The Book of Job

...now browsing by tag

Review – The Book of Job: Judaism in the 2nd Century BCE by Leslie S. Wilson

Friday, September 25th, 2009

The publisher was kind enough to provide a review copy of The Book of Job: Judaism in the 2nd Century BCE: An Intertextual Reading by Leslie S. Wilson. Anyone who has frequented this blog for any amount of time will know that the Book of Job is one of my greatest interests. I was excited to receive and read the book, and I now share my thoughts with you.

Summary:
Leslie Wilson undertakes to do what many before have attempted: understand the Book of Job. Specifically he argues that the book is best understood via an intertextual reading within the cultural milieu of mid-2nd century Palestine. Job then becomes a kind of a book about messiahs. In Wilson’s own words, “[the author of the Book of Job] describes a paradox, the enigmatic conundrum articulated above. A ‘messiah’ is simply a logical impossibility…salvation at the hands of Yahweh will be apocalyptic….for humanity and indeed the deity to survive, there must be a truce,” (pg 4).

Wilson’s methodology is best conveyed, again, in his own words: “the roots of this study of the Book of Job lie in the recognition in the Prologue of a pattern of words and phrases that seemed to frequently originate from the book of Genesis.” To this end the greater part of the book is spent discussing the intertextual links between Job chapters one and two, and the Book of Genesis. Wilson proposes many such intertextual links, though to be sure he finds many links outside of Genesis, especially in the wider Pentateuch.

The second half of the book is devoted to discussing the poetic sections in rapid succession. Of these sections Wilson perhaps focuses most the the “blessing and the curse,” as well as the Elihu narrative, though all poetic sections of the book are dealt with to some degree. In the end Wilson concludes, “Scholars have traditionally perceived intertextuality as a device intended to evoke an inexact association with a person or event. Our author takes intertextuality to a new level…he applies intertextuality to entire stories in the pursuit of his agenda,” (pg 245, emphasis original). Ultimately the Book is unable to answer the question which it sets out to do, according to Wilson. Namely, the issues of a messiah and salvation are impossibilities. There must be an eternal tension between the divine and humanity. Between human and divine “wholeness” (צדק) (cf. pgs 248-249).

The Good:
First I must commend Wilson for dealing with the book as a literary unity. Too often scholars deal with the book in sections, and thereby avoid many of the difficult interpretational issues that arise. Wilson takes the bull by the horns, so to speak, and grapples with the book as a literary whole. Indeed, seeing the book as a unity is vital to his methodology and conclusions.

Second, Wilson makes an attempt at understanding what is going on with the YHWH speeches at the end of the book in light of the book as a literary unity. I fear that he goes too far, and is perhaps reading too much into the text and making the Hebrew do what it can’t do–but I need to check this a bit further. Either way, his willingness to attempt to make sense of the book as a whole deserve commendation.

Third, he has done a huge amount of searching for intertextual parallels. Although I do not find the majority of his examples convincing (see below), a number of them I do find interesting. It may be worthwhile to remove Wilson’s “code” methodology and see what may be found in some of these parallels with a less…stringent method of comparison.

The not so good:
I have already quoted Wilson as writing, “Scholars have traditionally perceived intertextuality as a device intended to evoke an inexact association with a person or event,” (pg 245). There is a reason scholars traditionally view intertextuality in this light–they are being careful. Unfortunately, Wilson goes too far in his attempt at an intertextual reading. It is simply beyond believability that the author of Job expected his readings to pick up on so much of this intertextual rendering.

Even if this were not the case, Wilson at times picks and chooses his parallels to support his arguments. A single example with suffice to illustrate my point. He picks out of the first phrase in Job 1.1 the first two words, איש היה. From here he makes the parallel with Gen 6.9, which reads: נח איש צדיק תמים היה. There are, of course, other parallels to איש היה. The most notable of these is 2 Sam. 12.1. Wilson acknowledges this in a footnote, but explains that “exact wording” is important in intertextual antecedents and since 2 Sam. 12.1 uses the plural it does not qualify. However, one must wonder how it is that “exact wording” can be so important when the Genesis passage moves the descriptors צדיק and תמים before the verb while in Job 1.1 similar words do not occur until the end of the verse, well after the verb. Indeed, צדיק does not occur at all in Job 1.1.

Sadly this same picking-and-choosing may be seen throughout Wilson’s analysis. To say that Job 1 and 2 are attempting to situate Job within the patriarchal world is one thing. To say, as Wilson does, that they are situating Job next to Abraham and Isaac, but excluding Jacob is going to far. Similarly to say that Job 1.1 is meant to recall Gen. 6.9, and thereby introduce Job as a איש צדיק when צדיק is not used in verse one and there are other parallels to איש היה is going too far.

