Ayub 9:14

The Impossibility of Facing God in Court

9:14 “How much less, ¹  then, can I answer him ² 

and choose my words ³  to argue ⁴  with ⁵  him! ⁶ 

Ayub 14:19

14:19 as water wears away stones,

and torrents ⁷  wash away the soil, ⁸ 

so you destroy man’s hope. ⁹ 

Ayub 18:11

18:11 Terrors ¹⁰  frighten him on all sides

and dog ¹¹  his every step.

Ayub 32:22

32:22 for I do not know how to give honorary titles, ¹² 

if I did, ¹³  my Creator would quickly do away with me. ¹⁴ 

Ayub 34:22

34:22 There is no darkness, and no deep darkness,

where evildoers can hide themselves. ¹⁵ 

Ayub 39:14

39:14 For she leaves ¹⁶  her eggs on the ground,

and lets them be warmed on the soil.

[9:14]  ¹ tn The construction אַף כִּי־אָנֹכִי (’af ki ’anokhi) is an expression that means either “how much more” or “how much less.” Here it has to mean “how much less,” for if powerful forces like Rahab are crushed beneath God’s feet, how could Job contend with him?

[9:14]  ² tn The imperfect verb here is to be taken with the nuance of a potential imperfect. The idea of “answer him” has a legal context, i.e., answering God in a court of law. If God is relentless in his anger toward greater powers, then Job realizes it is futile for him.

[9:14]  ³ sn In a legal controversy with God it would be essential to choose the correct words very carefully (humanly speaking); but the calmness and presence of mind to do that would be shattered by the overwhelming terror of God’s presence.

[9:14]  ⁴ tn The verb is supplied in this line.

[9:14]  ⁵ tn The preposition אִם (’im, “with”) carries the idea of “in contest with” in a number of passages (compare vv. 2, 3; 16:21).

[9:14]  ⁶ tn The LXX goes a different way after changing the first person to the third: “Oh then that he would hearken to me, or judge my cause.”

[14:19]  ⁷ tn Heb “the overflowings of it”; the word סְפִיחֶיהָ (sÿfikheyha) in the text is changed by just about everyone. The idea of “its overflowings” or more properly “its aftergrowths” (Lev 25:5; 2 Kgs 19:29; etc.) does not fit here at all. Budde suggested reading סְחִפָה (sÿkhifah), which is cognate to Arabic sahifeh, “torrential rain, rainstorm” – that which sweeps away” the soil. The word סָחַף (sakhaf) in Hebrew might have a wider usage than the effects of rain.

[14:19]  ⁸ tn Heb “[the] dust of [the] earth.”

[14:19]  ⁹ sn The meaning for Job is that death shatters all of man’s hopes for the continuation of life.

[18:11]  ¹⁰ sn Bildad is referring here to all the things that afflict a person and cause terror. It would then be a metonymy of effect, the cause being the afflictions.

[18:11]  ¹¹ tn The verb פּוּץ (puts) in the Hiphil has the meaning “to pursue” and “to scatter.” It is followed by the expression “at his feet.” So the idea is easily derived: they chase him at his feet. But some commentators have other proposals. The most far-fetched is that of Ehrlich and Driver (ZAW 24 [1953]: 259-60) which has “and compel him to urinate on his feet,” one of many similar readings the NEB accepted from Driver.

[32:22]  ¹² tn The construction uses a perfect verb followed by the imperfect. This is a form of subordination equivalent to a complementary infinitive (see GKC 385-86 §120.c).

[32:22]  ¹³ tn The words “if I did” are supplied in the translation to make sense out of the two clauses.

[32:22]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “quickly carry me away.”

[34:22]  ¹⁵ tn The construction of this colon uses the Niphal infinitive construct from סָתַר (satar, “to be hidden; to hide”). The resumptive adverb makes this a relative clause in its usage: “where the evildoers can hide themselves.”

[39:14]  ¹⁶ tn The meaning may have the connotation of “lays; places,” rather than simply abandoning (see M. Dahood, “The Root ’zb II in Job,” JBL 78 [1959]: 307f.).