¹ sn Sending a messenger on a mission is like having another pair of feet. But if the messenger is a fool, this proverb says, not only does the sender not have an extra pair of feet—he cuts off the pair he has. It would not be simply that the message did not get through; it would get through incorrectly and be a setback! The other simile uses “violence,” a term for violent social wrongs and injustice. The metaphorical idea of “drinking” violence means suffering violence—it is one’s portion. So sending a fool on a mission will have injurious consequences.

² sn It is not that wisdom was unavailable (as if in contradiction to Prov 8). Instead the proverb enters the point of view of the person characterized by derision and scoffing. From their perspective it wasn’t there. As observers we see that the scorner did not find wisdom because of a haughty attitude. Perhaps the proverb is given in a past time reference because it also pictures a person is done with seeking wisdom. They looked. It wasn’t there. They stopped looking.

² tn The Hebrew terms גֵּר (ger, “resident foreigner”) and תּוֹשָׁב (toshav, “resident/dweller”) have similar meanings. They are not used here with the technical distinctions of most references in Mosaic Law. Ps 39:12 takes up this language from Lev 25:23 where the terms emphasize that Israel would be a guest on God’s land. They were attached to the Lord’s household; they did not own the land. The Psalmist identifies himself with this privileged yet dependent position. Abraham also refers to himself by these terms in Gen 23:4.

¹ tc The phrase לָרֹב (larov) means “to abundance” or “in a large quantity.” It is also used ironically like all these expressions. This makes very good sense, but some wish to see a closer parallel and so offer emendations. Reiske and Kissane suggested “to the tender” for this word. But the timid are not the same as the ignorant and unwise. So Graetz supplied “to the boorish” by reading לְבָעַר (l^ebaʿar). G. R. Driver did the same with less of a change: לַבּוֹר (labbor; HTR 29 [1936]: 172).

¹ sn In the first round of speeches, Eliphaz had emphasized the moral perfection of God, Bildad his unwavering justice, and Zophar his omniscience. Since this did not bring the expected response from Job, the friends see him as a menace to true religion, and so they intensify their approach. Eliphaz, as dignified as ever, rebukes Job for his arrogance and warns about the judgment the wicked bring on themselves. The speech of Eliphaz falls into three parts: the rebuke of Job for his irreverence (2-6); the analysis of Job’s presumption about wisdom (7-16), and his warning about the fate of the wicked (17-35).

¹ sn After arguing that man will die without hope, Job expresses his desire that there be a resurrection, and what that would mean. The ancients all knew that death did not bring existence to an end; rather, they passed into another place, but they continued to exist. Job thinks that death would at least give him some respite from the wrath of God, but this wrath would eventually be appeased, and then God would remember the one he had hidden in Sheol just as he remembered Noah. Once that happened, it would be possible that Job might live again.

² tn The verb is a Piel preterite with a vav (ו) consecutive. The ו (vav) need not be translated if the second half of the verse is the apodosis of the first—since they sinned…he did this. The verb שִׁלֵּחַ (shilleakh) means “to expel; to thrust out” normally; here the sense of “deliver up” or “deliver over” fits the sentence well. The verse is saying that sin carries its own punishment, and so God merely delivered the young people over to it.

³ tn The parallelism again uses a perfect verb in the first colon and an imperfect in the second, but since the sense of the line is clearly what Job has done in the past, the second verb may be treated as a preterite, or a customary imperfect—what Job repeatedly did in the past (GKC 315 §107.e). The words in this verse may have double meanings. The word יָסַר (yasar, “teach, discipline”) may have the idea of instruction and correction, but also the connotation of strength (see Y. Hoffmann, “The Use of Equivocal Words in the First Speech of Eliphaz [Job IV–V],” VT 30 [1980]: 114-19).

