³ tn The Hebrew text has הֹזִים (hozim), which appears to be derived from an otherwise unattested verbal root הָזָה (hazah). On the basis of alleged cognates, BDB 223 s.v. הָזָה offers the definition “dream, rave” while HALOT 243 s.v. הזה lists “pant.” In this case the dog metaphor of the preceding lines continues. The reference to dogs at the beginning of v. 11 favors the extension of the metaphor. The Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a has חזים (“seers”) here. In this case the “watchmen” are directly identified as prophets and depicted as lazy.

⁴ tn The Hebrew text reads “my people,” a reading followed by most English versions, but this is problematic in a context where the first person plural predominates, and where God does not appear to speak again until v. 11b. Therefore, it is preferable to read with the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a עמו (“his people”). In this case, the group speaking in these verses is identified as the servant’s people (compare פְּשָׁעֵנוּ [p^eshaʿenu, “our rebellious deeds”] in v. 5 with פֶּשַׁע עַמִּי [peshaʿ ʿammi, “the rebellion of his people”] in v. 8).

² tc The Hebrew text has שְּׂבִי (sh^evi), which some understand as a feminine singular imperative from יָשַׁב (yashav, “sit”). The LXX, Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum support the MT reading (the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a does indirectly). Some interpret this to mean “take your throne”: The Lord exhorts Jerusalem to get up from the dirt and sit, probably with the idea of sitting in a place of honor (J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah [NICOT], 2:361)(cf. NLT, NIV, TNIV, HCSB). However, the form likely needs to be emended to שְׁבִיָּה (sh^eviyyah, “captive”), which appears in the parallel line (cf. NASB, RSV, NRSV).

⁴ tc The Hebrew text has לִנְטֹעַ (lintoaʿ, “to plant”). Several scholars prefer to emend this form to לִנְטֹת (lintot) from נָטָה (natah, “to stretch out”); see v. 13, as well as 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; cf. NAB, NCV, NRSV. However, since the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a, LXX (and Aquila and Symmachus), and Vulgate support the MT reading, there is no need to emend the form. The interpretation is clear enough: Yahweh fixed the sky in its place.

² tc Heb “to know [?] the weary with a word.” Comparing it with Arabic and Aramaic cognates yields the meaning of “help, sustain.” Nevertheless, the meaning of עוּת (ʿut) is uncertain. The word occurs only here in the OT (see BDB 736 s.v.). Various scholars have suggested an emendation to עָנוֹת (ʿanot) from עָנָה (ʿanah, “answer”): “so that I know how to respond kindly to the weary.” Since the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a and the Vulgate support the MT reading, that reading is retained.

³ tc The Hebrew text reads literally “to [one who] despises life.” It is preferable to read with the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a לבזוי, which should be vocalized as a passive participle, לִבְזוּי (livzuy, “to the one despised with respect to life” [נֶפֶשׁ is a genitive of specification]). The consonantal sequence וי was probably misread as ה in the MT tradition. The contextual argument favors the 1QIsa^a reading. As J. N. Oswalt (Isaiah [NICOT], 2:294) points out, the three terse phrases “convey a picture of lowliness, worthlessness, and helplessness.”

² tc The Hebrew text reads literally “and from the waters of Judah came out.” מִמֵּי (mimme) could be a variation from an original מִמְּעֵי (mimm^eʿe, “from the inner parts of”). The translation above as well as several other translations treat the text this way or understand that this is what the Hebrew phrase figuratively means (cf. HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV). Some translations (ESV, NKJV) retain the MT reading and render it literally as “waters.” The Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a, which corrects a similar form to “from inner parts of” in 39:7, does not do it here.

¹ tn The Hebrew term בֵין (ven) is usually taken as a preposition, in which case one might translate, “among the grass.” But בֵין is probably the name of a tree (cf. C. R. North, Second Isaiah, 133). If one alters the preposition bet (בְּ) to kaf (כְּ), one can then read, “like a binu-tree.” (The Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a supports this reading.) This forms a nice parallel to “like poplars” in the next line. חָצִיר (khatsir) is functioning as an adverbial accusative of location.

¹ tc Heb “your going out and your coming in and how you have raged against me.” Several scholars have suggested that this line is probably dittographic (note the beginning of the next line). However, most English translations include the statement in question at the end of v. 28 and the beginning of v. 29. Interestingly, the LXX does not have this clause at the end of v. 28 and the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a does not have it at the beginning of v. 29. In light of this ambiguous manuscript evidence, it appears best to retain the clause in both verses.

