⁴ tn Since Hebrew does not use quotation marks to indicate the boundaries of quotations, there is uncertainty about whether the Israelites’ statement in Egypt includes the end of v. 12 or consists solely of “leave us alone so that we can serve the Egyptians.” In either case, the command to Moses to leave them alone rested on the assumption, spoken or unspoken, that serving Egypt would be less risky than what Moses was proposing. Now with the Egyptian army on the horizon, the Israelites are sure that their worst predictions are about to take place.

² tn The particle כִּי (ki) has the asseverative use here, “surely, indeed,” which is frequently found with oaths (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 73, §449). The imperfect tense אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh) could be rendered as the future tense, “I will be” or the present tense “I am” with you. The future makes the better sense in this case, since the subject matter is the future mission. But since it is a stative verb, the form will also lend itself nicely to explaining the divine name—he is the One who is eternally present—“I am with you always.”

¹ sn As surely as Pharaoh lives. Joseph uses an oath formula to let the brothers know the certainty of what he said. There is some discussion in the commentaries on swearing by the life of Pharaoh, but since the formulation here reflects the Hebrew practice, it would be hard to connect the ideas exactly to Egyptian practices. Joseph did this to make the point in a way that his Hebrew brothers would understand. See M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74-92.

¹ sn His daughter Leah. Laban’s deception of Jacob by giving him the older daughter instead of the younger was God’s way of disciplining the deceiver who tricked his older brother. D. Kidner says this account is “the very embodiment of anti-climax, and this moment a miniature of man’s disillusion, experienced from Eden onwards” (Genesis [TOTC], 160). G. von Rad notes, “That Laban secretly gave the unloved Leah to the man in love was, to be sure, a monstrous blow, a masterpiece of shameless treachery…It was certainly a move by which he won for himself far and wide the coarsest laughter” (Genesis [OTL], 291).

³ sn It is hard to imagine what was going on in Abraham’s mind, but this brief section in the narrative enables the reader to think about the human response to the judgment. Abraham had family in that area. He had rescued those people from the invasion. That was why he interceded. Yet he surely knew how wicked they were. That was why he got the number down to ten when he negotiated with God to save the city. But now he must have wondered, “What was the point?”

³ tn Or “in the very day, as soon as.” If one understands the expression to have this more precise meaning, then the following narrative presents a problem, for the man does not die physically as soon as he eats from the tree. In this case one may argue that spiritual death is in view. If physical death is in view here, there are two options to explain the following narrative: (1) The following phrase “You will surely die” concerns mortality which ultimately results in death (a natural paraphrase would be, “You will become mortal”), or (2) God mercifully gave man a reprieve, allowing him to live longer than he deserved.

¹ tn Heb “a brother, he surely does not ransom, a man.” The sequence אָח...אִישׁ (ʾakh…ʾish, “a brother…a man”) is problematic, for the usual combination is אָח...אָח (“a brother…a brother”) or אִישׁ...אִישׁ (“a man…a man”). When אִישׁ and אָח are combined, the usual order is אִישׁ...אָח (“a man…a brother”), with “brother” having a third masculine singular suffix, “his brother.” This suggests that “brother” is the object of the verb and “man” the subject. (1) Perhaps the altered word order and absence of the suffix can be explained by the text’s poetic character, for ellipsis is a feature of Hebrew poetic style. (2) Another option, supported by a few medieval Hebrew mss, is to emend “brother” to the similar sounding אַךְ (ʾakh, “surely; but”) which occurs in v. 15 before the verb פָּדָה (padah, “ransom”). If this reading is accepted the Qal imperfect יִפְדֶּה (yifdeh, “he can [not] ransom”) would need to be emended to a Niphal (passive) form, יִפָּדֶה (yippadeh, “he can[not] be ransomed”) unless one understands the subject of the Qal verb to be indefinite (“one cannot redeem a man”). (A Niphal imperfect can be collocated with a Qal infinitive absolute. See GKC 344-45 §113.w.) No matter how one decides the textual issues, the imperfect in this case is modal, indicating potential, and the infinitive absolute emphasizes the statement.

