¹ sn The meaning of the verse is very difficult, although the translation is rather straightforward. It may simply be saying that people should retain family relationships but will discover that a friend who is available is better than a relative who is not. But C. H. Toy thinks that the verse is made up of three lines that have no connection: 10a instructs people to maintain relationships, 10b says not to go to a brother’s house [only?] when disaster strikes, and 10c observes that a nearby friend is better than a far-away relative. C. H. Toy suggests a connection may have been there, but has been lost (Proverbs [ICC], 485-86). The conflict between 17:17 and 10b may be another example of presenting two sides of the issue, a fairly frequent occurrence in the book of Proverbs.

³ tn The form rendered “rebels” is difficult; it appears to be the Qal active participle, plural, from שָׁנָה (shanah), “to change”—“those who change.” The RV might have thought of the idea of “change” when they rendered it “political agitators.” The Syriac and Tg. Prov 24:21 have “fools,” the Latin has “detractors,” and the LXX reads, “do not disobey either of them,” referring to God and the king in the first line. Accordingly the ruin predicted in the next line would be the ruin that God and the king can inflict. If the idea of “changers” is retained, it would have to mean people who at one time feared God and the king but no longer do.

¹ tn The verb הִתְרַפִּיתָ (hitrappita) is a Hitpael perfect form of רָפָה (rafah). Most translations render the verse as a conditional statement (“if you…”) though the Hebrew lacks the term “if.” Hebrew proverbs can use the past tense to set the topic or opening premise of a proverb, and then comment on it in the second half of the proverb. English translators of proverbial sayings tend to want to make the Hebrew past time verbs into present tense in English. But this convention is difficult with second person verb forms, so the translations tend to change the sentence into an interrogative or conditional formula. The direct address in the Hebrew is more confrontational. In the Qal, the verb רָפָה (rafah) means “to become slack, limp, to wither.” In the Hitpael it means “to slack off,” “be lax,” possibly “to discourage oneself.” It has also been rendered as “give up” (NCV, CEV); “fail” (NLT); “falter” (NIV), “faint” (ASV, ESV).

¹ tn Most translations render the verse as a question (“do you see…?”, so NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV) or as a condition (“if you…, so CEV), but the Hebrew has a perfect verb form (חָזִיתָ, khazita) without an interrogative or conditional marker. Hebrew proverbs can use the past tense to set the topic or opening premise of a proverb (to present a case, e.g. “take this situation where X occurred”), and then comment on it in the second half of the proverb. English translators of proverbial sayings tend to want to make the past time verbs in Hebrew into present tense in English. But this convention is difficult with second person verb forms, so the translations tend to take the tactic of changing the nature of the sentence to interrogative or conditional.

⁴ tn The Hebrew has “seekers of death,” meaning “[they that seek them] are seekers of death,” or that the fortune is “a fleeting vapor for those who seek death.” The sense is not readily apparent. The Greek and the Latin versions have “snares of death”; the form מוֹקְשֵׁי (moq^eshe) was read instead of מְבַקְשֵׁי (m^evaqq^eshe). This reading does not make a more credible metaphor, and one must explain the loss of the letter ב (bet) in the textual variant. It is, however, slightly easier to interpret in the verse, and is followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). But whether the easier reading is the correct one in this case would be difficult to prove.