Conclusion:
Although I have found things that make this book quite worthwhile and helpful, the constant attempts at an intertextual reading go too far. It is not that I completely doubt the validity of intertextual readings, rather I doubt that one may expect them to be so specific. The idea of uncovering a code in Job that explains these parallels is dubious at best. It also would have been good to see more pages devoted to defending Wilson’s dating of Job in the 2nd century. Much of his thesis rides on Job being extremely late (so that almost every other book in the Hebrew Bible could have been written and known for the author of Job to pull from). Unfortunately, Wilson only defends this dating at the end, based on the conclusions of his analysis. This is circular reasoning, and further detracts from the feasibility of his study. If Wilson had dealt with the dating of the book more thoroughly, I would recommend it for purchase. As it stands at present, I cannot do so.

Posted in Book Reviews, Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin | 1 Response »
Tags: Reviews, The Book of Job

Job 5.2-7: Structure

Friday, July 17th, 2009

Before one may speak of the structure of Job 5.2-7, one must establish that this passage is set off, structurally, from the surrounding verses in some way. In other words, is Job 5.2-7 a self-contained pericope? To some extent, no passage in the Book of Job is a self-contained pericope, since each passage is part of the greater whole and intricately related to its surrounding passages. Nevertheless, this passage is a unit that is distinguishable from the surrounding units.

Murphy treats this pericope as two separate units. Specifically, he associates verses one and two of chapter five as the conclusion of the preceding material (ie, chapter four).¹ This association is largely because of what he calls the “quasi-acrostic features” of verses three to seven.² However, as other commentators have pointed out, verses two to seven could be removed, leaving verses one and eight next to each other without interrupting the flow of the passage.³ Even if one does not agree that verses two to seven could be removed without interrupting the flow of the passage, verse one is clearly a framing statement, and not part of the pericope proper.⁴

Perhaps most convincing, from a structural perspective, as to why these verses should be taken as a unit is the inclusio which is formed by verse two and verses six and seven. Verse two is a proverbial saying, as are verses six and seven. In addition, verse two as well as verses six and seven begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. In fact, the entire pericope forms a kind of quasi-acrostic chiasm, to borrow Murphy’s terminology. This quasi-acrostic chiasm may be illustrated as follows:kaph, alef, yod, alef, kaph, kaph; with each of the letters beginning a verse line. The chiasm is as follows A-B-C-B’-A’-A’. The double occurrence of כי at the end of the section serves as a mechanism to close the pericope.

The passage may be outlined thusly:
I. Wisdom saying concerning the fate of the fool (v. 2)
II. Example Story (vv. 3-5)
     A. The fool is consumed (v. 3)
     B. The fate of the fool’s children (vv. 4-5)
          1. They lack a benefactor (v. 4)
          2. Their possessions are taken by the destitute (v. 5)
III. Wisdom sayings concerning the origin of trouble (vv. 6-7)
The basic structure of the wisdom sayings (vv. 2, 6-7) is synonymous parallelism, although verses six and seven are more complex than this basic structure may imply.

Verses six and seven are linked, not only in that verse seven further explains verse six, but also in certain structural elements. As has already been mentioned, both lines begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. Furthermore, stitch A of verse seven uses two of the same roots as stitch B of verse six, namely אדם and עמל. Dhorme has noted that whereas verse six uses two Qal yiqtol forms, verse seven uses two Hifil yiqtol forms.⁵ These instances, when taken together, show a strong connection between verses six and seven. How then do the two verses connect structurally? The following is an attempt at showing the logical, structural connections between the two verses:
6a -כי לא יצא מעפר און
6b -ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל
7a -כי אדם לעמל יולד
7b -ובני רשף יגביהו עוף
The logical progression from one stitch to the next may be expressed in this way: 6a and 6b conversely 7a just like 7b.

The example story (vv. 3-5) is structured as the outline above indicates. First Eliphaz states that he has seen the fool משריש, “taking root,” but that the fool’s abode was suddenly consumed. He then proceeds to speak of the negative repercussions to the fool’s children. Structurally, verse three is a synthetic parallelism, which may be more accurately termed enjambment.⁶ Stitch B of the two stitch line moves the story onward. In stitch A Eliphaz declares that he has seen the fool, whereas in stitch B he reports what took place. Verses four and five, which deal with the plight of the children of the fool, are each three stitches, as opposed to the standard two stitches in all the other verses of this pericope.

Verse four follows an interesting downward movement. Each stitch becomes shorter, which has the effect of creating a kind of falling off effect. Stitch A contains a verb, stated subject and indirect object. Stitch B contains a verb and indirect object, but lacks a stated subject. Stitch C contains a particle and a Hifil participle functioning as a predicate nominative.

