April 30: Job 9:27-29

Job 9:27-29
Verse 27

“If my saying (is) ‘Let me forget my utterance’,
‘Let me leave my (current) face and brighten (up)’,”

As previously noted, the sections of the second half of chapter 9 each begin with the conditional particle <a! (“If…”); cf. verses 19-20, 23, and 30. Job repeatedly raises for himself the (rhetorical and hypothetical) possibility of hope for justice and for righting/reversing what has been done to him (by God), only to have the hope dashed by the reality of the situation. Here he considers that he might leave behind his bitter lament and try to make the best of things, still holding out hope for deliverance.

That is the thrust of the conditional clause, which begins in unusual fashion with the particle <a! followed by a suffixed infinitive (yr!m=a*, “my saying”). It would seem that this is the only such occurrence of this type of construct (<a! + infinitive in a protasis) in the Scriptures, but Seow (p. 568) notes that it is found in the Hebrew of Qumran. The conditional clause may thus be translated “If my saying (is)…”, or “If I (am) to say…”; the sense is acceptable (cf. also Dhorme, p. 142; Michel, p. 226), and it is thus not necessary to emend the text (to read a finite verb form) as many commentators (e.g., Driver-Gray, Hölscher, Kissane, Fohrer, Gordis, Hartley) have suggested.

The two proposed sayings by Job are governed by jussive/cohortative verb forms indicating what his intent would be (i.e., “I shall…”, or “Let me…”). The first proposal is that he might forget about (vb jk^v*) his lament and his complaint against God (here in chapter 9). The noun j^yc! properly means “utterance”, but is sometimes used in the specific contextual sense of a complaint (or even a lament), as earlier in 7:13 (cf. also Psalm 55:3[2]; 64:2[1]; 77:4[3], etc.). The second proposal is that he might “leave behind” (vb bz^u*) his current miserable and despairing “face” (i.e., expression, countenance) and instead “brighten up” (vb. gl^B* Hiphil, “make bright/gleaming”), i.e., appear cheerful and hopeful. This verb is rare in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. 10:20; Psalm 39:14[13]), but its basic meaning is confirmed by the cognates in Arabic (balija, “be bright, be cheerful,” and ʾablaju, “bright”).
Dahood (“The Root ʿZB II in Job”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 78 [1959], pp. 303-9) suggested that the verb bz^u* here should be connected with Ugaritic ʿdb (“make, arrange”), with the meaning thus “I shall arrange [i.e., fix, prepare] my face”; cf. Michel (p. 226f) and Pope (p. 75), followed by other commentators (e.g., Fohrer, Habel, Hartley). See the discussion by Seow (p. 568), Clines (p. 219), as well as the article by H. G. M. Williamson, “A Reconsideration of bzu II in Biblical Hebrew”, ZAW 87 (1985), pp. 74-85.

The Qumran manuscript 4QJobb preserves a small fragment of verse 27—the second such fragment (earlier, 8:15-16)—too small to attest any textual variants or provide information of note about the Hebrew text.

Verse 28

“(still) I am afraid of all my grievous (pain)s,
and I know that you will not hold me clear (of guilt)!”

Even if Job attempted to calm himself and put on a brave/cheerful front, his suffering and anguish would make this virtually impossible. He continues to be held in fear/dread of the “grievous (pain)s” (tb#x#u^) that he is experiencing, knowing that they are unlikely to go away (and might even become worse!). The verb rg~y` (cf. rWG) is relatively rare for this expression of fear, but it was used earlier in 3:25 (cf. also Deut 9:19; 28:60; Psalm 119:39, and the adjective rogy` in Jer 22:25; 39:17). Job also holds no hope that God will recognize his appeal and declare him innocent of wrongdoing (and thus remove or alleviate his punishment). The verb hq*n` means “be clean”, often in the ethical-religious (and legal) sense of “clean/clear of guilt” (cf. the adjective yq!n`). In this sense, the Piel of the verb can mean “hold/declare (someone) clear of guilt”, which is how it is used here (see also 10:14).

Verse 29

“(Rather,) I will be held guilty!—
for what (then) should I weary (myself) in vain?”

The statement in v. 29a is the exact counterpart of v. 28b, with the same meaning, but expressed in positive (rather than negative) terms—i.e., “I will be held guilty (by you)” instead of “you will not hold me clear (of guilt)”. The verbal root uv^r*, when used in such a judicial-legal context (as also in v. 20), means “be (held/declared) guilty”. Job has no hope that God will accept his appeal, so then why should he weary himself (vb ug~y`) trying to be hopeful and positive for an outcome in his favor? He does not expect any reversal of God’s judgment against him, and thus no deliverance or relief from his suffering.
Job considers the outcome to be inevitable, and thus v. 29a should be read as an indicative statement, and not (with the Versions) as conditional or concessive; cf. Seow, p. 569; Clines, p. 219f.

The noun lb#h# (“breath, vapor”, and thus abstractly as “emptiness, vanity”) is likely being used adverbially here (i.e., “in vain”, for no purpose), cf. Isa 49:4; 65:23; Jer 51:58. However, it is also possible that the noun is being used in its ordinary, concrete sense (“breath”), in which case one might render the question: “For what (reason) should I weary (my) breath?” In English, we would say, “Why should I waste my breath?”

It is likely that there is some alliterative wordplay here between the verb ug~y` (“weary [myself]”) and rg~y` (“fear”) in v. 28 (see above).

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “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 “Dhorme” are to Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, English translation by Harold Knight (Thomas Nelson, Inc.: 1984).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 9 (Part 3)

Fourth Wisdom Poem: Proverbs 9:1-18, continued

Stanza 2: The Call of Folly (vv. 13-18)

Following the intermediate Wisdom material in verses 7-12 (discussed in Part 2), the second Stanza proper of the poem picks up with verse 13. In direct contrast to the call of Wisdom (personified as a woman) in Stanza 1 (vv. 1-6, see Part 1), here it is Folly (also personified as a woman) who calls out to humankind, inviting them to come to the feast being held at her house. This personification of Folly is essentially the same figure as the ‘Strange Woman’ (hr*z` [hV*a!], cf. 2:16; 5:3, 20; 6:24; 7:5; also 22:14) in the earlier poems and lectures, only here she is referred to as “(the) woman of foolishness” (tWlys!K= tv#a@, i.e., “[the] foolish woman”). The two figure-types—representing Wisdom and Folly, respectively—are implicitly contrasted throughout chapters 1-9; it is only here, at the end of the work, that the contrast is made explicit, presenting Wisdom and Folly as competing figures, each one calling to humankind (and especially young men) with the hope that individuals will heed her voice and follow her path. Each woman is holding a feast at her ‘house’, at which those who accept the invitation will partake of the ‘food and drink’ she offers—whether wisdom (that leads to righteousness and life) or folly (that leads to wickedness and death).

The lexical and syntactical parallels between the two stanzas are outlined and highlighted by Maier, p. 219 and Müller, p. 257.

Verse 13

“(The) Woman of Foolishness is roaring—
(like) youthful folly, without knowing anything!”

Both Wisdom and Folly (lit., Woman of Foolishness) call out to humankind with a loud voice (cf. verse 3ff), but, in so doing, Folly also (and actually) roars (vb hm*h*) in a senseless way; she does, after all, represent and symbolize foolishness (“stupidity”). The same verb was used earlier in 7:11 as characteristic of the ‘Strange Woman’; it also describes the busy/noisy streets of the city where Wisdom stands and calls out (1:21), her voice cutting through the senseless tumult (for those who are willing and able to listen). The abstract feminine noun tWlys!K= occurs only here in the Scriptures, but the related adjective lys!K= (“stupid, foolish”) occurs with considerable frequency in the Wisdom texts (including earlier in chaps. 1-9, 1:22, 32; 3:35; 8:5); cf. also the related noun ls#K# (Qoh 7:25).

In this regard, she resembles (and represents) the folly of youthtWYt^P=. This abstract noun, which parallels tWlys!K=, and similarly occurs only here in the Scriptures—is related to the substantive adjective yt!P# (I), denoting one who is young and inexperienced (and thus naive and prone to foolishness). This latter term (like lys!K=) occurs frequently in the Wisdom texts and also here in chaps. 1-9 (1:4, 22, 32; 7:7; 8:5). Wisdom and Folly each call out to the young and inexperienced, in particular, cf. verses 4, 6, and 16 (below). The irony is that Folly is herself the embodiment of youthful foolishness—she can offer no helpful or useful instruction (only Wisdom can do that). Folly will only reinforce (and make worse) the foolish tendencies of young people. Indeed, in her shouting (roaring) to humankind, Folly does not know anything (“she lacks [i.e., is without] knowledge of anything”).
The particle hm* (“what”), normally used as an interrogative, here functions as an indefinite pronoun (GKC §137c), translated “any(thing)”; cf. Waltke, p. 428, who also suggests that the dagesh (hM*) may be intended to signal the unexpected use (Waltke-O’Connor 1.5.4 [p. 22]). 

An alternate explanation of the noun tWYt^P= connects it with an active sense of the verb ht*P* (I), referring to the deception (or seduction) of one who is young/inexperienced; cf. Plöger, p. 100f; Meinhold, p. 149; Schipper, p. 336. This certainly would fit the context and the role of Folly.

Verse 14

“And she sits at (the) opening of her house,
upon a throne (on the) high places (of the) city,”

In both portraits (cf. verses 3ff), we have the curious scenario whereby the ‘house’ of Wisdom/Folly is apparently situated on top of the “high places” of the city (i.e., the nearby/surrounding hills, or [less likely] the walls/towers of the city). Particularly in the case of Folly, it would be more natural for her ‘house’ to be located within the noisy bustle of the city (cf. 7:8ff). However, at a deeper level of symbolism, the ‘house’ of Wisdom/Folly actually represents Wisdom/Folly herself. The place where she stands (or sits) is the location of her ‘house’.

Folly’s house here matches the earlier references to the house of the ‘Strange Woman’ (2:18f; 5:8; 7:8ff, 27); and, indeed, as noted above, the ‘Strange Woman’ is essentially the same figure as Folly (“[the] Woman of Foolishness”) here. Fox (p. 301) is probably correct in his observation that there is no reference to Folly building her house (unlike Wisdom, in verse 1) because the act of “building” has a positive significance that applies only to Wisdom. Compare the saying in 14:1: “A wise woman builds her house, but (the) foolish (one) [tl#W#a!] with her (own) hands pulls it down”.

