Translation of Job 19:25-26

[Moses Gummadi]

Please can someone comment on my attempt to translate these two verses? Thanks.

19:25 וַאֲנִ֣י יָ֭דַעְתִּי גֹּ֣אֲלִי חָ֑י וְ֝אַחֲר֗וֹן עַל־עָפָ֥ר יָקֽוּם׃
19:26 וְאַחַ֣ר ע֭וֹרִֽי נִקְּפוּ־זֹ֑את וּ֝מִבְּשָׂרִ֗י אֶֽחֱזֶ֥ה אֱלֽוֹהַּ׃

Job 19:25-26 can be translated in two ways, based on two meanings of the word "ga'al" (גָּאַל) - H1350 and H1351.

A. And I know my REDEEMER (or "REDEEMING" - participle active) is alive, and at the end, upon dust he shall arise. And after my skin compasses this, yet from-within (or from-out-of) my flesh I shall behold God.

B. And I know my DEFILER (or "DEFILING") is alive, and at the end, upon dust (not "earth") he shall arise. And after my skin compasses this, yet from-within (or from-out-of) my flesh I shall behold God.

The word "behold" appears to be seeing as in a vision, or machzeh (מַחֲזֶה). Since whoever shall arise (or shall stand), rises upon the dust, it seems Job is referring to himself, his core inner identity. Of course this is a matter of interpretation.

[ducky]

Hi,

I don't think that "defiler" fits the context (at least not in the way that I read it).

This is one known explanation...
To me, it seems the more reasonable one, and that fits the context of the speech.

These verses are linked to the previous ones (20-24) which he said there (in 23-24) that he wishes that his words would be written forever.
And then, in verse 25, he explains that wish. It's because he knows that he has a "redeemer" in this world (someone who will avenge his honor). And if this won't happen in this generation, then it would happen in the next one. And if not in the next one, then later. And even if it would happen in the last generation, eventually this "redemption" to his "justice" will come.

Up until now, he was talking about his wish (that his words would be written forever).
And verse 26 continues with "going back to reality".
And that reality is that 'Even though I wish that my story would be written in words for others to read and understand, In reality, this story is "written" only on my body, and eventually only I can understand the meaning of God's "touch/hand" and his power of ruthless punishments.'

And אחר עורי would be "under my skin"
And נקפו would be with the meaning of cut, punch, strike...
And אחזה אלוה is linked to יד אלוה נגעה בי in verse 21.
It is not really about "beholding", but it is about experiencing (in this case) his "beating".
(I'm not "arguing" about the literal word, only came to give the meaning inside the context).

[kwrandolph]

And אחר עורי would be "under my skin"
And נקפו would be with the meaning of cut, punch, strike...
And אחזה אלוה is linked to יד אלוה נגעה בי in verse 21.
It is not really about "beholding", but it is about experiencing (in this case) his "beating".
(I'm not "arguing" about the literal word, only came to give the meaning inside the context).

From where do you get these definitions?
In verse 25 we find אחרון with the meaning of after this time, so to continue in verse 26 אחר continues the time sequence.
The word נקף has the idea of going around, in this context the going around such that it covers.
The visioning, seeing, is first person, so Job didn’t ask that others see or experience his vision.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

I agree that the word אחזה = "visioning, seeing" is first person. But I didn't write that it is linked to others. I wrote about this verse that it is the words of Job about himself.
(so it is just a misunderstanding).

Maybe I was a little bit messy before.

In short, I wrote that:

1. In Verses 23-24 it is his wish that his words would be engraved and written forever.

2. Verse 25 explains the meaning of his wish (that if not today, he will eventually get his honor and be justified in the future).

3. Verse 26 is "going back to reality" by saying that his story is indeed engraved. But not a rock. it is engraved on his body (by his injuries). And that he visions (the hand of) God through his injuries on his flesh, in a way that no one else but him could understand.
**

So the context of verses 23-25 is about a wish vs. reality.
And it starts from verse 20 when he talks about his skin and flesh (in a literal way) and about God's hand that touched him (in a bad way). And it continues with the same style in these verses (23-25).

***************

About the definitions:

אחר עורי
אחר also has the meaning of "behind". Just like אַחַר כׇּתְלֵנוּ in Songs. 2:9 = "Behind our walls".
So אחר עורי would be "behind my skin" or in other words "under my skin".

נקפו
Like Is. 10:34 וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל with the meaning of cutting. striking and so on...


**********************************************

I didn't understand fully how you read these verses.
I'd love to know how you understand this context and how you translate the verses.

