The Book of Job: Structure & Message

The Book of Job: Structure & Message Summary: In what follows, I discuss the relationship between Job’s structure and message. The book of Job, I submit, has a highly unified and tightly integrated structure, which: a] illuminates a number of important aspects of its message, and b] makes it hard to view the book of Job as the product of multiple authorship. Key words: the book of Job, structure, literary analysis, redaction, unity, coherence. Date: Jan. 2020. Over the years, Job’s structure has been analysed in a multiplicity of ways.1 The majority of them are predicated on the differences between the various sections of the book (e.g., the prologue, first scene, main debate, etc.).2 In what follows, however, I want to proffer a structural analysis predicated on the similarities between these sections. The task of structural analysis is not easy given a text as long as Job. The best approach (in my view) is to dive straight into the details of the text and ‘zoom out’ from there. Consider, then, the central event behind Job’s story, namely the discussion which takes place between YHWH and Satan3 in 1.6–12. YHWH’s dialogue with Satan consists of five elements: ➢ YHWH speaks (1.7a), ➢ Satan answers (1.7b), ➢ YHWH speaks again (1.8), ➢ Satan responds with a wager (1.9), and ➢ YHWH accepts Satan’s wager (1.12). 1 A summary of the major views can be found in Steinmann 1996:86–89. 2 Many commentators, for instance, find the Job of the book’s prologue to be a very different character to the Job of the book’s main dialogue. (For references, cf. Pang 2010:9–18.) 3 Lit. ‘the accuser’, but, in the present note, I render ha-satan as ‘Satan’ per the convention employed in (almost all) English translations. YHWH’s next dialogue with Satan (cp. 2.2–6) follows exactly the same pattern: ➢ YHWH speaks (2.2a), ➢ Satan answers (2.2b), ➢ YHWH speaks (2.3),4 ➢ Satan responds with a wager (2.4), and ➢ YHWH accepts Satan’s wager (2.6). These dialogues are significant for (at least) two reasons. First, due to their ⟨ABABA⟩ form, they start in the same way as they finish, namely with the word of YHWH. As such, they identify YHWH as the first mover and final arbiter in the book of Job’s events. Second, while they have a sense of symmetry (⟨ABABA⟩), they also have a sense of direction/progress. That is to say, YHWH’s dialogues with Satan are not merely symmetrical (‘there and back again’); they are also linear (⟨ABCDE⟩). In line 1, YHWH asks Satan an apparently innocent question. (‘Where have you been?’) In line 2, Satan responds. (‘Oh, here and there!’5) In line 3, YHWH focuses the discussion on the story’s main character, namely Job. In line 4, the discussion comes to a head as Satan offers God a wager, which leaves us anxious to find out what will happen next. And, in line 5, we do find out: YHWH’s dialogue with Satan comes to a conclusion as—to our surprise—YHWH accepts Satan’s wager! Job’s trials A similar fivefold pattern is evident elsewhere in Job. Consider, for instance, the two scenes where disasters befall Job. The first (cp. 1.13–22) unfolds as follows: ➢ ⟨Messenger 1 arrives⟩: ‘The Sabeans have raided!’. ➢ ⟨Messenger 2 arrives⟩: ‘Fire has fallen from heaven!’. ➢ ⟨Messenger 3 arrives⟩: ‘The Chaldeans have raided!’. ➢ ⟨Messenger 4 arrives⟩: ‘A great wind has come!’. ➢ Job responds. 4 Despite how frequently the phrase ‘he answered and said’ occurs in the book of Job (cp. ‫ ויען ויאמר‬in 1.7, 2.2, 4.1, 6.1, 8.1, 9.1, etc.)—even when nothing has been said which can plausibly be ‘answered’ (e.g., 3.2)—, YHWH is never said to ‘answer’ (‫ )ענה‬Satan, which is significant. As YHWH makes abundantly clear in chs. 38–42, he is not a God who is answerable to his creation. 