¹ tn Or “the nations that are at ease” (so ASV, NRSV). The Hebrew word in question is שַׁאֲנָן (shaʾanan) which has the idea of a careless, even arrogant attitude (see BDB 983 s.v. שַׁאֲנָן); cf. NAB “the complacent nations.” Here it suggests that the nations take for granted that God will never punish them just because he hasn’t already done so. Thus they presume on the grace and patience of the Lord. The translation attempts to bring out this nuance rather than the more neutral renderings of TEV “nations that enjoy quiet and peace” or NLT “enjoy peace and security.”

¹ tn Heb “He sent fire from on high.” Normally God sends fire from heaven. The idiom מִמָּרוֹם (mimmarom, “from on high”) can still suggest the location but as an idiom may focus on the quality of the referent. For example, “to speak from on high” means “to presume to speak as if from heaven” = arrogantly (Ps 73:8); “they fight against me from on high” = proudly (Ps 56:3) (BDB 928-29 s.v. מָרוֹם). As a potential locative, מִמָּרוֹם designates God as the agent; idiomatically the same term paints him as pitiless.

³ tc The translation accepts the emendation in BHS, reading אֲשֵׁרָה (ʾasherah) rather than אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher, “which”). The term אֲשֵׁרָה may refer to the goddess Asherah or a sacred pole which presumably represented the goddess at worship sites. The translation also treats the Asherah as the third in a series of items, as if וְכַאֲשֵׁרָה (vekaʾasherah, “and like an Asherah”). But it may just as well be modifying the previous noun so that the whole phrase reads “like a terebinth and like the oak of an Asherah.” See J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (WBC), 101, 103.

² tc The LXX reads “sit down,” presumably from תֵּשֵׁב (teshev) while the MT reads תִּשְׁכַּב (tishkav, “lie down”). Either the LXX translator worked from a text which had lost the כ (kaf) or the MT copyist had a damaged text and restored a verb from the root שָׁכַב (shakav, “to lie down”) based on the following verb. The text restored from the LXX would present a progression from walking (v. 23), to sitting, to lying down: “When you sit down, you will not fear, then you will lie down and your sleep will be pleasant.”

¹ tn Or “the husband-abandoner.” The construction is the active participle of עָזַב (ʿazav) with the article, serving as an attributive adjective. The verb means “to forsake; to leave; to abandon.” Presumably this woman left her husband for good some time ago in the past. Understanding the participle as a label continues to assign the character to her. By comparison God is called the Maker of the earth (Isa 45:18), using the participle יֹצֵר (yotser). The label persists even though creation was in the past.

¹ tn Heb “only you,” as if the psalmist had sinned exclusively against God and no other. Since the Hebrew verb חָטָא (hataʾ, “to sin”) is used elsewhere of sinful acts against people (see BDB 306 s.v. 2.a) and David (the presumed author) certainly sinned when he murdered Uriah (2 Sam 12:9), it is likely that the psalmist is overstating the case to suggest that the attack on Uriah was ultimately an attack on God himself. To clarify the point of the hyperbole, the translation uses “above all,” rather than the potentially confusing “only.”

¹ tc The Hebrew text of Esther does not indicate why this elaborate show of wealth and power was undertaken. According to the LXX these were “the days of the wedding” (αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ γάμου, hai hēmerai tou gamou), presumably the king’s wedding. However, a number of scholars have called attention to the fact that this celebration takes place just shortly before Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. It is possible that the banquet was a rallying for the up-coming military effort. See Herodotus, Histories 7.8. There is no reason to adopt the longer reading of the LXX here.

¹ tc The MT has a Qal masculine imperfect form of the verb here (יַעֲשֶׂה; yaʿaseh) “thus he used to do.” The imperfect form gives past habitual meaning and is modified by כֵּן (ken, “thus, so”). The subject would presumably be Elkanah, but this is an abrupt change of subject during a description of how Peninnah would aggravate Hannah. One approach is emend the first consonant and read the feminine form (תַּעֲשֶׂה; taʿaseh) “she used to do so.” The approach taken here is to retain the consonants and revocalize as a Niphal (i.e., יֵעָשֶׂה, yeʿaseh) “thus it would be done.” Cf. Gen 29:26.

