³ tc The BHS editors propose emending the Masoretic reading יְרַדֶּף (y^eraddef, Piel imperfect of רָדַף [radaf], “to chase”) to יֶהְדֹּף (yehdof, Qal imperfect of הָדַף [hadaf], “to thrust away, drive away”). Although הָדַף is used with חֹשֶׁךְ (khoshekh, “darkness”) in Job 18:18 (“he is driven from light into darkness”), the MT makes good sense as it stands, and is supported by the versions. The conjectural emendation has no support and is unnecessary.

⁵ tc Heb “their sins.” The LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate read “our sins.” The shape of the letters in the first person plural suffix נו (nun and vav) look very much like ם (a final mem), which makes the third person plural suffix. Confusing the two is not an uncommon copying error. It may also be an enclitic ם rather than a pronominal suffix. In that case the suffix from the preceding line (“our”) may be understood as doing double duty.

¹ tn The phrase translated “collapsing hut” refers to a temporary shelter (cf. NASB, NRSV “booth”) in disrepair and emphasizes the relatively weakened condition of the once powerful Davidic dynasty. Others have suggested that the term refers to Jerusalem, while still others argue that it should be repointed to read “Sukkoth,” a garrison town in Transjordan. Its reconstruction would symbolize the rebirth of the Davidic empire and its return to power (e.g., M. E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire, 71-74).

⁴ tc The MT reads “like the light” (כָאֹר, khaʾor; note this term also appears in v. 9), which is commonly understood to be an error for “like the Nile” (כִּיאוֹר, kiʾor). See the parallel line and Amos 9:5. The word “River” is supplied in the translation for clarity. If this emendation is correct, in the Hebrew of Amos “Nile” is actually spelled three slightly different ways.

⁷ tn The entire verse is phrased in a series of rhetorical questions that anticipate the answer, “Of course!” (For example, the first line reads, “Because of this will the earth not quake?”). The rhetorical questions entrap the listener in the logic of the judgment of God (cf. 3:3-6; 9:7). The rhetorical questions have been converted to affirmative statements in the translation for clarity.

² tc The Hebrew appears to read, “summoning to contend with fire,” or “summoning fire to contend,” but both are problematic syntactically (H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos [Hermeneia], 292; S. M. Paul, Amos [Hermeneia], 230-31). Many emend the text to לרבב אשׁ, “(calling) for a shower of fire,” though this interpretation is also problematic (see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos [AB], 746-47).

¹ tc The MT reads יְדַעְתִּיךָ (y^edaʿtikha, Qal perfect first person common singular + second person masculine singular suffix from יָדַע, yadaʿ, “to know”), followed by KJV and ASV (“I did know thee”). The LXX and Syriac reflect an alternate textual tradition of רְעִיתִיךָ (r^eʿitikha, Qal perfect first person common singular + second person masculine singular suffix from רָעָה, raʿah, “to feed”), which is followed by most recent English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

¹ tc Or “Will they not return to Egypt?” (so NIV). Following the LXX and BHS, the MT לֹא (loʾ, “not”) should probably be read as לוֹ (lo, “to him”) and connected to the end of 11:4 rather than the beginning of 11:5. The textual confusion between לֹא and לוֹ probably reflects an unintentional scribal error due to a mistake in hearing (cf., e.g., Kethib/Qere in Ps 100:3).

² tc The MT reads מִפְּנֵיהֶם (mipp^enehem, “from them”; preposition + masculine plural noun + third person masculine plural suffix); so KJV, ASV, and NASB. However, the LXX and Syriac reflect an alternate Hebrew textual tradition of מִפָּנַי הֵם (mippanay hem, “they [went away] from me”; preposition + masculine plural noun + first person common singular suffix, followed by third person masculine plural independent personal pronoun); cf. NAB, NIV, and NRSV. The textual variant was caused simply by faulty word division.

⁵ tn The verb may be imperfect “they will X” (KJV, ESV) or jussive “let them X” (NIV, NASB). The common verb יָדַע (yadaʿ) means “to know.” Among homophonous roots DCH includes יָדַע II (yadaʿ) meaning “be submissive, humbled; be quiet, at rest” (cf. Job 21:19; Prov 5:6; Isa 45:4; Jer 14:18). Reading either יֵדְעוּ (yed^eʿu) “Israel will be humbled” or יֵרְעוּ (yer^eʿu) “Israel will tremble” makes equally good sense in context.

¹ tc The MT reads the enigmatic יָשׁוּבוּ לֹא עָל (yashuvu loʾ ʿal), which is taken variously: “they turn, but not upward” (NASB); “they do not turn to the Most High” (NIV); and “they return, but not to the most High” (KJV). The BHS editors suggest יָשׁוּבוּ לַבַּעַל (yashuvu labbaʿal, “they turn to Baal”; so RSV) or יָשׁוּבוּ לַבְּלִיַּעַל (yashuvu labb^eliyyaʿal, “they turn to Belial”), which is reflected by the LXX.

