Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Job 19:16 - 19:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
16 I call to my servant and he answereth not,
I am obliged to entreat him with my mouth.
17 My breath is offensive to my wife,
And my stench to my own brethren.
18 Even boys act contemptuously towards me;
If I will rise up, they speak against me.
19 All my confidential friends abhor me,
And those whom I loved have turned against me.
20 My bone cleaveth to my skin and flesh,
And I am escaped only with the skin of my teeth.
His servant, who otherwise saw every command in his eyes, and was attent upon his wink, now not only does not come at his call, but does not return him any answer. The one of the home-born slaves (vid., on Gen 14:14),
(Note: The (black) slaves born within the tribe itself are in the present day, from their dependence and bravery, accounted as the stay of the tribe, and are called fadâwîje, as those who are ready to sacrifice their life for its interest. The body-slave of Job is thought of as such as יליד בית.)
who stood in the same near connection to Job as Eliezer to Abraham, is intended here, in distinction from גרי ביתי, Job 19:15. If he, his master, now in such need of assistance, desires any service from him, he is obliged (fut. with the sense of being compelled, as e.g., Job 15:30, Job 17:2) to entreat him with his mouth. הִתְחַנֵּן, to beg חֵן of any one for one's self (vid., supra, p. 365), therefore to implore, supplicare; and בְּמֹו־פִּי here (as Psa 89:2; Psa 109:30) as a more significant expression of that which is loud and intentional (not as Job 16:5, in contrast to that which proceeds from the heart). In Job 19:17, רוּחִי signifies neither my vexation (Hirz.) nor my spirit = I (Umbr., Hahn, with the Syr.), for רוח in the sense of angry humour (as Job 15:13) does not properly suit the predicate, and Arab. rûḥy in the signification ipse may certainly be used in Arabic, where rûḥ (perhaps under the influence of the philosophical usage of the language) signifies the animal spirit-life (Psychol. S. 154), not however in Hebrew, where נפשׁי is the stereotype form in that sense. If one considers that the elephantiasis, although its proper pathological symptom consists in an enormous hypertrophy of the cellular tissue of single distinct portions of the body, still easily, if the bronchia are drawn into sympathy, or if (what is still more natural) putrefaction of the blood with a scorbutic ulcerous formation in the mouth comes on, has difficulty of breathing (Job 7:15) and stinking breath as its result, as also a stinking exhalation and the discharge of a stinking fluid from the decaying limbs is connected with it (vid., the testimony of the Arabian physicians in Stickel, S. 169f.), it cannot be doubted that Jer. has lighted upon the correct thing when he transl. halitum meum exhorruit uxor mea. רוחי is intended as in Job 17:1, and it is unnecessary to derive זרה from a special verb זִיר, although in Arab. the notions which are united in the Hebr. זוּר .r, deflectere and abhorrere (to turn one's self away from what is disgusting or horrible), are divided between Arab. zâr med. Wau and Arab. ḏâr med. Je (vid., Fürst's Handwörterbuch).
In Job 19:17 the meaning of חַנֹּותִי is specially questionable. In Psa 77:10, חַנֹּות is, like שַׁמֹּות, Eze 36:3, an infinitive from חָנַן, formed after the manner of the Lamed He verbs. Ges. and Olsh. indeed prefer to regard these forms as plurals of substantives (חַנָּה, שַׁמָּה), but the respective passages, regarded syntactically and logically, require infinitives. As regards the accentuation, according to which וחנותי is accented by Rebia mugrasch on the ultima, this does not necessarily decide in favour of its being infin., since in the 1 praet. סַבֹּתִי, which, according to rule, has the tone on the penultima, the ultima is also sometimes (apart from the perf. consec.) found accented (on this, vid., on Psa 17:3, and Ew. §197, a), as סַבּוּ, קוּמָה, קוּמִי, also admit of both accentuations.
