¹ tn The meaning would be “I am nothing but skin and bones” in current English idiom. Both lines of this verse need attention. The first half seems to say, “My skin and my flesh sticks to my bones.” Some think that this is too long, and that the bones can stick to the skin, or the flesh, but not both. Dhorme proposes “in my skin my flesh has rotted away” (רָקַב, raqav). This involves several changes in the line, however. He then changes the second line to read “and I have gnawed my bone with my teeth” (transferring “bone” from the first half and omitting “skin”). There are numerous other renderings of this; some of the more notable are: “I escape, my bones in my teeth” (Merx); “my teeth fall out” (Duhm); “my teeth fall from my gums” (Pope); “my bones protrude in sharp points” (Kissane). A. B. Davidson retains “the skin of my teeth,” meaning “gums.” This is about the last thing that Job has, or he would not be able to speak. For a detailed study of this verse, D. J. A. Clines devotes two full pages of textual notes (Job [WBC], 430-31). He concludes with “My bones hang from my skin and my flesh, I am left with only the skin of my teeth.”

² tn The juxtaposition of “from the sword from their mouth” poses translation difficulties. Some mss do not have the preposition on “their mouth,” but render the expression as a construct: “from the sword of their mouth.” This would mean their tongue, and by metonymy, what they say. The expression “from their mouth” corresponds well with “from the hand” in the next colon. And as E. Dhorme (Job, 67) notes, what is missing is a parallel in the first part with “the poor” in the second. So he follows Cappel in repointing “from the sword” as a Hophal participle, מֹחֳרָב (mokhorav), meaning “the ruined.” If a change is required, this has the benefit of only changing the pointing. The difficulty with this is that the word “desolate, ruined” is not used for people, but only to cities, lands, or mountains. The sense of the verse can be supported from the present pointing: “from the sword [which comes] from their mouth”; the second phrase could also be in apposition, meaning, “from the sword, i.e., from their mouth.”

³ tc ‡ Grk “so that they will not be persecuted.” The indicative after ἵνα μή (hina mē) is unusual (though not unexampled elsewhere in the NT), making it the harder reading. The evidence is fairly evenly split between the indicative διώκονται (diōkontai; P⁴⁶ A C F G K L P 0278 6 81 104 326 629 1175 1241 1505 2464 pm) and the subjunctive διώκωνται (diōkōntai; א B D Ψ 33 365 1739 pm), with a slight preference for the subjunctive. However, since scribes would tend to change the indicative to a subjunctive due to syntactical requirements, the internal evidence is decidedly on the side of the indicative, suggesting that it is the autographic wording.

² tc Many significant mss, as well as several others (א A Ψ 1739 1881 M sy), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (P⁴⁶ B D F G 33 it). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred both because it has somewhat better attestation and because it is slightly more difficult and thus more likely the earlier reading (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus.” As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. Thus, on both external and internal grounds, “Christ Jesus” is the preferred reading here.

³ tc Many significant mss, as well as several others (P²⁶ א A G Ψ 33 1739 1881 M), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (P¹⁰ B 81 pc). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred as slightly more difficult and thus more likely autographic (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus,” especially in certain letters such as Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. A decision is difficult, but “Christ Jesus” is slightly preferred.

³ tc Codex Bezae (D) as well as 323 614 945 1739 1891 sa and other witnesses have after “sexual immorality” the following statement: “And whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to another/others.” By adding this negative form of the Golden Rule, these witnesses effectively change the Apostolic Decree from what might be regarded as ceremonial restrictions into more ethical demands. The issues here are quite complicated, and beyond the scope of this brief note. Suffice it to say that D and its allies here are almost surely an expansion and alteration of the original text of Acts. For an excellent discussion of the exegetical and textual issues, see TCGNT 379-83.

¹ tn This is the same expression translated “decided” in Acts 15:22, 25. BDAG 255 s.v. δοκέω 2.b.β lists “decide” as a possible gloss for this verse, and this translation would be consistent with the translation of the same expression in Acts 15:22, 25. However, the unusually awkward “the Holy Spirit and we have decided” would result. Given this approach, it would be more natural in English to say “We and the Holy Spirit have decided,” but changing the order removes the emphasis the Greek text gives to the Holy Spirit. Thus, although the similarity to the phrases in 15:22, 25 is obscured, it is better to use the alternate translation “it seems best to me” (also given by BDAG): “it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Again the scope of agreement is highlighted.

