Scholars assert that the book of Job bristles with problems of textual integrity.[1] A discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article; instead our argument is that the textual problems highlighted by scholars can be resolved with a new kind of reading for the book, one that sets the book in a political and military context in dialogue with the 8c. prophets.
Some of the leading compositional issues include,
- The speeches appear to be in three cycles with a definite pattern (Eliphaz, Job, Bildad, Job, Zophar, Job, etc.), except that in the “third cycle” the pattern breaks down; Bildad’s speech is much shorter and Zophar does not have a speech. This has led scholars to propose that the text is disturbed and they offer reconstructions that restore the pattern. Some of the things that Job says in the third cycle are taken to represent the views of the friends, and this is where scholars reconstruct Zophar’s and Bildad’s third speeches.[2]
For example, D. J. A. Clines argues, following other scholars, that Job 26:5-14 belongs to Bildad’s third speech and that Job 27:13-28:28 is Zophar’s missing third speech.[3] However, we would argue that the text has not been disturbed and instead follow the treatment of F. I. Andersen[4] in regarding Job as speaking all of Job 26-27. This means that there is no third speech for Zophar and Bildad’s “speech” is just an invited interruption by Job, who says, “If it is not so, who will prove me a liar, and show that there is nothing in what I say?” (Job 24:25).
If Zophar’s speech is absent, and Bildad’s speech is more of an interruption, and the text is not disturbed, then the proposal that there are three cycles of speeches is severely weakened. Instead, it needs to be recognized that there are only two cycles of speeches, which are concluded by Eliphaz summarizing the friends’ position in Job 22:
J / E:J:B:J:Z:J / E:J:B:J:Z:J /E
This would make Eliphaz’ speech the structural counterpart to Job’s opening speech with both standing outside the two cycles. Eliphaz’ last speech brings to a close the “first day” of speeches, and the next day begins with Job, saying, “Today also my complaint is bitter” (Job 23:2).[5] D. Wolfers’ conclusion is that “it is impossible to construct from any extant material a Third Cycle which is thematically consistent in the way that the first and second cycles are”.[6]
We see nothing convincing in the reconstructions of scholars for three cycles, and there is value in providing a final form reading.[7]
- There is a poem about Wisdom in the middle of the book (Job 28), which is placed into the mouth of Job. Its character has led scholars to observe that it is out of keeping with the tenor of Job’s remarks; it is often interpreted as an interpolation by the author or a later hand. We regard it is a partial digression spoken by Job, whom the author states “continues” his parable in Job 29:1.
- Elihu’s speeches are the subject of dispute. Scholars observe that he is not mentioned in the prologue or epilogue, and that Job does not reply to him. Some scholars argue that he is a later addition to the book, e.g. E. H. Dhorme.[8] We follow R. Gordis[9] and others and treat Elihu as integral to the book’s design.
- Another area of dispute is how the narrative envelope and the dialogue relate to each other. Reading the dialogue without the scene setting of the prologue engenders the impression that Job’s situation is much worse; there are social, military and political aspects to his circumstances as well as his physical affliction. The Hebrew of the prologue is different to that of the dialogue. The consensus of scholarship is that the prologue reflects an ancient folklore, which has been adapted to exist with the poem.
Nevertheless, the narrative envelope and the dialogues are linked in such a way that indicates that the book was intended to be read as a unity. We do not need to split the two types of material and assign different authors and a different purpose. They are linked by the way the action flows into the dialogues. Thus the friends come and comfort Job; when they finish speaking, Elihu is introduced; God comes and gives Job an answer, and on the basis of this answer instructs Job to sacrifice for his friends at the close of the book. In addition, there are multiple intertextual links between all the speeches which lend cohesion to the book.[10]
Thus, we treat the book as a literary unit. This takes the book “as is” and places issues of composition to one side.[11] We assume that the prologue/epilogue, the “wisdom poem” of Job 28, the currently assigned speeches of Job and the friends, God’s speeches, and Elihu’s speeches, are all an integral part of the book for the purposes of our analysis. Our view is that the book has an identifiable author of both the narrative sections and the poetic dialogues, including those of Elihu.
Nothing in scholarship invalidates such a reading, but to defend its unity would require a different sort of commentary to those currently available. Thus, while it may be true to observe that there is a difference in style and language in the Hebrew of Elihu’s speeches compared to those of the three friends, (there are more Aramaisms), or in the Wisdom Poem of Job 28, or in God’s speeches, such differences do not have to imply different authors of these parts; it could be that an author worked on the book at different times in his life, in different locales, or chose different styles and a different vocabulary for the different voices. If we can present a successful reading of the whole book, then this is an argument for the integral unity of the book.
A. Newsom offers a recent discussion of the question of composition, unity, and genre in The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations.[12] She argues that those who assert the unity of the book have trouble offering a convincing explanation of the genre of the book, given the disparity between the prologue/epilogue and the dialogue. Our solution to this challenge is to say that the unity of the prologue/epilogue with the dialogue is achieved by there being a parabolic level of meaning in the prologue, which coheres with the political/military concerns of the dialogue. The genre of Job is therefore unique;[13] but for want of a definition, we would propose that it is a work of the prophetic imagination. It is a dramatized lament with associated consolation; it is a disputation about the causes, the progress, and the resolution of the political and military situation of “Job”. It is a work of “providential wisdom”—the wisdom of God’s dealings with his covenant people and the “ideal” righteous Davidic king.[14]
Scholarship is motivated by five factors when it argues for a complex history of composition of Job involving, first, an oral folktale, then an original author of a shortened version of the book and, finally, later editors.[15]
1) Scholars do not see how the MT makes sense; they do not see how certain verses are consistent or coherent with surrounding material, and so they propose amendments to the text, reassign verses to different speakers, or re-order material. Such “errors” are assigned to editors and the vagaries of transmission.
