Kejadian 37:1-36
Konteks37:1 But Jacob lived in the land where his father had stayed, 1 in the land of Canaan. 2
37:2 This is the account of Jacob.
Joseph, his seventeen-year-old son, 3 was taking care of 4 the flocks with his brothers. Now he was a youngster 5 working with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. 6 Joseph brought back a bad report about them 7 to their father.
37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons 8 because he was a son born to him late in life, 9 and he made a special 10 tunic for him. 37:4 When Joseph’s 11 brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, 12 they hated Joseph 13 and were not able to speak to him kindly. 14
37:5 Joseph 15 had a dream, 16 and when he told his brothers about it, 17 they hated him even more. 18 37:6 He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: 19 37:7 There we were, 20 binding sheaves of grain in the middle of the field. Suddenly my sheaf rose up and stood upright and your sheaves surrounded my sheaf and bowed down 21 to it!” 37:8 Then his brothers asked him, “Do you really think you will rule over us or have dominion over us?” 22 They hated him even more 23 because of his dream and because of what he said. 24
37:9 Then he had another dream, 25 and told it to his brothers. “Look,” 26 he said. “I had another dream. The sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 37:10 When he told his father and his brothers, his father rebuked him, saying, “What is this dream that you had? 27 Will I, your mother, and your brothers really come and bow down to you?” 28 37:11 His brothers were jealous 29 of him, but his father kept in mind what Joseph said. 30
37:12 When his brothers had gone to graze their father’s flocks near Shechem, 37:13 Israel said to Joseph, “Your brothers 31 are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I will send you to them.” “I’m ready,” 32 Joseph replied. 33 37:14 So Jacob 34 said to him, “Go now and check on 35 the welfare 36 of your brothers and of the flocks, and bring me word.” So Jacob 37 sent him from the valley of Hebron.
37:15 When Joseph reached Shechem, 38 a man found him wandering 39 in the field, so the man asked him, “What are you looking for?” 37:16 He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Please tell 40 me where they are grazing their flocks.” 37:17 The man said, “They left this area, 41 for I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan.
37:18 Now Joseph’s brothers 42 saw him from a distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him. 37:19 They said to one another, “Here comes this master of dreams! 43 37:20 Come now, let’s kill him, throw him into one of the cisterns, and then say that a wild 44 animal ate him. Then we’ll see how his dreams turn out!” 45
37:21 When Reuben heard this, he rescued Joseph 46 from their hands, 47 saying, 48 “Let’s not take his life!” 49 37:22 Reuben continued, 50 “Don’t shed blood! Throw him into this cistern that is here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him.” 51 (Reuben said this 52 so he could rescue Joseph 53 from them 54 and take him back to his father.)
37:23 When Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped him 55 of his tunic, the special tunic that he wore. 37:24 Then they took him and threw him into the cistern. (Now the cistern was empty; 56 there was no water in it.)
37:25 When they sat down to eat their food, they looked up 57 and saw 58 a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were carrying spices, balm, and myrrh down to Egypt. 59 37:26 Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? 37:27 Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let’s not lay a hand on him, 60 for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” His brothers agreed. 61 37:28 So when the Midianite 62 merchants passed by, Joseph’s brothers pulled 63 him 64 out of the cistern and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. The Ishmaelites 65 then took Joseph to Egypt.
37:29 Later Reuben returned to the cistern to find that Joseph was not in it! 66 He tore his clothes, 37:30 returned to his brothers, and said, “The boy isn’t there! And I, where can I go?” 37:31 So they took Joseph’s tunic, killed a young goat, 67 and dipped the tunic in the blood. 37:32 Then they brought the special tunic to their father 68 and said, “We found this. Determine now whether it is your son’s tunic or not.”
37:33 He recognized it and exclaimed, “It is my son’s tunic! A wild animal has eaten him! 69 Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!” 37:34 Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth, 70 and mourned for his son many days. 37:35 All his sons and daughters stood by 71 him to console him, but he refused to be consoled. “No,” he said, “I will go to the grave mourning my son.” 72 So Joseph’s 73 father wept for him.
