Jeremiah 39–43

Footnotes

1. 61 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
2. 62 The precise meaning of this line and its relation to the context are somewhat uncertain. This line is missing from the Greek and versions and from a few Hebrew . Some English versions and commentaries omit it as a double writing of the final words of the preceding line (see, e.g., ; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah [Hermeneia], 2:). Others see it as misplaced from the beginning of 39:3 (see, e.g., , , J. Bright, Jeremiah [], 245). The clause probably does belong syntactically with 39:3 (i.e., כַּאֲשֶׁר [ka’asher] introduces a temporal clause which is resumed by the vav consecutive on וַיָּבֹאוּ (vayyavo’u; see 455 כַּאֲשֶׁר 3), but it should not be moved there because there is no textual evidence for doing so. The intervening verses are to be interpreted as parenthetical, giving the background for the events that follow (see, e.g., the translation in D. Barthélemy, e.d., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 4:280). The chapter is not so much concerned with describing how Jerusalem fell as it is with contrasting the fate of Zedekiah who disregarded the word of the Lord with the fate of Jeremiah and that of Jeremiah’s benefactor Ebed Melech. The best way to treat the line without actually moving it before 39:3a is to treat it as a heading as has been done here.
3. 1 2 Kgs 25:1 and Jer 52:4 give the more precise date of the tenth day of the tenth month of the ninth year which would have been Jan 15, 588 b.c. The reckoning is based on the calendar that begins the year in the spring (Nisan = March/April).
4. 2 According to modern reckoning that would have been July 18, 586 b.c. The siege thus lasted almost a full eighteen months.
5. 3 English versions and commentaries differ on the number of officials named here and the exact spelling of their names. For a good discussion of the options see F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations (), , n. 71. Most commentaries follow the general lead of J. Bright (Jeremiah [], 243) as the present translation has done here. However, the second name is not emended on the basis of v. 13 as Bright does, nor is the second Nergal-Sharezer regarded as the same man as the first and the information on the two combined as he does. The first Nergal-Sharezer is generally identified on the basis of Babylonian records as the man who usurped the throne from Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Awel-Marduk or Evil-Merodach as he is known in the OT (Jer 52:31; 2 Kgs 25:27). The present translation renders the two technical Babylonian terms “Rab-Saris” (only in Jer 39:3, 13; 2 Kgs 18:17) and “Rab-Mag” (only in Jer 39:3, 13) as “chief officer” and “high official” without knowing precisely what offices they held. This has been done to give the modern reader some feeling of their high position without specifying exactly what their precise positions were (i.e., the generic has been used for the [unknown] specific).
6. 4 Heb “sat.” The precise meaning of this phrase is not altogether clear, but J. Bright (Jeremiah [], 243) is undoubtedly correct in assuming that it had to do with setting up a provisional military government over the city.
7. 5 The Hebrew style here is typically full or redundant, giving a general subject first and then listing the specifics. The Hebrew text reads: “Then all the officers of the king of Babylon came and sat in the Middle Gate, Nergal-Sharezer … and all the rest of the officers of the king of Babylon.” In the translation the general subject has been eliminated and the list of the “real” subjects used instead; this eliminates the dashes or commas typical of some modern English versions. The identification of the location of the Middle Gate is uncertain since it is mentioned nowhere else in the OT.
8. 6 The king’s garden is mentioned again in Neh 3:15 in conjunction with the pool of Siloam and the stairs that go down from the city of David. This would have been in the southern part of the city near the Tyropean Valley which agrees with the reference to the “two walls” which were probably the walls on the eastern and western hills.
9. 7 Heb “toward the Arabah.” The Arabah was the rift valley north and south of the Dead Sea. Here the intention was undoubtedly to escape across the Jordan to Moab or Ammon. It appears from 40:14; 41:15 that the Ammonites were known to harbor fugitives from the Babylonians.
10. 8 Heb “The Chaldeans.” See the study note on for explanation.
