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.

In subsequent speeches Job emphasises his innocence and states that he has not “denied [concealed] the words of the Holy one” [6:10]. He then exclaims: “I am fed up; I shall not live forever; leave me alone for my days are meaningless” [7:16, my translation]. He then points out that his sins, if any, do not affect God and enquires why he is denied forgiveness and a peaceful death.3

Job continues in the same vain. In chapter 9 he describes God’s greatness and refers to him as the creator of “Hyades {the Bear}, Orion, the Pleiades and the South Wind Chambers” [9:9].4 This reference supports the view, to be discussed later, that the anonymous writer of Job was a Diaspora Jew.

Job then voices his complaints, asserting that God crushes him “with a tempest, and multiplies [He] wounds without cause” [9:17]. In sheer bitterness he adds: “it is all the same. And so I declare: The innocent and the guilty he brings to [the same] end. While his scourge brings death to fools, He laughs [mocks] at the trials [sufferings] of the spotless” [9:22-23].5

Job points out that there is no entity capable of acting as a judge,6 to whom he may complain and amplifies his bitter speeches by saying: “Oh that I had perished and no eye had seen me … I should have been carried from the womb to the grave” [10:19]. He adds that his days are numbered and that, in due course, he is to end up in Sheol from whence he would never return.

Conceding God’s omnipotence,7 Job disputes His being just (the “theodicy issue”). In Job’s opinion “the tents of the robbers prosper, and they who provoke God are secure” [12:5]. “He [God] leads counselors away [astray] bereft of counsel, and makes judges fools” [12:17]. Emphasising his innocence [13:18], Job asks God to tell him where he sinned and to enable Job to contend without being afraid of retribution [13:21]. Subsequently, Job expresses doubts about his three friends’ motive. “Will you speak wickedly [contextually: incorrectly or wrongfully] for God? And talk deceitfully for him? Will you show him partiality?” [13:7-8]. Asking his friends to remain loyal to himself, he says: “Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O my friends: for the hand of God has touched [torched] me. Why do you, like God, persecute me …” [19:20-21].8

It is difficult to translate Job’s bitter words. The tendency of translators is to soften Job’s pronouncements. The climax is in chapter 14, where he exclaims: “Who can tell the pure from the impure [tainted]. No one [can]”[14:4].9 It has to be conceded that this translation is based on rendering the word יתן[yiten] as “tell”. Traditionally, the words are understood as indicating that no one can produce pure humans from tainted ones.10 יתן is, however, closer to ‘tell’ than to ‘produce’.11

With these pungent words, echoed by the Ecclesiastes [9:2], Job reiterates his doubts about divine justice and, further, questions God’s capacity to tell observant disciples from transgressors.12

Notably, God’s fallibility emerges from the prologue. Just as Satan questions Job’s motivations, so Job questions God’s justice and sympathy for the fallen. We also know from the prologue that Job’s misfortunes were not a retribution for sins but the fruit of a bet between the Almighty and Satan!

Job’s bitterness is emphasised in subsequent speeches in which he treats God as being both unjust and merciless. He complains that God “has filled me with wrinkles, which is a witness against me” [16:8] and adds that He “tears me in his wrath, and hates me: he gnashes at me with his teeth” [16:9]. Seeking support for his unjust sufferings, Job exclaims: “O earth, cover not my blood … Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven and my testimony is on high” [16:18-19]13. Here Job calls on earth to be witness his having been wronged. His words may be an outcry. It is also possible to discern in them the influence of polytheistic creeds, which rank divine beings and which regard ‘earth’ as superior.14 Job also expresses his having been deserted by all who were close to him and berates his three friends. In desperation he exclaims: “Why do you, like God, persecute me, and are not satisfied with my flesh” [19:21].15

Job adds [caps 23, 24] that his sufferings would prevent him from pleading his cause. In a sense he argues that an adversarial hearing is ruled out by his having been penalised before his guilt was established.16 He concludes this part of his addresses by affirming his innocence and his having been penalised unjustly [27:1-12].

The Qumran Scroll lends support to this analysis. It indicates that chapter 26 commences with an attribution of it to Job but does not comprise the first verse of chapter 27, which advises that the words that follow are further (or supplementary) words uttered by him. 17 In this manner, the Qumran Scrolls treats the first verses of chapter 27 as spoken by Job and as being a clear sequel to what he says in chapter 26.18

Indeed, Job’s stand is crystallized in chapter 27, where he says: “Far is it from me that I should justify you: till I die I will not put away my integrity [innocence] from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and I will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me as long as I live. Let my enemy be as wicked, and he who rises against me as the unrighteous” [27:5-7]. These are not the words of a patient and penitent Job.

The approach of the three friends – Elifas, Bildad and Zofar – differs. Although the prologue tells the reader that they came to comfort Job [2:11-13], they turn out to be accusers. Their attitude is best captured in William Blake’s illustrations19 and is neatly expressed by Elifaz, who sets the tone for the ensuing speeches of the trio.

To start with, Elifaz rebukes Job for his doubts and asks “who that was innocent ever perished?” [4:7]. By saying this he hints that those who suffer (as does Job) are not innocent. Elifaz goes on and emphasises that God is just and raises the rhetoric question of can “mortal man be more just than God?20 Can a man be more pure than his maker?” [4:17].21 Praising God’s justice and might, Elifas opines that “man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward” [5:6]. He urges Job “not to despise the chastising of the Almighty; for he makes sore, and binds up: he wounds but his hands make whole” [5:18].

