(0.17) | (Joh 6:1) | 2 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. Only John in the New Testament refers to the Sea of Galilee by the name Sea of Tiberias (see also John 21:1), but this is correct local usage. In the mid-20’s Herod completed the building of the town of Tiberias on the southwestern shore of the lake; after this time the name came into use for the lake itself. |
(0.17) | (Luk 4:16) | 7 sn In normative Judaism of the period, the OT scripture was read and discussed in the synagogue by the men who were present. See the Mishnah, m. Megillah 3-4; m. Berakhot 2. First came the law, then the prophets, then someone was asked to speak on the texts. Normally one stood up to read out of respect for the scriptures, and then sat down (v. 20) to expound them. |
(0.17) | (Mar 7:31) | 5 sn The Decapolis refers to a group of towns (originally consisting of ten; the Greek name literally means “ten towns”) whose region (except for Scythopolis) lay on the east side of the Jordan River. Although frequently seen as a league of independent city states organized by the Roman general Pompey, contemporary sources do not support such a view. Rather their unity came from their Greek (Hellenistic) culture and religions, which set them apart from surrounding areas. |
(0.17) | (Mar 5:20) | 2 sn The Decapolis refers to a group of towns (originally consisting of ten; the Greek name literally means “ten towns”) whose region (except for Scythopolis) lay on the east side of the Jordan River. Although frequently seen as a league of independent city states organized by the Roman general Pompey, contemporary sources do not support such a view. Rather their unity came from their Greek (Hellenistic) culture and religions, which set them apart from surrounding areas. |
(0.17) | (Mat 4:25) | 1 sn The Decapolis refers to a group of towns (originally consisting of ten; the Greek name literally means “ten towns”) whose region (except for Scythopolis) lay on the east side of the Jordan River. Although frequently seen as a league of independent city states organized by the Roman general Pompey, contemporary sources do not support such a view. Rather their unity came from their Greek (Hellenistic) culture and religions, which set them apart from surrounding areas. |
(0.17) | (Mal 4:5) | 1 sn I will send you Elijah the prophet. In light of the ascension of Elijah to heaven without dying (2 Kgs 2:11), Judaism has always awaited his return as an aspect of the messianic age (see, e.g., John 1:19-28). Jesus identified John the Baptist as Elijah because he came in the “spirit and power” of his prototype Elijah (Matt 11:14; 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). |
(0.17) | (Lam 1:1) | 2 tc The LXX and Vulgate (dependent on the LXX) include a preface that is lacking in the MT: “And it came to pass after Israel had been taken captive and Jerusalem had been laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping and lamented this lament over Jerusalem, and said….” Scholars generally view the preface in the LXX and Vulgate as a later addition, though the style is Hebrew rather than Greek. |
(0.17) | (Jer 44:1) | 1 tn Heb “The word came to Jeremiah concerning.” Though the phrase “from the Lord” is missing from this formula, which occurs elsewhere at 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 21:1; 30:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 40:1, it is clearly implied from the words that follow. As in these other passages, the more active form has been chosen for the translation to better conform with contemporary English style. |
(0.17) | (Jer 39:15) | 2 tn Heb “Now the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah while he…saying.” The form of this clause is disjunctive, showing that it does not follow the preceding events in either chronological or logical sequence. For a discussion of the form and function of such disjunctive clauses, see IBHS 650-52 §39.2.3. This example most closely fits the description and function of example 12, Ruth 4:18, 21-22 on p. 652. |
(0.17) | (Jer 37:16) | 2 tn Heb “Jeremiah came into the house of the pit [= “dungeon,” BDB 92 s.v. בּוֹר 4 and compare usage in Gen 40:15 and 41:14] and into the cells [this word occurs only here; it is defined on the basis of the cognate languages (cf. BDB 333 s.v. חָנוּת)].” The sentence has been restructured and some words supplied in the translation to better relate it to the preceding context. |
