¹ tc Most mss (א M) read “amen” (ἀμήν, amēn) after “all” (πάντων, pantōn). It is, however, not found in other significant mss (A 1006 1841). It is easier to account for its addition than its omission from the text if original. Such a conclusion is routinely added by scribes to NT books because a few of these books originally had such an ending (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18; Jude 25). A majority of Greek witnesses have the concluding ἀμήν in every NT book except Acts, James, and 3 John (and even in these books, ἀμήν is found in some witnesses). It is thus a predictable variant.

² sn This is my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted alludes to the Transfiguration. However, the author’s version is markedly different from the synoptic accounts (in particular his introductory phrase, “when that voice was conveyed to him,” an unusual expression [perhaps used to avoid naming God directly as the one who spoke from heaven]). The most natural explanation for such differences is that he was unaware of the exact wording of the Gospels. This is, of course, easier to explain if 2 Peter is authentic than if it is a late document, written in the 2nd century.

⁴ tn Heb “without a hand turned.” The preposition ב (bet) after the verb חוּל (khul) in Hos 11:6 is adversative: “the sword will turn against [Assyria’s] cities.” Other contexts with חוּל (khul) plus ב (bet) are not comparable (ב [bet] often being locative). However, it is not certain that hands must be adversarial, as the sword clearly is in Hos 11:6. The present translation pictures the suddenness of Sodom’s overthrow as an easier fate than the protracted military campaign and subsequent exile and poverty of Judah’s survivors.

¹ tn Heb “And the proud one will fall, and there will be no one to help him up. I will start a fire in his towns, and it will consume all that surround him.” The personification continues, but now the stance is indirect (third person) rather than direct (second person). For the modern reader who is not accustomed to such sudden shifts, it is easier if the second person is maintained. The personification of the city (or nation) as masculine is a little unusual; normally cities and nations are personified as feminine, as daughters or mothers.

² tn Heb “apostate daughter.” This same term is applied to Israel in Jer 31:22 but seems inappropriate here for Ammon because she had never been loyal to the Lord and so could not be called “apostate.” However, if it is used about her rebellion against the Lord’s servant, Nebuchadnezzar, it might be appropriate (cf. Jer 27:6, 8). Hence the term “rebellious” stands in the translation to represent it. The word “daughter” is again a personification of the land (cf. BDB 123 s.v. בַּת 3) and is here translated “people of Ammon” to make the referent easier for the modern reader to identify.

² tc The literal reading of the MT is “let the one who made him draw near [with] his sword.” The sword is apparently a reference to the teeth or tusks of the animal, which cut vegetation like a sword. But the idea of a weapon is easier to see, and so the people who favor the mythological background see here a reference to God’s slaying the Beast. There are again many suggestions on how to read the line. The RV probably has the safest: “He that made him has furnished him with his sword” (the sword being a reference to the sharp tusks with which he can attack).

¹ tn Heb “Gird up your loins.” This idiom basically describes taking the hem of the long garment or robe and pulling it up between the legs and tucking it into the front of the belt, allowing easier and freer movement of the legs. “Girding the loins” meant the preparation for some difficult task (Jer 1:17), or for battle (Isa 5:27), or for running (1 Kgs 18:46). C. Gordon suggests that it includes belt-wrestling, a form of hand-to-hand mortal combat (“Belt-wrestling in the Bible World,” HUCA 23 [1950/51]: 136).

¹ sn This valley was actually a wadi (a dry river bed where the water would flow in the rainy season, but this would have been rare in the Negev). The water table under it would have been higher than in the desert because of water soaking in during the torrents, making it easier to find water when digging wells. However, this does not minimize the blessing of the Lord, for the men of the region knew this too, but did not have the same results.

¹ tc The reading “all this time” (πάλαι, palai) is found in several early and significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses including א* A B F G 0243 6 33 81 365 1175 1739 1881 lat; the reading πάλιν (palin, “again”) is read by א² D Ψ 0278 M sy bo; the reading οὐ πάλαι (ou palai) is read by P⁴⁶, making the question even more emphatic. The reading of P⁴⁶ could only have arisen from πάλαι. The reading πάλιν is significantly easier (“are you once again thinking that we are defending ourselves?”), for it softens Paul’s tone considerably. It thus seems to be a motivated reading and cannot easily explain the rise of πάλαι. Further, πάλαι has considerable support in the Alexandrian and Western witnesses, rendering it virtually certain as the autographic wording here.

