Joban Scholarship

Introduction

Scholarship on Job is extensive, as is the case with most areas of study of the Hebrew Bible; though perhaps more so with Job.[1] It is broadly similar except for the work of a few commentators and it is these that we will pick up towards the end of this paper. The goal of the paper is to argue for a new approach to Job.

Dating

When was Job written? On the question of date, one scholar, D. J. A. Clines, offers the following comment,

Most scholars today would date the composition of the book of Job to some point between the seventh and the second centuries, with the probability that a prose folktale of a pious sufferer existed long before the largely poetic book itself was written.[2]

Such a consensus that the book of Job contains an ancient story is telling, but we do not have to assume any date for the book of Job, nor do we have to assume that it contains an ancient folktale. Scholars date the book anywhere between the 8c.[3] and the 2c., but any arguments are inconclusive, and beyond the scope of this book, and in any event such a period (8c.-2c.) is so broad as to be unhelpful.

It is not difficult to think of “writing contexts” for the book in the eighth, seventh or early sixth centuries.[4] The Assyrian[5] and Babylonian onslaughts on the land affected the faithful remnant as well as the wicked of Israel and Judah. The book could be seen in those contexts as a study in the suffering of the “righteous” or the “suffering of Israel and Judah”. Three lines of argument support a time frame for the book just prior to the Exile.

1) There are motifs shared only between Jeremiah and Job (e.g. the motif of “purpose”, Job 42:2, Jer 11:15, 23:20, 30:24, 51:11), which suggests the thought-world of Jeremiah is the writing context for Job.[6]  This suggests a time-frame of Jeremiah’s life for the writing of Job—late seventh/early sixth century. This would explain links between Jeremiah and Job that have been noted by scholars such as the inter-dependency of Jer 20:14-18 upon Job 3, and texts such as Jer 12:1, 31:29.[7]

2) There are also links between Job and Deuteronomy, which suggests that the late seventh century/early sixth century is the time when Job was written. A renewed interest in the Law in the reign of Josiah was engendered by the discovery of the book of the Law (Deuteronomy) in the temple (2 Chron 34:14-15). Exactly what this discovery meant is beyond the scope of this study, but the application of Deuteronomic law at this time supplies a literary context and a catalyst for the author of Job to work allusions to Deuteronomy into his book. The Deuteronomic principles of retributive justice are obviously discussed in Job.[8]

3) The mention of Job by Ezekiel (Ezek 14:14, 20), along with Noah and Daniel  (MT not LXX[9]), is thought to be a mention of the Job of folklore,[10] rather than evidence that the book of Job was extant in Ezekiel’s day,  but this is not conclusive—it could equally be evidence of the existence of the book of Job.

Ezekiel’s point is that the righteousness of Job would not deliver the land from destruction. This reading cannot be based solely on the prologue/epilogue construed as a self-contained folktale, because the epilogue references what has been said in the body of the book by both Job and the friends. Moreover, this reading cannot be based on just the prologue because it is only in the epilogue that Job is invited to intercede on behalf of his friends; it is such a righteous intervention that Ezekiel’s point presupposes. Accordingly, we would argue that Ezekiel has some form of the book of Job (for instance, chs. 1-2, 3-22, 38-39, 42). The date of this oracle in Ezekiel (ca. 595-587) suggests the “book” of Job is in circulation and this allows us to date the book to the late seventh/early sixth century.

This dating leaves unanswered the question of why an author would write a patriarchal story. This question is a matter of speculation. Our proposal would be that the author of Job is representing the political positions inside Hezekiah’s Jerusalem. With this concern, he chooses “Edomite” characters,[11] as those traditionally antagonistic to Judah. This in turn allows a “Jacob and Esau” style parable in which Job is presented like the patriarch Jacob. The views of these characters are political in that they require Job to repent in order to affect a solution to the crisis facing Judah. In contrast, Job refuses to take this solution; he upholds his righteousness.