(0.17) | (Jer 36:18) | 1 tn The verbal forms emphasize that each word came from his mouth. The first verb is an imperfect, which emphasizes repeated action in past time, and the second verb is a participle, which emphasizes ongoing action. However, it is a little awkward to try to express this nuance in contemporary English. Even though it is not reflected in the translation, it is noted here for future reference. |
(0.17) | (Isa 50:2) | 1 sn The present-tense translation of the verbs assumes that the Lord is questioning why Israel does not attempt to counter his arguments. Another possibility is to take the verbs as referring to past events: “Why did no one meet me when I came? Why did no one answer when I called?” In this case the Lord might be asking why Israel rejected his calls to repent and his offer to deliver them. |
(0.17) | (Pro 28:5) | 3 sn The contrast (and the difference) is between the wicked and those who seek the Lord. Originally the idea of seeking the Lord meant to obtain an oracle (2 Sam 21:1), but then it came to mean devotion to God—seeking to learn and do his will. Only people who are interested in doing the Lord’s will can fully understand justice. Without that standard, legal activity can become self-serving. |
(0.17) | (Pro 21:27) | 3 tn The noun זִמָּה (zimmah) means “plan; device; wickedness”; here it indicates that the person is coming to the ritual with “sinful purpose.” Some commentators suggest that this would mean he comes with the sacrifice as a bribe to pacify his conscience for a crime committed, over which he has little remorse or intent to cease (cf. NLT “with ulterior motives”). In this view, people in ancient Israel came to think that sacrifices could be given for any reason without genuine submission to God. |
(0.17) | (Job 39:10) | 1 tn Some commentators think that the addition of the “wild ox” here is a copyist’s error, making the stich too long. They therefore delete it. Also, binding an animal to the furrow with ropes is unusual. So with a slight emendation Kissane came up with “Will you bind him with a halter of cord?” While the MT is unusual, the sense is understandable, and no changes, even slight ones, are absolutely necessary. |
(0.17) | (Job 37:21) | 3 tn Heb “and cleaned them.” The referent is the clouds (v. 18), which has been supplied in the translation for clarity. There is another way of reading this verse: the word translated “bright” means “dark; obscured” in Syriac. In this interpretation the first line would mean that they could not see the sun because it was darkened by the clouds, but then the wind came and blew the clouds away. Dhorme, Gray, and several others take it this way, as does the NAB. |
(0.17) | (Job 32:8) | 1 tn This is the word נְשָׁמָה (neshamah, “breath”); according to Gen 2:7 it was breathed into Adam to make him a living person (“soul”). With that divine impartation came this spiritual understanding. Some commentators identify the רוּחַ (ruakh) in the first line as the Spirit of God; this “breath” would then be the human spirit. Whether Elihu knew that much, however, is hard to prove. |
(0.17) | (Job 21:8) | 2 tn The text uses לִפְנֵיהֶם עִמָּם (lifnehem ʿimmam, “before them, with them”). Many editors think that these were alternative readings, and so omit one or the other. Dhorme moved עִמָּם (ʿimmam) to the second half of the verse and emended it to read עֹמְדִים (ʿomedim, “abide”). Kissane and Gordis changed only the vowels and came up with עַמָּם (ʿammam, “their kinfolk”). But Gordis thinks the presence of both of them in the line is evidence of a conflated reading (p. 229). |
(0.17) | (Job 19:17) | 3 tn The text has “the sons of my belly [= body].” This would normally mean “my sons.” But they are all dead. And there is no suggestion that Job had other sons. The word “my belly” will have to be understood as “my womb,” i.e., the womb I came from. Instead of “brothers,” the sense could be “siblings” (both brothers and sisters; G. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, Job [ICC], 2:168). |
(0.17) | (Job 13:4) | 2 tn The literal rendering of the construct would be “healers of worthlessness.” Ewald and Dillmann translated it “patchers” based on a meaning in Arabic and Ethiopic; this would give the idea “botchers.” But it makes equally good sense to take “healers” as the meaning, for Job’s friends came to minister comfort and restoration to him—but they failed. See P. Humbert, “Maladie et medicine dans l’AT,” RHPR 44 (1964): 1-29. |