Job Reassessment
J O B: A REASSESSMENT·
I. SOURCES AND BACKGROUND
Before turning to the discussion of the Book of Job {hereafter: “Job”; the hero’s name is spelt as “Job” [in Roman letters]}it is important to refer to the extant texts available to us. The one usually cited is the Masoretic Text (“MT”) version.
Scholars believe that it was composed during the 5th or early 4th century BCE, that is, before the Hashmonean period. The book is unlikely to have been composed earlier than that. It is true that the issue discussed in it – that is, the theodicy issue – was raised by Jeremiah [Jer. 12:1-3]. However, the 6th century – covering this prophet’s long ministry – witnessed the struggle of Judah with Babylon and the final destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar followed by the exile.
During the next century Nehemiah was active in
It is questionable whether the MT version is the very first text of Job.[3] It is feasible that a previous version was circulated to a limited group. To date, though, no such earlier version has materialised. Further, scraps of the MT’s Hebrew version were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in
There are also ancient translations of Job into Aramaic and into Greek. The earliest is a translation into Aramaic discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.[5] As this settlement in
In the MT, Job is included in the last part, known as the Scriptures – the Ketuvim [כתובים]. In some canons[12] Job is treated as a Prophet or as a Historical Book. In the LXX, Job appears after the narrative parts but prior to the prophets.
As Job deals with a specific question, viz., divine justice (the “theodicy issue”), rather than with adherence to faith (which is dealt with by the prophets), the MT’s classification is the soundest one. Further, the Scriptures encompass books promulgated later than those of the first two parts of the MT: the Pentateuch and the Prophets. In this way, the MT gives us an indication about a work’s age.
Job is a difficult book to read.[13] Writing in the 12th century,[14] Ibn Ezra suggested that Job might have been composed in some other Semitic language and that the MT version was, itself, a translation. Notably, a separate text, entitled The Testament of Job, is included in the Apocrypha,[15] which means that, in all probability, it was written well after the compilation of the MT. The Testament manifests a belief in the immortality of the soul and reward in the afterlife.[16]
Many books and papers have been written[17] with the object of coming to grips with Job’s meaning. The views of Greenstein are of particular guidance. This paper is written because a new overview and ideas based on it are timely.
As already noted the MT version is the only complete Hebrew text that has come down to us. Some variations appear in the LXX and in the late Targum.[18] The extant manuscripts used for the rendering of the MT date to the 10th century CE and are known, respectively, as the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Aleppo and the Codex Leningradus.[19] Obviously, they are late and, of course, may contain technical copying errors.
Before turning to Job’s structure it is important to consider whether or not it constitutes a historical record. The point is controversial. Some sages concluded that the book was an allegory.[20] This view appears realistic and finds support in the writing of Maimonides.[21] Job’s residence, in the country of Uz [Utz], is thus not to be taken more literally than the reference to Utopia by Thomas More. Still, the reference to Uz shows that the writer thought to place the tome in the
Notably, this very setting supports the view that Job is a late book. When Jeremiah refers (in the 6th century BCE) to the Babylonian threat, he describes it as emanating from the North, that is, the route showing Mesopotamian armies as traveling along the Euphrates and, accordingly, attacking southwards. The correct location of
II. THE STRUCTURE
At first glance, Job’s structure appears straightforward. Chapter 1 and 2 – the prologue – are complemented by the epilogue – Chapter 42 (verses 7-end). They are written in easy to comprehend prose, similar to that of Esther.[22] They were, it is generally believed, written by the very hand which added captions or introductory statements to the ensuing text. By way of illustration take verse 1 and the first words of verse 2 of chapter 3, which read: “After this Iyyov [Job] opened his mouth and cursed his day. And [Job] spoke and said …”. The remaining part of verse 2 and the rest of the chapter are poetic and differ from the explanatory caption preceding them.
The prologue is followed by the exchanges between Job and his three friends: Elifaz the Temanite [Yemenite], Bildad the Shuhite and Zofar the Na’amatite. These encompass chapters 3 to 27. They are expressed in fine poetry. In essence, Job questions divine justice, maintaining his being innocent. His friends argue that God is just and that Job’s sufferings must be due to his having sinned. Job disputes their stand and protests his innocence in a final monologue (caps. 29 to 31).
Next come the words of Elihu, a young outsider who is not referred to either in the prologue or in the epilogue. Elihu’s arguments cover chapters 32 to 37. Elihu’s speeches differ in style and vocabulary from the earlier chapters of Job. Notably, scraps of them were found in
The penultimate part of the book – chapters 38 to 42:1-6 – are God’s Replies from the Whirlwind [Storm: סערה] and Job’s response. They assert God’s greatness (which has not been doubted by Job) and imply that His justice is unquestionable. All the same, they do not explain why in some instances wrongdoers or villains are not penalized. Job was included in the MT on the basis of these chapters. Regrettably, they raise difficult issues especially in respect of Job’s apparent acquiescence.
Before turning to the different parts of Job, it is important to stress that the poetry is outstanding. This is the case as regards the speeches of Job and his friends and the replies of God from the Whirlwind. Doubtless, some other books of the MT encompass fine poetry. Deuteronomy chapter 32 (Ha’azinu [האזינו]), Jeremiah 31, Psalms 104 and Isaiah 40 are amongst them. Job’s last monologue (caps 29 – 31) surpasses even these.
III. THE FRAMEWORK
(or setting)
The prologue and epilogue are expressed in readable and elegant prose. The first chapter describes Job’s piety and orthodoxy and then refers to the day on which ‘the sons of god’ congregated in His front. It adds that ‘Satan’ came with them and that he questioned the motive of Job’s piety, alleging that it was due to the protection and prosperity conferred on him by divinity. Satan says that if these were taken from Job, he would curse God ‘to [His] face’.
In this manner, Satan challenges God to a bet respecting Job’s motivation. This, though, ought really to have been clear to God! Another passage of the MT advises that “a man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” [Sam. I. 16:7].
All the same – and notwithstanding the ensuing misery that would follow – God accepts the bet. He permits Satan to try Job, whereupon a series of disasters destroy Job’s prosperity. Notably, his sons and daughters also perish. Job withstands these calamities and actually praises the Lord.
In the next chapter, the sons of God and Satan presents themselves again before the Almighty, who tells Satan that Job has remained pious notwithstanding his misfortune and says to Satan that “thou did move me against him, to destroy him without cause” [2:3].[23] Satan replies that Job’s stand would change if God touched his bone and flesh. In this manner, Satan seeks to extend the bet he made with God. The latter grants Satan the required permission but orders Satan to spare Job’s soul (meaning life). Satan thereupon smites Job “with vile soars from the sole of his foot to his crown” [2:7].
At this stage, Job’s wife counsels him to curse God and die. Job refuses and scolds her. We are told that “[i]n all this [Job] did not sin with his lips” [2:10].
Thereafter Job’s three friends, namely Elifaz [Eliphas], Bildad and Zofar “come to mourn with him and to comfort him” [2:11]. The ensuing debates between Job and his friends about divine justice take place in his house or, in other words, inter partem.
These debates (and Elihu’s speeches) are followed by God’s Replies from the Whirlwind [Caps. 38 – 42:6]. In the epilogue, which is expressed in the same prose style as the prologue, God tells Elifaz that the three comrades “have not spoken of me the thing that is right, like my servant” [42:7] Job and instructs them to entreat Job to ‘pray for’ them, viz. to induce God to forgive them.
The epilogue ends with God restoring Job to his wealth and position. Job lives to ripe old age and is blessed to see four generations of offspring.
The prologue and epilogue give rise to a number of issues. First and foremost, they do not make any reference to Elihu, who is, thus, not foreshadowed in the setting of the work.
Second, Job’s sons and daughters are considered part and parcel of Job’s prosperity. God sanctions their demise at the hand of Satan, although there is no hint that they deserve this harsh treatment. It is true that, when Job is restored to his erstwhile position, he is blessed with fresh sons and daughters. It is, at the same time, noteworthy that those who perished were not brought back to life. In reality, the harsh fate of Job’s original sons and daughters would be condemned by Jeremiah and Ezekiel,[24] who took the view that the sins of the fathers ought not to be visited on their sons. A fortiori, they would be perplexed by the demise of Job’s offspring in a mere attempt to test his piety.