Bildad’s opinion is similar. He observes that “God will not cast away an innocent man, nor will he uphold evil doers” [8:20]. In his opinion, Job’s only hope is to supplicate for divine help, for “… does the Almighty pervert justice?”[8:3]. He maintains that “if thy children have sinned against him, he has cast them out for their transgressions” [8:4].22

Notably, Bildad does not treat Job’s offspring merely as a facet of Job’s property. He suggests that they perished because of sins. The prologue indicates that he is wrong. Bildad’s stance does not undergo any change in his second (cap. 18) and third (cap. 25)23 speeches.24 Likewise, the third friend – Zofar (caps 11, 20)25 delivers speeches reminiscent of Elifaz’s original stand. Both of them refrain from accusing Job of any specific transgression but take the view that only the guilty are penalised.

In the same way, Elifaz restricts himself, in his second speech (cap. 15), to implying that Job’s words manifest his guilt and tells us: “What is man, that he should be clean? And … that he should be righteous?” [15:14]. He concludes his speech by saying that evil people come to a bad end,26 and that God alone can determine a human’s purity.

Elifaz’ tone changes in his third speech. He is irked by Job’s firm rebuke: “Behold, I [Job] know your thoughts and the device you wrongfully imagine against me. For you say: Where is the house of the prince? And where is the tent in which the wicked dwelt?” [21:27-28]. Elifaz’s retort is equally harsh. He accuses Job of oppressing the poor and the helpless (the widows and orphans) [22:5 et seq.].

This is a shift in Elifaz’s language though not in his stand. In his earlier speeches he hinted that Job was guilty. He now raises the accusations which, as is known from the prologue, are unfounded.

By now it is clear that the friends’ stand is diametrically opposed to Job’s. The latter maintains his innocence and his having been wrongfully penalised. The friends’ approach is neatly summarised by Bildad, who asks: “How can man be justified with God?” [25:4].

  1. For a similar lament, see Jer. 20:14-end, esp. verse 18. ↩︎

  2. See Part VIII and see Job 3:15, 7:9 and 14:13. ↩︎

  3. For an analysis of Job’ first speech, J. Hartley, The Book of Job, (2nd ed. 1988), pp. 165 et seq. ↩︎

  4. See Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 39, who explains the significance of these constellations. ↩︎

  5. Greenstein’s translation, op. cit., at p. 41, which is believed to be correct. Note that the word ‘shot’[שוט] appears also in Isaiah [10:27] where it ought to be correctly translated as ‘disaster’. ↩︎

  6. For the traditional construction see Rashi. ↩︎

  7. And see F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Job, (Edinburgh 1876), Vol. 1, at p. 111. ↩︎

  8. For a further rebuke of the friends, see 21:27-28. ↩︎

  9. My translation. Ct. Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 60; the Late Targum, at p. 44. The LXX (at p. 675) differs. Regrettably chapter 14 was not preserved in the Qumran Scroll. Cave 11 of Qumran includes a scrap which follows the MT’s text (Ulrich, op. cit., at p. 728). ↩︎

  10. See, e.g. the Late Targum and the LXX. The real meaning of these words was conveyed to me (and my classmates) by our teacher in Tichon Ironi A, “Old Frank”. ↩︎

  11. Generally, all words based on נתן (and יתן is its ‘future’ third person declination) mean to ‘give’. Contextually, though, the word means ‘tell’ in the present instance. ↩︎

  12. For a detailed analysis, see Vicchio, op. cit., pp.111 et seq. ↩︎

  13. And see Greenstein’s elegant translation in op. cit., at p. 73. ↩︎

  14. It has been suggested that these words allude to Cain’s murder of Abel: A Clarke, Commentary on the Book of Job, (London 2015), at p. 70. ↩︎

  15. See also 21:27-28 and caps. 23-24, in which Job reaffirms his innocence and complains about his sufferings. Cp. Greenstein’s translation and comment, op. cit., at p. 85. ↩︎

  16. An issue arises in respect of chapter 26. The editor’s caption attributes it to Job. Greenstein, op. cit., pp. 113 et seq. treats most verses of it as forming part of Bildad’s third speech. ↩︎

  17. DJD23, pp. 104-105, which indicate that the speech of chapter 26 is Job’s but omit the first line of chapter 27 of the MT, which reads: “and [Job] continued his discourse and said…”; see ibid. at p. 107. ↩︎

  18. For a different construction, see Greenstein, op. cit., at pp. 113 et seq. ↩︎

  19. Published in 1812. ↩︎

  20. Cp. Greenstein’s translation, op. cit., at p. 19 et seq. ↩︎

  21. Most translation use ‘shall’ rather than ‘can’. I disagree. Greenstein, op cit., at p. 16 suggests that the words just cited constitute part of Job’s first discourse. Again, I disagree. Both contextually and as regards points of argument, the phrase expresses Elifaz’s stand. Note that Greenstein, op. cit., at p. 17 also reads “can”. ↩︎

  22. For a comprehensive analysis of Bildad’s approach, of his view being geared in theodicy and in the firm belief that Job’s sufferings evidence his having sinned, see R. Cordis, The Book of Job: a Commentary, (New York, 1978,) pp. 100-105, 140. ↩︎

  23. And see Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 134-5; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job, (Steubenville 2016 ed.), at p. 92. ↩︎

  24. It has been argued that cap. 26:5-14 complete Bildad third speech which commences in cap. 25:1. See Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 185-186 and authorities there cited. ↩︎

  25. For an analysis of his words, see Hartley, op. cit, at p. 70; Vicchio, op cit., at pp. 92-3. ↩︎

  26. Vicchio, op. cit., pp. 117 et seq. Cf. Rashi. ↩︎