BINS 113 Pelham - Contested Creations in The Book of Job - The-World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be 2012 PDF

Contested Creations in the Book of Job
Biblical Interpretation Series
Editors in Chief
Paul Anderson
Yvonne Sherwood
Editorial Board
Akma Adam – Roland Boer – Musa Dube
Jennifer L. Koosed – Vernon Robbins
Annette Schellenberg – Carolyn J. Sharp
Johanna Stiebert – Duane Watson
Ruben Zimmermann
VOLUME 113
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/bins

Contested Creations in the Book of Job
The-World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be
By
Abigail Pelham
Leiden • boston
2012
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pelham, Abigail.
Contested creations in the Book of Job : the-world-as-it-ought-and-ought-not-to-be / by Abigail Pelham.
p. cm. — (Biblical interpretation series, ISSN 0928-0731 ; v. 113)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-21820-8 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Creation—Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. O.T. Job—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title.
BS1199.C73P45 2012
223’.106—dc23
2012010127
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.nl/brill-typeface.
ISSN 0928-0731
ISBN 978 90 04 21820 8 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 23029 3 (e-book)
Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

For Peter
CONTENTS
Prologue: The Author, the Reader, and the Professional

Not-Knower ................................................................................................... 1
Writing and Un-Writing ............................................................................ 1
The Author in Biblical Studies ................................................................ 1
The Reader in Biblical Studies ................................................................ 5
It’s Complicated ........................................................................................... 9
‘Quod Scripsi, Scripsi ’: The Reader as Writer ...................................... 13
Job’s Ambiguity ............................................................................................. 17
The Will to Be Right and the Value of Being Wrong ....................... 21
1. Creation in the Book of Job: Reading Backwards and Forwards

for Questions and Possibilities ................................................................ 24
Questions and Answers about Creation ............................................... 24
Two Problems: Job’s Response and the Epilogue .............................. 26
Reading Backwards and Forwards ......................................................... 31
2. Relationships Between Persons in the

World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be: Centrality and
Dispersion, Connectedness and Loneliness ........................................ 42
The Righteous and the Wicked ............................................................... 42
Chapter 29: Relations between Persons in Job’s
World-as-It-Ought-to-Be ....................................................................... 46
Job’s Centrality in the World of the Prose Tale ................................. 49
Job’s Relationship to God and Hassatan in the Prologue ............... 52
How Job is the Real Winner of the Bet between God and
Hassatan .................................................................................................... 53
Job’s ‘Phantom Greatness’ as Demonstrated by His Three
Friends ....................................................................................................... 56
The Anti-World of Chapter 30: Job Displaced from the Center ...... 60
The Connectedness of the Righteous and the Loneliness of
the Wicked: Interpersonal Relationships as Viewed by Job’s
Three Friends ........................................................................................... 61
The Expectation of a ‫גאל‬: Job Rejects the Friends’ Assertion
that He is Fundamentally Alone ........................................................ 64
Summary of the Positions Taken by Job and the Friends .............. 70
viii contents
The Wicked and the Righteous in God’s Speeches ........................... 71

God’s Speeches as a Response to Job’s Claims about the
World-as-It-Ought-to-be ....................................................................... 73
The Attention of the Animals ................................................................. 75
The Aloneness of the Animals ................................................................ 78
God’s Centrality: The Question of Power ............................................ 79
Leviathan and God’s Power ..................................................................... 83
The Place of Human Beings in God’s World ...................................... 86
3. Time in the World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be: Stasis,

Change, and Death ..................................................................................... 92
Nothing Ever Happens: Stasis in Job’s World-as-It-Ought-to-Be ..... 92
God as Agent of Change: Creator of the Anti-world ........................ 95
Excursus: God’s ‘Wisdom’ as God’s Whim ........................................... 98
The Friends on the Static Life of the Righteous Man ...................... 100
The Changeability of the Anti-world of the Wicked ........................ 104
Death as the Mark of the Supreme Changeability of the Lives
of the Wicked ........................................................................................... 105
The Spirit’s Message: Mortality as Unrighteousness ........................ 107
Job and the Problem(s) of Human Mortality ..................................... 115
The World According to God: The Stable Foundation of
the Earth .................................................................................................... 120
God’s Changeable World ........................................................................... 122
The Purpose of Death in God’s Speeches ............................................ 127
God Challenges Job to Afflict the Wicked with Change ................. 130
Job and ‘The Beasts’: Survival in a Changeable World .................... 131
Leviathan as the Embodiment of Unpredictable and
Uncontrollable Change ......................................................................... 134
4. Inside and Outside: The Configuration of Space in the

World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be ............................................. 138
Introduction .................................................................................................. 138
Wilderness as the Anti-world .................................................................. 141
The Wicked as Outsiders and the Metaphor of the House as
Inner Space ............................................................................................... 143
Job as Outsider/Death as Inner Space .................................................. 148
Job’s Antithetical Comments on the Outsideness of the Wicked .... 150
The Body as a Microcosm of the Human Community .................... 154
The Breaking of Job’s Body as Indication of His Outsider Status ..... 157
contents ix
Job’s Self-Identification as an Insider through His Preservation

of the Inside/Outside Distinction ...................................................... 164
The “Senseless, Disreputable Brood”: Humans as Animals in
the Outer Space of the Wilderness ................................................... 167
The Economics of Insider Status ............................................................ 170
Job’s Inability to Draw the Boundary Line ......................................... 172
The Meaning of God’s Answer from the Whirlwind ........................ 173
God’s Boundary-Making (or Lack thereof ) in the Founding of
the Earth and the Birth of the Sea .................................................... 176
Questions about Place ............................................................................... 178
Animals and the Economics of Insider/Outsider Status ................ 179
The Economics of Leviathan ................................................................... 182
The Breakdown of the Distinction Between Inside and Outside
Space ........................................................................................................... 183
5. The Explosive Finale: Reading Backwards from the Epilogue ...... 186

Job Goes Back Inside ................................................................................. 186
What Just Happened? ................................................................................ 189
Types of Readerly Expectation and Their Relative Value .............. 193
Job as the Creator of the World of the Epilogue .............................. 199
The Problem of the Prologue .................................................................. 203
The Prologue as Job’s Daydream ............................................................ 208
Job and the Chaos Monster ..................................................................... 212
Excursus: What is Chaos? ......................................................................... 214
Job as Chaos, or Not ................................................................................... 220
Job’s Curse of Chapter 3 ............................................................................ 225
“You Can Have It”: Job’s Rejection of God’s Blessing ...................... 230
God’s Changeable World: An Alternate Reading of the
Epilogue ..................................................................................................... 235
So, Which Is It? ............................................................................................ 238
Epilogue: Negotiating and Renegotiating the World ............................. 240

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 245
Index of Names .................................................................................................. 251
Index of Subjects ............................................................................................... 253
Index of Scriptures ........................................................................................... 258
Prologue
The Author, the Reader, and the Professional Not-Knower
Writing and Un-Writing
I once wrote a book about the Book of Job, and then I un-wrote it. I made
arguments, and then, raising objections, I dismantled them. I ended up
with a blank page, with nothing to show. This was true to my experience
with the book, and yet, at the same time, so untrue. The blank page bris-
tled with the residue of an encounter which its blankness did not reveal.
Something had happened between us, not nothing. To speak to this expe-
rience, it became necessary to inquire into the nature of the relationship
between texts and their readers and to think anew about the kind of
meaning a book about the Book of Job might construct and convey. In
this prologue, then, I think about the dominant modes of reading in bibli-
cal studies, and attempt to puzzle out where my experience of reading the
Book of Job fits in this paradigm, looking for points of consonance and of
dissonance. My aim is to explain how and why the book that follows both
is and is not a blank page.
The Author in Biblical Studies
Much of the work done in biblical studies has, as its goal, the location
of the authors of biblical texts, as if what we biblical scholars have been
hired to do is to form search-parties that will scour the caves and hills of
ancient Israel to bring back the missing authors, dead or alive.1 Or, if we
cannot locate the exact author of a particular text, our task is to at least
garner enough information about him2 to be able to construct an ‘Identikit
1 In fact, a biblical author, when we find him, will most certainly be dead. But we,
possessing the text he left behind, will be able to boil it in water and so concoct an elixir
which, being decanted down his throat, will have power to revive him.
2 In this prologue I will refer to writers using masculine pronouns, and to readers using
female pronouns. I realize that this is somewhat problematic, but, as I am female and the
author of the Book of Job was most likely male, it is also accurate within the limits of this
situation. My main motivation, though, is, to avoid having to spell out “his or her” every
time I want to use a pronoun.
2 prologue
drawing’ which can then guide our reading of the text, as if without such
a guide we cannot read what we have in hand. Explaining the dominant
mode in which biblical studies is done, John J. Collins writes,
What these [historical critical] methods have in common is a general agree-
ment that texts should be interpreted in their historical contexts, in light
of the literary and cultural conventions of their time. . . . [This] sets limits to
the conversation, by saying what a given text could or could not mean in
the ancient context. A text may have more than one possible meaning, but
it cannot mean just anything at all.3
So it is that James Barr, using an ‘Identikit drawing’ of the author of Genesis 3,
argues that Adam could not have been created immortal. He writes,
The natural cultural assumption is the opposite: to grow old and die with
dignity . . . was a good and proper thing, to which Adam no doubt looked
forward.4
Similarly, Kathryn Schifferdecker writes of the Book of Job,
[T]he ancient Israelite reader must have understood the divine speeches
to be the answer to Job’s situation. . . . The book does indeed have an ‘end,’
whether contemporary readers appreciate it or not.5
Granted, in both these examples, it is the ancient reader and not the author
who is reconstructed. Yet, at the same time, the author is understood to be
so similar to his readers that if his readers’ expectations can be recovered,
the author’s intentions can be reconstituted from them. This is in marked
contrast to our own, ‘contemporary’ relationship with the text, as noted
by Schifferdecker. Whereas the expectations of ‘contemporary readers’
can only skew the meaning of the text by misunderstanding the author’s
intentions, ancient readers’ expectations accurately reflect these. Biblical
scholars, therefore, by discovering ancient reading communities, in effect
discover their texts’ authors—(this is what I mean by the construction of
an ‘Identikit drawing’)—and reveal to ‘contemporary readers’ the way in
which the text must be read if it is to be understood correctly.
3 John J. Collins, The Bible After Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Grand
Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), 4, 10.
4 James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (London: SCM Press,
1992), 5.
5 Kathryn Schifferdecker, Out of the Whirlwind: Creation Theology in the Book of Job
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 11.
the author, the reader, and the professional not-knower 3
Even many so-called ‘literary’6—as opposed to mainstream historical

critical—readings of the Bible have the discovery of the author’s identity
as their central agenda. David J.A. Clines, in his book Interested Parties,
while lamenting that “the tendency of biblical criticism has been to attend
only—or at least primarily—to the writing . . . of the texts” and insisting
that, by contrast, “Writers and readers of the Hebrew Bible are equally the
focus of this book,” goes on to describe his own project as
asking about authors as producers of texts, about their social, class and gen-
der locations . . . not . . . about ‘real’ authors, but about ‘implied’ authors—the
authors whom the extant texts presuppose.7
Clines differentiates this from the project of historical criticism by point-
ing out that, whereas historical criticism starts from outside the text, con-
structing the author in order to be able to read the text, he will start from
inside the text, constructing a picture of the author based on the text he
has created. Yet, Clines goes on to support his argument that the Song of
Songs could only have been written by a man for a male audience with
the fact that “[t]here is no evidence for female literacy in ancient Israel,”
a historical detail if ever there was one. Collins points out that the results
arrived at by historical scholarship “are always provisional . . . [for] new
evidence is constantly coming to light,” and it seems possible that, in the
same way, Clines’ argument might be called into question by new find-
ings about female literacy in ancient Israel. Clines constructs his ‘implied’
author by looking at the text, but this ‘implied’ author looks suspiciously
like the historical author constructed by the historical critics; he is not a
‘real’ individual, but, then, neither are most of the authors constructed
by historical critics; Clines’ author, like theirs, is an ‘Identikit drawing,’ a
composite reflection of his community.
Stephen Moore and Yvonne Sherwood argue that literary theory, which
was imported into biblical studies from English literature, has taken a
particularly historical turn there, in line with the discipline’s established
priorities. “[R]eader-oriented theory,” for example,
6 I have placed literary in quotes, because, in practice, these approaches are defined
over against the dominant historical critical mode: a literary approach is anything that is
not historical critical (though Collins also insists that historical criticism is not “the totali-
tarian monolith that some of its critics make it out to be,” After Babel, 3).
7 David J. A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew
Bible, JSOTSup 205 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 16–17.
4 prologue
has tended to assimilate automatically with the discipline’s inbred obses-

sion with the historical author and the historical reader, who, even when
ceremoniously renamed the Implied Author and the Implied Reader, are
still implicitly shackled to their hypothetical historical contexts, causing
reader-response criticism in biblical studies to become an exercise in his-
torical criticism performed in a wig and dark sunglasses.8
This, in fact, seems to be what is going on in Clines’ Interested Parties.
Clines admits, “The disadvantage of my scheme is that it . . . assumes that
the text is somehow typical,” but counters, “I do believe that most texts
are typical, and that therefore this text is likely to be a typical text.”9
Robert Alter, whose book, The Art of Biblical Narrative, is described
by Moore and Sherwood as “the best-received foray to date by a ‘secular’
literary critic into biblical studies”10 approaches the biblical text some-
what differently, but with the author and his intentions still in view. Alter
insists that literary analysis of the Bible
cannot be based merely on an imaginative impression of the story but must
be undertaken through minute critical attention to the biblical writer’s
articulations of narrative form . . . [as demonstrated in] the artful use of lan-
guage, . . . the shifting play of ideas, conventions, tone, sound, imagery, syn-
tax, narrative viewpoint, compositional unity, and much else.11
Alter is not in search of the author’s identity, ‘implied’ or otherwise, but
he does want to lay hold of this author’s intentions. Inquiring into how
he wrote, Alter intends to discover what he meant, just as the historical
critic hopes to arrive at the author’s meaning by inquiring into the when
and where of his situation. These approaches—both literary and historical
critical—are sensible and, taken together, can give us a more complete
picture of the text’s meaning.
On the historical critical side, it makes sense to say that the more one
knows about the culture in which a piece of writing was produced, the
better chance one has of understanding the author’s meaning. On the lit-
erary critical side, it makes sense to say that close attention paid to the
techniques and mechanisms by which a text has been produced can yield
a better understanding of what the author wanted to convey. If a literary
critic were to point out a shortcoming in the historical critical approach,
8 Stephen D. Moore and Yvonne Sherwood, The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Criti‑
cal Manifesto (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 101–02.
9 Clines, Interested Parties, 95.
10 Moore and Sherwood, Invention, 93.
11 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 12.
it might be that because no individual is ever entirely the product of his

or her circumstances, those circumstances cannot be supposed to fully
explain or interpret any given text. Moreover, such an approach assumes
that a writer will never say anything culturally new or different; he can
only ever toe the line and maintain the status quo. Or rather, although he
may perhaps speak against the conventions of his culture, he can never
say anything tangential to that culture; his utterance must match his cul-
tural context. So it is that, in Barr’s estimation, the author of Genesis 3
could not have written an immortal Adam, and, in Schifferdecker’s esti-
mation, the author of the Book of Job could not have written a God at all
lacking in the ability to speak definitively. This, though, underestimates
the force of the personal, subsuming the individual under the collective of
his culture, which need not be the case. The unusual is not, after all, the
impossible, and writers, the argument might be made, are often unusual.
‘Anachronistic’ ideas, unlike objects, can legitimately be held by individu-
als, if not by entire communities. At the same time, however, the histori-
cal critic might point out that literary critics are overly confident about
their ability to understand the narrative and syntactic methods used
by the authors of ancient texts. It is all very well to speak of close attention
to such details, but if one cannot pay correct attention because of a lack of
cultural knowledge, one’s attempt to read, however focused, will not yield
true insight into the text or true understanding of the author’s message.
Therefore, as both types of criticism have something to add in the search
for the author and his intentions, and both have flaws which the other
approach can check, it seems that both are necessary as we attempt to
understand what the biblical authors were trying to convey.12
The Reader in Biblical Studies
Yet, concomitant with the central importance of the search for biblical
authors and their intentions in biblical studies is a certain reticence on
12 Clines’ approach in Interested Parties, though technically a literary approach, might

be seen as fitting somewhere in between the traditional historical-critical approach and
the literary approach of Alter, starting as it does with the text, but using historical details
to help explain what the text contains. Yet, although I have written above that literary
and historical critical approaches can check each other’s methodological shortcomings,
Clines’ approach does not seem without flaws, as noted above. Is it possible that the com-
bined use of these approaches results in a compounding of their flaws rather than a can-
celing out?
6 prologue
the part of the reader. Moore and Sherwood comment on the “epistemo-
logical decorum” of biblical studies in which
[T]he model of the good reader is the commentator. This self-effacing reader
does not write but, as his name implies, merely comments. He is a civil ser-
vant of the biblical text. He is a patient laborer in the textual field . . . so deep
into the text as to be all but invisible ordinarily. For hundreds of pages at a
time, there’s little or nothing in his own text to indicate that it was written
by a living, breathing human being. . . . He lives vicariously through the text
and willingly under its thrall.13
As the tone of this passage indicates, Moore and Sherwood find it prob-
lematic that biblical studies relegates readers to such a peripheral posi-
tion, and I agree with them. Indeed, their description of biblical studies’
appropriation of reader-response criticism, quoted above, also demon-
strates their sense that biblical studies’ privileging of author’s intentions
has negative consequences for would-be readers: even ways of reading
that have as their goal the privileging of the reader end up privileging the
author, as real flesh-and-blood readers are exchanged, by swift sleight-
of-hand, with ideal readers who only serve to reflect the hypothetical
author. Only those readers who are identical to biblical texts’ authors
need apply, and ‘Contemporary readers’ simply do not have the neces-
sary qualifications.
Why, though, should this preference for authors over readers be prob-
lematic? After all, aren’t authors in control of the meanings inherent in
their own texts? Moreover, as Robert Morgan points out, “[W]e usually
want to understand a text because we think the author is worth hearing,
not because we think we can do something creative with it.”14 For Clines,
in Interested Parties, however, the discipline’s focus on the author’s mean-
ing over the reader’s response is problematic because it prevents readers
from being critical of those biblical texts that propound values different
from their own. Subservient to the author’s intentions, the reader cannot
critique those intentions. Clines, rejecting the ‘epistemological decorum’
of biblical studies, whereby readers must efface themselves from the read-
ing process, insists that readers must assert themselves to critique objec-
tionable claims asserted by the text. He writes,

14 Robert Morgan, with John Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1988), 6.
To be truly academic . . . biblical studies has to be truly critical . . . about the

Bible’s contents, its theology, its ideology. And that is what biblical studies
has notoriously not been critical about at all. To be critical, you have to take
up a standard of reference outside the material you are critiquing.15
I don’t disagree. I want, though, to think about the reader and her involve-
ment with the text in a different way. In Clines’ formulation, the meaning
of the text is fixed—it means what it means, and what it means has to
do with its historical situation, which is what the text, after all, implies—
and the reader’s role is to respond from her own position. What I want to
think about is the reader’s role in the creation of the text’s meaning.
Here, though, I am back at the question raised above. Aren’t writers
the ones who have the right to say what their writings mean? And isn’t
it common sense to assume that the way to understand a text is to get
at the author’s intentions for the text, what the author intended to com-
municate? It is surely common sense, and yet, Morgan, while pointing out
that, in general, “[W]e take this grasping of the author’s . . . intentions as
the norm for understanding,” goes on to concede that “[t]here are impor-
tant cases where this is not what matters most, and biblical interpretation
may be among them.”16 Continuing, Morgan makes the claim that when a
text is ancient and its author is dead,
The balance of power and moral rights then shifts to the interpreters. They
are the masters or judges of meaning now, for better or worse. The inter-
preters are never mindless servants of the text, or midwives at the birth or
communication of meaning. They are human agents with their own aims,
interests, and rights. Texts, like dead men and women, have no rights, no
aims, no interests. They can be used in whatever way readers or interpret-
ers choose.17
This, I think, is intended (!) to shock us with its brutality, and it does. Mor-
gan follows this heartless assessment of the defenselessness of the dead by
detailing how and why some readers might choose to treat these deceased
individuals with respect, writing,
If interpreters choose to respect an author’s intentions, that is because it
is in their interest to do so. . . . They are reading a particular text on the
assumption that the author is worth hearing and therefore respect autho-
rial intention. There are other reasons for interpreters making authorial
15 Clines, Interested Parties, 109–110.

