Discovery Box| (0.18) | (Jer 25:38) | 3 tc Heb “by the sword of the oppressors.” The reading here follows a number of Hebrew mss and the Greek version. The majority of Hebrew mss read, “the anger of the oppressor.” The reading “the sword of the oppressors” is supported also by the parallel use of this phrase in Jer 46:16 and 50:16. The error in the MT may be explained by confusion with the following line, which has the same beginning combination (מִפְּנֵי חֲרוֹן [mippene kharon] confused for מִפְּנֵי חֶרֶב [mippene kherev]). This reading is also supported by the Targum, the Aramaic paraphrase of the OT. According to BDB 413 s.v. יָנָה Qal, the feminine singular participle (הַיּוֹנָה, hayyonah) is functioning as a collective in this idiom (see GKC 394 §122.s for this phenomenon). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 25:26) | 2 tn Heb “the king of Sheshach.” “Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans, which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41, where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 23:33) | 4 tn The meaning “cast you away” is questioned by some because the word is regularly used of “forsaking” or “abandoning” (see, e.g., Jer 7:29; 12:7; 15:6). However, it is clearly used of “casting down” or “throwing away” in Ezek 29:5 and 32:4, and that meaning is virtually assured in v. 39, where the verb is combined with the phrase “from my presence.” The latter phrase is elsewhere used in rejection contexts with verbs like “send away,” “throw out,” or “remove” (see BDB 819 s.v. פָּנֶה II.8.a). This is another example of the bracketing effect of a key word and should be rendered the same in the two passages. Moreover, it fits in nicely with the play on “burden” here. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 23:8) | 3 tn This passage is the same as 16:14-15 with a few minor variations in Hebrew wording. The notes on that passage should be consulted for the rendering here. This passage has the Niphal of the verb “to say” rather than the impersonal use of the Qal. It adds the idea of “bringing out” to the idea of “bringing up out” (Heb “who brought up and who brought out,” probably a case of hendiadys) before “the people [here “seed” rather than “children”] of Israel [here “house of Israel”] from the land of the north.” These are minor variations and do not affect the sense in any way. So the passage is rendered in much the same way. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 22:10) | 1 sn As the next verse makes clear, the king who will never return to see his native land is Shallum, also known as Jehoahaz (cf. 1 Chr 3:15; 2 Kgs 23:30, 33-34). He was made king by popular acclaim after the death of his father, Josiah, who was killed at Megiddo trying to stop Pharaoh Necho from going to the aid of the Assyrians. According to 2 Kgs 23:32 Jehoahaz was a wicked king. He was deposed by Necho and carried into exile, where he died. The dead king alluded to is his father, Josiah, who was a godly king and was accordingly spared from seeing the destruction of his land (2 Kgs 22:20). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 17:19) | 1 sn Observance of the Sabbath day (also the Sabbatical year) appears to have been a litmus test of the nation’s spirituality since it is mentioned in a number of passages besides this one (cf., e.g., Isa 56:2, 6; 58:13; Neh 13:15-18). Perhaps this is because the Sabbath day was the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exod 31:13-17), just as the rainbow was the sign of the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:12, 13, 17) and circumcision the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:11). This was not the only command they failed to obey, nor was their failure to obey this one the sole determining factor in the Lord’s decision to destroy Judah (cf. 7:23-24; 11:7-8 in their contexts). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 14:10) | 2 tn It is difficult to be certain how the particle כֵּן (ken, usually used for “thus, so”) is to be rendered here. BDB 485 s.v. כֵּן 1.b says that the force sometimes has to be elicited from the general context, and it points back to the line of v. 9. IHBS 666 §39.3.4e states that when there is no specific comparative clause preceding, a general comparison is intended. They point to Judg 5:31 as a parallel. Ps 127:2 may also be an example if כִּי (ki) is not to be read (cf. BHS fn). “Truly” seemed the best way to render this idea in contemporary English. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 14:2) | 1 tn Heb “Judah mourns; its gates pine away; they are in mourning on the ground.” There are several figures of speech involved here. The basic figure is that of personification, where Judah and it cities are said to be in mourning. However, in the third line the figure is a little hard to sustain because “they” are in mourning on the ground. That presses the imagination of most moderns a little too far. Hence the personification has been translated as “people of” throughout. The term “gates” here is used as part for whole for the “cities” themselves, as in several other passages in the OT (cf. BDB 1045 s.v. שַׁעַר 2.b, c and see, e.g., Isa 14:31). