Job 10:16

David Paul

וְיִגְאֶה כַּשַּׁחַל תְּצוּדֵנִי וְתָשֹׁב תִּתְפַּלָּא־בִי׃

16 ‘Should my head be lifted up , You would hunt me like a lion;

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. (Job 10:16).

16 If I hold my head high, you stalk me like a lion

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Job 10:16).

16 If my head is exalted, You hunt me like a fierce lion,

The New King James Version. 1982 (Job 10:16).

16 And if I lift myself up, thou dost hunt me like a lion

The Revised Standard Version. 1971 (Job 10:16).

16 If I lift myself up, you hunt me as a fierce lion,

The NET Bible (2006). Biblical Studies Press. (Job 10:16).

16 And it riseth—as a lion Thou huntest me.

Young's Literal Translation. Young, R. (1997). (Job 10:16).

16 For it increaseth. Thou huntest me as a fierce lion:

The Holy Bible: King James Version. 1995 (Job 10:16).

16 And it increaseth: thou huntest me as a fierce lion;

The Holy Scriptures. Darby, J. N. (1996). (Job 10:16).

16 And if it exalt itself, Thou huntest me as a lion;

The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text. Jewish Publication Society of America. (1917). (Job 10:16).

My question is related to the first (right-side) word in this sentence. The Hebrew is "difficult" as they say when they don't understand what it means. For example, TWOT says:

The seventh usage of this root is Job 10:16. The exact translation is problematical. Literally the passage reads, “If he lifts himself up, you (God) hunt me as a lion.”

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1999, c1980). (143). Chicago: Moody Press.

Many translators/commentators choose to ignore the Hebrew and invent a sentence that corresponds with something they think makes sense. Specifically, they switch the subject of the sentence from 3rd to 1st person. Others choose to add the phrase "my head" to the sentence to butress the meaning they are going after in their attempt to extract meaning. In other words, they inject meaning so they can extract meaning.

My main question has to do with the reflexive character that some translations give the word. Best I can tell, it is listed as a qal verb, so I'm not sure where the reflexive element comes from. The RSV, NET, and Tanakh all have either a reflexive "myself" (erroneous 1st person) or "itself" in their translations. Qal usually isn't reflexive, but the Tanakh gives a reflexive translation. One would think they know what they're talking about, eh?

Can anyone provide insight to this? Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Knoll

Subject is covert. Translators took the head from the immediate context (previous verse). In my opinion that is the preferable understanding.

RSV and NET seem to reflect ואגאה (Driver and Gray based on the Syriac). One can think of better translations for this reading.

As for the reflexive it sometimes derives from semantics. It is not an exact science.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253527#Comment_253527

Subject is covert. Translators took the head from the immediate context (previous verse). In my opinion that is the preferable understanding.

RSV and NET seem to reflect ואגאה (Driver and Gray based on the Syriac). One can think of better translations for this reading.

As for the reflexive it sometimes derives from semantics. It is not an exact science.

As to reflexiveness not being exact, I thought that was niphal's purpose--to establish reflexiveness. (Obviously some niphal verbs aren't reflexive.)

I agree the subject is covert...covert is a perfect word for "it". I don't think the subject is intended to be "head", but I do think it is a brilliant bit of "switch-and-bait" on the part of YHWH that most people draw that conclusion...it's inappropriately appropriate. If the reflexivity is plausible, then I think the TWOT version is the proper one. The prophetic significance is spot on...and deeply profound--not to mentioned being confirmed in numerous other places...not just in Scripture (per se).

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253578#Comment_253578

I don't think it's reflexive there so much as intransitive.

BKMitchell

The RSV, NET, and Tanakh all have either a reflexive "myself" (erroneous 1st person) or "itself" in their translations. Qal usually isn't reflexive, but the Tanakh gives a reflexive translation. One would think they know what they're talking about, eh? Can anyone provide insight to this? Thanks.

Here, below are a few more note worthy translations:

"It has become important [ to You ]: You hunt me as if I were a lion's whelp, and You repeatedly judge me severely" (1996 The Stone edition of the Tanach)

"if my head is lifted up proudly, thou huntest me like a lion: and again thou dost work wonders against me." (Koren Tanakh Harold Fisch 2001)

"It is something to be proud of to hunt me like a lion, To show Yourself wondrous through me time and again!" ( 1985 Jewish Publication Societies Tanakh )

"Proud as a lion, you hunt me down, multiplying your exploits at my expense, " ( New Jerusalem Bible )

As for the NET, it actually comes with translator notes explaining their understanding:

NET
Notes (Job 10:16)

