Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Robert Vining <rvining AT log.on.ca>]

Following is part of the discussion with George re: Job 19:25.
George: I appreciate your  thoughtful interpretation of Job 19:25.  Very
tricky indeed is this verse as well as many other Job verses (see
below),  and the meaning of the whole book. Moshe Greenberg holds that
the poetic genius who crafted this masterpiece through, "its compression
allows multiple possibilities of interpretation, corresponding to the
open unresolved tensions in the author's vision of reality". The
powerful, inventive poetry of Job is like the cryptic, laconic style of
the Court Historian in compelling the reader to reflect,  and fill in
the gaps. Your's is one of a number of possible understandings of Job
19:25. Perhaps, the author did intend that Yahweh be understood as Job's
Vindicator;  that Job will come around to see the light, understand God
better, and repent in dust and ashes for his misconception. Perhaps not,
or, in addition to this possible meaning,  the author had other
intentions. [Earlier, I suggested the author may have meant that Job
will have a kinsman- redeemer in his controversy with God (as the
*go'el* in Num. 35:19 & Deu.:6:12.) The *go'el* will vindicate Job in
his hoped for confrontation with God over His unjust treatment of him.]

Job would like to find God, not to repent, but to argue his case before
Him. He challenges God to draw up a bill of indictment against him, and,
to hear his case, confident that if he could only get a reluctant God
into court, he (Job) would be justified.  His faith never wavers that he
will be found as pure gold, his righteousness being one of the accepted
premises of the drama. This showdown would also give God an opportunity
.to answer the various condemnations leveled against Him by Job, and to
deal with His rebellious antagonist. Job does not want to let his
Tormentor off the hook, as he invokes the Earth itself not to hide the
evidence, as well as wanting a permanent "hard copy" (thank you, George,
for this metaphor) record retained which God could not avoid,  whether
in this life, or after..

With a masterful, setting-of-the stage, anticipatory build-up, the
author will have God finally speak. How startling this bombastic address
in which God elaborates His ineffable power, as if might makes right!
But, God's power is not the issue raised by Job. Divine justice, or the
lack thereof, is. In the Psalms, and other places in the Tanakh up to
now,  God's absolute power is tempered with justice and mercy, not so
here.  The author will have God be completely unresponsive to Job's
questions, (certainly, a prerogative of a deity). In His non-sequitur
response,  God avoids all the issues raised by Job while He continues to
assail with withering sarcasm His already tortured victim. Will Job
finally come to his senses under such an overwhelming manifestation of
the Divine Majesty?  Has he been intimidated into capitulation by his
Tormentor's omnipotence and omniscience?    "Job, you challenged
Almighty God!  Will you give up now, or, will you answer? Job 40:1,2

A truly dramatic moment created by the author. Will Job give up? Will he
answer? How do you answer God? That Job answered, we know. Alas, as to
how he answered,  we can not be confident. For, perusing the literature
reveals scholars very much at odds as to how Job answered God. George,
you well state the position of those that interpret these verses as
portraying a contrite, penitent Job, who overwhelmed and enlightened by
this divine display, now recognizes his foolishness, and is sorry for
dabbling and babbling in matters  known only to God. Since he has
already said too  much, he will say no more. Consistent with this
viewpoint, later, after God's 2ndspeech, Job confesses  being ashamed
of  all that he has said, and repents  in dust and ashes. Job 42:6.
Other scholars (1) interpret the verses very differently resulting in a
meaning so different as to be diametrically opposed to the above.
Verses 40:1,2, instead of being a contrite expression of a penitent who
overspoke in matters beyond his ken, and who has now seen the light; it
is rather, a cynical,  pseudo-obsequious retort of one who feigns being
cowed into submission by the whirlwind manifestation of God's ineffably
perfect power and wisdom.  Our author has Job be as cuttingly sarcastic
to God, as God has been to him. Proponents of this position set forth as
a better literal translation,  Job's recalcitrant reply in 40:1,2-
                 "Look, I am of no account. What can I tell you?
                  My hand is on my mouth.
                  I have already spoken once: I will not harp.
                  Why go on?  I have nothing to add."

Is Job being deferential, or defiant?

As if these verses were not disputatious enough, verses 42:1-6, are even
more contentious, especially verse 6. The stakes are high in the
exegetical struggle. On the one hand, we have a chastened, enlightened,
abject Job saying he is ashamed of all I have said, and repent in dust
and ashes. On the other hand we have an intransigent, unrepentant,
defiant Job who continues to harangue away at God as he has done
throughout the poetic portion.  What a world of difference  made by
translation! Could it be that in the very last words of the final poetic
section, our author has Job make one of his most scathing denunciations
of God?  Post-theophany,  now   that he knows God better- up to now only
having heard about Him from others, but, now having seen Him with his
own eyes-  Job unburdens himself with this:
                 "Word of You had reached my ears,
                   But now that my eyes have seen You,
                   I shudder with sorrow for mortal clay" Job 42:5,6

Jack Miles thinks we have here an antithetical  parallelism, common in
Hebrew poetry, i.e. what Job now *sees* of God,  is the antithesis of
what he has *heard* about God. It is Job's dismayed judgment on God,
rather than his defeated judgment on himself. (2)
George, given that all scholars agree that there are many textual
difficulties in Job, I would be interested in your observations as to
the role copyists/scribes/translators may have had in the handing down
of the documents. Is it possible that there was, in addition to
unintentional errors, deliberate tampering ?

(1) Jack Miles, Edwin Good, Stephen Mitchell, Moshe Greenberg, Saadya
Gaon, Stanislav Segert

(2)For this interpretation,  see "God: A Biography" by Jack Miles, pages
425-430, especially  429.  For the two translations,  see pages 317 &
325.

Robert Vining, Owen Sound, Ontario        rvining AT log.on.ca