³ tn The translation of this line is uncertain because it includes a word only occurring here and in Nah 3:17, where it is found in parallelism with a word used only once and likewise uncertain in meaning. The word here is probably related to the Akkadian word tupsharru, which refers to a scribe (Heb “a tablet writer”). The exact function of this official is disputed. KBL 356 s.v. טִפְסָר relates it to a “recruiting officer,” a sense which is reflected in NAB. The majority of modern English versions render “commander” or “marshal,” following the suggestion of BDB 381 s.v. טִפְסָר. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 351) translate “recruiter (scribe)” but explain the function (on p. 371) as that of recording the plunder captured in war. The rendering here follows that of TEV and God’s Word and is the nuance suggested by the majority of modern English versions, who rendered “appoint a marshal/commander against it.”

¹ tn Or “Their children and relatives will all be destroyed. And none of their neighbors will say, ‘Leave your orphans with me, and I’ll keep them alive. Your widows can trust in me.’” This latter interpretation is based on a reading in a couple of the Greek versions (Symmachus and Lucian) and is accepted by several modern commentaries (J. Bright, J. A. Thompson, W. L. Holladay, and G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers). However, the majority of modern English versions do not follow it, and, lacking any other Hebrew or versional evidence, it is probably an interpretation to deal with the mitigation of what seems a prophecy of utter annihilation. There have been other cases in Jeremiah where a universal affirmation (either positive or negative) has been modified in the verses that follow. The verb in the second line תִּבְטָחוּ (tivtakhu) is highly unusual; it is a second masculine plural form with a feminine plural subject. The form is explained in GKC 127-28 §47.k and 160-61 §60.a, n. 1 as a pausal substitution for the normal form תִּבְטַחְנָה (tivtakhnah), with a similar form in Ezek 37:7 cited as a parallel.

¹ tn Or “Why do you brag about your valleys, about the fruitfulness of your valleys.” The meaning of the first two lines of this verse are uncertain, primarily due to the ambiguity of the expression זָב עִמְקֵךְ (zav ʿimqekh). The form זָב (zav) is either a Qal perfect or Qal participle of a verb meaning flow. It is common in the expression “a land flowing with milk and honey” and in reference to the seminal discharge or discharge of blood that makes a man or woman unclean. BDB 264 s.v. זוּב Qal.2 sees it as an abbreviation of the idea of “flowing with milk and honey” that describes the fertility of Ammon’s valley. However, there are no other examples of such an ellipsis. Several modern English versions and commentaries have taken the word עֵמֶק (ʿemeq) not as a reference to a valley but as the homonym cited in the note on 47:5, referring in 49:4 to the flowing away of Ammon’s strength. That interpretation is followed here. Instead of explaining the plural ending on עֲמָקִים (ʿamaqim) as an enclitic ם (mem), as do others who follow this interpretation (e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB], 325), the present translation understands the plural as a plural of amplification (cf. GKC 397-98 §124.e and compare the noun “might” in Isa 40:26).

¹ tc The translation here follows the reading of the Greek version. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain; some understand it to mean “because of Gedaliah [i.e., to cover up the affair with Gedaliah],” and others understand it to mean “alongside of Gedaliah.” The translation presupposes that the Hebrew text reads בּוֹר גָּדוֹל הוּא (bor gadol huʾ) in place of בְּיַד גְּדַלְיָהוּ הוּא (b^eyad g^edalyahu huʾ). The meaning of בְּיַד (b^eyad) does not fit any of the normal ones given for this expression, and those who retain the Hebrew text normally explain it as an unparalleled use of “because” or “in the affair of” (so NJPS), or as a rare use meaning “near, by the side of “ (see BDB 391 s.v. יָד 5.d, where only Ps 141:6 and Zech 4:12 are cited). BDB suggests reading with the Greek version, as the present translation does (so BDB 391 s.v. יָד 5.c[3]). For the syntax presupposed by the Greek text that has been followed, consult IBHS 298 §16.3.3d and 133 §8.4.2b. The first clause is a classifying clause with normal order of subject-predicate-copulative pronoun, and it is followed by a further qualifying relative clause.

