Job 34:36 | KD | STEP | Job 34:33-37 33 Shall He recompense it as thou wilt? For thou hast found fault, So that thou hast to determine, not I, And what thou knowest speak out! 34 Men of understanding will say to me, And a wise man who listeneth to me: 35 “Job speaketh without knowledge, “And his words are without intelligence.” 36 O would that Job were proved to the extreme On account of his answers after the manner of evil men; 37 For he addeth transgression to his sin, Among us he clappeth And multiplieth his speeches against God. The question put to Job, whether then from him or according to his idea (עם in מעמּך as ; , which see) shall God recompense it (viz., as this “it” is to be understood according to : man’s evil-doing and actions in general), Elihu proves from this, that Job has despised (shown himself discontented with it) the divine mode of recompense, so that therefore (this second כּי signifies also nam , but is, because extending further on account of the first, according to the sense equivalent to ita ut ) he has to choose (seek out) another mode of recompense, not Elihu (who is perfectly satisfied with the mode with which history furnishes us); which is then followed by the challenge (דּבּר not infin., but as ): what (more corresponding to just retribution) thou knowest, speak out then! Elihu on his part knows that he does not stand alone against Job, the censurer of the divine government of the world, but that men of heart (understanding) and (every) wise man who listens to him will coincide with him in the opinion that Job’s talk is devoid of knowledge and intelligence (on the form of writing השׂכּיל as , vid., Ges. §53, rem. 2). In we will for the present leave the meaning of אבי undecided; יבּחן is certainly intended as optative: let Job be tried to the extreme or last, i.e., let his trial by affliction continue until the matter is decided (comp. ), on account of the opposition among men of iniquity, i.e., after the manner of such (on this Beth of association comp. בּקּשׁשׁים, ), for to חטּאת, by which the purpose of his affliction is to be cleared up, he adds פּשׁע, viz., the wickedness of blasphemous speeches: among us (therefore without fear) he claps (viz., his hands scornfully together, יספּוק only here thus absolute instead of ישׂפּק כּפּיו fo dae, , comp. בשׂפק with ספקו ) and multiplies (ירב, fut. apoc. Hiph. as , and instead of the full fut., as ישׂר, ) his speeches against God, i.e., exceeds himself in speeches which irreverently dictate to and challenge God. But we now ask, what does that אבי, , signify? According to the accentuation with Rebia , it appears to be intended to signify pater mi (Jer.), according to which Saad. ( jâ rabbı̂ ) and Gecat. ( munchiı̂ , my Creator) translate it. This would be the only passage where an Old Testament saint calls God אבי; elsewhere God is called the Father of Israel, and Israel as a people, or the individual comprehending himself with the nation, calls Him אבינו. Nevertheless this pater mi for Elihu would not be inappropriate, for what the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, , says to believers on the ground of : εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, ye suffer for the purpose of paternal discipline, is Elihu’s fundamental thought; he also calls God in ; , which a like reference to himself, עשׂני and פעלי - this ejaculatory “my Father!” especially in conjunction with the following wish, remains none the less objectionable, and only in the absence of a more agreeable interpretation should we, with Hirz., decide in its favour. It would be disproportionately repulsive if still belonged to the assenting language of another, and Elihu represented himself as addressed by אבי (Wolfson, Maur.). Thus, therefore, אבי must be taken somehow or other interjectionally. It is untenable to compare it with אבוי, , for אוי ואבוי (Arab. âh wa - âwâh ) is “ah! and alas!” The Aramaic בייא בייא, vae vae (Buxtorf, col. 294), compared by Ges. to בּי, signifies just the same. The Targ. translates צבינא, I wish; after which Kimchi, among moderns, Umbr., Schlottm., Carey, and others derive אבי from אבה, a wish (after the form קצה, הזה), but the participial substantival-form badly suits this signification, which is at once improbable according to the usage of the language so far as we at present know it. This interpretation also does not well suit the בי, which is to be explained at the same time. Ewald, §358, a , regards אבי as the fuller form of בּי, and thinks אבי is dialectic = לבי = לוי = לוּ, but this is an etymological leger-demain. The two Schultens (died 1750 and 1793) were on the right track when they traced back אבי to בוא, but their interpretation: rem eo adducam ut (אבי = אביא, as it is certainly not unfrequently written, e.g., 1Ki 21:29, with the assumption of a root בי cognate with בא), is artificial and without support in the usage of the language and in the syntax. Körber and Simonis opened up the right way, but with inadequate means for following it out, by referring (vid., Ges. Thes. s.v. בּי) to the formula of a wish and of respect, bawwâk allah , which, however, also is bajjâk . The Kamus interprets bajjâk , though waveringly, by bawwâk , the meaning of which (may he give thee a resting-place) is more transparent. In an annotated Codex of Zamachschari hajjâk allah wa - bajjâk is explained: God preserve thy life and grant thee to come to a place of rest, bawwaaka (therefore Arab. bawâ = bawa'a ) menzilan . That אבי (as also בּי) is connected with this bajjâk since the latter is the Piel -form of an old verb bajja (vid., supra , p. 559), which with the forms Arab. bâ'a (whence Arab. bı̂‛at , a sheltering house) and Arab. bw' ( bwâ ) has one root similar in signification with בוא, the following contributions of Wetzstein will show. In elucidation of the present passage he observes: The expressions abı̂ tebı̂ , jebı̂ ; nebı̂ , tebû , jebû , are so frequent in Damascus, that they very soon struck me, and on my first inquiry I always received the same answer, that they are a mutilation of Arab. 