(0.20) | (Luk 8:2) | 3 sn This Mary is not the woman mentioned in the previous passage (as some church fathers claimed) because she is introduced as a new figure here. In addition, she is further specified by Luke with the notation called Magdalene, which seems to distinguish her from the woman at Simon the Pharisee’s house. |
(0.20) | (Luk 3:22) | 2 tn Grk “my beloved Son,” or “my Son, the beloved [one].” The force of ἀγαπητός (agapētos) is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1). |
(0.20) | (Luk 1:25) | 4 sn Barrenness was often seen as a reproach or disgrace (Lev 20:20-21; Jer 22:30), but now at her late age (the exact age is never given in Luke’s account), God had miraculously removed it (see also Luke 1:7). |
(0.20) | (Mar 9:7) | 4 tn Grk “my beloved Son,” or “my Son, the beloved [one].” The force of ἀγαπητός (agapētos) is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1). |
(0.20) | (Mar 3:33) | 1 tn Grk “Who is my mother and my brothers?” The use of the singular verb ἐστιν (estin) here singles out Mary above Jesus’ brothers, giving her special prominence (see ExSyn 401-2). This is slightly unnatural in English since the predicate nominative is plural, though, so a plural verb was used in the translation. |
(0.20) | (Mar 1:11) | 1 tn Grk “my beloved Son,” or “my Son, the beloved [one].” The force of ἀγαπητός (agapētos) is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1). |
(0.20) | (Mat 17:5) | 5 tn Grk “my beloved Son,” or “my Son, the beloved [one].” The force of ἀγαπητός (agapētos) is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1). |
(0.20) | (Mat 9:20) | 2 sn The woman was most likely suffering from a chronic vaginal or uterine hemorrhage which would have made her ritually unclean. The same Greek term is used in the LXX only once, at Lev 15:33, and there it refers to menstruation (J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew [NIGTC], 395). |
(0.20) | (Mat 8:15) | 2 sn Though the nature of the serving is not specified, context suggests these would be the typical duties associated with domestic hospitality. The woman’s restoration from her illness is so complete that these activities can be resumed right away, a point emphasized in the parallel account in Luke 4:39. |
(0.20) | (Mat 3:17) | 3 tn Grk “my beloved Son,” or “my Son, the beloved [one].” The force of ἀγαπητός (agapētos) is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1). |
(0.20) | (Mat 2:23) | 1 sn Nazareth was a very small village in the region of Galilee (Galilee lay north of Samaria and Judea). The town was located about 15 mi (25 km) west of the southern edge of the Sea of Galilee. According to Luke 1:26, Mary was living in Nazareth when the birth of Jesus was announced to her. |
(0.20) | (Mal 2:11) | 3 tn Heb “has married the daughter of a foreign god.” Marriage is used here as a metaphor to describe Judah’s idolatry, that is, her unfaithfulness to the Lord and “remarriage” to pagan gods. But spiritual intermarriage found expression in literal, physical marriage as well, as vv. 14-16 indicate. |
(0.20) | (Zec 9:4) | 1 tn The Hebrew word חַיִל (khayil, “strength, wealth”) can, with certain suffixes, look exactly like חֵל (khel, “fortress, rampart”). The chiastic pattern here suggests that not Tyre’s riches but her defenses will be cast into the sea. Thus the present translation renders the term “fortifications” (so also NLT) rather than “wealth” (NASB, NRSV, TEV) or “power” (NAB, NIV). |
(0.20) | (Zep 3:3) | 4 tn Heb “her judges [are] wolves of the evening,” that is, wolves that prowl at night. The translation assumes an emendation to עֲרָבָה (ʿaravah, “desert”). For a discussion of this and other options, see Adele Berlin, Zephaniah (AB 25A), 128. The metaphor has been translated as a simile (“as hungry as”) for clarity. |
(0.20) | (Nah 3:3) | 8 tc The MT reads לַגְּוִיָּה (laggeviyyah, “to the dead bodies”). The LXX reflects לְגוֹיָה (legoyah, “to her nations”) which arose due to confusion between the consonant ו (vav) and the vowel וֹ (holem-vav) in an unpointed text. |
(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) | (Joe 1:8) | 4 sn Heb “the husband of her youth.” The woman described here may already be married, so the reference is to the death of a husband rather than a fiancé (a husband-to-be). Either way, the simile describes a painful and unexpected loss to which the national tragedy Joel is describing may be compared. |
(0.20) | (Hos 14:4) | 1 sn The noun מְשׁוּבָתָה (meshuvatah, “waywardness”; cf. KJV “backsliding”) is from the same root as שׁוּבָה (shuvah, “return!”) in 14:1 [14:2 HT]. This repetition of שׁוּב (shuv) creates a wordplay that emphasizes reciprocity: if Israel will return (שׁוּבָה, shuvah) to the Lord, he will cure her of the tendency to turn away (מְשׁוּבָתָה) from him. |
(0.20) | (Hos 2:4) | 2 sn The word order is rhetorical: the construct clause בְנֵי זְנוּנִים (vene zenunim, “sons of adulteries”), which functions as the predicate nominative, is moved forward, before the independent personal pronoun הֵמָּה (hemmah, “they”), which functions as the subject, to focus on the immoral character of her children. |
(0.20) | (Dan 1:8) | 2 sn Various reasons have been suggested as to why such food would defile Daniel. Perhaps it had to do with violations of Mosaic law with regard to unclean foods, or perhaps it was food that had been offered to idols. Daniel’s practice in this regard is strikingly different from that of Esther, who was able successfully to conceal her Jewish identity. |