August 20: Job 14:15-17

Job 14:15-17

This is the second unit of the second stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 13:26-28 in the first stanza (see the earlier note). The two units have in common the thematic motif of God “keeping watch” of Job’s feet/steps, in the legal/punitive context of taking account of his supposed sins (the noun /ou* occurs in both passages, as does the verb rm^v*, cf. below).

A few small fragments of vv. 15-17 are preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc. The bits that survive confirm the MT (except for one minor variant in v. 16, cf. below).

Verse 15

“You would call, and I (indeed) would answer you—
for (the) work of your hands you should be longing!”

The rhetorical thrust of these verses is not entirely clear. To some extent, the interpretation depends on the relationship of v. 15 to vv. 16-17. In my view, these verses belong together as a conceptual and rhetorical unit. The reference to a human being (Job) as the “work of (God’s) hands” echoes the earlier wording in 10:3ff, and thus the sense of the lines here should be seen as similar—viz., Job is essentially rebuking God for how He is apparently treating His creation (human beings); He should be treating them with loving care, rather than as enemies or miscreants to be punished. The second line here surely has the same thrust, as Job tells God: “you should be longing for the work of your hands”. The verb [s^K* (II) and its cognates mean “be dark/gloomy” (cf. Arabic kasafa), “be/look pale”, with the connotative meanings of (feeling) shame and/or desire. The latter is in view here, as in the other rare Scriptural occurrences (Gen 31:30; Psalm 17:12; 84:3[2]; Zeph 2:1). In other words, God should have a desire/longing for his creation, so as to love and care for it.

Job wishes that God would demonstrate His concern by calling to him—for he would be most eager to answer! Job would rather not have to take the initiative, seeking God out to make his appeal to Him. The language of calling/answering obviously has legal-judicial implications here (cf. 9:15-16; 13:22), but the idiom also has religious significance, in terms of the individual’s relationship to God; cf. Clines, p. 332f. In 12:4, Job expressed the other side of this same wish—viz., that God would answer him when he calls to Him; cf. 19:16; 30:20.

Verse 16

“Indeed, now you might count my strides,
(but) not be acting as guard over my sin!”

As indicated above, the entire thrust of this unit is a description by Job of how God should be treating him—but clearly, apparently, has not been! It is fine for God to be watching over Job’s steps (“counting my strides”), cf. 31:4; 34:21, but He should not be doing so with the purpose of keeping track of all his sins (see 10:6). This wording echoes the parallel unit (13:26-27f), including use of the same verb rm^v* (“guard”). Often, when applied to YHWH, this verb has a positive meaning—particularly in the covenant context of YHWH guarding and protecting the faithful ones of His people. Here, however (cf. also 7:12), the sense is negative: God is apparently judging and punishing Job, putting him under guard (like a criminal), having kept a close watch on all of his sins (even those committed during his youth). I translate rm^v* here as “act as a guard”, alluding to the earlier image of a prison-guard, but also capturing the broader judicial context of the judge (in this instance, God) as a guardian over right and wrong, keeping close track of a person’s sins and punishing them accordingly.

The nuance of this couplet (and the unit as whole) has apparently proven difficult for many prior commentators and translators to discern (see the discussion by Gordis, p. 150f). The Syriac Peshitta, for example, translates with a negative particle in both lines, making the lines truly parallel: “…not count my strides” / “…not be a guard over my sin”. Michel (p. 329) is one of handful of commentators who, following earlier suggestions by M. Dahood, reads al here as a Divine title (vocalized al@, and meaning something like “Victorious [One]”). This similarly gives to both lines a negative sense, as Job makes a parallel rebuke to God: “But now my strides you count, / O Victor, you are a guard over my sin!”. It is a creative line of interpretation, but it hardly seems necessary.

I regard the initial yK! particle as emphatic-affirmative, “Indeed…!”. The Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc lacks this particle.

Verse 17

“(You might let) be sealed in a bundle my breach,
and might have covered over my crookedness!”

This final couplet continues the rhetorical orientation of the unit, as Job describes how God should have, or could have, dealt with him. As a righteous and devout person, any wrongs that he might have done would have been minor or had taken place long ago (in his youth, cf. 13:26); God surely could have forgiven and overlooked them. Such wrongs are referenced generally, and collectively, in v. 16 as “sin/error” (ha*F*j^); here, they are divided out into two basic kinds, or aspects: (1) a breach of a relational bond of trust (whether with God or other human beings), uv^P#; and (2) crookedness, /ou*, i.e., any deviation from what is right/proper.

The effective removal of sin/guilt, in something like a forensic sense, is expressed here by two distinct motifs: (a) sealing the sin away in a bag, and (b) covering it over (as with paint or clay). The verb <t^j* means “shut/seal up” (note the alliterative wordplay with the prior word ha*F*j^); in this case, the sealing is done by putting the sin into a bag or bundle that is tied/bound (noun rorx=, cf. Gen 42:30; Prov 7:20; Song 1:13, etc.). The verb in the second line is lp^f*, meaning “cover/spread over”, as with clay; cf. earlier in 13:4; also Psalm 119:69; Sir 51:5. The verb is quite rare in Biblical Hebrew, but rather more common in Aramaic (and later Hebrew); its use here could thus be an indication of a relatively late date for the Dialogue (cf. also Arabic ṭufāl), but a cognate is already attested in Akkadian (ṭapālu, also ṭuppulu) [HALOT, p. 378f].

Pope (p. 109f) cites a possible Near Eastern parallel (from Nuzi) in support of the idea that the ‘sealed bag’ here is an accounting bag, i.e., in which God has kept an account of Job’s sins (compare Hos 13:12); cf. the discussion by Seow, p. 690, who also suggests that the spreading (or daubing) of clay, mentioned in the second line, relates as well to the process of sealing.

The form of the verb <tj in the first line (according to the MT vocalization) is a passive participle (<t%j*) functioning as a verbal adjective, viz., for a tied bundle that is “sealed”. In order to provide a smoother parallel to the second line, the LXX and Vulgate translate with a second person active verb, i.e., “you might seal”, or “you might have sealed”. The Peshitta curiously translated with an imperative, perhaps reading the vocalization as <t)j& (cf. Isa 8:16). Gordis (p. 151) favors vocalizing as an infinitive (<t)j*), being equivalent in usage to a 2nd person imperfect form, viz., “(You are) sealing”, or “(You could) be sealing”. Cf. Seow, p. 690.

In the next unit of the stanza (vv. 18-19), to be discussed in the next note, Job’s expressed wish here (regarding how God should have treated him) collides with the reality of human suffering (as a recurrent Wisdom-theme) and the lack of justice (i.e., God’s justice) that this seemingly reflects.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 13:14-25

Proverbs 13:14-25

Verses 14-25 represent the second main proverb grouping of chapter 13. It is less easy to discern distinct sub-groupings here than in the first grouping (i.e., vv. 1-5, 6-13). However, one might delineate vv. 14-18 as a loose grouping, framed by proverbs (vv. 14 and 18) emphasizing the importance of the receiving instruction (hr*oT / rs*Wm); Heim (p. 165f) similarly notes the envelope structure of vv. 13-18. For the proverbs in vv. 19-25, there is a certain coherence involving the related thematic motifs of wealth/prosperity, eating, and the satisfying of one’s appetite/desire.

Verse 14

“(The) instruction of (the) wise (is) a wellspring of life,
for (the) turning away from (the) snares of death.”

This proverb, which emphasizes the importance of heeding and accepting the teachings (“instruction”, hr*oT) of Wisdom, has a natural position at the head of this grouping (cf. verse 1); it is quite similar to 14:27 (for a detailed comparison, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 353-8), while the message expressed can be found throughout the collection (and also the lectures/poems of chapters 1-9). The noun roqm* denotes a place where one digs for water—that is, a well, along with the underground source of water (spring); cf. the earlier use of the noun in 5:18 and 10:11. Wisdom is implicitly being described by the image of life-giving water, with the mouth of the wise/righteous as a source for this wisdom; through the words and teachings of the righteous, others receive the teachings of Wisdom (which lead to life). On the fundamental theme that following the path/teachings of Wisdom leads to life, see especially throughout chapters 1-9 (3:2, 16, 18, 22; 4:10, 13, 22-23; 6:23; 8:35; 9:11; cf. also 2:19; 5:6).
The motif of the “wellspring of life” here is clearly linked to the “tree of life” in verse 12, serving as one of numerous points of coherence throughout chapter 13. As previously mentioned, a number of commentators (e.g., Heim, Schipper) treat vv. 12-19 as a distinct proverb-grouping.

The infinitive that governs the second line builds upon the first, expressing the goal/purpose. It best treated here as gerundive (so noted also by Waltke, p. 547), and thus translated “(the) turning away”. Cf. the earlier use of the noun vq@om (denoting a wooden snare used for trapping birds) in 12:13, and on the trap/hunting imagery, esp. 1:17-18; 7:22-23.

Verse 15

“Understanding (of what is) good gives (one) favor,
but (the) path of treacherous (one)s (is) constant (strife).”

The noun lk#c@ is a regular Wisdom-term (cf. 3:4; 16:22; 19:11; 23:9) denoting the understanding, skill, and ability necessary to prosper and succeed, etc. The bound expression bof lk#c@ can mean “good understanding”, but also “understanding of (what is) good”. It is characteristic of the wise/righteous ones, and results in favor—both from God and from other human beings (cf. 3:4). By contrast, the “path” (i.e., conduct, lifestyle, etc.) of the wicked results in continual strife, misfortune, and various evils. The path/walking idiom (here the common noun Er#D#, “path”) occurs frequently throughout these proverbs, having been featured especially in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9. The wicked here are characterized as “treacherous” (participle of the verb dg~B*); cf. earlier in 2:22; 11:3, 6; 13:2.

The final word of the second line is problematic. The MT reads /t*ya@, “continual, constant”, especially in the sense of “continually flowing” (waters), and typically connoting the idea of “lasting, enduring”. As such, it tends to be a positive characteristic (indicating life and blessing, etc.) and thus would be quite out of place here. There have been two proposed emendations. The first, originally suggested by G. R. Driver (“Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs” Biblica 32 [1951], p. 181), and followed more recently, e.g., by Heim (p. 165), posits that a negative particle ya! has dropped out (by haplography), and that the text originally read /t*ya@ ya!, i.e., “[is] not/never constant”. However, given the extreme rarity of ya! as a negative particle, this seems rather unlikely. A better option, accepted by Fox (p. 567), Waltke (p. 548), and others, is to emend the text to <d*ya@, meaning something like “their destruction”, which might well be reflected by the LXX (e)n a)pwlei/a|) and Syriac versions, i.e., “(the) path of (the) treacherous (leads to) their destruction”.

There are two strong contextual arguments for retaining the MT. First, the idea of “constantly flowing waters”, implicit in the term /t*ya@, echoes the motif of a “wellspring” (roqm*) in the previous verse. Second, there is the alliterative wordplay within the verse, between /t*ya@ (’ēytān) and the verb form /T#y] (yitten, “he/it gives”) in line 1; cf. Schipper, p. 452; Fuhs, p. 220. While the adjective /t*ya@ tends to be used as a positive characteristic, occasionally it is used in a negative context, such as, e.g., Job 33:19b, in reference to continual pain and affliction. Something similar, in a darkly ironic sense, may well be intended here—viz., constant evil and strife.

The LXX adds a line that effectively links verse 15 with v. 14, understanding the “instruction” (hr*oT) in v. 14 in terms of the Law (Torah) [cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 212]:

“Good insight gives favor,
(and) indeed to know (the) law is (sign of) a good mind,
but (the) ways of (those) despising (it end) in destruction.”

Verse 16

“Every shrewd (person) acts with knowledge,
while a fool spreads thick (folly everywhere)!”