⁴¹tn
The
MT has the 3rd person of the verb, "and he lifts himself up."
One might assume that the subject is "my head" – but that
is rather far removed from the verb. It appears that Job is talking
about himself in some way. Some commentators simply emend the text to
make it first person. This has the support of Targum Job, which would
be expected since it would be interpreting the passage in its context
(see D. M. Stec, "The Targum Rendering of WYG'H in Job X 16, "
VT
34
[1984]: 367-8). Pope and Gordis make the word adjectival, modifying
the subject: "proudly you hunt me," but support is lacking.
E. Dhorme thinks the line should be parallel to the two preceding it,
and so suggests יָגֵּעַ
(yagea',
"exhausted") for יִגְאֶה
(yig'eh,
"lift up"). The contextual argument is that Job has said
that he cannot raise his head, but if he were to do so, God would
hunt him down. God could be taken as the subject of the verb if the
text is using enallage (shifting of grammatical persons within a
discourse) for dramatic effect. Perhaps the initial 3rd person was
intended with respect within a legal context of witnesses and a
complaint, but was switched to 2nd person for direct accusation.

⁴²sn
There
is some ambiguity here: Job could be the lion being hunted by God, or
God could be hunting Job like a lion hunts its prey. The point of the
line is clear in either case.

⁴³tn
The
text uses two verbs without a coordinating conjunction: "then
you return, you display your power." This should be explained as
a verbal hendiadys, the first verb serving adverbially in the clause
(see further GKC 386-87 §120.g).

⁴⁴tn
The
form is the Hitpael of פָּלָא
(pala',
"to be wonderful; to be surpassing; to be extraordinary").
Here in this stem it has the sense of "make oneself admirable,
surpassing" or "render oneself powerful, glorious."
The text is ironic; the word that described God's marvelous creation
of Job is here used to describe God's awesome destruction of Job.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253594#Comment_253594

I don't think it's reflexive there so much as intransitive.

Umm, okay...but does that "default" to a de facto "reflexive"? Or are you saying that Young and Darby are correct?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253621#Comment_253621

The Hebrew is "difficult" as they say when they don't understand what it means

Their honest is refreshing, and for me that is more of a reason to respect their work.

TWOT is my favorite resource hands down. Of course, I always prefer folks to admit what they don't know...I try to always walk that line as well.

One would think they know what they're talking about, eh?

Not, necessarily, the Bible is difficult book and one that takes years of study to understand and sometimes maybe even help from the Massorah/Tradition.

You say that the Tanakh 1917 folks "don't necessarily" know what they're talking about...then you quote the updated Tanakh. Interesting.

What's funny is the one thing I take from these various "Jewish" "translations" you mention below is that they seem to ignore the Masoretic text. A bit unexpected, I have to admit.

Here, below are a few more note worthy translations:

"It has become important [ to You ]: You hunt me as if I were a lion's whelp, and You repeatedly judge me severely" (1996 The Stone edition of the Tanach)

"if my head is lifted up proudly, thou huntest me like a lion: and again thou dost work wonders against me." (Koren Tanakh Harold Fisch 2001)

"It is something to be proud of to hunt me like a lion, To show Yourself wondrous through me time and again!" ( 1985 Jewish Publication Societies Tanakh )

"Proud as a lion, you hunt me down, multiplying your exploits at my expense, " ( New Jerusalem Bible )

As for the NET, it actually comes with translator notes explaining their understanding:

NET Notes (Job 10:16)

⁴¹tn The MT has the 3rd person of the verb, "and he lifts himself up." One might assume that the subject is "my head" – but that is rather far removed from the verb. It appears that Job is talking about himself in some way. Some commentators simply emend the text to make it first person. This has the support of Targum Job, which would be expected since it would be interpreting the passage in its context (see D. M. Stec, "The Targum Rendering of WYG'H in Job X 16, " VT 34 [1984]: 367-8). Pope and Gordis make the word adjectival, modifying the subject: "proudly you hunt me," but support is lacking. E. Dhorme thinks the line should be parallel to the two preceding it, and so suggests יָגֵּעַ (yagea', "exhausted") for יִגְאֶה (yig'eh, "lift up"). The contextual argument is that Job has said that he cannot raise his head, but if he were to do so, God would hunt him down. God could be taken as the subject of the verb if the text is using enallage (shifting of grammatical persons within a discourse) for dramatic effect. Perhaps the initial 3rd person was intended with respect within a legal context of witnesses and a complaint, but was switched to 2nd person for direct accusation.

⁴²sn There is some ambiguity here: Job could be the lion being hunted by God, or God could be hunting Job like a lion hunts its prey. The point of the line is clear in either case.

