¹ tc The MT has here “forty,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom. The Lucianic Greek recension (τέσσαρα ἔτη, tessara ete), the Syriac Peshitta (’arba’ sanin), and Vulgate (post quattuor autem annos) in fact have the expected reading “four years.” Most English translations follow the versions in reading “four” here, although some (e.g. KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV), following the MT, read “forty.”

¹ tc The MT reading אֶת־בַיַּרְדֵּן (’et-vayyarden, “in the Jordan”) is odd syntactically. The use of the preposition after the object marker אֶת (’et) is difficult to explain. Graphic confusion is likely in the MT; the translation assumes the reading מִיַּרְדֵּן (miyyarden, “from the Jordan”). Another possibility is to read the definite article on the front of “Jordan” (הַיַּרְדֵּן, hayyarden; “the Jordan”).

¹ tc The MT reads here “from the sons of Shecaniah” with no descendant identified in what follows, contrary to the pattern of the context elsewhere. However, it seems better to understand the first phrase of v. 3 with the end of v. 2; the phrase would then modify the name “Hattush.” This understanding requires emending the reading מִבְּנֵי (mibbÿne, “from the sons of”) in the MT to בֵּן (ben,“[the] son of”). Cf. NAB, TEV, CEV, NLT.

³ tc The MT reads תָּשׁוּבוּ (tashuvu, “you turn”) which is awkward contextually. The BHS editors propose emending to חָשְׁבוּ (hashÿvu, “they were plotting”) which harmonizes well with the context. This emendation involves mere orthographic confusion between similar looking ח (khet) and ת (tav), and the resultant dittography of middle vav (ו) in MT. See also the preceding note on the word “schemes.”

¹ tc The present translation is based on the Niphal form וַיּשָּׁלַח (vayyishalakh, “were sent”; so also NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT) rather than the reading of the MT וַיּשְׁלַח (vayyishlakh, Qal, “and he sent”). The subject of the MT verb would have to be Mordecai (cf. NAB, NIV, NCV), but this is problematic in light of v. 29, where both Esther and Mordecai are responsible for the letters.

² tn Many commentators follow the Vulgate and read the line “if you put away the sin that is in your hand.” They do this because the imperative comes between the protasis (v. 13) and the apodosis (v. 15) and does not appear to be clearly part of the protasis. The idea is close to the MT, but the MT is much more forceful – if you find sin in your hand, get rid of it.

² tc The MT has כִסֵּה (khisseh), which is a problematic vocalization. Most certainly כֵּסֶה (keseh), alternative for כֶּסֶא (kese’, “full moon”) is intended here. The MT is close to the form of “throne,” which would be כִּסֵּא (kisse’, cf. NLT “he shrouds his throne with his clouds”). But here God is covering the face of the moon by hiding it behind clouds.

² tn The verb יִסּוֹר (yissor) is found only here, but comes from a common root meaning “to correct; to reprove.” Several suggestions have been made to improve on the MT. Dhorme read it יָסוּר (yasur) in the sense of “to turn aside; to yield.” Ehrlich read this emendation as “to come to an end.” But the MT could be read as “to correct; to instruct.”

² tc MT has “before me” and can best be rendered as “Who then is he that can stand before me?” (ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NJPS). The following verse (11) favors the MT since both express the lesson to be learned from Leviathan: If a man cannot stand up to Leviathan, how can he stand up to its creator? The translation above has chosen to read the text as “before him” (cf. NRSV, NJB).

¹ tc The words “along with” do not appear in the MT. However, the LXX has “with,” suggesting that the original text may have read עִם עַם (’im ’am, “along with the people”). In this case the MT is haplographic (the consonantal sequence ayin-mem [עם] being written once instead of twice). Another option is that the LXX is simply and correctly interpreting “people” as an adverbial accusative and supplying the appropriate preposition.

² tc The MT has “seeks [his own] desire[s].” The translation in the LXX represents a Hebrew Vorlage of לְתֹאֲנָה (lÿto’anah) instead of לְתַאֲוָה (lÿta’avah); this could be translated “seeks his own occasion,” that is, “his own pretext” (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 354; cf. NAB). The MT makes sense as it stands and the emendation is not really necessary.