² tc Some significant Western witnesses (D it) lack the words from this point to the end of v. 20. However, the authenticity of these verses is very likely. It is found in a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical base (P⁷⁵ א A B C L T^vid W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M al co), rendering the rise of the shorter reading much easier of explanation than the reverse. Further, the inclusion of the second cup is the harder reading, since it differs from Matt 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25. Further discussion of this complicated problem (the most difficult in Luke) can be found in TCGNT 148-50.

² tn The pronouns here are actually second plural: Heb “Be ashamed/disconcerted because of your harvests.” Because the verb form (וּבֹשׁוּ, uvoshu) can either be Qal perfect third plural or Qal imperative masculine plural, many emend the pronoun on the noun to third plural (see, e.g., BHS). However, this is the easier reading and is not supported by either the Latin or the Greek, which have second plural. This is probably another case of the shift from description to direct address that has been met with several times already in Jeremiah (the figure of speech called apostrophe; for other examples see, e.g., 9:4; 11:13). As in other cases, the translation has been leveled to third plural to avoid confusion for the contemporary English reader. For the meaning of the verb here see BDB 101 s.v. בּוֹשׁ Qal.2 and compare the usage in Jer 48:13.

² tn This line may be interpreted in one of three ways: (1) “the labor of fools wearies him because he did not know enough to go to a town,” referring to the labor of the peasants who had not been able to find a place in town where life was easier; (2) “the labor of the fools so wearies everyone of them (singular pronoun taken in a distributive sense) so much that he even does not know how to go to town,” that is, he does not even know how to do the easiest thing in the world; (3) “let the labor of fools so weary him that he may not even know how to go to town,” taking the verb as a jussive, describing the foolish man described in 10:12-14. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:592-93.

³ tn The verb תִּתְחַקֶּה (titkhaqqeh) is a Hitpael from the root חָקָה (khaqah, parallel to חָקַק, khaqaq). The word means “to engrave” or “to carve out.” This Hitpael would mean “to imprint something on oneself” (E. Dhorme [Job, 192] says on one’s mind, and so derives the meaning “examine.”). The object of this is the expression “on the roots of my feet,” which would refer to where the feet hit the ground. Since the passage has more to do with God’s restricting Job’s movement, the translation “you set a boundary to the soles of my feet” would be better than Dhorme’s view. The image of inscribing or putting marks on the feet is not found elsewhere. It may be, as Pope suggests, a reference to marking the slaves to make tracking them easier. The LXX has “you have penetrated to my heels.”

¹ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally significant witnesses have it (P⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 M al sy bo). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. The phrase, however, has stronger evidence geographically. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as autographic. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In sum, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original, though a decision is not easy. The NA²⁸ prints the prepositional phrase in brackets indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

⁶ tc Some mss read θεῷ (theō, “God”) here, a variant much easier to understand in the context. The reading “God” is supported by א² A C E Ψ 33 1739 M lat sy co. The more difficult οἴκῳ (oikō, “house”) is supported by P⁷⁴ א* B D H 049. Thus the second reading is preferred both externally because of better ms evidence and internally because it is hard to see how a copyist finding the reading “God” would change it to “house,” while it is easy to see how (given the LXX of Ps 132:5) a copyist might assimilate the reading and change “house” to “God.” However, some scholars think the reading “house” is so difficult as to be unacceptable. Others (like Lachmann and Hort) resorted to conjectural emendation at this point. Others (Ropes) sought an answer in an underlying Aramaic expression. Not everyone thinks the reading “house” is too difficult to be accepted as original (see Lake and Cadbury). A. F. J. Klijn, “Stephen’s Speech—Acts vii.2-53, ” NTS 4 (1957): 25-31, compared the idea of a “house within the house of Israel” with the Manual of Discipline from Qumran, a possible parallel that seems to support the reading “house” as authentic. (For the more detailed discussion from which this note was derived, see TCGNT 308-9.)