[kwrandolph]

About the definitions:

אחר עורי
אחר also has the meaning of "behind". Just like אַחַר כׇּתְלֵנוּ in Songs. 2:9 = "Behind our walls".
So אחר עורי would be "behind my skin" or in other words "under my skin".

What does כתלנו mean? We know that כתל in Aramaic means “wall”, but does it have the same meaning in Biblical Hebrew? In Songs 2:9 is it a verb, or a noun? In Tanakh it is found only once in Hebrew. Twice in Aramaic.

After all, שׁכח in Aramaic means “to find”, that’s not the only example of where an Aramaic word has a different meaning from a Biblical Hebrew word with the same spelling, therefore we cannot assume that the Aramaic meaning for כתל is the same as the Biblical Hebrew meaning.

We don’t know Biblical Hebrew as well as we want to claim. There are other words where the contexts don’t provide enough context to indicate their meanings, nor do they have other words from the same roots to give us clues.

Therefore, you need to find other places where אחר is used for position “behind” in order to establish that this is a correct reading for אחר.

נקפו
Like Is. 10:34 וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל with the meaning of cutting. striking and so on...

The evidence for this is weaker than the above example.

We have enough other examples where נקף has the meaning of “to go around”, “to encircle” even “to wrap” in both the verb itself as well as derivatives from the same root, that there’s no question as to its meaning. Therefore to posit that it has a radically different meaning for a one time use doesn’t make linguistic sense. An example that fits the surrounding with iron sense is to encircle a grove a trees with a chain-link fence.

**********************************************

I didn't understand fully how you read these verses.
I'd love to know how you understand this context and how you translate the verses.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

What does כתלנו mean? We know that כתל in Aramaic means “wall”, but does it have the same meaning in Biblical Hebrew? In Songs. 2:9 is it a verb or a noun? In Tanakh, it is found only once in Hebrew. Twice in Aramaic.

After all, שׁכח in Aramaic means “to find”, that’s not the only example of where an Aramaic word has a different meaning from a Biblical Hebrew word with the same spelling, therefore we cannot assume that the Aramaic meaning for כתל is the same as the Biblical Hebrew meaning.

For the sake of not opening a new subject, let's put that aside for now.
And let's return to the word כתל later.

Therefore, you need to find other places where אחר is used for the position “behind” in order to establish that this is a correct reading for אחר.

1. Here are two examples of this word אחר that comes in the meaning of "behind".
Or in other words, refers to position rather than time.

Ex. 11:5
מִבְּכוֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאוֹ עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַחַר הָרֵחָיִם

Isa. 57:8
וְאַחַר הַדֶּלֶת וְהַמְּזוּזָה שַׂמְתְּ זִכְרוֹנֵךְ

2. By the way, you shouldn't look only after אחר to get its meaning- but also look for its forms - such as אחרי, מאחריו and so on. Because it is basically the same word that comes in other forms. (But I brought only examples from אחר).

3. "Behind" and "After" can be very close in meaning, and an English translation can switch them.
For example, If I'm walking after someone, I'm actually walking behind him.
for both meanings, Hebrew writes אחר (or one of its forms). But the English translation would write "after".
But the meaning is the same. So the "accuracy" of the meaning shouldn't be made by the question of "How do I say that in English?". The main point is to differ the אחר that refers to time and the אחר that refers to position.

נקפו
Like Is. 10:34 וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל with the meaning of cutting. striking and so on...

We have enough other examples where נקף has the meaning of “to go around”, “to encircle” and even “to wrap” in both the verb itself as well as derivatives from the same root, that there’s no question as to its meaning. Therefore to posit that it has a radically different meaning for a one-time use doesn’t make linguistic sense. An example that fits the surrounding with iron sense is to encircle a grove of trees with a chain-link fence.

הִנֵּה הָאָדוֹן י״י צְבָאוֹת מְסָעֵף פֻּארָה בְּמַעֲרָצָה וְרָמֵי הַקּוֹמָה גְּדוּעִים וְהַגְּבֹהִים יִשְׁפָּלוּ
וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל וְהַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל

So what you say is that Isa. says that God will soon
מְסָעֵף פֻּארָה בְּמַעֲרָצָה
And that
רָמֵי הַקּוֹמָה גְּדוּעִים וְהַגְּבֹהִים יִשְׁפָּלוּ
And just before he says that
הַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל
He says that he will put an Iron fence?

I don't know... To me, it just looks like a description of destroying the wood completely by cutting it all off.

The root נקף is also a part of the combination נֹקֶף זַיִת In Isa. 17:6 and in 24:13.
Do you read that also with the meaning of "round"?

