⁵ tn The verb תִתְהַלָּל (tithallal) is a Hitpael imperfect. This is not the passive form (to “be praised,” so KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, ASV, Holman) as occurs in Prov 12:8. The Hitpael of הָלַל (halal) is reflexive with meanings like “to boast; take glory in.” It is sometimes parallel to terms for rejoicing (Pss 34:2; 63:11; 64:10; Isa 41:16), being exultant over accomplishment or victory. In the context of contrasting misleading and fleeting external qualities, the reflexive translation “makes herself praiseworthy” emphasizes her character. The imperfect form could also be understood as modal “she can boast.” This would not mean a selfish bragging since the term is used to boast in the Lord (1 Chr 16:10; Isa 41:6; Jer 4:2; Ps 34:2). Rather it would mean she has a sound basis for being proud of her accomplishments achieved under the umbrella of the fear of the Lord.

¹ tn The Hebrew verb (פָּתְחָה, pat^ekhah) is the perfect form of a dynamic verb and should be understood as past tense or perfective. Most of the Hebrew perfect verbs in this description of the wife have been translated as simple past tense because in this portrait her actions are examples that typify her character whether she did then often or rarely. For example, although this woman bought a field (vs 16), that does not mean that she regularly traded in real estate or even that she bought more than one field in her lifetime. However it would be outside the character developed in this portrait to think that she only once said something wise. The Hebrew verbal construction is not specifically modal (“would open her mouth with wisdom”). However the word picture of opening the mouth is one that pictures the start of an activity that continues. For example in Ps 109:2, when the Psalmist complains that the wicked have opened (Hebrew perfect of פָּתַח, patakh) their mouth with deceit, he does not mean that they told only one lie. The opened mouth pictures talking, in contrast to the closed mouth which pictures silence (cf. Isa 53:7).

¹ tn Heb “she girded her loins with strength.” As the perfect form of a dynamic verb, it should be understood as past tense or perfective. The verb חָגָר (khagar) means to strap something on in the area of the waist. (The related noun [חֲגוֹר; khagor] means “belt.”) When only “loins” (hips and waist) are mentioned, the idea is that of gathering up the long robes with a sash or belt so that they do not get in the way of the work. With another direct object or with the preposition ב (bet), it states what is strapped on (e.g. a belt, the ephod, sackcloth; cf. Lev. 8:7; 1 Kgs 20:32). The figure here is putting strength on the “loins” (מָתְנַיִם; motnayim), the muscles that tie the abdomen to the hips. It is a metonymy for hard work. But it can be debated whether it refers to preparation for hard work, which would seem typical, or whether it works off of a literal understanding of putting strength on these muscles, which would be the result of hard work.

⁵ sn The reference to “son” in this passage has prompted many suggestions down through the years: It was identified as Israel in the Jewish Midrashim, the Logos or demiurge by some of the philosophers and allegorical writers, as simple poetic parallelism without a separate identity by some critical scholars, and as Jesus by Christian commentators. Parallels with Ugaritic are interesting because Baal is referred to as a son, but that is bound up within the pantheon where there was a father god. Some of the Jewish commentators exhibit a strange logic in expressing what Christians would say is only their blindness to the full revelation: There is little cogency in this being a reference to Jesus because if there had been such a person at any time in the past he would have left some tradition about it through his descendants (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 317). But Judaism has taught from the earliest times that Messiah was preexistent (especially in view of Micah 5 and Daniel 7); and the claims of Jesus in the Gospels bear this out. It seems best to say that there is a hint here of the nature of the Messiah as Son, a hint that will later be revealed in full through the incarnation.