¹ tc ‡ What did John the Baptist declare about Jesus on this occasion? Did he say, “This is the Son of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, houtos estin ho huios tou theou), or “This is the Chosen One of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, houtos estin ho eklektos tou theou)? The majority of the witnesses, impressive because of their diversity in age and locales, read “This is the Son of God” (so P^66,75 A B C L Θ Ψ 0233^vid ƒ^1,13 33 1241 aur c f l q bo as well as the majority of Byzantine minuscules and many others). Most scholars take this to be sufficient evidence to regard the issue as settled without much of a need to reflect on internal evidence. On the other hand, one of the earliest mss for this verse, P⁵ (3rd century), evidently read οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (There is a gap in the ms at the point of the disputed words; it is too large for υἱός especially if written, as it surely would have been, as a nomen sacrum [uMs]. The term ἐκλεκτός was not a nomen sacrum and would have therefore taken up much more space [eklektos]. Given these two variants, there is hardly any question as to what P⁵ read.) This papyrus has many affinities with א*, which here also has ὁ ἐκλεκτός. In addition to their combined testimony P^106vid b e ff^2* sy^s,c also support this reading. P¹⁰⁶ is particularly impressive, for it is a second third-century papyrus in support of ὁ ἐκλεκτός. A third reading combines these two: “the elect Son” (electus filius in ff^2c sa and a [with slight variation]). Although the evidence for ἐκλεκτός is not as impressive as that for υἱός, the reading is found in early Alexandrian and Western witnesses. Turning to the internal evidence, “the Chosen One” clearly comes out ahead. “Son of God” is a favorite expression of the author (cf. 1:49; 3:18; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 19:7; 20:31); further, there are several other references to “his Son,” “the Son,” etc. Scribes would be naturally motivated to change ἐκλεκτός to υἱός since the latter is both a Johannine expression and is, on the surface, richer theologically in 1:34. On the other hand, there is not a sufficient reason for scribes to change υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. The term never occurs in John; even its verbal cognate (ἐκλέγω, eklegō) is never affirmed of Jesus in this Gospel. ἐκλεκτός clearly best explains the rise of υἱός. Further, the third reading (“Chosen Son of God”) is patently a conflation of the other two. It has all the earmarks of adding υἱός to ἐκλεκτός. Thus, ὁ υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is almost certainly a motivated reading. As R. E. Brown notes (John [AB], 1:57), “On the basis of theological tendency…it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible. Harmonization with the Synoptic accounts of the baptism (‘You are [This is] my beloved Son’) would also explain the introduction of ‘the Son of God’ into John; the same phenomenon occurs in vi 69. Despite the weaker textual evidence, therefore, it seems best—with Lagrange, Barrett, Boismard, and others—to accept ‘God’s chosen one’ as original.”

⁵ tc Most mss (A C D [K] Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 33 M latt bo) read αὐτούς (autous) instead of αὐτόν (auton) here. If original, this plural pronoun would act as the direct object of the infinitive ἰᾶσθαι (iasthai, “to heal”). However, the reading with the singular pronoun αὐτόν, which acts as the subject of the infinitive, is to be preferred. Externally, it has support from better mss (א B L W al sa). Internally, it is probable that scribes changed the singular αὐτόν to the plural αὐτούς, expecting the object of the infinitive to come at this point in the text. The singular as the harder reading accounts for the rise of the other reading.

³ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A^[*^] W Θ ƒ^1,13 M sy), have “on the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, tē tritē hēmera) instead of “after three days.” But not only does Mark nowhere else speak of the resurrection as occurring on the third day, the idiom he uses is a harder reading (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31, though in the latter text the later witnesses also have τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Further, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ conforms to the usage that is almost universally used in Matthew and Luke, and is found in the parallels to this text (Matt 20:19; Luke 18:33). Thus, scribes would be doubly motivated to change the wording. The most reliable witnesses, along with several other mss (א B C D L Δ Ψ 579 892 it co), have resisted this temptation.

¹ tc The problematic citing of Jeremiah for a text which appears to come from Zechariah has prompted certain scribes to alter it. Codex 22 has Ζαχαρίου (Zachariou, “Zechariah”) while Φ 33 and several versional witnesses omit the prophet’s name altogether. And codex 21 and the Latin ms l change the prophet’s name to “Isaiah,” in accordance with natural scribal proclivities to alter the text toward the most prominent OT prophet. But unquestionably the name Jeremiah is the wording of the original here because it is supported by virtually all witnesses and because it is the harder reading. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC 8:562-63, for a discussion of the textual and especially hermeneutical problem.

¹ tc Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. The second son is called the one who does his father’s will. This reading is found in the Western witnesses (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this group of witnesses, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his father’s will is the one who changes his mind after saying “no”): (2) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his father’s will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in א C L W (Z) Δ 0102 0281 ƒ¹ 33 565 579 1241 1424*^,c M and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son says “yes” but does not go, and the second son says “no” but later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B Θ ƒ¹³ 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two variants make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. Matt 23:3). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles, tax collectors, and prostitutes were not, collectively, God’s chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didn’t always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. 32). For more discussion see TCGNT 44-46.

