³ tc The MT reads the plural לְעֶגְלוֹת (l^eʿeglot, “for the calves”), while some Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion) and the Syriac reflect the singular לְעֵגֶל (“for the calf [calf idol]”). The singular reading is preferred on the basis of internal evidence: the oracle denounces the calf-idol worship of Samaria. The plural form probably arose due to the ambiguity of the term “calf” when a scribe did not realize that the term was being used as a metonymy for the worship of the Egyptian calf goddess. Most recent English versions adopt the singular form and relate it to the calf goddess cult (RSV, NASB, NIV, NCV, NJPS, TEV, CEV, NLT); however, older English versions follow the MT plural (KJV, ASV).

¹ tn The two suffix-conjugation verbs חָצַבְתִּי (khatsavti, Qal perfect first person common singular from חָצַב, khatsav, “to cut into pieces”) and הֲרַגְתִּים (haragtim, Qal perfect first person common singular + third person masculine plural suffix from הָרַג, harag, “to kill”) are used in reference to future-time events. These are examples of the so-called “prophetic perfect,” which emphasizes the certainty of the future event (e.g., Num 24:17; Josh 10:19; Isa 8:23 HT [9:1 ET]; 9:1 HT [9:2 ET]). For this function of the perfect, see IBHS 480-81 §30.1d. Most English versions, however, render these as past tenses.

⁴ tn The meaning of the noun רֵעַ (reaʿ) is debated because it has a broad range of meanings: (1) “friend,” (2) “lover,” (3) “companion,” (4) “neighbor,” and (5) “another” (HALOT 1253-55 s.v. II רֵעַ; BDB 945-46 s.v. II רֵעַ). The Hebrew lexicons favor the nuance “lover; paramour” here (HALOT 1255 s.v. 2; BDB 946 s.v. 1). Most scholars adopt the same approach; however, a few suggest that רֵעַ does not refer to another man, but to her husband (Hosea). Both approaches are reflected in English translations. NASB has “a woman who is loved by her husband”; NIV, “though she is loved by another”; NAB, “a woman beloved of a paramour”; KJV, “a woman beloved of her friend”; NJPS, “a woman who, while befriended by a companion”; TEV, “a woman who is committing adultery with a lover”; and CEV, “an unfaithful woman who has a lover.”

³ tn The plural form of דָּם (dam, “blood”) refers to “bloodshed” (BDB 196 s.v. דָּם 2.f). This is an example of a plural of abnormal condition (GKC 400 §124.n). The plural is used to represent natural objects that are found in an unnatural or abnormal condition. The plural is used because the natural object is normally found as a whole or in one unit, but in the abnormal condition the object is found in many parts. Normally, blood is contained as a whole within the body. However, when a brutal murder occurs, blood is shed and literally spilled all over the place (cf. NIV “the massacre”; TEV, CEV, NLT “the murders”).

¹ sn The identity of this king is problematic. If vv. 36-45 continue the description of Antiochus Epiphanes, the account must be viewed as erroneous, since the details do not match what is known of Antiochus’ latter days. Most modern scholars take this view, concluding that this section was written just shortly before the death of Antiochus and that the writer erred on several key points as he tried to predict what would follow the events of his own day. Conservative scholars, however, usually understand the reference to shift at this point to an eschatological figure, viz., the Antichrist. The chronological gap that this would presuppose to be in the narrative is not necessarily a problem, since by all accounts there are many chronological gaps throughout the chapter, as the historical figures intended by such expressions as “king of the north” and “king of the south” repeatedly shift.

¹ sn The king of the south is Ptolemy I Soter (ca. 323-285 b.c.). The following reference to one of his subordinates apparently has in view Seleucus I Nicator (ca. 311-280 b.c.). Throughout the remainder of chap. 11 the expressions “king of the south” and “king of the north” repeatedly occur. It is clear, however, that these terms are being used generically to describe the Ptolemaic king (i.e., “of the south”) or the Seleucid king (i.e., “of the north”) who happens to be in power at any particular time. The specific identity of these kings can be established more or less successfully by a comparison of this chapter with the available extra-biblical records that discuss the history of the intertestamental period. In the following notes the generally accepted identifications are briefly mentioned.