Conceivably, the image of the woman sitting at the door of her house may be intended as an evocative allusion to a prostitute (cf. Fox, p. 301; Meinhold, p. 158; Fuhs, p. 170). At the same time, her seated position here is perhaps better viewed in contrast to the industrious activity of Wisdom (vv. 1-3) in making preparations for her feast; Folly apparently does not make (and has no need of making) such preparations. Her seat is also a seat of honor (aS@K!), translated (for poetic concision) here conventionally as “throne”; cf. 16:12; 20:8, 28; 25:5; 29:14. Folly thus presents herself as a prominent figure of authority, but also (presumably) as a teacher; yet, in this regard, she is surely being portrayed as a misguided (and wicked) imposter, possessing a certain pompous and pretentious air about her. Cf. Waltke, p. 444.

There may be some alliterative wordplay here between the noun aS@K! (kissē’, “seat of honor”) and lys!K= (kesîl, i.e., tWlys!K=, “stupidity, foolishness”) in verse 13.

Verse 15

“calling out to (those) going by on (the) path,
the (one)s going straight (on) their pathways:”

Like Wisdom (vv. 3ff; 1:20-21ff; 8:2-3ff), Folly calls out to people while they are going about on their daily activities. The path/walking idiom, that features so prominently throughout chapters 1-9, signifies primarily a person’s characteristic (and regular/habitual) behavior. Here, the idiom is used in a generic (and neutral) sense—viz., “going straight” (vb. rv*y`, Piel) in the sense of going right/straight about one’s business. However, given the thematic usage of this idiom (in an ethical-religious Wisdom context), there is certainly also here an allusion to the idea of people walking on the straight/right path of Wisdom (cf. 3:6, and the use of the adjective rv*y` in 2:8, 21). The young people who are principally being addressed have not yet chosen the path of Wisdom, but they still have that opportunity; Folly is attempting to draw them away from the straight path, and to follow her (down foolish and wicked paths) instead. The nouns Er#D# (line 1) and jr^a) (line 2) are regular path-terms that are used repeatedly in chapters 1-9.

The initial infinitive (prefixed with the preposition l=) is rendered here like a (gerundive) participle, “calling out” (cf. Waltke, p. 429; Meinhold, p. 149). However, it could also be translated as a purpose/result infinitive—i.e., “to call out…”.

Verse 16

“Who(ever is) a callow (youth), let him turn aside here!—
(the one) lacking a heart, so she (also) says to him—”

Folly’s call is essentially identical to the one made by Wisdom in verse 4. The only difference is the explicit w-conjunction prefixed to the form of the verb rm^a* (“say”) in line 2. Both Wisdom and Folly thus address the same group of people—viz., those who are young and inexperienced (yt!P#, cf. above) or otherwise lacking sense (“lacking of heart”). As discussed in Part 1, such people have not yet gone down the paths of foolishness that lead to wickedness and destructive folly. They can still be instructed, and have the opportunity to choose which voice and path to follow the rest of their life—whether the straight path of Wisdom and righteousness, or the crooked paths of Folly and wickedness.

Verse 17

“Waters having been stolen are sweet,
and food hidden (away) is (most) pleasant!”

Wisdom invited people to the feast she had prepared (v. 5f), with emphasis on the actions (i.e., the industrious activity) performed in preparing it (vv. 1-3a, cf. especially the double reference to her mixing [vb Es^m*] the wine). This industry reflects the exhortation she gives in v. 6. By contrast, Folly has apparently made no such right preparation for the feast she offers; instead, the drink (“waters”) has been stolen (vb bn~G`), and the food “hidden away” (rts). Such food and drink may be sweet (lit. lip-smacking) and pleasant to the taste (just as Folly declares), but it offers no life to the soul (see Job 20:12 on the idea of wickedness tasting sweet, cf. Schipper, p. 337). There is surely an allusion here to illicit sexual activity—the feasting and food/drink metaphors having an erotic basis in the love-poetry idiom (cf. 5:15-20; 7:16-18)—which is clearly a subject of importance in the earlier lectures. And yet, illicit sexual experience, however harmful and destructive it may be, is hardly the sum total of Folly’s allure. Ultimately, her stolen (and hidden, i.e., illicit) food/drink symbolizes her teaching and instruction—which is completely opposite (and antithetical) to that of Wisdom. The principal allure is in her words, which are smooth (i.e., sweet) and appealing (2:16; 6:24; 7:5, 21), but they take a person down wicked paths that lead to destruction and death (v. 18).

Verse 18

“But he does not know that (the) shades (are) there,
(and) in (the) depths of Še’ôl (those) called by her!”

Like a climactic scene in some horror movie, those who come to the feast in Folly’s house discover that the shades (of the dead) are also there, and that others who have been called to the feast now reside in the depths of Sheol (i.e., the realm of Death). Earlier in 2:18-19, the point was made that the path and house of the ‘Strange Woman’ (i.e., Folly personified) led to death and the realm of the dead; cf. also 5:5f and 7:27, both which specifically use the poetic term loav=e’ôl, Sheol) for the realm of Death and the dead.
The same line of tradition was developed, in rather extreme fashion, in the Qumran text 4Q184, sometimes referenced by the title “Wiles of the Wicked Woman”. Lines 2-8 vividly describe both the person (body/clothing) of the Woman and her house (with its couches, etc.) interchangeably, with both characterized by darkness that resembles the realm of Death. The declaration follows: “She is the start of all the ways of wickedness” —then continues (lines 8-11):

“Alas! She is the ruination of all who inherit her, and the calamity of a[ll] who grasp her. For her paths are paths of death, and her roads are tracks to sin. Her trail leads astray towards wickedness, and her pathways to the guilt of transgression. Her gates are the gates of death, in the entrance to her house Sheo[l] proceeds. A[l]l [those who go to her will not] come back, and all those who inherit her will descend to the pit.”
(translation Florentino García Martínez & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [Brill / Eerdmans: 1997])

The plural noun <ya!p*r= occurs a number of times in poetry, in the Psalms (88:11[10]), as well as in certain Prophetic (Isa 14:9; 26:14, 19) and Wisdom texts (Job 26:5; Prov 21:16). Though the exact derivation and meaning of the term remains uncertain (and disputed), it clearly refers to the dead—those who now have a shadowy existence in the netherworld (i.e., Sheol). The situation is complicated by the use of <ya!p*r= in reference to certain ancient peoples who lived in Canaan/Palestine prior to the Israelite settlement.
The two uses are presumably related, though the nature of the relationship remains unclear. Possibly, the <ya!p*r= who are thought to have dwelt in Canaan became, at their death, prominent members of the netherworld, whose name came to apply to the shades of the dead generally. On the other hand, it could be that the name of the netherworld beings (<ya!p*r=) was applied, perhaps as a term of power/honor, to living peoples; one might compare the application of the Germanic nibelungen (shadowy underworld beings) to the Burgundians, etc., in the epic tradition.

In any case, here (as also in 2:18) <ya!p*r= clearly refers to the “shades (of the dead)”, and is so translated, rather than being transliterated as repā’îm (Rephaim). The ‘house’ of Folly is so closely connected to Sheol that the dead are present in her house (feasting), while other human beings who were invited to her feast have since perished and are now residing in the depths of Sheol. The idea of the <ya!p*r= (repā’îm) being invited to the feast may draw upon ancient Semitic (Canaanite) mythic-religious tradition, as expressed, for example, in several texts from Ugarit—most notably CAT/KTU 20-22, in which the High God El (ilu, = Heb. la@) invites the ‘shades’ of the dead (rp’m) to a great feast. In those texts, the rp’m seem to represent a specific group of noble ancestral spirits (deified ancestors), probably reflecting a cultural practice of the living inviting ancestral spirits to join them in a ritual feast.

The person coming to Folly’s feast “does/did not know” that the shades of the dead are there. This could mean that the person is not aware of their presence, or that he did not expect them to be there; the latter seems more likely. Regardless, the motif of “not knowing” is characteristic of the lack of knowledge (i.e., lack of wisdom) that Folly herself embodies (cf. verse 13, above). Indeed, Folly is the opposite of Wisdom, and wherever foolishness is present and holds sway, there is naturally a decided lack (or absence) of wisdom.

As line 2 makes clear, others who came to Folly’s feast are now residing in Sheol—that is, they have perished and are now dead. This confirms that the path of Folly ultimately leads to death. But these people are not merely dead, they are in the depths (qm@u*, plur.), i.e., the deepest (and darkest) parts of Sheol. This may imply their identity as being among the wicked; having heeded Folly’s voice, they proceeded down crooked paths, progressing from foolishness to wickedness (cf. the progression laid out in 6:1-19), descending in ever-increasing degrees until they become thoroughly wicked in character.

Following verse 18, the LXX contains a lengthy addition that builds upon the implicit warning in v. 18 (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 171; Schipper, p. 338); possibly a subsequent author/editor felt that the conclusion of the passage (which is also the conclusion of chapters 1-9 as a whole) required a clearer exhortation to the reader/hearer. The lines can be translated as follows:

“But (rather), run away! Do not spend time in th(at) place!
And do not set your eye upon (looking) toward her!
For thus you would step through strange water(s),
and would step [i.e., cross] over a strange river.
But (instead) you must hold yourself away from strange water,
and from a strange spring you should not drink,
(so) that you might live a long time,
and years of life be put forth to you!”

    • 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 “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • 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 “Maier” are to Christl Maier, Die «fremde Frau» in Proverbien 1-9: Eine exegetische und socialgeschichtliche Studie, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 144 (Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1995).

April 29: Job 9:25-26

Job 9:23-26, continued
Verse 25

“And (so) my days are (more) fleeting than a runner—
they run away (and) do not see (anything) good!”

Job applies the two thematic points of emphasis in vv. 23-24 (cf. the previous note)—(a) disaster/affliction coming (as punishment from God) upon the innocent, and (b) pervasive injustice (and lack of justice) throughout society—to his own situation here in vv. 25-26. Seow (p. 567) would regard the initial w-conjunction as disjunctive (“But my days…”); however, this does not seem correct. Other commentators (e.g., Driver-Gray, Hölscher, Fohrer) consider the conjunction a secondary addition that should be omitted, perhaps not appreciating the connection between vv. 25-26 and the preceding vv. 23-24.
Michel (p. 223), following Dahood, treats the w-conjunction as vocative/exclamatory, rendering it (according to the tone of lament in the speech) as “Alas…!”

The verb ll^q* (“be light/little/insignificant”) was similarly used (by Job) earlier in 7:6 [note] conveying the twin ideas of swiftness and fragility, rendered here as “be fleeting”. The “days” of a person’s life pass by swiftly and are fragile/insignificant—like the wind or the threads of a woven fabric (vv. 6-7, cf. the spider’s web in 8:14). These are Wisdom-motifs already used repeatedly by Job (in chapter 7). The verb jr^B* (I, “run away, flee”) in line 2 is parallel with ll^q*, emphasizing the “passing away” of a person’s life (cf. 14:2). Job’s days “run away” like a runner (Jr*, “[one] running”)—one who runs to deliver a message (courier/herald, 2 Sam 18:22, 26, etc.), or, possibly, in a military context (forerunner, 2 Sam 15:1; 1 Kgs 1:5). The preposition /m! (“from”) is used in a comparative sense, i.e., “(more) than”.
Conceivably, there could be some wordplay here with the verb jr^B*, associated with a second root (II) meaning “experience suffering/hurt”, cf. Arabic baraḥa. However, the suggestion by Michel (p. 224, following Dahood) that the verb here should be translated “they have been evil” seems off the mark.