This proverb connects the idea of tu^D^ (“knowledge”) with lk#c@ in v. 15 (see above)—both being regular Wisdom-terms that reflect the nature and character of the wise/righteous person. The verb hc*u* in line 1 is presumably the common root (I) meaning “make, do, act”; however, given the parallel with cr^P* (“spread”) in line 2, there may be some wordplay with the separate root (III) meaning “cover” (cf. Waltke, p. 548). There almost certain is a bit of wordplay present in the second line, involving the two regular (and largely interchangeable) foolishness-roots lsk and lwa (I). The noun tl#W#a! (derived from the second of these roots), in a Wisdom context, means “foolishness, stupidity”, but it properly denotes “thickness, (something) thick”; used with the verb cr^P* it suggests the idea of spreading out a “thick covering”. I translate the line “while (the) fool spreads thick (folly everywhere)”.
The rendering of the verb by Fox (p. 567) as “spew” (i.e., “[the] fool spews [out] folly”) is fitting, particularly given the parallels in 12:23 and 15:2; however, his related suggestion that the verb be emended to vr^P* (in what would be an extremely rare and questionable usage) is hardly necessary.

Throughout Proverbs, the adjective <Wru* (“clever, cunning, shrewd”), often used elsewhere in a negative sense, features as a positive characteristic of the wise (cf. 12:16, 23, etc.).

Verse 17

“A wicked messenger will fall in(to many an) evil,
but an envoy of firm trust (is) a source of healing.”

In this proverb, a wicked person, illustrated through the image of a messenger, is characterized particularly as being unreliable. Such a person brings harm and misfortune to himself, but also (implicitly) for the one(s) who sent him (cf. 10:26). By contrast, the trustworthy and reliable messenger is a “source of healing” for others (cf. the use of aP@r=m^ earlier in 4:22; 6:15; 12:18), in addition to finding blessing and prosperity himself (cf. 25:13). For the expression “fall in(to) evil”, cf. also 17:20.

The noun Ea*l=m^ is the regular term for a “messenger”, while the parallel ryx! (II, cf. Egyptian ḏi-ir, Arabic ṣāra [ṣyr]), much less common, seems to refer specifically to a messenger (or envoy) sent on longer missions (to more distant lands, etc.). Note the other Scriptural occurrences in 25:13; Isa 18:2; 57:9; Jer 49:14; Obad 1. Cf. the brief discussion by Schipper, p. 453f, and the study by Samuel A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, Harvard Semitic Monographs 45 (Scholars Press: 1988).

The expression <yn]Wma$ ryx! literally means “envoy of firmness”, with the plural form <yn]Wma$ perhaps best understood as a comprehensive plural. The term /Wma@ (as a noun) means “firmness”, but normally in the sense (as with the root /ma generally) of “faithfulness, trustworthiness”, i.e., one who is trustworthy and reliable. The comprehensive plural would thus indicate “completely reliable”.

Verse 18

“Poverty and contempt (comes to one) going free of discipline,
while (the one) guarding a rebuke will be weighted (with honor).”

The importance of accepting discipline has featured as a key theme, throughout chapters 1-9 and in a number of these proverbs (see verse 1). In particular, the nouns rs*Wm (“instruction”, often with an emphasis on “discipline, correction”) and tj^k^oT (“rebuke, reproof”) occur frequently, being similarly paired together in 3:11; 5:12; 6:23; 10:17; 12:1; 15:5, 10, 32. Here, the idea of accepting or rejecting discipline is expressed in more extreme terms—viz., of the person “going free/loose” (vb ur^P*) of any discipline (cf. 15:32), contrasted with the one who “guards” it carefully; for other occurrences of ur^P*, cf. 1:25; 4:15; 8:33; 29:18. The verb rm^v* (“guard”), along with the near-synonymous rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”), occurs frequently in this ethical-religious context, both throughout Proverbs and in other Wisdom-texts.

This proverb declares that poverty and dishonor will come to the undisciplined (i.e., foolish/wicked) person, while, by contrast, riches and honor are promised to the one who accepts and internalizes discipline (i.e., by “guarding” it in his heart) so that it becomes part of his habitual behavior and personal character. The verb dbk in the rare Pual (i.e., Piel passive) means “be made heavy, be given weight” and refers to being “made heavy” with both riches and honor (Ehrlich and Fox [p. 568] make the same observation).

Verse 19

“A desire coming to be (fulfilled) is pleasant to (the) soul,
but (it is something) abhorrent for fools to turn from evil.”

The first line of this proverb seems simply to state a general principle, common to all people (cf. verse 12). However, the second line strongly suggests that the familiar contrast, between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, is present here as well (cf. 10:24; 11:23). And yet, it may be that the entire proverb relates to the foolish/wicked, implying that their unwillingness to turn away (vb rWs, cf. verse 14) from evil is an indication of their desire and that which pleases their soul (cf. verse 2). This would be phrased ironically, making the contrasting pivot to be between the verb br^u* (III, “be pleasant/pleasing”) and the root bu^T* (“abhor, find abhorrent”). On the use of hw`a&T^ (“desire”) for improper or wicked cravings, see, e.g., Num 11:4; Ps 10:3; 112:10 (cf. Fox, p. 569).

Verse 20

“(The one) walking with (the) wise will be(come) wise,
while (the one) consorting (with) fools will find evil.”

As Fox notes (p. 569), the Kethib and Qere variants of the first line represent distinct proverbs, both of which are entirely valid:

    • “Walk with (the) wise and be(come) wise (yourself)” [Kethib]
    • “(The one) walking with (the) wise will be(come) wise” [Qere]

The LXX supports the Qere, which is also more consistent in relation to line 2; but for that same reason, the Kethib is perhaps to be preferred as the more difficult reading (so Meinhold, p. 226; Schipper, p. 438., etc.). I have adopted the Qere above, since these proverbs tend to describe characteristic behavior, of the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked, respectively.

The thrust of the proverb involves who one associates with on a regular/daily basis. In line 1 the verb is El^h* (“walk” + ta# [“with”]), while in line 2 it is hu*r* (“associate [with], be involved [with])”. The person who regularly associates with the wise will become wise; by contrast, the one who associates with the foolish will become foolish. Actually, the fate of the latter is described as “finding evil [i.e., bad things]” for himself; the Niphal (passive) of the verb uu^r* is perhaps better translated here as “be harmed/damaged” (cf. 1:10-11ff; 22:24-25). The folly that takes over a person’s life is ultimately harmful and destructive, as many of the proverbs clearly indicate.
As an ancient Near Eastern parallel, Schipper (p. 456) cites the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi (13, x + 6-7): “The friend of a fool is a fool; the friend of a wise man is a wise man. The friend of an idiot is an idiot.” (cf. Lichtheim III.169).

Note the alliterative wordplay between the verbal roots hu*r* and uu^r* in line 2 (also observed by Fox, p. 569). Even more notable is the play between the participle hu#r) here and the noun hu*r* (“evil”) in v. 21.

Verse 21

“(For the) sinners, evil pursues (them);
but (for the) righteous, good makes (things) complete.”

The contrasting fates of the wicked and the righteous, a frequent theme in these proverbs, here are formulated with the wicked/righteous as the object upon which evil and good (respectively) act. Evil pursues (vb [d^r*) the wicked (here characterized as “sinful [one]s, sinners”); cf. Sirach 27:10. By contrast, good makes things complete (i.e., full) for the righteous. The verb <l^v* (“be full/complete”) in the Piel (i.e., “make [things] complete”) often carries a strong connotation of recompense (i.e., “repay”), including in a religious-theological context with God as the effective subject—viz., repaying (i.e., completing the transaction) for all people as is proper, rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. Cf. verse 13 and earlier in 11:31; for the general use of the verb in terms of completing a transaction or fulfilling an obligation, cf. 6:31; 7:14.
It is possible to treat God as the implied subject of <l^v*, “He makes complete [i.e., repays/rewards] with good”. However, the parallelism of the couplet is better served if bof (“good”) is the subject of the verb, just as hu*r* (“evil”) is the subject in line 1; cf. Waltke, p. 549.

Verse 22

“A good (man) provides an inheritance for (the) sons of (his) sons,
while (the) wealth of a sinner is hidden away for the righteous!”

A righteous person is blessed and rewarded by YHWH and thus prospers, so that he is able to provide an inheritance for his descendants. By contrast, the wicked is punished by God and experiences loss (even to the point of poverty, cf. verse 18 [above]), so that he has nothing to leave for his descendants (cf. 11:29). Indeed, the promise here is that what wealth might have come to them is “hidden away” (vb /p^x*) for the righteous—meaning that, ultimately, in the course of time, it will end up in the hands of the righteous (cf. 28:8; Job 27:16-17). The earlier proverb in 11:29 indicates that the foolish will end up giving service to the wise.
This is one of the few instances in the Proverbs where it is suggested that the proper recompense (by God) for the righteous and wicked, respectively, may nor occur immediately, but will only be realized over the course of time (and, perhaps, only after generations have passed).

This proverb is joined with the one prior (v. 21) through the description of the wicked as “sinful/sinners”, and also through the linking term bof (“good”).

Schipper (p. 457) cites two Egyptian parallels to this proverb:

“…A surplus of good deeds is a storehouse that the children will later find” (Cairo CG 42208 [41], front side, line 22)
“The punishment for those who have strayed from the right path is having to leave their savings to another” (Papyrus Insinger Instruction 18:17)

Verse 23

“(There is) much eating (from the) plowing of (the) poor,
and there is (also) a carrying away (of it) without justice.”

This proverb is intriguing, due to its seemingly ambiguous wording that allows for a number of different interpretations and translations. The main point of difficulty is the word <yv!ar*—does it means “heads” (i.e., chief/first ones, prominent men and families in society), or is a variant of <yv!r* meaning “(the) poor” (i.e., those who are poor)? In the former instance, the line refers to the plowing of the fields possessed by the wealthy (and the food that is produced); in the second, the reference would likely be to the work of plowing done by the poor, or, possibly, the plowing of what little land was in possession of the poor. In that first case, the point of the proverb would be that the wealthy may prosper, but then their riches are lost (“carried/swept away”, vb hp*s*) as a result of (their) injustice (lit., “lack of justice, without justice”). If the first line refers to the poor, as those doing the work of plowing, then the entire proverb represents a prophetic word against social injustice and exploitation of the poor (compare, e.g., Ezek 22:29; cf. Schipper, p. 458)—the prosperity comes on the backs of the poor, and is an injustice which results, ultimately, in the wealth being “carried away”. The latter interpretation seems preferable, given the parallel between “the plowing of the poor” (line 1) and “a lack of justice” (line 2).
Mention should be made of the approach taken by Fox (p. 570), who vocalizes the first two words of line 1 as lk@a) br^, translating “a great (man) eats [lit., is eating]”, i.e., “A great (man) is eating (the) plowing of (the) poor”. This reading sharpens the point of the injustice that is present in society.

The existential aspect (“there is…”) is expressed two different ways. In line 1, the noun br) carries an implicit verb, i.e., “(there is) an abundance”, “(there is) much”; in line 2, the actual particle of existence (vy@) is used.

LXX attests rather a different reading of this proverb (especially in the first line); cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 214f:

“(The) righteous [pl.] will make [i.e., spend] many years in riches,
but (the) unrighteous [pl.] will perish (in time) cut short.”

Verse 24

“(The one) holding back his rod (is) hating his son,
while (the one) loving him seeks it (for) discipline.”

The importance of discipline (rs*Wm) has been emphasized throughout (cf. verse 18, above). The wise person is willing to accept/receive discipline, as part of one’s necessary instruction and training (in wisdom). This particularly applies to a child or young person and the discipline he/she receives from his/her parents. In keeping with the wider Near Eastern Wisdom tradition, Proverbs is largely framed in terms of the instruction/training that a son receives from his father. Most often, the emphasis is on the son’s willingness to accept discipline, but here the focus is on the need for the father to give it. In this regard, correction is identified by the use of the “rod” (fb#v#); if taken literally, it would indicate that such parental discipline (may) regularly entail corporal punishment, even as it still does in many cultures (and in most traditional societies). To “hold back” (vb Ec^j*) the ‘rod’ means that the parent is withholding and forgoing the necessary discipline of the child. Instead, the parent should “seek after” the rod (i.e., to apply discipline). The verb rj^v* (II) fundamentally means “seek out/after”, based on the literal idea of going around looking for something. There may also be an allusion to the noun rj^v^ (I), referring to the “dawn” (i.e., early morning), and thus to a separate denominative verb rj^v* which developed meaning “get up early, do something early”, sometimes with the connotation “so something diligently”. The wording could also imply the need to discipline the child early on, and/or from an early age; cf. Plöger, p. 157; Schipper, p. 458.

