I called my servant, and he gave me no answer, I entreated him with my own mouth.

“I called my servant, and he gave me no answer. For what was the Jewish people but a 'servant,' which never obeyed the Lord with the love of a son, but the fear of a slave? Contrariwise it is said to us by Paul, For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. And so this 'servant' the Lord 'called,' in that by benefits vouchsafed, as by voices given out, He strove to bring it to Himself; but it 'answered not,' in that it was indifferent to render back deeds corresponding to His gifts. For God 'calls' us, when He presents us with His gifts; and we 'answer' to this calling, when we serve Him worthily according to the benefits we have been vouchsafed; therefore because He prevented the people with so many benefits, let him say, I called my servant, and because even after such numberless benefits, it contemned Him, let him add; and he gave me no answer. It goes on; I entreated him with my own mouth. As though he said more plainly; 'I, the Same that before My Incarnation had given it in charge so many precepts to be practised, by the mouths of the Prophets, coming to it Incarnate, entreated it with my own mouth.' And hence Matthew, when he was telling of precepts being delivered by Him on the Mount, says, And He opened His mouth, and taught. As if he said in plain speech; 'Then He opened His own mouth, Who before had opened the mouths of the Prophets;' it is hence too that it is said of Him by the Spouse longing for His presence, Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth; since for all the precepts which she learnt by His preaching, Holy Church, as it were, received so many 'kisses of his mouth.' Now it is well said, I entreated; in that being exhibited in the flesh, whilst He spoke the precepts of life with humility, He, as it were, besought His servant filled with pride that he would come.”

“Job, answering, said: How long do you afflict my soul, etc. In these opening words Baldad seems to have intended two things: first, to refute Job for folly and pride and fury, by which he intended to afflict him just as his other friends did; and therefore he says, How long do you afflict my soul? Second, to confirm his own opinion that the adversities of the present life come upon men for their sins — an opinion which he had pursued at length by enumerating various adversities without adducing any other proof; and as to this Job adds, and bruise me with words, that is, you wear me out with words, you do not convince me with proofs. Now it is tolerable if someone speaks once against his friend, but if a man multiplies words of this kind it seems to be a sign of settled malice; hence he adds, behold, ten times you have confounded me, both by speaking yourselves and by hearing me with a certain indignation. Now before this reply Job is found to have spoken five times, if we begin from where he said, Let the day perish in which I was born, and his friends are found to have answered him five times; but at least out of shame, even if not out of friendship, they ought to have ceased afflicting one already afflicted; hence he adds, and are you not ashamed to oppress me, namely, weighing me down both with reproaches and with the length of your words. Among the other reproaches, Baldad seems to have taxed him with ignorance, when he said, understand first, and so let us speak — an ignorance which ought to have been tolerated by friends and excused on that account, and ought not to have been thrown in his face, especially in a time of adversity; and therefore he adds, and if indeed I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with myself, as if to say: it burdens no one but me, and so it was not your business, amid my adversities, to reproach me with ignorance; and therefore he adds, but you rise up against me, namely, displaying your own excellence, and you argue against me with my reproaches, that is, with things that pertain to me alone and burden no others. Having premised these things pertaining to the refutation of his friends, he proceeds to pursue his principal proposal, intending to show that what they said is false — that present adversities always come on account of past sins. From this supposition he immediately, from the very outset, draws out an absurdity, saying, at least now understand that God has not afflicted me with an equal judgment, as if to say: if adversities do not come except for sins, then God's judgment is not equitable, by which he has afflicted me grievously when I have not sinned grievously; and he says at least now, because up to this point he had not enumerated his adversities so particularly as now. Now he says that he is not only afflicted by adversities but also hemmed in by them so that he cannot find a way of escape; hence there follows, and has encompassed me with his scourges, because, namely, these very scourges have cut off the way of remedies; and he begins to pursue this in the following order. Now a remedy can be found in adversities, first through human help, and this in two ways: in one way, in the very deed, as when someone is violently oppressed by another and receives aid from a third party; and to exclude this he says, behold, I will cry out suffering violence, and no one will hear, as if to say: if I should cry out against those who oppress me violently, no one would hear so as to bring help. In another way, after the deed, as when someone who has suffered an injury complains to a judge who restores and vindicates him by sentence; and excluding this he adds, I will cry aloud, and there is none to judge, that is, if I should cry out complaining, there would be no judge