Over the past semester I have done extensive work in Job 5.2-7. I’ve decided that, rather than allow this work to sit on my hard drive, I would make a series of posts on my blog. I’d love comments and criticisms of the work. The first post will deal with establishing the Hebrew text for Job 5.2-7. I’m not yet overly experienced in regards to textual criticism, so take this with a grain of salt.

I have reconstructed the text as follows:

v2 – כי לאויל יהרג כעש
ופתה תמית קנאה
v3 – אני ראיתי אויל משריש
ואכל^a נוהו פתאם
v4 – ירחקו בניו מישע
^aוידכא ובשער^a
ואין מציל
v5 – אשר קצרו^a רעב^b יאכל
^cואלם צנים יקחה^c
ושאף^d צמאים^e חילם
v6 – כי לא יצא מעפר און
ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל
v7 – כי־אדם לעמל יולד^a
ובני־רשף יגביהו עוף

3a
Reading, with LXX, a passive form (Pual) of אכל. The MT has Eliphaz cursing the house of the fool. This hardly seems to coincide with Eliphaz’ point, which is that the fool naturally comes to ruin. The contention of some scholars that Eliphaz is merely declaring the fool’s dwelling accursed is not convincing.¹ The Greek instead has a passive form of Βιβρωσκω, which almost exclusively translates אכל in the LXX.² A simple statement by Eliphaz, “his abode was devoured,” seems more in keeping with his point. Furthermore, the pointing of the MT yields the following parsing: Qal Yiqtol 1cs of נקב “to curse.” This meaning only occurs in a few other places in Scripture for this word, and others suggest a mispointing in the MT and instead parse as קבב “to curse”.³ Other consonantal emendations have been proposed, but they lack the corroborating evidence of extant manuscripts. It seems most prudent to accept the reading of the LXX.

4a
This phrase is represented oddly in the LXX. It would appear that the translators had either a) a different Hebrew text in front of them or b) did not entirely understand the Hebrew words which they were reading. דכא is translated by κολαβρισθειησαν, which is used only once in the entire LXX, it is not the word which normally translates דכא. Additionally, θυραις translates שער in this passage when it normally translates פתח or דלת. The Greek also contains a plus, ησσονων, as compared to the MT.
In the reconstructed text above, the reading of MT has been retained. The primary reasoning for this is that it is difficult to ascertain with certainty whether the Greek reading or the reading in the MT represents the more ancient form of the text. Both readings make sense and fit the context well. Other emendations are possible, notably reading שׂער “storm” for שׁער “gate,” though there is no hard evidence to support such an emendation.⁴

5a
Contra MT, which has קצירו, the noun with object suffix. The reconstruction above follows the LXX which has a plural verbal form. The reading of the LXX has been preferred because, when taken with the other emendations in verse five (see below, this section), it restores the amazing parallelism which the original poet no doubt intended. In addition, as Dhorme has observed, after verse three the focus shifts from the fool to the children of the fool.⁵ The suffix on חילם confirms this. The reading of the LXX is consistent with this, whereas the reading of the MT requires the antecedent of the object suffix on קצירו to be the fool from verse three.

5b
The LXX has δικαιοι for the MT’s רעב. According to Hatch and Redpath, no form of δικαιος is ever used to translate רעב in any passage other than Job 5. This begs the question of whether or not the LXX is witness to a different Hebrew Vorlage. It seems more likely, however, that the LXX is simply interpreting the hungry as those who are righteous. Because of this the reading of the MT has been retained.

5c-c
The MT reads ואל־מצנים יקחהו, a literal translation of which makes little sense. It literally reads, “and to from thorns he takes it.” The emendation adopted above does not require any change in consonants, and yet restores a striking parallelism between this stitch and the rest of the verse. Most likely, adverse copying conditions resulted in the mis-division of words at some early stage of the transmission of the text. Alternatively, as Robert Gordis proposes, the rarity of the two words (אול and צנם) “led to an erroneous word division.”⁶ The exact mechanism for the mis-division is superfluous to the main point–the words were mis-divided. Dividing the words instead as ואלם צנים יקחה yields the translation, “their wealth the shriveled takes.”

5d
Some have suggested that the verb should be emended to a plural form.⁷ This is unnecessary since a singular verb may take a plural subject.

5e
The MT has צמים which yields a difficult reading in this context. The word has been emended above to read צמאים based on Aquila, Symmachus, the Peshitta and the Vulgate. In addition to the evidence from the above cited versions, the term צמאים is in parallel to רעב in the first stitch and צנים in the second stitch, as it has been emended above. It is easy to see how the error in MT could have resulted from a scribe incorrectly hearingצמאים as צמים. Furthermore, although it is difficult to know whether the corruption in stitch b or in stitch c is the older corruption, it is possible that a scribe, having just read צנים in stitch b (assuming that stitch be had not already been mis-divided) would make the mistake of writing צמים in stitch c. This last emendation in verse five fully restores the brilliant original parallelism in the triplet. As Gordis has pointed out, “the poet uses his extraordinarily rich vocabulary in order to find two synonyms for ra’ev.” ⁸

7a
The Masoretes pointed this verb as a Pual Qatal (יוּלָּד). However, it is difficult to see how this pointing makes sense in the context. Eliphaz’ entire point has been that evil comes upon people for disobedience and foolishness. He states it clearly in verse six when he says לא יצא מעפר און. It makes no sense that Eliphaz would then turn around and declare that humanity was born for trouble.⁹ The declaration in verse seven, as preserved in MT, is antithetical to Eliphaz’ entire point. A simple repointing as a Hifil Yiqtol (יוֹלִד) restores the essential agreement between verses six and seven. As David Clines has correctly opined, “the best way of connecting v 6…with v 7 is to see v 7 as the real origin of suffering.” ¹⁰

Upcoming posts will deal with the passage’s form and structure, literary genre, certain interesting lexical and grammatical issues, as well as anything else I might find fascinating and worthwhile.