³ sn The precise nature of the layout described here is not altogether clear. V. 4 speaks of the distance from the wall as being 500 yards; v. 5, however, describes measurements of 1,000 yards. Various proposals have been made in order to harmonize vv. 4 and 5. P. J. Budd, Numbers (WBC), 376, makes the following suggestion: “It may be best to assume that the cubits of the Levitical pasture lands are cubit frontages of land—in other words on each side of the city there was a block of land with a frontage of 2,000 cubits (v 5), and a depth of 1000 cubits (v 4).”

² tn Heb “in the day of he presented them to serve as priests to the Lord.” The grammar here is relatively unusual. First, the verb “presented” appears to be in the perfect rather than the infinitive (but see GKC 531), the latter being normal in such temporal expressions. Second, the active verb form appears to be used as a passive plural (“they were presented”). However, if it is translated active and singular then Moses would be the subject: “on the day he [Moses] offered them [Aaron and his sons].”

² tn The text simply has “and to give on you today a blessing.” Gesenius notes that the infinitive construct seems to be attached with a vav (ו; like the infinitive absolute) as the continuation of a previous finite verb. He reads the verb “fill” as an imperative: “fill your hand today…and that to bring a blessing on you, i.e., that you may be blessed” (see GKC 351 §114.p). If the preceding verb is taken as perfect tense, however, then this would also be perfect—“he has blessed you today.”

² tn The word וְזִמְרָת (v^ezimrat) is problematic. It probably had a suffix yod (י) that was accidentally dropped because of the yod (י) on the divine name following. Most scholars posit another meaning for the word. A meaning of “power” fits the line fairly well, forming a hendiadys with strength—“strength and power” becoming “strong power.” Similar lines are in Isa 12:2 and Ps 118:14. Others suggest “protection” or “glory.” However, there is nothing substantially wrong with “my song” in the line—only that it would be a nicer match if it had something to do with strength.

¹ tn The form וִישַׁלַּח (vishallakh) is the Piel imperfect or jussive with a sequential vav; following an imperative it gives the imperative’s purpose and intended result. They are to speak to Pharaoh, and (so that as a result) he will release Israel. After the command to speak, however, the second clause also indirectly states the content of the speech (cf. Exod 11:2; 14:2, 15; 25:2; Lev 16:2; 22:2). As the next verse shows, Moses doubts that what he says will have the intended effect.

⁴ sn Fire frequently accompanies the revelation of Yahweh in Exodus as he delivers Israel, guides her, and purifies her. The description here is unique, calling attention to the manifestation as a flame of fire from within the bush. Philo was the first to interpret the bush as Israel, suffering under the persecution of Egypt but never consumed. The Bible leaves the interpretation open. However, in this revelation the fire is coming from within the bush, not from outside, and it represents the Lord who will deliver his people from persecution. See further E. Levine, “The Evolving Symbolism of the Burning Bush,” Dor le Dor 8 (1979): 185-93.

³ sn The verb וַיַּךְ (vayyakh) is from the root נָכָה (nakhah, “to smite, attack”) which is used in v. 11. This new attack is fatal. The repetition of the verb, especially in Exodus, anticipates the idea of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” The problem is, however, that Moses was not authorized to take this matter into his own hands in this way. The question the next day was appropriate: “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?” The answer? No one—yet.

⁴ tn This clause is introduced with a disjunctive vav and the deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “behold” in the KJV). The particle in this kind of clause introduces the unexpected—what Pharaoh’s daughter saw when she opened the basket: “and look, there was a baby boy crying.” The clause provides a parenthetical description of the child as she saw him when she opened the basket and does not advance the narrative. It is an important addition, however, for it puts readers in the position of looking with her into the basket and explains her compassion.

² tn Heb “and he did for them so.” Joseph would appear to be the subject of the singular verb. If the text is retained, the statement seems to be a summary of the preceding, more detailed statement. However, some read the verb as plural, “and they did for them so.” In this case the statement indicates that Joseph’s subordinates carried out his orders. Another alternative is to read the singular verb as passive (with unspecified subject), “and this was done for them so” (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV).

