... original but others belong to a secondary level. These scholars do not regard 28:1 as a duplicate of 23:2 but rather see it as a repetitive resumption of the narrative after some lists that were inserted by the Chronicler himself. A third position adopted by some scholars is the originality of all or almost all the lists. The main argument here is again that the repetition in 23:2 and 28:1 should not necessarily be interpreted as an indication of composite sources. More recently, particularly through the ...
... , Nehemiah, pp. 9f., has shown. This is a minor bit of evidence for differentiating the two pieces of literature. 1:2 The God of heaven is a title used in postexilic Jewish literature. It was a common divine title in the Persian empire, and its adoption by Jews may have been an attempt to use a cultural equivalent that would interpret their faith to non-Jews. This acknowledgment of Yahweh may be compared with Cyrus’ description of the moon god Sin, in conjunction with the rebuilding of his temple at Ur ...
... nature of the task. Verses 2–3 function as a flashback. The building of the altar logically precedes the sacrifices in verse 6 and so, implicitly, verse 1. The text reflects a concern to do the sacrificing correctly. For the postexilic community this meant adopting the Law of Moses, the Torah, as the script for their worship. It is hailed as the basis not for building the altar but for the regular burnt offerings made each day, morning and evening, as verse 3 elaborates. These verses reflect Numbers 28 ...
... mission of Ezra. His mission is the second of the three presented in Ezra-Nehemiah. It has two parts: first to take back to Jerusalem valuable supplies and pledges for the temple, along with a fresh group of returning exiles; and second to implement the adoption of the Torah to regulate the life of the Judean community. We notice, looking over the chapter, that it falls into three sections. First, verses 1–10 give a preview of the journey of chapters 7–8, interspersed with a formal introduction to Ezra ...
... sons of Zaccai,” which relates to the clan name in Neh. 7:14/Ezra 2:9. Here an Aramaic form of the name “Daccai,” may have been intended (Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, p. 132). 10:44 And some of them . . . wives: The NIV has wisely resisted the adoption of 1 Esd. 9:36, as the NRSV (and other modern versions) have done, “and they sent them away with their children.” This is clearly a secondary correction of a difficult text, making it say what one would like it to say in the context. Although the ...
... Nehemiah’s demand must have been intended only for the period of wall building and recuperation from it. Otherwise, in the future, few would have been prepared to lend without collateral property as a safeguard against defaulting. A different, permanent solution was adopted later, in 10:31. For now, pledges of productive property were to be returned and no further interest of money or produce was to be exacted. The creditors agreed to these concessions, making the loans unsecured and also free of interest ...
... 5, and the remaining five relate to the religious reforms of his second term as governor recorded in chapter 13. This close affinity with chapter 13 suggests that the communal pledge was sworn after the events recorded there; it was the community’s adoption of a codified version of Nehemiah’s ad hoc measures. However, in the ideal presentation offered in the current arrangement of texts, which would serve as a model for the community thereafter, the pledge is put earlier, as a final step in a threefold ...
... between the literary composition and the historical timetable in the interests of a spiritual lesson taught by the editor. Joyful celebration must be responsibly matched by reform that bolsters sacred tradition, as in Ezra 6:16–18. After worship should come the adoption of a way of life that equally honors God by reaffirming God’s revealed will. The day of worship must be a day to institute changes in the communal lifestyle. A long extract from Nehemiah’s memoirs about his religious reforms backs ...
... superior. It is also noteworthy that in each of these accounts God is the ultimate source of this favor. In Esther, ultimate causality is only implied. The expression “won his favor” conveys a unique emphasis in Esther 2. The Hebrew (vattissa?) suggests that Esther adopted a more active role than “finding” favor (the typical expression); Esther takes it. She won [the] favor of Hegai in verse 9, of everyone who saw her in verse 15, and of the king himself in verse 17. The subtle indication is that ...
... that Esther was submissive to Mordecai, the point would certainly register here. Esther was obedient to Mordecai in this case because she always obeyed him. This point is significant because Esther has moved out from under the direct supervision of her adopted father and into the care of a foreigner with great power. Mordecai, apparently looking out for her best interests, still exercises control over her will. Later, in chapter 4, Mordecai will appeal to her against her own instincts. She will ultimately ...
... be delivered somehow. But in that case, you and your father’s family will perish (v. 14). Perhaps Mordecai is suggesting that both of them will perish (at the hands of other Jews? or God?), and that this would end the family line he had preserved by adopting her. Maybe he is insinuating that he would disown her and that she would suffer the consequences of this choice as a member of the family to which she was born. The use of “holy war” terms and themes in other portions of Esther would encourage us ...
... frequent wisdom theme, it hardly belongs here with the first person discourse of Woman Wisdom. It is in the third person and has two words, hate and evil, that appear at the end of lines b and c. It looks like a gloss. 8:16 The NIV adopts an alternate reading, “and all nobles who rule on earth,” which is reflected in the Gk.; see also the marginal note. The MT can also be translated: “nobles, and all judges of the earth” on the basis of alternative readings of some Hb. manuscripts that read ʾāre ...
... is delivered (from ntr, Hophal) from harm (mērāʿâ), but the way of the wicked leads them (i.e., the wicked) astray.” 12:27 Hb. ḥrk (roast?) is a hapax legomenon (occurs only once in the Hb. Bible); hence the uncertain translation. If one adopts the transposition of two words (with the LXX and Syriac), v. 27b reads, lit. “the possessions of an industrious person—precious.” The NIV seems to derive prizes from this reading. 12:28 V. 28b cannot be rendered as in the NIV. In addition, the word ...