Verse five has an equally fascinating internal structure. Like verse four, verse five is a tricolon line. The verse, as it has been restored, is entirely synonymous throughout the three stitches.⁷ The table below illustrates that synonymity, as well as the fascinating structural reversal in stitch C. That is, stitches A and B follow a somewhat non-standard Object-Subject-Verb word order. Stitch C, however, reverses this order, reverting to the more standard Verb-Subject-Object word order. This creates a kind of chiasm between stitches A and B on the one hand, and stitch C on the other. It is also interesting to note that stitch C replaces the expected yiqtol form with a weqatal form.

(C)יאכל	(B)רעב	(A)אשר קצרו	Stitch A
(C’)יקחה	(B’)תנים	(A’)ואלם	Stitch B
(A”)חילם	(B”)צמאים	(C”)ושאף	Stitch C

What does this structure reveal about the verse? Does it impact the meaning? Perhaps not in any non-obvious way. The reversal of word order in the final stitch is likely a way of indicating the end of the line and, possibly, the end of the discussion of the fool’s children, or even the entire example story. In this way it is a mechanism to show closure, not dissimilar to verses six and seven starting with kaph. The change from yiqtol verbal forms to a weqatal form likely serves the same purpose. Notice also that stitch C switches to a plural subject, whereas the other stitches have had collective singulars.

In summary, there are several major structural patterns and many minor ones in this passage. The major structural patterns, in order of priority, are 1) the inclusio formed by wisdom sayings at the beginning and end of the pericope; 2) the tricolon structure of verses four and five; and 3) the synonymous parallelism within verse five. The inclusio clearly establishes the limits of the passage, while the tricolon structure in verses four and five tie together the bulk of the example story, specifically the report of the fate of the fool’s children. Finally, the synonymous parallelism in verse five, aside from representing a stroke of artistic genius, serves as a mechanism for closing the example story before moving on to the final wisdom saying.

There are also many minor structural patterns which have been mentioned. The two that are likely deliberate, and therefore of interest to one studying the passage, are 1) the quasi-acrostic pattern and 2) the structure of verses six and seven. The first is likely deliberate since it serves to both set off this section from the surrounding sections, as well as indicate the close of the section by two successive lines beginning with kaph. It also ties the entire passage together. The second is important since one might argue that verses six and seven are the end towards which the entire pericope–perhaps even the entirety of Eliphaz’ first speech so far–points.

Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 23-24. ↩
Ibid., 24. ↩
cf Driver and Gray, The Book of Job, 48. ↩
cf Habel, The Book of Job, 118-119. ↩
Dhorme, Job, 61-62. Note that verse seven does not contain two Hifil verbal forms in the MT, but rather only contains such when the corrupted pointing of the MT has been corrected. See my earlier post, “Job 5.2-7: Establishing the Text” ↩
cf Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 130. ↩
For the restoration, see the earlier post in this series, “Job 5.2-7: Establishing the Text” ↩

Posted in Hebrew, Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin | 2 Responses »
Tags: Job 5.2-7, Structure, The Book of Job

Job 5.2-7: Forms, Part 2

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

Earlier posts in this series are available here, here, here and here.

In a previous post I discussed that verse two is a fairly straight forward distitch wisdom saying. Specifically this saying is concerned with the fate of the fool. Verses six and seven are also wisdom sayings. Although verse six could stand alone, verse seven appears to be predicated upon verse six. The two verses together form a quatrain, verse six with a quasi-chiastic structure that is carried on in stitch A of verse seven. It is now time to turn to the interior of this pericope, verses three to five.

This section is the most difficult to identify within the pericope. On the one hand one might take it as an admonition to avoid foolishness, since the fool is consumed. However, there is never an actual admonition to turn from being a fool. The section might also be taken as a paranesis, or in layman’s terms, “an address to an individual (or group) that seeks to persuade with reference to a goal.”¹ However, again there is no goal that is specified in the text.

Murphy classifies this as an “example story.”² Norman Habel takes these verses as an attempt “to substantiate the proverb he quotes[in verse 2] by citing his personal experience of fallen fools.”³ This appears to agree with Murphy’s classification of these verses as an example story, which the latter defines as, “a genre that provides a concrete example as an illustration of a point that an author…is making.”⁴ Interestingly, Habel associates these verses with the wisdom saying in verse two, while Murphy associates them with the wisdom sayings in verses six and seven. ⁵

Of course, the whole point of working to establish the various forms used in a passage is to compare the use of those forms in the present passage to their use in other passages. What light might similar pericopes shed on Job 5.3-5? Proverbs 7.6ff is the quintessential example story within the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible. It is, in every way, more involved than the comparatively laconic example story found in the present pericope. Even so, the stories are introduced similarly with a form of ראה followed by the story proper. Beyond this there are no clear similarities in form between the two passages. The Proverbs passage is longer, and contains embedded speech. It, furthermore, has the feel of a narrative, whereas the passage in Job has the feel of a report.

Using a form of ראה to introduce a topic is also used in Qohelet (cf. Qohelet 3.16; 6.1). There is an important difference between the use here and in Proverbs 7 on the one hand, and the use in Qohelet on the other. In the latter אני ראיתי is used to introduce a general truth that the sage has observed, whereas in Job the same phrase is used to introduce a particular–although possibly(probably) fictionalized–story.

