¹ tc The MT reads עֶבְרָה (ʿevrah, “wrath”) implying that whatever the wicked hope it turns out that they receive wrath. The LXX reads ἀπολεῖται (apoleitai, “will perish”) which might reflect an underlying Hebrew of אָבְדָה (ʾav^edah) “it has perished,” which is also attested in at least one Medieval manuscript. The difference involves two letters similar in sound, א and ע (ʾaleph and ʿayin), and two similar in appearance, ד and ר (dalet and resh). This would be similar to Prov 10:28, which uses the imperfect of the same root, “the expectation of the wicked perishes.”

² tc The LXX reads “she exhorts saying” a present indicative plus a participle. This implies a verb missing in the Hebrew and reading the vav plus perfect verb וְאָמְרָה (v^eʾam^erah, “and has said”) as a participle וְאֹמְרָה (v^eʾom^erah, “and says”). The participle would be present time. The consonants are the same for both forms and the present tense could certainly fit the context. The loss of another verb might explain the presence of the conjunction vav beginning the form.

² tc The LXX reads “sit down,” presumably from תֵּשֵׁב (teshev) while the MT reads תִּשְׁכַּב (tishkav, “lie down”). Either the LXX translator worked from a text which had lost the כ (kaf) or the MT copyist had a damaged text and restored a verb from the root שָׁכַב (shakav, “to lie down”) based on the following verb. The text restored from the LXX would present a progression from walking (v. 23), to sitting, to lying down: “When you sit down, you will not fear, then you will lie down and your sleep will be pleasant.”

² tc The MT reads אָרְחוֹת (ʾorkhot, “paths; ways” as a figure for mode of life): “so are the ways [or, paths] of all who gain profit unjustly.” The BHS editors suggest emending the text to אַחֲרִית (ʾakharit, “end” as figure for their fate) by simple metathesis between ח (khet) and ר (resh) and by orthographic confusion between י (yod) and ו (vav), both common scribal errors: “so is the fate of all who gain profit unjustly.” The external evidence supports MT, which is also the more difficult reading. It adequately fits the context which uses “way” and “path” imagery throughout 1:10-19.

⁵ tc The verb form in the MT appears to be a Hiphil imperfect from the root מוֹט (mot, “to sway”), but the Hiphil occurs only here and in the Kethib (consonantal text) of Ps 140:10, where the form יַמְטֵר (yamter, “let him rain down”) should probably be read. Here in Ps 55:3 it is preferable to read יַמְטִירוּ (yamtiru, “they rain down”). It is odd for “rain down” to be used with an abstract object like “wickedness,” but in Job 20:23 God “rains down” anger (unless one emends the text there; see BHS).

² tc The literal reading of the MT is “let the one who made him draw near [with] his sword.” The sword is apparently a reference to the teeth or tusks of the animal, which cut vegetation like a sword. But the idea of a weapon is easier to see, and so the people who favor the mythological background see here a reference to God’s slaying the Beast. There are again many suggestions on how to read the line. The RV probably has the safest: “He that made him has furnished him with his sword” (the sword being a reference to the sharp tusks with which he can attack).

¹ tc Heb “Does one say,” although some smooth it out to say “Is it fit to say?” For the reading “who says,” the form has to be repointed to הַאֹמֵר (haʾomer) meaning, “who is the one saying.” This reading is supported by the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac. Also it seems to flow better with the following verse. It would be saying that God is over the rulers and can rebuke them. The former view is saying that no one rebukes kings, much less Job rebuking God.

² tc The older translations had “he binds the streams from weeping,” i.e., from trickling (מִבְּכִי, mibb^ekhi). But the Ugaritic parallel has changed the understanding, reading “toward the spring of the rivers” (ʿm mbk nhrm). Earlier than that discovery, the versions had taken the word as a noun as well. Some commentators had suggested repointing the Hebrew. Some chose מַבְּכֵי (mabb^ekhe, “sources”). Now there is much Ugaritic support for the reading (see G. M. Landes, BASOR 144 [1956]: 32f.; and H. L. Ginsberg, “The Ugaritic texts and textual criticism,” JBL 62 [1943]: 111).

¹ tc The Hebrew text is difficult here. It is probably preferable to read with the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate בְּעוֹנִי (b^eʿonyi, “on my affliction”) rather than the Kethib of the MT בָּעַוֹנִי (baʿavoni, “on my wrongdoing”). While this Kethib reading is understandable as an objective genitive (i.e., “the wrong perpetrated upon me”), it does not conform to normal Hebrew idiom for this idea. The Qere of the MT בְּעֵינֵי (b^eʿeni, “on my eyes”), usually taken as synecdoche to mean “my tears,” does not commend itself as a likely meaning. The Hebrew word is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.”

¹ tc With the exception of the Lucianic recension, the Old Greek translation has here “sevenfold” rather than “fourfold,” a reading that S. R. Driver thought probably to be the original reading (S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 291). However, Exod 22:1 [21:37 HT] specifies fourfold repayment for a stolen sheep, which is consistent with 2 Sam 12:6. Some mss of the Targum and the Syriac Peshitta exaggerate the idea to “fortyfold.”