2) Scholars perceive that the poetic structures of some verses are not “right” (according to some poetic theory) and so they suggest that the text has been corrupted or intentionally changed, and they propose corrective amendments to the text. Their amendments hypothesize about editorial activity, and in effect they put forward new versions of the poem of Job to that recorded in the MT.
3) Scholars do not understand the poetic figures. It is often the case that the author of Job puts together words, each of which has a conventional meaning outside Job, but when put together produce an apparently very odd figure; commentators often amend the Hebrew or ignore the pattern of usage outside Job and propose a unique sense for a constituent word in Job; they often rely on comparative philology for these proposals.
4) Fourthly, because of difficulty in comprehending the sense of the MT, scholars argue that text makes better sense if it is adjusted in respect of the separation of words, vocalization, obvious omissions, and scribal errors.[16]
5) Finally, scholars propose amendments to the text that are consistent with their overall reading of the book. Thus deletions and alterations may be proposed that make a speech represent preconceived ideas about what a speaker should be saying if he is to be a consistent character; or such changes may be proposed in order to fit a theory about the development of a theme.
In respect of these amendments, Pope notes that “the Masoretic Hebrew remains our primary source for the Book of Job, even though in many places the text is corrupt or obscure and has to be emended in order to yield any acceptable sense”.[17] But he warns, “…the text has certainly been tampered with before and has suffered greatly in transmission. It would, however, be extremely naïve for anyone to place too much confidence in any of the ingenious and learned textual restorations and emendations contained in the commentaries and the extensive periodical literature on Job”.[18]
The assessment of claims that the text of Job is corrupt depends on how the book is read and a view of its genre. Our argument is that if the book is read in connection with the Prophets and in a political and military setting, then the poetic forms of the existing text can be read as part of a complete design in which the problem of innocent suffering is discussed in relation to the suffering of the ideal Davidic king of the covenant people.
[1] For example, see the overview of opinion in O. Eissfeldt, Introduction to the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969), 460-462.
[2] However, it is worth noting that the so-called disturbed third cycle is present in its present form in the Targum fragments discovered at Qumran, indicating that the current composition is as old as the 2c.
[3] D. J. A. Clines, “The Arguments of Job’s Three Friends”, in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature (eds., D. J. A. Clines, D. M. Gunn, and A. Hauser; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 199-214 (208). Clines only canvasses one proposal about the disturbance of the text and notes that there are other suggestions. A convenient list of 24 different reconstructions is given in N. H. Snaith, The Book of Job (London: SCM Press, 1968), Appendix 1.
[4] F. I. Andersen, Job (Tyndale; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976), 214-19.
[5] This two-cycle approach to Job is supported by D. Wolfers, Deep Things out of Darkness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 225-255 and his “The Speech-Cycles in the Book of Job” VT 43 (1993): 385-402.
[6] Deep Things, 254-255.
[7] For example, see the introduction to Job in B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1979), 542.
[8] E. Dhorme, Job (trans. H. Knight; London: Nelson, 1967), cv. One argument is that the presence of Aramaic words is proportionately greater in Elihu’s speeches suggesting greater influence of that language. Aramaic was rapidly becoming the lingua franca throughout the eighth century, and so the different quantity of Aramaisms in Elihu’s speeches could suggest a later addition by the original author; and it is also likely the reason for the Aramaisms is to be found in the distinctive nature of Elihu’s argument.
[9] R. Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 106-109.
[10] The clearest advocate of this position is that of N. C. Habel, The Book of Job (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 25-29.
[11] Scholars disagree on the plausibility of amendments to the text. For a sceptical review see Gordis, The Book of God, 17-18. Others who defend the unity of the book and a single “author” include the heavyweight commentary by Dhorme, Job, lxxxv, and the popular commentary by Anderson, Job, 41-55.
[12] C. A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), ch. 1. Newsom says that, “the multigeneric nature of the book of Job does not lend itself readily to… [a]focus on unity”, 8. However, our counter-argument is that the elements in the prologue/epilogue direct the reader to a different level of meaning. It is not that the book of Job is multigeneric; rather it is multi-levelled in its meaning.
[13] It is beyond the scope of our study to discuss genre from a theoretical viewpoint; for a discussion see for example, M. Pope, Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965), xxx-xxxi; Habel, Job, 42-46; J. E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988), 37-50; G. W. Parsons, “The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job” in Sitting with Job (ed., R. B. Zuck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 17-34; and C. Westermann, “The Literary Genre of the Book of Job” in Sitting with Job (ed., R. B. Zuck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 51-64. Job illustrates aspects of lament, the legal lawsuit, and dialogic treatise. Pope asserts that it is “…sui generis and no single term or combination of terms is adequate to describe it”, xxxi.
[14] This definition of genre pertains to the content of the book rather than literary form. The themes in Job include a consideration of suffering, the relevance of innocence and guilt, the doctrine of divine retribution, the justice of God, as well as the nature of man and the creative power of God. Scholars discuss these themes and variously favour one or other in defining the genre of Job. Our reading of Job would set a military/political context for these themes. The book of Job is not an abstract discussion of these themes and therefore a discussion of the “wisdom” of God’s general dealings with mankind. The military/political echoes with the Prophets prevent a “Wisdom” classification of Job.
[15] This is the current consensus. The more complex the history the less valuable is the notion of an “original author”; see the discussion of Dhorme, Job, lxxii-lxxxv.
[16] For a discussion of this type of correction see Dhorme, Job, cxcii-cxcvi. Dhorme’s remark is that such errors “are not really frequent”, cxcvi.
[17] Job, xlvii.
[18] Job, l.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One