² tc The translation is based on an emendation of the text which leaves out “the rest of the people who were left” as a double writing of the same phrase at the beginning of the verse. Some commentators emend the phrase “the rest of the people who were left” (וְאֵת יֶתֶר הָעָם הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, v^eʾet yeter haʿam hannishʾarim) to “the rest of the craftsmen who were left” (וְאֵת יֶתֶר הָאָמוֹן הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, v^eʾet yeter haʾamon hannishʾarim) on the basis of the parallel in Jer 52:15 (which does not have הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, hannishʾarim). However, it is easier to explain the phrase as a dittography of the phrase at the beginning (which is exactly the same except הָעִיר [haʿir] follows it). The text is redundant because it refers twice to the same group of people. The Hebrew text reads, “And the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to him and the rest of the people Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, carried into exile to Babylon.” The text has also been divided up to create two shorter sentences that better conform with contemporary English style.

² tc The reading here is based on an emendation following the parallels in Jer 52:13 and 2 Kgs 25:9. The Hebrew text here does not have “the temple of the Lord” and reads merely “house of the people.” The text here is probably corrupt. It reads וְאֶת בֵּית הָעָם (v^eʾet bet haʿam, “and the house of the people”), which many explain as a collective use of בַּיִת (bayit). However, no parallels are cited by any of the commentaries, grammars, or lexicons for such a use. It is more likely that the words יְהוָה וְאֶת־בָּתֵּי (y^ehvah v^eʾet bate) have fallen out of the text due to similar beginnings. The words וְאֶת בֵּית יהוה (v^eʾet bet yhwh) are found in the parallel texts cited above. The Greek version is no help here because vv. 4-13 are omitted, probably due to the similarities in ending of vv. 3 and 13 (i.e., homoioteleuton of מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל, melekh bavel).

¹ tn The meaning of this last sentence is somewhat uncertain. The Hebrew expression here occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, and its meaning is debated. The verb is pointed as a shortened form of the Hiphil infinitive construct of חָלַק (khalaq; see GKC 148 §53.q for explanation of the phenomenon and other examples). There are, however, no other examples of the use of this verb in the Hiphil. BDB 324 s.v. חָלַק Hiph defines it as “receive a portion,” explains it as a denominative from חֵלֶק (kheleq, “portion”), but says that the form is dubious. KBL s.v. חָלַק Hif defines it as “take part in dividing,” but that does not fit the prepositional phrase that follows (מִשָּׁם, misham, “from there”) as well as “to receive a portion.” The Greek version did not understand this of dividing property but of conducting business. Later revisions of the Greek and the Latin version, however, did understand it of “taking a share.” The translation of BDB has been expanded to better reflect the probable situation. For the noun עַם (ʿam) with the meaning of “family,” compare the usage in Job 18:19. For a fuller discussion of the probable situation, see J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 633-34.

¹ tn Or “When I, Jeremiah, heard this, I woke up and looked around. My sleep had been very pleasant.” The text is somewhat enigmatic. It has often been explained as an indication that Jeremiah had received this communication (30:3-31:26) while in a prophetic trance (compare Dan 10:9). However, there is no other indication that this is a vision or a vision report. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 124, 128-29) suggest that this is a speech of the restored (and refreshed) exiles like that which is formally introduced in v. 23. The speech here, however, is not formally introduced. This interpretation is also reflected in TEV and CEV. It is accepted here as fitting the context better and demanding less presuppositions. The Hebrew text reads literally, “Upon this I awoke and looked, and my sleep was sweet to me.” Keown, Scalise, and Smothers have the best discussion of these two options as well as several other options.

¹ tn It is commonly assumed that this word is explained by the two verbal actions that follow. The word (נְבָלָה, n^evalah) is rather commonly used of sins of unchastity (cf., e.g., Gen 34:7; Judg 19:23; 2 Sam 13:12), which would fit the reference to adultery. However, the word is singular and not likely to cover both actions that follow. The word is also used of the greedy act of Achan (Josh 7:15), which threatened Israel with destruction, and the churlish behavior of Nabal (1 Sam 25:25), which threatened him and his household with destruction. It is used of foolish talk in Isa 9:17 (9:16 HT) and Isa 32:6. It is possible that here it refers to a separate act, one that would have brought the death penalty from Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., the preaching of rebellion in conformity with the message of the false prophets in Jerusalem and other nations (cf. 27:9, 13). Hence it is possible that the translation should read, “This will happen because they have carried out vile rebellion in Israel. And they have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives and have spoken lies while claiming my authority. They have spoken words that I did not command them to speak.”