'bgy , abghi , I desire, etc. [ vid. supra, p. 580], until one day a fugitive came into the consulate, and with these words, abı̂ wâlidêk , seized me in that part of the body where the Arabs wear the girdle ( zunnâr ), a symbolic action by which one seeks some one’s protection. Since the word here could not be equivalent to abghi (“I desire” thy parents), I turned to the person best acquainted with the idiom of the country, the scribe Abderrahmân el-Mîdâni, which father had been a wandering minstrel in the camps for twenty years; and he explained to me that abghi only signifies “I desire;” on the contrary, abı̂ , “I implore importunately, I pray for God’s sake,” and the latter belongs to a defective verb, Arab. bayya , from which, except the forms mentioned, only the part. anâ bâj , “I come as a suppliant,” and its plur. nahn bâjin , is used. The poet Musa Rârâ from Krêje in the south of Hauran, who lived with me six months in Damascus in order to instruct me in the dialect of his district, assured me that among the Beduins also the perf . forms bı̂t , bı̂nâ (I have, we have entreated), and the fut . forms tabı̂n (thou, woman ... ), jaben (they, the women ... ), and taben (ye women ... ), are used. In the year 1858, in the course of a journey in his native country, I came to Dîmâs , whither they had brought two strange Beduins who had been robbed of their horses in that desert ( Sahra Dîmâs ), and one of them had at the same time received a mortal gunshot-wound. As I can to these men, who were totally forsaken, the wounded man began to express his importunate desire for a surgeon with the words jâ shêch nebı̂ ‛arabak , “Sir, we claim the protection of thy Arabs,” i.e., we adjure thee by thy family. Naturally abı̂ occurs most frequently. It generally has its obj. in the acc., often also with the praepos . Arab. ‛ly , exactly like Arab. dchl (to enter, to flee anywhere and hide), which is its correct synonym and usual substitute in common life. It is often used without an obj., and, indeed, very variously. With women it is chiefly the introduction to a question prompted by curiosity, as: abı̂ (ah, tell me), have you really betrothed your daughter? Or the word is accompanied by a gesture by the five fingers of the right hand, with the tips united, being stretched out towards the hasty or impatient listener, as if one wished to show some costly object, when abı̂ signifies as much as: I pray thee wait till I have shown thee this precious thing, i.e., allow me to make one more remark to thee in reference to the matter. Moreover, בּי (probably not corrupted from אבי, but a derived nomen concretum in the sense of dachı̂ l or mustagı̂r , one seeking protection, protégé, after the form אי, צי, from בוה = בוא) still exists unaltered in Hauran and in the steppe. The Beduin introduces an important request with the words anâ bı̂ ahlak , I am a protégé of thy family, or anâ bı̂ ‛irdak , I trust to thine honour, etc.; while in Damascus they say, anâ dachı̂l ahlak , harı̂mak , aulâdak , etc. The Beduin women make use of this bı̂ in a weakened signification, in order to beg a piece of soap or sugar, and anâ bı̂ lihjetak , I pray by thy beard, etc., is often heard. If now we combine that אבי of Elihu with abghi (from Arab. bgâ , Hebr. בּעה, Aram. בּעא, fut . יבעי, as בּי with בּעי) or with abî = אבא, from the verb bajja = בוא (בי), it always remains a remarkable instance in favour of the Arabic colouring of the Elihu section similar to the rest of the book, - a colouring, so to speak, dialectically Hauranitish; while, on the other hand, even by this second speech, one cannot avoid the impression of a great distance between it and the rest of the book: the language has a lofty tone, without its special harshness, as there, being the necessary consequence of a carefully concentrated fulness of thought; moreover, here in general the usual regularity of the strophe-lines no longer prevails, and also the usual symmetrical balance of thought in them. If we confine our attention to the real substance of the speech, apart from the emotional and rough accessories, Elihu casts back the reproach of injustice which Job has raised, first as being contradictory to the being of God, Job 34:10.; then he seeks to refute it as contradicting God’s government, and this he does (1) apagogically from the unselfish love with which God’s protecting care preserves the breath of every living thing, while He who has created all things might bring back all created things to the former non-existence, ) by induction from the impartial judgment which He exercises over princes and peoples, and from which it is inferred that the Ruler of the world is also all-just, -20. From this Elihu proves that God can exercise justice, and from that, that He is omniscient, and sees into man’s inmost nature without any judicial investigation, ; inaccessible to human accusation and human defiance, He rules over peoples and individuals, even over kings, and nothing turns His just punishment aside but lowly penitence blended with the prayer for the disclosure of unperceived sin, -32. For in His retributive rule God does not follow the discontented demands of men arrogant and yet devoid of counsel, Job 34:33. It is worthy of recognition, that Elihu does not here coincide with what has been already said (especially ), without applying it to another purpose; and that his theodicy differs essentially from that proclaimed by the friends. It is not derived from mere appearance, but lays hold of the very principles. It does not attempt the explanation of the many apparent contradictions to retributive justice which outward events manifest, as agreeing with it; it does not solve the question by mere empiricism, but from the idea of the Godhead and its relation to the world, and by such inner necessity guarantees to the mysteries still remaining to human shortsightedness, their future solution.