******************************

I still didn't understand how you read the verses in Job.
I understand that you read אחר as "after".
And the word נקפו with the meaning of "round" (and its meanings).
But how do you read that verse? What does Job say?

[kwrandolph]

We have enough other examples where נקף has the meaning of “to go around”, “to encircle” and even “to wrap” in both the verb itself as well as derivatives from the same root, that there’s no question as to its meaning. Therefore to posit that it has a radically different meaning for a one-time use doesn’t make linguistic sense. An example that fits the surrounding with iron sense is to encircle a grove of trees with a chain-link fence.

הִנֵּה הָאָדוֹן י״י צְבָאוֹת מְסָעֵף פֻּארָה בְּמַעֲרָצָה וְרָמֵי הַקּוֹמָה גְּדוּעִים וְהַגְּבֹהִים יִשְׁפָּלוּ
וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר בַּבַּרְזֶל וְהַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל

So what you say is that Isa. says that God will soon
מְסָעֵף פֻּארָה בְּמַעֲרָצָה
And that
רָמֵי הַקּוֹמָה גְּדוּעִים וְהַגְּבֹהִים יִשְׁפָּלוּ
And just before he says that
הַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל
He says that he will put an Iron fence?

I don't know... To me, it just looks like a description of destroying the wood completely by cutting it all off.

Now that you include the context of the previous verse, it changes its meaning some what.

But what it does not change is the meanings of words. It still talks about going around in the thickets of the forest with iron, but the iron is not something surrounding the wood, rather iron tools.

The root נקף is also a part of the combination נֹקֶף זַיִת In Isa. 17:6 and in 24:13.
Do you read that also with the meaning of "round"?

These two verses refer to harvesting olives, and you don’t expect the harvester to stay in one place while the olives are all over the tree. So he goes around and around until he gets all the olives.

******************************

I still didn't understand how you read the verses in Job.
I understand that you read אחר as "after".
And the word נקפו with the meaning of "round" (and its meanings).
But how do you read that verse? What does Job say?

To a Pharisee, this is a reference to resurrection.

25 I know that my redeemer lives, and afterwards he will rise upon the dust
26 and after my skins wrap this up, and from my flesh I will view God
27 who I, I will view for myself, and my eyes will see and not a stranger, and my kidneys will be complete within my body

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

Now that you include the context of the previous verse, it changes its meaning somewhat.

But what it does not change is the meanings of words. It still talks about going around in the thickets of the forest with iron, but the iron is not something surrounding the wood, but rather iron tools.

I think that also here, the English way of speech may be confusing.

The root נקף with the meaning of "roundness" is about Sourunding, or Circling something or someplace from the Outside.
Like circling the house, or surrounding the city.

In English, if someone is hanging out in the city, you can say that he is "going around the city" or "going around in the city".
But there is no real "Roundness" here. And also not Surrounding anything.
If someone is walking around his house, it doesn't mean that he walks in circles, but it means that he walks from the living room to the kitchen and from the kitchen to the living room.

So this English use of the word "round" (as going around) is not about "roundness" and surely not about encircling.

It still talks about going around in the thickets of the forest with iron, but the iron is not something surrounding the wood, but rather iron tools

Here, you translated the נקף as "going around in", as if the word "round" really represents a circle.
But it is not.
It is just the English way of speaking.
The root meaning is "Circling or Surrounding - from the outside.

The root נקף is also a part of the combination נֹקֶף זַיִת In Isa. 17:6 and in 24:13.
Do you read that also with the meaning of "round"?

These two verses refer to harvesting olives, and you don’t expect the harvester to stay in one place while the olives are all over the tree. So he goes around and around until he gets all the olives.

Collecting the olives is by beating the tree (Deut. 24:20), and what is left on the tree is called עוללות.
(basically, עוללות is often related to grapes, but in this case, it is related to olives).

The description of the act of getting the olives, would not be by saying "surrounding the olive".
But it is about the act itself - the beating of the tree.

Let's look at the previous verse:
הָיָה כֶּאֱסֹף קָצִיר קָמָה וּזְרֹעוֹ שִׁבֳּלִים יִקְצוֹר וְהָיָה כִּמְלַקֵּט שִׁבֳּלִים בְּעֵמֶק רְפָאִים
אסף קציר קמה - gather the standing corn
שבלים יקצור - reap the ears
מלקט שבלים - glean ears

It talks specifically about the acts.
And in the next verse, it continues to describe the act itself by saying נקף זית - "beating the olive".
(And it doesn't describe the act by saying that a man is walking around the tree).