¹ sn One difficulty here is that it is the west wind that brings rain to Israel (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:41-44). C. H. Toy suggests that the expression is general, referring to a northwest wind—unless it is an error (Proverbs [ICC], 468). J. P. M. van der Ploeg suggests that the saying originated outside the land, perhaps in Egypt (“Prov 25:23, ” VT 3 [1953]: 189-92). But this would imply it was current in a place where it made no sense. R. N. Whybray suggests that the solution lies with the verb “brings forth” (תְּחוֹלֵל, t^ekholel); he suggests redefining it to mean “repels, holds back” (cf. KJV “driveth away”). Thus, the point would be that the north wind holds back the rain just as an angry look holds back slander (Proverbs [CBC], 149). But the support for this definition is not convincing. Seeing this as a general reference to northerly winds is the preferred solution.

¹ sn The emblem in the parallelism of this verse is the simile of the first line. Because snow at the time of harvest would be rare, and probably unwelcome, various commentators have sought to explain this expression. R. N. Whybray suggests it may refer to snow brought down from the mountains and kept cool in an ice hole (Proverbs [CBC], 148); this seems rather forced. J. H. Greenstone following Rashi, a Jewish scholar who lived a.d. 1040-1105, suggests it might refer to the refreshing breeze that comes from snow-capped mountains (Proverbs, 260). C. H. Toy suggests a snow-cooled drink (Proverbs [ICC], 464), and W. McKane an application of ice water to the forehead (Proverbs [OTL], 585). Some English versions replace “snow” with “water” (cf. TEV “cold water”; CEV “cool water”). These all attempt to explain the simile, but the point is clear enough: A faithful servant is refreshing to his master. The analogy could be hypothetical—as refreshing as the coolness of snow would be in harvest time.

¹ tc The MT reads אִם (ʾim, “if”) and the syntax is אִם (ʾim) plus imperfect verb followed by vav plus perfect consecutive. This particle can introduce a realizable or unrealizable condition, or a concessive clause (HALOT 60-61 s.v.). A realizable condition presents the circumstance in which the apodosis is realized, “if/when he is scornful…, then he will show favor.” An unrealizable condition or a concessive clause should be rendered “even if” or “although [X would be],” referring to something that is not the case, as in, “even if he would be scornful…, then…” (cf. Num 22:18, 1 Kgs 13:8; Job 9:15; Jer 15:1). Neither of these options fit the context well. The content of the second half of the verse does not depend on the first half. And the first half is not to be understood as an unrealizable or unexpected condition, rather both are truisms. An alternative is to read the similarly sounding term עִם (ʿim, “with”), “with the scorners he is scornful” (cf. Ps 18:25-26). The LXX does not have a conditional particle, so it may not have read אִם (ʾim, “if”), but also it does not have μετὰ (meta, “with”) so it is not clear that it read עִם (ʾim, “with”). The translation presumes the particle עִם.

² tc Heb “your navel” (cf. KJV, ASV). MT reads שָׁרֶּךָ (sharrekha, “your navel”) which functions as a synecdoche of part (= navel) for the whole (= body), meaning “your body” (BDB 1057 s.v. שׂר). The geminate noun שֹׂר (sor, “navel; navel-string [= umbilical cord]”) occurs only two other times in OT (Ezek 16:4; Song 7:3). The LXX reads τῷ σώματί σου (tō sōmati sou, “your body”). So the BHS editors suggest emending MT to the more commonly used terms בְּשָׂרֶךָ (b^esarekha, “your flesh”) or שְׁאֵרֶךָ (sh^eʾerekha, “your body”). But this kind of emendation runs counter to the canons of textual criticism; normally the more difficult reading or rarer term is preferred as original rather than a smooth reading or common term. Since “navel” occurs only twice elsewhere, it is difficult to imagine that it would have been confused for these two more common terms and that a scribe would mistakenly write “your navel” instead. If MT “your navel” is a synecdoche for “your body,” the LXX is not pointing to a different textual tradition but is merely interpreting MT accordingly. In similar fashion, the English versions which read “your body” are not rejecting the MT reading; they are merely interpreting the term as a figure (synecdoche) for “your body.”