5 While Satan’s answer sounds innocuous, it is not. The employment of the verb ‫‘ = שוט‬to go to and fro’ resonates uncomfortably with the noun ‫‘ = שוט‬disaster’, which is soon to be unleashed on Job (9.23). Like YHWH and Satan’s dialogue, the scene above has a sense of ⟨ABAB⟩ oscillation insofar as it alternates between descriptions of ‘human disasters’ and ‘acts of God’. It also a sense of progression/crescendo (⟨ABCDE⟩). In 1.14, Job receives his first item of news. The Sabeans, he is told, have taken his cattle and slain his servants. Then, before Job is able to respond—i.e., before we find out how Job will react—, a second messenger arrives, who brings Job news of a second disaster. And then, before Job is able to respond, a third messenger arrives, and finally a fourth.6 Hence, as the scene unfolds, our sense of expectation/anticipation heightens, while the repetition of the words ‘I alone am left’ anticipate the awful isolation/exile which is about to befall Job. At the same time, the numerical quantities involved in the scene increase. The first disaster originates from a singular source (cp. the text’s employment of the singular noun Sheva rather than the expected Sheva’im.7) The second comes from a dual source (shamayim = ‘the heavens’, a dual noun). The third involves ‘three bands’ of raiders. (Why else would we need to know how many bands the raiders divide into?) And the fourth collapses ‘the four corners’ of Job’s firstborn son’s house. Hence, at the end of Act 4, we are left in a state of suspense, eager to find out how Job will react. And, in Act 5, we do find out. Suffice it to say, Job’s reaction to what has befallen him is every bit as extraordinary as YHWH’s response to Satan’s wager. The Sabeans have ‘fallen’ on Job’s possessions; fire has ‘fallen’ from heaven; Job’s house has ‘fallen’ on his children; and now, in Act 5, Job falls to the ground. And yet, remarkably, he does so in worship to his Maker.8 No less extraordinary is Job’s specific pronouncement in 1.21, which assumes the normal fivefold pattern. Specifically, it combines a sense of oscilation—⟨A⟩ = ‘Naked I came forth’, ⟨B⟩ = ‘Naked I will return’, etc.—with a sense of progression/crescendo (⟨ABCDE⟩). And its fourth line creates suspense in anticipation of the (extraordinary) conclusion to come: 6 So also Clines 1985:2. 7 Note, by way of contrast, 1.17’s reference to ‫‘ = כשדים‬the Chaldeans’, and note the singular verbal form in 1.15, viz. ‫ותפ ֹל שבא ותקחֵ ם‬. 8 Scene 5 ends in a similar way. ‘Job cursed…’, we read (cp. 3.1). We therefore begin to worry. Is Job about to curse God? Will Satan win his wager? Mercifully not. Job does not curse God; he instead curses ‘the day of his birth’.  ➢ Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, Job says, ➢ And naked I will return there. ➢ The LORD has given, ➢ And the LORD has taken away. These initial (four) pronouncements are simply statements of fact. (Job did in fact enter the world naked, etc.) Job’s reaction could still, therefore, go either way; that is to say, Job could still, plausibly, curse God in line 5. Yet his pronouncement—which is shown below in its context—is extraordinary: ➢ Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, ➢ And naked I will return there. ➢ The LORD has given, ➢ And the LORD has taken away. ➢ Blessed be the name of the LORD! A similar fivefold pattern underlies the events of 2.7–3.1, where further disasters befall Job: ➢ ⟨Act 1⟩: Job’s accuser tempts him to curse God (cp. 2.7 w. 5). ➢ ⟨Act 2⟩: Job resists. ➢ ⟨Act 3⟩: Job’s wife tempts him to curse God. ➢ ⟨Act 4⟩: Job resists. ➢ ⟨Act 5⟩: Job’s friends visit him. As usual, we have a sense both of oscilation (temptation, resistance, temptation,…) as well as of progression (since the scene ends in the all-important visit of Job’s friends). And, importantly, we have a ‘wrinkle’ to process, i.e., a deviation from the normal pattern. (Once a pattern has been established, rigid adherence to it conveys no new information; what we should look out for as readers is deviation from it: Alter 1981:56 et pass.) Unlike his accusers, Job’s friends do not seek to provoke him. Rather, they grieve with him, and sit with him in silence—which is significant as it creates a sense of suspense. Who will speak first? Job or his friends? And what will they say? Will Job curse God after all? (When we read vayqallel in 3.1b, it seems as if he is about to.9) Or will his friends manage to comfort him?10 (Such are the questions answered by our next scene: cp. 3.2ff.) 9 Cp. our footnote above. 