Identifying these verses as an example story form is not so much helpful in finding exact parallels as much as it is helpful in more clearly establishing the purpose and function of the verses. These three verses serve as an example of the fool who is destroyed, not randomly, but because he is a fool. In this way, it serves to illustrate the point which Eliphaz is striving to make in much the same way that a modern member of the clergy might use a story from her own life to illustrate a point.

Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 180. ↩
Ibid., 24 ↩
Habel, The Book of Job, 130. ↩
Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 176. ↩
cf Ibid., 24 and Habel, The Book of Job, 130. I will discuss my own thoughts in regards to this in a subsequent post. In the meantime, I’d love to hear how others view the internal section of the poem. ↩

Posted in Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin, Wisdom Literature | No Responses »
Tags: example story, Job 5.2-7, The Book of Job

Job 5.2-7: Forms, Part 1

Monday, July 6th, 2009

Earlier posts in this series may be found here, here and here. Of particular interest is this post, since it contains the Hebrew text (see here for an English translation) of Job 5.2-7 with which I am working. In this post, I intend to survey the literary forms which are used in Job 5.2-7. The particular forms have some bearing on the structure of the passage, which will be discussed in a future post.

Establishing the precise forms which occur in Job 5.2-7 is not an easy task.¹ Clearly verse two is a wisdom saying. Verses six and seven also appear to be a wisdom saying, though whether a single saying or two juxtaposed sayings is a more complex question to answer. The interior of the section is more difficult to categorize. It has certain affinities with several forms, which will be discussed below.

The pericope with which this paper is concerned (Job 5.2-7) is found in the first cycle of speeches, in Eliphaz’ first speech. Most scholars would outline the Book of Job thusly:²
I. Prologue (Chapters 1-2)
II. Dialog (Chapters 3-27)
    A. First Cycle (Chapters 3-14)
    B. Second Cycle (Chapters 15-21)
    C. Third Cycle (22-27)
III. Monologue (Chapters 28-42)
    A. Job (Chapters 28-31)
    B. Elihu (Chapters 32-37)
    C. God (Chapters 38-41)
IV. Epilogue (Chapter 42)
Murphy labels Eliphaz’ first speech as a disputation speech.³ Regarding Job 5.2-7 he says only that “wisdom forms prevail.”⁴

Verse two is a simple, bicolon wisdom saying. Murphy defines a wisdom saying as “a didactic saying, based on experience and/or tradition that inculcates some value or lesson.”⁵ In this case, it would appear that the saying is based on both tradition and experience, as the discussion of verses three to five (in the next post in this series) will make clear. The bicolon or distitch proverb is among the most common in the Book of Proverbs.⁶ The Book of Job, although it favors longer speeches, still makes use of this basic(?) proverbial form. This is also a very common pattern in Egyptian literature. In this light, Job 5.2 falls well within a common proverbial form attested in both the Bible and ancient near east.

Specifically, Job 5.2 is a wisdom saying that deals with the fate of the fool. Such sayings are very common in the book of Proverbs. Proverbs 17.20 is an example:
      He who has a crooked heart finds no good.
      He who is perverted in his language falls into evil.
There are also wisdom saying which deal with the fate of the wise. In form these sayings are identical to the wisdom sayings which deals with the fate of the fool. In content, however, they are quite different. Proverbs 11.25 is an example:
      The generous man will be made fat
      he who waters will himself be watered
As can be seen from these two examples, as well as Job 5.2, this type of wisdom saying follows the form: A-B-C-A’-B’-C’, where A’, B’ and C’ are synonymous with A, B and C. This can be easily illustrated with Job 5.2:
      For anger (A) slays (B) the fool (C)
      and envy (A’) kills (B’) the simple (C’)
Interestingly, none of the verses cited are chiastic.⁷

Job 5.6-7 likewise comprise a wisdom saying, or possibly two such sayings that have been juxtaposed to further drive home the point which Eliphaz is seeking to make; namely that human beings bring about their own downfall because of sin. Morris Jastrow agrees with the idea of both verses six and seven being proverbial sayings. However, he incorrectly removes them from the text as the later additions of “a pious commentator.”⁸ Murphy appears to take them as separate when he calls verses six and seven “wisdom sayings,” but he does not discuss this at any length. ⁹ Verse six is a wisdom saying which is similar to verse two above, though not dealing with the fate of any particular group. Rather it is a simple statement that trouble does not come from nowhere. It is possible that it could stand alone and be entirely understandable. Verse seven, on the other hand, appears to require some explanation beyond itself. This may be evidence that the author of Job knew the saying reproduced in verse six, and so created verse seven. However, the exact process that lead to the creation of the extant text is impossible to determine for certain–and even if it were not so, the exact development is not necessary to ascertain.

