³ tc NET follows the LXX: “her face was no longer fallen.” The MT reads: “her face, it did not belong to her any more.” The Hebrew is difficult to interpret; we may wonder if it is idiomatic for her expression having changed.

² sn From the book of Judges we know that Israel often struggled with idolatry during this time period. This introduction to Elkanah portrays him as a faithful worshiper of the Lord (whatever his faults may have been) at a time when “each man did what he considered to be right” (Judg 17:6; 21:25).

¹ tn Heb “Who your name? For [when] your word comes [to pass], we will honor you.” Manoah apparently gets tongue-tied and uses the wrong pronoun (“who” instead of “what”). He starts to say, “Who are you?” But then he switches to “your name” as if he began the sentence with “what.” See R. G. Boling, Judges (AB), 222.

² tn Heb “Are the palms of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give to your army bread?” Perhaps the reference to the kings’ “palms” should be taken literally. The officials of Sukkoth may be alluding to the practice of mutilating prisoners or enemy corpses (see R. G. Boling, Judges [AB], 155).

¹ sn Here again we encounter one of the difficulties of the book, the use of the large numbers. Only 12,000 soldiers fought the Midianites, but they brought back this amount of plunder, including 32,000 girls. Until a solution for numbers in the book can be found, or the current translation confirmed, one must remain cautious in interpretation.

³ tn The construction uses the imperfect tense אוּכַל (ʾukhal, “I will be able”) followed by the imperfect tense נַכֶּה (nakkeh, “we will smite/attack/defeat”). The second verb is clearly the purpose or the result of the first, even though there is no conjunction or particle.

¹ tn The Hebrew text uses singular pronouns, “I” and “my,” but it is the people of Israel that are intended, and so it may be rendered in the plural. Similarly, Edom speaks in the first person, probably from the king. But it too could be rendered “we.”

¹ tn The construction is unusual in that we have here a perfect tense with a vav (ו) consecutive with no verb before it to establish the time sequence. The context requires that this be taken as a vav (ו) consecutive. It actually forms the protasis for the next verse, and would best be rendered “when…then they will say.”

³ tn Here again the confidence of Caleb is expressed with the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense: יָכוֹל נוּכַל (yakhol nukhal), “we are fully able” to do this. The verb יָכַל (yakhal) followed by the preposition lamed means “to prevail over, to conquer.”

⁴ tn This second use of הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look, behold”) portrays the perspective of Aaron. The first הִנֵּה directed the audience’s attention to Miriam. Now we watch Aaron come to realize the same thing, leading into his plea in the next verse.

³ tn A second verb is now added to the people’s response, and it is clearly an imperfect and not a cohortative, lending support for the choice of desiderative imperfect in these commitments—“we want to obey.” This was their compliance with the covenant.

⁴ tn The verb is the imperfect tense (נַעֲשֶׂה, naʿaseh), although the form could be classified as a cohortative. If the latter, they would be saying that they are resolved to do what God said. If it is an imperfect, then the desiderative would make the most sense: “we are willing to do.” They are not presumptuously saying they are going to do all these things.

² tn The imperfect tense with the vav (ו) follows the imperative, and so it carries the nuance of the logical sequence, showing purpose or result. This may be expressed in English as “give us water so that we may drink,” but more simply with the English infinitive, “give us water to drink.”

³ tn The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we—what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers.

³ tn The words “as for us” attempt to convey the force of the Hebrew word order, which puts emphasis on the pronoun: “and we—what?” The implied answer to the question is that Moses and Aaron are nothing, merely the messengers. The next verse repeats the question to further press the seriousness of what the Israelites are doing.

¹ tn The text reads: מִי־יִתֵּן מוּתֵנוּ (mi yitten mutenu, “who will give our dying”) meaning “If only we had died.” מוּתֵנוּ is the Qal infinitive construct with the suffix. This is one way that Hebrew expresses the optative with an infinitive construct. See R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 91-92, §547.

³ tn The form here is וְעָשִּׂינוּ (v^eʿasinu), the Qal perfect with a vav (ו) consecutive—“and we will do.” But the verb means “do” in the sacrificial sense—prepare them, offer them. The verb form is to be subordinated here to form a purpose or result clause.

² tn This translation has been smoothed out to capture the sense. The text literally says, “for the abomination of Egypt we will sacrifice to Yahweh our God.” In other words, the animals that Israel would sacrifice were sacred to Egypt, and sacrificing them would have been abhorrent to the Egyptians.

² tn Heb “and they said, ‘We know.’” The word “him” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. In the translation several introductory clauses throughout this section have been placed after the direct discourse they introduce for stylistic reasons as well.

² tn Heb “and we will lie down with.” The cohortative with vav (ו) conjunctive is subordinated to the preceding cohortative and indicates purpose or result. The phrase “to lie down with” is a euphemism for sexual relations; the translation, in turn, also supplies a euphemism.