My copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible seems to imply that the middle section can be traced to sources written before the prologue and epilogue:
"The influence of ancient Near Eastern literary forms and traditions are also evident in the poetic dialogues. The problem of enigmatic suffering was one that was explored in Mesopotamian literature…
The most striking similarity, however, exists between the dialogue sections of Job and “The Babylonian Theodicy”. In this composition an unnamed sufferer and his friend speak alternatively in a cycle of twenty-seven speeches. The sufferer protests his misery, describing the injustice of the world and the unfairness of the gods. His friend attempts to defend the rationality of the world and urges his friend to seek the mercy of the gods. In contrast to Job, however, “The Babylonian Theodicy” ends without any appearance of the deity or narrative resolution".
Perhaps the Philosophy 100 teacher had TBT in mind.
I hasten to add that my source also notes the folkloric origins of the beginning and ending prose of Job. It also notes the controversy surrounding Job’s authorship, and the final form’s, “complex history of transmission”.
The traditional translation of James 5.11 reads as, “The patience of Job”. Apparently though, a better translation of the Greek might read “endurance”, “persistance” or “steadfastness”, words that better approximate Job’s character, as far as I can tell. (Ibid)
SDStaff Dex: " In the book of Job, there is implication that “the Satan” is one of the heavenly host, but there is no background or history as a character; rather, it
seems to be a position, like “prosecuting attorney.” "
I always liked the somewhat modern translation, “Special Prosecutor”.
First, outstanding research and analysis of Job by Dex.
Second, Cecil had a TSD posting some time (years?) ago commenting on humor and the Bible (as in the lack of the former in the latter). As it turns out, the book of Job has a rather pointed and witty put-down in it. In Job 12:1-2, right after Job’s ‘friend’ Zophan finishes pontificating over Job’s troubles, Job replies, “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.” (KJV Job 12:2) Job then continues “But I have understanding as well as you…” and goes into his rebuttal.
There’s another goof. The name of Job’s third friend from “the East” is Zophar, not Zophan. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are the men who allegedly come to comfort Job when word of his misfortune spreads to them, but they end up being self righteous jerks. After a bit of self pity, Job does maintain his faithfulness and speak of God in a way that pleases Him. There’s a verse in there somewhere that says something about “My wrath is kindled against thee and thy two friends, for ye have not spoken of me the things that are right, as my servant Job hath.”
The term or translation “steadfast” is really the most accurate, in terms of the story. Satan or “the Satan” is also known as the Adversary, whose job it is to test the faith of the people of the earth.
What I find most interesting, something no one else has mentioned, is that the three new daughters of Job are mentioned by name: Jemima (a name meaning dove), Kezia (cassia, used to make insense), and Keren happuch (plenty). None of the 7 sons are mentioned by name. However, the most unusal thing is in the 42nd chapter, 15th verse, which says, “In all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job, and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.” Some translate this as ‘beautiful’, but fair in this context means good, true, noble, etc. Women didn’t get diddly squat in those days, yet Job’s daughters were given an equal inheritance with their brothers. For the women to be mentioned by name while the men are not is unusual enough, but it’s a huge deal that they were given inheritance rights. Why isn’t this explained in the book? Is there a portion missing? Who knows.
Sorry, the Zophan will be corrected to Zophar. My handwriting was crummy and I didn’t catch the typo. Thanks, t-lilly.
On the role of women, I can only say that there are any number of fascinating topics that could arise from study of the book of Job. There are several books devoted to various analysis of that text. I tried to limit myself to answering the specific question of multiple endings (authorship), without delving into other issues… which y’all are, of course, free to bring up here.
I don’t understand the part about Job being an Edomite. All through the Old Testament God is referred to as a proprietary deity to the Israelites, and they were His “Chosen People.”
So if Job was an Edomite, not an Israelite, why was he worshipping the Israelite God? And why would the Israelites/Hebrews be telling a story (fable or truth) about a non-Israelite’s relationship with God?
