¹ tn Heb “you have fed them the food of tears.”

² tn Heb “eat” (KJV, NAB, NASB); NIV “feed on”; NLT “be fed with.”

¹ tn By implication these lines refer to those formerly well-fed and those formerly hungry.

² tn The Greek word here is ἀνήρ, meaning “adult male” (BDAG 79 s.v. 1). According to Matt 14:21, Jesus fed not only 5,000 men, but also an unspecified number of women and children.

¹ sn This kind of ranking according to favoritism no doubt fed the jealousy over Joseph that later becomes an important element in the narrative. It must have been painful to the family to see that they were expendable.

¹ tc The MT reads כְּמַרְעִיתָם (k^emarʿitam, “according to their pasturage”; preposition כְּ (kaf) + noun מַרְעִית, marʿit, “pasture” + third person masculine plural suffix). Text-critics propose: (1) כְּמוֹ רְעִיתִים (k^emo r^eʿitim, “as I pastured them”; preposition כְּמוֹ (k^emo) + Qal perfect first person common singular from רָעַה, raʿah, “to pasture, feed” + third person masculine plural suffix) and (2) כִּרְעוֹתָם (“when they had pastured”; preposition כְּ + Qal perfect third person masculine plural from רָעַה). Some English versions follow the MT: “according to their pasture” (KJV), “as they had their pasture” (NASB), and “when you entered the good land” (TEV). Others adopt the first emendation: “when I fed them” (NIV, NRSV) and “I fed you [sic = them]” (CEV). Still others follow the second emendation: “but when they had fed to the full” (RSV) and “when they grazed” (NJPS).

¹ sn The expression cows of Bashan is used by the prophet to address the wealthy women of Samaria, who demand that their husbands satisfy their cravings. The derogatory language perhaps suggests that they, like the livestock of Bashan, were well fed, ironically in preparation for the coming slaughter. This phrase is sometimes cited to critique the book’s view of women.

¹ tn Heb “the strength of oxen.” The genitive שׁוֹר (shor, “oxen”) functions as an attributed genitive: “strong oxen.” Strong oxen are indispensable for a good harvest, and for oxen to be strong they must be well-fed. The farmer has to balance grain consumption with the work oxen do.

³ sn You fed him to the people. This pictures the fragments of Leviathan’s dead corpse washing up on shore and being devoured by those who find them. If the exodus is in view, then it may allude to the bodies of the dead Egyptians which washed up on the shore of the Red Sea (see Exod 14:30).

¹ tn Heb “weighted down.” This probably refers (1) to the cattle having the produce from the harvest placed on their backs to be transported to the storehouses (see BDB 687 s.v. סָבַל). Other options are (2) to take this as reference to the cattle being pregnant (see HALOT 741 s.v. סבל pu) or (3) to their being well-fed or fattened (see L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 [WBC], 288).

² tn The term “pool” (בְּרֵכָה, b^erekhah) usually refers to a man-made artificial water reservoir fed by water aqueducts rather than to a natural pond (HALOT 161 s.v.). For example, it is used in reference to man-made water reservoirs for the royal gardens (Eccl 2:6; Neh 2:14); man-made water reservoirs in Jerusalem, some of which were fed by aqueducts (2 Kgs 18:17; 20:20; Isa 7:3; 22:9, 11; 36:2; Neh 3:15, 16); the pool of Gibeon (2 Sam 2:13); the pool of Hebron (2 Sam 4:12); the pool of Samaria (1 Kgs 22:38); and the pools of Heshbon (Song 7:5). The pool of Siloam, built by Hezekiah and fed by the underground aqueduct known as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, is designated by the term בְּרֵכָה in 2 Kgs 20:20 and the Siloam Inscription (line 5).

² tn The word “pampered” is not in the text. It is supplied in the translation to explain the probable meaning of the simile. The mercenaries were well cared for like stall-fed calves, but in the face of the danger they will prove no help because they will not stand their ground but will turn and run away. Some see the point of the simile to be that they too are fattened for slaughter. However, the next two lines do not fit that interpretation too well.

⁴ tn Heb “to eat to one’s fill.” The verb שָׂבֵעַ (saveaʿ) means (1) positive: “to eat one’s fill” so that one’s appetite is satisfied and (2) negative: “to eat in excess” as a glutton to the point of sickness and revulsion (BDB 959 s.v.). Fools will not only “eat” the fruit of their own way (v. 31a), they will be force-fed this revolting “menu” which will make them want to vomit (v. 31b) and eventually kill them (v. 32).

¹ tn Heb “and he fed him from the best of the wheat.” The Hebrew text has a third person form of the preterite with a vav (ו) consecutive attached. However, it is preferable, in light of the use of the first person in v. 14 and in the next line, to emend the verb to a first person form and understand the vav as conjunctive, continuing the apodosis of the conditional sentence of vv. 13-14. The third masculine singular pronominal suffix refers to Israel, as in v. 6.

¹ tn Or “cords of human [kindness].” The noun אָדָם (ʾadam) is traditionally related to I אָדָם (“man”) and translated either literally or figuratively (as a metonymy of association for humane compassion): “cords of a man” (KJV, RSV margin, NASB), “cords of human kindness” (NIV, NCV), “human ties” (NJPS), and “cords of compassion” (RSV). But while it refers to humanity it rarely if ever means “humanely.” Another view sees the noun as II אָדָם (“leather”; HALOT 14 s.v. אָדָם) or possibly to be revocalized as אֹדֶם (ʾodem, “leather”; DCH rev. 1:153 s.v. אֹדֶם and 152 s.v. אָדָם II) and in parallel in this verse with II אַהֲבָה (ʾahavah, “leather”). This homonymic root is well attested in Arabic ʾadam (“skin”) and ʾadim (“tanned skin; leather”). It could fit the context of 11:4, which compares Israel to an animal: the Lord led him with leather cords, lifted the yoke from his neck, and fed him. Elsewhere, Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn cow (4:6) and harnessed heifer (10:11). It is somewhat common that the infrequent vocabulary of the Old Testament appears in poetic contexts, and this may be the case here. Richard S. Hess, “’ĀDĀM as ‘Skin’ and ‘Earth’: An Examination of Some Proposed Meanings in Biblical Hebrew,” TynBul (39) 1988: 141-42, claims that understanding the words as from the common roots is “acceptable for the context” and that taking the words as the more common roots is “the simplest and most suitable reading of the text.” HALOT cites Hans Walter Wolff for II אָדָם and II אַהֲבָה, but Hess notes that Wolff later rejected “leather” as a translation for these words in a commentary on Hosea. Hess is followed by NIDOTTE (261 s.v. אָדָם I).