Tobias Häner | University of Vienna (original) (raw)
Papers by Tobias Häner
BRILL eBooks, Mar 2, 2023
Protokolle zur Bibel, Jun 19, 2019
Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit.... more Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit. In rezeptionsorientierter Perspektive lassen sich aber Parallelen und Ähnlichkeiten zu atl. Passagen ausmachen, die Ijob als mehrdeutige Figur zur Geltung bringen. So werden auf der einen Seite Übereinstimmungen mit Abraham sichtbar, doch lassen sich auch subtile Bezüge zu Bileam sowie zu Edom erkennen, während weisheitliche Traditionen ebenfalls anklingen. Auf narrativer Ebene stellen die Übertreibungen in 1,1-5 und Mehrdeutigkeiten in 1,22 und 2,10 Ijobs Unbescholtenheit hintergründig infrage. Die Ambiguität der Ijobfigur wird folglich nicht erst im Blick auf das Buchganze sichtbar, sondern ist bereits im Prolog angelegt.
De Gruyter eBooks, Apr 24, 2023
BRILL eBooks, Mar 2, 2023
Protokolle zur Bibel, Jun 19, 2019
Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit.... more Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit. In rezeptionsorientierter Perspektive lassen sich aber Parallelen und Ähnlichkeiten zu atl. Passagen ausmachen, die Ijob als mehrdeutige Figur zur Geltung bringen. So werden auf der einen Seite Übereinstimmungen mit Abraham sichtbar, doch lassen sich auch subtile Bezüge zu Bileam sowie zu Edom erkennen, während weisheitliche Traditionen ebenfalls anklingen. Auf narrativer Ebene stellen die Übertreibungen in 1,1-5 und Mehrdeutigkeiten in 1,22 und 2,10 Ijobs Unbescholtenheit hintergründig infrage. Die Ambiguität der Ijobfigur wird folglich nicht erst im Blick auf das Buchganze sichtbar, sondern ist bereits im Prolog angelegt.
De Gruyter eBooks, Apr 24, 2023
Biblische Zeitschrift, Aug 21, 2017
Usually, Job 1:10 is interpreted as explanation to the preceding question (“Is it for nothing tha... more Usually, Job 1:10 is interpreted as explanation to the preceding question (“Is it for nothing that Job fears God?” 1:9b). In this perspective, the Satan highlights the benefits that are granted to Job in reward for his piety: protection and blessing. Yet, at a close look, the Satan’s depiction of this reward is not completely devoid of ambiguity. As I will argue in my paper, a subtle irony in Job 1:10 questions the concept of “blessing” (cf. ברך 1:6, 10, 11 etc.) as a primary category of God’s relation to man, the same as Job’s blamelessness, underscored in 1:1, gets slightly ironized in 1:5. In order to reevaluate the function of Job 1:10, I will proceed as follows: Firstly, I will reconsider the function of the opening הלא, that – according to linguistic studies – in some cases may not function as introduction to a rhetorical question (לא + ה “Is it not…?”), but rather have an asseverative (“surely, indeed”) or presentative function (similar to הנה “behold”). Secondly, I will argue that the somewhat ambiguous semantics of the verb שוך (“to fence in”) reveals an ironic tone in the utterance of the Satan. Thirdly, I will review the function of 1:10a in context of the preceding section (1:1–5) and its signals of irony. As I will try to show, irony might be seen as a rhetorical device of primary importance in the opening of the Book of Job.
The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is i... more The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is in vivid dialogue with Torah, as a wide range of allusions and intertextual links mainly to Genesis and Deuteronomy are widely recognized in research (cf. e.g. various contributions in Dell/Kynes (Eds.): Reading Job Intertextually, 2013). In my paper, I want to reconsider the relation between the Joban Prologue (Job 1–2) and the Torah, focusing on the connections to Genesis 22 and Deuteronomy 28. As I will argue, the rhetorical functions of the links to these texts in the Joban narrative can be accurately described with the terms of irony and ambiguity. In fact, Job 1–2 does not simply negate the theological premises that underlie Gen 22 and Deut 28, but by the use ironical allusions and ambiguous references both affirms and questions them. In this way, as I will try to show, the prologue of the book of Job opens up a sophisticated discourse with two theologically relevant texts of Torah.