¹ tn The form in the text is a cohortative with prefixed vav (ו), suggesting that the Lord is announcing what he will do. Some prefer to change the verb to an imperative, “and summon as witnesses,” a reading that finds support from the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a. Another option is to point the prefixed conjunction as a vav consecutive and translate, “So I summoned as witnesses.” In this case Isaiah is recalling his response to the Lord’s commission. In any case, the reference to witnesses suggests that the name and the child who bears it will function as signs.

⁵ tc The MT reads בָּם (bam, “in them”) while the Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a reads במה (bamah, “high place”). The syntax of בָּם is difficult in context and only translated by the KJV, “as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.” The KJV’s reference to casting leaves assumes other emendations, or misinterprets or guesses at another meaning for the rare term שַׁלֶּכֶת (shalleket, “felled”). The other major translations omit rendering בָּם into English. The LXX has omitted this among several words lost to haplography.

⁶ tc The MT reads בְּשַׁלֶּכֶת (b^eshalleket, “in felling”) as part of “like a terebinth or like an oak, which in felling a pillar in them holy seed her pillar.” The Qumran scroll 1QIsa^a has משׁלכת which appears to be a Hophal feminine participle from שָׁלַך (shalakh) meaning “[being] thrown down.” Though the text is difficult, the references to sacred trees and a sacred pillar suggest that the destruction of a high place is in view, an apt metaphor for the judgment of idolatrous Judah.

² tn The word for man here is first אֱנוֹשׁ (ʾenosh), stressing man in all his frailty, his mortality. This is paralleled with גֶּבֶר (gever), a word that would stress more of the strength or might of man. The verse is not making a great contrast between the two, but it is rhetorical question merely stating that no human being of any kind is righteous or pure before God the Creator. See H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,” VTSup 17 (1969): 159-69; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 156-57.

² tc Smr, LXX, and the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll from Qumran (11QpaleoLev; Fragment G contains Lev 14:52-15:5 and 16:2-4, and agrees with the LXX of Lev 15:3b) are in essential (although not complete) agreement against the MT in Lev 15:3b and are to be preferred in this case. The shorter MT text has probably arisen due to a lengthy haplography. See K. A. Mathews, “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” CBQ 48 (1986): 177-78, 198; D. N. Freedman, “Variant Readings in the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, ” CBQ 36 (1974): 528-29; D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 32. The MT of Lev 15:3 reads: “Now this is his uncleanness in [regard to] his discharge—whether his body secretes his discharge or blocks his discharge, this is his uncleanness.” Smr adds after MT’s “blocks his discharge” the following: “he is unclean; all the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge, this is his uncleanness.” Thus, the MT appears to skip from Smr הוא טמא “he is unclean” in the middle of the verse to טמאתו/הו יא “this is his uncleanness” at the end of the verse, leaving out “he is unclean; all the days that his body has a discharge or his body blocks his discharge” (cf. the BHS footnote). 11Q1 (paleoLev^a frag. G) is indeed fragmentary, but it does have ימי ז בו כל “…in him, all the days of the fl[ow],” supporting Smr and LXX tradition. The LXX adds after MT “blocks his discharge” the following: “all the days of the flow of his body, by which his body is affected by the flow,” followed by “it is his uncleanness” (i.e., the last two words of the MT).

¹ tc While the MT reads second person feminine singular לָךְ (lakh, “for you”), the LXX reads αὔτή (autē, “for her”). The Dead Sea Scrolls from Wadi Murabba’at read לך (“for you”). The MT reading is preferred for several reasons: (1) it is supported by the scrolls from Wadi Murabba’at; (2) it is the more difficult reading; and (3) it explains the origin of the LXX which probably harmonized this with the preceding third person feminine singular pronoun. Abrupt switches from third to second person are commonly found in poetic and prophetic literature (e.g., Deut 32:15; Isa 5:8; Jer 29:19; Job 16:7) as well as in Northwest Semitic curses (see S. Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” VT 11 [1961]: 147, n. 4). The LXX treats the final phrase as part of the onlookers’ quote while the MT treats it as part of the Lord’s address.

¹ sn It is unclear whether this refers to the first scroll (36:4) or the second (36:32). Perhaps, from the reactions of Baruch, this refers to the second scroll, which was written after he had seen how the leaders had responded to the first (36:19). Baruch was from a well-placed family; his grandfather, Mahseiah (32:12), had been governor of Jerusalem under Josiah (2 Chr 34:8), and his brother was a high-ranking official in Zedekiah’s court (Jer 51:59). He himself appears to have had some personal aspirations that he could see were being or going to be jeopardized (v. 5). The passage is both a rebuke to Baruch and an encouragement that his life will be spared wherever he goes. This latter promise is perhaps the reason that the passage is placed where it is, i.e., after the seemingly universal threat of destruction of all who have gone to Egypt in Jer 44.