Third, the MT version does not describe Satan as ‘evil’. He is an accuser and doubter, who ascribes mean motives to people.[25] He acts only when granted permission by the Almighty. Still, the LXX and the late Targum refer to him as a source of evil. In this manner, these texts accommodate the view taken of Satan by Orthodox Judaism during the height of the
Fourth, the MT version refers to the sons of God. Such an anthropomorphic designation was not acceptable to later Jewish Orthodoxy. Accordingly, the late Targum refers to the sons of the angels. The LXX simply refers to the Lord’s angels, whose presence appears also in books of the prophets.[26]
Regrettably, the extant portion of the Qumran Scroll does not comprise the prologue. In contrast, part of the epilogue has survived.[27] All in all, it may be surmised that right from the beginning the ‘setting’ has been part of Job. This assumption leads to the next question, viz. when was the setting composed: was it written prior to the composition of the MT version or was it composed by the anonymous author of the debates?
The prevailing view is that the legend, in which Job remains patient and penitent throughout his ordeal, is antique and was used by the anonymous author of the MT version. Presumably, in the fable Job speaks about the greatness of the Lord and his friends express doubts.
Notably, Greenstein and Newsom refer to some legends reminiscent of Job.[28] Indeed, the story of the penitent Job, narrated in the prologue, has been found in Mesopotamian sources.[29] However, when looked at carefully, no text is in pari materia with the MT version. The ancient texts discuss the theodicy issue from the viewpoint of a society with a polytheistic religion. The hero (akin to Job) often wonders which deity he has offended. This issue does not arise in Job. Here the hero believes in a single God. In reality, the Mesopotamian sources do not include an analysis of the theodicy issue against a monotheistic background. Admittedly, Job is mentioned as praiseworthy by Ezekiel [14:14, 20], who likens him to Noah. There is, at the same time, no basis for the suggestion that Ezekiel was familiar with the highly articulated text here considered.
This analysis demonstrates that another explanation need be considered, viz. that the anonymous author, who composed the speeches, was familiar with Job of the Mesopotamian tales. He used the legend when composing the setting, but then embarked on a detailed discussion of the theodicy issue. In support of this argument, it is strongly arguable that the epilogue was meant to appear after chapter 31, which concludes with the words: “tamu divrei Iyyov [תמו דברי איוב]”, meaning “The words of [Job] are concluded” [31:40].
If this construction is accepted, then chapter 32-37 (Elihu’s speeches) and 38-42:1-6 [God’s Reply from the Whirlwind] are late additions. Actually, the epilogue is an appropriate sequel to the debate between Job and his three friends. It clarifies that the Almighty prefers Job’s honest attestations of his innocence – which is the gamut of the book – to the false accusations and the dogmatic stance of Elifaz, Bildad and Zofar.
In support of this construction, it is to be noted that God tells Elifaz that the speeches of the three friends were not [30]נכונה {‘nechona’ viz., “the thing that is right” [42:7,8]}. The sins the friends attributed to Job were, of course, untrue whilst Job’s manifestation of his innocence was, as is clear from the setting, factual.
IV. THE DEBATE
The prologue is followed by the debate between Job and his three friends. It would be tedious to go through each cycle of the debate because in essence only two points of view are set out: Job’s stand and the opposite outlook.
Job’s position is clear, commencing with his lament: “I had no repose, nor had I rest, nor was I quiet yet trouble came” [3:25] and his bitter question: “[w]hy is light {meaning ‘life’} given to him that is in misery …” [3:20].[31] Job accepts the existence of an underworld, Sheol,[32] which is the destination of all mortals.
In subsequent speeches Job emphasises his innocence and states that he has not “denied [concealed] the words of the Holy one” [6:10]. He then exclaims: “I am fed up; I shall not live forever; leave me alone for my days are meaningless” [7:16, my translation]. He then points out that his sins, if any, do not affect God and enquires why he is denied forgiveness and a peaceful death.[33]
Job continues in the same vain. In chapter 9 he describes God’s greatness and refers to him as the creator of “Hyades {the Bear}, Orion, the Pleiades and the South Wind Chambers” [9:9].[34] This reference supports the view, to be discussed later, that the anonymous writer of Job was a Diaspora Jew.
Job then voices his complaints, asserting that God crushes him “with a tempest, and multiplies [He] wounds without cause” [9:17]. In sheer bitterness he adds: “it is all the same. And so I declare: The innocent and the guilty he brings to [the same] end. While his scourge brings death to fools, He laughs [mocks] at the trials [sufferings] of the spotless” [9:22-23].[35]
Job points out that there is no entity capable of acting as a judge,[36] to whom he may complain and amplifies his bitter speeches by saying: “Oh that I had perished and no eye had seen me … I should have been carried from the womb to the grave” [10:19]. He adds that his days are numbered and that, in due course, he is to end up in Sheol from whence he would never return.
Conceding God’s omnipotence,[37] Job disputes His being just (the “theodicy issue”). In Job’s opinion “the tents of the robbers prosper, and they who provoke God are secure” [12:5]. “He [God] leads counselors away [astray] bereft of counsel, and makes judges fools” [12:17]. Emphasising his innocence [13:18], Job asks God to tell him where he sinned and to enable Job to contend without being afraid of retribution [13:21]. Subsequently, Job expresses doubts about his three friends’ motive. “Will you speak wickedly [contextually: incorrectly or wrongfully] for God? And talk deceitfully for him? Will you show him partiality?” [13:7-8]. Asking his friends to remain loyal to himself, he says: “Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O my friends: for the hand of God has touched [torched] me. Why do you, like God, persecute me …” [19:20-21].[38]
It is difficult to translate Job’s bitter words. The tendency of translators is to soften Job’s pronouncements. The climax is in chapter 14, where he exclaims: “Who can tell the pure from the impure [tainted]. No one [can]”[14:4].[39] It has to be conceded that this translation is based on rendering the word יתן[yiten] as “tell”. Traditionally, the words are understood as indicating that no one can produce pure humans from tainted ones.[40] יתן is, however, closer to ‘tell’ than to ‘produce’.[41]
With these pungent words, echoed by the Ecclesiastes [9:2], Job reiterates his doubts about divine justice and, further, questions God’s capacity to tell observant disciples from transgressors.[42]
Notably, God’s fallibility emerges from the prologue. Just as Satan questions Job’s motivations, so Job questions God’s justice and sympathy for the fallen. We also know from the prologue that Job’s misfortunes were not a retribution for sins but the fruit of a bet between the Almighty and Satan!
Job’s bitterness is emphasised in subsequent speeches in which he treats God as being both unjust and merciless. He complains that God “has filled me with wrinkles, which is a witness against me” [16:8] and adds that He “tears me in his wrath, and hates me: he gnashes at me with his teeth” [16:9]. Seeking support for his unjust sufferings, Job exclaims: “O earth, cover not my blood … Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven and my testimony is on high” [16:18-19][43]. Here Job calls on earth to be witness his having been wronged. His words may be an outcry. It is also possible to discern in them the influence of polytheistic creeds, which rank divine beings and which regard ‘earth’ as superior.[44] Job also expresses his having been deserted by all who were close to him and berates his three friends. In desperation he exclaims: “Why do you, like God, persecute me, and are not satisfied with my flesh” [19:21].[45]
Job adds [caps 23, 24] that his sufferings would prevent him from pleading his cause. In a sense he argues that an adversarial hearing is ruled out by his having been penalised before his guilt was established.[46] He concludes this part of his addresses by affirming his innocence and his having been penalised unjustly [27:1-12].
The Qumran Scroll lends support to this analysis. It indicates that chapter 26 commences with an attribution of it to Job but does not comprise the first verse of chapter 27, which advises that the words that follow are further (or supplementary) words uttered by him. [47] In this manner, the Qumran Scrolls treats the first verses of chapter 27 as spoken by Job and as being a clear sequel to what he says in chapter 26.[48]
Indeed, Job’s stand is crystallized in chapter 27, where he says: “Far is it from me that I should justify you: till I die I will not put away my integrity [innocence] from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and I will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me as long as I live. Let my enemy be as wicked, and he who rises against me as the unrighteous” [27:5-7]. These are not the words of a patient and penitent Job.
