³ tc The MT vocalizes אֲהֻבַת (ʾahuvat) as a construct form of the Qal passive participle and takes רֵעַ (reaʿ) as a genitive of agent: “who is loved by רֵעַ.” However, the ancient versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all vocalize אֲהֻבַת as an absolute form of the Qal active participle, and take רֵעַ as the accusative direct object: “who loves רֵעַ.” The English translations consistently follow the MT. The editors of BHS suggest the revocalization but with some reservation. For discussion of the vocalization, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:230.

¹ sn The word zither (Aramaic קִיתָרוֹס [qitaros]), and the words for harp (Aramaic פְּסַנְתֵּרִין [p^esanterin]) and pipes (Aramaic סוּמְפֹּנְיָה [sumpon^eyah]), are of Greek derivation. Though much has been made of this in terms of suggesting a date in the Hellenistic period for the writing of the book, it is not surprising that a few Greek cultural terms, all of them the names of musical instruments, should appear in this book. As a number of scholars have pointed out, the bigger surprise (if, in fact, the book is to be dated to the Hellenistic period) may be that there are so few Greek loanwords in Daniel.

² tc The LXX reads “neither tumult nor birth pains.” The LXX varies at many points from the MT in this chapter. The context suggests that one or both of these would be present on a day of judgment, thus favoring the MT. Perhaps more significant is the absence of “the mountains” in the LXX. If the ר (resh) in הָרִים (harim, “the mountains” not “on the mountains”) were a ד (dalet), which is a common letter confusion, then it could be from the same root as the previous word, הֵד (hed), meaning “the day is near—with destruction, not joyful shouting.”

² tn The noun גִּזְרָה (gizrah) is used primarily in Ezekiel 41-42 (7 of its 9 uses), where it refers to a separated area of the temple complex described in Ezekiel’s vision. It is not used of people other than here. Probably based on the reference to a precious stone, BDB 160 s.v. 1 postulated that it refers to the cutting or polishing of precious stones, but this is conjecture. The English versions handle this variously. D. R. Hillers suggests beards, hair, or eyebrows, relying on other ancient Near Eastern comparisons between lapis lazuli and the body (Lamentations [AB], 81).

⁴ tc The verb יִשְׁנֶא (yishneʾ, Qal imperfect third person feminine singular) is typically taken to be the only Qal imperfect of I שָׁנָהּ (shanah). Such a spelling with א (alef) instead of ה (he) is feasible. D. R. Hillers suggests the root שָׂנֵא (saneʾ, “to hate”): “Pure gold is hated.” This maintains the consonantal text and also makes sense in context. In either case the point is that gold no longer holds the same value, probably because there is nothing available to buy with it.

² tc The Kethib שְׁבִיתֵךְ (sh^evitekh) and the Qere שְׁבוּתֵךְ (sh^evutekh), which is preserved in many medieval Hebrew mss here and elsewhere (Ps 85:1 [85:2 HT]; 126:4; Job 42:10), are struggling with the root. The ancient versions take it from שָׁבָה (shavah), meaning “captivity.” Such a meaning is not tenable for the Job passage, which suggests, along with a similar phrase in the Sefire inscription, that the proper meaning is “to restore someone’s fortunes.” See HALOT 1386 s.v. שְׁבוּת.

¹ tn Heb “He sent fire from on high.” Normally God sends fire from heaven. The idiom מִמָּרוֹם (mimmarom, “from on high”) can still suggest the location but as an idiom may focus on the quality of the referent. For example, “to speak from on high” means “to presume to speak as if from heaven” = arrogantly (Ps 73:8); “they fight against me from on high” = proudly (Ps 56:3) (BDB 928-29 s.v. מָרוֹם). As a potential locative, מִמָּרוֹם designates God as the agent; idiomatically the same term paints him as pitiless.

⁹ tc The MT reads עָנְיִי (ʿonyi, “my affliction”) as reflected in all the ancient versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) and the medieval Hebrew mss. The Bohairic version and Ambrosius, however, read “her affliction,” which led the BHS editors to suggest a Vorlage of עָנְיָהּ (ʿonyah, “her affliction”). External evidence strongly favors the MT reading. The third person feminine singular textual variant probably arose out of an attempt to harmonize this form with all the other third person feminine singular forms in 1:1-11a. The MT is undoubtedly the original reading.

² tn Heb “all her splendor.” The third person feminine singular pronominal suffix (“her”) functions as a subjective genitive: “everything in which she gloried.” The noun הָדָר (hadar, “splendor”) is used of personal and impersonal referents in whom Israel gloried: Ephraim (Deut 33:17), Jerusalem (Isa 5:14), Carmel (Isa 35:2). The context focuses on the exile of Zion’s children (1:5c) and leaders (1:6bc). The departure of the children and leaders of Jerusalem going away into exile suggested to the writer the departure of the glory of Israel.

² tc The translation follows the suggestion of KBL 707 s.v. עָלַז and a number of modern commentaries (e.g., Bright, J. A. Thompson, and W. L. Holladay) in reading יְעֻלְּפוּ (yeʿull^efu), in the sense of “swoon away” or “grow faint” (see KBL 710 s.v. עָלַף Pual), instead of יַעֲלֹזוּ (yaʿalozu; “they will exult”). The former appears to be the verb read by the LXX (the Greek version) when they translated καρωθῶσιν (karōthōsin, “they will be stupefied”). For parallel usage KBL cites Isa 51:20. This fits the context much better than the Masoretic reading.