A similar admonition to the parent is given in 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15, 17. Compare the treatment of the subject in Sirach 30.

Fox (p. 571) notes the sibilant-alliteration and internal rhyme that is present in this couplet:

ḥôśeḵ šiḇṭô śônē’ ḇenô
we’ōhĕḇô šiḥĕrô mûsār

Verse 25

“(The) righteous is eating unto (the) fullness of his soul,
but (the) belly of (the) wicked (one)s is (entirely) lacking!”

The motif of “eating” (lka) occurred earlier in v. 23; in that proverb (cf. above) it may have referred to eating that took place by the wicked—alluding to the temporary prosperity and wealth that existed before it was “carried away” (as the result of injustice). Here, the “eating” (i.e., prosperity) belongs to the righteous. The righteous person, who experiences blessings from God, is able to eat to the point of fullness and complete satisfaction (as expressed by the verbal root ubc); cf. earlier in 3:10; 12:11, 14. His appetite is filled, but also his soul—viz., the two aspects of meaning for the noun vp#n#. By contrast the “belly” of the wicked is lacking nourishment; both soul and stomach are empty. The verb rs^j* denotes “lack, be lacking”, but it can also have the related meaning “lessen, become less, decrees”, implying both lack/poverty and the idea that what little the wicked may have available to them will continue to become less and less (cf. Matt 13:12 par). Compare the earlier proverb in 10:3.
The specific use here of the verbal root rsj may be intended to echo the expression bl@ rs^j& (“lacking of heart”, i.e., “lacking sense”) as a designation of the foolish; cf. 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 12:11. Cf. Schipper, p. 459.

As is often the case in these proverbs, the contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked is expressed through the use of the singular in the first line and the plural in the second—here, qyD!x^ (“righteous”, singular) and uv*r* (“wicked”, plural [<yu!v*r=]).

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 6)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

The ‘Song of Miriam’ (vv. 19-21)

Verse 21, which repeats almost verbatim the lines of the opening v. 1, is often referred to as the ‘Song of Miriam’, even as vv. 1ff is sometimes called the ‘Song of Moses’. Indeed, the narrative introduction in v. 20, focusing on the role of Miriam, matches the introduction in v. 1a (and the role of Moses). These parallel notices suggest that a poetic-liturgical structure—viz., the Song of praise sung by the men answered by a chorus of women—is being (or has been) adapted to the historical-narrative scenario (Moses leads the men, and Miriam the women).

Problematic to this structure is the comment in verse 19. This verse has been characterized as a late gloss, inserted after the Song was included as part of the narrative. However, it makes little sense in its current position after the text of the full Song. By contrast, it becomes more intelligible following the opening lines (v. 1), which are then repeated (by the women) in v. 21. Note how vv. 1 + 19-21 read in sequence:

1Then Moše sang, and (with him the) sons of Yisrael, this song to YHWH…

(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!….

19For (the) horse(s) of Pharaoh, with his ride(s) and with his horse-teams, came in(to) the sea, and YHWH made (the) waters of the sea turn back upon them, while (the) sons of Yisrael walked on the dry land in (the) midst of the sea.

20And (then) Miryam the Nabî’, sister of Aharon, took the timbrel in her hand and went out, (with) all (the) women following (her) with timbrels and with twirling (dance)s, 21and Miryam sang in response to them [i.e., to the men]:

(Yes,) sing (now) to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

It seems rather more plausible for the explanatory comment in v. 19 (cf. 14:27-29) to have been included as part of a shorter narrative text that did not present the entire Song. Moreover, the scenario of the women singing in response to what the men sang becomes much clearer if only the opening of the Song (and not the entire Song) is present in the text. And, indeed, throughout the Pentateuch (in Genesis-Exodus and Numbers), the poems and songs quoted within the narrative are usually extremely short (e.g., Num 21:17), in contrast to the rather lengthy text of the full Song.

Of course, at some point, the complete Song, as we have it, was included in the narrative. The exact relationship of the ‘Song of Miriam’ (v. 21) to the full Song has been a much-debated question among commentators. Before addressing the even more contentious question as to the time/period in which the Song was composed, let us survey four options regarding the relationship of v. 21 to the Song (vv. 1b-18):

    • The ‘Song of Miriam’ (v. 21) represents the closing refrain of the Song
    • It represents an antiphonal response for each stanza of the Song
    • It stands as a shorthand, abbreviated form of the entire Song
    • It represents the original form of the Song, upon which the longer poem was based—viz., as an elaborate expository development of the simple earlier song

The first two options are quite similar, positing that v. 21, repeating v. 1, functions as a response/refrain for the main poem. The second option is much less likely, at least for the Song as it has come down to us. Indeed, verse 21, as a repeated response, would be better suited to a simpler strophic poem (e.g., Ps 136); as we have seen, the Song rather possesses a complex literary-poetic structure. However, a repetition of the opening (v. 1) as a closing refrain would be quite feasible, with parallels in a number of other Psalms (e.g., Ps 118). In this regard, the narrative framework of vv. 1-21 (excluding v. 19) would match the poetic-liturgical structure: (i) the Song, sung by Moses and the men, is followed by (ii) a repetition of the opening lines, sung by Miriam and the women (as a refrain).

However, we must give serious consideration to the third and fourth options, particularly in light of the analysis given above—to the effect that the narrative structure of vv. 1-21 is much clearer without the full text of the Song being present. This raises the possibility that either (i) v. 1/21 represents a shorthand or abbreviated version of the Song [option 3], or (ii) it represents the original version of the Song [option 4]. For commentators such as Cross and Freedman, who maintain an early (pre-monarchic, 12th-11th century) date for the Song, option i/3 is much to be preferred. On the other hand, if the Song is a later composition (of the monarchic, exilic, or post-exilic period), then the idea that the Song represents a development of earlier material (i.e., option ii/4) becomes much more feasible (even probable). Yet even many commentators who argue a late date for the Song view the entire work as an integral (and late) composition; cf. Brenner’s analysis on vv. 1, 21 (pp. 42-53, 80-4), with his conclusion that these lines date from the post-exilic period just like the rest of the Song.

The Date of Composition for the Song

As discussed in Part 1 of this study, there is a considerable range of opinion as to when the Song was composed. Four different periods may generally be considered:

    • Pre-monarchic (12th-11th century B.C.)
    • Early monarchy to the Assyrian conquests (10th-8th century)
    • Late monarchy (7th-6th century)
    • Exilic and Post-Exilic period (6th-5th century, or later)

At one extreme end are those scholars, led by Cross and Freedman, who maintain a pre-monarchic date for the Song; to these may be added traditional-conservative scholars who accept a Mosaic origin. At the other end is the view, held increasingly by modern critical scholars, that the Song is post-exilic. Brenner, whose analysis I have referred to a number of times in this study, offers the most thorough presentation of arguments in favor of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song. His arguments are based primarily on similarities of language and phrasing with passages in the Psalms, Prophets, and Deuteronomic texts. He is on relatively solid ground when noting parallels in Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah, for example, but much less so with regard to the Psalms and Deuteronomic texts. He devotes much attention to the parallels in the Asaph-Psalms (73-83) and characterizes the entire collection as post-exilic, a determination that is questionable at best (cf. the comments by Davies, p. 300). Similarly dubious is the way that many of the relevant Deuteronomic passages are attributed to post-exilic redaction.

Perhaps the best defense of an early (pre-monarchic) date for the Song is the linguistic-grammatical analysis presented by Russell. He highlights a number of key features which it is useful to list here (with page numbers indicated):

1. The use of yiqtol/imperfect verb forms for past-tense narration (pp. 107-9). As this is the most significant feature cited for the dating of Biblical Hebrew poetry as early (cf. Robertson, pp. 7-55), I have devoted a special supplemental note to the subject.

2. The 3rd person masculine plural pronominal suffix om– (pp. 112-16; cf. Robertson, pp. 65-9). The regular 3rd person plural pronominal suffix in Biblical Hebrew is <-, but occasionally the longer form om– occurs (primarily in poetry). In over half (66) of the Scriptural occurrences (116), the suffix is attached to a preposition; less common are the occurrences on nouns (27) and verbs (23). For these 50 occurrences, the two forms of the suffix (om– and <-) are found together, in mixed usage, in 13 Psalms (2, 5, 11, 17, 21, 35, 49, 59, 73, 80, 83, 89, 140) and the Song of Moses (Deut 32)—in the latter, om– occurs 4 times and <– 11 times. In just five poems, om- is used without any instance of <-, but in three of these (Pss 22, 45; Deut 33) there is just one occurrence of om-, and in a fourth (Ps 58) just two occurrences. The Song of the Sea is unusual in that there are considerably more (nine) occurrences of om– without a single instance of <– (vv. 5, 7, 9 [x2], 10, 12, 15, 17 [x2]).

Yigal Bloch subjects the entire issue to a penetrating analysis in his essay, “The Third-Person Masculine Plural Suffixed Pronoun –mw and Its Implications for the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry”, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, eds. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit (Pennsylvania State University Press: 2012), pp. 147-70. He concludes the use of the wm– suffix (om-, also wm-) continued at least until the mid-8th century B.C. and cannot be relied upon as an indicator of an earlier (i.e., pre-monarchic) date for Biblical Hebrew poems. 

3. The use of wz as a relative particle (pp. 110-11; cf. Robertson, pp. 62-5). The regular relative particle in Biblical Hebrew is rv#a&, but occasionally (in poetic texts) the particle wz (Wz, oz, cf. also hz#) is used. The particle Wz occurs twice in the Song of the Sea (vv. 13, 16) while standard particle rv#a& is not present. There are at least 8 occurrences of Wz in the Psalms, while there are a number of instances of relative hz# as well. This particle *z reflects the old Semitic d*/ḏ*, and its vestigial presence in Hebrew poetry is generally thought to represent an archaic (or archaizing) feature. It is certainly present in poems that are widely considered to be early (such as the Song of Deborah [cf. verse 5] and Psalm 68 [v. 9/8]), but also occurs in admittedly later poems (e.g., Isa 42:24; Hab 1:11), while the dating of most of the relevant Psalms is also disputed by scholars.

4. Preservation of a final y/w– of a verbal root in instances where it is normally lost (pp. 109-10; cf. Robertson, pp. 57-62). Many final h– verbal roots (e.g., hs*K*) are thought to reflect an original y– or w-, vestiges of which are preserved occasionally in suffixed verb forms (especially in poetry). One such instance occurs in the Song (v. 5), Wmy%s=k^y+ (rather than WmS%k^y+); cf. also Deut 32:37, and a number of occurrences in the Psalms (e.g., 39:8[7]; 83:4[3]). While it may be viewed as an archaic feature, one should note the occurrences in the book of Isaiah (including at least three in the Deutero-Isaian poems, 40:18, 25; 46:5). Similar archaizing (if such it is) can also be found in the book of Job (cf. 12:6; 19:2; 31:38).

5. Occurrences of the masculine singular object suffix Whn– on verbs (pp. 111-2; cf. Robertson, p. 65). It is thought that this rare form (in poetry) is archaic. Indeed, it occurs once in the Song (v. 2) and three times in Deut 32:10; but it also occurs twice in Jeremiah (6th century, 5:22; 22:4).

6. Use of the fuller form of the prepositions k, l, b (omK=, oml=, omB=, cf. Ugaritic km, lm, bm) (p. 116; cf. Robertson, p. 109f). Again, these may be deemed archaic forms that are preserved in poetry. They are found in later (i.e., 6th-5th century) poetry as well, but multiple occurrences in a single poem are rare and could be seen as an indication of an early date. There are two occurrences of omK= in the Song (vv. 5, 8), as many as any other poetic text with the exception of Psalm 58 (6 occurrences). There are also a considerable number of occurrences (11) in the Joban Dialogue, where it could be viewed as an intentional archaizing feature.