The approach of the three friends – Elifas, Bildad and Zofar – differs. Although the prologue tells the reader that they came to comfort Job [2:11-13], they turn out to be accusers. Their attitude is best captured in William Blake’s illustrations[49] and is neatly expressed by Elifaz, who sets the tone for the ensuing speeches of the trio.
To start with, Elifaz rebukes Job for his doubts and asks “who that was innocent ever perished?” [4:7]. By saying this he hints that those who suffer (as does Job) are not innocent. Elifaz goes on and emphasises that God is just and raises the rhetoric question of can “mortal man be more just than God?[50] Can a man be more pure than his maker?” [4:17].[51] Praising God’s justice and might, Elifas opines that “man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward” [5:6]. He urges Job “not to despise the chastising of the Almighty; for he makes sore, and binds up: he wounds but his hands make whole” [5:18].
Bildad’s opinion is similar. He observes that “God will not cast away an innocent man, nor will he uphold evil doers” [8:20]. In his opinion, Job’s only hope is to supplicate for divine help, for “… does the Almighty pervert justice?”[8:3]. He maintains that “if thy children have sinned against him, he has cast them out for their transgressions” [8:4].[52]
Notably, Bildad does not treat Job’s offspring merely as a facet of Job’s property. He suggests that they perished because of sins. The prologue indicates that he is wrong. Bildad’s stance does not undergo any change in his second (cap. 18) and third (cap. 25)[53] speeches.[54] Likewise, the third friend – Zofar (caps 11, 20)[55] delivers speeches reminiscent of Elifaz’s original stand. Both of them refrain from accusing Job of any specific transgression but take the view that only the guilty are penalised.
In the same way, Elifaz restricts himself, in his second speech (cap. 15), to implying that Job’s words manifest his guilt and tells us: “What is man, that he should be clean? And … that he should be righteous?” [15:14]. He concludes his speech by saying that evil people come to a bad end,[56] and that God alone can determine a human’s purity.
Elifaz’ tone changes in his third speech. He is irked by Job’s firm rebuke: “Behold, I [Job] know your thoughts and the device you wrongfully imagine against me. For you say: Where is the house of the prince? And where is the tent in which the wicked dwelt?” [21:27-28]. Elifaz’s retort is equally harsh. He accuses Job of oppressing the poor and the helpless (the widows and orphans) [22:5 et seq.].
This is a shift in Elifaz’s language though not in his stand. In his earlier speeches he hinted that Job was guilty. He now raises the accusations which, as is known from the prologue, are unfounded.
By now it is clear that the friends’ stand is diametrically opposed to Job’s. The latter maintains his innocence and his having been wrongfully penalised. The friends’ approach is neatly summarised by Bildad, who asks: “How can man be justified with God?” [25:4].
V. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF DEBATES
It will be recalled that chapter 26 commences with the caption: “And [Job] answered and said” [26:1]. The verses that follow express Job’s viewpoint. He completes his discourse in this chapter by observing: “… the thunder of [H]is power who can understand?” [26:14]. The compiler then advises, at the very beginning of chapter 27: “And [Job] continued his discourse and said, ‘As God lives, who has taken away my right …” [27:1,2] and reaffirms his innocence.
Then, in the last ten verses, namely 13-end, Job expresses the view taken by Job’s three friends. These words cannot be ascribed to Job the sufferer. The conclusion is that the first 12 verses of chapter 27 are rightly attributed to Job but that they should have been followed by a caption indicating that the remaining verses are part of Zofar’s final retort.[57] Regrettably the opening words of Zofar’s last speech have not come down to us.
In support of this construction it is to be noted that it is in tandem with Job’s structure, which constitutes an exchange of the views held by Job with those of his three friends. To this end every speech of Job is followed by the response of one of his friends. Thus, Job expresses his views in chapters 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-24 and 26-27:1-12. Elifaz delivers his three speeches in chapters 4-5, 15 and 22. Bildad speaks in chapters 8, 18 and 25.[58] The only two chapters expressly attributed to Zofar are 11 and 20. The construction here proposed would give Zofar a third speech, namely 27:13-end and some sentences that have not come down to us. In this manner Job’s nine speeches are contested nine times by the retorts of his three friends.
Regrettably, the Qumran Scroll does not shed light on this issue. Both chapters 26 and 27 are mutilated in it.[59] The late Targum and the LXX follow the MT without significant variation.
Numerous attempts have been made to draw a distinction between the speeches of the three friends. This is debatable. In reality there are only two basic theses in chapters 3 to 27 (inc.), namely: (i) Job’s viewpoint and (ii) the opposite concept manifested in the addresses of the three friends. Undoubtedly, there is progression in the words and metaphors used for the expression of the two views. Both Job and his three friends crystallize their opinions in the course of the debates. There are, nonetheless, only two basic philosophical approaches.
A point frequently raised is that in the course of these lengthy debates, concluding at the end of chapter 27, ideas are repeated again and again. In a tome expressed in prose this would be a stylistically and methodically unforgivable blemish. The relevant chapters of Job are, however, poetic. Whilst the basic notions are repeated, the imagery and the metaphors differ.
By way of comparison take FitzGerald’s translation of Omar Khayyam’s Rubayats {quatrains}. The basic idea of enjoying life is repeated many times. Nonetheless, nobody would levy the redundancy complaint because each poem has it own thrust. Another illustration is presented by the Psalms. Many of them praise God. But are they redundant?
In a similar manner Job is not repetitive. The two opposed view points are developed and effectively crystallized. Further, the arguments are presented in poetry at its best. In my opinion, the plea of redundancy is misguided.
VI. THE MYSTERIOUS CHAPTER 28
Sandwiched between the three cycle debates and Job’s final and seminal monologue (caps. 29–31, discussed subsequently) is the enigmatic chapter 28. It is neatly divided into two parts: (i) verses 1-11 and (ii) verses 12 to 28.
The first part commences with the word ki (כי). Greenstein[60] rightly points out that a poetic work does not commence with this word, which – literally translated – means ‘for’.
Regrettably, though the ensuing words do not constitute a meaningful succession to chapter 27. Indeed, it is difficult to fit them into the contents and the matrix of Job. The book deals with the theodicy issue. The first part of chapter 28 deals with the origin of metals and then proclaims the reign of cause and effect in our planet. It does not add any new nuance about the greatness and the invincibility of God.
The second part of chapter 28 is a eulogy of wisdom. The concluding words advise that “the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom: and to depart from evil is understanding” [28:28].
Just as the first part of the chapter, this eulogy of wisdom does not constitute part of the theological discourse of Job. In the words of Terrien: “There can be little doubt that this magnificent poem [cap. 28:12-28] on the accessibility of wisdom does not belong to the discourse of Job. It is not written in his style; it is not connected with the Joban context.”[61]
Greenstein argues[62] that the chapter constitutes part of Elihu’s discourse (discussed subsequently). Notwithstanding its elegance and authority, this specific analysis is subject to argument. Elihu’s thesis, to the effect that God is just, is not supported by chapter 28.
This leads to the conclusion that chapter 28, as a whole, does not form an integral part of Job. It has been included per incuriam. The error, though, is of considerable antiquity. Parts of chapter 28 are preserved in the Qumran Scroll.[63]
Two points support the conclusion that chapter 28 is not part of Job. First, the MT versions of Job and Proverbs (that have come down to us) are contemporaneous.[64] They are an integral part of the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament and, in the MT, Job is placed immediately after Proverbs.[65] The feasibility of errors made in the copying process of biblical books is well known.[66] There can be no doubt that the second part of chapter 28, that is, the hymn to wisdom, can be neatly read together with Proverbs. It is in harmony with the sentiments expressed in chapter 8 thereof.[67]
Admittedly, the first part of chapter 28 does not mash neatly with Proverbs; but it might have been meant as a lead up to the notion that wisdom is akin to worship. The reason the compiler placed the hymn of wisdom in Job is because Proverbs deals with points made in it succinctly; a lengthy discourse appeared more in line with Job than with Proverbs. There are, of course, lengthy passages in Proverbs like the praise of a ‘worthy [diligent] wife’ [Prov. 31:10-31]. A lengthy eulogy of wisdom does not militate against that book’s structure.