The bitter sense of the final phrase is that the remaining “days” of Job’s life are filled with such affliction, suffering, and misery, that they will surely not contain anything good—that is, Job himself does not expect to experience (“see”) anything good during whatever remains of his life (repeating the thought expressed in 7:7).

Verse 26

“They pass along by like boats of reed,
(or) as an eagle (that) whooshes upon its prey.”

The transience of Job’s life is expressed by two further Wisdom-illustrations (cf. Wis 5:10-11): (i) the passing along (vb [l^j*) of boats on the water, and (ii) the swooping/flying of birds in the air. The expression “boats of reed” (hb#a@ toYn]a(), i.e., boats made of (papyrus) reeds, refers to boats that are especially light and swift (cf. on the verb ll^q* above), but also potentially fragile. On the lexical and (Egyptian) cultural background of the imagery, see the note by Seow, p. 567. As mentioned by Seow (and other commentators), the preposition <u! here has the comparative meaning “like, as” (similar to K=, used in line 2); this usage is known in Ugaritic (cf. the article by D. Pardee, “The Semantic Field of the Ugaritic Prepositions”, Ugarit-Forschungen 8 [1976], pp. 311–19), but also elsewhere in Hebrew (e.g., Pss 28:1; 72:5; 73:5; 88:5[4]; 143:7; Qoh 2:16).

The reference in the second line is to the swift movement of a large bird of prey (rv#n#, eagle or vulture, etc.). The verb cWf, which occurs only here in the Scriptures, is attested (cf. also sWf) in later Hebrew (and Aramaic) as well as by its Arabic cognates (ṭyš, “hover, move to-and-fro”); cf. HALOT, p. 373. Here, the more forceful sense of “swoop (down)” may be inferred; I have rendered it somewhat colorfully as “whoosh”, emphasizing the speed/swiftness of the motion. Cf. Seow (p. 568), who cites the Arabic expression ʾaṭāša ʾas-sahma, “he made the arrow swoosh”. The bird of prey “whooshes” down on its prey (lit., “food”, something one eats), an image that surely alludes to the precariousness (and mortality) of human existence, but also (particularly) to Job’s suffering/affliction and his (expected) impending death.

    • 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).

April 28: Job 9:23-24

Job 9:23-26
Verse 23

“If (the) scourge should bring death, (and) suddenly,
at (the) melting of (those) clear (of guilt) He will laugh!”

From a literary and rhetorical standpoint, it appears that the sections in the second half of chapter 9 (beginning with v. 19; cf. verses 27, 30) are governed by an initial <u! (conditional) particle, “If…”. Recognition of this literary-rhetorical feature renders quite implausible the supposition by Dahood (adopted by Michel, p. 220) that <u here in v. 23 should be treated as a Divine title (meaning something like “[the] Awesome [One]”).

More tenable is the identification of the final word of line 1, <atp, with the substantive adjective yt!P#, which occurs frequently in Wisdom literature (esp. Proverbs), and denotes one who is young and inexperienced (and thus naive and prone to foolishness). It has been proposed that <atp represents a form of the plural <y]at*P= (spelled ‘defectively’, <a!t*P=), rather than the adverb <a)t=P! (MT, “all of a sudden, suddenly”); cf. Michel, p. 221, and the earlier note by F. Zimmerman, “Note on Job 9:23”, Journal of Theological Studies [JTS] 2 (1951), pp. 165–66. An argument made in support is the supposed parallel between yt!P# (i.e., the young/naive) and yq!n` (those “clear” of guilt, i.e., innocent) in line 2. But the suitability of a such a parallel is questionable, as is the premise that the author intends such parallelism in the couplet here. The emphasis is squarely on the innocent (yq!n`), and the use of the adverb <a)t=P! (“suddenly”) gives dramatic force to the idea of calamity coming (from God) upon the innocent. Still, some wordplay between <a)t=P! and <y]at*P= may be intended.
The LXX appears to have understood (or read) <y]at*P=, since it has the plural fauloi, which can mean “careless/thoughtless (one)s”.

Much more likely is the wordplay involving hS*m^ in the second line, as the noun could be derived from either the verbal root hs*n` (“test, try”) or ss^m* (“melt, dissolve”), and both would be quite appropriate to the context—viz., “test(ing), trial” or “melting/dissolving” (in the sense of “destruction” and/or “despair” [cf. Isa 10:18]).

The noun fov (“whip”) is rendered here as “scourge”, in order to bring out the associated ideas of both punishment and calamity/affliction. The ‘whip’ is wielded by God, as the one who metes out punishment, though the actual affliction could be delivered by messenger spirits (and/or subordinate deities); cf. the authority given by God to the Adversary in the Prologue.
The Versions show variation (and some confusion) in how fov is read/rendered, cf. Seow, p. 565f. The Vulgate treats it as a verb form, while the Targum renders it adverbially (zgwrb, “in a rage”). Seow suggests that the LXX phrase e)n qanatw e)caisiw is meant to contain a form of the verb e)caissw, translating Hebrew fwv in the sense of “to flood, rush”; he also notes that this meaning of fov was adopted by Maimonides.

That God would laugh at the innocent enduring unjustified punishment suggests a measure of heartless cruelty and careless disdain for true justice; Job’s words thus indirectly function as a severe rebuke of God, borne out of the frustration and despair of his own experience.

Verse 24

“(The) land is given in(to the) hand of (the) wicked,
and (the) faces of (those) judging her He covers!—
If (it is) not (He), then who (is) it?”

The idea of the seeming carelessness of God is further emphasized here in v. 24, where the suggestion is that He allows the land (or “earth”, Jr#a#) to fall into the “hand” (i.e., control) of wicked persons. This is expressed by a passive of the verb /t^n` (“give”)—presumably an instance of the ‘Divine passive’ (with God as the implied subject). The land is effectively given (by God) into the hands of the wicked, who, naturally enough, will bring disaster, affliction, and oppression on both the land and its people. As part of this general condition, God also enables a lack/failure of proper justice—indeed, those who are supposed to govern and administer justice, have their faces “covered”, viz., so that they cannot see (and are unable to address) the injustice that is present (and spreading) throughout society.
Clines (p. 219) suggests that the couplet of v. 24ab should (implicitly) be read as a conditional statement, like that of v. 23: “(And if the) land is given in(to the) hand of (the) wicked, (then) (the) faces of (those) judging her He covers!” Gordis (p. 108) argues the subject in line 2 is not God, but the wicked person into whose hand/control the land is given: “(The) land is given in(to the) hand of the wicked, (and) he (then) covers (the) faces of (those) judging her!”

According to Job, God is to blame for this injustice (and lack of justice). Since He is the Sovereign Ruler and Judge over all Creation (as emphasized in the first half of chapter 9, see esp. the hymn in vv. 5-10), He is ultimately responsible for the way that the earth/land is governed. The implication is that the rampant injustice in society is part of the careless (and unjust) punishment that God brings upon humankind. The final line of v. 24 (c), added to the couplet of v. 24ab, makes the point clearly enough—though rendered in somewhat ambiguous wording: “If not, then who (is) it?” The thrust of this haunting rhetorical question is: “If God is not responsible, then who is?” Compare the wording of the question in 24:25.

From a text-critical standpoint, it is to be noted that the last two lines of v. 24 are absent from the Old Greek (LXX) and Sahidic versions, and are marked with asterisks in the Syro-Hexaplaric and Old Latin witnesses; cf. Althann, p. 64*f. The Hexaplaric attestation of the lines is principally derived from the Theodotion Greek version, from whence also they entered into (Christian) manuscripts of the Greek Bible. It does seem likely that the omission and/or flagging of the lines was done out of a sense of reverence (for God)—an indication of just how powerfully disturbing Job’s words are (and how bold the poet is) at this point!

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 20)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 20: The World (Part 15)

In our conclusion to the arc of studies on believers’ conflict with the world (ko/smo$), it is worth summarizing and highlighting the primary characteristics of the world—that is, the ko/smo$-concept in its negative and oppositional aspects. In considering early Christian use of the word ko/smo$ as a designation for the domain of darkness and evil that is fundamentally opposed to God (and to Christ), the New Testament references (that we have examined) mention or allude to a number of basic characteristics which believers may experience as they/we remain ‘in the world’ during this present Age.

1. One of the earliest New Testament references, Galatians 4:3, states that believers, before coming to faith in Christ, were “enslaved under the stoixei=a of the world”. In this context, the noun stoixei=on, also used by Paul in v. 9 and Col 2:8, 20 (cf. also Heb 5:12; 2 Pet 3:10, 12), refers to a component of the world-order, part of the arrangement of things in “the world”. In verse 9, the plural noun is expounded in reference to the observation of “months and time/seasons and years” —that is, patterns that have developed in human society in relation to the world-order, which tend to govern and regulate behavior. Such patterns are also part of human religious thought and conduct, and, indeed, in Galatians (as also in Colossians), Paul connects the stoixei=a conceptually with the Torah regulations, etc., of the old covenant. Such stoixei=a are not evil or harmful in and of themselves, but only insofar as human beings become enslaved to them. And, as Paul’s theological arguments (esp. in Galatians and Romans) make clear, he maintains that human beings, prior to becoming believers in Christ, are all enslaved—in bondage to the current world-order.

The good news is that we, as believers in Christ, have died to the world (Gal 6:14), and, as a result, this bondage to the current world-order (i.e., the old way of things, including the old covenant governed by the Torah) has been dissolved and we have been set free (see especially the line of argument throughout Romans 6-8). The old order of things, governed by ways of thinking and acting “according to the world”, are contrasted with the new order for believers, in which our thought and behavior is now governed by the Spirit (and by the teaching and example of Christ). Paul develops this contrast in a number of passages, notably in chapters 1-4 of 1 Corinthians, in which the wisdom of the world is contrasted with the Wisdom of God—the latter manifest in and among believers through (i) the Gospel message (focused on the sacrificial death [cross] of Christ), and (ii) the presence of the Spirit. Cf. the use of ko/smo$ in 1:20-21, 27-28; 2:12; 3:19, 22.