⁴ tc The present translation here follows the proposed reading שְׁחֹר (sh^ekhor, “blackness”) rather than the MT שַׁחַר (shakhar, “morning”). The change affects only the vocalization; the Hebrew consonants remain unchanged. Here the context calls for a word describing darkness. The idea of morning or dawn speaks instead of approaching light, which does not seem to fit here. The other words in the verse (e.g., “darkness,” “gloominess,” “cloud,” “heavy overcast”) all emphasize the negative aspects of the matter at hand and lead the reader to expect a word like “blackness” rather than “dawn.” However, NIrV paraphrases the MT nicely: “A huge army of locusts is coming. They will spread across the mountains like the sun when it rises.”

¹ tc The MT reads “he set up the beauty of his ornament as pride.” The verb may be repointed as plural without changing the consonantal text. The Syriac reads “their ornaments” (plural), implying עֶדְיָם (ʿedyam) rather than עֶדְיוֹ (ʿedyo) and meaning “they were proud of their beautiful ornaments.” This understands “ornaments” in the common sense of women’s jewelry, which then was used to make idols. The singular suffix “his ornaments” would refer to using items from the temple treasury to make idols. D. I. Block points out the foreshadowing of Ezek 16:17, which, with Rashi and the Targum, supports the understanding that this is a reference to temple items. See D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:265.

³ tc The MT reads a plural verb לֹא חָנָנוּ (loʾ khananu, “they did not show favor”) from חָנַן (khanan, “to show favor, be merciful”); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting לֹא חָנַן (loʾ khanan, “he did not show favor”). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribal change to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. It may also be that the third person plural presumes an indefinite subject and the construction is used in place of a passive, but still essentially means “the elders were not shown mercy.” Another alternative would be to revocalize the verb as the rare Qal passive, which would yield the same result.

² tc The MT reads a plural verb לֹא נָשָׂאוּ (loʾ nasaʾu, “they did not lift up”) from נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to lift up”); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting לֹא נָשָׂא (loʾ nasaʾ, “he did not lift up”). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribe change, to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. It may also be that the third person plural presumes an indefinite subject and the construction is used in place of a passive, but still essentially means, “the priests were not honored” (see following note regarding the idiom). Another alternative would be to revocalize the verb as the rare Qal passive, which would yield the same result.

¹ tc Heb “A drought [be] against her waters, and they will dry up.” Several of the commentaries and modern English versions accept the emendation proposed by BHS and read here “sword” (חֶרֶב [kherev] in place of חֹרֶב [khorev, “drought”], the change of only one vowel), in keeping with the rest of the context. According to BHS this reading is supported by the Lucianic and Hexaplaric recensions of the LXX (the Greek version) and the Syriac version. In this case, the drying up of the waters (of the canals) is attributed to neglect brought about by war conditions. However, it is just as likely that these versions are influenced by the repetition of the word “sword” as that the Hebrew and the other versions are influenced by the concept of “drying up” of the waters to read “drought.” Hence the present translation, along with the majority of modern English versions, retains the Hebrew “drought.”

¹ tc People quite commonly emend the text, changing שׁוֹבְבָה הָעָם (shov^evah haʿam) to שׁוֹבָב הָעָם (shovav haʿam) and omitting יְרוּשָׁלַםִ (y^erushalaim); this is due to the anomaly of a feminine singular verb with a masculine singular subject and to the fact that the word “Jerusalem” is absent from one Hebrew ms and the LXX. However, it is possible that this is a case where the noun “Jerusalem” is a defining apposition to the phrase “these people,” an apposition which GKC 425 §131.k calls “permutation.” In this case the verb could be attracted to the appositional noun and there would be no reason to emend the text. The MT is undoubtedly the harder reading and is for that reason to be preferred.

¹ tn The participle הֹלֵךְ (holekh, “to walk, to go”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle). The root הָלַךְ (halakh) is repeated in this section (1:4a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c) to emphasize the continual action and constant motion of everything in nature. Despite the continual action of everything in nature, there is no completion, attainment or rest for anything. The first use of הָלַךְ is in reference to man; all subsequent usages are in reference to nature—illustrations of the futility of human endeavor. Note: All the key terms used in 1:4 to describe the futility of human endeavor are repeated in 1:5-11 as illustrations from nature. The literary monotony in 1:4-11 mirrors the actual monotony of human action that repeats itself with no real change.

¹ tn Most translations render the verse as a present tense question (“Do you see?” so KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV). But the Hebrew has a perfect verb form (חָזִיתָ; khazita) without an interrogative marker. Hebrew proverbs can use the past tense to set the topic or opening premise of a proverb, and then comment on it in the second half of the proverb. English translators of proverbial sayings tend to want to make the past time verbs in Hebrew into present tense in English. But this convention is difficult with second person verb forms, so the translations tend to take the tactic of changing the nature of the sentence to interrogative or conditional. The verb חָזָה (khazah) means “to look at, watch,” but is rendered to match the English lead-in expression “you’ve seen X….”