¹ tc Some (cf. NAB) suggest emending the MT’s “judgments” (from שָׁפַט, shafat) to “rods” (from שָׁבַט, shavat); however, this is not necessary if the term in the MT is interpreted figuratively. The LXX “scourges” might reflect a different Vorlage, but it also could have been an interpretive translation from the same text. “Judgments” is a metonymy of cause and refers to the punishment that the scoffer is to receive.

² tc The MT reads “and the form of the creatures – their appearance was like burning coals of fire.” The LXX reads “in the midst of the creatures was a sight like burning coals of fire.” The MT may have adjusted “appearance” to “their appearance” to fit their reading of the beginning of the verse (see the tc note on “in the middle”). See M. Greenberg, Ezekiel (AB), 1:46.

¹ tc The MT reads לַעֲשׂוֹת אֱמֶת (la’asot ’emet, “to do with integrity”), while the LXX reads “to do them,” presupposing לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתָם (la’asot ’otam). The ם (mem) and ת (tav) have been reversed in the MT. The LXX refelcts the original, supported by similar phrasing in Ezekiel 11:20; 20:19.

¹ tc The translation reads מִפְשַׁר (mifshar) rather than the MT מְפַשַּׁר (mÿfashar) and later in the verse reads וּמִשְׁרֵא (mishre’) rather than the MT וּמְשָׁרֵא (mÿshare’). The Masoretes have understood these Aramaic forms to be participles, but they are more likely to be vocalized as infinitives. As such, they have an epexegetical function in the syntax of their clause.

¹ tc The present translation reads הַפְּשָׁעִים (happÿsha’im, “rebellious acts”) for the MT הַפֹּשְׁעִים (happoshÿ’im, “rebels”). While the MT is understandable (cf. NIV, “when rebels have become completely wicked”), the filling up of transgressions is a familiar OT expression (cf. Gen 15:16) and fits this context well. Cf. the LXX, Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Syriac.

⁵ tc The MT reads the preposition בְּ (bet, “are [like]”), but several Hebrew mss read the comparative preposition כְּ (kaf, “like”). This textual variant probably arose due to the visual similarity of the two letters (orthographic confusion) and the relatively rare use of בְּ in metaphors – the comparative preposition כְּ (“like”) is much more common in metaphors. The MT is the more difficult reading and best explains the origin of the variant.

⁵ tc Although the LXX and Syriac read a 3 fs suffix, the 2 fs suffix on MT בְּעֶזְרָתֵךְ (bÿ’ezratekh, “your strength”) should be retained because of the support of 4QpNah, which reads בעזרתך. The MT is the more difficult reading and best explains the origin of the variants, which attempt to harmonize with the preceding 3 fs suffix.

³ tc The LXX and Vulgate read “with it” (which in Hebrew would be הֲיִרְצֵהוּ, hayirtsehu, a reading followed by NAB) rather than “with you” of the MT (הֲיִרְצְךָ, hayirtsÿkha). The MT (followed here by most English versions) is to be preferred because of the parallel with the following phrase פָנֶיךָ (fanekha, “receive you,” which the present translation renders as “show you favor”).

¹ tc There are several person, gender, and voice verb problems in this verse. First, the MT has “And you shall bring the grain offering,” but the LXX and Qumran have “he” rather than “you” (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:185). Second, the MT has “which shall be made” (i.e., the 3rd person masculine Niphal passive verb which, in fact, does not agree with its feminine subject, מִנְחָה, minkhah, “grain offering”), while the LXX has “which he shall make” (3rd person Qal), thus agreeing with the LXX 3rd person verb at the beginning of the verse (see above). Third, the MT has a 3rd person vav consecutive verb “and he shall present it to the priest,” which agrees with the LXX but is not internally consistent with the 2nd person verb at the beginning of the verse in the MT. The BHS editors conjecture that the latter might be repointed to an imperative verb yielding “present it to the priest.” This would require no change of consonants and corresponds to the person of the first verb in the MT. This solution has been tentatively accepted here (cf. also J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 26-27), even though it neither resolves the gender problem of the second verb nor fits the general grammatical pattern of the chapter in the MT.