⁴ tc The MT reads לֹא־אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם (loʾ ʾehyeh lakhem, “I will not be yours”). The editors of BHS suggest emending the text to לֹא־אֱלֹהֵיכֶם (loʾ ʾelohekhem, “I will not be your God”). The emendation creates a tighter parallel with the preceding אַתֶּם לֹא עַמִּי (ʾattem loʾ ʿammi, “you are not my people”). Because of a lack of external evidence, however, the reading of the MT should be retained.

⁵ tn The noun עָוֹן (ʿavon) is repeated twice in this verse, denoting first “punishment for iniquity” (v. 22a), and then “iniquity” (v. 22b). See a preceding translator’s note on the broad range of meanings for this word. The repetition of the same root with different meanings creates an ironic polysemantic wordplay: Zion’s “punishment” for its sin is about to come to an end, but the punishment for Edom’s “sin” is about to begin.

¹ tn The Greek version is likely right in interpreting the construction of two perfects preceded by the conjunction as contingent or consequential here, i.e., “and when they say…then say.” See GKC 494 §159.g. However, to render literally would create a long sentence. Hence, the words “will probably” have been supplied in v. 12 in the translation to set up the contingency/consequential sequence in the English sentences.

² tn Heb “peace.” An eloquent wordplay is created by the use of the noun שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace, favor”) in 8:10b and the name שְׁלֹמֹה (sh^elomoh, “Solomon”) in 8:11a. The Beloved found “favor” (שָׁלוֹם) in the eyes of Solomon (שְׁלֹמֹה). She won his heart because she was not only a beautiful young woman (“my breasts were like fortress towers”), but a virtuous woman (“I was a wall”).

⁵ sn The verb הָרָה (harah, “to burn in anger, to be angry”) creates an interesting wordplay or pun on the preceding line: “The sun burned me (= my skin).” The sun burned her skin because her brothers had burned (נִהֲרוּ, niharu) in anger against her. This is an example of a polysemantic wordplay which explains the two basic meanings of הָרָה (“to burn, to be angry”) (W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup], 241-42).

⁷ sn The repetition of the noun כֶּרֶם (kerem, “vineyard”) and the verb נָטַר (natar, “to keep, maintain”) creates a series of eloquent wordplays. The first occurrence of כֶּרֶם (“vineyard”) and נָטַר (“to keep”) is literal, the second occurrence of both is figurative (hypocatastasis). Her brothers forced her to work outside in the sun, taking care of the vineyards; as a result, she was not able to take care of her appearance (“my own vineyard I could not keep”).

² tn Heb “the sun goes.” The participle בָּא (baʾ, “to go in”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising and continually setting day after day. The repetition of בָּא in 1:4-5 creates a comparison between the relative futility of all human endeavor (“a generation comes and a generation goes [בָּא]”) with the relative futility of the action of the sun (“the sun rises and the sun goes” [i.e., “sets,” בָּא]).

² tn The third parallel verb is חוֹלָלְתִּי (kholalti), “I was birthed (through labor pains).” Some (e.g., KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV) translate it “brought forth”—not in the sense of being presented, but in the sense of being “begotten, given birth to.” Here is the strongest support for the translation of קָנָה (qanah) as “created” in v. 22. The verb is not literal; it continues the perspective of the personification.

¹ tc A number of medieval Hebrew manuscripts have YHWH (“Lord”); BHS has אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay, “Lord”). As J. E. Hartley (Job [NICOT], 383) points out, this is the only occurrence of אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay, “Lord”) in the book of Job, creating doubt for retaining it. Normally, YHWH is avoided in the book. “Fear of” (יִרְאַת, yirʾat) is followed by שַׁדַּי (shadday, “Almighty”) in 6:14—the only other occurrence of this term for “fear” in construct with a divine title.

³ tn Heb “on the day.” In contrast to the numbered days in ch. 1 (see note on “day” at 1:5), “day” appears here in a phrase which means “at the time when.” It may but does not need to refer to a particular day. It can refer to a broader period of time (cf. Obad 11), though typically a short period of time pertaining to a particular event. Here it summarizes the seven days of creation as “when” the Lord created.

⁴ tn Following the cohortative (“let us make”), the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) conjunctive indicates purpose/result (see Gen 19:20; 34:23; 2 Sam 3:21). God’s purpose in giving humankind his image is that they might rule the created order on behalf of the heavenly king and his royal court. So the divine image, however it is defined, gives humankind the capacity and/or authority to rule over creation.

