Ayub 19:3

19:3 These ten times ¹  you have been reproaching me; ² 

you are not ashamed to attack me! ³ 

Ayub 20:3

20:3 When ⁴  I hear a reproof that dishonors ⁵  me,

then my understanding ⁶  prompts me to answer. ⁷ 

Ayub 21:20

21:20 Let his own eyes see his destruction; ⁸ 

let him drink of the anger of the Almighty.

[19:3]  ¹ sn The number “ten” is a general expression to convey that this has been done often (see Gen 31:7; Num 14:22).

[19:3]  ² tn The Hiphil of the verb כָּלַם (kalam) means “outrage; insult; shame.” The verbs in this verse are prefixed conjugations, and may be interpreted as preterites if the reference is to the past time. But since the action is still going on, progressive imperfects work well.

[19:3]  ³ tn The second half of the verse uses two verbs, the one dependent on the other. It could be translated “you are not ashamed to attack me” (see GKC 385-86 §120.c), or “you attack me shamelessly.” The verb חָכַר (hakhar) poses some difficulties for both the ancient versions and the modern commentators. The verb seems to be cognate to Arabic hakara, “to oppress; to ill-treat.” This would mean that there has been a transformation of ח (khet) to ה (he). Three Hebrew mss actually have the ח (khet). This has been widely accepted; other suggestions are irrelevant.

[20:3]  ⁴ tn There is no indication that this clause is to be subordinated to the next, other than the logical connection, and the use of the ו (vav) in the second half.

[20:3]  ⁵ tn See Job 19:3.

[20:3]  ⁶ tn The phrase actually has רוּחַ מִבִּינָתִי (ruakh mibbinati, “a spirit/wind/breath/impulse from my understanding”). Some translate it “out of my understanding a spirit answers me.” The idea is not that difficult, and so the many proposals to rewrite the text can be rejected. The spirit of his understanding prompts the reply.

[20:3]  ⁷ tn To take this verb as a simple Qal and read it “answers me,” does not provide a clear idea. The form can just as easily be taken as a Hiphil, with the sense “causes me to answer.” It is Zophar who will “return” and who will “answer.”

[21:20]  ⁸ tc This word occurs only here. The word כִּיד (kid) was connected to Arabic kaid, “fraud, trickery,” or “warfare.” The word is emended by the commentators to other ideas, such as פִּיד (pid, “[his] calamity”). Dahood and others alter it to “cup”; Wright to “weapons.” A. F. L. Beeston argues for a meaning “condemnation” for the MT form, and so makes no change in the text (Mus 67 [1954]: 315-16). If the connection to Arabic “warfare” is sustained, or if such explanations of the existing MT can be sustained, then the text need not be emended. In any case, the sense of the line is clear.