11. 9 For location see ; ; ; ; ; .
12. 10 2 Kgs 25:5 and Jer 52:8 mention that the soldiers all scattered from him. That is why the text focuses on Zedekiah here.
13. 11 Riblah was a strategic town on the Orontes River in Syria. It was at a crossing of the major roads between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Pharaoh Necho had earlier received Jehoahaz there and put him in chains (2 Kgs 23:33) prior to taking him captive to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar had set up his base camp for conducting his campaigns against the Palestinian states there and was now sitting in judgment on prisoners brought to him.
14. 12 Heb “fetters of bronze.” The more generic “chains” is used in the translation because “fetters” is a word unfamiliar to most modern readers.
15. 13 Heb “Chaldean.” See the study note on for explanation.
16. 14 The reading here is based on an emendation following the parallels in Jer 52:13 and 2 Kgs 25:9. The Hebrew text here does not have “the temple of the Lord” and reads merely “house of the people.” The text here is probably corrupt. It reads וְאֶת־בֵּית הָעָם (vé’et-bet ha’am, “and the house of the people”), which many explain as a collective use of בַּיִת (bayit). However, no parallels are cited by any of the commentaries, grammars, or lexicons for such a use. It is more likely that the words יְהוָה וְאֶת־בָּתֵּי (yéhvah vé’et-bate) have fallen out of the text due to similar beginnings. The words וְאֶת־בֵּית יהוה (vé’et-bet yhwh) are found in the parallel texts cited in the marginal note. The Greek version is no help here because vv. 4–13 are omitted, probably due to the similarities in ending of vv. 3, 13 (i.e., homoioteleuton of מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל, melekh bavel).
17. 15 According to the parallels in 2 Kgs 25:8–9; Jer 52:12–13 this occurred almost a month after the wall was breached and Zedekiah’s failed escape. It took place under the direction of Nebuzaradan, the captain of the king’s special guard who is mentioned in the next verse.
18. 16 For the meaning of this phrase see 371 טַבָּח 2 and compare the usage in Gen 39:1.
19. 17 The translation is based on an emendation of the text which leaves out “the rest of the people who were left” as a double writing of the same phrase at the beginning of the verse. Some commentators emend the phrase “the rest of the people who were left” (הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְאֶת יֶתֶר הָעָם, hannish’arim vé’et yeter ha’am) to read “the rest of the craftsmen who were left” (וְאֶת יֶתֶר הָאָמוֹן הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, vé’et yeter ha’amon hannish’arim) on the basis of the parallel in Jer 52:15 (which does not have הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, hannish’arim). However, it is easier to explain the phrase as a dittography of the phrase at the beginning (which is exactly the same except הָעִיר [ha’ir] follows it). The text is redundant because it refers twice to the same group of people. The Hebrew text reads: “And the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had deserted to him and the rest of the people Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, carried into exile to Babylon.” The text has also been divided up to create two shorter sentences to better conform with contemporary English style.
20. 18 Heb “Nebuzaradan, the captain of the royal guard.” However, the subject is clear from the preceding and contemporary English style would normally avoid repeating the proper name and title.
21. 19 Heb “And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon commanded concerning Jeremiah by the hand of Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, saying.” Since Nebuchadnezzar is at Riblah (v. 6) and Nebuzaradan and the other officers named in the next verse are at Jerusalem, the vav consecutive imperfect should again be translated as a pluperfect (see 38:2 and the translator’s notes there for explanation). For the meaning of “through” or “through the agency of” for the phrase בְּיַד (béyad) see 391 יָד 5.d. The sentence has been broken up to better conform with contemporary English style.
22. 20 Heb “Get [or fetch] him.” The referent is supplied for clarity.
23. 21 Or “take care of him”; Heb “set your eyes on him.” For the meaning of this idiom see 963 שִׂים 2.c and compare 24:6 where the phrase “for good” is added.
