Month: January 2026

January 31: Job 6:15-17

Job 6:14-17, continued
Verse 15

“My brothers are treacherous like (the) wadi,
like the streams of (the) wadis they pass away—”

Job complains that his companions have not been faithful friends to him (v. 14, see the previous note); and here, to further make this point, he compares them to the wadis (lj^n~ I, plur.; cf. Akkadian naḫlu, Ugaritic nḫl). These are the seasonal river-beds in the Near East which become filled with a surging flow of waters during the rainy season, but which then come to be dry and dissolved of water during the heat of summer (when water is most needed). Such wadis are “treacherous” (vb dg~B*) in a number of ways; the main aspect emphasized here is that the flowing streams (qyp!a* I, plur.) of water dissolve and depart (i.e., withdrawing and abandoning the river-bed) in the summer-time; cf. Jer 15:18. As mentioned, the hot and dry summer months are the time of the year when water can be in short supply and is most needed (esp. for travelers); thus the seasonal abandonment of the waters can be viewed as a kind of “treachery”. By way of this illustration, Job portrays his companions as withdrawing and effectively abandoning him during the time of his suffering and distress (= the hot and dry time of the year). In this regard, they pass him by (vb rb^u*), cf. 11:16; the verb rb^u* can be used specifically in the context of flash floods (e.g., Isa 8:8; Nah 1:8; Dan 11:10; Seow, p. 477).

Verse 16

“the (one)s becoming dark from (the) ice,
(while) above them it is hidden (in the) snow;”

The reference here is to the wadis which are filled with water from the melting snow of the mountains. In this regard, the water is “hidden” (vb <l^u* in the passive-reflexive Hitpael stem) by the snow and ice, only becoming visible (as flowing water) when the snow and ice melts (v. 17).
Alternately, Blommerde (p. 47) understands the suffixed preposition omyl@u* (“upon/over it”) as a substantival expression, meaning essentially “the surface of it” functioning as the subject of the phrase—that is, the surface of the river is covered (“hidden”) by snow. Cf. also Seow, p. 478.

Some commentators have proposed that the verb form <luty be emended to <ruty (“is piled up”, vb <ru I, cf. Exod 15:8), which Clines (p. 160) explains in terms of the wadis becoming “swollen” with surging water from the melting snow. The verb <l^u* has also been identified here (cf. Pope, p. 53) with a separate root (II, HALOT, p. 835) meaning “be(come) dark”, cognate with Ugaritic ġlm. This would make a natural parallel with the synonymous rd^q* in line 1; however, the Ugaritic ġlm would more properly be represented in Hebrew by <l^x*. The same Semitic root (Ug. ġlm) has also been identified with a distinct meaning “be strong” (cf. <lu III in HALOT). See the discussion of these options by Grabbe, pp. 51-4.

The water from the melting snow and ice creates a muddy surging torrent, that is thus turbid and “dark”.

Note the alliterative wordplay in each line: (i) jr^q*-yN]m! <yr!d=Q)h^ haqōdrîm minnî-qāraḥ; (ii) <L#u^t=y] omyl@u* ‘ālêmô yit‘allem. 

Verse 17

“in (the) time (when) they flow, they (soon) vanish,
(and) in its heat they are extinguished from their place!”

In this climactic couplet, two distinct phases of the seasonal river would seem to be combined. First, is the time when the waters flow—that is, in the springtime, with the melting of the snow/ice from the mountains (v. 16). The verb br^z` occurs only here in the Scriptures but is explained, by way of cognate verbs (in Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic), to mean “flow” (as of the waters of a wadi, cf. Pope, p. 54). Other commentators have connected it with br^x* (“burn, scorch”), which makes a fitting parallel with the verb <m^j* (“be[come] hot”) in the second line. However, it would appear that the lines are not exactly synonymous but build upon each other: (a) the early spring, when it is warm enough to melt the ice/snow and cause the waters to flow, and (b) late spring and (into summer) when it grows hot and the waters start to dry up. Given the polemical tone of these verses, Job is probably intimating that his companions are like wadi-streams that have dried up and disappeared even earlier and quicker than they should have.

    • 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, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1969).
    • Those marked “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertations Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).

January 30: Job 6:14

Job 6:14-17
Verse 14

“For (one) withdrawing loyalty from his friend,
even (the) fear of Šadday he has left behind.”

Verse 14 may be seen as beginning a new section of Job’s speech. The focus of the lament of vv. 1-13 now shifts to a complaint against his companions. This first takes the form of a pair of illustrations (vv. 14-17, 18-21) drawn from observation of the natural world. The sense of the illustration in vv. 14-17 is clear enough, but the exact meaning of several lines is uncertain—particularly the first line of the couplet here in v. 14. Most of the difficulty centers on the identification and meaning of the first word in the line, sml (MT sM*l^). It is regularly parsed as a prefixed form of the verb ss^m* (or hs*m*), meaning “melt, dissolve”, or sa^m* (“reject, refuse, spurn”, cf. Akkadian mēšu). There is possible evidence in Hebrew for a separate (?) root sam with the meaning “melt away” (cf. Psalm 58:8), though it is more likely that we are dealing with related meanings for a common s(a)m root. Indeed, all of these verbs—sam, ssm, hsm, and swm—appear to represent developmental by-forms of an original biconsonantal root sm with a meaning something like “withdraw”.

The verb sa^m* is more suited as a parallel to bz^u* (“leave behind, abandon, forsake”), but ss^m* better fits the wadi/water and ice/snow imagery of the following verses. Most likely, some double-meaning wordplay is involved, of the sort that occurs quite frequently in these poems. In this case, the double-meaning matches the proverbial message of vv. 14-17—viz., companions who refuse/forsake loyalty (ds#j#) in time of need are like the waters that melt away and dissolve in the summer heat. The double-meaning is itself rooted in the common meaning “withdraw” noted above.

The prefixed element l is presumably the preposition l=, though it could be regarded here as an emphatic particle. Clines (p. 160) proposes that a negative particle al has become prefixed to sam, with a double elision of the weak letter a (i.e., sam al >  sml). However, this hardly seems necessary, since the text can be adequately explained as a verbal noun prefixed by the preposition l=. One may follow the manuscripts that read saml, which presumably would be vocalized (as a participle) sa@M)l^ or saM*l^, or (as an infinitive) sa)m=l!— “to/for (one) withdrawing” (or, “…melting away”, “…dissolving”). The MT sml would then reflect an orthographic variant (with elision of the weak letter a, cp. in 1:21; 32:18; 39:5; 41:17), though it is also possible that the MT represents the original text, and that saml is a variant (with fuller spelling).
On the textual issues discussed above, cf. Grabbe, pp. 48-51; Seow, p. 476; and the alternate explanation proposed by Gordis, pp. 73-4.

The point, then, seems to be that the person who withdraws loyalty to another human companion actually forsakes loyalty and devotion to God (expressed by the traditional idiom of the fear of God). This is a severe rebuke by Job to his companions, who he feels have failed (thus far) to be loyal friends to him in his time of suffering.
On the Divine name/title yD^v^ (Šadday), see the earlier note on 5:17.

The remainder of this unit (vv. 15-17) will be discussed 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, vol. 17 (1989).
    • 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. 11 (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertations Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 6:1-19 (Part 2)

Instructional Interlude: Proverbs 6:1-19 (continued)

The opposite of the path of wisdom and righteousness is folly and wickedness. These two terminal aspects represent a continuum, reflected by the sequential and progressive structure of Prov 6:1-19 (cf. the outline in Part 1). The first two instructions (vv. 1-5, 6-11, discussed in Part 1) involve folly, while the last two (vv. 12-15, 16-19) deal with wickedness. Those who neglect or abandon the path of Wisdom become involved in folly, which, in turn, can lead to wickedness.

Third Instruction: Verses 12-15
Verse 12

“A person of worthlessness, a man of trouble,
(goes) walking (with) a twisting of (the) mouth,”

The figure portrayed in this instruction—the “worthless man” —is, in many ways, parallel to the “lazy man” of vv. 6-11. A joining connection between the two sections is present with the verb El^h* (“walk”), which occurs (as a participle) both here in v. 12 and in the prior v. 11. This is an example of the ‘catchword-bonding’ that the author utilizes to create a unifying structure for the instructions of vv. 1-19; cf. the discussion in Part 1. In spite of the strong negative connotations of the nouns lu^Y~l!B= (“worthlessness”) and /w#a* (“trouble”), the person characterized in this third instruction is not the outright and thoroughly wicked individual of the fourth instruction (see below). Like the lazy man of the second instruction, the worthless man is moving along (“walking”) on the path of wickedness—and he is significantly further along on that path than the lazy man is. The lazy person avoids/neglects proper conduct, while the worthless person is a “man of trouble” who is getting involved in improper and harmful behavior.

The exact meaning and derivation of the noun lu^Y~l!B= continues to be debated, but the general consensus is that it represents a compound of yl!B= (“without, lacking”) + lu^y~ (“worth, usefulness”, cf. the verb /u^y`, “profit, benefit”), and thus means “worthlessness, uselessness”. The noun occurs 27 times in the Scriptures, most commonly in the idiomatic expression lu^Y~l!B= yn!B= (“sons of worthlessness”), referring to a broad category of ne’er-do-well types—layabouts, malcontents, boors, scoundrels, trouble-makers, as well as more serious evil-doers. The terminology is part of an older line of historical tradition and is relatively rare in the Psalms and Wisdom texts, occurring three times in Proverbs (cf. also 16:27; 19:28) and once in Job (34:18). Cf. HALOT, p. 133f, and the study by D. Winton Thomas (“Bly‘l in the Old Testament”, in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of R. P. Casey, ed. J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson [Herder: 1963], pp. 11-19).

The noun /w#a* also has a relatively wide range of meaning; the basic denotation is “trouble”, indicating various kinds (and degrees) of trouble that a person can bring to him/herself and to others. It carries the specific connotative meanings of “disaster”, “injustice”, “falsehood and deceit”, “nothingness/uselessness”, etc.; cf. HALOT, p. 22. It can imply a looming or impending disaster—an aspect of meaning that relates to the idea of the “worthless man” moving headlong on the path to wickedness. The verb El^h* (“walk”), the participle of which can imply regular/habitual behavior, is obviously connected to the wider path/walking motif.

V. 12b begins a descriptive sequence of visible gestures that reflect the character and conduct of the “worthless man” / “man of trouble”. The first is that he goes about with a twisting (or twistedness) of the mouth. This refers to a physical distortion of the mouth (creating a harsh and ugly look), but also to crookedness and perversion of speech (cf. 19:1). Both aspects reflect a devious, deceptive, and/or malicious character. The idea of twistedness (tWvQ=u!) echoes the thematic emphasis on the crookedness of the path of folly/wickedness (with its bends, twists, and turns), contrary to the straight path of wisdom/righteousness.

Verse 13

“squinting with his eyes,
rubbing with his feet,
pointing with his fingers;”

The sequence of gestures (from v. 12b) continues with this verse, consisting of three short parallel lines. Again, the use of the participle indicates regular/habitual behavior. The verb Jr^q) means “pinch off”, but here the motion with the eyes presumably matches the pinching motion of fingers, that is, the eyes are “squinting” (cf. Fox, p. 220). The verb ll^m* (IV) means “rub, scrape”, though there is probably also a double-meaning allusion to ll^m* (III), “speak, announce”. Similarly, the verb hr*y` means “point, show (the direction)”, but also can be used in the sense of “direct, guide, instruct”.

