Job: A Reassessment

Before turning to the discussion of the Book of Job {hereafter: “Job”; the hero’s name is spelt as “Job” [in Roman letters]}it is important to refer to the extant texts available to us. The one usually cited is the Masoretic Text (“MT”) version. Scholars believe that it was composed during the 5th or early 4th century BCE, that is, before the Hashmonean period. The book is unlikely to have been composed earlier than that. It is true that the issue discussed in it – that is, the theodicy issue – was raised by Jeremiah [Jer. 12:1-3]. However, the 6th century – covering this prophet’s long ministry – witnessed the struggle of Judah with Babylon and the final destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar followed by the exile. ...

At first glance, Job’s structure appears straightforward. Chapter 1 and 2 – the prologue – are complemented by the epilogue – Chapter 42 (verses 7-end). They are written in easy to comprehend prose, similar to that of Esther.1 They were, it is generally believed, written by the very hand which added captions or introductory statements to the ensuing text. By way of illustration take verse 1 and the first words of verse 2 of chapter 3, which read: “After this Iyyov [Job] opened his mouth and cursed his day. And [Job] spoke and said …”. The remaining part of verse 2 and the rest of the chapter are poetic and differ from the explanatory caption preceding them. ...

The prologue and epilogue are expressed in readable and elegant prose. The first chapter describes Job’s piety and orthodoxy and then refers to the day on which ‘the sons of god’ congregated in His front. It adds that ‘Satan’ came with them and that he questioned the motive of Job’s piety, alleging that it was due to the protection and prosperity conferred on him by divinity. Satan says that if these were taken from Job, he would curse God ‘to [His] face’. ...

The prologue is followed by the debate between Job and his three friends. It would be tedious to go through each cycle of the debate because in essence only two points of view are set out: Job’s stand and the opposite outlook. Job’s position is clear, commencing with his lament: “I had no repose, nor had I rest, nor was I quiet yet trouble came” [3:25] and his bitter question: “[w]hy is light {meaning ‘life’} given to him that is in misery …” [3:20].1 Job accepts the existence of an underworld, Sheol,2 which is the destination of all mortals. ...

It will be recalled that chapter 26 commences with the caption: “And [Job] answered and said” [26:1]. The verses that follow express Job’s viewpoint. He completes his discourse in this chapter by observing: “… the thunder of [H]is power who can understand?” [26:14]. The compiler then advises, at the very beginning of chapter 27: “And [Job] continued his discourse and said, ‘As God lives, who has taken away my right …” [27:1,2] and reaffirms his innocence. ...

Sandwiched between the three cycle debates and Job’s final and seminal monologue (caps. 29–31, discussed subsequently) is the enigmatic chapter 28. It is neatly divided into two parts: (i) verses 1-11 and (ii) verses 12 to 28. The first part commences with the word ki (כי). Greenstein1 rightly points out that a poetic work does not commence with this word, which – literally translated – means ‘for’. Regrettably, though the ensuing words do not constitute a meaningful succession to chapter 27. Indeed, it is difficult to fit them into the contents and the matrix of Job. The book deals with the theodicy issue. The first part of chapter 28 deals with the origin of metals and then proclaims the reign of cause and effect in our planet. It does not add any new nuance about the greatness and the invincibility of God. ...

Job’s seminal monologue, comprising chapters 29 – 31, follows the conclusion of the three-cycle-debate that ends with chapter 27. In this monologue, Job narrates his tragic story. In chapter 29 he expounds his standing prior to the bet of God and Satan. The first part of the second verse, correctly translated reads: “oh that I be restored to my heyday”,1 has become a phrase in use in modern Hebrew. Job then tells us all about his uprightness and his exalted status before his fall. He says: “I put on righteousness, and my justice clothed me, as a robe and diadem” [29:14]. He sums up by stating: “I …sat as chief, and dwelt as king in the army …” [29:25]. This assertion is borne out by the prologue which describes him, inter alia, as “ … the greatest [wealthiest] of all men of the East [1:3].”2 ...

Belief in the after-life was common to the cultures of antiquity. That these had a major influence on Judah is beyond doubt. In a thesis examining such influences we are told: “Even though the Hebrews had wanted to remain aloof from the world they could not have done so with the alien caravans and armies consistently passing through their very midst.”1 Further, wisdom literature and concepts were spread by mendicant teachers and travellers.2 Civilizations, such as Judah, were getting familiar with the outlook and culture of neighbouring countries, especially as these dominated the Levant, including the fertile crescent, over generations. ...

In the version that has come down to us, Job’s closing monologue is followed by Elihu’s speeches (caps. 32 – 37). Many scholars maintain that these are late additions. Vicchio,1 who is of this view, supports it on nine grounds. These can be condensed as follows. First, Elihu is mentioned neither in the prologue nor in the epilogue. This framework advises that Job’s three friends came to call on him and discussed his misfortunes inter presentem. An outsider like Elihu could reply to the written work but was not a party to the initial debate. Indeed, in the epilogue God refers only to Job’s three friends. Elihu is, thus, conspicuous by his absence from the mainstream of the book. ...

As has been shown earlier, originally the debates conclude with Job’s monologue, in which he reassert his innocence and once again requests an elucidation by God. This answer is set out in chapters 38 to 41. These comprise two speeches, which God delivers from the Whirlwind [סערה]. Greenstein points out that here God “assumes a hostile persona – that of the storm god.”1 He goes on to explain that, in Middle-Eastern mythology, the Storm God is a warrior. Undoubtedly, the retorts are both hostile and condescending. ...