Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Reginald Wallace Ponder, Jr." <rwponder AT lycos.com>]

>Dear Robert (and other b-hebrewers):
    A number of proposals related to Job 42:1-6 have been offered in
recent weeks.  I think a certain degree of ambiguity is inevitable here
(even intended by the author, as some have suggested), yet I think Jack
Miles' approach -- which you have advocated -- needs to be taken on its
own terms.  What is most important in this regard is that Miles (*God: A
Biography*. New York: Vintage Books, 1996. p.11) writes, "Within the Book
of Job itself, God's climactic and overwhelming reply seems to silence
Job.  But reading from the end of the Book of Job onward, we see that it
is Job who has silenced God."
    In other words, Miles' interpretation depends of Job depends on a
particular, diachronic (p.13 and elsewhere) way of reading the whole
Hebrew Bible.  For those whose faith advocates the Christian canonical
ordering (an issue obviously not resolvable in this forum) or who prefer
to read each Biblical book on its own terms, Miles' approach is not
especially useful.  I  have no great problem with Miles' overall approach
(though I disagree with many of his specific conlusions, as here) as one
of several methods, as long as its presuppositions are clear.
    But it is hard to understand how his rendering of Job 42:6 is useful
if he himself indicates that it is dependent on reading the rest of the
Bible in the traditional Hebrew order, and is *not* readily apparent from
reading Job on its own.
    Thanks for raising this provocative topic. Shalom.      

Your post follows, and I have commented in a few places with my initials 
preceding my statements --

  In recent posts R. W. Ponder, B. Rea and M. Kauk  have thoughtfully
> pondered the meaning of Job 42:6. If I may be so bold as to try to sum
> up in one awkward sentence their thinking, it would be thus: Job appears
> to repent/reject/have a change of heart, in regard to either
> sin/impiety, or,  that he should grieve/despair, or that he is
> comforted.. To further muddy the waters is the idea of double meaning;
> that the text may be  supercharged with meaning at multiple levels
> (RWP). Careful Tanakh readers know that this is a frequently-appearing
> rhetorical device, i.e. to be elliptical, laconic; to be deliberately
> vague, so as,  I suppose,  to stimulate the reader to think for
> himself.  If this be true-that the author means to be deliberately
> vague, it seems futile to try to pin down *a*  meaning, if it was the
> author's intent to suggest a number of possible meanings. Why bother?
> 
> Why bother?  Because, in this case, my hunch is that the author had a
> clear, non-vague meaning in mind. Specifically, that his Job will not
> wimp out at the end.  Au contraire, based now on 1sthand knowledge, he
> will be more defiant than ever.  Elihu,  as if anticipating the event,
> says everyone  is awed by Him. (37:24)  Well, not everyone. Job may be
> somewhat awed, but not into capitulation.  He is not taken in by the
> bombast. For the  grammatical/lexical (RWP) basis for my
> persistently-defiant Job, I depend heavily on Miles, et al.  who present
> a textual reading consistent with Job's obduracy.* 

RWP: I have commented on this beneath your relevant footnote.
 
