Celsus

Well actually, you didn't spot the obvious contradiction: I said Leviathan wasn't mentioned elsewhere, yet in my next paragraph I cited Leviathan in Isaiah. Stupid me.

Joel

CJD

Greetings (tGif).

First (before I post on the extremely boring subject of Form), a few remarks concerning Celsus' response.

I agree.

Undoubtedly, you see that Job and his companions typically use the first three to refer to God. There is only one exception (in the poetic section): 12:9. Now, because there are variations in MSS here, this is either a lapse by the Israelite poet or a later correction for Eloah (the name preserved in the other MSS). Is the usage anything more than a literary device to anchor the setting? I gather that "the hand of [Eloah]" is an idiomatic phrase (cf. 19:21) that symbolizes God's unwarranted afflictions (cf. 1:11; 2:5), his omnipotent destructive power (6:9; 12:9) and domination of Job's life (10:7; 13:21) [see Habel, The OT Library: Job, 214, 302]. The prose, as we have both noted, finds its source in ancient material, and has been adapted for its use in this Wisdom piece. It should come as no surprise then that there are elements of Jewish Wisdom literature in the prose sections.

For now, I am only capable of throwing out some references:

Driver, S., and G. Gray, The Book of Job, pp. lxvii–lxviii.

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT, pp. 11–12.

Yeah, I agree. Specifically, I think the short list is a translation from Arabic, Aramaic, Egyptian, or Edomite. On the other hand, was the language of Job a living dialect (whether a vernacular variety or a mixture of Hebrew with something else)?

Yes. I should have made this clearer in #1 of that list. It should have read: "The text abounds in Aramaisms, which would point to a later date. But consider #2–#5. . . ."

Here goes: D.N. Freedman, "Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job," El IX (Albright Volume), 1969, pp. 35–44.

I suppose I meant Job 19:24, from the previous list in that post?

Yeah, but it is more like a terminus ad quem (c. 200 BC), just like the anachronistic reference to iron serves as a terminus ad quo (c. 1200 BC). While Job cannot be dated precisely, I do think the 7th century is reasonable.

Well, I do think it was heavily edited as late as the exillic years by that ever-popular, shadowy figure, the Deuteronomist. My view of these compiled narratives is that they were "living texts" in the hands of the scribes, updated to serve the needs of the God's people.

Finally, just a note about this Satan. First, I am not so sure there is that much of a sharp contrast here between this accuser and the accuser of later Jewish and Christian theology; has the Satan of medieval theology—wrongly interpreted by us moderns—infiltrated our exegesis? (but that really is another matter). In the first accusation scene (1:6–12), the Satan enters the divine council ("the sons of God"). The Accuser presents himself before the king along with the sons. He seems to be more than the Lord's "prosecutor-general," for he stands in opposition to the will of YHWH (as the dialogue makes plain). The Satan roams everywhere, there is no safe-haven from the eyes of the king (v.7). Interestingly, YHWH initiates the test by asking if the Accuser has been doing his "job" (thanks to Doc X for the pun). In so doing, the king directs the accuser's attention to Job in order to challenge the impiety of the Satan's investigation of the earth. The Accuser thinks Job fears God because of his material blessings. Note that the accuser does nothing except by the will of the king. I don't think it was the author's intent to soften the responsibility of God; rather, it quite clear that God governs all, even if through other agents. Look again at 2:3; God takes full responsibility for the Satan's activity. But there is a radical difference between the two figures—in motives. Also note the "without cause" in v. 3. It is same word the accuser used to accuse Job in 1:9 ("for nothing"). The irony is clear: it is the adversary who has done wrong, not Job.

I realize now would be a good time to discuss the discontinuity and continuity between the prose narrative and poetic dialogues, but that will have to wait till next time.

Regards,

CJD

CJD

Greetings, dear reader.

Celsus, your patience is commendable. Without further adieu . . .

Without knowing where you will be taking this re: mythic allusions and parallels in Job, I am not sure how discussing form will affect your conclusions. At any rate, I think the piece must be considered as a whole unit and can be broken down most simply as follows:

1. Prologue: prose intro to Job's misfortune, 1:1–2:13.
2. The Dialogues: 3:1–31:40
3. Elihu's Speeches: 32:1–37:24
4. The LORD's Speeches and Job's Responses: 38–42:6
5. Epilogue: 42:7–17

I don't think this adds to or really emmends what you've written already, but there it is. I think the issue of form may come out if a particular parallel or mythic allusion hinges on it. We shall see.

I agree with the folktale premise, but I am also of the mind that myth does not necessarily equal "unhistorical." The extant arrangement of Job is obviously framed by a legendary narrative (as you point out) surrounding an extended dialogical core. The issue of historicity at this point is largely irrelevant. The mentioning of a "Job" at various points in the Tanak may just be legendary references, but they may be legendary mixed with history, too (cf. Ezek. 14:14, 20; James 5:11; [Note that Daniel, clearly a historical figure, is included in the prophet's list]). I might be inclined, then, to call Job a "Historical Frame Tale."

I could not disagree more. The prose sections are integral to the whole piece. While many scholars have indeed attempted to identify possible stages in the development of Job, the enthusiasm for such an approach has greatly waned. Many critics today tend to view it as a literary whole that integrates prose and poetic materials into a rich—though paradoxical—unity.