⁴ tc The text has וִיאַבֵּד (viʾabbed, conjunction plus Piel imperfect third person masculine singular from אָבַד, ʾavad, “to destroy”), but the Dead Sea Scrolls text 4Q109 (Qoh^a), which reads ,ויעוה assumes ויעוה “twists” or “perverts” (conjunction plus Piel imperfect third person masculine singular from עָוָה I, ʿavah, “to bend; to twist.” See J. Muilenburg, “A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran,” BASOR 135 [1954]: 27). The verb I עָוָה (“to bend; to twist”) is used in reference to moral perversion (e.g., 2 Sam 7:14; 19:20; 24:17; 1 Kgs 8:47; Job 33:27; Prov 12:8; Jer 9:4); cf. HALOT 796-97 s.v. עוה; BDB 730 s.v. I עָוָה. The verb ויאבד is used similarly in reference to moral corruption, e.g., Eccl 3:6; 9:18; Jer 23:1 (HALOT 3 s.v. I אבד; BDB 2 s.v. אָבַד 2).

³ tc Some mss (א [L] 33 it) read Bethzatha, while others read Bethsaida (P^[66],75 B T W^s [Ψ] vg); codex D has Belzetha. A lot of controversy has surrounded the name of the pool itself: The reading of the Byzantine (or majority) text (A C Θ 078 ƒ^1,13 M), Bethesda, has been virtually discarded by scholars in favor of what is thought to be the more primitive Bethzatha, even though many recent translations continue to employ Bethesda, the traditional reading. The latter is attested by Josephus as the name of a quarter of the city near the northeast corner of the temple area. He reports that the Syrian Legate Cestius burned this suburb in his attack on Jerusalem in October a.d. 68 (J. W. 2.19.4 [2.530]). However, there is some new archaeological evidence for this problem. 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) from Qumran seems to indicate that in the general area of the temple, on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, a treasure was buried in Bet ’Esdatayin, in the pool at the entrance to the smaller basin. The name of the region or pool itself seems then to have been Bet ’Esda, “house of the flowing.” It appears with the dual ending in the scroll because there were two basins. Bethesda seems to be an accurate Greek rendition of the name, while J. T. Milik suggests Bethzatha is a rendition of the Aramaic intensive plural Bet ’Esdata (DJDJ 3, 271). As for the text of John 5:2, a fundamental problem with the Bethesda reading is that it looks motivated (with an edifying Semitic etymology, meaning “House of Mercy” [TCGNT 178]). Also, apart from the Copper Scroll, the evidence for Bethesda is almost entirely shut up to the Byzantine text (C being the most notable exception, but it often has Byzantine encroachments). On the one hand, this argues the Byzantine reading here had ancient, semitic roots; on the other hand, since both readings are attested as historically accurate, a decision has to be based on the better witnesses. The fact that there are multiple readings here suggests that the original was not well understood. Which reading best explains the rise of the others? It seems that Bethzatha is the best choice.

² tc The MT reads the Niphal participle נַעֲלָמָה (naʿalamah) from I עָלַם (ʿalam, “to conceal”). This is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls with נעלמה in (4QpNah 3:11) and is reflected by the LXX. Several scholars suggest nuancing the Niphal in a passive sense: “you will be concealed” or “you will be obscured” (BDB 761 s.v. I עָלַם Niphal 2). However, the reflexive sense “you will conceal yourself; you will hide yourself” (e.g., Ps 26:4) is better (HALOT 835 s.v. עלם). On the other hand, the BHS editors suggest emending to the Niphal participle נֶעֱלָפָה (neʿelafah) from עָלַף (ʿalaf, “become faint”): “you will become faint,” “you will pass out,” or “you will swoon” (HALOT 836 s.v. עלף; BDB 761 s.v. I. עָלַם 2). This is unnecessary and lacks textual support.

² tc The past-time reference of the context indicates that the Pual verb יְרֻטְּשׁוּ (y^erutt^eshu) is a preterite describing past action (“they were smashed to pieces”) rather than an imperfect describing future action (“they will be smashed to pieces”). The past-time sense is supported by the Syriac and Vulgate. The LXX, however, misunderstood the form as an imperfect. Not recognizing that the form is a preterite, the BHS editors suggest emending to Pual perfect רֻטְּשׁוּ (rutt^eshu, “they were smashed to pieces”). This emendation is unnecessary once the possibility of a preterite is recognized. The Masoretic reading is supported by the reading ירוטשו found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QpNah 3:10).