(0.22) | (Hab 1:12) | 1 tn Heb “Are you not from antiquity, O Lord?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Yes, of course.” The present translation reflects the force of the rhetorical question, rendering it as an affirmation. When used in a temporal sense the phrase מִקֶדֶם (miqedem) means “from antiquity, ancient times,” often referring to earlier periods in Israel’s history. See its use in Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10; Mic 5:2. |
(0.22) | (Oba 1:14) | 1 tn The meaning of the Hebrew word פֶּרֶק (pereq; here translated “fork in the road”) is uncertain. The word is found in the Hebrew Bible only here and in Nah 3:1, where it means “plunder.” In the present context it seems to refer to a strategic intersection or fork in a road where bands of Edomites apprehended Israelites who were fleeing from the attack on Jerusalem (cf. NAB, NIV, NLT “crossroads,” NRSV “crossings”). |
(0.22) | (Hos 12:11) | 1 tn The noun אָוֶן (ʾaven) has a broad range of meanings that include: (1) “wickedness, sin, injustice” (2) “deception, nothingness,” and (3) “idolatry, idolatrous cult” (HALOT 22 s.v. אָוֶן; BDB 19 s.v. אָוֶן). While any of these meanings would fit the present context, the second-half of the verse refers to cultic sins, suggesting that Hosea is denouncing Gilead for its idolatry (cf. NLT “Gilead is filled with sinners who worship idols”). |
(0.22) | (Dan 10:1) | 3 tn The meaning of the Hebrew word צָבָא (tsavaʾ) is uncertain in this context. The word most often refers to an army or warfare. It may also mean “hard service,” and many commentators take that to be the sense here (i.e., “the service was great”). The present translation assumes the reference to be to the spiritual conflicts described, for example, in 10:16-11:1. |
(0.22) | (Dan 8:2) | 2 sn Susa (Heb. שׁוּשַׁן, shushan), located some 230 miles (380 km) east of Babylon, was a winter residence for Persian kings during the Achaemenid period. The language of v. 2 seems to suggest that Daniel may not have been physically present at Susa, but only saw himself there in the vision. However, the Hebrew is difficult, and some have concluded that the first four words of v. 2 in the MT are a later addition (cf. Theodotion). |
(0.22) | (Dan 8:1) | 1 sn Dan 8:1 marks the switch from Aramaic (= 2:4b-7:28) back to Hebrew as the language in which the book is written in its present form. The remainder of the book from this point on (8:1-12:13) is in Hebrew. The bilingual nature of the book has been variously explained, but it most likely has to do with the book’s transmission history; see the note at 2:4. |
(0.22) | (Dan 3:23) | 2 sn The deuterocanonical writings known as The Prayer of Azariah and The Song of the Three present at this point a confession and petition for God’s forgiveness and a celebration of God’s grace for the three Jewish youths in the fiery furnace. Though not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel, these compositions do appear in the ancient Greek versions. |
(0.22) | (Eze 23:21) | 1 tn Or “you took note of.” The Hebrew verb פָּקַד (paqad) in the Qal implies evaluating something and then acting in light of that judgment; here the prophet depicts Judah as approving of her youthful unfaithfulness and then magnifying it at the present time. Some translations assume the verb should be repointed as a Niphal, rendering “you missed” or by extension “you longed for,” but such an extension of the Niphal “to be missing” is otherwise unattested. |
(0.22) | (Eze 1:20) | 3 tn Or “wind.” The Hebrew is difficult since the text presents four creatures and then talks about “the spirit” (singular) of “the living being” (singular). According to M. Greenberg (Ezekiel [AB], 1:45) the Targum interprets this as “will.” Greenberg views this as the spirit of the one enthroned above the creatures, but one would not expect the article when the one enthroned has not yet been introduced. |
(0.22) | (Lam 1:9) | 4 tn The basic meaning of זָכַר (zakhar) is “to remember, call to mind” (HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר). Although it is often used in reference to recollection of past events or consideration of present situations, it also may mean “to consider, think about” the future outcome of conduct (e.g., Isa 47:7) (BDB 270 s.v. 5). The same term is used in Lam 1:7a. |