Old Testament essays, 2020
Research on the intertextual relations between Job 3 and Gen 1:1-2:4a (undertaken by Michael Fish... more Research on the intertextual relations between Job 3 and Gen 1:1-2:4a (undertaken by Michael Fishbane, Leo Perdue, Samuel Balentine and others) has demonstrated the likely presence of conspicuous parallels between the two texts. However, the rhetorical function of these connections remains an unsolved problem. This article's reassessment of the lexical, motivic and structural parallels as well as the comparison of Job 3 with Jer 20:14-18 attempts to show that not only does Job's soliloquy refer to the priestly creation hymn by means of allusive irony to facilitate a critical engagement with the Torah. Also, the same rhetorical device is used in Yhwh's first speech (Job 38-39) which in turn alludes to Job 3 and is understood as ironically reversing Job's allusive curse and lament. Based on these findings we may conclude that Job is ultimately defeated by Yhwh with his own arguments, yet not in a harsh, but rather in a soft and mitigative way.
Häner et al.: Irony in the Bible, 2023
The irony in YHWH's first speech to Job (Job 38–39) is evident. Yet, it is helpful to differentia... more The irony in YHWH's first speech to Job (Job 38–39) is evident. Yet, it is helpful to differentiate among different forms of irony, namely antiphrastic irony, the irony of rhetorical questions, and allusive irony. At the same time, it is important to distinguish between the communicative levels on which these ironies operate: On the intradiegetic lever, the irony serves as a means of mitigation that enables Job to accept being put in the wrong. On the extradiegetic level, the irony invites the readers of the book to open their own perception of God towards the unfathomable
Studia Biblica Slovaca, Jan 31, 2020
Contrary to the usual translation as a rhetorical question, Job 1:10a is better understood as an ... more Contrary to the usual translation as a rhetorical question, Job 1:10a is better understood as an ironic assertion. It may remain questionable whether הלא should be considered in some cases as a non-interrogative and non-negative particle in Classical Hebrew rather than as a combination of לא + ה. However, it is beyond doubt that not rarely הלא does not open up an interrogative clause but has an asseverative or presentative function. Among the criteria that have been suggested in recent research as indication of a non-interrogative use of הלא, two are of particular relevance: the fronting of the subject before the verb in verbal clauses and the sequence rhetorical question(s) – הלא-clause. Both criteria apply to Job 1:10a, which therefore is best translated as an assertion. By the use of repetitions, contrastive juxtaposition and exaggeration, the Satan subtly converts the statement on YHWH’s blessing for Job to an ironic critique of both God’s care and Job’s piety.
EABS Annual Conference Paper, Warsaw, 2019
The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is i... more The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is in vivid dialogue with Torah, as a wide range of allusions and intertextual links mainly to Genesis and Deuteronomy are widely recognized in research (cf. e.g. various contributions in Dell/Kynes (Eds.): Reading Job Intertextually, 2013). In my paper, I want to reconsider the relation between the Joban Prologue (Job 1–2) and the Torah, focusing on the connections to Genesis 22 and Deuteronomy 28. As I will argue, the rhetorical functions of the links to these texts in the Joban narrative can be accurately described with the terms of irony and ambiguity. In fact, Job 1–2 does not simply negate the theological premises that underlie Gen 22 and Deut 28, but by the use ironical allusions and ambiguous references both affirms and questions them. In this way, as I will try to show, the prologue of the book of Job opens up a sophisticated discourse with two theologically relevant texts of Torah.