 Given that each side
> can marshal textual expertise to sustain their viewpoint, we wind up
> with a  philological impasse.
> 
> Given the stalemate, it makes sense to turn, as suggested by  RWP,  to
> the theological/hermeneutical content of the whole Book, to see if there
> be some guidance.  Some enlightenment as to what this brilliant author
> is up to in crafting this profound drama. Thinking of all of the text
> leading up to what is the linchpin of the story, verse 42:6, and,  also
> being mindful of all that happens thereafter, will this author sketch a
> repentant,  or, a somewhat- repentant- in- some way,  Job; a Job, who
> enlightened and informed by this theophany, sees the light,  no longer
> has to contend with this deity, but is released from the terrible
> treadmill of his own words (RWP). Does all of the context  (much before,
> a little after)  suggest to us that this author will have his hero come
> to know after all that YHWH is just, and will vindicate him?  Is he
> really overwhelmed, overcome by the tornado encounter, the baffling
> speech (BR)? Has this been a comforting experience? (MK)
> 
> My sense of the story is a resounding No to all of the above. Throughout
> the author will have Job utter blasphemy upon blasphemy  against God.
> That He is a heartless Enemy,  Who enjoys the sport of using Job for
> target practice. A cruel Bully who terrorizes his hapless victim;
> crushing and battering him without mercy. He is vindictive, even
> sadistic; a God Who laughs when He sees the innocent suffer. It would be
> hard to overstate how blasphemously condemning were the words the author
> puts into the mouth of Job.
> 
> Having made these daring accusations, the author sketches a Job
> determined to face the One he has so brazenly condemned.  Job wants
> confrontation; does not want to let his Tormentor off the hook, as he
> invokes the Earth itself not to hide the evidence. He wants a permanent
> record made; one  that God cannot avoid, whether in this life, or after.
> He will go out of his way to get a reluctant God into court. He will not
> quibble. He will be flexible and accommodating. It makes no difference
> who speaks first or last. Let's get on with the hearing.
> 
> Fearful Elihu warns Job against such a risky, possibly  fatal encounter
> with the lethal God. "I won't ask to speak with God!  Why should I give
> Him a chance to destroy me?"  Job, on the other hand, who has
> characterized God as being like a soldier gone mad with hate, is
> undeterred. "Even though He slay me, I am going to state my case to
> Him". Even though he knows his formidable Foe holds all the cards, and
> is not above hiding and twisting the evidence, he persists. In the
> epilogue frame story,  the author has God say twice that it is Job who
> has spoken the truth about Me. It is understandable why God didn't want
> a court hearing.
> 
> But, He will be heard,  in a way- without cross-examination,  avoiding
> all Job's protestations. With a masterful, setting-of-the-stage,
> anticipatory build-up, the author will have God finally speak. Not in a
> still, small voice, but out of the storm,  He will thunder. Stand up
> like a man.  Gird up your loins, if you want to do battle with Yahweh
> (up to now Shaddai or El,  but strategically at this point, YHWH the
> fearsome warrior-god). It is with withering sarcasm the Almighty
> Sovereign assails (continues to assail) the pathetic, bereft- of-
> family- and fortune, unrecognizably-deplorable, tortured wretch who sits
> scraping his sores with a potsherd.  The bullying continues. The
> demeaning, belittling bullying behavior of  the manifest God, is  more
> devastating than the merciless physical crushing and battering that Job
> experienced  earlier. Job is dismayed.
> 
> Dismayed? Perhaps, somewhat. But,  Job kinda knew it all along. Now, on
> the basis of 1st hand knowledge, he is convinced.  Therefore, he is not
> completely  surprised  that the Attacker makes ad hominem attacks on
> him. Asking him questions, the purpose of which is to aggrandize the
> majestic Almighty at the expense of this pathetic, petty creature who He
> will diminish yet further, or try to.  God would make him grovel.  Job
> is dismayed. But, never fear, this author will not have him grovel. Mock
> deferential, yes, but this is as  cuttingly defiant,  as the Great
> Sarcastic's sarcasms are cuttingly demeaning.
> 
> Job has an agenda of big-time issues.  Unmerited human suffering. The
> prosperity of the wicked- the suffering of the righteous. Retributive
> justice is not working. Above all, God is not just. God says to Job you
> have challenged the Almighty.   God will deal with none of these, which
> is His prerogative. His theme is His power, which Job has already
> conceded. Here, unlike other places in the Tanakh, God does not temper
> His power with justice.  As if, might makes right.  In 40:9- 14, God
> mocks a pitiful, helpless Job;  taunting him that if he could emulate
> His strength (including pouring out fierce anger, bringing down and
> crushing) then, "I will be the first to praise you".  God makes fun of
> Job. Job is dismayed. God would rather go on and on about Leviathan's
> legs and the Behemoth's great power, and how incredibly strong are these
> massive creatures-only I can defeat them. God is on a power trip. The
> issue of justice is ignored. But, notably,  God never challenges Job's
> assertion of His being unjust. How could He when the skillful  author
> has carefully contrived a tale making it impossible?
> 
> If there be an argument in Job,  perhaps Archibald Macleish captures it
> when he puts these words into the mouth of Nickles in the play "J.B."
> "I heard it in a yellow wood.
> 
> If God is God He is not good.
> 
> If God is good He is not God".
> This, I believe is the author's viewpoint which he tries to set forth in
> his masterpiece. Harold Kushner deals with the same  theodicy issue in
> "When Bad Things Happen to Good People". For him, as in Jewish tradition
> generally, God must be just.  Kushner resolves the dilemma by limiting
> God.  By denying His sovereignty, God can then be just.  Job will not do
> this. He will continue to aver both- that He is sovereign , and,  thus,
> that He is unjust.

