Discovery Box| (0.52455551351351) | (Deu 10:9) |
1 sn Levi has no allotment or inheritance. As the priestly tribe, Levi would have no land allotment except for forty-eight towns set apart for their use (Num 35:1-8; Josh 21:1-42). But theirs was a far greater inheritance, for the |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Deu 22:9) |
1 tn Heb “set apart.” The verb קָדַשׁ (qadash) in the Qal verbal stem (as here) has the idea of being holy or being treated with special care. Some take the meaning as “be off-limits, forfeited,” i.e., the total produce of the vineyard, both crops and grapes, have to be forfeited to the sanctuary (cf. Exod 29:37; 30:29; Lev 6:18, 27; Num 16:37-38; Hag 2:12). |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Deu 24:1) |
1 tn Heb “nakedness of a thing.” The Hebrew phrase עֶרְוַת דָּבָר (’ervat davar) refers here to some gross sexual impropriety (see note on “indecent” in Deut 23:14). Though the term usually has to do only with indecent exposure of the genitals, it can also include such behavior as adultery (cf. Lev 18:6-18; 20:11, 17, 20-21; Ezek 22:10; 23:29; Hos 2:10). |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Jos 6:2) |
1 tn Heb “I have given into your hand Jericho.” The Hebrew verb נָתַתִּי (natatti, “I have given”) is probably best understood as a perfect of certitude, indicating the certainty of the action. The Hebrew pronominal suffix “your” is singular, being addressed to Joshua as the leader and representative of the nation. To convey to the modern reader what is about to happen and who is doing it, the translation “I am about to defeat Jericho for you” has been used. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Jos 16:2) |
2 tn In the Hebrew text the place name “Luz” has the directive ending, indicating that the border went from Bethel to Luz. Elsewhere Luz and Bethel appear to be names for the same site (cf. Judg 1:23), but here they appear to be distinct. Note that the NIV translates “from Bethel (that is, Luz)” here, following the reading of the LXX, εἰς Βαιθηλ Λουζα (eis Baiqhl Louza, “from Bethel [Luz]”). |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Jos 22:19) |
2 sn The western tribes here imagine a possible motive for the action of the eastern tribes. T. C. Butler explains the significance of the land’s “impurity”: “East Jordan is impure because it is not Yahweh’s possession. Rather it is simply ‘your possession.’ That means it is land where Yahweh does not live, land which his presence has not sanctified and purified” (Joshua [WBC], 247). |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Jdg 6:18) |
2 tn Heb “and I will bring out my gift.” The precise nuance of the Hebrew word מִנְחָה (minkhah, “gift”) is uncertain in this context. It may refer to a gift offered as a sign of goodwill or submission. In some cases it is used of a gift offered to appease someone whom the offerer has offended. The word can also carry a sacrificial connotation. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Rut 1:13) |
4 tn Heb “No, my daughters.” Naomi is not answering the rhetorical questions she has just asked. In light of the explanatory clause that follows, it seems more likely that she is urging them to give up the idea of returning with her. In other words, the words “no, my daughters” complement the earlier exhortation to “go back.” To clarify this, the words “you must not return with me” are added in the translation. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Rut 1:22) |
3 tn This statement, introduced with a disjunctive structure (vav [ו] + subject + verb) provides closure for the previous scene, while at the same time making a transition to the next scene, which takes place in the barley field. The reference to the harvest also reminds the reader that God has been merciful to his people by replacing the famine with fertility. In the flow of the narrative the question is now, “Will he do the same for Naomi and Ruth?” |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Rut 2:1) |
2 tc The marginal reading (Qere) is מוֹדַע (moda’, “relative”), while the consonantal text (Kethib) has מְיֻדָּע (miyudda’, “friend”). The textual variant was probably caused by orthographic confusion between consonantal מְיֻדָּע and מוֹדַע. Virtually all English versions follow the marginal reading (Qere), e.g., KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “kinsman”; NIV, NCV, NLT “relative.” |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Rut 2:11) |
2 tn Heb “it has been fully reported to me.” The infinitive absolute here emphasizes the following finite verb from the same root. Here it emphasizes either the clarity of the report or its completeness. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 153, n. 6. Most English versions tend toward the nuance of completeness (e.g., KJV “fully been shewed”; NAB “a complete account”; NASB, NRSV “All that you have done”). |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Rut 3:4) |
3 tc The consonantal text (Kethib) has וְשָׁכָבְתִּי (vÿshakhavtiy, “then I will lie down”; Qal perfect 1st person common singular), while the marginal reading (Qere) is וְשָׁכָבְתְּ (vÿshakhavt, “then you lie down”; Qal perfect 2nd person feminine singular) which makes more sense. It is possible that the Kethib preserves an archaic spelling of the 2nd person feminine singular form (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 144-45). |
| (0.52455551351351) | (Rut 3:9) |
4 tn Heb “for you are a גֹאֵל [go’el],” sometimes translated “redeemer” (cf. NIV “a kinsman-redeemer”; NLT “my family redeemer”). In this context Boaz, as a “redeemer,” functions as a guardian of the family interests who has responsibility for caring for the widows of his deceased kinsmen. For a discussion of the legal background, see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 166-69. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (1Sa 1:5) |
2 tn Heb “for Hannah he loved.” Repetition of the proper name would seem redundant in contemporary English, so the pronoun (“her”) has been used here for clarity. The translation also adds the adverb “especially” to clarify the meaning of the text. Without this addition one might get the impression that only Hannah, not Peninnah, was loved by her husband. But the point of the text is that Hannah was his favorite. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (1Sa 2:29) |
1 tc The MT has a plural “you” here, but the LXX and a Qumran |
| (0.52455551351351) | (1Sa 3:21) |
1 tc The LXX has a lengthy addition here: “And Samuel was acknowledged to be a prophet of the |
| (0.52455551351351) | (1Sa 22:7) |
1 tc The MT has “to all of you.” If this reading is correct, we have here an example of a prepositional phrase functioning as the equivalent of a dative of advantage, which is not impossible from a grammatical point of view. However, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate all have “and.” A conjunction rather than a preposition should probably be read on the front of this phrase. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (1Sa 27:10) |
1 tc The translation follows the LXX (ἐπι τίνα, epi tina) and Vulgate (in quem) which assume אֶל מִי (’el mi, “to whom”) rather than the MT אַל (’al, “not”). The MT makes no sense here. Another possibility is that the text originally had אַן (’an, “where”), which has been distorted in the MT to אַל. Cf. the Syriac Peshitta and the Targum, which have “where.” |
| (0.52455551351351) | (2Sa 2:9) |
1 tc The MT here reads “the Ashurite,” but this is problematic if it is taken to mean “the Assyrian.” Ish-bosheth’s kingdom obviously was not of such proportions as to extend to Assyria. The Syriac Peshitta renders the word as “the Geshurite,” while the Targum has “of the house of Ashur.” We should probably emend the Hebrew text to read “the Geshurite.” The Geshurites lived in the northeastern part of the land of Palestine. |
| (0.52455551351351) | (2Sa 6:2) |
4 tc The MT has here a double reference to the name (שֵׁם שֵׁם, shem shem). Many medieval Hebrew |
