⁴ tn Heb “to cause his soul to see good.” The idiom רָאָה טוֹב (raʾah tov, “to see good”) is a metonymy of association, meaning “to find enjoyment” (e.g., 3:13; 5:17; 6:6). In 3:12-13 and 5:17-18 it is in collocation and/or parallelism with ב (bet) plus שָׂמַח (samakh, “to rejoice in,” or “to find satisfaction or pleasure in” something). Here, it is used in collocation with חוּשׁ (khush, “to enjoy”). The term נַפְשׁוֹ (nafsho, “his soul”) is a metonymy of part (i.e., soul) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Num 23:10; Judg 16:30; Pss 16:10; 35:13; 103:1 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 640-41).

³ tc The MT reads שֶׁיֹּאכַל (sheyyo’khal, “that he should eat”; Qal imperfect third person masculine singular from אָכַל, ʾakhal, “to eat,” with relative pronoun שֶׁ, she, “that”). However, the variant textual tradition of מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל (misheyyoʾkhal, “than he should eat” (comparative preposition מִן, min, “than” plus Qal imperfect third person masculine singular from אָכַל “to eat”) is reflected in the LXX, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic Targum, Old Latin, and Jerome. The textual error, an example of haplography, arose from a single writing of מ (mem) from בָּאָדָם מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל (baʾadam misheyyoʾkhal). The same idiom appears in the expanded form אֵין טוֹב followed by כִּי אִם (ʾen tov…ki ʾim, “there is nothing better for man than…”) in Eccl 3:12; 8:15.

¹ tn The emphatic use of the first person common singular personal pronoun אֲנִי (ʾani, “me”) with the emphatic particle of association גַּם (gam, “even, as well as”; HALOT 195-96 s.v. גַּם) appears to emphasize the first person common singular suffix on יִקְרֵנִי (yiqreni) “it will befall [or “happen to”] me” (Qal imperfect third person masculine singular plus first person common singular suffix from קָרָה, qarah, “to befall; to happen to”); see GKC 438 §135.e. Qoheleth laments not that the fate of the wise man is the same as that of the fool, but that even he himself—the wisest man of all—would fare no better in the end than the most foolish.

³ tc The Hebrew text reads עָשׂוּהוּ (ʿasuhu, “they have done it”; Qal perfect third person masculine plural from עָשַׂה [ʿasah] plus third person masculine singular suffix). However, many medieval Hebrew mss read עָשָׂהוּ (ʿasahu, “he has done”; Qal perfect third person masculine singular from עָשַׂה), reflected in the LXX and Syriac. The error was caused by dittography (ו, vav, written twice) or by orthographic confusion between ו and ה (hey) in הוו (confused as והוו) at the end of 2:12 and beginning of 2:13. The third person masculine singular referent of עָשׂוּהוּ “what he has done” is the king, that is, Qoheleth himself. The referent (the king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tc The word הֲמִיתוֹ (hamito) is the Hiphil infinitive construct of מוּת (mut, “to die”) plus third masculine singular suffix, “to cause/allow his death.” The LXX gives “do not lift up your soul to excess,” perhaps having read חֵמוֹת (khemot, “anger, rage”) with a ח (het) instead of a ה (he) and without the suffix. The KJV rendered as “let not thy soul spare for his crying.” Perhaps they read as if from the similar sounding root מוּט (mut, “to shudder,” as in “at making him shudder”) or from the verb הָמָה (hamah, “to murmur, be in commotion”), whose Qal infinitive construct with suffix would be הֲמוֹתוֹ (hamoto). It is not clear that either of these latter roots should be associated with crying.

¹ tc The translation follows the LXX. The MT reads “they looked to him and were radiant; let their faces not be ashamed.” The MT reads the first verb as a perfect (הִבִּיטוּ, hibbitu), which would be past time, while the LXX (supported by Aquila, the Syriac, Jerome, and some medieval Hebrew mss) reads an imperative (הַבִּיטוּ, habbitu). The MT reads the second verb as a vav plus perfect, while the LXX reads it as an imperative, again a difference of the initial vowel. The third verb is a jussive preceded by אַל (ʾal), which supports reading the first two as imperatives. The second masculine plural pronoun (“your faces”) of the LXX and the Syriac, matches this understanding of the preceding verbs. The MT reading (“their faces”) is consistent with its view of the previous verbs. The reading adopted here interprets the verse as interrupting a testimony given to the congregation with an admonition based on that testimony.