10 While the silence of Job’s friends is often praised, our author portrays it quite ambiguously. ‘Job had no-one to speak to him’ (‫)אין דֹּבֵר אליו‬, we read, as if someone should have spoken to Job. Indeed, that Job of all people—a man who had just been robbed of his health, wealth, sons, and daughters—was left to break the silence between him and his friends hardly seems appropriate. Zooming out… But the fivefold pattern identified above is not only present in the low-level details of Job; it is also reflected at a higher level. Consider, for instance, the events of 1.1–3.1: ➢ ⟨Scene 1⟩: Life in Uz; all is well (1.1–5). ➢ ⟨Scene 2⟩: Dialogue in heaven (1.6–12, vayehi ha-yom…). ➢ ⟨Scene 3⟩: Disaster on earth (1.13–22, vayehi ha-yom…). ➢ ⟨Scene 4⟩: Dialogue in heaven (2.1–5, vayehi ha-yom…). ➢ ⟨Scene 5⟩: Further disasters on earth (2.6–3.1). Note: As can be seen, the start of each new scene is indicated by the words vayehi ha-yom (‘And there came a day when…’) with the exception of the final scene—a point we will take up later. Here, we have the usual sense both of ‘oscillation’ (between heaven and earth: ⟨ABABA⟩) as well as of direction/progress (as a whole sequence of disasters befall Job: ⟨ABCDE⟩). Particularly significant as far as Job’s plotline is concerned is the text’s oscillation (⟨ABABA⟩). For one thing, it emphasises how little Job knows. Job’s experiences are limited to the ⟨A⟩s of the sequence ⟨ABABA⟩, i.e., to Scenes 1, 3, and 5. Hence, from Job’s perspective, his trials begin on the earth (with a Sabean raid). Meanwhile, from the perspective of Job’s friends, his trials must be understood in light of Scene 1—i.e., in light of Job’s past—, since that is all they know about. From heaven’s perspective, however, things look very different. YHWH and his heavenly court are able to fill in the ‘gaps’ in Job’s ⟨A…A…A⟩ vision. What Job sees in part, heaven sees in full. In addition, the oscillation inherent in 1.1–3.1 highlights the central issue/problem with ch. 3–37’s debate. At the close of Scene 5, we expect to be taken back up to heaven’s courts (since we expect the text’s ⟨AB…⟩ oscillation to continue) in order to acquire heaven’s perspective on events. But we are not. We are instead left amongst the ashes in Uz, where we are forced to listen to Job and his friends’ long and tedious debate (as heaven remains oddly silent).11 11 So Clines 1985:3. While unusual, heaven’s silence should not come as a complete surprise to us, since Scene 3 is written in such a way as to tease us with—though ultimately withhold—news from heaven. In 1.14, we read about a malach (‫ )מלאך‬who comes to see Job, which we expect (at first blush) to be an angel, but are let down: the malach turns out to be a merely human ‘messenger’ with news of a recent disaster. Then, in 1.17, we read about (what we expect to be) an ish elohim (‫)אש אלהם‬, i.e., ‘a man of God’ who could potentially shed light on Job’s experiences, yet who/which turns out to be a further disaster, i.e., esh elohim = ‘the fire of God’ (‫)אש אלהם‬. Meanwhile, the jointly oscillatory (⟨ABAB…⟩) and progressive (⟨ABCDE⟩) aspects of our fivefold pattern provide a vivid picture of Job’s state of mind as he oscillates between one argument and another (like the miner described in 28.4, who ‘hangs in the air, unsupported, and swings to and fro’), and yet at the same time slowly converges (in some ways) on a more accurate view of God. Given, then, the surprise aspect of 3.2’s dialogue, it seems plausible to view the high-level pattern of the book of Job as an introduction (1.1–5) followed by five scenes (show below), the last of which begins in 3.2 and consistitutes the surprise at the end of the sequence ⟨ABCDE⟩—a point we will take up later. ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s initial state (1.1–5). ➢ ⟨Scene 1⟩: Dialogue in heaven (1.6–12). ➢ ⟨Scene 2⟩: Disaster on earth (1.13–21). ➢ ⟨Scene 3⟩: Further dialogue in heaven (2.1–5). ➢ ⟨Scene 4⟩: Further disaster on earth (2.6–3.1). ➢ ⟨Scene 5⟩: Much debate on earth (3.2–42.8). First, however, we should briely mention the wrinkle in 1.1–3.1’s pattern. As we saw, the last two scenes of 1.1–3.1 are not separated by the normal textual boundary-marker (vayehi ha-yom), which is instructive, since, in 2.6, Satan abandons his previous sphere of influence/operation (i.e., the realm of heaven) and becomes directly involved with events on the earth (cp. Rev. 12.12). As David Clines notes, ‘the fourth scene (of 1.1–3.1) dissolves into the fifth’ (Clines U.I:2 cp. 1985:3–4). A similar phenomenon can be observed elsewhere in Job. For instance, the boundary between lines 4 and 5 