2. A corresponding principle, based on the eschatological belief that the coming New Age is already being realized (through the Spirit) for believers in Christ, is that the current world-order (viz., of the present Age) is in the process of passing away (1 Cor 7:31ff, cf. 1 Jn 2:17). Again, this does not mean that the current world-order is (in every respect) evil per se, only that it is apart from (and fundamentally opposed to) the new order of things (i.e., the ‘new creation’) realized among believers in Christ. Since believers belong to the new creation, they/we should not become immersed in the old order of things, the old patterns of thinking and acting to which the rest of humankind remains enslaved (see point 1. above). The eschatological urgency that underlies Paul’s exhortation to believers in this regard can be seen by his references to the impending judgment of the world (e.g., 1 Cor 6:2; Rom 3:6).

3. In Romans 5-7, Paul develops, through both expository and rhetorical means, the point that “the world” —i.e., the current world-order and present arrangement of things, is fundamentally corrupt, being dominated by sin (cf. 5:12-13ff; Phil 2:15). This means that the enslavement of human beings to the present world-order (1.) specifically entails bondage to sin. Paul does not detail the nature of this sinfulness, though the references and examples mentioned earlier in the letter (1:18-32, etc.) serve to present a vivid portrait, and, importantly, in chapter 7 he describes how the human propensity to sin (in bondage to the power of sin) relates to the religious principles (i.e., the Torah precepts and regulations) of the old order. The death of Christ not only set believers free from the old order, it effectively made things right again for the entire world (cf. 2 Cor 5:19). At the close of chapter 8 (vv. 18-30), Paul emphasizes that the New Age, which currently is only being experienced by believers in Christ (through the Spirit) will eventually be realized by the entire world (i.e., all of creation), transformed and set free from bondage to sin.

4. The fundamental conflict between believers and “the world” is thus rooted in two main factors: (a) the eschatological principle that believers have been set free from the current world-order and are no longer (to be) governed or bound by its patterns of thinking and acting; and (b) that the current world-order has been corrupted by sin and evil. Though the New Age (i.e., the New Creation) is realized for believers in Christ (through the Spirit), they/we still remain “in the world” (cf. Phil 2:15), and thus can still be prone to the world’s sinful and corrupting influence. This ethical dualism informs much of the teaching, for example, in the letter of James, which is instructive as regards the development of the (negative) ko/smo$-concept in early Christianity.

The reference in 1:27 allows us to infer two points regarding “the world”: (i) it is characterized by the presence of social injustice and oppression (e.g., toward widows and orphans and the poor), and (ii) it can have a polluting effect on those who have otherwise been freed from sin (i.e., believers). The exhortation to believers is that they are to address the world’s social injustice and oppression (i.e., acting in Christian love), and to “keep watch” over themselves to avoid being ‘stained’ by the world (lit., they are to be “without blemish” [a&spilo$]). In 2:5, the way the world understands (and values) riches/wealth is contrasted with the way it is (to be) understood by believers in Christ (cf. on 1 Jn 2:16-17; 3:17, below). True wealth for Christians (in the New Age) is spiritual—realized through trust in Christ and experience (inheritance) of the Kingdom of God—in contrast to ordinary earthly/worldly riches. The use of the term ko/smo$ in 3:6 suggests that “the world” is also characterized by reckless and evil speaking (that brings harm to others, etc.). Finally, the oppositional aspect of the relationship between believers and “the world” is stated in no uncertain terms in 4:4:

“…have you not seen that fondness for the world is enmity [i.e., hatred] for God? (So) then, whoever would wish to be a dear (friend) of the world is set down (as) an enemy of God!”

The fondness (fili/a) and affinity for “the world” can be explained in terms of the ethical-situational references given in the context of chapter 4:

    • Quarreling and fights between/among believers, an indication that sensual (and sinful) desires are still having an adverse effect on the person (a point also prominent in Paul’s writings, to be discussed in the next arc of studies on “the Flesh”), verse 1.
    • A desire for (i.e., an impulse toward/after, vb e)piqume/w) things that a person does not have (but which others might possess); such impulses can lead to quarrels and fights and even more serious acts of violence, verse 2.
    • Such behavior also indicates a lack of prayer and trust in God; a person seeks to have his/her wishes and desires fulfilled with regard to sensual and material things of the world (resulting in consumption and waste), rather than the (spiritual) things of God, verse 3.
    • Pridefulness (i.e., an over-inflated sense of oneself and one’s own importance), rather than humility, verse 6 (cf. also v. 10)
    • Saying bad (and judgmental) things against another person, vv. 11-12

The reference to the ‘Devil’ in verse 7 suggests the close connection between “the world” and the Satan/Devil, a point examined and discussed in a number of the earlier studies (cf. also below). The idea of the corruption present in the world, and of its harmful/polluting effect on believers (who are ‘in the world’), is also emphasized in 2 Peter (1:4; 2:20), which compares the corruption at the end of the current Age with that in the time of Noah (the Flood being a foreshadowing figure/type of the eschatological Judgment), 2:5; 3:6 (cf. Hebrews 11:7).

5. It is in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters) that this sense of oppositional conflict, between “the world” and believers, is most prominently and extensively expressed. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the noun ko/smo$ occurs more often in the Johannine writings (102 times [105 if the book of Revelation is included]) than in the rest of the New Testament (84 [or 81] times). Even more striking, ko/smo$ occurs 78 times in the Gospel of John, compared with just 15 times in the three Synoptic Gospels combined. Here I wish to summarize some of the key points made throughout the Gospel and Letters of John:

    • The world does not know God or His Word/Wisdom; in particular, it does not recognize or acknowledge the incarnate Word/Wisdom of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Those who belong to “the world” do not trust in Jesus (and even reject him); only those who belong to God (i.e., the elect, believers) trust in him. Cf. John 1:10; 10:36; 14:17, 19; 17:25; 1 Jn 3:1.
    • The world hates God and His Son (Christ)—and this extends to God’s offspring (believers in Christ). In one sense this “hate” simply means the opposite (and lack) of love; on the other hand, it indicates an active opposition to God that can be manifest as hostility, even resulting in oppression, persecution and violence. Cf. John 7:7; 15:18, 19; 17:14; 1 Jn 3:13.
    • The world is fundamentally opposed to Christ, and thus there is a spirit that is “against Christ” (a)nti/xristo$, ‘antichrist’) active and at work in the world, effectively speaking and acting against him; cf. 1 Jn 4:3-5; 2 Jn 7.
    • The person who loves the things of “this world” effectively hates his/her own soul, John 12:25; love of “the world” (which is fundamentally opposed to God) is incompatible with love of God, 1 Jn 2:15-16 (cf. James 4:4, above).
    • The peace and joy, etc., that believers experience in Christ is categorically different from what the world experiences and understands; cf. John 14:27; 16:20, 33.
    • The world is governed by sensual desires—longing for the things that a person sees, etc. Those who belong to “the world” boast over the material things that they possess and things they have accomplished, etc., according to the world’s wisdom and values (which are contrary to the Wisdom, etc., of God). Cf. 1 John 2:16-17. The material things that a person does possess while ‘in the world’ are to be used in accordance with the guidance of God’s Spirit and love; cf. 1 Jn 3:17.
    • The world is dominated by sin and evil, John 1:29; 16:8; 1 Jn 2:2, 16; 5:19. This can be expressed in terms of darkness (in contrast to light), John 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; a related characteristic is that of blindness (in contrast to the ability to see), cf. 9:39; 14:19.
    • The world is in need of life, implying that it currently is subject to death—both in terms of the mortality/corruption of the created order and the sin/evil that dominates it (and for which it will be judged in the end-time Judgment). Cf. John 3:16-17; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 9:39; 12:31; 16:8, 11; 1 Jn 4:9.
    • God and His Son (Christ) do not belong to “the world”, but to a different realm (“above” vs. “below”); this applies also to believers as God’s offspring. Those who do not belong to God (and who thus do not trust in Christ) belong to “the world” instead. Cf. John 8:23; 15:19; 17:6, 14, 16. Even though believers do not belong to the world, they/we currently remain in the world and must face its darkness/corruption and its opposition and hostility to the things of God, cf. 13:1; 16:33; 17:9, 11, 15; 1 Jn 4:17. Believers remain in the world for the primary purpose of continuing the Son’s mission, cf. John 17:18ff.

Particularly noteworthy are the dialogue-scenes between Jesus and Pilate (18:33-38a / 19:9-11), part of the Johannine version (18:28-19:16a) of the Roman interrogation episode of the Passion narrative (cf. Mark 15:1-5ff par). Pilate, as a governing representative of the Roman Empire, embodies and epitomizes the kingdom of the world—all of its power and authority. To this is contrasted the Kingdom of God, represented by the person of Jesus Christ (the incarnate Son of God). The Kingdom represented by Christ is nothing at all like the kingdom(s) of the world (18:36)—it does not depend on physical/material  power, but on the power of God (His Word and Spirit). God’s Kingdom is characterized principally by truth (a)lh/qeia), which, in the Johannine writings, is identified with God’s Spirit (John 4:23-24; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Jn 4:6; 5:6), but also with the person of Christ (the Son, see esp. John 14:6); the kingdoms of the world, represented by Pilate, cannot know or understand the truth (18:38a). And, just as the Kingdom of God is unlike the first-century Roman Empire, so it is categorically unlike all the kingdoms (and nations/states, etc.) of the world today.

According to the Johannine viewpoint, the ko/smo$, in the present Age, is ultimately under the power of the Satan/Devil, called by the title “the chief/ruler of this world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou tou/tou) in 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. In other words, the Satan/Devil is true ruler of “the world”. Through the fulfillment of his mission on earth, the Son (Christ) broke the Devil’s hold over the world (1 Jn 3:8), but this is currently realized only for believers in Christ (cf. above [3.] for the similar theological premise in Paul’s writings). The Son gained victory over “the world” (John 16:33), and believers, in union with him, share in this victory (1 Jn 5:4-5). Victory over the world also means victory over the world’s ruler (i.e., the “Evil [one]”, the Devil), 1 Jn 2:13-14. As long as we (believers) trust in Christ, relying upon his presence in and among us, we have victory over “the world”, and we cannot be harmed or corrupted by it. The power of this protection comes from the Spirit—which represents the presence of the Son (and God the Father) within us—1 Jn 4:4. It is through the Spirit that we become, and are, the offspring of God (cf. John 3:5-8), and as God’s offspring we fully possess the very protection that the presence of his Son (in us) provides (1 Jn 5:19, and cf. John 17:15).

April 24: Job 9:20-22

Job 9:19-22, continued
Verse 20

“(Even) if I am in the right, my mouth would bring me guilt;
(though) I (may be) complete, it will declare me crooked!”

If the final verb of v. 19 is to be identified as dou II (“[give] witness, testify”), a possibility discussed in the previous note, then v. 20 here builds upon that motif—viz., of giving testimony (in court) on a person’s behalf. In this instance, the testimony would properly be part of an appeal, challenging the judgment rendered by the Judge (God) against Job.