² tn The verb מָדַד (madad) normally means “to measure,” and here in the Piel it has been given the sense of “to extend.” But this is not well attested and not widely accepted. There are many conjectural emendations. Of the most plausible one might mention the view of Gray, who changes מִדַּד (middad, Piel of מָדַּד) to מִדֵּי (midde, comprising the preposition מִן [min] plus the noun דַּי [day], meaning “as often as”): “as often as evening comes.” Dhorme, following the LXX to some extent, adds the word “day” after “when/if” and replaces מִדַּד (middad) with מָתַי (matay, “when”) to read “If I lie down, I say, ‘When comes the morning?’ If I rise up, I say, ‘How long till evening?’” The LXX, however, may be based more on a recollection of Deut 28:67. One can make just as strong a case for the reading adopted here, that the night seems to drag on (so also NIV).

³ tn This concludes the background material of what used to happen. The next two verbs are preterites, which resume the main action line of the story from verse 4. Preterite verbs (also called vayyiqtol, or waw consecutive with imperfect) move the main line of actions forward in a story. The verbs in the main clauses from “he used to give” in vs. 4 to this point are perfect consecutives (also called veqatal or waw consecutive plus perfect) and second position imperfects used for past habitual actions. This is confirmed by the modifiers “year after year” and “as often as.” The story must at some point switch from telling what would happen on many occasions to what did happen on one occasion. Though the background statement is lengthy, it seems best to divide the habitual pattern from the particular occasion based on the known values of the verb forms.

⁶ sn The primary purpose of the guilt offering was to “atone” (see the note on Lev 1:4 above) for “trespassing” on the Lord’s “holy things” (see later in this verse) or the property of others in the community (Lev 6:1-7 [5:20-26 HT]; 19:20-22; Num 5:5-10). It was closely associated with reconsecration of the Lord’s sacred things or his sacred people (see, e.g., Lev 14:12-18; Num 6:11b-12). Moreover, there was usually an associated reparation made for the trespass, including restitution of that which was violated plus one-fifth of its value as a fine (Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT]). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:557-66.

³ tn The meaning of לְבָרָם (l^evaram, preposition plus Qal infinitive construct from בָּרַר, barar, plus third person masculine plural suffix) is debated because the root has a broad range of meanings: (1) “to test; to prove; to sift; to sort out” (e.g., Dan 11:35; 12:10); (2) “to choose; to select” (e.g., 1 Chr 7:40; 9:22; 16:41; Neh 5:18); (3) “to purge out; to purify” (e.g., Ezek 20:38; Zeph 3:9; Job 33:3); and (4) “to cleanse; to polish” (Isa 49:2; 52:11); see HALOT 163 s.v. בָּרַר; BDB 141 s.v. בָּרַר. The meanings “to prove” (Qal), as well as “to cleanse; to polish” (Qal), “to keep clean” (Niphal), and “to cleanse” (Hiphil) might suggest the meaning “to make clear” (M. A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes [TOTC], 85-86). The meaning “to make clear; to prove” is well attested in postbiblical Mishnaic Hebrew (Jastrow 197-98 s.v. בָּרַר). For example, “they make the fact as clear (bright) as a new garment” (b. Ketubbot 46a) and “the claimant must offer clear evidence” (b. Sanhedrin 23b). The point would be that God allows human injustice to exist in the world in order to make it clear to mankind that they are essentially no better than the beasts. On the other hand, the LXX adopts the nuance “to judge,” while Targum and Vulgate take the nuance “to purge; to purify.” BDB 141 s.v. בָּרַר 4 suggests “to test, prove,” while HALOT 163 s.v. בָּרַר 2 prefers “to select, choose.”

