² tn Heb “measure of two.” The Hebrew expression פִּי שְׁנַיִם (pi sh^enayim) suggests a two-thirds split; that is, the elder gets two parts and the younger one part. Cf. 2 Kgs 2:9; Zech 13:8. The practice is implicit in Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (Gen 25:31-34) and Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim (Gen 48:8-22).

² tn Lexically, the Hebrew term חָרֻם (kharum) seems to refer to a split nose or perhaps any number of other facial defects (HALOT 354 s.v. II חרם qal; cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 292, n. 7); cf. KJV, ASV “a flat nose”; NASB “a disfigured face.” The NJPS translation is “a limb too short” as a balance to the following term which means “extended, raised,” and apparently refers to “a limb too long” (see the explanation in B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 146).

¹ tc Certain mss (B^[*^] D¹ H 0278 1175 1505 1739 2464 M sy sa) read ἡμῶν (hēmōn, “our”), while others (P⁴⁶ א C D* F G P Ψ 075 33 81 1881 al latt bo) read ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”). Internally, it is possible that the second person pronoun arose through scribal conformity to the second person pronoun used previously in v. 3 (ὑμῶν) and following in v. 4 (ὑμεῖς, humeis). But in terms of external criteria, the second person pronoun has superior ms support (though there is an Alexandrian split) and ἡμῶν may have arisen through accident (error of sight) or scribal attempt to universalize the statement since all Christians have Jesus as their life. See TCGNT 557.

³ tc ‡ Grk “so that they will not be persecuted.” The indicative after ἵνα μή (hina mē) is unusual (though not unexampled elsewhere in the NT), making it the harder reading. The evidence is fairly evenly split between the indicative διώκονται (diōkontai; P⁴⁶ A C F G K L P 0278 6 81 104 326 629 1175 1241 1505 2464 pm) and the subjunctive διώκωνται (diōkōntai; א B D Ψ 33 365 1739 pm), with a slight preference for the subjunctive. However, since scribes would tend to change the indicative to a subjunctive due to syntactical requirements, the internal evidence is decidedly on the side of the indicative, suggesting that it is the autographic wording.

⁵ tc The MT appears to read יָגִילוּ (yagilu, “they will rejoice”; Qal imperfect third person masculine plural from גִּיל, gil, “to rejoice”), but this is likely an example of semantic polarization. See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 556-67. The BHS editors propose the reading יְיֵלִילוּ (y^eyelilu, “they will lament”; Hiphil imperfect third person masculine plural from יָלַל, yalal, “to lament”), which also appears in Hos 7:14. If this reading is original, the textual variant may be attributed to (1) orthographic confusion between ל (lamed) and ג (gimel), and (2) haplography or dittography of י (yod). English versions are split; some follow the MT (KJV, ASV, NIV, NJPS), others the proposed emendation (RSV, NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).

¹ tc The LXX records ἐμνήσθην (emnēsthēn, “I remembered”), which may reflect a first person singular form זָכַרְתִּי (zakharti), whereas the MT preserves the form זְכָר (z^ekhor), which may be Qal imperative second person masculine singular (“Remember!”) or infinitive construct (“To remember…”). A second person masculine singular imperative would most likely address God. In the next verse נַפְשִׁי (nafshi, “my soul”) is the subject of זְכָר (z^ekhor). If נַפְשִׁי (nafshi) is also the subject here, one would expect a second person feminine singular imperative זִכְרִי (zikhri), a form that stands in the middle of the MT’s זְכָר (z^ekhor) and the presumed זָכַרְתִּי (zakharti) read by the LXX. English versions are split between the options: “To recall” (NJPS), “Remember!” (RSV, NRSV, NASB), “Remembering” (KJV, NKJV), and “I remember” (NIV).

³ tc The Kethib is written לֹא חָמַל (loʾ khamal, “without mercy”), while the Qere reads וְלֹא חָמַל (v^eloʾ khamal, “and he has shown no mercy”). The Kethib is followed by the LXX, while the Qere is reflected in many Hebrew mss and the ancient versions (Syriac Peshitta, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate). The English versions are split between the Kethib (“The Lord swallowed all the dwellings of Jacob without mercy”; cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, NJPS) and the Qere (“The Lord swallowed all the dwellings of Jacob and has shown no mercy”; cf. KJV, NASB, CEV). As these words occur between a verb and its object (חָמַל [khamal] is not otherwise followed by אֵת [ʾet, direct object marker]), an adverbial reading is the most natural, although interrupting the sentence with an insertion is possible. Cf. 2:17, 21; 3:43. In contexts of harming, to show mercy often means to spare from harm.