16 Morgan, Interpretation, 5.
17 Ibid., 6–7.
8 prologue
intention, or (better) the grammatical meaning which is assumed to rep-

resent the author’s intention, into the norm for the text’s meaning. . . .
[I]t is important for a community to reach agreement about the meaning of
such shared texts as its laws. Authorial intention or grammatical meaning
provides a norm which makes possible both a determinate meaning and a
rational argument between conflicting interpretations.18
In other words, just as one can do whatever one wants with a dead body—
it is helpless, after all—so one can do whatever one wants with a text once
its author is dead, but, just as there are good reasons for treating a dead
body with respect, so there are good reasons for respecting the intentions
of the dead author. So, although Morgan allows that is it is possible to do
whatever one wants with a text, such behavior, he asserts, is hardly com-
mendable, not least because if we cannot agree on where a text’s mean-
ing resides, it becomes difficult to talk about the text. “In the privacy of
their minds or studies individual interpreters can do what they like with
a text and make it mean what they like,”19 Morgan says. The text and the
interpreter are, after all, consenting adults, and, what’s more, the text’s
parent isn’t around to lay down the law, so text and interpreter may do
what they like behind closed doors, but what gets brought out in public
ought to conform to certain societal norms. The general public deserves
some consideration.
I take Morgan’s point. Collins makes a similar assertion, albeit less bru-
tally, about the value of agreeing on a common way of assessing the mean-
ing of texts, writing,
Scholarship is a conversation, in which the participants try to persuade each
other by appeal to evidence and criteria that are in principle acceptable to
the other participants. This model of conversation has served the academy
well and is not something that should be lightly abandoned.20
If the author’s intention, or the intention implied by the way in which the
text has been put together, is not the baseline for meaning, how are we
to judge between different interpretations? On what basis can we make
claims for the superiority of one interpretation over another? Collins wor-
ries that, when authorial intention is taken out of the picture, the conversa-
tion which is the model for scholarship, “disintegrates . . . into a cacophony
of voices, each asserting that their convictions are by definition preferred,
18 Ibid., 7.
19 Idem.
20 Collins, After Babel, 11.
because they are their convictions.”21 In such a situation, how is scholar-

ship to advance? How are we to know more about the texts to which we
have devoted ourselves? How will we be able to speak more conclusively
about what they mean?
It’s Complicated
I am sympathetic toward this concern. It seems a legitimate worry. Of

course we want to know more, and we want to be true to the texts we are
reading. Writing this book about the Book of Job, I have really been trying
to write a book about the Book of Job. I have not been trying to do some-
thing illicit behind closed doors. The ‘writing and un-writing,’ mentioned
in the opening paragraph of this prologue has to do, I think, with trying
to do the right thing by the Book of Job.22 And yet, I do think that readers
have a bigger role to play than that acknowledged by traditional scholar-
ship. The relationship between readers and texts is complicated. Morgan
acknowledges that “however powerful the author’s act of creation, the text
lies impotent until it also comes into contact with a human reader,”23 and
readers have different commitments and concerns which they bring, wit-
tingly or unwittingly, to act of reading.
David Clines and J. Gerald Janzen both point out that readers’ identities
have a valid role to play in how texts are interpreted. Clines writes,
All readers of biblical texts . . . bring their own interests, prejudices, and
presuppositions with them. While they would be wrong to insist that the
Bible should say what they want it to say, they would be equally wrong to
think that it does not matter, in reading the Bible, what they themselves
already believe. . . . [For] interpretation . . . is . . . the mutual activity that goes
on between text and reader.24
Similarly, Janzen writes,
Interpreters . . . must divine the meaning of. . . . the book . . . in the context of
their own reading of existence. The diversity of interpretations matches the
diversity which is displayed in our respective interpretations of existence.
21 Ibid., 161.
22 More about this later.
23 Morgan, Interpretation, 269. Morgan, in fact, does get at the complicated relation-
ship between texts and readers, however distasteful he finds some readers’ disrespect for
the dead.
24 David J.A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary 17 (Dallas, TX: Word Books,
1989), xlvii.
10 prologue
All positions, nihilist and absurdist no less than affirming and covenanting,
are irreducibly confessional.25
I think these observations are correct, and yet, I wonder if Clines and
Janzen do not oversimplify the issue somewhat. They make it seem as
if the reader is fully in control of the way she reads. She believes cer-
tain things, and knows she believes them,26 and these beliefs overtly
influence what she takes the text to mean. So it is that Clines goes on to
undertake four readings from different subject positions, none of which
is his own,27 which I find somewhat problematic. Sherwood points out
that, in general in biblical studies, those readers who are permitted not
to efface themselves from their commentary on the text are those whose
“subject positions and sites of difference . . . are . . . widely acknowledged to
demand respect.” Here, Sherwood is talking specifically about those who
have the right to criticize the Bible, that is, to engage in a very particular
kind of readerly non-effacement. At the same time, her claim that only
those “whose judgement demands respect” are allowed to be critical of
biblical texts illuminates something potentially problematic in Clines’ and
Janzen’s descriptions of how Bible readers read. She writes,
Would it be too much, I wonder, to mount such critique in the name of no
particular subject group but in the name of something infinitesimally small
(and unprotected) such as a single I . . .?28
This ‘I’ to which Sherwood refers is not predefined or predetermined—it
is simply ‘I’—whereas the reading positions acknowledged by Clines and
Janzen are positions in which that ‘I’ is already defined by its beliefs, com-
mitments, and behaviors. None of the readers Clines impersonates is an
‘I.’ They are all cardboard cutouts in the shape of an ‘I.’ What is dangerous
here, what threatens to keep the real reader from really reading, is the
idea that the only way to resist the ‘epistemological decorum’ whereby
25 J. Gerald Janzen, Job, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), 228.
26 In Interested Parties, by contrast, Clines focuses on the subconscious desires which
inform writing and reading, while at the same time claiming that these desires, unknown
to the writer and his original readers, can easily be elucidated by the critic.
27 The subject positions are: Feminist, Vegetarian, Materialist, and Christian. Clines, Job
1–20, xlvii–lvi. Some of these may describe positions Clines does occupy—I do not really
know—but that none of them is really his own is indicated by the fact that they can be
separated out from who he is. In Interested Parties, by contrast, he writes, “Perhaps you do
not even want to know what unexpressed reasons I have for writing this book, and perhaps
I could not tell you most of them even if I wanted to.” Clines, Interested Parties, 24–25.
28 Yvonne Sherwood, Biblical Blaspheming: Trials of the Sacred for a Secular Age (forth-
coming Cambridge University Press, 2012), 122.
one must make oneself invisible in relation to the text, is to become such
a cardboard cutout, trumpeting one’s commitments and affiliations and
allowing them to stand in for the ‘I’ that one actually is.
Edwin Good and Mieke Bal do a better job, I think, of talking about
the complexity of the relationship between text and reader. Good writes,
“The work stands before us, not as an . . . object to which we apply analy-
sis . . . but as a living voice . . . with which we enter conversation.”29 Simi-
larly, Bal writes, “The text is not an object upon which we can operate; it is
another subject that speaks to us.”30 Good and Bal, here, are less focused
on the identity of the reader, and more focused on the nature of texts;
it is because of what texts are that readers become involved in the act
of reading them. These descriptions have the advantage of not defining
in advance what the interaction between text and reader will look like.
Readers are surely less typical than Clines supposes, or at least I would
like to think so. For Good and Bal, both text and reader possess ‘a living
voice,’ and they engage each other in an unpredictable, ongoing conversa-
tion. That the text is ‘a living voice,’ and ‘a subject that speaks’ is quite a
different assessment from that arrived at by Morgan, for whom the living
parties are the author (who, if dead, is alive only if the reader will respect
him enough to treat him as such) and the reader: “A text has no life of its
own,”31 he writes. But I am inclined to agree with Good and Bal on this,
and not with Morgan.
The text lives. It may live, as Morgan points out, only because its author
has given it life, but it lives nonetheless. It lives because it exceeds its
author’s intentions, even his unconscious intentions, at least as these are
teased out by Clines in Interested Parties, where the author is foolishly
blind to prejudices that are easily seen by everyone else. When Gabriel
Josipovici speaks of the necessity of “trust[ing] that language will help me
to discover what it is I need to say,” for “only by speaking can one discover
what it is one wants to say,”32 he is noticing this tendency of utterances (or
texts) to exceed their authors’ intentions. The author is not necessarily in
control of his output from the outset. Rather, his intentions are revealed
to him as he creates his text, as he, in fact, reads what he has written.
29 Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1981), 32.
30 Mieke Bal, Death and Dissymetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chi-
cago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), 240.
32 Gabriel Josipovici, The Book of God: A Response to the Bible (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1988), 163.
12 prologue
To know what he means, the writer must himself become a reader. He

may be the ideal reader, but that he has to read in order to discover his
meaning indicates that he is not, in fact, identical to the writer. The text
exceeds its writer.
Here, though, am I simply back at the idea that the ‘grammatical mean-
ing’ of the text discloses the author’s implied intentions, even if the actual
author would not recognize those intentions as his own, and that those
implied intentions should be viewed as the baseline for understanding
the meaning of the text? This is not what I mean to imply! What I am
trying to get at is the way in which the text might be said to be ‘a living
voice,’ and suggesting that a sign of its liveliness might be the capacity it
has for telling its author what he meant. If the text is ‘a living voice,’ this
does not mean that we should not try to ‘get to know it’ by paying atten-
tion to its articulations. Of course we should. But it also means that the
text is capable of saying different things, both to different people and to
ourselves at different moments. How the text responds depends on how
we engage it in conversation, but how we engage it depends on how the
text engages us. It is a give-and-take.
Bal tries to puzzle out how this give-and-take works and what its impli-
cations for objective scholarship are. She begins by claiming that “Inter-
pretation is necessarily a reader’s response brought to a text; it is, at most,
an interaction, at least, a purely subjective act,” but goes on to write that,
in this conversation with the text, “If we shout too loud, so that the other
is reduced to silence, we will lack arguments to make our case.” It is this,
then, that checks interpretation, making it so that a reader cannot claim
that the text means just anything. If other interpreters cannot hear the
text at all in a given reader’s interpretation, then it may be that the reader
is “shouting too loud.” She continues, “It is not a matter of empirical proof;
it is a matter of plausible interaction.”33 Bal’s formulation shows some
loose ends. She acknowledges that she makes claims for the text’s mean-
ing, over against other reader’s claims, while at the same time recognizing
that reading is a subjective act, while at the same time trying to show how
one might adjudicate between different readings on the basis of their rela-
tive merit. Collins finds her argument incoherent,34 but I like what she
does. She shows her thinking on the page,35 and, although it doesn’t quite
33 Bal, Death and Dissymetry, 238, 240.

34 Collins, After Babel, 14–15.
35 I have to confess that this is very like how I write, so it is no wonder that it ‘speaks’
to me.
add up, its very failure to add up is a fitting testimony to the complexity
of the subject, and, in that respect, it is true.
‘Quod Scripsi, Scripsi’: The Reader as Writer
Collins, as noted above, is concerned that if the author’s intentions are

no longer viewed as normative for the assessment of an interpretation’s
merit, the orderly, scholarly conversation by which biblical studies has
been characterized will descend into a cacophonous chaos of competing
voices. I wonder, though, whether his fears are justified.36 Is it really true
that scholars will have no grounds by which to converse with each other if
the biblical authors are not given the final word on the meanings of their
texts? I just don’t think so. Biblical studies is not, after all, rocket science.
By this, I don’t mean that it isn’t difficult, but that it, literally, is not rocket
science. It has different aims, different possibilities. In rocket science—
or any science, for that matter—progress is desirable. Making a better
rocket is the goal, or at least knowing more about how rockets work.37 In
biblical studies, though, this kind of progress need not be the goal. Collins
assumes, it seems, that the scholarly enterprise has, as its goal, knowing
more about the biblical texts; he is concerned to find the best way to go
about knowing more about these texts, and historical criticism seems the
best way of doing this. Fair enough. But what if another goal were pos-
sible? It seems to me that a valuable way of thinking about scholarship
might be to view the goal not as knowing more about the texts, but of
doing more with them, using them to know more. In this formulation, we
begin with the text, using it for its capacity to spark ideas and engender
thought, but elucidating the meaning of the text itself is not the final goal
of the endeavor.
Although in Interested Parties, Clines is able to construct the implied
author and his intentions from the text, elsewhere Clines insists that the
intentions of the author of the Book of Job are unknowable, writing, “Quod
scripsi, scripsi (‘What I have written, I have written’) is the only answer
36 Perhaps they are. Perhaps this cacophonous chaos has already taken control of the
discipline, and Collins is trying his best to contain it. Yet, at the same time, Collins does
acknowledge that “It is not the case that the postmodernists have captured the field. Far
from it,” Collins, After Babel, 3, a concession that Moore and Sherwood point to as evi-
dence that fear of ‘Theory’ outweighs its actual influence in biblical studies, Moore and
Sherwood, Invention, 9.
37 Of course, I know nothing about rocket science, so I could be totally off on this.
14 prologue
we can glean from the author when we inquire after his intentions,”38 An
author’s ability to make this claim—“Quod scripsi, scripsi”—is what dis-
tinguishes his position most obviously from that of the reader. The author
is free to write how and what he wants. Readers, by contrast—or at least
readers who are abiding by the prevailing ‘epistemological decorum’ of
biblical studies—are not free. I am bound to the text before me—in this
case the Book of Job—in a way that its author was not. Whereas he needed
no reason for writing what he wrote, I must have a reason for writing what
I do about his book. He was free, but I am bound. He is a gentleman, and
I am his servant. I want, however, to challenge this model. I want to be
free as the author of the Book of Job is free. If he can say “Quod scripsi,
scripsi,” I want to able to say it too. But what right do I have to do this?
Moore and Sherwood point out that literary critics, as contrasted wih
biblical scholars,
can regularly be found engaging the performative and risky power of words,
almost as if they are willfully confusing the job description of the critic with
that of the writer.39
Although part of Moore and Sherwood’s point is that this is what biblical
scholars, in general, do not do, they make the comparison precisely for the
sake of showing that this is what biblical scholars might do, and, indeed,
Moore and Sherwood’s description of the literary critic who confuses her
role with the role of the writer provides a useful approach to how I under-
stand my role as a biblical scholar. If critics can be found “confusing the
job description of the critic with that of the writer” this must be precisely
because there is the potential for a significant amount of overlap between
the two jobs, in biblical studies as well as in English literature.
It is not enough to speak of the necessity for readers not to efface them-
selves from their interactions with biblical texts, although this already
goes against the grain of biblical studies’ ‘epistemological decorum.’ That
is, it is not enough to speak of ‘readers.’ Critics and scholars40 are readers,
38 David J. A. Clines, “Quarter Days Gone: Job 24 and the Absence of God,” in God in the
Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 253.
40 Moore and Sherwood point out that, according to the self-naming conventions of
each discipline, their academics are literary critics and biblical scholars; a biblical scholar
is not a biblical critic, and a literary critic is not a literary scholar. According to Moore
and Sherwood, this is because, “Whereas literary critics after the New Criticism could
think unrestrainedly in terms of unmediated, immanentist, intimate reading, biblical
scholars had to continue, self-consciously and emphatically, to separate what they did
but they are also writers. This is important and makes a difference to how
we understand the possibilities inherent in our work. It means that the
author of the text under consideration is not the only author in the house.
If there is a privilege that comes from being an author, it belongs not only
to the biblical author but to the scholar whose writing is inspired by that
author. Who has author-ity?41 We both do. We meet as equals, and not as
gentleman (or king) and servant (or slave). This means that the writing
performed by the scholar has value in and of itself and does not derive
its value solely from its transmission of the text that it is studying. That
is, ideas or insights which are generated in the interaction between the
scholar and the text cannot be judged only on whether they accurately
represent the biblical author’s intentions, but must be judged for them-
selves: Are they interesting? Do they get at something new? Do they seem
plausible—not just as interpretations of the text—but as ideas which
might be ‘let loose’ to play in the larger world of ideas? This is biblical
scholarship, in that it takes the biblical text as its starting point, but it
differs from ‘mainstream’ biblical scholarship in that it does not take that
text as its ending point. The scholar writes her own text.
Morgan, as noted above, argues that
we usually want to understand a text because we think the author is worth
hearing, not because we think we can do something creative with it.42
It seems to me, though, that these options are not mutually exclusive.
Doing ‘something creative’ with the text hardly means that we have
ignored the text. Instead, we have paid attention to it and then made use
of it, acknowledging that the text is not an end in itself. Indeed, Chris-
topher Rowland argues that artists’ responses to the Bible ought to be
regarded as genuine exegesis writing,
from a Protestant-Romantic, pious communion with the text. Their work had to be clearly
marked as work—as other than the subjective, self-indulgent, personal, private, pietistic,
devotional, pastoral, homiletical, or confessional.” Moore and Sherwood, Invention, 77.
41 I get this way of identifying the ‘author’ in ‘authority’ from Moore and Sherwood,
who write of the “Enlightenment Bible’s” project: “Identifying which (human) hands had
produced the different strands of text became the focus of scholarly industry, but the rela-
tionship of this question to that of the text’s author-ity over the reader was left largely
unexamined.” Ibid., 102.
16 prologue
I have become convinced that what we have in many works of art is an

attempt to present in another medium the total meaning of the text. . . . It is
thus a different kind of exegesis.43
If this is, in fact, the case, it seems that scholars, too, might legitimately
engage with the text in this imaginative way. The boundary between the
artist and the scholar need not be fixed or insurmountable, because, as
argued above, there is already a great deal of overlap between what they
do. Morgan goes on to claim that “[a] Bible that can mean anything means
nothing.”44 This is a catchy phrase, but I do not know that it is true. It
seems based on the presupposition that it is actually impossible to learn
anything new from the Bible: if we don’t want to end up with no meaning,
we need to agree in advance about the meanings we will accept, because
agreement is what is most important. But, if we expect our interactions
with biblical texts to yield new ideas, then it cannot be true that the pro-
liferation of these new ideas automatically reduces the book’s meaning
to nothing. The ideas are there. We can point to them. They exist, and
are not nothing. Instead of meaning nothing, I would argue that a Bible
that can mean anything has the potential to mean everything. It is in the
generation and exploration of new ideas that progress is made, not merely
in the explanation of the text.
Carol Newsom, in her article “Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth,”
suggests that an enterprise which she terms “playing Dostoevsky to the
Bible”—by which she means bringing the various worldviews contained
within the Bible into contact to allow them to quarrel and dialogue with
each other—might be a useful way for scholars to engage the Bible. This
enterprise, Newsom explains,
would be a project which would self-consciously go beyond what the texts
explicitly say to draw out the implications of their ideas as they can be
revealed in dialogue with other perspectives.45
43 Christopher Rowland, “Re-imagining Biblical Exegesis” in Religion, Literature and the

