¹ tn Heb “Joshua, son of Nun, sent from Shittim two men, spies, secretly, saying.”

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.

¹ tn The first word of the fourteenth line begins with נ (nun), the fourteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

¹ tn Heb “Non” (so KJV, NASB; cf. Exod 33:11, where the more familiar spelling “Nun” occurs).

¹ tc The scribes sensed that there was a dislocation with vv. 34-36, and so they used the inverted letters nun (נ) as brackets to indicate this.

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.

² tc Armon. Traditionally Aram. See note at Judges 3:8. This is either Armon, with restored nun (נ), being short for Armon Haraim, or perhaps the entire phrase was original.

⁵ tn Heb “They kiss calves!” The verb יִשָּׁקוּן (yishaqun) may be parsed as an imperfect (“they kiss [calves]”) or jussive (“let them kiss [calves]!”). Paragogic nun endings (ן + יִשָּׁקוּ) are attached to imperfects to connote rhetorical emphasis. It is used either (1) to mark out an action that is contrary to normal practice and deviates from normal expectations (those who worship the calf idol are, in effect, kissing calves!), or (2) to express strong emotion (in this case disgust) at the action of the calf idolaters (they kiss calves!). For the function of paragogic nun, see IBHS 516-17 §31.7.1.

¹ tn The introductory καὶ νῦν (kai nun) has some adversative (contrastive) force: The addressees are already “living according to the truth” (v. 4) but in the face of the threat posed by the opponents, the author has to stress obedience all the more.

¹ tc The Hebrew is difficult here. The Targum envisions a winding ramp or set of stairs, which entails reading the first word as a noun rather than a verb and reading the second word also not as a verb, supposing that an initial mem has been read as vav and nun. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 2:549.

⁴ tn The verb הִזִּילוּהָ (hizziluha) is generally understood as a rare form of Hiphil perfect third person common plural + third person feminine singular suffix from I זָלַל (zalal, “to despise”): “they despise her.” This follows the I nun (ן) pattern with daghesh (dot) in zayin (ז) rather than the expected geminate pattern הִזִילּוּהָ (hizilluha) with daghesh in lamed (ל) (GKC 178-79 §67.l).

¹ tn Heb “to you I cover,” which makes no sense. The translation assumes an emendation to נַסְתִּי (nasti, “I flee,” a Qal perfect, first singular form from נוּס, nos). Confusion of כ (kaf) and נ (nun) is attested elsewhere (see P. K. McCarter, Textual Criticism [GBS], 48). The collocation of נוּס (“flee”) with אֶל (ʾel, “to”) is well-attested.

⁵ sn Warned through Joshua son of Nun. For the background to this statement, see Josh 6:26, where Joshua pronounces a curse on the one who dares to rebuild Jericho. Here that curse is viewed as a prophecy spoken by God through Joshua.

³ tc Several ancient textual witnesses, including some LXX mss and the Vulgate, support the reading “Moses” (מֹשֶׁה, mosheh) here. Many Hebrew mss have a nun (נ) suspended above the name between the first two letters (מנשׁה), suggesting the name Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁה, m^enasheh). This is probably a scribal attempt to protect Moses’ reputation. For discussion, see G. F. Moore, Judges (ICC), 401-2.

¹ tn Heb “These are [the lands] which the sons of Israel received as an inheritance in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes assigned as an inheritance to the sons of Israel.”

¹ tc The MT reads מְנָאֲפִים (m^enaʾafim, “adulterers”; Piel participle masculine plural from נָאַף, naʾaf, “to commit adultery”), which does not seem to fit the context. The original reading was probably אוֹפִים (ʾofim, “bakers”; Qal participle masculine plural from אָפַה, ʾafah, “to bake”), which harmonizes well with the baker/oven/fire motif in 7:4-7. The textual deviation was caused by: (1) confusion of נ (nun) and ו (vav), (2) metathesis of נ/ו (nun/vav) and א (alef), and (3) dittography of מ (mem) from the preceding word. Original כֻּלָּם אוֹפִים (kullam ʾofim, “all of them are bakers”) was confused for כֻּלָּם מְנָאֲפִים (“all of them are adulterers”). In spite of this most English versions follow the reading of the MT here.

⁵ tc Heb “their sins.” The LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate read “our sins.” The shape of the letters in the first person plural suffix נו (nun and vav) look very much like ם (a final mem), which makes the third person plural suffix. Confusing the two is not an uncommon copying error. It may also be an enclitic ם rather than a pronominal suffix. In that case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.

⁸ tn Heb “are grieved” or “are worried.” The unusual form נּוּגוֹת (nugot) is probably best explained as Niphal feminine plural participle (with dissimilated nun [ן]) from יָגָה (yagah, “to grieve”). The similarly formed Niphal participle masculine plural construct נוּגֵי (nuge) appears in Zeph 3:18 (GKC 421 §130.a). The Niphal of יָגָה (yagah, “to grieve”) appears only twice, both in contexts of sorrow: “to grieve, sorrow” (Lam 1:4; Zeph 3:18).

² tn The form is the Hophal perfect of נָחַל (nakhal): “I have been made to inherit,” or more simply, “I have inherited.” The form occurs only here. The LXX must have confused the letters or sounds, a ו (vav) for the ן (nun), for it reads “I have endured.” As a passive the form technically has two accusatives (see GKC 388 §121.c). Job’s point is that his sufferings have been laid on him by another, and so he has inherited them.

¹ tc Some significant Alexandrian and Western mss (א B D*^,c 1506 bo) read νῦν (nun, “now”) here. A few other mss (33 365 sa) have ὕστερον (husteron, “finally”). mss that lack the word are P⁴⁶ A D¹ F G Ψ 81 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 M latt. External evidence slightly favors omission with good representatives from the major text-forms, and because of the alliance of Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (with the Byzantine going against its normal tendency to embrace the longer reading). Internally, scribes could have added νῦν here to give balance to the preceding clause (οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν…αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσιν [|outoi nun ēpeithēsan…autoi nun eleēthōsin; “they have now been disobedient…they may now receive mercy”]). However, it seems much more likely that they would have deleted it because of its seeming inappropriateness in this context. That some witnesses have ὕστερον presupposes the presence of νῦν in their ancestors. A decision is difficult, but νῦν is slightly preferred, since it is the more difficult reading and is adequately represented in the mss.