As discussed in the previous note, the first person singular suffix in the MT of v. 19b is problematic, and the same is true for the suffix on the noun hP# (“mouth”, yP!, “my mouth”) here in v. 20a. The sense of the verse certainly becomes clearer if it were a third person suffix (wyP!, “his mouth”); indeed, the substance of Job’s complaint would be epitomized: “(Even) I am in the right, His mouth declares me guilty”. God would then also be the implied subject of the verb in the second line as well: “He declares me crooked”. A number of commentators (e.g., Fohrer) would emend the text to wyP!, while Blommerde (p. 56) and Michel (p. 218), following Dahood, regard y– here as an archaic third person suffix (as in v. 19b, cf. the previous note).

However, it seems preferable to preserve the focus in v. 20 as being on Job’s side of the legal/judicial process, even as v. 19 had God’s side in view. In this light, the first person suffix (“my mouth”, yP!) is appropriate, since Job is emphasizing the futility of any effort (on his part) to challenge God’s judgment. Anything he might say in his own defense (“my mouth”) will just end up contributing to his being declared guilty (i.e., confirming the judgment against him); cf. Seow, p. 564f; Althann, p. 64*. The verbal root uvr is often translated in terms of wickedness, but it properly denotes being guilty (of a crime or wrongs done), and particularly so in the judicial context here. The juxtaposition with qdx (“be [in the] right”) would be enhanced by the translation of uvr as “be (in the) wrong”. In the second line, the verb is vq^u* (“be twisted/crooked”)—i.e., the crookedness of the criminal or wicked/sinful person, in contrast to Job’s upright and devout character (adj., <T*, “complete”). In this judicial context, <T* can carry the sense of “innocent”. Job is convinced of his righteousness and faithfulness/devotion to God, meaning that he is effectively innocent of any crime or sin that might warrant severe punishment. In other words, he is sure that he is “complete” —something that the readers/hearers of the book already know from the Prologue (cf. the use of <T* in 1:1, 8; 2:3). Yet, any attempt to demonstrate his innocence will be pointless if God, the all-powerful Judge, has decided that he is deserving of punishment.

The subject of the verb in line 2 is ambiguous, and perhaps deliberately so. In the immediate context of the couplet, the subject would seem to be “my mouth” (as in line 1), and yet Job almost certainly has in mind God’s judgment against him, in which case God could be seen as the implied subject.
On the anomalous form of the verb (MT), see the discussion by Seow (p. 564), who parses it as a Piel, rather than Hiphil, form. As Althann (p. 64*) notes, the verb vq^u* is rare in Biblical Hebrew, and this would be the only Scriptural occurrence of it in the Hiphil. For other occurrences in the Piel stem, cf. Micah 3:9; Isa 59:8; Prov 10:9, and (possibly) 2:15.

Verse 21

“I (am indeed) complete,
(yet) I do not know my soul—
(and) I despise my life!”

The use of the adjective <T* (“complete”) from v. 20b continues in vv. 21-22 as a thematic motif—and as the basis for Job’s bitter complaint (and subsequent lament). He is convinced that he is innocent of any serious wrongdoing or offense against God, and yet it seems that God has punished him severely (as though he were one of the wicked). Job’s sense of frustration and despair is expressed poetically by the sudden shift in rhythm/meter—to a terse 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon here in v. 21. Seow (p. 565) incisively suggests that the disjointedness of these lines poetically “plays out the fragmentation of Job”.

The idiom of “not knowing (one’s) soul [i.e., oneself]” suggests confusion and psychological disturbance and might be rendered “be beside oneself”, so that the line here could read “I am beside myself” (cf. Gordis, p. 107; Michel, p. 219). The same idiom (and wording) is used dramatically in Song 6:12.

The terrible afflictions (along with the apparent injustice of them) that Job has endured have made it so that he no longer knows himself. Even worse, they have caused him to despise his own life. Cf. the earlier use of the verb sa^m* (I, “despise, reject”) in 7:16 (and also 5:17; 8:20); it will recur in the second division of Job’s speech (10:3).

Verse 22

“One (and the same) it (is)—
(and) for this (reason) I say:
(the) complete and guilty (alike)
He (is) finishing (off)!”

The thematic use of the adjective <T* (“complete”) continues here. I also parse the verse as a 2-beat quatrain, continuing the terse and bitter rhythm from v. 21. By punishing him (a righteous person) with these terrible afflictions, God is “finishing (off)” (vb hl*K*) Job along with the wicked. There seems to be no difference as regards to God’s judgment and justice— “one (and the same) it (is)!”. As Seow (p. 565) notes, this use of the expression ayh! tj^a^ (“one it [is]”) corresponds to aWh dj^a# (cf. Gen 41:25-26; Zech 14:7) except that here the feminine is used for the neuter. This apparent injustice is the basis for Job’s complaint: “upon this [i.e., for this reason] I say/speak”.
On the lack of this phrase (corresponding to ayh! tj^a^) in the LXX translation, as well as the other significant differences between the MT and LXX, see the notes by Seow, p. 565, and Althann, p. 64*. Cf. also H. M. Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job”, Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964), pp. 57-78 (69).

The pairing of the adjectives <T* and uv*r* (cf. v. 20a) highlights both the ethical-religious contrast of righteous vs. wicked and the judicial-legal contrast of innocent vs. guilty. Job is both righteous and innocent, and yet God has apparently punished him as though he were wicked and guilty. On this pair of terms as a merismus, cf. Michel, p. 219, and the study by J. Krašovec, Der Merismus im Biblisch-Hebräischen und Nordwestsemitischen, Biblica et Orientalia 33 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1977), p. 158 (272).

    • 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 “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

April 23: Job 9:19

Job 9:19-22
Verse 19

“If (it is in regard) to strength, Mighty, behold, is He—
and if (in regard) to judgment, who shall summon Him?”

This verse lies at the center of the first division (chap. 9) of Job’s speech, and, indeed, it aptly sums up the thrust of Job’s complaint—juxtaposing God’s power with His justice. Job admits God’s unsurpassed power, since He is the Creator and King of the universe (cf. the hymn in vv. 5-10), but that it precisely the problem for Job as regards His judgments (i.e., justice, viz., as the supreme Judge). As the Creator and Sovereign of all, God has the power and authority to render judgment in whatever way He chooses, and no one is able to challenge Him or alter His decision.

The use of the interjection hN@h! (“see!”, “behold!”) is used for dramatic effect. God is supremely the “Mighty (One)” —the adjective JyM!a^ (“strong, mighty”) functioning as an attributive Divine title, comparable in meaning to la@ (and <yh!l)a$, H^ola$). The first line forms a theological declaration: with regard to power/strength (j^K)), El/Eloah is unsurpassed—He is the Mightiest of all. Most commentators believe that hNh here represents the suffixed form WhN@h!, in archaic orthography (lacking the vowel letter w-), i.e., h%N@h!, “behold, He…!” This is quite likely, given the evidence for numerous other instances of such orthography in the Job Dialogue (amply documented by Seow).

The second line deals with the judgments God makes (as the great Judge). It is here that Job finds his complaint—that is, with God’s justice. Job has apparently been punished severely by God, and yet he is unaware of any wrongdoing on his part that would warrant such a judgment. But how is he, a mere mortal creature, able to challenge the decision made by the all-powerful Judge?

This is the substance of the question in line 2, extending into the following vv. 20-22 (to be discussed in the next note). However, there are issues with regard to the form and meaning of the final word. The MT apparently has a form of the verb du^y`, which means “arrange/appoint a time (for a meeting, etc.)”, with the Hiphil having the contextual meaning of “call (someone) to an appointed meeting” (i.e., in a legal/judicial setting, viz., a summons). A first person singular suffix (yn!-) is attached, producing the rhetorical question “who will call/summon me?”, as in Jer 49:19; 50:44. Contrary to Althann’s assessment (p. 64*) that the MT as it stands “makes good sense”, most commentators hold quite the opposite opinion. There are two approaches that have been offered by way of a solution to the difficulty of the MT:

    1. The verb should be read with a third person (rather than first person) singular suffix, so that the question becomes “who will summon Him?”. This could be achieved three different ways:
      1. Emend the text from yn]d@yu!oy to Wnd@yu!oy (cf. Pope, p. 72; Gordis, p. 107; Clines, p. 218).
      2. Read the y– sufformative as an archaic third person suffix; this is the approach adopted by Dahood (cf. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography V”, Biblica 48 [1967], p. 543), Blommerde (p. 56), and Michel (p. 217f).
      3. Presume an original text with archaic orthography, i.e., without external vowel letter, that could have been vocalized either n%– (= Wn-) or n]– (= yn]-).
    2. The verb should be identified, not as a form of du^y`, but of dou (II, “give witness, testify”). The question could then read “who will testify [i.e., bear witness] for me [i.e., on my behalf]?”, cf. 29:11. This is the approach taken by Seow (p. 564), who suggests that the original text (lacking internal vowel letters) would have been ynduy, vocalized yn]d@u!y+, while the MT would represent the vocalization yn]d@u!y) written with full (plene) spelling, yn]d@yu!oy.

My translation above follows approach #1; given the likelihood of the archaic orthography for the final word in line 1, the same may have occurred for the final word of line 2 (i.e., option 1.iii. above). However, Seow’s solution is plausible, and should be given serious consideration. The focus on God in the couplet argues in favor of the first approach (“who will summon Him?”)—viz., that the emphasis is on the impossibility of someone forcing God to appear (in court) to explain His decision. It is His supreme power that effectively makes such a judicial challenge impossible.

    • 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 “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • 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 “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 9 (Part 2)

Fourth Wisdom Poem: Proverbs 9:1-18, continued

Intermediary Sayings (vv. 7-12)

As discussed in Part 1, many commentators feel that verses 7-12 represent a secondary addition to the Wisdom poem of chapter 9 (vv. 1-6, 13-18). The sayings in these verses do seem to interrupt the fine pairing of the addresses by Wisdom (vv. 1-6) and Folly (vv. 13-18), respectively, and it is difficult to see just how they are meant to relate to that primary material. A few commentators (e.g., Fox, Clifford, and cf. J. E. Goldingay, “Proverbs V and IX”, Revue Biblique 84 [1977], pp. 80-93) consider verse 11 to be part of Wisdom’s address (and thus part of the ‘original’ poem), as a proper continuation of verse 6. However, treating verse 11 as part of the original poem, only makes the inclusion of the material in vv. 7-10 + 12 in its current place that much more difficult to explain. On issues related vv. 7-12 in terms of the composition of chapter 9 as a whole, see the discussion by Whybray, Composition, pp. 43-8.

