² tc The LXX lacks this phrase. Its absence from the LXX may be explained as a case of haplography resulting from homoioteleuton, skipping from כְּמַרְאֵה (k^emarʾeh) to מִמַּרְאֵה (mimmarʾeh). On the other hand, the LXX presents a much more balanced verse structure when it is recognized that the final words of this verse belong in the next sentence.

¹ tc Heb “each had two wings covering and each had two wings covering,” a case of dittography. On the analogy of v. 11 and the support of the LXX, which reads the same for v. 11 and this verse, one should perhaps read “each had two wings touching another being and each had two wings covering.”

³ tn The basic meaning of the verb חָנַן (khanan) is “to show favor [to], be gracious [to].” In some contexts this can mean “to spare” the lives of someone (Deut 7:2; 28:50; Job 19:21; Lam 4:16) (BDB 336 s.v. 1.c), though it is not clear whether that is the case here.

⁵ tn Heb “the stones of holiness/jewelry.” קֹדֶשׁ (qodesh) in most cases refers to holiness or sacredness. For the meaning “jewelry” see J. A. Emerton, “The Meaning of אַבְנֵי־קֹדֶשׁ in Lamentations 4:1” ZAW 79 (1967): 233-36.

⁴ tn The infinitive absolute emphasizes the following finite verb. Another option is to translate, “he certainly pays one back.” The translation assumes that the imperfect verbal form here describes the Lord’s characteristic actions. Another option is to take it as referring specifically to his judgment on Babylon, in which case one should translate, “he will pay (Babylon) back in full.”

⁵ tn Heb “For the Lord has both planned and done what he said concerning the people living in Babylon,” i.e., “he has carried out what he planned.” Here is an obvious case where the perfects are to be interpreted as prophetic; the commands imply that the attack is still future.

¹ tn The words “you foreign people” are not in the text, and many think the referent is the exiles of Judah. While this is clearly the case in v. 45, the referent seems broader here, where the context speaks of every man going to his own country (v. 9).

⁴ tn This appears to be another case where the particle לְמַעַן (l^emaʿan) introduces a result rather than giving the purpose or goal. See the translator’s note on 25:7, with a listing of other examples in the book of Jeremiah, and also the translator’s note on 27:10.

¹ sn Conquering nations are often identified with an eagle flying swiftly to swoop down on its victims (cf. Deut 28:49). In this case the eagle is to be identified with the nation (or king) of Babylon (cf. Ezek 17:3, 12, where reference is to the removal of Jehoiachin [Jeconiah] and his replacement with Zedekiah).

² tn Heb “How is the strong staff broken, the beautiful rod!” “How” introduces a lament that is here rendered by “Alas.” The staff and rod refer to the support that Moab gave to others, not to the fact that she ruled over others, which was never the case. According to BDB 739 s.v. עוֹז 1, the “strong staff” is figurative of political power.

² tn Heb “Chaldean.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation. There are two cases of apposition in this verse, with repetition of the preposition and then of the sign of the accusative, i.e., “who were with him, [namely] with Gedaliah” and “all the Chaldeans who happened to be there, [namely] the soldiers.”

¹ tn The words “so as to give…some assurance of safety” are not in the text but are generally understood by all commentators. This would be a case of substitution of cause for effect, the oath, put for the effect, the assurance of safety (NJPS translates directly “reassured them”).

² tn The plural form of עֲרָבָה (ʿaravah, rift valley) refers to the sloping plains of the rift valley basin north of the Dead Sea, in this case west of the Jordan in the vicinity of the Jericho (HALOT 880 s.v.). See the note at Num 21:1.

² sn Compare the same charge against Hananiah in Jer 28:16 and see the note there. In this case, the false prophecy of Shemaiah is not given, but it likely had the same tenor, since he wants Jeremiah reprimanded for saying that the exile will be long and the people are to settle down in Babylon.

⁵ tn Heb “letters.” Though GKC 397 §124.b, n. 1 denies it, this is probably a case of the plural of extension. For a similar usage see Isa 37:14, where the plural “letters” is referred to later as an “it.” Even if there were other “letters,” the focus is on the letter to Zephaniah.

³ tn Heb “lies will result in your being taken far…” (לְמַעַן [l^emaʿan] + infinitive). This is a rather clear case of the particle לְמַעַן introducing result (contra BDB 775 s.v. מַעַן note 1. There is no irony in this statement; it is a bold prediction).

² tn Heb “with their lies and their recklessness.” This is an example of hendiadys where two nouns (in this case a concrete and an abstract one) are joined by “and” but one is intended to be the adjectival modifier of the other.

³ sn The question “Why?” is a common rhetorical feature in the book of Jeremiah. See Jer 2:14, 31; 8:5, 19, 22; 12:1; 13:22; 14:19. In several cases like this one, no answer is given, leaving a sense of exasperation and hopelessness with the sinfulness of the nation that calls forth such punishment from God.

¹ tn The particle translated here as “Yet” (לָכֵן, lakhen) is regularly translated “So” or “Therefore” and introduces a consequence. However, in a few cases it introduces a contrasting set of conditions. Cf. Judg 11:8; Jer 48:12; 49:2; 51:52; Hos 2:14 (2:16 HT).

⁴ tn Heb “he.” The referent is usually identified as God and is supplied here for clarity. Some identify the referent with Jeremiah. If that is the case, then he returns to his complaint about the conspirators. It is more likely, however, that it refers to God and Jeremiah’s complaint that the people live their lives apart from concern about God.