24. 22 Heb “Don’t do anything evil [= harmful] to him.”
25. 23 See the translator’s notes on , 9 for the names and titles here.
26. 24 Gedaliah. This is the first reference to this individual whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed governor over the people who were left to live in Judah (cf. 40:5; 2 Kgs 25:22). His father was the man who spoke up for Jeremiah when he was accused of being a false prophet by some of the priests and prophets (26:24). His grandfather was the royal secretary under Josiah who brought the discovery of the book of the law to Josiah’s attention, read it to him, and was involved in helping Josiah institute his reforms (2 Kgs 22:8–10).
27. 25 The meaning of the last phrase is uncertain. An alternate translation is “to take him home with him.” The text reads literally “to bring him into the house.” However, it is unclear whether “the house” refers to Jeremiah’s house or to Gedaliah’s. The fact that Nebuzaradan later offers Jeremiah the option of going back to Gedaliah (40:5) suggests that the house is here Gedaliah’s where Jeremiah would be looked out for in accord with Nebuchadnezzar’s command (v. 12).
28. 26 Many translate this last clause as a conclusion or summary remark, “So Jeremiah stayed …” However, it is better to translate it as an adversative because it probably refers to the fact that rather than staying with Gedaliah in the governor’s residence Jeremiah stayed among the people. That is how he wound up being led off as a prisoner to Ramah. See further the study note on . According to §33.2.1d the vav (ו) consecutive can have either of these values (see examples 11 and 12 for the adversative or contrastive nuance).
29. 27 Jer 39:15–18. This incident is out of chronological order (see Jer 38:7–13). It is placed here either due to a desire not to interrupt the sequential ordering of events centering on Jeremiah’s imprisonment and his release (38:14–39:14) or to contrast God’s care and concern for the faithful (Ebed-Melech who, though a foreigner, trusted in God) with his harsh treatment of the faithless (Zedekiah who, though informed of God’s will, was too weak-willed in the face of opposition by his courtiers to carry it out).
30. 28 Heb “Now the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah while he … saying.” The form of this clause is disjunctive showing that it does not follow the preceding events in either chronological or logical sequence. For a discussion of the form and function of such disjunctive clauses see §39.2.3. This example most closely fits the description and function of example 12, Ruth 4:18, 21–22 on p. 652.
31. 29 Even though Jeremiah was confined to the courtyard of the guardhouse, he was still free to entertain visitors (32:2, 8). Moreover, Ebed-Melech was an official attached to the royal court and would have had access to the courtyard of the guardhouse (38:7, 13). Jeremiah would not have had to leave the courtyard of the guardhouse to “go and tell” him something.
32. 30 Heb “Behold, I will bring to pass my words against this city for evil/disaster and not for good/good fortune.” For the form of the verb מֵבִי ([mevi] Kethib, מֵבִיא [mevi’] Qere) see §74.k, where the same form is noted for the Kethib in 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Kgs 21:21; Jer 19:15 all of which occur before a word beginning with א. For the nuance “carry out” (or “bring to pass”) see 99 בּוֹא Hiph.2.b.
33. 31 Heb “And they [= my words for disaster] will come to pass [= happen] before you on that day [i.e., the day that I bring them to pass/carry them out].”
34. 32 Heb “But I will rescue you on that day” (referring to the same day mentioned in the preceding verse).
35. 33 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
36. 34 Some commentators see this as a reference to the princes from whose clutches Ebed-Melech delivered Jeremiah (38:7–13). However, it is clear that in this context it refers to those that he would fear when the Lord brings about the threatened disaster, i.e., the Babylonians who are attacking the city.
37. 35 Heb “you will not fall by the sword.” In the context this would include death in battle and execution as a prisoner of war.
38. 36 Heb “your life will be to you for spoil.” For the meaning of this idiom see the study note on and compare the usage in 21:9; 38:2; 45:4.
39. 37 Heb “Oracle of the Lord.”
