⁴ sn Moses gives an angry but firm reply to Pharaoh’s attempt to control Israel; he makes it clear that he has no intention of leaving any pledge with Pharaoh. When they leave, they will take everything that belongs to them.

³ tn Heb “to make fun of us.” The verb translated “to humiliate us” here means to hold something up for ridicule, or to toy with something harmfully. Attempted rape would be such an activity, for it would hold the victim in contempt.

⁴ tn Heb “and she lifted up her voice and wept” (that is, she wept uncontrollably). The LXX reads “he” (referring to Ishmael) rather than “she” (referring to Hagar), but this is probably an attempt to harmonize this verse with the following one, which refers to the boy’s cries.

⁴ sn Three times in chap. 1 (in vv. 3 and 10) Jonah’s voyage is described as an attempt to escape away from the Lord—from the Lord’s presence (and therefore his active awareness; compare v. 2). On one level, Jonah was attempting to avoid a disagreeable task, but the narrator’s description personalizes Jonah’s rejection of the task. Jonah’s issue is with the Lord himself, not just his commission. The narrator’s description is also highly ironic, as the rest of the book shows. Jonah tries to sail to Tarshish, in the opposite direction from Nineveh, as if by doing that he could escape from the Lord, when the Lord is the one who knows all about Nineveh’s wickedness and is involved in all that happens to Jonah throughout the book. Compare Jonah’s explanation when talking with the Lord (see 4:2).

² tn The translation represents an attempt to break up a very long Hebrew sentence with several levels of subordination and embedded quotations and also an attempt to capture the rhetorical force of the question “Why…?” which is probably an example of what E. W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech, 953-54) calls a rhetorical question of expostulation or remonstrance (cf. the note on 26:9 and also the question in 36:29; in all three of these cases NJPS translates, “How dare you…?” which captures the force nicely). The Hebrew text reads, “For Zedekiah king of Judah had confined him, saying, ‘Why are you prophesying, saying, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold I am giving this city into the hands of the king of Babylon and he will capture it’”?’”

¹ tn The first two words of the verse (הַמְסֻכָּן תְּרוּמָה, ham^esukkan t^erumah) are problematic. Some take מְסֻכָּן as an otherwise unattested Pual participle from סָכַן (sakhan, “be poor”) and translate “the one who is impoverished.” תְּרוּמָה (t^erumah, “contribution”) can then be taken as an adverbial accusative, “with respect to a contribution,” and the entire line translated, “the one who is too impoverished for such a contribution [i.e., the metal idol of v. 19?] selects wood that will not rot.” However, מְסֻכָּן is probably the name of a tree used in idol manufacturing (cognate with Akkadian musukkanu, cf. H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena [SBLDS], 133). מְסֻכָּן may be a scribal interpretive addition attempting to specify עֵץ (ʿets) or עֵץ may be a scribal attempt to categorize מְסֻכָּן. How an idol constitutes a תְּרוּמָה (“contribution”) is not entirely clear.

⁵ tn BDAG 106 s.v. ἀπό 5.d states: “The expr. εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ‘ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος’ Rv 1:4 is quite extraordinary. It may be an interpretation of the name Yahweh already current, or an attempt to show reverence for the divine name by preserving it unchanged, or simply one more of the grammatical peculiarities so frequent in Rv.”

² tn Most modern English translations attempt to make the comparison somewhat smoother by treating “name” as if it were the subject of the second element: “as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, CEV). However, the Son is the subject of both the first and second elements: “he became so far better”; “he has inherited a name.” The present translation maintains this parallelism even though it results in a somewhat more awkward rendering.

³ tn Grk “Addressing in the synagogue every Sabbath, he was attempting to persuade both Jews and Greeks.” Because in English the verb “address” is not used absolutely but normally has an object specified, the direct objects of the verb ἔπειθεν (epeithen) have been moved forward as the objects of the English verb “addressed,” and the pronoun “them” repeated in the translation as the object of ἔπειθεν. The verb ἔπειθεν has been translated as a conative imperfect.

