Discovery Box| (0.17) | (Isa 34:11) | 1 tn קָאַת (qaʾat) refers to some type of bird (cf. Lev 11:18; Deut 14:17) that was typically found near ruins (see Zeph 2:14). קִפּוֹד (qippod) may also refer to a type of bird (NAB “hoot owl”; NIV “screech owl”; TEV “ravens”), but some have suggested a rodent may be in view (cf. NCV “small animals”; ASV “porcupine”; NASB, NRSV “hedgehog”). |
| (0.17) | (Isa 34:4) | 1 tc Heb “and all the host of heaven will rot.” The Qumran scroll 1QIsaa inserts “and the valleys will be split open,” but this reading may be influenced by Mic 1:4. On the other hand, the statement, if original, could have been omitted by homoioarcton, a scribe’s eye jumping from the conjunction prefixed to “the valleys” to the conjunction prefixed to the verb “rot.” |
| (0.17) | (Isa 30:18) | 1 tn Heb “Therefore the Lord waits to show you mercy, and therefore he is exalted to have compassion on you.” The logical connection between this verse and what precedes is problematic. The point seems to be that Judah’s impending doom does not bring God joy. Rather the prospect of their suffering stirs within him a willingness to show mercy and compassion, if they are willing to seek him on his terms. |
| (0.17) | (Isa 28:13) | 1 tn Heb “And the message of the Lord will be to them, ‘tsav latsav,’ etc.” See the note at v. 10. In this case the “Lord’s message” is not the foreigner’s strange sounding words (as in v. 10), but the Lord’s repeated appeals to them (like the one quoted in v. 12). As time goes on, the Lord’s appeals through the prophets will have no impact on the people; they will regard prophetic preaching as gibberish. |
| (0.17) | (Isa 14:17) | 1 tc The pronominal suffix is masculine, even though its antecedent appears to be the grammatically feminine noun “world.” Some have suggested that the form עָרָיו (ʿarayv, plural noun with third masculine singular suffix) should be emended to עָרֶיהָ (ʿareha, plural noun with third feminine singular suffix). This emendation may be unnecessary in light of other examples of lack of agreement between a suffix and its antecedent noun. |
| (0.17) | (Isa 9:1) | 5 tn Heb “Just as in earlier times he humiliated…, [in] the latter times he has brought honor.” The main verbs in vv. 1b-4 are Hebrew perfects. The prophet takes his rhetorical stance in the future age of restoration and describes future events as if they have already occurred. To capture the dramatic effect of the original text, the translation uses the English present or present perfect. |
| (0.17) | (Isa 6:13) | 2 tn By the time of Mishnaic Hebrew the terms כָּאֵלָה וְכָאַלּוֹן (kaʾelah vekaʾallon) meant “like a terebinth or like an oak.” They may have originally been generic terms for large trees, “like a massive tree or like a big tree.” See HALOT 52, s.v. I אֵלָה and 54, s.v. I אֵלוֹן. These two trees were often part of cultic worship and this significance is prioritized in the translation. |
| (0.17) | (Isa 1:21) | 3 tn Or “assassins.” This refers to the oppressive rich and/or their henchmen. R. Ortlund (Whoredom, 78) posits that it serves as a synecdoche for all varieties of criminals, the worst being mentioned to imply all lesser ones. Since Isaiah often addressed his strongest rebuke to the rulers and leaders of Israel, he may have in mind the officials who bore the responsibility to uphold justice and righteousness. |
| (0.17) | (Isa 1:3) | 2 tn Although both verbs have no object, the parallelism suggests that Israel fails to recognize the Lord as the one who provides for their needs. In both clauses, the placement of “Israel” and “my people” at the head of the clause focuses the reader’s attention on the rebellious nation (C. van der Merwe, J. Naudé, J. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 346-47). |
| (0.17) | (Sos 5:1) | 2 sn The physical love between the couple is compared to eating and drinking at a wedding feast. This is an appropriate figure of comparison because it would have been issued during the feast which followed the wedding and the consummation. The term “drink” refers to intoxication, that is, it compares becoming drunk on wine with enjoying the physical love of one’s spouse (e.g., Prov 5:19-20). |
