² tn The LXX renders this as “unafraid,” although the negative has disappeared in some mss to give the reading “and the servant that feared his master.” See I. Mendelsohn, “The Canaanite Term for ‘Free Proletarian’,” BASOR 83 (1941): 36-39; idem, “New Light on hupsu,” BASOR 139 (1955): 9-11.

¹ sn The series of catastrophes and the piety of Job is displayed now in comprehensive terms. Everything that can go wrong goes wrong, and yet Job, the pious servant of Yahweh, continues to worship him in the midst of the rubble. This section, and the next, will lay the foundation for the great dialogues in the book.

² tc Heb “Is it not to explore and to overturn and to spy out the land (that) his servants have come to you?” The Hebrew term לַהֲפֹךְ (lahafokh, “to overturn”) seems misplaced in the sequence. Some emend the form to לַחְפֹּר (lakhpor, “to spy out”). The sequence of three infinitives may be a conflation of alternative readings.

¹ tn Heb “When my master enters the house of Rimmon to bow down there, and he leans on my hand and I bow down [in] the house of Rimmon, when I bow down [in] the house of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this thing.”

² tn Heb “my father,” reflecting the perspective of each individual servant. To address their master as “father” would emphasize his authority and express their respect. See BDB 3 s.v. אָב and the similar idiomatic use of “father” in 2 Kgs 2:12.

¹ tn Heb “and you, hear [from] heaven and act and judge your servants by declaring the guilty to be guilty, to give his way on his head, and to declare the innocent to be innocent, to give to him according to his innocence.”

¹ tn Heb “if he is a man of strength [or ability].” In this context, where Adonijah calls himself a “servant,” implying allegiance to the new king, the phrase אִישׁ חַיִל (ʾish khayil) probably carries the sense of “a worthy man,” that is, “loyal” (see HALOT 311 s.v. חַיִל).

¹ tn Here and elsewhere (vv. 7, 12, 15a, 17, 19) the woman uses a term which suggests a lower level female servant. She uses the term to express her humility before the king. However, she uses a different term in vv. 15b-16. See the note at v. 15 for a discussion of the rhetorical purpose of this switch in terminology.

¹ tn Heb “and you know your servant.” The verb here refers to recognizing another in a special way and giving them special treatment (see 1 Chr 17:18). Some English versions take this to refer to the Lord’s knowledge of David himself: CEV “you know my thoughts”; NLT “know what I am really like.”

¹ tn In v. 2 he is called simply a “man.” The word used here in v. 5 (so also in vv. 6, 13, 15), though usually referring to a young man or servant, may in this context designate a “fighting” man, i.e., a soldier.

¹ tn The term נַעַר (naʿar), here translated “young men,” often refers to a servant or apprentice in line for a position of authority. The same term describes Samuel in vs 11 and 18. The repetition helps establish the contrast between Samuel and Eli’s sons.

³ tn The term נַעַר (naʿar), here translated “boy,” often refers to a servant or apprentice in line for a position of authority. The same term describes Samuel in vs 11 and Eli’s sons in vs 17. The repetition helps establish the contrast between Samuel and Eli’s sons.

⁵ tc The translation follows the LXX. Although “with her” can be conjectured instead of “with them,” the context of the LXX assumes the presence of Elkanah as well as Hannah. The MT has the unusual structure “and the boy was a boy,” possibly the result of dittography. If the MT is correct, perhaps we are to understand two different meanings of the same noun, e.g. “the boy was a servant.” The noun נַעַר (naʿar) is commonly understood to refer to a young man or a servant (HALOT s.v. נַעַר), however, it refers to the infant Moses (Exod 2:6) and to Benjamin when he may be well past adolescence (Gen 43:8). Further those called נַעַר (naʿar) may not simply be servants, but someone in line to receive a position of rank. Samuel does become a servant, or apprentice, and turns out to be in line to replace Eli. Yet since he has not yet been given to Eli, this seems like an odd place to remark on his being an apprentice.

¹ tn Heb “Is not Boaz our close relative, with whose female servants you were?” The idiomatic, negated rhetorical question is equivalent to an affirmation (see Ruth 2:8-9; 3:1) and has thus been translated in the affirmative (so also NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

¹ tn Naomi uses the feminine form of the word “servant” (as Boaz did earlier, see v. 8), in contrast to Ruth’s use of the masculine form in the preceding verse. Since she is concerned for Ruth’s safety, she may be subtly reminding Ruth to stay with the female workers and not get too close to the men.

² tc Some Hebrew mss and ancient witnesses read the singular, “your servant,” which would refer to the Levite. If one retains the plural, then both the Levite and his wife are in view. In either case the pronominal suffix emphasizes their dependence on the old man for shelter.

¹ tn The imperfect with the infinitive absolute means that the declaration is unambiguous, that the servant will clearly affirm that he wants to stay with the master. Gesenius says that in a case like this the infinitive emphasizes the importance of the condition on which some consequence depends (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

² tn The word is הַגְּבָרִים (hagg^evarim, “the strong men”), a word different from the more general one that Pharaoh’s servants used (v. 7). Pharaoh appears to be conceding, but he is holding hostages. The word “only” has been supplied in the translation to indicate this.

⁵ tc Concerning the connection of “the land was ruined” with the preceding, S. R. Driver (Exodus, 68) suggests reading with the LXX, Smr, and Peshitta; this would call for adding a conjunction before the last clause to make it read, “into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants’ houses, and into all the land of Egypt; and the land was….”

² sn This verse lists places the frogs will go. The first three are for Pharaoh personally—they are going to touch his private life. Then the text mentions the servants and the people. Mention of the ovens and kneading bowls (or troughs) of the people indicates that food would be contaminated and that it would be impossible even to eat a meal in peace.