² tn Heb “and he does, a brother, from one of these.” If “brother” is retained, it may be an adverbial accusative: “against a brother” (i.e., fellow Israelite). But the form is likely dittographic, as the consonants that spell “brother” אח (alef-het) occur in the following word).

² tc The MT reads גְאֻלָּתֶךָ (g^eʾullatekha, “your redemption-men”), referring to the relatives responsible for deliverance in times of hardship (see Lev 25:25-55). The LXX and Syriac read “your fellow exiles,” assuming an underlying Hebrew text of גָלוּתֶךָ (galutekha) or having read the א (alef) as an internal mater lectionis for holem.

² tn Heb “and I stained.” For discussion of the difficult verb form, see HALOT 170 s.v. II גאל. Perhaps the form is mixed, combining the first person forms of the imperfect (note the alef prefix) and perfect (note the תי- ending).

¹ tn The translation understands the verb to be a defective spelling of וַיֶּאֱסֹף (vayy^eʾesof) due to quiescence of the letter א (alef). The root therefore is אָסַף (ʾasaf, “to gather”). The Masoretes, however, pointed the verb as וַיֹּסֶף (vayyosef), understanding it to be a form of יָסַף (yasaf, “to add”). This does not fit the context, which calls for a verb of gathering.

² tc The translation follows the LXX and Vulgate which assume a reading וַיָּאָרֶב (vayyaʾarev, “and he set an ambush,” from the root אָרַב [ʾarav] with quiescence of alef) rather than the MT, which has וַיָּרֶב (vayyareb, “and he contended,” from the root רִיב [riv]).

³ tn Heb “when he took him and he was in chains.” The subject is probably Nebuzaradan or the indefinite third singular (GKC 460 §144.d). The Kethib of the word for בָּאזִקִּים (baʾziqqim) is to be explained as a secondary formation with prosthetic א (alef) from the normal word for “fetter” (זֵק, zeq) according to HALOT 27 s.v. אֲזִקִּים (see GKC 70 §19.m and 235-36 §85.b for the phenomenon).

² tc The MT lacks the definite article, but this is may be due to textual transmission error. It is preferable to read the א (alef) of אֶצְעָדָה (ʾetsʿadah) as a ה (he) giving הַצְּעָדָה (hats^eʿadah). There is no reason to think that the soldier confiscated from Saul’s dead body only one of two or more bracelets that he was wearing (cf. NLT “one of his bracelets”).

¹ tn The verb יוֹכְלוּ (yokhelu) “took space” is listed by BDB 37 as אָכַל (’akhal, “eat, consume”), though it prefers to emend the text. HALOT also lists this verb as אכל (1:46) while also listing it under יכל,“prevail” (2:410-11). If אָכַל is correct, then the א (’alef) has dropped out. See the note at Ezek 21:28. BHS refers to a few medieval manuscripts and a Qumran manuscript including the א, יֹאכְלוּ instead of יוֹכְלוּ; both are pronounced the same.

² tn Heb “to contain, endure,” from כוּל (khul). Since that sense is difficult here, most take the text to read either “to consume” or “for destruction.” GKC 186 §68.i suggests that the form represents the Hiphil of אָכַל (’akhal, “consume”). The ’alef (א) would have dropped out, as it sometimes does and might do with אָכַל in Ezek 42:5. D. I. Block (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:693) prefers seeing כוּל as a byform of כָּלָה (kalah, “be complete”), with a meaning like “consume” in the Hiphil. The weakness of Block’s suggestion is that כָּלָה does not elsewhere exhibit a Hiphil.

⁴ tc The verb יִשְׁנֶא (yishneʾ, Qal imperfect third person feminine singular) is typically taken to be the only Qal imperfect of I שָׁנָהּ (shanah). Such a spelling with א (alef) instead of ה (he) is feasible. D. R. Hillers suggests the root שָׂנֵא (saneʾ, “to hate”): “Pure gold is hated.” This maintains the consonantal text and also makes sense in context. In either case the point is that gold no longer holds the same value, probably because there is nothing available to buy with it.

¹ tc The Hebrew of the MT reads simply “and he said,” with no expressed subject for the verb. It is not likely that the text originally had no expressed subject for this verb, since the antecedent is not immediately clear from the context. We should probably restore to the Hebrew text the name “Ish Bosheth.” See a few medieval Hebrew mss, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Vulgate. Perhaps the name was accidentally omitted by homoioarcton. Note that both the name Ish Bosheth and the following preposition אֶל (ʾel) begin with the letter alef.

¹ tc The MT reads מְנָאֲפִים (m^enaʾafim, “adulterers”; Piel participle masculine plural from נָאַף, naʾaf, “to commit adultery”), which does not seem to fit the context. The original reading was probably אוֹפִים (ʾofim, “bakers”; Qal participle masculine plural from אָפַה, ʾafah, “to bake”), which harmonizes well with the baker/oven/fire motif in 7:4-7. The textual deviation was caused by: (1) confusion of נ (nun) and ו (vav), (2) metathesis of נ/ו (nun/vav) and א (alef), and (3) dittography of מ (mem) from the preceding word. Original כֻּלָּם אוֹפִים (kullam ʾofim, “all of them are bakers”) was confused for כֻּלָּם מְנָאֲפִים (“all of them are adulterers”). In spite of this most English versions follow the reading of the MT here.