present to free me by his judgment. Second, a remedy in adversities is found in the man himself who escapes the adversities, and this in two ways: in one way through power, and this he excludes, saying, he has hedged in my path round about, and I cannot pass, as if to say: he has placed so many obstacles in the way of my progress that I cannot remove them. In another way through prudence, and to exclude this he adds, and he has set darkness in my path, namely, so that I cannot see how I ought to proceed. Then, the remedies having been excluded, he goes on to add the adversities, beginning from the external goods which he lost. Among these he first places the loss of honor and glory, when he says, he has stripped me of my glory, because whereas before he had been held in honor and reverence, then even the younger men mocked him in time, as is said below in chapter 30. Second, he places the loss of dignity, when he adds, and has taken the crown from my head, because he who before sat as it were a king with the army standing about him, as is said below in chapter 29, now sitting on a dunghill scraped his sores with a potsherd, as was said above in chapter 2. Third, he places the loss of external goods when he says, he has destroyed me on every side, namely, all his external goods having been laid waste, and I perish, the adversity enduring, because there is no hope of recovery; hence he adds, and he has taken away my hope like a tree torn up: for a tree, as long as it clings to the earth by its roots, has hope, if its branches are cut off, of growing green again; but if its roots are torn out of the ground, it must necessarily dry up and perish; so too he himself, his roots as it were torn out, had no hope of recovering temporal prosperity. Now the root of hope is twofold: one on the side of divine help, the other on the side of human help. The root of hope that is on the side of divine help seemed to have been torn out by this, that God seemed to be gravely angry with him, according to the opinion of those who located divine punishment solely in the adversities of this life; hence he says, his fury is enraged against me, which he says to designate the vehemence of the anger: for fury is inflamed anger. Now the more vehement fury is, the sooner it is wont to pass, and so hope can remain for the future concerning one who is angry; but if anger passes over into hatred, then no hope at all seems to remain; and to signify this he adds, and thus he has treated me as his enemy: for no remedy is hoped for from an enemy. Now he places a sign of divine anger and hatred when he adds, his robbers have come together at once: he calls the Sabeans and the Chaldeans and the demons robbers, who had laid waste his goods all at once as if by agreement; and he calls them God's robbers, as though this had happened by divine ordinance, just as Job's friends also said. Now these aforesaid robbers plundered Job publicly, without any reverence or fear; hence he adds, and they have made themselves a way over me, as if to say: they have plundered me just as an enemy who is found on the road plunders. They also assailed him universally and persistently, and as to this he adds, and they have besieged, namely persistently, round about, that is, universally in every respect, my tabernacle, that is, the goods of my household. Then he shows that the root of hope which is on the side of human help has been torn out, showing that he could expect no help from those from whom it seemed most likely, and he enumerates first those who are separated from him in the dwelling of the house, beginning with his brothers, saying, he has made my brothers to be far from me, namely so that they either are unwilling or unable to bring me help; then he sets down familiar friends, when he adds, and my acquaintances have withdrawn from me like strangers, namely, not bringing me help; and as to blood relations, or those joined by any other tie of kinship, he adds, my kinsmen have forsaken me, not bringing help; and as to those with whom he had at some time associated, he adds, and they who knew me, namely formerly as a familiar friend, have now in my tribulation forgotten me, namely, not caring about me. After these he goes on to enumerate the members of his household, saying, the tenants of my house, namely those who used to be accustomed to serve me, and my maidservants have held me as a stranger, namely, not caring about my afflictions, and I was as a stranger in their eyes, namely, utterly despising me. Then, concerning the disobedience of his servants, he adds, I called my servant, and he did not answer me; and he adds also a proud contempt: I entreated him with my own mouth, that is, I had to deal with him not by command but by entreaties, because he despised me. Then he enumerates the persons most closely joined to him, namely his wife and children. Now the presence of a husband is wont to be most pleasing to a wife, unless perhaps he is rendered horrible by some grave corruption; and to signify this he adds, my wife has abhorred my breath, namely on account of the stench of the ulcers by which he was rendered horrible to her. Now it belongs to children to fulfill the parent's will at his mere nod; but it comes from a great contempt of the parent that the father, to whom reverence ought to be shown by the son, should have to entreat the son suppliantly; and to show this he adds, and I begged the sons of my own body. But this seems to be against what was said above in chapter 1, verse 19, that his sons and daughters were crushed by the collapse of the house; but it can be said that some little ones had remained who had not been present at that feast, or perhaps