¹ tn Heb “or dark you cannot see.” Some commentators and the RSV follow the LXX in reading אוֹ (ʾo, “or”) as אוֹר (ʾor, “light”) and translate it “The light has become dark” or “Your light has become dark.” A. B. Davidson suggests the reading “Or seest thou not the darkness.” This would mean Job does not understand the true meaning of the darkness and the calamities.

³ tc The last word is problematic because of the textual variants in the Hebrew. In place of שַׁדִּין (shaddin, “judgment”) some have proposed שַׁדַּי (shadday, “Almighty”) and read it “that you may know the Almighty” (Ewald, Wright). Some have read it יֵשׁ דַּיָּן (yesh dayyan, “there is a judge,” Gray, Fohrer). Others defend the traditional view, arguing that the שׁ (shin) is the abbreviated relative particle on the word דִּין (din, “judgment”).

¹ tc The MT reads “in me.” If that is retained, then the question would be in the first colon, and the reasoning of the second colon would be Job’s. But over 100 mss have “in him,” and so this reading is accepted by most editors. The verse is a little difficult, but it seems to form a warning by Job that God’s appearance which will vindicate Job will bring judgment on those who persecute him and charge him falsely.

⁴ tn Heb “and cut me off.” The LXX reads this verse as “Let the Lord begin and wound me, but let him not utterly destroy me.” E. Dhorme (Job, 81) says the LXX is a paraphrase based on a pun with “free hand.” Targum Job has, “God has begun to make me poor; may he free his hand and make me rich,” apparently basing the reading on a metaphorical interpretation.

¹ tn Not everyone is satisfied with the reading of the MT. Gordis thought “day” should be “sea,” and “cursers” should be “rousers” (changing ʾalef to ʿayin; cf. NRSV). This is an unnecessary change, for there is no textual problem in the line (D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 71). Others have taken the reading “sea” as a personification and accepted the rest of the text, gaining the sense of “those whose magic binds even the sea monster of the deep” (e.g., NEB).

¹ tc The MT reads here “from the sons of Shecaniah” with no descendant identified in what follows, contrary to the pattern of the context elsewhere. However, it seems better to understand the first phrase of v. 3 with the end of v. 2; the phrase would then modify the name “Hattush.” This understanding requires emending the reading מִבְּנֵי (mibb^ene, “from the sons of”) in the MT to בֵּן (ben, “[the] son of”). Cf. NAB, TEV, CEV, NLT.

³ tc The MT reads מִפִּי (mippi, “from the mouth of”), but this should probably be emended to בְּפִי (b^efi, “by the mouth of”), which is the way the parallel passage in 2 Chr 36:22 reads. This is also reflected in the LXX, which is either reflecting an alternate textual tradition of בְּפִי or is attempting to harmonize Ezra 1:1 in light of 2 Chronicles.

² tc The translation follows some LXX mss (see 1 Chr 11:11 as well) in reading הוּא עוֹרֵר אֶת־חֲנִיתוֹ (huʾ ʿorer ʾet khanito, “he raised up his spear”) rather than the MT’s הוּא עֲדִינוֹ הָעֶצְנִי (huʾ ʿadino haʿetsni [Kethib = הָעֶצְנוֹ, haʿetsno]; “Adino the Ezenite”). The emended text reads literally “he was wielding his spear against eight hundred, [who were] slain at one time.”

⁴ tc The MT reads לְאֹהָלָיו (l^eʾohalayv, “to his tents”). For a similar idiom, see 19:9. An ancient scribal tradition understands the reading to be לֵאלֹהָיו (leʾlohav, “to his gods”). The word is a tiqqun sopherim, and the scribes indicate that they changed the word from “gods” to “tents” so as to soften its theological implications. In a consonantal Hebrew text the change involved only the metathesis of two letters.

