6<\/strong>. The first clause reads,<\/p>\n Will the partners bargain over him?<\/p>\n This sense is sustained by the second clause; comp. ch. Job 6:27<\/span>. By “the partners” is meant the company of fishermen; comp. Luk 5:7<\/span>; Luk 5:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n the merchants<\/em> ] lit. the Canaanites<\/em>. The Phoenicians were the great merchants of antiquity; comp. Isa 23:8<\/span>; Zec 14:21<\/span>; Pro 31:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n Shall thy companions make a banquet of him? – <\/B>This is one of the vexed passages about which there has been much difference of opinion. Gesenius renders it, Do the companions (i. e. the fishermen in company) lay snares for him? So Noyes renders it. Dr. Harris translates it, Shall thy partners spread a banquet for him? The Septuagint renders it, Do the nations feed upon him? The Vulgate, Will friends cut him up? that is, for a banquet. Rosenmuller renders it, Will friends feast upon him? The word rendered thy companions (<\/span> chabbariym<\/I>) means properly those joined or associated together for any purpose, whether for friendship or for business. It may refer here either to those associated for the purpose of fishing or feasting. The word thy is improperly introduced by our translators, and there is no evidence that the reference is to the companions or friends of Job, as that would seem to suppose. The word rendered make a banquet (<\/span> yikaru<\/I>) is from <\/span> karah<\/I>, to dig, and then to make a plot or device against one – derived from the fact that a pitfall was dug to take animals (Psa 7:15<\/span>; Psa 57:6<\/span>; compare Job 6:27<\/span>); and according to this it means, Do the companions, i. e. the fishermen in company, lay snares for him? The word, however, has another signification, meaning to buy, to purchase, and also to give a feast, to make a banquet, perhaps from the idea of purchasing the provisions necessary for a banquet. According to this, the meaning is, Do the companions, i. e. those associated for the purpose of feasting, make a banquet of him? Which is the true sense here it is not easy to determine. The majority of versions incline to the idea that it refers to a feast, and means that those associated for eating do not make a part of their entertainment of him. This interpretation is the most simple and obvious.<\/P> Shall they part him among the merchants? – <\/B>That is, Shall they cut him up and expose him for sale? The word rendered merchants (<\/span> k<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>naanym<\/I>) means properly Canaanites. It is used in the sense of merchants, or traffickers, because the Canaanites were commonly engaged in this employment; see the notes at Isa 23:8<\/span>. The crocodile is never made a part of a banquet, or an article of traffic.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. Shall thy companions make a banquet<\/B><\/I>] Canst thou and thy friends feast on him as ye were wont to do on a camel sacrificed for this purpose? Or, canst thou dispose of his flesh to the merchants <\/I>– to buyers, as thou wouldst do that of a camel or an ox? It is certain, according to Herodotus<\/I>, lib. ii. c. 70, that they killed and ate crocodiles at Apollonople<\/I> and Elephantis<\/I>, in Egypt.<\/P> <\/p>\n Thy companions; <\/B>thy friends or assistants in the taking of him. <\/P> Make a banquet of him, <\/B>i.e. feed upon him. Or, for him<\/I>, i.e. for joy that thou hast taken him. <\/P> Shall they part him among the merchants?<\/B> as is usual in such cases, that all who are partners in the labour amid hazard may partake of the profit also, and divide the spoil. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6.<\/B> Rather, “partners”(namely, in fishing). <\/P> make a banquet<\/B>Theparallelism rather supports UMBREIT,”Do partners (in trade) desire to purchase<\/I> him?” Sothe Hebrew<\/I> (De 2:6<\/span>). <\/P> merchants<\/B>literally,”Canaanites,” who were great merchants (Ho12:7<\/span>, Margin<\/I>).<\/P><\/p>\n Shall thy companions make a banquet of him<\/strong>?…. The fishermen that join together in catching fish, shall they make a feast for joy at taking the leviathan? which suggests that he is not to be taken by them, and so they have no opportunity or occasion for a feast: or will they feed on him? the flesh of crocodiles is by some eaten, and said m to be very savoury, but not the flesh of the whale;<\/p>\n shall they part him among the merchants<\/strong>? this seems to favour the crocodile, which is no part of merchandise, and to be against the whale, which, at least in our age, occasions a considerable trade for the sake of the bone and oil: but perhaps, in those times and countries in which Job lived, the use of them might not be known.