RWP: What YHWH's long monologue in Job seems to point to is not his
injustice, but rather the difficulty in applying humanly understood
principles of justice to the Almighty, given the vast difference between
the Almighty and the human. The essence of YHWH's speech seems to be, in a
manner not unlike Chevy Chase's famous television comedy bit (please
excuse this regretably low-brow reference), "I'm God -- and you're not!" 
While this strikes many modern readers (including me, at turns) as
"withering sarcasm," the ending of the Book of Job (again, read on its own
terms) seems to find Job comforted/humbled/healed by this understanding.
> 
> God does not deny this; the idea of justice is off topic. For this
> heresy God does not slay him. In Isaiah 40:2, God appears to admit that
> He overdid the punishment of His people. I punished her "double for all
> her sins", an injustice. Later, He will bless his people doubly; in
> atonement? 61:7.   Job was unjustly treated by God, then doubly blessed.
> 
> +++++
> 
> *Job 42:1-6:  Then Job answered the Lord.
>                       "You know You can do anything.
>                       Nothing can stop You.
>                       You ask, "Who is this ignorant muddler?"
>                       Well, I said more than I knew, wonders quite
> beyond me.
>                       "You listen, and I'll talk", you say.
>                       "I'll question you, and you tell me".
>                       Word of You had reached my ears,
>                        But now that my eyes have seen You,
>                         I shudder with sorrow for mortal clay"

RWP: After seeing your post, I read Miles' discussion of Job, including
(especially) the grammatical not on pp.425-430.  He paraphrases both of
42:6's verbs together in order to get "shudder with sorrow."  This
approach to translation will not be without its supporters, but I follow a
more formal method which reads the two verbs as describing distinct, if
related, actions/states.  Miles also takes "dust and ashes" idiomatically
as "mortal clay," based on a similar usage by Abraham in Genesis and one
elsewhere in Job by Job himself.  This possibility notwithstanding, most
occurrences of "dust and ashes" have to do with repentance or mourning.
    I have one other observation about 42:6.  Although the preposition
*'al* may be used in a wide variety of ways, it frequently is used in a
spatial sense (perhaps the most "literal sense") to mean "upon/above/on
top of".  I have taken it in this sense, owing partly to Job's literal
situation "upon" the ash heap.  I think what may be going on in 42:6 is an
indication of a literal movement by Job, corresponding with his spiritual
or psychological movement: Job is getting up from the ash heap.>


> There is a change in Job. Based on his encounter with God, he is able to
> transcend his personal preoccupation. In his last words, altruistically,
> he expresses his concern for all mankind, given a God like the One he
> has just seen.
> +++++++
> *  "God: A Biography", Jack Miles, p. 325, for translation;  pgs.
> 425-430 for technical grammatical/lexical argument.
> +++++
> On 11/10/00, Dan Wagner mentioned the article "Job: Repentant or
> Rebellious", found in WTJ. I would like to read this article.  What does
> WTJ stand for?
> +++++++
> Robert Vining, Owen Sound, Ontario      rvining AT log.on.ca