(0.18) | (Jam 2:18) | 1 tn There is considerable doubt about where the words of the “someone” end and where James’ reply begins. Some see the quotation running to the end of v. 18; others to the end of v. 19. But most punctuate as shown above. The “someone” is then an objector, and the sense of his words is something like, “Some have faith; others have works; don’t expect everyone to have both.” James’ reply is that faith cannot exist or be seen without works. |
(0.18) | (Eph 3:2) | 1 sn If indeed. The author is not doubting whether his audience has heard, but is rather using provocative language (if indeed) to engage his audience in thinking about the magnificence of God’s grace. However, in English translation, the apodosis (“then”-clause) does not come until v. 13, leaving the protasis (“if”-clause) dangling. Eph 3:2-7 constitute one sentence in Greek. |
(0.18) | (Rom 1:24) | 2 tn Or “God delivered them up to the desires of their hearts for impurity.” It is possible that a technical, legal idiom is used here; if so, it would describe God delivering sinners up to a custodian for punishment (see R. Jewett, Romans [Hermeneia], 166-67). In this instance, then, sinners would be given over to their own desires for the express purpose of working more impurity. |
(0.18) | (Act 27:29) | 4 tn BDAG 417 s.v. εὔχομαι 2 states, “wish…τὶ for someth.…Foll. by acc. and inf….Ac 27:29.” The other possible meaning for this term, “pray,” is given in BDAG 417 s.v. 1 and employed by a number of translations (NAB, NRSV, NIV). If this meaning is adopted here, then “prayed for day to come” must be understood metaphorically to mean “prayed that they would live to see the day,” or “prayed that it would soon be day.” |
(0.18) | (Act 22:9) | 1 tn Grk “did not hear” (but see Acts 9:7). BDAG 38 s.v. ἀκούω 7 has “W. acc. τὸν νόμον understand the law Gal 4:21; perh. Ac 22:9; 26:14…belong here.” If the word has this sense here, then a metonymy is present, since the lack of effect is put for a failure to appreciate what was heard. |
(0.18) | (Act 5:4) | 5 tn Grk “to men.” If Peter’s remark refers only to the apostles, the translation “to men” would be appropriate. But if (as is likely) the action was taken to impress the entire congregation (who would presumably have witnessed the donation or been aware of it) then the more general “to people” is more appropriate, since the audience would have included both men and women. |
(0.18) | (Joh 9:6) | 2 tn Or “clay” (moistened earth of a clay-like consistency). The textual variant preserved in the Syriac text of Ephraem’s commentary on the Diatessaron (“he made eyes from his clay”) probably arose from the interpretation given by Irenaeus in Against Heresies: “that which the Artificer, the Word, had omitted to form in the womb, he then supplied in public.” This involves taking the clay as an allusion to Gen 2:7, which is very unlikely. |
(0.18) | (Joh 8:57) | 1 tn Grk “Then the Jews.” See the note on this term in v. 31. Here, as in vv. 31, 48, and 52, the phrase refers to the Jewish people in Jerusalem (“Judeans”; cf. BDAG 479 s.v. ᾿Ιουδαῖος 2.e) who had been listening to Jesus’ teaching in the temple courts (8:20) and had initially believed his claim to be the Messiah (cf. 8:31). They have now become completely hostile, as John 8:59 clearly shows. |
(0.18) | (Joh 6:52) | 1 tn Grk “Then the Jews began to argue.” Here the translation restricts the phrase to those Jews who were hostile to Jesus (cf. BDAG 479 s.v. ᾿Ιουδαῖος 2.e.β), since the “crowd” mentioned in 6:22-24 was almost all Jewish (as suggested by their addressing Jesus as “Rabbi” (6:25). See also the note on the phrase “the Jews who were hostile to Jesus” in v. 41. |
(0.18) | (Joh 4:11) | 5 sn Where then do you get this living water? The woman’s reply is an example of the “misunderstood statement,” a technique appearing frequently in John’s Gospel. Jesus was speaking of living water which was spiritual (ultimately a Johannine figure for the Holy Spirit, see John 7:38-39), but the woman thought he was speaking of flowing (fresh drinkable) water. Her misunderstanding gave Jesus the opportunity to explain what he really meant. |
(0.18) | (Luk 22:54) | 4 sn Putting all the gospel accounts together, there is a brief encounter with Annas (brought him into the high priest’s house, here and John 18:13, where Annas is named); the meeting led by Caiaphas (Matt 26:57-68 = Mark 14:53-65); and then a Sanhedrin meeting (Matt 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66-71). These latter two meetings might be connected and apparently went into the morning. |
(0.18) | (Luk 13:34) | 2 tn Although the opening address (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) is direct (second person), the remainder of this sentence in the Greek text is third person (“who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her”). The following sentences then revert to second person (“your…you”), so to keep all this consistent in English, the third person pronouns in the present verse were translated as second person (“you who kill…sent to you”). |
(0.18) | (Luk 8:5) | 2 tn Luke’s version of the parable, like Mark’s (cf. Mark 4:1-9) uses the collective singular to refer to the seed throughout, so singular pronouns have been used consistently throughout this parable in the English translation. However, the parallel account in Matt 13:1-9 begins with plural pronouns in v. 4 but then switches to the collective singular in v. 5 ff. |
(0.18) | (Luk 6:4) | 3 sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was not lawful is one of analogy: ‘If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.’ Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along. |
(0.18) | (Luk 5:21) | 2 tn Or “Then the scribes.” The traditional rendering of γραμματεύς (grammateus) as “scribe” does not communicate much to the modern English reader, for whom the term might mean “professional copyist,” if it means anything at all. The people referred to here were recognized experts in the law of Moses and in traditional laws and regulations. Thus “expert in the law” comes closer to the meaning for the modern reader. |
(0.18) | (Luk 1:46) | 4 sn This psalm (vv. 46-55) is one of the few praise psalms in the NT. Mary praises God and then tells why both in terms of his care for her (vv. 46-49) and for others, including Israel (vv. 50-55). Its traditional name, the “Magnificat,” comes from the Latin for the phrase My soul magnifies the Lord at the hymn’s start. |
(0.18) | (Mar 4:4) | 1 tn Mark’s version of the parable, like Luke’s (cf. Luke 8:4-8), uses the collective singular to refer to the seed throughout, so singular pronouns have been used consistently throughout this parable in the English translation. However, the parallel account in Matt 13:1-9 begins with plural pronouns in v. 4 but then switches to the collective singular in v. 5 ff. |
(0.18) | (Mar 2:26) | 3 sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was against the law is one of analogy: “If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.” Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along. |
(0.18) | (Mat 23:37) | 2 tn Although the opening address (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) is direct (second person), the remainder of this sentence in the Greek text is third person (“who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her”). The following sentences then revert to second person (“your…you”), so to keep all this consistent in English, the third person pronouns in the present verse were translated as second person (“you who kill…sent to you”). |
(0.18) | (Mat 12:4) | 3 sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was against the law is one of analogy: “If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.” Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along. |