Kejadian 11:7-9

11:7 Come, let’s go down and confuse ¹  their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.” ² 

11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building ³  the city. 11:9 That is why its name was called ⁴  Babel ⁵  – because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

Kejadian 11:2

11:2 When the people ⁶  moved eastward, ⁷  they found a plain in Shinar ⁸  and settled there.

1 Samuel 15:31

15:31 So Samuel followed Saul back, and Saul worshiped the Lord.

1 Samuel 17:1-14

David Kills Goliath

17:1 ⁹ The Philistines gathered their troops ¹⁰  for battle. They assembled at Socoh in Judah. They camped in Ephes Dammim, between Socoh and Azekah. 17:2 Saul and the Israelite army ¹¹  assembled and camped in the valley of Elah, where they arranged their battle lines to fight against ¹²  the Philistines. 17:3 The Philistines were standing on one hill, and the Israelites ¹³  on another hill, with the valley between them.

17:4 Then a champion ¹⁴  came out from the camp of the Philistines. His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was close to seven feet tall. ¹⁵  17:5 He had a bronze helmet on his head and was wearing scale body armor. The weight of his bronze body armor was five thousand shekels. ¹⁶  17:6 He had bronze shin guards ¹⁷  on his legs, and a bronze javelin was slung over his shoulders. 17:7 The shaft ¹⁸  of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and the iron point of his spear weighed six hundred shekels. ¹⁹  His shield bearer was walking before him.

17:8 Goliath ²⁰  stood and called to Israel’s troops, ²¹  “Why do you come out to prepare for battle? Am I not the Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose ²²  for yourselves a man so he may come down ²³  to me! 17:9 If he is able to fight with me and strike me down, we will become your servants. But if I prevail against him and strike him down, you will become our servants and will serve us.” 17:10 Then the Philistine said, “I defy Israel’s troops this day! Give me a man so we can fight ²⁴  each other!” 17:11 When Saul and all the Israelites ²⁵  heard these words of the Philistine, they were upset and very afraid.

17:12 ²⁶ Now David was the son of this Ephrathite named Jesse from Bethlehem ²⁷  in Judah. He had eight sons, and in Saul’s days he was old and well advanced in years. ²⁸  17:13 Jesse’s three oldest sons had followed Saul to war. The names of the ²⁹  three sons who went to war were Eliab, his firstborn, Abinadab, the second oldest, and Shammah, the third oldest. 17:14 Now David was the youngest. While the three oldest sons followed Saul,

Yohanes 7:45-53

Lack of Belief

7:45 Then the officers ³⁰  returned ³¹  to the chief priests and Pharisees, ³²  who said to them, “Why didn’t you bring him back with you?” ³³  7:46 The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 7:47 Then the Pharisees answered, ³⁴  “You haven’t been deceived too, have you? ³⁵  7:48 None of the rulers ³⁶  or the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? ³⁷  7:49 But this rabble ³⁸  who do not know the law are accursed!”

7:50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus ³⁹  before and who was one of the rulers, ⁴⁰  said, ⁴¹  7:51 “Our law doesn’t condemn ⁴²  a man unless it first hears from him and learns ⁴³  what he is doing, does it?” ⁴⁴  7:52 They replied, ⁴⁵  “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? ⁴⁶  Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet ⁴⁷  comes from Galilee!”

A Woman Caught in Adultery

7:53 ⁴⁸ [[And each one departed to his own house.

Kisah Para Rasul 23:6-10

23:6 Then when Paul noticed ⁴⁹  that part of them were Sadducees ⁵⁰  and the others Pharisees, ⁵¹  he shouted out in the council, ⁵²  “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection ⁵³  of the dead!” 23:7 When he said this, ⁵⁴  an argument ⁵⁵  began ⁵⁶  between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 23:8 (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) ⁵⁷  23:9 There was a great commotion, ⁵⁸  and some experts in the law ⁵⁹  from the party of the Pharisees stood up ⁶⁰  and protested strongly, ⁶¹  “We find nothing wrong ⁶²  with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 23:10 When the argument became ⁶³  so great the commanding officer ⁶⁴  feared that they would tear Paul to pieces, ⁶⁵  he ordered the detachment ⁶⁶  to go down, take him away from them by force, ⁶⁷  and bring him into the barracks. ⁶⁸ 

[11:7]  ¹ tn The cohortatives mirror the cohortatives of the people. They build to ascend the heavens; God comes down to destroy their language. God speaks here to his angelic assembly. See the notes on the word “make” in 1:26 and “know” in 3:5, as well as Jub. 10:22-23, where an angel recounts this incident and says “And the Lord our God said to us…. And the Lord went down and we went down with him. And we saw the city and the tower which the sons of men built.” On the chiastic structure of the story, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:235.