In the first and second lines, the Kethib (so also the LXX) has singular noun forms (i.e., “eye”, “foot”), while the Qere reads plural/dual (“eyes”, “feet”); I am following the Qere.

Verse 14

“(with) turnings in his heart,
plowing evil all (the) time,
(many a) conflict he sends forth!”

The climax of the sequence in v. 14 is expressed by another terse tricolon (cf. the note by Schipper, p. 218). While verse 13 described visible signs and gestures that reveal the person’s negative underlying character, here the orientation is reversed—viz., the inner crookedness of his heart results in creating trouble (conflicts/disputes) outward (“he sends out/forth [vb jl^v*]”); cf. also v. 19 below. The verbal root Ep^h* means “turn (over)”, which relates to the motif of “plowing” (vb vr^j*), i.e., turning over the ground (in a figurative sense), but also to the broader theme of crookedness (viz., the twists and turns away from the straight path). The noun hk*WPh=T^ (plur. “turn[ing]s”) is almost exclusive to the book of Proverbs (cf. also 2:12, 14; 8:13; 10:31-32; 16:28, 30; 23:33), with the only other Scriptural occurrence being in Deut 32:20.

The heart of the “worthless man” is constantly turning (away from righteousness), but is also “turning over” (i.e., ‘plowing’) the ground by devising different kinds of evil. The evil things that the person devises then take outward manifestation—in the form of contentious trouble-making. The noun /odm* (or /d*m=, /y`d=m!) has the basic meaning “argument” (from the verbal root /yD!) but occurs often in the more negative sense of “contention, dispute”; cf. also in v. 19 (below).
The Kethib apparently reads the noun /odm* (or possibly /d*m= [reflecting Aramaic influence]), while the Qere has the more common Hebrew term /y`d=m!; the Kethib form of the plural is more likely to be original, whether vocalized as <yn]d)m= (= <yn]odm=) or <yn]d*m=. Cf. Fox Textual Commentary, p. 133; Schipper, p. 218.

Verses 13-14 resemble the proverbs of 16:28, 30 in the main collection.

Verse 15

“Upon this, suddenly disaster for him shall come!
Instantly, he shall be broken—and with no healing!”

The suddenness of the ruin/destruction of the worthless person is itself expressed here abruptly, producing a sharp and dramatic climax to the instruction. Without even realizing it, this person has become immersed in wickedness (cf. the fourth instruction, below) and, at some point, will suddenly experience disaster (dya@)—the product of God’s judgment upon him. Cf. the warning given by Wisdom in 1:26-27ff. And, when destruction does come upon the wicked, there will be no possible remedy or restoration.
The prepositional expression /K@ lu^ (“upon this…”) indicates cause/result; it can be translated more naturally in English as “because of this…” or “for this (reason)…”. 

Note the assonance of the adverbs <a)t=P! and ut^P#, both of which have comparable meanings— “suddenly”, “immediately, instantly”.

Verse 15 has resemblances to 24:22a; 29:1b of the main collection.

Fourth Instruction: Verses 16-19
Verse 16

“Six (things) they (are that) YHWH hates,
and seven (thing)s abhorrent to His soul:”

The figure of the “worthless man” and “man of trouble” in the prior instruction was proceeding firmly on the wrong path, his character being conformed to the ways of wickedness, his heart and mind occupied with evil thoughts and plans; however, he is not yet thoroughly wicked in his behavior. By contrast, such wicked conduct is described here in the fourth instruction. The evil thoughts of the heart (v. 14) now give way to evil actions. Because they are thoroughly wicked and evil, the things described are hated (vb an@c*) and abhorred (but) by God. The noun hb*u@oT denotes something that is “abhorrent” (i.e., disgusting, repulsive), usually in an ethical-religious sense; it occurs frequently (117 times) in the Scriptures, including 20 times in the book of Proverbs.
The Kethib has a plural form twbuwt, while the Qere reads the singular (tb^u&oT); cf. Schipper, p. 218; Fox Textual Commentary, p. 134f. 

The framing numerical/listing device of six + seven (cf. Job 5:19) utilizes a formula-pattern (which can involve different numbers) that occurs frequently in Wisdom texts, including a number of times in Proverbs (30:15-16, 18-19, 21-23, 24-28, 29-31; see also Qoh 11:2; Sirach 23:16; 25:7; 26:5, 28; 50:25), and in the Psalms (62:12-13 [11-12]) and Prophets (Isa 17:6; Amos 1:3-13; 2:1-6; Mic 5:4[5]). In fact, it is an ancient literary-poetic device, examples of which can be found, e.g., in the Ugaritic epic/mythic texts.
On the general formula-pattern itself, see the article by W. M. W. Roth, “The Numerical Sequence x / x + 1 in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum [VT] 12 (1962), pp. 300–311.

Seven actual items are listed in vv. 17-19.

Verse 17

“eyes being lifted high, a tongue (that is) false,
and hands pouring out blood (that is) clean;

The first five of the seven “abhorrent things”, listed in vv. 17-18 (three in v. 17), are all indicated by a particular part of the body—eyes, tongue, hands, heart, feet.

Eyes that are “lifted high” designate a prideful and haughty attitude, with a sense of self-importance that tends to denigrate others and fails to show the proper honor and reverence to God; cf. 8:13; 16:5; 21:4; Ps 101:5, etc. In some ways, it reflects an attitude that leads a person naturally into more serious sins.

The tongue that is false refers to a person speaking evil words and/or in a wicked manner. The idiom covers a range of behavior—lying, deceit, slander, giving false witness/testimony, swearing falsely, boasting, etc.—and can be used with the motif of the lips/mouth as well as the tongue. Cf. 12:22; 17:7; Ps 31:19[18]; 120:2, etc.

The hands “pouring out [vb Ep^v*] blood” represent all manner of physical violence (spec. in a criminal context), even that which does not result in actual bloodshed. Such violence is most evil and abhorrent when it is committed against someone who is innocent—lit. “clean/clear” (yq!n`), that is, of any guilt that would be deserving of violence.  Cf. Deut 19:10; Isa 1:15, etc.; the wording here in vv. 17-18 particularly resembles Isa 59:3, 7. The LXX translation clarifies that the blood belongs to someone who is innocent (i.e., clear of guilt); the translation “blood of a right(eous one)” (ai!ma dikai/ou) reflects a rendering of the Hebrew as a construct expression “blood of a clean/clear [i.e., innocent] (person)”.

Verse 18

“a heart devising plans for trouble,
feet hurrying to run to(ward) evil;”

The motif of the heart devising wicked and harmful plans already occurred in verse 14 (see above) with regard to the “worthless man” / “man of trouble”; it is also characteristic of the thoroughly wicked person. The same noun /w#a* (“trouble”) is used here that designated the “man of trouble” (v. 12). Also, the same verb vr^j* from v. 14 occurs here; it was translated “plow” (lit., dig/cut a groove) in v. 14, but here it is rendered in the more figurative/abstract sense of “devise”. That fact that this orientation of the heart characterized the “worthless man” just as well as the fully wicked person suggests that it is typical of many/most human beings, as was stated in Gen 6:5 (cf. Romans 3:10ff).

The image of the feet “hurrying” (vb rh^m*) toward evil relates clearly to the wider path/walking idiom that features as a key thematic Wisdom-motif throughout chapters 1-9. It thus relates, generally and comprehensively, to a wide range of habitual action by the wicked. The idiomatic aspect of “hurrying toward” indicates both a disposition for evil and an eager willingness to carry out evil actions. Cf. earlier in 1:16, and the close wording in Isa 59:7f, cited by Paul as part of his catena (Scripture-chain) description of universal human wickedness (3:10-18, v. 15).

Verse 19

“(one who) breathes lies, a false witness,
and (one) sending forth conflicts between brothers!”

The two expressions in line 1 together constitute a single “abhorrent thing” (the sixth of the seven). They summarize the first two items (v. 17a), applied properly as a fundamental (and defining) characteristic of the entire person. The wicked individual is one who regularly speaks (and acts) falsely—the emphasis here being on wickedness in speech. Two distinct manifestations of this false speaking are delineated: (i) telling lies (<yb!z`K=), and (ii) giving false witness (rq#v* du@). The verb j^WP (“blow, breathe out”) tends to indicate a hostile action and attitude (associated, e.g., with blowing/fanning a fire [29:8], as well as angry snorting [Ps 10:5; Ezek 21:36]); however, the same verb (sometimes recognized as a second root j^WP II, cf. HALOT, p. 917; Waltke, p. 328) can also mean “(give) witness” (cf. Ugaritic ypḥ and the noun j^p@y`, Ps 27:12), as in 14:5 and Hab 2:3, and so its use is quite appropriate here. See the note by Fox, p. 223f.

The noun /odm* (here /d*m=) also occurred in verse 14 (see above), describing how the “worthless man”, through his inclination toward evil, ultimate causes trouble (“conflict, contention, dispute, strife, quarrelling”) for others. So also the thoroughly wicked person—he “sends forth” (vb jl^v*) such conflicts among people, even “between brothers”. The wicked person is the source of many disputes and troubles; stemming from his own perverted heart (within), the evil is effectively sent outward to affect (and afflict) people around him.
Schipper (p. 234; cf. Meinhold, p. 115) cites an interesting parallel in the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (15.20ff) identifying deceit and false witness as something that the deity hates/abhors: “Do not cheat a man… / The god abhors it; / Do not bear witness with false words, / So as to brush aside a man by your tongue” (cf. Lichtheim, II, p. 119).

On the points of similarity between vv. 12-19 (as a whole) and 16:27-30, see Fox, pp. 224-5.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). 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 “Lichtheim, II” are to Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom (University of California Press: 1976).

January 28: Job 6:11-13

Job 6:11-13
Verse 11

“What strength (is there) for me that I should wait?
And what end for me that I should make long my soul?”

Job’s expression of his wish to die (in vv. 8-10, see the previous note) is followed up here by a double rhetorical question (cp. verses 5-6) indicating that his patience and endurance is at an end. He feels that he does not have the strength to endure his suffering for much longer and cannot afford to wait for God to act on his behalf. The verb lj^y` is largely synonymous (and conceptually parallel) with hw`q* in verse 8; both verbs can mean “wait”, with connotations of hopeful expectation. But there is also very much present a durative nuance, implying a length of time; this is made explicit in the second line with the use of the verb Er^a* (Hiphil, “make long, lengthen”). The expression “make long my soul” would seem to have a double-meaning (based primarily on the semantic range of the noun vp#n#). On the one hand, it means “lengthen/prolong my life” (i.e., remain alive), cf. Gen 26:8; Exod 20:12; Deut 4:40, etc. On the other hand, the idiom “long of soul” has a similar meaning to the more common “long of nostrils” (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; etc.) and “long of spirit [j^Wr]” (Qoh 7:8), cf. Seow, p. 475. Those expressions imply patience, forbearance, and being even-tempered (i.e., slow to anger).

Indeed, Job sees little point in continuing his life while he remains in such pain and misery. Thus, the question in the second line: “What (is) my end…?”, “What end (is there) for me…?” What does such a life have in store except continued and unremitting suffering? Why then should it go on? The noun Jq@ (“end”, denoting a “cut off” point) also can have a temporal-durative significance—viz., a time-limit or limit to a period of time. Here, in this context, it also refers to a limit to Job’s strength and endurance (line 1); cf. Seow, p. 475.