‏ Job 34:36

Job 34:33-37 33 Shall He recompense it as thou wilt? For thou hast found fault,

So that thou hast to determine, not I,

And what thou knowest speak out! 34 Men of understanding will say to me,

And a wise man who listeneth to me: 35 “Job speaketh without knowledge, “And his words are without intelligence.” 36 O would that Job were proved to the extreme

On account of his answers after the manner of evil men; 37 For he addeth transgression to his sin,

Among us he clappeth

And multiplieth his speeches against God.

The question put to Job, whether then from him or according to his idea (עם in מעמּך as Job 23:10; Job 27:11, which see) shall God recompense it (viz., as this “it” is to be understood according to Job 34:32: man’s evil-doing and actions in general), Elihu proves from this, that Job has despised (shown himself discontented with it) the divine mode of recompense, so that therefore (this second כּי signifies also nam, but is, because extending further on account of the first, according to the sense equivalent to ita ut) he has to choose (seek out) another mode of recompense, not Elihu (who is perfectly satisfied with the mode with which history furnishes us); which is then followed by the challenge (דּבּר not infin., but as Job 33:32): what (more corresponding to just retribution) thou knowest, speak out then! Elihu on his part knows that he does not stand alone against Job, the censurer of the divine government of the world, but that men of heart (understanding) and (every) wise man who listens to him will coincide with him in the opinion that Job’s talk is devoid of knowledge and intelligence (on the form of writing השׂכּיל as Jer 3:15, vid., Ges. §53, rem. 2).

In Job 34:36 we will for the present leave the meaning of אבי undecided; יבּחן is certainly intended as optative: let Job be tried to the extreme or last, i.e., let his trial by affliction continue until the matter is decided (comp. Hab 1:4), on account of the opposition among men of iniquity, i.e., after the manner of such (on this Beth of association comp. בּקּשׁשׁים, Job 36:14), for to חטּאת, by which the purpose of his affliction is to be cleared up, he adds פּשׁע, viz., the wickedness of blasphemous speeches: among us (therefore without fear) he claps (viz., his hands scornfully together, יספּוק only here thus absolute instead of ישׂפּק כּפּיו fo dae, Job 27:23, comp. בשׂפק Job 36:18 with ספקו Job 20:22) ^{▼▼The mode of writing with ס instead of שׂ is limited in the book of Job, according to the Masora, to Job 34:26, Job 34:37.} and multiplies (ירב, fut. apoc. Hiph. as Job 10:17, and instead of the full fut., as ישׂר, Job 33:27) his speeches against God, i.e., exceeds himself in speeches which irreverently dictate to and challenge God.