Imagination, ed. M. Knight and L. Lee (London and New York: Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2009), 141.
44 Morgan, Interpretation, 13. Morgan is actually talking about the need for groups to
agree on how they will use texts, which, in and of themselves, do not mean anything. Col-
lins quotes this sentence in After Babel (p. 16), but presents it in a less nuanced way.
45 Carol A. Newsom, “Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth,” Journal of Religion 76
(1996), 305.
What Newsom has in mind is an intra-biblical dialogue, which may be

why, in her own book on Job,46 despite her use of a Bakhtinian approach,
she does not ‘play Dostoevsky’ to the text in quite this way. Instead, there
she insists that any new interpretation must be “rigorously answerable to
the text in a nonarbitrary fashion,”47 instead of going “beyond what the
text explicitly says.” But I want to grab Newsom’s idea and make use of it
for my own purposes.48 I want to insist that if biblical texts can be forced
into dialogue with each other, and, in this, can be made to say things
that, on their own, they would not say, scholars as readers and writers
can engage in the same kind of dialogue with the texts they study, push-
ing them beyond their ‘natural’ limits, drawing out their implications, and
seeing what kinds of ideas get generated in the encounter.
Bal and Good both use the metaphor of the ‘conversation’ to describe
what goes on between texts and their readers. I think this metaphor is
helpful, but I want to propose another metaphor, not to supplant theirs,
but to accompany it. I want to say that the text is available for use, not as
an “object to which we apply analysis,” but as a space for thinking in. As
readers, we enter into the Book of Job. We find the walls papered with its
characters’ utterances; we find themes— about suffering, righteousness,
creation, and so on—dangling like mobiles from the ceiling; we find wild
animals swooping and prowling; we feel the air, here thick with mois-
ture, bristling with the crack of thunder, and there dry and calm. Walking
around this space, we interact with what it offers for inspiration. We enter
the space as readers, and, living there, we become writers. We converse
with the text, and, out of this conversation, comes a new text which, in
turn, presents itself as a new space for thinking in.
Job’s Ambiguity
I want to push this idea—of the text’s availability for use—still further,
and suggest that misuse is impossible. It seems to me that when we read
a text we are entitled to take what we can get. If what we get is an insight
into the conclusive meaning of the text, about which everyone agrees,
46 In this book I will sometimes use italicized Job as shorthand for the Book of Job,
whereas Job, without italics, will always refer to the character.
47 Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003), 16.
48 I am a writer. I can do this.
18 prologue
well and good. But if what we get is something else, an idea, an insight,
perhaps about the text, but nothing particularly conclusive, or perhaps
about ourselves or the world, why shouldn’t we take that, too? If we get
something the author intended, fine, but if we get something the author
didn’t intend, let’s take it anyway. I do not think texts are like natural
resources that can be over-exploited to the point of exhaustion. However
much we mine the Book of Job, we are not going to run out of the Book
of Job. It will not turn limp on us, its marrow sucked out, leaving only a
floppy, papery shell, with no meaning left in it. Or, rather, if this were to
happen, it would be because its meaning had been fixed, proclaimed once
and for all, and the mining operation shut down in the name of preser-
vation, or the ‘Job space’ roped off with velvet cords, so that it became
impossible to actually enter it to see what might happen there. This, it
seems to me, is where misuse comes in; it has more to do with no use
than with overuse.
Moreover, Job’s renowned complexity and ambiguity make it particu-
larly suited to this kind of use. Clines points out that in his 1989 commen-
tary he has “listed more than a thousand books and articles that profess
to state the unequivocal answers of the book of Job to such questions [the
knottiest questions about the meaning of life].” He continues, querying,
“Can they all be right? If they cannot, is it because their authors were
incompetent, or might it be that there is something about the book that
lends itself to many divergent interpretations?”49 The answer to the last
question is presumably, “yes.” Similarly, Peggy Day observes, “The book
of Job seeks to inspire thought, to endorse complexity, ambiguity, and
paradox . . . and because of this very dialogue between the work itself and
its audience it is in the final analysis multivalent.”50 For these reasons,
Newsom ends her Bakhtinian reading of Job by advising readers “to go and
reread the book in the company of others who will contest your reading,”51
for only by engaging with other readers who read the book from different
perspectives and arrive at different interpretations can one hope to get at
the truth of the thing.
I think this is correct. And yet, these scholars (perhaps with the excep-
tion of Day), seem to imply that the book’s multivalence is revealed
primarily when individuals compare their interpretations and not to indi-
49 David J.A. Clines, “Deconstructing the Book of Job,” in What Does Eve do to Help? and
Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 106.
50 Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 70.
51 Newsom, Book of Job, 264.
viduals interacting with the book on their own, for each reader’s iden-
tity will determine how she understands the book. I am who I am, which
means that I can only read the book in one particular way, but you are not
me, and so you read the book differently, and when we get together and
compare notes we should be aware that the book’s complexity allows for
differing interpretations and should listen politely to each other’s point of
view instead of coming to blows over the meaning of the book. It seems to
me, though, that the book’s multivalence—the un-pin-down-ability of its
meaning—exists not just when readers get together, but for the individual
reader as she reads the book. I may approach the book in a particular way
because of who I am, but the fact that I have a point of view does not guar-
antee me a fixed or unambiguous interpretation of this complex book.
The book may offer itself to one interpretation, only to duck out of
the noose at the last moment, leaving its befuddled interpreter—mouth
agape in mid-sentence, slack rope in hand—watching it caper across the
field emitting peals of laughter at its escape. This, at least, has been my
experience with the book. I have, at various times, ‘figured the book out,’
only to follow my argument through and discover that I am now mak-
ing the opposite argument from the one I started with. Sherwood tells
of similar difficulties experienced with the Book of Jonah, referring to
her production of “Several crumpled and binned readings,” leading to
a recognition of her inability to make sense of the text without leaving
“loose threads hanging.”52 At times, Job’s capriciousness and its concomi-
tant willingness to participate in philosophical thought-play has seemed
delightful; at other times, the fact that the book seems unwilling to ever
finally yield its true meaning to me has been depressing. (“I am throwing
my youth away on the Book of Job, a book that, let’s face it, is never going
to commit,” I have sometimes thought, melodramatically, casting a wist-
ful glance over the borders to the greener country of Qohelet, where the
wine is flowing and everyone’s beard is dripping with oil and at least they
are having fun.)53
The impossibility of being conclusively ‘right’ about the Book of Job is,
in fact, the impetus behind my need to find another way of thinking about
52 Yvonne Sherwood, A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western
Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 230.
53 ‘The grass is always greener.’ I know. Sherwood writes of her initial attraction to the
Book of Jonah, which, although it presented itself as “a crackable code . . . the most simple,
GCSE-level and cartoonish of the prophetic texts,” turned out to be no such thing. Sher-
wood, Jonah, 230.
20 prologue
how to read it and write about it. So, although I have written above that
the book’s ambiguity and complexity make it well suited to being used as
a ‘space for thinking in,’ as described above, in fact Job is the model for this
kind of space. I have read Job in this way, because I have found it impos-
sible to read it in any other way, and this kind of reading has seemed to
permit a more fruitful interaction than reading for authorial intentions
and a hard-and-fast ‘correct’ interpretation. I acknowledge that this pro-
logue is an exercise in apologetics. But what can one do? Above, I quoted
Morgan’s assertion that, although “[i]n the privacy of their minds . . . indi-
vidual interpreters can do what they like with a text and make it mean
what they like,”54 scholarship intended for public consumption must
adhere to certain norms. In reading and writing, though, the private and
public are inextricably mixed. What one does ‘behind closed doors’ can-
not help but affect one’s public interaction with the text. Moreover, I do
not know that one can help what goes on in one’s private readerly space.
One reads; one responds. One cannot, after the fact, retract that response.
Bal writes that “[t]exts trigger readings. That is what they are: the occasion
of a reaction.”55 Something happens when we read, and if we are not true
to that happening—even if, perhaps, it should not have happened—we
are not true to the text.
Newsom, having, perhaps, similar difficulties with Job’s ambiguity,
describes her own Bakhtinian approach as better suited to the nature of
the text—or to exploring certain aspects of the text—than the historical
critical approach.56 Yet, Newsom, while recognizing that “The Book of Job
lends itself . . . to being read in light of shifting philosophical and herme-
neutical assumptions” and praising the book’s adaptability as “truly not to
be regretted, for it is what gives the book its perennial value,” also insists
that any new reading of the book “should be rigorously answerable to the
text in a nonarbitrary fashion,”57 as noted above.
These are stern words, hammering home the necessity of treating the
book responsibly—rigorous, answerable, nonarbitrary—but I wonder
about the purpose of such rigorous answerability. What is its goal? Is
it to get at the ‘real’ meaning of the text and the author’s ‘true’ inten-
tions? If so, I want to know how this approach differs from those used
55 Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press, 1987), 132.
57 Ibid., 3, 16.
in the “thousand books and articles that profess to state the unequivocal
answers [to] the book of Job” described by Clines. Surely those scholars,
too, sought to be rigorous, answerable, and nonarbitrary, and, by doing so,
believed that their interpretations would be nonarbitrary, and yet their
sheer volume points to their arbitrariness. Moreover, which text is it to
which one is to be so answerable (and not just ‘answerable’ but ‘rigorously
answerable,’ with no weak, arbitrary link)? Is it the text before one, in its
‘final form,’ or some other, earlier, more authentic text? Is a reading of Job
which excises chapter 28 or Elihu’s speeches or the prologue and epilogue
more answerable to the text in a less arbitrary fashion than one which
includes them, or vice versa? Furthermore, who is to arbitrate between
the arbitrary and the nonarbitrary? The text itself? Perhaps. And yet, the
inherent ambiguity of a text like the Book of Job makes this arbitration
difficult. I do not know that Job will stand still long enough to be chiseled
with these tools.
My own assessment of Job, as a space for thinking in, allows for a looser
approach, in which the responsibility for being answerable to this capri-
cious text is relaxed. Moreover, it seems to me that to take what we can
get from a text—whatever we can get, and as much of it as we can lay our
hands on—may, in fact, be a way of taking the text very seriously. We may
not be able to say what the text means in any kind of nonarbitrary way,
but we can point to an array of meanings radiating out from it, meanings
which have meaning for us.
The Will to Be Right and the Value of Being Wrong
Frank Kermode gets at something like this in his essay, “The Uses of Error,”
in which he reflects on the contrast between Georges De La Tour’s paint-
ing “Job Visited by his Wife” and this event as depicted in the Book of Job.
The painting, he observes, seems based on its painter’s misunderstand-
ing of the book’s euphemistic use of the word ‘bless,’ for, in it, Job’s wife
is portrayed as acting with tender pity towards her husband. Kermode
writes, “So far as I can make out her gesture could mean either ‘depart’
or ‘bless’ . . . but either of these seems more likely than ‘curse.’ ”58 Yet, Ker-
mode muses, although it is probably true that Job’s author really meant
58 Frank Kermode, “The Uses of Error,” in The Uses of Error (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1991), 428. Incidentally, Kermode calls this essay a sermon, which is how
it was originally delivered.
22 prologue
‘curse,’ and not ‘bless,’ his use of one word and not the other has opened
up an ambiguity, even if the author did not mean to be ambiguous, and
this ambiguity is useful; it allows us to think about things we might not
think about without it. Kermode writes,
The history of interpretation . . . is to an incalculable extent a history of
error . . . .It arises because we want to have more of the story than was origi-
nally offered, or we want to see into the depths of that story . . . and when we
try to go beyond it we may err, but sometimes splendidly.59
De La Tour’s painting is an example of precisely this kind of ‘splendid
error.’ We would not wish it to be other than it is; we would not wish it to
be “rigorously answerable to the text in a nonarbitrary fashion.” It might,
of course, be argued that art is one thing and scholarship is another. The
artist is free to do as he pleases, but the scholar has to follow certain
rules. Here, though, we are back at the distinction between the writer
and the scholar as discussed earlier in this prologue—he is free, but I am
bound—a distinction already rejected on the grounds that scholars are
writers too.
Making a similar point about the usefulness of error and the value of
being wrong, Alan Cooper writes,
I would liken the book of Job to a tangram, one of those puzzles with pieces
that fit together in countless ways . . . [and] no combination can be said to
be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. And the purpose of the exercise is to learn—about
shapes, colors, and forms and, of course, about one’s own way of handling
and responding to them.60
That is, the book’s complexity and ambiguity are such that one can do
a great number of things with it, and it is the doing that matters, or, as
I have put it above, the fact that one is putting the text to use, and not
whether the outcome of this use is right or wrong, for the standards by
which to judge whether one is right or wrong are simply not available, as
noted above. Moreover, what comes out of this encounter, however right
or wrong, may be similarly useful.
There is, however, one aspect of Cooper’s claim that troubles me some-
what. At the risk of appearing to contradict the argument I have just been
making, I have to confess that I balk at his claim that “no combination
59 Ibid., 431.
60 Alan Cooper, “Reading and Misreading the Prologue to Job,” Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament 15 (1990): 74.
can be said to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” Or, perhaps, what I balk at is my own

claim, related to his, that it does not matter whether one is right or wrong.
This gives the impression that one may simply read the book any which
way, and, after a casual glance at its pages, settle on its meaning and be
done with it. This is not what I mean. Perhaps, after all, I have gone too
far, overstating my position for the sake of argument, and, in the process,
making a fool of myself.61 This is, after all, a book about the Book of Job
and, in it, I do pay attention to the pages I have before me. I want to take
the text seriously. I want to say things about it that are true. I want, in
short, to be right. And in this book I argue for my own readings of Job,
demonstrating how they are answerable to the text, pitting them against
others’ interpretations. I emerge triumphant from the encounter, and
then, acknowledging the text’s ambiguity, point out the weakness in my
argument and allow an alternate reading to take shape amidst its ruins.
It is, in fact, because I want, so desperately, to be right, that I am willing
to acknowledge that I am wrong, again and again. Instead, however, of
binning those wrong readings, as Sherwood says she did while writing
her Jonah book, I have let them lie, uncrumpled, but showing the seeds of
their undoing, juxtaposed with alternate readings.
This kind of being wrong is valuable, because it is true to the ambigu-
ity of the text. Perhaps, then, I am back, with Newsom, claiming that any
reading must be “rigorously answerable” to the text. Still, I kick against
this language, which does not seem to convey what I am trying to say.
The difference, perhaps, is that I am trying to be answerable to what the
text does, recognizing the impossibility of being ‘rigorously answerable’ to
what the text says, this saying being so fraught with ambiguity as to defy
any attempt at certainty. I try to be right, but I must be wrong, and so
I try again. As a biblical scholar, I am not a professional ‘knower,’ having,
as a result of my studies, more and more reliable information, an accu-
mulation of facts about the object of my studies. Rather, at least where
the Book of Job is concerned, I am a professional ‘not-knower.’ This ‘not-
knowing’ bespeaks a rigorous engagement with the text, a willingness to
occupy the ‘Job space’ and to keep working in the ‘Job mines.’ I do not
have facts to offer, but questions and possibilities. And, in the end, “Quod
scripsi, scripsi.”
61 See, for comparison, my assessment of Elihu in Abigail Pelham, “Job as Comedy,

Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 no1 (2010): 89–110.
Chapter One
Creation in the Book of Job: Reading Backwards and

Forwards for Questions and Possibilities
Questions and Answers about Creation
The Book of Job is an exploration of creation. It inquires into the nature

of the created world and the identity of its creator. It asks how the cre-
ator originally went about the task of creating and how the creation is
maintained into the present. Finally, it wonders about the relationship
between the creator and what he or she has made.
I say that the book ‘explores, inquires, asks, and wonders,’ but, in real-
ity, it is a text filled not with questions but with statements. Its characters
do not wonder about the nature of the world; they claim to know what
the world is and should be like, and they speak out of this certainty. Even
Job, in the throes of a suffering that has unmade the world as he knew it,
has claims to make about the essential features of the world as it should
be. Job insists that the world-as-it-ought-to-be has been overthrown and
replaced with a kind of anti-world, in which the opposite of everything
that ought to be is true.1 Job’s friends, by contrast, perceive no disrup-
tion of this status quo. Yet, even while vehemently disagreeing with each
other about the state of the world as it is, in the course of a debate which
occupies the bulk of the book Job and his friends flesh out between them
a vision of the world-as-it-ought-to-be that they, for the most part, share.
This is not to say that Job and his friends are not profoundly troubled by
the fact of Job’s suffering; they recognize that it poses problems for their
claims about the world-as-it-ought-to-be, but ultimately they refuse to
accept these problems as significant enough to change their views. Their
combined description of the world-as-it-ought-to-be can be arranged into
three basic topics, having to do with the nature of interpersonal relation-
ships, the workings of time, and the configuration of space.
1 These two worlds might also be designated by the terms ‘order’ and ‘chaos.’ I prefer,
however, to try to avoid these latter terms, due to their particularly loaded quality, which
will be discussed in chapter 5.
creation in the book of job 25
Throughout the book, Job calls on God, whom he identifies as the world’s
creator and, therefore, the only power qualified to put the upside-down
world right again, to arise and remake the world. Granted, throughout
the book he also blames God for the disruption of the world-as-it-ought-
to-be, but this is because God is the only creative power he knows, and
so he lays the blame for the anti-world squarely on God’s shoulders, all
the while firmly believing that this is not the world as God intended it to
be. Job asks, “Who . . . does not know that the hand of the LORD has done
this?” for, Job contends, “In his hand is the life of every living thing and
the breath of every human being” (12:9–10).2
Then, near the end of the book, God does appear. Instead, however,
of doing whatever needs to be done to turn the world of Job’s current
experience into what Job has asserted is the world-as-it-ought-to-be, God
announces that Job has no idea what he is talking about. “Where were you
when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understand-
ing” (38:4), God thunders at Job at the beginning of his first speech, imply-
ing that because Job was not present at the founding of the world Job
lacks the knowledge necessary to make definitive claims about the way
the world ought to be. God goes on to present the world of his creation as
fundamentally different in almost every particular from that described by
Job and his friends as the world-as-it-ought-to-be, and his discourse, too,
can be seen as dealing with relationships, the workings of time, and the
configuration of space. In this way, God addresses—and unambiguously
rejects—Job’s and his friends’ suppositions about the world-as-it-ought-to
be. Although it is not uncommon to read God’s speeches as non-sequi-
turs which fail to engage with the concerns central to Job and his friends,
this is certainly incorrect. As Good points out, far from being unrelated
to the concerns of the dialogue, Yahweh’s speeches respond directly to
those issues but reject the claims on which they are based.3 It is this rejec-
tion which leads some readers to miss the relevance of God’s response, a
response which is, I would argue, completely attuned to the central theme
of the dialogue, the nature of the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
Although I began by saying that Job is an exploration of creation, the
trajectory of the book, as described above, would seem to indicate that it
is, instead, an official statement about creation. The author of the book has
engineered it in such a way that erroneous views about creation—views
2 All English Bible quotations are from the NRSV, unless otherwise noted.
3 Edwin M. Good, In Turns of Tempest (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 56.
26 chapter one
which he may suppose his readers share—are first aired by Job and the
friends and then struck down and set right by God, who is the only one
with the knowledge and authority to speak the truth about the world.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” God asks Job,
but he may as well be asking us. We, like Job, are in no position to pro-
nounce on the nature of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. God tells us what
the world is like, and, because God is in the unique position of being the
world’s creator, our only response can be to stand corrected. The book
ends and we close the cover, wiser than we were when we began to read,
but also chastened; we know more than we knew before, but central to
this new knowledge is a deep awareness of our inability to really know.
We are mere creatures, and we must look to the creator as the only one
capable of speaking the truth about his creation.
Two Problems: Job’s Response and the Epilogue
There is, however, a problem with this reading. The book does not end
with God’s proclamation, but with something else.4 First, Job responds to
God. He speaks words which may be understood as indicating his accep-
tance of everything God has said and his submission to God’s superior
authority. He says,
I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be
thwarted. . . . I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful
for me, which I did not know . . . therefore I despise myself, and repent in
dust and ashes. (42: 2, 3b, 6)
This, of course, is not problematic for the reading undertaken above. God
speaks authoritative words, and Job highlights their authority by speaking
words of submission, perhaps to make sure that dense readers do not miss
the point of the book. The problem, though, is that Job’s words possess
a certain ambiguity. Newsom goes so far as to say that Job’s last words
are “irresolvably ambiguous and therefore a puzzling response. No matter
how hard we listen, we cannot be sure of exactly what Job has said.”5
4 Newsom presents a similar reading of the trajectory of the book, first describing it as
“a kind of Bildungsroman for the reader’s moral imagination,” but then pointing out that
“There are . . . problems with this approach. The most obvious is that it has difficulty in
accounting for the return of the prose tale.” Newsom, Book of Job, 20.
5 Carol A. Newsom, “Cultural Politics and the Reading of Job,” Biblical Interpretation 1
no. 2 (1993): 136.
There are several difficulties which translators and interpreters face.