40. 1 Heb “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord.” This phrase regularly introduces the Lord’s directions to Jeremiah which immediately follow (cf. 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 30:1; 34:1; 35:1). In 21:1; 44:1 it introduces a word of the Lord that Jeremiah communicates to others. However, no directions to Jeremiah follow here nor does any oracle that Jeremiah passes on to the people. Some commentators explain this as a heading parallel to that in 1:1–3 (which refers to messages and incidents in the life of Jeremiah up to the fall of Jerusalem) introducing the oracles that Jeremiah delivered after the fall of Jerusalem. However, no oracles follow until 42:9. It is possible that the intervening material supply background material for the oracle that is introduced in 42:7. An analogy to this structure but in a much shorter form may be found in 34:8–12. Another possible explanation is that the words of the captain of the guard in vv. 2–3 are to be seen as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah. In this case, it is a rather ironical confirmation of what Jeremiah had been saying all along. If it is thought strange that a pagan soldier would have said these words, it should be remembered that foreign soldiers knew through their intelligence sources what kings and prophets were saying (cf. Isa 36:7), and it is not unusual for God to speak through pagan prophets (cf. Balaam’s oracles, e.g. Num 23:7–10) or even a dumb animal (e.g., Balaam’s donkey [Num 22:28, 30]). Given the penchant for the use of irony in the book of Jeremiah, this is the most likely explanation. For further discussion on this view see G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise, T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52 (), .
41. 2 Some commentators see the account of Jeremiah’s release here in 40:1–6 as an alternate and contradictory account to that of Jeremiah’s release in 39:11–14. However, most commentators see them as complementary and sequential. Jeremiah had been released from the courtyard of the guardhouse on orders of the military tribunal there shortly after Nebuzaradan got to Jerusalem and passed on Nebuchadnezzar’s orders to them. He had been released to the custody of Gedaliah who was to take him back to the governor’s residence and look after him there. However, Jeremiah remained in Jerusalem among the people there. He was mistakenly rounded up with them and led off as a prisoner to be deported with the rest of the exiles. However, when he got to Ramah which was a staging area for deportees, Nebuzaradan recognized him among the prisoners and released him a second time.
42. 3 Heb “when he took him and he was in chains.” The subject is probably Nebuzaradan or the indefinite third singular ( §144.d). The Kethib of the word for בָּאזִקִּים (ba’ziqqim) is to be explained as a secondary formation with prosthetic א (aleph) from the normal word for “fetter” (זֵק, zeq) according to אֲזִקִּים (see §19.m and §85.b for the phenomenon).
43. 4 For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
44. 5 Heb “Because you [masc. ] sinned against the Lord and did not hearken to his voice [a common idiom for “obey him”], this thing has happened to you [masc. ].”
45. 6 The verb here is an example of the perfect of resolve where the speaker announces his intention to do something according to §30.5.1d. The word “Jeremiah” is supplied in the translation to avoid the possible misunderstanding that the you is still plural.
46. 7 Or “look out for you.” See 39:12 and the translator’s note there.
47. 8 Or “Stay here”; Heb “Forbear.” The imperative is used in a permissive sense; “you may forbear.” See §110.b and compare usage in Gen 50:6.
48. 9 Heb “See all the land [or the whole land] is before you.” For this idiom see 817 פָּנֶה II.4.a(f) and compare the usage in Gen 20:15; 47:6.
49. 10 Heb “Unto the good and the right in your eyes to go, go there.”