¹ sn Since there is no break with chap. 8, Jesus is presumably still in Jerusalem, and presumably not still in the temple area. The events of chap. 9 fall somewhere between the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2) and the feast of the Dedication (John 10:22). But in the author’s narrative the connection exists—the incident recorded in chap. 9 (along with the ensuing debates with the Pharisees) serves as a real-life illustration of the claim Jesus made in 8:12, I am the light of the world. This is in fact the probable theological motivation behind the juxtaposition of these two incidents in the narrative. The second serves as an illustration of the first, and as a concrete example of the victory of light over darkness. One other thing which should be pointed out about the miracle recorded in chap. 9 is its messianic significance. In the OT it is God himself who is associated with the giving of sight to the blind (Exod 4:11, Ps 146:8). In a number of passages in Isa (29:18; 35:5; 42:7) it is considered to be a messianic activity.

² sn Presumably by the time the beloved disciple reached the tomb there was enough light to penetrate the low opening and illuminate the interior of the tomb sufficiently for him to see the strips of linen cloth lying there. The author does not state exactly where the linen wrappings were lying. Sometimes the phrase has been translated “lying on the ground,” but the implication is that the wrappings were lying where the body had been. The most probable configuration for a tomb of this sort would be to have a niche carved in the wall where the body would be laid lengthwise, or a low shelf like a bench running along one side of the tomb, across the back or around all three sides in a U-shape facing the entrance. Thus the graveclothes would have been lying on this shelf or in the niche where the body had been.

³ tc The MT reads a plural verb לֹא חָנָנוּ (loʾ khananu, “they did not show favor”) from חָנַן (khanan, “to show favor, be merciful”); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting לֹא חָנַן (loʾ khanan, “he did not show favor”). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribal change to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. It may also be that the third person plural presumes an indefinite subject and the construction is used in place of a passive, but still essentially means “the elders were not shown mercy.” Another alternative would be to revocalize the verb as the rare Qal passive, which would yield the same result.

² tc The MT reads a plural verb לֹא נָשָׂאוּ (loʾ nasaʾu, “they did not lift up”) from נָשָׂא (nasaʾ, “to lift up”); however, the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) have singular verbs, reflecting לֹא נָשָׂא (loʾ nasaʾ, “he did not lift up”). D. R. Hillers suggests that the MT plural is an intentional scribe change, to avoid the appearance that God brought about evil on the priests and elders. It may also be that the third person plural presumes an indefinite subject and the construction is used in place of a passive, but still essentially means, “the priests were not honored” (see following note regarding the idiom). Another alternative would be to revocalize the verb as the rare Qal passive, which would yield the same result.

¹ tc The LXX records ἐμνήσθην (emnēsthēn, “I remembered”), which may reflect a first person singular form זָכַרְתִּי (zakharti), whereas the MT preserves the form זְכָר (z^ekhor), which may be Qal imperative second person masculine singular (“Remember!”) or infinitive construct (“To remember…”). A second person masculine singular imperative would most likely address God. In the next verse נַפְשִׁי (nafshi, “my soul”) is the subject of זְכָר (z^ekhor). If נַפְשִׁי (nafshi) is also the subject here, one would expect a second person feminine singular imperative זִכְרִי (zikhri), a form that stands in the middle of the MT’s זְכָר (z^ekhor) and the presumed זָכַרְתִּי (zakharti) read by the LXX. English versions are split between the options: “To recall” (NJPS), “Remember!” (RSV, NRSV, NASB), “Remembering” (KJV, NKJV), and “I remember” (NIV).

¹ tn Heb “second.” The numerical adjective שֵׁנִי (sheni, “second”) is difficult here. As a modifier for “house” in v. 14 the word would presumably refer to a second part of the harem, one which was under the supervision of a separate official. But in this case the definite article would be expected before “second” (cf. LXX τὸν δεύτερον, ton deuteron). Some scholars emend the text to שֵׁנִית (shenit, “a second time”), but this does not completely resolve the difficulty since the meaning remains unclear. The translation adopted above follows the LXX and understands the word to refer to a separate group of women in the king’s harem, a group housed apparently in a distinct part of the residence complex.