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 11:19) | 3 tn This word and its pronoun (לַחְמוֹ, lakhmo, “its bread”) are often emended to read “in/with its sap” = “in its prime” (either לֵחוֹ [lekho] or לֵחְמוֹ [lekhemo]); the latter would be more likely, and the מוֹ (mo) could be explained as a rare use of the old poetic third plural suffix for the third singular; cf. GKC 258 §91.l for general use, and Ps 11:7 and Job 27:23 for third singular use. Though this fits the context nicely, the emendation is probably unnecessary since the word “bread” is sometimes used of other foodstuff than grain or its products (cf. BDB 537 s.v. לֶחֶם 2.a). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 11:15) | 3 tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The text reads somewhat literally as either, “her doing the wicked thing the many,” or, “doing it, the wicked thing, the many.” The text, relationship between words, and meaning of this whole verse have been greatly debated. Wholesale emendation based on the ancient versions is common in both commentaries and modern English versions. Many follow the lead of the Greek version, which in many cases offers a smoother reading but for that very reason may not be original. The notes that follow will explain some of these emendations but will also attempt to explain the most likely meaning of the MT, which is the more difficult and probably more original text. Since it is presumed to be the original, the text will be dealt with in the notes line for line in the MT, even though the emendations often relate to more than one line. For example, the Greek of the first two lines reads, “Why has the beloved done abomination in my house?” This ignores the preposition before “my beloved” (לִידִידִי, lididi) and treats the form “her doing” (עֲשׂוֹתָהּ [ʿasotah], Qal infinitive plus suffix) as a finite verb (עָשְׂתָה [ʿasetah], Qal perfect third feminine). The forms are similar, but the Greek is smoother. Moreover, it is difficult to explain the presence of “to” in the MT if the Greek is the original. The Greek text likewise does not have the difficulty that is exhibited in the MT by the word “the many” (הָרַבִּים, harabbim). It reads a word for “vows/votive offerings” (εὐχαί [euchai] regularly = נְדָרִים [nedarim]) in place of the word “many” (הָרַבִּים, harabbim) and takes it as part of a compound subject of the verb in the following line meaning “take away.” However, this word is far removed graphically from that in the MT, and it would be difficult to explain how the MT arose from it. The Old Latin apparently reads a word for “fat” (adipes = חֲלָבִים, khalavim) that is closer in script to the MT and would be more likely original than the Greek. However, both of these resolutions look like attempts to smooth out a difficult text. Because there is no solid support for any single reading, it is probably best to retain the MT’s “the many.” Many do retain it and take it as a second accusative of “doing it” and read, “she does the wicked thing with many [i.e., many false gods],” a use of the accusative which is hard to justify. Another alternative, taking the adjective “the many” to modify the noun “the wicked thing,” is sometimes suggested, but is not possible because the adjective is masculine plural and the noun is feminine singular, which pairing is contrary to Hebrew style. Hence one cannot read, “she has done many wicked things.” The present translation follows the suggestion in D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 4:209, that “the many” is the subject of the infinitive construct with an object suffix that anticipates the following noun “wickedness” (cf. GKC 425 §131.m), i.e., “the many do it, namely, the wickedness” (for the meaning of the noun see BDB 273 s.v. מְזִמָּה 3.b). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 9:7) | 4 tc Heb “For how else shall I deal because of the wickedness of the daughter of my people.” The MT does not have the word “wickedness.” The word, however, is read in the Greek version. This is probably a case of a word dropping out because of its similarities to the consonants preceding or following it (i.e., haplography). The word “wickedness” (רַעַת, raʿat) has dropped out before the words “my dear people” (בַּת־עַמִּי, bat-ʿammi). The causal nuance which is normal for מִפְּנֵי (mippene) does not make sense without some word like this, and the combination of רַעַת מִפְּנֵי (mippene raʿat) does occur in Jer 7:12 and one very like it occurs in Jer 26:3. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 7:4) | 3 tn Heb “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these (i.e., these buildings).” Elsewhere triple repetition seems to mark a kind of emphasis (cf. Isa 6:3; Jer 22:29; Ezek 21:27 [32 HT]). The triple repetition that follows seems to be Jeremiah’s way of mocking the (false) sense of security that people had in the invincibility of Jerusalem because God dwelt in the temple. They appeared to be treating the temple as some kind of magical charm. A similar feeling had grown up around the ark in the time of the judges (cf. 1 Sam 3:3) and the temple and city of Jerusalem in Micah’s day (cf. Mic 3:11). It is reflected also in some of the Psalms (cf., e.g., Ps 46, especially v. 5). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 6:29) | 1 tn Heb “The bellows blow fiercely; the lead is consumed by the fire.” The translation tries to clarify a metaphor involving ancient metallurgy. In the ancient refining process lead was added as a flux to remove impurities from silver ore in the process of oxidizing the lead. Jeremiah says that the lead has been used up and the impurities have not been removed. The translation is based on the recognition of an otherwise unused verb root meaning “blow” (נָחַר [nakhar]; cf. BDB 1123 s.v. I חָרַר and HALOT 651 s.v. נָחַר) and the Masoretes’ suggestion that the consonants מאשׁתם be read מֵאֵשׁ תַּם (meʾesh tam, “from fire it is consumed”) rather than as מֵאֶשָּׁתָם (meʾeshatam, “from their fire”) from an otherwise unattested noun אֶשָּׁה (ʾeshah). |