There are the more notable individual linguistic and syntactical features that have been posited as an indicator of an early date for the Biblical Hebrew poems. However, all of them also occur in later poetry (8th-5th century), and certainly no one of them can serve as a sufficient indicator; however, the occurrence of such a significant number in the same poem (as we find the Song) makes it more tenable for scholars to argue strongly in favor of an early date (early monarchy, or pre-monarchic). I tend to concur with commentators who, somewhat cautiously (and entirely on objective grounds), suggest a 9th-8th century date, with the definite possibility that the original form of the poem may be older still (i.e., 12th-10th century).

This leads to a final question that must be considered: to what extent has the Song undergone development and adaptation over time? The question is particularly appropriate (and significant) in light of two competing strands of evidence: (1) the number of distinct archaic linguistic and syntnactical features in the Song (discussed above), and (2) the verbal and thematic parallels with various Psalms and Prophetic poems, including those which date to the 7th-5th centuries B.C. (also discussed above, and throughout the notes). Is it possible that an early (pre-monarchic?) poem underwent development, so as to produce the Song much in the form that it has come down to us by the end of the Kingdom period (if not later)?

We have already discussed the theory that v. 1/21 represents the primitive song which was subsequently expanded into a much longer and complex literary-poetic work. A number of scholars have made various proposals as to a longer ‘original’ or core poem (see the summary discussion by Davies, pp. 292-3), e.g.:

    • Zenger (pp. 460-4ff): vv. 1, 5, 6–7, 11–12
    • Norin (pp. 96-8): vv. 1, 3, 6-7, 9-13, 15a, 16a, 17-18
    • Jeremias (pp. 98-9): vv. 1, 3, 9-13, 15a, 16-18
    • Spieckermann (pp. 105-7): vv. 1-13, 17-18
    • Albertz (pp. 231ff): vv. 6-18 (with amplifications in vv. 14, 15b)
    • Klein (pp. 516ff): vv. 1–3, 6-11a, 13, 17–18 and 21

According to my own structural analysis of the Song, which largely follows that of Freedman (pp. 195ff), the two main ‘inner’ stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16a) appear to have an expository character, whereby they expound, respectively, the two short ‘outer’ stanzas (vv. 3-5, 17). However, this does not necessarily mean that vv. 3-5 + 17 represent the core of an older poem that subsequently underwent development; the Song may have been composed with this complex poetic-rhetorical structure in mind. From an historical-traditional standpoint, the second half of the Song, if it indeed alludes to the settlement of the Land and the establishment of the Temple sanctuary in Jerusalem (as past events), then that would provide rather clear evidence for development and expansion of the Song, if the original form of the Song were pre-monarchic. And yet, all of these points are disputed by commentators, as discussed variously in the notes.

It should also be mentioned that, for commentators who posit literary and editorial-redactional ‘layers’ to the Song, their views tend to be oriented to the larger source-critical analysis that attends the Exodus narrative—viz., in terms of the ‘Documentary hypotheses’ and all their modern reflexes. I have avoided any discussion of these theories, but will address them, to some extent, and in a very general way, in a supplemental note on the “Reed Sea” ([Ws <y~) tradition.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Robertson” are to David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 3 (Scholars Press: 1972).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Albertz” are to Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18, Zürcher Bibelkommentare [ZBK] (Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 2017).
    • Those marked “Norin” are to Stig I. L. Norin, Er Spaltete Das Meer. Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 9 (CWK Gleerup: 1977).
    • Those marked “Zenger” are to Eric Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus 15 1–21″, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 32 (Brill: 1981), pp. 452–83.
    • Those marked “Jeremias” are to Jörg Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament [FRLANT] 141 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1987).
    • Those marked “Spieckermann” are to H. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament [FRLANT] 148 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989).
    • Those marked “Klein” are to A. Klein, “Hymn and History in Ex 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 124 (2012), pp. 516–27.

Past-tense Narration and the yiqtol-imperfect verb in Exodus 15

This note is supplementary to the current study on Exodus 15:1-21 (Song of the Sea). 

One of the chief arguments put forward in favor of an early date for the Song of the Sea is the use of yiqtol/imperfect verb forms for simple past-tense (preterite) narration (cf. the discussion in Part 6). For readers who are not all that familiar with the technical issues involved, a brief overview summary may be useful.

There are two main categories in the ancient Hebrew verbal system as regards tense/aspect: (1) qatal/perfect (suffix-conjugation), and (2) yiqtol/imperfect (prefix-conjugation). The terms qatal and yiqtol derive from a transliteration of the verbal root (lfq, qṭl) used as a kind of placeholder to represent the basic verbal (conjugation) patterns. The qatal pattern is suffix-conjugation—that is, the morphologically inflected forms (person, gender, number, etc.) are indicated by sufformatives (i.e., suffixes). The pattern is rooted in the baseline Qal or G (for “gr[o]und”) stem, where, e.g., the third person masculine singular form is lf^q* (qāṭal), the feminine singular hl*f=q* (qāṭlâ), and the masculine plural Wlf=q* (qāṭlû). The yiqtol pattern is referred to as prefix-conjugation in that its forms are marked by both sufformatives (suffixes) and preformatives (prefixes). In the Qal/G stem, the third person masculine singular form is lf)q=y] (yiqṭōl), the feminine singular lf)q=T! (tiqṭōl), and the masculine plural Wlf=q=y] (yiqṭelû). The vocalization and other aspects of the morphology differ slightly (within this overall pattern) for different kinds of verbs and verbal roots.

The qatal suffix-conjugation pattern is sometimes designated “perfect” —that is, expressing perfect/past tense and/or perfective aspect (i.e., completion/completeness of action, etc.). For past-tense narration in Hebrew, the qatal pattern is used, and the qatal (suffix-conjugation) forms are typically translated in the past-tense. The yiqtol prefix-conjugation pattern is often designated (somewhat imprecisely) as “imperfect”. It is used primarily to describe future actions or events, and thus tends to be translated in the future-tense; however, it can also be used for present- and past-tense actions/events, particularly when they are described as incomplete (and thus, “imperfect”), continuous, frequent/habitual, or when they have modal-volitive force (i.e., “he would do {such}”, “he wished to do {such}”, etc.). A number of lengthened yiqtol forms serve as pattern types for jussive and cohortative forms (expressing wish, permission, or [indirect] command).

A special category within the yiqtol pattern is the so-called waw-consecutive or wayyiqtol (lf)q=Y]w~) type (a w [waw] conjunction is attached, with doubling/lengthening of the initial prefix element), which is used for past-tense narration. Typically, a wayyiqtol form follows (and is governed by) an initial qatal form, usually describing a sequence of actions/events (i.e., “he did {such}…and [then] he did {such}…”). There is a comparable waw-consecutive weqatal type, in which a qatal form (with attached w [waw] conjunction) follows (and is governed by) a yiqtol form—for future-tense narration, and for certain kinds of present-tense (and even past-tense) narration, when the verbal aspect is imperfective or modal-volitive, etc. (see above).

The ancient/classical Hebrew verbal system, as outlined above, is quite consistent in its application, particularly with regard to narrative prose. Past-tense narration is expressed by the qatal + wayyiqtol syntax-pattern. This generally applies to poetry as well, except that, instead of a narrative-linear sequence, the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern is often parallelistic—viz., for example, a qatal form in the first line of a couplet followed by a wayyiqtol form in the second. However, there are rare occasions in Hebrew poetry when an ordinary yiqtol form seems to be used for past-tense narration outside of the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern. This preterite use of the yiqtol has been related to the ancient Canaanite yaqtul form, and (thus) also as an indicator of an early date (viz., pre-monarchic or early monarchic) for the poetry. See the discussion by Robertson (Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry), pp. 7-55.

Not all scholars are so convinced of the existence of these yiqtol preterites nor that they can so readily be regarded as an indication of an early (i.e., premonarchic) date. Niccacci (pp. 247-68), for example, rather doubts that there exists such preterite usage of the yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew poetry, nor that the verbal system was ever applied differently in poetry than in prose. This skepticism would presumably relate even to the earliest poetry; in the cited article, he does not specifically discuss the Song of the Sea, but he does make passing mention (p. 261) to the Song of Moses (Deut 32) and expresses doubt as to the claim that Biblical poetry employs the yaqtul/yiqtol as a preterite (cf. in verses 8 and 10).
See the articles by A. F. Rainey, “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of the Amarna Canaanite”, Hebrew Studies 27 (1986), pp. 5-19; idem, “The yaqtul Preterite in Northwest Semitic”, in M. F. J. Baasten and W. T. van Peursen (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor Τ Muraoka… (2003), pp. 395-407.

Bloch (pp. 34-70) is similarly skeptical, but is more willing to allow for the use of yiqtol (prefix-conjugation forms) “to signify past situations” in a number of relatively early poems (such as the Song of the Sea), which he would tend to date to the early (pre-exilic) monarchy (9th-8th centuries B.C.) rather than to the pre-monarchic period. He discusses the Song of the Sea on pp. 54-7, and isolates ten (or possibly eleven) instances in the Song where a short yiqtol verb form may be used to express “complete sitations in the past” outside of the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern:

    • Verse 5:
      vb hs^K* (“cover”)— “The deep places covered them”
    • Verse 6:
      vb Ju^r* (“smash, shatter”)— “Your right hand, YHWH, has smashed (the) hostile (one)”
    • Verse 7:
      vb sr^h* (“pull/tear down”)— “you tore down (those) standing against you”
      vb jl^v* (“send”)— “You sent forth your burning (anger)”
      vb lk^a* (“eat, consume”)— “it consumed them like the dry straw”
    • Verse 12:
      vb ul^B* (“swallow”)— “(the) earth swallowed them”
    • Verse 15:
      vb zj^a* (“take firm hold”)— “trembling grabbed hold of them”
    • Verse 16:
      vb lp^n` (“fall”)— “there fell upon them (sudden) dread and terror”
      vb <m^D* (“be silent”)— “they became silent like a stone”
    • Verse 17:
      vb aoB (“come”, Hiphil “bring”)— “You brought them”

To which might be added:

    • Verse 2: vb hy`h* (“be[come]”)— “and He has come to be salvation for me”

These yiqtol forms are mixed together with qatal forms, which are ordinarily used for past-tense narration (as discussed above). It is difficult to discern any clear difference in use or purpose between, for example, the yiqtol forms in vv. 5-7 and the qatal forms in vv. 8-10. Even more striking is the way that the yiqtol in v. 12 is immediately followed by a sequence of qatal forms in vv. 13-14, or how the yiqtol form in v. 15 occurs between two qatal forms, with little or no discernible difference between them. As discussed in the notes, the two yiqtol forms in v. 17 could be treated as future-tense verbs (certainly, many commentators and translators render them so), and even those in vv. 15-16 could conceivably have a future orientation. The forms of the verb rb^u* (“pass/cross over”) in v. 16 should probably not be counted as preterites since the context is clearly continuous/durative (i.e., “until your people cross over”).

Notarius (pp. 107-24), working from a discourse-analysis framework, seeks to distinguish between imperfective, modal-volitive, and possible preterite uses of the yiqtol forms in the Song. She makes the valid argument that some of these forms could be regarded as imperfect-circumstantial or historical-present tense verbs. For example, verse 5 could be translated as follows (note the yiqtol form in bold):

“(The) deep places covering them,
they went down in (the) depths like a stone!”

Note similarly verse 15:

“So (also) they were terrified,
(the) chieftains of Edôm;
(the) strong (one)s of Mô’ab,
trembling takes hold of them—
they melted (away) completely,
(all those) sitting (in) Kena’an!”

And, again, in verse 16:

“(Indeed) there falls upon them
(sudden) dread and terror;
at (the) greatness of your arm
they become silent like a stone!”

Possibly also in verse 12:

“You stretched out your right hand,
(and, see—the) earth swallows them!”