[11:7]  ² tn Heb “they will not hear, a man the lip of his neighbor.”

[11:8]  ³ tn The infinitive construct לִבְנֹת (livnot, “building”) here serves as the object of the verb “they ceased, stopped,” answering the question of what they stopped doing.

[11:9]  ⁴ tn The verb has no expressed subject and so can be rendered as a passive in the translation.

[11:9]  ⁵ sn Babel. Here is the climax of the account, a parody on the pride of Babylon. In the Babylonian literature the name bab-ili meant “the gate of God,” but in Hebrew it sounds like the word for “confusion,” and so retained that connotation. The name “Babel” (בָּבֶל, bavel) and the verb translated “confused” (בָּלַל, balal) form a paronomasia (sound play). For the many wordplays and other rhetorical devices in Genesis, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (SSN).

[11:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[11:2]  ⁷ tn Or perhaps “from the east” (NRSV) or “in the east.”

[11:2]  ⁸ tn Heb “in the land of Shinar.”

[11:2]  sn Shinar is the region of Babylonia.

[17:1]  ⁹ tc The content of 1 Sam 17–18, which includes the David and Goliath story, differs considerably in the LXX as compared to the MT, suggesting that this story circulated in ancient times in more than one form. The LXX for chs. 17–18 is much shorter than the MT, lacking almost half of the material (39 of a total of 88 verses). Many scholars (e.g., McCarter, Klein) think that the shorter text of the LXX is preferable to the MT, which in their view has been expanded by incorporation of later material. Other scholars (e.g., Wellhausen, Driver) conclude that the shorter Greek text (or the Hebrew text that underlies it) reflects an attempt to harmonize certain alleged inconsistencies that appear in the longer version of the story. Given the translation characteristics of the LXX elsewhere in this section, it does not seem likely that these differences are due to deliberate omission of these verses on the part of the translator. It seems more likely that the Greek translator has faithfully rendered here a Hebrew text that itself was much shorter than the MT in these chapters. Whether or not the shorter text represented by the LXX is to be preferred over the MT in 1 Sam 17–18 is a matter over which textual scholars are divided. For a helpful discussion of the major textual issues in this unit see D. Barthélemy, D. W. Gooding, J. Lust, and E. Tov, The Story of David and Goliath (OBO). Overall it seems preferable to stay with the MT, at least for the most part. However, the major textual differences between the LXX and the MT will be mentioned in the notes that accompany the translation so that the reader may be alert to the major problem passages.

[17:1]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “camps.”

[17:2]  ¹¹ tn Heb “the men of Israel” (so KJV, NASB); NAB, NIV, NRSV “the Israelites.”

[17:2]  ¹² tn Heb “to meet.”

[17:3]  ¹³ tn Heb “Israel.”

[17:4]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “the man of the space between the two [armies].” See v. 23.

[17:4]  ¹⁵ tc Heb “his height was six cubits and a span” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). A cubit was approximately eighteen inches, a span nine inches. So, according to the Hebrew tradition, Goliath was about nine feet, nine inches tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres”). However, some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran read “four cubits and a span” here, that is, about six feet, nine inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). This seems more reasonable; it is likely that Goliath’s height was exaggerated as the story was retold. See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 286, 291.

[17:5]  ¹⁶ sn Although the exact weight of Goliath’s defensive body armor is difficult to estimate in terms of modern equivalency, it was obviously quite heavy. Driver, following Kennedy, suggests a modern equivalent of about 220 pounds (100 kg); see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 139. Klein, taking the shekel to be equal to .403 ounces, arrives at a somewhat smaller weight of about 126 pounds (57 kg); see R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC), 175. But by any estimate it is clear that Goliath presented himself as a formidable foe indeed.

