¹ tn Heb “The Lord once called you….” This is another example of the rapid shift in person that is common to Hebrew style but not common in English and could lead to confusion for some readers. Here and in the verses that follow the person has been shifted to first person for consistency in English.

² tn Heb “What to my beloved [being] in my house?” The text has been restructured to avoid possible confusion by the shift from third person in the first two lines to second person in the last two lines and the lines of the following verse. The reference to Judah as the Lord’s “beloved” is certainly ironic and perhaps even sarcastic.

³ tn Heb “this covenant.” The referent of “this” is left dangling until it is further defined in vv. 3-4. Leaving it undefined in the translation may lead to confusion; hence the anticipatory nature of the demonstrative is spelled out explicitly in the translation.

³ tn Heb “I am sending against you snakes, poisonous ones which cannot be charmed.” In light of the context, literal snakes are scarcely meant. So the metaphor is turned into a simile to prevent possible confusion. For a similar metaphorical use of animals for enemies see 5:6.

³ tc MT reads דְּרָכַיִךְ (d^erakhayikh, “your ways”), but the BHS editors suggest דּוֹדַיִךְ (dodayikh, “your breasts”) as an example of orthographic confusion. While the proposal makes sense, it remains a conjectural emendation since it is not supported by any actual manuscripts or ancient versions.

⁴ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “he despises cities.” The term עָרִים (ʿarim, “cities”) probably needs to be emended to an original עֵדִים (ʿedim, “[legal] witnesses”), a reading that is preserved in the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a. Confusion of dalet (ד) and resh (ר) is a well-attested scribal error.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has כַדּוּר (khaddur, “like a circle”), i.e., “like an encircling wall.” Some emend this phrase to כְּדָוִד (k^edavid, “like David”), which is supported by the LXX (see v. 1). However, the rendering in the LXX could have arisen from a confusion of the dalet (ד) and resh (ר).

² tc The word in the Hebrew text (מַדְהֵבָה, madhevah) is unattested elsewhere and of uncertain meaning. Many (following the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a) assume a confusion of dalet and resh (ד and ר) and emend the form to מַרְהֵבָה (marhevah, “onslaught”). See HALOT 548 s.v. II *מִדָּה and HALOT 633 s.v. *מַרְהֵבָה.

⁷ tc The MT reads כִּמְחֹלַת (kimkholat, “like the dance”), while other Hebrew mss read בִּמְחֹלוֹת (bimkholot, “in the dances”). The LXX’s ὠ χοροὶ (ō choroi, “like the dances”) reflects כִּמְחֹלוֹת and Symmachus’ ἐν τρώσεσιν (en trōsesin, “in the injury”) reflects the locative preposition but a confusion of the noun.

³ tc The versions render this phrase variously: “is ashamed and without confidence” (LXX); “is ashamed and put to the blush” (Tg. Prov 13:5); “confounds and will be confounded” (Vulgate). The variety is due in part to confusion of בָּאַשׁ (baʾash, “to stink”) and בּוֹשׁ (bosh, “to be ashamed”). Cf. NASB “acts disgustingly and shamefully.”

² tc BHS proposes דֶשֶׁא (desheʾ, “grass”) instead of ראֹשׁ which assumes both the common confusion of ד (dalet) and ר (resh), as well as the reversal of the final two letters. This would mean “the vegetation of the world’s soil.”

⁴ tn The verb עָרְבָה (ʿar^evah) is from III עָרַב (ʿarav, “to be sweet; to be pleasing; to be pleasant”; BDB 787 s.v. III עָרַב). It should not be confused with the other five homonymic roots that are also spelled עָרַב (see BDB 786-88).

¹ tn Heb “to you I cover,” which makes no sense. The translation assumes an emendation to נַסְתִּי (nasti, “I flee,” a Qal perfect, first singular form from נוּס, nos). Confusion of כ (kaf) and נ (nun) is attested elsewhere (see P. K. McCarter, Textual Criticism [GBS], 48). The collocation of נוּס (“flee”) with אֶל (ʾel, “to”) is well-attested.

² tn The Hitpael of בָּלַע (balaʿ) occurs only here in the OT. Traditionally the form is derived from the verbal root בלע (“to swallow”), but HALOT 135 s.v. III בלע understands a homonym here with the meaning “to be confused.”

¹ tn Heb “They made angry [him].” The pronominal suffix is omitted here, but does appear in a few medieval Hebrew mss. Perhaps it was accidentally left off, an original וַיַּכְעִיסוּהוּ (vayyakhʿisuhu) being misread as וַיַּכְעִיסוּ (vayyakhʿisu). In the translation the referent of the pronominal suffix (the Lord) has been specified for clarity to avoid confusion with Baal of Peor (mentioned in the previous verse).

¹ tn The present translation (like most modern translations) follows the Qere (marginal reading), which reads literally, “and to him [are] we.” The Kethib (consonantal text) has “and not we.” The suffixed preposition לוֹ (lo, “to him”) was confused aurally with the negative particle לֹא (loʾ, “not”) because the two sound identical.

¹ tn Traditionally בַּלַּע (balaʿ) has been taken to mean “swallow” in the sense of “devour” or “destroy” (cf. KJV), but this may be a homonym meaning “confuse” (see BDB 118 s.v. בַּלַּע; HALOT 135 s.v. III *בֶּלַע). “Their tongue” is the understood object of the verb (see the next line).

¹ tn The verb’s precise shade of meaning in this context is not entirely clear. The verb, which literally means “to bend,” may refer to the psalmist’s posture. In Isa 21:3 it seems to mean “be confused, dazed.”

¹ tn The grammatical construction (conjunction + pronoun) highlights the contrast between the psalmist’s experience and that of his ancestors. When he considers God’s past reliability, it only heightens his despair and confusion, for God’s present silence stands in stark contrast to his past saving acts.

¹ tn The idea is the same as that expressed in v. 15, although here the imperfect verb is used and not the perfect. Once again with the concessive clause (“although I am right”) Job knows that in a legal dispute he would be confused and would end up arguing against himself.