SLD

There's been a lot of discussion on these boards about the ending of Mark being tacked on by later editors, but I've also learned of another alleged alteration of the bible, The Book of Job.

I'm not an expert on this, but supposedly, the original story has God not giving Job any of his possessions or good life back - basically God tells Job, "tough," and that the ending we have now was tacked on generations later by people who didn't like that ending. Apparently, the "meter" changes, but I have hard time seeing that, perhaps it only appears in the Hebrew.

I guess one of the arguments is that the story doesn't make much sense if Job's position is restored.

Has anyone else run across this issue?

SLD

Peter Kirby

Mr. Hunt, my English teacher as a sophomore at Servite, taught Job as part of the course. He let us know that the poet of the main part (though not necessarily the Elihu speeches) had found the undramatized legend of Job in some other work and built his dialogues with that as a narrative frame.

This view is consistent with what I've learned since. Marvin H. Pope writes: "The problem of literary integrity is most immediately evident in the incongruities and inconsistencies between the Prologue-Epilogue and the Dialogue. The Prologue presents to us the traditional pious and patient saint who retained his composure and maintained his integrity through all the woes inflicted on him and refused to make any accusation of injustice against Yahweh, but rather continued to bless the god who had afflicted him. In the Dialogue we meet quite a different Job whose bitter complaints and charges of injustice against God shock his pious friends who doggedly defend divine justice and persistently reaffirm the doctrine of exact individual retribution. In view of these attitudes, the Epilogue, in which the friends, not Job, are rebuked for not having spoken the truth about Yahweh comes as something of a shock. In the Dialogue Job effectively demolishes the friends' doctrine that wickedness is always punished and virtue always rewarded. But in the final settlement in the Epilogue this dogma is sustained by the highly artificial manner in which Job is both compensated for his pains and restored to health and prosperity. There are other minor incongruities, for example, in the Prologue-Epilogue Job is scrupulous in his observance of the sacrificial cultus, but the Dialogue betrays not the slightest interest in this particular concern and in his final apology for his life Job makes no claim on this account. The names used for God are different in the Prologue-Epilogue and the Dialogue; the former uses Yahweh and Elohim while the latter employs variously the terms El, Eloah, Elohim, and Shaddai. The temper and mood of the Prologue-Epilogue and of the Dialogue are quite distinct: the Prologue reflects a rather detached and impersonal attitude toward the cruel experiment to test the basis of Job's piety; by contrast the Dialogue is highly charged with emotion and the anguish of a tortured soul. The literary forms are also different: the Prologue-Epilogue is in prose, though in its epic style a number of lines have such poetic quality that we have ventured to arrange portions of the Prologue as poetry; the Dialogue is in poetry throughout. In view of these incongruities, critics have generally regarded the Prologue-Epilogue as the setting for his work. Most critics, however, regard the Prologue-Epilogue as part of an ancient folk tale which the author of the Dialogue used as the framework and point of departure for his poetic treatment of the problem of suffering. Whether this ancient folk tale was in written form or transmitted orally, it had probably attained a relatively fixed form and content which the author of the Dialogue could not modify in any radical fashion. It has epic style and the charm and flavor of an oft told tale. Ezek xiv 14, 20 indicates that there was a legendary figure named Job, of great antiquity--like Noah and Danel (the ancient prototype of the biblical Daniel now known to us from the Ugaritic epic). The great antiquity of the literary motif of the righteous sufferer has been established by S. N. Kramer's recovery of a Sumerian poetic essay dating from ca. 2000 B.C. dealing with the same problem as the Book of Job and giving an answer very much like that offered in the Epilogue. How much of this ancient folk tale is preserved by the Prologue-Epilogue and what modifications the author of the poetic Dialogue had to make in the old story is impossible, at this time, to determine. Probably very little of the old tale has been lost because the Prologue and Epilogue together present a fairly complete story. It may be that the older prose tale included an episode in which the friends counseled Job (as his wife had done) to curse God and die. This would explain God's censure of the friends and praise of Job in the Epilogue. It is not likely that the rebuke to the friends was added to reconcile the Prologue-Epilogue with the Dialogue, for, although it is clear that Job had the better of the argument, the Epilogue betrays no awareness that the doctrine of retribution had been refuted or even questioned." (Job: translated with an introduction and notes, pp. xxi-xxv)

best,
Peter Kirby

CJD

SLD,

While many scholars have indeed attempted to identify possible stages in the development of Job, the enthusiasm for such an approach has greatly waned. Most 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, and quite the opposite of what you suggested: without Job's restoration, the piece makes little sense at all (as a part of the Tanak). Removing the epilogue 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 the Tanak. So, was the ending added for that reason? Who knows? I can think of no outstanding scholars who argue vehemently to that end.

