² sn There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1, and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן (khoten), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.

¹ tc The “therefore” (οὖν, oun) is not found in א 2053 2329 2351 M^A or the Latin mss. It is, however, included in impressive witnesses such as A C 046 1006 1611 sy^p,h co. Though the conjunction looks at first glance like a scribal clarification, its omission may be explained on the basis of its similarity to the last three letters of the verb “repent” (μετανόησον, metanoēson; since οὖν is a postpositive conjunction in Greek, the final three letters of the verb [-σον, -son] would have been immediately followed by ουν). A scribe could have simply passed over the conjunction in his copy when he saw the last three letters of the imperative verb. A decision is difficult, however, because of the motivation to add to the text and the quality of witnesses that lack the conjunction.

² sn Add to your faith excellence…love. The list of virtues found in vv. 5-7 stands in tension to the promises given in vv. 2-4. What appears to be a synergism of effort or even a contradiction (God supplies the basis, the promises, the grace, the power, etc., while believers must also provide the faith, excellence, etc.) in reality encapsulates the mystery of sanctification. Each believer is responsible before God for his conduct and spiritual growth, yet that growth could not take place without God’s prior work and constant enabling. We must not neglect our responsibility, yet the enabling and the credit is God’s. Paul says the same thing: “Continue working out your salvation with humility and dependence, for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort…is God” (Phil 2:12-13).

¹ tc Although κανόνι (kanoni, “standard, rule”) is found in most witnesses, though in various locations in this verse (א² D² Ψ 075 1505 2464 M), it is almost surely a motivated reading, for it clarifies the cryptic τῷ αὐτῷ (tō autō, “the same”). Both the fact that the word floats, and that there are other variants which accomplish greater clarity by other means, strongly suggests the secondary nature of any of the longer readings here. Further, the shortest text has excellent and early support in P^16,46 א* A B I^vid 6 33 1739 co, rendering it decidedly the preferred reading. The translation adds “standard” because of English requirements, not because of textual basis.

¹ tc ‡ Although most witnesses have either δέ (de; P⁴⁹ א A D² Ψ 33 1505 1739^mg 2464 M lat) or οὖν (oun; D* F G 1175) here, a few significant mss lack a conjunction (P⁴⁶ B 0278 6 1739* 1881). If either conjunction were originally in the text, it is difficult to explain how the asyndetic construction could have arisen (although the dropping of δέ could have occurred via homoioteleuton). Further, although Hellenistic Greek rarely joined sentences without a conjunction, such does occur in the corpus Paulinum on occasion, especially to underscore a somber point. “Instead” has been supplied in the translation because of stylistic requirements, not textual basis. NA²⁸ places δέ in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ sn Because he saw Christ’s glory. The glory which Isaiah saw in Isa 6:3 was the glory of Yahweh (typically rendered as “Lord” in the OT). Here John speaks of the prophet seeing the glory of Christ since in the next clause and spoke about him, “him” can hardly refer to Yahweh, but must refer to Christ. On the basis of statements like 1:14 in the prologue, the author probably put no great distinction between the two. Since the author presents Jesus as fully God (cf. John 1:1), it presents no problem to him to take words originally spoken by Isaiah of Yahweh himself and apply them to Jesus.

² sn Some argue that shepherds were among the culturally despised, but the evidence for this view of shepherds is late, coming from 5th century Jewish materials. December 25 as the celebrated date of Jesus’ birth arose around the time of Constantine (ca. a.d. 306-337), though it is mentioned in material from Hippolytus (a.d. 165-235). Some think that the reason for celebration on this date was that it coincided with the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia, and Christians could celebrate their own festival at this time without fear of persecution. On the basis of the statement that the shepherds were living out in the field, keeping guard over their flock at night it is often suggested that Jesus’ birth took place in early spring, since it was only at lambing time that shepherds stood guard over their flocks in the field. This is not absolutely certain, however.