Verses six and seven, when taken together, as they are obviously meant to be in the present passage, form a quatrain. Verse six is quasi-chiastic, with an A-B-C-B’-A’-C’ structure:

כי לא יצא מעפר און
ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל

Verse seven picks up from verse six, using some of the same vocabulary (עמל), and then furthers the first stitch in the second. Stitches A and B of verse seven do not represent a synonymous parallelism, but rather a so-called synthetic parallelism.¹⁰

The form of the internal portion of Job 5.2-7 will be dealt with in my next post on the topic.

cf. Norman Habel, The Book of Job. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 42. ↩
The specifics of this outline are debated by scholars. See Andersen, Job, 20-23; Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 15; Habel, The Book of Job, 35-40 for a representative sample. ↩
Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 24. ↩
Ibid. ↩
Ibid., 184 ↩
Garrett, Proverbs, 33. ↩
The sample is far to small to make any sweeping judgment regarding the form, however I’m quite curious to see if wisdom sayings regarding the fate of the wise/fool hold to this pattern over a larger sampling of verses. It is entirely possible that such a study have been done and I haven’t come across it yet. Anyone know of such a study? ↩
Morris Jastrow, The Book of Job (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1920), 214. ↩
Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 24. ↩
See the discussion of Parallelism in Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (New York: T&T Clark, 2001), 114ff. I will also discuss the relation of verse six to verse seven in a subsequent post. ↩

Posted in Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin, Wisdom Literature | No Responses »
Tags: chiasm, Job 5.2-7, proverbial forms, The Book of Job

Job 5.2-7: A Rough English Translation

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

It has occurred to me that, for those not well versed in Hebrew, an English translation of Job 5.2-7 may be helpful in following the posts I have been making. To that end I provide a rough translation here. For the reconstructed Hebrew text from which this translation has been made, go here. The raised numbers refer to footnotes; they are not verse numbers. I apologize, in advance, for the rather lengthy explanatory notes. If nothing else the notes prove that all translation is interpretation. As always, comments are welcome.

Job 5.2-7
Surely¹ anger slays the fool²
and envy kills the simple³

As for me,⁴ I have seen the fool taking root
but suddenly his abode was consumed!

His children⁵ are far from deliverance
⁶They are crushed in the gate
There is not a rescuer

What they harvested the hungry will eat
Their wealth the starving will take
The thirsty will pursue⁷ their possessions

For sorrow⁸ does not come from the dust
and trouble does not sprout from the ground

Rather,⁹ humanity¹⁰ gives birth to trouble
as the sons of Resheph¹¹ fly high.

An example of the asseverative כי. See GKC §159ee, GBHS §4.3.4i. ↩
ל is used here to mark the direct object, a well attested phenomenon. ↩
The word order of both lines of verse two has been rearranged in order to produce more natural English. ↩
“As for me” translates the Hebrew אני. This translation was chosen primarily to ensure that the אני was represented in the translation. Secondarily, it serves to heighten the shift of focus which begins in verse three. Verse two is a proverbial saying, whereas verse three begins to relate Eliphaz’ personal experience confirming verse two. ↩
Translating בניו as “his children.” This seems clearly to be the sense of the passage, as it is unlikely that Eliphaz has only the male heirs of the fool in mind. The entire thrust of the passage is that the fool gets his comeuppance, the fact that his children suffer is part of this. ↩
The conjunction ו has been omitted. Likewise throughout. ↩
In this case the parallel yiqtol forms in the first two stitches of verse five make clear that the final verbal form ought to be taken as a weqatal, regardless of the Masoretic accentuation. ↩
און, in this passage, is in parallel to, and more or less synonymous with, עמל. ↩
An example of the adversative use of כי. See GKC §163a-b, Williams §447 and JM §172c. ↩
There are three possible translations for אדם which fit the context to varying degrees. The first is a basic rendering of the word as “a man.” This is certainly possible, and fits the context well. The second possibility is to translate אדם as “mankind” or “humanity.” This is quite similar to the first option, though perhaps somewhat more abstract. The final possibility is to take אדם as a proper name, and therefore to translate it as “Adam.” Of the three, this option fits the context the least, unless one were to take the verb as a preterite of some kind and translate “Rather, Adam gave birth to trouble.” Although this rendering may be possible grammatically, it does not appear to fit the context as well as the other options. Of those two options, the second has been chosen because it communicates best the crux of the proverb–human beings bring about their own trouble, it is not thrust upon them as if it were a plant growing from the ground. ↩
The meaning of this phrase is difficult to ascertain with confidence. The LXX translator has chosen to translate the phrase as νεοσσοι γυπος (See Dhorme, Job, 61-62 for a discussion of the merits of taking בני רשף as a type of bird, probably an eagle). Modern translations normally see this phrase as some kind of metaphorical way of saying “sparks” (ie, “sons of flame”). However, there was a god named Resheph in the ancient near east, and it may well be that here there is a reference to him. David Clines has the right of it when he says, “since in Joban language the deity Death (Mot) has a ‘firstborn’ (18:13)…who are underworld demons, it is entirely likely that the ‘sons of Resheph’ had the same function,” (Clines, Job, 142). The sons of Resheph then are some kind of flying supernatural beings (demons? cf Targum Job). In order to remain as true to the original Hebrew as possible, while still making clear the reference to the ancient deity, the reading “sons of Resheph” has been preferred. ↩

