¹ tn The word “considered” means “to plan carefully” in accordance with her purposes. The word is often used in the book of Proverbs for devising evil, but here it is used positively of the woman’s wise investment.

¹ tn The form is an active participle, יֹדֵעַ (yodeaʿ); it describes the righteous as “knowing, caring for, having sympathetic knowledge for, or considering favorably” the legal needs of the poor. Cf. NAB “has a care for”; NASB “is concerned for.”

² tn The form מַשְׂכִּיל (maskil) is now used with the meaning “to consider; to give attention to; to ponder.” It is the careful scrutiny that is given to the household of the wicked before judgment is poured out on them.

² tc Heb “consider as fat.” The verbal form should probably be emended to יְדַשְּׁנֶהָ (y^edash^eneha), the final he (ה) being understood as a third feminine singular pronominal suffix referring back to the feminine noun “burnt sacrifice.”

¹ tn The word is normally translated “believe” in the Bible. The idea is that of considering something dependable and acting on it. The idea of reliability is found also in the Niphal stem usages.

¹ tn Some translations treat the terms שֻׁפִּים (shuppim) and חֻפִּים (khuppim) as proper names of individuals (“Huppim” and “Shuppim”), but others consider these forms to be plurals and refer to tribal or clan names.

² tn Heb “heart.” In OT physiology the heart (לֵב, לֵבָב; levav, lev) was considered the seat of the mind or intellect, so that one could think with one’s heart. See A. Luc, NIDOTTE 2:749-54.

³ tn Heb “is an abomination.” The Hebrew word תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿevah, “abomination”) describes something that is loathsome or off-limits. For other practices the Egyptians considered disgusting, see Gen 43:32 and Exod 8:22.

² tn Or “disgraceful.” The Hebrew word תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿevah, “abomination”) describes something that is loathsome or off-limits. For other practices the Egyptians considered disgusting, see Gen 46:34 and Exod 8:22.

³ sn Only the wage we agreed on. Jacob would have to be considered completely honest here, for he would have no control over the kind of animals born; and there could be no disagreement over which animals were his wages.

² tn Or “I do not consider my life worth a single word.” According to BDAG 599 s.v. λόγος 1.a.α, “In the textually uncertain pass. Ac 20:24 the text as it stands in N., οὐδενὸς λόγου (v.l. λόγον) ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν, may well mean: I do not consider my life worth a single word (cp. λόγου ἄξιον [ἄξιος 1a] and our ‘worth mention’).”

³ tn The verb חָשַׁב (khashav) is a verb of recognition, which can be rendered with words like “think, plan, reckon, impute, consider, assign.” Uniquely in this verse, the verb has two objects (a double accusative) and a prepositional phrase with ל (lamed). Without the double accusative, the syntax of the verb would be straightforward. When the object of the verb is an attribute and the object of the preposition is a person, it means “consider X (the verb’s object) to apply to (ל) Y (person).” This also occurs when imputing guilt to someone (2 Sam 19:20; Ps 32:2); the attribute is functionally applied to someone. When the object of the verb and the object of the preposition are impersonal, it means “consider X to be Z.” Gen 15:6 has two direct objects and both are impersonal. The closest parallels use an additional preposition. For example, Job 19:11, “He considers me (object suffix) like (כ; kaf) his enemies toward (ל) him,” and Job 33:10 He considers me (object suffix) to be (ל) an enemy toward (ל) him.” So the normal uses of the verb include considering a trait or evaluation to apply to a person, and also considering one thing to be [like] another. The translation takes the two impersonal objects of the verb (the double accusative) as being equated, while the preposition (ל) indicates that the attribute is imputed to the personal object of the preposition. That is, the Lord considered it (Abram’s belief) to be צְדָקָה (tsedaqah; “righteousness”), and he imputed this righteousness to Abram. We might suppose different nuances to be possible for how the two accusatives relate. Is one the evidence of the other, the basis for the other, an expression of the other? Or are these questions imposed on the text? We should note that when imputing (חָשַׁב; khashav) guilt, or not imputing (i.e., forgiving) guilt (Ps 32:1-3) the emphasis is on the legal or relational standing. The concept of considering righteousness to apply to someone’s account also occurs without this verb, as in Deut 6:25 and 24:13 “it will be righteousness for you before the Lord your God.” While the act of obedience and motivation for it can be characterized as righteous, the emphasis is on the righteous standing that the obedient person has. Likewise, Abram’s righteous standing before God is of the greatest significance in this passage.

¹ tn The text has וְלֹא־שָׁת לִבּוֹ גַּם־לָזֹאת (v^eloʾ shat libbo gam lazoʾt), which literally says, “and he did not set his heart also to this.” To “set the heart” to something would mean “to consider it.” This Hebrew idiom means that he did not pay attention to it, or take it to heart (cf. 2 Sam 13:20; Pss 48:13; 62:10; Prov 22:17; 24:32). Since Pharaoh had not been affected by this, he did not consider it or its implications further.

² tn Some translations consider the word μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”) a part of the name written (“Mystery Babylon the Great,” so KJV, NIV), but the gender of both ὄνομα (onoma, “name”) and μυστήριον are neuter, while the gender of “Babylon” is feminine. This strongly suggests that μυστήριον should be understood as an appositive to ὄνομα (“a name, i.e., a mystery”).

³ tc Several witnesses (A C^vid 88 1243 1846 2492 al), influenced by the parallel in 2 Pet 2:13, read ἀπάταις (apatais, “deceptions”) for ἀγάπαις (agapais, “love-feasts”) in v. 12. However, ἀγάπαις has much stronger and earlier support and makes much better sense in the context; it should therefore be considered authentic.

³ tc The phrase καὶ ἐσμεν (kai esmen, “and we are”) is omitted in 049 69 1175 2492 M. There seems to be no theological reason to omit the words, though possibly some scribes considered it redundant. This has all the earmarks of a classic case of homoioteleuton, for the preceding word (κληθῶμεν, klēthōmen, “we should be called”) ends in -μεν (-men).

³ tc Most witnesses have the perfect participle κεκοιμημένων here (“who have fallen asleep” [D (F G) Ψ 1241 1505 1881 2464 M al]), but the present participle κοιμωμένων (“who are asleep”) is better supported by early and significant mss (א A B 0278 33 81 1175 1739 al) and should be considered the Ausgangstext.

³ sn Alexandria (modern Alexandria) was a great city of northern Egypt which was a center for grain trade to Rome. Therefore this type of travel connection was common at the time. For a winter journey (considered hazardous) there were special bonuses and insurance provided (Suetonius, Life of Claudius 18.1-2).

⁵ sn His father was Greek. Under Jewish law at least as early as the 2nd century, a person was considered Jewish if his or her mother was Jewish. It is not certain whether such a law was in effect in the 1st century, but even if it was, Timothy would not have been accepted as fully Jewish because he was not circumcised.

² tc Codex Bezae (D) and a few other witnesses lack the restriction “and from what has been strangled” (καὶ πνικτῶν, kai pniktōn), though the words are supported by a wide variety of early and significant witnesses otherwise and should be considered authentic.