50. 11 Or “Before Jeremiah could answer, the captain of the guard added.” Or “But if you remain, then go back.” The meaning of the first part of v. 5 is uncertain. The text is either very cryptic here or is corrupt, perhaps beyond restoration. The Hebrew text reads, “and he was not yet turning and return to Gedaliah” (וְעוֹדֶנּוּ לֹא־יָשׁוּב וְשֻׁבָה אֶל־גְּדַלְיָה) which is very cryptic. The Greek version lacks everything in v. 4 after “I will look out for you” and begins v. 5 with “But if not, run, return to Gedaliah” (= וְאִם לֹא רוּץ וְשֻׁבָה אֶל־גְּדַלְיָה). The Latin version reads the same as the Hebrew in v. 4 but reads “and don’t come with me but stay with Gedaliah” (= a possible Hebrew text of וְעִמָּדִי לֹא תָּשׁוּב וְשֵׁבָה אֶת־גְּדַלְיָה). The version reads “But if you are remaining then return to Gedaliah” (reading a possible Hebrew text of יֹשֵׁב וְשֻׁבָה אֶל־גְּדַלְיָה וְעוֹדְךָ לֻא with an abnormal writing of a conditional particle normally written לוּ [lu] and normally introducing conditions assumed to be untrue or reading וְעוֹדְךָ לְיֹשֵׁב וְשֻׁבָה אֶל־גְּדַלְיָה with an emphatic לְ [lé, see §11.2.10i] and an informally introduced condition). does not explain the Hebrew base for its reading but accepts the as the original. It does appear to be the most likely alternative if the Hebrew is not accepted. However, the fact that none of the versions agree and all appear to be smoother than the Hebrew text suggests that they were dealing with an awkward original that they were trying to smooth out. Hence it is perhaps best to retain the Hebrew and make the best sense possible out of it. The most common reading of the Hebrew text as it stands is “and while he was not yet turning [= but before he was able to turn (to go)] [Nebuzaradan continued], ‘Go back to Gedaliah.’ ” (The imperfect in this case is an imperfect of capability [see §31.4c, examples 2, 4, 5].) That is the reading that is adopted here. and appear to accept a minor emendation of the verb “turn to leave” (יָשׁוּב, yashuv, a Qal imperfect) to “answer” (יָשִׁיב, yashiv, a Hiphil imperfect with an elided object [see 999 שׁוּב Hiph.3 and compare 2 Chr 10:16]). All of this shows that the meaning of the text at this point is very uncertain.
51. 12 Heb “set him over/ made him overseer over.” See 823–24 פָּקִיד Hiph.1 and compare usage in Gen 39:4–5.
52. 13 Heb “Go back to Gedaliah … and live with him among the people.” The long Hebrew sentence has been restructured to better conform with contemporary English style.
53. 14 Mizpah. It is generally agreed that this is the Mizpah that was on the border between Benjamin and Judah. It was located approximately eight miles north of Jerusalem and had been an important military and religious center from the time of the judges on (cf., e.g., Judg 20:1–3; 1 Sam 7:5–14; 1 Sam 10:17; 1 Kgs 15:22). It was not far from Ramah which was approximately four miles north of Jerusalem.
54. 15 Heb “So Jeremiah went to Gedaliah … and lived with him among the people who had been left in the land.” The long Hebrew sentence has been divided in two to better conform with contemporary English style.
55. 16 Heb “set him over/ made him overseer over.” See 823–24 פָּקִיד Hiph.1 and compare usage in Gen 39:4–5.
56. 17 Compare Jer 39:10.
57. 18 Verse 6 consists of a very long conditional clause whose main clause is found in v. 7. The text reads literally “When all the officers of the forces who were in the countryside heard, they and their men, that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah … over the land and that he had committed to him men, women, and children, even from the poorest of the land from those who had not been carried off into exile to Babylon, they came.” The sentence has been broken up to better conform with contemporary English style. The phrase “the forces who were in the countryside” has been translated to reflect the probable situation, i.e., they had escaped and were hiding in the hills surrounding Jerusalem waiting for the Babylonians to leave (cf. Judg 6:2).