⁵ sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.

¹ tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

³ tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (baraʾ) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15; 65:17).

¹ tn The MT reads נִסַּכְתִּי (nissakhti), which would come from one of the homonymous roots נָסַךְ (nasakh). The LXX reads ἐθεμελίωσέν με (ethemeliōsen me, “he founded me”) suggesting נוֹסַדְתִּי (nosadti, “I was founded, established”) from יָסַד (yasad, see HALOT 417, s.v.). BHS proposes נְסַכֹּתִי (n^esakkoti, “I was shaped, woven”), which uses the same consonants as the MT but is from the root סָכַך (sakhakh). BDB created an entry for Ps 2:6 and Prov 8:23 (BDB s.v. III נָסַך), citing the Akkadian verb nasaku, which it then related to the noun nasiku, “prince.” BDB’s proposed meaning is “set, install,” however, this is not the meaning of the Akkadian verb and the noun is a West Semitic word brought into Akkadian (see CAD N2 15, s.v. nasaku A and 27, s.v. nasiku). HALOT lists this verb under II נָסַך, “to be woven, shaped” in the Niphal, and also calls II נָסַך a by-form of סָכַך (sakhakh) (see HALOT 703, s.v. II נָסַך and 754, s.v. 2 סָכַך). The Concise DCH suggests the possibilities that it is related to I נָסַך (nasakh) “be poured out, i.e., emanate” or II נָסַך (nasakh) “be woven, fashioned” (See The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew 275, s.v. I נָסַך and II נָסַך). The root סָכַך (sakhakh) is used in Ps 139:13 where it is parallel to קָנָה (qanah, “to create”) just as the verb here is parallel to קָנָה in 8:22. The translation attempts to capture the notion of being “created, fashioned, formed” in the two parallel verbs whether this verb is from II נָסַך or סָכַך. Note that the parallel in 8:24 is being born, another verb of making.

¹ tn The opening in the wall is not specifically mentioned here, but the parallel account in 2 Cor 11:33 mentions a “window” or “opening” (θυρίς, thuris) in the city wall through which Paul was lowered. One alternative to introducing mention of the opening is to translate Acts 9:25 “they let him down over the wall,” as suggested in L&N 7.61. This option is not employed by many translations, however, because for the English reader it creates an (apparent) contradiction between Acts 9:25 and 2 Cor 11:33. In reality the account here is simply more general, omitting the detail about the window.

² tn Or “unbelieving.” Here the translation employs the slightly more ambiguous “unfaithful,” which creates a link with the point of the parable—faithfulness versus unfaithfulness in servants. The example of this verse must be taken together with the examples of vv. 47-48 as part of a scale of reactions with the most disobedient response coming here. The fact that this servant is placed in a distinct group, unlike the one in vv. 47-48, also suggests ultimate exclusion. This is the hypocrite of Matt 24:51.

² sn Exegetically the plural pronoun “their” creates a problem. It was Mary’s purification that was required by law, forty days after the birth (Lev 12:2-4). However, it is possible that Joseph shared in a need to be purified by having to help with the birth or that they also dedicated the child as a first born (Exod 13:2), which would also require a sacrifice that Joseph would bring. Luke’s point is that the parents followed the law. They were pious.

³ tn The root דָמָה (damah, “to be cut off, cease to exist, be destroyed”; BDB 198 s.v. דָּמָה; HALOT 225 s.v. דמה) is repeated in the Hebrew text. The form נִדְמֹה (nidmoh, Niphal infinitive absolute) appears in the first colon, and the form נִדְמָה (nidmah, Niphal perfect third person masculine singular) appears in the second colon. This striking repetition creates a dramatic wordplay that, for stylistic reasons, cannot be reproduced in English translations: “The moment the dawn ceases to exist (i.e., at the break of dawn), the king of Israel will cease to exist.”

¹ tn Hebrew has “his” in both cases here whereas the rest of the possessive pronouns throughout vv. 35-37 are “her.” There is no explanation for this switch unless the third masculine singular refers as a distributive singular to the soldiers mentioned in the preceding verse (cf. GKC 464 §145.l). This is probably the case here, but to refer to “their horses and their chariots” in the midst of many references to “her” might create more confusion than what it is worth to be that precise.