The use of the noun Jq@ along with the verb lj^y` likely reflects an allusion to Psalm 39 (vv. 5[4], 8[7]). Indeed, our verse and Ps 39:5[4] are the only Scriptural references where Jq@ occurs with a first person singular suffix (yX!q!, “my end”). Moreover, the near-synonymous verbal roots ljy and hwq are used in conjunction in both passages. In Ps 39:8[7] it is the verb hw`q* and the noun tl#j#oT, while here v. 8 (cf. the prior note) has the noun hw`q=T! and the verb lj^y`. That there seem to be further allusions to Ps 39 in chapter 7 (vv. 1ff, 6-8, 11-12, and 19-21, cf. the discussion in those notes) greatly increases the likelihood of such an allusion here at v. 11. Cf. Kynes, pp. 130-2ff.

Verse 12

“Is my strength the strength of stones?
Is my flesh (made) of bronze?”

Job’s suffering is such that his strength would have to be rock-hard in order for him to endure it. The comparison with stones could also imply the inability to feel—viz., Job wishes that he could be kept from feeling the pain and anguish. Similarly, if his flesh were hardened like bronze (rather than having the softness and weakness of human flesh) then he might be able to endure such physical affliction. The adjective vWjn` (“[of] bronze”) occurs only here in the Scriptures; but it is possible that it should be read as the noun hv*Wjn+, with the initial h of v. 13 joined to the end of the previous word (the consonant perhaps doing double-duty); cf. M. Mers, “A Note on Job VI 10,” Vetus Testamentum [VT] 32 (1982) 234–36. Dahood (cf. Michel, p. 139f) suggests that the first two consonants of <ah (ah) at the beginning of v. 13 should be read with vWjn`, so that the line would be: “My flesh, is it [ah%] (made) of bronze?” —creating a more metrically balanced couplet. The final <– (of <ah) would then be attached to the following negative particle /ya (/yam). Duhm had earlier proposed a similar redivision, but with a different explanation of ah (as the interjection ah@, “See!” “Behold…!”); cf. the note by Driver-Gray, p. 39.

Verse 13

“There is not any vigor (left) in me, (is there?—)
when (my) source (of strength) is driven from me!”

The syntax of v. 13 is somewhat peculiar, at least in the MT as it stands, due to the rare double interrogative (<a!h&) at the beginning of the first line; cf. Num 17:28[13]. The interrogative functions much like an asseverative exclamation— “There is not (indeed) any strength in me(, is there)?” = “Surely there is not any strength in me!” The alternate word division mentioned above, if adopted, would mean that the verse begins with /yam, rather than /ya <ah, and could be understood as a double negative particle which would produce a simple emphatic negative declaration: “Surely there is no vigor (left) in me…!”.

Almost certainly, there is some double-meaning wordplay at work involving the noun hr*z+u#, which can either mean “help” (I) or “strength, power, vigor” (II); thus, Job can be declaring that “there is no strength in me”, but also that “there is no help with me”. Given the fact that strength is the thematic motif throughout this unit (vv. 11-13), it is hr*z+u# II (“strength, vigor”) that is primarily in view here. The noun hY`v!WT in the second line is a bit difficult to translate (and the translations give it a wide variety of rendering). In the immediate context, it refers to a source of strength (and/or help, ability) that enables a person to overcome and endure, etc. It is a Wisdom-term that occurs primarily in the book of Job (cf. earlier in 5:12; also 11:6; 12:16; 26:3; 30:22) and Proverbs (2:7; 3:21; 8:14; 18:1). Job is saying that his ability to endure has been driven from him (vb jd*n`) by misery, frustration, and despair.

    • 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).
    • Those marked “Driver-Gray” are to Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T. & T. Clark: 1921).
    • Those marked “Kynes” are to Will Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned to Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 437 (De Gruyter: 2012). 

January 27: Job 6:8-10

Job 6:8-10
Verse 8

“Who will grant (that) my request should come,
that (what) I wait for (the) Mightiest would grant?”

The expressions of Job’s suffering and affliction in vv. 2-4 and 5-7 (cf. he previous note) give way now to a more forceful lament, akin to that of chapter 3. As stated in that initial lament, Job’s suffering is so severe that he longs to die—since that would effectively relieve him of his pain and misery. As the following lines make clear, his death is the “request” (hl*a$v#) that Job would make (to Eloah), and that he hopes would be answered. If Eloah has seen fit to punish him so severely (and, it seems, quite unjustly), then at least He could show him the mercy of allowing him to die.

The use of the question “Who [ym!] will grant (me that)…” is a rhetorical idiom for expressing a fervent wish (i.e., “Oh, that {such might come to pass}…!”). Clearly, God (Eloah) is the person who can do this for Job. The verb /t^n` (“give”) is translated here in the sense of “grant”, as in English we speak of a person granting (i.e., giving) a favor, etc. Dahood (in Ras Shamra Parallels I [1972], p. 217 [2.264]) cites both Ugaritic and Scriptural examples where the verb /t^n` is used twice in parallel lines of a couplet (as it is here). The verb aoB (“come”), in this context, means “come upon me”, “come to pass”, “come true”; Seow (p. 473) cites other examples (Deut 13:3[2]; 18:22; 1 Sam 9:6; 10:7; Jer 17:15; Prov 13:12) of this usage.

Verse 9

“(Oh) that (the) Mightiest would decide and crush me,
that He might let loose His hand and cut me off!”

The wish expressed (rhetorically) in v. 8 here in the next couplet takes the form of a self-imprecation (with jussive verb forms)—i.e., Job invokes a curse-wish upon himself, effectively asking God (Eloah) to put him to death, thus ending his pain and misery. This imprecation also, with a measure of bitter sarcasm, is framed in terms of a deferential legal appeal. Eloah as the Judge is asked to decide (vb la^y` II) on the appeal, and then to give leave to (vb rt^n` I, “let loose”) His hand to act. Probably the use of la^y` should be understood as reflecting Job’s impatience and frustration; in colloquial English the line could be rendered, “Oh, that God would make up His mind and crush me!”. God’s hand is a traditional figurative way of referring to His power, His ability to act and to produce an outcome for human beings.
Dahood (cf. Michel, p. 137) suggested that rty here should be parsed as a t-infixed form of the verb hr*y`, “throw, cast, shoot”, but also “point” —i.e., “that He might point His hand.”

The verb ak*D* (“crush”) was used earlier in 4:19 and 5:4, one of a number of verbal correspondences between Job’s speech in chaps. 6-7 and the prior speech of Eliphaz (chaps. 4-5); cf. Beuken, pp. 58-67.

The verb ux^B* means “cut (off)”, in the sense of cutting off a person’s life (cf. also 27:8), drawing upon the traditional image of cutting a thread (or cord), as in Isa 38:12. The verb can also carry the more violent meaning of “cut open” (cf. Ugaritic bṣ‘).

Note the alliteration involving the first two words of the first line, H^ola$ la@y)w+ weyō’ēl ’ĕlôah.

Verse 10

“Then there could yet be (some) consolation for me,
even (as now) I recoil with writhing that is not spared—
for I have not effaced (the) words of (the) Holy (One)!”

The vocabulary and syntax of this climactic tricolon is difficult, both in terms of the precise meaning of individual words (in context) and the overall sense of the verse. I take the initial w-conjunction as indicating result—that is, if the condition of the imprecation-wish (for death) in v. 9 would be granted. If Eloah were to grant him death, then there would at least be some comfort and consolation (<j^n~, here in much rarer feminine form hm*j*n#, cf. Ps 119:50) for him—i.e., relief from his pain and suffering.

The relation of the second line to the first is not entirely clear, but it seems best to take the initial w-conjunction in a comparative-conditional sense (“even [as]…”). That is to say, if Job were to be granted the relief of death, then that would be some consolation for him, even as now (i.e., while he lives) he is in terrible and unremitting anguish.

The meaning of the verb dl^s*, which occurs only here in the Scriptures, is not certain; however, modern commentators tend to follow the later use of dls in Rabbinic (Mishnaic) Hebrew, where it has the basic meaning “leap, bound”, often in the sense of bounding back/away (i.e., rebounding) in reaction to something hard/harsh or repellent (cf. Jastrow, p. 993). This would seem to fit the context here, and a rendering such as “recoil” is favored, for example, by Clines (p. 159) and Seow (p. 474); cf. the earlier analyses by Driver-Gray (pp. 38-9), Gordis (p. 72) and Grabbe (pp. 46-8). The noun hl*yj! is a feminine form of the more common lyj!, “twisting/writhing”, which is often connected specifically with the labor pains of childbirth, but here refers simply to Job’s suffering (viz., writhing in pain/anguish). The verb lm^j* (“spare”) is used impersonally here (i.e., “one spares”, rendered passively “is spared”), though frequently God (YHWH) is the subject, and that is certainly implied here as well.

In the final line, Job appears to affirm his righteousness and innocence—a theme that was established already in the Prologue, and which will be developed extensively throughout the Dialogue. Here, his attestation of righteousness and loyalty to God serves as a basis for his request to be shown mercy—viz., that Eloah would bring an end to his suffering (by giving him death). He is deserving of being shown this mercy since he has not acted against the will and law of God (“[the] words of [the] Holy [One]”). The verb dj^K* means “hide, conceal”, but sometimes in the consequential sense of “make disappear, efface”, which certainly has a more forceful negative connotation. On the ethical-religious context of suppressing truth (Seow, p. 474f), cf. 15:18; 27:11; Josh 7:19; 1 Sam 3:18-19; Isa 3:9, etc.

    • 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, 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. 11 (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Driver-Gray” are to Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T. & T. Clark: 1921).
    • Those marked “Beuken” are to The Book of Job, edited by W. A. M. Beuken, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium CXIV (Leuven University Press: 1994). Cf. especially the article by W. A. M. Beuken, “Job’s Imprecation as the Cradle of a New Religious Discourse. The Perplexing Impact of the Semantic Correspondences between Job 3, Job 4-5 and Job 6-7”, pp. 41-78.
    • Those marked “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertations Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).

Sunday Psalm Studies: 11QPs Plea for Deliverance

Qumran Manuscript 11QPsa, continued

A Plea for Deliverance

Column XIX of the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa contains an extra-canonical Psalm that is appropriately labeled “A Plea for Deliverance”, as it is similar in many respects to the canonical prayer– and lament-Psalms, in which the protagonist prays (i.e., makes a plea) to God that he might be delivered (i.e., saved/rescued) out of danger and distress. It is followed (in Column XX) by Psalm 139 (study).

The ‘Plea for Deliverance’ is largely intact, becoming fragmentary (with one major gap) only at the close of the column. The final surviving line (18) probably represents the end of the composition, while the initial portion (of around 5 or so lines) may have originally been present at the bottom of Col. XVIII but is now lost. A date for this work is uncertain, other than that it is post-exilic and presumably was composed before the middle of the 2nd century B.C.

The Psalm may reasonably be divided into two parts, or halves. The first (in lines 1-8 + the missing portion in Col. XVIII) is presented from a communal standpoint—viz., a prayer from the community of the righteous. In the second half (lines 8-18) the prayer is that of an individual protagonist, with a particular focus on avoiding and being kept away from sin and evil.

First Part (lines 1-8)
Line 1

“….
For (the) worm of decay does not give praise to you,
nor does (the) gnawing worm recount your goodness.”