Biblische Zeitschrift, 2017
Harvard Theological Review
Job’s burnt offerings for his sons and daughters followed by their death (Job 1) resembles the se... more Job’s burnt offerings for his sons and daughters followed by their death (Job 1) resembles the sequence of Aaron’s burnt offerings for himself and his sons followed by the death of his oldest sons (Lev 8–10). Within this common sequence of events, the two stories share a cluster of important, identical lexemes. Although it is not impossible that these features could have resulted unintentionally from a shared scribal culture, the textual evidence is strong enough to indicate that the scribe of Job’s prologue alludes to the priestly inauguration story of Leviticus 8–10. By reading Job after Leviticus, one sees the sharp contrast between the divine silence following Job’s intermediary sacrifices (Job 1:5, 18–19) and the divine response both to Aaron’s and to Nadab and Abihu’s sacrifices (Lev 9:22–10:3). This study clarifies how the story of Job rejects a mechanistic understanding not only of traditional wisdom, but of the Priestly cultic tradition of ancient Israel and Judah.
In the Masoretic Text (MT), the book of Job ends with a clear-cut — one might even say natural — ... more In the Masoretic Text (MT), the book of Job ends with a clear-cut — one might even say natural — closure: Job’s death 1. Notwithstanding this sharp ending, the Old Greek (OG) version adds two short notes: Job 42,17a foretells Job’s future resurrection, while v. 17b-e provides details on Job’s genealogic and geographic provenance 2. Both additions are introduced by references to written sources. The aim of this article is to show that the placement of the additions after the end of the narrative and their introduction by references to other texts give evidence of their particular function in the late phase of canonization 3. Secondly, I want to demonstrate that the additions aim to resolve ambiguities in the book they conclude. And thirdly, I will try to outline the method of authoritative interpretation that is observable in the two OG additions. As we will see, these three aspects — the position at the borderline between the canonical text and its reception; the tendency towards di...
BRILL eBooks, Mar 2, 2023
Protokolle zur Bibel, Jun 19, 2019
Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit.... more Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit. In rezeptionsorientierter Perspektive lassen sich aber Parallelen und Ähnlichkeiten zu atl. Passagen ausmachen, die Ijob als mehrdeutige Figur zur Geltung bringen. So werden auf der einen Seite Übereinstimmungen mit Abraham sichtbar, doch lassen sich auch subtile Bezüge zu Bileam sowie zu Edom erkennen, während weisheitliche Traditionen ebenfalls anklingen. Auf narrativer Ebene stellen die Übertreibungen in 1,1-5 und Mehrdeutigkeiten in 1,22 und 2,10 Ijobs Unbescholtenheit hintergründig infrage. Die Ambiguität der Ijobfigur wird folglich nicht erst im Blick auf das Buchganze sichtbar, sondern ist bereits im Prolog angelegt.
De Gruyter eBooks, Apr 24, 2023
BRILL eBooks, Mar 2, 2023
Protokolle zur Bibel, Jun 19, 2019
Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit.... more Vordergründig erscheint die Ijobfigur des Prologs (Ijob 1-2) als plattes Vorbild der Frömmigkeit. In rezeptionsorientierter Perspektive lassen sich aber Parallelen und Ähnlichkeiten zu atl. Passagen ausmachen, die Ijob als mehrdeutige Figur zur Geltung bringen. So werden auf der einen Seite Übereinstimmungen mit Abraham sichtbar, doch lassen sich auch subtile Bezüge zu Bileam sowie zu Edom erkennen, während weisheitliche Traditionen ebenfalls anklingen. Auf narrativer Ebene stellen die Übertreibungen in 1,1-5 und Mehrdeutigkeiten in 1,22 und 2,10 Ijobs Unbescholtenheit hintergründig infrage. Die Ambiguität der Ijobfigur wird folglich nicht erst im Blick auf das Buchganze sichtbar, sondern ist bereits im Prolog angelegt.