¹ tn The meaning would be “I am nothing but skin and bones” in current English idiom. Both lines of this verse need attention. The first half seems to say, “My skin and my flesh sticks to my bones.” Some think that this is too long, and that the bones can stick to the skin, or the flesh, but not both. Dhorme proposes “in my skin my flesh has rotted away” (רָקַב, raqav). This involves several changes in the line, however. He then changes the second line to read “and I have gnawed my bone with my teeth” (transferring “bone” from the first half and omitting “skin”). There are numerous other renderings of this; some of the more notable are: “I escape, my bones in my teeth” (Merx); “my teeth fall out” (Duhm); “my teeth fall from my gums” (Pope); “my bones protrude in sharp points” (Kissane). A. B. Davidson retains “the skin of my teeth,” meaning “gums.” This is about the last thing that Job has, or he would not be able to speak. For a detailed study of this verse, D. J. A. Clines devotes two full pages of textual notes (Job [WBC], 430-31). He concludes with “My bones hang from my skin and my flesh, I am left with only the skin of my teeth.”

¹ tn This line is difficult. If the MT stands as it is, the expression must be ironic. It would be saying that the joy (all the security and prosperity) of its way (its life) is short-lived—that is the way its joy goes. Most commentators are not satisfied with this. Dhorme, for one, changes מְשׂוֹשׂ (m^esos, “joy”) to מְסוֹס (m^esos, “rotting”), and gets “behold him lie rotting on the path.” The sibilants can interchange this way. But Dhorme thinks the MT was written the way it was because the word was thought to be “joy,” when it should have been the other way. The word “way” then becomes an accusative of place. The suggestion is rather compelling and would certainly fit the context. The difficulty is that a root סוּס (sus, “to rot”) has to be proposed. E. Dhorme does this by drawing on Arabic sas, “to be eaten by moths or worms,” thus “worm-eaten; decaying; rotting.” Cf. NIV “its life withers away”; also NAB “there he lies rotting beside the road.”

¹ tn There is a textual problem in this line, an issue of Kethib-Qere. Some read the form with the Qere as the preposition with a suffix referring to “the river,” with the idea “you are like it.” Others would read the form with the Kethib as the negative “not,” meaning “for now you are nothing.” The LXX and the Syriac read the word as “to me.” RSV follows this and changes כִּי (ki, “for”) to כֵּן (ken, “thus”). However, such an emendation is unnecessary since כִּי (ki) itself can be legitimately employed as an emphatic particle. In that case the translation would be, “Indeed, now you are” in the sense of “At this time you certainly are behaving like those streams.” The simplest reading is “for now you have become [like] it.” The meaning seems clear enough in the context that the friends, like the river, proved to be of no use. But D. J. A. Clines (Job [WBC], 161) points out that the difficulty with this is that all references so far to the rivers have been in the plural.

⁴ sn The term Uz occurs several times in the Bible: a son of Aram (Gen 10:23), a son of Nahor (Gen 22:21), and a descendant of Seir (Gen 36:28). If these are the clues to follow, the location would be north of Syria or south near Edom. The book tells how Job’s flocks were exposed to Chaldeans, the tribes between Syria and the Euphrates (1:17), and in another direction to attacks from the Sabeans (1:15). The most prominent man among his friends was from Teman, which was in Edom (2:11). Uz is also connected with Edom in Lamentations 4:21. The most plausible location, then, would be east of Israel and northeast of Edom, in what is now North Arabia. The LXX has “on the borders of Edom and Arabia.” An early Christian tradition placed his home in an area about 40 miles south of Damascus, in Baashan at the southeast foot of Hermon.

¹ sn If the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1 is Artaxerxes I Longimanus (ca. 464-423 b.c.), Ezra must have arrived in Jerusalem ca. 458 b.c., since Ezra 7:7-8 connects the time of his arrival to the seventh year of the king. The arrival of Nehemiah is then linked to the twentieth year of the king (Neh 1:1), or ca. 445 b.c. Some scholars, however, have suggested that Ezra 7:7 should be read as “the thirty-seventh year” rather than “the seventh year.” This would have Ezra coming to Jerusalem after, rather than before, the arrival of Nehemiah. Others have taken the seventh year of Ezra 7:7-8 to refer not to Artaxerxes I but to Artaxerxes II, who ruled ca. 404-358 b.c. In this understanding Ezra would have returned to Jerusalem ca. 398 b.c., a good many years after the return of Nehemiah. Neither of these views is certain, however, and it seems better to retain the traditional understanding of the chronological sequence of returns by Ezra and Nehemiah. With this understanding there is a gap of about fifty-eight years between chapter six, which describes the dedication of the temple in 516 b.c., and chapter seven, which opens with Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem in 458 b.c.