² tc The reading here is based on a few Hebrew mss and the Syriac and Arabic versions. The majority of Hebrew mss and most of the versions read, “At the beginning of the reign of Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim king of Judah,” as in 26:1. The LXX does not have this whole verse. The textual difficulty of 27:1 has long been recognized. The date formula in the majority of Hebrew mss at 27:1 is contradictory both with the context of the passage, which deals with an event in the reign of Zedekiah (see vv. 3, 12, and 20, the last of which presupposes that Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s son, has been taken captive [i.e., after the death of Jehoiakim]), and the date formula in 28:1, which refers to an event “in that same year” and then qualifies it with “early in the reign of Zedekiah.” Hence it is preferable to read “Zedekiah” here in place of “Jehoiakim,” and to explain the error in the Hebrew manuscripts as an erroneous copying of 26:1.

² tn The form that introduces this line has raised debate. The form מֵאֵין (meʾen) normally means “without” and introduces a qualification of a term expressing desolation, or it means “so that not” and introduces a negative result (cf. BDB 35 s.v. II אַיִן 6.b). Neither of these nuances fit either this verse or the occurrence in v. 7. BDB 35 s.v. II אַיִן 6.b.γ notes that some have explained this as a strengthened form of אַיִן (ʾayin), which occurs in a similar phrase five other times (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 8:23). Though many, including BDB, question the validity of this solution, it is probably better than the suggestion that BDB gives of repointing to מֵאַיִן (meʾayin, “whence”), which scarcely fits the context of v. 7, or the solution of HALOT 41 s.v. I אַיִן, which suggests that the מ (mem) is a double writing (dittograph) of the final consonant from the preceding word. That would assume that the scribe made the same error twice (also in v. 7) or was influenced the second time by the first erroneous writing.

⁴ tn Or “has been appointed.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The LXX reads, “Woe, city of falsehood!” The MT presents a masculine singular verb with a feminine singular subject. The verb פָּקַד (paqad) in the Hophal verbal stem elsewhere means “to be appointed, designated.” It is used of officials who have been appointed to tasks or of leaving something deposited with someone. Hence many follow the Greek, which presupposes הוֹי עִיר הַשֶּׁקֶר (hoy ʿir hasheqer) instead of הִיא הָעִיר הָפְקַד (hiʾ haʿir hofqad). The Greek is the easier reading in light of the parallelism, and it would be hard to explain how the MT arose from it. KBL suggests reading a noun meaning “licentiousness” that occurs elsewhere only in Mishnaic Hebrew, hence “this is the city, the licentious one” (attributive apposition; cf. KBL 775 s.v. פֶּקֶר). Perhaps the Hophal perfect (הָפְקַד, hofqad) should be revocalized as a Niphal infinitive absolute (הִפָּקֹד, hippaqod), which would solve both anomalies in the MT since the Niphal is used in this nuance and the infinitive absolute can function in place of a finite verb (cf. GKC 346 §113.ee and ff). This change, however, is mere speculation and is supported by no Hebrew ms.

² tn This line reads literally, “and with the rich in his death.” בְּמֹתָיו (b^emotayv) combines a preposition, a plural form of the noun מוֹת (mot), and a third masculine singular suffix. The plural of the noun is problematic and the יו may be the result of virtual dittography. The form should probably be emended to בָּמָתוֹ (bamato, singular noun). The relationship between this line and the preceding one is uncertain. The parallelism appears to be synonymous (note “his grave” and “in his death”), but “criminals” and “the rich” hardly make a compatible pair in this context, for they would not be buried in the same kind of tomb. Some emend עָשִׁיר (ʿashir, “rich”) to עָשֵׂי רָע (ʿase raʿ, “doers of evil”) but the absence of the ayin (ע) is not readily explained in this graphic environment. Others suggest an emendation to שְׂעִירִים (s^eʿirim, “he-goats, demons”), but the meaning in this case is not entirely transparent and the proposal assumes that the form suffered from both transposition and the inexplicable loss of a final mem. Still others relate עָשִׁיר (ʿashir) to an alleged Arabic cognate meaning “mob.” See HALOT 896 s.v. עָשִׁיר. Perhaps the parallelism is antithetical, rather than synonymous. In this case, the point is made that the servant’s burial in a rich man’s tomb, in contrast to a criminal’s burial, was appropriate, for he had done nothing wrong.

