Discovery Box| (0.28) | (Num 23:20) | 1 tn The Hebrew text simply has “I have received [to] bless.” The infinitive is the object of the verb, telling what he received. Balaam was not actually commanded to bless, but was given the word of blessing so that he was given a divine decree that would bless Israel. |
| (0.28) | (Num 23:9) | 2 sn Balaam reports his observation of the nation of Israel spread out below him in the valley. Based on that vision, and the Lord’s word, he announces the uniqueness of Israel—they are not just like one of the other nations. He was correct, of course; they were the only people linked with the living God by covenant. |
| (0.28) | (Num 22:38) | 2 tn The Piel infinitive construct (without the preposition) serves as the object of the verb “to be able.” The whole question is rhetorical—he is saying that he will not be able to say anything God does not allow him to say. |
| (0.28) | (Num 22:22) | 1 sn God’s anger now seems to contradict the permission he gave Balaam just before this. Some commentators argue that God’s anger is a response to Balaam’s character in setting out—which the Bible does not explain. God saw in him greed and pleasure for the riches, which is why he was so willing to go. |
| (0.28) | (Num 22:13) | 2 tn The main verb is the Piel perfect, “he has refused.” This is followed by two infinitives. The first (לְתִתִּי, letitti) serves as a complement or direct object of the verb, answering the question of what he refused to do—“to give me.” The second infinitive (לַהֲלֹךְ, lahalokh) provides the object for the preceding infinitive: “to grant me to go.” |
| (0.28) | (Num 22:15) | 1 tn The construction is a verbal hendiadys. It uses the Hiphil preterite of the verb “to add” followed by the Qal infinitive “to send.” The infinitive becomes the main verb, and the preterite an adverb: “he added to send” means “he sent again.” |
| (0.28) | (Num 11:12) | 1 sn The questions Moses asks are rhetorical. He is actually affirming that they are not his people, that he did not produce them, but now is to support them. His point is that God produced this nation, but has put the burden of caring for their needs on him. |
| (0.28) | (Num 9:13) | 2 tn The verb חָדַל (khadal) means “to cease; to leave off; to fail.” The implication here is that it is a person who simply neglects to do it. It does not indicate that he forgot, but more likely that he made the decision to leave it undone. |
| (0.28) | (Num 6:11) | 5 tn The verb “to sin” has a wide range of meanings, beginning with the idea of “missing the way or the goal.” In view of the nature of this case—the prescribed ritual without confession—the idea is more that he failed to keep the vow’s stipulations in this strange circumstance than that he committed intentional sin. |
| (0.28) | (Lev 27:13) | 1 tn Heb “And if redeeming [infinitive absolute] he redeems it [finite verb].” For the infinitive absolute used to highlight contrast rather than emphasis see GKC 343 §113.p. The referent of “he” (the person who made the vow) and “it” (the animal) have both been specified in the translation for clarity. |
| (0.28) | (Lev 17:4) | 3 sn The exact meaning of this penalty clause is not certain. It could mean (1) that he will be executed, whether by God or by man, (2) that he will be excommunicated from sanctuary worship and/or community benefits, or (3) that his line will be terminated by God (i.e., extirpation). See also the note on Lev 7:20. |
| (0.28) | (Lev 16:32) | 1 tn Heb “And the priest whom he shall anointed him and whom he shall fill his hand to act as priest under his father.” Imperfect active verbs are often used as passives (see, e.g., v. 27 above and the note on Lev 14:4). |
| (0.28) | (Lev 9:6) | 2 tn Heb “and the glory of the Lord will appear,” but the construction with the simple vav (ו) plus the imperfect/jussive (וְיֵרָא, veyeraʾ; literally, “and he will appear”) suggests purpose in this context, not just succession of events (i.e., “so that he might appear”). |
| (0.28) | (Lev 6:15) | 1 tn Heb “and he”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. The “he” refers to the officiating priest. A similar shift between singular and plural occurs in Lev 1:7-9, but see the note on Lev 1:7 and J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 89 for the possibility of a textual defect. |
| (0.28) | (Lev 1:6) | 1 tn Heb “Then he”; the referent (the offerer) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The LXX and Smr have “they” rather than “he” in both halves of this verse, suggesting that the priests, not the offerer, were to skin and cut the carcass of the bull into pieces (cf. the notes on vv. 5a and 9a). |
| (0.28) | (Lev 1:5) | 1 tn Heb “Then he”; the referent (the offerer) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The LXX has “they” rather than “he,” suggesting that the priests, not the offerer, were to slaughter the bull (cf. the notes on vv. 6a and 9a). |
| (0.28) | (Exo 28:35) | 2 tn The form is a Piel infinitive construct with the preposition ל (lamed): “to minister” or “to serve.” It may be taken epexegetically here, “while serving,” although S. R. Driver takes it as a purpose, “in order that he may minister” (Exodus, 308). The point then would be that he dare not enter into the Holy Place without wearing it. |
| (0.28) | (Exo 24:3) | 1 sn The general consensus among commentators is that this refers to Moses’ coming from the mountain after he made the ascent in 20:21. Here he came and told them the laws (written in 20:22-23:33), and of the call to come up to Yahweh. |
| (0.28) | (Exo 21:34) | 1 tn The verb is a Piel imperfect from שָׁלַם (shalam); it has the idea of making payment in full, making recompense, repaying. These imperfects could be given a future tense translation as imperfects of instruction, but in the property cases an obligatory imperfect fits better—this is what he is bound or obliged to do—what he must do. |
| (0.28) | (Exo 18:1) | 2 tn This clause beginning with כִּי (ki) answers the question of what Jethro had heard; it provides a second, explanatory noun clause that is the object of the verb—“he heard (1) all that God had done… (2) that he had brought….” See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 81, §490. |