The reason for this is simple: Without Job's restoration, the piece makes little sense at all (as a part of Wisdom literature). To be sure, there are anti-Wisdom elements therein, but removing the epilogue (for example) turns the work into a tragedy, a literary enterprise that would deny belief in the goodness of creation, the justice of God, and in the ever available possibility of redemption. The fact is, as a tragedy, Job would have no place in a Wisdom canon. This might give you more reason to see the prose sections as contradictory to the extended core; the problem is, I do not think that the content of the narrative frames depart all that much from the poetic sections. In other words, the core is not only dependent on the frames contextually, but dependent structurally on them as well.

But there are elements of discontinuity between the prose and poetry. Before I get to the long list of continuity, let's look at some of those points.

1. (As you have noted) Job's character is simple in the prose. He is a simple, good man. In the poetry, however, he is a tempestuous thinker whose radical questioning leads him to the most daring heterodoxy.

2. (Again, as you have already alluded to) The satan instigates Job's troubles in the prose, while in the poetry there is no mention of this adversary at all.

Note should be made that had the events of the Prologue been known to Job and his friends then there would have been no point to the Dialogues.

3. In the prose, God is propitiated by sacrifice (1:5), while in the poetry no such religion is present.

4. Job is indeed rewarded for his righteousness in the prose, whereas in the poetry he voices a denial of justice.

Now, do these truly amount to the conclusion that the "prose section is . . . largely contradictory to the speeches of Job in the poetic section"?

I don't think so. Consider the following points of continuity:

1. The pattern of the work (prose, poetry, prose) is well-attested in ANE works such as The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant, Dispute Over Suicide, and even the Code of Hammurabi.

Also note that the structure is similar to that of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, both of which frame older material within a later frame (cf. C.H. Gordon, Old Testament Times,72–73).

2. See Michael Cheney, Dust, Wind, and Agony: Character Speech and Genre in Job (ConB OT 36: Stockholm: Amqvist and Wiskell, 1994. He unpacks the "frame tale" genre, which demands continuity.

3. The prose sections cannot stand apart from the poetry. They do not constitute a complete story, and 42:7–9 does refer to the three friends and God's speech.

4. The three friends are introduced in the prologue: 2:11–13.

5. Though composed of composite materials, the book nonetheless exhibits an artistic literary structure. There is symmetry: the tempo leads from climax to climax until the final resolution. The speeches are assemble in cycles through which tension is built up from stage to stage (compare the 2nd interview with Satan to the second address of YHWH to Job; both are more drastic and tremendous than the first). The exchanges between Job and his friends become more heated with each passing round. There is also a propensity for the number 4 in the work (giving it unity): four messages in the prologue, four discourses of Job and his friends, four speeches of Elihu.

6. Elihu is an adjudicator, not a protagonist. He is the first of two who record their impressions of what has been said in chapters 3–31. Celsus, you mentioned your skepticism as to Elihu's place in the story. I might deal with this later. But for now, we must see that he represents in this story a sage who wrestles with theodicy apart from God's special revelation in chapters 38–41. He gives a human estimate of the arguments and fails to advance it; as such, he serves as a foil to God's forthcoming speech. His thoughts are intentionally weak and turgid, in spite of its pretentious claims. This is to be contrasted with the final word of God, for which the author reserves his best talent (see Janzen, Job In Interpretation).

7. Theological Unity:

a. At least in the Dialogues (this is less-clear in the prose) the author constructs a pretty solid patriarchal setting. All the characters believe in one supreme God who is [or should be] just. None of them are pagan. Thus, the theodicy is couched in the household of this ancient faith. Dualism of the pagan sort is not an option (indeed, Deism is a kind of dualism and is therefore also excluded). I know that we see only Job praying, also being the only one to whom God reveals himself; nonetheless, he is commanded to make propitiation for his friends (42:7–9).

b. While we know that the names for God are different from the prose to the poetry, the narrator interjects YHWH throughout 38–42:6, as if to say that it is the very same God who spoke in the Prologue and who will speak in the Epilogue.

c. In both the prose and poetry there is a divine human covenant. While covenantal language and forms are largely absent from both, the main aspects of such covenanting are present, namely, the righteousness and commitment on the part of the one and only God in relationship to the faith and righteousness of the human partner. This is nothing less than ethical monotheism.

The extant Job is the product of single mind, it seems to me.

8. There is something called "Tradition-history criticism" that posits the following notion: There is a possibility that until the final stages of the fixing (editing) of the text, the community's traditions are open to revision. In other words, whatever Job-literature existed before this text, this text serves as the penultimate historical legend. Just a thought.

I conclude with what Janzen writes in Job In Interpretation, page 24:

"Can it be read as a whole inclusive of much tension and turbulence between its parts, such that the very form of the book itself contains part of its meaning (so that neglect or tampering with the form distorts the meaning)? Such is the conviction toward which many years of repeated close study have led this commentator."

* Discussing the "Layer Beneath the Layers" might next be in order. But surely I have gone on long enough (my apologies). By hinting at the purpose of the piece, maybe I can move into a discussion of your proposed parallels and allusions.

At any rate, thanks for reading.

Regards,

CJD

Celsus

Well CJD, much food for thought (and good practice... are you still up for the Wisdom Literature? Email me). I know the idea of multiple sources not sitting well with each other is a bit old, but the problem will lie in what exactly we are focusing on. I would have no problems with a redactor careful enough to show no obvious contradictions throughout his piece (obviously ancient scribes did read the books they wrote, despite what some people seem to claim). I'll get back to you later. Excellent return.

Joel