transaction in public where the close relative would need to save face, Boaz forced him either to reject the offer entirely or to include Ruth in the deal—but he could not take the land and reject Ruth. Either way, Ruth would be cared for and Elimelech’s line continued. But if he took Ruth, the acquisition of the land would be more economically burdensome than beneficial, so he yielded his purchase option to Boaz. For discussion, see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 229-33.

⁵ tc The MT (Kethib) reads קָנִיתִי (qaniti, “I acquire,” Qal perfect first person common singular): “When you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, I acquire Ruth the Moabitess….” However, the marginal reading (Qere) is קָנִיתָה (qanitah, “you acquire,” Qal perfect second person masculine singular, reflected in second person masculine singular forms in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac): “When you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess…” The Qere is probably original because the Kethib is too difficult syntactically and contextually, while the Qere makes perfect sense: (1) Boaz stated in 3:13 that the nearest kinsman had the first right to acquire Ruth if he wanted to do so, and only the Qere reading here presents him with that option; and (2) Boaz announces in 4:9-10 that he was acquiring the field and Ruth as a package deal in 4:9-10, and only the Qere reading here presents the nearest kinsman with the same package deal. The Kethib probably arose by a scribe trying to harmonize 4:5 with the first person common singular form in 4:9-10 without fully understanding the ploy of Boaz in 4:5. See F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 216-17.

⁴ tc The MT וּמֵאֵת (umeʾet) may be understood in two ways: (1) “and from” (vav conjunction “and,” plus preposition מִן [min] “from,” plus definite direct object marker אֵת) parallel to the preceding מִיַד (miyyad, “from [the hand of]”), suggesting the field would be purchased from Naomi and from Ruth; or (2) “and” (vav [ו] conjunction “and,” plus enclitic mem [ם], plus direct object marker [אֵת]) introducing the second part of the acquisition: the nearest kinsman would be acquiring the field and Ruth (for discussion see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 202). However, the BHS editors suggest reading גם את (“as well as…”; emphatic particle גם [“also”] and the definite direct object marker אֵת) introducing the second part of the acquisition: He would be acquiring the field and Ruth. This alternate reading is reflected in the Vulgate reading quoque (“and also”) and supported by parallel usage in v. 9, “I am acquiring the field from Naomi, and also (גָּם אֵת, gam ʾet) Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the deceased.”

⁵ tn Heb “Shaddai”; traditionally “the Almighty.” The etymology and meaning of this divine name is uncertain. It may be derived from: (1) שָׁדַד (shadad, “to be strong”), cognate to Arabic sdd, meaning “The Strong One” or “Almighty”; (2) שָׁדָה (shadah, “mountain”), cognate to Akkadian shadu, meaning “The Mountain Dweller” or “God of the Mountains”; (3) שָׁדַד (shadad, “to devastate”) and שַׁד (shad, “destroyer”), Akkadian Shedum, meaning “The Destroyer” or “The Malevolent One”; or (4) שֶׁ (she, “who”) plus דִּי (diy, “sufficient”), meaning “The One Who is Sufficient” or “All-Sufficient One” (HALOT 1420-22 s.v. שַׁדַּי, שַׁדָּי). In terms of use, Shaddai (or El Shaddai) is presented as the sovereign king/judge of the world who grants life/blesses and kills/judges. In Genesis he blesses the patriarchs with fertility and promises numerous descendants. Outside Genesis he blesses/protects and also takes away life/happiness. In light of Naomi’s emphasis on God’s sovereign, malevolent deprivation of her family, one can understand her use of this name for God. For discussion of this divine name, see T. N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God, 69-72.

² tc The MT of vv. 13b-14a reads simply, “He said to her, ‘If you weave the seven braids of my head with the web.’ And she fastened with the pin and said to him.” The additional words in the translation, “and secure it with the pin, I will become weak and be like any other man.’ 16:14 So she made him go to sleep, wove the seven braids of his hair into the fabric on the loom,” which without doubt represent the original text, are supplied from the ancient Greek version. (In both vv. 13b and 14a the Greek version has “to the wall” after “with the pin,” but this is an interpretive addition that reflects a misunderstanding of ancient weaving equipment. See G. F. Moore, Judges [ICC], 353-54.) The Hebrew textual tradition was accidentally shortened during the copying process. A scribe’s eye jumped from the first instance of “with the web” to the second, causing him to leave out inadvertently the intervening words.