¹ sn The language of evenings and mornings is reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1. Since “evening and morning” is the equivalent of a day, the reference here would be to 2,300 days. However, some interpreters understand the reference to be to the evening sacrifice and the morning sacrifice, in which case the reference would be to only 1,150 days. Either way, the event that marked the commencement of this period is unclear. The event that marked the conclusion of the period was the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem following the atrocious and sacrilegious acts that Antiochus implemented. This took place on December 25, 165 b.c. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah each year commemorates this victory.

¹ sn The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be ca. 605 b.c. At this time Daniel would have been a teenager. The reference to Jehoiakim’s third year poses a serious crux interpretum, since elsewhere these events are linked to his fourth year (Jer 25:1; cf. 2 Kgs 24:1; 2 Chr 36:5-8). Apparently Daniel is following an accession year chronology, whereby the first partial year of a king’s reign was reckoned as the accession year rather than as the first year of his reign. Jeremiah, on the other hand, is following a nonaccession year chronology, whereby the accession year is reckoned as the first year of the king’s reign. In that case, the conflict is only superficial. Most modern scholars, however, have concluded that Daniel is historically inaccurate here.

¹ tn The compound conjunction כִּי אִם (ki ʾim) functions to limit the preceding clause: “unless, or…” (e.g., Ruth 3:18; Isa 65:6; Amos 3:7) (BDB 474 s.v. 2.a): “Bring us back to yourself…unless you have utterly rejected us” (as in the present translation), or “Bring us back to yourself…Or have you utterly rejected us?” It is Jeremiah’s plea that the Lord be willing to relent of his anger and restore a repentant nation to himself. However, Jeremiah acknowledges that this wished-for restoration might not be possible if the Lord has become so angry with Jerusalem/Judah that he is determined to reject the nation once and for all. Then, Jerusalem/Judah’s restoration would be impossible.

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 tn Heb “he stretched out a measuring line.” In Hebrew, this idiom is used (1) literally: to describe a workman’s preparation of measuring and marking stones before cutting them for building (Job 38:5; Jer 31:39; Zech 1:16), and (2) figuratively: to describe the Lord’s planning and preparation to destroy a walled city, that is, to mark off for destruction (2 Kgs 21:13; Isa 34:11; Lam 2:8). It is not completely clear how a phrase from the vocabulary of building becomes a metaphor for destruction; however, it might picture a predetermined and carefully planned measure from which God will not deviate.

⁴ tn The verb יָעִיב (yaʿiv) is a hapax legomenon (a term that appears only once in the Hebrew OT). Most lexicons take it as a denominative verb from the noun עָב (ʿov, “cloud,” HALOT 773 s.v. II עָב; BDB 728 s.v. עוּב): Hiphil imperfect third person masculine singular from עוֹב (’ov), meaning “cover with a cloud, make dark” (HALOT 794 s.v. עוב) or “becloud” (BDB 728 s.v.): “the Lord has covered Daughter Zion with the cloud of His anger.” This approach is followed by many English versions (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV). However, a few scholars relate it to a cognate Arabic verb denoting “blame, revile” (Ehrlich, Rudolph, Hillers): “the Lord has shamed Daughter Zion in His anger.” Several English versions adopt this (NRSV, NJPS, CEV). The picture of cloud and wrath concurs with the stanza’s connection to “day of the Lord” imagery.

² tn Heb “she has become an object of head-nodding” (לְנִידָה הָיָתָה, l^eniydah hayatah). This reflects the ancient Near Eastern custom of shaking the head in scorn (e.g., Jer 18:16; Ps 44:15 [14 HT]), hence the translation “object of scorn.” There is debate whether נִידָה (nidah) means (1) “object of head-shaking” from נוּד (nud, “to shake,” BDB 626-27 s.v. נוּד); (2) “unclean thing” from נָדַה (nadah, “to be impure”); or (3) “wanderer” from נָדַד (nadad, “to wander,” BDB 622 s.v. I נָדַד). The LXX and Rashi connected it to נָדַד (nadad, “to wander”); however, several important early Greek recensions (Aquila and Symmachus) and Syriac translated it as “unclean thing.” The modern English versions are split: (1) “unclean thing” (NASB); “unclean” (NIV); (2) “a mockery” (NRSV).

