Devotional
Short Note on Job 13
Koot
van Wyk
Devotional
Short Note on Job 13: What is to follow is to introduce our readers to the best
critical study on Job. Then follows advise by scholars to look for other
options than Arabic. The mentioning of the problems that the best critical
study had with Job to the point of a no-show. Lastly there are three examples
of solving some translation problems in Job 13. This is no attempt to be a
gladiator on a semitic stage. It is appropriate to make sure the methodology of
doing translation of Job is correct and that the tools we are using are also
correct and the translations that were made from these tools are correct
otherwise our understanding will not be correct. The way we think affects the
way we live and the way we live affects the way we think. So an outside source
like the Word of God is imperative, not just Bildad/Bacon/Hobbes Empiricism.
It
has been said by many scholars that E. Dhorme’s study of the Book of Job (1926)
is the best critical study in modern history. At first the book has all the
qualities of impression. Dhorme utilized many ancient versions to attempt to
translate Job properly. He also consulted the Middle-age Rabbis and their
translations. He utilized Akkadian and Arabic extensively to come to grips with
the many hapax legoumena in the book.
Now the shocking part: Despite all the attempts to understand Job properly,
there are 40 cases in his translation where he only gave [ ]
indicating that “the meaning is an enigma.” The good news is, utilizing Middle
Egyptian for those problematic cases in Dhorme provides better results. Why?
Because it is the language Moses learned between the age of 12 and 40, between
1518 until 1490 BCE. Moses did not know Arabic. Hebrew professors at our universities
may look at the wise counsel of F. Delitzsch when he commented about the
insufficiency of Arabic for Hebrew lexicography: “When I commenced the study of
Assyrian, Assyriology was in a state of slavish dependency on Arabic
lexicography” (Delitzsch 1883: VI). “I soon became convinced that Arabic was
less important to the study of Assyrian than the North Semitic languages, the
Hebrew and the Aramaic dialects, a conviction which I regard as the fundamental
principle of Assyrian research” (ibid). Delitzsch found that Arabic cannot be a
prototype for Hebrew: “Arabic cannot be the prototype of the other Semitic
languages, least of all of Hebrew. This opinion receives the fullest
confirmation from Assyrian research” (Delitzsch 1883: VIII). He then asked that
Arabic should not be forced on Hebrew meanings: “It is, therefore, time to
abandon the ordinary practice of forcing the peculiar, often late, meanings of
the Arabic words upon the much older Hebrew sister” (ibid). The need for
revision of Hebrew lexicography was stated in this way: “Hebrew-lexicography in
its present state has to supply desiderata of a far more solid and important
character. A sharper understanding of the Hebrew stems themselves as to their
sounds and accurate meaning or shades of meaning is especially required”
(Delitzsch 1883: XI). He said that vague meanings to Hebrew words could be
deleted: “I think, all these speculations upon the roots and their vague
meanings could be omitted without any harm to the Hebrew dictionary and the
enormous space saved by this omission could be turned to a better and more
useful account” (Delitzsch 1883: XII). The value of Arabic for Hebrew semantics
was exaggerated: “The value of Arabic for Hebrew lexicography has been greatly
exaggerated” (Delitzsch 1883: 5). There is a false presupposition of a
preserved unchanged originality in Arabic: “The well-known fact that the Arabic
language has preserved in numerous instances original forms of the Semitic
idiom which are lost in the kindred dialects, combined with the enormous
copiousness of its vocabulary, has led to the erroneous supposition that the
same degree of unchanged originality is to be assumed for the meanings of the
Arabic words” (Delitzsch 1883: 5). The error is to force Arabic meanings onto
Hebrew ones: “The common practice of arbitrarily forcing Arabic meanings upon
Hebrew words constitutes a fundamental error of modern Hebrew lexicography”
(ibid). A similar lament can also be found with the Hebrew Grammarian, Gesenius
in blog on Lexicography. That is why we suggest Egyptian for the Book of Job. Another
feature of critical scholars like Dhorme, who did not pay attention to the
words of Delitzsch in this regard, is that they emend the text at free will.
They add letters, omit others, omit words and even phrases. Any Adventist
scholar who supports emendation of the Hebrew consonantal text of the Masoretic
Tradition is actually playing with fire. A red card should be taken out
immediately. Sensibility is not a rule, it is a luxury and that is not good
enough a rule. Sometimes we do not know and have to wait for further
understanding but we cannot use scissors and glue on the Word of God. The
verses in Job 13 that Dhorme could not understand properly and just left with a
[ ] is Job 13:14 (beginning); and the
twelfth case where he argues that a verse from Job 12:27 should be brought to
the end of chapter 13! Wait a minute. Red cards are out by anyone who is
faithful. No scissors please. It is the Word of God not a child’s scrapbook.
Job
13:14 “Upon what shall I lift up my flesh? In teeth? And my soul I place? In my
handpalms?” He wants distance from his friends as Paul said in the New
Testament, they bite each other.
Job
13:15 “If He will kill me not, [Masoretes in a flat spin about this word and changed
it with vowels to be positive and not negative לא. Judaism has substituted the
aleph with a waw in their translation! A red card] I will hope,
provided I will *fail* [Egyptian wh(ì) meaning “to fail” for the Hebrew word אוכיח] my way unto His face.” The Syriac left
the word out of their verse. It also appears at Job 5:17 reading in our
suggestion: “Blessed is the man whom God *fails*. . .” Eliphaz almost
entertained the same philosophy of Augustine: let me sin more so that I can
receive more grace!
Job
13:16 “Also He is to me unto salvation for not can come a profane [person]
before His face”. *Hanef* [חנף] is a favorite word by Moses in Job and used also in
Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13. It is also used in
other literature later in Psalm 106:38 (410 years later); Isaiah 24:3 (720
years later); Jeremiah 3:1 (870 years later). Moses also used it in his book
Numbers 35:33 and it means “profane”. The word is also in Daniel 11:32 which is
the papacy [see SDABC 874] and “with flattery he [papacy between 538-1798]
*will corrupt* those who violated the covenant….” The Spanish translation of Cassiodoro
de Reina in 1569 correctly read *seducirá* and the Portuguese of João Ferreira
de Almeida of 1719 read *ele perverterá* Luther translated it in his German
translation of 1540 as *Gottlosen* which is the *ungodly*. In the Middle
English translation of John Wycliffe in 1384 he read: *wicked men*. The earlier
Syriac [post 10th century copies] version deduced from the word
*profane* another cognate, that of *pagan* and *heathen*. Some modern scholars
think it is *an impious man* and *renegade*.