¹ tn Another option is to translate, “you are already pregnant and will have a son.” The earlier reference to her being infertile (v. 3) suggests that her conception is still future, but it is possible that the earlier statement only reflects her perspective (as far as she is concerned, she is infertile). According to this interpretation, in v. 5 the angel reveals the truth to her—actually she has recently conceived and is now pregnant (see the translation in R. G. Boling, Judges [AB], 217). Usage favors this interpretation. The predicate adjective הָרָה (harah, “[be/become] pregnant”) elsewhere has a past (1 Sam 4:19) or present (Gen 16:11; 38:25; 2 Sam 11:5) translation value. (The usage in Isa 7:14 is debated, but a present translation is definitely possible there.) A final, but less likely possibility, is that she miraculously conceived during the angel’s speech, sometime between his statements recorded in vv. 3 and 5.

¹ tn Heb “Is it not so that what Chemosh your god causes you to possess, you possess, and all whom the Lord our God dispossesses before us we will possess?” Jephthah speaks of Chemosh as if he is on a par with the Lord God of Israel. This does not necessarily mean that Jephthah is polytheistic or that he recognizes the Lord as only a local deity. He may simply be assuming the Ammonite king’s perspective for the sake of argument. Other texts, as well as the extrabiblical Mesha inscription, associate Chemosh with Moab, while Milcom is identified as the god of the Ammonites. Why then does Jephthah refer to Chemosh as the Ammonite god? Ammon had likely conquered Moab and the Ammonite king probably regarded himself as heir of all territory formerly held by Moab. Originally Moab had owned the disputed territory (cf. Num 21:26-29), meaning that Chemosh was regarded as the god of the region (see R. G. Boling, Judges [AB], 203-4). Jephthah argues that Chemosh had long ago relinquished claim to the area (by allowing Sihon to conquer it), while the Lord had long ago established jurisdiction over it (by taking it from Sihon and giving it to Israel). Both sides should abide by the decisions of the gods which had stood firm for 300 years.

¹ sn Some interpreters equate the Lord and the messenger in this story. Since the messenger represents the Lord, perhaps when the Lord is mentioned in vv. 14 and 16 it means so indirectly, while Gideon’s direct encounter is with the angel. Indicators that the Lord and the angel of the Lord are distinct include: 1) the Hebrew text says only “Lord” in vv. 14 and 16; 2) in verse 16 the speaker in the Hebrew text says “I will be with you” referring to the Lord (but see the note at v. 16); 3) Gideon addresses the angel as ‎אֲדֹנִי (ʾadoni, “my lord”) but the Lord as אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay, “my Lord”); 4) in vv. 22-23 the Lord and Gideon continue to carry on a conversation after the messenger has vanished (v. 21). On the other hand, if the Lord was present, appearing visibly in human form (called a theophany), as implied by “turning” [his head] to Gideon, why would Gideon not be more fearful at the end of the story for having seen God rather than his angel? The story could be pictured as an exchange with the angel followed by calling out to the Lord in prayer. The translation assumes that the angel and the Lord are distinct in the conversation, but the matter is difficult.

² tc The Hebrew text has “and he went out to the [?].” The word פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parshedonah) occurs only here, and is of uncertain meaning. The noun has the directional suffix, meaning “to the parsh^edon.” Some translations (e.g. KJV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) take it as a reference to feces or intestinal organs coming out. This would interpret the noun ending as feminine (not directional). But the verb (וַיֵּצֵא, vayyetseʾ) is masculine so this does not explain the text, even though the notion might fit the context. The subject is either Ehud or the blade–either would match the verb form–and the word in question tells where the subject went out. If the blade (לַהַב, lahav) is the subject, then פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parsh^edonah) might be an anatomical reference describing the exit point; if Ehud is the subject, then the word is probably a technical architectural term. The entire phrase is missing from the LXX. The present translation omits the clause, understanding it as an ancient variant of the first clause in v. 23. See B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 146-48, for discussion of the options.