The only quick answer to that is: Ummm, It’s more complicated than that.
One can trace, through the OT, a spectrum of beliefs, from Yahweh-Israel’s-Private-God, to Yahweh-(Israel’s-God)-the-Top-God, to Yahweh-the-Only-God-(Special-Relationship-With-Israel). And at some of the points on that continuum, the idea of a non-Israelite who worships Yahweh (see Jonah, for example) is seen as perfectly normal.
And even the Israelites recognized that the Edomites were their closest kin – say, like Dutchmen and Flemings.
First of all, it’s not all that certain that he was an Edomite. (The Talmud (Bava Basra 15b) records a debate among the sages as to whether Job was a gentile or a Jew.)That idea seems to be based on the fact that his homeland, the “land of Uz” (1:1), is elsewhere described as Edomite territory (Lamentations 4:21) - presumably named after the Seirite chieftain Uz (Genesis 36:28). But surely, not every resident of Uz was necessarily an Edomite. Besides, there were also Aramean clans named Uz (Gen. 10:23 and 22:21); and Jeremiah (25:20-21) speaks of “the land of Uz” and “Edom” as separate entities.
In any case, even if we assume that he was a gentile (Edomite or otherwise), then as JWK points out, there were quite a few gentiles in those days who, without becoming Jews, believed in Y-H-V-H as the supreme G-d of the universe - for example, the Syrian general Naaman (II Kings 5:15ff). In fact, the Talmud (Menachos 110a) explicitly states that even in places where they have no first-hand knowledge of Jews or Judaism, they venerate Him as “the G-d of gods” (something like the American Indian “Great Spirit,” I suppose).
It is true, though, that the use of the Name Y-H-V-H usually was unique to Jews, and that gentiles tended to use the more generic title “Elo-him” when referring to the One G-d, as in ch. 3 of Jonah. So it’s noteworthy that in the entire debate between Job and his friends, the Name Y-H-V-H appears only once (12:9), and that they generally use the name Elo-him, or the archaic/poetic name Sha-ddai, to refer to G-d. This would seem to strengthen the case for their having been gentiles rather than Jews.
RedNaxela
I’m not sure that “only” once is the right impression to get from that. From what I understand, the remarkable thing would be that the Name is mentioned at all: The Name, as such, appears only a handful of times in the Bible, and Jews also usually use some form of circumlocution. It’s acceptable, of course, for God to be Named in the Bible (if there’s any usage that’s not in vain, then that would be it), but as a rule, Jews don’t seem to push it.
Chronos, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. It is true that outside the Holy Temple (may it be rebuilt soon!) the Name is not to be pronounced as written (Maimonides, Laws of Prayer 14:10); but the Name Y-H-V-H appears (in writing) over 6600 times in the Bible - certainly a lot more than a handful.
Maybe you meant that it rarely appears in conversation (as opposed to prophecy or narrative), but even then, we find this Name used in greetings (Judges 6:12, Ruth 2:4), people’s descriptions of events (I Samuel 17:37, Ruth 1:21), and many other purposes. Presumably, they used circumlocutions such as those we use today (“Ado-nai,” “Hashem,” etc.), and the prophets who wrote the various Biblical books rendered these in writing as Y-H-V-H.
So the fact that Job and his friends almost never use this Name would seem to indicate that they were less familiar with it, which would be satisfactorily explained if we assume that they were not Jewish.
We begin to get into the fuzzy area of the meaning of “Jewish”. The Kingdom of Israel (i.e., North Israel, i.e., not the Kingdom of Judah) seems to have preferred “Elohim”, as well. Of course, by one definition, these Israelites were not Jews, but, then, by another reasonable definition, no-one else before Ezra was a Jew, either.
