⁵ sn This verse supports the view taken in chap. 6 concerning the verb “to know.” Surely the Israelites by now knew that Yahweh was their God. Yes, they did. But they had not experienced what that meant; they had not received the fulfillment of the promises.

² tc The Western text (D* F G it) lacks the plural noun μέρη (merē, “regions”); the shorter reading cannot be dismissed out of hand since it is also supported by P⁴⁶ (which often has strong affinities, however, with the Western witnesses). The inclusion of the word has strong external support from significant, early mss as well as the majority of Byzantine cursives (א A B C D² I Ψ 33 1175 1505 1739 1881 2464 M). Certain scribes may have deleted the word, thinking it superfluous; in addition, if the shorter reading were original one would expect to see at least a little variation in clarifying additions to the text. For these reasons the inclusion of μέρη should be regarded as original.

¹ tc ‡ Several significant witnesses have ὁ θεός (ho theos) after εὐδόκησεν (eudokēsen; so א A D Ψ 0278 33 1175 1241 1739 1881 2464 M co) while the shorter reading is supported by P⁴⁶ B F G 629 1505 lat. There is hardly any reason why scribes would omit the words (although the Beatty papyrus and the Western text do at times omit words and phrases), but several reasons why scribes would add the words (especially the need to clarify). The confluence of witnesses for the shorter reading (including a few fathers and versions) adds strong support for its authenticity. It is also in keeping with Paul’s style to refrain from mentioning God by name as a rhetorical device (cf. ExSyn 437 [although this section deals with passive constructions, the principle is the same]). NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

² tc The external evidence in support of the reading ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Iēsou Christou, “Jesus Christ”) is quite impressive: P^11vid,46 א B C^vid D* P 33 81 104 365 629 630 1739 1881 2464 al lat bo as well as several fathers, while the reading with merely ᾿Ιησοῦ has significantly poorer support (A D² Ψ M sa). Although the wording of the original could certainly have been expanded, it is also possible that Χριστοῦ as a nomen sacrum could have accidentally dropped out. Although the latter is not as likely under normal circumstances, in light of the early and widespread witnesses for the fuller expression, the wording of the Ausgangstext seems to have been ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

² tc Most mss read the first person singular pronoun με (me) here (A D 1175 1241 1505 1739^c 1881 2464 M lat sa). The second person singular pronoun σε (se) is superior because of external support (א B (F: σαι) G 1506* 1739*) and internal support (it is the harder reading since ch. 7 was narrated in the first person). At the same time, it could have arisen via dittography from the final syllable of the verb preceding it (ἠλευθέρωσεν, ēleutherōsen; “has set free”). But for this to happen in such early and diverse witnesses is unlikely, especially as it depends on various scribes repeatedly overlooking either the nu or the nu-bar at the end of the verb.

² tc The MT reads the Niphal participle נַעֲלָמָה (naʿalamah) from I עָלַם (ʿalam, “to conceal”). This is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls with נעלמה in (4QpNah 3:11) and is reflected by the LXX. Several scholars suggest nuancing the Niphal in a passive sense: “you will be concealed” or “you will be obscured” (BDB 761 s.v. I עָלַם Niphal 2). However, the reflexive sense “you will conceal yourself; you will hide yourself” (e.g., Ps 26:4) is better (HALOT 835 s.v. עלם). On the other hand, the BHS editors suggest emending to the Niphal participle נֶעֱלָפָה (neʿelafah) from עָלַף (ʿalaf, “become faint”): “you will become faint,” “you will pass out,” or “you will swoon” (HALOT 836 s.v. עלף; BDB 761 s.v. I. עָלַם 2). This is unnecessary and lacks textual support.

² tc The past-time reference of the context indicates that the Pual verb יְרֻטְּשׁוּ (y^erutt^eshu) is a preterite describing past action (“they were smashed to pieces”) rather than an imperfect describing future action (“they will be smashed to pieces”). The past-time sense is supported by the Syriac and Vulgate. The LXX, however, misunderstood the form as an imperfect. Not recognizing that the form is a preterite, the BHS editors suggest emending to Pual perfect רֻטְּשׁוּ (rutt^eshu, “they were smashed to pieces”). This emendation is unnecessary once the possibility of a preterite is recognized. The Masoretic reading is supported by the reading ירוטשו found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah 3:10).

² tc The Masoretic form וּמִרְעֶה (umirʿeh, “the feeding ground”) is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls with ומרעה in 4QpNah. It is also reflected in the LXX reading ἡ νομή (hē nomē, “the pasture”). The BHS editors suggest emending to וּמְעָרָה (um^eʿarah, “the cave”), which involves the metathesis of ר (resh) and ע (ʿayin). This proposed emendation is designed to create a tighter parallelism with מְעוֹן (m^eʿon, “the den”) in the preceding line. However, this emendation has no textual support and conflicts with the grammar of the rest of the line. The feminine noun וּמְעָרָה (um^eʿarah, “the cave”) would demand a feminine independent pronoun instead of the masculine independent pronoun הוּא which follows. Nevertheless, several English versions adopt the emendation (NJB, NEB, RSV, NRSV), while others follow the reading of the MT (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS).

⁵ tn Or “burst into flames.” The Niphal perfect נִתְּצוּ (nitt^etsu) from נָתַץ (natats, “to break up, throw down”) may denote “are broken up” or “are thrown down.” The BHS editors suggest emending the MT’s נִתְּצוּ (nitt^etsu) to נִצְּתוּ (nits^etu, Niphal perfect from יָצַת [yatsat, “to burn, to kindle, to burst into flames”]): “boulders burst into flames.” This merely involves the simple transposition of the second and third consonants. This emendation is supported by a few Hebrew mss (cited in BHS apparatus). It is supported contextually by fire and heat motifs in 1:5-6. The same metathesis of נִתְּצוּ and נִצְּתּוּ occurs in Jer 4:26.

¹ tc The editors of BHS suggest that the direct object אֶת־יְהוָה (ʾet-y^ehvah, “the Lord”) might be a scribal addition, and that the original text simply read, “The men became greatly afraid…” However, there is no shred of external evidence to support this conjectural emendation. Admittedly, the apparent “conversion” of these Phoenician sailors to Yahwism is a surprising development. But two literary features support the Hebrew text as it stands. First, it is not altogether clear whether or not the sailors actually converted to faith in the Lord. They might have simply incorporated him into their polytheistic religion. Second, the narrator has taken pains to portray the pagan sailors as a literary foil to Jonah by contrasting Jonah’s hypocritical profession to fear the Lord (v. 9) with the sailors’ actions that reveal an authentic fear of God (v. 10, 14, 16).

⁵ tc The verb translated “destroy” (תָּמַם, tamam) is usually intransitive in the stem of the verb used here. It is found in a transitive sense elsewhere only in Ps 64:7. BDB 1070 s.v. תָּמַם 7 emends both texts. In this case they recommend תִּתִּי (titti): “until I give them into his hand.” That reading is suggested by the texts of the Syriac and Targumic translations (see BHS fn c). The Greek translation supports reading the verb “destroy” but treats it as though it were intransitive: “until they are destroyed by his hand” (reading תֻּמָּם [tummam]). The MT here is accepted as the more difficult reading, and support is seen in the transitive use of the verb in Ps 64:7.

³ tc Heb “by the sword of the oppressors.” The reading here follows a number of Hebrew mss and the Greek version. The majority of Hebrew mss read, “the anger of the oppressor.” The reading “the sword of the oppressors” is supported also by the parallel use of this phrase in Jer 46:16 and 50:16. The error in the MT may be explained by confusion with the following line, which has the same beginning combination (מִפְּנֵי חֲרוֹן [mipp^ene kharon] confused for מִפְּנֵי חֶרֶב [mipp^ene kherev]). This reading is also supported by the Targum, the Aramaic paraphrase of the OT. According to BDB 413 s.v. יָנָה Qal, the feminine singular participle (הַיּוֹנָה, hayyonah) is functioning as a collective in this idiom (see GKC 394 §122.s for this phenomenon).

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 tc There are several different variants comprising a textual problem involving “second” (δεύτερος, deuteros). First, several mss (A 1 2329 M^K) read “another, a second angel” (ἄλλος δεύτερος ἄγγελος, allos deuteros angelos). Second, other mss (P⁴⁷ א* 1006 1841 1854) read just “another, a second” (ἄλλος δεύτερος). Third, the reading “another angel” (ἄλλος ἄγγελος) is supported by a few Greek mss and some versional evidence (69 ar vg). Fourth, several mss (א² [C reads δεύτερον instead of δεύτερος] 051 1611 2053 2344 M^A) support the reading “another, a second angel” (ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος). The reading that most likely gave rise to the others is the fourth. The first reading attempts to smooth out the grammar by placing the adjective in front of the noun. The second reading may have dropped out the “angel” on the basis of its similarity to “another” (ἄλλος). The third reading either intentionally or accidentally left out the word “second.” In any event, this is weakly attested and should not be given much consideration. (If, however, this reading had had good support, with “second” floating, and with “third” in the text in 14:9, one could possibly see δεύτερος as a motivated reading. But without sufficient support for the third reading, the one thing that is most certain is that δεύτερος was part of the initial text here.) It is difficult to account for the rise of the other readings if “second” is not original. And the undisputed use of “third” (τρίτος, tritos) in 14:9 may be another indicator that the adjective “second” was in the autographic text. Finally, the fourth reading is the most difficult and therefore, in this case, to be accepted as the progenitor of the others.

⁴ tc ‡ Several mss (A 051 1611 1854 2053 2344 2351 M^K) read the plural ὀνόματα (onomata, “[blasphemous] names”), while the singular ὄνομα (onoma, “name”) has somewhat better support (P⁴⁷ א C 1006 1841 2329 M^A). The plural reading seems motivated by the fact that what is written is written “on its heads.” In the least, it is a clarifying reading. NA²⁸ puts the plural in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

⁴ tc The reading “and half a time” (καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ, kai hēmisu kairou) is lacking in the significant majuscule C. Its inclusion, however, is supported by P⁴⁷ א A and the rest of the ms tradition. There is apparently no reason for the scribe of C to intentionally omit the phrase, and the fact that the word “time” (καιρὸν καὶ καιρούς, kairon kai kairous) appears twice before may indicate a scribal oversight.

¹ tc Most mss (A M bo) change the pronoun “their” to “his” (αὐτοῦ, autou) in order to bring the text in line with the mention of the one seated on the throne in the immediately preceding verse, and to remove the ambiguity about whose wrath is in view here. The reading αὐτῶν (autōn, “their”) is well supported by א C 1611 1854 2053 2329 2344 latt sy. On both internal and external grounds, it should be regarded as autographic.

² tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support (א A C P 1611) and its omission seems to have come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, erchou) in 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

³ tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support (א A C P 1611) and its omission seems to have come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, erchou) in 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

² tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support (א A C P 1611) and its omission seems to come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, erchou) as mentioned in the text-critical note on 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.