| (0.18) | (Jer 4:5) | 2 tn It is unclear who the addressees of the masculine plural imperatives are here. They may be the citizens of Jerusalem and Judah who are sounding the alarm to others. However, the first person reference to the Lord in v. 6 and Jeremiah’s response in v. 10 suggest that this is a word from the Lord that he is commanded to pass on to the citizens of Jerusalem and Judah. If the imperatives are not merely rhetorical plurals, they may reflect the practice referred to in Jer 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7. A similar phenomenon also occurs in Jer 5:1 and Isa 40:1-2. This may also be the explanation for the plural imperatives in Jer 31:6. For further discussion see the translator’s note on Jer 5:1. |
| (0.18) | (Jer 1:1) | 1 tn Or “This is a record of what Jeremiah prophesied and did”; Heb “The words [or affairs] of Jeremiah.” The phrase could refer to either the messages of Jeremiah recorded in the book or to both his messages and the biographical (and autobiographical) narratives recorded about him in the book. Since the phrase is intended to serve as the title or superscription for the whole book and recurs again in 51:64 at the end of the book before the final appendix, it might refer to the latter. The expression “The words of [someone]” is a standard introductory formula (Deut 29:1 [28:69]; 2 Sam 23:1; Amos 1:1; Eccl 1:1; Neh 1:1). |
| (0.18) | (Isa 64:5) | 4 tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “look, you were angry, and we sinned against them continually [or perhaps, “in ancient times”] and we were delivered.” The statement makes little sense as it stands. The first vav [ו] consecutive (“and we sinned”) must introduce an explanatory clause here (see Num 1:48 and Isa 39:1 for other examples of this relatively rare use of the vav [ו] consecutive). The final verb (if rendered positively) makes no sense in this context—God’s anger at their sin resulted in judgment, not deliverance. One of the alternatives involves an emendation to וַנִּרְשָׁע (vannirshaʿ, “and we were evil”; LXX, NRSV, TEV). The Vulgate and the Qumran scroll 1QIsaa support the MT reading. One can either accept an emendation or cast the statement as a question (as above). |
| (0.18) | (Isa 63:15) | 2 tn The Hebrew text reads literally, “the agitation of your intestines and your compassion to me they are held back.” The phrase “agitation of your intestines” is metonymic, referring to the way in which one’s nervous system reacts when one feels pity and compassion toward another. אֵלַי (ʾelay, “to me”) is awkward in this context, where the speaker represents the nation and, following the introduction (see v. 7), utilizes first person plural forms. The translation assumes an emendation to the negative particle אַל (ʾal). This also necessitates emending the following verb form (which is a plural perfect) to a singular jussive (תִתְאַפָּק, titʾappaq). The Hitpael of אָפַק (ʾafaq) also occurs in 42:14. |
| (0.18) | (Isa 53:6) | 1 tn Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (pagaʿ) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object—the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack. |
| (0.18) | (Isa 51:9) | 3 tn This title (רַהַב, rahav, “proud one”) is sometimes translated as a proper name: “Rahab” (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). It is used here of a symbolic sea monster, known elsewhere in the Bible and in Ugaritic myth as Leviathan. This sea creature symbolizes the forces of chaos that seek to destroy the created order. In the Bible “the Proud One” opposes God’s creative work, but is defeated (see Job 26:12; Ps 89:10). Here the title refers to Pharaoh’s Egyptian army that opposed Israel at the Red Sea (see v. 10, and note also Isa 30:7 and Ps 87:4, where the title is used of Egypt). |
| (0.18) | (Isa 43:24) | 3 sn In vv. 22-24 the Lord appears to be condemning his people for failure to bring the proper sacrifices. However, this is problematic. If this refers to the nation’s behavior while in exile, such cultic service was impossible and could hardly be expected by the Lord. If this refers to the nation’s conduct before the exile, it contradicts other passages that depict Israel as bringing excessive sacrifices (see, e.g., Isa 1:11-14; Jer 6:20; Amos 4:4-5; 5:21-23). Rather than being a condemnation of Israel’s failure to bring sacrifices, these verses are better taken as a highly rhetorical comment on the worthlessness of Israel’s religious ritual. They may have brought sacrifices, but not to the Lord, for he did not accept them or even want them. See C. R. North, Second Isaiah, 127, and R. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCBC), 91. |