(Note: The ultima-accentuation of the form סַבֹּותִי is regular, is the Waw conv. praet. in fut. is added, as Exo 33:19, Exo 33:22; 2Ki 19:34; Isa 65:7; Eze 20:38; Mal 2:2; Psa 89:24. Besides, the penultima has the tone regularly, e.g., Jos 5:9; 1Sa 12:3; 1Sa 22:22; Jer 4:28; Psa 35:14; Psa 38:7; Job 40:4; Ecc 2:20. There are, however, exceptions, Deu 32:41 (שׁנותי), Isa 44:16 (חמותי), Psa 17:3 (זמתי), Psa 92:11 (בלתי), Psa 116:6 (דלותי). Perhaps the ultima-accentuation in these exceptional instances is intended to protect the indistinct pronunciation of the consonants Beth, Waw, or even Resh, at the beginning of the following words, which might easily become blended with the final syllable תי; certainly the reason lies in the pronunciation or in the rhythm (vid., on Psa 116:6, and comp. the retreating of the tone in the infin. חלותי (Psa 77:11). Looking at this last exception, which has not yet been cleared up, חנותי in the present passage will always be able to be regarded on internal grounds either as infin. or as 1 praet. The ultima-accentuation makes the word at first sight appear to be infin., whereas in comparison with זרה, which is accented on the penult., and therefore as 3 praet., וחנותי seems also to be intended as praet. The accentuation, therefore, leaves the question in uncertainty.)
If וחנותי is infin., the clause is a nominal clause, or a verbal one, that is to be supplemented by the v. fin. זָֽרָה; if it is first pers. praet., we have a verbal clause. It must be determined from the matter and the connection which of these explanations, both of which are in form and syntax possible, is the correct one.
The translation, “I entreat (groan to) the sons of my body,” is not a thought that accords with the context, as would be obtained by the infin. explanation: my entreating (is offensive); this signif. (prop. to Hithp. as above) assigned to Kal by von Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2, 612) is at least not to be derived from the derivative חֵן; it might be more easily deduced from נֵחַנְתְּ, Jer 22:23, which appears to be a Niph. like נִחַם, נֶֽאֱנַח, from חָנַן, but might also be derived from נֵנַחְתְּ = נֶֽאֱנַחְתְּ by means of a transposition (vid., Hitz.). In the present passage one might certainly compare Arab. ḥnn, the usual word for the utterance and emotion of longing and sympathy, or also Arab. chnn, fut. i (with the infin. noun chanı̂n), which occurs in the signifn. of weeping, and transl.: my imploring, groaning, weeping, is offensive, etc. Since, however, the X. form of the Arab. chnn (istachanna) signifies to give forth an offensive smell (esp. of the stinking refuse of a well that is dried up); and besides, since the significatn. foetere is supported for the root חן (comp. צָחַן) by the Syriac chanı̂no (e.g., meshcho chanı̂no, rancid oil), we may also translate: “My stinking is offensive,” etc., or: “I stink to the children of my body” (Rosenm., Ew., Hahn, Schlottm.); and this translation is not only not hazardous in a book that so abounds in derivations from the dialects, but it furnishes a thought that is as closely as possible connected with Job 19:17.
(Note: Supplementary: Instead of istachanna (of the stinking of a well, perhaps denom. from Arab. chnn, prop. to smell like a hen-house), the verb hhannana (with Arab. ḥ) = ‛affana, “to be corrupt, to have a mouldy smell,” can, with Wetzstein, be better compared with חַנֹּותִי; thence comes zêt mohhannin = mo‛affin, corrupt rancid oil, corresponding to the Syriac חנינא. Thus ambiguously to the sellers of walnuts in Damascus cry out their wares with the words: el-mohhannin maugûd, “the merciful One liveth,” i.e., I do not guarantee the quality of my wares. In like manner, not only can Arab. dâr inf. dheir (dhêr), to be offensive, be compared with זָֽרָה, but, with Wetzstein, also the very common steppe word for ”to be bad, worthless,” Arab. zrâ, whence adj. zarı̂ (with nunation zarı̂jun).)