¹ tc Several witnesses, a few of them very significant (P⁷² B Ψ 69 81 614 623 630 1241 1243 2464 al vg co), read Σίμων (Simōn, “Simon”) for Συμεών (Sumeōn, “Simeon”). However, this appears to be a motivated reading as it is the more common spelling. Συμεών occurs only here and in Acts 15:14 as a spelling for the apostle’s name. The reading Συμεών enjoys ample and widespread support among the mss, strongly suggesting its authenticity. Further, this Hebraic spelling is a subtle argument for the authenticity of this letter, since a forger would almost surely follow the normal spelling of the name (1 Peter begins only with “Peter” giving no help either way).

⁴ tc There are at least a dozen variants here, almost surely generated by the unusual wording τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ (tou theou, Christou, “of God, [namely,] Christ”; so P⁴⁶ B Hil). Scribes would be prone to conform this to more common Pauline expressions such as “of God, who is in Christ” (33), “of God, the Father of Christ” (א* A C 048^vid 1175 bo), and “of the God and Father of Christ” (א² Ψ 365 945 1505). Several witnesses, especially later Byzantines, read “of the God and Father, and of Christ” (D² K L 075 [0208 0278] M). Even though the external support for the wording τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ is hardly overwhelming, it clearly best explains the rise of the other readings and should thus be regarded as authentic.

¹ tc Although κανόνι (kanoni, “standard, rule”) is found in most witnesses, though in various locations in this verse (א² D² Ψ 075 1505 2464 M), it is almost surely a motivated reading, for it clarifies the cryptic τῷ αὐτῷ (tō autō, “the same”). Both the fact that the word floats, and that there are other variants which accomplish greater clarity by other means, strongly suggests the secondary nature of any of the longer readings here. Further, the shortest text has excellent and early support in P^16,46 א* A B I^vid 6 33 1739 co, rendering it decidedly the preferred reading. The translation adds “standard” because of English requirements, not because of textual basis.

¹ tc The sense of this translation is attested by the fact that most of the later mss, along with several early and significant ones (א C D² Ψ 0225 0243 1739 1881 M lat), have the imperative verb ἐνδείξασθε (endeixasthe) in place of the participle ἐνδεικνύμενοι (endeiknumenoi), which is found in B D* F G 33. Since an imperatival participle is more Hebraic in style, many scribes would not have understood the idiom as easily and would have been likely to change the participle to an imperative (so TCGNT 513-14). But there is no good reason why scribes would change the imperative into a participle. Thus, ἐνδεικνύμενοι is almost surely the wording of the original text.

³ tc Codex Bezae (D) as well as 323 614 945 1739 1891 sa and other witnesses have after “sexual immorality” the following statement: “And whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to another/others.” By adding this negative form of the Golden Rule, these witnesses effectively change the Apostolic Decree from what might be regarded as ceremonial restrictions into more ethical demands. The issues here are quite complicated, and beyond the scope of this brief note. Suffice it to say that D and its allies here are almost surely an expansion and alteration of the original text of Acts. For an excellent discussion of the exegetical and textual issues, see TCGNT 379-83.

² tc Most mss (A ƒ^1,13 M lat sy) have καινῆς (kainēs, “new”) before διαθήκης (diathēkēs, “covenant”), a reading that is almost surely influenced by the parallel passage in Luke 22:20. Further, the construction τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης (to tēs kainēs diathēkēs), in which the resumptive article τό (referring back to τὸ αἷμα [to |aima, “the blood”]) is immediately followed by the genitive article, is nowhere else used in Mark except for constructions involving a genitive of relationship (cf. Mark 2:14; 3:17, 18; 16:1). Thus, on both transcriptional and intrinsic grounds, this reading looks to be a later addition (which may have derived from τὸ τῆς διαθήκης of D* W). The most reliable mss, along with several others (א B C D^c L Θ Ψ 565), lack καινῆς. This reading is strongly preferred.