This Psalm probably began with an initial plea and a few lines indicating the danger and (life-threatening) distress for God’s people; such would be in keeping with the pattern of the canonical prayer– and lament-Psalms. And, in a number of those Psalms, part of the plea, intended to persuade YHWH to act on the protagonist’s behalf, is a reminder that the dead are not able to praise Him—viz., if YHWH were to let the person die, then he/she would be unable to give praise or to show devotion to Him anymore. Cf. Psalm 6:6[5]; 88:10-12; 115:17, though here the couplets of Lines 1-2 would seem to be more directly inspired by Isa 38:18-19. The focus on the worm—associated with the decaying body in the grave—represents a rather garish development of the tradition, though occasionally a human being (in its creatureliness and mortality) could be compared to a worm (e.g., Job 25:6; Ps 22:6). The poetic pairing here of the terms hM*r! (denoting the process of decay) and hu*l@oT (denoting a creature that gnaws) for the grave-worm (i.e., maggot) is also found in Job 25:6.

The noun ds#j#, which occurs with great frequency in the canonical Psalms as as a Divine characteristic, properly means “goodness, kindness”. However, as I have often noted, in the Psalms it tends to be used (along with the adjective dys!j*) in a covenantal context, in which it carries the strong connotation of “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion”. The Israelite who praises YHWH often does so by recounting (vb rp^s*) the many acts of deliverance He has performed for His people (thus demonstrating His faithfulness and devotion); the mention of this here is another part of the appeal, in the hopes that YHWH will perform another act of deliverance on behalf of the righteous in their time of need.

Line 2

“(Only the) living, (the one) living gives praise to you!
They give praise to you, all (those) tottering on (their) feet.”

The first line of this couplet is likely drawn from Isa 38:19 (see above). The point brought out in the second line of the couplet is that even the one who is in trouble—i.e., tottering (vb fWm) and in danger of falling—is still able to praise YHWH, as long as he/she is kept alive and safe.

Lines 2[end]-3

“In your making known your goodness to them,
(by) your rightness you give them understanding.”

The first line of this next couplet, by repeating the noun ds#j# (from the first couplet of the Column, cf. above), reinforces the idea that the deliverance of God’s people from their current distress will be a demonstration of His goodness and faithfulness/devotion like those great deeds He performed in the past. The idea of making this goodness known to them anticipates deliverance (viz., that the prayer/plea will be answered by God). Yet the verb ud^y` (Hiphil, “make known”), parallel with lk^c* (Hiphil, “give insight/understanding”) allows for the introduction of a Wisdom-aspect here in this couplet. Frequently, in the canonical Psalms, the traditional prayer-Psalm pattern has undergone development, in part through the introduction of elements from the Wisdom Tradition. Here, for example, the idea of deliverance (from danger/distress) is blended together with the theme of being instructed by God. Psalm 119 is a good example of a late canonical Psalm in which such development is present extensively throughout the composition.

The noun hq*d*x= (cf. also qd#x#), another fundamental Divine attribute, means “rightness”, but often in the specific ethical-religious sense of “righteousness”; it is frequently paired with ds#j# in the Psalms.

Lines 3[end]-4

“For in your hand (is the) soul of every (one) living;
(the) breath of all flesh you (yourself) have given.”

Here, the appeal to YHWH is based upon His identity as the Creator, and the providential (and life-giving) care that He provides to all living beings—particularly to human beings (and esp. to the righteous ones of His people). These thematic motifs reflect the Wisdom orientation introduced in the prior couplet. Cf. especially Job 12:10, the wording of which closely resembles the couplet here.

Lines 4[end]-5

“Do with us according to your goodness—
according to your deeds of love,
according to your right(eous) acts!”

Again, the appeal is made on behalf of YHWH’s attributes of goodness (here bof, instead of the earlier ds#j#) and right[eous]ness (hq*d*x=). The hope and expectation is that God will once again demonstrate these attributes through saving acts of deliverance, such as He performed on behalf of His people in times past. The couplet pairing is expanded (into a tricolon) by an additional line, emphasizing the deep love (<jr) that He has for His people, with connotations both of caring for them and showing mercy/compassion to them.

Lines 5[end]-6

“YHWH has heard (the) voice of (those) loving His name,
and has not left behind His goodness (away) from them.”

In this couplet (and the one following) the appeal to YHWH turns to take on the character of praise. This is not unusual in prayer– and lament-Psalms, as praise elements are often incorporated as part of the appeal, sometimes even preceding the petition proper. Praise functions as a rhetorical device in the appeal, but it also anticipates YHWH’s answer to the plea for deliverance.

As is frequently the case in the canonical Psalms, the appeal is based on the expectation that YHWH will act to protect and rescue those who are faithful and loyal to Him. This covenantal context, implicit in the use of the nouns ds#j# and hq*d*x= (cf. above) as Divine characteristics (viz., His loyalty to the covenant-bond), is brought out more clearly here, in reference to the faithfulness/loyalty of the people (i.e., the righteous ones). The devout and loyal ones are those “loving (His) name”. YHWH will not abandon (bz~u*) the righteous in their time of need, leaving them behind without help. Here, the noun ds#j# (translated “goodness” above), might better be rendered “loyalty” or “(loyal) devotion” (cf. below); it could also be translated as “lovingkindness”, which would bring out the parallel with love (bha; cf. also <jr in the previous couplet).

The perfect verb-forms are translated here as past tense, but they could also be rendered as present tense, since they reflect YHWH’s regular and characteristic behavior.

Lines 7-8

“Blessed (be) YHWH, (the One) doing right(eous) deeds,
crowning His devout (one)s (with) devotion and love!”

See the note above on the prior couplet regarding the incorporation of hymnic praise-elements within the appeal portion of prayer-Psalms. Again, the emphasis is on the expectation (based on the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people) that God will act on behalf the devout/loyal ones (<ydysj), demonstrating His own loyal devotion (ds#j#), love, and righteousness. Here, the noun ds#j#, translated “goodness” above, is rendered as “devotion”, parallel with the related adjective dys!j* (“devout”). These are all regular terms that occur with great frequency in the Psalms; the wording here is particularly close to Ps 103:4.

This declaration of praise/blessing marks the conclusion of the first half of the Psalm.

Second Part (lines 8-18)
Lines 8[end]-9

“My soul cries out to praise your name,
to confess with ringing praise your devotion,
to put out in front your firmness—
for (the) praise of you there is no end!”

This praise-quatrain that begins the second half of the Psalm builds upon the praise declaration at the conclusion of the first half (see the prior couplet). It leads into the petition proper, uttered by the protagonist in the midst of his distress. He states that his soul “cries out” (lit. “roars”, vb ga^v*), alluding to his distress and urgent plea for help. The wording here also serves to identify the protagonist as one of the righteous. This is indicated by the fact that he is willing to praise YHWH, even in the midst of his affliction and distress. More to the point is the emphasis on his devotion to the name of YHWH (a thematic emphasis that occurs with some frequency in the canonical Psalms). Again, as in the prior couplet, ds#j#/dys!j* is translated in terms of loyal devotion (though in most of the first half of the Psalm, ds#j# was rendered as “goodness”). The substantive plural adjective could be translated as an intensive/comprehensive plural (i.e., “great devotion”), or as a reference to the acts/deeds of YHWH (on behalf of his people), deeds which demonstrate His devotion to them.

Parallel to dys!j* here (in the third line of the quatrain) is the noun hn`Wma$ (“firmness”, but often in the sense of “faithfulness”); it is frequently paired with ds#j# in the Psalms and is another way of referring to YHWH’s faithfulness, loyalty and devotion. The verb dg~n` (Hiphil) literally means “put in front”, “put before (someone)”, in the sense of making something known and declaring it publicly.

The orientation of the first part of the Psalm was communal—i.e., the people and the community of the righteous ones—while here in the second half the righteous individual is in view. This shifting between individual and communal points of reference is typical of many Psalms, particularly since the individual protagonist tends to represent (and embody) the community of the righteous.

Lines 9[end]-10

“(Close) to death I am, in (the midst of) my sin,
indeed, my crookedness has sold me to Še’ol;”

The protagonist’s distress (being near to death) is introduced here, though it is presented as a past situation. This method of framing the situation (using the perfect tense) occurs with some frequency in the prayer- and lament-Psalms. By so doing, the protagonist would seem to be anticipating YHWH’s answer to his prayer (viz., as something that has already occurred). At the same time, calling to mind prior acts of deliverance by YHWH would be a natural rhetorical device within the appeal; cf. also in the communal section of the Psalm (above). Even so, it is probably preferable to render the perfect forms here with the present tense.

Frequently, the protagonist in the prayer- and lament-Psalms mentions how close he is to death, often utilizing the term loav= (Sheol) as a poetic designation for the realm of Death and the grave. The protagonist confesses that it was his sin and crookedness (“crooked [deed]s”) that brought him to this point, implying that his distress is the result of God’s righteous judgment. This is not a particularly common emphasis in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, as the protagonist tends to stress his righteousness and innocence; however, occasionally a confession of sin is present as a thematic feature and focus (cf. 25:7ff; 32:5; 38:4[3], 19[18]; 41:5[4]; 51:4[2]ff).

Lines 10[end]-11

“But may you snatch me out, O YHWH,
according to your great love,
according to your righteousness!”

The protagonist’s petition (plea) proper comes here in a tricolon that matches the one earlier in the first half of the Psalm (see above); this is another way that the individual protagonist identifies himself with the community of the righteous. The appeal is again made on the basis of YHWH’s fundamental attributes of love (<jr) and right(eous)ness (hq*d*x=). In the earlier tricolon, the plural forms were translated in terms of acts/deeds; they could be here as well, though I have rendered them as intensive plurals (i.e., “great love”). The verb lx^n` (Hiphil, “snatch out”) is a regular rescue-term that occurs frequently in the prayer-Psalms.

As noted above (on the previous couplet), the perfect tense verbs could be translated in the past tense, as referring to actions that have already happened; however, it is preferable to render according to the present tense, in anticipation of what the protagonist hopes and expects will happen. Such contextual instances of the perfect tense in the canonical prayer-Psalms are, I think, best rendered as precative perfects; this would seem to be confirmed here by the vocative of the Divine name (“O YHWH”), which is much better suited to a prayer-wish than to a statement of past events.

Lines 11[end]-12

“(For) I also have loved your name,
and in your shade I do seek refuge!”

Here the protagonist explicitly identifies himself as one of the righteous—viz., those who are devoted to YHWH and who love His name (see above). The initial particle <g~ could be translated more emphatically (“indeed”, cf. Sanders, p. 121), though it seems just as suitable to translate it as “also” —viz., he is also one of the righteous who love YHWH’s name. As one of the righteous, he can rightly expect to be rescued and protected by YHWH. Both of these aspects—rescue and protection—feature prominently in the prayer-Psalms; the aspect of rescue was the focus in the prior tricolon, while here it is protection. The verb hc*j* (“seek/take refuge”) is used frequently in the Psalms in this context. Here the idea of protective shelter is expressed by the motif of “shade/shadow” (lx@), Ps 91:1; cf. also 17:8; 36:8; 57:2[1]; 63:8[7] where the specific image is of finding protection/shelter in the shadow of the wings of YHWH.

Lines 12[end]-13

“In my remembering your might, my heart grows strong,
and upon your loyal devotion I firmly take hold.”

When the protagonist thinks upon YHWH’s past acts of deliverance on behalf of His people, he is strengthened, knowing in particular that YHWH is faithful/loyal to the covenant-bond, and will protect and rescue those who are loyal to Him. This is again the significance of the substantive plural of the adjective dys!j*, “acts of loyalty/devotion” or “loyal devotion”. The verb Em^s* is another regular rescue/protection term, referring specifically to the idea of the person in need grabbing hold of YHWH (for help and protection).