There might be something to the change in literary structure, but what? Chapters 38–42:6 (the speeches of YHWH and Job's answers) are indeed majestic poetry, whereas the final portions of chapter 42 are prose. How does this point to an unintended addition to the text? And not just a clear pedagogical appendage? Or, as mentioned in the previous post, an inclusio that serves as the poem's narrative framework?

Three resources that might be interesting in this regard:

Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary.

W.M. Sarna, "Epic Substratum in the Prose of Job," Journal of Biblical Literature, 76 (1967) 13–25.

N.H. Snaith, The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose.

**edited to add: Oops, cross-posted with Peter Kirby . . ., and I might as well add a pertinent reference to Kramer that was mentioned above:

S.N. Kramer, "'Man his God,'" A Sumerian Variation on the Job Motif," SVT 3 (1955) 170.

Regards,

CJD

DrJim

A long post: hope I don't bore everyone...


A lot of scholars think Job had grown over the centuries, there is little in the way of agreement.

There is a marked shift in style in Job. It starts out in prose, quickly proceeds to long poetic discourses, and at the very end, back to narrative.

Some think there are two Jobs conflated into one: the "Patient" Job described in the prose narratives at the beginning and end, and the Job who is not so patient in the poetic dialogues that make up most of the book. Others argued that the original poetic discourses were supplemented by the opening and closing narratives. On the other hand, many other critics think the dialogues are pointless without the narrative frame. There are theories that there was an original narrative of Job, which were then supplemented by adding the dialogues at a much later date.

Another issue is that a lot of scholars think the speach of Elihu in Job 37 is secondary.

The restoration of Job's fortunes at the end does sort of reassert the "traditional" claims of God's righteousness that Job's friends had claimed all along: God oly punishes the sinful. This of course, has been totally undermined by Job's own arguments.

It is possible that the ending was tacked on. Later audiences might have wanted to distance themselves from some of the implications of Job's and God's speaches, by having a traditional "Happy Ending" added. On the other hand the original scribe may have been constrained by such a convention too.

I suspect one of the main intents of the book is not the ending (original or not) but the raising of the all the difficult questions along the way. These questions are not silenced by the ending, indeed, they are only made more important. For as much as the ending might have satisfied folks with "simple piety" who are too thick to think deeply about anything (yes, the anceint world probably had as many of them as the modern world), for the deep thinkers it becomes another excuse to seriously engage the problem of theodicy.

The ending of Job only leads one back to the beginning, and the whole cycle of trying to rationalize the unfathomable: is it OK for God to slaughter a man's family only to give him back another family? Is that really compensation? And what of the injustice to the sons who died? Anyone happy that traditional wisdom is ultimately restored by taken to task over it.

I'm really coming to the conclusion that the ending of Job is really the product of some scribe successfully giving the masses what they think they want, a nice comfortable ending, while he is really providing even more "food for thought" for the theologians and philosophers of his day. The fact that the book is full of dilemmas etc., and has been argued and debated over for at least 2000 years, indicates that it is at least successful in terms of provoking discussion. I suspect that was the intent all along.


The very last verse or so of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) is similarly debated: a pious happy conclusion to a book that totally deconstructs such niceties. Which was more important to the anceint writer, the claimed end of the matter, or the wisdom one gets by be able to pick it to pieces when it eventually comes?

If one thinks the biblical books were meant to be complete doctrinal and theological statements in themselves, the endings count for a lot. Debate centers on justifing it from the rest of the book (and other biblical books).

But if one sees in this literature the tools to back up oral discussion, or to express one's realization of theological dilemmas and impasses and to preserve a tradition of deep thinking about such issues, then the whole book needs to be taken seriously.

CJD

DrJim, I am at least one poster who has yet to find you boring.

I think you hit it there, though I do think the two are interdependent.

Did you mean to write that some scholars think Elihu's entire fourth speech (36:1–37:24) is secondary, or just from 37:1 onward?

Well said. I would conclude that the book needs to be read as a whole.

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."

I think the principle behind your conclusion (i.e., the provoking of discussion), DrJim, is correct.

Regards,

CJD

DrJim

CJD,

Thanks for your comments. I was wittering on about "end of the matter" and "picking it to pieces" in view of the rest of the book: I re-read what I wrote, and I agree with you, the two are very closely related. I think I phased what I meant in a rather inexact way.

Also sorry for the muddle on the speeches of Elihu, Job 32-37. A number of scholars would strike the whole lot of them as secondary. Elihu is not mentioned earlier in the book, and Job makes no reply to him. It can also be argued that Elihu's speach interupts God's response to Job's last speach. Of course, the "slicers and dicers" don't have it all their way, and a number of critics think the whole book can be interpreted as a unity. I think so too, but that does not preclude there being additions, editorial adjustments etc.

