Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Stephen,

1. Yes, Habel is not at all sensitive to the actually occurring words in 
27:5. In my view, he has Job saying things which he does not actually 
say. I see Job rather as not unlike some Psalms which cycle from despair 
to hope and something which I've attempted to demonstrate in arguing in 
my article that Job does in fact maintain a trust in the goodness of God 
to him despite present circumstances which would seem to suggest otherwise.

2. Fyall is indeed a stimulating read. I am quite reluctant to agree 
with him for at least two main reasons. Firstly, despite his analysis of 
the final chapters, they can still me naturally read as NOT referring to 
satan. Secondly, he skips dealing with 42:7, 8 -- quite a significant 
oversight!

3. 40:8 need not read as if God takes this to be what Job has indeed 
done or was attempting to achieve. It is, after all, a question, and I 
would suggest one which expects a negative answer. In my article I've 
tried to show that Job does indeed maintain a trust in the justice of 
God -- to the extent that he can paradoxically affirm that God will 
plead his case for him with God!

4. I would suggest that Job's response in 42:1-5 is a response that is 
always right in the face of divine revelation. That is, it is always 
right to affirm that God is God and that we are limited humans. Whether 
one was right or wrong is simply a non-issue when God appears. In Job's 
words: "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes 
have seen you" (42:5).

I'm indeed sorry, but I'm off with my family for a holiday for a week or 
so which means I will likely be unable to continue this conversation. 
Thanks for pushing my thinking!

Regards,
David Kummerow.



> 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.