³ tn Or “whoever shows favor to the needy honors him” (so NASB, NIV, and most translations, except KJV). While being an “oppressor” contrasts “showing favor” and to “have insulted” contrasts “honoring” the Creator, the proverb may also make its contrast by switching which element is the subject and which is verbal. In the first half “the oppressor” occurs first; the second half begins with vav (and/but) plus “the one who honors him. When the second half of a proverb begins with vav plus a participle, the overwhelming trend is that the participle is the subject, or occasionally the object of the sentence. On the rare occasions that a participle is the subject of a finite verb in a clause where the verb comes first, eight occur in the A-line and only one in the B-line (6:29 where the A-line is verbless and the B-line places focus on the verb). In some cases it is ambiguous whether the participle is verbal or substantival (11:17; 12:16; 16:2; 17:3; 21:2; 29:13) but these probably act as a predicate nominative. In other cases where another participle supplies the verbal element in the B-line (10:19; 11:13, 15; 16:28; 17:9; 19:2) the lead participle is the subject and the verbal participle is second. Thus standard syntax expects to read the line with “the one who honors him” as the subject. Showing favor to the needy is an outgrowth of the character of honoring the Lord. This may also elucidate the contrast between the verb forms. What act(s) it took to be “an oppressor of the poor” qualify as having insulted (perfect verb) the Maker. Insult has been given; that mark continues. But the one who honors him [the Maker] keeps (participle) being gracious to the needy.

⁴ tn Heb “and they become one flesh.” The retention of the word “flesh” (בָּשָׂר, basar) in the translation often leads to an incomplete interpretation. The Hebrew word refers to more than just a sexual union. The man and woman bring into being a new family unit (הָיָה plus preposition ל [hayah plus lamed] means “become”). The phrase “one flesh” occurs only here and must be interpreted in light of v. 23. There the man declares that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To be one’s “bone and flesh” is to be related by blood to someone. For example, the phrase describes the relationship between Laban and Jacob (Gen 29:14); Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judg 9:2; his mother was a Shechemite); David and the Israelites (2 Sam 5:1); David and the elders of Judah (2 Sam 19:12); and David and his nephew Amasa (2 Sam 19:13; see 2 Sam 17:25; 1 Chr 2:16-17). The expression “one flesh” seems to indicate that they become, as it were, “kin,” at least legally (a new family unit is created) or metaphorically. In this first marriage in human history, the woman was literally formed from the man’s bone and flesh. The first marriage sets the pattern for how later marriages are understood and explains why marriage supersedes the parent-child relationship. See NT use of this passage in Matt 19:5-6; Mark 10:8; 1 Cor 6:16; and Eph 5:31.

⁴ tn The translation and precise meaning of vv. 4-5 are uncertain at a number of points due to some difficult syntactical constructions and some debate about the text and meaning of several words. The text reads more literally, “33:4 For thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah that have been torn down on account the siege ramps and the sword 33:5 going to fight the Chaldeans and to fill them [the houses] with the dead bodies of the men whom I have killed in my anger and in my wrath, and on account of all whose wickedness I have hidden my face from this city.” There are two difficult syntactical forms (1) the participle at the beginning of v. 5, “going [or those going] to fight” (בָּאִים, baʾim), and (2) the infinitive plus suffix that introduces the next clause, “and to fill them” (וּלְמַלְאָם, ul^emalʾam). The translation has interpreted the former as a verbal use of the participle with an indefinite subject “they” (= the defenders of Jerusalem who have torn down the buildings; cf. GKC 460-61 §144.i for this point of grammar). The conjunction plus preposition plus infinitive construct have been interpreted as equivalent to a finite verb (cf. IBHS 611 §36.3.2a, i.e., “and they will fill them [the houses and buildings of v. 4]”). Adopting the Greek text of these two verses would produce a smoother reading. It reads, “For thus says the Lord concerning the houses of this city and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah, which have been pulled down for mounds and fortifications to fight against the Chaldeans and to fill it [should be “them”] with the corpses of men whom I smote in my anger and my wrath, and I turned away my face from them [rather than from “this city” of the Hebrew text] for all their wickedness: Behold I will…” The Greek does not have the problem with the participle because it has seen it as part of a word meaning fortification. This also eliminates the problem with the infinitive because it is interpreted as parallel with “to fight.” That is, the defenders used these torn-down buildings for defensive fortifications and for burial places. It would be tempting to follow this reading. However, there is no graphically close form for “fortification” that would explain how the more difficult בָּאִים הֶחָרֶב (hekharev baʾim) of the Hebrew text arose, and there is doubt whether סֹלְלוֹת (sol^elot) can refer to a defense mound. W. L. Holladay (Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:221, 225) has suggested reading הַחֲרַכִּים (hakharakim) in place of הֶחָרֶב (hekharev) in the technical sense of “crenels,” the gaps between the raised portion on top of the wall (which raised portion he calls “merlons” and equates with סֹלְלוֹת, sol^elot). He does not see בָּאִים (baʾim) as part of the original text, choosing rather to see it as a gloss. His emendation and interpretation, however, have been justly criticized as violating the usage of both סֹלְלוֹת, which is elsewhere “siege mound,” and חֲרַכִּים (kharakim), which elsewhere refers only to the latticed opening of a window (Song 2:9). Until a more acceptable explanation of how the difficult Hebrew text could have arisen from the Greek, the Hebrew should be retained, though it is admittedly awkward. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 166, 172) have perhaps the best discussion of the issues and the options involved here.

