Discovery Box| (0.25) | (Job 14:8) | 3 sn Job is thinking here of a tree that dies or decays because of a drought rather than being uprooted because the next verse will tell how it can revive with water. |
| (0.25) | (Job 14:8) | 2 tn The Hiphil is here classified as an inchoative Hiphil (see GKC 145 §53.e), for the tree only begins to die. In other words, it appears to be dead, but actually is not completely dead. |
| (0.25) | (Job 14:2) | 3 tn The verb is “and he does not stand.” Here the verb means “to stay fixed; to abide.” The shadow does not stay fixed, but continues to advance toward darkness. |
| (0.25) | (Job 13:17) | 1 tn The infinitive absolute intensifies the imperative, which serves here with the force of an immediate call to attention. In accordance with GKC 342 §113.n, the construction could be translated, “Keep listening” (so ESV). |
| (0.25) | (Job 13:18) | 4 tn The word מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) usually means “judgment; decision.” Here it means “lawsuit” (and so a metonymy of effect gave rise to this usage; see Num 27:5; 2 Sam 15:4). |
| (0.25) | (Job 13:13) | 4 tn The interrogative pronoun מָה (mah) is used in indirect questions, here introducing a clause [with the verb understood] as the object—“whatever it be” (see GKC 443-44 §137.c). |
| (0.25) | (Job 13:5) | 1 tn The construction is the imperfect verb in the wish formula preceded by the infinitive that intensifies it. The Hiphil is not directly causative here, but internally—“keep silent.” |
| (0.25) | (Job 13:5) | 2 tn Heb “and it would be for you for wisdom,” or “that it would become your wisdom.” Job is rather sarcastic here, indicating if they shut up they would prove themselves to be wise (see Prov 17:28). |
| (0.25) | (Job 13:3) | 4 tn The infinitive הוֹכֵחַ (hokheakh) is from the verb יָכַח (yakhakh), which means “to argue, plead, debate.” It has the legal sense here of arguing a case (cf. 5:17). |
| (0.25) | (Job 11:17) | 1 tn Some translations add the pronoun to make it specifically related to Job (“your life”), but this is not necessary. The word used here has the nuance of lasting life. |
| (0.25) | (Job 11:5) | 1 tn The wish formula מִי־יִתֵּן (mi yitten, “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151.b) is followed here by an infinitive (Exod 16:3; 2 Sam 19:1). |
| (0.25) | (Job 11:7) | 1 tn The verb is מָצָא (matsaʾ, “to find; to discover”). Here it should be given the nuance of potential imperfect. In the rhetorical question it is affirming that Job cannot find out the essence of God. |
| (0.25) | (Job 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. |
| (0.25) | (Job 10:8) | 2 tn The verb in this part is a preterite with the vav (ו) consecutive. However, here it has merely an external connection with the preceding perfects, so that in reality it presents an antithesis (see GKC 327 §111.e). |
| (0.25) | (Job 9:27) | 1 tn The construction here uses the infinitive construct with a pronominal suffix—“if my saying” is this, or “if I say.” For the conditional clause using אִם (ʾim) with a noun clause, see GKC 496 §159.u. |
| (0.25) | (Job 9:26) | 3 tn The verb יָטוּשׂ (yatus) is also a hapax legomenon; the Aramaic cognate means “to soar; to hover in flight.” The sentence here requires the idea of swooping down while in flight. |
| (0.25) | (Job 9:18) | 2 tn The Hiphil of the verb means “to bring back”; with the object “my breath,” it means “get my breath” or simply “breathe.” The infinitive is here functioning as the object of the verb (see GKC 350 §114.m). |
| (0.25) | (Job 9:10) | 1 sn There is probably great irony in Job’s using this same verse as in 5:9. But Job’s meaning here is different than that of Eliphaz. |
| (0.25) | (Job 9:7) | 2 tn The verb זָרַח (zarakh) means “rise.” This is the ordinary word for the sunrise. But here it probably has the idea of “shine; glisten,” which is also attested in Hebrew and Aramaic. |
| (0.25) | (Job 8:17) | 1 tn Cheyne reads “spring” or “well” rather than “heap.” However, this does not fit the parallelism very well, and so he emends the second half as well. Nevertheless the Hebrew text needs no emending here. |