¹ tc The MT here reads “the Ashurite,” but this is problematic if it is taken to mean “the Assyrian.” Ish Bosheth’s kingdom obviously was not of such proportions as to extend to Assyria. The Syriac Peshitta and the Vulgate render the word as “the Geshurite,” while the Targum has “of the house of Ashur.” We should probably emend the Hebrew text to read “the Geshurite.” The Geshurites lived in the northeastern part of the land of Palestine.

¹ tc Heb “with me.” The singular is used rather than the plural because the group is being treated as a singular entity, in keeping with Hebrew idiom. It is not necessary to read “with us,” rather than the MT “with me,” although the plural can be found here in a few medieval Hebrew mss. See also the LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate, although these versions may simply reflect an understanding of the idiom as found in the MT rather than a different textual reading.

² tc The translation follows the LXX (εἰς πόλεμον, eis polemon) and a Qumran ms למלחמה (lammilkhamah, “for battle”) rather than the MT’s בַמַּחֲנֶה (bammakhaneh, “in the camp”; cf. NASB). While the MT reading is not impossible here, and although admittedly it is the harder reading, the variant fits the context better. The MT can be explained as a scribal error caused in part by the earlier occurrence of “camp” in this verse.

¹ tc The MT has “to all of you.” If this reading is correct, we have here an example of a prepositional phrase functioning as the equivalent of a dative of advantage, which is not impossible from a grammatical point of view. However, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate all have “and.” A conjunction rather than a preposition should probably be read on the front of this phrase.

¹ tc The translation follows the LXX in reading “the mound,” rather than the MT’s “the south.” It is hard to see what meaning the MT reading “from beside the south” would have as it stands, since such a location lacks specificity. The NIV treats it as an elliptical expression, rendering the phrase as “from the south side of the stone (rock NCV).” This is perhaps possible, but it seems better to follow the LXX rather than the MT here.

² tc The LXX reads “Why did you look at my incense and my sacrifice with a shameless eye?” The LXX may have read the first verb as being from the root נָבַט (nabat) “to look at” rather than the rare בָּעַט (baʿat) “to kick.” And the final consonants of מָעוֹן (maʿon) are easily confused with עַיִן (ʿayin). But the rest of the variation appears inexplicable as a copying error from either direction.

¹ sn Many interpreters, reading this statement in the light of the Book of Judges which describes a morally corrupt period, assume that the narrator is painting a dark backdrop against which Ruth’s exemplary character and actions will shine even more brightly. However, others read this statement in the light of the book’s concluding epilogue which traces the full significance of the story to the time of David, the chosen king of Judah (4:18-22).

² tc The translation follows the reading of several ancient versions (LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate) in assuming the form וַיָּדָשׁ (vayyadash) from the verb דּוּשׁ (dush, “thresh”) as in v. 7. The MT reads instead the form וַיֹּדַע (vayyodaʿ, “make known”), a Hiphil form of יָדַע (yadaʿ). In this case one could translate, “he used them [i.e., the thorns and briers] to teach the men of Sukkoth a lesson.”

¹ tc Smr and some LXX mss read “they buried him,” that is, the Israelites. The MT reads “he buried him,” meaning in the context that “the Lord buried him.” This understanding, combined with the statement at the end of the verse that Moses’ burial place is unknown, gave rise to traditions during the intertestamental period that are reflected in the NT in Jude 9 and in OT pseudepigraphic works like the Assumption of Moses.

³ tn The passive form simply reads “those numbered by him.” Because of the cryptic nature of the word, some suggest reading a preterite, “and they were numbered.” This is supported by the Greek, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate. It would follow in the emendation that the relative pronoun be changed to “just as” (כַּאֲשֶׁר, kaʾasher). The MT is impossible the way it stands; it can only be rendered into smooth English by adding something that is missing.

³ tn The word בִּפְלִלִים (biflilim) means “with arbitrators.” The point then seems to be that the amount of remuneration for damages that was fixed by the husband had to be approved by the courts. S. R. Driver mentions an alternative to this unusual reading presented by Budde, reading בנפלים as “untimely birth” (Exodus, 219). See also E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963): 301-6.