The first arises from Job’s use of the verb ‫מאס‬, which usually takes a direct
object, without a direct object. ‫ מאס‬can be translated ‘refuse’ or ‘reject,’
which is fairly straightforward, but the question arises as to the quality
of Job’s refusal or rejection and as to its object. What does Job refuse or
reject and why? The NRSV’s translation “I despise myself,” assumes that
the object of ‫ מאס‬is Job himself, an assumption which draws some sup-
port from the second half of the verse, but which is, nevertheless, not
conclusive. The second difficulty in translating the verse has to do with
the meaning of ‫נחמתי‬, which can mean ‘I regret,’ ‘I am sorry,’ or even
‘I am comforted,’ as well as ‘I repent.’6 The third difficulty is the mean-
ing of ‫עפר ואפר‬, ‘dust and ashes.’ What does Job mean when he says
he repents (or regrets or is sorry or is comforted) in (or on or over; the
Hebrew is ‫ )על‬dust and ashes? Does he mean that he is literally sitting in
dust and ashes? Or is he making some reference to his mortality? And if
he is, is he saying that he regrets the limitations of being mortal, for they
will not allow him to challenge God as God deserves to be challenged? Or
is he saying that he accepts that, because he is a human being, he has no
right to challenge God? Or does he mean something else entirely?
Some interpreters do read Job’s response as submissive. Moshe Green-
berg, for example, writes,
[ Job] confesses his ignorance and his presumptuousness in speaking of
matters beyond his knowledge. . . . [H]e rejects what he formerly main-
tained. . . . Lowly creature that he is, he has yet been granted understanding
of the inscrutability of God; this has liberated him from the false expec-
tations raised by the old covenant concept, so misleading to him and his
interlocutors.7
Others, however, understand that Job’s final words are a rejection of all
God has said. David Robertson contends that Job’s repentance is wholly
ironic, given to pacify a blustery and overbearing God who has been
unable to answer Job’s pressing questions about life and suffering, and
who has attempted to cover up this inability by bombarding Job with new
questions which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.8 For John Briggs
Curtis, Job’s words are not submissive at all, even if meant ironically, but,
6 See William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon (Grand Rapids
and Leiden: Eerdmans and Brill), 234.
7 Moshe Greenberg, “Job,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode
(London: Collins, 1987), 299.
8 David Robertson, “The Book of Job: A Literary Study,” Soundings 56 (1973): 463.
28 chapter one
rather, are overtly rejective. According to Curtis, what Job says is, “I feel
loathing contempt and revulsion [toward you, O God]; and I am sorry for
frail man.”9
If Job rejects God’s claims about creation and denies their authority,
the point of the book, which seemed so clear, is suddenly obscured. Is the
book saying that God is not, after all, qualified to speak definitively about
creation, and are we readers also intended to reject God’s words? When
God appears it seems as if the book has been leading up to that moment,
for we intuitively accept that God alone has the knowledge and authority
to speak the truth about the world. Indeed, throughout the book Job has
called on God to appear and answer him. God’s words are what Job has
been waiting for. But is all this build up of expectation simply a ruse? Does
the author make us wait for God, then let us hear God’s definitive words,
but, before letting us close the book secure in our new knowledge, call
that knowledge into question? Perhaps. As Newsom points out, though,
we cannot be sure what we have heard. Newsom, in fact, goes so far as
to identify Job’s final words as a Bakhtinian loophole, defined as “[T]he
retention for oneself of the possibility of altering the ultimate, final mean-
ing of one’s words. . . . This potential other meaning . . . accompanies the
word like a shadow.”10 That is to say, it is possible that Job deliberately
uses ambiguous language, so as to be able to later reinterpret what he has
said. He may later decide that he intended to be submissive or he may
decide that he intended to be antagonistic, but, for the moment, both
options remain possible.
If we cannot know whether Job has bowed before God’s presentation
of the world or whether he has rejected it—and if, in fact, Job does not
himself know what he has done—it is difficult to know how we are to
respond to these words of Job’s. We cannot reject God’s world outright,
claiming that its conclusiveness has been undermined by Job’s rejection
of it, for we do not know if Job has actually rejected it, but neither can
we accept God’s depiction of the world as definitive, since it is possible
that Job has rejected it. Furthermore, as if the ambiguity inherent in Job’s
words is not confusing enough, there is also the question of what author-
ity Job’s response possesses. That is, so far I have assumed that how Job
9 John Briggs Curtis, “O n Job’s Response to Yahweh,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98

no. 4 (1979): 505.
10 Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, ed. and trans., C. Emerson (Min-
neapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 233. Quoted in Newsom, Book
of Job, 29.
responds to God makes a difference to the meaning of the book. Most

interpreters make this assumption, based on the idea that it matters who
has the last word. If Job has the last word, we assume that his word trumps
God’s, even though God is, by nature, the one with the authority to make
conclusive statements. It is not, however, clear that this needs to be the
case. If the last word is not definitive simply as a matter of course, but if
its definitiveness depends upon the authority of the speaker, whether Job
accepts God’s presentation of his creation or rejects it does not really mat-
ter, at least as far as God’s authority is concerned. If Job rejects God after
hearing him speak, so what? God has still spoken authoritatively about
the world. Job may not like it, but that’s his own hard luck. As far as we
know, there’s nothing he can do about it.
We, who have identified with Job throughout the course of the book11
may wonder whether we ought also to reject God’s words, if this is what
Job has done. If so, then the content of Job’s response is significant and
may affect God’s authority, or at least our relation to it. It seems equally
possible, however, that, if Job rejects God, we ought to drop Job like a hot
potato. We may have been willing to side with him against the friends,
taking his claims of innocence in good faith, but now, when Job refuses
to accept God’s own chastisement, we see that we have been misled and
we promptly disassociate ourselves from him. So, although it is possible
that Job’s potential rejection of God calls God’s authority into question, it
is also possible that it does not. Moreover, if Job’s response is submissive
instead of rejective, this entire line of speculation is rendered moot: Job’s
response does not call the definitiveness of God’s presentation of the world
into question because Job accepts God’s authority without question.
Despite the uncertain answer to the question of whether Job’s response
to God derails what has seemed to be the program of the book—that of
setting right, through the use of the voice of God, erroneous assumptions
about the world—the presence of the epilogue poses a more concrete
challenge to this kind of reading.12 After hearing God’s description of the
11 As Robertson points out, “Job so gives voice to our own fears, doubts, and frustrations
that we cannot help but sympathize with him. Robertson, Book of Job, 450.
12 In this book I will read the Book of Job as if prose and poetry belong together and
are the work of a single author, but I recognize the possibility that they are not. Newsom,
taking the same stance, speaks of the need of adopting “heuristic fictions” about the
book’s composition which are useful for purposes of interpretation, even if it cannot be
known whether they have any basis in fact. Newsom, Book of Job, 16. My best guess is that
the prose prologue and epilogue, though written by the same author as the poetry, are
intended to stand out as different and to seem like one story that has been interrupted by
30 chapter one
world and answering however he answers or perhaps making no unquali-

fied answer at all but reserving his response for a later date, Job finds
himself living in a world that is strangely similar to the world-as-it-ought-
to-be of his debate with the friends. He is back in the world he claimed to
have at one time inhabited—and which, if the prologue is to be believed,
he did at one time inhabit—a world which could hardly be more differ-
ent from the world God has just finished describing as the world of his
creation.
That Job actually finds himself living in a world completely different
from the world God claims to have created, a world which is consonant
with Job’s own vision of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, turns the Book of Job
from an ‘Answer’ book, in which the truth about creation is proclaimed,
into a ‘Question’ one. Whatever can it mean that Job ends the book living
in a different world from the one God claims to have made? Suddenly the
book is bursting with questions. Has God decided that Job’s world-as-it-
ought-to-be has merit after all and decided to give that world a place in
his creation? Or has the epilogue world come into existence through an
agency other than God’s? If God is not responsible for creating the epi-
logue world, is its existence still consonant with the world he describes
himself as having created, despite its differences from that world, or does
God’s world preclude the existence of the epilogue world? If God’s world
precludes the existence of such a world, how does it happen to exist? If
God did not create it, who did? If Job and his friends made it, how did they
manage to do so? If the book ends with a world made by humans, does
this mean that human beings, and not God, are the real creators? Or is the
world inhabited by Job in the epilogue nothing more than a fantasy, with
no basis in reality? If it is a fantasy with no basis in reality, does this mean
that it is impossible to live there or is it perfectly possible to live in such
a place? Is there, after all, nothing more to creating than imagining, or is
God’s creative activity of a different sort? Is there such a thing as the ‘real
world’ or are all worlds imaginary? If Job can create and live in his own
world, what is his relationship to God? Is he a co-creator, endowed by God
with creative faculties so that he may share in God’s creativity? Or is he
an anti-creator who has set himself up as God’s rival? Or is he some third
thing, neither subordinate co-creator nor antagonistic rival-creator?
another. I want to say that these stories take place in different worlds, as will be discussed
in chapter 5.
Reading Backwards and Forwards
In this book I want to do two things. First, I want to inquire into the
details of the worlds described by Job and his friends and by God, and to
assess how God’s world responds to the world-as-it-ought-to-be of Job and
his friends. I will do this in three chapters, each dealing with one of the
topics into which I have said the discussion can be divided: the nature of
relationships between persons, how time works, and how space is config-
ured. To elucidate the positions of the characters, I will take some liber-
ties. I will, in a sense, ‘lean’ on the characters, pushing their statements
to their logical (and sometimes illogical) conclusions, inquiring into their
motivations, and showing how their various claims link up and what
kind of combined structures they form. In a way, I treat them like ‘real’
people, assuming that they have motivations, and that their statements
have implications that go beyond those that are spelled out on the page.
In another way, I do not treat them like ‘real’ people at all. Would ‘real’
people submit to this kind of pushing and prodding, this insistence that
they divulge their unstated motivations? Newsom, who also pays close
attention to the characters’ utterances in her Bakhtinian reading of Job,
treats the characters with more respect than I do, mindful of the nuances
of meaning that differentiate Job from his friends. My own investigation,
though, is into the bigger picture which the characters’ speeches combine
to form, and so my less-nuanced approach is appropriate.13
The second thing I want to do is to address some of the questions
raised by the epilogue, which I will do in a final chapter. How, though, do
I plan to deal with the questions raised by the epilogue? Does the book
offer answers to these questions, or does the fact that it ends by asking
them mean that it blows itself up: ‘This book will self-destruct in 5 sec-
onds’? Clines, who argues that that the epilogue renders the book decon-
structible by ‘pulling the rug out from under’ what the book has asserted
up to that point, nevertheless insists that its primary assertions remain,
despite being problematized by the ending. He writes,
13 Newsom’s Job book is full of interesting insights, and I like it very much. I wonder,
though, whether the way in which she separates out the different positions of the separate
characters results not in a picture of the book’s ‘dialogic truth,’ but in a picture of a series
of ‘monologic truths.’ That is, her focus is not so much on the intersection of the charac-
ters’ points of view, but on the isolation of their various positions, which actually seems to
contradict the Bakhtinian enterprise on which her method is based.
32 chapter one
In deconstructing, we are distinguishing between the surface and the hid-

den in the text. . . . We are allowing that it is possible to read the text without
seeing that it undermines itself, and we are claiming that the deconstructive
reading is . . . at the same time more aware of the character of the text.14
That the ending deconstructs what has come before may cause the book
to “lose all of its authority as a trustworthy testimony to the way things
really are in the external world,” Clines says, while, at the same time, the
multiple philosophies it presents retain “their persuasive force” thanks to
the power of the book’s rhetoric.15 That is, we both take note of the under-
mining effect of the epilogue and, simultaneously, ignore it! We recognize
that the book fails to say anything authoritatively, and yet we continue to
listen to its arguments and to take them seriously.
Newsom offers a similar, but not identical, interpretation of the purpose
of the epilogue. Its purpose is “to reassert the continuing claim on truth
by voices that were silenced by the authoritative divine voice.”16 That is,
although God’s words have seemed authoritative, the epilogue saps them
of authoritative force, allowing Job and his friends to go on making their
own claims, even if those claims differ from God’s. For Newsom, the book
does not finally side with any character’s point of view, but remains a
discussion in which its readers are invited to participate.17 Although for
Newsom, it is specifically God’s authority that is undermined by the epi-
logue, whereas for Clines it is claims that the book as a whole has made
about the independence of righteousness and reward and the meaning of
suffering, for both the epilogue breaks apart the monolithic structure of
the book, either into several different voices which, together, work toward
the enunciation of a ‘dialogic’ truth (Newsom) or into several philoso-
phies, each of which undermines the other, but none of which cancels
the other out (Clines).18
14 Clines, “Deconstructing,” 107.

15 Ibid., 114, 123.
17 Ibid., 30.
18 David Penchansky offers a somewhat similar perspective, writing, “The epi-
logue . . . does double duty in a holistic reading of the book. On the one hand, Yahweh’s
approval of Job reflects Job’s pious activities in the prologue; but on the other hand, it
affirms the blasphemous statements made in the center. . . . Job therefore disperses into
many stories, each occupying the same 42 chapters.” David Penchansky, The Betrayal of
God: Ideological Conflict in Job (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1990), 49. For
Penchansky, it is not multiple voices that are reaffirmed by the epilogue or multiple phi-
losophies, but multiple stories. Yet, in contrast to Clines, Penchansky reads the entire Book
I began this account of the effect of the epilogue as perceived by Clines

and Newsom by wondering whether the epilogue causes the book to self-
destruct so that there is, in fact, no book left. These interpreters claim that,
although the epilogue changes the book in some way, it does not obliter-
ate it. I am inclined to agree with them, and, in fact, how could I not?
A book that has self-destructed leaves nothing behind to be discussed,
save perhaps a few charred remains, which rather hampers any attempt
to say anything about its content or meaning. I do want to write about
the book’s content and meaning, however, and so I, along with everyone
else who writes about the book, must insist that the explosion witnessed
in the epilogue has served some other purpose than its self-destruction.
Supporting this claim is the fact that the book exists and is, after all, a
substantial document, far more substantial than a few charred remains
would be. Many interpreters, in fact, argue that, far from being a partial
text, what we have in the Book of Job is an expanded text, a text which has
grown by a process of accretion, so that it is not a case of having too little
left to work with, but, some would argue, of having too much.19
My interpretation of the force of the epilogue shares similarities with
those of Clines and Newsom. As I have written above, I see the epilogue as
raising a multitude of questions about the nature of creation, the identity
of the creator, and the way in which the world is made and maintained.
This interpretation stems, of course from my reading of the book up to
the point where the epilogue begins, as no doubt, everyone’s does. The
epilogue may be explosively transformative, but what the explosion looks
like must reflect, in some way, the book we think we have been read-
ing before it happens. This may go without saying, but it is, nevertheless,
important to recognize. It is only because I think I have been reading
a book about creation and the world-as-it-ought-to-be that the epilogue
raises questions about these topics. Clines thinks he has been reading a
book about the relationship between righteousness and reward and the
of Job as “dissonant” (Ibid., 9–10, 26), rather than viewing it as a smooth narrative that is
disturbed by the epilogue.
19 Some interpreters argue that the wisdom hymn of chapter 28 and Elihu’s speeches
of chapters 32–37 were not part of the original book but were added by later editors.
Others go so far as to say that the prose prologue and epilogue were appended to the
book by someone other than its original author. See Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Structure
and Message of the Book of Job,” Vetus Testamentum 46, no. 1 (1996): 85–100, and Douglas
Lawrie, “How Critical is it to be Historically Critical? The Case of the Composition of the
Book of Job,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27 no. 1 (2001): 121–146, for overviews
of the scholarly discussion on the compilation/corruption of the book.
34 chapter one
reasons for suffering, and so he reads the epilogue as deconstructing the

book’s assertions on these topics. Newsom thinks she has been reading a
polyphonic text in which different characters’ speech and different genres
are intercut in order to proclaim a dialogic truth, based on the author’s
recognition that
the truth about piety, human suffering, the nature of God, and the moral
order of the cosmos can be adequately addressed only by a plurality of
unmerged consciousnesses engaging one another in open-ended dialogue.20
So, for Newsom, the epilogue refutes the idea that God is the only one
with the authority to speak; it is the author’s final ‘unfinalizing’ move,
by which the conversation is extended out beyond the boundaries of the
book. The links between our readings of the epilogue and the body of the
book do not mean that we are misreading either section. Likewise, the dif-
ferences between our interpretations do not mean that someone is right
and someone is wrong. These interpretations can coexist. In fact, even
contradictory interpretations of the Book of Job can coexist; the book’s
complexity and ambiguity, which are prodigious, permit the legitimate
existence of a wide variety of readings.21
Still, neither Clines’ reading, nor Newsom’s, strikes me as taking enough
note of the transformation that the epilogue works upon the book. Clines,
while arguing that the epilogue undermines the philosophies supported
by the rest of the book and while claiming that the deconstructive reading
is “more aware of the character of the text”22 than a non-deconstructive
reading, still wants to argue that the greatness of the book lies in its ability
to persuade us to overlook its self-deconstruction. He writes,
We recognize in the unenlightened Job the human condition, embattled
against an unjust fate, and we will him to succeed in his struggle even at
the moment when we know it is ill-conceived and unnecessary.23
How, then, is the deconstructive reading “more aware of the character of
the text”? Where Clines’ argument ends up makes it seem as if the oppo-
site is the case: the text may deconstruct itself, but it wills us to ignore
this fact and read it in a straightforward way. The epilogue is not, then,
a shocking revelation of what the book is really about which undermines

21 See the prologue to this book for a discussion of how one might respond to Job’s
ambiguity.
22 Clines, “Deconstructing,” 107.
23 Ibid., 122.
everything that has come before; instead, we are meant to read it as if it

confirms the agenda of the preceding text. No doubt I am oversimplifying
Clines’ argument, but these seem to me to be its implications. The argu-
ment seems to negate itself.
Newsom’s reading of the epilogue does not satisfy me for a different
reason. She argues that the epilogue, by denying God absolute authority
of speech, reasserts “the continuing claim on truth by voices that were
silenced by the authoritative divine voice.”24 I do not disagree with this,
but I want to know what the truth-claims of the other characters look like
in the wake of the epilogue. As Newsom presents it, the epilogue does not
change the nature of the truth available to the other characters, but only
gives them the ability to go on speaking as they have been speaking. Job is
permitted to keep speaking his personal truth, as he has been speaking it
throughout the book, and the same goes for the other characters. But how
can this be? The epilogue’s relativization of God’s authority—or, at least,
its potential relativization thereof—cannot mean that the characters just
pick up where they left off and continue saying what they have been say-
ing. If God’s authority is in fact relativized by the epilogue, this is a cata-
clysmic event. Everything changes, or, at least, is potentially changed. The
characters simply cannot go forward from it saying the same old things,
for one of their most basic assumptions about the world—that God is the
only one with the power to create and the authority to determine what
the created world will be like—has been called into question. If Job has
a ‘claim on truth’ after the appearance of the epilogue, both the content
of his claim and its nature must be completely different from what they
were before.
Perhaps this is implicit in Newsom’s assertion that the epilogue ‘unfi-
nalizes’ the text, extending it out beyond its on-paper ending. The char-
acters may have something new to say, but they must say those things
in the space extended beyond the end of the book. How, though, are
we to know what they have said? Theoretically they may keep speaking,
but how are we to hear them? We can only speculate about what they
may be saying. Elsewhere, in fact, Newsom does just this. She begins her
article “The Moral Sense of Nature: Ethics in the Light of God’s Speech
to Job,” by wondering how Job lived the remaining 140 years of his life,
and concludes by suggesting that Job probably lived the rest of his life
much as he had lived before the events of the book, in uprightness and

