Ayub 8:11

8:11 Can the papyrus plant grow tall ¹  where there is no marsh?

Can reeds flourish ²  without water?

Ayub 10:18

An Appeal for Relief

10:18 “Why then did you bring me out from the womb?

I should have died ³ 

and no eye would have seen me!

Ayub 10:20

10:20 Are not my days few? ⁴ 

Cease, ⁵  then, and leave ⁶  me alone, ⁷ 

that I may find a little comfort, ⁸ 

Ayub 11:3

11:3 Will your idle talk ⁹  reduce people to silence, ¹⁰ 

and will no one rebuke ¹¹  you when you mock? ¹² 

Ayub 11:20

11:20 But the eyes of the wicked fail, ¹³ 

and escape ¹⁴  eludes them;

their one hope ¹⁵  is to breathe their last.” ¹⁶ 

Ayub 12:24

12:24 He deprives the leaders of the earth ¹⁷ 

of their understanding; ¹⁸ 

he makes them wander

in a trackless desert waste. ¹⁹ 

Ayub 13:15

13:15 Even if he slays me, I will hope in him; ²⁰ 

I will surely ²¹  defend ²²  my ways to his face!

Ayub 14:7

The Inevitability of Death

14:7 “But there is hope for ²³  a tree: ²⁴ 

If it is cut down, it will sprout again,

and its new shoots will not fail.

Ayub 14:14

14:14 If a man dies, will he live again? ²⁵ 

All the days of my hard service ²⁶  I will wait ²⁷ 

until my release comes. ²⁸ 

Ayub 19:27

19:27 whom I will see for myself, ²⁹ 

and whom my own eyes will behold,

and not another. ³⁰ 

My heart ³¹  grows faint within me. ³² 

Ayub 22:18

22:18 But it was he ³³  who filled their houses

with good things –

yet the counsel of the wicked ³⁴ 

was far from me. ³⁵ 

Ayub 30:3

30:3 gaunt ³⁶  with want and hunger,

they would gnaw ³⁷  the parched land,

in former time desolate and waste. ³⁸ 

Ayub 30:24

The Contrast With the Past

30:24 “Surely one does not stretch out his hand

against a broken man ³⁹ 

when he cries for help in his distress. ⁴⁰ 

Ayub 30:26

30:26 But when I hoped for good, trouble came;

when I expected light, then darkness came.

Ayub 31:34

31:34 because I was terrified ⁴¹  of the great multitude, ⁴² 

and the contempt of families terrified me,

so that I remained silent

and would not go outdoors – ⁴³ 

Ayub 32:13

32:13 So do not say, ⁴⁴  ‘We have found wisdom!

God will refute ⁴⁵  him, not man!’

Ayub 37:19

37:19 Tell us what we should ⁴⁶  say to him.

We cannot prepare a case ⁴⁷ 

because of the darkness.

Ayub 39:21

39:21 It ⁴⁸  paws the ground in the valley, ⁴⁹ 

exulting mightily, ⁵⁰ 

it goes out to meet the weapons.

[8:11]  ¹ sn H. H. Rowley observes the use of the words for plants that grow in Egypt and suspects that Bildad either knew Egypt or knew that much wisdom came from Egypt. The first word refers to papyrus, which grows to a height of six feet (so the verb means “to grow tall; to grow high”). The second word refers to the reed grass that grows on the banks of the river (see Gen 41:2, 18).

[8:11]  ² tn The two verbs, גָּאָה (ga’ah) and שָׂגָה (sagah), have almost the same meanings of “flourish, grow, become tall.”

[10:18]  ³ tn The two imperfect verbs in this section are used to stress regrets for something which did not happen (see GKC 317 §107.n).

