¹ tc The translation follows the Syriac Peshitta, Targum, and Vulgate in reading “over,” rather than the simple conjunction that appears in MT. See also the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18:17.

¹ tn The verb is the perfect tense with vav (ו) consecutive. It could be taken as a jussive following the words of the priest in the previous section, but it is more likely to be a simple future.

² tn This emphasis is derived from the simple repetition of the passive participle, נְתוּנִם נְתוּנִם (n^etunim n^etunim). See GKC 396 §123.e. The forms serve as the predicate with the subject pronoun.

¹ tn Heb “and let them take.” The simple vav (ו) on the imperfect/jussive form of the verb לָקַח (laqakh, “to take”) following the imperative (“Command”) indicates a purpose clause (“to bring…”).

⁴ tn The phrase is literally “the offering of Yahweh”; it could be a simple possessive, “Yahweh’s offering,” but a genitive that indicates the indirect object is more appropriate.

² tn The preterite could be given a simple definite past translation, but an ingressive past would be more likely, as the smell would get worse and worse with the dead fish.

⁴ tn The present translation assumes that this verse refers to judgment that had already fallen. Both verbs (perfects) are taken as indicating simple past; the vav (ו) on the second verb is understood as a simple vav conjunctive. Another option is to understand the verse as describing a future judgment (see 10:1-4). In this case the first verb is a perfect of certitude; the vav on the second verb is a vav consecutive.

¹ tn The translation of καί (kai) at the beginning of 2:3 is important for understanding the argument because a similar καί occurs at the beginning of 1:5. The use here is not just a simple continuative or connective use, but has more of a resumptive force, pointing back to the previous use in 1:5.

¹ sn But I do not allow. Although the Greek conjunction δέ (de) can have a simple connective force (“and”), it is best to take it as contrastive here: Verse 11 gives a positive statement (that is to say, that a woman should learn). This was a radical and liberating departure from the Jewish view that women were not to learn the law.

² sn About their own religion. Festus made it clear that in his view as a neutral figure (and as one Luke had noted was disposed to help the Jews), he saw no guilt in Paul. The issue was a simple religious dispute.

² tn The imperative here is really more than a simple conditional imperative (= “if you destroy”); its semantic force here is more like the ironical imperative found in the prophets (Amos 4:4, Isa 8:9) = “Go ahead and do this and see what happens.”

² tn Or “the deep; the abyss” (תְּהוֹם, t^ehom). The simple “ocean” is perhaps too prosaic, since this Hebrew word has primeval connections (Gen 1:2; 7:11; 8:2; Prov 8:27-28) and speaks of the sea at its vastest (Job 38:16-18; Pss 36:6; 104:5-9).

² tn Heb “because of tears.” The plural noun דִּמְעוֹת (dimʿot, “tears”) is an example of the plural of intensity or repeated behavior: “many tears.” The more common singular form דִּמְעָה (dimʿah) normally functions in a collective sense (“tears”); therefore, the plural form here does not indicate simple plural of number.

¹ sn There is a play on words here in Hebrew between “did not send you” and “will…remove you.” The two verbs are from the same root word in Hebrew. The first is the simple active and the second is the intensive.

¹ tn The Hebrew term הוֹי (hoy, “woe, ah”) was used in funeral laments and is often prefixed to judgment oracles for rhetorical effect. But here it appears to be a simple interjection, designed to grab the audience’s attention. Perhaps there is a note of sorrow or pity. See BDB 223 s.v.

¹ tn The translation assumes that vv. 9-10 describe the people’s response to a past judgment (v. 8). The perfect is understood as indicating simple past and the vav (ו) is taken as conjunctive. Another option is to take the vav on the perfect as consecutive and translate, “all the people will know.”

³ sn The line uses two more figures of speech to declare that God can be trusted for security and salvation. “Shield” is a simple metaphor—God protects. “Take refuge” is another implied comparison (hypocatastasis)—God provides spiritual rest and security for those who put their trust in him.

² sn Again the saying concerns troublesome wealth: Loving relationships with simple food are better than a feast where there is hatred. The ideal, of course, would be loving family and friends with a great meal in addition, but this proverb is only comparing two things.

³ tn The noun means “foolishness” (cf. KJV “simple”; NAB “inane”). Here it could be classified as a metonymy of adjunct, or as a predictive apposition (when a substantive is used in place of a noun; see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 15, §67).

⁴ tn The use of the imperfect tense here could be the simple future tense (cf. NASB, NRSV “you…will bear it”), but the obligatory nuance is more appropriate—“you must bear it.” These words anticipate James’ warnings that the words we speak will haunt us through life (e.g., James 3:1-12).