¹ tn Heb “the spirit.” The significance of the article prefixed to רוּחַ (ruakh) is uncertain, but it could contain a clue as to this spirit’s identity, especially when interpreted in light of verse 23. It is certainly possible, and probably even likely, that the article is used in a generic or dramatic sense and should be translated, “a spirit.” In the latter case it would show that this spirit was vivid and definite in the mind of Micaiah the storyteller. However, if one insists that the article indicates a well-known or universally known spirit, the following context provides a likely referent. Verse 23 tells how Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face and then asked sarcastically, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord (רוּחַ־יְהוָה, ruakh y^ehvah) go when he went from me to speak to you?” When the phrase “the spirit of the Lord” refers to the divine spirit (rather than the divine breath or mind, as in Isa 40:7, 13) elsewhere, the spirit energizes an individual or group for special tasks or moves one to prophesy. This raises the possibility that the deceiving spirit of vv. 20-22 is the same as the divine spirit mentioned by Zedekiah in v. 23. This would explain why the article is used on רוּחַ (ruakh); he can be called “the spirit” because he is the well-known spirit who energizes the prophets.

¹ tn Heb “the spirit.” The significance of the article prefixed to רוּחַ (ruakh) is uncertain, but it could contain a clue as to this spirit’s identity, especially when interpreted in light of v. 24. It is certainly possible, and probably even likely, that the article is used in a generic or dramatic sense and should be translated, “a spirit.” In the latter case it would show that this spirit was vivid and definite in the mind of Micaiah the storyteller. However, if one insists that the article indicates a well-known or universally known spirit, the following context provides a likely referent. Verse 24 tells how Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face and then asked sarcastically, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord (רוּחַ־יְהוָה, [ruakh Yahweh], Heb “the spirit of the Lord”) go when he went from me to speak to you?” When the phrase “the spirit of the Lord” refers to the divine spirit (rather than the divine breath or mind, Isa 40:7, 13) elsewhere, the spirit energizes an individual or group for special tasks or moves one to prophesy. This raises the possibility that the deceiving spirit of vv. 20-23 is the same as the divine spirit mentioned by Zedekiah in v. 24. This would explain why the article is used on רוּחַ; he can be called “the spirit” because he is the well-known spirit who energizes the prophets.

¹ sn Hebrew has more than one word for foreigners. Since the Amalekites were obviously not Israelites and were “inhabitants of the land” (1 Sam 27:8), adding the description ger (גֵּר) must carry more significance than just “foreigner” and “resident.” In Mosaic Law the ger (גֵּר) could join the covenant, be circumcised, offer sacrifices to the Lord, celebrate the festivals with Israel, were given equal protection under the law, and received some social welfare along with the Levites. (See notes at Exod 12:19 and Deut 29:11.) These ger (גֵּר) appear to be converts or naturalized citizens with minimally different rights (they could not own land, just houses). The young man is probably positioning himself as someone loyal to Israel, consistent the description that he came from the camp of Saul/Israel (vss 2-3). He certainly would not want to be considered one of the Amalekites that David had just fought against (vs 1). This may also explain David’s expectation that he should know better than to slay the Lord’s anointed (as Saul’s armor-bearer would not do in the true account in 1 Sam 31:4).