In this way, we can make the book an apologetic treatise ostensibly defending Hezekiah’s attitudes and opposing the opinions and policies of internal opponents. In addition, we can make the book an explanation of why Hezekiah suffered—he suffered because God sought to demonstrate his disinterested righteousness.[12]

The mention of “the Satan” might suggest a later post-exilic date for the book.[13]  However, the inclusion of Satan in a book written in the late seventh/early sixth century is close enough in time to Zechariah’s prophecy (ca. 520) to make a theological connection between Job and Zechariah plausible, without dating Job to the later time. Further, it has been observed that the heavenly scene bears some comparison to the vision of Micaiah (1 Kgs 22), which dates from the ninth century; so, Job may represent an earlier innovation of the concept of “the Satan” vis-à-vis Zechariah. There is good reason to suppose that Zechariah requires the prior existence of the parable of Job.

Our only contribution to the dating question is that the language of Isaiah of Jerusalem links to Job in such a way as to indicate that the book reflects the eighth century Assyrian crisis. These links can be taken as prima facia evidence for a date closer in time to Isaiah’s oracles. The intensity of the book requires a date closer to its historical subject-matter. The conditions prior to the exile are a better catalyst for Job, when we read Job as a parable of the times of Hezekiah and an object lesson for Judah and the monarchy. The reconstructive context after the exile seems inappropriate for a book offering “comfort” in the face of disaster.

Scholarship has a broad consensus on the development of the writings of the Hebrew Bible.^[14] The book of Job is often fitted within this consensus at a later (usually post-exilic) date; we place Job at a pre-exilic date. The common topical and thematic material that we identify between Job and the other writings of the Hebrew Bible does not require us to presume the existence of such writings as finished products. The common material does however provide evidence for the existence of common traditions which have been included in the writings that form the Hebrew Bible. Our reading assumptions about the material common to Job and other writings are as follows:

• “JEDP” traditions from Genesis to Numbers and Deuteronomy were of influence in the literate society of the author of Job.^[15]
• Contemporary records concerning the period up to and including Hezekiah (i.e. those in 1 and 2 Kings) existed and were known. The written traditions in Chronicles relating to Hezekiah post-date Job, but encode opinion that was forming during the time of the author of Job.^[16]
• Certain Psalms carry royal themes of battle and victory, and these can be related to the events of Hezekiah’s reign (e.g. Pss 89, 107).[17]
• For the Minor Prophets,[18] where there are no dating superscriptions, (e.g. Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk), we take a location in the Book of the Twelve (MT) to be a chronological indication of a date for these books. We take Joel,[19] Obadiah,[20] and Nahum[21] to be late eighth early seventh century prophets and Habakkuk to be a Josianic prophet. Hosea and Amos are eighth century prophets, and Micah is a late eighth early seventh century prophet.
• Many of Isaiah’s early oracles (chs. 1-35) relate to the reign of Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis (e.g. chs. 1, 2-4, 5, 28-33).[22] Oracles in the later part of the book of Isaiah, which are normally taken to be exilic and post-exilic, are here taken to have mainly pre-exilic application. This is a controversial assumption requiring support, which we sketch below.

None of the above assumptions are unchallenged in scholarship. They have been both defended and questioned. However, the task of such a defence is not our concern in this paper. Our task is not to locate Job in a developmental framework for the writings of the Hebrew Bible. Our parabolic interpretation of Job is not materially affected by hypotheses of dates.

Hebrew Poetry and Philology

The Hebrew of Job is the most difficult in the Hebrew Scriptures, with many unique words, unusual grammatical constructions, problematic vocalisation, and difficult word combinations. Consequently, scholars often use comparative philological materials (e.g. Ugaritic, Arabic) in order to make the Hebrew more regular and remove hypothetical corruptions or inappropriate editorial changes. In effect, this produces a new version of the poem.[23]

Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism; in addition, scholars have developed theories about Hebrew metrics. Thus, they may have views on the number of syllables that are appropriate to the line (colon), as well as theories about stress and sound, which may also dictate what is appropriate in a word and on a line.[24] In addition, scholars may have a view on how many lines are to be associated to form a complete unit (bi-colon, tri-colon), and how the thought in that unit is composed (synonymous parallelism, contrasting parallelism, etc.), and how such units compose larger units of thought such as strophes.[25] On the basis of such theories, scholars propose amendments to the text, if they feel the existing line is out of balance.