But we now ask, what does that אבי, Job 34:36, signify? According to the accentuation with Rebia, it appears to be intended to signify pater mi (Jer.), according to which Saad. (jâ rabbı̂) and Gecat. (munchiı̂, my Creator) translate it. This would be the only passage where an Old Testament saint calls God אבי; elsewhere God is called the Father of Israel, and Israel as a people, or the individual comprehending himself with the nation, calls Him אבינו. Nevertheless this pater mi for Elihu would not be inappropriate, for what the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Heb 12:7, says to believers on the ground of Pro 3:11 : εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, ye suffer for the purpose of paternal discipline, is Elihu’s fundamental thought; he also calls God in Job 32:22; Job 36:3, which a like reference to himself, עשׂני and פעלי - this ejaculatory “my Father!” especially in conjunction with the following wish, remains none the less objectionable, and only in the absence of a more agreeable interpretation should we, with Hirz., decide in its favour. It would be disproportionately repulsive if Job 34:36 still belonged to the assenting language of another, and Elihu represented himself as addressed by אבי (Wolfson, Maur.). Thus, therefore, אבי must be taken somehow or other interjectionally. It is untenable to compare it with אבוי, Pro 23:29, for אוי ואבוי (Arab. âh wa - âwâh) is “ah! and alas!” The Aramaic בייא בייא, vae vae (Buxtorf, col. 294), compared by Ges. to בּי, signifies just the same. The Targ. translates צבינא, I wish; after which Kimchi, among moderns, Umbr., Schlottm., Carey, and others derive אבי from אבה, a wish (after the form קצה, הזה), but the participial substantival-form badly suits this signification, which is at once improbable according to the usage of the language so far as we at present know it. This interpretation also does not well suit the בי, which is to be explained at the same time. Ewald, §358, a, regards אבי as the fuller form of בּי, and thinks אבי is dialectic = לבי = לוי = לוּ, but this is an etymological leger-demain. The two Schultens (died 1750 and 1793) were on the right track when they traced back אבי to בוא, but their interpretation: rem eo adducam ut (אבי = אביא, as it is certainly not unfrequently written, e.g., 1Ki 21:29, with the assumption of a root בי cognate with בא), is artificial and without support in the usage of the language and in the syntax. Körber and Simonis opened up the right way, but with inadequate means for following it out, by referring (vid., Ges. Thes. s.v. בּי) to the formula of a wish and of respect, bawwâk allah , which, however, also is bajjâk. The Kamus interprets bajjâk, though waveringly, by bawwâk, the meaning of which (may he give thee a resting-place) is more transparent. In an annotated Codex of Zamachschari hajjâk allah wa - bajjâk is explained: God preserve thy life and grant thee to come to a place of rest, bawwaaka (therefore Arab. bawâ = bawa'a) menzilan. That אבי (as also בּי) is connected with this bajjâk since the latter is the Piel-form of an old verb bajja (vid., supra, p. 559), which with the forms Arab. bâ'a (whence Arab. bı̂‛at, a sheltering house) and Arab. bw' (bwâ) has one root similar in signification with בוא, the following contributions of Wetzstein will show.

In elucidation of the present passage he observes: The expressions abı̂ tebı̂ , jebı̂ ; nebı̂ , tebû , jebû , are so frequent in Damascus, that they very soon struck me, and on my first inquiry I always received the same answer, that they are a mutilation of Arab. 'bgy , abghi , I desire, etc. [vid. supra, p. 580], until one day a fugitive came into the consulate, and with these words, abı̂ wâlidêk, seized me in that part of the body where the Arabs wear the girdle (zunnâr), a symbolic action by which one seeks some one’s protection. Since the word here could not be equivalent to abghi (“I desire” thy parents), I turned to the person best acquainted with the idiom of the country, the scribe Abderrahmân el-Mîdâni, which father had been a wandering minstrel in the camps for twenty years; and he explained to me that abghi only signifies “I desire;” on the contrary, abı̂, “I implore importunately, I pray for God’s sake,” and the latter belongs to a defective verb, Arab. bayya, from which, except the forms mentioned, only the part. anâ bâj , “I come as a suppliant,” and its plur. nahn bâjin , is used. The poet Musa Rârâ from Krêje in the south of Hauran, who lived with me six months in Damascus in order to instruct me in the dialect of his district, assured me that among the Beduins also the perf. forms bı̂t , bı̂nâ (I have, we have entreated), and the fut. forms tabı̂n (thou, woman ... ), jaben (they, the women ... ), and taben (ye women ... ), are used. In the year 1858, in the course of a journey in his native country, I came to Dîmâs, whither they had brought two strange Beduins who had been robbed of their horses in that desert (Sahra Dîmâs), and one of them had at the same time received a mortal gunshot-wound. As I can to these men, who were totally forsaken, the wounded man began to express his importunate desire for a surgeon with the words jâ shêch nebı̂ ‛arabak, “Sir, we claim the protection of thy Arabs,” i.e., we adjure thee by thy family. Naturally abı̂ occurs most frequently. It generally has its obj. in the acc., often also with the praepos. Arab. ‛ly , exactly like Arab. dchl (to enter, to flee anywhere and hide), which is its correct synonym and usual substitute in common life. It is often used without an obj., and, indeed, very variously. With women it is chiefly the introduction to a question prompted by curiosity, as: abı̂ (ah, tell me), have you really betrothed your daughter? Or the word is accompanied by a gesture by the five fingers of the right hand, with the tips united, being stretched out towards the hasty or impatient listener, as if one wished to show some costly object, when abı̂ signifies as much as: I pray thee wait till I have shown thee this precious thing, i.e., allow me to make one more remark to thee in reference to the matter. Moreover, בּי (probably not corrupted from אבי, but a derived nomen concretum in the sense of dachı̂ l or mustagı̂r, one seeking protection, protégé, after the form אי, צי, from בוה = בוא) still exists unaltered in Hauran and in the steppe. The Beduin introduces an important request with the words anâ bı̂ ahlak, I am a protégé of thy family, or anâ bı̂ ‛irdak, I trust to thine honour, etc.; while in Damascus they say, anâ dachı̂l ahlak , harı̂mak , aulâdak , etc. The Beduin women make use of this bı̂ in a weakened signification, in order to beg a piece of soap or sugar, and anâ bı̂ lihjetak , I pray by thy beard, etc., is often heard.