De Gruyter eBooks, Apr 24, 2023
Biblische Zeitschrift, Aug 21, 2017
Usually, Job 1:10 is interpreted as explanation to the preceding question (“Is it for nothing tha... more Usually, Job 1:10 is interpreted as explanation to the preceding question (“Is it for nothing that Job fears God?” 1:9b). In this perspective, the Satan highlights the benefits that are granted to Job in reward for his piety: protection and blessing. Yet, at a close look, the Satan’s depiction of this reward is not completely devoid of ambiguity. As I will argue in my paper, a subtle irony in Job 1:10 questions the concept of “blessing” (cf. ברך 1:6, 10, 11 etc.) as a primary category of God’s relation to man, the same as Job’s blamelessness, underscored in 1:1, gets slightly ironized in 1:5. In order to reevaluate the function of Job 1:10, I will proceed as follows: Firstly, I will reconsider the function of the opening הלא, that – according to linguistic studies – in some cases may not function as introduction to a rhetorical question (לא + ה “Is it not…?”), but rather have an asseverative (“surely, indeed”) or presentative function (similar to הנה “behold”). Secondly, I will argue that the somewhat ambiguous semantics of the verb שוך (“to fence in”) reveals an ironic tone in the utterance of the Satan. Thirdly, I will review the function of 1:10a in context of the preceding section (1:1–5) and its signals of irony. As I will try to show, irony might be seen as a rhetorical device of primary importance in the opening of the Book of Job.
The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is i... more The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is in vivid dialogue with Torah, as a wide range of allusions and intertextual links mainly to Genesis and Deuteronomy are widely recognized in research (cf. e.g. various contributions in Dell/Kynes (Eds.): Reading Job Intertextually, 2013). In my paper, I want to reconsider the relation between the Joban Prologue (Job 1–2) and the Torah, focusing on the connections to Genesis 22 and Deuteronomy 28. As I will argue, the rhetorical functions of the links to these texts in the Joban narrative can be accurately described with the terms of irony and ambiguity. In fact, Job 1–2 does not simply negate the theological premises that underlie Gen 22 and Deut 28, but by the use ironical allusions and ambiguous references both affirms and questions them. In this way, as I will try to show, the prologue of the book of Job opens up a sophisticated discourse with two theologically relevant texts of Torah.
Old Testament essays, 2020
Research on the intertextual relations between Job 3 and Gen 1:1-2:4a (undertaken by Michael Fish... more Research on the intertextual relations between Job 3 and Gen 1:1-2:4a (undertaken by Michael Fishbane, Leo Perdue, Samuel Balentine and others) has demonstrated the likely presence of conspicuous parallels between the two texts. However, the rhetorical function of these connections remains an unsolved problem. This article's reassessment of the lexical, motivic and structural parallels as well as the comparison of Job 3 with Jer 20:14-18 attempts to show that not only does Job's soliloquy refer to the priestly creation hymn by means of allusive irony to facilitate a critical engagement with the Torah. Also, the same rhetorical device is used in Yhwh's first speech (Job 38-39) which in turn alludes to Job 3 and is understood as ironically reversing Job's allusive curse and lament. Based on these findings we may conclude that Job is ultimately defeated by Yhwh with his own arguments, yet not in a harsh, but rather in a soft and mitigative way.