37:36 Now 74 in Egypt the Midianites 75 sold Joseph 76 to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard. 77
Kejadian 4:10
Konteks4:10 But the Lord said, “What have you done? 78 The voice 79 of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!
Daniel 3:16-18
Konteks3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, 80 “We do not need to give you a reply 81 concerning this. 3:17 If 82 our God whom we are serving exists, 83 he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. 3:18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.”
Daniel 6:10-11
Konteks6:10 When Daniel realized 84 that a written decree had been issued, he entered his home, where the windows 85 in his upper room opened toward Jerusalem. 86 Three 87 times daily he was 88 kneeling 89 and offering prayers and thanks to his God just as he had been accustomed to do previously. 6:11 Then those officials who had gone to the king 90 came by collusion and found Daniel praying and asking for help before his God.
Daniel 6:20-23
Konteks6:20 As he approached the den, he called out to Daniel in a worried voice, 91 “Daniel, servant of the living God, was your God whom you continually serve able to rescue you from the lions?”
6:21 Then Daniel spoke to 92 the king, “O king, live forever! 6:22 My God sent his angel and closed the lions’ mouths so that they have not harmed me, because I was found to be innocent before him. Nor have I done any harm to you, O king.”
6:23 Then the king was delighted and gave an order to haul Daniel up from the den. So Daniel was hauled up out of the den. He had no injury of any kind, because he had trusted in his God.
Maleakhi 1:6-8
Konteks1:6 “A son naturally honors his father and a slave respects 93 his master. If I am your 94 father, where is my honor? If I am your master, where is my respect? The Lord who rules over all asks you this, you priests who make light of my name! But you reply, ‘How have we made light of your name?’ 1:7 You are offering improper sacrifices on my altar, yet you ask, ‘How have we offended you?’ By treating the table 95 of the Lord as if it is of no importance! 1:8 For when you offer blind animals as a sacrifice, is that not wrong? And when you offer the lame and sick, 96 is that not wrong as well? Indeed, try offering them 97 to your governor! Will he be pleased with you 98 or show you favor?” asks the Lord who rules over all.
Maleakhi 3:8-10
Konteks3:8 Can a person rob 99 God? You indeed are robbing me, but you say, ‘How are we robbing you?’ In tithes and contributions! 100 3:9 You are bound for judgment 101 because you are robbing me – this whole nation is guilty. 102
3:10 “Bring the entire tithe into the storehouse 103 so that there may be food in my temple. Test me in this matter,” says the Lord who rules over all, “to see if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until there is no room for it all.
Kisah Para Rasul 4:19
Konteks4:19 But Peter and John replied, 104 “Whether it is right before God to obey 105 you rather than God, you decide,
Kisah Para Rasul 5:29
Konteks5:29 But Peter and the apostles replied, 106 “We must obey 107 God rather than people. 108
Kisah Para Rasul 5:1
Konteks5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property.
Pengkhotbah 2:13-17
Konteks2:13 I realized that wisdom is preferable to folly, 109
just as light is preferable to darkness:
2:14 The wise man can see where he is going, 110 but the fool walks in darkness.
Yet I also realized that the same fate 111 happens to them both. 112
2:15 So I thought to myself, “The fate of the fool will happen even to me! 113
Then what did I gain by becoming so excessively 114 wise?” 115
So I lamented to myself, 116
“The benefits of wisdom 117 are ultimately 118 meaningless!”
2:16 For the wise man, like 119 the fool, will not be remembered for very long, 120
because 121 in the days to come, both will already have been forgotten. 122
Alas, 123 the wise man dies – just like 124 the fool!
2:17 So I loathed 125 life 126 because what
happens 127 on earth 128 seems awful to me;
for all the benefits of wisdom 129 are futile – like chasing the wind.
[37:1] 1 tn Heb “the land of the sojournings of his father.”