[10:20]  ⁴ tn Heb “are not my days few; cease/let it cease….” The versions have “the days of my life” (reading יְמֵי חֶלְדִי [yÿme kheldi] instead of יָמַי וַחֲדָל [yamay vakhadal]). Many commentators and the RSV, NAB, and NRSV accept this reading. The Kethib is an imperfect or jussive, “let it cease/ it will cease.” The Qere is more intelligible for some interpreters – “cease” (as in 7:16). For a discussion of the readings, see D. W. Thomas, “Some Observations on the Hebrew Root hadal,” VTSup 4 [1057]: 14). But the text is not impossible as it stands.

[10:20]  ⁵ tn Taking the form as the imperative with the ו (vav), the sentence follows the direct address to God (as in v. 18 as well as 7:16). This requires less changes. See the preceding note regarding the plausibility of the jussive. The point of the verse is clear in either reading – his life is short, and he wants the suffering to stop.

[10:20]  ⁶ tn In the different suggestions for the line, the י (yod) of this word is believed to belong to the preceding word making “my life.” That would here leave an imperative rather than an imperfect. But if the Qere is read, then it would be an imperative anyway, and there would be no reason for the change.

[10:20]  ⁷ tn Heb “put from me,” an expression found nowhere else. The Qere has a ו (vav) and not a י (yod), forming an imperative rather than an imperfect. H. H. Rowley suggests that there is an ellipsis here, “hand” needing to be supplied. Job wanted God to take his hand away from him. That is plausible, but difficult.

[10:20]  ⁸ tn The verb בָּלַג (balag) in the Hiphil means “to have cheer [or joy]” (see 7:27; Ps 39:14). The cohortative following the imperatives shows the purpose or result – “in order that.”

[11:3]  ⁹ tn The word means “chatter, pratings, boastings” (see Isa 16:6; Jer 48:30).

[11:3]  ¹⁰ tn The verb חָרַשׁ (kharash) in the Hiphil means “to silence” (41:4); here it functions in a causative sense, “reduce to silence.”

[11:3]  ¹¹ tn The form מַכְלִם (makhlim, “humiliating, mocking”) is the Hiphil participle. The verb כָּלַם (kalam) has the meaning “cover with shame, insult” (Job 20:3).

[11:3]  ¹² tn The construction shows the participle to be in the circumstantial clause: “will you mock – and [with] no one rebuking.”

[11:20]  ¹³ tn The verb כָּלָה (kalah) means “to fail, cease, fade away.” The fading of the eyes, i.e., loss of sight, loss of life’s vitality, indicates imminent death.

[11:20]  ¹⁴ tn Heb a “place of escape” (with this noun pattern). There is no place to escape to because they all perish.

[11:20]  ¹⁵ tn The word is to be interpreted as a metonymy; it represents what is hoped for.

[11:20]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “the breathing out of the soul”; cf. KJV, ASV “the giving up of the ghost.” The line is simply saying that the brightest hope that the wicked have is death.

[12:24]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “the heads of the people of the earth.”

[12:24]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “heart.”

[12:24]  ¹⁹ tn The text has בְּתֹהוּ לֹא־דָרֶךְ (bÿtohu lo’ darekh): “in waste – no way,” or “in a wasteland [where there is] no way,” thus, “trackless” (see the discussion of negative attributes using לֹא [lo’] in GKC 482 §152.u).

[13:15]  ²⁰ tn There is a textual difficulty here that factors into the interpretation of the verse. The Kethib is לֹא (lo’, “not”), but the Qere is לוֹ (lo, “to him”). The RSV takes the former: “Behold, he will slay me, I have no hope.” The NIV takes it as “though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” Job is looking ahead to death, which is not an evil thing to him. The point of the verse is that he is willing to challenge God at the risk of his life; and if God slays him, he is still confident that he will be vindicated – as he says later in this chapter. Other suggestions are not compelling. E. Dhorme (Job, 187) makes a slight change of אֲיַחֵל (’ayakhel, “I will hope”) to אַחִיל (’akhil, “I will [not] tremble”). A. B. Davidson (Job, 98) retains the MT, but interprets the verb more in line with its use in the book: “I will not wait” (cf. NLT).

