Ayub 18:13-14
Konteks18:13 It eats away parts of his skin; 1
the most terrible death 2 devours his limbs.
18:14 He is dragged from the security of his tent, 3
and marched off 4 to the king 5 of terrors.
Ayub 33:18-28
Konteks33:18 He spares a person’s life from corruption, 6
his very life from crossing over 7 the river.
33:19 Or a person is chastened 8 by pain on his bed,
and with the continual strife of his bones, 9
33:20 so that his life loathes food,
and his soul rejects appetizing fare. 10
33:21 His flesh wastes away from sight,
and his bones, which were not seen,
are easily visible. 11
33:22 He 12 draws near to the place of corruption,
and his life to the messengers of death. 13
33:23 If there is an angel beside him,
one mediator 14 out of a thousand,
to tell a person what constitutes his uprightness; 15
33:24 and if 16 God 17 is gracious to him and says,
‘Spare 18 him from going down
to the place of corruption,
I have found a ransom for him,’ 19
33:25 then his flesh is restored 20 like a youth’s;
he returns to the days of his youthful vigor. 21
33:26 He entreats God, and God 22 delights in him,
he sees God’s face 23 with rejoicing,
and God 24 restores to him his righteousness. 25
33:27 That person sings 26 to others, 27 saying:
‘I have sinned and falsified what is right,
but I was not punished according to what I deserved. 28
from going down to the place of corruption,
and my life sees the light!’
[18:13] 1 tn The expression “the limbs of his skin” makes no sense, unless a poetic meaning of “parts” (or perhaps “layers”) is taken. The parallelism has “his skin” in the first colon, and “his limbs” in the second. One plausible suggestion is to take בַּדֵּי (badde, “limbs of”) in the first part to be בִּדְוָי (bidvay, “by a disease”; Dhorme, Wright, RSV). The verb has to be made passive, however. The versions have different things: The LXX has “let the branches of his feet be eaten”; the Syriac has “his cities will be swallowed up by force”; the Vulgate reads “let it devour the beauty of his skin”; and Targum Job has “it will devour the linen garments that cover his skin.”
[18:13] 2 tn The “firstborn of death” is the strongest child of death (Gen 49:3), or the deadliest death (like the “firstborn of the poor, the poorest). The phrase means the most terrible death (A. B. Davidson, Job, 134).
[18:14] 3 tn Heb “from his tent, his security.” The apposition serves to modify the tent as his security.
[18:14] 4 tn The verb is the Hiphil of צָעַד (tsa’ad, “to lead away”). The problem is that the form is either a third feminine (Rashi thought it was referring to Job’s wife) or the second person. There is a good deal of debate over the possibility of the prefix t- being a variant for the third masculine form. The evidence in Ugaritic and Akkadian is mixed, stronger for the plural than the singular. Gesenius has some samples where the third feminine form might also be used for the passive if there is no expressed subject (see GKC 459 §144.b), but the evidence is not strong. The simplest choices are to change the prefix to a י (yod), or argue that the ת (tav) can be masculine, or follow Gesenius.
[18:14] 5 sn This is a reference to death, the king of all terrors. Other identifications are made in the commentaries: Mot, the Ugaritic god of death; Nergal of the Babylonians; Molech of the Canaanites, the one to whom people sent emissaries.
[33:18] 6 tn A number of interpreters and translations take this as “the pit” (see Job 17:14; cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV).
[33:18] 7 tc Here is another difficult line. The verb normally means “to pass through; to pass over,” and so this word would normally mean “from passing through [or over].” The word שֶׁלַח (shelakh) does at times refer to a weapon, but most commentators look for a parallel with “the pit [or corruption].” One suggestion is שְׁאוֹלָה (shÿ’olah, “to Sheol”), proposed by Duhm. Dhorme thought it was שַׁלַח (shalakh) and referred to the passageway to the underworld (see M. Tsevat, VT 4 [1954]: 43; and Svi Rin, BZ 7 [1963]: 25). See discussion of options in HALOT 1517-18 s.v. IV שֶׁלַח. The idea of crossing the river of death fits the idea of the passage well, although the reading “to perish by the sword” makes sense and was followed by the NIV.