⁴³tn The text uses two verbs without a coordinating conjunction: "then you return, you display your power." This should be explained as a verbal hendiadys, the first verb serving adverbially in the clause (see further GKC 386-87 §120.g).

⁴⁴tn The form is the Hitpael of פָּלָא (pala', "to be wonderful; to be surpassing; to be extraordinary"). Here in this stem it has the sense of "make oneself admirable, surpassing" or "render oneself powerful, glorious." The text is ironic; the word that described God's marvelous creation of Job is here used to describe God's awesome destruction of Job.

Yes, I read all the NET notes...which pretty much takes me right back to my original question. NET openly admits what I stated. The 1st person "option" is a clear emendation. Some of the translations you quoted included reflexive language. My question remains: is it valid? is it warranted? is it legitimate?

I have to admit, each of the versions you quote seem to pull stuff out of a hat...odd, that.

***[Grrrr...sorry about the microprint...not sure what caused it. But I'm not surprised--it is a function of Logos's goofy hidden styles in this forum. It produces all kinds of irritating outcomes.]

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253634#Comment_253634

***[Grrrr...sorry about the microprint...not sure what caused it. But I'm not surprised--it is a function of Logos's goofy hidden styles in this forum. It produces all kinds of irritating outcomes.]

You can edit it and make it larger. Use the "More" tab and drop-down menu, "edit". I have a hard enough time reading a tiny Roman alphabet. Tiny Hebrew looks like ants. [H] (And I am wearing my bi-focals!)

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253622#Comment_253622

This 'QAL' is also a yiqtol or rather wayiqtol

We know that short yiqtol express simple actions and the jussive mood while long yiqtol phrases denote an on going or continuous actions (habitual) and the future.

From: Keil and Delitzsch commentary on the OT:

יגאה is hypothetical, like וצדקתי, but put in the future form, because referring to
a voluntary act (Ewald, §357, b): and if it (the head) would (nevertheless)
exalt itself (גאה, to raise proudly or in joyous
self-consciousness), then (without waw apod., which is found in
other passages, e.g., Job 22:28) Thou wouldst hunt me like a shachal (vid., Job 4:10), - Job likens God
to the lion (as Hos 5:14; Hos 13:7), and himself to the prey which the lion pursues-Thou
wouldst ever anew show Thyself wonderful at my expense (תּשׁב, voluntative form, followed by a future with which
it is connected adverbially, Ges. §142, 3, b; תּתפּלּא, with â in the last syllable, although not
in pause, as Num 19:12; Ewald, §141, c.), i.e., wonderful in power, and
inventive by ever new forms off suffering, by which I should be compelled to
repent this haughtiness. The witnesses (עדים) that God continually brings forth afresh against
him are his sufferings (vid., Job 16:8), which, while he is conscious of his innocence, declare
him to be a sinner; for Job, like the friends, cannot think of suffering and sin
otherwise than as connected one with the other: suffering is partly the result
of sin, and partly it sets the mark of sin on the man who is no sinner.
תּרב (fut. apoc. Hiph. Ges. §75, rem. 15) is
also the voluntative form: Thou wouldst multiply, increase Thy malignity against
me. עם, contra, as also in other passages with
words denoting strife and war, Job 13:19; Job 23:6; Job 31:13; or where the context implies hostility, Psa 55:19; Psa 94:16. The last line is
a clause by itself consisting of nouns. וצבא חליפות is considered by all modern expositors as
hendiadys, as Mercier translates: impetor variis et sibi succedentibus
malorum agminibus; and צבא is mostly taken collectively. Changes and hosts =
hosts continuously dispersing themselves, and always coming on afresh to the
attack. But is not this form of expression unnatural? By חליפות Job means the advancing troops, and by
צבא the main body of the army, from which they are
reinforced; the former stands first, because the thought figuratively expressed
in תחדשׁ and תרב is continued (comp. Job 19:12): the enmity of
God is manifested against him by ever fresh sufferings, which are added to the
one chief affliction. Böttcher calls attention to the fact that all the lines
from v. 14 end in î, a rhythm formed by the inflection, which is also continued
in v. 18. This repetition of the pronominal suffix gives intensity to the
impression that these manifestations of the divine wrath have special reference
to himself individually.

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253634#Comment_253634

The 1st person "option" is a clear emendation. Some of the translations you quoted included reflexive language. My question remains: is it valid? is it warranted? is it legitimate?

Some of the translations I quoted are influenced by the Rashi, targumim, LXX, as well as the massora/tradition in general. One, of them does not even claim to be an exact translation but only to represent the understand of the sages of memory.