The second point which highlights the alien nature of chapter 28 in the context of Job is in that it breaks the continuity of the main discourse. Chapter 29, which is the first part of Job’s closing monologue, follows naturally after the conclusion of the debates in chapter 27. Chapter 28 simply derogates from the lucidity of the Jobian discourse. The inescapable conclusion is that it does not form part of Job and, in all probability, was inserted in it after the promulgation of an original version which has not come down to us.
VII. JOB’S CLOSING MONLOGUE
Job’s seminal monologue, comprising chapters 29 – 31, follows the conclusion of the three-cycle-debate that ends with chapter 27. In this monologue, Job narrates his tragic story.
In chapter 29 he expounds his standing prior to the bet of God and Satan. The first part of the second verse, correctly translated reads: “oh that I be restored to my heyday”,[68] has become a phrase in use in modern Hebrew. Job then tells us all about his uprightness and his exalted status before his fall. He says: “I put on righteousness, and my justice clothed me, as a robe and diadem” [29:14]. He sums up by stating: “I …sat as chief, and dwelt as king in the army …” [29:25]. This assertion is borne out by the prologue which describes him, inter alia, as “ … the greatest [wealthiest] of all men of the East [1:3].”[69]
In chapter 30 Job describes his fall. In the first verse he tells us that he is being mocked by younger people “whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with dogs of my flock.” He adds that even these people abhor him and spit in his face [30:10].
Addressing God, he complains: “I cry to thee, and thou dost not answer me. I stand up, dost thou then regard me? Thou art become cruel to me: with thy strong hands thou opposest thyself against me [30:20-21].[70] By way of contrast, Job refers to his own virtue. He says: “Did I not weep for him that was in trouble? Was not my soul grieved for the poor? But when I looked for good then evil came…” [30:25-26]. He concludes: “I am a brother to jackals, and a companion to owls. My skin hangs down black from me, and my bones are burned with heat. Therefore my lyre is turned to mourning and my pipe[71] to the voice of those who weep” [30:29-31].
His decency and strict observance of good behaviour are expanded in chapter 31. To start with, he affirms his decency and exclaims: “If I have walked with vanity, or if my foot has hasted to deceit; let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know my integrity” [31:6].[72] He gives details of his caring attitude to widows, orphans and the fallen and concludes “[if]f my land cry against me or its furrows complain together; if I have eaten its fruits without money, or have caused its owners to sigh: let thistles grow instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley”[31:38-39].
Here Job affirms his innocence by way of oath and pleads his case. From a legal viewpoint, his concluding monologue resembles a ‘case stated’. In essence, he maintains that he has been wronged and avers that he is entitled to a reply. To this end, he says: “Oh that one would hear me! Here is my mark, let the Almighty answer me! And would that my adversary would pen his writ” [31:35].[73] Job does not deny God’s superiority and omnipotence but asserts his right to question His justice (the “theodicy issue”). On this point, he is, of course, borne out by the prologue.
The last verse of the chapter reads: “The words of [Job] are ended” [31:40]. They differ from the monologue, in which Job speaks and, accordingly, his words are expressed in first person. The concluding phrase, in contrast, is an editorial comment, expressed in third person. Here the Compiler/Editor tells the reader that Job has completed his discourse. Notably, a portion of it is preserved in the Qumran Scroll.[74]
The epilogue [42:7-end] is in harmony with the poetic part ending in chapter 31. It does not refer to Elihu’s speeches (caps 32 – 37) or to Gods Replies from the Whirlwind (caps. 38 – 42:1-6).
This leads to the conclusion that in the original version of Job, which has not come down to us, Job’s bitter reproaches are not favoured with an answer. If this analysis is correct, this original version would have had to be suppressed as being apostate. Nonetheless, this conclusion is appropriate: it will be recalled that Job’s sufferings do not constitute a befitting punishment for his sins. They are the outcome of a mere bet between God and Satan, a bet won by the latter. Is it possible that the translations destroyed by Gamliel, were copies (or translations) of this original version?
Contextually, too, the proposed analysis is sound. It will be shown that neither Elihu nor God’s Replies from the Whirlwind come up with an answer to the main query raised in Job: the theodicy issue. Job’s concept of She’ol (the afterlife) is discussed hereafter.
VIII. JOB’S CONCEPT OF SHE’OL
Belief in the after-life was common to the cultures of antiquity. That these had a major influence on
The Egyptian belief in the afterlife is complex. A human’s body died and was mummified. The spirit rested in the underworld but could rise and observe the world.[77] The belief in the afterlife was also manifest in
These creeds differ from
Notably, belief in an underworld (or She’ol) manifested itself in the Old Testament even prior to the composition of Job. By way of illustration, Samuel was ‘raised’ by the Witch of Ein-Dor [Samuel A, 28:6-20]. Angrily, he tells Sha’ul: “Why hast though disquieted me [הרגזתני], to bring me up?” [
In the 8th century BCE, the prophet Amos tells us that if sinners “dig into She’ol, from there shall my hand take them” [Amos 9:2]. Obviously, God – and no other – is master of the place; and he can raise souls from there.[79] At the same time, the Psalms ask: “in She’ol who shall give thee thanks?”[80]
Job’s concept of She’ol is in tandem with the prevailing outlook. When bemoaning his sufferings, Job tells us that, unlike in this world, “there [in She’ol] the wicked cease from troubling: and there the weary are at rest. There the prisoners are at ease together; they hear not the voice of the slaver driver. The small and the great are there; and the slave is free from his master” [3:17-18].
When a person descends to She’ol, he does not usually rise [7:9]. This point is underscored in the second round of debates. Job tells us that, “there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its tender branch will not cease. Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stock die in the ground: yet through the scent of water it will bud and bring forth boughs like a plant.”[14:7-9] He then asks, rhetorically: “If a man die, shall he live again?”[81]
At the same time, Job does not doubts God’s supremacy and his ability to bring the dead back to life. He says to God: “Oh that though wouldst hide me in She’ol, that thou wouldst keep me secret, until thy wrath is past, that thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me” [14:13]. And, when He does, He can raise Job from She’ol.[82]
Job’s three friends do not express a divergent view. Zofar tells Job: “deeper than She’ol, what canst though do?” [11:8] He does not suggest that Job’s view of She’ol, as expressed in chap. 3, is inaccurate or misguided.
Of particular interest is chapter 28. As argued, this chapter was, in all probability, not part of the original text of Job. It was, however, included in the tome due to an error made either by the redactor or by a copier. It does reflect the view taken in antiquity of She’ol. In the eulogy of wisdom [28:12-28], we are told: “The depth says, it is not in me.”[83] Accordingly, She’ol is not the domain of wisdom.
A similar view is express by the Ecclesiast, who tells us: “What ever thou hand finds to do, do it with thy strength, for there is no work, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in She’ol” [9:10]. She’ol is a place of darkness. Whilst an analyses seeking to date this book is outside the scope of this paper, it is safe to assume that the MT version of Ecclesiast is not earlier than Job’s.
The conclusion is that She’ol is a place of darkness where the souls of the dead are deposited. Whilst God has the power to raise them, Job does not manifest a belief in reward or punishment after death. In other words, She’ol is not hell; and there is no mention of
IX. ELIHU’S ASSERTIONS
In the version that has come down to us, Job’s closing monologue is followed by Elihu’s speeches (caps. 32 – 37). Many scholars maintain that these are late additions. Vicchio,[84] who is of this view, supports it on nine grounds. These can be condensed as follows.
First, Elihu is mentioned neither in the prologue nor in the epilogue. This framework advises that Job’s three friends came to call on him and discussed his misfortunes inter presentem. An outsider like Elihu could reply to the written work but was not a party to the initial debate. Indeed, in the epilogue God refers only to Job’s three friends. Elihu is, thus, conspicuous by his absence from the mainstream of the book.
Second, none of the parties to the debate refer to Elihu directly or indirectly. Further, Job does not retort to Elihu’s arguments although some of them cover ground not discussed elsewhere in the book. Taken together, these points establish that Elihu is an outsider or a newcomer who deals with a written text he has read.
