(0.20) | (Mic 1:10) | 3 tc The translation assumes a masculine plural imperative. If one were to emend בְּבֵית (bevet) to בֵית (vet), Beth Leaphrah would then be the addressee and the feminine singular imperative (see Qere) could be retained, “O Beth Leaphrah, sit in the dust.” |
(0.20) | (Mic 1:7) | 5 tn Heb “for from a prostitute’s wages she gathered, and to a prostitute’s wages they will return.” When the metal was first collected it was comparable to the coins a prostitute would receive for her services. The metal was then formed into idols, but now the Lord’s fiery judgment would reduce the metal images to their original condition. |
(0.20) | (Amo 9:6) | 1 tc The MT reads “his steps.” If this is correct, then the reference may be to the steps leading up to the heavenly temple or the throne of God (cf. 1 Kgs 10:19-20). The prefixed מ (mem) may be dittographic (note the preceding word ends in mem). The translation assumes an emendation to עֲלִיָּתוֹ (ʿaliyyato, “his upper rooms”). |
(0.20) | (Amo 6:2) | 4 tn Both rhetorical questions in this verse expect the answer “no.” If these words do come from the leaders, then this verse underscores their self-delusion of power (compare 6:13). The prophet had no such mistaken sense of national grandeur (7:2, 5). |
(0.20) | (Amo 5:13) | 2 tn Or “moans, laments,” from a homonymic verbal root. If the rich oppressors are in view, then the verb (whether translated “will be silenced” or “will lament”) describes the result of God’s judgment upon them. See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170. |
(0.20) | (Amo 5:7) | 4 sn In v. 7 the prophet begins to describe the guilty Israelites but then interrupts his word picture with a parenthetical, yet powerful, description of the judge they must face (vv. 8-9). He resumes his description of the sinners in v. 10. |
(0.20) | (Amo 4:13) | 3 tn Or “his thoughts.” The translation assumes that the pronominal suffix refers to God and that divine self-revelation is in view (see 3:7). If the suffix refers to the following term אָדַם (ʾadam, “men”), then the expression refers to God’s ability to read men’s minds. |
(0.20) | (Amo 2:1) | 4 sn The Moabites apparently desecrated the tomb of an Edomite king and burned his bones into a calcined substance which they then used as plaster (cf. Deut 27:2, 4). See S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), 72. Receiving a proper burial was very important in this culture. Desecrating a tomb or a deceased individual’s bones was considered an especially heinous act. |
(0.20) | (Dan 4:15) | 2 sn The function of the band of iron and bronze is not entirely clear, but it may have had to do with preventing the splitting or further deterioration of the portion of the tree that was left after being chopped down. By application it would then refer to the preservation of Nebuchadnezzar’s life during the time of his insanity. |
(0.20) | (Eze 23:40) | 2 tn The Hebrew verb form is feminine singular, indicating that Oholibah (Judah) is specifically addressed here. This address continues through verse 42a (note “her”), but then both sisters are described in verse 42b, where the feminine pronouns are again plural. |
(0.20) | (Eze 21:10) | 1 sn The people of Judah should not place false hope in their king, symbolized by his royal scepter, for God’s judgment (symbolized by fire and then a sword) would destroy every tree (see 20:47), symbolizing the righteous and wicked (see 21:3-4). |
(0.20) | (Eze 5:15) | 1 tc This reading is supported by the versions and by the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QEzek). Most Masoretic Hebrew mss read: “it will be,” but if the final he (ה) is read as a mater lectionis, as it can be with the second masculine singular perfect, then they are in agreement. In either case the subject refers to Jerusalem. |
(0.20) | (Jer 46:7) | 2 sn The time frame moves backward now to where it began in v. 3. Possibly v. 6 ends an oracle, and now Jeremiah continues on the same topic. Or it could be that the rhetoric of a single oracle starts at battle preparations and then, after showing what God has foreseen about the battle, returns to address those preparing for battle. |
(0.20) | (Jer 41:3) | 2 tn Heb “Chaldean.” See the study note on 21:4 for explanation. There are two cases of apposition in this verse, with repetition of the preposition and then of the sign of the accusative, i.e., “who were with him, [namely] with Gedaliah” and “all the Chaldeans who happened to be there, [namely] the soldiers.” |
(0.20) | (Jer 26:20) | 3 tn Heb “Now also a man was prophesying in the name of the Lord, Uriah son of…, and he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah.” The long Hebrew sentence has been broken up in conformity with contemporary English style. The major emphasis is brought out by putting his prophesying first, then identifying him. |
(0.20) | (Jer 25:27) | 1 tn The words “Then the Lord said to me” are not in the text. They are supplied in the translation for clarity, to connect this part of the narrative with vv. 15, 17 after the long intervening list of nations who were to drink the cup of God’s wrath in judgment. |
(0.20) | (Jer 22:28) | 2 sn For the image of a rejected, broken vessel, see Jer 19:1-13 (where, however, the vessel is rejected first and then broken), and compare Jer 13, especially vv. 10-11, for the image of linen shorts that are good for nothing. |
(0.20) | (Jer 20:9) | 2 tn The English sentence has again been restructured for the sake of English style. The Hebrew construction involves two vav consecutive perfects in a condition and consequence relation: “If I say to myself…, then it [his word] becomes.” See GKC 337 §112.kk for the construction. |
(0.20) | (Jer 18:4) | 1 tn The verbs here denote repeated action. They are the Hebrew perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive. The text then reads somewhat literally, “Whenever the vessel he was molding…was ruined, he would remold…” For this construction see Joüon 2:393-94 §118.n and 2:628-29 §167.b, and compare the usage in Amos 4:7-8. |
(0.20) | (Jer 17:25) | 1 tn Heb “And it will be, if you carefully obey me, declares the LORD, by not bringing…and by sanctifying…by not doing…, then kings will….” The structure of prohibitions and commands followed by a brief “if” clause has been used to break up a long condition and consequence relationship in verses 24-25 that is contrary to contemporary English style. |