¹ tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “in [?], in sending her away, you oppose her.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The form בְּסַאסְּאָה (b^esass^eʾah) is taken as an infinitive from סַאסְּאָה (sass^eʾah) with a prepositional prefix and a third feminine singular suffix. (The MT does not have a mappiq in the final he [ה], however). According to HALOT 738 s.v. סַאסְּאָה the verb is a Palpel form from an otherwise unattested root cognate with an Arabic verb meaning “to gather beasts with a call.” Perhaps it means “to call, summon” here, but this is a very tentative proposal. בְּשַׁלְחָהּ (b^eshal^ekhah, “in sending her away”) appears to be a Piel infinitive with a prepositional prefix and a third feminine singular suffix. Since the Piel of שָׁלָח (shalakh) can sometimes mean “divorce” (HALOT 1514-15 s.v.) and the following verb רִיב (riv, “oppose”) can be used in legal contexts, it is possible that divorce proceedings are alluded to here. This may explain why Israel is referred to as feminine in this verse, in contrast to the masculine forms used in vv. 6-7 and 9.

¹ tc The MT reads אֶנְהָגֲךָ אֶל־בֵּית אִמִּי תְּלַמְּדֵנִי (ʾenhagakha ʾel bet ʾimmi t^elamm^edeni, “I would bring you to the house of my mother who taught me”). On the other hand, the LXX reads Εἰσάξω σε εἰς οἶκον μητρός μου καὶ εἰς ταμίειον τῆς συλλαβούση με (Eisaxō se eis oikon mētros mou kai eis tamieion tēs sullabousē me) which reflects a Hebrew reading of אֶנְהָגֲךָ אֶל־בֵּית אִמִּי וְאֶל חֶדֶר הוֹרָתִי (ʾenhagakha ʾel bet ʾimmi v^eʾel kheder horati, “I would bring you to the house of my mother, to the chamber of the one who bore me”), followed by NRSV. The LXX variant probably arose due to: (1) the syntactical awkwardness of תְּלַמְּדֵנִי (“she taught me” or “she will teach me”), (2) the perceived need for a parallel to אֶל־בֵּית אִמִּי (“to the house of my mother”), and (3) the influence of Song 3:4 which reads: עַד־שֶׁהֲבֵיאתִיו אֶל־בֵּית אִמִּי וְאֶל חֶדֶר הוֹרָתִי (ʿad shehaveʾtiv ʾel bet ʾimmi v^eʾel kheder horati, “until I brought him to the house of my mother, to the chamber of the one who bore me”). The MT reading should be adopted because (1) it is the more difficult reading, (2) it best explains the origin of the LXX variant, and (3) the origin of the LXX variant is easily understood in the light of Song 3:4.

³ tn Or “apricots.” The term תַּפּוּחִים (tappukhim, “apples,” from תַּפּוּחַ, tappuakh) occurs four times in the book (Song 2:3, 5; 7:9; 8:5) and twice outside (Prov 25:4; Joel 1:12). It is usually defined as “apples” (BDB 656 s.v. תַּפּוּחַ); however, some argue for “apricots” (FFB 92-93). The Hebrew noun תַּפּוּחַ (“apple”) is derived from the Hebrew root נָפַח (nafakh, “scent, breath”) which is related to the Arabic root nafahu “fragrant scent” (HALOT 708 s.v. נפח). Hence, the term refers to a fruit with a fragrant scent. This may explain why the mere scent of this fruit was thought to have medicinal powers in the ancient Near East (G. E. Post, Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai, 128). This imagery draws upon two motifs associated with apples. First, apples were viewed as medicinal in ancient Syro-Palestinian customs; the sick were given apples to eat or smell in order to revive them. Similarly, the Mishnah and Talmud refer to apples as a medication like wine and grapes. Second, apples were considered an aphrodisiac in the ancient Near East. Both motifs are combined here because the Beloved is “love-sick” and only the embrace of her beloved can cure her, as 2:6 indicates (T. H. Ratzaby, “A Motif in Hebrew Love Poetry: In Praise of the Apple,” Ariel 40 [1976]: 14).