[17:6]  ¹⁷ sn Or “greaves.” These were coverings (probably lined for comfort) that extended from about the knee to the ankle, affording protection for the shins of a warrior.

[17:7]  ¹⁸ tn The translation follows the Qere and many medieval Hebrew mss in reading “wood,” rather than the “arrow” (the reading of the Kethib).

[17:7]  ¹⁹ sn That is, about fifteen or sixteen pounds.

[17:8]  ²⁰ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Goliath) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[17:8]  ²¹ tn The Hebrew text adds “and said to them.”

[17:8]  ²² tc The translation follows the ancient versions in reading “choose,” (from the root בחר, bkhr), rather than the MT. The verb in MT (ברה, brh) elsewhere means “to eat food”; the sense of “to choose,” required here by the context, is not attested for this root. The MT apparently reflects an early scribal error.

[17:8]  ²³ tn Following the imperative, the prefixed verbal form (either an imperfect or jussive) with the prefixed conjunction indicates purpose/result here.

[17:10]  ²⁴ tn Following the imperative, the cohortative verbal form indicates purpose/result here.

[17:11]  ²⁵ tn Heb “all Israel.”

[17:12]  ²⁶ tc Some mss of the LXX lack vv. 12-31.

[17:12]  ²⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map7 E2; Map8 E2; Map10 B4.

[17:12]  ²⁸ tc The translation follows the Lucianic recension of the LXX and the Syriac Peshitta in reading “in years,” rather than MT “among men.”

[17:13]  ²⁹ tn Heb “his.”

[7:45]  ³⁰ tn Or “servants.” The “chief priests and Pharisees” is a comprehensive term for the groups represented in the ruling council (the Sanhedrin) as in John 7:45; 18:3; Acts 5:22, 26. As “servants” or “officers” of the Sanhedrin, their representatives should be distinguished from the Levites serving as temple police (perhaps John 7:30 and 44; also John 8:20; 10:39; 19:6; Acts 4:3). Even when performing ‘police’ duties such as here, their “officers” are doing so only as part of their general tasks (See K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 8:540).

[7:45]  ³¹ tn Grk “came.”

[7:45]  ³² sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.

[7:45]  ³³ tn Grk “Why did you not bring him?” The words “back with you” are implied.

[7:47]  ³⁴ tn Grk “answered them.”

[7:47]  ³⁵ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “have you?”).

[7:48]  ³⁶ sn The chief priests and Pharisees (John 7:45) is a comprehensive term for the groups represented in the ruling council (the Sanhedrin) as in John 7:45; 18:3; Acts 5:22, 26. Likewise the term ruler here denotes a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews. Note the same word (“ruler”) is used to describe Nicodemus in John 3:1, and Nicodemus also speaks up in this episode (John 7:50).

[7:48]  ³⁷ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “have they?”).

[7:49]  ³⁸ tn Grk “crowd.” “Rabble” is a good translation here because the remark by the Pharisees is so derogatory.

[7:50]  ³⁹ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:50]  ⁴⁰ tn Grk “who was one of them”; the referent (the rulers) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:50]  ⁴¹ tn Grk “said to them.”

[7:51]  ⁴² tn Grk “judge.”

[7:51]  ⁴³ tn Grk “knows.”

[7:51]  ⁴⁴ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “does it?”).

[7:52]  ⁴⁵ tn Grk “They answered and said to him.”

[7:52]  ⁴⁶ tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “are you?”).

[7:52]  ⁴⁷ tc At least one early and important ms (Ì^66*) places the article before “prophet” (ὁ προφήτης, Jo profhths), making this a reference to the “prophet like Moses” mentioned in Deut 18:15.

[7:52]  tn This claim by the leaders presents some difficulty, because Jonah had been from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (2 Kgs 14:25). Also the Babylonian Talmud later stated, “There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets” (b. Sukkah 27b). Two explanations are possible: (1) In the heat of anger the members of the Sanhedrin overlooked the facts (this is perhaps the easiest explanation). (2) This anarthrous noun is to be understood as a reference to the prophet of Deut 18:15 (note the reading of Ì⁶⁶ which is articular), by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. This would produce in the text of John’s Gospel a high sense of irony indeed, since the religious authorities by their insistence that “the Prophet” could not come from Galilee displayed their true ignorance of where Jesus came from on two levels at once (Bethlehem, his birthplace, the fulfillment of Mic 5:2, but also heaven, from which he was sent by the Father). The author does not even bother to refute the false attestation of Jesus’ place of birth as Galilee (presumably Christians knew all too well where Jesus came from).