³ tc Most mss (C N W Γ Δ 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M al, as well as some versional and patristic authorities) add “or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” But this is surely due to a recollection of the fuller version of this dominical saying found in Mark 10:38. The same mss also have the Lord’s response, “and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized” in v. 23, again due to the parallel in Mark 10:39. The shorter reading, in both v. 22 and v. 23, is to be preferred both because it better explains the rise of the other reading and is found in superior witnesses (א B D L Z Θ 085 ƒ^{1, 13} lat sa, as well as other versional and patristic authorities).

¹ tc A few ancient mss and versions lack this verse (א* B L Γ ff¹ k sy^s,c sa), while almost all the rest have it. The witness of א and B is especially strong, but internal considerations override this external evidence. Both v. 46 and v. 47 end with the word λαλῆσαι (“to speak”), so early scribes probably omitted the verse through homoioteleuton. Without v. 47 the passage is nonsensical: v. 46 says Jesus’ family members wanted to speak to him, and v. 48 begins with “to the one who said this.” The antecedent of “the one who said this” must surely be “someone” in v. 47. Thus, the omission of v. 47 is too hard a reading. This verse therefore should be regarded as part of the Ausgangstext.

³ sn Both options for the start of the line (“how?” and “yet” or “surely”) fit the ironic portrayal of Jonah in the prayer (see also vv. 8-9). Jonah, who had been trying to escape the Lord’s attention, here appears remarkably fond of worshiping him. Is there perhaps also a hint of motivation for the Lord to rescue this eager worshiper? Confession of disobedience, on the other hand, is absent. Cf. Ps 31:22, where the first half (describing the plight) is very similar to the first half of Jonah 2:3, and the second half starts with “nevertheless” (אָכֵן, ʾakhen) and is a positive contrast, a report that God heard, using four words that appear in Jonah 2:2 (cf. Job 32:7-8; Ps 82:6-7; Isa 49:4; Zeph 3:7).

¹ tn Heb “Those men have made evil all they have done to the prophet Jeremiah in that they have thrown him into the cistern, and he will die of starvation in the place where he is because there is no more food in the city.” The particle אֵת (ʾet) before “they have thrown” (אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלִיכוּ, ʾet ʾasher hishlikhu) is explanatory or further definition of “all they have done to” (i.e., the particle is repeated for apposition). The verb form “and he is sure to die” is an unusual use of the vav (ו) consecutive + imperfect that the grammars see as giving a logical consequence without a past nuance (cf. GKC 328 §111.l and IBHS 557-58 §33.3.1f).

³ tn Heb “The lying pen of the scribes has made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e., it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.

² tn The Hebrew text has, “for the raisin cakes of Kir Hareseth you [masculine plural] moan, surely destroyed.” The “raisin cakes” could have cultic significance (see Hos 3:1), but the next verse focuses on agricultural disaster, so here the raisin cakes are mentioned as an example of the fine foods that are no longer available (see 2 Sam 6:19; Song 2:5) because the vines have been destroyed by the invader (see v. 8). Some prefer to take אֲשִׁישֵׁי (ʾashishe, “raisin cakes of”) as “men of” (see HALOT 95 s.v. *אָשִׁישׁ; cf. NIV). The verb form תֶהְגּוּ (tehgu, “you moan”) is probably the result of dittography (note that the preceding word ends in tav [ת]) and should be emended to הגו (a perfect, third plural form), “they moan.”

¹ tn The identity of the speaker in vv. 4-6 is unclear. The present translation assumes that the psalmist, who also speaks in vv. 7-9 (where God/the Lord is spoken of in the third person) here addresses the proud and warns them of God’s judgment. The presence of כִּי (ki, “for”) at the beginning of both vv. 6-7 seems to indicate that vv. 4-9 are a unit. However, there is no formal indication of a new speaker in v. 4 (or in v. 10, where God appears to speak). Another option is to see God speaking in vv. 2-6 and v. 10 and to take only vv. 7-9 as the words of the psalmist. In this case one must interpret כִּי at the beginning of v. 7 in an asseverative or emphatic sense (“surely; indeed”).