[37:1] 2 sn The next section begins with the heading This is the account of Jacob in Gen 37:2, so this verse actually forms part of the preceding section as a concluding contrast with Esau and his people. In contrast to all the settled and expanded population of Esau, Jacob was still moving about in the land without a permanent residence and without kings. Even if the Edomite king list was added later (as the reference to kings in Israel suggests), its placement here in contrast to Jacob and his descendants is important. Certainly the text deals with Esau before dealing with Jacob – that is the pattern. But the detail is so great in chap. 36 that the contrast cannot be missed.
[37:2] 3 tn Heb “a son of seventeen years.” The word “son” is in apposition to the name “Joseph.”
[37:2] 4 tn Or “tending”; Heb “shepherding” or “feeding.”
[37:2] 5 tn Or perhaps “a helper.” The significance of this statement is unclear. It may mean “now the lad was with,” or it may suggest Joseph was like a servant to them.
[37:2] 6 tn Heb “and he [was] a young man with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, the wives of his father.”
[37:2] 7 tn Heb “their bad report.” The pronoun is an objective genitive, specifying that the bad or damaging report was about the brothers.
[37:2] sn Some interpreters portray Joseph as a tattletale for bringing back a bad report about them [i.e., his brothers], but the entire Joseph story has some of the characteristics of wisdom literature. Joseph is presented in a good light – not because he was perfect, but because the narrative is showing how wisdom rules. In light of that, this section portrays Joseph as faithful to his father in little things, even though unpopular – and so he will eventually be given authority over greater things.
[37:3] 8 tn The disjunctive clause provides supplemental information vital to the story. It explains in part the brothers’ animosity toward Joseph.
[37:3] sn The statement Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons brings forward a motif that played an important role in the family of Isaac – parental favoritism. Jacob surely knew what that had done to him and his brother Esau, and to his own family. But now he showers affection on Rachel’s son Joseph.
[37:3] 9 tn Heb “a son of old age was he to him.” This expression means “a son born to him when he [i.e., Jacob] was old.”
[37:3] 10 tn It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.
[37:4] 11 tn Heb “his”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:4] 12 tn Heb “of his brothers.” This is redundant in contemporary English and has been replaced in the translation by the pronoun “them.”
[37:4] 13 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:4] 14 tn Heb “speak to him for peace.”
[37:5] 15 tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:5] 16 tn Heb “dreamed a dream.”
[37:5] 17 sn Some interpreters see Joseph as gloating over his brothers, but the text simply says he told his brothers about it (i.e., the dream). The text gives no warrant for interpreting his manner as arrogant or condescending. It seems normal that he would share a dream with the family.
[37:5] 18 tn The construction uses a hendiadys, “they added to hate,” meaning they hated him even more.
[37:6] 19 tn Heb “hear this dream which I dreamed.”
[37:7] 20 tn All three clauses in this dream report begin with וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), which lends vividness to the report. This is represented in the translation by the expression “there we were.”
[37:7] 21 tn The verb means “to bow down to the ground.” It is used to describe worship and obeisance to masters.
[37:8] 22 tn Heb “Ruling, will you rule over us, or reigning, will you reign over us?” The statement has a poetic style, with the two questions being in synonymous parallelism. Both verbs in this statement are preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Joseph’s brothers said, “You don’t really think you will rule over us, do you? You don’t really think you will have dominion over us, do you?”
[37:8] 23 tn This construction is identical to the one in Gen 37:5.
[37:8] 24 sn The response of Joseph’s brothers is understandable, given what has already been going on in the family. But here there is a hint of uneasiness – they hated him because of his dream and because of his words. The dream bothered them, as well as his telling them. And their words in the rhetorical question are ironic, for this is exactly what would happen. The dream was God’s way of revealing it.
[37:9] 25 tn Heb “And he dreamed yet another dream.”
[37:9] 26 tn Heb “and he said, ‘Look.’” The order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse have been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons. Both clauses of the dream report begin with הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”), which lends vividness to the report.
[37:10] 27 sn The question What is this dream that you had? expresses Jacob’s dismay at what he perceives to be Joseph’s audacity.
[37:10] 28 tn Heb “Coming, will we come, I and your mother and your brothers, to bow down to you to the ground?” The verb “come” is preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Jacob said, “You don’t really think we will come…to bow down…do you?”