58. 19 The name of these officers is given here because some of them become important to the plot of the subsequent narrative, in particular, Ishmael and Johanan. Ishmael was a member of the royal family (41:1). He formed an alliance with the king of Ammon, assassinated Gedaliah, killed the soldiers stationed at Mizpah and many of Gedaliah’s followers, and attempted to carry off the rest of the people left at Mizpah to Ammon (40:13; 41:1–3, 10). Johanan was the leading officer who sought to stop Ishmael from killing Gedaliah (40:13–16) and who rescued the Jews that Ishmael was trying to carry off to Ammon (41:11–15). He along with another man named Jezaniah and these other officers were the leaders of the Jews who asked for Jeremiah’s advice about what they should do after Ishmael had killed Gedaliah (43:1–7).
59. 20 The words “so as to give them some assurance of safety” are not in the text but are generally understood by all commentators. This would be a case of substitution of cause for effect, the oath, put for the effect, the assurance of safety ( translates directly “reassured them”).
60. 21 Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on for explanation.
61. 22 Heb “Chaldeans.” See the study note on for explanation.
62. 23 Heb “summer fruit.” “Summer fruit” is meaningless to most modern readers; dates and figs are what is involved.
63. 24 This plus “Things will go well with you” is in essence the substance of the oath. The pronouns are emphatic, “And I, behold I will stay … and you, you may gather.” The imperatives in the second half of the verse are more a form of permission than of command or advice (cf. , , and compare the usage in 40:4 and the references in the translator’s note there).
64. 25 Heb “summer fruit.” “Summer fruit” is meaningless to most modern readers; dates and figs are what is involved.
65. 26 The translation is intended to reflect the emphasizing infinitive absolute before the finite verb.
66. 27 Heb “Why should he kill you?” However, this is one of those cases listed in 554 מָה 4.d(b) where it introduces a question introducing rhetorically the reason why something should not be done. In cases like this notes that it approximates the meaning “lest” and is translated in Greek by μήποτε (mēpote) or μή (mē) as the Greek version does here. Hence it is separated from the preceding and translated “otherwise” for the sake of English style.
67. 28 Heb “this thing.”
68. 29 Heb “is false” or “is a lie.”
69. 1 It is not altogether clear whether this is in the same year that Jerusalem fell or not. The wall was breached in the fourth month (= early July; 39:2) and Nebuzaradan came and burned the palace, the temple, and many of the houses and tore down the wall in the fifth month (= early August; 52:12). That would have left time between the fifth month and the seventh month (October) to gather in the harvest of grapes, dates and figs, and olives (40:12). However, many commentators feel that too much activity takes place in too short a time for this to have been in the same year and posit that it happened the following year or even five years later when a further deportation took place, possibly in retaliation for the murder of Gedaliah and the Babylonian garrison at Mizpah (52:30). The assassination of Gedaliah had momentous consequences and was commemorated in one of the post exilic fast days lamenting the fall of Jerusalem (Zech 8:19).
70. 2 All the Judeans. This can scarcely refer to all the Judeans who had rallied around Gedaliah at Mizpah because v. 10 later speaks of Ishmael carrying off “the rest of the people who were at Mizpah.” Probably what is meant is “all the Judeans and Babylonian soldiers” that were also at the meal. It is possible that this meal was intended to seal a covenant between Gedaliah and Ishmael of Ishmael’s allegiance to Gedaliah and his Babylonian overlords (cf. Gen 26:30–31; 31:53–54; Exod 24:11). In any case, this act of treachery and deceit was an extreme violation of the customs of hospitality practiced in the ancient Near East.
71. 3 Heb “Chaldean.” See the study note on for explanation. There are two cases of apposition with the repetition of the preposition or of the sign of the accusative in this verse, e.g., “who were with him, [namely] with Gedaliah” and “all the Chaldeans who happened to be there, [namely] the soldiers.”
72. 4 Heb “were found there.” For this nuance of the verb see 594 מָצָא Niph.2.c.