The YHWH-verses and similar hymnic portions are also suitable to translation in the historical present, describing regular/characteristic behavior by YHWH that happens to be fulfilled in particular historical circumstances (such as the Reed Sea event):

“Your right hand, O YHWH
(is) mighty in (its) strength!
Your right hand, O YHWH
smashes (the) hostile (one)!” (v. 6)

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He comes to be salvation for me!” (v. 2)

However, I do find myself in agreement with Bloch on at least the 10/11 occurrences (listed above), that these do, in fact, represent past-tense (preterite) uses of the yiqtol. The relative rarity of such occurrences in most Biblical Hebrew poetry, and the concentration of them in poems such as the Song of the Sea, the Song of Moses (Deut 32), and Psalm 18 (par 2 Sam 22), does suggest that they are more common in early poetry. Yet, the example Bloch gives of Isaiah 41:1-5 (pp. 61-4), should make one cautious about positing too early of a date based simply on the occurrence of yiqtol preterites. He isolates a series of six of these forms in vv. 2-3, and yet virtually all critical commentators (and even some traditional-conservative commentators) would date the poem to the 6th century. Therefore, on purely objective linguistic grounds, based on the mixture of qatal and yiqtol forms, such as we find in the Song of the Sea, it would be relatively safe to give a likely date for such a poem to the 8th (or 9th) century B.C., though it could conceivably be older. Other evidence and arguments must be taken into account in order to establish a firmer dating (see the discussion in Part 6, and the exegesis of the Song throughout Parts 1-5).

    • References above marked “Robertson” are to David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 3 (1972).
    • Those marked “Niccacci” are to Alviero Niccacci, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry”, in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, eds. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (The Hebrew University Magnes Press / Eisenbrauns: 2006), pp. 247-68.
    • Those marked “Bloch” are to Yigal Bloch, “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry—A Re-Evaluation”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 59 (2009), pp. 54-70.
    • Those marked “Notarius” are to Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Brill: 2013).

August 13: Job 14:13-14

Job 14:13-14

This is the first unit of the second stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 13:23-25 in the first stanza (see the earlier note).

A few small fragments of vv. 13-14 are preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc. The bits that survive confirm the MT (except for one minor variant in v. 14, cf. below).

Verse 13

“Who will give (that) you might hide me in Še’ôl,
keep me hidden until your anger turns (away),
set for me an inscribed (time) and remember me?”

This second part of Job’s complaint begins with an echo of his earlier lament (chap. 3), as he expresses the wish (“Who will give…?”) that he might die and thus find relief from his suffering (3:13ff, 20-21ff; cf. also 6:8-13; 7:15-16; 10:18-22). And yet, he knows well enough that there is no return to life for a human being once he has died (vv. 10-12, as discussed in the previous note). Thus, the wish expressed here is that he might experience just a temporary sojourn into the grave (i.e., Sheol, the realm of Death and the dead), that God would hide him there until His anger (i.e., God’s punishing wrath in judgment against him) “turns back/away” (bWv); cf. 9:13, and the similar imagery in Isa 26:20. Two different verbs are used for the act of hiding—/p^x* (line 1) and rt^s* (line 2). God would, it is hoped, allow him to remain hidden in Sheol for a set (lit. “inscribed”) time, after which God would “remember” him and restore him to life. On this use of the noun qj) for an “inscribed [i.e., set/decreed]” time or limit, cf. verse 4, and also the related verb (hq*j*) in 13:27.

Michel (p. 325) prefers to understand the preposition B= in line 1 as meaning “from” (= /m!), “hide me from Sheol [i.e., protect me from death]”, finding it unlikely that Job would actually ask God to place him in Sheol (from whence there is no return). While it is true that B= can occasionally carry the nuanced meaning “from” (usually “from [with]in”), it is unnecessary to attribute such a meaning to the use of the preposition here. The sense of “in” (i.e., “hide me in Sheol”) is appropriate, as it reflect the earlier instances of Job’s wish for death (so as to bring him rest and relief, cf. above). Moreover, as noted above, Job is presenting a hypothetical situation that he knows is impossible—viz., a temporary place of rest and refuge in Sheol.

The interrogative expression /T@y] ym! (“Who will give [that]…?”) is a regular Hebrew idiom for expressing a fervent wish (i.e., “Would that…!”, “Oh, that…!”, “If only…!”); cf. earlier in verse 4. Often such a wish is understood as unlikely to be fulfilled, and that is certainly the case here.

Verse 14

“(Yet,) if a man should die, can he live (again)?
All (the) days of my forced service I would wait,
until (the) coming of my turn (for death).”

As mentioned above, Job is fully aware (cf. verses 10-12) that the wish he expressed in v. 13 is impossible; the question he asks in line 1 here confirms the point: “If a man [rb#G#] should die, can/does he live (again)?” Clearly, the answer is “No”. If only it were possible, then his wish/hope that God might grant him a temporary relief (in Sheol) could be feasible. But, more than this, Job declares (in lines 2-3) that he would even be willing to endure the suffering of his life on earth (that is, not go prematurely into Sheol), if he knew that it was possible to live again (in a new/restored life) after death. I understand the noun hp*yl!j& to mean the “turn” when a particular event or situation is to occur—in this instance, the time when it is Job’s turn to die. The noun can also carry the sense of a turning from one situation to another, connoting the idea of change; here, in context, this would mean a change from Job’s current condition of “forced service” (ab*x*, implying hard labor). This motif (with the use of ab*x*) featured earlier in 7:1ff; cf. 10:17, where the noun hp*yl!j& also occurs, but in a different sense.

The Greek translation of the third line seems to understand hp*yl!j& in the sense of a renewal of life (e&w$ a*n pa/lin ge/nwmai, “until I would again come to be”). As Seow (p. 689) notes, Christian exegesis, based on this Greek version, tended to interpret the line as a reference to the resurrection. However, it remains a question the extent to which the Job poet accepts or posits the idea of an afterlife (beyond the dead individual’s shadowy existence in Sheol). At the very least, Job’s questions here in vv. 13-14 raise the prospect of the possibility of life after death. The matter will be discussed further as we continue along in the notes, as well as in a future supplemental note.

As a minor textual note, the Qumran manuscript 4QpaleoJobc reads the letter h prior to the words aoB du^ (“until [the] coming [of]”) in the final line. This could imply that the manuscript read a long yaqtul/yiqtol cohortative form of the verb ljy, i.e., hlj&y~a& (cp. MT lj@y~a&), “let me wait” or (volitional) “I would (be willing to) wait”. This would not change the meaning of the line much, but the presence of the letter h does, in any case, represent a textual variation from the MT. Cf. Seow, p. 689.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 13:6-13

Proverbs 13:6-13

This is the second sub-grouping of vv. 1-13; see the previous study on vv. 1-5. This unit contains a cluster of proverbs dealing with the subject of wealth/riches (and the contrast of rich vs. poor). Some commentators (e.g., Heim, pp. 162-4) prefer to delineate vv. 7-11 as a unit, and this shorter grouping has somewhat greater coherence in terms of the wealth/riches theme.

Verse 6

“Righteousness watches over (the) completeness of (one’s) path,
but wickedness twists (the way of) sin (all around)!”

In this couplet, the familiar righteous/wicked contrast is formulated in abstract terms—viz., righteousness vs. wickedness. Similarly, it is the path that a person follows which is view. This continues the path/walking idiom (using the regular term Er#D# for “path”) which was particularly prominent in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9. For the righteous, their path is “complete”, i.e., the expression “completeness of (the) path” (Er#D# <T*), by which we should probably understand “a path that is completely straight”; cf. 2:7; 10:9, 29; also 19:1; 20:7; 28:6. By contrast, the wicked have strayed from the right path, and their paths are thus crooked/twisted—expressed here by the verb [l^s* (Piel, “turn, twist”); cf. 19:3; 21:12; 22:13 (note also Job 12:19), where the idea of “overturning” (in a judgment context) is prominent. Here, as well, it is implied that the turning/twisting paths of the wicked lead to their being overturned (i.e., come to destruction/ruin). Parallel to “completeness of (one’s) path” is the noun taF*j^ (“error, sin”), and thus the noun should be read as a shorthand for “path/way of sin” (cf. Waltke, p. 546), i.e., a path that is governed and dominated by sin and error.
It is less likely that taF*j^ should be read as a collective for “sinners”, as some commentators have proposed; cf. Plöger, p. 156; Scherer, p. 120; Schipper, p. 446.

The verb rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”) occurs frequently (along with the near-synonymous rm^v*, “guard”) in Wisdom texts—including the idea that a person must watch over his path (and guard the teachings of Wisdom), as well as the promise that Wisdom will, in turn, watch over such a person. Cf. the 10 occurrences of the verb in chapters 1-9 (2:8, 11; 3:1, 21, etc.), and, most recently, in verse 3. On the specific idea of a righteousness guarding a person, see esp. 11:3, 5-6.

Verse 7

“There is (one) making himself rich, and (yet) there is nothing at all;
(there is also one) making himself poor, yet (possessing) much wealth.”

This is the first of several proverbs in this section dealing with wealth/riches. The contrast is between a person “making himself rich” and one “making himself poor”—Hitpael reflexive forms of the verbs rv^u* and vWr, respectively (note the alliterative assonance, miṯ‘ašēr / miṯrôšēš). It is possible that these terms imply a measure of pretense—i.e., making oneself out to be, or pretending to be, rich/poor. In that instance, the first line means that a person pretends to be rich even though he has no such wealth, while, conversely, a wealthy person acts (humbly/modestly) as though he were poor; cf. 12:9. However, the contrast may be between the person who pursues the acquisition of riches, but in a vain/wicked manner, and the one who is willing to give away his wealth through the generosity of charitable giving, etc.; cf. 11:24ff.

As Waltke (p. 546) notes, the initial existential particle vy@ (“there is”) in line 1 applies to line 2 as well, i.e., “(there is also one) making himself poor”. The existential particle is matched in line 1 by the negative particle (of non-existence), /y]a^ (“there is no[t]”), thus heightening the contrast in the line itself (cf. Schipper, p. 446)—viz., “there is one making himself rich” yet “there is not (any real wealth) at all”.

Verse 8

“(The) cover (for the) soul of a man (is) his riches,
but a poor man does not hear a stern rebuke.”

This second proverb dealing with wealth/riches is problematic, due to the fact that the second line does not make all that much sense in context. It may well be, as Fox (p. 563f) suggests, that the line was miscopied during the course of transmission, influenced by the wording in verse 1b. However, if this is so, then the original text of the line can no longer be recovered. It should be noted that the LXX generally supports the MT as we have it. A tiny fragment of verse 8 is preserved in the Qumran manuscript 4QProvb, and it also supports the MT insofar as it attests the words umv al, “does not hear”.
The tiny fragments of vv. 6-9 in the aforementioned Qumran manuscript are all that survives from chapter 13 (after virtually nothing from chapters 1-12 [only bits of 1:27-2:1]). The surviving portions support the MT, but the amount is so little as to shed almost no light on the text. Fortunately, a bit more of the text of chapters 14-15 is preserved (but nothing after chap. 15) and will be discussed in passing during the upcoming studies.

Possibly, hr*u*G+ here should be understood more in terms of a threat than a rebuke. In any case, if the MT of the second line represents the original proverb as it was intended, then the sense may be that the poor person has no motivation to respond to a breach that requires reparation on his part. The noun rp#K) IV, “cover(ing)”, tends to be used in this context—viz., for payment made to cover an offense or breach of agreement, etc. The rich person is able to make such a payment, and thus can protect (i.e., provide cover for) his life and livelihood.

It is not immediately clear the extent to which this proverb is meant to continue the contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. The wording of line 2 (if original/authentic) would seem to identify the poor person, in this instance, with the foolish/wicked, perhaps in the sense that the foolish person, unwilling to accept discipline, ends up being reduced to poverty, and then is unable to respond adequately when harsh words and threats of punishment come against him.

Verse 9

“(The) light of (the) righteous (one)s shines,
while (the) lamp of (the) wicked is extinguished!”

As Fox (p. 564) notes, the light/shining imagery here in this proverb serves as a metaphor for life itself, but also to the quality of life; cf. the similar wording in Job 18:5-6 (for the second line, see also Job 21:17; Prov 24:20). In light of the wealth/riches focus in vv. 7-8, the motif of light shining probably alludes, at least in part, to one’s prosperity (i.e., receiving good things and blessings). This would seem to be confirmed by the use of the verb jm^c*, which normally means “be glad, rejoice”, but here carries the primitive meaning “radiate, shine”. By contrast, the wicked ultimately receive no blessing; indeed, they experience quite the opposite: a loss of gladness and prosperity. The verb Eu^D* (“be extinguished”) expresses the exact opposite of jm^c* (“shine”) and may also allude to the death/destruction of the wicked.