Posted in Hebrew, Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin | No Responses »
Tags: Job 5.2-7, The Book of Job, translation

Job 5.2-7: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels

Friday, June 12th, 2009

The first post in this series is available here. The present post will continue the series by surveying several ancient near eastern parallels to the Book of Job. It will necessarily deal more with the Book of Job as a whole than with Job 5.2-7 specifically.

The Book of Job is not an unique example of disputation literature in the ancient near east. There are several works which fall into the category of disputation literature from the ancient world. Three examples will be briefly surveyed, the first is The Babylonian Theodicy, the second is The Dispute between a Man and his Ba, an Egyptian composition, while the third is also from Egypt and entitled The Protest of the Eloquent Peasant.¹

The Babylonian Theodicy has several similarities to the Book of Job, though these similarities are not so striking as to require literary dependence of the latter on the former.² The text revolves around the dispute between a sufferer and his friend. This is an obvious similarity between The Babylonian Theodicy and the Book of Job, though Job disputes with three friends, rather than one. The friend argues for the traditional understanding of things while the sufferer, much like Job, pushes out to the fringes, and argues that traditional explanations do not provide answers. One major difference between the Book of Job and the Babylonian Theodicy is that in the latter there is a “politeness which the two speakers maintain to the end.”³ In Job, Eliphaz’ first speech is moderate–even polite–but after he concludes his initial oration things quickly deteriorate. On the other hand the end of the Babylonian text, as Pope has noted, is somewhat perplexing.⁴

Perhaps the most striking similarity between these two texts is the friends’ persistent contention that the doctrine of retribution works. Lambert explains that on several occasions the friend defends the doctrine of retribution when he writes, “the friend repeats that in the end they [the unrighteous] are discomfited.”⁵ Of course, this is Eliphaz’ point in Job 5.2-7. In fact, the friend’s response in lines 235-242 of The Babylonian Theodicy has certain thematic similarities to Eliphaz’ first speech. Specifically, lines 237-238 appear to be a proverbial saying of some type.⁶ Eliphaz makes use of such sayings throughout his first speech, but especially in 5.2 and 5.6-7. In addition, the friend’s admonition in line 239 that the sufferer “seek the will of the god” is vaguely reminiscent of Eliphaz’ admonition in Job 5.8, “but as for me, I would seek God.”

The Egyptian story known as The Dispute between a Man and His Ba has similarities with both the biblical books of Job and Qohelet.⁷ In the words of Francis Andersen, when speaking about this Egyptian story, “a poignant longing for death is expressed in words which invite comparison with chapter 3 of Job. But here the similarity ends.”⁸ Job does not, however, cease longing for death after chapter three. Even so, the similarities between the two works are limited to the desire for death. Because of this the words of the man in the story have no direct bearing on the passage at hand. The man’s Ba, on the other hand, encourages the enjoyment of life.⁹ This appears to have more in common with the central sections of Qohelet, in which the reader is implored to enjoy life.

The Egyptian Protest of the Eloquent Peasant has several similarities with the biblical Book of Job. The story goes as follows: a peasant is bringing certain items to market. A rival robs him in a way so as to make his robbery seem legitimate. The peasant pleads with the magistrate that his goods be returned. After giving nine soliloquies the peasant receives his possessions back, as well as the entirety of the possessions of the one who robbed him. Pope notes the following, “the text is introduced by a prose prologue and epilogue…the central portion of the text is composed of…semipoetic appeals for justice.”¹⁰ The form is strikingly similar to Job, though there are narrative interludes between the speeches that serve to move the story along to a greater extent than the short prose portions embedded within the poetry of Job (cf. Job 31.40; 32.1-6; 38.1; 40.3, 6; 42.1). Setting aside for the moment the difference in the quantity of prose between the two works, the general form of Prose-Poetry-Prose is identical. The prologue for each even begins similarly, with the information that “there was a man named X.” Furthermore, the location of said man is specified (cf Job 1.1). There are major differences between the texts as well. An obvious, though still important, difference is that the eloquent peasant addresses his complaint to a human judge, whereas Job demands that he be allowed to plead his case before a divine judge. As Andersen has noted, the speeches made by the peasant are entirely concerned with human justice. ¹¹ Job, on the other hand, is concerned with divine justice. Furthermore, the eloquent peasant does not so much doubt the possibility of receiving justice, as feel the need to argue in order to receive said justice.