some children of his sons, who, imputing the death of their own parents to their own sins, held Job himself in contempt for it because of his sins. After he has said, therefore, that he was despised by his household and by outsiders, he next shows that he was despised also by fools and by the wise. Now it is proper to fools to despise those whom they see in miseries, because they think only earthly goods are to be honored; and therefore he says, even fools also despised me, namely while present in their sight, and when I had withdrawn from them they spoke against me, namely, pronouncing with their mouth what they were afraid to say in my presence. Then he also says he was despised by wise men whom he had once held as intimates, hence he says, they that were once my counselors have abhorred me, namely, whom I used to admit to my counsel on account of their wisdom, and he whom I loved most has turned against me: and perhaps he says this on account of one of them who was present, who was opposing him more grievously. Thus, then, the adversities pertaining to external things having been set forth, he adds concerning the wasting away of his own body, saying, my bone has cleaved to my skin, my flesh being consumed, because, namely, on account of the severity of his sickness his flesh had been consumed so that his skin cleaved to his bones. But because the lips are fleshy parts which cleave to the teeth as to bones, therefore, to except these, he adds, and only my lips are left around my teeth, by which he seems covertly to intimate that, all the other functions of his members having ceased, only the function of speech remained to him. His adversities having thus been enumerated, he invites them to compassion, doubling the petition for mercy on account of the multitude of his miseries, saying, have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you, my friends, since I have been forsaken by others; now the cause of pitying is misery, which is the graver the more forcibly it is brought on; and therefore he adds, because the hand of the Lord has touched me: for he understood himself to have been struck by God. Now it does not seem fitting that a man should add affliction to one already afflicted; and therefore he adds, why do you persecute me as God does? As if to say: the persecution that comes from God is enough for me; but it would be more fitting for you to offer consolation instead. And how they were persecuting him he shows by adding, and are you filled with my flesh? Which properly pertains to detractors, who are said to feed on human flesh insofar as they take delight in the infirmities of others: for the flesh is the weaker part of an animal. Who will grant me that they may be written, etc. Job had said above that his hope had been taken away like that of a tree torn up, which indeed he said referring to the hope of recovering temporal prosperity, to which his friends had incited him in many ways; and that this hope was not to be held he had shown above at length by leading it to various absurdities. But now he openly discloses his intention, showing that he had not said the foregoing as one despairing of God, but because he bore a loftier hope concerning him, referred not indeed to present goods but to future ones. And because he was about to say great and wondrous and certain things, he shows beforehand his desire that the statement he was about to make might be perpetuated in the faith of those who come after; now we transmit our thoughts and words to posterity through the office of writing, and therefore he says, who will grant me that my words may be written — namely, those which I am about to say concerning the hope which I have fixed in God — lest they be blotted out by oblivion? Now things that are written in ink are wont to be effaced through length of time, and therefore, when we wish some writing to be preserved for a long time, we do not merely write it in the manner of ordinary script but by some impression, whether in leather, or in metal, or in stone; and because that which he was hoping for was not to come about in the near future but was reserved to be fulfilled at the end of time, therefore he adds, who will grant that they may be engraved in a book with an iron pen — as it were by some impression made in leather — or, if this is too little, by an impression made more strongly on a sheet of lead, or, if this too seems too little, that they may surely be carved with an iron pen into flint? Now what these words are, which he wished to be preserved with such great care, he shows by adding, for I know that my Redeemer lives, and he pointedly assigns this in the manner of a cause: for we are not careful to commit to memory those things which we do not hold as certain, and therefore he pointedly says, for I know, namely, through the certitude of faith. Now this hope concerns the glory of the future resurrection, regarding which he first assigns the cause when he says, my Redeemer lives. Here it must be considered that man, who had been constituted immortal by God, incurred death through sin, according to that saying of Romans 5:12, by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin, death — from which sin indeed the human race was to be redeemed through Christ, which Job foresaw through the spirit of faith. Now Christ redeemed us from sin through death, dying for us; but he did not die in such a way that death swallowed him up, because although he died according to his humanity, he could not die according to his divinity; and from the life of the divinity even the humanity was restored to life by rising again, according to that saying of 2 Corinthians, the last chapter, for although he