of YHWH and Satan’s dialogue (discussed above) seems to become slightly blurry as far as YHWH and Satan’s respective roles are concerned. Satan surely oversteps the mark when he offers God a wager, and God, it would seem, acts in a rather out of character manner when he accepts it. The book as a whole In light of what we have noted above, we can plausibly view the book of Job in terms of seven discrete units: ➢ Life in Uz; all is well (1.1–5). ➢ Dialogue in heaven (1.6–12). ➢ Disaster on earth (1.13–21). ➢ Further dialogue in heaven (2.1–5). ➢ Further disaster on earth (2.6–3.1). ➢ Debate on earth, ultimately settled by YHWH (3.2–42.8). ➢ Life in Uz; all is well once again (42.9–17). When we do so—that is to say, when we set the book of Job’s major scenes side by side—, two things become very clear. First, Job and his friends’ debate is extraordinarily long. (It amounts to almost forty chapters.) In historical terms, Job and his friends’ debate need not have lasted for long. It could have taken far less time, for instance, than the seven days of silence before it, not to mention the restoration of Job’s seven sons (cp. 42.9–17). But, in literary terms, it is the longest scene in the book by a country mile—which is not insignificant. In the absence of divine revelation, conversations about why people suffer are long and tedious. And, from the perspective of the people they most concern (i.e., people who are in pain), they seem to go on for an eternity.12 (Job says his friends have reproached him on ten separate occasions when they have only spoken to him five times: 19.3.) Second, Job’s introduction (1.1–5) and conclusion (42.9–17) exhibit a notable symmetry. For a start, they perform symmetrical functions: in 1.1–5, Job’s former/lost estate is described, and, in 42.9–17, Job’s final/restored estate is described. But the symmetry of Job’s introduction and conclusion is not only functional; it is also formal, as is shown below: 12 Elihu’s statement in 35.16 contains a germ of truth: ‘In the absence of knowledge’, people invariably ‘multiply words’.  ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s integrity (1.1) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s descendants (1.2) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s cattle and servants (1.3) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s (sons’) feasts (1.4) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s sacrifices (for his sons) (1.5) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s prayer (for his friends) (42.9) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s feasts (42.11) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s cattle (restored twofold) (42.12) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s descendants (restored ‘onefold’) (42.13) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s death (42.16) Note: Later, we’ll address some of the asymmetries/wrinkles in the above pattern, such as the fact Job ends up with twice as many cattle than he previously possessed yet the same number of sons and daughters. As a whole, then, the book of Job can plausibly be viewed in terms of five (fivefold!) scenes, topped and tailed by descriptions of Job’s state: ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s initial state (1.1–5). ➢ ⟨Scene 1⟩: Dialogue in heaven (1.6–12). ➢ ⟨Scene 2⟩: Disaster on earth (1.13–21). ➢ ⟨Scene 3⟩: Further dialogue in heaven (2.1–5). ➢ ⟨Scene 4⟩: Further disaster on earth (2.6–3.1). ➢ ⟨Scene 5⟩: Debate on earth, settled by YHWH (3.2–42.8). ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s final state (42.9–17). But, of course, the book of Job can equally well be arranged/analysed in other ways, which are important for us to note, since they bring out two important sub-plots within the book of Job. Suppose we view 1.1–5 not as an introduction, but as the first of five scenes (with the book’s subsequent scenes viewed as a kind of extended epilogue, in which Job picks up the pieces of his life in the aftermath of Satan’s assault). We then obtain the structure shown below: ➢ Earth: All is well with the world. ➢ Heaven: A wager is made between YHWH and Satan. ➢ Earth: Disaster strikes. ➢ Heaven: A second wager is made. (Double or nothing.) ➢ Earth: Disaster strikes, yet Job does not abandon his integrity. Here, we