Even if verses 7-12 are secondary, it apparently made sense to at least one author/redactor to include the sayings here between vv. 1-6 and 13-18. Yet scholars have struggled to find a suitable explanation as to the reasoning. In my view, it appears that the purpose is by way of an application of Wisdom’s address (vv. 1-6) for local Wisdom-teachers (i.e., parents and other instructors). The parallelism between Wisdom (personified) and these local Wisdom-teachers was discussed in Part 1. This can be seen, first, by the wording of Wisdom’s address at the close of the previous poem (chapter 8 [vv. 32ff]) which follows the pattern in the Lectures of chapters 1-9—viz., of the parent (father) addressing his child (young man). Second, there is the reference here to Wisdom sending out her servants (v. 3), which, as discussed, could symbolize the instruction by local Wisdom-teachers (embodying the voice and teaching of Wisdom herself). If so, then there is an oblique orientation in vv. 1-6 to the local Wisdom-teacher, to whom the advice in vv. 7-9ff seems to be addressed.

The entire sense and tone of the exhortation in both the Lectures and Poems of chapters 1-9 makes clear that a young person must make a choice—deciding whether or not to heed the instruction offered and follow the path and teachings of Wisdom. Some will choose to receive this instruction, while others will not. The young and inexperienced person (yt!P#) addressed here by Wisdom (v. 4), as well as the one otherwise lacking sense (“lacking in heart”), may be prone to foolishness, but he/she is capable of being instructed. If that person chooses to receive the teaching of Wisdom, then he/she is actually one of the wise, while the person who rejects it proves to be truly a fool. Throughout chapters 1-9, there has been a stark contrast between the path of wisdom/righteousness and the path(s) of folly/wickedness. The one who rejects the path and teaching of Wisdom is no longer simply a naive youth, etc.; rather, he/she has begun down the paths of wickedness and folly.

This same contrast is presented here in verses 7-12, between the wise/righteous person (v. 9) and the foolish/wicked one. The latter is referred to by the verbal adjective (participle) Jl@ (vb Jyl!), denoting a person who regularly/characteristically scoffs and boasts (derisively). Such “scoffers” (plur. <yxl@) were mentioned earlier in 1:22 and 3:34; in particular, in the first Wisdom poem (1:20-33), in which Wisdom similarly is portrayed as calling out an invitation to humankind, the <yx!l@ are specifically identified with the naive/foolish youths, etc., who reject the voice of Wisdom. This is also the situation here in chapter 9. Verses 7-9ff involve the naive/foolish ones (whom Wisdom addresses, vv. 4ff) and who reject Wisdom’s call (i.e., reject sound/wise teaching and the voice of parents and instructors, etc.). Indeed, they go so far as to mock and ridicule such teaching.

Verse 7

“(The one) instructing a scoffer [Jl@] is receiving contempt for himself,
and (the one) giving rebuke to a wicked (man), his (own) harm.”

The saying here in verse 7 deals with the situation of the naive/foolish person who rejects the voice of Wisdom and thus proceeds headlong down the paths of folly and wickedness. Parents are to teach their children, even as other teachers must instruct those who are young and lacking sense—as vv. 1-6 makes quite clear. However, if the young person rejects Wisdom and refuses to heed sound/wise teaching—going so far as to become one of the wicked “scoffers” —then there is no longer any point in trying to instruct such a person. Attempting to do so will only bring harsher forms of rejection— “contempt” (/olq*) and “injury/harm” (<Wm = <Wam=)—and this rejection will be directed at the person of the teacher. This point is expressed by the phrase “(he is) receiving contempt for him(self)”; the suffixed noun omWm (“his harm”) in the second line is a poetic shorthand for a parallel phrase, i.e., “(receives) harm for himself”, i.e., “…his (own) harm” (Waltke [p. 427] explains the pronominal suffix as a “genitive of a mediated object”). The noun <Wm can refer specifically to physical harm/injury (Lev 21:17ff; 24:19f, etc.), and that may be implied here as well. In other Wisdom texts (e.g., Job 11:15; 31:7; Sir 11:33; 30:31; 47:20) the noun tends to be used in a more figurative sense.

The verb rs^y` means “instruct”, but often (as here) with the specific aspect of “correction, discipline”, parallel to jk^y` (“prove [wrong], reprove, rebuke”) in the second line. Both of these verbal roots are part of the regular Wisdom terminology and occur repeatedly in chapters 1-9. The noun rs*Wm (“instruction, correction, discipline”) occurs much more frequently than the verb rs^y`; the verb jk^y` was used earlier in 3:12.

Verse 8

“You should not rebuke a scoffer, lest he hate you;
(but) give a rebuke to a wise (man), and he will love you.”

In the context of vv. 1-6, the wise person refers to the young/foolish one who chooses to accept/receive the teaching of Wisdom, in direct contrast to the one who rejects the voice of Wisdom (the latter being referenced again here by the verbal adjective Jl@, “scoffer”). Line 1 repeats the advice given to the Wisdom-teacher in v. 7: there is no point trying to instruct (and especially to correct/rebuke) such a person. The “scoffer” will hate the one who tries to teach him; by contrast, the wise person (i.e., the one who heeds and accepts the voice of Wisdom) will love the teacher.

Schipper (p. 331) cites a similar saying from the Egyptian Demotic Instruction of Khasheshonqi:

“Do not instruct a fool, lest he hate you.
Do not instruct him who will not listen to you.”
(cf. Lichtheim III, p. 165)

Verse 9

“Give (instruction) to a wise (man) and he will be wis(er) still;
give knowledge to a right(eous one) and he will continue receipt (of it).”

Verse 7 deals with the foolish/wicked person, while verse 9 here has the wise/righteous person in view (with v. 8 treating both). Again, in context, the wise/righteous person refers specifically to the young person (vv. 4ff), etc., who accepts the wise/sound instruction of his teacher and thus heeds the voice of Wisdom calling to him. Such a person proves himself to be genuinely wise, and instruction given to him will make him wiser still, and he will be willing (and able) to continue receiving Wisdom (“receipt [of knowledge]”).

Waltke (p. 428) states that the w-conjunction on the jussive verbs in vv. 8b-9ab, following an earlier imperative, specifically indicates purpose; in which case, it could be translated “so (that)…”.

Verse 10

“(The) beginning of wisdom (is the) fear of YHWH,
and knowledge of (the) Holiest (is) understanding.”

This verse is an expansion of the motto given at the beginning of the work (1:7a). There is a clear chiastic parallelism in the couplet:

    • “(The) beginning of wisdom
      • fear of YHWH
      • knowledge of (the) Holiest
    • (the beginning of) understanding”

As throughout chapters 1-9, the noun hn`yB! (“understanding, discernment”) is virtually synonymous with hm*k=j* (“wisdom”), being used interchangeably. In 8:1, 14, hn`yB!/hn*WbT= functions as a second name (i.e., Understanding) for Wisdom personified. The parallelism outlined above indicates that the second line contains the phrase “(is the beginning of) understanding”; for poetic concision, this is rendered as “(is) understanding”. The same parallelism also makes clear that the plural of the adjective vodq* (“holy”) is an intensive (elative) or comprehensive plural used as a Divine title (“[the] Holiest [One]”).

The declarative motto (cf. the earlier note on 1:7), in the context here of vv. 1-6ff, enables the Wisdom-teacher to discern the identity of the young (and otherwise foolish) person who is truly wise—that is, the one who will respond positively to instruction and will heed the voice/call of Wisdom. A naive and inexperienced young person can still possess a basic “fear” (i.e., reverence) of YHWH, and an awareness (“knowledge”) of His true nature (and of humankind’s relationship to Him). This intrinsic sense of religious devotion actually precedes the acquisition of wisdom (at the practical level), as the motto makes clear; even a naive child may revere God.

Instructive in this regard are the words of Agur in 30:3:

“Indeed, I have not (yet) learned wisdom,
but knowledge of (the) Holiest I know.”
(or, “…I would know”)

Cf. Fox, p. 309, and also his useful survey (pp. 309-17) on ideas in the wider ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Tradition regarding who is (and who is not) capable of being taught and learning Wisdom.
See also the same author’s article “Who Can Learn? A Dispute in Ancient Pedagogy”, in Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, ed. Michael L. Barré, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 29 (Catholic Biblical Association of America: 1997), pp. 62-77.

Verse 11

“Indeed, by me your days are made many,
and made to continue for you (the) years of life.”

As noted above, Fox (pp. 299-300) and other commentators (e.g., Clifford, pp. 101ff), regard verse 11 as part of Wisdom’s address, being the continuation of verse 6:

“Leave behind (your) youthful folly, and live—
and go straight on the path of understanding!
For by me your days are made many,
and made to continue for you (the) years of life.”

However, if v. 11 was originally part of the collection of sayings in vv. 7-12, then it has a more generalized significance—paired with v. 10, it summarizes (as a reminder for the Wisdom-teacher) both the beginning and end purpose/result of following the path of Wisdom. Indeed, a long and fruitful life is one of the (Divine) blessings that will come as a result of faithfully following the path of Wisdom; the wording here especially echoes that of 3:2 and 4:10.

It is not necessary to emend the MT yB! (“by me”) to hB* (“by it [fem.]”, i.e., by Wisdom), though it would not be particularly objectionable to do so (cf. Waltke, p. 428), as it makes vv. 7-12 read more smoothly as a unit and has (limited) support from the Versions (LXX, Syriac, Targum).

Verse 12

“If you are wise, you will have wisdom for yourself;
but if you are a scoffer, you will bear (it) by yourself.”

Fox (p. 317f) argues that verse 12 was added sometime after vv. 7-10 had been inserted in the text (between vv. 6 and 11). Thematically, it continues the wise/righteous vs. foolish/wicked (“scoffer” [Jl@]) contrast from vv. 7-9 (see above), but otherwise fits uneasily with those prior verses. While vv. 7-9 seem to have the Wisdom-teacher in view, verse 12 (like, to some extent, vv. 10-12) apparently has the pupil (young person) in view. This may allow for a tentative outline of vv. 7-12 as a whole (cf. also the outline by Meinhold, p. 156):

    • Vv. 7-9: How the Wisdom-teacher applies vv. 1-6: two kinds of young people, etc., who respond to the voice of Wisdom—the foolish/wicked (“scoffers”) [v. 7] and the wise/righteous [v. 9], with the two contrasted [v. 8].
    • Vv. 10-12: Application of vv. 1-6 to the young person (pupil) who responds to the call of Wisdom:
      • The beginning of following the path/teaching of Wisdom (v. 10, cf. 1:7)
      • The end result of following the path—long life (v. 11)
      • The choice whether or not to follow the path, and what this means for the fate of the individual—reprise of the contrast between the wise/righteous and the foolish/wicked (“scoffers”) (v. 12)

On the surface, the two lines of verse 12 seem to be making similar (parallel) points—viz., whether or not one accepts or rejects Wisdom, the individual (alone) receives the consequent reward or punishment. However, the two lines are probably meant as a subtly ironic contrast. In line 1, the point is actually akin to that in verse 9 (cf. above)—if a person is wise, he/she will continue to receive more wisdom (“you will have wisdom for you[rself]”). But in line 2, both the wording and the sense (nuance of emphasis) is different—the wicked “scoffer” will bear the burden/guilt of his wicked folly by himself (i.e., alone, in separation). In the first case, the wise/righteous person receives abundant blessing (the principal of which is Wisdom herself), while, in the second instance, the foolish/wicked person suffers punishing loss.