And actually, in this case, it is not about getting the olives, but it is more about what is left on the tree.

Notice the metaphor.
It is about What is going to happen after the attack on Israel.
It is said that after the attack, there would be left only a few from Israel in the land - like the few olives that stay on the tree after the beating.

So seeing the נקף as "beat" fits the collecting act. Fits with the list of the other acts. Fits the context of the attack/beating.
*******************************************************************************************

25 I know that my redeemer lives, and afterward, he will rise upon the dust
26 and after my skins wrap this up, and from my flesh, I will view God
27 who I, I will view for myself, and my eyes will see and not a stranger, and my kidneys will be complete within my body

You read it with the נקף as "surround/circle"
and with the אחר as "after"
which both of the definitions are of course valid.
But I still can't read it or understand it.
I need more context.

25 I know that my redeemer lives, and afterward, he will rise upon the dust

1. Who is the redeemer? Is it an anonymous person? Is it God? Is it Job himself?
2. Where and why you translated אחרון as "afterward"?

26 and after my skins wrap this up, and from my flesh, I will view God

1. I can't understand the syntax. How is it to be read?
Is it a one-sentence? Is it two sentences?
Are these two sentences parallels with their meaning?
2. What is the "this" in "wrap this up"?
3. Why the עורי turns to be "skins" (in plural)?

[kwrandolph]

It talks specifically about the acts.
And in the next verse, it continues to describe the act itself by saying נקף זית - "beating the olive".
(And it doesn't describe the act by saying that a man is walking around the tree).

And actually, in this case, it is not about getting the olives, but it is more about what is left on the tree.

Notice the metaphor.
It is about What is going to happen after the attack on Israel.
It is said that after the attack, there would be left only a few from Israel in the land - like the few olives that stay on the tree after the beating.

So seeing the נקף as "beat" fits the collecting act. Fits with the list of the other acts. Fits the context of the attack/beating.
*******************************************************************************************

Don’t change the verb, then say that they say the same thing. Does not the use of a different verb indicate a different action?

25 I know that my redeemer lives, and afterward, he will rise upon the dust
26 and after my skins wrap this up, and from my flesh, I will view God
27 who I, I will view for myself, and my eyes will see and not a stranger, and my kidneys will be complete within my body

You read it with the נקף as "surround/circle"
and with the אחר as "after"
which both of the definitions are of course valid.
But I still can't read it or understand it.
I need more context.

Job is poetry except for a couple of chapters. Haven’t you noticed that poetry often expects the reader to understand unspoken contexts?

25 I know that my redeemer lives, and afterward, he will rise upon the dust

1. Who is the redeemer? Is it an anonymous person? Is it God? Is it Job himself?

Given that this is poetry, what context would you supply?

2. Where and why you translated אחרון as "afterward"?

Would you prefer that I translated it as “future”? Same meaning. Doesn’t it come out better as “afterwards” in English?

26 and after my skins wrap this up, and from my flesh, I will view God

1. I can't understand the syntax. How is it to be read?
Is it a one-sentence? Is it two sentences?
Are these two sentences parallels with their meaning?

How is this not one sentence?

2. What is the "this" in "wrap this up"?

What gets wrapped up in living skin?

3. Why the עורי turns to be "skins" (in plural)?

That sort of puzzled me too, but the verb is plural. What do you think Job meant when he used the plural verb?

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

Sorry for being away from this conversation. I had some stuff, and for some reason, I couldn't get myself back here.
So If you already lost interest in this, It's Okay.

So Just a few quick words:
You wondered in your last post: "Does not the use of a different verb indicate a different action?"

And my answer is Sometimes Yes and sometimes No. Language is fluid. It is not a mathematical thing. And sometimes One Word can have a wide range of definitions. And with that, some definitions can get a few different words.
And even you, in your own explanation of these verses, explained the word נקף with a few meanings (of rounding, and covering or wrapping). But how could you do that when there are other words that define the same meanings...?

**************************************************************************************************************
As for the rest of your post...
I have to say that I still couldn't understand your translation of these verses.
I really really don't come to go against your way of translating. Because I truly didn't understand it.
And your last post, which tried to explain it, was more riddle-ish to me than before.

As for נקפו (the plural form)... Since it is plural, my understanding of it is as an active form. a verb with an impersonal subject.

*
Another thing, just to be clear. I didn't though about it before that "under my skin" in English can be understood in a metaphoric way.
So I just want to be clear about the understanding of אחר עורי as "under my skin".
I mean it in a physical way: Under my skin = Beneath my skin.
Or in other words: he is talking about his bones (as he repeats again on what was written a few verses before).