Bible Translation Confidence

In this verse God, the cause of all Job’s afflication, is assumed to be the undefined subject of “pierce” (niqqar). Two other possibilities of treating MT niqqar are to take laylâ, “night”, as its subject or to revocalize it as Pual, nuqqar, with ‘ªṣāmay, “my bones,” as its subject: “At night my bones are pierced with pains.” ↩

Of the many suggestions for MT ‘ōrᵉqay, two are more likely. One is “my veins,” gained from the Arab. ᵉirq, “veins and sinews” (Tur-Sinai, Gordis). This view has the advantage of having a part of the body parallel to “bones.” The other is “my gnawing pains.” based on a gonate root in Syriac and Arabic. A major problem with this position is that since the Syriac version translates the word here “my body,” the Syriac translators did not equate ‘ōrᵉqay with the same root in their language. ↩

The subject of the very yiṯḥappēś, “he seizes,” is either indefinite, alluding to the disease, or God (Pope, NIV). Either way God is the final cause and thus is accepted as the subject. ↩

For MT yiṯḥappēś, “disguise oneself,” Dhorme, Fohrer, and Pope read yiṯpōś, “he seizes,” based on LXX. But Gordis thinks that Heb. ḥāpaś may be a phonetic variant of ḥāḇaš, “bind up.” He argues that the Hithpael arose as a conflation of second and third person forms by reason of the shift from third person (vv. 17, 19) to second person (vv. 20-23). ↩

Some (e.g., Pope and Gordis) think that for kᵉpî, “like the collar of,” it is better to read bᵉpî, “by the collar of.” Since it is possible to make sense out of MT, it is better not to emend the text. ↩

Since the first line is unusually short, Pope may be correct in supplying “God” as the subject. ↩

Many (e.g. Duhm, Hölscher, Fohrer) believe the verb hōrānî, “throw me,” often use of shooting arrows, is an error of haplography for hōriḏanî, “he has sent me down.” This view is possible, but not compelling. ↩

It seems best to read lō’, “not,” or wᵉlō’, “and not.” before tiṯbōnen, with Vulg. (so Dhorme, Rowley) ↩

The Qere tušîyâ, “success,” is less preferable than the Ketib tᵉšuwwâ as a variant spelling of tᵉšu’â, “noise, roar” (of a storm) (cf. 36:29, 39:7). Dhorme takes it as subject, but it is possible to interpret it as the accusative of place (Gordis). ↩

Verse 24 is very difficult and has received numerous reconstructions. For MT ‛î, “heap,” Pope and Dhorme read ‛ānî, “needy, afflicted”: “One does not turn his hand against the needy, when in distress he cries fo help.” Hakam takes bᵉ‛î as equivalent to a common Aramaic word for “prayer, request” (cf. Dan. 6:8, 14 [Eng. 7, 13]), with the preposition bᵉ omitted for assonance. This word parallels šûaᵉ in the second line, which is elliptical for ᵉāraḵ šûaᵉ, “cry for help.” As for the antecedent of lāhen, “to them,” Hakam identifies them as “death” and Sheol (“meeting house”) in v. 23 and “hand” in v. 24a, and he reasons that lāhen is a feminine plural, for šᵉ’ôl and yāḏ are feminine: “Surely God does not bring death by petitiion, If in his distress one cries for them (i.e., death, its instrument and its abode).” Although this interpretation is somewhat strained, it has the advantage of reading the existing text.

Gaining a clue from T.B. Aboda Zara 4a, Grabbe (Comparative Philology, pp. 101-103), believes that ‛î could mean “destruction”: “Indeed let him not send (his) hand with (complete) destruction/ruin if in his calamity there is accordingly a cry (for help).” This suggestion, too, has the advantage of no textual change plus some rabbinic support. This view of ‛î is accepted tentatively, but it seems best to find lōh yᵉšawwēaᵉ, “one cries to him,” in lāhen šûaᵉ (see BHS). Such a view takes the n as a scribal error rising from the coalescing of an h and a y. ↩

The meaning of ᵉāgam, “be grieved,” is clear from its use in Mishnaic Hebrew. Perhaps this word occurs in the Ugraritic text Krt 26-27: yᵉrb bḥdrh ybky bṯn []gmm wydmᵉ, “He entered his chamber to weep; while repeating his grief, he shed tears” (cf. A. Ceresko, Job 29-31, pp. 91-92). ↩

Gordis suggests that the kî gives reason for v. 27. ↩

The expresssion bᵉlō’ ḥammâ, “without the sun,” may be elliptical for “without the light of the sun” (Delitzsch), or it may mean that one’s face is covered so that he does not see the sun (Hakam). Duhm, Budde, and Fohrer read bᵉlō’ neḥāmâ, “where there was no comfort.” Although this change makes excellent sense, both LXX (despite its own textual problem) and Syr. read the same consonants as MT, which is thus retained. ↩

The use of the imperfect ’ªšawwēaᵉ, “I cry for help,” after the perfect qamtî, “I stand,” comes close to having the sense of a final clause (Driver-Gray; GKC, § 120c; Driver, Hebrew Tenses, § 163). ↩

Dhorme shows that ‛aṣmî (lit. “my bone[s]”) in the singular denotes one’s frame; cf. Ps 102:6 (Eng. 5): “My frame [‛aṣmî] cleaves to my flesh.” ↩

Gordis suggests that bōḵîm, “those who weep,” may be an abstract noun, “weeping,” parallel to ’ēḇel, “mourning.” ↩