⁴ tc The MT reads the preposition בְּ (bet, “in, at, with”), but several Hebrew mss read the comparative preposition כְּ (kaf, “like”). The LXX seems to have read the בְּ (bet) but reads the opening clauses differently. Instead of מְתֻלָּעִים (metullaʿim, “those clothed in scarlet”) the LXX probably read מִתְעַלְּלִים (mitʿall^elim, “those making sport [with fire],”) which, as here, is typically translated in the LXX with ἐμπαίζω (empaizō, “mock, make sport”). The two prepositions are easily confused visually and the scribe’s understanding of how the object of the preposition functions in the clause could affect which preposition the scribe favored. The MT is the more difficult reading and better explains the origin of the variant since it easier to postulate the scribe would consider the בְּ (bet) to be a mistake. The use of the preposition בְּ is difficult to identify in this case, especially since it is a verbless clause. The KJV accepts the earlier emendation of לַפִּדוֹת (lappidot, “torches”) and renders “the chariots [shall be] with flaming torches.” The NRSV and NIV omit the prepositional phrase, giving “the metal on the chariots flashes.” The NASB supplies a verb “the chariots are enveloped in flashing steel.” It is unlikely to be a bet essentiae, as that use is not metaphorically comparative but points out a quality that the noun it modifies also has. Since the previous two lines describe the adornment of objects, the translation takes this phrase similarly and understands אֵשׁ (ʾesh, “fire”) metaphorically.

⁴ tn Heb “I am against you, oh destroying mountain that destroys all the earth. I will reach out my hand against you and roll you down from the cliffs and make you a mountain of burning.” The interpretation adopted here follows the lines suggested by S. R. Driver, Jeremiah, 318, n. c and reflected also in BDB 977 s.v. שְׂרֵפָה. Babylon is addressed as a destructive mountain because it is being compared to a volcano. The Lord, however, will make it a “burned-out mountain,” i.e., an extinct volcano that is barren and desolate. This interpretation seems, to this translator, to fit the details of the text more consistently than alternative ones, which separate the concept of “destroying/destructive” from “mountain,” explain the figure of the mountain as symbolizing the dominating political position of Babylon, and take the “mountain of burning” to be a “burned [or burned over] mountain.” The use of similes in place of metaphors makes it easier for the modern reader to understand the figures. It also more easily incorporates the dissonant figure of “rolling you down from the cliffs,” which involves the figure of personification.

¹ tn Heb “For he is the former of all [things] and the tribe of his inheritance.” This is the major exception to the verbatim repetition of 10:12-16 in 51:15-19. The word “Israel” appears before “the tribe of his inheritance” in 10:16. It is also found in a number of Hebrew mss, in the Lucianic recension of the LXX (the Greek version), the Aramaic Targums, and the Latin Vulgate. Most English versions and many commentaries assume it here. However, it is easier to explain why the word is added in a few of the versions and some Hebrew than to explain why it was left out. It is probable that the word is not original here because the addressees are different and the function of this hymnic piece is slightly different (see the study note on the next line for details). Here it makes good sense to understand that the Lord is being called the creator of the special tribe of people he claims as his own property (see the study note on the first line of 10:16).

² tc The translation is based on an emendation of the text which leaves out “the rest of the people who were left” as a double writing of the same phrase at the beginning of the verse. Some commentators emend the phrase “the rest of the people who were left” (וְאֵת יֶתֶר הָעָם הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, v^eʾet yeter haʿam hannishʾarim) to “the rest of the craftsmen who were left” (וְאֵת יֶתֶר הָאָמוֹן הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, v^eʾet yeter haʾamon hannishʾarim) on the basis of the parallel in Jer 52:15 (which does not have הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, hannishʾarim). However, it is easier to explain the phrase as a dittography of the phrase at the beginning (which is exactly the same except הָעִיר [haʿir] follows it). The text is redundant because it refers twice to the same group of people. The Hebrew text reads, “And the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to him and the rest of the people Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, carried into exile to Babylon.” The text has also been divided up to create two shorter sentences that better conform with contemporary English style.

³ sn The fact that the garment was not to be put in water is not explained. A possible explanation within the context is that it was to be worn continuously, not even taken off to wash it. That would illustrate that the close relationship that the Lord had with his people was continuous and indissoluble. Other explanations are that it was not to be gotten wet because (1) that would have begun the process of rotting (This assumes that the rotting was done by the water of the Euphrates. But it was buried in a crack in the rocks, not in the river itself); (2) that would have made it softer and easier to wear; or (3) that showed that the garment was new, clean, and fresh from the merchant. For this latter interpretation see J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 64. For a fuller discussion of most of the issues connected with this acted-out parable see W. McKane, Jeremiah (ICC), 1:285-92. However, the reason is not explained in the text, and there is not enough evidence in the text to come to a firm conclusion, though the most likely possibility is that it was not to be taken off and washed but worn continuously.