Third, Elihu’s intervention in the first six verses of chapter 32 is the only prose except the compiler’s captions and the setting. If the anonymous author of Job had intended to include Elihu as an integral contributor to the debate, these six verses (with the required alterations) would have been set out in the prologue. Alternatively, a reference to Elihu’s words could have been set out in the epilogue.
Fourth, Elihu quotes Job’s words verbatim.[85] In contrast, the three comrades refer to his views but do not cite him.
Fifth, Elihu refers to Job by name.[86] The three comrades refrain from doing this, although they address him in second person (e.g., “thou”). This, too, indicates that the relevant chapters [32 – 37] were not written by the author of other parts of the book.
Finally, Job is renowned for the use of Hapaxes. Vicchio demonstrates that these appear more frequently in Elihu’s speeches (and in cap. 28) than in any other part of the book. Furthermore, the vocabulary and imagery of chapters 32 to 37 differ from the language of the rest of the book.[87]
These points are adequate to support the view that the speeches of Elihu are late additions to the original version of Job. It is also noteworthy that, although the three comrades are gentiles, Elihu’s name and lineage evidence his being Jewish. To start with the name – Elihu (‘El is my God’ [אליהוא]) – is Hebrew. It is akin to Eliyahu [אליהו], the name of the acclaimed prophet, which conveys a similar meaning. Further, detailed pedigrees are set out mainly in late books of the MT (such as Chronicles). They describe the background of members of the tribe and distinguish them from outsiders.
Elihu’s speeches raise a theological point not covered by the three comrades. They, as well as Job, regard suffering as retributive. Elihu argues that God refrains from unjust acts[88] and that the sufferings of the innocent are the outcome of a pre-determined divine plan. God alone decides when sufferings are to be inflicted or remedied.
Elihu also takes the view that Job sins by questioning God’s ways. In his own words: “Would that [Job] may be tried to the end because he answers like wicked men. For he adds rebellion to his sin … and multiplies his words against God” [34:36-37].
This point of view falls short of the assertion of a reward or redemption to be meted out after an individual’s death. Neither Elihu nor any other party to the Jobian analysis manifests a belief in an ‘after life’ [העולם הבא] in which transgressors are punished and people of faith are rewarded.[89]
Elihu’s theological approach avoids the stand taken by Job’s three comrades. He tells us that “against [Job] his anger burned, because [Job] justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends did [Elihu’s] anger burn, because they found no answer, and yet had condemned [Job]” [32:2].
Elihu challenges Job to dispute the theological point to be made by him. In his own words: “If thou canst, answer me; set thy words in order before me; stand up” [33:4]. He then explains that God himself does not deign to talk to people. He “speaks once, yea twice, yet man perceives it not. In a dream, in vision of the night, when deep sleep falls upon men … then he opens the ears of men…” [33:14-16].[90] Arrogantly he tells Job: “If thou hast anything to say answer me … If not harken to me: hold thy peace, and I shall teach thee wisdom” [33:32-33].
Elihu’s outlook is questionable. In other passages of the MT, God addresses individuals directly. His appearance to Moses, in which He gives explicit instruction to the prophet, is but one of them [Ex. 3:3-end]. God’s eloquent initiation address to Jeremiah [Jer. 1:3-end] is another. Further, Elihu demands a reply from Job, although his speeches were written well after the conclusion of the debates and the compilation of the original version of Job. Does this make sense?
A detailed analysis of Elihu’s speeches does not raise any further point.[91] Notably, the Qumran Scroll includes parts of Elihu’s speech. Chapters 32 to 37 are also set out in the LXX, although certain verses thereof are missing. On this basis it is to be concluded that, although Elihu’s speeches are late additions, they were composed at an early stage. As pointed out above, paleontologists have concluded that the Qumran Scroll was written in Herodian script. This means that Elihu’s speeches were part of Job as circulated in the first century BCE. Further, scraps of the Hebrew text were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scroll.[92]
Elihu’s viewpoint is in tandem with modern Christian and Jewish theology, which maintain that the ways of God are just and that everything is part of a divine plan. Earlier on Jeremiah advises that God’s principle is “to give everyone according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings” [Jer. 32:19]. In the circumstances, one might enquire whether the bet of God and Satan (described in the prologue) was likewise retributive or preordained.
X. GOD’S REPLIES
As has been shown earlier, originally the debates conclude with Job’s monologue, in which he reassert his innocence and once again requests an elucidation by God. This answer is set out in chapters 38 to 41. These comprise two speeches, which God delivers from the Whirlwind [סערה]. Greenstein points out that here God “assumes a hostile persona – that of the storm god.”[93] He goes on to explain that, in Middle-Eastern mythology, the Storm God is a warrior. Undoubtedly, the retorts are both hostile and condescending.
In the first (comprising caps. 38 and 39), God refers to his own magnitude. He tells Job that, as Job was not present when the earth was created, he is not in a position to criticise or raise queries respecting a divine plan of which he has no knowledge.[94]
Job’s replies thereto is muted. He says: “Lacking respect, how can I answer? My hand I place over my mouth. I have spoken once and I will not repeat; Twice – and I will (speak) no more” [40:4-5].[95] Here Job does not concede his having received an answer to his complaint. He avers that he has not doubted God’s greatness, but that the theodicy issue has not been resolved.
God, thereupon, speaks once again [caps. 40:6 to 41]. This second reply differs from the imagery of the previous one. Whilst His first reply asserted His generic greatness, He now refers to two wonders, namely the ‘behemoth’ and the ‘leviathan’, and challenges Job to control them. God displays his anger at Job words, asking him: “Wilt thou disavow my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayst be right? Has thou an arm like God?”[40:9]. However, as in his first speech, God does not explain why innocent people, like Job, suffer.
Job’s reply thereto does, once again, falls short of conceding God’s justice. In his own words: “As a hearing by ear I have heard you, and now my eye has seen you. That is why I am fed up. I take pity on ‘dust and ashes’!” [42:5-6]. Greenstein tells us: “Job understands the deity to be exactly as he had feared: a purveyor of power who cares little for people. Parodying the divine discourse through mimicry, Job expresses disdain toward the deity and pity toward humankind.”[96] Job has done so earlier[97] and his reply to God’s second speech does not depart from his original bitter and disillusioned stand.
It should by now be clear that Job does not resolve the theodicy issue. The inadequacy of the comrades’ arguments is pointed out in chapter 32:3, discussed above. Neither God’s replies nor Elihu’s speeches provide an adequate answer.
Nonetheless, chapters 38 to 42:1-5 give rise to a number of intriguing issues. First, the vocabulary and the imagery of God’s Replies from the Whirlwind differ from those of the poet who composed the setting and the debates. At the same time, the composer of the Replies has read the earlier parts of the book. For instance, he refers to the same heavenly constellations as Job.[98] Further, he replies to Job’s complaints although he does not cite them verbatim.
Are these replies contemporaneous with the rest of the books or were they written later on? Passages of God’s Replies appear in the Qumran Scroll.[99] This establishes that they formed part of Job as circulated in the first century BCE. It is true that scraps of the Hebrew text on this point were not discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. The relevant chapters are, however, set out in the Late Targum[100] and in the LXX.
Thus, the available sources do not provide a clear conclusion as to the date of God’s Replies. In view of the concluding sentence of chapter 31, discussed above, it seems likely that the original version of Job ended with Job’s seminal, final, monologue. However, a book with such a conclusion would have been unacceptable to the Pharisee theology which developed after the destruction of
The second issue which arises as regards chapters 38 to 42:1-6 is whether they were composed before or after Elihu’s speeches (viz. caps 32 – 37). The point is of considerable difficulty. Both tracts postulate a divine order, which is beyond the scope of mankind’s comprehension. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Elihu’s speeches were added after the debate but prior to God’s replies. To start with, Elihu’s discourse does not add much to Job, as comprising the setting, the debates and God’s Replies. It simply underscores or clarifies the notion that God’s ways are just and beyond mankind’s grasp.