² sn The name Asenath may mean “she belongs to the goddess Neit” (see HALOT 74 s.v. אָֽסְנַת). A novel was written at the beginning of the first century entitled Joseph and Asenath, which included a legendary account of the conversion of Asenath to Joseph’s faith in Yahweh. However, all that can be determined from this chapter is that their children received Hebrew names. See also V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph—a Haggadic Literary-Historical Study,” HUCA 1 (1924): 239-306.

¹ sn This valley was actually a wadi (a dry river bed where the water would flow in the rainy season, but this would have been rare in the Negev). The water table under it would have been higher than in the desert because of water soaking in during the torrents, making it easier to find water when digging wells. However, this does not minimize the blessing of the Lord, for the men of the region knew this too, but did not have the same results.

² tn Or “whose older brother was Japheth.” Some translations render Japheth as the older brother, understanding the adjective הַגָּדוֹל (haggadol, “older”) as modifying Japheth. However, in Hebrew when a masculine singular definite attributive adjective follows the sequence masculine singular construct noun plus proper name, the adjective invariably modifies the noun in construct, not the proper name. Such is the case here. See Deut 11:7; Judg 1:13; 2:7; 3:9; 9:5; 2 Kgs 15:35; 2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:30; Jer 13:9; 36:10; Ezek 10:19; 11:1.

⁴ sn The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (“dying spiritually, you will then die physically”). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.

² tc Many mss omit the phrase “it was given to make war with the saints and to overcome them” (P⁴⁷ A C 2053 M^A sa). It is, however, found in P^115vid א 051 1006 (1611) 1841 (1854) 2329 2344 2351 (M^K) lat sy^ph,(h) bo. Although the ms evidence is somewhat in favor of the shorter reading, the support of P¹¹⁵ (a recently-discovered ms) for the longer reading balances things out. Normally, the shorter reading should be given preference. However, in an instance in which homoioteleuton could play a role, caution must be exercised. In this passage, accidental omission is quite likely. That this could have happened seems apparent from the two occurrences of the identical phrase “and it was given to him” (καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, kai edothē autō) in v. 7. The scribe’s eye skipped over the first καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ and went to the second, hence creating an accidental omission of eleven words.

¹ tc Most mss (C Ψ 1611 1739^c 1244 M as well as a few versions and fathers) read “uncontrollable” (ἀκατασχετόν, akatascheton), while most of the more significant witnesses (א A B K P 1175 1243 1735 1739* latt co) have “restless” (ἀκατάστατον, akatastaton). Externally, the latter reading should be preferred. Internally, however, things get a bit more complex. The notion of being uncontrollable is well suited to the context, especially as a counterbalance to v. 8a, though for this very reason scribes may have been tempted to replace ἀκατάστατον with ἀκατασχετόν. In a semantically parallel early Christian text, ἀκατάστατος (akatastatos) was considered strong enough of a term to denounce slander as “a restless demon” (Herm. 27:3). On the other hand, ἀκατάστατον may have been substituted for ἀκατασχετόν by way of assimilation to 1:8 (especially since both words were relatively rare, scribes may have replaced the less familiar with one that was already used in this letter). On internal evidence, it is difficult to decide, though ἀκατασχετόν is slightly preferred. However, in light of the strong support for ἀκατάστατον, and the less-than-decisive internal evidence, ἀκατάστατον is deemed more likely to be the initial reading.

