Job 18:1-3

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. Job 18:1 sn Bildad attacks Job with less subtlety than Eliphaz. He describes the miserable existence of the wicked, indicating that it is the proof of sin. His speech falls into two main parts: why is Job so contemptuous toward his friends (Job 18:2-4), and the fate of the wicked (18:5-21). On this chapter see N. M. Sarna, “The Mythological Background of Job 18,” JBL 82 (1963): 315-18; and W. A. Irwin, “Job’s Redeemer,” JBL 81 (1962): 217-29.
2. Job 18:2 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.
3. Job 18:2 tn The construction is קִנְצֵי לְמִלִּין (qintse l^emillin), 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.
4. Job 18:2 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.
5. Job 18:2 tn Heb “afterward.”
6. Job 18:3 tn The verb נִטְמִינוּ (nitminu) has been explained from different roots. Some take it from תָּמֵא (tameʾ, “to be unclean”), and translate it “Why should we be unclean in your eyes?” Most would connect it to טָמַם (tamam, “to stop up”), meaning “to be stupid” in the Niphal. Another suggestion is to follow the LXX and read from דָּמַם (damam, “to be reduced to silence”). Others take it from דָּמָּה (damah) with a meaning “to be like.” But what is missing is the term of comparison—like what? Various suggestions have been made, but all are simply conjectures.