have the usual sense of oscillation combined with an element of progression/escalation. Importantly, however, our structure climaxes not with Job and his friends’ debate, but with Job’s refusal to curse God (in the aftermath of great loss). As such, our attention is focused particularly on the debate between God and Satan, in which the issue at stake concerns the relationship between worship and wealth. Is all worship motivated by wealth, or can worship be given ‘without cause/recompsense’ (chinnam: 1.9)? In order to settle the matter, Job is treated as a test case. Satan says Job will curse God once his wealth is taken away; God says he won’t; and, in the fifth/final scene, Satan loses his wager. Why? Because of what Satan cannot see yet God can see, namely how Job will respond (in the book’s last two scenes). As such, Job’s integrity settles the debate between God and Satan (in God’s favour). These considerations can help us to analyse the fivefold structure we originally identified (with 1.1–5 viewed as an introduction), as is shown below: ➢ Heaven: Dialogue between YHWH and Satan. ➢ Earth: Disaster strikes. ➢ Heaven: Dialogue between YHWH and Satan. ➢ Earth: Disaster strikes. ➢ Earth: Dialogue between Job and his friends, in which Job does not abandon his integrity. Here, Job’s story does not climax in Job’s refusal to curse God (2.9– 10); it instead climaxes in Job’s debate with his friends. As such, the issue under debate is a different one. Job and his friends’ debate does not concern the relationship between worship and wealth, but the relationship between sin and divine affliction. Is all affliction the result of sin, or does God afflict people with disaster for reasons other than personal sin? Job’s friends say Job is merely a sinner; Job says he is merely afflicted; and, in the climactic fifth scene of the fifth scene of the debate (discussed below), God adjudicates in Job’s favour. Like Satan, then, Job’s friends lose their debate. And they do so because, just as Satan does not know what will happen in the future, so Job’s friends do not know what has happened in the past (in heaven, i.e., in Scenes 1 and 3). More specifically, they do not know about God and Satan’s wager, in which God refers to Job’s affliction as ‘without cause’ (chinnam: 2.3). In sum, then, our author interweaves two different fivefold sequences of events in order to bring out certain similarities between them. Satan and Job’s friends level simliar accusations at Job. Both of them think Job must have behaved in a certain way because of the mechanistic way in which they assume the world operates. Satan thinks Job’s worship must have been motivated by his wealth. And Job’s friends think Job must have sinned. And yet, in reality, the world does not operate mechanistically. Contra Satan’s accusation, not all worship has a materialistic cause. And contra Job’s friends’ accusations, not all afflication has a moral cause. Rather, Job’s worship is chinnam (1.9), as are Job’s afflictions (2.3),13 which helps us to understand what is meant by the word chinnam (trad. ‘without cause’) in the book of Job. In Job, chinnam does not refer to ‘causelessness’ in the sense of ‘randomness’. Rather, chinnam refers to how the world appears to operate from a particular perspective (or, more accurately, given a particular set of background information). The cause of Job’s worship is Job’s integrity, yet, since Satan cannot conceive of such integrity, he refers to Job’s worship as chinnam. Meanwhile, the cause of Job’s affliction is God’s decision to afflict him, yet, since no- one but God cannot comprehend his mind, God refers to Job’s affliction as chinnam. As such, Satan and Job’s friends make the same basic mistake. They assume the world is governed by a simple and transparent network of causes and effects. God, however, has reasons for what he does which exceed our ability to comprehend, and God can implant desires and determinations within the hearts of his people which are little easier to fathom. As a result, the primary way in which we learn about spiritual realities is by revelation rather than reason. Job and his friends’ debate We still, however, need to discuss the internal structure of Job and his friends’ debate, which, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll refer to as ‘Scene 5’. How does Job and his friends’ debate relate to the structure(s) we’ve identified above? Does it exhibit our standard fivefold pattern? Yes and No. At first blush, the form of Scene 5 seems fairly irregular, since it involves a number of unexpected incidents. (In the third round of the debate, Zophar declines to speak, while, in the fourth, a man named Elihu appears, swiftly followed by YHWH.) Yet, in actual fact, the text of chs. 3–39 turns out to have been divided into four (sixfold) rounds of debate (followed by a fifth fivefold round: 40.1–42.8) by means of the word vayomer (‘And he said’), as shown below: 13 Cp. Clines 1985:7–8, where a similar point is made. Acts 1–4: Act 1 Act 2 Act 3 Act 4 Job (3.2) Job (12.1) Job (21.1) Job (29.1) Eliphaz (4.1) Eliphaz (15.1) Eliphaz (22.1) Elihu (32.6) Job (6.1) Job (16.1) Job (23.1) Elihu (34.1) Bildad (8.1) Bildad (18.1) Bildad (25.1) Elihu (35.1) Job (9.1) Job (19.1) Job (26.1) Elihu (36.1) Zophar (11.1) Zophar (20.1) Job (27.1) YHWH (38.1) Act 5: ➢ YHWH speaks (40.1), ➢ Job answers (40.3), ➢ YHWH speaks (40.6), ➢ Job repents (42.1), and ➢ YHWH speaks (to Job’s friends: 42.7), Each of the speeches set out above are defined/delimited by the word vayomer, which produces a very deliberate structure, since it divides what would otherwise be seen as single speeches into multiple sections. Job’s speech in 26–31 is not, therefore, one speech but three, while Elihu’s is four. As for the shape/structure of the individual acts, the usual sense of oscillation combined with escalation can be observed. In Act 1, Job’s speeches are largely laments/complaints. In Act 2, Job makes a number of major break-throughs (cp. in particular 13.15, 16.18–21, 19.25). In Act 3, Job’s speeches revert to the tone of Act 1’s.14 In Act 4, Job and his friends’ debate is significantly advanced (by Job’s summary statement and Elihu’s counter-argument). And, in Act 5 (which is separated from Act 4 by a familiar fuzzy boundary-line15), Job’s discourse with his friends comes to its climax as YHWH enters the debate, which exhibits the normal fivefold pattern. The speakers oscillate (YHWH, Job, YHWH, Job, …) while the story moves towards its climax. And, as happens elsewhere, its fifth (sub) act (42.7–8) involves two important surprises. First, YHWH does not reveal his assessment of events to Job—the person who has been most eager to discover it—, but to Eliphaz. 14 Christoper Ash, for instance, notes how Job’s debate with his friends flows ‘to and fro’, and how, at the outset of ch. 28, it does not seem as it has really established anything (Ash 2004:64). 15 Just as (in 1.1–3.1) Satan leaves his previous sphere of operation at the end of a 4th scene/act, so too does YHWH. Second, YHWH requires Eliphaz and his two friends to offer up seven (propitiatory) sacrifices and ask Job to pray for them,16 which is odd, since if Job’s friends are fit to offer sacrifices (42.8), then why aren’t they fit to pray? Why does Job have to do it? A couple of reasons suggest themselves. First, because Job’s restoration doesn’t merely involve the restoration of his possessions. Harsh (and false) words have been spoken (in chs. 3–37), and, as a result, not only possessions need to be restored, but friendships too. And nothing repairs a friendship like a confession of sin and a request for prayer. Second, because YHWH wants to comfort Job. When was Job last involved with seven sacrifices? The answer should not be hard to recall: in Scene 1, when Job offered seven sacrifices to God on behalf of his (seven) sons (1.5). Yet one could hardly blame Job if he’d come to regard his sacrifices as ineffectual. (After all, his sons were not spared from ch. 1’s disasters.) The events of ch. 42 may, therefore, be intended to provide Job with reassurance. If the sacrifices of Job’s (misguided) friends supplemented by the prayer of Job would atone for his friends’ sins (which is the clear implication of God’s command), then it would seem natural to assume Job’s past sacrifices had atoned for his sons’ sins. Which, I suggest, is able to explain a number of the wrinkles we noted earlier in our discussion of Job’s restoration. Recall the way in which Job’s introduction and conclusion parallel one another: 16 The phrase ‫ ְל ִבלְתִּ י עֲ שׂוֹת עִ מָּ כֶם נְ ָבלָה‬is typically rendered as ‘so as not to deal with you per your folly’. But, syntactically, ‫ נבלה‬appears to qualify the actions of YHWH rather than Job’s friends. It might, therefore, be helpful to consider the sense of ‫ נְ ָבלָה‬in Mishaic Hebrew, viz. ‘destruction’ (cp. Jastrow; for the syntax, cf. Josh. 7.15, etc.), in which case ‫ לעשות נבלה‬could be rendered as ‘to wreak destruction’. (Cp. in particular Gen. Rabbah on Gen. 11.7, where the phrase ‫ אעשה נבלה‬has the sense ‘I will destroy’.) But no interpretation of 42.8 is entirely without problem. Perhaps ‘destruction’ should be seen as the primary/proper sense of ‫נבלה‬, with ‘per your folly’ seen as a secondary sense conveyed by word-play. ‫‘ = נבלה‬folly’ is after all a very natural way to interpret ‫ נבלה‬when it is employed in wisdom literature, especially given Job’s reference to his wife’s provocation of him as ‘folly’ in 2.10.  ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s integrity (1.1) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s descendants (1.2) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s cattle and servants (1.3) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s (sons’) feasts (1.4) ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: Job’s sacrifices (for his sons) (1.5) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s prayer (for his friends) (42.9) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s feasts (42.11) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s cattle (restored ‘twofold’) (42.12) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s descendants (restored ‘onefold’) (42.13) ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: Job’s death (42.16) But recall also the asymmetries we briefly noted between these passages. Although YHWH is said to give Job ‘twice as much as Job previously possessed’ (hence Job ends up with 14,000 sheep compared to his previous 7,000: cp. 42.10–12), YHWH does not provide Job with twice as many sons as he lost. Why? Because, unlike his cattle, Job’s sons have not in fact been lost (or at least not permanently).17 They will rise along with Job in the resurrection (19.25–26). For much the same reason, our narrator has no need to repeat his initial statement of Job’s ‘integrity’ (tumah: 1.1). Since Job does not lose his integrity over the course of the book (cp. 27.6 w. 2.3, 9), it does not need to be restored (by its restatement).18 Question: Might the other mismatches between Job’s introduction and conclusion be intended to describe a reversal of some of sin’s more global consequences? The ‘feasts’ (mishteh) of ch.1 at which wine is drunk (cp. 1.4 w. 13) are not reinstated in ch. 42 (cp. 42.11), and neither are Job’s servants restored (cp. 42.12), which may hint at the way the origin of servitude is connected with Noah’s consumption of wine in Genesis 9 (cp. Gen. 9.24ff.). Might, therefore, Job’s restoration hint at a more thorough and global restoration in the days/age to come? And might the more even distribution of wealth between Job’s sons and daughters hint at the same notion (42.15)? 17 I once heard a preacher who had lost his daughter make this very point. For him, it was not merely a literary detail or nicety; it was a part of God’s word and a tangible comfort to him. 18 As David Clines points out, Job’s restoration is often spoken about as if it took place overnight (Clines 2013:5–6). But 42.10’s employment of a qatal form (‫ )שב‬may parallel 1.4’s (‫)הלכו‬, which clearly envisages a continuous/habitual state of affairs (‘His sons would go and hold a feast...’). I am therefore inclined to render 42.10 as, ‘God began to restore Job’s fortune even as he prayed (‫ )בהתפללו‬for his friends’. Job could hardly have acquired thousands of cattle and ten descendants in the blink of an eye. Final Reflections The book of Job has a highly unified and tightly integrated structure: ➢ ⟨Introduction⟩: A fivefold description of Job’s initial state. ➢ ⟨Scene 1⟩: A fivefold dialogue in heaven. ➢ ⟨Scene 2⟩: A fivefold sequence of disasters on earth. ➢ ⟨Scene 3⟩: A fivefold dialogue in heaven. ➢ ⟨Scene 4⟩: A fivefold time of temptation on earth. ➢ ⟨Scene 5⟩: A fivefold debate on earth. ➢ ⟨Conclusion⟩: A fivefold description of Job’s final state. And the ‘irreducibility’ of Job’s structure