was crucified out of our weakness, yet he lives by the power of God; and the life of Christ rising will be diffused to all men in the common resurrection, whence the Apostle adds in the same place: for we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God in us; whence also the Lord says in Job 5:25 — the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live: for as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son also to have life in himself. The primordial cause of human resurrection, therefore, is the life of the Son of God, which did not take its beginning from Mary, as the Ebionites said, but always was, according to that saying of Hebrews, the last chapter, Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also forever; and therefore he pointedly does not say, my Redeemer will live, but lives. And from this cause he foretells the future resurrection, determining its time, when he adds, and on the last day I shall rise again from the earth, where it must be considered that certain persons, positing that the motion of the heavens and this present state of the world will endure forever, held that after certain revolutions of years, the stars returning to the same positions, dead men would be restored to life; but since a day is caused by the motion of the heavens, if the motion of the heavens should endure forever there would be no last day: and therefore, to remove the aforesaid error, he pointedly says, on the last day, and this agrees with the saying of the Lord, who says in John 6:40, I will raise him up on the last day. There were others who said that men will rise again resuming not earthly but certain celestial bodies; but to exclude this he adds, and again I shall be surrounded with my skin, which he says pointedly because he had said above that only the skin remained around his bones; and from this very manner of speaking he assigns the reason for the resurrection, namely, lest the soul should always remain stripped of its own garment. Again, there were others who said that the soul would resume the same body it had laid down, but under the same condition, namely so that it would need food and drink and would carry out the other fleshly works of this life; but this he excludes by adding, and in my flesh I shall see God. For it is manifest that the flesh of man, according to the state of the present life, is corruptible; but the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul, as is said in Wisdom 9:15, and therefore no one living in this mortal flesh can see God; but the flesh which the soul will resume in the resurrection will indeed be the same in substance, but will have incorruption by a divine gift, according to that saying of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:53, this corruptible must put on incorruption; and therefore that flesh will be of such a condition that it will in no way impede the soul from being able to see God, but will be entirely subject to it. Not knowing this, Porphyry said that, in order for the soul to become blessed, every body must be fled from, as though it were the soul that would see God, not the man; and to exclude this he adds, whom I myself shall see, as if to say: not only my soul will see God, but I myself, who subsist from soul and body. And to show that the body too will in its own way be a partaker of that vision, he adds, and my eyes shall behold — not because the eyes of the body will see the divine essence, but because the eyes of the body will see God made man; they will also see the glory of God shining forth in the creature, according to Augustine at the end of the City of God. And so that man might be believed to be restored to see God the same not only in species but in number, he adds, and not another, namely in number, lest it be believed that he expects such a restoration of life as Aristotle describes in the second book of On Generation, saying that whatsoever things are of corruptible substance, when set in motion, are repeated the same in species, not the same in number. These things having thus been premised concerning the cause of the resurrection, its time and manner, and the glory of the one rising and the identity of the same, he adds, this my hope is laid up in my bosom, as if to say: my hope is not in earthly things, which you vainly promise, but in the future glory of the resurrection. He pointedly says, it is laid up in my bosom, to show that he held this hope not merely in words but hidden in his heart — not doubtful but most firm, not as something cheap but as something most precious: for what is hidden in the bosom is kept in secret, and is firmly preserved, and is reckoned dear. Thus, then, the loftiness of his hope which he had concerning God having been shown, he excludes their calumnies which they sought against him, as though he had cast aside hope in God and fear of him because he did not place his hope in temporal things; hence he adds, why then do you now say: let us persecute him, namely, as one despairing of God or not fearing God, and let us find a root of the matter against him — by disproving my words as though I had denied the providence of God? Which I do not deny, but assert, saying that rewards and punishments are prepared by God for men even after this life; and therefore he adds, flee then from the face of the sword, that is, of the divine vengeance reserved for you in the future life, although you flourish in temporal prosperity, since the sword is the avenger of iniquities, that is, the vengeance which he himself will properly bring after death; and know that there is a judgment, not only in this life but also after this life, in the resurrection of the good and the wicked.”