⁴ tc The MT reads תִקְרְאִי לִי (tiqr^eʾi li, “you will call me”; Qal imperfect second person feminine singular followed by preposition לְ, lamed, + first person common singular pronominal suffix). The versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all reflect an alternate Vorlage of תִקְרְא לִי (tiqr^eʾ li, “she will call me”; Qal imperfect third person feminine singular followed by preposition לְ + first person common singular pronominal suffix). This textual variant is related to the preceding textual issue (see preceding note).

⁵ tn The location of this place and even the exact form of the Hebrew name אוּפָז (ʾufaz) are uncertain. Apparently it was a source for pure gold. (See Jer 10:9.) The Hebrew word פָּז (paz, “refined gold” or “pure gold”) is more common in the OT than אוּפָז, and some scholars emend the text of Dan 10:5 to read this word. Cf. also “Ophir” (1 Kgs 9:28; Isa 13:12; Job 22:24; 28:16).

⁴ tn Heb “his sleep left (?) him.” The use of the verb הָיָה (hayah, “to be”) here is unusual. The context suggests a meaning such as “to be finished” or “gone” (cf. Dan 8:27). Some scholars emend the verb to read נָדְדָה (nad^edah, “fled”); cf. Dan 6:19. See further, DCH 2:540 s.v. היה I Ni.3; HALOT 244 s.v. היה nif; BDB 227-28 s.v. הָיָה Niph.2.

² tn Heb “and I will do that which in my statutes you will walk.” The awkward syntax (verb “to do, act” + accusative sign + relative clause + prepositional phrase + second person verb) is unique, though Eccl 3:14 contains a similar construction. In the last line of that verse we read that “God acts so that (relative pronoun) they fear before him.” However, unlike Ezek 36:27, the statement has no accusative sign before the relative pronoun.

³ tn Heb “you caused to stand for them all their hips.” An emendation that switches two letters but is supported by the LXX yields the reading: “you caused all their hips to shake.” See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:103. In 2 Kgs 18:21 and Isa 36:6 trusting in the Pharaoh is compared to leaning on a staff. The oracle may reflect Hophra’s attempt to aid Jerusalem (Jer 37:5-8).

² tc The Hebrew text reads “widows” instead of “strongholds,” apparently due to a confusion of ר (resh) and ל (lamed). L. C. Allen (Ezekiel [WBC], 1:284) favors the traditional text, understanding “widows” in the sense of “women made widows.” D. I. Block, (Ezekiel [NICOT], 1:602) also defends the Hebrew text, arguing that the image is that of a dominant male lion who takes over the pride and by copulating with the females lays claim to his predecessor’s “widows.”

¹ tc The text as written in the MT is incomprehensible (“not coming [plural] and he will not”). Driver has suggested a copying error of similar-sounding words, specifically לֹא (loʾ) for לוֹ (lo). The feminine participle בָאוֹת (vaʾot) has also been read as the feminine perfect בָאת (vaʾt). See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 1:228, n. 15.b, and D. I. Block, Ezekiel (NICOT), 1:486, n. 137.

² sn The living creature described here is thus slightly different from the one described in Ezek 1:10, where an ox’s face appeared instead of a cherub’s. Note that some English versions harmonize the two descriptions and read the same here as in 1:10 (cf. NAB, NLT “an ox”; TEV, CEV “a bull”). This may be justified based on v. 22, which states the creatures’ appearance was the same.

¹ tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The translation follows one reading of the Hebrew text. The Greek version reads, “Be like a wild donkey in the desert!” There are three points of debate in this line: the syntax of the verb form “be” (תִהְיֶינָה, tihyenah) and the text and meaning of the word translated “shrub” in the Hebrew text. This latter word only occurs with this meaning here and in Jer 17:6. A related word occurs in Ps 102:17 (102:18 HT). Elsewhere this spelling refers to the name Aroer, which designated a place in Moab on the edge of the Arnon River. Most commentators do not feel that a reference to that place is appropriate here because it was not in the desert. The Greek version reads “like a wild donkey” (reading כְּעָרוֹד [k^eʿarod] in place of כַּעֲרוֹעֵר [kaʿaroʿer]). That would make an appropriate simile here because the wild donkey enjoys its freedom and is hard to capture. G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, and T. G. Smothers (Jeremiah 26-52 [WBC], 312) explain the simile of the “shrub” as referring to the marginal and rudimentary existence of a displaced person. That may not be as optimistic as the reference to the wild donkey, but it does give an appropriate meaning. The third feminine plural verb “be” has been explained as due to the singular noun + suffix = “yourselves” (נַפְשְׁכֶם, nafsh^ekhem) being used as a collective (so S. R. Driver, Jeremiah, 368, with cross reference to GKC 462-63 §145.c). J. Bright (Jeremiah [AB], 314, n. e-e) follows a suggestion of D. N. Freedman in seeing the form (תִהְיֶינָה, tihyenah) as a mistake for the second masculine plural plus energic (תִהְיוּן, tihyun). Given the number of other textual difficulties in this passage, this is possible. The resultant meaning in either case is the same.