² tn Heb “Her towns have become a desolation, a dry land and a desert, a land any man does not live in them [i.e., “her towns”] and a son of man [= human being] does not pass through them.” Here the present translation has followed the suggestion of BHS and a number of the modern commentaries in deleting the second occurrence of the word “land,” in which case the words that follow are not a relative clause but independent statements. A number of modern English versions appear to ignore the third plural feminine suffixes that refer back to the cities and apply the statements that follow to the land.

¹ tn These two words are Akkadian loan words into Hebrew that often occur in this pairing (cf. Ezek 23:6, 12, 23; Jer 51:23, 28, 57). BDB 688 s.v. סָגָן (sagan) gives “prefect, ruler” as the basic definition for the second term, but neither works very well in a modern translation because “prefect” would be unknown to most readers, and “ruler” would suggest someone along the lines of a king, which these officials were not. The present translation has chosen “leaders” by default, assuming there is no other term that would be any more appropriate in light of the defects noted in “prefect” and “ruler.”

¹ tn Heb “the Chaldeans.” For explanation of the rendering see the study note on 21:4. There is no verb in this clause. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether this should be understood as a command or as a prediction. The presence of vav (ו) consecutive perfects after a similar construction in vv. 36b, d, 37c, 38a, and the imperfects after “therefore” (לָכֵן, lakhen), all suggest the predictive or future nuance. However, the vav consecutive perfect could be used to carry on the nuance of command (cf. GKC 333 §112.q), but not in the sense of purpose as NRSV and NJPS render them.

¹ tn Heb “From the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions, from the rattling of his chariots at the rumbling of their wheels, fathers will not turn to their children from sinking of hands.” According to BDB 952 s.v. רִפָּיוֹן, the “sinking of the hands” is figurative of helplessness caused by terror. A very similar figure appears with a related expression in Isa 35:3-4. The sentence has been restructured to put the subject up front and to suggest the same causal connections through shorter sentences more in keeping with contemporary English style. The figures have been interpreted for the sake of clarity for the average reader.

¹ tn Or “to thousands of generations.” In Exod 20:5-6; Deut 5:9-10; Exod 34:7 the contrast between showing steadfast love to “thousands” and the limitation of punishing the third and fourth generation of children for their parents’ sins has suggested to many commentators and translators (cf., e.g., NRSV, TEV, NJPS) that reference here is to “thousands of generations.” The statement is, of course, rhetorical, emphasizing God’s great desire to bless as opposed to the reluctant necessity of punishing. It is part of the attributes of God spelled out in Exod 34:6-7.

⁶ tn All the text says literally is, “Perhaps he can be enticed so that we can prevail over him.” However, the word “enticed” needs some qualification. As W. McKane (Jeremiah [ICC], 1:479) notes, it should probably be read in the context of the “stumbling” (= “something that would lead to my downfall”). Hence “slipping up” has been supplied as an object. It is vague enough to avoid specifics, as the original text does, but suggests some reference to “something that would lead to my downfall.”

¹ tn There may be a deliberate double meaning involved here. The word translated “an object of horror” refers both to destruction (cf. 2:15; 4:17) and the horror or dismay that accompanies it (cf. 5:30; 8:21). The fact that there is no conjunction or preposition in front of the noun “hissing” that follows this word suggests that the reaction is in view here, not its cause. So does “be filled with horror,” which translates an etymologically related verb.

² tc The translation is based on an emendation suggested in W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia), 1:500, n. b-b. The emendation involves following the reading preferred by the Masoretes (the Qere) and understanding and emending the preposition ב on the following word as the suffix ך on the word that precedes it. Thus the present translation reads וּסוּרֶיךָ אֶרֶץ (usurekha ʾerets) instead of וּסוּרַי בָּאֶרֶץ (usuray baʾerets, “and those who leave me will be written in the earth”), a reading which is highly improbable since all the other pronouns are second singular.

¹ tc Or “Through your own fault you will lose the land…” As W. McKane (Jeremiah [ICC], 1:386) notes, the ancient versions do not appear to be reading וּבְךָ (uv^ekha) as in the MT but possibly לְבַדְּךָ (l^evadd^ekha). The translation follows the suggestion in BHS that יָדְךָ (yad^ekha, literally “your hand”) be read for MT וּבְךָ. This has the advantage of fitting the idiom of this verb with “hand” in Deut 15:2 (see also v. 3 there). The Hebrew text thus reads, “You will release your hand from your heritage.”

² tc Or “I will give away your wealth, all your treasures, and your places of worship…” The translation follows the emendation suggested in the footnote in BHS, reading בִּמְחִיר (bimkhir) in place of בָּמֹתֶיךָ (bamotekha). The forms are graphically very close, and one could explain the origin of either from the other. The parallel in 15:13-14 reads לֹא בִּמְחִיר (loʾ bimkhir). The text here may be a deliberate play on that one. The emended text makes decidedly better sense contextually than the MT unless some sardonic reference to their idolatry is intended.