¹ tn Heb “if he is a man of strength [or ability].” In this context, where Adonijah calls himself a “servant,” implying allegiance to the new king, the phrase אִישׁ חַיִל (ʾish khayil) probably carries the sense of “a worthy man,” that is, “loyal” (see HALOT 311 s.v. חַיִל).

³ tn Either the word “shekels” should be supplied here, or the Hebrew word מִשְׁקַל (mishqal, “weight of”) right before “bronze” is a corrupted form of the word for shekel. If the latter is the case the problem probably resulted from another occurrence of the word מִשְׁקַל just four words earlier in the verse.

² tc Heb “were celebrating before the Lord with all woods of fir” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). If the text is retained, the last expression must be elliptical, referring to musical instruments made from fir wood. But it is preferable to emend the text in light of 1 Chr 13:8, which reads “were celebrating before the Lord with all strength and with songs.”

² sn If a water tunnel is in view here, it is probably the so-called Warren’s Shaft that extends up from Hezekiah’s tunnel. It would have provided a means for surprise attack against the occupants of the City of David. The LXX seems not to understand the reference here, translating “by the water shaft” as “with a small knife.”

¹ tc The expression “the cities of Hebron” is odd; we would expect the noun to be in the singular, if used at all. Although the Syriac Peshitta has the expected reading “in Hebron,” the MT is clearly the more difficult reading and should probably be retained here.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has simply “the Lord God of Israel.” On the basis of the Syriac version, many reconstruct the text to read “[is] my witness,” which may have fallen out of the text by homoioarcton (an error which is entirely possible if עֵד (ʿed, “witness,”) immediately followed דָּוִד, “David,” in the original text).

¹ tn Or “an injurious spirit”; cf. NLT “a tormenting spirit.” The phrase need not refer to an evil, demonic spirit. The Hebrew word translated “evil” may refer to the character of the spirit or to its effect upon Saul. If the latter, another translation option might be “a mischief-making spirit.”

¹ tn Heb “the price was.” The meaning of the Hebrew word פְּצִירָה (p^etsirah) is uncertain. This is the only place it occurs in the OT. Some propose the meaning “sharpening,” but “price” is a more likely meaning if the following term refers to a weight (see the following note on the word “shekel”). See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 238.

¹ tn This apparently refers to the instructions given by Samuel in 1 Sam 10:8. If so, several years had passed. On the relationship between chs. 10 and 13, see V. P. Long, The Art of Biblical History (FCI), 201-23.

¹ tn The Hebrew has a preterite verb, normally “and then he said.” In this case it gives the next event in a sequence that is modal and describes something typical in past time. Most English translations add “if” because this is a possible and common scenario rather than a specific incident only.

² tn Heb “proudly, proudly.” If MT is original, the repetition of the word is for emphasis, stressing the arrogance of those addressed. However, a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts and some other textual witnesses do not reflect the repetition, suggesting that the Hebrew text may be dittographic.

⁴ sn This Hebrew verb, the Hishtaphel of חָוָה (havah), means “to bow down” or “to prostrate oneself.” When bowing to the Lord it is a gesture of worship. In this context, if Samuel is the subject (see the previous tc note), he demonstrates reverence to the Lord regarding his mother’s vow.

³ tc NET follows the LXX: “her face was no longer fallen.” The MT reads: “her face, it did not belong to her any more.” The Hebrew is difficult to interpret; we may wonder if it is idiomatic for her expression having changed.

² sn Here it appears that the acquisition of Ruth along with the land was an obligatory package deal (“When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth…”). On the other hand, Boaz viewed marriage to Ruth as voluntary in 3:13 (“If he does not want to redeem you, I will redeem you”), and presented the acquisition of the field as voluntary in 4:4 (“If you want to exercise your right…but if not, tell me!”). Initially, Boaz makes the transaction appear to be a mere land deal in 4:4. When the nearest relative jumped at the land offer, Boaz confronted him with the attendant social/family obligation of marrying Ruth to raise up an heir for the deceased to inherit this very land. By conducting the transaction in public where the close relative would need to save face, Boaz forced him either to reject the offer entirely or to include Ruth in the deal—but he could not take the land and reject Ruth. Either way, Ruth would be cared for and Elimelech’s line continued. But if he took Ruth, the acquisition of the land would be more economically burdensome than beneficial, so he yielded his purchase option to Boaz. For discussion, see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 229-33.

⁴ tn Heb “but if he will not redeem, tell me.” Most English versions emend the third person verb form (“he”) to the second person form because Boaz is addressing the closer relative. But it is possible that he briefly addresses the witnesses and refers to the closer relative in the third person. See J. M. Sasson, Ruth, 118.

² tc Some Hebrew mss and ancient witnesses read the singular, “your servant,” which would refer to the Levite. If one retains the plural, then both the Levite and his wife are in view. In either case the pronominal suffix emphasizes their dependence on the old man for shelter.

² tn The Hebrew text expands with the phrase: “and the Levite went.” This only makes sense if taken with “to live” in the next verse. Apparently “the Levite went” and “the Levite agreed” are alternative readings which have been juxtaposed in the text.

¹ tn Heb “Who your name? For [when] your word comes [to pass], we will honor you.” Manoah apparently gets tongue-tied and uses the wrong pronoun (“who” instead of “what”). He starts to say, “Who are you?” But then he switches to “your name” as if he began the sentence with “what.” See R. G. Boling, Judges (AB), 222.

² tn Heb “To everything I said to the woman she should pay attention.” The Hebrew word order emphasizes “to everything,” probably because Manoah’s wife did not tell her husband everything the angel had said to her (cf. vv. 3-5 with v. 7). If she had, Manoah probably would not have been so confused about the child’s mission.

² sn If only these men were under my command. One might assume from v. 26b that the men were already at his disposal, but perhaps that was not one of the terms of the agreement. Another possibility is that v. 26 is a general summary statement, with vv. 27-29 then detailing how the alliance with Gaal came about.