² sn As the Gospel makes clear, with the statement do not judge Jesus had in mind making a judgment that caused one to cut oneself off from someone so that they ceased to be reached out to (5:27-32; 15:1-32). Jesus himself did make judgments about where people stand (11:37-54), but not in such a way that he ceased to continue to offer them God’s grace.

² tn Grk “reasonings.” This is the noun form of the infinitive διαλογίζεσθαι (dialogizesthai, “began to reason to themselves”) used in v. 21. Jesus’ reply to them in the latter part of the present verse makes clear that these reasonings were mental and internal, so the translation “thoughts” was used here. On the hostile or evil nature of these thoughts, see G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:97.

⁴ sn Asking for the body of Jesus was indeed a bold move on the part of Joseph of Arimathea, for it clearly and openly identified him with a man who had just been condemned and executed, namely, Jesus. His faith is exemplary, especially for someone who was a member of the council that handed Jesus over for crucifixion (cf. Luke 23:51). He did this because he sought to give Jesus an honorable burial.

¹ sn The statement he ran off naked is probably a reference to Mark himself, traditionally assumed to be the author of this Gospel. Why he was wearing only an outer garment and not the customary tunic as well is not mentioned. W. L. Lane, Mark (NICNT), 527-28, says that Mark probably mentioned this episode so as to make it clear that “all fled, leaving Jesus alone in the custody of the police.”

³ tn Grk “seizing him, they beat and sent away empty-handed.” The referent of the direct object of “seizing” (the slave sent by the owner) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The objects of the verbs “beat” and “sent away” have been supplied in the translation to conform to English style. Greek often omits direct objects when they are clear from the context.

¹ sn Asking for the body of Jesus was indeed a bold move on the part of Joseph of Arimathea, for it clearly and openly identified him with a man who had just been condemned and executed, namely, Jesus. His faith is exemplary, especially for someone who was a member of the council that handed Jesus over for crucifixion (cf. Mark 15:43, Luke 23:51). He did this because he sought to give Jesus an honorable burial.

¹ sn Here Jesus refers to something that has been set aside as a gift to be given to God at some later date, but which is still in the possession of the owner. According to contemporary Jewish tradition, the person who made this claim was absolved from responsibility to support or assist his parents, a clear violation of the Mosaic law to honor one’s parents (v. 4).

⁴ sn The background for the reference to waterless places is not entirely clear, though some Jewish texts suggest spirits must have a place to dwell, but not with water (Luke 8:29-31; Tob 8:3). Some suggest that the image of the desert or deserted cities as the places demons dwell is where this idea started (Isa 13:21; 34:14).

¹ tn Or “did not have sexual relations”; Grk “was not knowing her.” The verb “know” (in both Hebrew and Greek) is a frequent biblical euphemism for sexual relations. However, a translation like “did not have sexual relations with her” was considered too graphic in light of the popularity and wide use of Matthew’s infancy narrative. Thus the somewhat less direct but still clear “did not have marital relations” was preferred.

¹ sn The first person pronoun refers to Zechariah himself who, however, is a “stand-in” for the Lord as the actions of vv. 8-14 make clear. The prophet, like others before him, probably performed actions dramatizing the account of God’s past dealings with Israel and Judah (cf. Hos 1-3; Isa 20:2-4; Jer 19:1-15; 27:2-11; Ezek 4:1-3).

¹ sn These prophets who were there at the founding of the house of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies included at least Haggai and Zechariah, and perhaps others. The founding referred to here is not the initial laying of the temple’s foundations in 536 b.c. (Ezra 3:8) but the resumption of work two years before the time of the present narrative (i.e., in 520 b.c.), as vv. 10-12 make clear.

⁴ tn The typical translation “Joshua (the) son of Jehozadak, the high priest” (cf. ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) can be understood to mean that Jehozadak was high priest. However, Zech 3:1, 8 clearly indicate that Joshua was high priest (see also Ezra 5:1-2; cf. NAB). The same potential misunderstanding occurs in Hag 1:12, 14 and 2:2, where the same solution has been employed in the translation.

³ tc Heb “on them.” But there is no clear antecedent to match the masculine plural pronoun. It is preferable to emend the text from עֲלֵיהֶם (ʿalehem) to עַל־הַיָּם (ʿal hayyam, “by the sea”). This emendation assumes a transposition of letters and then an improper word division in the MT (cf. NEB “They shall pasture their flocks by the sea”). See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 192.

¹ tn Heb “has commanded concerning you.” The referent of the second person masculine singular suffix (“you”) probably refers to the Assyrian king (cf. 3:18-19) rather than to the personified city of Nineveh (so NIV). Elsewhere in the book of Nahum, the city of Nineveh is referred to by the feminine rather than masculine gender. Some modern English versions supply terms not in the Hebrew text to indicate the addressee more clearly: NIV “Nineveh”; NLT “the Assyrians in Nineveh.”

² tc The MT adjective חֲרִישִׁית (kharishit, “autumnal”) is a hapax legomenon with an unclear meaning (BDB 362 s.v. חֲרִישִׁי). Therefore, the BHS editors propose a conjectural emendation to the adjective, חֲרִיפִית (kharifit, “autumnal”), from the noun חֹרֶף (khoref, “autumn”; see BDB 358 s.v. חרֶף). However, this emendation would also create a hapax legomenon, and it would be no more clear than relating the MT’s חֲרִישִׁית to I חָרַשׁ (kharash, “to plough” [in autumn harvest]).

² sn The word fear appears in v. 5, here in v. 9, and later in vv. 10 and 16. Except for this use in v. 9, every other use describes the sailors’ response (emotional fear prompting physical actions) to the storm or to the Lord. By contrast, Jonah claims to fear God, but his attitude and actions do not reflect this. It is clear that Jonah does not “fear” in the same way that they do.

¹ tn Heb “I destroyed the Amorites from before them.” The translation takes מִפְּנֵי (mipp^eney) in the sense of “for the sake of.” See BDB 818 s.v. פָּנֻה II.6.a and H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia), 134. Another option is to take the phrase in a spatial sense, “I destroyed the Amorites, [clearing them out] from before them [i.e., Israel]” (cf. NIV, NRSV).

³ tn Heb “its incisors are those of a lioness.” The sharp, cutting teeth are metonymical for the action of tearing apart and eating prey. The language is clearly hyperbolic. Neither locusts nor human invaders literally have teeth of this size. The prophet is using exaggerated and picturesque language to portray in vivid terms the enormity of the calamity. English versions vary greatly on the specifics. KJV has, “cheek teeth”; ASV, “jaw-teeth”; NAB, “molars”; and NASB, NIV, and NRSV, “fangs.”

¹ tn Heb “and you will not be for” or “you will not come to belong to”; cf. NIV “be intimate with.” This is an uncommon and roundabout way of referring to sexual relations and perhaps refers to moving in with another man. “Another” is supplied from context, since she is clearly to live with Hosea. If it means she should not be intimate with any man, including Hosea, that could also picture the many days without a king mentioned in the next verse.

² sn The significance of the number 390 is not clear. The best explanation is that “days” are used figuratively for years and the number refers to the years of the sinfulness of Israel during the period of the First Temple. Some understand the number to refer to the length of the division of the northern and southern kingdoms down to the fall of Jerusalem (931-586 b.c.), but this adds up to only 345 years.