“My breath is strange to my wife,.... Being corrupt and unsavoury, through some internal disorder; see Job 17:1; so that she could not bear to come nigh him, to do any kind deed for him; but if this was his case, and his natural breath was so foul, his friends would not have been able to have been so long in the same room with him, and carry on so long a conversation with him; rather therefore it may signify the words of his mouth, his speech along with his breath, which were very disagreeable to his wife; when upon her soliciting him to curse God and die, he told her she talked like one of the foolish women; and when he taught her to expect evil as well as good at the hand of God, and to bear afflictions patiently, or else the sense may be, "my spirit" (f), his vital spirit, his life, was wearisome and loathsome to his wife; she was tired out with him, with hearing his continual groans and complaints, and wished to be rid of him, and that God would take away his life: or else, as some render it, "my spirit is strange to me, because of my wife" (g); and then the meaning is, that Job was weary of his own life, he loathed it, and could have been glad to have it taken from him, because of the scoffs and jeers of his wife at him, her brawls and quarrels with him, and solicitations of him to curse God and renounce religion: though I entreated her for the children's sake of mine own body; this clause creates a difficulty with interpreters, since it is generally thought all Job's children were dead. Some think that only his elder children were destroyed at once, and that he had younger ones at home with him, which he here refers to; but this does not appear: others suppose these were children of his concubines; but this wants proof that he had any concubine; and besides an entreaty for the sake of such children could have no influence upon his proper wife: others take them for grandchildren, and who, indeed, are sometimes called children; but then they could not with strict propriety be called the children of his body; and for the same reason it cannot be meant of such that were brought up in his house, as if they were his children; nor such as were his disciples, or attended on him for instruction: but this may respect not any children then living, but those he had had; and the sense is, that Job entreated his wife, not for the use of the marriage bed, as some suggest (h); for it can hardly be thought, that, in such circumstances in which he was, there should be any desire of this kind; but to do some kind deed for him, as the dressing of his ulcers, &c. or such things which none but a wife could do well for him; and this he entreated for the sake of the children he had had by her, those pledges of their conjugal affection; or rather, since the word has the signification of deploring, lamenting, and bemoaning, the clause may be thus rendered, "and I lamented the children of my body" (i); he had none of those indeed to afflict him; and his affliction was, that they were taken away from him at once in such a violent manner; and therefore he puts in this among his family trials; or this may be an aggravation of his wife's want of tenderness and respect unto him; that his breath should be unsavoury, his talk disagreeable, and his sighs and moans be wearisome to her, when the burden of his song, the subject of his sorrowful complaints, was the loss of his children; in which it might have been thought she would have joined with him, being equally concerned therein. (f) "spiritus meus", Junius & Tremellius, Vatablus, Schmidt, Schultens; "anima mea", Cocceius. (g) "propter uxorem meam", Schmidt. (h) R. Levi Ben Gersom; so some in Vatablus. (i) "deploro", Cocceius; "et miserans lugeo", Schmidt; "et miseret me", Michaelis; "comploro", Schultens.”

“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 fadwje, 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. התחנּן, to beg חן of any one for one's self (vid., supra, p. 365), therefore to implore, supplicare; and בּמו־פּי 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, רוּחי 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 זיר, 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., Frst's Handwrterbuch). In Job 19:17 the meaning of חנּותי is specially questionable. In Psa 77:10, חנּות is, like שׁמּות, Eze 36:3, an infinitive from חנן, formed after the manner of the Lamed He verbs. Ges. and Olsh. indeed prefer to regard these forms as plurals of substantives (חנּה, שׁמּה), 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. סבּתי, 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 סבּוּ, קוּמה, קוּמי, also admit of both accentuations. (Note: The ultima-accentuation of the form סבּותי is regular, is the Waw conv. praet. in fut. is added, as Exo 33:19, Exo 33:22; Kg2 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; Sa1 12:3; Sa1 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. זרה; 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 חן; it might be more easily deduced from נחנתּ, Jer 22:23, which appears to be a Niph. like נחם, נאנח, from חנן, but might also be derived from ננחתּ = נאנחתּ 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. צחן) 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 חנּותי; 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 זרה, 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 בטני לבני. 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 Schrring 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 Shel." 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 אמּי 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 עוילים are not Job's grandchildren (Hahn), but the children of neighbouring families and tribes; עויל (vid., Job 16:11) is a boy, and especially (perh. on account of the similarity in sound between מעוּל and עוּל) 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 (אקוּמה, lxx ὅταν ἀναστῶ, hypothetical cohortative, as Job 11:17; Job 16:6), they make him the butt of their jesting talk (דּבּר בּ, as Psa 50:20). Job 19:19 מתי סודי is the name he gives those to whom he confides his most secret affairs; סוד (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, יסד, wasada, cognate in signification, sirr, a secret, from sarra, שׁרר, 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 (זה, 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 (דבקה, 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 chapp) 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 עזר שׁנּי 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 בּ 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 ואתמלּטה, 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.”