¹ tn Heb “a brother, he surely does not ransom, a man.” The sequence אָח...אִישׁ (ʾakh…ʾish, “a brother…a man”) is problematic, for the usual combination is אָח...אָח (“a brother…a brother”) or אִישׁ...אִישׁ (“a man…a man”). When אִישׁ and אָח are combined, the usual order is אִישׁ...אָח (“a man…a brother”), with “brother” having a third masculine singular suffix, “his brother.” This suggests that “brother” is the object of the verb and “man” the subject. (1) Perhaps the altered word order and absence of the suffix can be explained by the text’s poetic character, for ellipsis is a feature of Hebrew poetic style. (2) Another option, supported by a few medieval Hebrew mss, is to emend “brother” to the similar sounding אַךְ (ʾakh, “surely; but”) which occurs in v. 15 before the verb פָּדָה (padah, “ransom”). If this reading is accepted the Qal imperfect יִפְדֶּה (yifdeh, “he can [not] ransom”) would need to be emended to a Niphal (passive) form, יִפָּדֶה (yippadeh, “he can[not] be ransomed”) unless one understands the subject of the Qal verb to be indefinite (“one cannot redeem a man”). (A Niphal imperfect can be collocated with a Qal infinitive absolute. See GKC 344-45 §113.w.) No matter how one decides the textual issues, the imperfect in this case is modal, indicating potential, and the infinitive absolute emphasizes the statement.

³ sn Not one of them is broken. The author of the Gospel of John saw a fulfillment of these words in Jesus’ experience on the cross (see John 19:31-37), for the Roman soldiers, when they saw that Jesus was already dead, did not break his legs as was customarily done to speed the death of crucified individuals. John’s use of the psalm seems strange, for the statement in its original context suggests that the Lord protects the godly from physical harm. Jesus’ legs may have remained unbroken, but he was brutally and unjustly executed by his enemies. John seems to give the statement a literal sense that is foreign to its original literary context by applying a promise of divine protection to a man who was seemingly not saved by God. However, John saw in this incident a foreshadowing of Jesus’ ultimate deliverance and vindication. His unbroken bones were a reminder of God’s commitment to the godly and a sign of things to come. Jesus’ death on the cross was not the end of the story; God vindicated him, as John goes on to explain in the following context (John 19:38-20:18).

¹ tn This verse on the whole has some serious interpretation problems that have allowed commentators to go in several directions. The verbal clause is “they strike off this,” which is then to be taken as a passive in view of the fact that there is no expressed subject. Some have thought that Job was referring to this life, and that after his disease had done its worst he would see his vindication (see T. J. Meek, “Job 19:25-27, ” VT 6 [1956]: 100-103; E. F. Sutcliffe, “Further notes on Job, textual and exegetical,” Bib 31 [1950]: 377; and others). But Job has been clear—he does not expect to live and see his vindication in this life. There are a host of other interpretations that differ greatly from the sense expressed in the MT. Duhm, for example, has “and another shall arise as my witness.” E. Dhorme (Job, 284-85) argues that the vindication comes after death; he emends the verb to get a translation: “and that, behind my skin, I shall stand up.” He explains this to mean that it will be Job in person who will be present at the ultimate drama. But the interpretation is forced, and really unnecessary.

¹ tn Heb “the spirit.” The significance of the article prefixed to רוּחַ (ruakh) is uncertain, but it could contain a clue as to this spirit’s identity, especially when interpreted in light of verse 23. It is certainly possible, and probably even likely, that the article is used in a generic or dramatic sense and should be translated, “a spirit.” In the latter case it would show that this spirit was vivid and definite in the mind of Micaiah the storyteller. However, if one insists that the article indicates a well-known or universally known spirit, the following context provides a likely referent. Verse 23 tells how Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face and then asked sarcastically, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord (רוּחַ־יְהוָה, ruakh y^ehvah) go when he went from me to speak to you?” When the phrase “the spirit of the Lord” refers to the divine spirit (rather than the divine breath or mind, as in Isa 40:7, 13) elsewhere, the spirit energizes an individual or group for special tasks or moves one to prophesy. This raises the possibility that the deceiving spirit of vv. 20-22 is the same as the divine spirit mentioned by Zedekiah in v. 23. This would explain why the article is used on רוּחַ (ruakh); he can be called “the spirit” because he is the well-known spirit who energizes the prophets.