Minor diversion: I read (in a Jehovah’s Witness tract, believe it or not) that Keren Happuch means literally “horn of kohl.” Kohl is a black cosmetic–ancient eye-liner–made of stibnite, antimony sulfite. Was the horn a symbol for plenty, or is the there a pun of some sort?
JWK, you’re right in saying that “Jewish” in this connection is something of an anachronism when used to refer to the entire nation (since originally it meant a member of the tribe of Judah). I used it in order to make it clear that the Jewish religion of today is substantially the same as that of Biblical times (with the addition of a variety of Rabbinical enactments, and the temporary suspension of the sacrificial laws), rather than an innovation (of Ezra’s or anyone else’s) that superseded a prior “Israelite religion.”
What’s the source for this? I’m well aware that classical Bible criticism attributes to a northern writer those parts of the Pentateuch that use the name Elo-him extensively, but that seems to be based on little more than the critics’ say-so. (In any case, my impression - though I don’t have sources on hand to verify this - is that the idea of a Pentateuch composed of J/E/P/D/R “strands” has been discarded by most modern Biblical scholars.) Certainly, except for formulaic usages such as “ish haElo-him” (“man of G-d”), we find Northern Kingdom speakers (kings, prophets, and commoners) regularly using the Name Y-H-V-H, as a quick perusal of the books of Kings and Amos indicates.
RedNaxela
The four strands seem pretty self-evident to me in early Genesis (except, of course, for the D strain, which isn’t there). I’ll grant it gets harder after that.
But I’m not anything like an expert on the subject.
Returning to the original question, I suspect that, before David, it wasn’t even altogether clear who was an “Israelite”, never mind the annoyingly anachronistic question of defining “Jew”. (And how about the modern debate: “It’s a religion.” “It’s an ethnicity.” “It’s a religion.” “It’s an ethnicity.”? Faugh!)
What’s notable about the ending, IMHO, is what’s missing.
The whole book is built around this bit of hectoring between God and Satan in the prologue. Job is brought in to be the birdie in their game of badminton.
But where’s the final conversation between God and Satan in the epilogue? It’s hard to see how God could win that argument, based on what has gone before. After all, he’s used his trump card on Job - “Where were you when I created the Universe? Some things are beyond mere human understanding” - to justify the fact that Job’s been afflicted as part of this ego contest between God and Satan. And Satan, unlike Job, knows that.
I don’t think there was an ending of that sort, but I’ve got to idly wonder whether it wasn’t written because the original writer(s) realized God wouldn’t look so good in that conversation.
An interesting thought, RT, but I think you’re applying modern dramatic convention, which tends to round things off fairly neatly.
I don’t think ancient mythologies necessarily cared about such conventions. Lots of myths where the gods plan (or initiate) some sort of havoc on earth, but we never go back to hear the gods talk about what they’ve wrought. IIRC, the Iliad starts with the godesses arguing etc, but the conclusion of hte Iliad is on earth, Homer didn’t bother with a scene where Zeus chews them all out with “Look what your stupid jealousies and beauty contest did!”
In biblical narrative, the simple example of Sodom comes to mind. God tells his heavenly host that He is thinking about destroying Sodom, but He’s going to see what Abraham has to say. There’s no need for a scene where God goes back to the heavenly host to say, “See? I was right, Abie is a very generous-hearted person!”
Dramatic conventions in ancient story-telling were different. My guess is that the author(s) of Job would have thought that such a scene was completely redundant, useless, confusing to the audience, and unnecessary.
Actually, the Judgement of Paris isn’t in the Iliad. It’s one of those bits which Homer assumed was already familiar to his audience (Homer didn’t write the stories, he just offered a new presentation of them). The Iliad starts in about the ninth year of the war, when folks are already sick and tired of the whole business, and just want to get it over with, already. Note also that the famous story of the Trojan Horse isn’t in the Iliad, either: The earliest source for that is a retrospective in the Odyssey. There are, however, a few scenes of Zeus chewing out the various other Olympians.
