Discovery Box| (0.21) | (Job 15:16) | 1 tn The two descriptions here used are “abominable,” meaning “disgusting” (a Niphal participle with the value of a Latin participle [see GKC 356-57 §116.e]), and “corrupt” (a Niphal participle which occurs only in Pss 14:3 and 53:4), always in a moral sense. On the significance of the first description, see P. Humbert, “Le substantif toʾēbā et le verbe tʾb dans l’Ancien Testament,” ZAW 72 [1960]: 217-37). On the second word, G. R. Driver suggests from Arabic, “debauched with luxury, corrupt” (“Some Hebrew Words,” JTS 29 [1927/28]: 390-96). |
| (0.21) | (Job 14:19) | 1 tn Heb “the overflowings of it”; the word סְפִיחֶיהָ (sefikheha) in the text is changed by just about everyone. The idea of “its overflowings” or more properly “its aftergrowths” (Lev 25:5; 2 Kgs 19:29; etc.) does not fit here at all. Budde suggested reading סְחִפָה (sekhifah), which is cognate to Arabic sahifeh, “torrential rain, rainstorm”—that which sweeps away the soil. The word סָחַף (sakhaf) in Hebrew might have a wider usage than the effects of rain. |
| (0.21) | (Job 10:22) | 1 tn The word סֵדֶר (seder, “order”) occurs only here in the Bible. G. R. Driver found a new meaning in Arabic sadira, “dazzled by the glare” (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 76-77); this would mean “without a ray of light.” This is accepted by those who see chaos out of place in this line. But the word “order” is well attested in later Hebrew (see J. Carmignac, “Précisions aportées au vocabulaire d’hébreu biblique par La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres,” VT 5 [1955]: 345-65). |
| (0.21) | (Job 9:31) | 1 tn The pointing in the MT gives the meaning “pit” or “ditch.” A number of expositors change the pointing to שֻׁחוֹת (shukhot) to obtain the equivalent of שֻׂחוֹת (sukhot) / סֻחוֹת (sukhot): “filth” (Isa 5:25). This would make the contrast vivid—Job has just washed with pure water and soap, and now God plunges him into filth. M. H. Pope argues convincingly that the word “pit” in the MT includes the idea of “filth,” making the emendation unnecessary (“The Word sahat in Job 9:31, ” JBL 83 [1964]: 269-78). |
| (0.21) | (Job 7:5) | 5 tn The meaning of רָגַע (ragaʿ) is also debated here. D. J. A. Clines (Job [WBC], 163) does not think the word can mean “cracked” because scabs show evidence of the sores healing. But E. Dhorme (Job, 100) argues that the usage of the word shows the idea of “splitting, separating, making a break,” or the like. Here then it would mean “my skin splits” and as a result festers. This need not be a reference to the scabs, but to new places. Or it could mean that the scabbing never heals, but is always splitting open. |
| (0.21) | (Job 4:17) | 2 tn The word for man here is first אֱנוֹשׁ (ʾenosh), stressing man in all his frailty, his mortality. This is paralleled with גֶּבֶר (gever), a word that would stress more of the strength or might of man. The verse is not making a great contrast between the two, but it is rhetorical question merely stating that no human being of any kind is righteous or pure before God the Creator. See H. Kosmala, “The Term geber in the OT and in the Scrolls,” VTSup 17 (1969): 159-69; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 156-57. |
| (0.21) | (Job 4:9) | 1 tn The LXX in the place of “breath” has “word” or “command,” probably to limit the anthropomorphism. The word is מִנִּשְׁמַת (minnishmat) comprising מִן (min) + נִשְׁמַת (nishmat, the construct of נְשָׁמָה [neshamah]): “from/at the breath of.” The “breath of God” occurs frequently in Scripture. In Gen 2:7 it imparts life, but here it destroys it. The figure probably does indicate a divine decree from God (e.g., “depart from me”)—so the LXX may have been simply interpreting. |
| (0.21) | (Job 4:9) | 3 tn The word רוּחַ (ruakh) is now parallel to נְשָׁמָה (neshamah); both can mean “breath” or “wind.” To avoid using “breath” for both lines, “blast” has been employed here. The word is followed by אַפּוֹ (ʾappo) which could be translated “his anger” or “his nostril.” If “nostril” is retained, then it is a very bold anthropomorphism to indicate the fuming wrath of God. It is close to the picture of the hot wind coming off the desert to scorch the plants (see Hos 13:15). |
| (0.21) | (Job 1:22) | 1 tn The last clause is difficult to translate. It simply reads, “and he did not give unseemliness to God.” The word תִּפְלָה (tiflah) means “unsavoriness” or “unseemliness” in a moral sense. The sense is that Job did not charge God with any moral impropriety in his dealings with him. God did nothing worthless or tasteless. The ancient versions saw the word connected with “foolishness” or “stupidity” (תָּפֵל, tafel, “to be tasteless”). It is possible that “folly” would capture some of what Job meant here. See also M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography XII,” Bib 55 (1974): 381-93. |
| (0.21) | (Job 1:1) | 7 tn The word תָּם (tam) has been translated “blameless” (so NIV, NLT, NASB). The verbal root תָּמַם (tamam) means “to be blameless, complete.” The word is found in Gen 25:27 where it describes Jacob as “even-tempered.” It also occurs in Ps 64:5 (64:4 ET) and Prov 29:10. The meaning is that a person or a thing is complete, perfect, flawless. It does not mean that he was sinless, but that he was wholeheartedly trying to please God, that he had integrity and was blameless before God. |