¹ tn According to HALOT 64 s.v. II אמן the term אֹמֵן (ʾomen) means: (1) “attendant” of children (Num 11:12; Isa 49:23); (2) “guardian” (2 Kgs 10:1, 5; Esth 2:7); (3) “nurse-maid” (2 Sam 4:4; Ruth 4:16); and (4) “to look after” (Isa 60:4; Lam 4:5). Older lexicons did not distinguish this root from the homonym I אָמַן (ʾaman, “to support; to confirm”; cf. BDB 52 s.v. אָמַן). This is reflected in a number of translations by use of a phrase like “brought up” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV) or “bringing up” (NASB).

¹ sn Concubines were slave women in ancient Near Eastern societies who were the legal property of their master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with their master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (2 Sam 21:10-14; 1 Kgs 11:3).

¹ tn The Hebrew terms ger (גֵּר; “resident foreigner”) and toshav (תּוֹשָׁב; “resident/dweller”) have similar meanings. They are not used here with the technical distinctions of most references in Mosaic Law. 1 Chron 29:15 takes up this language from Lev 25:23 where the terms emphasize that Israel would be a guest on God’s land. This is a privileged but dependent position; they did not own the land. Cf. also Ps 39:12 and Gen 23:4.

¹ sn A concubine was a slave woman in ancient Near Eastern societies who was the legal property of her master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with her master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (2 Sam 21:10-14; 1 Kgs 11:3).

¹ tn The meaning of the verb וַיְחַפְּאוּ (vay^ekhapp^eʾu), translated here “said,” is uncertain. Some relate it to the verbal root חָפַה (khafah), “to cover,” and translate “they did it in secret” (see BDB 341 s.v. חָפָא). However, the pagan practices specified in the following sentences were hardly done in secret. Others propose a meaning “ascribe, impute,” which makes good contextual sense but has little etymological support (see HALOT 339 s.v. חפא). In this case Israel claimed that the Lord authorized their pagan practices.

² sn Concubines were slave women in ancient Near Eastern societies who were the legal property of their master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with their master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. The usage in the present passage suggests that after the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (cf. also 2 Sam 21:10-14).

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.

³ sn The name Mahlon (מַחְלוֹן, makhlon) is from חָלָה (khalah, “to be weak, sick”) and Kilion (כִּלְיוֹן, kilyon) is from כָּלָה (kalah, “to be frail”). The rate of infant mortality was so high during the Iron Age that parents typically did not name children until they survived infancy and were weaned. Naomi and Elimelech might have named their two sons Mahlon and Kilion to reflect their weak condition in infancy due to famine—which eventually prompted the move to Moab where food was abundant.

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 habb^etulot tekhayyu vayyaʿasu khen). It is likely that a scribe’s eye jumped from the ו (vav) on וְאֶת (v^eʾet) to the initial vav of v. 11, accidentally leaving out the intervening letters. The present translation is based on this reconstruction.

⁴ tn In the Hebrew text the statement, “but now I am giving it back to you,” appears at the end of v. 3 and is spoken by the mother. But v. 4 indicates that she did not give the money back to her son. Unless the statement is spoken by the woman to the Lord, it appears to be misplaced and fits much better in v. 2. It may have been accidentally omitted from a manuscript, written in the margin, and then later inserted in the wrong place in another manuscript.

² tn The words “he said this” are supplied in the translation for clarification. Manoah should have known from these words that the angel represented the Lord. In the preceding narrative the narrator has informed the reader that the visitor is the angel of the Lord, but Manoah and his wife did not perceive this. In vv. 5 and 7 the angel refers to “God” (אֱלֹהִים, ʾelohim), not the Lord (יְהוַה, y^ehvah). Manoah’s wife calls the visitor “a man sent from God” and “God’s angel” (v. 6), while Manoah prays to the “Lord” (אֲדוֹנָי, ʾadonay) and calls the visitor “a man sent from God” (v. 8).

¹ sn A concubine was a slave woman in ancient Near Eastern societies who was the legal property of her master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with her master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative (2 Sam 21:10-14; 1 Kgs 11:3).