36 chapter one
integrity, but with a different understanding of his place in the world.25

In this article, Newsom’s focus is on God’s speeches and their power to
effect a transformed vision—“it was Job’s seeing, as he himself observes,
that was most radically altered (42:5). The horizon of his vision and the
patterns he discerned were different”26—and not on the power of the epi-
logue to transform our understanding of God’s authority. Here, Newsom
is interpreting Job’s response to God’s speeches, a response grounded in
his acceptance of their authority, rather than Job’s response to an epilogue
which wrests authority from God. She wants to know what happened in
the years which remained of his life after his encounter with God, years
which, because the book does not describe them in much detail, must
be approached with a certain amount of speculation. Yet, despite this,
they are years which are contained within the book. The epilogue begins
immediately after Job’s encounter with God and ends with Job’s death 140
years later, so the information provided in the epilogue, however slight,
does provide us with a picture of how Job lived his remaining 140 years.
There is much that is not described, but what is described can be taken
as emblematic.
Thus, Newsom’s presentation of Job’s remaining years in her 1994 article
is speculative, but it is also grounded in the text. If, however, the epilogue
serves a purpose other than showing how Job’s acceptance of God’s words
played out in the remainder of his life, a greater degree of speculation is
required. In Newsom’s Bakhtinian reading of Job, it is not just the content
of the epilogue that matters; rather, the epilogue serves the purpose of
undermining God’s exclusive authority so that all characters can continue
speaking. There is, however, no direct speech in the epilogue. A narra-
tor tells us a few of the things Job does in his remaining years, but not
what he says. We may imagine what he may have said based on what he
does, but we do not really know. How, though, is this any more specula-
tive than interpreting the events of the epilogue in terms of what they
mean for Job’s worldview, as Newsom does in the article quoted above?
The difference I am trying to get at has to do with the purpose of the
epilogue. If the purpose of the epilogue is to show how Job responded to
God’s speeches, and if it is taken as a given that God speaks the definitive
truth (which is what Newsom assumes in her article), then it is possible
25 Carol A. Newsom, “The Moral Sense of Nature: Ethics in the Light of God’s Speech to
Job,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 15 no. 1 (1994): 27.
26 Idem.
to interpret the epilogue’s events in a straightforward way, and to view

them as showing, albeit in brief, how Job lived his remaining 140 years.
If, however, the epilogue appears as a sudden rupture in what has come
before, then it is not clear whether it can be read straightforwardly. The
meaning of the few details about Job’s life with which it provides us are
not clear; they could mean any number of things. Moreover, if Newsom
is right that the epilogue extends the book’s conversation out beyond the
end of the book, the epilogue cannot be understood to provide us with all
the information we need to understand what Job may have said after its
incursion into the book. The epilogue may end with Job’s death, but this
is, in some ways, immaterial. The epilogue may tell us that, in the end,
“Job died, old and full of days” (42:17), but, really, it is impossible for Job
to die, if dying means the end of his ability to speak. As a textual charac-
ter, engaged in an unfinished and ‘unfinalizable’ conversation, Job must
continue speaking. “Job died. The end,” proclaims the epilogue, but this is
something the epilogue has no authority to proclaim or enforce. Job’s ‘life’
is not bounded by the boundaries of the epilogue, if the epilogue’s main
purpose is to create an ‘unfinalizable’ text.
Yet, thinking about how the conversation continues beyond the bounds
of the book must be as much about the reader as about the characters.
Perhaps this is the point Newsom’s Bakhtinian reading makes. The book,
with its ‘unfinalized’ ending, breaks loose from its textual moorings and is
free to roam about in the ‘real’ world. We interpreters become the char-
acters, and, in fact, Newsom understands Elihu to be an early reader who
has been so drawn into the conversation that he has written himself into
the book.27 Still, if this is the case, it is not quite right to say that the book’s
characters are permitted to go on speaking. Rather, it is the book’s read-
ers who are permitted to go on speaking about the characters, even to the
point of putting words in those characters’ mouths.
In Clines’ deconstructionist reading, the epilogue undermines previ-
ously asserted philosophies, but the book simultaneously goes on asserting
those philosophies, and, in fact, we are intended to overlook the fact that
the book deconstructs itself and accept its coherence on the strength of its
rhetoric, meaning that what happens in the epilogue does not really mat-
ter. In Newsom’s Bakhtinian reading, the only thing about the book that
the epilogue changes is the absoluteness of God’s authority, an authority
which would serve to close the book with a definitive statement; as it is,

38 chapter one
the epilogue functions not as an ending but as a portal which leads to the
world outside the book. My problem with both of these readings is that
they do not pay enough attention to what the epilogue does to the content
of the book itself. I want to argue that we must read backwards from the
epilogue, back into the middle of the book. If the epilogue changes the cir-
cumstances in which Job and his friends find themselves and if it permits
them to go on speaking, it seems to me that they must do this ‘new’ speak-
ing within the book itself, and not in some ‘real world’ space projected out
beyond the end of the book. They do not live in the real world, but only in
the book, and it is there that they must respond to the epilogue.
But how can they do this? Is it not as impossible for them to re-speak
words they have already spoken, but this time with different meanings,
as it is for them to go on speaking (or, to be heard speaking) in the space
beyond the end of the book? In both cases, isn’t it the reader who must do
all the speaking, throwing her voice like a ventriloquist so that the words
seem to come from the characters’ mouths? To a degree, I suppose the
answer is yes, inasmuch as all “interpretation . . . is . . . the mutual activity
that goes on between text and reader,”28 as discussed in the prologue to
this book, and yet, because the author of the speeches in the body of the
book also wrote (or attached) the epilogue, it seems likely that he would
have written them to work in concert. He would have known that the
epilogue was coming—(unless the epilogue was attached by a saboteur
without his knowledge and against his intentions,29 a position which I
do not accept)—and could, therefore, have engineered the characters’
speeches in such a way that they would divulge different meanings based
on whether they were read pre-epilogue or post-epilogue.
For example, in his chapter 38 speech, God seems to be accusing Job of
having acted as a rival creator. After asserting Job’s inability to speak about
the nature of creation based on his not having been present at the actual
moment of creation, God goes on to question Job about the identity of the
creator, asking, “Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?” (38:5), implying that Job’s absence at
the founding of the earth has disqualified him from knowing not only the
nature of the created world but also the identity of its creator, who is pre-
sumably God himself. There is, however, something strange here. What
28 Clines, Job 1–20, xlvii.

29 Curtis, for example, writes, “The . . . purpose of the prose . . . is that of deliberately
misleading the reader.” Curtis “Job’s Response,” 510. I will discuss this possibility—and my
rejection of it—in chapter 5 of this book.
is strange is not the content of the question as it relates to creation, but

the fact that God asks Job, “Who has done these things?” God’s question
oozes sarcasm and implies that Job will not know how to answer. And
yet, the sarcastic tone of God’s “Surely you know” is confusing, for, in fact,
Job surely does know, and is prepared to answer correctly. Throughout the
book Job has identified God as the creator of the world, and has never
contemplated the possibility that there might be another creator besides
God, let alone the thought that he himself might be capable of wresting
creative power from God and making the world himself.
Yet, in God’s mind, knowledge about the world and creator-status go
hand in hand, so if Job has claimed to know what the world should be like
(which he has), he has also tried to rival God’s creative power. However
much we might like to side with Job in this situation, we cannot. God
speaks authoritatively, and, therefore, we must accept his reading of the
situation as correct. We feel the tension here acutely. On the one hand,
we feel sure that Job never intended to do the thing God has accused
him of doing, and if he did it he did not know he was doing it, but on the
other hand we also know that only God has the knowledge and authority
to speak definitively. If God says that Job has done this, it means that Job
has done it, however unwittingly.
Granted, as already discussed, some interpreters reject God’s author-
ity on the basis of what he says to Job, and read Job’s response in 42:2–6
as either overtly or covertly rejective. Taking this point of view, we
could alleviate the tension by insisting that God is wrong about Job; in
his speeches, God shows himself incapable of speaking definitive words
about the creation, and this is one of the places in which he undermines
his own authority, by making accusations that are blatantly false. Yet,
I am not convinced that God’s speeches undermine his authority in the
way that commentators who take this position assert. There is much of
value in what God has to say and the only way to read God’s whirlwind
speeches as revealing him to be “so remote, so unfeeling, [and] so unjust”30
that he does not deserve the deference normally attributed to God is to
reject everything he has said as a matter of course. The baby must be
thrown out with the bath water for this rejection of God to be justified.
The epilogue, though, as I have argued, does raise questions about
God’s absolute authority, for, in it, a world completely different from the
one for which God claims responsibility springs into being. The epilogue,
30 Idem.
40 chapter one
however, is not an authority in the way that God is an authority. It may

call God’s authority into question, but it does this not by speaking authori-
tative words of its own, but by portraying a situation which can be inter-
preted in multiple ways. It is not a case of one authoritative speech being
superseded by another more authoritative speech, but of questions being
raised. We cannot say that the epilogue proves that God was right about
Job, for we are not told that Job has created the world it portrays. At the
same time, that Job now inhabits his world-as-it-ought-to-be does bear
thinking about. And how are we to think about this information? By
going back and rereading the book in its light, without deciding the mat-
ter beforehand.
On our first reading, we will interpret the book one way, but, reaching
the surprise ending of the epilogue, we are forced to go back and reread,
recognizing that the identical words on the page may now mean some-
thing different. I do not think, though, that I am talking about the same
process we undertake when we read, for example, a whodunit mystery
novel, where, having reached the end and discovered the identity of the
murderer, we are now able to recognize his guilt in his previous gestures
and statements, which at one time seemed innocent. The difference is
that Job does not provide us with any definitive statements. It does not
tell us who the ‘murderer’ is, but, rather, ends by asking whether it is pos-
sible that there may have been a ‘murder.’ The epilogue does not give us
information that makes everything clear. It confuses things, rather, and
causes questions to arise which we would not otherwise have been ask-
ing. Moreover, it is not that, rereading the Book of Job, we go back and
recognize the clues that were there all along, but that the book itself has
been changed, despite retaining the same words. It is for this reason that,
in this book, I will focus first on the speeches of the characters as they
appear in a first reading of the book,31 and, then, in chapter 5, I will reread
the book, in the light of the questions raised by the epilogue. At the same
time, my reading of the book—or, rather, readings, as, in each chapter,
I will approach the text from a different angle and focus on a different
aspect of its content—will have implications for how I understand what
happens in the epilogue, as I have already noted above. Even if I read
31 Of course, I cannot claim that what I will say about the worlds described by Job and
his friends and by God are ideas that came to me the first time I read the book, so perhaps
it is disingenuous to speak of an initial reading contrasted with a rereading. My intention,
however, is to contrast a straightforward reading, which does not know the epilogue is
coming, with a rereading which takes account of the epilogue from the outset.
without anticipating the epilogue, how I read will determine, at least to

a degree, what the epilogue means to me when it suddenly, surprisingly
appears at the end of the book. Then, with these meanings in mind, I
must reread what has come before, perhaps discovering different mean-
ings, even if the original reading has helped determine what questions
I understand the epilogue to be asking. This is what I mean by reading
backwards and forwards. The epilogue, once read, forces us back into
the center of the text, while this center simultaneously drives us forward
toward the epilogue, which we now know is coming, creating a kind of
continuous feedback loop.
Chapter Two
Relationships Between Persons in the

World-as-it-Ought-and-Ought-not-to-be: Centrality
and Dispersion, Connectedness and Loneliness
The Righteous and the Wicked
This book must begin with a discussion of how righteousness and wick-
edness function for Job and his three friends. These categories are funda-
mental not only to these characters’ ideas about relationships between
persons, with which this chapter will deal, but to all aspects of their beliefs
about the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Central to this world is a strict division
between righteousness and wickedness, as is evidenced by the way Job
and his friends refer to the righteous and the wicked as two distinct blocks
of people, with set attributes and destinies, and never mention individu-
als whose behavior happens to fall somewhere in between. Righteousness
and wickedness do not exist as points at either end of a spectrum, so that
a person may be thought of as relatively more righteous or relatively more
wicked. Rather, there is a fundamental divide between the two kinds of
people. If any comparison of relative righteousness or wickedness is pos-
sible, it can only be between the members of each group, and not between
both groups at once. Job may be the most righteous man on earth (1:8),
but this does not mean that other righteous people who are not quite up
to Job’s standard are more wicked than Job, nor can a wicked man who is
less wicked than other wicked men claim to be more righteous than his
fellows, any more than an apple that is less shiny or crunchy than other
apples can be claimed to be an orange. For Job and his friends, wicked-
ness and righteousness do not touch each other; there is no such thing as
an ‘orpple.’
Moreover, that Job and his friends speak of ‘the righteous’ and ‘the
wicked’ as blocks of people demonstrates not only that they think of righ-
teousness and wickedness as mutually exclusive states of being, but that
they view these groups as collectives. Wicked men are all alike and share
an identical fate. If Job or his friends speak of ‘the wicked man,’ this man
is intended to be emblematic of the group, rather than being singled out
for any unique characteristics he may possess as an individual. The same
centrality and dispersion, connectedness and loneliness 43
goes for ‘the righteous man,’ though, admittedly, to a lesser degree. Job
and his friends, being righteous men themselves, are more attuned to
the differences that may exist between righteous individuals, whereas it
is possible—or, rather, certain—that they do not know any wicked men
personally. The righteous do not mingle with the wicked. Yet, even though
Job and his friends are able to speak about—and as—individual righteous
men, they still view righteousness collectively. The righteous behave one
way and have a single fate, whereas the wicked behave another way and
have their own shared fate.
For the purposes of this book, it is necessary to recognize the link
between righteousness and the world-as-it-ought-to-be as Job and his
friends perceive it. The righteous are those who live in the world-as-it-
ought-to-be and who benefit from the blessings intrinsic to it. The wicked,
by contrast, are unable to lay claim to these blessings. What this means
is that, although wicked people may technically be present in the world-
as-it-ought-to-be, they do not really live there. Instead, the wicked live in
a kind of anti-world—the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be—which, neverthe-
less, is where they belong. This world exists as the flip-side of the world-as-
it-ought-to-be, and the lives of its inhabitants are marked by their direct
opposition to the lives of those who inhabit the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
These distinctions mean that, when Job and his friends speak about
the righteous and the blessings that attend them, they are also speaking
about the world-as-it-ought-to-be, and the blessings by which it is char-
acterized. In the same way, when they speak about the wicked, they are
describing the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be, which exists in opposition to
the world-as-it-ought-to-be. For this reason, it is possible to read Job’s and
his friends’ descriptions of the situations in which the wicked find them-
selves as simultaneously clarifying some aspect of their depiction of the
world-as-it-ought-to-be. What is said about the wicked and the anti-world
they inhabit can be reversed and applied to the righteous and the world-
as-it-ought-to-be they inhabit. So, for example, if Bildad describes the lives
of the wicked as lacking in stability, this detail can be understood as con-
firming Eliphaz’s description of the lives of the righteous as stable and the
world-as-it-ought-to-be as a place where stability reigns.
How Job and his friends present their picture of the world-as-it-ought-
to-be is bound up in their talk about the righteous and the wicked. This
talk is, therefore, cosmically significant. When Eliphaz says something
about the wicked, he is not saying, “I don’t like so-and-so’s behavior,
so I consider it wicked” or “What so-and-so is doing is harming me, so
44 chapter two
I consider him wicked.” Instead, he is saying that such behavior or such a

person cannot exist in the world-as-it-ought-to-be. The world-as-it-ought-
to-be will not tolerate such behavior or such a person, and so the wicked
man is thrust out of this world and into the anti-world. Moreover, his suf-
fering is the result not of punishment meted out in the world-as-it-ought-
to-be, but of the fact that he inhabits the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be,
where one cannot help but suffer, just as, in the world-as-it-ought-to-be,
one does not suffer.
This strict division between the righteous and the wicked is what makes
Job’s situation so problematic. It is not simply that tragedy has befallen
him and that, as a result, he ‘feels really bad.’ However ‘bad’ he feels as
a result of his personal tragedies, this is not the half of it. Job’s problem,
rather, is that in the world-as-it-ought-to-be, the situation in which he
finds himself ought to be impossible. If Job is one of the righteous—and
he thinks of himself as supremely righteous—there is simply no way for
him to suffer to the kind of anguish he feels in the world-as-it-ought-to-
be. Since he finds himself suffering, he perceives that the only possible
explanation is a breakdown of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. For the friends,
however, it is perfectly possible to explain Job’s suffering and the contin-
ued existence the world-as-it-ought-to-be. If he suffers, he is one of the
wicked. It is true that, in his wickedness, he inhabits a kind of anti-world,
but this does not mean that the world-as-it-ought-to-be has ceased to exist
or has malfunctioned in some way. Rather, that Job has been thrust into
the anti-world in which the wicked live is proof of the correct working of
the world-as-it-ought-to-be, which casts out those who do not belong.
Even so, the friends are troubled by Job’s prolonged suffering, and not
only because they pity their friend and are sorry for his distress. They are
troubled because they do not know how to reconcile the fact that they do
not know the wicked with the fact that they do know Job. He is so thor-
oughly one of them that even though, on one level, they can make sense
of his suffering, on a deeper level they are confounded by it. Job, for them,
appears as the kind of liminal figure which they have assumed does not
exist: a wicked righteous man. At the same time, their perception of Job’s
liminal position arises from their belief in the strict division which exists
between the righteous and the wicked. Job is one of the righteous, and, as
such, he cannot be one of the wicked, and so he occupies a problematic,
impossible, liminal space.
Because of his position as one of the righteous, the friends, even as
they grow more vehement in their accusations of wickedness, keep throw-
ing Job life rafts, hoping that he will grab hold and be hauled back into
the world-as-it-ought-to-be where he belongs. In chapter 22, for example,