³ sn Mark 8:1-10. Many commentators, on the basis of similarities between this account of the feeding of the multitude (8:1-10) and that in 6:30-44, have argued that there is only one event referred to in both passages. While there are similarities in language and in the response of the disciples, there are also noticeable differences, including the different number present on each occasion (i.e., 5,000 in chap. 6 and 4,000 here). In the final analysis, the fact that Jesus refers to two distinct feedings in 8:18-20 settles the issue; this passage represents another very similar incident to that recorded in 6:30-44.

¹ tc The MT reads the hapax legomenon כֵּהָה (kehah, “relief, alleviation”). On the other hand, the LXX reads ἴασις (iasis, “healing”) which seems to reflect a reading of גֵּהָה (gehah, “cure, healing”). In light of the LXX, the BHS editors suggest emending the MT to גֵּהָה (gehah)—which occurs only once elsewhere (Prov 17:22)—on the basis of orthographic and phonological confusion between Hebrew כ (kaf) and ג (gimel). This emendation would produce the common ancient Near Eastern treaty-curse: “there is no cure for your wound” (e.g., Hos 5:13); see HALOT 461 s.v. כֵּהָה; K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty-Curses and the Book of Nahum,” CBQ 35 (1973): 186; D. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 64-66.

² tc The MT reads the Qal imperfect third person masculine singular יִזְכֹּר (yizkor) from זָכַר (zakar); see above note on its meaning. The rarity of this meaning for זָכַר in Hebrew has led to textual variants and several proposed emendations. The LXX reflects the Niphal imperfect third person masculine plural יִזָּכְרוּ (yizzakh^eru): καὶ μνησθνήσονται οἱ μεγιστᾶντες (kai mnēsthnēsontai hoi megistantes, “And their mighty men will be remembered”; or “will remember themselves”). The BHS editors suggest emending to יִזָּכְרוּ on the basis of the LXX. The BHK editors proposed emending to Pilpel imperfect third person common plural יְכַרְכְרוּ (y^ekharkh^eru, “they prance, they whirl”) from II כָּרַר (karar, “to dance”). None of the emendations are necessary once the existence of the homonym (or additional meaning) for זָכַר (“to order”) is recognized.

³ tc The MT has the jussive form verb וִיהִי (vihi, “may he be”), while the Dead Sea Scrolls have the imperfect form יהיה (yihyeh, “he will be”). The LXX uses a future indicative. On the basis of distance from the primary accent, GKC 325-26 §109.k attempts to explain the form as a rhythmical shortening of the imperfect rather than a true jussive. Some of the examples in GKC may now be explained as preterites, while others are text-critical problems. And some may have other modal explanations. But other examples are not readily explained by these considerations. The text-critical decision and the grammatical explanation in GKC would both lead to translating as an imperfect. Some translations render it in a jussive sense, either as request: “And let my Lord God be your accuser” (NJPS), or as dependent purpose/result: “that the Sovereign Lord may witness against you” (NIV).

³ tc The MT reads the plural לְעֶגְלוֹת (l^eʿeglot, “for the calves”), while some Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion) and the Syriac reflect the singular לְעֵגֶל (“for the calf [calf idol]”). The singular reading is preferred on the basis of internal evidence: the oracle denounces the calf-idol worship of Samaria. The plural form probably arose due to the ambiguity of the term “calf” when a scribe did not realize that the term was being used as a metonymy for the worship of the Egyptian calf goddess. Most recent English versions adopt the singular form and relate it to the calf goddess cult (RSV, NASB, NIV, NCV, NJPS, TEV, CEV, NLT); however, older English versions follow the MT plural (KJV, ASV).

¹ sn Regular fast days were not a part of Israel’s religious calendar. Rather, fast days were called on special occasions, i.e., in times of drought or a locust plague (Joel 1:14; 2:15), during a military crisis (2 Chr 20:3), or after defeat in battle (1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 1:12). A fast day was likely chosen for the reading of the scroll because the people would be more mindful of the crisis they were in and be in more of a repentant mood. The events referred to in the study note on v. 1 would have provided the basis for Jeremiah’s anticipation of a fast day when the scroll could be read.