² sn The doubling of the time after the birth of a female child is puzzling (see the remarks in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:750-51; and G. J. Wenham, Leviticus [NICOT], 188). Some have argued, for example, that it derives from the relative status of the sexes, or a supposed longer blood flow for the birth of a woman, or even to compensate for the future menstrual periods of the female just born. Perhaps there is a better explanation. First, a male child must be circumcised on the eighth day, so the impurity of the mother could not last beyond the first seven days lest it interfere with the circumcision rite. A female child, of course, was not circumcised, so the impurity of the mother would not interfere and the length of the impure time could be extended further. Second, it would be natural to expect that the increased severity of the blood flow after childbirth, as compared to that of a woman’s menstrual period, would call for a longer period of impurity than the normal seven days of the menstrual period impurity (compare Lev 15:19 with 15:25-30). Third, this suggests that the fourteen day impurity period for the female child would have been more appropriate, and the impurity period for the birth of a male child had to be shortened. Fourth, not only the principle of multiples of seven but also multiples of forty applies to this reckoning. Since the woman’s blood discharge after bearing a child continues for more than seven days, her discharge keeps her from contact with sacred things for a longer period of time in order to avoid contaminating the tabernacle (note Lev 15:31). This ended up totaling forty days for the birth of a male child (seven plus thirty-three) and a corresponding doubling of the second set of days for the woman (fourteen plus sixty-six). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 2:368-70. The fact that the offerings were the same for either a male or a female infant (vv. 6-8) suggests that the other differences in the regulations are not due to the notion that a male child had greater intrinsic value than a female child (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 169).

¹ tn Or “this is how much”; or “in this way.” The Greek adverb οὕτως (houtōs) can refer (1) to the degree to which God loved the world, that is, to such an extent or so much that he gave his own Son (see R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:133-34; D. A. Carson, John, 204) or (2) simply to the manner in which God loved the world, i.e., by sending his own son (see R. H. Gundry and R. W. Howell, “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Οὕτως…ὥστε in John 3:16, ” NovT 41 [1999]: 24-39). Though the term more frequently refers to the manner in which something is done (see BDAG 741-42 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως), the following clause involving ὥστε (hōste) plus the indicative (which stresses actual, but [usually] unexpected result) emphasizes the greatness of the gift God has given. With this in mind, then, it is likely (3) that John is emphasizing both the degree to which God loved the world as well as the manner in which He chose to express that love. This is in keeping with John’s style of using double entendre or double meaning. Thus, the focus of the Greek construction here is on the nature of God’s love, addressing its mode, intensity, and extent.

¹ tn In vv. 12-14 there are eight prohibitions that summarize the nature of the Lord’s complaint against Edom. Each prohibition alludes to something Edom did to Judah that should not have been done by one “brother” to another. It is because of these violations that the Lord has initiated judgment against Edom. In the Hebrew text these prohibitions are expressed by אַל (ʾal, “not”) plus the jussive form of the verb, which is common in negative commands of immediate urgency. Such constructions would normally have the sense of prohibiting something either not yet begun (i.e., “do not start to…”) or something already in process at the time of speaking (i.e., “stop…”). Here, however, it seems more likely that the prohibitions refer to a situation in past rather than future time (i.e., “you should not have…”). If so, the verbs are being used in a rhetorical fashion, as though the prophet were vividly projecting himself back into the events that he is describing and urging the Edomites not to do what in fact they have already done.