makes it unlikely to have been the product of gradual evolution. Fivefold patterns are hard- baked into the book of Job, from the overall shape of its five scenes, to the individual acts of those scenes, to YHWH’s dialogue with Satan, to Job’s famous utterance (‘Naked I came forth…’). Just like God’s creation (which chs. 38–41 describe in immense detail), each individual element is intimately related to the whole, and would leave a lacuna in its absence. And yet, for all its regularity, the book of Job never seems to rigidly conform to any one pattern.19 Like the aromatic rings on which (many) polymers are based, it fluctuates between two plausible structures. And it embodies a number of important exceptions to what seems at first blush to be an invariant pattern. And yet that too is an important part of Job’s message. Just as there are more things in heaven and earth than can be comprehended by our finite minds, so there are more things in the text of Job than can be accommodated by any one structure. And, contra the insistence of Job’s friends, every rule has its exceptions. (Specifically, just because suffering is normally the result of sin doesn’t mean it always is.) In sum, then, the structure of the book of Job as we have it today has a lot to tell us. True, some of Job’s statements in chs. 3–37 are difficult to reconcile with his statements elsewhere in the book. In chs. 1–2, for instance, Job refuses to charge YHWH with injustice (cp. 1.21–22, 2.10), while, in chs. 3–37, Job complains bitterly about the injustice inherent in YHWH’s governance of his creation (e.g., 9.17– 19 Jerome compares the book of Job to an eel. ‘If you close your hand to hold an eel’, he says, ‘…the more you squeeze it, the sooner it escapes’ (cit. Newsom 2003:3). 24, 12.6, 21.7, 24.1–25), which is not what one would expect.20 Yet, given the unity and irreducibility of Job’s composition, the way to deal with the tension inherent in the book is not, I submit, to dismiss it as the byproduct of clumsy redaction, but to view it as a deliberate feature of Job’s composition. Perhaps, for instance, the text is meant to reflect the evolution of Job’s thought over time (as his friends drive him to despair), or the way long-term pain affects his state of mind. Whether such ideas are tenable is another matter (which must await a separate paper or author). For the moment, I simply want to proffer the unity and sophistication of Job’s structure as a reason to look for unity and sophistication in its message, i.e., to argue for more attentention to be paid to the text as we have it today—which, when all is said and done, is the one text we know to have been arranged and viewed as a unit—and less to theories about Job’s formation. Credits Alter, R., 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books, 2nd ed. (2011). Ash, Christopher, 2004. Out of the Storm, Inter-Varsity Press, 2009 repr. Clines, D. J. A., 1985. ‘False Naivety in the Book of Job’, Originally published in Hebrew Annual Review, Vol. 9 (1985), pp. 127–36. Here, page references follow the pdf available at «https://www.academia.edu/2465088/», accessed Jan. 2020. Clines, D. J. A., 2013. Seven Interesting Things about the Epilogue to Job, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/BPTh.2013.001. Available at «https://www.academia.edu/3639780/», accessed Jan. 2020. Clines, D. J. A., U = Unknown. A Very Short Commentary on the Book of Job, Unpublished, «https://www.academia.edu/15367767/», accessed Jan. 2020. Newsom, C. A., 2003. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pang, L., 2010. The Book of Job: Navigating between the Two Jobs from the Perspective of Ritual, Master of Theology (Th.M), University of Notre Dame Australia. «http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses/49», accessed Jan. 2020. Steinmann, A. E., 1996. ‘The Structure and Message of the Book of Job’ in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 46, Fasc. 1 (Jan. 1996), pp. 85–100. Timmer, D., 2009. ‘God’s Speeches, Job’s Responses, and the Problem of Coherence in the Book of Job’ in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 71, pp. 286–305. 20 For a helpful summary of some of the relevant issues (and further references), cf. Timmer 2009:287–288 together with the references provided above.