¹ tc Several early and significant witnesses, chiefly of the Western group (א* D* F G 365), lack ᾿Ιησοῦ (Iēsou, “Jesus”) here, while most Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (P⁴⁶ א¹ A B C D¹ Ψ 33 1175 1505 1739 [1881] 2464 M lat sy bo) have the word. However, because of the Western text’s proclivities to add or delete to the text, seemingly at whim, serious doubts should be attached to the shorter reading. It is strengthened, however, by א’s support. Nevertheless, since both א and D were corrected with the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ, their testimony might be questioned. Further, in majuscule script the nomina sacra here could have led to missing a word by way of homoioteleuton (cMuiMu). At the same time, in light of the rarity of scribal omissions of nomina sacra (see TCGNT 582, n. 1), a decision for inclusion of the word here must be tentative. NA²⁸ rightly places ᾿Ιησοῦ in brackets.

¹ tc The oldest and most significant witnesses to this text, as well as a few others (א* B 6 1739 sa^ms bo^pt), lack the words τῷ θεῷ (tō theō, “God”), while the rest have them. An accidental omission could well account for the shorter reading, especially since θεῷ would have been written as a nomen sacrum (eucaristwtwqMw). However, one might expect to see, in some mss at least, a dropping of the article but not the divine name. Internally, the Pauline introductory thanksgivings elsewhere always include τῷ θεῷ after εὐχαριστῶ (eucharistō, “I thank”; cf. Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4; Phil 1:3; Phlm 4; in the plural, note Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2). However, both the fact that this is already used in 1 Cor 1:4 (thus perhaps motivating scribes to add it ten verses later), and that in later portions of his letters Paul does not consistently use the collocation of εὐχαριστῶ with τῷ θεῷ (Rom 16:4; 1 Cor 10:30), might give one pause. Still, nowhere else in the corpus Paulinum do we see a sentence begin with εὐχαριστῶ without an accompanying τῷ θεῷ. A decision is difficult, but on balance it is probably best to retain the words.

¹ sn The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG [D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 922]). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [v. 3], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term “prominent” probably means “well known,” suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase “well known” which follows).

² tc A few witnesses lack με (me, “me”; א A a b e q sy^s,c), while the rest of the tradition has the word (P^66,75vid rell). It is possible that the mss that lack the pronoun preserve the original wording here, with the rest of the witnesses adding the pronoun for clarity’s sake. This likelihood increases since the object is not required in Greek. Without it, however, ambiguity increases: The referent could be “me” or it could be “signs,” reaching back to vv. 26 and 30. However, the oblique form of ἐγώ (egō, the first person personal pronoun) occurs some two dozen times in this chapter alone, yet it vacillates between the emphatic form and the unemphatic form. Although generally the unemphatic form is used with verbs, there are several exceptions to this in John (cf. 8:12; 12:26, 45, 48; 13:20; 14:9). If the pronoun is a later addition here, one wonders why it is so consistently the unemphatic form in the mss. Further, that two unrelated Greek witnesses lack this small word could easily be due to accidental deletion. Finally, the date and diversity of the witnesses for the pronoun are so weighty that it is likely to be authentic and should thus be retained in the text.

² tn Or perhaps “he.” Those who see the participle ἑστηκότα as masculine singular generally understand it to refer to the individual known as the Antichrist, often citing 2 Thess 2:3-4 as a related passage. By grammatical form the participle ἑστηκότα can also be neuter plural, however, and this is sometimes interpreted as referring to various abominations or atrocities committed during the intertestamental period, or to a statue set up in the temple, or to an altar constructed on top of the altar of burnt offering for the purpose of pagan sacrifices. Each of these views is not without difficulties. Confining the issue merely to the grammatical problem, the interpreter is forced to choose between a discrepancy in grammatical gender (the participle ἑστηκότα is masculine singular but the word it modifies, βδέλυγμα, is neuter singular) or a discrepancy in number (the participle ἑστηκότα is neuter plural but the word it modifies, βδέλυγμα, is neuter singular. Given that the issue is one of grammatical gender, however, it is still possible for the neuter head noun (βδέλυγμα) to refer to a masculine individual rather than a set of circumstances or a thing. The present translation uses “it” for the following pronoun, allowing a degree of ambiguity to remain for the English reader.