In addition, neither God’s Replies nor the epilogue refer directly or indirectly to Elihu’s words. If the author of the Replies had studied Elihu’s analysis, his easiest way would have been to add a brief indication of God’s agreement thereto.
Finally, Elihu’s speeches and God’s Replies from the Whirlwind do not cross refer. This, too, indicates that the respective authors were unfamiliar with the writings of each other.
The tentative conclusion, then, is that both Elihu and the composer of God’s Replies felt the need to retort to Job’s bitter complaint and his negative assessment of divine justice. They worked independently and it is only natural that the editor of the book included both God’s Reply after Elihu’s discourse. He gave God the last word.
The tentative conclusion prescribed by this analysis is that an original version of Job, ending with chapter thirty one plus the epilogue, was ‘censored’ by later compilers so as to save an apostate book, expressed in sublime poetry, from suppression or destruction.
XI. GREEK INFLUENCES
It has been pointed out at the outset, that Job was probably composed in the late 5th or early 4th century BCE. Is it possible that the anonymous author was influenced by Greek culture? The question is of considerable difficulty. The debating technique used in Job is not found in other books of the Old Testament. These comprise historical narration, prophecies of wrath, eschatological and apocalyptic messages and allegories. Terms and metaphors are not defined. It is assumed that the reader understands the meaning of words such as “God” and “justice” For instance, in Ha’Azinu [האזינו] we are told: “He is the rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are justice: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he [Deut. 32:4].[101]
In contrast, the meaning of “justice” [צדק] is one of the issues debated by Socrates and his fellows in The Republic. Books I and II of the tome demonstrate a highly sophisticated and analytical examination of the term. But could this analysis have been known to the anonymous author of Job?
Socrates was born at around 470 and died in 399 BCE. Plato’s dialogues respecting Socrates, including The Republic,[102] were composed between Socrates’ death and Plato’s first trip to
At first glance, this suggests that Job could not have been influenced by these works or by Greek philosophy. The dialectic, or debating approach, was however used in Greek politics even before it permeated into philosophy. It was the method used in debates at the Athens Assembly.
An attempt to unveil the origin of these Greek polemics is outside the scope of this investigation. Suffice it to emphasize that two friends of the young Socrates – Pericles and Alcibiades – were masters of rhetoric.[103] Notably, Pericles’ consort, Aspasia,[104] was well acquainted with Socrates. It is likely that her skills influenced the young philosopher, were adopted by him during his later years and, in due course, became the basis of the debating or dialectic approach employed in Plato’s dialogues. If this were the case, the technique of Athens’ political leaders was likely to have been known to the author of Job.
That Job uses the debating, or dialect, approach is clear. A proposition – namely theodicy – is posed and discussed at length. Undoubtedly, some books of the Old Testament have lengthy statements of an issue, such as the duty to observe law. Isaiah and Jeremiah are examples in point. Others concentrate on the praise of God. Psalms provides the best illustration. Other books still, for instance, Judges and Samuel\Kings are of the narrative gender.
Further, the dialectic method is alien even to Biblical Books of Wisdom other than Job. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes set out sharp and usually concise epigrams, which prescribe an appropriate and wise norm of conduct. It is true that, in some instances, the advice or prescription encompasses a number of verses[105] but these do not question the issue.
It may be argued that the Talmud is renowned for the use of dialectics. This is, undoubtedly, true as regards the later part of the Talmud – the Gemara [גמרא], which was sealed in the 8th century CE. The earlier part of the Talmud – the Mishna [משנה] – does not use it. It is written in resonant Hebrew and was probably sealed by the end of the 2nd century CE. Basically, it includes legal principles and short narraratives. It supports the view that, in the period in which Job was written, dialectics (or the Socratic discourse) were not practised in Judaism. All this leads to the conclusion that, unless the author of Job invented the method on his own, he was influenced by a method common elsewhere, such as Greece at the relevant time.
The suggestion that Job manifests Greek influence is not novel. In 1918 Kallen opined: “The Greek influence is … beyond question.” He then explains: “ … we have in the Book of Job … a Hebraized form of the Greek tragedy…”.[106]
Kallen’s opinion of the influence of Greek tragedy is to be doubted. The impact of the dialectic method is obvious.
XII. THE AUTHOR’S PERSONALITY
Who wrote Job? Some sages argue that the author was Moses.[107] However, the vocabulary and syntax of the Pentateuch (also attributed to Moses) differ from Job’s. Further, Moses describes God as the very source of faith and justice [Deut. 32:5]. Moses would not feel the need to discuss the theodicy issue.
Other sages,[108] attribute Job to Jeremiah, who – as already pointed out – raised the theodicy issue [Jer. 12:1]. However, his query was not favoured with a reply and was not discussed by him any further. There can, of course, be no doubt about Jeremiah’s standing as a poet. All the same, Jeremiah’s main object was to deal with the issues of his era, namely, the corruption of Judah and the military superiority of Babylon. In addition, the dialectic approach of Job was alien to Judah of Jeremiah’s period (the sixth century BCE).
Greenstein,[109] concludes that the text was composed by a Jew residing in Yehud and suggests that the author was more conversant with Aramaic than with Hebrew. However, a Jewish Diaspora established itself in
Admittedly, an identification of the author is speculative; but some clues about his personality are given in Job. To start with, the author is a scholar familiar with the dialectic approach to the examination of issues of ethics. He was, at the same time, a staunch believer in God’s greatness and in His having created the universe.[112] He describes God as “…mighty in strength: who has hardened himself against him, and prospered?” [9:3-4].[113] Thus, he believed that God’s wrath would impact transgressors. These words would not be uttered by a sceptic or a disbeliever. In reality, God’s Replies (caps. 38-42:1-6) do not militate against Job’s own creed.[114]
Another clue given to us is Job’s familiarity with the pyramids[115] and his knowledge of the Egyptian wisdom writings and religion and his approach to the concept of She’ol, discussed earlier on.
Was the author a priest? Probably, a member of the class would not utter Job’s reproaches and negative statements respecting God’s justice.[116] It seems more likely that the author was a member of a non-priestly patrician family. It is probable that he travelled throughout the
Greenstein[119] concludes that he was a resident of Judah from Jerusalem. “Yehud” of the Persian period, covering the 5th and 4th centuries BCE was, however, underdeveloped.[120] In contrast, there were sophisticated Jewish settlements in
The author’s familiarity with astronomy – mentioned earlier on – suggests that he might have been a scion of the Jews exiled to Babylon with King Yehoyakhin in 597 BCE.[123]
Support for the view that the author was a Diaspora Jew is derived from three arguments. First, Job is one of the very few books of the Old Testament that does not refer, directly or indirectly, to
Secondly, Job’s patent bitterness and his fierce arguments respecting the theodicy issue are more likely to have been the fruit of an exile’s bitterness than the utterances of one who returned to or lived in Yehud. A member of this second group would have been far more likely to sing the praise of the Almighty, who induced Cyrus the Great to sanction the return from the Babylonian exile.
Thirdly, the author is highly sophisticated and well read. He would appear to have been familiar with the wisdom literature of the Levant[125] as well as with weather conditions uncommon in Jehudah but prevailing in region such as Assyria.
Greenstein’s view[126] that the book was, originally, meant for circulation amongst a limited circle of readers is supportable. This is especially so if the original version did not comprise Elihu’s speeches and God’s Replies from the Whirlwind. It is forcefully arguable that two separate members of this circle added these chapters. With their addition, Job did not militate against the creed of the day. When a council of sages, convened in Javneh in 90 CE, considered which books might have to be excluded from the MT, Job was not questioned.[127]
C O N C L U S I O N
Job is a unique pearl of Jewish heritage. Its original version did not include chapters 28, 32 to 37 (Elihu’s speeches) and 38 to 42:1-6 (God’s Replies from the Whirlwind). The final message of this original work is clear: the theodicy issue remains unsolved. Even a lengthy dialectic debate does not provide a satisfactory solution to it. Another wisdom book concedes its having arisen. The author of Ecclesiastes says: “…there are just men, to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked; again, there are wicked men, to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous: I [say] that this is also vanity” [Ecc. 8:14-15].
