The Book of Job
⭑ Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 ⭑
- Chapter 31 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Footnotes
(a)31:7 The Latin word ‘et’ is usually translated as ‘and,’ but in this and certain other contexts, it clearly means ‘or.’ Job is not saying: ‘If I have done all three of these things,’ but rather, ‘If I have done any one of these things.’ Therefore, the translation is ‘or’ not ‘and.’(Conte)
(b)31:15 The word ‘utero’ is more general in meaning in Latin than the word ‘uterus’ is in English. The Latin ‘utero’ can refer to a male’s abdomen or to a woman’s womb. So, why does the Latin use two words, utero and vulva, and two questions (or a two-part question) to ask the same thing? Because the masculine singular word utero refers, not to the womb, but to the father’s (not well understood during Job’s day) genitive capability, and the word vulva refers to the mother’s genitive capability.(Conte)
(c)31:26
If I beheld the sun, etc: If I behold the sun and moon with admiration, knowing them to be created and governed by the power of God, I call on my adversaries to produce any thing against me, whereby I could be charged with worshipping the sun or moon.(Challoner)
(d)31:31 Job is listing sinful things that he has not done, so this good deed is spoken of in the negative: ‘Si non dixerunt....’ The good deed is that any men who came around his tabernacle (or tent or home) knew that they might obtain food from him if they were hungry. The Latin is here translated loosely, because a strict literal translation would be more difficult to understand. Here ‘carnibus’ does not specifically refer to meat (or flesh), but to food or a meal. Notice that ‘Quis’ is not to be understood as the word ‘Who’ introducing a question, but as a pronoun, better translated as ‘He’ than as ‘Who.’ Latin uses ‘quis’ as a pronoun in a way that English rarely uses the word ‘who.’ The quote here, beginning with ‘Quis’ could be translated as a question, but it is more clearly understood in its proper meaning when translated as a statement. The hungry knew that they could count on Job for food when they were hungry. Notice also that the genitive ‘tabernaculi mei,’ referring to ‘viri’ does not connotate possession (the men of my tabernacle), for the next verse clearly indicates that these men are foreigners or travelers, not the men working or living at Job’s home. The genitive case can occasionally mean ‘among’ or ‘around’ rather than ‘of.’(Conte)
(e)31:35 Again, the word ‘quis’ in Latin does not always mean ‘who,’ even when used in a question. In this case, Job is referring to all of the previous ‘if...’ propositions, saying, if all of these faults had been found in Job, would He still grant Job a favorable hearing and a clear vindication? No, He would not. ‘Quis’ is here used as a pronoun referring to God.(Conte)
(f)31:39 This verse does not say: ‘if I have eaten of its fruits without money,’ but rather: ‘if I have used its fruits for nothing except money.’ The first translation does not make any sense. The second translation makes sense and fits with the theme of this part of the Book of Job, wherein Job lists the faults he doesn’t have. The word ‘comedi’ can refer to eating, but it can also refer to other kinds of consuming or the using of something. The word ‘absque’ can be translated as ‘without,’ but it can also mean ‘except for’ or ‘nothing but.’ Job is saying that it would be a sin to use the land as nothing but a source of money for himself.(Conte)
(g)31:40 The words of Job are ended.(Challoner)