In the LXX (also in the Syriac Peshitta), there are included three additional Wisdom-sayings which seem to develop the contrast in v. 12:

“He who supports himself upon (thing)s false,
this (one also) will herd (the) winds,
and the same (one) will pursue (the) flying birds.
For he has left behind (the) paths of his own vineyard,
causing the axles of his own worked land to go astray.
Indeed, he travels through a desolate (land) without water,
and a land thoroughly ordained to be in thirst—
he even gathers together (the) lack of fruit in (his) hands!”

Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, pp. 167-8; Schipper, p. 335.

    • 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).
    • Those marked “Clifford” are to Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, First edition, The Old Testament Library (Westminster John Knox Press: 1999).
    • 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 “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 168 (JSOT Press: 1994).

April 21: Job 9:16-18

Job 9:16-18
Verse 16

“(Even) if I called and He answered me,
I could not be sure that He gave ear to my voice.”

The section spanning vv. 11-18 appears to have three poetic units, the third of which is comprised of vv. 16-18. The contrast here of Job calling and God not hearing corresponds to the initial couplet of the first unit (v. 11): viz., God passes by, and yet Job does not see Him. There is thus a fundamental disconnect between God and Job, and this (in Job’s view) makes it virtually impossible for him to obtain justice from God. The sense of frustration is well expressed here in v. 16: “Even if I called and He answered me, I could not be sure (vb /m^a*) that he heard me [lit. gave ear to my voice]”. The verb /m^a* properly means “be firm”, in the general sense of “be sure/certain”.

There is a bit of syntactical ambiguity as to whether the negative particle al) should be regarded as the last word of line 1 or the first word of line 2. Blommerde (p. 54) and Michel (p. 213f), following an earlier suggestion by Dahood (“Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography IV”, Biblica 47 [1966], p. 408), opt for the former, treating al) as a substantive noun (i.e., “nothing”). Metrical considerations might favor this approach, which produces a different emphasis for the couplet:

“(Even) if I call, yet He answers me nothing,
(nor) can I be sure that He gave ear to my voice!”

Gordis (p. 106, followed by Michel) prefers to parse the second and third words of line 1 differently: ynnuy wytarq instead of ynnuyw ytarq. This modifies the alternate reading of the couplet (above) further:

“(Even) if I call Him, He answers me nothing,
(nor) can I be sure that He gave ear to my voice!”

The overall meaning and sense of the verse is much the same, in any case.

Verse 17

“(He) who with a wind-storm grinds (at) me,
and makes my wounds many for no good (reason)—”

The initial relative particle of v. 17 marks its syntactical relationship to v. 16, as well as to the following v. 18 (i.e., vv. 16-18 as a poetic-grammatical unit). The noun hr*u&c^ means “hair” (i.e., an individual hair), but most commentators feel that hruc should instead be vocalized as hr*u*c= (= hr*u*s=, cf. 38:1; 40:6), “wind-storm”. Clines (p. 218) is one of the few who maintains the former vocalization (cf. also Pope, p. 72), translating the line as “For a trifle [lit. hair] He crushes me”; this certainly provides an apt parallel to the adverbial particle <N~h! (“for no good [reason]”) in line 2.

There is a relative wide range of meaning for the verb [Wv, possibly involving two or more separate roots. The basic meaning of the verb seems to be “rub”, often with the harsh aspect of scraping or causing an abrasion. There are only a few occurrences in the Scriptures, including Gen 3:15, where the sense seems to be either “grab/grasp at” or “bruise”. In Psalm 139:11, the sense perhaps is “cover” (i.e., rub so as to cover [with pitch, etc.]). However, in Aramaic [Wv (II?) can also mean “blow”, which would be fitting to the image of a wind-storm. There is also a cognate in (Old South) Arabic (šwp) with the meaning “look at, see” (HALOT, p. 1446). Dahood (in his commentary on the Psalms [Anchor Bible vol. 17A, p. 291]) gives this meaning for [Wv in Psalm 139:11, as also here in v. 17, and he is followed by Blommerde (p. 54f) and Michel (p. 215): “He observes me (from) within (the) wind-storm”. Cf. Dhorme, p. 136f for a lexical survey of the different meanings (and/or separate roots) for [Wv. The parallel with “wounds” in line 2 strongly suggests a meaning such as “scrape, bruise” for [Wv in line 1; I have opted for the translation “grind” as a harsh variation on the denotation “rub”. But, as Seow (p. 563) notes, given the wind-storm motif, there may be some double-meaning wordplay here—viz., “rub/grind/scrape” and also “blow”.

The noun ux^P# is translated “bruise” but properly refers here to a splitting/mashing of the skin—likely an allusion to the terrible disease that has afflicted Job’s skin (2:7). The verb ux^P* can have the specific meaning of “scrape” (the skin), which fits the meaning of “rub/grind” for [Wv in line 1, and also echoes the scraping by Job of his skin in 2:8. These allusions make clear that Job’s complaint regarding God’s justice/judgment toward him relates specifically to the terrible afflictions that have come upon him. Job firmly believes that he is innocent of any wrongdoing that would warrant such punishment from God. And yet, how can he hope to make an effective appeal regarding the judgment that God has apparently made against him?

Verse 18

“He will not give me (leave) to return my breath,
(but) instead makes me stuffed full of bitterness!”

Not only does God afflict Job mercilessly with terrible blows, He does not even give him a moment’s respite in which he might ‘catch his breath’ (lit. “return [i.e., recover] my breath”, cf. Judg 15:19; 1 Sam 30:12). Instead of his own breath/spirit coming back within him (implying a measure of relief and comfort), God has caused him to be stuffed full of bitterness. The MT form <yr!r)M=m^ is peculiar; it apparently represents the plural of the (substantive) adjective rr)m* (cf. rWrm=T^), denoting something that is bitter, prefixed by the preposition /m! (but in such a case the vocalization would presumably be <yr!r)M=m!). Another possibility is to read the initial –m as an enclitic suffix (<-) attached to the previous word. Dahood (cf. Michel, p. 216) makes the ingenious suggestion that <yrr)mm represents a compound plural noun: –m (= “water”, <y]m^ [constr. ym@]; cf. Akkadian māʾu, mū, Eblaite ma-wu) + the plural adjective <yrrm (“bitter”), i.e., “bitter waters”, perhaps standing for “bitter tears”. In any case, the plural form is perhaps best treated as an abstract plural (“bitterness”).
If the initial –m preformative is not a prefixed preposition, then the dagesh in the following m (if valid) could be explained as a dagesh dirimens (viz., dagesh simply for the purpose of separating syllables and clarifying/smoothing pronunciation). 

The initial yK! particle of the second line I regard as adversative/contrastive—i.e., “(but) instead…”.

    • 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 “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Dhorme” are to Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, English translation by Harold Knight (Thomas Nelson, Inc.: 1984).

 

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 3:16-23ff (Part 2)

Daniel 3:16-23ff (Prayer of Azariah), continued

In Part 1 of this study, we examined the narrative setting of chapter 3, focusing particularly on the confession of faith made by the three companions (vv. 16ff), leading up to their being thrown into the “burning furnace of fire” (v. 23). It is at just this point that the Greek Versions of Daniel (LXX and Theodotion), followed by other ancient Versions, include two poetic pieces that have come to be known as the “Prayer of Azariah” and the “Song of the Three Young Men”, respectively. These pieces are among the so-called “Additions to Daniel”, part of the Deutero-canonical corpus (in the LXX and Vulgate) and the Protestant ‘Apocrypha’. The “Song of the Three Young Men” will be treated, as one of the deutero-canonical Psalms, in an upcoming post in the Sunday Studies on the Psalms series. Here, we will focus exclusively on the Prayer of Azariah.

The Prayer of Azariah

Even though the Prayer is part of the Greek text of Daniel, it almost certainly was not composed in Greek. There are strong reasons to believe that it was originally composed in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek, presumably at the time it was included as part of the book of Daniel (cf. Moore, pp. 45-6). A reasonable attempt at reconstructing a Hebrew original was made in 1930 by Curt Kuhl (Die Drei Männer im Feuer, BZAW 55), pp. 150-5, Notes, pp. 132-50. Some years earlier, M. Gaster made a similar reconstruction into Aramaic (cf. “The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion’s Additions to the Book of Daniel”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 [1984], pp. 280-90, 312-7; 17 [1985], pp. 75-94). The Hebrew verses of Kuhl’s reconstruction are primarily 3-beat (3+3) couplets or comparable 2-beat (2+2+2) tricola.

The Prayer, like the following Hymn, is prefaced by a narrative introduction that is solely intended to integrate the poem within the chapter 3 narrative (after verse 23). As a deutero-canonical ‘addition’, the Prayer is designated by verses 1-22; integrated within chapter 3 (i.e., in the Greek Version of Daniel), the numbering continues from v. 23—viz., 3:24-45. When citing or referencing the verses of the Prayer, the deutero-canonical number will be given followed by the integrated Greek verse number in square brackets, i.e., 1[24], 2[25], and so forth.

There can be no certainty as to the date or provenance of the Prayer, but, based on the tone and wording of vv. 9 [32], 14-15 [37-38], there is a likelihood that it dates from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 167-163 B.C.). This is also the date assumed by most scholars for the final form of the book of Daniel. Yet, neither the Prayer nor the Hymn was likely ever part of the original (Aramaic) text of chapters 2-7.

Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-2 [24-25])

After the three companions are thrown into the “burning furnace of fire” (v. 23), the narrative of the Prayer picks up the scene (v. 1 [24]): “And they walked about in (the) midst of (the) flame(s), singing hymns to God and giving a good account of [i.e., blessing] the Lord” (Theod). The LXX version is more expansive, mentioning all three companions by name, and describing them as “speaking out to (God)” (i.e., praying) and singing hymns. The pairing of praying / hymn-singing more accurately corresponds to the two addition-pieces (Prayer / Hymn) included in the narrative.