The further question now arises, who are meant by בִטְנִי לִבְנֵי. Perhaps his children? But in the prologue these have utterly perished. Are we to suppose, with Eichhorn and Olshausen, that the poet, in the heat of discourse, forgets what he has laid down in the prologue? When we consider that this poet, within the compass of his work, - a work into which he has thrown his whole soul, - has allowed no anachronism, and no reference to anything Israelitish that is contradictory to its extra-Israelitish character, to escape him, such forgetfulness is very improbable; and when we, moreover, bear in mind that he often makes the friends refer to the destruction of Job's children (as Job 8:4; Job 15:30; Job 18:16), it is altogether inconceivable. Hence Schröring has proposed the following explanation: “My soul a substitution of which Hahn is also guilty is strange to my wife; my entreaty does not even penetrate to the sons of my body, it cannot reach their ear, for they are long since in Sheôl.” But he himself thinks this interpretation very hazardous and insecure; and, in fact, it is improbable that in the division, Job 19:13, where Job complains of the neglect and indifference which he now experiences from those around him, בטני בני should be the only dead ones among the living, in which case it would moreover be better, after the Arabic version, to translate: “My longing is for, or: I yearn after, the children of my body.” Grandchildren (Hirz., Ew., Hlgst. Hahn) might be more readily thought of; but it is not even probable, that after having introduced the ruin of all of Job's children, the poet would represent their children as still living, some mention of whom might then at least be expected in the epilogue. Others, again (Rosenm. Justi, Gleiss), after the precedent of the lxx (υἱοὶ παλλακίδων μου), understand the sons of concubines (slaves). Where, however, should a trace be found of the poet having conceived of his hero as a polygamist, - a hero who is even a model of chastity and continence (Job 31:1)?
But must בטני בני really signify his sons or grandsons? Children certainly are frequently called, in relation to the father, בטנו פרי (e.g., Deu 7:13), and the father himself can call them בטני פרי (Mic 6:7); but בטן in this reference is not the body of the father, but the mother's womb, whence, begotten by him, the children issue forth. Hence “son of my body” occurs only once (Pro 31:2) in the mother's mouth. In the mouth of Job even (where the first origin of man is spoken of), בטני signifies not Job's body, but the womb that conceived him (vid., Job 3:10); and thus, therefore, it is not merely possible, but it is natural, with Stuhlm., Ges., Umbr., and Schlottm., to understand בטני בני of the sons of his mother's womb, i.e., of her who bare him; consequently, as אִמִּי בני, Psa 69:9, of natural brethren (brothers and sisters, sorores uterinae), in which sense, regarding וחנותי according to the most natural influence of the tone as infin., we transl.: “and my stinking is offensive (supply זרה) to the children of my mother's womb.” It is also possible that the expression, as the words seem to be taken by Symmachus (υἱοὺς παιδῶν μου, my slaves' children), and as they are taken by Kosegarten, in comparison with the Arab. btn in the signification race, subdivision (in the downward gradation, the third) of a greater tribe, may denote those who with him belong in a wider sense to one mother's bosom, i.e., to the same clan, although the mention of בטני בני in close connection with אשׁתי is not favourable to this extension of the idea. The circle of observation is certainly widened in Job 19:18, where עֲוִילִים are not Job's grandchildren (Hahn), but the children of neighbouring families and tribes; עֲוִיל (vid., Job 16:11) is a boy, and especially (perh. on account of the similarity in sound between מְעַוֵּל and עַוָּל) a rude, frolicsome, mischievous boy. Even such make him feel their contempt; and if with difficulty, and under the influence of pain which distorts his countenance, he attempts to raise himself (אָקוּמָה, lxx ὅταν ἀναστῶ, hypothetical cohortative, as Job 11:17; Job 16:6), they make him the butt of their jesting talk (דִּבֵּר בְּ, as Psa 50:20).
Job 19:19
מְתֵי סֹודִי is the name he gives those to whom he confides his most secret affairs; סֹוד (vid., on Psa 25:14) signifies either with a verbal notion, secret speaking (Arab. sâwada, III. form from sâda, to press one's self close upon, esp. as sârra, to speak in secret with any one), or what is made firm, i.e., what is impenetrable, therefore a secret (from sâda, to be or make close, firm, compact; cognate root, יָסַד, wasada, cognate in signification, sirr, a secret, from sarra, שְׁרַר, which likewise signifies to make firm). Those to whom he has made known his most secret plans (comp. Psa 55:13-15) now abhor him; and those whom he has thus (זֶה, as Job 15:17) become attached to, and to whom he has shown his affection, - he says this with an allusion to the three, - have turned against him. They gave tokens of their love and honour to him, when he was in the height of his happiness and prosperity, but they have not even shown any sympathy with him in his present form of distress.