| (0.21) | (Neh 3:15) | 1 tn The Hebrew word translated “Siloam” is הַשֶּׁלַח (hashelakh, “water-channel”; cf. ASV, NASB, NRSV, TEV, CEV “Shelah”). It apparently refers to the Pool of Siloam whose water supply came from the Gihon Spring via Hezekiah’s Tunnel built in 701 b.c. (cf. Isa 8:6). See BDB 1019 s.v. שִׁלֹחַ; W. L. Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 372. On the etymology of the word, which is a disputed matter, see HALOT 1517 s.v. III שֶׁלַח. |
| (0.21) | (Ezr 10:3) | 2 tn The MT vocalizes this word as a plural, which could be understood as a reference to God, but the context seems to suggest that a human lord is intended. The apparatus of BHS suggests repointing the word as a singular (“my lord”), but this is unnecessary. The plural (“my lords”) can be understood in an honorific sense even when a human being is in view. Most English versions regard this as a reference to Ezra, so the present translation supplies “your” before “counsel” to make this clear. |
| (0.21) | (Ezr 7:23) | 1 tn The Aramaic word used here for “wrath” (קְצַף, qetsaf; cf. Heb קָצַף, qatsaf) is usually used in the Hebrew Bible for God’s anger as opposed to human anger (but contra Eccl 5:17 [MT 5:16]; Esth 1:18; 2 Kgs 3:27). The fact that this word is used in v. 23 may have theological significance, pointing to the possibility of divine judgment if the responsible parties should fail to make available these provisions for the temple. |
| (0.21) | (Ezr 5:3) | 2 tn The exact meaning of the Aramaic word אֻשַּׁרְנָא (ʾussarnaʾ) here and in v. 9 is uncertain (BDB 1083 s.v.). The LXX and Vulgate understand it to mean “wall.” Here it is used in collocation with בַּיְתָא (baytaʾ, “house” as the temple of God), while in 5:3, 9 it is used in parallelism with this term. It might be related to the Assyrian noun ashurru (“wall”) or ashru (“sanctuary”; so BDB). F. Rosenthal, who translates the word “furnishings,” thinks that it probably enters Aramaic from Persian (Grammar, 62-63, §189). |
| (0.21) | (1Ki 10:1) | 1 tc The Hebrew text also has, “to the name of the Lord,” which is very awkward due to its unusual syntax. The phrase is omitted in the parallel passage in 2 Chr 9:1. The word “report” is followed by the preposition ל (lamed) in Isa 23:5 and Hos 7:12 and indicates whom the message came to. And otherwise the collocation of לְשֵׁם (leshem, “to the name”) does not follow either a proper noun or the word report elsewhere in scripture. If retained, perhaps it should be translated, “for the reputation of the Lord.” |
| (0.21) | (2Sa 6:2) | 4 tc The MT has here a double reference to the name (שֵׁם שֵׁם, shem shem). Many medieval Hebrew mss in the first occurrence point the word differently and read the adverb שָׁם (sham, “there”). This is also the understanding of the Syriac Peshitta (Syr., taman). While this yields an acceptable understanding to the text, it is more likely that the MT reading results from dittography. If the word did occur twice, one might have expected the first occurrence to have the article. The present translation therefore reads שֵׁם only once. |
| (0.21) | (1Sa 23:28) | 1 sn The name הַמַּחְלְקוֹת סֶלַע (selaʿ hammakhleqot) probably means “Rock of Divisions” in Hebrew, in the sense that Saul and David parted company there (cf. NAB “Gorge of Divisions”; TEV “Separation Hill”). This etymology assumes that the word derives from the Hebrew root II חָלַק (khalaq, “to divide”; HALOT 322 s.v. II חלק). However, there is another root I חלק, which means “to be smooth or slippery” (HALOT 322 s.v. I חלק). If the word is taken from this root, the expression would mean “Slippery Rock.” |
| (0.21) | (1Sa 14:15) | 2 tn Heb “and it was by the fear of God.” The translation understands this to mean that God was the source or cause of the fear experienced by the Philistines. This seems to be the most straightforward reading of the sentence. It is possible, however, that the word “God” functions here simply to intensify the accompanying word “fear,” in which one might translate “a very great fear” (cf. NAB, NRSV). It is clear that on some occasions that the divine name carries such a superlative nuance. For examples see Joüon 2:525 §141.n. |
| (0.21) | (1Sa 5:4) | 1 tc Heb “only Dagon was left.” We should probably read the word גֵּו (gev, “back”) before Dagon, understanding it to have the sense of the similar word גְּוִיָּה (geviyyah, “body”). This variant is supported by the following evidence: The LXX has ἡ ῥάχις (hē hrachis, “the back” or “trunk”); the Syriac Peshitta has wegusmeh (“and the body of”); the Targum has gupyeh (“the body of”); the Vulgate has truncus (“the trunk of,” cf. NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT). On the strength of this evidence the present translation employs the phrase “Dagon’s body.” |
| (0.21) | (Jdg 21:11) | 3 tc Some Greek witnesses (notably Codex Vaticanus [B]) add the words, “‘But the virgins you should keep alive.’ And they did so.” These additional words, which probably represent the original Hebrew text, can be retroverted: וְאֶת־הַבְּתוּלוֹת תְּחַיּוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן (veʾet habbetulot tekhayyu vayyaʿasu khen). It is likely that a scribe’s eye jumped from the ו (vav) on וְאֶת (veʾet) to the initial vav of v. 11, accidentally leaving out the intervening letters. The present translation is based on this reconstruction. |