The verb [q^T* means “become strong”, though it can also have the transitive sense of “show/demonstrate strength”, even with the specific idea of taking hold of (i.e., seizing) a person. It is quite rare in the Scriptures (only four occurrences, Job 14:20; 15:24; Qoh 4:12; 6:10) and may have come into Hebrew as an Aramaic loanword.

Lines 13[end]-14

“Grant (me) pardon for my sin, O YHWH,
and cleanse me of my crookedness!”

As indicated above (cf. the couplet of lines 9-10) the protagonist’s plea is tied to a confession of sin. The implication is that his sins have brought him into distress and affliction, though it is also possible that it is his sin itself that constitutes the protagonist’s perilous distress—viz., he is in danger of being overcome by sin (and punished for it). One can also imagine the plea as intended to prevent a person from entering into sinful ways (cf. below). As I noted, confession of sin does not typically feature in the canonical prayer-Psalms, though it does appear in several—most notably, in Ps 51 (esp. vv. 4[2]ff), and see also Jer 33:8 which pairs the verbs jl^s* (“forgive, pardon”) and rh^f* (“cleanse”) even as we find here.

Overall, lines 14-16 have a good deal in common, both in terms of vocabulary and the thought expressed, with the Qumran hymns and sectarian texts—e.g., 1QS 2:3; 4:4; 1QH XI.21-23.

Lines 14[end]-15

“May you grant me a spirit of firmness and knowledge,
and let me not become contemptible in crookedness!”

The idea of preventing/avoiding sin (mentioned in regard to the previous couplet) does seem to be in view here. The protagonist asks to be given a firm spirit (cf. the prior couplet)—i.e., a spirit that is faithful, which has faith and knowledge/wisdom, and thus can avoid falling into sin (cf. Ps 51:12[10]). The verb /n^j* means “(grant a) favor”. The verb hl*q* II (“be disgraceful, contemptible”) is used here in the reflexive Hitpael stem, literally “make myself contemptible”, but the usage is generally the same as the passive Niphal stem (“be[come] contemptible”) in which the verb occurs a number of times in the Scriptures.

Line 15[cont.]

“Do not let (the) Adversary rule over me,
nor (any) spirit (that is) unclean!”

Here the use of the term /f*c* (śātān, “adversary”) as a name/title has gone beyond the seminal Scriptural usage (e.g., in Job 1:6ff; 2:1ff; Zech 3:1f; 1 Chron 21:1) and begins to approach the later Jewish and Christian concept of the Satan. As the second line of the couplet suggests, other unclean/evil spirits are associated with the Satan.

The combination of the prior couplet (with its focus on avoiding/preventing sin) with the mention here of being rescued/protected from the Satan naturally brings to mind the sequence of petitions in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13), especially if, as many commentators believe, the substantive articular adjective o( ponhro/$ (“the evil”) in that verse means “the Evil one” (i.e., the Satan/Devil).

Lines 15[end]-16

“(Both) pain and (the) shaping (urge) of evil
do not let possess (the) strength of my limbs!”

Here the protagonist’s petitions—for being kept away from sin and rescued/protected from evil spirits—are expressed in terms of his physical being. He asks that his body (i) be kept free from (physical) pain and suffering (ba)k=m^), and (ii) not be controlled by the ur^ rx#y@, the “shaping (urge) of evil”. This is an early instance of the expression ur rxy, i.e., the ‘evil inclination’, the impulse or tendency toward sin in human beings. This concept came to be prominent in later Jewish theology and anthropology, and was inherited by early Christians (Paul, in particular, draws heavily upon it). The noun <x#u#, usually translated “bone(s)”, properly denotes the strength (i.e., vitality, vigor, life) in one’s limbs, as well as indicating the overall framework of one’s body.

Lines 16[end]-17

“For you, O YHWH, (are) my praise,
and (it is) for you (that) I wait all the day!”

As at the close of the first half of the Psalm, the second half here closes with an expression of praise to YHWH. The praise includes an expectation that YHWH will answer the protagonist’s prayer. He declares that he will wait (vb hw`q*), patiently and with devout trust, for YHWH to answer him.

Line 17[end]

“Let my brother(s) be glad along with me,
even (the) house of my father,
the (one)s astonished by your favor”

As at several earlier points in the Psalm (see above), the protagonist here identifies himself with the community of the righteous, calling them “brothers” and “(the) house of my father”. All of the righteous ones among the people of God are his brothers, and akin to him. The righteous are identified as “the (one)s astonished [vb <m^v*] by (God’s) favor”. This expression is peculiar, particularly with regard to the use of the verb <m^v* which normally means “be devastated, desolate(d)”.

Line 18

“[.   .   .   .   .]
[unto the dist]ant (future) I shall be glad in you!”

The end of the Psalm is fragmented, with at least one line missing. The gap at the beginning of the final line, <l[  ], can plausibly be restored as <l[oul]—i.e., the traditional temporal-durative expression <l*oul=, “unto/into the distant (future)”, ‘forever’. Cf. Sanders, p. 120f.

*     *     *     *     *

In our next study, we will continue the examination of deutero-canonical and extra-canonical Psalms from the Qumran scrolls, by looking another extra-canonical composition in 11QPsa—a work known as the “Apostrophe to Zion” (column XXII).

    • References above marked “Sanders” are to J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Cornell University Press: 1967). Those marked “Sanders DJD” are to the more detailed scholarly treatment by the same author in volume 4 of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert [DJD] series (Clarendon Press [Oxford]): The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (1965). 

January 23: Job 6:5-7

Job 6:5-7
Verse 5

“Does (the) wild ass bray over (its) green grass?
Or (will one’s) ox roar over its mix of fodder?”

The next unit of Job’s response (vv. 5-7) involves the illustrative motif of food. The pair of rhetorical questions in verse 5 are likely drawing upon a traditional proverb, particularly given the similar parallelism (though not in the same couplet) attested in a much earlier Ugaritic text (Kirta I [CAT/KTU 1.14] Column 3, lines 17-18):

“for the voice [i.e., sound] of (the) braying of his ass,
for the roaring [i.e., lowing] of the plow-ox”
(Parker UNP, p. 16; cf. Dahood UHP, p. 54)

The same verbs are used as here in v. 5: qh^n` (“cry out,” or “bray” in the case of an ass/donkey) and hu*G` (“roar”, used for the “lowing” of cattle). The lines of verse 5 contrast the situation of a wild animal (ar#P# wild ass, or possibly an onager) with that of a domestic animal (rov, ox) [cf. Isa 30:24]. The implication is that the animal does not ‘cry out’ (in need) if it has food at hand to satisfy it (cf. Jer 14:6). As applied to Job’s situation, he is ‘crying out’ and ‘roaring’ because he is in severe need and has not been treated right (by God). There may well be an allusion to the idea of God naturally providing food (as needed, and in season) for the animals (e.g., Ps 104:14; 145:15-16; 147:8-9); in the context of a domestic animal, God is like the master who provides its regular food (Isa 1:3, etc.).

At the same time, Job’s suffering is exacerbated by the unsatisfactory aid and comfort he is receiving (at least thus far) from his companions. It may well be that the double rhetorical question here in v. 5 is meant to echo the double question posed by Eliphaz in his speech (4:17), as suggested in the article by J. Burnight (“A New Interpretation of Job 6,5-7”, Biblica 100 [2019], pp. 272-81), who points out a number of points at which the author is intentionally alluding to Eliphaz’ speech (p. 275, and see further below). In the previous note (on vv. 2-4), I mentioned several ways in which Job’s response was drawing upon the terminology and conceptual motifs from that prior speech, and other examples will be cited as we proceed through the notes on chaps. 6-7. Similar semantic connections are cited in the aforementioned article by Burnight; cf. also Beuken, pp. 58-70; Habel, pp. 141ff.

Verse 6

“Is something distasteful eaten without seasoning?
or is there (any) taste in (the) spittle of halamat?”

The first pair of rhetorical questions (v. 5) dealt with satisfying food (eaten by animals); the second pair, here in v. 6, involve the idea of eating unsatisfying (and distasteful) food. The implication in v. 5 is that one will not complain over satisfying food; here it is that one would naturally (and rightly) complain over having to eat unsatisfying and distasteful food. The noun lp@T* (from the verbal root lpt I, “spit [out]”, cf. Arabic tafala) properly denotes something that one would spit out—i.e., something distasteful, whether in the concrete physical sense, or in a figurative (ethical-religious) sense. There is an obvious bit of conceptual wordplay with the noun ryr! (“spittle, saliva”) in line 2. The only other Scriptural occurrence of lp@T* is in Lam 2:14, where it is used in the context of the visions of false prophets; similarly, the related (feminine) noun hl*p=T!, which in Jer 23:13 refers to false prophecy (by Baal), and the noun lp@T* (II) in Ezek 13:10ff; 22:28. Based on these parallels, Burnight (pp. 275-7, see above) suggests that here in v. 6 Job is, with some bitter and mocking sarcasm, alluding to the vision reported by Eliphaz in 4:12-21.

The noun tWmL*j^ occurs only here in Scripture and its meaning remains uncertain. Following the Targum and some Rabbinic commentators (e.g., Saadia), it has been explained as the (tasteless) white of an egg. Another explanation connects it with Arabic ḥālûm, referring to a kind of soft (cream) cheese, presumably exuding a milky liquid that was tasteless/bland (cf. Pope, p. 51). More probable (cf. Seow, p. 472) is a reference to some kind of edible plant, based on the likely cognate terms ḥlmh, ḥlmyt, and ḥlmwt in Rabbinic Hebrew, as well as Arabic ḥalamat, and Akkadian ḫilimtu (ḫi-li-mi-tu) mentioned in the Alalakh Texts (see the article by A. R. Millard; “What has no taste? (Job 6:6),” Ugarit-Forschungen [UF] 1 [1969], p. 210; cf. Clines, p. 158; Michel, p. 135). I have left the word transliterated above, following the Arabic ḥalamat.

Particularly interesting, in light of the theory that Job is alluding to Eliphaz’ reported night-vision (i.e., as a false/empty oracle), is the possibility that twmlj might be vocalized as twml)j& (“dreams”), yielding the expression “spittle/saliva of dreams”, which Tur-Sinai has proposed (p. 115), having already been attested by the Targums (viz., “in the saliva of the bitterness of dreams”, or “in the bitterness of dreams”, cf. Seow, p. 472). Burnight (pp. 278f) follows this explanation, noting that the only other occurrence of ryr! (“spittle/saliva”) is in the context of the feigned madness of David (1 Sam 21:14). At the very least, given the author’s penchant for double-meaning wordplay, there could be an implied secondary meaning involved.

Verse 7

“My soul refuses to touch (these things)—
they (are) like (the) sickness of my flesh!”

In this context, there is a natural and obvious wordplay built into the noun vp#n#, which is regularly translated “soul”, but can also have the concrete meaning “throat”, as well as “appetite”. Unfortunately, there is no way to capture all three of these (valid and applicable) semantic aspects (“throat | appetite | soul”) in a single translation. At the level of physical eating (the setting of the illustrations in vv. 5-6), Job’s suffering and physical maladies would have left him with little or no appetite, finding much of his food to be distasteful and repulsive to him; cf. 33:20; Ps 102:4. At same time, Job’s soul is also sickened—both by his experience of terrible (and unjust) suffering, and from words spoken to him by his companions (Eliphaz). The lack of any obvious antecedent for the plural pronoun hM*h@ (“they”) has raised the possibility that it carries an implicit reference to Eliphaz’ words (cf. Burnight, pp. 279-80). It is probably better to take the pronoun in a general sense—viz., Job referring to his sufferings and bitter experiences as ‘distateful things’ (v. 6).