[33:19] 8 tc The MT has the passive form, and so a subject has to be added: “[a man] is chastened.” The LXX has the active form, indicating “[God] chastens,” but the object “a man” has to be added. It is understandable why the LXX thought this was active, within this sequence of verbs; and that is why it is the inferior reading.
[33:19] 9 tc The Kethib “the strife of his bones is continual,” whereas the Qere has “the multitude of his bones are firm.” The former is the better reading in this passage. It indicates that the pain is caused by the ongoing strife.
[33:20] 10 tn Heb “food of desire.” The word “rejects” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
[33:21] 11 tc Heb “are laid bare.” This is the Qere reading; the Kethib means “bare height.” Gordis reverses the word order: “his bones are bare [i.e., crushed] so that they cannot be looked upon.” But the sense of that is not clear.
[33:22] 12 tn Heb “his soul [נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh, “life”] draws near.”
[33:22] 13 tn The MT uses the Hiphil participle, “to those who cause death.” This seems to be a reference to the belief in demons that brought about death, an idea not mentioned in the Bible itself. Thus many proposals have been made for this expression. Hoffmann and Budde divide the word into לְמוֹ מֵתִּים (lÿmo metim) and simply read “to the dead.” Dhorme adds a couple of letters to get לִמְקוֹם מֵתִּים (limqom metim, “to the place [or abode] of the dead”).
[33:23] 14 sn The verse is describing the way God can preserve someone from dying by sending a messenger (translated here as “angel”), who could be human or angelic. This messenger will interpret/mediate God’s will. By “one … out of a thousand” Elihu could have meant either that one of the thousands of messengers at God’s disposal might be sent or that the messenger would be unique (see Eccl 7:28; and cp. Job 9:3).
[33:23] 15 tn This is a smoother reading. The MT has “to tell to a man his uprightness,” to reveal what is right for him. The LXX translated this word “duty”; the choice is adopted by some commentaries. However, that is too far from the text, which indicates that the angel/messenger is to call the person to uprightness.
[33:24] 16 tn This verse seems to continue the protasis begun in the last verse, with the apodosis coming in the next verse.
[33:24] 17 tn Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:24] 18 tc The verb is either taken as an anomalous form of פָּדַע (pada’, “to rescue; to redeem,” or “to exempt him”), or it is emended to some similar word, like פָּרַע (para’, “to let loose,” so Wright).
[33:24] 19 sn This verse and v. 28 should be compared with Ps 49:7-9, 15 (8-10, 16 HT) where the same basic vocabulary and concepts are employed.
[33:25] 20 tc The word רֻטֲפַשׁ (rutafash) is found nowhere else. One suggestion is that it should be יִרְטַב (yirtav, “to become fresh”), connected to רָטַב (ratav, “to be well watered [or moist]”). It is also possible that it was a combination of רָטַב (ratav, “to be well watered”) and טָפַשׁ (tafash, “to grow fat”). But these are all guesses in the commentaries.
[33:25] 21 tn The word describes the period when the man is healthy and vigorous, ripe for what life brings his way.
[33:26] 22 tn Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:26] 23 tn Heb “his face”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:26] sn This is usually taken to mean that as a worshiper this individual comes into the presence of the
[33:26] 24 tn Heb “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
[33:26] 25 tc Many commentators think this line is superfluous and so delete it. The RSV changed the verb to “he recounts,” making the idea that the man publishes the news of his victory or salvation (taking “righteousness” as a metonymy of cause).
[33:27] 26 tc The verb יָשֹׁר (yashor) is unusual. The typical view is to change it to יָשִׁיר (yashir, “he sings”), but that may seem out of harmony with a confession. Dhorme suggests a root שׁוּר (shur, “to repeat”), but this is a doubtful root. J. Reider reads it יָשֵׁיר (yasher) and links it to an Arabic word “confesses” (ZAW 24 [1953]: 275).
[33:27] 28 tn The verb שָׁוָה (shavah) has the impersonal meaning here, “it has not been requited to me.” The meaning is that the sinner has not been treated in accordance with his deeds: “I was not punished according to what I deserved.”