[13:15]  ²¹ tn On אַךְ (’akh, “surely”) see GKC 483 §153 on intensive clauses.

[13:15]  ²² tn The verb once again is יָכָה (yakhah, in the Hiphil, “argue a case, plead, defend, contest”). But because the word usually means “accuse” rather than “defend,” I. L. Seeligmann proposed changing “my ways” to “his ways” (“Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch,” VTSup 16 [1967]: 251-78). But the word can be interpreted appropriately in the context without emendation.

[14:7]  ²³ tn The genitive after the construct is one of advantage – it is hope for the tree.

[14:7]  ²⁴ sn The figure now changes to a tree for the discussion of the finality of death. At least the tree will sprout again when it is cut down. Why, Job wonders, should what has been granted to the tree not also be granted to humans?

[14:14]  ²⁵ tc The LXX removes the interrogative and makes the statement affirmative, i.e., that man will live again. This reading is taken by D. H. Gard (“The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job,” JBL 73 [1954]: 137-38). D. J. A. Clines follows this, putting both of the expressions in the wish clause: “if a man dies and could live again…” (Job [WBC], 332). If that is the way it is translated, then the verbs in the second half of the verse and in the next verse would all be part of the apodosis, and should be translated “would.” The interpretation would not greatly differ; it would be saying that if there was life after death, Job would long for his release – his death. If the traditional view is taken and the question was raised whether there was life after death (the implication of the question being that there is), then Job would still be longing for his death. The point the line is making is that if there is life after death, that would be all the more reason for Job to eagerly expect, to hope for, his death.

[14:14]  ²⁶ tn See Job 7:1.

[14:14]  ²⁷ tn The verb אֲיַחֵל (’ayakhel) may be rendered “I will/would wait” or “I will/would hope.” The word describes eager expectation and longing hope.

[14:14]  ²⁸ tn The construction is the same as that found in the last verse: a temporal preposition עַד (’ad) followed by the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “release/relief.” Due, in part, to the same verb (חָלַף, khalaf) having the meaning “sprout again” in v. 7, some take “renewal” as the meaning here (J. E. Hartley, Alden, NIV, ESV).

[19:27]  ²⁹ tn The emphasis is on “I” and “for myself.” No other will be seeing this vindication, but Job himself will see it. Of that he is confident. Some take לִי (li, “for myself”) to mean favorable to me, or on my side (see A. B. Davidson, Job, 143). But Job is expecting (not just wishing for) a face-to-face encounter in the vindication.

[19:27]  ³⁰ tn Hitzig offered another interpretation that is somewhat forced. The “other” (זָר, zar) or “stranger” would refer to Job. He would see God, not as an enemy, but in peace.

[19:27]  ³¹ tn Heb “kidneys,” a poetic expression for the seat of emotions.

[19:27]  ³² tn Heb “fail/grow faint in my breast.” Job is saying that he has expended all his energy with his longing for vindication.

[22:18]  ³³ tn The pronoun is added for this emphasis; it has “but he” before the verb.

[22:18]  ³⁴ tn See Job 10:3.

[22:18]  ³⁵ tc The LXX has “from him,” and this is followed by several commentators. But the MT is to be retained, for Eliphaz is recalling the words of Job. Verses 17 and 18 are deleted by a number of commentators as a gloss because they have many similarities to 21:14-16. But Eliphaz is recalling what Job said, in order to say that the prosperity to which Job alluded was only the prelude to a disaster he denied (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 156).

[30:3]  ³⁶ tn This word, גַּלְמוּד (galmud), describes something as lowly, desolate, bare, gaunt like a rock.

[30:3]  ³⁷ tn The form is the plural participle with the definite article – “who gnaw.” The article, joined to the participle, joins on a new statement concerning a preceding noun (see GKC 404 §126.b).