² tc The MT reads וַתִּזְנַח (vattiznakh, “she/it rejected”), resulting in the awkward phrase “my soul rejected from peace.” The LXX καὶ ἀπώσατο (kai apōsato) reflects a text of וַיִּזְנַח (vayyiznakh, “he deprived [my soul of peace].” The Latin Vulgate repulsa est reflects a text of וַתִּזָּנַח (vattizzanakh), “she/it was excluded [from peace]”). Each is a form of זָנַח (zanakh, “to reject”). The MT and LXX read a Qal preterite but differ on whether the verb is feminine or masculine. The Vulgate read the same consonants as in the MT but as a Niphal, and so passive. The MT best explains the origin of the LXX and Vulgate readings. The מ (mem) beginning the next word may have been an enclitic on the verb rather than a preposition on the noun. This would be the only Qal occurrence of זָנַח (zanakh) used with the preposition מִן (min). Placing the מ (mem) on the noun would have created the confusion leading to the changes made by the LXX and Vulgate. HALOT 276 s.v. II זנח attempts to deal with the problem lexically by positing a meaning “to exclude from” for זָנַח (zanakh) plus מִן (min), but also allows that the Niphal may be the correct reading.

⁴ tc The MT reads הֵבֵאתָ (heveʾta, “you brought”) and is followed by the LXX. The Syriac Peshitta translates the verb with an imperative, implying an original text of הָבֵא אֵת (haveʾ ʾet), the imperative plus direct-object indicator. The MT’s reading would arise from dropping an א (ʾalef) followed by wrong word division. An alternate view is to understand the perfect as precative, a proposed unusual volitional nuance of the perfect. The precative may be used in reference to situations the speaker prays for and expects to be realized, a prayer, or a request of confidence (e.g., 2 Sam 7:29; Job 21:16; 22:18; Pss 3:8; 4:2; 7:7; 22:22; 31:5-6; 71:3; Lam 1:21). See IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4c, d. Most English versions employ a volitional nuance, whether precative or imperative of request (NRSV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NJPS, CEV). A few English versions adopt a prophetic perfect future-time nuance: “thou wilt bring the day that thou hast called” (KJV, ASV).

¹ tn Or “I will completely destroy them.” The translation that is adopted is based on a revocalization of the MT, which appears to mean literally, “gathering I will sweep them away,” a rather improbable grammatical combination. It follows the suggestion found in HALOT 705 s.v. סוּף (Hiph) of reading אֹסֵף אֲסִיפָם (ʾosef, a first singular Qal imperfect of אָסַף [ʾasaf] followed by a noun אָסִיף [ʾasif] with possessive suffix) instead of the MT’s אָסֹף אֲסִיפֵם (ʾasof ’asifem, a Qal infinitive absolute of אָסַף [ʾasaf] followed by the Hiphil imperfect of סוּף [suf] plus suffix). For parallel usage of the verb אָסַף (asaf) see BDB 62 s.v. אָסַף Qal.4, and for a similar form of the verb see Mic 4:6. The alternate translation follows the suggestion in BDB 692 s.v. סוּף (Hiph) that אָסֹף (ʾasof) is to be interpreted as a form of the Hiphil infinitive absolute (הָסֵף [hasef] would be expected) chosen for assonance with the following form. This suggestion would gain more credence if the MT were to be retained in Zeph 1:2, where parallel forms are found. However, that text, too, has been questioned on lexical and grammatical grounds. The translation adopted fits the following context better than the alternate one and is based on less questionable lexical and grammatical parallels. The Greek translation, which reads “they shall gather their fruits,” supports the translation chosen.

¹² tn Heb “they love you.” The words “the young women” do not appear in the Hebrew but are supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. The shift from the first person common plural subjects in the three cohortatives—נָגִילָה (nagilah, Qal cohortative first person common plural from גּיל, gil, “to exult”), וְנִשְׂמְחָה (v^enishm^ekhah, Qal cohortative first person common plural from שָמַח, shamakh, “to rejoice”), and נַזְכִּירָה (nazkirah, Hiphil cohortative first person common plural from זָכַר, zakhar, “to praise”)—to the third person common plural subject in the verb אֲהֵבוּךָ (ʾahevukha, Qal perfect third person common plural from אָהֵב, ʾahev, “to love” plus second person masculine singular suffix) suggests to many scholars that a shift in speakers occurs at this point: the maidens praise the young man in the first two lines, while the Beloved affirms the appropriateness of their praise in the last line (e.g., NIV). However, the shift in person might simply be another example of heterosis of person (as already seen in 1:2-4a)—this time from first person to third person. Thus, the shift in grammatical person does not necessarily indicate a shift in speakers. It is possible that the maidens are speaking throughout all three lines, and that the third line should be nuanced, “How rightly we love you!”