² tn Heb “summer fruit.” “Summer fruit” is meaningless to most modern readers; dates and figs are what is involved.

¹ tn Heb “summer fruit.” “Summer fruit” is meaningless to most modern readers; dates and figs are what is involved.

¹ tc The meaningless MT reading זַעֲוָה (zaʿavah) is clearly a transposition of the more commonly attested Hebrew noun זְוָעָה (z^evaʿah, “terror”).

³ tn The word in the MT, אֹרחַ (ʾorakh, “way”), is a contraction from אֹרֵחַ (ʾoreakh, “wayfarer”); thus, “traveler.” The same parallelism is found in Jer 14:8. The reading here “on/to the road” is meaningless otherwise.

¹ tn Heb “sacrifice and offering you do not desire.” The statement is exaggerated for the sake of emphasis (see Ps 51:16 as well). God is pleased with sacrifices, but his first priority is obedience and loyalty (see 1 Sam 15:22). Sacrifices and offerings apart from genuine allegiance are meaningless (see Isa 1:11-20).

¹ tc Heb “for the Lord saw the very bitter affliction of Israel.” This translation assumes an emendation of מֹרֶה (moreh), which is meaningless here, to הַמַּר (hammar), the adjective “bitter” functioning attributively with the article prefixed. This emendation is supported by the LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate. Another option would be מַר הוּא (mar huʾ), “it was bitter.”

⁵ tn Heb “they will be built up among my people.” The expression “be built up among” is without parallel. However, what is involved here is conceptually parallel to the ideas expressed in Isa 19:23-25 and Zech 14:16-19. That is, these people will be allowed to live on their own land, to worship the Lord there, and to come to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts. To translate literally would be meaningless or misleading for many readers.

¹ tn Heb “take up the name of the Lord your God to emptiness”; KJV “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” The idea here is not cursing or profanity in the modern sense of these terms, but rather the use of the divine Name for unholy, mundane purposes, that is, for meaningless (Hebrew שָׁוְא [shavʾ]) and empty ends. In ancient Israel this would include using the Lord’s name as a witness in vows one did not intend to keep.

⁴ tn The Hebrew form עָלָי (ʿalay) has been traditionally understood as the preposition עַל (ʿal, “over”) with a first person suffix. But this is syntactically awkward and meaningless. The form is probably a divine title derived from the verbal root עָלָה (ʿalah, “ascend”). This relatively rare title appears elsewhere in the OT (see HALOT 824-25 s.v. I עַל, though this text is not listed) and in Ugaritic as an epithet for Baal (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 98). See M. Dahood, Psalms (AB), 1:44-45, and P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC), 98.

¹ sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has בַּדִּים (baddim), perhaps meaning “empty talkers” (BDB 95 s.v. III בַּד). In the four other occurrences of this word (Job 11:3; Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30; 50:36) the context does not make the meaning of the term very clear. Its primary point appears to be that the words spoken are meaningless or false. In light of its parallelism with “omen readers,” some have proposed an emendation to בָּרִים (barim, “seers”). The Mesopotamian baru-priests were divination specialists who played an important role in court life. See R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, 93-98. Rather than supporting an emendation, J. N. Oswalt (Isaiah [NICOT], 2:189, n. 79) suggests that Isaiah used בַּדִּים purposively as a derisive wordplay on the Akkadian word baru (in light of the close similarity of the d and r consonants).

¹ tn The syntax of this verse is difficult. Perhaps the best approach is to classify the vav on וַהֲבָלִים (vahavalim, “futilities”) as introducing the predicate (e.g., Gen 40:9; 2 Sam 23:3; Prov 10:25; Isa 34:12; Job 4:6; 36:26); BDB 255 s.v. ו 5.c.γ: “There is futility….” The phrase בְרֹב הֲלֹמוֹת (v^erob halomot) is an adverbial modifier (“in many dreams”), as is דְבָרִים הַרְבֵּה (d^evarim harbeh, “many words”). The vav prefixed to וּדְבָרִים (ud^evarim) and the juxtaposition of the two lines suggests a comparison: “just as…so also…” (BDB 253 s.v. ו 1.j). The English versions reflect a variety of approaches: “In the multitude of dreams and many words there are also diverse vanities” (KJV); “In the multitude of dreams there are vanities, and in many words” (ASV); “When dreams increase, empty words grow many” (RSV); “In many dreams and follies and many words” (MLB); “In the abundance of dreams both vanities and words abound” (YLT); “Where there are many dreams, there are many vanities, and words without number” (Douay); “Many dreams and words mean many a vain folly” (Moffatt); “Much dreaming leads to futility and to superfluous talk” (NJPS); “In many dreams and in many words there is emptiness” (NASB); “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless” (NIV); “With many dreams comes vanities and a multitude of words” (NRSV).

¹ tc Most mss (A C³ Ψ 33 M) have τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι (to ei dunasai pisteusai, “if you are able to believe”), instead of τὸ εἰ δύνῃ (to ei dunē, “if you are able”; supported by א B C* L N* Δ ƒ¹ 579 892). Others have εἰ δύνῃ (or δυνάσαι) πιστεῦσαι (“if you are able to believe”; so D K Θ ƒ¹³ 28 565 al), while still others have τοῦτο εἰ δύνῃ (touto ei dunē, “if you can [do] this”; so [P⁴⁵] W). The reading that best explains the rise of the others is τὸ εἰ δύνῃ. The neuter article indicates that the Lord is now quoting the boy’s father who, in v. 22, says εἴ τι δύνῃ (ei ti dunē, “if you are able to do anything”). The article is thus used anaphorically (see ExSyn 238). However, scribes could easily have overlooked this idiom and would consequently read τὸ εἰ δύνῃ as the protasis of a conditional clause of the Lord’s statement. As such, it would almost demand the infinitive πιστεῦσαι, producing the reading τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι (“if you are able to believe, all things are possible…”). But the article here seems to be meaningless, prompting other scribes to modify the text still further. Some dropped the nonsensical article, while others turned it into the demonstrative τοῦτο and dropped the infinitive. It is clear that scribes had difficulty with the initial text here, and made adjustments in various directions. What might not be so clear is the exact genealogy of the descent of all the readings. However, τὸ εἰ δύνῃ is both a hard saying, best explains the rise of the other readings, and is supported by the best witnesses. It thus rightly deserves to be considered authentic.