³ tn Alternately “clusters of figs.” The term אַשְׁכֹּלוֹת (ʾashkolot, “clusters”) usually refers to (1) clusters of grapes, that is, the stalk on which the bunch of grapes grow and the bunch of grapes themselves (Gen 40:10; Num 13:23-24; Deut 32:32; Isa 65:8; Mic 7:1) or (2) the berry on a cluster of henna bush (Song 1:14) (HALOT 95 s.v. I אַשְׁכּוֹל). It is possible that this is an anomalous usage in reference to a cluster of dates rather than to a cluster of grapes for three reasons: (1) the תָּמָר (tamar, “palm tree”) referred to in 7:7 is a date palm, (2) the term סַנְסִנִּים (sansinnim, “fruit stalks”) in 7:8a refers to the fruit stalk of dates (Rademus dactylorum), being related to Akkadian sissinnu (“part of the date palm”), and (3) the reference to climbing the palm tree in 7:8a is best understood if it is a date palm and its fruit are dates. The comparison between her breasts and clusters of dates probably has to do with shape and multiplicity, as well as taste, as the rest of this extended metaphor intimates. M. H. Pope (The Song of Songs [AB], 634) notes: “The comparison of the breasts to date clusters presumably intended a pair of clusters to match the dual form of the word for ‘breasts.’ A single cluster of dates may carry over a thousand single fruits and weigh twenty pounds or more. It may be noted that the multiple breasts of the representations of Artemis of Ephesus look very much like a cluster of large dates, and it might be that the date clusters here were intended to suggest a similar condition of polymasty.”

² sn Temperate…in endurance. See the same cluster of virtues in 1 Thess 1:3 and 1 Cor 13:13.

³ tn The word “Eshcol” is drawn from the Hebrew expression concerning the “cluster of grapes.” The word is probably retained in the name Burj Haskeh, two miles north of Damascus.

¹ sn The henna plant (כֹּפֶר, kofer, “henna”; HALOT 495 s.v. III כֹּפֶר) is an inflorescent shrub with upward pointing blossoms, that have sweet smelling whitish flowers that grow in thick clusters (Song 4:13; 7:12). Like myrrh, the henna plant was used to make sweet smelling perfume. Its flowers were used to dye hair, nails, fingers, and toes orange.

¹ tn This word is found here and in 1 Sam 15:32. Dhorme suggests, with others, that there has been a metathesis (a reversal of consonants), and it is the same word found in Job 31:36 (“bind”). G. R. Driver takes it as “cluster” without changing the text (“Two astronomical passages in the Old Testament,” JTS 7 [1956] :3).

¹ tc ‡ Some Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (P^94vid א* B C 81 365 1506 1739 1881) have the infinitive “to be” (εἶναι, einai) following “yourselves”. The infinitive is lacking from some mss of the Alexandrian and Western textual clusters (P^46vid A D*^,c F G 33). The infinitive is found elsewhere in the majority of Byzantine mss, suggesting a scribal tendency toward clarification. The lack of infinitive best explains the rise of the other readings. The meaning of the passage is not significantly altered by inclusion or omission, but on internal grounds omission is more likely. NA²⁸ includes the infinitive in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

⁴ tn Or “heads of grain.” While the generic term στάχυς (stachus) can refer to the cluster of seeds at the top of grain such as barley or wheat, in the NT the term is restricted to wheat (L&N 3.40; BDAG 941 s.v. 1). KJV “corn” is the result of British English, in which “corn” refers to the main cereal crop of a district, wheat in England and oats in Scotland (British English uses “maize” to refer to American corn).

² tn Or “heads of grain.” While the generic term στάχυς (stachus) can refer to the cluster of seeds at the top of grain such as barley or wheat, in the NT the term is restricted to wheat (L&N 3.40; BDAG 941 s.v. 1). KJV “corn” is the result of British English, in which “corn” refers to the main cereal crop of a district, wheat in England and oats in Scotland (British English uses “maize” to refer to American corn).

