Ayub 11:2-3

11:2 “Should not this ¹  abundance of words be answered, ² 

or should this ³  talkative man ⁴ 

be vindicated? ⁵ 

11:3 Will your idle talk ⁶  reduce people to silence, ⁷ 

and will no one rebuke ⁸  you when you mock? ⁹ 

Ayub 16:3

16:3 Will ¹⁰  there be an end to your ¹¹  windy words? ¹² 

Or what provokes ¹³  you that you answer? ¹⁴ 

Ayub 18:2

18:2 “How long until you ¹⁵  make an end of words? ¹⁶ 

You must consider, ¹⁷  and then ¹⁸  we can talk.

Ayub 19:2-3

19:2 “How long will you torment me ¹⁹ 

and crush ²⁰  me with your words? ²¹ 

19:3 These ten times ²²  you have been reproaching me; ²³ 

you are not ashamed to attack me! ²⁴ 

Keluaran 10:3

10:3 So Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and told him, “Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews: ‘How long do you refuse ²⁵  to humble yourself before me? ²⁶  Release my people so that they may serve me!

Keluaran 10:7

10:7 Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long ²⁷  will this man be a menace ²⁸  to us? Release the people so that they may serve the Lord their God. Do you not know ²⁹  that Egypt is destroyed?”

Amsal 1:22

1:22 “How long will you simpletons ³⁰  love naiveté? ³¹ 

How long ³²  will mockers ³³  delight ³⁴  in mockery ³⁵ 

and fools ³⁶  hate knowledge?

[11:2]  ¹ tc The LXX, Targum Job, Symmachus, and Vulgate all assume that the vocalization of רֹב (rov, “abundance”) should be רַב (rav, “great”): “great of words.” This would then mean “one who is abundant of words,” meaning, “a man of many words,” and make a closer parallel to the second half. But the MT makes good sense as it stands.

[11:2]  tn There is no article or demonstrative with the word; it has been added here simply to make a smoother connection between the chapters.

[11:2]  ² tn The Niphal verb יֵעָנֶה (ye’aneh, “he answered”) would normally require a personal subject, but “abundance” functions as the subject in this sentence. The nuance of the imperfect is obligatory.

[11:2]  ³ tn The word is supplied here also for clarification.

[11:2]  ⁴ tn The bound construction “man of lips” means “a boaster” or “proud talker” (attributive genitive; and see GKC 417 §128.t). Zophar is saying that Job pours out this stream of words, but he is still not right.

[11:2]  ⁵ tn The word is literally “be right, righteous.” The idea of being right has appeared before for this word (cf. 9:15). The point here is that just because Job talks a lot does not mean he is right or will be shown to be right through it all.

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

[11:3]  ⁷ 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]  ⁸ 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]  ⁹ tn The construction shows the participle to be in the circumstantial clause: “will you mock – and [with] no one rebuking.”

[16:3]  ¹⁰ tn Disjunctive questions are introduced with the sign of the interrogative; the second part is introduced with אוֹ (’o, see GKC 475 §150.g).

[16:3]  ¹¹ tn In v. 3 the second person singular is employed rather than the plural as in vv. 2 and 4. The singular might be an indication that the words of v. 3 were directed at Eliphaz specifically.

[16:3]  ¹² tn Heb “words of wind.”

[16:3]  ¹³ tn The Hiphil of מָרַץ (marats) does not occur anywhere else. The word means “to compel; to force” (see 6:25).

[16:3]  ¹⁴ tn The LXX seems to have gone a different way: “What, is there any reason in vain words, or what will hinder you from answering?”

[18:2]  ¹⁵ tn The verb is plural, and so most commentators make it singular. But it seems from the context that Bildad is addressing all of them, and not just Job.

[18:2]  ¹⁶ tn The construction is קִנְצֵי לְמִלִּין (qintse lÿmillin), which is often taken to be “end of words,” as if the word was from קֵץ (qets, “end”). But a plural of “end” is not found in the OT. Some will link the word to Arabic qanasa, “to hunt; to give chase,” to get an interpretation of “snares for words.” But E. Dhorme (Job, 257) objects that this does not fit the speech of Bildad (as well as it might Job’s). He finds a cognate qinsu, “fetters, shackles,” and reads “how long will you put shackles on words.” But G. R. Driver had pointed out that this cognate does not exist (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 72-93). So it would be preferable to take the reading “ends” and explain the ן (nun) as from a Aramaizing by-form. This is supported by 11QtgJob that uses סוֹף (sof, “end”). On the construction, GKC 421 §130.a explains this as a use of the construct in rapid narrative to connect the words; in such cases a preposition is on the following noun.

