² tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “Or like the killing of his killed ones is he killed?” If one accepts the interpretation of the parallel line outlined in the previous note, then this line too would contain a rhetorical question suggesting that Israel has not experienced destruction to the same degree as its enemies. In this case “his killed ones” refer to the ones who struck Israel down, and Israel would be the subject of the final verb (“is he killed”).

¹ tc The MT has לְםַרְבֵּה (l^emarbeh, “to the abundance of”), where the first two letters לם were incorrectly duplicated from the end of the previous word (שָׁלוֹם, shalom) ending v. 6. Notice that the mem is in the form for ending words, i.e., ם not the expected מ. A few Hebrew mss, the LXX, Targum, and Vulgate reflect a text with רבה, “great is the dominion.”

³ tn The first word of the thirteenth line begins with מ (mem), the thirteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The word rendered “coverlets” appears in 7:16, where it has the idea of “covered.” K&D 17:335 suggests “pillows” or “mattresses” here. The Greek version has “lined overcoats” or “garments,” but brings over the last word of the previous verse to form this line and parallel the second half, which has clothing in view.

³ tn Heb “teeth” (so NRSV) or “jaw teeth” (so KJV, ASV, NASB) or perhaps “jawbone.” This is a different Hebrew word for “teeth” than the one in the previous line; if it refers to “jaw teeth” then a translation like “molars” would be appropriate, although this image might not fit with the metaphor (“like knives”) unless the other teeth, the incisors or front teeth, are pictured as being even longer (“like swords”).

² tn The Qal imperfect יִפּוֹל (yippol) is given a future translation in this context, as is the previous verb (“will be delivered”) because the working out of divine retribution appears to be coming suddenly in the future. The idea of “falling” could be a metonymy of adjunct (with the falling accompanying the ruin that comes to the person), or it may simply be a comparison between falling and being destroyed. Cf. NCV “will suddenly be ruined”; NLT “will be destroyed.”

¹ tn The Hebrew imperfect can be a general present. The prior perfect verbs tell what she has done in preparation, while the imperfect tells what she now does. But it is also possible, given the past time context of the previous verbs, that the imperfect should be understood as past habitual, “she would call,” or as a preterite (without the vav consecutive), “she called.” This would be in line with the next verse which uses a perfect, “she has said.”

¹ sn The causal particle תַּחַת כִּי (takhat ki, “for the reason that”) explains why Lady Wisdom will not respond to their calls in the future. Their past refusal to listen means she will not listen and they will have to bear the consequences of their choices. The content repeats the previous accusation in verse 22 of hating moral knowledge. And the two halves of verse 29 echo the two parts of 1:7a, emphasizing how completely they have missed the mark.

² tc Heb “and like your fear [is] your raging fury.” Perhaps one should emend וּכְיִרְאָתְךָ (ukh^eyirʾat^ekha, “and like your fear”) to יִרְאָתְךְ (yirʾat^ekha, “your fear”), removing the כ (kaf) as dittography of the kaf ending the previous word. In this case the psalmist asserts “your fear [is] your raging fury,” that is, your raging fury is what causes others to fear you. The suffix on “fear” is understood as objective.

⁵ tn Once again the perfect is used in a rhetorical manner, describing this future judgment as if it were already accomplished. As in the previous line, God’s people are probably addressed. The second person singular verb form is apparently collective, suggesting that the people are viewed here as a unified whole. Ps 14:6 reads here “the counsel of the oppressed you put to shame, even though God is his shelter,” the words being addressed to the wicked.

² tc Heb “you take hold of my lot.” The form תּוֹמִיךְ (tomikh) should be emended to a participle, תוֹמֵךְ (tomekh). The psalmist pictures the Lord as casting his lot (a method used to allot landed property) for him, thus assuring that he will receive a fertile piece of land (see v. 6). As in the previous line, land represents security and economic stability, thus “you make my future secure.”

⁴ tc Based on the text critical question in the previous note, some read this as a form related to the noun עֶרֶב (ʿerev, “evening”). These same consonants occur as a verb in Isa 24:11, עָרְבָה (ʿar^evah) from עָרַב (ʿarav, “become evening”). This would give the time frame of their work rather than the location, but the location provides a parallel to “wilderness.”

⁴ tn The word מְצוּדוֹ (m^etsudo) is usually connected with צוּד (tsud, “to hunt”), and so is taken to mean “a net.” Gordis and Habel, however, interpret it to mean “siegeworks” thrown up around a city—but that would require changing the ד (dalet) to a ר (resh) (cf. NLT, “I am like a city under siege”). The LXX, though, has “bulwark.” Besides, the previous speech used several words for “net.”

⁴ tn The verbs זָכַר (zakar) is often translated “remember.” It does not simply mean the ability to recall (as “forgetting” does not simply mean the inability to recall). It means the decision to recall or to bear in mind, here with regard to her previous request. The Hebrew verb is often used in the OT for considering the needs or desires of people with favor and kindness.

³ tn This statement, introduced with a disjunctive structure (vav [ו] + subject + verb) provides closure for the previous scene, while at the same time making a transition to the next scene, which takes place in the barley field. The reference to the harvest also reminds the reader that God has been merciful to his people by replacing the famine with fertility. In the flow of the narrative the question is now, “Will he do the same for Naomi and Ruth?”

¹ sn Heb “Do not give your daughter to his son.” The command (beginning at 7:1) is given in the singular form of “you” to emphasize individual responsibility. At this point, the Hebrew also switches from the plural (see previous clause) to the singular in reference to the Canaanite sons and daughters. While the principle applies to everyone in the nation, the rhetorical presentation is of an individual father making a decision about his specific child and a particular potential spouse.

² tn Heb “and he thrust the two of them the Israelite man and the woman to her belly [lower abdomen].” Reif notes the similarity of the word with the previous “inner tent,” and suggests that it means Phinehas stabbed her in her shrine tent, where she was being set up as some sort of priestess or cult leader. Phinehas put a quick end to their sexual immorality while they were in the act.

² sn That is, the woman had previously been assigned for marriage to another man but the marriage deal had not yet been consummated. In the meantime, the woman has lost her virginity and has, therefore, lost part of her value to the master in the sale to the man for whom she had been designated. Compensation was, therefore, required (see the explanation in B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 130-31).

¹ tn The phrase “from all your sins” could go with the previous clause as the verse is rendered here (see, e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 109, and J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:1011), or it could go with the following clause (i.e., “you shall be clean from all your sins before the Lord”; see the MT accents as well as J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 221, and recent English versions, e.g., NASB, NIV, NRSV).

¹ tn Heb “and it shall happen, when he sins and becomes guilty,” which is both resumptive of the previous (vv. 2-3) and the conclusion to the protasis (cf. “then” introducing the next clause as the apodosis). In this case, “becomes guilty” (cf. NASB, NIV84) probably refers to his legal status as one who has been convicted of a crime in court; thus the translation “he is found guilty.” See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 1:559-61.

⁵ tn The shift to the second person plural verb here corresponds to the previous second person plural pronoun “among you.” It is distinct from the regular pattern of third person singular verbs throughout the rest of Lev 1-3. This too labels Lev 1:1-2 as an introduction to all of Lev 1-3, not just the burnt offering regulations in Lev 1 (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:146; cf. note 3 above).