| (0.17) | (Ecc 6:8) | 1 sn So what advantage does the wise man have over a fool? The rhetorical question in Hebrew implies a negative answer: the wise man has no absolute advantage over a fool in the sense that both will share the same fate: death. Qoheleth should not be misunderstood here as denying that wisdom has no relative advantage over folly; elsewhere he affirms that wisdom does yield some relative benefits in life (7:1-22). However, wisdom cannot deliver one from death. |
| (0.17) | (Ecc 5:6) | 2 tc The MT reads הַמַּלְאָךְ (hammalʾakh, “messenger”), while the LXX reads τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou, “God”) which reflects an alternate textual tradition of הָאֱלֹהִים (haʾelohim, “God”). The textual problem was caused by orthographic confusion between similarly spelled words. The LXX might have been trying to make sense of a difficult expression. The MT is preferred as the original. All the major translations follow the MT except for Moffatt (“God”). |
| (0.17) | (Ecc 2:18) | 6 tn The third person masculine singular suffix on אַנִּיחֶנּוּ (ʾannikhennu, “I must leave it”) refers to Qoheleth’s wealth, that is, the fruit of his labor (see the note on the phrase “hard labor” in 2:18). The suffix is rendered literally by nearly all translations; however, a few make its referent explicit: “I have to leave its fruits” (NEB), “I must leave them [= all the fruits of my labor]” (NAB). |
| (0.17) | (Pro 31:21) | 4 tn For the MT’s “scarlet” the LXX and the Latin have “two” or “double”—the difference being essentially the vocalization of a plural as opposed to a dual. The word is taken in the versions with the word that follows (“covers”) to mean “double garments.” The question to be asked is whether scarlet would keep one warm in winter or double garments. The latter is the easier reading and therefore suspect. |
| (0.17) | (Pro 31:11) | 2 sn The Hebrew word used here for “dividends” (שָׁלָל, shalal) usually refers to “plunder, spoil,” primarily from war (e.g., Isa 8:1-4 and the name Maher Shalal Hash Baz). Here it refers to gain in a more broad sense, but a gain that has come through the work of another. Having unleashed her capabilities through his trust, her work has enriched the husband and family. |
| (0.17) | (Pro 30:15) | 4 tn This verb is a Hebrew imperfect for the future tense, while the next verb is a Hebrew perfect for the perfective. Most translations render both as present tense “are satisfied…say” (KJV, NIV, ESV, Holman, while NASB gives both as future “will not be satisfied…will not say”). Using both the future and the past is more emphatic, these never have been and never will be satisfied. |
| (0.17) | (Pro 30:15) | 1 sn The next two verses describe insatiable things, things that are problematic to normal life. The meaning of v. 15a and its relationship to 15b is debated. But the “leech” seems to have been selected to begin the section because it was symbolic of greed—it sucks blood through its two suckers. This may be what the reference to two daughters calling “Give! Give!” might signify (if so, this is an implied comparison, a figure known as hypocatastasis). |
| (0.17) | (Pro 30:3) | 2 sn The construction uses repetition to make the point emphatically: “I do not know the knowledge of the Holy One.” Agur’s claim to being “brutish” is here clarified—he is not one of those who has knowledge or understanding of God. C. H. Toy thinks the speaker is being sarcastic in reference to others who may have claimed such knowledge (Proverbs [ICC], 521). |
| (0.17) | (Pro 29:14) | 1 tn The king must judge “in truth” (בֶּאֱמֶת, beʾemet). Some have interpreted this to mean “faithfully” (KJV, ASV) but that is somewhat unclear. The idea is that the poor must be treated fairly and justly (cf. NIV “with fairness”; NRSV “with equity”); “truth” is that which corresponds to the standard of the law revealed by God. There must be no miscarriage of justice for these people simply because they are poor. |
| (0.17) | (Pro 29:3) | 5 sn Wealth was seen as a sign of success and of God’s blessings, pretty much as it always has been. To be seen as honorable in the community meant one had acquired some substance and kept his reputation. It would be a disgrace to the family to have a son who squandered his money on prostitutes (e.g., Prov 5:10; 6:31). |