Eliphaz accuses Job of wickedness outright, saying, “Is not your wicked-
ness great? There is no end to your iniquities” (22:5). Yet, immediately
afterwards Eliphaz urges, “Agree with God, and be at peace; in this way
good will come to you. . . . If you return to the Almighty, you will be
restored” (22:21, 23). This offer is not available to the wicked, who are fated
to die in their wickedness, death snatching them up when they do not see
it coming, and their remains purged from the earth by a consuming fire
(22:16, 20). The friends may come to accuse Job of wickedness, but, in their
minds, he remains one of the righteous. He is so essentially one of them
that, whatever he may have done, they cannot give him up completely.
The impossibility of Job’s position forces the friends to perform strange
contortions of logic, whereby contradictory claims are made and their
implications ignored. Nowhere is this more evident than in Eliphaz’s
report of the message he received from a nocturnal spirit visitor (4:12–21),
a message which is picked up in Eliphaz’s subsequent speeches and which
Bildad uses to close down the conversation in his final speech of chap-
ter 25. I will discuss the import of this message and the friends’ use of it
in the next chapter. Here, I simply want to point out the quandary into
which Job’s suffering casts Eliphaz and, by extension, the other friends
whose speeches contain similar contradictions in logic. Eliphaz thinks he
knows how to interpret Job’s suffering, but, as soon as he starts talking,
he finds that he cannot make sense of it. Is Job a wicked righteous man
or a righteous wicked man? In truth, he cannot be either, for there are no
such things, and Eliphaz is forced to come up with another explanation
for Job’s suffering, which he nonchalantly presents as a possibility, ignor-
ing the way in which it undermines his claims about the divide between
righteous and wicked and the disparate worlds they inhabit, as will be
discussed in the next chapter.
I am trying to make two points in the discussion above. First, and most
importantly, I have endeavored to show how the characters use the cat-
egories of ‘the righteous’ and ‘the wicked’ to talk about the nature of the
world-as-it-ought-to-be. In this book, I will mine their comments about
these groups of people to draw out the ideas about the world-as-it-ought-
to-be which are implicit in them. Second, I have wanted to show how
Job’s suffering poses problems for his friends’ vision of the world-as-it-
ought-to-be. The friends deny that anything has gone wrong with the
world, but, at the same time, they find that they cannot speak about it as
straightforwardly as they could before Job began to suffer. Their language
takes strange twists and turns; they contradict themselves even as they
46 chapter two
try to make plain, forceful, unambiguous statements about the world and
Job’s predicament. It is important to notice this, as even these contradic-
tions can tell us something about the friends’ vision of the world-as-it-
ought-to-be. As for Job, his difficulties lie in a different direction. When
he begins to suffer—or, more specifically, when the poetry interrupts the
prose tale—Job is immediately convinced that the world-as-it-ought-to-be
has been overwhelmed by the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be. Job sees him-
self not as an anomaly—impossibly straddling righteousness and wicked-
ness—but as Everyman. From his suffering, he draws the conclusion that
all righteous men are being forced to suffer against their deserts—(closing
his eyes, it would seem, to the fact that his friends, who are presumably
righteous, are not suffering)—and all wicked men are given rewards they
have not earned. His problem is not to reconcile his righteousness with
his suffering, but to reconcile God’s goodness with the fact that God has
permitted the anti-world to overwhelm the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Even
though Job’s challenge is different from that faced by his friends, the
way he faces this challenge is similarly revealing of his beliefs about the
world-as-it-ought-to-be, which he contrasts with the world of his current
experience.
Chapter 29: Relations between Persons in Job’s World-as-It-Ought-to-be
In chapters 29–31, however, Job has no reservations about presenting a

clear picture of the world as he believes it ought to be, contrasting this
with the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be of his present experience, and calling
for God to reinstate the world Job believes both of them agree is the world-
as-it-ought-to-be. Job begins chapter 29 by wishing, “O that I were as in the
months of old” (29:2a), a wish which gestures back to the prologue and
the world it describes Job as inhabiting before his suffering began. For this
reason, even though Job does not speak the prologue, it can also be seen
as presenting a picture of his world-as-it-ought-to-be, and, in fact, as far
as relationships between persons are concerned, the worlds described in
chapter 29 and in the prologue are essentially the same. The link between
chapter 29 and the prologue is highlighted by the word ‫קדם‬, which is
used both in the description of Job’s former status—he was the greatest
of all the people of ‫‘( קדם‬the east;’ 1.1)—and to describe the time to which
he wants to return—“O that I were as in the months of ‫‘( קדם‬old,’ ‘earlier
times;’ 29:2).
In chapter 29, Job speaks of human relationships in the world-as-it-
ought-to-be in two related ways. First, a proper relationship is one in
which the individuals involved are correctly placed in space, vis-à-vis one
another. This placement may be symbolic of some aspect of the relation-
ship, but it is also actual. That is to say, a person’s distance from another
may symbolize his deference to that other’s superior status, but the dis-
tance is physical and is a real feature of the relationship. It is the spatial
configuration which demonstrates what the relationship is, and, if the
configuration is changed, the relationship is also changed. If the space of
deference is not maintained, the once-superior person ceases to be supe-
rior. This, in fact, is what Job describes in chapter 30 as having happened
to him, as will be discussed below. Second, central to Job’s understanding
of relationships in the world-as-it-ought-to-be is the issue of where atten-
tion is focused. Although this might seem unrelated to Job’s concern with
the correct placement of individuals in space, in reality it is a feature of
the same concern. Even if one stands at the proper distance from one’s
superior, if, at the same time, one is looking off to the side at one’s equal,
one fails to maintain proper relations with one’s superior. The space, then,
is as much mental as it is physical. Where one stands and where one looks
and how one looks are all bound up together.
In chapter 29, Job describes a world in which he is the sole central
figure, around whom all other individuals are arranged and on whom
their attention is focused. Indeed, it is not only his fellow humans who
regard Job in this way, but God as well. Job begins the chapter by remem-
bering the special attention he received from God in that world, saying,
“God watched over me; . . . his lamp shone over my head, and by his light
I walked through darkness; . . . the friendship of God was upon my tent.”
(29:2b-3, 4b). God’s eye is focused on Job, and the result of this focus is
blessing: “[M]y steps were washed with milk, and the rock poured out
for me streams of oil!” (29:6). Granted, in other speeches of the poetic
section Job has recognized himself as singled out by God, but for torture
instead of blessing. (For example, in chapter 7 Job accuses God of being
a “watcher of humanity”1 [v. 20a] and implores, “Will you not look away
from me for a while, let me alone until I swallow my spittle?” [v. 19].)
In chapter 29, though, God’s gaze is benevolent, and this seems related
to God’s maintenance of the proper, respectful distance from Job. God
watches over Job and shines his light upon him, but he does not get too
close. In the world as it is now, however, Job complains that God’s hands
are on him, and this touch is agony:
1 The verbal root used here is ‫נצר‬, whereas that used in 29:2 is ‫שׁמר‬. Neither word,
though, has connotations which are more overtly positive or negative than the other.
48 chapter two
I was at ease, and he broke me in two; he seized me by the neck and dashed
me to pieces; he set me up as his target; his archers surround me. He slashes
open my kidneys, and shows no mercy; he pours out my gall on the ground.
(16:12–13)
Indeed, in the prologue, permission to touch2 Job is what hassatan is given
(1:11–12, 2:5–6); the fence which, hassatan insists, has unfairly surrounded
and protected Job, is removed and the distance which formerly separated
him from others is made to disappear. What Job asks for in chapter 29 is
the return of this distance, a distance which, based on his righteousness,
he believes he fully deserves.
After describing himself as the center of God’s benevolent attention,
which is bestowed from a respectful distance, and noting that, in those
days, “my children were around me” (29:5b), another detail which serves
to establish his centrality, Job goes on to describe himself as the center of
attention for the town’s leaders, saying,
When I went out to the gate of the city, when I took my seat in the square,
the young men saw me and withdrew, and the aged rose up and stood; the
nobles refrained from talking, and laid their hands on their mouths; the
voices of princes were hushed, and their tongues stuck to the roof of their
mouths. (29:7–10)
Newsom comments on this passage,
[H]is entry . . . causes a reconfiguration of those present: Job sits, the young
men withdraw, the elders rise and stand. Space is made for Job. . . . When he
enters, all others fall silent, their hands covering their mouths (29:7–10).3
Indeed, the phrase translated “the voices of princes were hushed” might
also be understood as saying that their voices ‘went into hiding’ (a lit-
eral translation of the Hebrew ‫)נחבאו‬. Holding the poetic ‘were hushed’
and the literal ‘went into hiding’ together, we find that what is being
described is both the princes’ self-silencing and space-making; the two
go hand-in-hand.
After describing the source of his supreme righteousness—his status
as the defender of the poor and weak against the machinations of the
unrighteous (29:12–17)—Job continues with his presentation of the space
2 In 1:11 and 2:5, hassatan challenges God to touch or strike Job, using the verb ‫ ;נגע‬in
1:12 and 2:6, the prepositional phrase ‫בידך‬, “in your hand” is used to designate the power
hassatan has been given over Job.
3 Newsom, “Moral Sense,” 11.
made for him in the days when the world was as it should be, a picture
which seems to include his entire community. He says,
They listened to me, and waited, and kept silence for my counsel. After
I spoke they did not speak again, and my word dropped upon them like
dew. They waited for me as for the rain; they opened their mouths as for the
spring rain. I smiled on them when they had no confidence; and the light of
my countenance they did not extinguish. I chose their way, and sat as chief,
and I lived like a king among his troops. (29:21–25a).
As can be seen, Job’s focus is not on relations between persons in general,
but, rather on how people relate to him specifically. Neither is he argu-
ing that this degree of physical and mental space should be made for all
people, but only for him specifically. Is Job self-centered? Yes, without
question. He is so self-centered that he insists that for the world to be as
it should all other persons must make space for him, both physically, with
their bodies and their voices, and mentally, by giving him their full atten-
tion. Anything less than this and the world has turned into an anti-world,
the world he describes in chapter 30. Yet, if to be righteous is to be in tune
with the world-as-it-ought-to-be, and to live in that world and benefit from
its many blessings, perhaps Job is asking nothing more than his due. If Job
is not only righteous but supremely righteous, as the God of the prologue
claims he is (1:8), then Job does have certain rights. If, in the world-as-it-
ought-to-be, the righteous (who are the only ones capable of living in this
world) are entitled to a certain amount of deferential space and a certain
amount of mental attention from their fellows, then Job must be entitled
to the greatest amount of deferential space and the greatest amount of
mental attention. Unless Job is deluded about his righteousness, his insis-
tence that he belongs at the center of his community is justified.
Job’s Centrality in the World of the Prose Tale
As stated above, chapter 29 and the prose prologue are both representa-
tive of Job’s vision of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Job begins chapter 29
by wishing, “Oh, that I were as in the months of old,” a wish that gestures
back to the prologue which, at least when it begins, before its depiction
of the onset of Job’s suffering, takes place in those “months of old.” In fact,
I want to argue that even the start of Job’s suffering does not bring an
immediate end to those months or to the-world-as-it-ought-to-be, as will
be discussed below. In the prologue, as in chapter 29, Job is the central
figure in his world and is surrounded by a multitude of others who are
50 chapter two
focused on him. Here, the spatial aspect is not stressed as overtly it is in

chapter 29, though it is present in the prologue’s depiction of the arrival of
the friends and their subsequent behavior, as will be investigated below.
After beginning by describing Job as a righteous man—“blameless and
upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (1:1b)—the pro-
logue goes on to describe Job’s relationship with a certain large group of
individuals, which includes both humans and animals. The relationship
is that of possession. Belonging to Job are “seven sons and three daugh-
ters . . . seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke
of oxen, five hundred donkeys, and very many servants” (1:2–3a).
If, in chapter 29, Job’s righteousness resulted in deferential space being
made for him by his community, here his righteousness seems to result in
his possession of this multitude of people and animals. If we think of this
relationship spatially, this multitude, far from standing at a deferential
distance from Job, seems to crowd up against him. This sense of crowding
is created by the progression of the story’s opening introduction of Job,
which is the same in the Hebrew as in the NRSV’s translation. Beginning
with a description of Job’s righteousness, the introduction then names the
possessions which his righteousness has earned him, and concludes with
the statement, “this man was the greatest of all the people of the east”
(1:3b), so that Job’s possessions are sandwiched between the proclama-
tions of his righteousness and his greatness. His righteousness makes them
his, but they are what make him great. This greatness, in turn, born of
his righteousness and the possessions ensuing from it, is what leads Job’s
community to arrange themselves at a respectful distance from him and
to give him their full mental attention. He merits the deference of elders
and princes not only because he is supremely righteous, but because he
is the greatest man, with his greatness functioning as the outward sign of
his righteousness.
If Job’s family, servants, and livestock seem to crowd up against him, this
does not mean that the space he deserves is not being made for him. This
is because these individuals are not, in fact, members of Job’s community;
instead, they are members of Job himself. The word translated as ‘greatest’
in 1:3b is ‫גדל‬, (gadol), which also means big. Job is not just an important
man, he is, physically, the biggest man in the east, the man made up of the
most material; his possessions attach themselves to his body, swelling it
in size. It is, in fact, Job’s sons, daughters, servants, and livestock who cre-
ate and maintain the space that surrounds Job. At the center of the world
is Job, and pressed up against him and radiating out from him are those
who belong to him, and beyond these are the members of his community.
When the first round of Job’s affliction begins, it is his sons, daughters,
servants, and livestock who bear the brunt of the suffering. That Job is
afflicted through them is a clear sign that they do not exist in their own
right but are, instead, parts of Job.4 When Job’s possessions are attacked,
he suffers because he is physically diminished and, because of this, the
configuration of persons in the world-as-it-ought-to-be has been upset.
The ones who ought to be pressed up against him have been removed,
and the space between him and his community, that manifestation of his
greatness, has been shrunk.
This is what happens, but it does not happen immediately. Instead,
even when Job’s possessions have been stripped from him and he has lost
his health, his greatness and the deferential space and mental attention
it inspires remain with him for a time, like a kind of phantom limb, as is
evidenced by the way the friends approach him when they arrive to com-
fort him. This ‘phantom greatness’ lingers as a kind of placeholder for Job’s
actual greatness, which Job fully believes will be returned to him—which
is, in fact, what happens in the epilogue. If we accept that the epilogue is
the second half of the story which the prologue begins, which has been
dislocated from its original place by the incursion of the poetic material,
and if we reunite these two severed halves, we find that Job’s greatness
is not long in returning to fill the spot saved for it.5 Despite Job’s appar-
ent suffering in the prologue, this suffering does not actually indicate a
change in the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Job retains his proper place in the
configuration of persons on the strength of his and his community’s belief
in his righteousness and the status it confers.
4 See Janzen, Job, 45–46 for a description of the way in which one’s “embodied self ”
extends to one’s family and possessions. For a related discussion of the extension of the
rich man’s body in particular see Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmak-
ing of the World (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 264.
5 Here, I may be trying to have it both ways, reading the prose and the poetry as if
they are both parts of the same document and different documents from each other. This
is, though, I think, fair. Prose and poetry are both part of the same Book of Job, and nei-
ther one enjoys privileged status as more ‘authentic’ to the book than the other. Yet, at
the same time, differences exist between them which make them stand apart from each
other. We are intended to notice their disjunction. We are meant, I believe, to perceive
the poetry as severing the prose tale into two halves, and to perceive the prologue and
epilogue as the beginning and end of a single story, even if it is the case that prose and
poetry never existed except in their present configuration.
52 chapter two
Job’s Relationship to God and Hassatan in the Prologue
The prologue begins by describing Job’s relationship to his family, ser-

vants, and livestock, individuals whom he owns and who contribute to his
personal greatness, making him “the greatest of all the people of the east”
(1:3b), a designation which means that the other inhabitants of ‘the east’
will relate to him in a particular way, placing him at the center of their
physical and mental worlds. Then the story gets underway, and God and
hassatan make their entrances. How are we to understand the relation-
ship between these two new individuals and Job? Surely they cannot be
counted among Job’s possessions, such that their separate identities can
be rolled into his, the way his children, servants, and livestock are. Nor
do they seem to make space for him, thereby showing him deference, the
way he community does in chapter 29. Hassatan, after all, is given permis-
sion by God to “touch all that [ Job] has” (1:11a), including his “bone and
flesh” (2:5a), with the one reservation that he leave Job alive. There is no
respectful distance here. Yet, despite this, when it comes to mental space
and attention, God and hassatan are as focused on Job as the nobles and
princes who move aside to make space for Job and silence themselves to
attend to Job’s words in chapter 29.
In the heavenly council they talk of nothing but Job. The point of the
scene in 1:6–12 is not to pose, in an abstract way, the question of whether
there can be such a thing as righteousness unmotivated by the promise of
reward and to set up an objective test for the resolution of this question.
The point of the scene is to witness to Job’s righteousness. Job is at the
center, and without Job’s presence there the discussion would not hap-
pen, even though Job is supposedly excluded from the scene. Job looms
large for both God and hassatan, filling their field of vision so that they
can talk of nothing else.6
6 Clifford W. Edwards writes that the prologue “invites us to satisfy one of the persistent
wishes of humanity, the wish for a glimpse into the secret recesses of heaven. . . . What
more could a mortal ask than to be privy to heaven’s plan, the ‘big picture’ as it reflects
on our personal well-being? . . . What does God talk about in heaven? Each of us wants
to believe that God obsesses about us, about me, about his favorite human being, about
myself as Job. . . . Amazingly, God and I have the same high opinion of me.” Clifford W.
Edwards, “Greatest of All the People in the East: Venturing East of Uz,” Review & Expositor
99 no. 4 (2002): 533. For Edwards, it is not that Job, as a character in the story, is able to
eavesdrop on heaven, but that we, human beings like Job, are permitted to eavesdrop. To
me, though, it seems that, in order for Edwards interpretation to work, Job himself must
have access to the heavenly conversation, a possibility which I will discuss in chapter 5.
Still, we return to the fact that even though Job may be big even in
heaven—no big fish in a small pond he—so that God and hassatan can-
not help but pay attention to him, this does not force them to stay at
a deferential distance. Job is not so big that God and hassatan have no
power over him. Instead, his bigness singles him out for torture. If he were
not as big as he is, he would not be worth the wager.7 Indeed, Hugh Pyper,
taking as his cue the detail that ‘bless’ is often used in Job to mean its
opposite, ‘curse,’8 argues that if Job had not been supremely blessed by
God, he would not have found himself also supremely cursed. Pyper views
this as wholly negative: better not to be blessed than to possess the bless-
ing that incurs curse.9 Big as he is, Job is a pawn in the hands of God and
hassatan; if he were smaller, they would not notice him and he would be
better off.
How Job is the Real Winner of the Bet between God and Hassatan
Yet, even though the bet causes Job’s suffering, the way in which it adds
to his bigness should not be overlooked. What Job has to gain by undergo-
ing the test is not only validation of his status as one deserving of God’s
special focus, but confirmation that he is bigger and more righteous than
even God. In the world of the prose tale, God’s taking up of hassatan’s
7 I agree with those who point out that the transaction between God and hassatan is
not really a bet, but, because my focus is on the effect of this transaction on Job and not on
the exact nature of the transaction itself, I will use the traditional term, even as I recognize
that the transaction is actually something different.
8 There are four places in the book where the pi’el of ‫ברך‬, which usually means ‘bless,’
seems to mean its opposite, ‘curse.’ This usage is often understood as piously euphemistic:
the writer, not able to stomach the thought of making God the object of even potential
curse, has chosen to write ‘bless’ instead, and relies on the context to give his readers the
clue that he is really talking about blasphemy and not blessing. (See Bruce Vawter, Job &
Jonah: Questioning the Hidden God [New York: Paulist Press, 1983], 29). Yet, although this is
the dominant explanation of this usage of ‫ברך‬, some scholars argue that the real explana-
tion is not quite so simple. Tod Linafelt makes a convincing case for “the undecidability of
‫ברך‬,” proposing that the author, rather than intending his readers to immediately recog-
nize that ‫ ברך‬is being used to mean its opposite, has instead created in ‫“ ברך‬the site of
conflicted meaning.” That is, in the author’s use of ‫ברך‬, both meanings are presented as
real possibilities, which calls into question what it means to be blessed and what it means
to be cursed. Tod Linafelt, “The Undecidability of ‫ ברך‬in the Prologue to Job and Beyond,”
Biblical Interpretation 4 no. 2 (1996): 162, 168. Pyper’s reading of the blessing and cursing of
Job—in which to have been supremely blessed is to be set up for the receipt of supreme
curse—shares similarities with Linafelt’s view.
9 Hugh S. Pyper, An Unsuitable Book: The Bible as Scandalous Text (Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix, 2005): 58–60.
54 chapter two
challenge is exactly what Job wants. If God had simply answered, “Yes,
I think so,” to hassatan’s query, “Does Job fear God for nothing?” hassatan
would not have been satisfied, but neither would Job. Hassatan, in fact,
prevents God from answering “Yes, I think so,” by annexing to his ques-
tion an indictment of God. He accuses, “Have you not put a fence around
him?” (1:10a, my italics).10 In order to fully answer hassatan’s question,
God must not only answer for Job’s behavior but for his own. “Is it not
true,” hassatan asks, “that you and Job are in cahoots and that money has
traded hands under the table?” In order to clear his own name, God has to
allow hassatan to test Job. It is a case of one partner to an illicit agreement
handing his partner over to face the music while he makes a getaway out
the back door. God hands Job over and beats a hasty retreat. But if God
and Job are in cahoots in a greatness-for-good-behavior scheme, Job and
hassatan are also in cahoots. By forcing God to test Job’s loyalty, a situa-
tion is set up in which, if Job passes the test, God will be in Job’s power.
Testing Job’s loyalty, God becomes the disloyal partner when Job’s loyalty
is proved.
Job passes the first level of the test by worshiping God even when he
has been stripped of his possessions, and the scene returns to the heav-
enly council. Now it is God’s turn to accuse the Accuser, saying, “[ Job] still
persists in his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy
him for no reason” (2:4). That God puts his complaint in these terms is
not surprising. He refers back to hassatan’s original question, “Does Job
fear God for nothing” (1:9). The same word—‫—חנם‬is used in both verses.
Job has proven that he fears God for no reason, but Job’s passing of the
test has rendered God’s justification for setting the test in the first place
groundless. That God makes this comment indicates his acknowledgment
that really one’s actions ought to be backed up by reasons. God knows that
he ought not to have caused Job to suffer for no reason. In order to justify
God’s testing of him, Job ought not to have passed the test. The original
question, “Does Job fear God for nothing?” ought not to have been asked
if it could be answered in the affirmative. God recognizes that he has been
trapped by hassatan, but the one who stands to benefit from this entrap-
ment is Job.
In reality, God did not expect Job to fear him for nothing, as is shown
when he acknowledges that he has done wrong by afflicting Job for no
reason. Job and God had an arrangement that was working perfectly well,
10 The italics are mine, but the Hebrew text also emphasizes the “you”: ‫הלא־את ׂשכת‬.
but now the stakes have been raised. Having been drawn into the trap,
God must continue on the path laid out by hassatan. He must now allow
hassatan to do physical harm to Job himself, so that Job can be proven to
be sinful and God proven to be righteous. Hassatan acts swiftly, using his
newly sanctioned power to inflict “loathsome sores on Job from the sole
of his foot to the crown of his head” (2:7), but Job again passes the test,
speaking the magic words, “Shall we receive the good at the hand of God,
and not receive the bad?” (2:10), and advancing to the next level.
But what is the next level? Is it the final removal of limit from hassa-
tan’s power, permission to strike Job dead? It cannot be. The terms of the
test do not allow for Job’s death. If God allows hassatan to kill Job, then
God’s guilt is sealed, because there is no way of knowing whether Job has
passed or failed. God must concede that this is as far as the test can go,
and that Job has passed it. Job is vindicated and proven to “fear God for
nothing.” The one who is vanquished in this exchange is not hassatan,
who only seemed to be Job’s enemy, but God. In passing the test, Job has
proven himself more righteous than God. As James Harding explains,
Job must be more righteous than YHWH: Job has pursued righteousness
within the framework of the moral order, whether or not he had an ulterior
motive, a question that is never conclusively resolved. YHWH, on the other
hand, has willfully and without moral justification, disrupted the moral
order in allowing Job to be afflicted.11
What move can God make? How can God extricate himself from this
checkmate? He can’t, really. All he can do is restore Job to his former
position of wealth and power, giving him even double what he had before.
The restoration of Job’s wealth is not God’s rewarding Job for passing the
test; rather, it is tribute paid by the loser to the winner.12 The bet can be
seen as a ‘set up,’ which has as its goal the glorification of Job, so that Job
is proven more righteous than God. Thus, even though God and hassatan
seem to violate the deferential space which ought to surround Job in order
11 James E. Harding, “A Spirit of Deception in Job 4:15? Interpretive Indeterminacy and