More definite, it seems, is the dramatic wordplay at the end of the verse, with the comparative expression ymjl ywdk, which appears to mean “like (the) sickness of my food”. By this, Job could effectively be saying that the food he is being forced to eat is just like the distasteful/sickening food described in v. 6. Also possible is the idea that Job is describing the food he is forced to eat as diseased (i.e., rotten, corrupt) food (cf. Clines, p. 159), alluding to the disease that has struck his body. In this regard, however, it is to be noted that, instead of <j#l# (“food”), <jl could also be vocalized as <j%l= (= <Wjl=), “flesh” (cf. Arabic laḥm); cf. Kissane, p. 36f; Seow, p. 473. In this case, Job would be identifying the ‘food’ that he eats as a figure for the experience of his terrible suffering—specifically, the severe disease that has afflicted his flesh: “they (are) like (the) sickness of my flesh!”. The parallel between rotten food (meat) and his own rotting flesh is particularly striking.

    • 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, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Beuken” are to The Book of Job, ed. W. A. M. Beuken, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium CXIV (Leuven University Press: 1994).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • 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 “Habel” are to Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library [OTL] (The Westminster Press: 1985).
    • Those marked “Tur-Sinai” are to N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher: 1957).
    • Those marked “Kissane” are to E. J. Kissane, The Book of Job Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary (Browne & Nolan: 1939).
    • Those marked “Dahood UHP” are to Mitchell J. Dahood, S.J., Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications, Biblica et Orientalia, 17 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press: 1989). “Parker UNP” = Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. Simon B. Parker, SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series vol. 9 (Scholars Press: 1997).
    • The marked “Burnight” are to J. Burnight, “A New Interpretation of Job 6,5-7”, Biblica 100 [2019], pp. 272-81.

January 22: Job 6:1-4

Job’s Second Speech, Part 1: Chapter 6

Job 6:1

“Then Ayyab answered and said:”

Job’s speech is introduced (cf. 3:1-2; 4:1) with a simple and generic formula.

Job 6:2-4
Verses 2-3

“Oh, that (with) weighing my anguish could be weighed,
and what has befallen me borne together on (the) scales,
surely then it would weigh more than (the) sand of (the) sea—
(it is) for this (reason that) my words are (so) pained!”

Job’s response to Eliphaz begins with an exclamatory particle (Wl) that expresses an intense wish— “Oh that…!”, “Would that…!”, “May it be that…!”, “If only…!” Here it is used rhetorically to express the severity and extent of Job’s suffering, with the implication that Eliphaz’ speech did not properly recognize or address it. Job was rebuked at the beginning of Eliphaz’ speech (4:2-5) for his bitter and reckless words, but here Job declares that he only speaks this way because of the overwhelming nature of his suffering and loss.

The noun su^K^ (always spelled cu^K^ in the book of Job, cf. 5:2; 10:17; 17:7) is often translated as “vexation”, but in modern English the rendering “anger” or “frustration” would be preferable. The root cuk indicates a condition of anger and/or frustration (and spec. being provoked to anger); occasionally, the emotion involved extends to grief and anguish. While Job certainly has been angered and frustrated (including, to be sure, by Eliphaz’ speech), the translation of su^K^ here as “anguish” would seem to be more appropriate. In 5:2, Eliphaz references su^K^ as a characteristic of the foolish person, drawing upon Wisdom tradition to make the point that such unrestrained emotion can be harmful and destructive to a person. Job’s response suggests that, at least in this instance, his sense of su^K^ is justified.

In the second line (of v. 2), the parallel term is hW`h^, which denotes something that has happened to a person, often in a negative and harmful sense (i.e., what has befallen a person), some kind of calamity. The suffixed form would be “my calamity”, parallel to “my anguish” in line 1; however, I have chosen to translate this according to the more fundamental meaning, “what has befallen me”. The MT Qere is yt!W`h^, while the Kethib is yt!Y`h^ (ytyh), but the meaning is much the same in either case, since the verbal roots hwh and hyh are related and (essentially) interchangeable. The Qere corresponds to the written text (Kethib) in other occurrences (e.g., 30:13), as well as in some manuscripts of the text here at 6:2.  At least one manuscript (Kennicott 32) reads the more common plural form (cp. LXX “my pains”, ta$ o)duna$ mou), perhaps in anticipation of verse 30. Cf. the summary by Seow, p. 468. Job’s anguish (including his anger and frustration), su^K^, has come about as the result of all that has befallen him. For an example of su^K^ “as the feeling produced by an external calamity” (Clines, p. 158), cf. Ezek 32:9.

So great is his suffering, Job declares, that if it could be weighed on the balance-scales it would outweigh all the sand of the sea (i.e., beneath and alongside the sea, on the seashore). For the motif of the ‘sand of the sea’ as symbolic of a vast amount (i.e., something almost innumerable), cf. Gen 22:17; 32:13[12]; 41:49. Similarly, as here, the vast amount of sand can represent something immeasurably heavy or weighty (Prov 27:3; cf. also Sir 22:15). Two different verbs are used for the related concepts of weighing (lq^v*) and having weight (i.e., being heavy, db^K*). In the first instance, the verb lq^v* is doubled (infinitive + finite verb form), creating an emphatic/intensive mode of expression that cannot be reproduced in English; an idiomatic translation would be something like “actually be weighed” or “indeed be weighed”. The LXX seems to indicate an active verb form, but Symmachus and other Versions support the MT (Niphal) passive form (“be weighed”). The initial yK! particle of verse 3 should also be regarded as emphatic (“surely…”); it introduces the apodosis (i.e., then-clause) following the conditional/hypothetical wish-statement (protasis) of v. 2.
The adverb dj^y~ (“as one”, i.e., “together”) presumably refers to Job’s anguish and calamity being weighed together on one side of the balance-scales. Tur-Sinai (p. 113), however, suggests that dj^y~ belongs with verse 3 and applies to the idea of all the sand (of the sea) being weighed together. The overall meaning of vv. 2-3 would not differ much in either case. 

The final verb form of v. 3 is problematic, in terms of its exact meaning and derivation (the Versions also vary considerably in translation). It is most commonly derived from the verbal root uWl (or uu^l*) I, a speech-verb with a range of related meanings— “speak quickly”, “speak incoherently” (i.e., stammer), “speak rashly/carelessly” (cf. Prov 20:25). The lexical unit ul clearly relates to different kinds speaking (or acting with the mouth), usually in a pejorative context (i.e., mocking, deriding, stammering, etc.); compare the verbal roots bul, gul, zul, ful. However, Seow (p. 469; cf. Sutcliffe, p. 367-8) suggests a connection with a separate uWl root meaning something like “be troubled, in pain” (cf. Arabic lâʿa [lyʿ]). This does seem better suited to the context—viz., characterizing Job’s words as being anguished and pained—and has been tentatively adopted in the translation above (cp. the Symmachus Greek rendering, katapikroi, “very bitter”). In either case, there is unquestionably a bit of alliterative wordplay between Wul* (lā‘û) and the initial Wl (lû)—the first and last words of vv. 2-3, respectively.

Verse 4

“For (indeed the) arrows of Šadday (are) with me,
of which my spirit drinks (in) their heat—
(the) terrors of (the) Mightiest are arrayed against me!”

This verse, which can be viewed as a distinct poetic unit, builds upon the prior quatrain (pair of couplets) in vv. 2-3—Job describes his suffering, in colorful mythological terms, as the result of a punishing blow struck by God against him. The verse is a parallelistic couplet (lines 1 & 3) expanded into a tricolon through the addition of a dramatic middle line. The expressions “arrows of Šadday” and “terrors of (the) Mightiest” are clearly parallel, with a common point of reference. Similarly parallel are the prepositional predicate phrases “(are) with me” and “are arrayed [vb Er^u*] against me”.
This effective chiastic structure obviates any need to omit either the second or third line as a secondary addition or gloss (e.g., Fohrer, p. 160). 

The wording and imagery draws upon the speech of Eliphaz at several points: (a) pairing of the Divine names/titles Šadday and Eloah (= Elohim, “[the] Mightiest”), 5:17; (b) the Rešep figure (shooting fiery darts), 5:7; and (c) the idea of terrors experienced in or by the spirit, 4:14-15. On the name yD^v^ (Šadday), see the earlier note on 5:17. Though death-bringing pestilence ([v#r#) could still be personified (to some extent) within the ancient Israelite religious tradition (i.e., in a manner akin to the Semitic deity Rešep), in many poetic depictions and accounts, it is specifically El-YHWH (i.e., Eloah-Šadday in the Job Dialogue) who is presented as shooting (with bow, as an archer) the fiery arrows (cf. Deut 32:23; Psalm 7:4; 18:15[14] par; 45:5; 64:7; 77:17; 144:6; Hab 3:9, 11; Zech 9:14); for a comparable non-mythological reference, see Ezek 5:16. These fiery arrows, which bring death, are typically understood (according to the mythological tradition) as representing disease and pestilence (plague).

In line 1, the preposition is dM*u! (a prolonged form of mu!), “with”, though, in this context, it tends to be understood as equivalent to B= (“in”); so all the ancient Versions translate it (cf. 28:14). To be sure, the ‘arrows’ (of disease and affliction) should be seen as having ‘pierced’ Job, and thus are in him, but they are also with Job—present with him (and sticking out of him) at all times. The idea of the arrows visibly sticking out from Job’s body could be intended as an image of the severe affliction upon the surface (skin) of his body. Yet the arrows have penetrated into him, all the way inside to his ‘spirit’ which consumes their “heat” (hm*j@, i.e., poison, venom), ‘drinking’ (i.e., taking in) the poison like water. Job’s affliction is not merely on the surface of his body—it has gone within him to plague his inner parts (i.e., heart/mind, soul/spirit), resulting in severe emotional, psychological (and spiritual) suffering to match his physical suffering.

The noun hm*j@ (“heat”) can also be used as an idiom for the anger of God—particularly as He judges and punishes human beings for their wickedness (cf. 21:20, and note other instances of the specific motif of “drinking” the hm*j@, Isa 51:17, 22; 63:6; Jer 25:15; Hos 7:5; Seow, p. 470). Thus, Job’s suffering and affliction is clearly being portrayed as the result of God’s judgment upon him, even as was implied by Eliphaz in his speech. The issue, of course, is whether (or to what extent) such punishing judgment is justified. Much of Job’s anguish surely derives from his conviction that he is not deserving of such terrible punishment; this theme was established in the narrative Prologue and will be developed and woven throughout the Dialogue.

The noun tWuB! (“terror”, vb tu^B*, “terrify”) occurs only here and in Ps 88:17[16]; but cf. also the related noun ht*u*B= (Jer 8:15; 14:19), and occurrences of the verb (frequent in Job, 3:5; 7:14; 9:34; 13:11, 21; 15:24; 18:11; 33:7). The terminology against suggests the extent to which Job’s suffering is psychological and emotional as much as physical. These terrors are “arrayed” (lit., arranged in rows/lines) against Job, like the soldiers of an army. Commentators have made various (but unnecessary) attempts at alternate explanations for the suffixed verb form ynwkruy (e.g., Dahood, p. 225-6). The militaristic image (i.e., of an archer shooting arrows) in line 1, makes it only natural that similarly imagery occurs here in line 3—viz., armed soldiers lined up in battle array. The sufformative yn]– can be explained as a dative suffix (i.e., “against me”); cf. Blommerde, p. 46; Seow, p. 470f.