¹ tc The MT reads שָׁחָה (shakhah) from שׁוּחַ (shuakh) or the biform שָׁחַח (shakhakh): “she sinks down to death her house.” However most English versions take בֵּיתָהּ (betah) “her house” (masculine singular noun with third person feminine singular suffix) as the subject (e.g., KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, CEV): “her house sinks down to death.” The LXX reflects שָׁתָה (shatah) from שִׁית (shit): “She has placed her house near death.” This is a matter of simple orthographic confusion between ח (khet) and ת (tav). The MT preserves the more difficult reading, which is often to be preferred. The question is whether the reading is too difficult because the syntax is unworkable. The MT and LXX both read the verb as Qal perfect third person feminine singular. Contextually the subject would be the “loose woman” of 2:16-17. But the MT’s reading from שׁוּחַ (“to sink down”) does not expect a direct object, leaving no role for the masculine noun “house.” K&D 16:83 suggests that בֵּיתָהּ (“her house”) is a permutative noun that qualifies the subject: “she together with all that belongs to her [her house] sinks down to death” (GKC 425 §131.k). D. Kidner suggests that “her house” is in apposition to “death” (e.g., Job 17:13; 30:23; Prov 9:18; Eccl 12:5), meaning that death is her house: “she sinks down to death, which is her house” (Proverbs [TOTC], 62). However the verb also has to operate in the next line where the verb is understood again though the technique of ellipsis and double duty. The parallelism should expect the same role for “her paths” as for “her house.” But this is unworkable for the second half of the line. Further the picture of “sinking down” in English may be misleading. The Arabic cognate may suggest sinking into the ground, but the Akkadian cognate suggests “crumbling” (of a building) or “wasting away” (of health). The Hebrew root שָׁחַח (shakhakh) seems to mean “crouch down” elsewhere (e.g. Job 38:40; Ps 10:10). The BHS editors attempt to resolve this syntactical problem by suggesting a conjectural emendation of MT בֵּיתָהּ (betah “her house”) to the feminine singular noun נְתִיבָתָהּ (n^etivatah, “her path”) which appears in the plural in 7:25 (though they cite 7:27), to recover a feminine subject for the verb: “her path sinks down to death.” This would solve the problem of subject-verb agreement, but may not resolve whether this verb can really be modified by the prepositional phrase “to death.” It also seems problematic to propose a difficult conjectural emendation for the sake of keeping a syntactically difficult text. Most of the versions follow the MT, trying to make the picture of “sinking down to death” work. However the LXX reading is simple to explain textually (confusion of two similar looking letters) and restores reasonable syntax, although the preposition אֶל (ʾel) is more typical of another verb meaning “to set, to place,” שִׂים (sim).

² tn The verb יָצַע (yatzaʿ) is rare in the Bible (see Isa 58:5 also Hiphil, and Isa 1:14; Est 4:3 for Hophal examples). There are three main options for understanding this phrase. It may mean “to descend to Sheol,” as in the LXX. This takes the motion in the verb as very generic for this context and understands “Sheol” without a preposition as the default “to Sheol.” Many translations take it as spreading out [something] to act as a bed, couch, or area to lie down. It is uncertain that the idea of a bed has to be implied and this does not required to fit the other contexts. Or, as taken here, it may “to spread [oneself] out, to sprawl.” Each view has merits and it is difficult to decide because the are so few examples.

¹ tc The MT reads literally, “and they caused him [or it] to stumble upon them, their tongue.” Perhaps the third plural subject of the verb is indefinite with the third singular pronominal suffix on the verb being distributive (see Ps 63:10). In this case one may translate, “each one will be made to stumble.” The preposition עַל (ʿal) might then be taken as adversative, “against them [is] their tongue.” Many prefer to emend the text to וַיַּכְשִׁילֵמוֹ עֲלֵי לְשׁוֹנָם (vayyakhshilemo ʿale l^eshonam, “and he caused them to stumble over their tongue”). However, if this reading is original, it is difficult to see how the present reading of the MT arose. Furthermore, the preposition is not collocated with the verb כָּשַׁל (kashal) elsewhere. Perhaps a better option is that the third singular pronominal suffix “it” refers to the following noun “tongue” translated “they caused it, their tongue, to stumble on themselves” (see GKC 425-26 §131.m, o).

³ tn Heb “my life, in the midst of lions, I lie down, devouring ones, sons of mankind, their teeth a spear and arrows and their tongue a sharp sword.” The syntax of the verse is difficult. Another option is to take “my life” with the preceding verse. For this to make sense, one must add a verb, perhaps “and may he deliver” (cf. the LXX), before the phrase. One might then translate, “May God send his loyal love and faithfulness and deliver my life.” If one does take “my life” with v. 4, then the parallelism of v. 5 is altered and one might translate: “in the midst of lions I lie down, [among] men who want to devour me, whose teeth….”