The Prayer is attributed to Azariah (Aramaic Abed-nego), who is always listed last among the three companions. This makes the attribution of the Prayer to him a bit surprising, and it has been suggested that the Prayer was originally associated with a separate Azariah (a common Hebrew name, ‘Ăzar-Yāh[û], “YH[WH] has given help”, or “YH[WH] is [my] Helper”), and it may have been an identification with the Azariah of Daniel that prompted the inclusion of the Prayer here in chapter 3; cf. Moore, p. 56. In the LXX version, the other two companions are said to utter the Prayer together with Azariah. The Prayer proper is introduced in rather dramatic fashion: “And, (hav)ing stood together [i.e., firm], Azaryahu spoke out [i.e., prayed] thus to (God), and (hav)ing opened up his mouth in (the) midst of the fire, said…” (Theod). Azariah is portrayed as standing firm (in faith) even with the fire raging all around him, boldly speaking out (praying) to God.

Stanza 1: Verses 3-9 [26-32]

The Prayer is a poetic work similar in certain respects to a number of the canonical prayer-Psalms. It is comprised of three sections (or stanzas) of similar length—vv. 3-9 [26-32], 10-15 [33-38], 16-22 [39-45]—the first of which is presented as a confession (of praise/blessing) to God: “Of good account [i.e., blessed] are you, Lord, God of our fathers, and (worthy) to be praised, and your name is (to be) honored unto the Ages!” (v. 3[26], cf. 1 Chron 29:10, 20).

As the remainder of the stanza makes clear (vv. 4[27]ff), YHWH is praised/blessed primarily for His justice—His judgments (as the great Judge) are right and just (“all your judgments are truth”), even when He brings terrible punishment upon a people. This applies even when the judgment/punishment comes upon His own people (i.e., the Israelite/Judean people):

“Indeed, judgments of truth you (have) made
according to all (thing)s that you brought upon us,
and upon the holy city of our fathers, Yerušalaim.” (v. 5[28]a-c)

In the historical context of the narrative setting, this judgment refers to the Babylonian conquest (and exile) which included the sacking/destruction of Jerusalem. According to the presumed setting of the poem’s composition, this extends to the calamities that came upon Jerusalem during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (described allusively and poetically in the prophetic visions of chapters 7-12 of Daniel). These judgments are declared to be just punishment because of the sins committed by the people. The declarations in vv. 5[28]d-e and 8[31] frame a confession of sin in vv. 6-7 [29-30]:

“For in truth and (right) judgment [i.e., justice] you brought upon (us)
all these (thing)s through [i.e., because of] our sins!

For we sinned and were lawless (so as) to stand away from you!
Indeed, we sinned (truly) in all (thing)s
and your commands (placed) on (us) we did not hear,
nor did we keep watch altogether nor do (them),
according to how you commanded us
that (things) might come to be good for us.

And (so) all (thing)s, as many as you brought upon (us),
and all (thing)s, as many as you did to us,
you did them in true judgment.”

Confession of sin does not feature prominently in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, though there are a few instances where it does occur (e.g., 25:7, 11, 18; 32:5; 38:4[3], 19[18]; 51:4-7 [2-5]ff). It has been claimed that the prominent emphasis on confession of sin here in the Prayer is inappropriate to the narrative setting (cf. Moore, pp. 40-1), since the main thrust of the narrative involves the faithfulness of the three companions—they specifically did not turn away from God or abandon the covenant with Him. However, the protagonist in the Psalms often serves as a representative of the people; and, particularly in the lament-Psalms with a communal emphasis (e.g., 74, 79, 80), the protagonist (as one of the righteous) speaks on behalf of the people as a whole. Closer to the context of the Prayer here is Daniel’s prayer in 9:4-19 (to be discussed), in which he confesses the people’s sins (in solidarity with them), even though he personally may not have been unfaithful to God. Cf. Ezra 9:6-15; Nehemiah 9:6-37; Baruch 1:15-3:8.

In the national lament-Psalms, an exilic (or post-exilic) setting is implied, as the protagonist laments the suffering and humiliation the people face under the power/oppression of the hostile surrounding nations. The same emphasis occurs here in the Prayer, as the summary description of the specific judgment brought upon the people (by God) in v. 9[32] leads into the following lament section:

“And you gave us along into (the) hands of hostile (foe)s,
lawless and most hostile (one)s having stood away from (you),
and to an unright(eous) king, even (the) most evil across all the earth!”

Stanza 2: Verses 10-15 [33-38]

The distressful and deplorable condition of the people, introduced in verse 9[32], is further expounded in the second stanza—a poem or psalm of lament. As noted above, this section has much in common with the canonical lament-Psalms (esp. those with a strong communal/national emphasis). Even closer is Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 (vv. 4-19), and cf. also the post-exilic prayers of Ezra, Nehemiah and Baruch mentioned above. It is not simply a matter of being at the mercy of hostile and wicked enemies; the situation is actually worse than that:

“And now, there is not for us (any) opening of the mouth,
(while) shame and disgrace have come to be (the lot)
for your servants and for the (one)s revering you.” (v. 10[33])

On behalf of the people, the protagonist makes a plea to YHWH, calling on Him to act:

“(So) then, do not give us over to completion,
for the sake of [dia/] your name!
And do not scatter your (covenant) set through (to us)!
And do not make your mercy stand away from us—
for the sake of [dia/] Abraham the (one) loved by you,
and for the sake of Yiṣḥaq the servant of you,
and Yisrael the holy (one) of you,
to whom you spoke saying
(you were) to multiply their seed as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand th(at is) along the edge of the sea!” (vv. 11-13 [34-36])

Typically, the in prayer-Psalms, the protagonist makes an appeal based (in various ways) upon the covenant-bond established between YHWH and His people. This is very much the case here as well. The appeal is made to YHWH’s own faithfulness to the covenant, and to the specific promises made to the ancestors of Israel/Judah (Gen 22:17, etc.). In spite of these promises regarding the great blessing and prosperity of the people, quite the opposite seems now to have occurred:

“(Yet it is) that, O Master, we have become little,
beyond all the (other) nations,
and we are lowly in all the earth today
through [i.e., because of] our sins!
And there is not in this time (for us)
(any) chief and foreteller [i.e., prophet] and leader,
nor whole burnt offering nor (sacrifice for) slaughtering,
nor (gift to) bring forward nor incense (to burn),
no place to give (our) fruits in front of you
and (so) to find mercy!” (vv. 14-15 [37-38])

The Israelite/Judean people now have a greatly reduced status, in a lowly condition—poor and oppressed (and humiliated)—among the nations. Moreover, they have lost access to the Temple and the sacrificial ritual that is essential to maintaining the covenant bond with YHWH. In particular, they have lost the ritual means to restore the bond (when it has been broken), to atone for their sins and thus find forgiveness (“mercy”). At the level of the historical-setting of the narrative, this simply refers to the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the people; however, in terms of the likely setting for the composition of the Prayer, it also refers specifically to the actions of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in regard to the Temple (viz., the outlawing and eliminating of the performance of the prescribed sacrificial ritual, etc.), cf. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:45-54.

Stanza 3: Verses 16-22 [39-45]

Since the Israelite/Judean people do not have the ability to restore the covenant-bond with YHWH, finding forgiveness and mercy from Him, through the prescribed means of the sacrificial ritual (v. 15[38]), they have to rely (at least temporarily) on other (non-sacrifical) means. In the final stanza, the protagonist (on behalf of the people) seeks to atone for sin by approaching YHWH, not with sacrificial offerings, but instead with a humble and repentant heart, and with a renewed spirit of devotion. This relative ‘spiritualization’ of the sacrificial ritual occurs at a number of points in the canonical Psalms (e.g., 40:7[6]ff; 50:8ff, 16-17ff; 51:18-19 [16-17]; 141:2), which may, to some extent, reflect a similar time of composition in the exilic and post-exilic periods. The ‘sacrifice’ that the people offer to God is their whole-hearted commitment to follow Him faithfully, remaining devoted to Him (v. 17[40]b).

With their heart thus turned toward the covenant-bond with YHWH, the people (with the author-protagonist speaking on their behalf) can make their request to YHWH (vv. 19[42]ff), asking that He rescue them from their hostile foes and restore them—from their current lowly state back to their former privileged position (in which they enjoy the Divine blessings and protection promised by the covenant). As often in the Psalms, the request for deliverance is framed in terms of the mighty deeds performed by YHWH on behalf of His people in the past:

“And may you take us out of (our distress), according to you wondrous (deed)s,
and (so) give honor to your name, O Lord!” (v. 20[43])

The second line represents another common feature of the prayer-Psalms: an appeal to the name of YHWH—that a miraculous deliverance of His people will bring honor to Him, including admiration and veneration by many of the surrounding nations (cf. the closing verse 22[45]). At the same time, the prayer includes a request that the enemies who have oppressed God’s people should themselves experience punishment (in accordance with what they have done to God’s people):

“And may they be turned in (shame), all the (one)s showing bad (intention)s toward your servants,
and let them be put to shame, (away) from all power and position of power,
and let their strength be altogether broken (apart)!” (v. 21[44])

Such imprecatory wishes are a common feature in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, however unsettling they may be to many modern readers.

The final couplet of the Prayer expresses the wish (and the expectation) that the deliverance that YHWH works for His people would result in His Sovereignty being acknowledged by all the peoples of the earth (all the surrounding nations). This a key thematic emphasis and point of orientation for many of Kingship Psalms—such as the collections Pss 93-100 and 146-150—those which particularly stress the universal Kingship of YHWH (viz., over the entire world and all people everywhere). This emphasis becomes more prominent in the exilic and post-exilic period and is reflected in the book of Daniel (see esp. chapter 7) even as here in the deutero-canonical Prayer. It is a vital component of the eschatological (and Messianic) expectations of the period, tied to the hope of Israel’s restoration in the New Age.

“May they come to know that you, O Lord, alone (are) God,
and (to be held) in honor over the whole inhabited world!” (v. 22[45])

Conclusion

It is quite clear that the Prayer of Azariah stands on its own as a prayer- and lament-psalm, akin to many similar prayer-Psalms in the canonical Scriptures. It has much in common with Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 (vv. 4-19, as mentioned above), and this similarity may help to explain the inclusion of the Prayer here in chapter 3, despite there being very little in the Prayer itself that applies to the immediate narrative context. This transferred setting, however, does give to the Prayer a special significance, as an illustration of the righteous and devout character of the three companions (i.e., Azariah and his fellows). Even when facing the prospect of death in the flames of the fiery furnace, their concern is not with their own personal safety, but rather with the welfare of their people—the Community—as a whole. Indeed, as mentioned in the prior studies, Daniel and the three companions stand as representatives of the Judean/Jewish people in exile (among the nations); the challenges and dangers that they face (such as here in chapter 3) are illustrative and representative of those which the people everywhere face. They serve as an exemplary ideal of devotion to God and to the covenant bond with Him—viz., to the unique religious and spiritual identity of God’s people. Indeed, Jews and Christians alike have found much inspiration and encouragement from the ‘Three Young Men’ and their ordeal in the fiery furnace.

References above marked “Moore” are to Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 44 (1977).