    • 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, vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Fohrer” are to Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, Kommentar zum Alten Testament XVI (Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn: 1963).
    • Those marked “Tur-Sinai” are to N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher: 1957).
    • 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 “Dahood” are to Mitchell J. Dahood, S.J., “Northwest Semitic Philology and Job”, in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (Gruenthamer Memorial volume), ed. John L. McKenzie, S.J., Saint Marys Theological Studies I (Herder and Herder: 1962), pp. 56-74. 
    • The marked “Sutcliffe” are to E. F. Sutcliffe, E. F., “Further Notes on Job, Textual and Exegetical: 6,2–3.13; 8,16-17; 19,20.26.” Biblica 31 (1950) 365-78.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 6:1-19 (Part 1)

Instructional Interlude: Proverbs 6:1-19

Proverbs 6:1-19 is one of five pieces interspersed between the Lectures of chapters 1-9. Fox (pp. 322ff) refers to all of these pieces as “interludes”, but that designation is more applicable to this particular section (called [along with 9:7-12] “zwischenstücke” [“in-between pieces”] by Meinhold). The other four pieces are Wisdom poems featuring the (female) personification of Wisdom; however, that is not the case here in 6:1-19, which is comprised of four short instructions (vv. 1-5, 6-11, 12-15, 16-19) based on individual proverbs such as those found throughout chapters 10-29. In this regard, the piece—which I call an “instructional interlude” —provides examples of the author’s method for reading and teaching the proverbs. In each section, a proverb is expanded and applied to the addressee(s) as part of a wider course of instruction.

At first glance, the four sections appear to be unrelated. However, there is a loose structure present in this passage. The individual sections are joined together by some thematic catchword-bonding, the instances of which will be mentioned in the notes. Also, there is a certain progression that can be discerned across the sections, anchored by several points of parallelism:

    • Activity involving a stranger (one “turned aside”) [Section 1]
      • The foolishness of the lazy layabout [Section 2]
      • The folly (turning to evil) of the worthless walkabout [Section 3]
        • Activity of the wicked (one who has turned aside from the right path) [Section 4]

The progression (and parallelism) can be further described as follows:

    • Folly [Section 1]: The danger of becoming involved (unwisely) in business activity—folly that leads to misfortune
    • Folly [Section 2]: The danger of avoiding right and proper activity—folly that leads to wickedness
    • Wickedness [Section 3]: A person whose thought and behavior is becoming increasingly conformed to the path of wickedness
    • Wickedness [Section 4]: A person whose thought and behavior is thoroughly wicked

The two main aspects of the wrong path (and the opposite of Wisdom)—folly and wickedness—are presented across these instructions. The second (wickedness) is more serious than the first, but the first (folly) can lead to the second.

There has been some question as to whether verses 1-19 are an integral part of chapters 1-9 (in their original composition) or represent a secondary addition; cf. the discussions by Whybray, Composition (pp. 48-51), Fox (pp. 225-7), and Müller (pp. 35-51), along with those of other commentators.

Before proceeding with the exegesis, a comment should be made about the use of the adjective rz` in verse 1 and the way it is translated. This adjective is customarily translated “strange” (or, as a substantive, “stranger”), but it properly denotes having turned aside (vb rWz). The adjective (as a substantive) thus means “one who has turned aside”; in a relational sense, this can mean “one who has become estranged”, and thus, generally, a “stranger”. However, in light of the path/walking idiom that runs throughout Proverbs 1-9, and the specific idea of turning away/aside from the right path, it makes good sense to translate the adjective according to this ethical-religious context. Indeed, it clearly carries this basic (negative) meaning in relation to the ‘strange woman’ (hr*z`) elsewhere in these chapters (cf. the earlier use of the adjective in 2:16; 5:3, 10, 17, 20). Here in verse 1, the adjective has more of a general (and neutral) sense, used in contrast to the noun u^r@ (“companion, friend, neighbor”)—that is, one who is apart (“aside”) rather than one who is near/close, a person who is unknown (or little known) to the protagonist rather than one who is well-known. Even so, as is clear from the progression and parallelism of the passage outlined above, the use of rz` (v. 1) foreshadows the depiction of the wicked the final section (vv. 16-19).

First Instruction: Verses 1-5
Verses 1-2

“My son, if you guarantee (a loan) for your companion,
(if) you strike your palms for the (one) aside (you),
you have been snared by (the) words of your mouth,
you are caught by (the) words of your (own) mouth.”

This proverbial teaching highlights the pitfalls for a person who acts as the guarantor of a loan, pledging himself on behalf of the one taking out the loan. The verb br^u* [I] (cf. Akkadian erēbu) is regularly used in this specific context; meanwhile the idiom “strike [vb uq^T*] (the) hands [lit. palms]” is used to express the idea of reaching/concluding an agreement, just as in English we would say “strike an agreement” or “shake hands on it”. For the specific use of the idiom in this particular context (with the verb br^u*), cf. 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; Job 17:3.

A number of Proverbs warn against the risks involved in acting as the guarantor of a loan (17:18; 22:26; cf. Sirach 8:13), but it is particularly inadvisable (i.e., unwise) when it is done on behalf of a stranger, as is the case here (cf. 6:1; 11:15; 20:16; 27:13; Fox, p. 214). That such warnings are part of the wider Near Eastern Wisdom Tradition is indicated by the similar saying found in Sumerian Instruction of Šuruppak (19-20): “Don’t act as a guarantor, (for) that man will have a hold on you; and you, don’t accept a pledge, (for) that man will be discredited” (Alster, p. 60; cf. Schipper, p. 221). On the socio-cultural background of the practice in the ancient Near East, cf. Schipper, p. 222. The Wisdom Tradition emphasizes the need for integrity and trustworthiness in such economic and contractual practices; see, e.g., Sirach 29:1-20.

See the introduction (above) on the use of the adjective rz` here. As noted, in this instance, the sense of the adjective is neutral, generally lacking the negative ethical-religious implications of its use in relation to the ‘Strange Woman’. Here, the term simply refers to one who is apart (“aside”) from the individual and his companion (u^r@)—that is, one who is not a close contact and not well-known to them. However, also as mentioned above, the usage here does foreshadow the portrayal of the wicked person in sections 3 (vv. 12-15) and 4 (vv. 16-19)—viz., one who has turned aside from the right path of Wisdom. One may note the comparable saying from the Proverbs of Ahiqar (130-1), warning against taking out a loan from an evil man.

The second couplet (v. 2) stresses that one who stands as the guarantor for a loan will be obligated to pay it back in the case of a default. The person is “caught” (dk^l*) by his own words. This use of the verb dk^l*, along with vq^y` (cf. also vq^n`, vWq), “trap, (en)snare”, emphasizes the negative implications (and potentially harmful and ruinous consequences) that might ensue. The same vocabulary can be used in reference to being trapped/ensnared by sin and wickedness (cf. Psalm 141:9), though more commonly it refers to the experience of evil in the form of disaster and calamity, etc. Even so, the wording here can be seen as another foreshadowing of the description of the wicked in vv. 12-19.

The implication here (see also v. 3) is that the person who unwisely places himself as guarantor for a loan may not actually have the means to pay it back (in case of a default).

It is possible to read the situation in vv. 1-2 whereby the neighbor is the debtor rather than the creditor; see the discussion by Waltke, p. 325, and cf. Schipper, p. 221f (so also other commentators).

Verse 3

“Do this, then, my son, and you will be snatched out (of trouble):
When you come in(to the) palm of your companion,
go trample yourself down and press your companion!”

The one who (unwisely) acts as a guarantor—particularly if he does not have the financial means to pay back the loan (as is implied here)—has put himself in a very bad situation, in two respects: (1) he risks the economic ruin of putting himself in debt, and (2) he risks damaging the relationship to his companion (as well as his overall reputation). He will have no choice but to act quickly and earnestly to “snatch himself” (vb lx^n`, i.e., rescue himself) out of trouble; as Waltke notes (p. 325), the first imperative (“do [this]”) functions as a condition while the second (“be snatched, snatch yourself”) states the consequences involved. The person is urged to humble and abase himself before his companion while pressing the man for mercy. The verb sp^r* (in the Hitpael reflexive stem) literally means “step on oneself” (or, more forcefully, “trample oneself”), by which is meant prostrating oneself forcefully down upon the ground (cf. Psalm 68:31[30]); Fox (p. 213) renders the verb here as “grovel”, which captures the sense. The verb bh^r* means “press”, in a hurried and forceful manner; in this context, it might be translated as “badger” (so Fox, p. 213; Schipper, p. 223f).
Waltke (p. 325) understands ;yu#r@ as a plural (“your companions”, i.e., “your neighbors”)—that is, the person should badger his neighbors for assistance in paying back the loan. This is based on the interpretation that the man’s companion (singular) is the debtor and not the one giving out the loan (cf. above). 

There is a bit of ironic wordplay here: the person who unwisely “struck palms”, i.e., agreeing to act as guarantor for a stranger, now finds himself “in the palm” of his companion, i.e., in trouble, and at the man’s mercy.

Verse 4

“Do not give (any) sleep to your two eyes,
nor slumber to your eyeballs!”

I.e., the person in trouble should not wait even one day (not letting a single night pass) before acting to extricate himself from the situation. The synonymous parallel of hn`v@ (“sleep”) and hm*WnT= (“slumber”) also occurs in Psalm 132:4 and provides an important point of contact (‘catchword-bonding’) with the next instruction (cf. verses 9, 10 below). The relatively rare noun [u^p=u^ (dual, “eyeballs”) occurred earlier in Prov 4:25; cf. also 30:13; Ps 132:4; Job 3:9, etc.

Verse 5

“Snatch yourself, like a gazelle, from (the) hand,
even as a bird from (the) hand of (the) snarer!”

The language and imagery from verse 3 (see above) is repeated in the comparative illustration of an animal getting out of the trap/snare in which it had been caught (cf. 1:17; and compare 7:23). The passive participle of the verb vWq (related to vq^y` in v. 3) is used (transitively) as a substantive (“snarer, trapper”), cf. Psalm 91:3; Hos 9:8; Jer 5:26.

Clearly, the instruction and exhortation in vv. 3-5 could be applied to a range of practical life-situations, beyond the specific contextual situation laid out in vv. 1-2.

Second Instruction: Verses 6-11
Verses 6-8

“Go to (the) ant, (you) slow-mover!
See its ways and gain wisdom (from it)—
who having for it no leader, organizer, or ruler,
works firmly in the summer for its food,
(and) gathers in the harvest-time its feeding!”

This same basic illustration occurs in 30:25ff, drawing upon anecdotal observations from nature (regarding the behavior of ants and similar insects) to apply a wisdom-lesson. In particular, the instruction centers on the importance of commitment to work and of diligence and firmness in pursuing it. In practical terms, it is an exhortation (and warning) against laziness and being slow to take action. There is thus a thematic/conceptual similarity to the first instruction (vv. 3 and 4), urging the individual to be quick to take action when the situation and need requires it. The adjective lx@u* properly means “slow-moving”, i.e., one who moves/acts only slowly and with difficulty; as a substantive, it should be translated here as “slow-mover”, though the conventional rendering “sluggard”, while a bit archaic, also is appropriate. This adjective occurs in Scripture only in the book of Proverbs (cf. also 10:26; 13:4; 15:19; 19:24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30; 26:13ff). The exhortation/warning against laziness and idleness, etc., is a basic component of Wisdom teaching, as seen by examples such as in the Egyptian Instruction of Anii (5.14f): “He who is slack amounts to nothing, honored is the man who is active” (Lichtheim, II, p. 139; cf. Schipper, p. 225), along with the related warning (line 13) “lest you end as a beggar”. As the remainder of our instruction (vv. 9-11) makes clear, idleness or sluggishness in work can lead to poverty, with all of its harmful and dangerous consequences.