Eliphaz’s Vision,” Biblical Interpretation 13 no 2 (2005): 164.
12 Charles Melchert points out that the doubling of Job’s fortunes in the epilogue echoes
Exodus 22:9, which “pronounces ‘For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for ass, for
sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, “This is it,” the case of
both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his
neighbor.’ ” Melchert continues, “By paying back double to Job, God accepts the legitimacy
of Job’s legal suit and implicitly condemns the God to whom Job has yielded.” Charles
Melchert, “The Book of Job: Education Through and By Diversity,” Religious Education 92
no. 1 (1997): 19.
56 chapter two
for the world to be as it ought, this violation has as its result an increase
in Job’s righteousness, which also means an increase in his bigness and
an increase in the physical and mental space that must be made for him
by his community. Moreover, it is not only his community which must
relate to Job in this ‘intensified’ way, but also God and hassatan. Having
lost in this engagement, they dare not touch him again.13 If, at the begin-
ning of the story, they made mental space for Job, giving him their full
attention, at the end of the story they must make physical space for him
as well. It is even possible that they have become his possessions. Does
the one who has shown himself to be more righteous than God own God?
It is not inconceivable that he does. What’s more, when one reaches the
end of the story, one begins to wonder if this has been the case all along,
for, when the workings of the bet are examined, it begins to seem as if
Job has masterminded the whole thing, a question to which I will return
in chapter 5.
Job’s ‘Phantom Greatness’ as Demonstrated by His Three Friends
Although, in the prologue, Job is stripped of his possessions and his

health, thereby losing his designation as “the greatest of all the people of
the east,” his friends, when they arrive, do not treat him as if he has lost
his former status. Instead, they behave as if his greatness remains, which
means that, in a sense, it does remain. For as long as the prologue lasts,
this ‘phantom greatness’ lingers, protecting Job from the full impact of his
loss as he waits for the restoration of actual greatness, an event which he
is certain will soon come to pass.
As for everyone else in the prologue, Job is the absolute center of the
friends’ focus,14 so much so that their presence serves only to make him
even more present. We read,
13 Pyper observes that Job’s “restored prosperity can be no comfort to him as its pre-
cariousness has been made so abundantly clear” (Pyper, Unsuitable Book, 59), but, within
the context of the prose tale alone, this does not hold true. In the prose tale, Job is not in
danger of losing his position a second time. Those who took it from him the first time—
God and hassatan—have emerged from the experience chastened. To paraphrase a com-
ment God makes about another formidable creature in chapter 41, they have laid their
hands on him once, but, from now on, they will remember that battle and will not do it
again (41:8).
14 I have not dealt with Job’s wife or his surviving servants in this chapter, but they,
too, are wholly focused on Job and can be counted among his possessions. It is fair to say
that none of them would have survived had it not been necessary for them to interact
They met together to go and console and comfort him. When they saw him
from a distance, they did not recognize him, and they raised their voices
and wept aloud; they tore their robes and threw dust in the air upon their
heads. They sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and
no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great.
(2:11b–13)
There is a curious confluence of knowing and not knowing here. The
Hebrew does not say that the friends saw Job as they approached, but
that they “lifted their eyes” (‫)ויׂשאו את־עיניהם‬, indicating that they are
actively looking for him. Lifting their eyes from a distance, the friends
do not recognize (‫ )לא הכירהו‬the one for whom they are looking, and
yet, immediately upon not recognizing him, the friends lift their voices
(‫ )ויׂשאו קולם‬to weep aloud for their friend, showing that, although they
have not recognized him, they know he is the one they are looking for.
That they recognize him even as they do not recognize him serves to high-
light Job’s centrality. The one upon whom the friends’ eyes alight can only
be Job, even if he does not look like Job. As the central figure of their
world, he is the only person whom it is possible for the friends to see. It
is for this reason that when they lift their eyes and do not recognize him,
they immediately recognize him and respond first with tears and then
with silence.
The verbs which describe the friends’ activity in this passage also serve
to demonstrate their focus on Job. Moreover, the spatial configuration of
the friends in relation to Job is described in a way that is consonant with
the spatial configuration of Job’s community in chapter 29. As the friends
approach, their eyes and voices are lifted up (‫ )נׂשע‬to Job who occupies
a higher plane than that on which the friends move. Reaching Job, the
friends promptly sit down (‫ )יׁשב‬to allow themselves to continue to look
up at him. Then, they throw dust (‫ )עפר‬up toward heaven (‫)הׁשמימה‬
upon their heads (‫)על־ראׁשיהם‬, which also serves to lower the friends in
with Job in some way. The servants survive to report the details of the disasters that have
struck, and the device of having a servant report each disaster to Job allows “the spotlight
[to] remain fixed upon Job,” instead of having the reader’s attention shift to the scene of
each catastrophe. David J.A. Clines, “False Naivety in the Prologue to Job,” in On the Way
to the Postmodern, vol. 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 736. Fire may be falling
from heaven, marauding hordes may be swooping in, tall buildings may be crashing to the
ground, but we are blind and deaf to them; we have eyes and ears for Job alone and what
we see and hear comes to us through him. Similarly, Job’s wife survives to provide Job with
the cue that will allow him to prove his righteousness. She delivers it—“Curse God and
die” (2:9b)—and promptly disappears from the book, not even regaining the foreground
when ten new children are born to Job in the epilogue.
58 chapter two
Job’s presence: those who have dust upon their heads are lower than the
dust. Job may be sitting among the ashes (‫)בתוך־אפר‬, but the ashes do
not cover his head as the dust covers the heads of his friends. However
low he has been brought, the friends are quick to adopt positions of defer-
ence, raising their eyes to him and lowering their bodies.
Some commentators have noted that the friends’ behavior represents
a fully appropriate response to Job’s suffering. The friends’ silence indi-
cates that they understand the depths of Job’s suffering. Page Kelley, for
example, writes that the friends
not only came to visit Job with the best of intentions, but they also dem-
onstrated the value of empathetic silence in ministering to one overcome
with grief.15
Indeed, that they tear their clothes and join him on the ash heap shows
that they empathize deeply with him; they are as with him in his suffer-
ing as it is possible for them to be. Norman Habel comments effusively
on the bond between the friends and Job, as it is revealed in their initial
response. He writes,
They join him in abject self-negation by throwing dust on their heads and
flinging it heavenward . . . . They identify with Job as a man reduced to the
dust. . . . They are ideal friends who commiserate with Job as he suffers in
perfect submission.16
Elsewhere, Habel suggests that the friends’ gesture of throwing “dust in
the air upon their heads” (2:12) is
a rite which symbolically calls forth the same sickness on themselves as an
act of total empathy. They are one with the dust of death and one with Job
in his diseases.17
The friends’ response may be appropriate in a generic sort of way. That
is, we may want to argue that all true friends, faced with the extreme suf-
fering of one who is dear to them, ought to respond as Job’s friends do.
Nevertheless, when we read this passage in the light of the relationships
between Job and others in the prologue up to this point and between Job
and his community in chapter 29, we must see that something more than
15 Page H. Kelley, “Speeches of the Three Friends,” Review & Expositor 68 no 4 (1971): 480.
16 Norman C. Habel, “ ‘Only the Jackal is My Friend’ On Friends and Redeemers in Job,”
Interpretation 31 no. 3 (1977): 228.
17 Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job, A Commentary (London: SCM, 1985), 97.
this kind of generic statement is being made about Job’s relationship with
his three friends. Like everyone else in the prologue, Job’s friends, too, are
rolled into the conglomerate of his identity. Adopting the signs of his suf-
fering and grief, they make clear that it is his experience that is of central
importance. Silencing themselves like the members of his community in
chapter 29, they make clear that his words are valued above their own.
Lowering themselves to the ground in his presence, they demonstrate
their deference to him. They do not behave this way because he is suffer-
ing and they want to show how sorry they feel for what has befallen him.
Rather, they behave this way because it is indicative of the relationship
that exists between them—Job is the central figure in their world, because
he is the most righteous and, by extension, the biggest—in spite of Job’s
suffering, which has stripped his greatness from him.
Although in the prologue Job is stripped of his possessions and his
health, and although he, who was the greatest man in the east, is reduced
to sitting on the ash heap, he retains his greatness in the eyes of his
friends. They give him the benefit of the doubt, treating him as if he is
still great, despite his reduced circumstances. When the friends come to
comfort him, they are silenced because the man who was gadol has been
overwhelmed by a suffering which is gadol. Yet, even in his suffering—
indeed, precisely because of the greatness of his suffering—Job remains
a towering figure. The tale, and all its characters are focused throughout
entirely on Job. Although Job is reduced for a time, the end of the tale sees
him restored, not only to his former greatness, but to a greatness double
that by which he was originally characterized:
The LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then there came to him
all his brothers and sisters and all they who had known him before, and they
ate bread with him in his house; they showed him sympathy and comforted
him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him; and each gave him
a piece of money and a gold ring. The LORD blessed the latter days of Job
more than his beginning. (42:10b–12a)
At the end of the story, a multitude of characters comes rushing in, revers-
ing the move of the prologue in which Job lost the multitude that once
surrounded him. These characters, like those of the prologue, serve to
make Job bigger. Their focus is entirely on him as they comfort him, and
they literally contribute to his aggrandizement with gifts of money and
gold rings. Job’s suffering is placed in context by his greatness at the end
of the story. His being stripped down is shown not to have been a real
reduction in his status, but a step on the path to further greatness. The
60 chapter two
friends were right to continue to relate to Job as if he were still great, for,
he was, in fact, still great. I have referred to Job’s ‘phantom greatness’ as
standing in as a placeholder for Job’s actual greatness, allowing him to
remain great despite his reduced circumstances, but perhaps it would be
more accurate to speak of his reduction as the phantom state. Job’s great-
ness remains real throughout his time of suffering, and it is his apparent
reduction that is an illusion. Although, as noted above, Pyper speaks dis-
paragingly of Job’s blessed status at the beginning of the tale, pointing out
that it is blessing which singles him out for curse, Job himself, in the prose
tale, can be seen to welcome the curse, precisely because it is a sign of his
supreme blessedness. The curse, though it initially seems to reduce Job’s
size, eventually results in an increase in his size; at the end of the tale he
is bigger than ever before.
The Anti-World of Chapter 30: Job Displaced from the Center
In chapter 29, Job describes the world-as-it-ought-to-be, which, he con-

tends, is the way the world used to be, before he began to suffer, and he
wishes for the return of this world. For this reason, chapter 29 can be
mapped onto the prose tale, which details the world as it was before Job’s
affliction began and the world as it is after he is relieved from his suffer-
ing. For Job, the world-as-it-ought-to-be is a world in which he is at the
center, both physically and mentally. Yet, despite his unique position, it is
not a world in which he is alone. Rather, he is surrounded by a multitude
of others, and it is the presence of these others that makes Job’s position
at the center possible. Some of these others belong to Job, thereby con-
tributing to his greatness. Others stand beyond the buffer zone created
by these possessions, and acknowledge Job’s greatness by making space
for him. All persons in this world have Job in their gaze, and the focused
quality of this gaze acknowledges his centrality.
In chapter 29, Job does not wish for relief from his physical suffering—
indeed, he does not mention his suffering at all—but for a renewal of
the order of the world, such that he is again at the center. His focus in
this chapter is entirely on his former central status, which he contrasts in
chapter 30 with the way he is treated now by social outcasts whose gaze
does not identify him as the central figure, but as someone who is even
more of an outcast than they themselves. Job says,
And now they mock me in song; I am a byword to them. They abhor me, they
keep aloof from me; they do not hesitate to spit at the sight of me. (30:9–10)
These derelicts may keep their distance from Job, but this distance indi-
cates disgust rather than deference. Furthermore, when Job says that he
has become “as a byword” to these lowlifes, he uses the same word he
used in 29:22 to describe his life-giving utterance for which his community
waited in silence, ‫מלה‬. Where once Job was the speaker at the center of
a circle of noble admirers, now he is the one spoken-of, as if his entire
existence can be summed up by a mocking word spoken by men who are
lower than dogs.
It is not his physical suffering or his personal losses that are the worst
of Job’s predicament, but the fact that his suffering and loss have toppled
him from his former position as the central figure of the world in which
he lived. In the prose tale, Job’s affliction, though it sends him to the ash
heap, does not represent a disordering of the world because he remains at
the center, retaining a certain ‘phantom greatness,’ which acts as a place-
holder for his actual greatness. There, God and hassatan are waiting to see
what he will do and say, because what he does and says are of paramount
importance. The friends, too, watch Job, silently waiting to see what the
central figure of their world will do. In chapter 30, however, Job presents
a world in disarray, an anti-world. Job’s ‘phantom greatness’ has dissi-
pated, and the full extent of his loss is borne in upon him. Job has ceased
to be his world’s central figure, made great by the many who attached
themselves to him, and now he exists only to bolster others’ status, as the
object of their mocking disdain.
The Connectedness of the Righteous and the Loneliness of the Wicked:

Interpersonal Relationships as Viewed by Job’s Three Friends
As discussed in the opening section of this chapter, when Job’s friends

speak about the lives of the righteous, they are speaking about the world-
as-it-ought-to-be. It is because they are righteous that these people are
able to inhabit the world-as-it-ought-to-be, and, because they inhabit it,
they benefit from its inherent blessings. In the same way, when the friends
speak of the lives of the wicked, they are speaking about the world-as-it-
ought-not-to-be, which it is the fate of the wicked to inhabit, a place as
abundant in curses as the world-as-it-ought-to-be is in blessings. Although
they do not each spell out both ‘sides of the coin,’ their speech about the
righteous and wicked can be taken collectively, so that Zophar’s descrip-
tion of the aloneness of the wicked can be understood to confirm Elip-
haz’s words about the connections which exists between the righteous,
62 chapter two
and both can be understood to be saying something about the world-as-

it-ought-to-be.
It is something of a misnomer to speak of ‘interpersonal relationships’
in the friends’ view of the wicked, for, a point all of them make is that
there are no real relations between wicked individuals. (That there are no
relations between the wicked and the righteous goes without saying.) For
the friends, to be wicked is to be fundamentally alone, a condition that
becomes evident at death even if it has not been evident in life. Dying, the
wicked man is completely erased from the slate of the world. In his first
speech, Bildad claims, “If they are destroyed from their place, then it will
deny them, saying, ‘I have never seen you’ ” (8:18). In his second speech he
expands on the theme, saying,
In their tents nothing remains; sulphur is scattered upon their habita-
tions. . . . Their memory perishes from the earth, and they have no name in
the street. . . . They have no offspring or descendant among their people, and
no survivor where they used to live. (18:15, 17, 19)
Zophar provides a similar description of the fate of the wicked in his own
second speech, insisting that
Even though they mount up high as the heavens, and their head reaches to
the clouds, they will perish forever like their own dung; those who have seen
them will say, “Where are they?” They will fly away like a dream, and not be
found; they will be chased away like a vision of the night. The eye that saw
them will see them no more, nor will their place behold them any longer. . . .
[A] fire fanned by no one will devour them; what is left in their tent will be
consumed. (20:6–9, 26b)
Eliphaz too, claims of the wicked, “They were snatched away before their
time; their foundation was washed away by a flood . . . and what they left,
the fire has consumed” (22:16, 20b). Earlier Eliphaz has claimed of the
wicked, “Their tent-cord is plucked up within them, and they die devoid
of wisdom” (4:21). The word translated ‘tent-cord’ is ‫יתר‬, which can also
mean ‘remnant’ or ‘remainder,’ which is how Eliphaz uses it in 22:20 to say
“what they left (‫)יתרם‬, the fire has consumed.” It is possible, then, to see
in 4:21 another instance of Eliphaz’s claim that the wicked leave nothing
behind. It is not only the tent-cord of the wicked which is plucked up but
anything that remains after this first act of destruction.
All three friends view the death of a wicked man as his absolute eradi-
cation from the land of the living. No one in the place he used to live
remembers him. Indeed, even the land itself has forgotten him. He leaves
no descendants, and any possessions he might have left behind as lingering
reminders that he once lived, are consumed by fire. Zophar’s specification