However, there is no consensus on how to measure and apply a metrical system to Job, and disagreement exists between each commentator on how the larger poetic units are distinguished.[26] Pope observes that

“The counting of syllables, unstressed and stressed, in lines where the text is above suspicion shows such irregularity as to cast doubt on emendations made purely on the grounds of metric theory”.[27]

Hartley observes that an “unbalanced” line could well be deliberate, and thereby convey an emphasis.[28]

These two factors (poetic form and philological comparison) define the text-critical layer of scholarship in relation to Job.[29] They contribute to determining the chosen text upon which a scholar then superimposes his commentary about the cut and thrust of the argument in Job, i.e. his various higher levels of analysis.

Authorship

The language of Job shows that the author was a literary artist of high-order with knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic. The vocabulary has many Aramaisms and betrays an awareness of Arabic lexical material that has been absorbed into literary Hebrew. Gordis observes that “the only tenable conclusion is the most obvious and natural—the Book of Job was written by a highly learned Hebrew in his native tongue”.[30]

The frequency of Aramaisms has been thought to suggest a post-exilic date for Job; however, this is not a secure conclusion. How the author became skilled in Aramaic, and how far Aramaic had penetrated literary or common society cannot be determined from the book of Job. It could be that the author has these language skills, but that they have not yet become common in all society. Literate Hebrew society could have been absorbing Aramaic influence as early as the eighth century (2 Kgs 18:26, Isa 36:11). As the times moved on, Aramaic advanced further until it became the lingua franca, but the quantity of Aramaisms in Job does not presuppose socially widespread use of Aramaic. Its presence is consistent with a date in the late seventh or early sixth century as well as later post-exilic times.[31]

Composition of Job

The book of Job bristles with problems of textual integrity.[32] A discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.  Some of the leading 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.[33]

For example, 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.^[34] However, we will assume that the text has not been disturbed and follow the treatment of F. I. Andersen^[35] 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, Bildad’s speech is more of an interruption, and the text is not disturbed, the proposal that there are three cycles of speeches is severely weakened. We are inclined to take the view 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).^[36] 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”.[37]

We see nothing convincing in the reconstructions of scholars and there is value in providing a final form reading.^[38]

• 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, as 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. Dhorme.[39] We follow Gordis^[40] 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.[41]

Thus, we treat the book as a literary unit. This takes the book “as is” and places issues of composition to one side.[42] 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. 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 present a successful reading of the whole book, then this is an argument for the integral unity of the book.

Carol Newsom offers a recent discussion of the question of composition, unity, and genre in The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations.[43] 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;[44] 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 their recent “ideal” righteous Davidic king.[45]

Scholarship is motivated by five factors when it argues for a complex history of composition involving, first, an oral folktale, then an original author of a shortened version of the book and, finally, later editors.[46]

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, vocalisation, obvious omissions, and scribal errors.[47]
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”.[48]

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”.[49]

Proposal

Our main proposal is that Job is a prophetic treatment of the times of Hezekiah. It is a book that has been developed with a folkloric story about a patriarchal individual called Job. It is a drama written for performance[50] using this story, but carrying an eighth/seventh century debate.  The prophetic-parable[51]  can only be uncovered by intertextual study. Strictly speaking, it only exists in the prologue and the epilogue: these parts of the book are obviously a story, but our argument is that the story is parabolic. The dialogue is not parabolic unless it is seen in relation to the narrative envelope.

If we put the prologue/epilogue to one side and take the dialogue on its own, the background information we have in the speeches takes on a new significance, and the character of that information is different. There are indications of kingship, political power, military conflict, policies of state, party groupings, diplomatic talks, and a crisis. It is then a question of identifying the historical context for this kind of dialogue. The prologue/epilogue disguises this level of meaning with a story about a patriarch.

The prophetic-parabolic approach is almost non-existent amongst the commentaries,  which instead concentrate on determining the Hebrew text of Job, relating the text to comparative religious material, offering a surface paraphrase of the arguments in the book, and considering such questions as provenance, consistency and intent;   to this mix they add value judgements on the lasting theological worth of the book (as a theodicy) in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some commentaries observe that the book may represent an allegory of the nation of Israel and its suffering, but this has generally not been accepted.[52]

The majority view is that the book is about the problem of Job’s innocent suffering and therefore a theodicy.[53] The friends present alternative theodicies and Job rejects their proposals. The main problem with this reading is that it does not appear to encompass God’s speeches; these do not offer an answer to Job about his suffering.