² sn There is a question here concerning the legislation—the people were not told why to gather twice as much on the sixth day. In other words, this instruction seems to presume that they knew about the Sabbath law. That law will be included in this chapter in a number of ways, suggesting to some scholars that this chapter is out of chronological order, placed here for a purpose. Some argue that the manna episode comes after the revelation at Sinai. But it is not necessary to take such a view. God had established the Sabbath in the creation, and if Moses has been expounding the Genesis traditions in his teachings then they would have known about that.

² sn Tell them you are my sister. Abram’s motives may not be as selfish as they appear. He is aware of the danger to the family. His method of dealing with it is deception with a half truth, for Sarai really was his sister—but the Egyptians would not know that. Abram presumably thought that there would be negotiations for a marriage by anyone interested (as Laban does later for his sister Rebekah), giving him time to react. But the plan backfires because Pharaoh does not take the time to negotiate. There is a good deal of literature on the wife-sister issue. See (among others) E. A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Oriental and Biblical Studies, 62-81; C. J. Mullo-Weir, “The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis,” GOT 22 (1967-1970): 14-25.

⁷ tn The Hebrew verb has been translated “hovering” or “moving” (as a bird over her young, see Deut 32:11). The Syriac cognate term means “to brood over; to incubate.” How much of that sense might be attached here is hard to say, but the verb does depict the presence of the Spirit of God moving about mysteriously over the waters, presumably preparing for the acts of creation to follow. If one reads “mighty wind” (cf. NEB) then the verse describes how the powerful wind begins to blow in preparation for the creative act described in vv. 9-10. (God also used a wind to drive back the flood waters in Noah’s day. See Gen 8:1.)

⁵ tn The prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ (en agapē, “in love”) may modify one of three words or phrases: (1) “chose,” (2) “holy and unblemished,” both in v. 4, or (3) “by predestining” in v. 5. If it modifies “chose,” it refers to God’s motivation in that election, but this option is unlikely because of the placement of the prepositional phrase far away from the verb. The other two options are more likely. If it modifies “holy and unblemished,” it specifies that our holiness cannot be divorced from love. This view is in keeping with the author’s use of ἀγάπη to refer often to human love in Ephesians, but the placement of the prepositional phrase not immediately following the words it modifies would be slightly awkward. If it modifies “by predestining” (v. 5), again the motivation of God’s choice is love. This would fit the focus of the passage on God’s gracious actions toward believers. In Eph 3:17 the same prepositional phrase, ἐν ἀγάπῃ (en agapē, “in love”), occurs in the Greek text ahead of the participles it modifies, presumably for emphasis, and the same could be the case here.

² tn Or “who heard him,” or “who heard Paul.” The ambiguity here results from the tendency of Greek to omit direct objects, which must be supplied from the context. The problem is that no less than three different ones may be supplied here: (1) “him,” referring to Crispus, but this is not likely because there is no indication in the context that Crispus began to speak out about the Lord; this is certainly possible and even likely, but more than the text here affirms; (2) “Paul,” who had been speaking in the synagogue and presumably, now that he had moved to Titius Justus’ house, continued speaking to the Gentiles; or (3) “about it,” that is, the Corinthians who heard about Crispus’ conversion became believers. In the immediate context this last is most probable, since the two incidents are juxtaposed. Other, less obvious direct objects could also be supplied, such as “heard the word of God,” “heard the word of the Lord,” etc., but none of these are obvious in the immediate context.

³ tn This claim by the leaders presents some difficulty because Jonah had been from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (2 Kgs 14:25). Also the Babylonian Talmud later stated, “There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets” (b. Sukkah 27b). Two explanations are possible: (1) In the heat of anger the members of the Sanhedrin overlooked the facts (this is perhaps the easiest explanation). (2) This anarthrous noun is to be understood as a reference to the prophet of Deut 18:15 (note the reading of P⁶⁶ which is articular), by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. This would produce in the text of John’s Gospel a high sense of irony indeed, since the religious authorities by their insistence that “the Prophet” could not come from Galilee displayed their true ignorance of where Jesus came from on two levels at once (Bethlehem, his birthplace, the fulfillment of Mic 5:2, but also heaven, from which he was sent by the Father). The author does not even bother to refute the false attestation of Jesus’ place of birth as Galilee (presumably Christians knew all too well where Jesus came from).