¹ tn Grk “they”; the referents (Jesus and his disciples) have been specified in the translation for clarity. Without such clarification there is room for considerable confusion here, since there are two prior sets of plural referents in the context, “the chief priests and experts in the law” and “the whole crowd” (both in v. 18).

³ tn Traditionally, “on a bed,” but this could be confusing to the modern reader who might envision a large piece of furniture. In various contexts, κλίνη (klinē) may be translated “bed, couch, cot, stretcher, or bier” (in the case of a corpse). See L&N 6.106.

¹ sn Cush is the Hebrew name for the ancient kingdom of Ethiopia (also known as Nubia) along the Nile valley south of Aswan in Egypt. Many modern English versions render this “Ethiopia,” but this area is not to be confused with modern Ethiopia (i.e., Abyssinia).

⁸ tc The MT reads לַגְּוִיָּה (lagg^eviyyah, “to the dead bodies”). The LXX reflects לְגוֹיָה (l^egoyah, “to her nations”) which arose due to confusion between the consonant ו (vav) and the vowel וֹ (holem-vav) in an unpointed text.

¹ sn The antecedent of the pronoun “I” is the angel, not Daniel. The traditional chapter division at this point, and the presence of a chronological note in the verse similar to ones used elsewhere in the book to position Daniel’s activities in relation to imperial affairs, sometimes lead to confusion on this matter.

² tc Or “to finish.” The present translation reads the Qere (from the root תָּמַם, tamam) with many witnesses. The Kethib has “to seal up” (from the root הָתַם, hatam), a confusion with a reference later in the verse to sealing up the vision.

¹ tc Heb “I.” The reading is due to the confusion of yod (י, indicating a first person pronoun) and vav (ו, indicating a third person pronoun). A few medieval Hebrew mss, Theodotion’s Greek version, and the Latin Vulgate support a third person pronoun here.

¹ tc The MT leaves v. 18 as an incomplete sentence and begins v. 19 with “and Dan and Javan [Ionia] from Uzal.” The LXX mentions “wine.” The translation follows an emendation assuming some confusions of vav and yod. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:82.

¹ tn Heb “her cup.” A cup of intoxicating strong drink is used, here and elsewhere, as a metaphor for judgment because both leave one confused and reeling. (See Jer 25:15, 17, 28; Hab 2:16.) The cup of wrath is a theme also found in the NT (Mark 14:36).

¹ tc The Hebrew text reads “in your blood,” but most emend to “in your vineyard,” assuming a ב/כ (beth/kaph) confusion. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 1:284. Another attractive emendation assumes a faulty word division and yields the reading “like a vine full of tendrils, which/because…”; see D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:607, n. 68.

² tc The term in the MT occurs only here and in Eccl 9:12, where it refers to a net for catching fish. The LXX translates this as “prison,” which assumes a confusion of dalet and resh took place in the MT.

² tc The Vulgate reads the name as “Riblah,” a city north of Damascus. The MT reads Diblah, a city otherwise unknown. The letters resh (ר) and dalet (ד) may have been confused in the Hebrew text. The town of Riblah was in the land of Hamath (2 Kgs 23:33), which represented the northern border of Israel (Ezek 47:14).

² tc This translation accepts the emendation suggested in BHS of בְּרוּם (b^erum, “in the lifting”) for בָּרוּךְ (barukh). The letters mem (מ) and kaf (כ) were easily confused in the old script, while בָּרוּךְ (“blessed be”) implies a quotation, which is out of place here. The word also does not fit the later phrase “from its place,” which requires a verb of motion.

³ tc The MT reads בֵּינֵיהֶם (b^enehem, “in them” = “in their midst”). The BHS editors suggest that this is a textual variation from an original text of בְּעֵינֵיהֶם (b^eʿenehem, “in their eyes” = “in their view”). The ע (ʿayin) might have dropped out due to orthographic confusion.

² tn Heb “35:12 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, “Go and say…‘Will you not learn…’”’” The use of the indirect introduction has been chosen here, as in 34:1-2, to try to cut down on the confusion created by embedding quotations within quotations.

³ tn Heb “the people of Israel.” However, since “people of Israel” has been used in the preceding line for the northern kingdom as opposed to the kingdom of Judah, it might lead to confusion to translate literally. Moreover, the pronoun “they” accomplishes the same purpose.

² tc The translation here follows the Qere and a number of Hebrew mss in reading שְׁדֵמוֹת (sh^edemot) for the otherwise unknown word שְׁרֵמוֹת (sh^eremot), which may exhibit the common confusion of ר (resh) and ד (dalet). The fields of Kidron are mentioned also in 2 Kgs 23:4 as the place where Josiah burned the cult objects of Baal.

² tn Heb “I sent.” This sentence exhibits a rapid switch in person, here from the third person to the first. Such switches are common to Hebrew poetry and prophecy (cf. GKC 462 §144.p). Contemporary English, however, does not exhibit such rapid switches, and they create confusion for the careful reader. Such switches have regularly been avoided in the translation.

² tn Heb “Then you showed me their deeds.” This is another example of the rapid shift in person that is common in Jeremiah. As elsewhere, it has been resolved, for the sake of avoiding confusion for the English reader, by leveling the referent to the same person throughout. The text again involves an apostrophe, a shift from talking about the Lord to addressing him.

² tn Heb “the men of Anathoth.” However, this does not involve all of the people, only the conspirators. The literal rendering might lead to confusion later since v. 21 mentions that there will not be any of them left alive. However, it is known from Ezra 2:23 that there were survivors.