² tn Heb “she has become an object of head-nodding” (לְנִידָה הָיָתָה, l^eniydah hayatah). This reflects the ancient Near Eastern custom of shaking the head in scorn (e.g., Jer 18:16; Ps 44:15 [14 HT]), hence the translation “object of scorn.” There is debate whether נִידָה (nidah) means (1) “object of head-shaking” from נוּד (nud, “to shake,” BDB 626-27 s.v. נוּד); (2) “unclean thing” from נָדַה (nadah, “to be impure”); or (3) “wanderer” from נָדַד (nadad, “to wander,” BDB 622 s.v. I נָדַד). The LXX and Rashi connected it to נָדַד (nadad, “to wander”); however, several important early Greek recensions (Aquila and Symmachus) and Syriac translated it as “unclean thing.” The modern English versions are split: (1) “unclean thing” (NASB); “unclean” (NIV); (2) “a mockery” (NRSV).

¹ tn Or “extortion.” Scholars debate whether the noun עֹשֶׁק (ʿosheq, “oppression; extortion”) in this context denotes “oppression” (HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1) or “gain of extortion” (BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 3). The parallelism between עֹשֶׁק and מַתָּנָה (mattanah, “bribe”) seems to suggest the latter, but the prominence of the theme of oppression in 7:8-10 argues for the former. Elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, the noun עֹשֶׁק denotes “oppression” (Eccl 4:1) and “extortion” (Eccl 5:8 [Heb 5:7]). The LXX rendered it as συκοφαντία (sukophantia, “oppression”). English translations are split between these two options: “extortion” (ASV, MLB, NIV), “oppression” (KJV, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, YLT, Douay, Moffatt), as well as “cheating” (NJPS) and “slander” (NEB).

³ tc A number of mss, some of them quite significant (A C K P 5 33 81 442 1243 1505 1611 1735 1739 1852 1881 2344 pm sy^h bo), read ὑμῶν (humōn, “your”) rather than ἡμῶν (hēmōn, “our”), which is found in somewhat better witnesses (א B L Ψ 049 436 1175 1241 pm sy^p sa). Although the majority of Byzantine minuscules are split between the two readings, the Textus Receptus reads ὑμῶν. It is possible that ὑμῶν represents a scribal assimilation to John 16:24, where the Greek purpose clause is identical to the wording here with ὑμῶν (“so that your joy may be complete”). As far as the immediate context is concerned, either reading could possibly be original, since the recipients have already been mentioned in 1:2 (ὑμῖν, humin) and 1:3 (ὑμῖν), while it might seem more natural for the author to be concerned about the fulfillment of his own joy than his readers’ (cf. 2 John 4, 12; 3 John 3). Overall, the first person pronoun is preferred on both external and internal grounds. Although previous editions of the UBS text gave the first person pronoun reading an “A” rating, UBS⁵ strips out any rating at all and, along with NA²⁸, ranks ὑμῶν as an equally viable alternative initial reading by placing it in the apparatus with a diamond.

¹ tc ‡ A difficult textual problem is found here, involving three different variants: καὶ λέγουσιν (kai legousin) is found in א; οἱ δὲ εἶπον (hoi de eipon) is the reading of P⁴⁵ A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 M it; and καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (kai legousin autō) is supported by B C L (Δ 579 892). The first two variants would not be translated differently; the third reading, however, would add “to him” after “they replied.” What complicates the issue is that the external evidence is fairly evenly split between the second and third readings, though the first reading is in agreement with the second reading in lacking the dative pronoun. Indeed, another layout of the problem here could treat this as two distinct problems: καὶ λέγουσιν vs. οἱ δὲ εἶπον and αὐτῷ vs. omission of the word. In this second arrangement of the problem, the reading without the pronoun has slightly stronger support (P⁴⁵ א A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 33 M it). Internally, Mark never elsewhere uses the form εἶπον for the third person plural indicative form of this verb (it is always εἶπαν [eipan]). And although only one other time in Mark is the object lacking after λέγουσιν (6:38), it is a similar context (viz., the disciples’ response before Jesus feeds the 5000). Very tentatively, the reading that is followed here is καὶ λέγουσιν. NA²⁸ puts αὐτῷ in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

