Job 13:15, “I will hope in him”, or “I have no hope”?
Job 13:15 is represented here by both “I will hope in him” and “I have no hope”; the difference lies between the written consonants and the marginal reading instruction.
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Since revision 3.5, the places where the manuscripts disagree are decided before translation by three readers, Grok 4.3, GPT-6 Astra, and Claude Fable 5.1, who see the readings and the witnesses by age and class but never a reference or a manuscript name. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
“The base text reads ל֣וֹ. The copies also carry לא [hebrew consonantal tradition]; the committee kept the base text. evidence is balanced and rests on a single late witness pair so another reader is desirable”
The APB 3.5 textual decision states: “The base text reads ל֣וֹ. The copies also carry לא [hebrew consonantal tradition]; the committee kept the base text. evidence is balanced and rests on a single late witness pair so another reader is desirable”. The three readers considered witnesses only by class and date, without a reference or manuscript name. The supplied APB printed text for this verse reads “I have no hope.” The pericope audit verdict is clean, and no rationale note matches this crux.
The argument for each reading
If the margin (“in him”)
Reading A follows the Masoretic qere, which gives לו and directs the reader toward “I will hope in him.” The packet identifies this as the marginal reading and says that the Masoretes’ margin instructs that pronunciation. In the verse’s movement, that wording lets the first clause express hope even as Job says he will argue his ways to his face. The case therefore rests on a reading practice preserved alongside the consonantal form, rather than on replacing the verse with a different line. The packet also identifies this reading as the one behind a familiar English wording.
If the letters (“not”)
Reading B follows the consonantal text of the Masoretic Text (Westminster Leningrad Codex), where the word is לא and is glossed “I have no hope.” The packet explicitly calls this the written form, ketiv, and says that the consonantal text has the negative. Read this way, the clause voices absence of hope before the turn: nevertheless Job will argue his ways to his face. This is also the wording printed for Job 13:15 in the supplied APB text. Its case rests on the letters written in the verse, while the competing reading preserves a different instruction for reading them aloud.
The packet preserves both a written negative and a marginal instruction to read “in him,” while also describing the evidence as balanced and requesting another reader. The uncertainty is therefore real within the supplied record. The variant changes how Job’s first clause is voiced: hope in him or no hope. The packet does not provide grounds for deciding a wider doctrinal question from this wording.
Common questions
Why are there two readings in Job 13:15?
The two forms are pronounced identically but are written differently: one with vav, one with alef. The consonantal text gives the negative, while the Masoretic margin instructs readers to say “in him.”
Which wording does the supplied APB text print?
The supplied APB text prints “I have no hope” in Job 13:15.
Did the blind committee treat the evidence as settled?
Its 3.5 note says the committee kept the base text, but it also says the evidence is balanced and that another reader is desirable.
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. The page does not declare which reading is original.
The registry gives no verdict
The registry does not say which reading is original. Each page lists the witnesses, shows what the committee did with the same text, and leaves the judgment to the reader.