Hebrew Exegesis of Job (original) (raw)
Related papers
Theology and Translation Technique in the Old Greek Version of Job 28
Towards a Theology of the Septuagint, ed Johann Cook and Martin Rősel (Atlanta GA: SBL Press), 2020
Working within the broad consensus that Septuagint Job is a relatively free translation of a Hebrew Vo r l a g e similar to MT, I conduct a reading of the unasterisked text of LXX Job 28, which is taken reliably to reflect OG Job. The study proceeds as a comparison of the Hebrew and the Old Greek, minimizing the theological import of those changes that are more easily explained as misreadings, driven by literary considerations, or examples of translation technique. I approach OG Job 28 not as a discrete wisdom poem but as the second part of Job’s speech that begins in Job 27:1. The focus is on the one major plus in LXX Job 28:4, with the minuses largely attributed to an abbreviating tendency evident in the translator’s rendering of the majority of the speeches in the book and driven by stylistic more than theological concerns. The change from third- to first-person pronominal suffix (“my eye”) in 28:10 alters the theology of the passage but is nevertheless not indicative of theological tendenz, since it is more likely a misreading of the Vorlage. I suggest that, for OG Job, emulation is a more helpful model than interlinear translation for interpreting the changes made by the translator. Emulation allows for an integrated reading that respects the text of OG Job as an adaptation of Hebrew Job, an adaptation that is both a translation and a work of literature in its own right.
A blemished perfection: The book of Job in Context
1996
The present study is concerned with literary, theological, and linguistic aspects of the book of Job, and its place in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature. It developed from my examination of the unique features of these aspects of the book of Job and the attempt to ...
These verses contain few textual or philological problems of importance; nevertheless, interpretation of them, and especially of the train of thought in them, has been rather unsatisfactory. 1 Several discrete difficulties are treated hereunder in a search for a coherent exegesis.
2013
The intertextual connections between Isa 40–55 and the Hebrew Bible are well documented (Willey 1997, Sommer 1998, Schultz 1999). However, none of these studies deal with the parallels between Isaiah and Job, which is surprising because the two articles to deal explicitly with the subject (Pfeiffer 1927 and Terrien 1966) both suggest that Isaiah is dependent on Job, based on parallels such as Isa 41:20 and Job 12:9, Isa 40:4 and Job 21:22, Isa 51:17, 22 and Job 21:2, and Isa 51:15 and Job 26:12. Though the current consensus on Job’s date (5th to 3rd century BCE) would put the book after Isaiah, a product of the exile, several scholars still follow Pfeiffer and Terrien and date it before Isaiah (e.g. Pope 1973, Hartley 1998). So far the discussion has hinged primarily on which book’s message is perceived to be a later development in the evolution of Israel’s religion. I propose to use the recent development of intertextuality to approach the issue from a different perspective. Acknowledging the diachronic impasse on attempts to date the book of Job definitively, I will approach the intertextual connections between the texts from a synchronic, literary perspective, asking in particular, which direction of dependence makes better sense of the text alluded to in its original context, and then what effect the allusion would have in the alluding context. I call this approach “interchronic” because it addresses the intertexts at the intersection between the diachronic and synchronic poles, which divide most intertextual studies. My hope is not merely to push beyond the current standstill on the relative dates of Job and 2 Isa, but also to better understand what the author of Job, whom I believe is the later writer, is doing hermeneutically with his allusions to 2 Isa.
Exegetical Difficulty and the Question of Theodicy in the Book of Job
JESOT, 2021
Somewhat in distinction from other OT books, Job generates not just diverse but flatly contradictory interpretations which can be summarized as “pro-theodicy” and “anti-theodicy:” the same text is read either to demonstrate God’s justice and goodness in the face of terrible suffering or to demonstrate God’s immorality and malice. Four important passages are examined according to both of these perspectives (the interaction of the satan and YHWH in 1:6-12, 2:1-7; YHWH’s being “enticed to destroy Job for no reason” in 2:3; the comparison between Leviathan and YHWH in 41:10-12, and Job’s last response in 42:6). It is argued that although these passages contain difficulties which make it possible to carry an anti-theodicy reading very far, such a reading is ultimately untenable. Enough data is present in the text to support a reading of Job as a successful theodicy. However, the text has been written with calculated difficulties which have the tendency to force the reader to draw on the assumptions they bring to the text as well as exegetical decisions made elsewhere in the book of Job and the OT as a whole. This has the effect of reinforcing the reader’s assumptions and producing contradictory readings.