(0.28) | (Job 10:6) | 1 tn The clause seems to go naturally with v. 4: do you have eyes of flesh…that you have to investigate? For that reason some like Duhm would delete v. 5. But v. 5 adds to the premise: are you also like a human running out of time that you must try to find out my sin? |
(0.28) | (Job 8:16) | 4 tc Some have emended this phrase to obtain “over the roofs.” The LXX has “out of his corruption.” H. M. Orlinsky has shown that this reading arose from an internal LXX change, saprias having replaced prasias, “garden” (JQR 26 [1935/36]: 134-35). |
(0.28) | (Job 6:12) | 1 sn The questions imply negative answers. Job is saying that it would take great strength to hold up under these afflictions, but he is only flesh and bone. The sufferings have almost completely overwhelmed him. To endure all of this to the end he would need a strength he does not have. |
(0.28) | (Job 6:5) | 5 tn Most translations have “low” (ASV, ESV, Holman, KJV, NASB); a few have “bellow” (CEB, NIV, NLV). The verb is rare but cognate languages suggest a loud sound (e.g. Syriac “to scream” Ugaritic “to roar,” see HALOT 199). The rhetorical question expects a “no” answer and context suggests that the (unexpected) sound would convey discontent or complaint. |
(0.28) | (Job 1:15) | 1 tn The LXX has “the spoilers spoiled them” instead of “the Sabeans swooped down.” The translators might have connected the word to שְָׁבָה (shavah, “to take captive”) rather than שְׁבָא (shevaʾ, “Sabeans”), or they may have understood the name as general reference to all types of Bedouin invaders from southern Arabia (HALOT 1381 s.v. שְׁבָא 2.c). |
(0.28) | (Neh 2:8) | 2 tc One medieval Hebrew MS, the Syriac Peshitta, Vulgate, and the Arabic read here the plural וּלְחוֹמוֹת (ulekhomot, “walls”) against the singular וּלְחוֹמַת (ulekhomat) in the MT. The plural holem vav (וֹ) might have dropped out due to dittography or the plural form might have been written defectively. |
(0.28) | (2Ki 10:1) | 2 tn Heb “to the officers of Jezreel, the elders, and to the guardians of Ahab, saying.” It is not certain why the officials of Jezreel would be in Samaria. They may have fled there after they heard what happened to Joram and before Jehu entered the city. They would have had time to flee while Jehu was pursuing Ahaziah. |
(0.28) | (1Ki 12:16) | 1 sn We have no portion in David; no share in the son of Jesse. Their point seems to be that they have no familial relationship with David that brings them any benefits or places upon them any obligations. They are being treated like outsiders. |
(0.28) | (1Sa 10:19) | 1 tc The translation follows many medieval Hebrew mss, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate in reading לֹא (loʾ, “not”) rather than the MT לוֹ (lo; “to him”). Some witnesses combine the variants, resulting in a conflated text. For example, a few medieval Hebrew mss have לֹא לוֹ (lo loʾ; “to him, ‘No.’”). A few others have לֹא לִי (li loʾ; “to me, ‘No.’”). |
(0.28) | (1Sa 4:7) | 1 tn The Hebrew text has a direct quote, “because they said, ‘Gods have come to the camp.’” Even though the verb translated “have come” is singular, the following subject should be taken as plural (“gods”), as v. 8 indicates. Some emend the verb to a plural form. |
(0.28) | (Jdg 16:2) | 2 tn Heb “And they surrounded.” The rest of the verse suggests that “the town” is the object, not “the house.” Though the Gazites knew Samson was in the town, apparently they did not know exactly where he had gone. Otherwise, they could have just gone into or surrounded the house and would not have needed to post guards at the city gate. |
(0.28) | (Num 16:3) | 1 tn The meaning of רַב־לָכֶם (rav lakhem) is something like “you have assumed far too much authority.” It simply means “much to you,” perhaps “you have gone to far,” or “you are overreaching yourselves” (M. Noth, Numbers [OTL], 123). He is objecting to the exclusiveness of the system that Moses has been introducing. |
(0.28) | (Num 4:31) | 1 sn More recent studies have concluded that these supports were made of two long uprights joined by cross-bars (like a ladder). They were frames rather than boards, meaning that the structure under the tent was not a solid building. It also meant that they would have been lighter to carry. |
(0.28) | (Num 4:26) | 2 tn The work of these people would have been very demanding, since the size and weight of the various curtains and courtyard hangings would have been great. For a detailed discussion of these, see the notes in the book of Exodus on the construction of the items. |
(0.28) | (Lev 20:23) | 1 tc One medieval Hebrew ms, Smr, and all the major ancient versions have the plural “nations.” Some English versions retain the singular (e.g., KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV); others have the plural “nations” (e.g., NAB, NIV) and still others translate as “people” (e.g., TEV, NLT). |
(0.28) | (Lev 14:22) | 3 tn Heb “and one shall be a sin offering and the one a burnt offering.” The versions struggle with whether or not “one” should or should not have the definite article in its two occurrences in this verse (KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB all have the English definite article with both). The MT has the first without and the second with the article. |
(0.28) | (Exo 28:4) | 1 sn The breastpiece seems to have been a pouch of sorts or to have had a pocket, since it was folded in some way (28:16; 39:9) and contained the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8). |
(0.28) | (Exo 20:2) | 2 tn Most English translations have “I am Yahweh your God.” But the preceding chapters have again and again demonstrated how he made himself known to them. Now, the emphasis is on “I am your God”—and what that would mean in their lives. |
(0.28) | (Exo 10:19) | 2 tn The Hebrew name here is יַם־סוּף (Yam Suf), sometimes rendered “Reed Sea” or “Sea of Reeds.” The word סוּף is a collective noun that may have derived from an Egyptian name for papyrus reeds. Many English versions have used “Red Sea,” which translates the name that ancient Greeks used: ἑρυθρά θαλασσά (eruthra thalassa). |
(0.28) | (Exo 9:15) | 2 tn The verb כָּחַד (kakhad) means “to hide, efface,” and in the Niphal it has the idea of “be effaced, ruined, destroyed.” Here it will carry the nuance of the result of the preceding verbs: “I could have stretched out my hand…and struck you…and (as a result) you would have been destroyed.” |