² tn Heb “son of a perverse woman of rebelliousness.” But such an overly literal and domesticated translation of the Hebrew expression fails to capture the force of Saul’s unrestrained reaction. Saul, now incensed and enraged over Jonathan’s liaison with David, is actually hurling very coarse and emotionally charged words at his son. The translation of this phrase suggested by Koehler and Baumgartner is “bastard of a wayward woman” (HALOT 796 s.v. עוה), but this is not an expression commonly used in English. A better English approximation of the sentiments expressed here by the Hebrew phrase would be “You stupid son of a bitch!” However, sensitivity to the various public formats in which the Bible is read aloud has led to a less startling English rendering which focuses on the semantic value of Saul’s utterance (i.e., the behavior of his own son Jonathan, which he viewed as both a personal and a political betrayal [= “traitor”]). But this concession should not obscure the fact that Saul is full of bitterness and frustration. That he would address his son Jonathan with such language, not to mention his apparent readiness even to kill his own son over this friendship with David (v. 33), indicates something of the extreme depth of Saul’s jealousy and hatred of David.

⁵ tn The Hebrew idiom, פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי (p^eloni ʾalmoni) literally means “such and such” or “a certain one” (BDB 811-12 s.v. פְּלֹנִי. The idiom is used when one wishes to be ambiguous (1 Sam 21:3; 2 Kgs 6:8). Certainly Boaz would have known his relative’s name, especially in such a small village, and would have uttered his actual name. However the narrator refuses to record his name in a form of poetic justice because he refused to preserve Mahlon’s “name” (lineage) by marrying his widow (see 4:5, 9-10). This close relative, who is a literary foil for Boaz, refuses to fulfill the role of family guardian and is relegated to anonymity in a chapter otherwise filled with names and in contrast to Boaz’s prominence. Because the actual name of this relative is not recorded, the translation of this expression is difficult. Contemporary English style expects either a name or title, but the purpose of the expression is to remove his name. This is usually supplied in modern translations: “friend” (NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT), “so-and-so” (JPS, NJPS). Perhaps “Mr. So-And-So!” or “Mr. No-Name!” makes the point. For discussion see Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 99-101; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 233-35; F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 196-97.

¹ tc MT vocalizes ותרא as the Qal verb וַתֵּרֶא (vattereʾ, “and she saw”), consequently of “her mother-in-law” as subject and “what she gathered” as the direct object: “her mother-in-law saw what she gathered.” A few medieval Hebrew mss (also reflected in Syriac and Vulgate) have the Hiphil וַתַּרְא (vattarʾ, “and she showed”), consequently taking “her mother-in-law” as the direct object and “what she gathered” as the double direct-object: “she showed her mother-in-law what she had gathered” (cf. NAB, TEV, CEV, NLT). Although the latter has the advantage of making Ruth the subject of all the verbs in this verse, it would be syntactically difficult. For one would expect the accusative sign אֶת (ʾet) before “her mother-in-law” if it were the direct object of a Hiphil verb in a sentence with a double direct object introduced by the accusative sign אֶת, e.g., “to show (Hiphil of רָאָה, raʾah) your servant (direct object marked by accusative sign אֶת) your greatness (double direct object marked by accusative sign אֶת) (Deut 3:24). Therefore the MT reading is preferred.

² tc The Hebrew text has “and he went out to the [?].” The word פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parshedonah) occurs only here, and is of uncertain meaning. The noun has the directional suffix, meaning “to the parsh^edon.” Some translations (e.g. KJV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) take it as a reference to feces or intestinal organs coming out. This would interpret the noun ending as feminine (not directional). But the verb (וַיֵּצֵא, vayyetseʾ) is masculine so this does not explain the text, even though the notion might fit the context. The subject is either Ehud or the blade–either would match the verb form–and the word in question tells where the subject went out. If the blade (לַהַב, lahav) is the subject, then פַּרְשְׁדֹנָה (parsh^edonah) might be an anatomical reference describing the exit point; if Ehud is the subject, then the word is probably a technical architectural term. The entire phrase is missing from the LXX. The present translation omits the clause, understanding it as an ancient variant of the first clause in v. 23. See B. Lindars, Judges 1-5, 146-48, for discussion of the options.