Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Stephen and Rebecca Shead" <srshead AT gmail.com>]

Hi David,

I agree with you that all these questions continue through the book. I'm
just not sure that it's due to the Satan's ongoing rebuttals. The sense of
closure at 2:10, and the failure of the Satan to reappear, along with the
nature of God's eventual response, lead me to think that God chooses to keep
the sterner test going, for his own reasons. (Then again, if Fyall is right
in his argument that the Leviathan is a image of the Satan, maybe I'm
wrong.)

You're right on 27:5 - I was lazy there. Nevertheless, I do think that Job,
in maintaining his own integrity, at least comes very close to "condemning
God" (e.g. 9:21-24; 10:2-7). How else do we understand 40:8? In the light of
that, and of the entirety of the divine speeches, not to mention 42:1-5,
isn't it true that Job DOES have something to "regret" in what he had said,
and/or how he had said it?

Of course, that doesn't prove that NXM is "regret" as opposed to "be
consoled" in 42:6. But I am trying to show that, given the context, it can't
be dismissed too easily; I can see strong arguments for both. And for me,
the translation "regret/repent" sharpens the very interesting issue which
would remain in any case: How is it that Job "spoke what is right" of God,
in contrast with the friends (42:7), given that he has just been shown to
have "darkened counsel without knowledge" (42:3)?

Regards,
Stephen Shead.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:19:32 +1000
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NXM
> Hi Stephen,
>
> In my view, Satan's attack against Job subtly continues through the
> dialogues. Sure, by ch 2 Job has won the case for God. But like in most
> legal cases, there is opportunity for some rebuttal by the prosecution. The
> question then is: will Job continue in this stance? What if he is forced to
> examine from every direction what has happened? Will he maintain his
> position even in the face of God personally presenting himself and providing
> answers or promise of restitution? Maybe Job will give up and dismiss God
> because there is no forthcoming blessings?
>
> I disagree with Habel that 27:5 is addressed to God as the plural object
> is more naturally taken as referring to the friends. Habel for his part
> chooses not to provide an analysis of the plural object pronoun (does he
> emend it to a singular?).
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>