The LXX includes an additional couplet (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 208):

“Deceitful souls go astray in (their) sins,
but righteous (one)s are compassionate and show mercy.”

Verse 10

“An empty (man) in heat (of passion) gives a fight,
but with (those) receiving counsel (there is) wisdom.”

This proverb appears to be rather awkward in formulation, regardless of how one parses the initial word qr. The MT vocalizes as the generic adverb qr^ (“only”), but the Versions seem to support the reading qr@ (= qyr@), viz., a substantive adjective meaning “empty (person)”. A strong argument in favor of this vocalization is the conceptual parallel in v. 11a with the noun lb#h# (“vapor”) which in a Wisdom context often connotes “emptiness, vanity”. I have adopted the vocalization qr@; cf. Fox, p. 564f; Yoder, p. 152f. In this setting, qr@ designates the foolish person, who, in the heat (/odz`) of passion (or of anger, insolence, etc.), is quick to fight and quarrel with others. By contrast, the wise person is willing to hear (and heed) the counsel of others. Cf. the use of /odz`, with a strong connotation of “pride/arrogance”, in 11:2; 21:24.

Schipper (p. 449) cites the following Egyptian proverbs:

“You should not be hard-headed in fighting with your neighbors; your helpers [will fall?. . . ]” (Ostracon Petrie 11, Ramesside-period Prohibitions)
“Pride and arrogance are the ruin of their owner” (Papyrus Insinger 4.22; cf. Lichtheim, III.189)

Verse 11

“Wealth (gained) from (mere) vapor becomes less,
while (the one) gathering on (the) hand increases (it).”

As noted above, the reading qr@ (“empty”) in v. 10a is preferred, in part, because of the conceptual parallel with the noun lb#h# here. This noun literally means “vapor, breath, wind”, often emphasizing the insubstantial (and fleeting) quality of such. This is particularly so as a Wisdom-idiom, where lb#h# connotes “emptiness, vanity” (cf. 21:6; 31:30); see especially throughout Qohelet (1:2, 14; 2:1, 11, et al.). Thus, the sense of the line here is that wealth obtained through vain/empty pursuits does not last, and will only lessen/decrease (vb fu^m*) over time; cf. 21:6. However, it should be noted that a number of commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 565f) prefer to emend the text from lbhm to lhbm (assuming a scribal error [metathesis]), to be vocalized as lh*b)m=, a passive (Pual) participle of the verb lh^B*, which denotes being in a panic, i.e., rushing about in a hurried manner. The line would then read “Wealth (gained while) rushing about becomes less”; cf. 10:2; 20:21; 28:22.
The LXX supports (at least in part) the proposed emendation with the translation: “Property gathered in haste without (regard for) law becomes less, but the (one) gathering together for himself with good reverence will be multiplied.” An extra line follows (variant of the added couplet in v. 9, cf. above): “(The) righteous (one) has compassion and lends”. See Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 209.

In either case, the second line contrasts wealth that is gained through careful and diligent work—a thematic emphasis that can be seen in a number of these proverbs (cf. verse 4; 10:4-5; 12:11, 24, 27). The specific idiom is “gathering on hand”, where the expression dy` lu^ (lit. “upon [the] hand”) can denote that which is “at hand” (cf. Exod 2:5; Num 2:17, etc.), or it may refer to doing the work (of gathering) “by hand”. The implication is that the work is done slowly and carefully, ‘little by little’, but the result is an accumulation of wealth that will last, even increasing over time.

Verse 12

“An expectation being drug out makes weak (the) heart,
but a tree of life (is) a desire coming (to fruition).”

This proverb may be related conceptually with the idea (in v. 11b) of work that is done, slowly and gradually, over time. The “dragging out” (vb Ev^m*) of the expectation for completion/fulfillment of one’s desire can have a weakening effect on a person’s spirit (“heart”); however, when that desire comes to be fulfilled it gives renewed life and vitality to the person. Elsewhere in Proverbs, the motif of a “tree of life” refers to Wisdom itself (and the teachings of Wisdom), cf. 3:18; 11:30, also 15:4. It is thus likely that an allusion to Wisdom (and the wise) is present here as well. The implication may be that the wise person does not become discouraged over time, but remains diligent—and, through patience and hard work, this diligence is rewarded with life-giving blessings (from God); cf. Fox, p. 566. On the desire of the righteous, compare the proverb in 10:28.

The thematic similarity with verse 19 leads a number of commentators (e.g., Meinhold, Schipper, Heim) to delineate vv. 12-19 as a distinct proverb-grouping, and this is an entirely valid way of dividing the text. Heim, in particular, recognizes groupings in vv. 1-6, 7-11, 12-19; according to this division, as noted above, the shorter grouping of vv. 7-11 receives somewhat more coherence (than does a grouping of vv. 6-13) from the wealth/riches theme.

Verse 13

“(The one) showing contempt for a word will be ruined by it,
but (he) who fears an order—he will be made complete (by it)!”

This proverb essentially matches the sentiment in verse 1, thus providing a framing inclusio for the grouping of vv. 1-13. As in that earlier proverb, the contrast is between the one who despises/rejects a word of instruction and the one who accepts/receives it. The first instance here—designating the characteristic behavior of the foolish/wicked—is expressed by the verb zWB (+ preposition l), “show contempt for (something)”. The contrasting behavior, of the wise/righteous person, is to “fear” the teaching/instruction of Wisdom (cf. the conceptually related idiom of the “fear of YHWH”, 3:7; 14:2; 24:21; 31:30). Such instruction is expressed by the general (and traditional) terms rb*D* (“word”) and hw`x=m! (“order, command”) with their obvious religious implications—viz., the parallel between the instruction of Wisdom and the Divine Instruction (of the Torah); cf. Schipper, p. 450f. This parallel is suggested throughout Proverbs, but cf. especially in Psalm 119.

The contrasting fate of the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked is also highlighted in this proverb. The one who shows contempt for instruction will be ruined (vb lb^j* III) by it, whereas the one who fears (and thus accepts) it will find completion/fulfillment (i.e., blessing and reward from God); the verb <l^v* (“be complete/full”) is often used in the context of Divine recompense—blessing for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. Cf. 19:16, etc.
Fox (p. 566) follows Ehrlich in vocalizing the verb <lvy as a Qal form (<l*v=y], “be complete”) rather than MT Pual (<L*v%y+, “be made complete”). The root regularly connotes health, well-being, security, being at peace, etc. The contrast with the “ruin” of the wicked is the well-being and security of the righteous. Some commentators (cf. Meinhold, p. 222f; Schipper, pp. 438, 451) would identify the verb lbj with root II, from the language of borrowing and lending, i.e., “take/receive a pledge (for a loan)”.

The LXX adds a further proverb which will be discussed (in connection with verse 14) in the next study.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Yoder” are to Christine Roy Yoder, Proverbs, Abingdon Old Testament Commentary (Abingdon: 2009).

August 11: Job 14:10-12

Job 14:10-12

This is the second stanza (or strophe) of the intermediate Wisdom-poem (vv. 7-12) within Job’s complaint. In the first part (see the previous note), the image was presented of a tree which, though it may appear to be dying (or to have died), it can still experience regeneration and live/grow again. Now, here in the second part (vv. 10-12), a human being is contrasted with such a tree. A mortal human (who grows old and dies) is not like the tree, but more akin to the seasonal vegetation (grass, flowers) that withers and dies out (v. 2).

Verse 10

“But (even) a strong (man) dies and wears away;
indeed, a human expires—and (then) where is he?”

The noun rb#G# is parallel with <d*a* (“[hu]man”) in the second line, and with vya! (“man”) in v. 12a; thus, it has the general meaning of “man” here as well. However, to distinguish between these terms in translation, I have preserved the denotative meaning of rb#G# as “strong/vigorous (one)”; indeed, the nuance of the line may well be as I have translated, “but (even) a strong (one) dies…”, which enhances the contrast of the illustration (cf. also Michel, p. 322). The verb vl^j* (I) is extremely rare, this being the only certain occurrence in Scripture, and thus some commentators (e.g., Budde, Driver-Gray) have suggested emendation to [l^j* (I), “pass by” (in the sense of “pass away”). The verb vl^j* (I) properly means “be(come) worn, wear out”, sometimes with the connotation of “be(come) weak”, and the sense here of “wear away” is perfectly suitable to the context; there may also be some double meaning wordplay with vl^j* (II), “crush, wipe out” (Exod 17:13; Isa 14:12), cf. Akkadian ḫalāšu, and note also Arabic ḫalasa (“rob, steal”), ḫalaša (“carry off”), halaša (“reap”) as possible cognates. Cf. the note by Clines, p. 284.
Some manuscripts read a conjunctive yiqtol form (vl*j=y#w+) rather than a wayyiqtol consecutive form (vl*j=Y#w~); cf. Seow, p. 687.

For the verb uw~G` (translated here “expire”), used in parallel with tWm (“die”), cf. earlier in 3:11; 10:18; 13:19.

The final word oYa^w+ is apparently a suffixed form of the interrogative ya@ (lengthened form, hY@a^), “where…?”, i.e., “and where (is) he?” (cf. 20:7). However, the LXX (ou)ke/ti) and Peshitta suggest that the Hebrew is /yaw, the negative particle (of absence/non-existence), /y]a^, a reading that is confirmed by at least one manuscript (cf. Seow, p. 687), i.e., “and he is no more”, much as Job says of himself in 7:8, 21. The same meaning could be coaxed from the text (without emendation) if it is read as a negative particle (ya!), cf. 22:30, as proposed by M. Dahood, “The Conjunction wn and Negative ʾî in Hebrew,” Ugarit-Forschungen [UF] 14 (1982), pp. 51–54, and adopted by Michel (p. 323). As Seow suggests, the MT (i.e., reading wya as the suffixed interrogative) should probably be followed, since it is the more difficult reading and yet makes acceptable sense in context.

Verse 11

“(As the) waters go away from (the) sea,
and a flowing stream dries and dries up,”

A second subordinate nature-image is utilized here in vv. 11-12. If the life (and death) of a human being is not like that of the tree (vv. 7-9), it is like that of a body of water that dries out (in the heat of summer). A similar sort of seasonal comparison (illustration of a wadi) was utilized in chapter 6 (vv. 15-20); it also echoes the vegetation-illustration earlier here in verse 2. The relatively rare verb lz~a* appears to be an Aramaism, being common in Aramaic and similar to Hebrew El^h* (in the general sense of “go”); the meaning here is “go away”. The image of waters “going away” from a lake or other body of water (“sea”) presumably has the dry summer season in mind, more clearly evident in the second line, which utilizes two verbs (br^j* [I] and vb@y`) that both mean “be(come) dry, dry up”. Cf. the use of these same verbs together in Isa 19:5, which generally resembles the wording of v. 11 here.

Verse 12

“so man lies down and does not stand up (again)—
until (the) wearing out of (the) heavens
they will not be wakened nor roused from their sleep!”

This final irregular tricolon (cf. the tricolon of v. 7) continues the illustration and the thought expressed in v. 11 (above). Like the water that disappears (in its season), so a human being disappears from life/existence on earth. The noun vya! (cf. the terms in v. 10) in line 1 is properly singular (i.e., “a man”), but the verb forms in line 3 are plural, implied collective “man(kind)”; indeed, the illustration certainly applies to all human beings.

Once human beings die, they do not come back to life again; two related (traditional) idioms are used to express this juxtaposition of death / no-life: (a) lying down / standing up, and (b) sleeping / awaking. The death-as-sleep motif is utilized in Job’s prior speeches, most notably in the chapter 3 lament.