In summary, the three texts from the ancient near east which have been examined, The Babylonian Theodicy, The Dispute of a Man with His Ba, and The Protest of the Eloquent Peasant each provide certain similarities with the Book of Job. None of these similarities are great enough to suggest literary dependence, but they do serve to illustrate the fact that the author(s) of Job was not the only one struggling with the issues raised by belief in a strict doctrine of retribution. Furthermore, this confirms that the genre of disputation literature was well known in the ancient near east, and in use by scribes in dealing with difficult issues that challenged the status quo.

One may find conspicuously absent from this list the Babylonian Ludlul bel Nemeqi. However, this Babylonian composition has more in common with certain praise Psalms which recount evil, as well as the deliverance from said evil. Ludlul is not a dialog or dispute, but rather a hymn of praise to one’s god. The similarities it has with the Book of Job are primarily in that the speaker of the poem has suffered greatly. However, whereas Job is currently suffering (within the story), the speaker in the poem has come through his suffering and now praises Marduk. ↩
N.B. Pope allows that it is “quite possible” that the author of Job had “some acquaintance…with this composition.” (Pope, Job, LXII) Although certainly possible, there is no way to prove this acquaintance. Some of the ideas are the same, but there is no evidence of direct literary borrowing. ↩
W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns: 1996), 64. ↩
Pope, Job, LXII. Specifically, Pope is perplexed that the somewhat pessimistic ending is “allowed to stand.” However, if one were to accept Matityahu Tsevat’s rubric for understanding the Book of Job (see Matityahu Tsevat, The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies, (New York: Ktav, 1980), 36), it may allow some light to be shed on the matter. Namely that whereas in the end the Book of Job retains Job’s piety and God’s justice but gives up the doctrine of retribution, the Babylonian Theodicy maintains the sufferers innocence and the doctrine of retribution, while giving up the idea of just god(s). ↩
Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 64. ↩
See Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 85. ↩
S.A. Nigosian, From Ancient Writings to Sacred Texts, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 147. ↩
Andersen, Job, 31. ↩
Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). ↩
Pope, Job, LII. ↩
Andersen, Job, 30. ↩

Posted in Ancient Near East, Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin | 1 Response »
Tags: Babylonian Theodicy, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Dispute of a Man with his Ba, Egyptian Wisdom Literature, Job 5.2-7, Protest of the Eloquent Peasant, The Book of Job

Job 5.2-7: Establishing the Text

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

Over the past semester I have done extensive work in Job 5.2-7. I’ve decided that, rather than allow this work to sit on my hard drive, I would make a series of posts on my blog. I’d love comments and criticisms of the work. The first post will deal with establishing the Hebrew text for Job 5.2-7. I’m not yet overly experienced in regards to textual criticism, so take this with a grain of salt.

I have reconstructed the text as follows:

v2 – כי לאויל יהרג כעש
ופתה תמית קנאה
v3 – אני ראיתי אויל משריש
ואכל^a נוהו פתאם
v4 – ירחקו בניו מישע
^aוידכא ובשער^a
ואין מציל
v5 – אשר קצרו^a רעב^b יאכל
^cואלם צנים יקחה^c
ושאף^d צמאים^e חילם
v6 – כי לא יצא מעפר און
ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל
v7 – כי־אדם לעמל יולד^a
ובני־רשף יגביהו עוף

3a
Reading, with LXX, a passive form (Pual) of אכל. The MT has Eliphaz cursing the house of the fool. This hardly seems to coincide with Eliphaz’ point, which is that the fool naturally comes to ruin. The contention of some scholars that Eliphaz is merely declaring the fool’s dwelling accursed is not convincing.¹ The Greek instead has a passive form of Βιβρωσκω, which almost exclusively translates אכל in the LXX.² A simple statement by Eliphaz, “his abode was devoured,” seems more in keeping with his point. Furthermore, the pointing of the MT yields the following parsing: Qal Yiqtol 1cs of נקב “to curse.” This meaning only occurs in a few other places in Scripture for this word, and others suggest a mispointing in the MT and instead parse as קבב “to curse”.³ Other consonantal emendations have been proposed, but they lack the corroborating evidence of extant manuscripts. It seems most prudent to accept the reading of the LXX.

