² tn Or perhaps simply, “there,” if the מ (mem) prefixed to the adverb is dittographic (note the preceding word ends in mem).

² tn Or perhaps simply, “there,” if the מ (mem) prefixed to the adverb is dittographic (note the preceding word ends in mem).

¹ tc The plural suffix should probably be emended to the second masculine singular (which is used in v. 13). The final mem (ם) is probably dittographic; note the mem at the beginning of the next word.

² tn The Hebrew text has “you have made from the city.” The prefixed mem (מ) on עִיר (ʿir, “city”) was probably originally an enclitic mem suffixed to the preceding verb. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:456, n. 3.

¹ tc The MT has the plural, “letters,” but the final mem is probably dittographic (note the initial mem on the form that immediately follows). Some Greek and Aramaic witnesses have the singular.

² tn Perhaps the apparent plural form should be read as a singular with enclitic mem (ם; later misinterpreted as a plural ending). The preceding verse has the singular form.

¹ tc The MT reads “his steps.” If this is correct, then the reference may be to the steps leading up to the heavenly temple or the throne of God (cf. 1 Kgs 10:19-20). The prefixed מ (mem) may be dittographic (note the preceding word ends in mem). The translation assumes an emendation to עֲלִיָּתוֹ (ʿaliyyato, “his upper rooms”).

¹ tn The final mem (ם) on the verb יְשֻׂשׂוּם (y^esusum) is dittographic (note the initial mem on the following noun מִדְבָּר [midbar]). The ambiguous verbal form is translated as a jussive because it is parallel to the jussive form תָגֵל (tagel). The jussive is used rhetorically here, not as a literal command or prayer.

² tn Heb “a cudgel is he, in their hand is my anger.” It seems likely that the final mem (ם) on בְיָדָם (b^eyadam) is not a pronominal suffix (“in their hand”), but an enclitic mem. If so, one can translate literally, “a cudgel is he in the hand of my anger.”

² tn The pronominal suffix is second masculine plural, but the final mem (ם) is probably dittographic (note the mem [מ] at the beginning of the following form) or enclitic, in which case the suffix may be taken as second masculine singular, referring to the psalmist.

⁴ tn Heb “from the womb of dawn.” The Hebrew noun רֶחֶם (rekhem, “womb”) is probably used here metonymically for “birth.” The form מִשְׁחָר (mishkhar) occurs only here and should be emended to שַׁחַר (shakhar, “dawn”) with the מ (mem) being understood as a duplication of the mem ending the preceding word. The phrase “womb [i.e., “birth”] of dawn” refers to sunrise.

¹ tc The MT as it stands has a singular noun, but if one moves the prefixed mem (מ) from the beginning of the next word to the end of סוּס (sus), the expected plural form is achieved. Another possibility is to understand an error of scribal haplography here, in which case the letter mem should appear in both places.

² tc The LXX assumes a participle here (מְצַוֶּה [m^etsavveh], “the one who commands/decrees”) which would stand in apposition to “my God.” It is possible that the MT, which has the imperative (צַוֵּה, tsavveh) form, has suffered haplography of the letter mem (ם). Note that the preceding word (אֱלֹהִים, ʾelohim) ends in mem. Another option is that the MT is divided in the wrong place; perhaps one could move the final mem from אֱלֹהִים to the beginning of the next word and read מְצַוֶּה אֱלֹהָי (ʾelohay m^etsavveh, “[You are my king,] my God, the one who decrees”).

¹ tc Instead of an energic ו (nun), the text may have read a third masculine plural suffix ם (mem), “them,” which was confused with ן (nun) in the old script. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:621.

³ tc The Hebrew text does not have “their wings,” but the word כְּנָפַיִם (k^enafayim, “wings”) has probably been accidentally omitted by homoioteleuton. Note that the immediately preceding לְפֹרְשִׂים (l^eforsim) also ends in mem (ם).

¹ tn The MT in this instance alone spells the name with final ן (nun, “Kimhan”) rather than as elsewhere with final ם (mem, “Kimham”). As in most other translations, the conventional spelling (with ם) has been used here to avoid confusion.

¹ tc Heb “peoples.” The apparent plural form is probably a misunderstood singular (perhaps with a pronominal suffix) with enclitic mem (ם). See HALOT 838 s.v. עַם B.2.

¹ tc Heb “from Asher,” but the initial mem (מ) of the MT should probably be moved to the end of the preceding verse and taken as a plural ending on “heel.”

¹ tc Heb “heel.” The MT has suffered from misdivision at this point. The initial mem on the first word in the next verse should probably be taken as a plural ending on the word “heel.”

³ tn Heb “from peace.” H. Hummel suggests that שָׁלוֹם (shalom) is the object and the מ (mem) is not the preposition מִן (min), but an enclitic on the verb (“Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially in Hebrew” JBL 76 [1957]: 105). שָׁלוֹם (shalom) has a wide range of meaning. The connotation is that there is no peace within; the speaker is too troubled for any calm to take hold.