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.
Then, in the last ten verses, namely 13-end, Job expresses the view taken by Job’s three friends. These words cannot be ascribed to Job the sufferer. The conclusion is that the first 12 verses of chapter 27 are rightly attributed to Job but that they should have been followed by a caption indicating that the remaining verses are part of Zofar’s final retort.1 Regrettably the opening words of Zofar’s last speech have not come down to us.
In support of this construction it is to be noted that it is in tandem with Job’s structure, which constitutes an exchange of the views held by Job with those of his three friends. To this end every speech of Job is followed by the response of one of his friends. Thus, Job expresses his views in chapters 3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 23-24 and 26-27:1-12. Elifaz delivers his three speeches in chapters 4-5, 15 and 22. Bildad speaks in chapters 8, 18 and 25.2 The only two chapters expressly attributed to Zofar are 11 and 20. The construction here proposed would give Zofar a third speech, namely 27:13-end and some sentences that have not come down to us. In this manner Job’s nine speeches are contested nine times by the retorts of his three friends.
Regrettably, the Qumran Scroll does not shed light on this issue. Both chapters 26 and 27 are mutilated in it.3 The late Targum and the LXX follow the MT without significant variation.
Numerous attempts have been made to draw a distinction between the speeches of the three friends. This is debatable. In reality there are only two basic theses in chapters 3 to 27 (inc.), namely: (i) Job’s viewpoint and (ii) the opposite concept manifested in the addresses of the three friends. Undoubtedly, there is progression in the words and metaphors used for the expression of the two views. Both Job and his three friends crystallize their opinions in the course of the debates. There are, nonetheless, only two basic philosophical approaches.
A point frequently raised is that in the course of these lengthy debates, concluding at the end of chapter 27, ideas are repeated again and again. In a tome expressed in prose this would be a stylistically and methodically unforgivable blemish. The relevant chapters of Job are, however, poetic. Whilst the basic notions are repeated, the imagery and the metaphors differ.
By way of comparison take FitzGerald’s translation of Omar Khayyam’s Rubayats {quatrains}. The basic idea of enjoying life is repeated many times. Nonetheless, nobody would levy the redundancy complaint because each poem has it own thrust. Another illustration is presented by the Psalms. Many of them praise God. But are they redundant?
In a similar manner Job is not repetitive. The two opposed view points are developed and effectively crystallized. Further, the arguments are presented in poetry at its best. In my opinion, the plea of redundancy is misguided.
Contrast Vicchio, op. cit., at p 187, who regards the absence of a third speech by Zophar as “the silence of the vanquished.” ↩︎
And possibly parts of chapters 26 and 27: see Vicchio, op cit., at p. 187. ↩︎
Jongeling, op. cit., pp. 24-15 (reproducing and translating the extant parts); DJD23, pp. 106-107; Sokoloff, op. cit., pp. 46-49. ↩︎