[37:11] 29 sn Joseph’s brothers were already jealous of him, but this made it even worse. Such jealousy easily leads to action, as the next episode in the story shows. Yet dreams were considered a form of revelation, and their jealousy was not only of the favoritism of their father, but of the dreams. This is why Jacob kept the matter in mind.
[37:11] 30 tn Heb “kept the word.” The referent of the Hebrew term “word” has been specified as “what Joseph said” in the translation for clarity, and the words “in mind” have been supplied for stylistic reasons.
[37:13] 31 tn The text uses an interrogative clause: “Are not your brothers,” which means “your brothers are.”
[37:13] 32 sn With these words Joseph is depicted here as an obedient son who is ready to do what his father commands.
[37:13] 33 tn Heb “and he said, ‘Here I am.’” The referent of the pronoun “he” (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity, and the order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse has been rearranged for stylistic reasons.
[37:14] 34 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:14] 37 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:15] 38 tn Heb “and he [i.e., Joseph] went to Shechem.” The referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:15] 39 tn Heb “and a man found him and look, he was wandering in the field.” By the use of וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), the narrator invites the reader to see the action through this unnamed man’s eyes.
[37:16] 40 tn The imperative in this sentence has more of the nuance of a request than a command.
[37:17] 41 tn Heb “they traveled from this place.”
[37:18] 42 tn Heb “and they”; the referent (Joseph’s brothers) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:19] 43 tn Heb “Look, this master of dreams is coming.” The brothers’ words have a sarcastic note and indicate that they resent his dreams.
[37:20] 44 tn The Hebrew word can sometimes carry the nuance “evil,” but when used of an animal it refers to a dangerous wild animal.
[37:20] 45 tn Heb “what his dreams will be.”
[37:21] 46 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:21] 47 sn From their hands. The instigators of this plot may have been the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (see v. 2).
[37:21] 48 tn Heb “and he said.”
[37:21] 49 tn Heb “we must not strike him down [with respect to] life.”
[37:22] 50 tn Heb “and Reuben said to them.”
[37:22] 51 sn The verbs translated shed, throw, and lay sound alike in Hebrew; the repetition of similar sounds draws attention to Reuben’s words.
[37:22] 52 tn The words “Reuben said this” are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[37:22] 53 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:22] 54 tn Heb “from their hands” (cf. v. 21). This expression has been translated as “them” here for stylistic reasons.
[37:23] 55 tn Heb “Joseph”; the proper name has been replaced by the pronoun (“him”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[37:24] 56 tn The disjunctive clause gives supplemental information that helps the reader or hearer to picture what happened.
[37:25] 57 tn Heb “lifted up their eyes.”
[37:25] 58 tn Heb “and they saw and look.” By the use of וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), the narrator invites the reader to see the event through the eyes of the brothers.
[37:25] 59 tn Heb “and their camels were carrying spices, balm, and myrrh, going to go down to Egypt.”
[37:27] 60 tn Heb “let not our hand be upon him.”
[37:28] 62 sn On the close relationship between Ishmaelites (v. 25) and Midianites, see Judg 8:24.
[37:28] 63 tn Heb “they drew and they lifted up.” The referent (Joseph’s brothers) has been specified in the translation for clarity; otherwise the reader might assume the Midianites had pulled Joseph from the cistern (but cf. NAB).
[37:28] 64 tn Heb “Joseph” (both here and in the following clause); the proper name has been replaced both times by the pronoun “him” in the translation for stylistic reasons.
[37:28] 65 tn Heb “they”; the referent (the Ishmaelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:29] 66 tn Heb “and look, Joseph was not in the cistern.” By the use of וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), the narrator invites the reader to see the situation through Reuben’s eyes.
[37:31] 67 sn It was with two young goats that Jacob deceived his father (Gen 27:9); now with a young goat his sons continue the deception that dominates this family.