⁴ sn Two thirds of Lamentations is comprised of enjambed lines (the syntax of a line carries on to the next line without a pause) rather than Hebrew poetry’s more frequent couplets of parallel phrasing. This serves a rhetorical effect not necessarily apparent if translated in the word order of English prose. Together with the alphabetic acrostic form, these pull the reader/hearer along through the various juxtaposed pictures of horror and grief. For further study on the import of these stylistic features to the function of Lamentations see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations (IBC), 12-20; idem, “The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1),” ZAW 113/2 (2001): 219-39; idem, “The Effects of Enjambment in Lamentations,” ZAW 113/5 (2001): 1-16. However, for the sake of English style and clarity, the translation does not necessarily reflect the Hebrew style and word order.

⁵ tn Heb “Bring up horses like bristly locusts.” The meaning of the Hebrew word “bristly” (סָמָר, samar) is uncertain because the word only occurs here. It is generally related to a verb meaning “to bristle” that occurs in Job 4:15 and Ps 119:120. Exactly what is meant by “bristly” in connection with “locust” is uncertain, though most relate it to a stage of the locust in which its wings are still encased in a rough, horny casing. J. A. Thompson (Jeremiah [NICOT], 759) adds that this is when the locust is very destructive. However, no other commentary mentions this. Therefore the present translation omits the word because it is of uncertain meaning and significance. For a fuller discussion of the way the word has been rendered, see W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 2:427.

⁴ sn Media was a country in what is now northwestern Iran. At the time this prophecy was probably written, they were the dominating force in the northern region, the most likely enemy to Babylon. By the time Babylon fell in 538 b.c., the Medes had been conquered and incorporated in the Persian empire by Cyrus. However, several times in the Bible this entity is known under the combined entity of Media and Persia (Esth 1:3, 4, 18, 19; 10:2; Dan 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 8:20). Dan 5:31 credits the capture of Babylon to Darius the Mede, which may have been either another name for Cyrus or the name by which Daniel refers to a Median general named Gobryas.

¹ tc Heb “A drought [be] against her waters, and they will dry up.” Several of the commentaries and modern English versions accept the emendation proposed by BHS and read here “sword” (חֶרֶב [kherev] in place of חֹרֶב [khorev, “drought”], the change of only one vowel), in keeping with the rest of the context. According to BHS this reading is supported by the Lucianic and Hexaplaric recensions of the LXX (the Greek version) and the Syriac version. In this case, the drying up of the waters (of the canals) is attributed to neglect brought about by war conditions. However, it is just as likely that these versions are influenced by the repetition of the word “sword” as that the Hebrew and the other versions are influenced by the concept of “drying up” of the waters to read “drought.” Hence the present translation, along with the majority of modern English versions, retains the Hebrew “drought.”

¹ sn This verse appears to be a parenthetical exclamation of the prophet in the midst of his report of what the Lord said through him. He throws himself into the future, sees the fall of Babylon, and hears the people reporting in Zion how God has destroyed Babylon to get revenge for the Babylonians destroying his temple. Jeremiah prophesied from 627 b.c. (see the study note on 1:2) until sometime after 586 b.c., after Jerusalem fell and he was taken to Egypt. The fall of Babylon occurred in 538 b.c., some fifty years later. However, Jeremiah had prophesied, as early as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (605 b.c.; Jer 25:1), that many nations and great kings would come and subject Babylon, the instrument of God’s wrath—his sword against the nations—to bondage (Jer 25:12-14).

¹ tn Heb “How broken and shattered is the hammer of all the earth!” The “hammer” is a metaphor for Babylon, which was God’s war club to shatter the nations and destroy kingdoms, just like Assyria is represented in Isa 10:5 as a rod and a war club. Some readers, however, might not pick up on the metaphor or identify the referent, so the translation has incorporated an identification of the metaphor and the referent within it. “See how” and “See what” are an attempt to capture the nuance of the Hebrew particle אֵיךְ (ʾekh), which here expresses an exclamation of satisfaction in a taunt song (cf. BDB 32 s.v. אֵיךְ 2 and compare usage in Isa 14:4, 12; Jer 50:23).