[18:2]  ¹⁷ tn The imperfect verb, again plural, would be here taken in the nuance of instruction, or a modal nuance of obligation. So Bildad is telling his listeners to be intelligent. This would be rather cutting in the discourse.

[18:2]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “afterward.”

[19:2]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “torment my soul,” with “soul” representing the self or individual. The MT has a verb from יָגָה (yagah, “to afflict; to torment”). This is supported by the versions. But the LXX has “to tire” which is apparently from יָגַע (yaga’). The form in the MT is unusual because it preserves the final (original) yod in the Hiphil (see GKC 214 §75.gg). So this unusual form has been preserved, and is the correct reading. A modal nuance for the imperfect fits best here: “How long do you intend to do this?”

[19:2]  ²⁰ tn The MT has דָּכָא (dakha’), “to crush” in the Piel. The LXX, however, has a more general word which means “to destroy.”

[19:2]  ²¹ tn The LXX adds to the verse: “only know that the Lord has dealt with me thus.”

[19:3]  ²² 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]  ²³ 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]  ²⁴ 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.

[10:3]  ²⁵ tn The verb is מֵאַנְתָּ (me’anta), a Piel perfect. After “how long,” the form may be classified as present perfect (“how long have you refused), for it describes actions begun previously but with the effects continuing. (See GKC 311 §106.g-h). The use of a verb describing a state or condition may also call for a present translation (“how long do you refuse”) that includes past, present, and potentially future, in keeping with the question “how long.”

[10:3]  ²⁶ tn The clause is built on the use of the infinitive construct to express the direct object of the verb – it answers the question of what Pharaoh was refusing to do. The Niphal infinitive construct (note the elision of the ה [hey] prefix after the preposition [see GKC 139 §51.l]) is from the verb עָנָה (’anah). The verb in this stem would mean “humble oneself.” The question is somewhat rhetorical, since God was not yet through humbling Pharaoh, who would not humble himself. The issue between Yahweh and Pharaoh is deeper than simply whether or not Pharaoh will let the Israelites leave Egypt.

[10:7]  ²⁷ sn The question of Pharaoh’s servants echoes the question of Moses – “How long?” Now the servants of Pharaoh are demanding what Moses demanded – “Release the people.” They know that the land is destroyed, and they speak of it as Moses’ doing. That way they avoid acknowledging Yahweh or blaming Pharaoh.

[10:7]  ²⁸ tn Heb “snare” (מוֹקֵשׁ, moqesh), a word used for a trap for catching birds. Here it is a figure for the cause of Egypt’s destruction.

[10:7]  ²⁹ tn With the adverb טֶרֶם (terem), the imperfect tense receives a present sense: “Do you not know?” (See GKC 481 §152.r).

[1:22]  ³⁰ tn Wisdom addresses three types of people: simpletons (פְּתָיִם, pÿtayim), scoffers (לֵצִים, letsim) and fools (כְּסִילִים, kÿsilim). For the term “simpleton” see note on 1:4. Each of these three types of people is satisfied with the life being led and will not listen to reason. See J. A. Emerton, “A Note on the Hebrew Text of Proverbs 1:22-23,” JTS 19 (1968): 609-14.

[1:22]  ³¹ tn Heb “simplicity” (so KJV, NASB); NAB “inanity.” The noun פֶּתִי (peti) means “simplicity; lack of wisdom” (BDB 834 s.v.; HALOT 989 s.v. II פֶּתִי). It is related to the term פְּתָיִם (pÿtayim) “simpletons” and so forms a striking wordplay. This lack of wisdom and moral simplicity is inherent in the character of the naive person.

[1:22]  ³² tn The second instance of “How long?” does not appear in the Hebrew text; it is supplied in the translation for smoothness and style.

[1:22]  ³³ sn The term לֵצִים (leysim, “scoffers; mockers”) comes from the root לִיץ (lits, “to scorn; to mock; to speak indirectly” (BDB 539 s.v. לִיץ). They are cynical and defiant freethinkers who ridicule the righteous and all for which they stand (e.g., Ps 1:1).

[1:22]  ³⁴ tn Heb “delight.” The verb (חָמַד, khamad) is often translated “to take pleasure; to delight” but frequently has the meaning of a selfish desire, a coveting of something. It is the term, for example, used for coveting in the Decalogue (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21) and for the covetous desire of Eve (Gen 3:6) and Achan (Josh 7:21). It is tempting to nuance it here as “illicit desire” for mockery.

[1:22]  ³⁵ tn Heb “for themselves.” The ethical dative לָהֶם (lahem, “for themselves”) is normally untranslated. It is a rhetorical device emphasizing that they take delight in mockery for their own self-interests.

[1:22]  ³⁶ sn The term “fool” (כְּסִיל, kÿsil) refers to the morally insensitive dullard (BDB 493 s.v.).