<\/p>\n m Leo Africanus & Aelian. ut supra. (l. 10. c. 21.)<\/p>\n 6 Do fishermen trade with him,<\/p>\n Do they divide him among the Canaanites?<\/p>\n 7 Canst thou fill his skin with darts,<\/p>\n And his head with fish-spears?<\/p>\n 8 Only lay thy hand upon him<\/p>\n Remember the battle, thou wilt not do it again!<\/p>\n 9 Behold, every hope becometh disappointment:<\/p>\n Is not one cast down even at the sight of him?<\/p>\n The fishermen form a guild (Arab. sunf , sunf <\/em>), the associated members of which are called (distinct from ). On , vid., on Job 6:27<\/span>. “When I came to the towns of the coast,” says R. Akiba, b. Rosch ha-Schana,<\/em> 26 b<\/em>, ”they called selling, which we call , , there,” according to which, then, Gen 50:5<\/span> is understood, as by the Syriac; the word is Sanscrito-Semitic, Sanscr. kri <\/em>, Persic chirden <\/em> ( Jesurun<\/em>, p. 178). lxx , according to 2Ki 6:23<\/span>, to which, however, is not suitable. are Phoenicians; and then, because they were the merchant race of the ancient world, directly traders or merchants. The meaning of the question is, whether one sells the crocodile among them, perhaps halved, or in general divided up. Further, Job 41:7<\/span>: whether one can kill it , with pointed missiles (Arab. shauke <\/em>, a thorn, sting, dart), or with fish-spears ( , so called from its whizzing, , <\/em>). In Job 41:8<\/span> the accentuation is the right indication: only seize upon him – remember the battle, i.e., thou wilt be obliged to remember it, and thou wilt have no wish to repeat it. .ti t is a so-called imperat. consec.:<\/em> if thou doest it, thou wilt … , Ges. 130, 2. is the pausal form of (once <\/em>, Pro 30:6<\/span>), of which it is the original form.<\/p>\n The suff<\/em>. of refers to the assailant, not objectively to the beast (the hope which he indulges concerning it). , Job 41:9<\/span>, is 3 praet.,<\/em> like , Isa 53:7<\/span> (where also the participial accenting as Milra<\/em>, occurs in Codd.); Frst’s Concord<\/em>. treats it as part.,<\/em> but the participial form , to be assumed in connection with it, along with and , does not exist. , Job 41:9<\/span><\/em>, is, according to the sense, equivalent to , vid., on Job 20:4<\/span>. (according to Ges., Ew., and Olsh., sing.,<\/em> with the plural suff.,<\/em> without a plur<\/em>. meaning, which is natural in connection with the primary form ; or what is more probable, from the plur<\/em>. with a sing<\/em>. meaning, as ) refers to the crocodile, and (according to a more accredited reading, = ) to the hunter to whom it is visible.<\/p>\n What is said in Job 41:6<\/span> is perfectly true; although the crocodile was held sacred in some parts of Egypt, in Elephantine and Apollonopolis, on the contrary, it was salted and eaten as food. Moreover, that there is a small species of crocodile, with which children can play, does not militate against Job 41:5<\/span>. Everywhere here it is the creature in its primitive strength and vigour that is spoken of. But if they also knew how to catch it in very early times, by fastening a bait, perhaps a duck, on a barb with a line attached, and drew the animal to land, where they put an end to its life with a lance-thrust in the neck (Uhlemann, Thoth<\/em>, S. 241): this was angling on the largest scale, as is not meant in Job 41:1<\/span>. If, on the other hand, in very early times they harpooned the crocodile, this would certainly be more difficult of reconcilement with v. 31, than that mode of catching it by means of a fishing-hook of the greatest calibre with Job 41:1<\/span>. But harpooning is generally only of use when the animal can be hit between the neck and head, or in the flank; and it is very questionable whether, in the ancient times, when the race was without doubt of an unmanageable size, that has now died out, the crocodile hunt (Job 7:12<\/span>) was effected with harpoons. On the whole subject we have too little information for distinguishing between the different periods. So far as the questions of Jehovah have reference to man’s relation to the two monsters, they concern the men of the present, and are shaped according to the measure of power which they have attained over nature. The strophe which follows shows what Jehovah intends by these questions.