Job is, to my mind, definitely a text to "teach" the deeper things of theology, rhetoric, poetry and much more. I also think it is an excuse for the writers to "show off". There are tons of word-plays and so forth that get intertwined with the actual points the debaters are making: they are challenging each other's prowess with words as a kind of surrogate way of winning theological points. Sort of what goes on in Internet Infidels Forums, but only with all sides in Job using sophisticated word-smithing (instead of just insults), since all the debates in Job are the words of at least one well educated scribe. Since the main audience of Job was other well educated scribes and their students, there was no room in the book for "pat answers" except to set up a straw man for a definite drubbing for all to enjoy.

One of the high points of my own education was reading Job in a Hebrew class with one of the great Christian biblical scholars, Prof. John Gibson. This was the year before he retired from the University of Edinburgh. In the first class he made declared: "There are too damn many theologians reading Job, and not enough poets!"

Gibson's take on the Bible is conservative but he isn't a literalist by any strech of the imagination. Pat answers about God by "simple Christians" never satisfied him, and neither did slagging off his beloved Bible by atheists. In between those extremes, he let everyone have their say, from the very pious readers to the bitter skeptics, and eveyone came away thinking a little harder and deeper. I suspect he understood the book of Job very well indeed.


JRL.

SLD

Thanks for all the replies guys. The issue, as I feared, is far more complicated than I was aware.

While I enjoyed CJD's response a lot, I don't see how the story makes sense with the ending we have today. Clearly you are not arguing that our misfortune's are a result of our sins, and that only the guilty suffer such iniquities as Job went through, right? I don't think it takes a degree in philosophy to know that that is bunk. Good people fail everyday. Bad people succeed and get away with fraud, robbery, murder, what not.

Not to try to jump into Job's debate with his buddies, but any tin pot philosopher can tell you his friends are hopelessly naive to think so.

God does not reward the virtuous - at least not in this life.

As a believer, I had always found that message quite comforting. It answered the question of "Why me?" Why am I not the most successful, good looking guy around? And even though I no longer count myself a Christian, I still have found great comfort in the Book of Job - and indeed why I never have become a full bore atheist. My understanding of the original ending of the Book of Job answered the Epicurean riddle (recently posed on this section). God made the universe, if you don't like it tough shit.

Now, CJD comes along and tells me no, God really does care about my material well being, and if I'm a good boy, he'll reward me here on earth out of a sense of human type justice.

Of course it doesn't make sense - we can easily see that he does not reward virtue, and only the bizarrely naive would think so.

I realize that CJD is not arguing such is the case, but I would be profoundly disappointed to think that the ancient Jewish leaders would argue such a point.

SLD

CJD

DrJim, I would like to thank you for your post. It summed up nicely much of the purpose of Job. I, too, have had a similar educational experience with a respected Hebraist, and I am a different person because of it.

Hear, Hear!

Now, SLD. Keep in mind that I was not the only poster who thought the ending was integral to the rest of the book. Further, I am not quite sure we are assuming the same meaning with regards to that ending. If you think it is "God really does care about my material well being, and if I'm a good boy, he'll reward me here on earth out of a sense of human type justice," then I disagree; I think the ending is far more along the lines of "God made the universe, if you don't like it tough shit."

The key here is how one reads the ending. Is Job restored (doubly) as a reward for something he has done? Or does the restoration come as a result of God's free and sovereign will? The ending points us to the latter. God did not have to restore him, after all "God made the universe, if you don't like it, tough shit"; if he had to restore him, then he would in effect be agreeing with Job's "friends."

One of my favorite books in the Tanak is Qoheleth (the Preacher, aka "Ecclesiastes"), for this same reason. As DrJim wrote earlier, the Preacher interjects "a pious happy conclusion to a book that totally deconstructs such niceties." If there is any proof that ancient Jewish writers did not argue such a point (that your lot in life is always a direct result of your ethical choices), it is the book of Ecclesiastes.

Why do you think Job's restoration hinged on his virtue/obedience? If the consolation of Job did indeed promote this idea, then I would agree with you, it has no place at the end of the book.

Thanks for this thoughtful discussion, SLD.

Regards,

CJD

SLD

I see a little better what you are arguing. Still, I'm not entirely convinced that the story's ending shouldn't be God's rejection of Job's demands. What's the difference between whether God does it just because he wants to and God does it because Job was so virtuous? At the very least it creates the appearance that God will reward you according to your virtue. Nor is our lot in life necessarily the result of our ethical choices. Don't get me wrong, there are indeed some punishments meted out to the unethical here on earth, but as an attorney, I far too often see the less than virtuous get away with it to believe that God interferes in the lives of men to make them better or worse depending on our level of virtue.

In any event, I'm glad you like the discussion. But I've pontificated on the meaning of Job too much. Is there any actual evidence, not just speculation on the meaning, that could lead one to conclude that the book has been modified - as there is with the ending of Mark (i.e., the lack of commentary on the ending of mark, different manuscripts, etc.)?

SLD