¹ tn Or “you will most certainly kill me, won’t you?” Heb “Will you not certainly kill me?” The question is rhetorical and expects a positive answer. In situations like this BDB s.v. לֹא 4.b(β) says that הֲלֹא (haloʾ) “has a tendency to become little more than an affirmative particle, declaring with some rhetorical emphasis what is, or might be, well known.” The idea of certainty is emphasized here by the addition of the infinitive absolute before the finite verb (Joüon 2:422 §123.e).

¹ tn Heb “And/Then King Zedekiah ordered, and they committed Jeremiah to [or deposited…in] the courtyard of the guardhouse and they gave to him a loaf of bread.” The translation has been structured the way it has to avoid the ambiguous “they,” which is the impersonal subject, which is sometimes rendered as passive in English (cf. GKC 460 §144.d). This text also has another example of the vav (ו) + infinitive absolute continuing a finite verbal form (וְנָתֹן [v^enaton] = “and they gave”; cf. GKC 345 §113.y and see Jer 32:44 and 36:23).

² tn Heb “They will buy fields with silver and write in the deed and seal [it] and have witnesses witness [it] in the land of Benjamin, in the environs of Jerusalem, in the towns in Judah, in the towns in the hill country, in the towns in the Shephelah, and in the towns in the Negev.” The long Hebrew sentence has again been restructured to better conform to contemporary English style. The indefinite “they will buy” is treated as a passive. It is followed by three infinitive absolutes that substitute for the finite verb (cf. GKC 345 §113.y). Such substitution is a common stylistic feature of the book of Jeremiah.

² tn For the idiom involved here see the translator’s note on 7:13. The verb that introduces this clause is a Piel infinitive absolute that is functioning in place of the finite verb (see, e.g., GKC 346 §113.ff and compare usage in Jer 8:15 and 14:19. This grammatical point means that the versions cited in BHS fn a may not be reading a different text after all, but may merely be interpreting the form as syntactically equivalent to a finite verb, as the present translation has done.).

¹ tc The MT should be emended to read חַלֹּנָיו וְסָפוֹן (khallonayv v^esafon) instead of חַלֹּנָי וְסָפוּן (khallonay v^esafun), i.e., the plural noun with third singular suffix rather than the first singular suffix, and the infinitive absolute rather than the passive participle. The latter form then parallels the form for “paints” and functions in the same way (cf. GKC 345 §113.z for the infinitive with vav [ו] continuing a perfect). The errors in the MT involve reading the ו once instead of twice (haplography) and reading the וּ (u) for the וֹ (o).

¹ tn Heb “caused me to know that I might know.” Many English versions supply an unstated object, “their plots,” that is referred to later in the context (cf. v. 19). The presupposition of this kind of absolute ellipsis is difficult to justify and would also create the need for understanding an ellipsis of “it” after “I knew.” It is better to see a bipolar use of the verb “know” here. For the second use of the verb “know” meaning “have understanding,” see BDB 394 s.v.יָדָע Qal.5.

⁴ sn Absolutely futile!…All of these things are futile! This motto is the theme of the book. It occurs at the beginning (1:2) and end of the book (12:8), forming an envelope structure (inclusio). Everything described in 1:2—12:8 is the supporting proof of the thesis of 1:2. With few exceptions (e.g., 2:24-26; 3:14-15; 11:9-12:1, 9), everything described in 1:2—12:8 is characterized as “futile” (הֶבֶל, hevel).

² sn Proverbial sayings are often general and not absolute. Clearly Job was a righteous person to whom harm happened (or was permitted to happen). And being righteous does not mean an exemption from all hardships that are not related to punishment. The proper nuance also depends on the understanding of “harm.” Perhaps the correct nuance is that God does not direct harms of punishment at the righteous. In the surrounding polytheistic countries, they believed that a god might make a mistake and punish the wrong person.

³ tn The imperfect tense describes progressive or habitual action, translated here with an English present tense. These fit the nature of proverbs which are general maxims, and not necessarily absolutes or universal truths. One may normally expect to find what the proverb notes, and one should live according to its instructions in the light of those expectations, but one should not be surprised if from time to time there is an exception. The fact that there may be an exception does not diminish the need to live by the sayings.

³ tn Heb “prudence.” The Hiphil infinitive absolute הַשְׂכֵּל (haskel, “of prudence”) functions as a genitive of content (“about prudence”) or of result, (“leading to prudence”). The basic meaning of שָׂכַל is “to be prudent” or “be successful” (cf. BDB 968; HALOT 1328). In the Hiphil it means “to act in a prudent way,” “to have insight (leading to prudent behavior),” to “have success (resulting from prudence)”, or “to dispense prudence” (i.e., instruct in wisdom). Elsewhere, the term describes the prudent actions of Abigail in contrast to her foolish husband Nabal (1 Sam 25).

³ tn Heb “the word of the Lord is purified.” The Lord’s “word” probably refers here to his oracle(s) of victory delivered to the psalmist before the battle(s) described in the following context. See also Pss 12:5-7 and 138:2-3. David frequently received such oracles before going into battle (see 1 Sam 23:2, 4-5, 10-12; 30:8; 2 Sam 5:19). The Lord’s word of promise is absolutely reliable; it is compared to metal that has been refined in fire and cleansed of impurities. See Ps 12:6.

¹ tn Heb “[As for] the God, his way is blameless.” The term הָאֵל (haʾel, “the God”) stands as a nominative (or genitive) absolute in apposition to the resumptive pronominal suffix on “way.” The prefixed article emphasizes his distinctiveness as the one true God (cf. Deut 33:26). God’s “way” in this context refers to his protective and salvific acts in fulfillment of his promise (see also Deut 32:4; Pss 67:2; 77:13 [note vv. 11-12, 14]; 103:7; 138:5; 145:17).