The short second line makes clear that human beings, once they die, will remain dead (and in the realm of the dead, Sheol), as long as the heavens—the portion of the created order seen as the most divine-like and permanent or long-lasting (cf. Deut 11:21; Psalm 89:30[29], etc.)—continue to exist. This is expressed negatively, by the negative particle yT!l=B!, which resembles /y]a^ (see above) in its emphasis on non-existence. The line, as a temporal phrase, thus means “until (the) heavens are no more”. However, the text can also be vocalized as yt!l)B=, an infinitive construct (with hireq compaginis) of the verb hl*B* (“wear out, wear/fade away”). At the very least, the poet likely has some double-meaning wordplay in mind; indeed, yT!l=B! derives from the same verbal root (hlb, tl#B# cf. Ugaritic/Phoenician blt), and thus the basic denotation of “wear out, wear away” is clearly in view. In order to bring this out, and to capture the conceptual wordplay (i.e., “wear away”) in connection with the verb vl^j* (I) in verse 10 (cf. above), I have translated ytlb here as though it were an infinitive construct of the verb— “until (the) wearing out of (the) heavens” (cf. Psalm 102:27[26]; Isa 34:4; 51:6). See further the discussions by Blommerde (p. 71), Clines (p. 284), Seow (p. 688), and other commentators.

The extent to which the positive concept of an afterlife may be present in the book of Job will be discussed (in a supplemental note) at a later point in the exegesis

In our next note, we will turn to second of the two main stanzas of Job’s complaint, and the first unit (vv. 13-14) of which it is comprised.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).

August 7: Job 14:7-9

Job 14:7-9

In between the two main stanzas of Job’s complaint there is a short Wisdom-poem (14:7-12) which itself is comprised of two stanzas (or strophes). This poem is both transitional and expository, building upon the Wisdom-theme(s) established in the first stanza. In particular, it develops the illustration (from the natural world) in verse 2, only this time the comparison is contrastive. The life of a human being is contrasted with that of a tree. Unlike the seasonal vegetation (mentioned in v. 2), which withers and dies out in its time, a rooted tree survives. Even if it is cut down, it will grow again (v. 7); and, even if its roots begin to wither in the dry ground, it can be renewed again (with water, vv. 8-9).

Verse 7

“Indeed, there may exist for the tree hope:
if it is cut off, then it grows again in turn,
and its suckling (branches) will not cease.”

Since the poem in vv. 7-12 is expository, as noted above, the initial yK! could be causal (i.e., “For…”, “So [then]…”); however, it seems better to view it in an emphatic-declarative sense (“Indeed…”).

The noun hw`q=T! (“hope, expectation”, but also “thread, cord”) has already occurred a number of times in the Dialogue (4:6; 5:16; 6:8; 7:6; 8:13; 11:18, 20) in a similar Wisdom-context, dealing with the mortality of the human condition—viz., the relative shortness of one’s life and its end (i.e., death). In this regard, the particle vy@ (used here in the first line) indicates existence; there exists hope for a tree that, even it seems to have its life cut off, or is about to die, it will continue to exist. Verse 7 deals specifically with the situation when a tree is “cut off” (vb tr^K*, i.e., cut down); it can still grow again, putting forth new shoots (lit. “suckers, sucklings”, tq#n#oy [collective], i.e., branches that suck nutrients from the root). The verb [l^j* (I) fundamentally means “take place in turn(s)” (cf. the earlier usage in 10:20); in this instance, it refers to the tree growing again (dou) in turn. See the similar usage of [l^j* in Psalm 90:5-6, and note also the sense of renewal implied in 29:20 (later in the Dialogue); cf. Seow, p. 686.

The verb ld^j* (“cease”) was used earlier in v. 6, referring to the death of a human being (such as Job). At death, an individual ceases to exist, but also, in a more positive sense, ceases (i.e., finds rest) from the toil and trouble of human existence. By contrast, the tree does not cease to exist.

This initial verse of the poem is a tricolon, just like the last verse (v. 12); indeed, there is a loose chiastic structure to the poem (which will be discussed further in the next note).

Verses 8-9

“(Or,) if its root should grow old in the earth,
and its stump (be about to) die in the dirt,
from a breath of water it will sprout (anew),
and make shoot(s) like a (tree newly) planted!”

Here, in vv. 8-9, a different situation is portrayed: that of a tree/plant whose root is withering away in the ground. The comparative simile referring to human old age and death is clear enough, including use of the specific verbs /q^z` (Hiphil “grow old, become aged”, lit., “[gray-]bearded”) and tWm (“die”). In this context, the latter verb should probably be glossed in the sense of “be in the process of dying”, or “be about to die” (cf. Gordis, p. 148; Clines, p. 284). Even more pointed is the double use of the expression “in the earth” / “in the dirt”, clearly alluding to a dead body buried in the ground (cf. the reference to Sheol in v. 13). While there is no renewal of life (in the simple biological-physical sense) for the dead human being who is in the ground, the dying root of a tree (withering in the dry ground) can still be revived—if it receives water. At even the scent (lit. “breath”) of this life-restoring water, renewal begins to take place.

The noun uz~G# refers to the stump/trunk of a tree (including its roots); it is extremely rare, occurring just twice elsewhere in the Scriptures (Isa 11:1; 40:24) where it is similarly paired with vr#v# (“root”). The nouns Jr#a# (“earth”) and rp*u* (“dirt, dust”) are regularly paired together, both in Hebrew and (with the corresponding cognates) in Ugaritic; cf. Dahood, RSP I. 2.67, III. 1.Suppl.16; Michel, p. 322.

The extended preposition *mK=, much less common than simple K=, occurs a number of times in the book of Job (cf. earlier in 1:8; 2:3; 6:15; 9:32; 10:22; 12:3).

The second stanza (vv. 10-12) of this short Wisdom-poem will be examined in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Dahood, RSP” (I, III) are to Ras Shamra Parallels: The Text from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible.
      Volume 1, ed. Loren R. Fisher—Chapter 2: Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs, by Mitchell Dahood, S.J., in collaboration with Tadeusz Penar.
      Volume 3, ed. Stan Rummell—Chapter 1: Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs, by Mitchell Dahood, S.J. (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1972, 1981).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 13:1-5

Chapter 13

There are two broad groupings for the proverbs in chapter 13—vv. 1-13 and 14-25. Each of these can be further divided into two sub-groups. For vv. 1-13, these are delineated as vv. 1-5 and 6-13. The grouping of vv. 1-13 is framed by a pair of proverbs (in vv. 1 and 13) dealing with the familiar Wisdom-theme of accepting or rejecting instruction—the wise accept it, while the foolish reject it.

It is more common for commentators (e.g., Heim, Schipper, Meinhold) to divide the chapter according to the groupings of vv. 1-11, 12-19, 20-25. This is a valid approach (esp. with regard to vv. 12-19 as a distinct grouping), but I prefer a different division, the reasons for which will be elucidated in the notes.

Proverbs 13:1-5

The sub-grouping of vv. 1-5 has a more coherent structure than does vv. 6-13. Indeed, all five proverbs feature, in different ways, the thematic motif of the mouth—referring to speech, but also to one’s appetite/desire. There is a certain chiastic thematic structure for these verses:

    • V. 1—How a person responds to a good/true word (instruction)
      • V. 2—Image of the mouth that both consumes (i.e., takes in) and produces (i.e., puts out) ‘fruit’
        • V. 3—Contrast between the closed (i.e., guarded) and open mouth
      • V. 4—Image of the appetite (i.e., desire) that both hungers and is fulfilled
    • V. 5—How a person responds to an evil/false word
Verse 1

“A wise son (listens to) correction from a father,
but a mocker (surely) will not hear a stern rebuke.”

Throughout chapters 1-9, there is a strong emphasis on the importance of listening to instruction and accepting discipline (cf. also 12:1). The noun rs^Wm, a regular Wisdom-term that occurs frequently in Proverbs (31 times, including 13 in chapters 1-9), means “instruction”, but often with the clear connotation of “discipline, correction”; it thus epitomizes both of these thematic aspects. The Lectures in chaps. 1-9 are all framed by the traditional Wisdom-device of a father addressing his son; cf. also the beginning of the Collection, 10:1.

The regular wise vs. foolish contrast continues here, but with the foolish person characterized as a “mocker” (Jl@). This term, which occurs predominantly in the book of Proverbs (14 of 16 Scriptural occurrences, cf. earlier in 1:22; 3:34; 9:7-8), refers to a foolish person who has begun to reject/refuse instruction and the teachings of Wisdom, and thus is already well on the path toward wickedness.

The noun hu*r*G= is relatively rare, occurring 15 times in Scripture and only three times in Proverbs (cf. v. 8; 17:10; also the Wisdom-context of Qoh 7:5 and Job 26:11). It properly denotes a shout or a roar, and thus, in this context, implies a stern/harsh rebuke, possibly with a certain threatening tone (cf. the use in a warfare context, e.g., Isa 30:17; Ps 18:16[15]). The sense may be that a mocker, who is already showing tendencies toward wickedness, will not heed even a forceful rebuke.

A verb is lacking in the first line, and most translators supply one to fill out the sense of the line; Fox (p. 561) is an exception (cf. also Schipper, pp. 437, 442), translating the line as a ‘bunt juxtaposition’: “A wise son—a father’s discipline”. Waltke (p. 545) follows the Syriac by glossing “hears/listens (to)”, parallel to the verb in line 2; and I have done the same. Other commentators would emend the noun ba* (“father”) to the verb bh^a* (“love”), so that the line reads “A wise son loves instruction/correction”. A preferable approach would be to assume an “existential” predication, to the effect that instruction and discipline (that is received) produces a wise son—i.e., “A wise son (comes to be through) a father’s instruction”; cf. Fox, p. 561; Heim, p. 159f; Meinhold, p. 217f.

Verse 2

“From (the) fruit of a man’s mouth, he eats good,
while (the) soul of (the) treacherous (is for) violence.”

This is the first of a series of three mouth/appetite proverbs, unified by the nouns hP# (“mouth”, v. 3) and vp#n# (“soul”, vv. 3-4). The juxtaposition with vp#n# has a two-fold significance. First, there is the contrast between outward action (speech) and inward disposition and intention (soul). Second, the noun vp#n# can also mean “throat” and “appetite”, thus providing a suitable parallel with “mouth” and the idea of eating (a point also noted here by Heim, p. 161, and other commentators).

The mouth-idiom in line 1 also works in two directions: (1) the mouth produces fruit (speech/behavior), and (2) it consumes fruit (resultant blessing). For the wise and righteous person, the ‘fruit’ that is both produced and consumed is good. The wise person’s conduct (esp. speech) is good, and thus he/she is blessed (by God) with good things in return; cf. 12:14 (on the comparison with v. 2, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 295-303). Similarly, the soul (or “appetite”) of the wicked produces evil (spec. violent and lawless behavior, sm*j*), and will experience evil things in return. The wording also indicates that the wicked person desires (i.e., longs for) violence, being willing to carry it out (against others) and even to take delight in it; cf. 1:31 and the portrayal of wicked/violent young men in 1:10-19; 2:12-15. For similar fruit/eating imagery, cf. 4:17; 18:20-21; 19:28.

The wicked are characterized as “treacherous (one)s”, <yd!g+B); cf. earlier in 2:22; 11:3, 6, and further in v. 15; 21:18; 22:12; 23:28; 25:19.

The LXX rendering creates a stronger moral sense for the proverb: “From (the) fruits of righteousness (the) good (man) shall eat, but (the) souls of (those cross)ing over the law will perish (in an) untimely (manner)”. This version was likely influenced by 11:30 (LXX); cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 206; Schipper, p. 437.

Verse 3

“(The one) watching over his mouth (is) guarding his soul;
but (the one) pulling apart his lips, ruin (comes) to him!”

The mouth imagery continues here, with another juxtaposition of the nouns hP# (“mouth”) and vp#n# (“soul”, also “appetite”) in line 1. The wise person keeps watch (vb rx^n`) over his mouth, meaning (primarily) that he is prudent and guarded in his speech (cf. 11:13; 12:23). The verbs rx~n` (“keep watch [over]”) and rm^v* (“guard”) are largely synonymous, being frequently used in parallel; both verbs occur often in Proverbs, in an ethical-religious context (cf. 4:23, etc.). The use of rm^v* with the noun vp#n# here can have a double-meaning. On the one hand, it indicates that the person who is careful with his speech will end up protecting his soul (i.e., his life); on the other hand, the connotative meaning of “appetite” for vp#n# (see above) suggests that the one who watches his speech will also guard his appetites and desires.

