Biblical Hebrew Forum

["myron kauk" <myronkauk AT integrityonline30.com>]

Greetings:

        I have been watching this thread loosely for over a month now, but
so busy I haven't had time to craft a decent answer.  I just went back over
the whole discussion and even though it is late in the game I would like to
add my two cents worth.  My rendering of these two verses would be something
like:

        "By the hearing of the ear I heard about you, but now my eye has
seen you.  Therefore I despise [myself] and I am comforted [or I change my
mind] concerning the dust and ashes."

        In v 5 Job seems to be drawing a contrast between the knowledge of
God he received from his friends (hear say) and that which he received from
direct encounter with God (sight).  The friends talk a lot about God, but
Job's plea throughout the book is that he wants to talk with God.  Finally,
he gets his chance and the presence of God floors him.  But this is no
different than the response of others in the OT when they come into the
presence of God (Isa 6 for example).  But this personal encounter with God
is the reason ("therefore") for Job's response in v 6.

        The first line of v 6, contains a transitive verb 'EM'AS with no
direct object.  The two most likely candidates are either "myself" (NIV) or
"my words" (NAS - "I retract").  I have gone with the former since it fits
with my overall understanding of the passage.

        The second line of v 6, contains a niphal perfect of NHM followed by
the preposition `AL and the words "dust and ashes."  Now it is true that
that NHM is translated "repent" approximately 38 times in the KJV, but
interestingly enough, most of these refer to God's repentence (e.g. Gen
6:6).   Now, certainly, God has no sin of which He needs to repent, so in
these cases, at least, the verb simply means "to change one's mind" with no
guilt implied.  The other common translation of NHM is "comfort."  This is
well established in the piel (e.g. Ps 23:4; Isa 40:1 and interestingly
enough every other occurence of this root in the book of Job 2:11; 7:13;
16:2; 21:34; 29:25; 42:11) and I am arguing that this is the prefered
translation in the niphal as well when followed by `AL (which is properly
translated here as "concerning" cf BDB 752ff).

        At the outset of this discussion, the question was asked whether Job
was 1) defiant, or 2) repentant.  I am suggesting yet another option, that
Job is 3) comforted.  All the suffering which he has endured (the dust and
ashes) have been worth it because it was through this experience that Job's
understanding of God became personal.

        I have already discussed the lexical data for this understanding.
Let me now suggest that the argument of the book requires this
understanding.  Most commentators agree that Job is depicted as righteous at
the beginning of the book.  Therefore, the attempts of his first three
friends to charge him with some sin in his past are ill founded.  But too
many, in my opinion, tacitly agree with Elihu's charge that although Job may
not have been guilty of sin before, his response to his suffering is
blasphemous and culpable.  If that is the case, then Satan wins.  The
challenge at the beginning of the book was that Job would curse God to His
face if God removed His blessing (1:11; 2:5).  If Job "repents" of some sin
then his friends were right and Job is wrong.  But that is not what God says
in 42:7.

        I hope all of this helps.

Grace be with you,


Myron C. Kauk
myronkauk AT iolky.com