Our case is that the book is not about the “problem of innocent suffering”; it is not a theodicy.[54] The book is about whether a man can serve God for nothing (i.e. whether disinterested righteousness is possible). If Satan’s challenge is being tested in the rest of the book, this can only mean that Job’s suffering is the way that he is tested for disinterested righteousness during[55] his life. His suffering brings about a state in which he has nothing, and this enables the test to proceed as to whether he serves God for nothing.[56]

The embracing framework is set by Satan’s question: the ensuing discussion of innocent suffering is only the means by which Satan’s test is executed. Job is tested to see whether he will succumb to the friend’s theodicies, repent, and seek God’s favour. For Job to accept a reward/retribution theodicy would be for him to show the impossibility of disinterested righteousness. He would be conforming his behaviour to the goal of a reward, i.e. God’s forgiveness. It is essential therefore that Job uphold his righteousness if God is to be vindicated over against Satan.

God’s speeches answer Job, but they do not do so by justifying his suffering. The reason for the suffering is given in the prologue—Job is being tested for disinterested righteousness. (The friends do not offer this theodicy—that suffering is a test.) God’s speeches are designed instead to give Job the assurance that his suffering will soon end and that he is in control. Such an assurance is not a solution to the “problem of the book”, the book is not an attempt to explain the problem of suffering. The assurance is the signal to the reader that Job’s “test” is now ending and his healing beginning. God’s speeches are designed to bring closure to the test and restore Job’s faith.

If we ask why an author would write such a narrative, our proposal is that it was written to explain the suffering of Hezekiah and the nation during the Assyrian crisis. The “problem” of the book of Job is how to explain a recent event in Judah’s history. The author has encoded this explanation in a play about “Job” with Job representing Hezekiah. The value of this kind of writing in the period prior to the Exile is easy to appreciate, as it offers an explanation of recent suffering. It also bolsters confidence in “the land” in times of external threat; hence our suggestion that it is an apologetic prophetic work written during the times of Jeremiah.

Our proposal offers a parabolic meaning in the epilogue/prologue of Job, and a more literal political and military interpretation of the speeches. An original audience for Job might not have had the necessary background knowledge for such a reading. In the absence of such knowledge, the play works on a surface level as a dialogue about the suffering of a patriarch. If an audience had some background knowledge of the eighth century prophets, they could well have unlocked the deeper meaning that we present.[57] Accordingly we conclude that it is entirely plausible to propose that an author would write a play about Hezekiah in a patriarchal style.

Parabolic Approaches

Studies on Job[58] tend to be of three kinds:

1. detailed text-critical monographs and articles on the Hebrew, both comparative-philological, linguistic, and literary, and often tied to considerations of composition, redactional history, and provenance;\
2. heavy-weight commentaries which aim to summarise and add to the detailed text-critical work, as well as expound the book line by line; and
3. lighter material, perhaps more homiletical, perhaps apologetic, perhaps exegetical, which seeks to bring Job to the concerns of believers of a particular faith-community.

The only parabolic commentary of Job is Deep Things out of Darkness by D. Wolfers. This does not offer a line-by-line analysis of Job. It seeks to offer a holistic reading of the book through a selected analysis of key motifs and themes. This is the only commentary that we engage as a dialogue partner.

Wolfers’ view is that

“Job is primarily an allegorical figure representing the people of Judah and their king Hezekiah in the time of Assyrian conquests”.[59]

This is substantially correct, and Wolfers has employed an intertextual method. However, our view is that the prologue/epilogue of Job is a parable (not an allegory[60]) portraying Hezekiah at the time of the Assyrian siege, and the dialogue is a literal matter-of-fact discussion of the crisis. Thus our view places Hezekiah centre-stage rather than Judah. Wolfers makes “Job” into a composite figure of “Judah and her king”; we identify Job as Hezekiah.

Wolfers also believes that

“…the purpose of the author in writing the Book of Job was…to re-draw the nature of the relationship between the people of Israel and their God by demonstrating that the Covenants were no longer in operation, that they had been unilaterally abrogated by the Lord, or in the alternative, so transgressed by the people, that they had become inoperative”.[61]

This either/or appears to be an example of fence-sitting; even so, each option is not the purpose of the book.