I would rather this verse be honestly translated with the first word in the 3rd person and the rest in the 2nd person. I do not agree with smoothing over or hiding textual difficulties.The question also is what increases or is lifted up? It is a continuation of Job's problems/affliction, or is it of his attitude, or of the lion?I think translations should preserve the confusion or the fact that it is not clear and can go either way. Who, knows it could even be double meaning.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253644#Comment_253644

This 'QAL' is also a yiqtol or rather wayiqtol

We know that short yiqtol express simple actions and the jussive mood while long yiqtol phrases denote an on going or continuous actions (habitual) and the future.

From: Keil and Delitzsch commentary on the OT:

יגאה is hypothetical, like וצדקתי, but put in the future form, because referring to a voluntary act (Ewald, §357, b): and if it (the head) would (nevertheless) exalt itself (גאה, to raise proudly or in joyous self-consciousness), then (without waw apod., which is found in other passages, e.g., Job 22:28) Thou wouldst hunt me like a shachal (vid., Job 4:10), - Job likens God to the lion (as Hos 5:14; Hos 13:7), and himself to the prey which the lion pursues-Thou wouldst ever anew show Thyself wonderful at my expense (תּשׁב, voluntative form, followed by a future with which it is connected adverbially, Ges. §142, 3, b; תּתפּלּא, with â in the last syllable, although not in pause, as Num 19:12; Ewald, §141, c.), i.e., wonderful in power, and inventive by ever new forms off suffering, by which I should be compelled to repent this haughtiness. The witnesses (עדים) that God continually brings forth afresh against him are his sufferings (vid., Job 16:8), which, while he is conscious of his innocence, declare him to be a sinner; for Job, like the friends, cannot think of suffering and sin otherwise than as connected one with the other: suffering is partly the result of sin, and partly it sets the mark of sin on the man who is no sinner. תּרב (fut. apoc. Hiph. Ges. §75, rem. 15) is also the voluntative form: Thou wouldst multiply, increase Thy malignity against me. עם, contra, as also in other passages with words denoting strife and war, Job 13:19; Job 23:6; Job 31:13; or where the context implies hostility, Psa 55:19; Psa 94:16. The last line is a clause by itself consisting of nouns. וצבא חליפות is considered by all modern expositors as hendiadys, as Mercier translates: impetor variis et sibi succedentibus malorum agminibus; and צבא is mostly taken collectively. Changes and hosts = hosts continuously dispersing themselves, and always coming on afresh to the attack. But is not this form of expression unnatural? By חליפות Job means the advancing troops, and by צבא the main body of the army, from which they are reinforced; the former stands first, because the thought figuratively expressed in תחדשׁ and תרב is continued (comp. Job 19:12): the enmity of God is manifested against him by ever fresh sufferings, which are added to the one chief affliction. Böttcher calls attention to the fact that all the lines from v. 14 end in î, a rhythm formed by the inflection, which is also continued in v. 18. This repetition of the pronominal suffix gives intensity to the impression that these manifestations of the divine wrath have special reference to himself individually.

Yada, yada, yada...I don't see where this turns 3rd person into 1st person. In other words, it's NOT talking about Job himself. It's talking about someone else.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253651#Comment_253651

The 1st person "option" is a clear emendation. Some of the translations you quoted included reflexive language. My question remains: is it valid? is it warranted? is it legitimate?

I'm pretty sure I know who it is referring to...like I said earlier, it's prophetic. Btw...EVERYTHING is prophetic.

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253671#Comment_253671

"The sense is that God has "risen up (like a wave)" over his enemies. The seventh usage of this root is Job 10:16. The exact translation is problematical. Literally the passage reads, "If he lifts himself up, you (God) hunt me as a lion." (299h) Theological Work Book of The OT

"God too pursues man, especially in judgment (Jer 16:16; cf- Job 10:16). "(1885i) Theological Work Book of the OT

I'm pretty sure I know who it is referring to...like I said earlier, it's prophetic. Btw...EVERYTHING is prophetic.

Prophetic, eh? About, who judgment personified, his Job's friends coming against him, ...?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/253692#Comment_253692

Job's "friends" are also prophetic...but who they represent changes according to context. In one of the most brillliant bits of sleight of hand in Scripture, Eliphaz actually represents YHWH himself. In fact, he functions essentially as an avatar for God Himself. In another place, Eliphaz represent Caiaphas. Don't look for confirmation of that in any commentary, though. You won't find it. But the truth of it is essentially undeniable.

Before determining who is referred to in TWOT's "If he lifts himself up," (which, as I said above, is in my estimation the correct understanding and translation), one must determine who Job represents prophetically. It's odd that so few commentators get this point. But it's also essentially undeniable.