(0.22) | (Jer 51:30) | 3 tn Heb “Her dwelling places have been set on fire. Her bars [i.e., the bars on the gates of her cities] have been broken.” The present translation has substituted the word “gates” for “bars” because the intent of the figure is to show that the bars of the gates have been broken, giving access to the city. “Gates” makes it easier for the modern reader to understand the figure. |
(0.22) | (Jer 51:8) | 1 tn The verbs in this verse and the following are all in the Hebrew perfect tense, a tense often referring to a past action, or a past action with present results. However, as the translator’s notes have indicated, the prophets use this tense to view actions as if they were as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The stance here is ideal, viewed as already accomplished. |
(0.22) | (Jer 50:29) | 2 tn Heb “for she has acted insolently against the Lord.” Once again there is the problem of the Lord speaking about himself in the third person (or the prophet dropping his identification with the Lord). As in several other places, the present translation, along with several other modern English versions (TEV, CEV, NIrV), has substituted the first person to maintain consistency with the context. |
(0.22) | (Jer 46:25) | 3 tc Heb “Behold, I will punish Amon of No and Pharaoh and Egypt and its gods and its kings and Pharaoh and all who trust in him.” There appears to be a copyist slip involving a double writing of וְעַל־פַּרְעֹה (veʿal-parʿoh). The present translation has followed the suggestion of BHS and deleted the first one, since the second is necessary for the syntactical connection, “Pharaoh and all who trust in him.” |
(0.22) | (Jer 46:12) | 3 tn The word “defeated” is added for clarity. The picture is not simply of having fallen down physically; it implies not getting up and therefore being defeated in battle. The verbs in this verse are in the perfect conjugation, translated past tense for the dynamic verbs and present tense for the stative verb (“fill”). This verse speaks from the same perspective as v. 2, which indicates that Egypt has been defeated. |
(0.22) | (Jer 38:26) | 2 tn Heb “I was causing to fall [= presenting] my petition before the king not to send me back to Jonathan’s house to die there.” The phrase “dungeon of” is supplied in the translation to help the reader connect this petition with Jeremiah’s earlier place of imprisonment, where the officials had put him with every intention of letting him die there (37:15-16, 20). |
(0.22) | (Jer 36:16) | 3 tn Heb “We must certainly report to the king all these things.” Here the word דְּבָרִים (devarim) must mean “things” (cf. BDB 183 s.v. דָּבָר IV.3) rather than “words,” because a verbatim report of all the words in the scroll is scarcely meant. The present translation has chosen to use, instead of the indefinite “things,” a form that suggests a summary report of all the matters spoken about in the scroll. |
(0.22) | (Jer 30:22) | 1 sn This was their highest privilege (cf. Exod 6:7, Lev 26:12; Jer 24:7) but also their greatest responsibility (cf. Jer 7:3; 11:4). It is a formula referring to a covenant relationship in which God pledges to protect, provide, and be present with his people and they in turn promise to be loyal and obedient to him (see Deut 26:17-18; 29:10-13). |
(0.22) | (Jer 9:23) | 1 sn It is not always clear why verses were placed in their present position in the editorial process of collecting Jeremiah’s sermons and the words the Lord spoke to him (see Jer 36:4, 32 for reference to two of these collections). Here it is probable that vv. 23-26 were added as a further answer to the question raised in v. 12. |
(0.22) | (Jer 3:7) | 1 sn Open theists suggest that passages such as this indicate God has limited foreknowledge; however, more traditional theologians view this passage as an extended metaphor in which God presents himself as a deserted husband, hoping against hope that his adulterous wife might return to him. The point of the metaphor is not to make an assertion about God’s foreknowledge, but to develop the theme of God’s heartbreak due to Israel’s unrepentance. |