² tn The second half of the verse reads literally, “and he [was] one man, he did not die for his sin.” There are at least two possible ways to explain this statement: (1) One might interpret the statement to mean that Achan was not the only person who died for his sin. In this case it could be translated, “and he was not the only one to die because of his sin.” (2) Another option, the one reflected in the translation, is to take the words וְהוּא אִישׁ אֶחָד (v^ehuʾ ʾish ʾekhad, “and he [was] one man”) as a concessive clause and join it with what precedes. The remaining words (לֹא גָוַע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ, loʾ gavaʿ baʿavono) must then be taken as a rhetorical question (“Did he not die for his sin?”). Taking the last sentence as interrogative is consistent with the first part of the verse, a rhetorical question introduced with the interrogative particle. The present translation has converted these rhetorical questions into affirmative statements to bring out more clearly the points they are emphasizing. For further discussion, see T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), 240.

¹ sn Elsewhere in the OT, the Israelites are called “Hebrews” (עִבְרִי, ʿivri) by outsiders, rarely by themselves (cf. Gen 14:13; 39:14, 17; 41:12; Exod 1:15, 16, 19; 2:6, 7, 11, 13; 1 Sam 4:6; Jonah 1:9). Thus, here and in the parallel passage in Exod 21:2-6 the term עִבְרִי may designate non-Israelites, specifically a people well-known throughout the ancient Near East as ʾapiru or habiru. They lived a rather vagabond lifestyle, frequently hiring themselves out as laborers or mercenary soldiers. While accounting nicely for the surprising use of the term here in an Israelite law code, the suggestion has against it the unlikelihood that a set of laws would address such a marginal people so specifically (as opposed to simply calling them aliens or the like). More likely עִבְרִי is chosen as a term to remind Israel that when they were “Hebrews,” that is, when they were in Egypt, they were slaves. Now that they are free they must not keep their fellow Israelites in economic bondage. See v. 15.

² sn Do not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. This strange prohibition—one whose rationale is unclear but probably related to pagan ritual—may seem out of place here but actually is not for the following reasons: (1) the passage as a whole opens with a prohibition against heathen mourning rites (i.e., death, vv. 1-2) and closes with what appear to be birth and infancy rites. (2) In the other two places where the stipulation occurs (Exod 23:19 and Exod 34:26) it similarly concludes major sections. (3) Whatever the practice signified it clearly was abhorrent to the Lord and fittingly concludes the topic of various breaches of purity and holiness as represented by the ingestion of unclean animals (vv. 3-21). See C. M. Carmichael, “On Separating Life and Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws,” HTR 69 (1976): 1-7; J. Milgrom, “You Shall Not Boil a Kid In Its Mother’s Milk,” BRev 1 (1985): 48-55; R. J. Ratner and B. Zuckerman, “In Rereading the ‘Kid in Milk’ Inscriptions,” BRev 1 (1985): 56-58; and M. Haran, “Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” JJS 30 (1979): 23-35.

¹ sn It is debatable whether vv. 11-20 form one list (e.g. NASB) or two (e.g. NIV) as it is taken here. Verses 11 and 20 each say “you may eat any clean X” and refer to flying creatures. The terms עוֹף (ʿof) and צִפּוֹר (tsippor, see v. 11) can both refer to birds, but are not limited to birds. Verse 12 begins and v. 19 ends with a clause saying what may not be eaten, while specific animals or classes of animals are listed in between. This has the appearance of a chiastic structure for one list. On the other hand, the lists of land animals and fish are simply divided into what one may eat and may not eat, suggesting that vv. 11-18 and 19-20 (each including both kinds of statements) are separate lists. Also an issue, the phrase in v. 19 “it is unclean” might refer back to v.12 and the singular זֶה (zeh, “this,” but translated “these in most English versions for stylistic reasons). This would help tie 12-19 together as one list, but the closer referent is “any…winged thing” earlier in v. 19. Verses 19 and 20 are also tied by the use of the term עוֹף.