¹ tn The psalmist celebrates God’s law and the guidance it provides his people. He expresses his desire to know God’s law thoroughly so that he might experience the blessings that come to those who obey it. This lengthy psalm exhibits an elaborate acrostic pattern. The psalm is divided into twenty-two sections (corresponding to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), each of which is comprised of eight verses. Each of the verses in the first section (vv. 1-8) begins with the letter alef (א), the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This pattern continues throughout the psalm as each new section highlights a successive letter of the alphabet. Each verse in section two (vv. 9-16) begins with the second letter of the alphabet, each verse in section three (vv. 17-24) with the third letter, etc. This rigid pattern creates a sense of order and completeness and may have facilitated memorization.

⁵ tn The term אֻמְלַל (ʾumlal, “withers”) occurs twice in this verse in MT. The repetition of אֻמְלַל is also supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah). The BHS editors suggest emending the first occurrence of אֻמְלַל (“withers”) to דָּלְלוּ (dal^elu, “languishes”) to recover the letter ד (dalet) in the partial acrostic. Several versions do, in fact, employ two different verbs in the line (LXX, Syr, Targum, and Vg). However, the first verb at the beginning of the line in all of the versions reflects a reading of אֻמְלַל. Although several elements of an acrostic are present in Nahum 1, the acrostic is incomplete (only א [alef] to כ [kaf] in vv. 2-8) and broken (several elements are missing within vv. 2-8). There is no textual evidence for a complete, unbroken acrostic throughout the book of Nahum in any ancient Hebrew mss or other textual versions; it is most prudent simply to leave the MT as it stands.

³ tc The translation follows the LXX θεόν (theon, “God”) rather than the MT לָהֶם (lahem, “to them”). The MT seems to mean “they were bringing a curse on themselves” (cf. ASV, NASB). But this meaning is problematic in part because the verb קָלַל (qalal) means “to curse,” not “to bring a curse on,” and in part because it takes an accusative object rather than the equivalent of a dative. This is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” Why would the ancient copyists alter the original statement about Eli’s sons cursing God to the less objectionable statement that they brought a curse on themselves? Some argue that the scribes were concerned that such a direct and blasphemous affront against God could occur without an immediate response of judgment from God. Therefore they changed the text by deleting two letters א and י (alef and yod) from the word for “God,” with the result that the text then read “to them.” If this ancient scribal claim is accepted as accurate, it implies that the MT here is secondary. The present translation follows the LXX (κακολογοῦντες θεόν, kakologountes theon) and a few mss of the Old Latin in reading “God” rather than the MT “to them.” Cf. also NAB, NRSV, NLT.

¹ tn Or “Scatter salt over Moab, for it will certainly be laid in ruins.” The meaning of these two lines is very uncertain. The Hebrew of these two lines presents several difficulties. It reads תְּנוּ־צִיץ לְמוֹאָב נָצֹא תֵּצֵא (t^enu-tsits l^emoʾav natsoʾ tetseʾ). Of the five words, two are extremely problematic, and the meaning of the second affects also the meaning of the last word, which normally means “go out.” The word צִיץ (tsits) regularly refers to a blossom or flower or the diadem on the front of Aaron’s mitre. BDB 851 s.v. II צִיץ gives a nuance “wings (coll),” based on the interpretation of Abu Walid and some medieval Jewish interpreters, who related it to an Aramaic root. But BDB says that meaning is dubious and refers to the Greek, which reads σημεῖα (sēmeia, “sign” or “sign post”). Along with KBL 802 s.v. I צִיץ and HALOT 959 s.v. II צִיץ, BDB suggests that the Greek presupposes the word צִיּוּן (tsiyyun) which refers to a road marker (Jer 31:21) or a gravestone (2 Kgs 23:17). That is the meaning followed here. Several modern commentaries and English versions have followed a proposal by W. Moran that the word is related to a Ugaritic word meaning salt (cf., e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 320). However, HALOT 959 s.v. II צִיץ questions the validity of this on philological grounds, saying that the meaning of salt does not really fit the Ugaritic either. The present translation follows the suggestions of the lexicons here and reads the word as though the Greek supported the meaning “gravestone.” The other difficulty is with the word נָצֹא (natsoʾ), which looks like a Qal infinitive absolute of an otherwise unattested root that BDB s.v. נָצָא says is defined in Gesenius’ Thesaurus as “fly.” However, BDB sees the meaning and the construction of an infinitive absolute of one root preceding an imperfect of another as improbable. Hence, most modern lexicons either emend the forms to read נָצֹה תִּצֶּה (natsoh titseh) from the root נָצָה (natsah), meaning “to fall into ruins” (so KBL 629 s.v. נָצָה Qal, and see, among others, J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah [NICOT], 700, n. 10, who notes that final א [alef] and final ה [he] are often confused; see the discussion and examples in GKC 216-17 §75.nn-rr). This is the option that this translation and a number of modern ones have taken. A second option is to see נָצֹא (natsoʾ) as an error for יָצֹא (yatsoʾ) and read the text in the sense of “she will certainly surrender,” a meaning that the verb יָצָא (yatsaʾ) has in 1 Sam 11:3 and Isa 36:6. The best discussion of this option, as well as a discussion on the problem of reading צִיץ (tsits) as salt, is found in G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC), 313-14.