(0.20) | (Job 5:3) | 2 tn This word is אֱוִיל (ʾevil), the same word for the “senseless man” in the preceding verse. Eliphaz is citing an example of his principle just given—he saw such a fool for a brief while appearing to prosper (i.e., taking root). |
(0.20) | (Job 4:21) | 2 tc The text of the LXX does not seem to be connected to the Hebrew of v. 21a. It reads something like “for he blows on them and they are withered” (see Isa 40:24b). The Targum to Job has “Is it not by their lack of righteousness that they have been deprived of all support?” |
(0.20) | (Job 4:6) | 1 tn The word יִרְאָה (yirʾah, “fear”) in this passage refers to Job’s fear of the Lord, his reverential devotion to God. H. H. Rowley (Job [NCBC], 46) says that on the lips of Eliphaz the word almost means “your religion.” He refers to Moffatt’s translation, “Let your religion reassure you.” |
(0.20) | (Job 3:15) | 2 tn Heb “filled their houses.” There is no reason here to take “houses” to mean tombs; the “houses” refer to the places the princes lived (i.e., palaces). The reference is not to the practice of burying treasures with the dead. It is simply saying that if Job had died he would have been with the rich and famous in death. |
(0.20) | (Job 3:10) | 3 tn The Hebrew has simply “my belly [= womb].” The suffix on the noun must be objective—it was the womb of Job’s mother in which he lay before his birth. See however N. C. Habel, “The Dative Suffix in Job 33:13, ” Bib 63 (1982): 258-59, who thinks it is deliberately ambiguous. |
(0.20) | (Job 3:1) | 2 sn The detailed introduction to the speech with “he opened his mouth” draws the readers attention to what was going to be said. As the introduction to the poetic speech that follows (3:3-26), vv. 1-2 continue the prose style of chapters 1-2. Each of the subsequent speeches is introduced by such a prose heading. |
(0.20) | (Job 3:2) | 1 tc The text has וַיַּעַן (vayyaʿan), literally, “and he answered.” The LXX simply has “saying” for the entire verse. The Syriac, Targum, and Greek A agree with the MT. “[Someone] answered and said” is phraseology characteristic of all the speeches in Job beginning with Satan in 1:9. No other portion of the OT employs this phraseology as often or as consistently. |
(0.20) | (Job 2:12) | 2 tn The Hiphil perfect here should take the nuance of potential perfect—they were not able to recognize him. In other words, this does not mean that they did not know it was Job, only that he did not look anything like the Job they knew. |
(0.20) | (Job 2:9) | 2 sn See R. D. Moore, “The Integrity of Job,” CBQ 45 (1983): 17-31. The reference of Job’s wife to his “integrity” could be a precursor of the conclusion reached by Elihu in 32:2 where he charged Job with justifying himself rather than God. |
(0.20) | (Job 2:6) | 4 sn The irony of the passage comes through with this choice of words. The verb שָׁמַר (shamar) means “to keep; to guard; to preserve.” The exceptive clause casts Satan in the role of a savior—he cannot destroy this life but must protect it. |
(0.20) | (Job 1:20) | 1 tn The verb וַיָּקָם (vayyaqom, “and he arose”) indicates the intentionality and the rapidity of the actions to follow. It signals the beginning of his response to the terrible news. Therefore, the sentence could be translated, “Then Job immediately began to tear his robe.” |
(0.20) | (Job 1:11) | 4 tn See the comments on Job 1:5. Here too the idea of “renounce” may fit well enough, but the idea of actually cursing God may not be out of the picture if everything Job has is removed. Satan thinks he will denounce God. |
(0.20) | (Job 1:6) | 1 sn The text draws the curtain of heaven aside for the reader to understand the background of this drama. God extols the virtue of Job, but Satan challenges the reasons for it. He receives permission to try to dislodge Job from his integrity. In short, God is using Job to prove Satan’s theory wrong. |
(0.20) | (Est 3:11) | 1 tn Heb “the silver is given to you”; NRSV “the money is given to you”; CEV “You can keep their money.” C. A. Moore (Esther [AB], 40) understands these words somewhat differently, taking them to imply acceptance of the money on Xerxes’ part. He translates, “Well, it’s your money.” |
(0.20) | (Ezr 4:10) | 1 sn Ashurbanipal succeeded his father Esarhaddon as king of Assyria in 669 b.c. Around 645 b.c. he sacked the city of Susa, capital of Elam, and apparently some of these people were exiled to Samaria and other places. |
(0.20) | (2Ch 36:21) | 3 sn According to Lev 25:4, the land was to remain uncultivated every seventh year. Lev 26:33-35 warns that the land would experience a succession of such sabbatical rests if the people disobeyed God, for he would send them away into exile. |
(0.20) | (2Ch 33:6) | 1 tn Or “he sacrificed his sons in the fire.” This may refer to child sacrifice, though some interpret it as a less drastic cultic practice (NEB, NASB “made his sons pass through the fire”; NIV “sacrificed his children in the fire”; NRSV “made his sons pass through fire”). For discussion see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 266-67. |
(0.20) | (2Ch 28:23) | 1 tn Heb “the gods of Damascus, the ones who had defeated him.” The words “he thought” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The perspective is that of Ahaz, not the narrator! Another option is that “the kings” has been accidentally omitted after “gods of.” See v. 23b. |
(0.20) | (2Ch 25:16) | 3 tn The verb יָעַץ (yaʿats, “has decided”) is from the same root as יוֹעֵץ (yoʿets, “counselor”) in v. 16 and עֵצָה (ʿetsah, “advice”) later in v. 16. The wordplay highlights the appropriate nature of the divine punishment. Amaziah rejected the counsel of God’s prophet; now he would be the victim of God’s “counsel.” |
(0.20) | (2Ch 18:5) | 2 tn Though Jehoshaphat had requested an oracle from “the Lord” (יְהוָה, yehvah, “Yahweh”), the Israelite prophets stop short of actually using this name and substitute the title הָאֱלֹהִים (haʾelohim, “the God”). This ambiguity may explain in part Jehoshaphat’s hesitancy and caution (vv. 7-8). He seems to doubt that the 400 are genuine prophets of the Lord. |