Häner et al.: Irony in the Bible, 2023
The irony in YHWH's first speech to Job (Job 38–39) is evident. Yet, it is helpful to differentia... more The irony in YHWH's first speech to Job (Job 38–39) is evident. Yet, it is helpful to differentiate among different forms of irony, namely antiphrastic irony, the irony of rhetorical questions, and allusive irony. At the same time, it is important to distinguish between the communicative levels on which these ironies operate: On the intradiegetic lever, the irony serves as a means of mitigation that enables Job to accept being put in the wrong. On the extradiegetic level, the irony invites the readers of the book to open their own perception of God towards the unfathomable
Studia Biblica Slovaca, Jan 31, 2020
Contrary to the usual translation as a rhetorical question, Job 1:10a is better understood as an ... more Contrary to the usual translation as a rhetorical question, Job 1:10a is better understood as an ironic assertion. It may remain questionable whether הלא should be considered in some cases as a non-interrogative and non-negative particle in Classical Hebrew rather than as a combination of לא + ה. However, it is beyond doubt that not rarely הלא does not open up an interrogative clause but has an asseverative or presentative function. Among the criteria that have been suggested in recent research as indication of a non-interrogative use of הלא, two are of particular relevance: the fronting of the subject before the verb in verbal clauses and the sequence rhetorical question(s) – הלא-clause. Both criteria apply to Job 1:10a, which therefore is best translated as an assertion. By the use of repetitions, contrastive juxtaposition and exaggeration, the Satan subtly converts the statement on YHWH’s blessing for Job to an ironic critique of both God’s care and Job’s piety.
EABS Annual Conference Paper, Warsaw, 2019
The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is i... more The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is in vivid dialogue with Torah, as a wide range of allusions and intertextual links mainly to Genesis and Deuteronomy are widely recognized in research (cf. e.g. various contributions in Dell/Kynes (Eds.): Reading Job Intertextually, 2013). In my paper, I want to reconsider the relation between the Joban Prologue (Job 1–2) and the Torah, focusing on the connections to Genesis 22 and Deuteronomy 28. As I will argue, the rhetorical functions of the links to these texts in the Joban narrative can be accurately described with the terms of irony and ambiguity. In fact, Job 1–2 does not simply negate the theological premises that underlie Gen 22 and Deut 28, but by the use ironical allusions and ambiguous references both affirms and questions them. In this way, as I will try to show, the prologue of the book of Job opens up a sophisticated discourse with two theologically relevant texts of Torah.
Biblische Zeitschrift, 2017
Harvard Theological Review
Job’s burnt offerings for his sons and daughters followed by their death (Job 1) resembles the se... more Job’s burnt offerings for his sons and daughters followed by their death (Job 1) resembles the sequence of Aaron’s burnt offerings for himself and his sons followed by the death of his oldest sons (Lev 8–10). Within this common sequence of events, the two stories share a cluster of important, identical lexemes. Although it is not impossible that these features could have resulted unintentionally from a shared scribal culture, the textual evidence is strong enough to indicate that the scribe of Job’s prologue alludes to the priestly inauguration story of Leviticus 8–10. By reading Job after Leviticus, one sees the sharp contrast between the divine silence following Job’s intermediary sacrifices (Job 1:5, 18–19) and the divine response both to Aaron’s and to Nadab and Abihu’s sacrifices (Lev 9:22–10:3). This study clarifies how the story of Job rejects a mechanistic understanding not only of traditional wisdom, but of the Priestly cultic tradition of ancient Israel and Judah.
In the Masoretic Text (MT), the book of Job ends with a clear-cut — one might even say natural — ... more In the Masoretic Text (MT), the book of Job ends with a clear-cut — one might even say natural — closure: Job’s death 1. Notwithstanding this sharp ending, the Old Greek (OG) version adds two short notes: Job 42,17a foretells Job’s future resurrection, while v. 17b-e provides details on Job’s genealogic and geographic provenance 2. Both additions are introduced by references to written sources. The aim of this article is to show that the placement of the additions after the end of the narrative and their introduction by references to other texts give evidence of their particular function in the late phase of canonization 3. Secondly, I want to demonstrate that the additions aim to resolve ambiguities in the book they conclude. And thirdly, I will try to outline the method of authoritative interpretation that is observable in the two OG additions. As we will see, these three aspects — the position at the borderline between the canonical text and its reception; the tendency towards di...
