¹ tn “Hadad Rimmon” is a compound of the names of two Canaanite deities, the gods of storm and thunder respectively. The grammar (a subjective genitive) allows, and the problem of comparing Israel’s grief at God’s “wounding” with pagan mourning seems to demand, that this be viewed as a place name, perhaps where Judah lamented the death of good king Josiah (cf. 2 Chr 35:25). However, some translations render this as “for” (NRSV, NCV, TEV, CEV), suggesting a person, while others translate as “of” (KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NLT) which is ambiguous.

¹ tn The present translation assumes מֹרְאָה (morʾah) is derived from רֹאִי (roʾi, “excrement”; see Jastrow 1436 s.v. רֳאִי). The following participle, “stained,” supports this interpretation (cf. NEB “filthy and foul”; NRSV “soiled, defiled”). Another option is to derive the form from מָרָה (marah, “to rebel”); in this case the term should be translated “rebellious” (cf. NASB, NIV “rebellious and defiled”). This idea is supported by v. 2. For discussion of the two options, see HALOT 630 s.v. I מרא and J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 206.

⁷ tc The MT reads מְתֹפְפֹת עַל לִבְבֵהֶן (m^etof^efot ’al liv^evehen, “beating upon their hearts [= breasts]”). The LXX reading φθεγγόμεναι ἐν καρδίαις αὐτῶν (phthengomenai en kardiais autōn, “moaning in their hearts”) reflects either an alternate textual tradition or simple textual confusion. The Greek participle φθεγγόμεναι seems to reflect either: (1) the Qal participle הֹגוֹת (hogot) from הָגָה (hagah, “to moan”) as reflected in Targum Jonathan and Vulgate or (2) the Poel participle מְנֹהֲגוֹת (m^enohagot, “moaning”) from II נָהַג (“to moan”) which appears in the previous line, pointing to a transposition of words between the two lines.

² tn The syntax of this line has been understood both as a single clause (NRSV, NASB, NIV) and as two parallel clauses (KJV). The LXX reflects the latter, “God is jealous, and the Lord avenges.” Masoretic accentuation and Hebrew syntax support the former, that is, the accentuation links קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (qannoʾ v^enoqem, “jealous and avenging”) together. Normal word order suggests that קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם (“jealous and avenging”) are attributive adjectives modifying אֵל (ʾel, “God”) and that the Lord is the subject. Another possibility is that the adjectives are a case of hendiadys and should be understood as “The Lord is a zealously avenging God.”

¹ sn Heb “on whose account.” Jonah and the sailors appear to show dialectical sensitivity to each other in how they say this. To each other, the Phoenician sailors say בְּשֶׁלְּמִי (b^eshell^emi) in vs 7. To Jonah, they say ‏בַּאֲשֶׁר לְמִי (baʾasher l^emi) in vs 8. But Jonah says בְּשֶׁלִּי (beshelli) to the sailors in vs 12. The two forms, including שֶׁ (she) vs. אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher) mean the same thing, but the form with שֶׁ is expected for the Phoenicians. אֲשֶׁר is far more common in Hebrew, while the more rare שֶׁ is often considered a northern or late feature when it occurs.

¹ tn Heb “Arise, go.” The two imperatives without an intervening vav (קוּם לֵךְ, qum lekh; “Arise, go!”), form a verbal hendiadys in which the first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal force: “Go immediately.” This construction emphasizes the urgency of the command. The translations “Go at once” (NRSV, NJPS) or simply “Go!” (NIV) are better than the traditional “Arise, go” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NASB) or “Get up and go” (NLT). For similar constructions with קוּם, see Gen 19:14-15; Judg 4:14; 8:20-21; 1 Sam 9:3.

² tc The MT reads a third feminine plural suffix, which could refer to the two kingdoms (Judah and Israel) or, more literally, to the breaches in the walls of the cities that are mentioned in v. 14 (cf. 4:3). Some emend to third feminine singular, since the “hut” of the preceding line (a feminine singular noun) might be the antecedent. In that case, the final nun (ן) is virtually dittographic with the vav (ו) that appears at the beginning of the following word.

² tn Heb “I will not smell.” These verses are full of vivid descriptions of the Lord’s total rejection of Israelite worship. In the first half of this verse two verbs are used together for emphasis. Here the verb alludes to the sense of smell, a fitting observation since offerings would have been burned on the altar ideally to provide a sweet aroma to God (see, e.g., Lev 1:9, 13, 17; Num 29:36). Other senses that are mentioned include sight and hearing in vv. 22-23.

⁴ tn Heb “he who makes dawn, darkness.” The meaning of the statement is unclear. The present translation assumes that allusion is made to God’s approaching judgment, when the light of day will be turned to darkness (see 5:20). Another interpretation is, “He makes the dawn [and] the darkness.” A few Hebrew mss, as well as the LXX, add the conjunction (“and”) between the two nouns. A third possibility is, “He turns darkness into glimmering dawn” (NJPS). See S. M. Paul (Amos [Hermeneia], 154), who takes שָׁחַר (shakhar) as “blackness” rather than “dawn” and עֵיפָה (ʿefah) as “glimmering dawn” rather than “darkness.”