73. 5 Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria were all cities in the northern kingdom of Israel with important religious and political histories. When Israel was destroyed in 722 b.c., some of the Israelites had been left behind and some of the Judeans had taken up residence in these northern cities. People residing there had participated in the reforms of Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:11) and Josiah (2 Chr 34:9) and were evidently still faithfully following the Jewish calendar. They would have been on their way to Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish New Year and the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34). For the location of Samaria see ; ; ; ; .
74. 6 The words “to show they were mourning” are not in the text but are implicit in the acts. They are supplied in the translation for clarification for readers who may not be familiar with ancient mourning customs.
75. 7 The words “in Jerusalem” are not in the text but are implicit. They are supplied in the translation for clarity. For location see ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
76. 8 Heb “he was weeping/crying.” The translation is intended to better reflect the situation.
77. 9 Heb “Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.” The words that are supplied in the translation are implicit to the situation and are added for clarity.
78. 10 The words “and threw their bodies” result from the significant use of the preposition אֶל (’el, so §119.gg and 39 אֶל 1). Hence the suggestion in (fn a) that the and two Greek are reading a different text is not really a textual issue but a translational one; the versions are supplying the words for stylistic purposes as has been done here.
79. 11 Heb “But there were ten men found among them and they said.” However, for the use of “were found” = “be, happened to be” see 594 מָצָא 2.c and compare the usage in 41:3.
80. 12 This sentence is a good example of the elliptical nature of some of the causal connections in the Hebrew Bible. All the Hebrew says literally is “For we have hidden stores of wheat, barley, olive oil, and honey in a field.” However, it is obvious that they are using this as their bargaining chip to prevent Ishmael and his men from killing them. For the use of “for” (כִּי, ki) for such elliptical thoughts see 473–74 כִּי 3.c.
81. 13 Or “So he refrained from killing them”; Heb “he refrained and did not kill them.”
82. 14 Heb “in the midst of their brothers/fellow countrymen.”
83. 15 The translation here follows the reading of the Greek version. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain; some understand it to mean “because of Gedaliah [i.e., to cover up the affair with Gedaliah]” and others understand it to mean “alongside of Gedaliah.” The translation presupposes that the Hebrew text reads בּוֹר גָּדוֹל הוּא (bor gadol hu’) in place of בְּיַד־גְּדַלְיָהוּ הוּא (béyad-gédalyahu). The meaning of בְּיַד (béyad) does not fit any of the normal ones given for this expression and those who retain the Hebrew text normally explain it as an unparalleled use of “because” or “in the affair of” (so ) or a rare use meaning “near, by the side of “(see 391 יָד 5.d where only Ps 141:6 and Zech 4:12 are cited. themselves suggest reading with the Greek version as the present translation does [so 391 יָד 5.c(3)]). For the syntax presupposed by the Greek text which has been followed consult §16.3.3d and 133 §8.4.2b. The first clause is a classifying clause with normal order of subject-predicate-copulative pronoun and it is followed by a further qualifying relative clause.
84. 16 It is generally agreed that the cistern referred to here is one of several that Asa dug for supplying water as part of the defense system constructed at Mizpah (cf. 1 Kgs 15:22; 2 Chr 16:6).
85. 17 Or “with corpses”; Heb “with the slain.”
86. 18 Heb “the daughters of the king.” Most commentators do not feel that this refers to the actual daughters of Zedekiah since they would have been too politically important to have escaped exile with their father. As noted in the translator’s note on this need not refer to the actual daughters of the king but may refer to other royal daughters, i.e., the daughters of other royal princes.
87. 19 Or “crimes,” or “evil things”; Heb “the evil.”
88. 20 Heb “the many [or great] waters.” This is generally identified with the pool of Gibeon mentioned in 2 Sam 2:13.
89. 21 Heb “all the people who were with Ishmael.” However, this does not refer to his own troops but to those he had taken with him from Mizpah, i.e., the captives. The phrase is specifically clarified in the next verse, i.e. “the people whom Ishmael had taken captive from Mizpah.” Hence the phrase is translated here according to sense, not according to the literal wording.