... 19:1 Antithetic comparison. Verses 1 and 2 are not in the LXX. The antithesis between blameless and perverse is clear, but not so for poor and fool. One would expect “rich” instead of fool. This is the reading of the apparent doublet in 28:6, adopted by many commentators and translations (NAB). 19:2 Synonymous. In Proverbs, hasty action is generally suspect (e.g., 21:5; 28:20; 29:20). It suggests aimless (if not evil) and unplanned activity. The meaning of verse 2b enables one to translate the difficult ...
... ; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16); see also 30:11. On the lamp, see the comment on 13:9. Pitch darkness is literally, “the (eye) pupil of darkness”—the very center where light should be. See Additional Notes. 20:21 Synthetic. The NIV adopts the Qere with the ancient versions (“hastily gotten”) in place of the Kethib (doubtful meaning; “despised?”). In Proverbs “haste” is nearly always suggestive of something foolish or evil (13:11; 28:20, 22). It is not said exactly how the inheritance is obtained ...
... in v. 8a. The Gk. appears to read ergōn autou for this Hb. ʾbdtw (“his labors”). The Gk. verb is syntelesei (“bring to an end, destroy”). This is followed by the NAB: “destroys his labors”; but the rod is left unexplained. McKane (Proverbs) adopts Gemser (Sprüche): “smites him,” emending the Hb. verb to ykhw. 22:11 The Gk. has three lines: “The Lord loves holy hearts; all the blameless are accepted by him"—but the third line does not fit: “a king feeds (his flock) with his lips ...
... is “all.” Literally, v. 10b reads: “and one who hires a fool and who hires passers-by.” No emendations have achieved consensus. 26:23 The MT is usually translated “silver dross” (NIV margin), presumably to indicate a covering that is not pure silver, but this is uncertain. The NIV adopts in the text the conjectural reading, Hb. kspsgym, which supposedly means “glaze” (but cf. M. Dietrich and 0. Loretz, “Die angebliche Ug.-He. Parallele SPSG//SPS(J)G(JM),” UF 8 [1976], pp. 37–40).
... speaker of the main portion of the book. This speaker is identified by a title (NIV the Teacher,) and further specified as son of David, king in Jerusalem, leading to the traditional ascription of the work to Solomon. The hint of Solomon as speaker anticipates the persona adopted in 1:12–2:26. This persona is not carried through the remainder of the book, where the narrative voice speaks about kings but not as a king (see, e.g., 8:2–4). 1:2 This verse, which provides a motto for the entire book, forms ...
... , will be “out of breath” by the end. 12:8 The closing motto of the book matches 1:2. The use of an inclusion formula suggests completeness, and indeed Qohelet stops speaking here. The epilogue refers to Qohelet in the third person but does not adopt the persona. Additional Notes 12:1 Your Creator: While some emend (Qohelet never explicitly refers to God as Creator elsewhere, although the concept of God’s creative role pervades the book), your Creator here and God who gave it in 12:7 form an inclusion ...
... of the contest between Jeremiah and Hananiah, who contradicted Jeremiah’s warnings of judgment with message of peace and safety. The Deuteronomic History, like Jeremiah, faulted the people for not listening to the true prophet (see 1 Kgs. 13). But the poet here adopts a different perspective. If pressed, he would acknowledge the people’s blame (1:5, 8, etc.), but he elicits the reader’s sympathy for those who have been destroyed. Perhaps he is trying to elicit divine sympathy for their plight with the ...
... a woman who is loved by a friend and is an adulteress, as Yahweh loves the children of Israel, though they are turning to other gods and are lovers of cakes of raisin.” Thus, as it is often wont to do, the NIV has adopted one interpretation of a passage that has been almost endlessly and variously interpreted by commentators, though the NIV interpretation is probably correct. It seems impossible that the woman is anyone else than Gomer. Otherwise, she has simply been abandoned to her punishment and fate ...
... loss of vitality. The result of Israel’s senselessness is the judgment pronounced by God in verse 12. Like a fowler catching birds, the Lord will pull Israel down from its frantic flight between nations and subject it to judgment. The NIV has adopted an emendation of verse 12c that was suggested by Das Alte Testament Deutsch. The Hebrew of the line reads, “I will chastise them according to the report to (of?) their congregation” (cf. the NRSV). Many scholars emend the last word, so the sentence reads ...
... ; Isa. 63:8–9; 43:3, 11; 45:15; 49:26; 60:16). God knew this people when they wandered for forty years in the wilderness (cf. 9:10). God has known Israel, intimately, lovingly, as a member of his family—as a beloved wife (cf. 2:2), as his adopted son (cf. 11:1)—and in that intimate relationship, which characterizes the covenant for Hosea, Israel has known God. But after the Israelites entered the land and were fed to the full by God’s gifts of grain and wine and oil (cf. 2:8), they became proud: The ...
... for royalty. The “man who is close to me” translates a word found elsewhere only in Leviticus (ʿamiti). It is a legal term for people who share the same rights and protection, who are part of the same community. Only the Davidic king, the Lord’s adopted son (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7), would be so close to God. “Strike the shepherd,” / and the sheep will be scattered sounds like a truism, a proverbial statement, but the verb “strike” is also an imperative. God had commanded the sword to “awake ...
... means “one who rouses himself” and the second means “one who answers.” The NIV understands this phrase to be in apposition to “the man who does this” and interprets it as an idiom referring to all people. The alternate translation in the NIV margin has adopted a slight textual emendation of the first word to ʿed, “witness,” and interprets the pair of words as the object of the verb “cut off”: “May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob anyone who gives testimony in behalf of the man ...