Job 24:15-16

24:15 And the eye of the adulterer watches for the twilight,

thinking, ¹  ‘No eye can see me,’

and covers his face with a mask.

24:16 In the dark the robber ²  breaks into houses, ³ 

but by day they shut themselves in; ⁴ 

they do not know the light. ⁵ 

Jeremiah 5:8

5:8 They are like lusty, well-fed ⁶  stallions.

Each of them lusts after ⁷  his neighbor’s wife.

Hosea 7:4

7:4 They are all like bakers, ⁸ 

they ⁹  are like a smoldering oven;

they are like a baker who does not stoke the fire

until the kneaded dough is ready for baking.

[24:15]  ¹ tn Heb “saying.”

[24:16]  ² tn The phrase “the robber” has been supplied in the English translation for clarification.

[24:16]  ³ tc This is not the idea of the adulterer, but of the thief. So some commentators reverse the order and put this verse after v. 14.

[24:16]  ⁴ tc The verb חִתְּמוּ (khittÿmu) is the Piel from the verb חָתַם (khatam, “to seal”). The verb is now in the plural, covering all the groups mentioned that work under the cover of darkness. The suggestion that they “seal,” i.e., “mark” the house they will rob, goes against the meaning of the word “seal.”

[24:16]  ⁵ tc Some commentators join this very short colon to the beginning of v. 17: “they do not know the light. For together…” becomes “for together they have not known the light.”

[5:8]  ⁶ tn The meanings of these two adjectives are uncertain. The translation of the first adjective is based on assuming that the word is a defectively written participle related to the noun “testicle” (a Hiphil participle מַאֲשִׁכִים [ma’ashikhim] from a verb related to אֶשֶׁךְ [’eshekh, “testicle”]; cf. Lev 21:20) and hence “having testicles” (cf. HALOT 1379 s.v. שָׁכָה) instead of the Masoretic form מַשְׁכִּים (mashkim) from a root שָׁכָה (shakhah), which is otherwise unattested in either verbal or nominal forms. The second adjective is best derived from a verb root meaning “to feed” (a Hophal participle מוּזָנִים [muzanim, the Kethib] from a root זוּן [zun; cf. BDB 266 s.v. זוּן] for which there is the cognate noun מָזוֹן [mazon; cf. 2 Chr 11:23]). This is more likely than the derivation from a root יָזַן ([yazan]reading מְיֻזָּנִים [mÿyuzzanim], a Pual participle with the Qere) which is otherwise unattested in verbal or nominal forms and whose meaning is dependent only on a supposed Arabic cognate (cf. HALOT 387 s.v. יָזַן).

[5:8]  ⁷ tn Heb “neighs after.”

[7:4]  ⁸ tc The MT reads מְנָאֲפִים (mÿna’afim, “adulterers”; Piel participle masculine plural from נָאַף, na’af, “to commit adultery”), which does not seem to fit the context. The original reading was probably אוֹפִים (’ofim, “bakers”; Qal participle masculine plural from אָפַה, ’afah, “to bake”), which harmonizes well with the baker/oven/fire motif in 7:4-7. The textual deviation was caused by: (1) confusion of נ (nun) and ו (vav), (2) metathesis of נ/ו (nun/vav) and א (alef), and (3) dittography of מ (mem) from the preceding word. Original כֻּלָּם אוֹפִים (kullam ’ofim, “all of them are bakers”) was confused for כֻּלָּם מְנָאֲפִים (“all of them are adulterers”). In spite of this most English versions follow the reading of the MT here.

[7:4]  ⁹ tc The MT preserves the enigmatic כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵ (kÿmo tannur bo’erah me, “Like a burning oven, from…?”). The adjectival participle בֹּעֵרָה (“burning”) is feminine while the noun תַנּוּר (tannur, “oven”) that it modifies is masculine. The BHS editors solve this problem by simply redividing the words: כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵר הֵם (cÿmo tannur bo’er hem, “they are like a burning oven”). This solution is followed by many English versions (e.g., NCV, NRSV, NLT).