¹ tn Heb “[As for] the God, his way is blameless.” The term הָאֵל (haʾel, “the God”) stands as a nominative (or genitive) absolute in apposition to the resumptive pronominal suffix on “way.” The prefixed article emphasizes his distinctiveness as the one true God (see BDB 42 s.v. II אֵל 6; Deut 33:26). God’s “way” in this context refers to his protective and salvific acts in fulfillment of his promise (see also Deut 32:4; Pss 67:2; 77:13 [note vv. 11-12, 14]; 103:7; 138:5; 145:17).

³ tn The verb הִשְׂתָּרֵר (histarer) is the Hitpael infinitive absolute that emphasizes the preceding תִשְׂתָּרֵר (tistarer), the Hitpael imperfect tense (both forms having metathesis). The verb means “to rule; to act like a prince; to make oneself a prince.” This is the only occurrence of the reflexive for this verb. The exact nuance is difficult to translate into English. But they are accusing Moses of seizing princely power for himself, perhaps making a sarcastic reference to his former status in Egypt. The rebels here are telling Moses that they had discerned his scheme, and so he could not “hoodwink” them (cf. NEB).

² tn The text simply has “and to give on you today a blessing.” Gesenius notes that the infinitive construct seems to be attached with a vav (ו; like the infinitive absolute) as the continuation of a previous finite verb. He reads the verb “fill” as an imperative: “fill your hand today…and that to bring a blessing on you, i.e., that you may be blessed” (see GKC 351 §114.p). If the preceding verb is taken as perfect tense, however, then this would also be perfect—“he has blessed you today.”

¹ sn It was once assumed by some scholars that child sacrifice lay behind this text in the earlier days, but that the priests and prophets removed those themes. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for anything like that, the Law forbade child sacrifice, and always used child sacrifice as the sample of what not to do in conformity with the pagans (e.g., Deut 12:31). Besides, how absurd would it be for Yahweh to redeem the firstborn from death and then ask Israel to kill them. See further B. Jacob, Exodus, 371.

² tn The form הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ (heʿemadtikha) is the Hiphil perfect of עָמַד (ʿamad). It would normally mean “I caused you to stand.” But that seems to have one or two different connotations. S. R. Driver (Exodus, 73) says that it means “maintain you alive.” The causative of this verb means “continue,” according to him. The LXX has the same basic sense—“you were preserved.” But Paul bypasses the Greek and writes “he raised you up” to show God’s absolute sovereignty over Pharaoh. Both renderings show God’s sovereign control over Pharaoh.

¹ sn After the plague is inflicted on the land, then Pharaoh makes an appeal. So there is the familiar confrontation (vv. 25-29). Pharaoh’s words to Moses are an advancement on his previous words. Now he uses imperatives: “Go, sacrifice to your God.” But he restricts it to “in the [this] land.” This is a subtle attempt to keep them as a subjugated people and prevent their absolute allegiance to their God. This offered compromise would destroy the point of the exodus—to leave Egypt and find a new allegiance under the Lord.

² tc The translation follows a few Hebrew mss and the major versions. The majority of Hebrew mss read, “I will totally forget [or certainly forget] you.” In place of וְנָשִׁיתִי (v^enashiti) a few Hebrew mss, LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate read וְנָשָׂאתִי (v^enasaʾti). Instead of the infinitive absolute נָשׁאֹ (nashoʾ) a number of Hebrew mss, Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate read נָשׂאֹ (naso’). For the confusion of III א and III ה verbs presupposed by the miswriting of the Hebrew text, see GKC 216 §75.qq and compare the forms of נָבָא (navaʾ) in Jer 26:9 and 1 Sam 10:6. While the verb “forget” would not be totally inappropriate here, it does not fit the concept of “throwing away from my presence” as well as “pick up” does. For the verb נָשָׂא (nasaʾ) meaning “carry you off,” compare the usage in 1 Kgs 15:22 and 18:12 (and see BDB 671 s.v. נָשָׂא 3.b). Many see the nuance “pick you up” carrying through on the wordplay in v. 33. While that may be appropriate for the repetition of the verb “throw away” (נָטַשׁ, natash) that follows, it does not seem as appropriate for the use of the infinitive absolute that follows the verb, which expresses some kind of forcefulness (see GKC 343 §113.q).

¹ tn Or “I will completely destroy them.” The translation that is adopted is based on a revocalization of the MT, which appears to mean literally, “gathering I will sweep them away,” a rather improbable grammatical combination. It follows the suggestion found in HALOT 705 s.v. סוּף (Hiph) of reading אֹסֵף אֲסִיפָם (ʾosef, a first singular Qal imperfect of אָסַף [ʾasaf] followed by a noun אָסִיף [ʾasif] with possessive suffix) instead of the MT’s אָסֹף אֲסִיפֵם (ʾasof ’asifem, a Qal infinitive absolute of אָסַף [ʾasaf] followed by the Hiphil imperfect of סוּף [suf] plus suffix). For parallel usage of the verb אָסַף (asaf) see BDB 62 s.v. אָסַף Qal.4, and for a similar form of the verb see Mic 4:6. The alternate translation follows the suggestion in BDB 692 s.v. סוּף (Hiph) that אָסֹף (ʾasof) is to be interpreted as a form of the Hiphil infinitive absolute (הָסֵף [hasef] would be expected) chosen for assonance with the following form. This suggestion would gain more credence if the MT were to be retained in Zeph 1:2, where parallel forms are found. However, that text, too, has been questioned on lexical and grammatical grounds. The translation adopted fits the following context better than the alternate one and is based on less questionable lexical and grammatical parallels. The Greek translation, which reads “they shall gather their fruits,” supports the translation chosen.