On the use of such animal illustrations within Wisdom literature, and on parallels to the industriousness (of the ant, etc.), see the discussion by Schipper, pp. 225-7. The obvious importance of gathering food, etc., and securing a harvest in order to survive during the winter made for a natural staple of Wisdom-teaching. Schipper cites the Egyptian (Demotic) Instruction of Khasheshonqi (9, x + 17): “He who does not gather wood in summer will not be warm in winter”; also from the Proverbs of Ahiqar: “O my son. Harvest any harvest and do any work. Then you will eat and be satisfied and give to your children”. Cf. Prov 10:5.

The LXX contains a pair of additional lines between vv. 6 and 7, so that these verses read:

“Go to the ant, O (you) lazy (one),
and be jealous, having seen its ways,
and become wiser than that (one)!
For (even with) no worked land belonging to that (one),
nor having (anyone) compelling (work) or being under a master…”

Also, after verse 8 there is a lengthy addition involving the bee (parallel to the ant) as an illustrative example from nature. Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, pp. 128-30; Schipper, pp. 225-7.

Verse 9

“Until when, slow-mover, will you lay (there)?
When will you stand up from your sleep?”

The question “Until when…?” (yt^m* du^, i.e., “How long…?”) is a regular rhetorical device featured in poetry and Wisdom-texts (cf. its earlier use in 1:22). While technically it refers to a person’s current behavior or condition, it may also be utilized to avoid or prevent such a condition from coming about. The person is urged to take quick action, as/when it is required, and not to delay or to be slow/lazy about it. The motif of laying down (vb bk^v*) as one resting in sleep (hn`v@, see above in v. 4) is a natural image; the decision to act is compared to waking up and getting up out of bed.

Verses 10-11

“A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of hands to lay down,
and your poverty comes like (one) walking about,
and your lack as an (armed) man of (the) shield!”

This lesson also occurs as a separate proverb in 24:33-34. The warning is clear that idleness and negligence in work—or, more generally, a slowness to act when it is needed—can quickly lead to impoverishment and loss. The pairing of the nouns hn`v@ (“sleep”) and hm*WnT= (“slumber”) also occurred in v. 4 and is an instance of the ‘catchword-bonding’ that joins together the four instructions of the passage; here both nouns are in the plural and could be rendered “a few moments of sleep”, etc.

The nouns var@ (“poverty”) and rosj=m^ (“lack, loss”) are similarly paired; the former occurs only in the book of Proverbs (7 times, cf. also 10:15; 13:18; 24:34; 28:19; 30:8; 31:7), while more than half of the Scriptural occurrences of the latter (8 of 13) are also in Proverbs (cf. 11:24; 14:23; 21:5, 17; 22:16; 24:34; 28:27). Poverty is said to come like “(one) walking about”, which could simply refer to the course of daily activity that a person pursues—so that poverty sets in without a person even realizing it. The substantive participle might also refer specifically to a wanderer (a vagabond, vagrant, etc.), alluding to a person who is impoverished and who may seek to survive by stealing, etc., from others. The parallel expression “man of a shield” in line 2 suggests armed soldiers who may well seek to survive in a similar fashion—viz., by looting the goods of others. For other possible ways of explaining the idiom, cf. the summary discussions by Fox, p. 217f, Waltke, p. 326f, and Schipper, pp. 228-30. Perhaps the most plausible of these connects /gm here with the verbal root I, “hand over gifts” in the sense of “request (or beg for) a gift” (cf. Ugaritic mgn); a “man asking for gifts” (i.e., begging, asking for handouts) would make a suitable parallel to “(one) walking about” if understood as a vagrant.

The LXX contains an additional couplet (cf. verses 6-7 and 8, above) that offers a positive exhortation (in addition to the negative warning):

“But if you would be tireless, your harvest will arrive like a fountain,
and being in need will depart from (you) like a bad runner.”

The expression “a bad runner” (kako\$ dromeu/$) matches “a good runner” (a)gaqo\$ dromeu/$) in v. 11b, which is (apparently) how the LXX rendered the Hebrew expression “man of a shield”.

The final two instructions (vv. 12-15, 16-19) of the passage will be discussed in Part 2 of this study.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). 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 “Müller” are to Achim Müller, Proverbien 1-9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 291 (Walter de Gruyter: 2000).
    • Those marked “Whybray, Composition” are to R. N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series, vol. 168 (JSOT Press: 1994).
    • Those marked “Alster” are to Bendt Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (CDL Press: 2005).
    • Those marked “Lichtheim, II” are to Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom (University of California Press: 1976).

January 20: Job 5:24-27

Job 5:17-26, continued
Verse 24

“Then you will know that your tent (is in) fullness,
and you will attend to your fold and not miss (anything).”

The Divine protection provided by God (vv. 19-23, see the previous note) is part of a wider promise of blessings for the righteous (i.e., those who are faithful/loyal to God, cf. again the covenant promises in Lev 26; Deut 28). These blessings are described in more detail in vv. 24-26, which bring Eliphaz’ speech to a close and lead the way into Job’s response (chaps. 6-7).

There is a step-parallelism between vv. 22-23 and 24-26, even as there was between vv. 19-21 and 22-23. Here the connection is based upon the use of the word <olv* (“fullness, completion”) in v. 23b and again here in v. 24a. The noun is often translated flatly as “peace”, but in reality “peace” is just one aspect of its meaning and significance. The contextual meaning in v. 23 is clearly that of a covenant-bond (“binding agreement”) between the righteous and the natural world. To be sure, this does mean that the righteous will be at peace with nature, but, more broadly, there will also be security, well-being, and a sense of being fully in accord with one another.

The same context and range of meaning applies to <olv* in verse 24. The wholeness and security that characterizes the common bond between the righteous individual and nature extends to his entire household (family and property). This is expressed here by the nouns lh#a) (“tent”) and hw#n` (“fold” [for sheep and herd-animals], but often more generally as “abode, dwelling”); the denotation of “fold” certain refers to the righteous individual’s possessions (primarily in terms of herd animals). The home and household of the righteous, under God’s protection and blessing, will be “(in) fullness” (<olv*)—that is, in wholeness and well-being, at peace and fully secure (cf. 21:9). As a result, nothing will be missing (or amiss); this is the contextual meaning here for the verb af*j*, which often carries the basic meaning of “sin”, but properly denotes “missing (the mark)”, and here simply “to miss (something)”.

The verb dq^P* (notoriously difficult to translate) seems to have the fundamental meaning “take care of, attend to, deal with”, but can sometimes specifically mean “inspect”, and that may be the idea here—viz., when the righteous householder inspects his property, he will find nothing missing.

Verse 25

“You will also know that your seed (is) abundant,
and your offspring like (the) growth of the land.”

An additional blessing will be the fertility of the righteous. The terminology used here—ur^z# (“seed”) and ax*a$x# (“output, produce”)—alludes both to agricultural/pastoral fertility and to the birth of children (and their descendants). The same dual-motif is indicated by the comparison between children (“offspring”) and the luxuriant growth (bc#u#, i.e., grass, vegetation) of the earth/land. The relatively rare noun ax*a$x# (always in the plural), denoting that which goes forth (vb ax*y`), here refers primarily to human “offspring”, but certainly also alludes to the offspring of animals and the produce of plants/crops; cf. also 21:8; 27:14; 31:8.
The other occurrences of ax*a$x# are in Isaiah (mainly Deutero-/Trito-Isaiah, 42:5; 44:3; 48:19; 61:9; 65:23) and Sirach (47:20); thus, it may be another indicator of a relatively late composition-date for the book of Job.

Verse 26

“You will come in fullness of strength to (the) grave,
like (the) piling up of a mound (of grain) in its time.”

As is frequently the case in the Dialogue, the overall sense of this couplet is clear enough, even if the exact meaning of the specific vocabulary is not. In this instance, the etymology and derivation of the word jl^K# remains a mystery. The only other Scriptural occurrence is in 30:2, and, based on the context of both verses, the meaning must be something like “(fullness of) strength”. This has been explained in relation to Arabic kalaḥa (“look grim/stern”), but the connection seems questionable at best. Dahood (p. 56; cf. Michel, p. 129f; Blommerde, p. 46) explained the word as a conflation of j^K) (“strength”) and j^l@ (“moisture, freshness”, i.e., “vitality”), while Seow (p. 447) prefers a conflation of lK) (“all”) and j^l@ with a meaning something like “full vitality”. The use of j^l@ in connection with the death of Moses (Deut 34:7), while he was still in the fullness of strength and vigor, does seem to favor this explanation. It also seems important to preserve a semantic connection with <olv* (“fullness, completion”) from verse 24 (see above), and a word connected with lK) would accomplish this. It is even possible that jlk here should be identified with the root hlk, denoting “be complete”; this was the explanation offered by some Rabbinic commentators (e.g., Rashi, ibn Ezra). For a good overall summary, including how v. 26 was translated by the ancient Versions, cf. Seow (pp. 447-8), Grabbe (pp. 43-6, who favors a different explanation of jl^K# [as “old age”] based on Arabic qalaḥa), also Clines (pp. 118-9).

The conceptual sense of “fullness” is confirmed by the comparative illustration in the second line. The verb hl*u* is used to describe the “rising up” (i.e., piling up) of a mound (or heap) of grain; cf. the agricultural allusions in v. 25 (above). There is certainly some wordplay involved here, between the noun vyd!G` [I], “heap/mound (of grain)” (cf. Arabic qadīs) and vyd!G` [II], “grave, tomb” (cf. Arabic jadaṯ), parallel with rb#Q# (“[place of] burial, grave”) in line 1; the wordplay is also conceptual, viz., “mound of grain” | “burial mound”. The harvest (i.e., end of the growing season), when the grain is ‘cut’, serves as a natural metaphor for the end of a person’s life. Clearly, the focus here is on long life (with the preservation of strength and vitality) as a principal blessing of God for the righteous.

This emphasis on the preservation of one’s well-being (and of one’s household/family) as a Divine blessing for the righteous would have been particularly galling for Job, who, though he was righteous, lost virtually all his household and his well-being. In this regard, verses 24-26 are fitting as a lead-in to Job’s bitter response (chaps. 6-7).

Verse 27

“See—so we have searched it (out), (and) so it (is)!
Hear (it now), even you, and know (it) for yourself!”

With this concluding couplet (v. 27), Eliphaz’ first speech comes to an end. It is an exhortation for Job to take heed of what he has said, just as expressed (but with a different rhetorical thrust) at the beginning of the speech (4:2ff). Eliphaz’ speech, in many ways, was a tour de force, utilizing a wide range of literary and rhetorical devices—exhortation, rebuke, proverbial maxim, Wisdom illustration, anecdotal observation, visionary narration, and praise-hymn. It contains many worthy insights and serves as a compendium of conventional wisdom-teaching, as well as reflecting an orthodox religious piety. Even so, most of it would have rung hollow for Job in the face of his terrible suffering and loss, serving only to add to his sense of misery. This is certainly well-expressed by his response (chaps. 6-7), which we will begin to analyze 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, 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 “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).
    • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell J. Dahood, S.J., “Northwest Semitic Philology and Job”, in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (Gruenthamer Memorial volume), ed. John L. McKenzie, S.J., Saint Marys Theological Studies I (Herder and Herder: 1962), pp. 56-74.