(Note: The disease which maims or devours the limbs, dâ'u el-gudhâm [vid. supra, p. 281], which generically includes Arabian leprosy, cancer, and syphilis, and is called the “first-born of death” in Job 18:13, is still in Arabia the most dreaded disease, in the face of which all human sympathy ceases. In the steppe, even the greatest personage who is seized with this disease is removed at least a mile or two from the encampment, where a charbûsh, i.e., a small black hair-tent, is put up for him, and an old woman, who has no relations living, is given him as an attendant until he dies. No one visits him, not even his nearest relations. He is cast off as muqâtal ollah. - Wetzst. The prejudice combated by the book of Job, that the leper is, as such, one who is smitten by the wrath of God, has therefore as firm hold of the Arabian mind in the present day as it had centuries ago.)
His bones cleave (דָֽבְקָה, Aq. ἐκολλήθη, lxx erroneously ἐσάπησαν, i.e., רקבה) to his skin, i.e., the bones may be felt and seen through the skin, and the little flesh that remains is wasted away almost to a skeleton (vid., Job 7:15). This is not contradictory to the primary characteristic symptom of the lepra nodosa; for the wasting away of the rest of the body may attain an extraordinarily high degree in connection with the hypertrophy of single parts. He can indeed say of himself, that he is only escaped (se soit échappé) with the skin of his teeth. By the “skin of his teeth” the gums are generally understood. But (1) the gum is not skin, and can therefore not be called “skin of the teeth” in any language; (2) Job complains in Job 19:17 of his offensive breath, which in itself does not admit of the idea of healthy gums, and especially if it be the result of a scorbutic ulceration of the mouth, presupposes an ulcerous destruction of the gums. The current translation, “with my gums,” is therefore to be rejected on account both of the language and the matter. For this reason Stickel (whom Hahn follows) takes עור as inf. from ערר, and translates: “I am escaped from it with my teeth naked” lit. with the being naked of my teeth, i.e., with teeth that are no longer covered, standing forward uncovered. This explanation is pathologically satisfactory; but it has against it (1) the translation of עור, which is wide of the most natural interpretation of the word; (2) that in close connection with ואתמלטה one expects the mention of a part of the body that has remained whole. Is there not, then, really a skin of the teeth in the proper sense? The gum is not skin, but the teeth are surrounded with a skin in the jaw, the so-called periosteum. If we suppose, what is natural enough, that his offensive breath, Job 19:17, arises from ulcers in the mouth (in connection with scorbutus, as is known, the breath has a terribly offensive smell), we obtain the following picture of Job's disease: his flesh is in part hypertrophically swollen, in part fearfully wasted away; the gums especially are destroyed and wasted away from the teeth, only the periosteum round about the teeth is still left to him, and single remnants of the covering of his loose and projecting teeth.
Thus we interpret עֹזר שִׁנַּי in the first signification of the words, and have also no need for supposing that Job 19:20 is a proverbial phrase for “I have with great care and difficulty escaped the extreme.” The declaration perfectly corresponds to the description of the disease; and it is altogether needless with Hupfeld, after Job 13:14, to read עור בשׁני, vitam solam et nudam vix reportavi, which is moreover inappropriate, since Job regards himself as one who is dying. Symm. alters the position of the בְּ similarly, since he translates after the Syriac Hexapla: καὶ ἐξέτιλλον (ותלשׁת) τὸ δέρμα τοῖς ὀδοῦσιν μου, from מלט = מרט, Arab. mllṭ, nudare pilis, which J. D. Michaelis also compares; the sense, however, which is thereby gained, is beneath all criticism. On the aoristic וָאֶתְמַלְּטָה, vid., on Job 1:15. Stickel has on this passage an excursus on this ah, to which he also attributes, in this addition to the historic tense, the idea of striving after a goal: “I slip away, I escape;” it certainly gives vividness to the notion of the action, if it may not always have the force of direction towards anything. Therefore: with a destroyed flesh, and indeed so completely destroyed that there is even nothing left to him of sound skin except the skin of his teeth, wasted away to a skeleton, and become both to sight and smell a loathsome object; - such is the sufferer the friends have before them, - one who is tortured, besides, by a dark conflict which they only make more severe, - one who now implores them for pity, and because he has no pity to expect from man, presses forward to a hope which reaches beyond the grave.