² tc Here is another difficult line. The verb normally means “to pass through; to pass over,” and so this word would normally mean “from passing through [or over].” The word שֶׁלַח (shelakh) does at times refer to a weapon, but most commentators look for a parallel with “the pit [or corruption].” One suggestion is שְׁאוֹלָה (sh^eʾolah, “to Sheol”), proposed by Duhm. Dhorme thought it was שַׁלַח (shalakh) and referred to the passageway to the underworld (see M. Tsevat, VT 4 [1954]: 43; and Svi Rin, BZ 7 [1963]: 25). See discussion of options in HALOT 1517-18 s.v. IV שֶׁלַח. The idea of crossing the river of death fits the idea of the passage well, although the reading “to perish by the sword” makes sense and was followed by the NIV.

¹ tc Here is another very difficult verse, as the differences among commentaries and translations attest. The MT has “surely not against a ruinous heap will he [God] put forth his [God’s] hand.” But A. B. Davidson takes Job as the subject, reading “does not one stretch out his hand in his fall?” The RSV suggests a man walking in the ruins and using his hand for support. Dillmann changed it to “drowning man” to say “does not a drowning man stretch out his hand?” Beer has “have I not given a helping hand to the poor?” Dhorme has, “I did not strike the poor man with my hand.” Kissane follows this but retains the verb form, “one does not strike the poor man with his hand.”

² tc The MT (followed by the Vulgate and Targum) has “my hand is heavy on my groaning.” This would mean “my stroke is heavier than my groaning” (an improbable view from Targum Job). A better suggestion is that the meaning would be that Job tries to suppress his groans but the hand with which he suppresses them is too heavy (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 159). Budde, E. Dhorme, J. E. Hartley, and F. I. Andersen all maintain the MT as the more difficult reading. F. I. Andersen (Job [TOTC], 208) indicates that the ִ י(yod) suffix could be an example of an unusual third masculine singular. Both the LXX and the Syriac versions have “his hand,” and many modern commentators follow this, along with the present translation. In this case the referent of “his” would be God, whose hand is heavy upon Job in spite of Job’s groaning.

² tn This last line in the verse is the difficult one. The MT has “he shall depart by the breath of his mouth.” If this reading stands, then it must be understood that it is the breath of God’s mouth that is intended. In place of “his mouth” the LXX has “flower” (reading פִּרהוֹ [pirho, properly, “his fruit”] instead of פִּיו piv), and “fall” instead of “depart.” Modern commentators and a number of English versions (e.g., RSV, NRSV, TEV) alter יָסוּר (yasur, “depart”) to something like יְסֹעַר (y^esoʿar, from סָעַר [saʿar, “to drive away”]), or the like, to get “will be swept away.” The result is a reading: “and his blossom will be swept away by the wind.” The LXX may have read the Hebrew exactly, but harmonized it with v. 33 (see H. Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job [CBQMS]: 61-62).

¹ tn The Hebrew נֶאֱמָנִים (neʾemanim) is the Niphal participle; it is often translated “the faithful” in the Bible. The Rabbis rather fancifully took the word from נְאֻם (n^eʾum, “oracle, utterance”) and so rendered it “those who are eloquent, fluent in words.” But that would make this the only place in the Bible where this form came from that root or any other root besides אָמַן (ʾaman, “confirm, support”). But to say that God takes away the speech of the truthful or the faithful would be very difficult. It has to refer to reliable men because it is parallel to the elders or old men. The NIV has “trusted advisers,” which fits well with kings and judges and priests.