² tn A Hebrew verb זָכַר (zakar) is likely related to Akkadian zakāru (“to declare, mention, give an order”; see CAD Z 17 s.v. zakāru A 1.c “to give an order”). While the West Semitic zakāru B (“to remember”) appears in Amarna Akkadian documents (CAD Z 22 s.v. zakāru B), the relation of Hebrew cases of זָכַר to Akkadian zakāru A is not entirely clear. The most common gloss for the Hebrew verb is “to remember,” but the dictionaries include meanings like “to mention” (HALOT 270 s.v. זָכַר 1, Concise DCH 100 s.v. זָכַר 1) which appear connected to Akkadian zakāru A. However the root is classified in Hebrew, whether one root, homonyms, or a loan word, this occurrence of זָכַר is well explained by the attested meaning of the cognate verb in Akkadian. The English versions are split regarding how to view the root: “he commands” (NJPS), “he summons” (NIV), “he recounts” (KJV), “he remembers” (NASB), and “he calls” (NRSV).

² tc The MT reads וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹהֵן (v^eʿamm^ekha kimrive khohen), “And your people [are] like those who contend against the priest.” This is reflected in the LXX and the versions; however, it is syntactically awkward and makes little sense in context. Several textual critics suggest emending the text to read וְעִמְּךָ רִיבִי כֹהֵן (v^eʿimm^ekha rivi khohen), “My contention is with/against you, O priest!” This involves (1) the revocalization of עַמְּךָ (“your people”) to עִמְּךָ (“with/against you”) and (2) positing dittography (a letter written twice instead of once) of כְּ (kaf) between original וְעַמְּךָ רִיבִי to create וְעַמְּךָ כִּרִיבִי (MT). The BHS editors suggest that the MT should be emended. However, the editors of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project retain the MT reading with a “B” rating. Likewise, the English translations are split: (1) KJV “for thy people are as they that strive with the priest”; NASB “for your people are like those who contend with the priest”; and NIV “for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest”; and (2) RSV “for with you is my contention, O priest”; NJPS: “for this your people has a grievance against [you], O priest!”; TEV “my complaint is against you priests”; and CEV “My case is against you, the priests!”

³ tn Heb “A sword against his horses and his chariots and against all the mixed company [or mixed multitude] in her midst, and they will become like women.” The sentence had to be split up because it is too long, and the continuation of the second half with its consequential statement would not fit together with the first half very well. Hence the subject and verb have been repeated. The Hebrew word translated “foreign troops” (עֶרֶב, ʿerev) is the same word that is used in 25:20 to refer to the foreign peoples living in Egypt, and in Exod 12:38 for the foreign people that accompanied Israel out of Egypt. Here the word is translated contextually to refer to foreign mercenaries, an identification that most of the commentaries and many of the modern English versions accept (see, e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 355; NRSV; NIV). The significance of the simile “they will become like women” has been spelled out for the sake of clarity.

⁴ tc The MT reads מִמֶּנִּי (mimmenni, “more than I”). However, an alternate textual tradition of מִמֶּנּוּ (mimmennu, “apart from him [= God]”) is preserved in several medieval Hebrew mss, and is reflected in most of the versions (LXX, Syriac, Syro-Hexapla, and Jerome). The textual deviation is a case of simple orthographic confusion between י (yod) and ו (vav) as frequently happened, e.g., MT צו לצו צו לצו (tsv ltsv tsv ltsv) versus 1QIsa^a 28:10 צי לצי צי לצי (tsy ltsy ts ltsy); see P. K. McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism, 47. It is difficult to determine which reading is original here. The MT forms a parenthetical clause, where Qoheleth refers to himself: no one had more of an opportunity to experience more enjoyment in life than he (e.g., 2:1-11). The alternate textual tradition is a causal clause, explaining why the ability to enjoy life is a gift from God: no one can experience enjoyment in life “apart from him,” that is, apart from “the hand of God” in 2:24. It is possible that internal evidence supports the alternate textual tradition. In 2:24-26, Qoheleth is not emphasizing his own resources to enjoy life, as he had done in 2:1-11, but that the ability to enjoy life is the gift of God. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Hebrew Bible project retains the MT reading with a “B” rating; see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:570. The English versions are split on the textual problem: a few retain MT מִמֶּנִּי (“more than I”), e.g., KJV, ASV, YLT, Douay, NJPS, while others adopt the alternate reading מִמֶּנּוּ, “apart from him” (NEB, NAB, MLB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Moffatt).