[37:32] 68 tn Heb “and they sent the special tunic and they brought [it] to their father.” The text as it stands is problematic. It sounds as if they sent the tunic on ahead and then came and brought it to their father. Some emend the second verb to a Qal form and read “and they came.” In this case, they sent the tunic on ahead.
[37:33] 69 sn A wild animal has eaten him. Jacob draws this conclusion on his own without his sons actually having to lie with their words (see v. 20). Dipping the tunic in the goat’s blood was the only deception needed.
[37:34] 70 tn Heb “and put sackcloth on his loins.”
[37:35] 71 tn Heb “arose, stood”; which here suggests that they stood by him in his time of grief.
[37:35] 72 tn Heb “and he said, ‘Indeed I will go down to my son mourning to Sheol.’” Sheol was viewed as the place where departed spirits went after death.
[37:35] 73 tn Heb “his”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:36] 74 tn The disjunctive clause formally signals closure for this episode of Joseph’s story, which will be resumed in Gen 39.
[37:36] 75 tc The MT spells the name of the merchants as מְדָנִים (mÿdanim, “Medanites”) rather than מִדְיָנִים (midyanim, “Midianites”) as in v. 28. It is likely that the MT is corrupt at this point, with the letter yod (י) being accidentally omitted. The LXX, Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Syriac read “Midianites” here. Some prefer to read “Medanites” both here and in v. 28, but Judg 8:24, which identifies the Midianites and Ishmaelites, favors the reading “Midianites.”
[37:36] 76 tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[37:36] 77 sn The expression captain of the guard might indicate that Potiphar was the chief executioner.
[4:10] 78 sn What have you done? Again the
[4:10] 79 tn The word “voice” is a personification; the evidence of Abel’s shed blood condemns Cain, just as a human eyewitness would testify in court. For helpful insights, see G. von Rad, Biblical Interpretations in Preaching; and L. Morris, “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood,’” JTS 6 (1955/56): 77-82.
[3:16] 80 tc In the MT this word is understood to begin the following address (“answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar’”). However, it seems unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar’s subordinates would address the king in such a familiar way, particularly in light of the danger that they now found themselves in. The present translation implies moving the atnach from “king” to “Nebuchadnezzar.”
[3:16] 81 tn Aram “to return a word to you.”
[3:17] 82 tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.
[3:17] 83 tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (’itay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ’itay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 45, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power.
[6:10] 85 sn In later rabbinic thought this verse was sometimes cited as a proof text for the notion that one should pray only in a house with windows. See b. Berakhot 34b.
[6:10] 86 map For the location of Jerusalem see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.
[6:10] 87 sn This is apparently the only specific mention in the OT of prayer being regularly offered three times a day. The practice was probably not unique to Daniel, however.
[6:10] 88 tc Read with several medieval Hebrew
[6:10] 89 tn Aram “kneeling on his knees” (so NASB).
[6:10] sn No specific posture for offering prayers is prescribed in the OT. Kneeling, as here, and standing were both practiced.
[6:11] 90 tn Aram “those men”; the referent (the administrative officials who had earlier approached the king about the edict) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[6:20] 91 tn Aram “The king answered and said to Daniel.” This phrase has not been included in the translation for stylistic reasons; it is redundant in English.
[1:6] 93 tn The verb “respects” is not in the Hebrew text but is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. It is understood by ellipsis (see “honors” in the preceding line).
[1:6] 94 tn The pronoun “your” is supplied in the translation for clarification (also a second time before “master” later in this verse).
[1:7] 95 sn The word table, here a synonym for “altar,” has overtones of covenant imagery in which a feast shared by the covenant partners was an important element (see Exod 24:11). It also draws attention to the analogy of sitting down at a common meal with the governor (v. 8).
[1:8] 96 sn Offerings of animals that were lame or sick were strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law (see Deut 15:21).
[1:8] 97 tn Heb “it” (so NAB, NASB). Contemporary English more naturally uses a plural pronoun to agree with “the lame and sick” in the previous question (cf. NIV, NCV).
[1:8] 98 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”).