FAT 179. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2024
Ironie und Ambiguität spielen in neueren Untersuchungen und Kommentaren zum Ijobbuch eine nicht u... more Ironie und Ambiguität spielen in neueren Untersuchungen und Kommentaren zum Ijobbuch eine nicht unbedeutende Rolle. Tobias Häner macht diese beiden Aspekte des Texts zum Mittelpunkt seiner Studie. Übertreibungen und das Ausmaß an Wiederholungen stellen in der Prologerzählung Anzeichen von pragmatischer Unaufrichtigkeit dar, die auf Endtextebene die ironischen Gehalte in den weiteren Buchteilen vorbereitet. Im poetischen Teil des Buches sind ironische Sinnspitzen vor allem in den Ijobreden zu verorten. Intradiegetisch werden dabei durch teilweise leicht verfälschte Zitate und Anspielungen die Argumente der Freunde rhetorisch untergraben, extradiegetisch lässt sich eine Ironisierung der Gebetssprache der Psalmen ausmachen. In den Gottesreden wird dagegen umgekehrt Ijob zum Ziel der Ironie, die zusammen mit den Ambiguitäten auf die Begrenztheit menschlichen Erkenntnisvermögens verweist.
Taking up a recent trend in studies on the book of Job, Tobias Häner centers his work on irony and ambiguity in the text to show that both rhetorical features appear throughout the book and point to the finiteness of human cognitive faculty.
It is generally agreed that there is significant irony in the Bible. However, to date no work has... more It is generally agreed that there is significant irony in the Bible. However, to date no work has been published in biblical scholarship that on the one hand includes interpretations of both Hebrew Bible and New Testament writings under the perspective of irony, and on the other hand offers a panorama of the approaches to the different types and functions of irony in biblical texts.
The following volume: (1) reevaluates scholarly definitions of irony and the use of the term in biblical research; (2) builds on existing methods of interpretation of ironic texts; (3) offers judicious analyses of methodological approaches to irony in the Bible; and (4) develops fresh insights into biblical passages.
Die Dissertationsschrift von Tobias Häner zeichnet die Hauptetappen des Leseprozesses des Ezechie... more Die Dissertationsschrift von Tobias Häner zeichnet die Hauptetappen des Leseprozesses des Ezechielbuches nach. Die Katastrophe des Falls Jerusalems und der Zerstörung des Tempels im Zuge der babylonischen Invasion und die spätere Ermöglichung der Rückkehr der Verschleppten aus dem babylonischen Exil kommen in dem Prophetenbuch als Ereignisse in den Blick, die ein bleibendes Nachwirken evozieren: Just aus den schuldverfallenen und jeglicher Hoffnung beraubten Exilierten schafft JHWH in der Konzeption des Ezechielbuches das neue Israel, das folglich bleibend auf die Unverdientheit der gottgewirkten Erneuerung rückverwiesen ist.
Biblische Zeitschrift, Aug 21, 2017
Review of "Die Rückgewinnung des Vertrauens. Ökumene als Konfliktbewältigung", by Sven Grosse and... more Review of "Die Rückgewinnung des Vertrauens. Ökumene als Konfliktbewältigung", by Sven Grosse and Andreas Schmidt, EOS Verlag, St. Ottilien 2014
The project description includes an overview of the history of research on God's speeches (Job 38... more The project description includes an overview of the history of research on God's speeches (Job 38:1-42:6) and a description of aims and methodology.
Die Gottesreden stehen im Buchkontext nicht so isoliert da, wie auf den ersten Blick scheinen mag... more Die Gottesreden stehen im Buchkontext nicht so isoliert da, wie auf den ersten Blick scheinen mag. Die metaphorische Redeweise Ijobs und seiner Freunde wird in den JHWH-Reden aufgebrochen, die Wildtiere kommen innerhalb ihres realen Lebensbereiches in wertschätzender Weise in den Blick. Bis dahin hat die Rückbindung von Ijob 38-41 an den vorangehenden Ijobtext in wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen nur selten Beachtung gefunden.