<\/p>\n (6) Shall the companions make a banquet of him?<\/strong>Or, Shall the bands of fishermen make traffic of him? <\/em>or, dig a pit for him?<\/em>the former suiting the parallelism better.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> The companions <\/strong> . There can be but little question that the word refers to partners in trade. Compare Luk 5:7-10<\/span>. Fishermen in ancient Egypt were banded together in fraternities or guilds. Ruppell ( Reisen, <\/em> 1:254) speaks of the existence of such fraternities in Abyssinia, even at the present day. <\/p>\n Make a banquet of him? <\/strong> (Septuagint, Targum, Schultens;) but better, traffic in him, <\/em> (Ewald, Delitzsch, Zockler,) a meaning for karah <\/em> which corresponds with the Arabic kara, <\/em> “to buy,” also with the Sanscrit kri, <\/em> ( kara;<\/em>) and at the same time helps to confirm the rendering of the same word in Job 6:27<\/span>, on which see note. The mention of “merchants” in the next clause substantiates such an interpretation, notwithstanding it is against the view of Gesenius and Conant, who, with Winer, ( Lex., s.v.,<\/em>) hold to the radical meaning of the word “to dig,” and read: “Will partners dig a pit for him?” But this substantially repeats what had been said before about catching the crocodile with a hook; and while it does violence to the parallelism, it gives an incongruous meaning. Carey follows Schultens in the speculation “that originally passing the contract of a purchase <\/em> was signified or ratified by some such act as digging, <\/em> as being perhaps significant that payment of a purchase was originally made in manual labor or tillage.” <\/p>\n Merchants <\/strong> , literally, Canaanites; <\/em> unquestionably Phoenicians, who were pre-eminently the merchants of the ancient world. Isaiah, (Isa 23:8<\/span>,) speaking of the merchants of Tyre, calls them, in the Hebrew, “Canaanites.” In Hos 12:7<\/span>, Canaan stands as the synonyme of merchant. Homer also speaks of the arrival of a Phoenician merchant, ( ,) “skilled in wiles, a greedy knave, working much ill to men.” Odys., <\/em> 14:288, 289. These merchants were notorious in the ancient world as slave dealers and kidnappers. The Phoenicians called their primogenitor , ( ,) chna, <\/em> which, according to Sanchoniatho, was changed into Phoenix, thence “Phoenicians.” See Cory’s Anc. Frag., <\/em> p. 16. A Phoenician coin is still extant bearing the inscription, “Laodicea, Mother in Canaan.” The Septuagint here, as well as frequently elsewhere, renders the word Canaanite, Phoenicians, . The reference in the text is to caravans like that of the Midianites, which in patriarchal times visited Egypt, bringing back with them various commodities taken in barter. “It is an evidence of the antiquity of this book, unless there is interposed the objection, which grows weaker the more it is studied, that the writer cunningly adapts every thing to the patriarchal times, without ever forgetting himself, or failing in any part of his picture.” Tayler Lewis.<\/p>\n Job 41:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Shall the companions make a banquet of him, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Will the companies of merchants drive a bargain for him? shall he be divided among<\/em> the merchants? <\/em>Heath. Houbigant follows our translation: see the next note. See also Dr. Shaw’s travels, p. 426. <\/p>\n Job 41:6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?<\/p>\n Ver. 6. Shall the companions make a banquet of him?<\/strong> ] The Cetarii, whale fishers, who usually go out in companies. It was anciently held impossible, and is still perilous, to take the whale and make a banquet of him; as the tongue and some other parts of the whale are good meat. Or, Make a banquet for him; shall they feast those merchants they mean to sell him to, that they may get the better price for him? <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Shall they part him among the merchants?<\/strong> ] Who might sell him out for sundry uses. See Job 41:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n Jdg 14:11<\/p>\n Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? 6. The first clause reads, Will the partners bargain over him? This sense is sustained by the second clause; comp. ch. Job 6:27. By “the partners” is meant the company of fishermen; comp. Luk 5:7; Luk 5:10. the merchants ] … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 41:6”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"