4a
This phrase is represented oddly in the LXX. It would appear that the translators had either a) a different Hebrew text in front of them or b) did not entirely understand the Hebrew words which they were reading. דכא is translated by κολαβρισθειησαν, which is used only once in the entire LXX, it is not the word which normally translates דכא. Additionally, θυραις translates שער in this passage when it normally translates פתח or דלת. The Greek also contains a plus, ησσονων, as compared to the MT.
In the reconstructed text above, the reading of MT has been retained. The primary reasoning for this is that it is difficult to ascertain with certainty whether the Greek reading or the reading in the MT represents the more ancient form of the text. Both readings make sense and fit the context well. Other emendations are possible, notably reading שׂער “storm” for שׁער “gate,” though there is no hard evidence to support such an emendation.⁴

5a
Contra MT, which has קצירו, the noun with object suffix. The reconstruction above follows the LXX which has a plural verbal form. The reading of the LXX has been preferred because, when taken with the other emendations in verse five (see below, this section), it restores the amazing parallelism which the original poet no doubt intended. In addition, as Dhorme has observed, after verse three the focus shifts from the fool to the children of the fool.⁵ The suffix on חילם confirms this. The reading of the LXX is consistent with this, whereas the reading of the MT requires the antecedent of the object suffix on קצירו to be the fool from verse three.

5b
The LXX has δικαιοι for the MT’s רעב. According to Hatch and Redpath, no form of δικαιος is ever used to translate רעב in any passage other than Job 5. This begs the question of whether or not the LXX is witness to a different Hebrew Vorlage. It seems more likely, however, that the LXX is simply interpreting the hungry as those who are righteous. Because of this the reading of the MT has been retained.

5c-c
The MT reads ואל־מצנים יקחהו, a literal translation of which makes little sense. It literally reads, “and to from thorns he takes it.” The emendation adopted above does not require any change in consonants, and yet restores a striking parallelism between this stitch and the rest of the verse. Most likely, adverse copying conditions resulted in the mis-division of words at some early stage of the transmission of the text. Alternatively, as Robert Gordis proposes, the rarity of the two words (אול and צנם) “led to an erroneous word division.”⁶ The exact mechanism for the mis-division is superfluous to the main point–the words were mis-divided. Dividing the words instead as ואלם צנים יקחה yields the translation, “their wealth the shriveled takes.”

5d
Some have suggested that the verb should be emended to a plural form.⁷ This is unnecessary since a singular verb may take a plural subject.

5e
The MT has צמים which yields a difficult reading in this context. The word has been emended above to read צמאים based on Aquila, Symmachus, the Peshitta and the Vulgate. In addition to the evidence from the above cited versions, the term צמאים is in parallel to רעב in the first stitch and צנים in the second stitch, as it has been emended above. It is easy to see how the error in MT could have resulted from a scribe incorrectly hearingצמאים as צמים. Furthermore, although it is difficult to know whether the corruption in stitch b or in stitch c is the older corruption, it is possible that a scribe, having just read צנים in stitch b (assuming that stitch be had not already been mis-divided) would make the mistake of writing צמים in stitch c. This last emendation in verse five fully restores the brilliant original parallelism in the triplet. As Gordis has pointed out, “the poet uses his extraordinarily rich vocabulary in order to find two synonyms for ra’ev.” ⁸

7a
The Masoretes pointed this verb as a Pual Qatal (יוּלָּד). However, it is difficult to see how this pointing makes sense in the context. Eliphaz’ entire point has been that evil comes upon people for disobedience and foolishness. He states it clearly in verse six when he says לא יצא מעפר און. It makes no sense that Eliphaz would then turn around and declare that humanity was born for trouble.⁹ The declaration in verse seven, as preserved in MT, is antithetical to Eliphaz’ entire point. A simple repointing as a Hifil Yiqtol (יוֹלִד) restores the essential agreement between verses six and seven. As David Clines has correctly opined, “the best way of connecting v 6…with v 7 is to see v 7 as the real origin of suffering.” ¹⁰

Upcoming posts will deal with the passage’s form and structure, literary genre, certain interesting lexical and grammatical issues, as well as anything else I might find fascinating and worthwhile.

See, for instance, Robert Gordis, The Book of Job (New York: JTS Press, 1978), 52-53. ↩
cf. Hatch and Redpath ↩
cf. David J.A. Clines, Job, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1989), 115 ↩
Francis I. Andersen, Job, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic 2008), 127. ↩
E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, (trans. Harold Knight; Camden, NJ: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967), 59. ↩
Gordis, The Book of Job, 54. ↩
cf BHS, and Clines, Job, 116. ↩
Gordis, The Book of Job, 54. ↩
There is, however, the possibility of correcting this inconsistency in a different way. Marvin Pope (Job, Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 40, 42) seems to suggest that one revocalize the two לֹא in verse six as לֻא, that is the asseverative particle. Habel (The Book of Job, Old Testament Library, (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1985), 117) follows the same reasoning, citing Pope. Although this is certainly a possibility, it still seems more in keeping with the entirety of what Eliphaz says within the pericope to accept verse six as vocalized in MT and revocalize the first verb in verse seven. ↩
Clines, Job, 116. ↩

Posted in Hebrew, Hebrew Bible, Posts by Calvin | 4 Responses »
Tags: Eliphaz, Job 5.2-7, Textual Criticism, The Book of Job

The Floppy Hat

The journey of two people towards PhDs and beyond