Job 10:16

10:16 If I lift myself up, ¹ 

you hunt me as a fierce lion, ² 

and again ³  you display your power ⁴  against me.

Job 11:10

11:10 If he comes by ⁵  and confines ⁶  you ⁷ 

and convenes a court, ⁸ 

then who can prevent ⁹  him?

Job 13:22

13:22 Then call, ¹⁰  and I will answer,

or I will speak, and you respond to me.

Job 20:2

20:2 “This is why ¹¹  my troubled thoughts bring me back ¹²  –

because of my feelings ¹³  within me.

Job 20:10

20:10 His sons must recompense ¹⁴  the poor;

his own hands ¹⁵  must return his wealth.

Job 33:5

33:5 Reply to me, if you can;

set your arguments ¹⁶  in order before me

and take your stand!

Job 33:25

33:25 then his flesh is restored ¹⁷  like a youth’s;

he returns to the days of his youthful vigor. ¹⁸ 

Job 35:4

35:4 I ¹⁹  will reply to you, ²⁰ 

and to your friends with you.

[10:16]  ¹ tn The MT has the 3rd person of the verb, “and he lifts himself up.” One might assume that the subject is “my head” – but that is rather far removed from the verb. It appears that Job is talking about himself in some way. Some commentators simply emend the text to make it first person. This has the support of Targum Job, which would be expected since it would be interpreting the passage in its context (see D. M. Stec, “The Targum Rendering of WYG’H in Job X 16,” VT 34 [1984]: 367-8). Pope and Gordis make the word adjectival, modifying the subject: “proudly you hunt me,” but support is lacking. E. Dhorme thinks the line should be parallel to the two preceding it, and so suggests יָגֵּעַ (yagea’, “exhausted”) for יִגְאֶה (yig’eh, “lift up”). The contextual argument is that Job has said that he cannot raise his head, but if he were to do so, God would hunt him down. God could be taken as the subject of the verb if the text is using enallage (shifting of grammatical persons within a discourse) for dramatic effect. Perhaps the initial 3rd person was intended with respect within a legal context of witnesses and a complaint, but was switched to 2nd person for direct accusation.

[10:16]  ² sn There is some ambiguity here: Job could be the lion being hunted by God, or God could be hunting Job like a lion hunts its prey. The point of the line is clear in either case.

[10:16]  ³ tn The text uses two verbs without a coordinating conjunction: “then you return, you display your power.” This should be explained as a verbal hendiadys, the first verb serving adverbially in the clause (see further GKC 386-87 §120.g).

[10:16]  ⁴ tn The form is the Hitpael of פָּלָא (pala’, “to be wonderful; to be surpassing; to be extraordinary”). Here in this stem it has the sense of “make oneself admirable, surpassing” or “render oneself powerful, glorious.” The text is ironic; the word that described God’s marvelous creation of Job is here used to describe God’s awesome destruction of Job.

[11:10]  ⁵ tn The verb יַחֲלֹף (yakhalof) is literally “passes by/through” (NIV “comes along” in the sense of “if it should so happen”). Many accept the emendation to יַחְתֹּף (yakhtof, “he seizes,” cf. Gordis, Driver), but there is not much support for these.

[11:10]  ⁶ tn The verb is the Hiphil of סָגַר (sagar, “to close; to shut”) and so here in this context it probably means something like “to shut in; to confine.” But this is a difficult meaning, and the sentence is cryptic. E. Dhorme (Job, 162) thinks this word and the next have to be antithetical, and so he suggests from a meaning “to keep confined” the idea of keeping a matter secret; and with the next verb, “to convene an assembly,” he offers “to divulge it.”

[11:10]  ⁷ tn The pronoun “you” is not in the Hebrew text but has been supplied in the translation.

[11:10]  ⁸ tn The denominative Hiphil of קָהָל (qahal, “an assembly”) has the idea of “to convene an assembly.” In this context there would be the legal sense of convening a court, i.e., calling Job to account (D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 255). See E. Ullendorff, “The Meaning of QHLT,” VT 12 (1962): 215; he defines the verb also as “argue, rebuke.”

[11:10]  ⁹ tn The verb means “turn him back.” Zophar uses Job’s own words (see 9:12).

[13:22]  ⁹ tn The imperatives in the verse function like the future tense in view of their use for instruction or advice. The chiastic arrangement of the verb forms is interesting: imperative + imperfect, imperfect + imperative. The imperative is used for God, but the imperfect is used when Job is the subject. Job is calling for the court to convene – he will be either the defendant or the prosecutor.

[20:2]  ¹³ tn The ordinary meaning of לָכֵן (lakhen) is “therefore,” coming after an argument. But at the beginning of a speech it is an allusion to what follows.

[20:2]  ¹⁴ tn The verb is שׁוּב (shuv, “to return”), but in the Hiphil, “bring me back,” i.e., prompt me to make another speech. The text makes good sense as it is, and there is no reason to change the reading to make a closer parallel with the second half – indeed, the second part explains the first.

[20:2]  ¹⁵ tn The word is normally taken from the root “to hasten,” and rendered “because of my haste within me.” But K&D 11:374 proposed another root, and similarly, but closer to the text, E. Dhorme (Job, 289-90) found an Arabic word with the meaning “feeling, sensation.” He argues that from this idea developed the meanings in the cognates of “thoughts” as well. Similarly, Gordis translates it “my feeling pain.” See also Eccl 2:25.

[20:10]  ¹⁷ tn The early versions confused the root of this verb, taking it from רָצַץ (ratsats, “mistreat”) and not from רָצָה (ratsah, “be please with”). So it was taken to mean, “Let inferiors destroy his children.” But the verb is רָצָה (ratsah). This has been taken to mean “his sons will seek the favor of the poor.” This would mean that they would be reduced to poverty and need help from even the poor. Some commentators see this as another root רָצָה (ratsah) meaning “to compensate; to restore” wealth their father had gained by impoverishing others. This fits the parallelism well, but not the whole context that well.

[20:10]  ¹⁸ tn Some commentators are surprised to see “his hands” here, thinking the passage talks about his death. Budde changed it to “his children,” by altering one letter. R. Gordis argued that “hand” can mean offspring, and so translated it that way without changing anything in the text (“A note on YAD,” JBL 62 [1943]: 343).

[33:5]  ²¹ tn The Hebrew text does not contain the term “arguments,” but this verb has been used already for preparing or arranging a defense.

[33:25]  ²⁵ tc The word רֻטֲפַשׁ (rutafash) is found nowhere else. One suggestion is that it should be יִרְטַב (yirtav, “to become fresh”), connected to רָטַב (ratav, “to be well watered [or moist]”). It is also possible that it was a combination of רָטַב (ratav, “to be well watered”) and טָפַשׁ (tafash, “to grow fat”). But these are all guesses in the commentaries.

[33:25]  ²⁶ tn The word describes the period when the man is healthy and vigorous, ripe for what life brings his way.

[35:4]  ²⁹ tn The emphatic pronoun calls attention to Elihu who will answer these questions.

[35:4]  ³⁰ tn The Hebrew text adds, “with words,” but since this is obvious, for stylistic reasons it has not been included in the translation.