³ tn The translation “make your own bed” for στρῶσον σεαυτῷ (strōson seautō) is given by BDAG 949 s.v. στρωννύω 1. Naturally this involves some adaptation, since a pallet or mat would not be ‘made up’ in the sense that a modern bed would be. The idea may be closer to “straighten” or “rearrange,” and the NIV’s “take care of your mat” attempts to reflect this, although this too probably conveys a slightly different idea to the modern English reader.

¹ tn Or “And divided tongues as of fire.” The precise meaning of διαμερίζομαι (diamerizomai) in Acts 2:3 is difficult to determine. The meaning could be “tongues as of fire dividing up one to each person,” but it is also possible that the individual tongues of fire were divided (“And divided tongues as of fire appeared”). The translation adopted in the text (“tongues spreading out like a fire”) attempts to be somewhat ambiguous.

¹ tn Or “who chews”; Grk ὁ τρώγων (ho trōgōn). The alternation between ἐσθίω (esthiō, “eat,” v. 53) and τρώγω (trōgō, “eats,” vv. 54, 56, 58; “consumes,” v. 57) may simply reflect a preference for one form over the other on the author’s part, rather than an attempt to express a slightly more graphic meaning. If there is a difference, however, the word used here (τρώγω) is the more graphic and vivid of the two (“gnaw” or “chew”).

¹ tc The text reads either “two other criminals” or “others, two criminals.” The first reading (found in P⁷⁵ א B) could be read as describing Jesus as a criminal, while the second (found in A C D L W Θ Ψ 070 0250 ƒ^1,13 33 M) looks like an attempt to prevent this identification. The first reading, more difficult to explain from the other, is likely autographic.

³ tc Many mss (D Θ ƒ¹³ 700 pm as well as several versional mss) add here, “for this is the sign he gave to them: Whoever I kiss is [the one].” This addition is almost certainly not original, since most of the significant mss lack it. It may be a copyist’s attempt to clarify the text, or the accidental inclusion of a marginal gloss.

² tc Here “son,” found in P^45,75 (A) B W M, is the preferred reading. The other reading, “donkey” (found in א K L Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 579 892 1241 2542 al lat bo), looks like an assimilation to Luke 13:15 and Deut 22:4; Isa 32:20, and was perhaps motivated by an attempt to soften the unusual collocation of “son” and “ox.” The Western ms D differs from all others and reads “sheep.”

² sn I.e., be revealed by God. The passive voice verbs here (“be revealed,” be made known”) see the revelation as coming from God. The text is both a warning about bad things being revealed and an encouragement that good things will be made known, though the stress with the images of darkness and what is hidden in vv. 2-3 is on the attempt to conceal.

³ sn The Hebrew שְׂרֻקִּים (s^eruqqim) means “red” (cf. NIV, NCV, NLT “brown”). English translations such as “speckled” (KJV) or “dappled” (TEV) are based on the reading of the LXX ψαροί (psaroi) that attempts to bring the color of this horse into conformity with those described in Zech 6:2-3. However, since these are two different and unrelated visions, this is a methodological fallacy.

¹ sn The verb translated salvaged, though often used in a positive sense of deliverance from harm, is here employed in a sarcastic manner. A shepherd would attempt to salvage part of an animal to prove that a predator had indeed killed it. In this way he could prove that he had not stolen the missing animal and absolve himself from any responsibility to repay the owner (see Exod 22:12-13).

² sn The meanings of the Babylonian names are more conjectural than is the case with the Hebrew names. The probable etymologies are as follows: Belteshazzar means “protect his life,” although the MT vocalization may suggest “Belti, protect the king” (cf. Dan 4:8); Shadrach perhaps means “command of Aku”; Meshach is of uncertain meaning; and Abednego means “servant of Nego.” Assigning Babylonian names to the Hebrew youths may have been an attempt to erase from their memory their Israelite heritage.

³ tn Heb “you caused to stand for them all their hips.” An emendation that switches two letters but is supported by the LXX yields the reading: “you caused all their hips to shake.” See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:103. In 2 Kgs 18:21 and Isa 36:6 trusting in the Pharaoh is compared to leaning on a staff. The oracle may reflect Hophra’s attempt to aid Jerusalem (Jer 37:5-8).