¹ sn The rhetorical questions in vv. 3-5 expect the answer, “No, of course not!” Those in v. 6 anticipate the answer, “Yes, of course they do/he is.” They all draw attention to the principle of cause and effect and lay the logical foundation for the argument in vv. 7-8. Also note the progression from a general question in v. 3 to the “meetings” of two animals (v. 4), to that of an animal and a human trap (v. 5), to a climax with the confrontation with the Lord (v. 6). Each of these meetings is disastrous.

⁵ tn The Hebrew text does not have “the Lord.” Two interpretations are possible. This clause may refer to the enemy described in the immediately preceding verses, in which case it would have a negative sense: “he has acted in a high-handed manner.” Or it may refer to the Lord, in which case it would have a positive sense: “the Lord has acted in a marvelous manner.” This is clearly the sense of the same expression in v. 21, where in fact “the Lord” appears as the subject of the verb. It seems best to understand the clause the same way in both verses.

² tn Heb “darkness and gloom.” These two terms probably form a hendiadys here. This picture recalls the imagery of the supernatural darkness in Egypt during the judgments of the exodus (Exod 10:22). These terms are also frequently used as figures (metonymy of association) for calamity and divine judgment (Isa 8:22; 59:9; Jer 23:12; Zeph 1:15). Darkness is often a figure (metonymy of association) for death, dread, distress and judgment (BDB 365 s.v. חשֶׁךְ 3).

³ tn The two infinitive absolutes אָלוֹת (ʾalot, Qal infinitive absolute from II אָלָה, ʾalah, “to swear an oath”; BDB 46 s.v. II אָלָה) and כָּרֹת (karot, Qal infinitive absolute from כָּרַת, karat, “to make [a covenant]”; BDB 503 s.v. כָּרַת 4), which appear without conjunctions, continue the description of the action of the preceding finite verb דִּבְּרוּ (dibb^eru, Piel perfect third person common plural from דָּבַר, davar, “to speak”). Although the infinitives continue the description of the action of the finite verb, they call special attention to the action of the infinitive rather than the action of the finite verb. See IBHS 595 §35.5.2b.

¹ tc The MT reads וְשַׁחֲטָה שֵׂטִים הֶעְמִיקוּ (v^eshakhatah setim heʿmiqu), “and rebels have made deep the slaughter.” The BHS editors propose וְשַׁחַת הַשִּׁטִּים הֶעְמִיקוּ (v^eshakhat hashittim heʿmiqu), “they have made the pit of Shittim [place of idolatry] deep” (cf. NRSV, TEV, NLT; see BDB 1006 s.v. שַׁחֲטָה). This involves: (1) phonological confusion between the similar sounding consonants ת (tav) and ט (tet), (2) redivision of words to take ה (hey) as the article with הַשִּׁטִּים rather than as a feminine noun ending of וְשַׁחֲטָה, and (3) revocalization of הַשִּׁטִּים with the two dagesh forte’s. Retaining the reading of the MT is preferable here.

² tn Or “ancestor”; or “predecessor” (also in vv. 11, 13, 18). The Aramaic word translated “father” can on occasion denote these other relationships. Concerning the difficulty in tracing the lineage of Belshazzar, whose actual father was Nabonidus, back to Nebuchadnezzar, J. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC), 108, argues that, “The two chief points in neo-Babylonian history are the empire’s rise under Nebuchadnezzar and its fall under Nabonidus/Belshazzar, so that ‘Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar’ summarizes and reflects the general historical facts of the period.”

¹ sn According to W. F. Lanahan (“The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations” JBL 93 [1974]: 48), the persona or speaking voice in chap. 4 is a bourgeois, the common man. This voice is somewhat akin to the reporter in chs 1-2 in that much of the description is in the third person. However, “the bourgeois has some sense of identity with his fellow-citizens,” seen in the shift to the first person plural. The alphabetic acrostic structure reduces to two bicola per letter. The first letter of only the first line in each stanza spells the acrostic.

² tn Heb “he has destroyed and smashed her bars.” The two verbs אִבַּד וְשִׁבַּר (ʾibbad v^eshibbar) form a verbal hendiadys that emphasizes the forcefulness of the destruction of the locking bars on the gates. The first verb functions adverbially, and the second retains its full verbal sense: “he has smashed to pieces.” Several English versions render this expression literally and miss the rhetorical point: “he has ruined and broken” (RSV, NRSV), “he has destroyed and broken” (KJV, NASB), and “he has broken and destroyed” (NIV). The hendiadys has been correctly noted by others: “smashed to pieces” (TEV, CEV) and “smashed to bits” (NJPS).

⁶ sn Lam 1-2 has two speaking voices: a third person voice reporting the horrific reality of Jerusalem’s suffering and Jerusalem’s voice. See W. F. Lanahan, “The Speaking Voice in the Book of Lamentations” JBL 93 (1974): 41-49. The reporting voice has been addressing the listener, referring to the Lord in the third person. Here he switches to a second person address to God, also changing the wording of the following command to second person. The revulsion of the reporter is so great that he is moved to address God directly.

² tn Heb “Runner will run to meet runner, and messenger to meet messenger, to report to the king of Babylon that his city has been taken in [its] entirety.” There is general agreement among the commentaries that the first two lines refer to messengers converging on the king of Babylon from every direction, bringing news the sum total of which is reported in the lines that follow. For the meaning of the last phrase see BDB 892 s.v. קָצֶה 3 and compare the usage in Gen 19:4 and Isa 56:11. The sentence has been broken down and restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.

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.”