[3:8] 99 tc The LXX presupposes an underlying Hebrew text of עָקַב (’aqav, “deceive”), a metathesis of קָבַע (qava’, “rob”), in all four uses of the verb here (vv. 8-9). The intent probably is to soften the impact of “robbing” God, but the language of the passage is intentionally bold and there is no reason to go against the reading of the MT (which is followed here by most English versions).
[3:8] 100 sn The tithes and contributions mentioned here are probably those used to sustain the Levites (see Num 18:8, 11, 19, 21-24).
[3:9] 101 tn Heb “cursed with a curse” that is, “under a curse” (so NIV, NLT, CEV).
[3:9] 102 tn The phrase “is guilty” is not present in the Hebrew text but is implied, and has been supplied in the translation for clarification and stylistic reasons.
[3:10] 103 tn The Hebrew phrase בֵּית הָאוֹצָר (bet ha’otsar, here translated “storehouse”) refers to a kind of temple warehouse described more fully in Nehemiah (where the term לִשְׁכָּה גְדוֹלָה [lishkah gÿdolah, “great chamber”] is used) as a place for storing grain, frankincense, temple vessels, wine, and oil (Neh 13:5). Cf. TEV “to the Temple.”
[4:19] 104 tn Grk “answered and said to them.”
[4:19] 105 tn Grk “hear,” but the idea of “hear and obey” or simply “obey” is frequently contained in the Greek verb ἀκούω (akouw; see L&N 36.14).
[5:29] 106 tn Grk “apostles answered and said.”
[5:29] 107 sn Obey. See 4:19. This response has Jewish roots (Dan 3:16-18; 2 Macc 7:2; Josephus, Ant. 17.6.3 [17.159].
[5:29] 108 tn Here ἀνθρώποις (anqrwpoi") has been translated as a generic noun (“people”).
[2:13] 109 tn Heb “and I saw that there is profit for wisdom more than folly.”
[2:14] 110 tn Heb “has his eyes in his head.” The term עַיִן (’ayin, “eye”) is used figuratively in reference to mental and spiritual faculties (BDB 744 s.v. עַיִן 3.a). The term “eye” is a metonymy of cause (eye) for effect (sight and perception).
[2:14] 111 sn The common fate to which Qoheleth refers is death.
[2:14] 112 tn The term כֻּלָּם (kullam, “all of them”) denotes “both of them.” This is an example of synecdoche of general (“all of them”) for the specific (“both of them,” that is, both the wise man and the fool).
[2:15] 113 tn The emphatic use of the 1st person common singular personal pronoun אֲנִי (’ani, “me”) with the emphatic particle of association גַּם (gam, “even, as well as”; HALOT 195–96 s.v. גַּם) appears to emphasize the 1st person common singular suffix on יִקְרֵנִי (yiqreni) “it will befall [or “happen to”] me” (Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular + 1st person common singular suffix from קָרָה, qarah, “to befall; to happen to”); see GKC 438 §135.e. Qoheleth laments not that the fate of the wise man is the same as that of the fool, but that even he himself – the wisest man of all – would fare no better in the end than the most foolish.
[2:15] 114 tn The adjective יוֹתֵר (yoter) means “too much; excessive,” e.g., 7:16 “excessively righteous” (HALOT 404 s.v. יוֹתֵר 2; BDB 452 s.v. יוֹתֵר). It is derived from the root יֶתֶר (yeter, “what is left over”); see HALOT 452 s.v. I יֶתֶר. It is related to the verbal root יתר (Niphal “to be left over”; Hiphil “to have left over”); see HALOT 451–52 s.v. I יתר. The adjective is related to יִתְרוֹן (yitron, “advantage; profit”) which is a key-term in this section, creating a word-play: The wise man has a relative “advantage” (יִתְרוֹן) over the fool (2:13-14a); however, there is no ultimate advantage because both share the same fate, i.e., death (2:14b-15a). Thus, Qoheleth’s acquisition of tremendous wisdom (1:16; 2:9) was “excessive” because it exceeded its relative advantage over folly: it could not deliver him from the same fate as the fool. He had striven to obtain wisdom, yet it held no ultimate advantage.