[30:3]  ³⁸ tn The MT has “yesterday desolate and waste.” The word “yesterday” (אֶמֶשׁ, ’emesh) is strange here. Among the proposals for אֶמֶשׁ (’emesh), Duhm suggested יְמַשְּׁשׁוּ (yÿmashÿshu, “they grope”), which would require darkness; Pope renders “by night,” instead of “yesterday,” which evades the difficulty; and Fohrer suggested with more reason אֶרֶץ (’erets), “a desolate and waste land.” R. Gordis (Job, 331) suggests יָמִישׁוּ / יָמֻשׁוּ (yamishu/yamushu), “they wander off.”

[30:24]  ³⁹ tc Here is another very difficult verse, as is attested by the differences among commentaries and translations. The MT has “surely not against a ruinous heap will he [God] put forth his [God’s] hand.” But A. B. Davidson takes Job as the subject, reading “does not one stretch out his hand in his fall?” The RSV suggests a man walking in the ruins and using his hand for support. Dillmann changed it to “drowning man” to say “does not a drowning man stretch out his hand?” Beer has “have I not given a helping hand to the poor?” Dhorme has, “I did not strike the poor man with my hand.” Kissane follows this but retains the verb form, “one does not strike the poor man with his hand.”

[30:24]  ⁴⁰ tc The second colon is also difficult; it reads, “if in his destruction to them he cries.” E. Dhorme (Job, 425-26) explains how he thinks “to them” came about, and he restores “to me.” This is the major difficulty in the line, and Dhorme’s suggestion is the simplest resolution.

[31:34]  ⁴¹ tn Here too the verb will be the customary imperfect – it explains what he continually did in past time.

[31:34]  ⁴² tn Heb “the great multitude.” But some commentators take רַבָּה (rabbah) adverbially: “greatly” (see RSV).

[31:34]  ⁴³ sn There is no clear apodosis for all these clauses. Some commentators transfer the verses around to make them fit the constructions. But the better view is that there is no apodosis – that Job broke off here, feeling it was useless to go further. Now he will address God and not men. But in vv. 38-40b he does return to a self-imprecation. However, there is not sufficient reason to start rearranging all the verses.

[32:13]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “lest you say.” R. Gordis (Job, 368) calls this a breviloquence: “beware lest [you say].” He then suggests the best reading for their quote to be, “We have attained wisdom, but only God can refute him, not man.” H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 209) suggests the meaning is a little different, namely, that they are saying they have found wisdom in Job, and only God can deal with it. Elihu is in effect saying that they do not need God, for he is quite capable for this.

[32:13]  ⁴⁵ tn The root is נָדַף (nadaf, “to drive away; to drive off”). Here it is in the abstract sense of “succeed in doing something; confound,” and so “refute; rebut.” Dhorme wants to change the meaning of the word with a slight emendation in the text, deriving it from אָלַף (’alaf, “instruct”) the form becoming יַלְּפֶנוּ (yallÿfenu) instead of יִדְּפֶנּוּ (yiddÿfenu), obtaining the translation “God will instruct us.” This makes a smoother reading, but does not have much support for it.

[37:19]  ⁴⁶ tn The imperfect verb here carries the obligatory nuance, “what we should say?”

[37:19]  ⁴⁷ tn The verb means “to arrange; to set in order.” From the context the idea of a legal case is included.

[39:21]  ⁴⁸ tc The Hebrew text has a plural verb, “they paw.” For consistency and for stylistic reasons this is translated as a singular.

[39:21]  ⁴⁹ tn The armies would prepare for battles that were usually fought in the valleys, and so the horse was ready to charge. But in Ugaritic the word `mk means “force” as well as “valley.” The idea of “force” would fit the parallelism here well (see M. Dahood, “Value of Ugaritic for textual criticism,” Bib 40 [1959]: 166).

[39:21]  ⁵⁰ tn Or “in strength.”