² tn Or “heads of grain.” While the generic term στάχυς (stachus) can refer to the cluster of seeds at the top of grain such as barley or wheat, in the NT the term is restricted to wheat (L&N 3.40; BDAG 941 s.v. 1). KJV “corn” is the result of British English, in which “corn” refers to the main cereal crop of a district, wheat in England and oats in Scotland (British English uses “maize” to refer to American corn).

² sn Every leafy tree. This expression refers to evergreens which because they keep their foliage throughout the year, provided apt symbolism for nature cults such as those practiced in Canaan. The deity particularly in view is Asherah, wife of the great god El, who was considered the goddess of fertility and whose worship frequently took place at shrines near or among clusters (groves) of such trees (see also Deut 7:5). See J. Hadley, NIDOTTE 1:569-70; J. DeMoor, TDOT 1:438-44.

⁴ tc The words “stand up and” (ἔγειρε καί, egeire kai) are not in a few mss (א B D sa), but are included in A C E Ψ 095 33 1739 M lat sy mae bo. The external testimony is thus fairly evenly divided, with few but signficant representatives of the Alexandrian and Western textual clusters supporting the shorter reading. Internally, the words look like a standard scribal emendation, and may have been motivated by other healing passages where Jesus gave a similar double command (cf. Matt 9:5; Mark 2:9, [11]; Luke 5:23; [6:8]; John 5:8). On the other hand, there is some motivation for deleting ἔγειρε καί here, namely, unlike Jesus’ healing miracles, Peter raises (ἤγειρεν, ēgeiren) the man to his feet (v. 7) rather than the man rising on his own. In light of the scribal tendency to harmonize, especially in immediate context, the longer reading is slightly preferred.

¹ tc ‡ Codex B and some Sahidic mss read simply ὄχλον (ochlon, “crowd”), the reading that NA²⁸ follows; the first hand of א, ƒ¹, and a few other witnesses have ὄχλους (ochlous, “crowds”); other witnesses (1424 sa^ms mae) read πολὺν ὄχλον (polun ochlon, “a large crowd”). But the reading most likely to be authentic seems to be πολλοὺς ὄχλους (pollous ochlous, “large crowds”). It is found in א² C L N Γ Δ Θ 0233 ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 700 M lat; it is judged to be superior on internal grounds (the possibility of accidental omission of πολλούς/πολύν in isolated witnesses) and, to a lesser extent, external grounds (geographically widespread, various textual clusters). For reasons of English style, however, this phrase has been translated as “a large crowd.”

¹ tc ‡ The witnesses here support several different readings: αὐτῇ πολλά (autē polla, “to her insistently”) is found in D Θ 565 700 it; πολλά is the reading of P^45vid 28; both words are lacking in L; and א A B C^2vid ƒ¹³ 33 M lat have just αὐτῇ. The best candidates for authenticity, on external grounds, are αὐτῇ πολλά and αὐτῇ. So the issue revolves around whether πολλά is part of the text. On the one hand, πολλά used adverbially is a distinctive Markanism (10 of the 16 NT instances are found in Mark; of the other Gospels, Matthew alone adds a single example [Matt 9:14]). It could be argued that such an unremarkable term would go unnoticed by the scribes, and consequently would not have been inserted in imitation of Mark’s style observed elsewhere. On the other hand, the largest cluster of instances of an adverbial πολλά are in Mark 5-6, with the most recent example coming just three verses earlier (Mark 5:23, 38, 43; 6:20). Scribes may well have imitated the usage so recently and so frequently seen. Further, the best Alexandrian witnesses, as well as good representatives of the Western and Byzantines texts, lack πολλά. On the whole, though a decision is difficult, it is probably best to read the text without πολλά. NA²⁸ places the word in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

¹ tc Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. The second son is called the one who does his father’s will. This reading is found in the Western witnesses (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this group of witnesses, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his father’s will is the one who changes his mind after saying “no”): (2) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his father’s will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in א C L W (Z) Δ 0102 0281 ƒ¹ 33 565 579 1241 1424*^,c M and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son says “yes” but does not go, and the second son says “no” but later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B Θ ƒ¹³ 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two variants make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. Matt 23:3). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles, tax collectors, and prostitutes were not, collectively, God’s chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didn’t always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. 32). For more discussion see TCGNT 44-46.