[2:15] 115 tn Heb “And why was I wise (to) excess?” The rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “I gained nothing!” (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949).
[2:15] 116 tn Heb “So I said in my heart.”
[2:15] 117 tn Heb “and also this,” referring to the relative advantage of wisdom over folly.
[2:15] 118 tn The word “ultimately” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
[2:16] 119 tn The preposition עִם (’im, “with”) may occasionally function in a comparative sense, meaning “together with; even as; like” (e.g., Eccl 1:11; 2:16; 7:11; Job 9:26; 1 Chr 14:10: 20:6; 25:8; see HALOT 839 s.v. עִם 2). When used to describe a common lot, it connotes “together with” (Gen 18:23, 25; 1 Chr 24:5; Job 3:14, 15; 30:1; Pss 26:9; 28:3; 69:29; Isa 38:11), hence “like” (Pss 73:5; 106:6; Eccl 2:16; see BDB 767–68 s.v. עִם 1.e).
[2:16] 120 tn As HALOT 798–99 s.v. עוֹלָם and BDB 762-64 s.v. עוֹלָם note, עוֹלָם (’olam) has a wide range of meanings: (1) indefinite time: “long time; duration,” (2) unlimited time: “eternal; eternity,” (3) future time: “things to come,” and (4) past time: “a long time back,” that is, the dark age of prehistory. The context here suggests the nuance “a long time.”
[2:16] 121 tn The preposition בְּ (bet) on בְּשֶׁכְּבָר (bÿshekkÿvar, the adverb כְּבָר [kÿvar,“already”] + relative pronoun שֶׁ [she] + preposition בְּ) is probably best classified as causal: “Because…already.”
[2:16] 122 tn The verb נִשְׁכָּח (nishkakh) is a future perfect – it describes an event that is portrayed as a past event from the perspective of the future: “they will have been forgotten.” The emphasis of the past perfect is not simply that the future generations will begin to forget him, but that he will already have been forgotten long ago in the past by the time of those future generations. This past perfect situation is brought out by the emphatic use of the temporal adverb כְּבָר (kÿvar) “already” (HALOT 459 s.v. I כְּבָר; BDB 460 s.v. I כְּבָר); see, e.g., Eccl 1:10; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 6:10; 9:6-7.
[2:16] 123 tn The particle אֵיךְ (’ekh, “Alas!”) is an exclamation of lamentation and mourning (e.g., 2 Sam 1:19; Isa 14:4, 12; Jer 2:21; 9:18; Ezek 26:17; Mic 2:4); see HALOT 39 s.v. אֵיךְ 5; BDB 32 s.v. אֵיךְ 2; also E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 955.
[2:16] 124 tn The preposition עִם (’im, “with”) may occasionally function in a comparative sense, meaning “together with; even as; like” (e.g., Eccl 1:11; 2:16; 7:11; Job 9:26; 1 Chr 14:10: 20:6; 25:8); see HALOT 839 s.v. עִם 2. When used to describe a common lot, it connotes “together with” (Gen 18:23, 25; 1 Chr 24:5; Job 3:14, 15; 30:1; Ps 26:9; 28:3; 69:29; Isa 38:11), hence “like” (Pss 73:5; 106:6; Eccl 2:16); see BDB 767–68 s.v. עִם 1.e.
[2:17] 126 tn The term הַחַיִּים (hakhayyim, “life”) functions as a metonymy of association, that is, that which is associated with life, that is, the profitlessness and futility of human secular achievement.
[2:17] 127 tn Heb “the deed that is done.” The root עָשָׂה (’asah, “to do”) is repeated in הַמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה (hamma’aseh shenna’asah, “the deed that is done”) for emphasis. Here, the term “deed” does not refer to human accomplishment, as in 2:1-11, but to the fact of death that destroys any relative advantage of wisdom over folly (2:14a-16). Qoheleth metaphorically describes death as a “deed” that is “done” to man.
[2:17] 128 tn Heb “under the sun.”
[2:17] 129 tn Heb “all,” referring here to the relative advantage of wisdom.