Wolfers also says,

“…the thesis of the book of Job at its deepest level is that the time had arrived historically for the severance of this tribal bond, the rupture unilaterally of the covenant, the treaty, between God and Israel, to free the way for the demonstration of that unrequited love of God, fear of God, worship of God, which Job at the end of his trials personifies”.[62]

Wolfers’ view has a pervasive impact on his reading of the speeches of Job, to which he gives an overly angry tone.

Wolfers’ thesis is flawed as a big picture, and this affects his reading at many points. Firstly, ‘Job’ was restored and Jerusalem was saved, and this does not suggest a unilateral rupture of the covenant at this point in history (587 would be a better proposal). Secondly, the terms of the Deuteronomic covenant allow for the return of a scattered Israel to the land (Deut 30:1-10); the “tribal bond” is still affirmed.[63] Thirdly, the book of Job places to the foreground a test of disinterested righteousness and an individual. This is the explanation of the suffering that is offered, rather than the punishment of Judah and the abrogation of the covenant by Yahweh or the people. Finally, Wolfers reads Job’s speeches in terms of an accusation that God has abrogated the covenant, and this gives them a sense and a tone that does not fit the Chronistic traditions recorded about Hezekiah.

Hence, there are numerous points of disagreement between Wolfers and our proposal as to how the language of the book fits the historical situation (e.g. on the identities of “Satan”, “the sons of God”, “Behemoth”, “the hypocrite”, “the wicked ones”, and “the wicked one”). Contextualising poetry is inherently difficult and such disagreement is inevitable. Nevertheless, Wolfers should be read along with our proposal for purposes of comparison and contrast.[64] In their review of recent Joban scholarship, Waltke and Diewert describe Wolfers’ book as a “striking anomaly” and comment that “it is unlikely that his views will gain wide acceptance” although they also say that it is “a helpful counterpoint to the conventional lines of understanding”.[65] Our proposal is an attempt to correct Wolfer’s thesis and offer a more systematic defence of the counterpoint political-parabolic approach to Job.

The parabolic approach is also represented in J. W. Thirtle’s, Old Testament Problems.[66] Thirtle comments that

“Hezekiah had a sickness which was of the nature of leprosy; and before ever the time of crisis arrived, and, in answer to importunate prayer, recovery was vouchsafed, there was placed before him this parabolic narrative for his encouragement and comfort”.[67]

This is unlikely because of the connections that Job has with Jeremiah. Job betrays a perspective on a crisis that is over and past (but recent), and the book is not obviously designed for encouragement and comfort.

Thirtle develops connections between the books of Job and Isaiah.[68]  However, he does not assert that the book of Job is a parable about Hezekiah and his times; i.e. written to be about Hezekiah. Rather, his view is that the book is “an exhibition of his [Hezekiah’s] case in an illustrative light”.[69] The illustrative light is that of Job, and it is this light that accounts for the “coincidences of expression” between the two books.[70] In other words, Thirtle does not believe that Job is about Hezekiah, it just illustrates his plight; it is about Job. The difference between Thirtle’s essay and our proposal is one of emphasis, and Thirtle only includes a small number of illustrative examples to show the relevance of Job to Hezekiah; what is needed instead is a fuller commentary.

Conclusion

A full commentary offering a radically new and reconfigured reading of Job is required to break the stale and well-worn paths of traditional commentaries. Newsom comments that “a new reading should be judged in part by how well it deals with problems left over by other models, though it will inevitably introduce new ones. It should be rigorously answerable to the text in a nonarbitrary fashion. But if a new reading is to be culturally valuable, it should engage the book by means of emerging reading conventions that are part of the cultural project of the interpreter’s present”.[71]

A study on the lines I suggest would offer new answers to the hermeneutical problems that occupy Joban scholarship. These problems are not “left over” by existing models; such models deal with the problems with varying degrees of success. In Newsom’s terms, if Job is “polyphonic”,[72] a new study would offer a neglected sounding derived from an intertextual reading of Job with the Prophets. The advent of computer-aided intertextual tools has made such new readings accessible. The reading can be evaluated by assessing the proffered links.

---