[7:53]  ⁴⁸ tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì^66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424^mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, ˹ places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, ˹³ after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (˹³) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).

[7:53]  sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

[23:6]  ⁴⁹ tn BDAG 200 s.v. γινώσκω 4 has “to be aware of someth., perceive, notice, realize”; this is further clarified by section 4.c: “w. ὅτι foll….Ac 23:6.”

[23:6]  ⁵⁰ sn See the note on Sadducees in 4:1.

[23:6]  ⁵¹ sn See the note on Pharisee in 5:34.

[23:6]  ⁵² tn Grk “the Sanhedrin” (the Sanhedrin was the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews).

[23:6]  ⁵³ tn That is, concerning the hope that the dead will be resurrected. Grk “concerning the hope and resurrection.” BDAG 320 s.v. ἐλπίς 1.b.α states, “Of Israel’s messianic hope Ac 23:6 (ἐ. καὶ ἀνάστασις for ἐ. τῆς ἀν. [obj. gen] as 2 Macc 3:29 ἐ. καὶ σωτηρία).” With an objective genitive construction, the resurrection of the dead would be the “object” of the hope.

[23:7]  ⁵⁴ tn The participle εἰπόντος (eiponto") has been translated temporally.

[23:7]  ⁵⁵ tn Or “a dispute” (BDAG 940 s.v. στάσις 3).

[23:7]  ⁵⁶ tn Grk “there came about an argument.” This has been simplified to “an argument began”

[23:8]  ⁵⁷ tn BDAG 55 s.v. ἀμφότεροι 2 has “all, even when more than two are involved…Φαρισαῖοι ὁμολογοῦσιν τὰ ἀ. believe in them all 23:8.” On this belief see Josephus, J. W. 2.8.14 (2.163); Ant. 18.1.3 (18.14).

[23:8]  sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[23:9]  ⁵⁸ tn Or “clamor” (cf. BDAG 565 s.v. κραυγή 1.a, which has “there arose a loud outcry” here, and Exod 12:30).

[23:9]  ⁵⁹ tn Or “and some scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 4:5.

[23:9]  ⁶⁰ tn Grk “standing up.” The participle ἀναστάντες (anastante") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[23:9]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “protested strongly, saying.” L&N 39.27 has “διαμάχομαι: to fight or contend with, involving severity and thoroughness – ‘to protest strongly, to contend with.’…‘some scribes from the party of the Pharisees protested strongly’ Ac 23:9.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant and has not been translated.

[23:9]  ⁶² sn “We find nothing wrong with this man.” Here is another declaration of innocence. These leaders recognized the possibility that Paul might have the right to make his claim.

[23:10]  ⁶³ tn This genitive absolute construction with the participle γινομένης (ginomenhs) has been taken temporally (it could also be translated as causal).

[23:10]  ⁶⁴ tn Grk “the chiliarch” (an officer in command of a thousand soldiers). In Greek the term χιλίαρχος (ciliarco") literally described the “commander of a thousand,” but it was used as the standard translation for the Latin tribunus militum or tribunus militare, the military tribune who commanded a cohort of 600 men.

[23:10]  ⁶⁵ tn Grk “that Paul would be torn to pieces by them.” BDAG 236 s.v. διασπάω has “of an angry mob μὴ διασπασθῇ ὁ Παῦλος ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν that Paul would be torn in pieces by them Ac 23:10.” The passive construction is somewhat awkward in English and has been converted to an equivalent active construction in the translation.

[23:10]  ⁶⁶ tn Normally this term means “army,” but according to BDAG 947 s.v. στράτευμα, “Of a smaller detachment of soldiers, sing. Ac 23:10, 27.” In the plural it can be translated “troops,” but it is singular here.

[23:10]  ⁶⁷ tn Or “to go down, grab him out of their midst.”

[23:10]  ⁶⁸ tn Or “the headquarters.” BDAG 775 s.v. παρεμβολή 2 has “barracks/headquarters of the Roman troops in Jerusalem Ac 21:34, 37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32.”