² tn The relationships of these clauses is in some question. Some think that the poet has inverted the first two, and so they should read, “That is why I have said: ‘It is all one.’” Others would take the third clause to be what was said.

³ tn Heb “into the hand of their rebellion.” The word “hand” often signifies “power.” The rebellious acts have the power to destroy, and so that is what happened—according to Bildad. Bildad’s point is that Job should learn from what happened to his family.

⁵ tn The adverb normally means “together,” but it can also mean “similarly, too.” In this verse it may not mean that the two things are to be weighed together, but that the whole calamity should be put on the scales (see A. B. Davidson, Job, 43).

⁴ tn The LXX translators knew that a liquid should be used with the verb “drink,” but they took the line to be “whose violence drinks up my blood.” For the rest of the verse they came up with, “whenever I am going to speak they pierce me.”

¹ sn Verses 18-23 give the reasons why someone should accept the chastening of God—the hand that wounds is the same hand that heals. But, of course, the lines do not apply to Job because his suffering is not due to divine chastening.

³ tn The final verb is יָבֹא (yavoʾ, “has come”). It appears to be an imperfect, but since it is parallel to the preterite of the first colon it should be given that nuance here. Of course, if the other view of the verse is taken, then this would simply be translated as “comes,” and the preceding preterite also given an English present tense translation.

³ sn In vv. 11, 12, and 16 there was the first series of questions in which Job himself was in question. Now the questions are more general for all mankind—why should the sufferers in general have been afflicted with life?

³ tn The two verbs in this verse are both prefix conjugations; they are clearly referring to the past and should be classified as preterites. E. Dhorme (Job, 32) notes that the verb “I came out” is in the perfect to mark its priority in time in relation to the other verbs.

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.

¹ tc The final statement in v. 44 is difficult in terms of both its syntax and its meaning. The present translation attempts to make sense of the MT. But the passage may have undergone textual variation in the transmission process. One proposal is that the text should be emended to read “and they sent these wives and children away” (cf. NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV).

¹ tn Heb “the people of the land.” Elsewhere this expression sometimes has a negative connotation, referring to a lay population that was less zealous for Judaism than it should have been. Here, however, it seems to refer to the resident population of the area without any negative connotation.

³ tc The Hebrew text has here, “and his upper room [by] which he was going up to the house of the Lord.” But עֲלִיָּתוֹ (ʿaliyyato, “his upper room”) should be emended to עֹלָתוֹ, (ʿolato, “his burnt sacrifice[s]”). See the parallel account in 1 Kgs 10:5.

¹ tn Heb “and the wing of the one (הָאֶחָד, haʾekhad, “the one”; this should probably be emended to הָאַחֵר, haʾakher, “the other”) cherub was 5 cubits, touching the wall of the house, and the other wing was 5 cubits, clinging to the wing of the other cherub.”

² tc The Hebrew text has “one hundred and 20 cubits,” i.e., (assuming a cubit of 18 inches) 180 feet (54 m). An ancient Greek witness and the Syriac version read “20 cubits,” i.e., 30 feet (9 m). It is likely that מֵאָה (meʾah, “a hundred”) should be emended to אַמּוֹת (ʾammot, “cubits”).

² tc Heb “or three months being swept away from before your enemies and the sword of your enemies overtaking.” The Hebrew term נִסְפֶּה (nispeh, Niphal participle from סָפָה, safah) should probably be emended to נֻסְכָה (nus^ekhah, Qal infinitive from נוּס [nus] with second masculine singular suffix). See 2 Sam 24:13.

¹ tc The Hebrew text reads, “Elchanan son of Jair killed Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” But it is likely that the accusative marker in front of לַחְמִי (lakhmi, “Lachmi”) was originally בֵּית (bet), and that אֶת־לַחְמִי (ʾet lakhmi) should be emended to בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי (bet hallakhmi, “the Bethlehemite”). See 2 Sam 21:19.

² tc Heb “and I was from tent to tent and from tabernacle.” The words אֶל־מִשְׁכָּן (ʾel mishkan, “to tabernacle”) should probably be added at the end of the sentence to complete this prepositional phrase and produce symmetry with the preceding prepositional phrase. The words probably fell from the text by homoioteleuton.

¹ tc The Hebrew text has בֹּכְרוּ (bokh^eru), which some understand as a name: “Bocheru” (so, e.g., NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). But the form should probably be revocalized בְֹּכרוֹ (b^ekhoro, “his firstborn”). A name has accidentally dropped from the list, and a scribe apparently read בֹּכְרוּ as one of the names. Cf. also 1 Chr 8:38.

² tc The Hebrew text has בֹּכְרוּ (bokh^eru), which some understand as a name: “Bocheru” (so, e.g., NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). But the form should probably be revocalized בְּכֹרוֹ (b^ekhoro, “his firstborn”). A name has accidentally dropped from the list, and a scribe apparently read בֹּכְרוּ as one of the names.

³ tc The MT of v. 18 ends with the words, “all his days.” If this phrase is taken with what precedes, then one should translate, “[who encouraged Israel to sin] throughout his reign.” However, it may be preferable to emend the text to בְּיֹמָיו (b^eyomayv), “in his days,” and join the phrase to what follows. The translation assumes this change.