¹ tn The text seems to be saying “that it [wisdom] is double in understanding.” The point is that it is different than Job conceived it—it far exceeded all perception. But some commentators have thought this still too difficult, and so have replaced the word כִפְלַיִם (khiflayim, “two sides”) with כִפְלָאִים (khiflaʾim, “like wonders,” or, more simply, “wonders” without the preposition). But it is still a little strange to talk about God’s wisdom being like wonders. Others have had more radical changes in the text; J. J. Slotki has “for sound wisdom is his. And know that double [punishment] shall God exact of you” (“Job 11:6, ” VT 35 [1985]: 229-30).

⁵ tn The last clause is difficult to fit into the verse. It translates easily enough: “and see my affliction.” Many commentators follow the suggestion of Geiger to read רְוֶה (r^eveh, “watered with”) instead of רְאֵה (r^eʾeh, “see”). This could then be interpreted adjectivally and parallel to the preceding line: “steeped/saturated with affliction.” This would also delete the final yod as dittography (E. Dhorme, Job, 152). But D. J. A. Clines notes more recent interpretations that suggest the form in the text is an orthographic variant of raweh meaning “satiated.” This makes any emendation unnecessary (and in fact that idea of “steeped” was not helpful any way because it indicated imbibing rather than soaking). The NIV renders it “and drowned in my affliction” although footnoting the other possibility from the MT, “aware of my affliction” (assuming the form could be adjectival). The LXX omits the last line.

³ tn Heb “together round about and you destroy me.” The second half of this verse is very difficult. Most commentators follow the LXX and connect the first two words with the second colon as the MT accents indicate (NJPS, “then destroyed every part of me”), rather than with the first colon (“and made me complete,” J. E. Hartley, Job [NICOT], 185). Instead of “together” some read “after.” Others see in סָבִיב (saviv) not so much an adjectival use but a verbal or adverbial use: “you turn and destroy” or “you destroy utterly (all around).” This makes more sense than “turn.” In addition, the verb form in the line is the preterite with vav consecutive; this may be another example of the transposition of the copula (see 4:6). For yet another option (“You have engulfed me about altogether”), see R. Fuller, “Exodus 21:22: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” JETS 37 (1994): 178.

³ tn The relationship of the second colon to the first is difficult. The line just reads literally “and the fear of the Almighty he forsakes.” The ו (vav) could be interpreted in several different ways: “else he will forsake…,” “although he forsakes…,” “even the one who forsakes…,” or “even if he forsakes…”—the reading adopted here. If the first colon receives the reading “His friend has scorned compassion,” then this clause would be simply coordinated with “and forsakes the fear of the Almighty.” The sense of the verse seems to say that kindness/loyalty should be shown to the despairing, even to the one who is forsaking the fear of the Lord, meaning, saying outrageous things, like Job has been doing.

³ tn The verb לָעוּ (laʿu) is traced by E. Dhorme (Job, 76) to a root לָעָה (laʿah), cognate to an Arabic root meaning “to chatter.” He shows how modern Hebrew has a meaning for the word “to stammer out.” But that does not really fit Job’s outbursts. The idea in the context is rather that of speaking wildly, rashly, or charged with grief. This would trace the word to a hollow or geminate word and link it to Arabic “talk wildly” (see D. J. A. Clines, Job [WBC], 158). In the older works the verb was taken from a geminate root meaning “to suck” or “to swallow” (cf. KJV), but that yields a very difficult sense to the line.

⁹ tn The Hebrew verb is בָּרַךְ (barakh), which means “to bless.” Here is a case where the writer or a scribe has substituted the word “curse” with the word “bless” to avoid having the expression “curse God.” For similar euphemisms in the ancient world, see K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 166. It is therefore difficult to know exactly what Job feared they might have done. The opposite of “bless” would be “curse,” which normally would convey disowning or removing from blessing. Some commentators try to offer a definition of “curse” from the root in the text, and noting that “curse” is too strong, come to something like “renounce.” The idea of blaspheming is probably not meant; rather, in their festivities they may have said things that renounced God or their interest in him. Job feared this momentary turning away from God in their festivities, perhaps as they thought their good life was more important than their religion.