Invitation and Program; «Truly, with you wisdom will die» (Job 12:2) Irony und Ambiguity in den B... more Invitation and Program;
«Truly, with you wisdom will die» (Job 12:2)
Irony und Ambiguity in den Books of Ecclesiastes und Job
from Thursday, March 19, 2020, 09.00 am to Friday, March 20, 12.00 am
Meeting Room of the Deanery of the Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Vienna
IOSOT Conference , 2019
Usually, Job 1:10 is interpreted as explanation to the preceding question (“Is it for nothing tha... more Usually, Job 1:10 is interpreted as explanation to the preceding question (“Is it for nothing that Job fears God?” 1:9b). In this perspective, the Satan highlights the benefits that are granted to Job in reward for his piety: protection and blessing. Yet, at a close look, the Satan’s depiction of this reward is not completely devoid of ambiguity. As I will argue in my paper, a subtle irony in Job 1:10 questions the concept of “blessing” (cf. ברך 1:6, 10, 11 etc.) as a primary category of God’s relation to man, the same as Job’s blamelessness, underscored in 1:1, gets slightly ironized in 1:5. In order to reevaluate the function of Job 1:10, I will proceed as follows: Firstly, I will reconsider the function of the opening הלא, that – according to linguistic studies – in some cases may not function as introduction to a rhetorical question (לא + ה “Is it not…?”), but rather have an asseverative (“surely, indeed”) or presentative function (similar to הנה “behold”). Secondly, I will argue that the somewhat ambiguous semantics of the verb שוך (“to fence in”) reveals an ironic tone in the utterance of the Satan. Thirdly, I will review the function of 1:10a in context of the preceding section (1:1–5) and its signals of irony. As I will try to show, irony might be seen as a rhetorical device of primary importance in the opening of the Book of Job.
EABS Annual Meeting, Warsaw, 2019
Creation motifs stand out as an important link between the Pentateuch and texts that are commonly... more Creation motifs stand out as an important link between the Pentateuch and texts that are commonly attributed to Wisdom literature. At the same time, in the Book of Job, references and allusions to divine acts of creation turn up frequently throughout the dialogue part, namely in God’s speeches (Job 38–41). Unequivocal references to Gen 1–3, however, seem to be very rare, Job’s desperate wish יהי חשך (Job 3:4) as inversion of God’s יהי אור (Gen 1:3) appearing as the most frequently mentioned case. In recent research, opinions are divided: Whereas on the one hand e.g. Beyer (2011) and Balentine (2013) emphasize the references in Job (1–)3 to Gen 1:1–2:3, Schmid (2007:244–5) and Kwon (2018:63–65) regard the connections between these texts as rather slight. In my paper, I re-evaluate the literary relation between the creation accounts in the Pentateuch and the creation motifs in the dialogue part of the Book of Job. In particular, I will focus on the motifs of “light” and “darkness” in Job’s initial lament (Job 3) and God’s first speech (Job 38–39). My aim is to show that God’s speech rhetorically functions as ironic rebuttal of Job 3, whereas Gen 1(–3) serves as essential background to which both Job’s lament and God’s answer subtly allude.
EABS Annual Conference Paper, Warsaw, 2019
The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is i... more The lexeme “Torah” appears only once in the Book of Job (Job 22:22). Nonetheless, the latter is in vivid dialogue with Torah, as a wide range of allusions and intertextual links mainly to Genesis and Deuteronomy are widely recognized in research (cf. e.g. various contributions in Dell/Kynes (Eds.): Reading Job Intertextually, 2013).
In my paper, I want to reconsider the relation between the Joban Prologue (Job 1–2) and the Torah, focusing on the connections to Genesis 22 and Deuteronomy 28. As I will argue, the rhetorical functions of the links to these texts in the Joban narrative can be accurately described with the terms of irony and ambiguity. In fact, Job 1–2 does not simply negate the theological premises that underlie Gen 22 and Deut 28, but by the use ironical allusions and ambiguous references both affirms and questions them. In this way, as I will try to show, the prologue of the book of Job opens up a sophisticated discourse with two theologically relevant texts of Torah.