The foolish/wicked person guards neither his speech nor his appetite/desire; instead, his ‘mouth’ is wide open (lit., his lips are “pulled apart”, vb qc^P*). The only other Scriptural occurrence of this verb is in Ezek 16:25, in connection with the crude image of a woman with her legs spread wide open (ready for sexual intercourse); a similarly licentious connotation is surely implied here as well. The noun hT*j!m= properly denotes something that is broken or shattered; here, as in 10:14-15, 29, it refers to the destruction and ruin that comes to the wicked (as punishment from God).

For similar proverbs, cf. 16:17b; 18:7; 21:23; for a comparison between the latter and v. 3 here, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 334-47. Numerous proverbs from the ancient Near East express the importance of watching/guarding one’s mouth, as these examples (cited by Schipper, p. 444) from the Akkadian Counsels of Wisdom (26-27) and the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Saying 15):

“Let your mouth by controlled and your speech guarded:
Therein is a man’s wealth—let your lips be very precious.”
(translation W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Eisenbrauns: 1996], p. 101)

“Above all else, guard [vb rfn] your mouth;
and as for what you have h[eard], be discreet!
For a word is a bird,
and he who releases it is a fool.”
(translation Lindenberger)

Verse 4

“(The) slow-mover desires, yet there is not(hing for) his soul,
while (the) soul of (the) diligent (one)s is made fat!”

The wise are characterized as “diligent” (JWrj*), i.e., hard-working, resourceful, and trustworthy, cf. 10:4; 12:24, 27 (all five Scriptural occurrences of this adjective are in Proverbs, see also 21:5). By contrast, the foolish are often lazy and slack in their work (cf. 10:4; 12:24, 27); here the specific adjective lx@u* (“slow-moving, slow to act, moving with difficulty”) is used, as in 6:6, 9; 10:26. The moral of this proverb is simple: those who work diligently will richly enjoy food and other good things (as blessings), while those who are slack or lazy in their work will go empty. As in vv. 2-3, the noun vp#n# has a double meaning: “soul”, but also “appetite”. For similar warnings regarding the fate of the lazy/sluggish worker, cf. 6:11; 20:4; 21:25.

The syntax of the first line is difficult (and awkward) to reproduce in English. A literal translation would be: “Desiring, and (yet) there is not, his soul, (that of the) slow-mover”; one might also translate with an ellipsis (cf. Schipper, p. 444):  “Desiring, and (yet) there is not(hing)—(the) soul of (the) slow-mover”. I have rendered it above as concisely as possible.
The awkwardness of the syntax is due in large measure to the presence of the o– suffix on the noun vp#n#, since a simple construct form would make for a clearer line: “He desires, but there is not(hing for the) soul of (the) slow-mover”. The significance of the suffix has been variously explained, apart from the most reasonable (but awkward) explanation, viz., that it anticipates the following substantive adjective (lx@u*, “slow-moving [one]”). Cf. Schipper, p. 438; Scherer, p. 120. The ancient Versions apparently sought to alleviate the problematic syntax as well, through their translations, cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 207.

Verse 5

“A word of falsehood (the) righteous (man) hates,
but (the) wicked causes a stink and shame (by it).”

As noted above, this proverb matches the first of the grouping (v. 1). In that earlier saying, the contrast was presented between how a wise and foolish person, respectively, responds to a good and true word (of instruction/discipline); here, the contrast is between how a righteous and wicked person each respond to an evil/false word (“word of falsehood”). The righteous person hates such a word and thus will avoid it (shunning it). The wicked person, by contrast, seems to love it, willingly embracing and making the most of it. The verbs va^B* (Hiphil, “cause a stink”), and rp^j* (II Hiphil, “cause shame/disgrace”) refer to the use that the wicked makes of the false/evil word and also to the evil that is produced as a result. In English idiom, the wicked “makes a stink” (i.e., makes a big deal out of it), but also causes a stink (literally, produces a bad smell), i.e., something foul and rotten; Heim (cf. also McKane) suggests the sense of a “smell of scandal”. Ultimately, the wicked person brings both shame and a bad smell upon himself; cf. Waltke, p. 546, on the possible interpretation of these verb forms as internal/reflexive Hiphils.
Some commentators (e.g., Fox, p. 562f) prefer to treat the first verb as a form of voB (I Hiphil, “cause shame”, also “be put to shame”), making it more or less synonymous with the following rp^j*. 

See the earlier occurrences of the noun rq#v# (“false thing, falsehood”) in 6:17, 19; 10:18; 11:18; 12:17, 19, 22.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).

August 4: Job 14:4-6

Job 14:4-6

This is the fourth (and final) unit of the first stanza of Job’s complaint; it corresponds to 14:20-22 in the second stanza.

Verse 4

“Who will give (something) pure from (the) unclean?
(But) not one (instance can be found)!”

The first couplet of this unit is peculiar in almost every regard. With its focus on (moral) purity, it appears to be out of place in the present context. The meter (3+2) is somewhat irregular, as is the terseness (5:3 syllable count) of expression, which makes translation (and interpretation) all the more difficult.

The idea that the verse represents a secondary gloss or addition to the text has little to recommend it, particularly since v. 4 is present in the Qumran manuscript 4QJobb (so also noted by Seow, p. 684). I think that the seeming inappropriateness of the couplet here is the result of an assumption that moral purity (i.e., sin vs. righteousness, guilt) is in view. The context, however, strongly suggests that the wording alludes to the uncleanness that attends a dead body. In 13:28, Job compared himself, along with (to a certain extent) all human beings, to a decaying corpse (cf. also the illustration here in v. 2). The reference to Sheol (viz., the realm of death and the dead) in the parallel v. 20 confirms that death (and a dead body) is in view here as well.
A separate and distinct Wisdom-tradition holds that human beings are fundamentally impure—in the moral sense, but also in terms of their creaturely limitations and mortality. This anthropological (and theological) point is made in the Dialogue by the companions (4:17ff; 15:14ff) rather than Job.

The syntactical construct /T@y] ym! (“Who will give (that)…?”) is regularly used as an idiom for expressing a wish—i.e., “Would that…!”, “Oh, that…!”, “If only…!”, etc. So it was used earlier in 6:8; 11:5; 13:5; it occurs again here in v. 13 of Job’s complaint. The sense of the first line thus is: “Who will give that something pure [rohf*] should come to be from something unclean [am@f*]?” I have tried to render this as concisely as possible (above), but it still does not do justice to the terseness of the Hebrew. The answer is that such a thing is not possible; there is “not one (instance)” of it. The abruptness of the answer is expressed by the terseness of the Hebrew line: lit., “Not one” (dj*a# al)). As a proper answer to the question in line 1 (according to its Hebrew syntax), “Who will give (that)…?”, the answer should perhaps be rendered “No one” (but cf. Seow’s comment on this, p. 684).

Mention should be made of the peculiar interpretation of the second line given by Blommerde (p. 69), following Dahood’s claim that certain instances (in the Psalms, etc.) of the negative particle (al)) in the MT should actually be vocalized as a Divine title (al@), meaning “Mighty (One)”. Thus, the answer to the question in line 1 (“Who will give [that]…?”) becomes “(The) Mighty (One) [i.e., God] alone”. Michel (pp. 318-20), again following a suggestion by Dahood, explains dj*a# (“one”) here as another Divine title, viz., “(The Only) One”, “(The) Unique One”. This line of interpretation corresponds with the interpretive translation offered by the Targum (i.e., “No one, except God”); cf. also the Vulgate nonne tu qui solus es, “Is it not you [i.e., God] who are the only one?”

It is important to remember that the couplet needs to be understood according to the Wisdom-context of Job’s complaint. The implication is that God should not judge human beings so harshly, expecting that they ought to be completely pure, since, as ‘decaying corpses’—living only brief lives full of trouble and suffering (v. 1; cf. 7:1ff)—they are already near to death. This is all the more so in Job’s case, in light of the terrible calamities and afflictions that he has suffered.

Verse 5

“Indeed, his days (thus) having been engraved,
(and the) count of his new (moon)s (being) with you—
his limit you have made and he cannot cross (it)—”

The lines of this tricolon echo the wording from 13:26-27—particularly, the idea of God (as the King and Judge) inscribing the judgment for humankind, and, correspondingly, placing individuals in prison (i.e., setting limits on their freedom of movement, etc.). In those prior verses, the verbs bt^K* and hq*j* were used for this act of “cutting, engraving, inscribing”; here it is Jr^j* (I) and the noun qj) (related to hq*j* and qq^j*). As in 13:27, this use of the verbal root *qj carries the sense of an “inscribed limit” that is determined (by God); in this instance, the limit refers to the length of a person’s life—viz., the determined number of days and months (lit., “new [moon]s”), cf. 21:1; Psalm 39:5[4]. It is not possible for a human being to go beyond (i.e., cross over, vb rb^u*) this limit imposed by God. This last point is made in the third line of the verse, which I regard as a parenthetical statement.

The Kethib reads singular oQj% (“his limit”), and the Qere plural wyQ*j% (“his limits”). The LXX (also Symmachus) and the Syriac (Peshitta) support the Kethib, which also corresponds with the Joban usage—all the other occurrences of the noun being singular (23:12, 14; 26:10; 28:26; 38:10, cf. Seow, p. 685).

The initial particle <a! should probably be treated as emphatic (i.e., “Indeed…”), rather than conditional-circumstantial; cf. Gordis, p. 148. Seow (p. 685) references similar usage in Imperial Aramaic.

Verse 6

“look away from him, and let him cease,
until he counts out, like a hired worker, his day!”

Along with Clines (p. 277), I consider verse 6 to represent a syntactical continuation from v. 5 (see above). 

This final couplet echoes two key points from Job’s earlier speech (in chapter 7), utilizing several layers of double-meaning wordplay that defy translation (and require careful exposition). The first line echoes 7:16 + 19, while the second line references the hired-worker (ryk!c*) illustration in 7:1-2. In 7:19, Job essentially asked God to “look away” (vb hu*v* + preposition /m!) from him, just as he does here. The result would be that God might turn from punishing Job (cf. 13:21)—that is, to refrain from punishing him any further, and, instead, give him a measure of relief. That is also the sense of the imperative of the verb ld^j* (I), “cease”, in 7:16—viz., that God would cease from afflicting Job. Here we have a yiqtol/imperfect form of the verb, “and he will cease”, which, however, may carry jussive force (i.e., “and let him cease”) similar to an imperative. It is possible to discern three layers of meaning here for the use of ld^j*, of which the poet was doubtless aware:

    • that the human being (Job) would cease from toil and suffering
    • that he would cease to exist (i.e., would die), finding rest/relief as a result
    • that he would “become fat”, i.e., find fulfillment and enjoyment (wordplay with the meaning of the verbal root ld^j* II)

There is similar multi-layered wordplay in the second line, drawing upon the illustration from 7:1-2 (esp. the hired-worker [ryk!c*] lines, in bold):

“Is it not (like) forced service for humankind upon earth,
and like (the) days of a hired worker his days?
Like a slave he (is) panting for (evening’s) shade,
and like a hired worker awaits (payment) for his work.“

The two key lines join together two conceptual themes: (1) the days of a human being (i.e., his life-span) are like those of a hired worker (full of toil); and (2) the hired worker receives payment for the work done at the end of each day. The first of these refers to the toil/trouble of human life (along with its briefness and mortality), while the second refers to the rest and enjoyment that comes when the day’s toil ceases (alluding to the ‘rest’ that comes with death, and [possibly] to the enjoyment of an afterlife). In this context, there are three layers of meaning for the verb hx*r* (involving two distinct verbal roots, I & II):

    • The human being “counts off” (hx*r* II) the days of his life-span
    • Like the hired-worker, he “counts” (hx*r* II) his wages at the end of the days’ work, the wages being ‘counted out’ to him as payment.
    • He takes pleasure (hx*r* I), finding enjoyment in his wages and in the rest (from toil/labor) that comes at the end of the day.

In the next note, we will turn our attention to the short Wisdom-poem (vv. 7-12) that sits between the two stanzas of Job’s complaint. It continues the thematic emphasis on mortality and the brevity of human life.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).