Job’s original version was written by a learned and well travelled Diaspora Jew, who, in all probability, was not of priestly origin. Initially, it was circulated to a limited circle of liberal intellectuals. To save this work from oblivion (that is, destruction or suppression) members of this group wrote chapters 32 to 37 (Elihu’s speeches) and 38 to 42:1-6 (God’s Replies from the Whirlwind). Chapter 28 was included by error when the MT version was compiled for wider circulation.
In its final version, Job was included in the MT. Admirers of the Old Testament are fortunate to have it. The epilogue [42:7-end] assures them that honest questioning is preferable to abject hypocrisy.
To sum up, the author of the original version was a wunderkind. His poetic caliber remains unparalelled. He employed dialectic analysis long before it was adopted in the Gemara. It is believed that he became familiar with dialectics due to Greek influence. The splendour of his poetry manifests his genius. Judaism was enriched by the preservation of the book.·
· This paper is dedicated to the memory of my Biblical Studies Master in secondary school, “Old Frank”, who taught all his pupils how to analyze the Bible and love it. My thanks are due to Professor E.L. Greenstein for his searching comments on a draft hereof. Al mistakes are, of course, mine.
[1]
[2] For a list of Hapaxes and of words borrowed from Semitic languages, mainly from Aramaic, see S.P. Vicchio, The Book of Job – A History of Interpretation and Commentary, (Oregon, 2020), pp. 298-307.
[3] See Jongeling, Labuschagne and Van Der Woude, Aramaic Texts from Qumran, (
[4] Set out in Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, (
[5] 11Q10, also included in Discoveries of the Judean Desert, Vo. 23 [“DJD23”], at pp. 78-180. It is reproduced in Jongeling. The Dead Sea Scrolls were composed between ca. 200 BCE and 70 CE. I thank Emeritus Professor Emanuel Tov for giving me access to this text. For a fine analysis, see M. Sokoloff, The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI, (
[6] Who lived during the period of Hadrian Caesar (reigned from 117 to 138 CE) and translated the Old Testament into Aramaic. Some sources claim that Onkelos lived some seventy years earlier, viz. during the reign of Titus (reigned 79 to 81 CE).
[7] JDJ23, at p. 87. And see Jongeling, op. cit., at pp. 4-5 (suggesting a date at around 50 BCE).
[8] It is The Targum of Job, by Céline Mangan, (Minnesota, 1991). This valuable Targum is based on all the manuscript available to the Editors of the Aramaic Bible, which includes the late Targum in its vol. 15.
[9] By Rabbi Gamliel (active ca. 25 – 50 CE) and by his grandson of similar name (90 – 110 CE.): see Shabb. 115a.
[10] For the deterioration in the command of Hebrew, see Nehem. 13:24.
[11] The LXX is dated from the third to the first century BCE. See Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha, (Peabody MA. 1987), pp. i-iii.
[12] For a detailed positioning of Job in different systems, see McDonald and Sanders, The Canon Debates, (
[13] For an encyclopaedic text, covering all sources, see S.J. Vicchio, op. cit.; for the best translation into English, see Greenstein, E.L., Job – A New Translation, (Yale University Press, 2019). An attempt to preserve the metre is made by C.K Chesterton, The Book of Job, (S.C., 2022 [reprint]).
[14] Referred to by Vicchio, op. cit., at p. 30; and see Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico Philosophicus, Cap 7.
[15] The apocrypha comprises ancient books that did not find their way into the MT. They encompass Maccabees I and II.
[16] Vicchio, op. cit., at p. 2 refers to other differences between the Testament and Job of the
[17] For essays on Job in Hebrew, see, e.g., Z. Adar, the Book of Job, in הספריה של מטח III, p. 1 et seq.; א. דור-שב, תכלת 32, 2008.. For a detailed bibliography of books and articles dealing with Job see Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 403 et seq.
[18] On the problems faced by translators of Job and the frequent attempt to depart from the meaning of the original, see Greenstein, op. cit., at pp. xxxiv-xxxvii.
[19] Parts of the Codex Aleppo were destroyed in 1947; the intact pages are preserved in the Shrine of the Book in
[20] Baba Batra: 15, pp. 1-2.
[21] Guide to the Bewildered, Part III, Cap. 22.
[22] See, in particular, Esther: 2:5, introducing Mordekhay.
[23] Unless otherwise indicated, quotations are taken from the version of Harold Fisch appearing in Koren, The
[24] Jer. 32:2-3; Ezek, 18:2-3.
[25] This is also the role ascribed to him when mentioned elsewhere in the MT. See Zech. 3:1-3.
[26] See, e.g., Isai. 6:2.
[27] See Jongeling, op. cit., pp. 72-3; DJD23, at p. 170.
[28] Greenstein, op cit, at pp. xxi et seq;
[29] See in particular Greenstein, E.L., “Wisdom in Mesopotamia in Relation to von Rad’s Wisdom in Israel” in Sandivar T.J. and Schipper B. (Eds.), Fifty Years of Wisdom: Gerhard von Rad and the Study of Wisdom Literature (Society of Biblical Literature, 2022) pp. 287-320 [to be cited as: Greenstein, art., op. cit.] and the neat summary in the article by Joshua J. Mark, Ludlue-Bel-Nemeki, published in YouTube, World History Encyclopedia.
[30] The verses are not preserved in the Qumran Scroll. The LXX read “anything true” and “the truth” respectively. The only other place in the MT which uses the word in the same sense is Psalms 5:10. But note that נכחים [nechochim] is used in the same sense in Sam. II: 15:3; Prov. 24:26.
[31] For a similar lament, see Jer. 20:14-end, esp. verse 18.
[32] See Part VIII and see Job 3:15, 7:9 and 14:13.
[33] For an analysis of Job’ first speech, J. Hartley, The Book of Job, (2nd ed. 1988), pp. 165 et seq.
[34] See Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 39, who explains the significance of these constellations.
[35] Greenstein’s translation, op. cit., at p. 41, which is believed to be correct. Note that the word ‘shot’[שוט] appears also in Isaiah [10:27] where it ought to be correctly translated as ‘disaster’.
[36] For the traditional construction see Rashi.
[37] And see F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Job, (Edinburgh 1876), Vol. 1, at p. 111.
[38] For a further rebuke of the friends, see 21:27-28.
[39] My translation. Ct. Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 60; the Late Targum, at p. 44. The LXX (at p. 675) differs. Regrettably chapter 14 was not preserved in the Qumran Scroll. Cave 11 of
[40] See, e.g. the Late Targum and the LXX. The real meaning of these words was conveyed to me (and my classmates) by our teacher in Tichon Ironi A, “Old Frank”.
[41] Generally, all words based on נתן (and יתן is its ‘future’ third person declination) mean to ‘give’. Contextually, though, the word means ‘tell’ in the present instance.
[42] For a detailed analysis, see Vicchio, op. cit., pp.111 et seq.
[43] And see Greenstein’s elegant translation in op. cit., at p. 73.
[44] It has been suggested that these words allude to Cain’s murder of Abel: A Clarke, Commentary on the Book of Job, (London 2015), at p. 70.
[45] See also 21:27-28 and caps. 23-24, in which Job reaffirms his innocence and complains about his sufferings. Cp. Greenstein’s translation and comment, op. cit., at p. 85.
[46] An issue arises in respect of chapter 26. The editor’s caption attributes it to Job. Greenstein, op. cit., pp. 113 et seq. treats most verses of it as forming part of Bildad’s third speech.
[47] DJD23, pp. 104-105, which indicate that the speech of chapter 26 is Job’s but omit the first line of chapter 27 of the MT, which reads: “and [Job] continued his discourse and said…”; see ibid. at p. 107.
[48] For a different construction, see Greenstein, op. cit., at pp. 113 et seq.
[49] Published in 1812.
[50] Cp. Greenstein’s translation, op. cit., at p. 19 et seq.
[51] Most translation use ‘shall’ rather than ‘can’. I disagree. Greenstein, op cit., at p. 16 suggests that the words just cited constitute part of Job’s first discourse. Again, I disagree. Both contextually and as regards points of argument, the phrase expresses Elifaz’s stand. Note that Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 17 also reads “can”.