¹ tc This clause is difficult in the MT. The present translation accepts the text as found in the MT and understands this clause to be elliptical, with an understood verb such as “look” or “consider.” On the other hand, the LXX seems to reflect a slightly different Hebrew text, reading “after” where the MT has “my brothers.” The Greek translation yields the following translation: “You should not do this after the Lord has delivered us.” Although the Greek reading should be taken seriously, it seems better to follow the MT here.

² tc The number 50,070 is surprisingly large, although it finds almost unanimous textual support in the MT and in the ancient versions. Only a few medieval Hebrew mss lack “50,000,” reading simply “70” instead. However, there does not seem to be sufficient external evidence to warrant reading 70 rather than 50,070, although that is done by a number of recent translations (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). The present translation (reluctantly) follows the MT and the ancient versions here.

⁵ tc The MT says “all the increase of your house will die men.” The LXX and a Qumran ms, read “all…will die by the sword of men.” This reading (cf. ESV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT) makes sense syntactically. Some translations take “men” adverbially, “die as men,” and then understand it to mean something like “all…will die in the prime of life” (cf. NASB, NIV, KJV). However, the proposed syntax is very odd and such an adverbial function for “men” is otherwise unattested.

¹ tc The MT has וְהִגַּדְתִּי לוֹ (v^ehiggadti lo). The verb is Hiphil perfect first person common singular, and apparently the conjunction should be understood as vav consecutive (“I will say to him”). But the future reference makes more sense if Samuel is the subject. This would require dropping the final י (yod) and reading the second person masculine singular וְהִגַּדְתָּ (v^ehiggadta). Although there is no external evidence to support it, this reading has been adopted in the present translation. The alternative is to understand the MT to mean “I said to him,” but for this we would expect the preterite with vav consecutive.

⁴ tc The MT reads “with the Lord.” The LXX and 4QSam^a read “before the Lord.” The Hebrew phrasing “with (עִם; ʾim) the Lord” or “with God” is uncommon and varies in significance. The preposition indicates generally that the action in the verb is done in association with the preposition’s object. From context we understand that Samuel’s religious duties are specially in the Lord’s presence, hence the NAB and TEV “in the service of the Lord”; or the CEV “at the Lord’s house in Shiloh.” The NIV, NRSV, and NLT follow the LXX “in the presence of the Lord.”

¹ tc The MT reads “seventh.” In Hebrew there is a difference of only one letter between the words רְבִיעִי (r^eviʿi, “fourth”) and שְׁבִיעִי (sh^eviʿi, “seventh”). Some ancient textual witnesses (e.g., LXX and the Syriac Peshitta) read “fourth,” here, which certainly harmonizes better with the preceding verse (cf. “for three days”) and with v. 17. Another option is to change שְׁלֹשֶׁת (sh^eloshet, “three”) at the end of v. 14 to שֵׁשֶׁת (sheshet, “six”), but the resulting scenario does not account as well for v. 17, which implies the bride had been hounding Samson for more than one day.

⁴ tc Armon Haraim. Traditionally Aram-Naharaim, and sometimes understood as a place in Mesopotamia. This reading accepts the consonantal text but divides the words after the nun (נ) instead of before. The consonants ארמן הרים could be read with a dual ending as ʾArmon Haraim, meaning “Citadel of the Two Mountains,” or with a plural ending as ʾArmon Harim, meaning “Citadel of the Mountains.” In either case, Cushan Rishathaim is probably a remaining Canaanite king with a fortress in the hill country of Israel. See Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, 106.

¹ tn Though the Hebrew term אָבַד (ʾavad) generally means “to perish” or the like (HALOT 2-3 s.v.; BDB 1-2 s.v.; cf. KJV “a Syrian ready to perish”), a meaning “to go astray” or “to be lost” is also attested. The ambivalence in the Hebrew text is reflected in the versions where LXX Vaticanus reads ἀπέβαλεν (apebalen, “lose”) for a possibly metathesized reading found in Alexandrinus, Ambrosianus, ἀπέλαβεν (apelaben, “receive”); others attest κατέλειπεν (kateleipen, “leave, abandon”). “Wandering” seems to suit best the contrast with the sedentary life Israel would enjoy in Canaan (v. 9) and is the meaning followed by many English versions.

³ tc The MT plural “oaks” (אֵלוֹנֵי, ʾeloney) should probably be altered (with many Greek texts) to the singular “oak” (אֵלוֹן, ʾelon; cf. NRSV) in line with the only other occurrence of the phrase (Gen 12:6). The Syriac, Tg. Ps.-J. read mmrʾ, confusing this place with the “oaks of Mamre” near Hebron (Gen 13:18). Smr also appears to confuse “Moreh” with “Mamre” (reading mwrʾ, a combined form), adding the clarification mwl shkm (“near Shechem”) apparently to distinguish it from Mamre near Hebron.

¹ tc The clause is a little ambiguous. It reads “and he shall slaughter it before him.” It sounds as if someone else will kill the heifer in the priest’s presence. Since no one is named as the subject, it may be translated as a passive. Some commentators simply interpret that Eleazar was to kill the animal personally, but that is a little forced for “before him.” The Greek text gives a third person plural sense to the verb; the Vulgate follows that reading.