² tc The translation follows the reading of the LXX (Greek version). The Hebrew reads, “will dance and be glad, young men and old men together.” The Greek version presupposes a Qal imperfect of a rare verb (יַחְדּוּ [yakhdu] from the verb חָדָה [khadah]; see BDB 292 s.v. II חָדָה Qal), as opposed to the Hebrew text, which reads a common adverb יַחְדָּו (yakhdav). The consonantal text is the same, but the vocalization is different. There are no other examples of the syntax of the adverb used this way (i.e., of a compound subject added to a third subject), and the vocalization of the Hebrew text can be explained on the basis of a scribe misvocalizing the text based on his greater familiarity with the adverb.

¹ tn The first word מֵרָחוּק (merakhoq, “distant”) can mean at a distance in location or time (2 Kgs 19:25). While built from the preposition מִן (min, “from, of, since, than”) and the adjective רָחוּק (rakhoq), “far, distant”), the pieces work as one unit and typically do not mean “from a distant place,” as is especially evident when one stands at a distance (Exod 2:4) or goes to a distant place (Isa 22:3). Both options, location and time, are possible here. Either the Lord appears at a distant place (where the exiles are), or, understanding the verb as past time, he appeared long ago. In the latter view, this is probably reminiscent of God’s appearance at Sinai, reminding the people of the eternal love he covenanted with them, on the basis of which he maintains his faithful love to and will restore them.

¹ tn The word translated “clay vessel” occurs only here. Its meaning, however, is assured on the basis of the parallelism and the verb root, which is used for shaping or fashioning in Job 10:8. The KJV renders it as “idol,” but that word, while having the same consonants, never appears in the singular. The word is missing in the Greek version but is translated “vessel” in the Latin version. The word “clay” is supplied in the translation to clarify what sort of vessel is meant; its inclusion is justified based on context and use of the same verb root in Job 10:8 to refer to shaping or fashioning, which would imply clay pots or vessels.

¹ sn The exact location of the Potsherd Gate is unknown since it is named nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes identified, on the basis of the Jerusalem Targum, with the Dung Gate mentioned in Neh 2:13; 3:13-14; and 12:31. It is probably called “Potsherd Gate” because that is where the potter threw out the broken pieces of pottery that were no longer of use to him. The Valley of Ben Hinnom has already been noted in 7:31-32 in connection with the illicit religious practices, including child sacrifice, that took place there. The Valley of Ben Hinnom (or sometimes Valley of Hinnom) runs along the west and south sides of Jerusalem.

² sn Something was wrong with the clay—either there was a lump in it, or it was too moist or not moist enough, or it had some other imperfection. In any case the vessel was “ruined” or “spoiled,” or defective in the eyes of the potter. This same verb has been used of the linen shorts that were “ruined” and hence “good for nothing” (Jer 13:7). The nature of the clay and how it responded to the potter’s hand determined the kind of vessel that he made of it. He did not throw the clay away. This is the basis for the application in vv. 7-10 to any nation and to the nation of Israel in particular (vv. 11-17).

³ tn Once more the precise meaning of the qualifying terms is uncertain. The expression קַו קָו (qav qav) is sometimes related to a proposed Arabic cognate and taken to mean “strength” (see BDB 876 II קַו). Others, on the basis of Isa 28:10, 13, understand the form as gibberish (literally, “kav, kav”) and take it to be a reference to this nation’s strange, unknown language. The form מְבוּסָה (m^evusah) appears to be derived from בּוּס (bus, “to trample”), so lexicographers suggest the meaning “trampling” or “subjugation,” i.e., a nation that subdues others. See BDB 101 s.v. בּוּס and HALOT 541 s.v. מְבוּסָה. These proposals, which are based on etymological speculation, must be regarded as tentative.

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.