[52] For a comprehensive analysis of Bildad’s approach, of his view being geared in theodicy and in the firm belief that Job’s sufferings evidence his having sinned, see R. Cordis, The Book of Job: a Commentary, (New York, 1978,) pp. 100-105, 140.
[53] And see Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 134-5; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job, (Steubenville 2016 ed.), at p. 92.
[54] It has been argued that cap. 26:5-14 complete Bildad third speech which commences in cap. 25:1. See Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 185-186 and authorities there cited.
[55] For an analysis of his words, see Hartley, op. cit, at p. 70; Vicchio, op cit., at pp. 92-3.
[56] Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 117 et seq. Cf. Rashi.
[57] Contrast Vicchio, op. cit., at p 187, who regards the absence of a third speech by Zophar as “the silence of the vanquished.”
[58] And possibly parts of chapters 26 and 27: see Vicchio, op cit., at p. 187.
[59] Jongeling, op. cit., pp. 24-15 (reproducing and translating the extant parts); DJD23, pp. 106-107; Sokoloff, op. cit., pp. 46-49.
[60] Op. cit, at p. 160.
[61] S. Terrien, Job: Poet of Existence, 2004, at p. 979; Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 190-194 and authorities there cited.
[62] Loc cit.
[63] DJD23. The LXX adhere to the MT version. The scraps of the Hebrew text discovered in
[64] Although Proverbs incorporates parables attributed to King Solomon, the MT version, which has come down to us, was compiled in the 4th century BCE: R.N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs: A Survey of Modern Study: 1, (Hall, 1995), pp. 33 et seq.
[65] But note that in the
[66] See, e.g. Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 16.
[67] And note also Prov. 1:7; 2:1-4.
[68] Usually translated as “Oh that I were as in months past”; in Hebrew: “מי יתנני כירחי-קדם”.
[69] There is here a play on words. “Men of the East ]קדם[” can also mean: “men of antiquity”.
[70] Cp. Greenstein’s translation, op. cit., at p. 127.
[71] Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 128 uses “flute”.
[72] See the Vicchio’s analysis, op. cit., pp. 204 et. seq.
[73] Cp. Greenstein’s translation, op. cit., at p. 132.
[74] DJD23, at p. 125 [line 2 of Col. XX figure 17 ii]. See also Jongeling, op. cit., pp. 38-39; Sokoloff, op. cit., pp. 66-67.
[75] B.M. Hoverland, The Influence of the Egyptian and the Babylonian Wisdom Literature Upon the Hebrew Wisdom Literature, (thesis; reprinted by Forgotten Books,
[76] Note that Sha’ul of Tarsos, known as
[77] In particular the Wisdom of Amenemope [8th century BCE], which has also impacted the Book of Proverbs. For a neat summary, see www.per-ankh.co.uk and Vicchio, op. cit., at p. 74. For an extensive treatment, see J.P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: an Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, (3rd ed., 2014), esp. pp. 118 et seq., and by the same author: The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, (
[78] The afterlife is described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. For a neat summary, see en.m.wikipedia.org (on She’ol). For a fine analysis and translation of Mesopotamian texts, see S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, (OUP, 1989).
[79] Psalms 30:4; and see Sam. A, 2:6 (Hannah’s prayer).
[80] Psalms 6:6; and see Isai. 38:18.
[81] Job 14:14. Cf. the LXX. Job does not indicate familiarity with Ezekiel cap. 37 (the vision of the reviving dead bones). For a succinct discussion of the belief in after-life in later second temple period in
[82] And see, Hoshea,13:14.
[83] Job 28:14. Note that the text refers to ‘tehom’ [תהום] and not to She’ol [שאול]. The words, though, are interchangeable. The author of Job would have used “She’ol”.
[84] Op. cit., pp. 211 et seq., citing available authorities.
[85] In 33:8-11, in which he refers to 13:23-24; and in 34:5-9 referring to 27:3; and in 35:3 referring to 7:20.
[86] 32:12; 33:1; 34:5; 36:16 and 37:13-14.
[87] And see
[88] See, in particular, 34:10-12; and their translation by Greenstein, op. cit., pp. 144-5.
[89] See, in particular, Job’s denial of resurrection: 7:8-9; verse 8 is missing in the LXX version. Contrast Newsom, op. cit., at p. 168.
[90] Echoing Elifaz’ first speech [4:12-15], discussed above.
[91] See the detailed discussion of Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 227 et seq.; Greenstein, op. cit., pp. 134 et seq. Greenstein’s argument, to the effect that chapter 28 is a sequel to chapter 37, is unsupportable.
[92] Reproduced in Ulrich, op cit., pp. 729-731.
[93] Op. cit., p. 165.
[94] The first at p. 165. Two verses of cap. 40 pose a problem. God appears to ask again whether an accuser of divine justice deserves a reply. It is possible that these words are the commencement of an extra speech of God, which has not come down to us. They do not add anything to the discourse.
[95] Translation of Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 176.
[96] Greenstein, op. cit., at pp. 184-185, which also sets out the passage from Job just quoted.
[97] In 9:22-23, cited above.
[98] Cp. cap. 9:9 with 38:31, both of which refer to Pleiades and Orion.
[99] DJD23, pp. 149-168; Jongeling, op. cit, pp. 57 et seq.; Sokoloff, op. cit., pp. 86 et seq.
[100] See Mangan, op. cit., pp. 83-90.
[101] הצור תמים פעלו כי כל-דרכיו משפט. אל אמונה ואין עול, צדיק וישר הוא. [MT Hebrew].
[102] For an authoritative examination seeking to date Plato’s dialogues, see G. Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, (
[103] Aristotle’s renowned On Rhetoric was published late in the 4th century BCE and hence well after the Peloponnesian Wars (431 - 404 BCE) and hence after the composition of Job. The discussion, though, deals with a technique well known in his time.
[104] For a brief and most interesting treatment, see W. Buckingham, “Aspasia, the Philosopher Who Taught Socrates Rhetoric” https://www.lookingforwisdom.com/Asapsia/ and M.M. Henry, Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus, OUP 1955).
[105] Such as the lengthy warning against hedonism (in Prov. 31:2-5) and the doubts cast on wisdom (in Ecc. 9:13-16).
[106] H.M. Kallen, The Book of Job as a Greek Tragedy, (New York, 1918), at p. 7. See also J. Kuriakose, “The Book of Job: A Greco-Hebrew Rhetorical Drama” in 6 No. 2 English Language and Literature Studies (2016) pp. 72 et seq.
[107] Bava Batra, p.14b
[108] Ibid., p. 15a.
[109] Op. cit., at p. xxvii.
[110] And note that the Book of Esther evidences the existence of a thriving Jewish Diaspora community during the 4th century b.c. And see Jer.: 40:11 and 41:4.
[111] Jer.: 41:5-8.
[112] See in particular 6:10, cited above.
[113] And see 31:23.
[114] And note that Job does not believe in resurrection: 7:8-9 and text related to nn. 75-77 supra.
[115] See 3:13 which, literally translated, refers to ‘ruins’. Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 14 demonstrates that the Hebrew Haravot ought to be read as Haramot, derived from mr [pronounce ‘mer’] which refers to the pyramids in Mid-Egyptian. And see P. Dickson, Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, (
[116] But note that Jeremiah [12: 1-3] raises the theodicy issue.
[117] Job 6:18-19 confirm his familiarity with caravans and travelling in general.
[118] For a neat exposition, see J.P. Allen, Middle Egyptian Literature, (Cambridge U.P., 2015), at pp. 55 et seq.
[119] Op. cit., pp. xxvii-xxviii. He concludes that the author was a highly educated man familiar with earlier biblical writings.
[120] See Finkelstein, op. cit, pp. 4 et seq.
[121] Note that Ben Hadad granted King Ahab the privilege of “making streets for thyself in
[122] The sophistication of this Diaspora is demonstrated by Ezekiel’s prophecies.
[123] Kings II: 24:8-15.
[124] Amos 5:8 also refers to heavenly constellations. But note that Amos prophesied mainly on the
[125] See Greenstein, article, op.cit.
[126] Op. cit., at p. xxviii.
[127] The canonization of the MT is outside the scope of this paper. See, generally, McDonald and Sanders (Eds.), The Canon Debate, (
Comments
Post a Comment