Ayub 13:2

13:2 What you know, ¹  I ²  know also;

I am not inferior ³  to you!

Ayub 17:4

17:4 Because ⁴  you have closed their ⁵  minds to understanding,

therefore you will not exalt them. ⁶ 

Ayub 18:2

18:2 “How long until you ⁷  make an end of words? ⁸ 

You must consider, ⁹  and then ¹⁰  we can talk.

Ayub 31:1

Job Vindicates Himself

31:1 “I made a covenant with ¹¹  my eyes;

how then could I entertain thoughts against a virgin? ¹² 

Ayub 33:5

33:5 Reply to me, if you can;

set your arguments ¹³  in order before me

and take your stand!

Ayub 33:18

33:18 He spares a person’s life from corruption, ¹⁴ 

his very life from crossing over ¹⁵  the river.

[13:2]  ¹ tn Heb “Like your knowledge”; in other words Job is saying that his knowledge is like their knowledge.

[13:2]  ² tn The pronoun makes the subject emphatic and stresses the contrast: “I know – I also.”

[13:2]  ³ tn The verb “fall” is used here as it was in Job 4:13 to express becoming lower than someone, i.e., inferior.

[17:4]  ⁴ tn This half-verse gives the reason for the next half-verse.

[17:4]  ⁵ sn The pronoun their refers to Job’s friends. They have not pledged security for him because God has hidden or sealed off their understanding.

[17:4]  ⁶ tn The object “them” is supplied. This is the simplest reading of the line, taking the verb is an active Polel. Some suggest that the subject is “their hand” and the verb is to be translated “is not raised.” This would carry through the thought of the last verse, but it is not necessary to the point.

[18:2]  ⁷ tn The verb is plural, and so most commentators make it singular. But it seems from the context that Bildad is addressing all of them, and not just Job.

[18:2]  ⁸ tn The construction is קִנְצֵי לְמִלִּין (qintse lÿmillin), which is often taken to be “end of words,” as if the word was from קֵץ (qets, “end”). But a plural of “end” is not found in the OT. Some will link the word to Arabic qanasa, “to hunt; to give chase,” to get an interpretation of “snares for words.” But E. Dhorme (Job, 257) objects that this does not fit the speech of Bildad (as well as it might Job’s). He finds a cognate qinsu, “fetters, shackles,” and reads “how long will you put shackles on words.” But G. R. Driver had pointed out that this cognate does not exist (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 72-93). So it would be preferable to take the reading “ends” and explain the ן (nun) as from a Aramaizing by-form. This is supported by 11QtgJob that uses סוֹף (sof, “end”). On the construction, GKC 421 §130.a explains this as a use of the construct in rapid narrative to connect the words; in such cases a preposition is on the following noun.

[18:2]  ⁹ tn The imperfect verb, again plural, would be here taken in the nuance of instruction, or a modal nuance of obligation. So Bildad is telling his listeners to be intelligent. This would be rather cutting in the discourse.

[18:2]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “afterward.”

[31:1]  ¹¹ tn The idea of cutting a covenant for something may suggest a covenant that is imposed, except that this construction elsewhere argues against it (see 2 Chr 29:10).

[31:1]  ¹² tn This half-verse is the effect of the covenant. The interrogative מָה (mah) may have the force of the negative, and so be translated “not to pay attention.”

[33:5]  ¹³ tn The Hebrew text does not contain the term “arguments,” but this verb has been used already for preparing or arranging a defense.

[33:18]  ¹⁴ tn A number of interpreters and translations take this as “the pit” (see Job 17:14; cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV).

[33:18]  ¹⁵ 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 (shÿ’olah, “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.