If now we combine that אבי of Elihu with abghi (from Arab. bgâ, Hebr. בּעה, Aram. בּעא, fut. יבעי, as בּי with בּעי) or with abî = אבא, from the verb bajja = בוא (בי), ^{▼▼We cannot in any case, with Wetzst., explain the אבי אבי, 2Ki 2:12; 2Ki 13:14, according to the above, so that the king of Israel adjured the dying prophet by the national army and army of the faithful not to forsake him, as an Arab is now and then adjured in most urgent and straitened circumstances “by the army of Islam;” vid., on the other hand, 2Ki 6:21, comp. Job 5:13; Job 8:9 (בּנך). Here rather, if an Arabian parallel be needed, the usual death wail, bi - abı̂ anta (thou wast dear as a father to me), e.g., in Kosegarten, Chrestom. p. 140, 3, is to be compared. אבי, 1Sa 24:12, might more readily, with Ew. §101, c, be brought in here and regarded as belonging to the North Palestine peculiarities of the book of Kings; but by a comparison of the passages cited, this is also improbable.} it always remains a remarkable instance in favour of the Arabic colouring of the Elihu section similar to the rest of the book, - a colouring, so to speak, dialectically Hauranitish; while, on the other hand, even by this second speech, one cannot avoid the impression of a great distance between it and the rest of the book: the language has a lofty tone, without its special harshness, as there, being the necessary consequence of a carefully concentrated fulness of thought; moreover, here in general the usual regularity of the strophe-lines no longer prevails, and also the usual symmetrical balance of thought in them.

If we confine our attention to the real substance of the speech, apart from the emotional and rough accessories, Elihu casts back the reproach of injustice which Job has raised, first as being contradictory to the being of God, Job 34:10.; then he seeks to refute it as contradicting God’s government, and this he does (1) apagogically from the unselfish love with which God’s protecting care preserves the breath of every living thing, while He who has created all things might bring back all created things to the former non-existence, Job 34:12-15; (2) by induction from the impartial judgment which He exercises over princes and peoples, and from which it is inferred that the Ruler of the world is also all-just, Job 34:16-20. From this Elihu proves that God can exercise justice, and from that, that He is omniscient, and sees into man’s inmost nature without any judicial investigation, Job 34:21-28; inaccessible to human accusation and human defiance, He rules over peoples and individuals, even over kings, and nothing turns His just punishment aside but lowly penitence blended with the prayer for the disclosure of unperceived sin, Job 34:29-32. For in His retributive rule God does not follow the discontented demands of men arrogant and yet devoid of counsel, Job 34:33. It is worthy of recognition, that Elihu does not here coincide with what has been already said (especially Job 12:15), without applying it to another purpose; and that his theodicy differs essentially from that proclaimed by the friends. It is not derived from mere appearance, but lays hold of the very principles. It does not attempt the explanation of the many apparent contradictions to retributive justice which outward events manifest, as agreeing with it; it does not solve the question by mere empiricism, but from the idea of the Godhead and its relation to the world, and by such inner necessity guarantees to the mysteries still remaining to human shortsightedness, their future solution.