@Davïd - please feel free to edit so as to improve the posting. The Aramaic in the Masorah Parva for Job 6:14 does not say that the same verb appears somewhere else. (In such a case the Masoretes would have just put a number there, which is the beth with a small dot above to indicate "2.")

@Davïd Instead the Masoretes mention that the same meaning of the verb occurs in one other place. Since there was no corresponding Masorah Magna reference, I assumed the verse was 2 Kgs 21:22 because it is the only other place in the Hebrew Bible that the verb appears in the context of someone forsaking the Lord. By seeing this, I had inferred that the passage in Job 6:14b was in reference to Job, because in 1 Kgs 21:22, the subject of the verb was in active hostility to the Lord.

@Davïd In other words, I made the logical leap that is was not Eliphaz who appeared to be in jeopardy of forsaking the Lord, but Job. This little nuance in the Masoretic Text is what I was trying to convey in my post. The interpretation therefore would have to point to Job as the one in jeopardy of forsaking the Lord, and not Eliphaz as some commentators have suggested.

Have I lost my marbles? I don't have proof but it feels like this is the first time on BH that I've complained an answer is not subjective enough.

@Caleb I see your point, actually. @FrankLuke - could you summarize the arguments? It is a bit of a "niche" group, and Young was Flusser's student, and it's difficult to know what to make of Flusser's support (and his is, I confess, the only name of those mentioned that I recognize). Publications are not, for the most part, in what I think of as "mainstream" academic channels.

I've got some bits and pieces I can chuck in, though I'm not "au fait" with the, ahhh, less broadly supported solutions to the synoptic problem.

@Caleb @FrankLuke + that view is "Lukan priority" which isn't OP's question (though he did "accept" it :). I have now posted a brief contribution. FWIW.

Btw - just found a nice blog/website on Bible translation theory (literalism" etc. issues discussion) for any interested. Looks worthwhile.

@Davïd I was considering expanding the answer to show why they go that way. I knew it wasn't the OP but gave the answer anyway...

I was surprised when I saw it was accepted.

@FrankLuke Maybe you discerned the question they really wanted to ask. ;)