¹ tc The textual problems in Hosea are virtually unparalleled in the OT. The Masoretic Text (MT), represented by the Leningrad Codex (c. a.d. 1008), which served as the basis for both BHK and BHS, and the Aleppo Codex (c. a.d. 952), by all accounts have a multitude of scribal errors. Many medieval Masoretic mss preserve textual variants that differ from the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices. The Qumran materials (4QXII^c,d,g) contain numerous textual variants that differ from the MT; unfortunately, these texts are quite fragmentary (frequently in the very place that an important textual problem appears). The textual tradition and translation quality of the LXX and the early Greek recensions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) is mixed; in some places they are inferior to the MT but in other places they preserve a better reading. The textual apparatus of BHK and BHS contains many proposed emendations based on the ancient versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin, Aramaic) that often appear to be superior readings than what is preserved in the MT. In numerous cases, the MT readings are so difficult morphologically, syntactically, and contextually that conservative conjectural emendations are necessary to make sense of the text. Most major English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NAB, NASB, NIV, TEV, NKJV, NJPS, NJB, NRSV, REB, NCV, CEV, NLT) adopt (either occasionally or frequently) textual variants reflected in the versions and occasionally adopt conservative conjectural emendations proposed in BHK and/or BHS. However, many of the textual problems in Hosea are so difficult that the English versions frequently are split among themselves. With this in mind, the present translation of Hosea must necessarily be viewed as only preliminary. Further work on the text and translation of Hosea is needed, not only in terms of the NET Bible but in Hosea studies in general. The text of Hosea should be better clarified when the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project completes work on the book of Hosea. For further study of textual problems in Hosea, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:228-71.

¹ tn The noun שֹׁרֶר (shorer) is a hapax legomenon, appearing in the OT only here. There is debate whether it means “navel” or “vulva”: (1) Lys and Pope suggest that שֹׁרֶר is related to Arabic srr (“secret place, pudenda, coition, fornication”). They suggest that this is contextually supported by three factors: (a) His descriptive praise of her is in ascending order, beginning with her feet and concluding with her hair. The movement from her thighs (7:1b), to her vulva (7:2a), and then to her waist (7:2b) would fit this. (b) The descriptive comparison to a glass of wine would be grotesque if her navel were in view—her navel was moist or filled with liquid?—but appropriate if her vulva were in view. (c) The navel would be a somewhat synonymous reference to the belly which is already denoted by בִּטְנֵךְ (bitnekh, “belly”) in the following line. Because 7:1-7 does not use synonymous parallelism, the term שֹׁרֶר would have to refer to something other than the belly. (2) The term שֹׁרֶר denotes “navel”: (a) It may be related to the bi-consonantal noun שֹׁר (shor, “navel, umbilical cord”) (Prov 3:8; Ezek 16:4). (b) Mishnaic Hebrew שָׁרָר (sharar) denotes “navel, umbilical cord” (Jastrow 1634 s.v. שָׁרָר). For example, in a midrash on the Book of Numbers, the noun שֹׁרֶר appears in an allusion to Song 7:3 to justify the seating of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the synagogue: “As the navel (שֹׁרֶר) is placed in the centre of the body, so are the Sanhedrin…” (Num. Rab. 1:4). On the other hand, the meaning “vulva” never appears in Mishnaic Hebrew. Therefore, apart from this disputed usage there is no evidence that this term was ever used in this manner in Hebrew. (c) Rather than שֹׁרֶר being related to Arabic sirr (“pudenda”), it could just as easily be related to the Arabic noun surr “navel.” It is methodologically more sound to define שֹׁרֶר as “navel” than as “vulva.” (d) The nuance “navel” is not as out of line contextually as Lys and Pope suggest. The navel would not be out of place in the ascending order of praise because the בִּטְנֵךְ (“abdomen”) which follows may be viewed as both above and below the navel. The figurative association of the שֹׁרֶר as a mixing bowl filled with wine does not imply that this bodily part must actually be moist or filled with liquid as Pope suggests. The point of comparison is not physical or visual but one of function, i.e., it is intoxicating. The comparison of the navel to a mixing bowl of wine is no more out of line than the comparison of the belly to a heap of wheat in the next line. In fact, the two go together—she is both the “drink” and “food” for Solomon. The shape of the navel is as congruent with the metaphor of the “round bowl” as the vulva; both are round and receding. (3) Since both terms are derived from the same geminate root—Hebrew שֹׁרֶר and Arabic srr—it is more prudent to take the term as a synecdoche of whole (lower region) for the parts (including navel and vulva). The attempt to decide between these two options may be illegitimately splitting hairs. See K&D 18:123; J. S. Deere, “Song of Solomon,” BKCOT, 199-200; D. Lys, “Notes sur de Cantique,” VTSup 17 (1969): 171-78; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB), 617; G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon (TOTC), 157.