that the fire that devours whatever the wicked might have left behind is
“fanned by no one” is significant in this context. If the fire were fanned
by someone, it would indicate that, actually, the wicked person had been
remembered, even if by an enemy, instead of being absolutely eradicated
by death. In addition, a fire fanned by someone might occasion retaliation
against the fire starter, which would also show that the wicked person was
remembered. The fire fanned by no one, by contrast, is simply part of the
procedure by which death erases him from the face of the earth.18
The righteous man, by contrast, meets a death which does not efface
his presence from the land of the living. Eliphaz, describing what Job’s life
and death will be like if he repents of the wrongdoing Eliphaz believes to
be at the root of his suffering says,
You shall know that your tent is safe, you shall inspect your fold and miss19
nothing. You shall know that your descendants will be many, and your off-
spring like the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe old age,
as a shock of grain comes to the threshing-floor in its season. (5:24–26)
The righteous man, in stark contrast to the wicked man, is able to count
on the continued security of his tent; no “fire fanned by no one” will assail
it after he is gone, for its existence is guaranteed, both by the way he
has lived his life, and by the many descendants he is leaving behind. The
friends, although they do not accuse Job outright of being wicked until
close to the end of their part in their dialogue,20 imply throughout that if
Job were to die now, as he seems to wish,21 he would be met by the fate
18 These observations were suggested to me by René Girard’s theory of the scapegoating

mechanism, a central tenet of which is that the violence enacted against the scapegoat is
performed ‘by no one.’ That is to say, because the entire community collaborates against
the scapegoat, no one member of the community can be singled out as guilty, meaning
that the scapegoat’s death cannot be avenged. According to this theory, violence enacted
‘by no one’ really means ‘by everyone.’ Girard reads the Book of Job as a story about scape-
goating, in which the community attempts to pin its collective guilt on Job. The book,
however, as Girard sees it, is finally a story about failed scapegoating, because Job refuses
to agree that he is guilty, despite all indications to the contrary. René Girard, Job: The Vic-
tim of his People, trans. Y. Freccero (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987).
19 The word translated ‘miss’ is ‫חטא‬, which usually means to miss in the sense of miss-
ing the mark, that is, to sin. Its use here with the sense of ‘nothing shall be missing from
your possessions,’ forges a link between possession and righteousness. If one does not sin,
one’s possessions shall remain intact, so that one does not miss anything.
20 It is in his third speech that Eliphaz accuses Job outright of intentional wickedness,
saying, “Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities” (22:5).
21 In chapter 3 Job has wished, “Let the day perish in which I was born, and the night
that said, ‘A man-child is conceived’ ” (3:3). Granted, in this speech Job seems to be wishing
64 chapter two
of the wicked. His tent and all his possessions have, after all, already been
destroyed in a series of freak accidents, not unlike the “fire fanned by no
one.” In addition, any descendants he might have left behind have been
wiped out. Job, like the wicked man, is utterly alone, and death would
confirm both his loneliness and his wickedness.
Even though the wicked are many, each wicked person inhabits a cell
occupied by him- or herself alone, and when he or she dies that cell ceases
to exist and leaves no memory of itself behind. The righteous person,
instead of inhabiting a cell which separates him or her from the people
and things with which he or she appears to share the world, is a member
of an interconnected community. The righteous man is really connected
to his tent, and, because of this, it belongs to him even after he has died.
In the same way, he is really connected to his offspring, and they bear tes-
timony to his existence even when, it would seem, he has ceased to exist.
The righteous man does not, in fact, cease to exist, because everything
he touches becomes part of him and continues to carry his presence in
the world even if he is dead. For the friends, as well as for Job, to live in
the world-as-it-ought-to-be is to be made gadol through one’s connections
with other persons and things. The friends, though, do not speak of Job
as the greatest of all the people in their world, the one with the most pos-
sessions and connections, but only offer him the opportunity to be, once
again, gadol, as all righteous men are gadol. Perhaps it is for this reason
that Job bristles under their efforts at comforting him, refusing, from the
beginning, to see any value in their words. Or perhaps he rejects their
overtures because he sees in their descriptions of the loneliness of the
wicked a covert accusation brought against himself. He may fundamen-
tally agree that this is the lot of the wicked, but he feels the sting in his
friends’ words nonetheless.
The Expectation of a ‫גאל‬: Job Rejects the Friends’ Assertion

that He is Fundamentally Alone
In chapter 19, Job responds to Bildad’s claim that the wicked “have no
offspring or descendant among their people, and no survivor where they
that he had died before he ever began to live, and not that he would die now, after the
onset of his suffering. Still, Job longs for death, painting the land of the dead as a place of
respite from the turmoil of life (3:17–19), and he wants to be dead now, even if he couches
this desire in language referring to the past.
used to live” (18:19), a description which is surely meant to identify Job as

one of the wicked, given that it matches his own situation.22 Job rejects
Bildad’s veiled accusation, countering, “[K]now then that God has put me
in the wrong” (19:6a). Although he insists he is not one of the wicked, the
description of his own situation Job gives is consonant with the picture of
the fate of the wicked Bildad has just painted. Like the wicked man who
dies and is not remembered, so Job is not remembered by those who once
loved him, and, in this, it is as if he is dead and forgotten. Job laments,
[God] has put my family far from me, and my acquaintances are wholly
estranged from me. My relatives and my close friends have failed me;
the guests in my house have forgotten me; my serving-girls count me as
a stranger; I have become an alien in their eyes. I call to my servant, but
he gives no answer. . . . All my intimate friends abhor me, and those whom
I loved have turned against me. (19:13–16a, 19)
Although Bildad has correctly observed Job’s situation, Job insists that Bil-
dad has incorrectly interpreted the meaning and implications of his suf-
fering. His loneliness, Job claims, stems from God’s unwarranted enmity
(19:6, 7b).
In chapter 19, Job does not go on to make the argument that the upside-
down state of the world is evidenced by the prosperity and popularity of
the wicked and the suffering and loneliness of the righteous, as he does
elsewhere.23 Instead, Job suddenly changes his tack. Although in the chap-
ter so far he has described himself as abandoned by his former intimates,
now he claims that he is not, in fact, alone, despite appearances to the
contrary. There is someone who stands with Job, and this solidarity will
one day become apparent. The one who will stop Job from being erased
from memory Job calls ‘my Redeemer.’ He says,
22 Newsom insists that “the poems describing the fate of the wicked (chaps. 15, 18,
20) should not be understood primarily as veiled attacks on Job,” and cites as support
the fact that “When he [ Job] replies to them (chap. 21), Job does not take them as such
but assumes that he and the friends are arguing over the nature of the world.” Carol A.
Newsom “Job and His Friends: A Conflict of Moral Imaginations,” Interpretation 53 no. 3
(1999): 249. Although I agree that, fundamentally, Job and his friends are arguing over the
nature of the world, I do not see how the friends’ descriptions of the fate of the wicked,
which also describe Job’s situation, cannot be taken as assertions that Job is among the
wicked. Job recognizes that the friends are not on his side; he knows they do not believe
in his innocence. In chapter 6, he has lamented, “My companions are treacherous like a
torrent-bed, like freshets that pass away, that run dark with ice, turbid with melting snow”
(6:15–16) and in chapter 13 he has cried out against them, “As for you, you whitewash with
lies; all of you are worthless physicians” (13:4).
23 See, for example, 21:7–34.
66 chapter two
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at last he will stand upon the
earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see
God, whom I shall see on my side. (19:25–27a)
The word translated Redeemer is ‫( גאל‬go’el), which can mean either an
“avenger of bloodshed (who by killing the murderer of one’s relatives, clears
away the crime)” or can refer to the “duty of the male relative of s. one
who has died leaving a childless widow to deliver her from childlessness
by marriage . . . the man in question being called go’el deliverer.”24 Samuel
Balentine offers a more extended explanation of the term, writing,
The term ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬comes primarily from the field of family law. It designates
the nearest male relative . . . who is duty bound to protect and preserve the
family when his kinsman is unable to do so. The responsibilities of the ‫ג ֵֹאל‬
include buying back family property that has fallen into the hands of outsid-
ers . . . redeeming a relative sold into slavery . . . marrying a widow to provide
an heir for her dead husband . . . and avenging the blood of a murdered rela-
tive. . . . In religious usage God is described as the ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬of those who have
fallen into distress or bondage. . . . It is noteworthy that God’s responsibili-
ties as ‫ ג ֵֹאל‬include pleading the case (‫ )ריב‬for those too helpless or too
vulnerable to obtain justice for themselves.25
Given the range of possible roles a go’el might play, it must be determined
not only who Job believes his go’el to be, but what he expects his go’el to
do. On both these questions, scholars are deeply divided, and the litera-
ture about these three verses (19:25–27) is immense.
There are two main camps of opinion on the identity of the go’el into
which scholars may be divided. The traditional scholarly position holds
that when Job speaks of his go’el he is speaking of God. Those who identify
the go’el as God claim that Job is voicing his belief in the God who will
redeem him over against the God who has afflicted him. Robert Gordis
provides a compelling representative statement of this position, writing,
In all of Job’s speeches two themes have been heard. . . . Again and again Job
has attacked the God of power, but with equal frequency he has appealed
to the God of justice and love. Now the two themes are united . . . as Job
appeals ‘from God to God.’26
24 Holladay, Concise Lexicon, 52.

25 Samuel E. Balentine “Who Will be Job’s Redeemer?,” Perspectives in Religious Studies
26 no. 3 (1999): 274.
26 Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man (Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 1965), 88. Others in the ‘God-is-the-go’el’ camp include Westermann, Dhorme, Hart-
ley, Whybray, Rowley, Driver, Gutierrez, Cox, Kinet, and J.G. Williams.
In contrast to those who hold that Job’s go’el is God invoked against God,
the second camp of scholars argues that this formulation makes no sense.
Samuel Terrien, for example, writes,
Against this prevailing interpretation it may be argued that . . . the go’el can-
not be God, for Job has heretofore consistently thought of the Deity as an
implacably hostile being, and (much more important) continues to do so in
the remaining part of the poetic discussion.27
Although commentators in this camp agree that it makes no sense to
speak of God as the go’el, they disagree as to who the go’el might be, if
not God. Suggestions for the go’el’s identity range from a member of the
divine council who will intercede with God on Job’s behalf (Pope; Habel)
to Job’s own voice and his claim of righteousness (Clines; Vawter).28
Although there is disagreement over the identity of the go’el, most inter-
preters agree that Job, when he speaks of his go’el, is speaking about some-
one specific, whose identity is known to him. It seems to me, though, that
this need not be the case. Raymond Scheindlin suggests that the go’el is
an unknown kinsman [who] will come forward [sometime in the future],
read the record, take up [ Job’s] case again, and gain the vindication he has
been seeking.29
Janzen takes the possible unknownness of the go’el even further, writing,
[I]n the face of a universe whose earthly and heavenly figures . . . are all
against him, Job imaginatively reaches out into the dark and desperately
affirms the reality of a witness whose identity is completely unknown to
him. . . . Faith manifests itself . . . in . . . blind affirmation of what is unknown,
yet which must be there if one’s own truth ultimately matters. 30
That is to say, Job’s beliefs about himself, about God, and about the
world-as-it-ought-to-be lead him to faith in the existence of a go’el. For
Job, such a being must exist, for, if he does not exist, then Job must con-
cede that his beliefs are fundamentally misguided, and he is not ready to
27 Samuel Terrien, “The Book of Job,” in The Interpreter’s Bible vol. 3 (New York and
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), 1052.
28 See Marvin Pope, Job (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 135; Habel, Job, 306; Clines, Job
1–20, 460; Vawter, Job and Jonah, 52. See also Peggy Day, who identifies hassatan as Job’s
go’el, a personage who, against Job’s expectations, works to harm rather than to deliver
him. Day, Adversary, 100–01.
29 Raymond Scheindlin, The Book of Job (New York and London: Norton & Co., 1998), 91.
30 Janzen, Job, 125. See also James L. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Tradi-
tions of God as an Oppressive Presence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 74.
68 chapter two
make that admission. Job wholeheartedly believes that his vision of the
way the world ought to be is shared by God, the world’s creator. The gap
that exists between the world-as-it-is and the world-as-it-ought-to-be both
makes necessary and offers proof for the existence of a go’el. The work of
the go’el is to bring the world-as-it-is, which is an anti-world, back into
line with the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
If it is not necessary to determine exactly who the go’el is—if Job
does not know the identity of his go’el himself, as Janzen posits—then
the important question becomes what Job expects his go’el to do. James
Crenshaw supposes that Job’s go’el’s work corresponds to the first defini-
tion of the term given in the Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament, quoted above. He writes, the go’el is “an avenger of blood,
who, according to Num 35:19; Deut 19:6, would vindicate Job’s death by
punishing the guilty. . . . The issue here is revenge”31 I am not sure, though,
that the issue is revenge. If vengeance is to be had, it ought to be had
against God, who is identified as the one responsible for Job’s situation.
Indeed, some commentators’ rejection of the notion that God is the go’el
is partially based on the idea that it makes no sense to think of God being
called upon to take revenge against himself. Job, though, does not make
any mention of revenge being taken against God by the go’el, even though
he recognizes that God is acting as his enemy. If Job does not speak of any
vengeance against God, it must be that he expects his go’el to play some
other role.
Common to all definitions of the go’el is the idea that the go’el, however
he fulfills his role, works to show that the dead man is not alone and to
ensure that, though dead, he is not forgotten. By avenging a murdered
man against his killers, the go’el makes the claim that the murder was
not justified, and he does so by identifying himself with the dead man,
as someone who is on his side. The dead man cannot be wiped from the
face of the earth, because there is someone who will remember him and
act on his behalf even though he is gone. This same function—of ensuring
that the dead man is not erased and his memory obliterated—is fulfilled
by the go’el who marries his dead relative’s wife so that she is able to bear
children. The children born to this pair do not belong to the go’el. Rather,
31 Crenshaw, “Job,” in The HarperCollins Study Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1989),
771. See also Good, Tempest, 102; James G. Williams, “ ‘You have not Spoken Truth of
Me’ Mystery and Irony in Job,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 no. 2
(1971): 244.
it is as if they are the children of the dead man. The go’el ensures that the
dead man is not forgotten by making it possible for his line to continue.
Coming as it does on the heels of Job’s lament that he has been aban-
doned by all who once loved him and in the context of the friend’s claims
that the wicked, like Job, are utterly alone and, when they die, are forgot-
ten to the extent that it is as if they never lived, Job’s affirmation that he
knows he has a go’el must be taken as an assertion that he is not alone
and, though he may die of his affliction, he will not be forgotten. What-
ever the go’el does, he will do in the name of Job, ensuring that Job’s name
is not forgotten and that Job is not, consequently, branded as one of the
wicked who die and are no longer remembered. As part of his description
of what his go’el will do, Job seems to envision the go’el as enabling him
to be reconciled with the God who is now treating him as an enemy. Job
says that as a result of the go’el’s redeeming work “ I shall see God, whom I
shall see on my side” (19:27a). Instead of avenging Job’s suffering upon the
God who remains his enemy, the go’el, by showing solidarity with Job, will
be able to bring God around to Job’s side as well. By showing God that Job
is not alone, the go’el proves to God that Job is not one of the wicked.
The work of the go’el, as Job imagines it, is to bring an end to the anti-
world and return the world to the way it ought to be. The way the go’el
will achieve this goal is by showing solidarity with Job, and thereby prov-
ing that Job is not alone. In the world as it existed before his affliction, Job
was the central figure. The go’el, then, must not only stand up for Job or
plead his cause, the way a lawyer might, but must treat him the way he
was treated in that world. The go’el must stand beside Job in such a way
that he becomes an extension of Job, making Job bigger,32 just as in the
prologue Job was made great by his many possessions, servants, and chil-
dren. The go’el must also make Job the center of his attention and behave
with deference towards him, as was formerly done by his community’s
elders and nobles and its righteous poor, as is described in chapter 29. The
go’el’s job is to act as if the world is centered around Job, and, in so doing,
make that world a reality once again.
In affirming the existence of his go’el, Job shows that he agrees with
his friends’ assessment that aloneness is a mark of wickedness and, there-
fore, of the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be. His own seeming aloneness he
32 This is the case even if the go’el is God. As argued above, in the prologue God’s
attention is entirely focused on Job, so much so that God cannot be said to act of his own
accord, but, instead, follows movements choreographed by Job.
70 chapter two
i dentifies as a false indicator. Although he appears to be alone, he is not

really alone, because he has a go’el who, by showing solidarity with him
and acting on his behalf, will reconcile him with God. After his death,
Job will be numbered among the righteous and not forgotten like the
wicked. Yet, the fact that Job places his hope in a go’el who, by definition,
usually acts on behalf of one who is dead, shows that he despairs of the
world working as it ought to work in time to save him from his imminent
death.
Summary of the Positions Taken by Job and the Friends
As seen, Job and his friends present similar pictures of how relationships
between persons are structured in the world-as-it-ought-to-be. In this
world, the righteous man (who is the only kind of man capable of living
in the world-as-it-ought-to-be) is embedded in his community and made
great by the others who are attached to him. He may be the single, central
point of a network that spreads out from him, but he is most emphatically
not alone. Rather, his position is made possible by the others who sur-
round him and whose existence is given over to him in varying degrees,
whether by belonging to him outright or by focusing their attention on
him. There is, however, one key difference between this aspect of the
world-as-it-ought-to-be as presented by Job and by his friends. Job pres-
ents himself as the greatest member of his community, the one central
figure in whose orbit all others move. The friends, although they do not
deny that this was the case, seem to offer Job the chance to be restored
to the position shared by all righteous patriarchs, and not to a position
which is unique to himself. Eliphaz says, “How happy is the one whom
God reproves; therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty”
(5:17), before describing how things will be for Job once he has taken
God’s reproach to heart and repented of whatever wrong he has com-
mitted. Although Eliphaz uses the second person here—“You shall know
that your tent is safe, you shall inspect your fold and miss nothing. You
shall know that your descendants will be many, and your offspring like
the grass of the earth” (5:24–25, my italics)—that it follows his use of the
third person, “happy is the one . . .” (‫ )אׁשרי אנוׁש‬gives it a generic flavor.
Job’s is not the only safe tent in the world-as-it-ought-to-be, nor is his the
only guaranteed line of descent.
In a way this goes without saying. What kind of a world would it be if
only Job occupied this coveted position? Indeed, that Job does not think
of himself as completely unique is demonstrated by his belief that his cur-

rent suffering is indicative of the suffering of all righteous persons and, by
converse, the rejoicing of all wicked ones. What is happening to him is
what is happening to others as well.33 Still, it is true that in chapter 29 and
in the prologue Job presents himself (or is presented by the narrator) as
the greatest and most central figure in his world, and the friends, although
their world-as-it-ought-to-be is not unlike Job’s, do not pick up on this
particular detail, which may actually mean that the worlds they envision
are not the same at all. Perhaps Job is not more open to the friends’ admo-
nitions precisely because they fail to offer him reinstatement in the world
as he believes it ought to be, but rather in some other world, one which
comes a close second to his world-as-it-ought-to-be, but misses the mark
nonetheless. Even if this is the case, the similarity between Job’s world-
as-it-ought-to-be and that of the friends is highlighted when, declaring his
certainty that his go’el lives, Job counters his friends’ accusations that he
is alone in the way that the friends have described the wicked as being
alone. In the anti-world of the wicked, communal bonds are lacking, and,
where it is every man for himself, no one has the opportunity to be gadol.
This description of the lot of the wicked reinforces, in turn, the descrip-
tion of the world-as-it-ought-to-be as a place where real connections exist
between people, and where, through these connections, the most righ-
teous men are made great.
The Wicked and the Righteous in God’s Speeches
When God appears and begins to speak it quickly becomes clear that not
only are his ideas about the world different from those held by Job and
his friends, but the frame of reference by which he expresses those ideas
is different as well. Whereas for Job and his friends, to talk about the righ-
teous and the wicked is to describe the world-as-it-ought- and ought-not-
to-be, for God this is not the case. The division between these two groups
of people is not central to God’s discourse, and he is fully able to describe
the world of his creation without referring to it, a feat which would be
impossible for Job and his friends. Indeed, it is arguable that the idea of
33 There is, however, another way of reading this detail. It is possible that Job views his
personal suffering as indicative of the suffering of all righteous persons precisely because
of his unique position at the center: if he is suffering it goes without saying that the world
has been turned upside-down, and that everyone who ought not to suffer is suffering.
72 chapter two
the existence of righteous and wicked as distinct groups does not even
enter God’s consciousness. What checks this claim is the fact that God
does speak of the wicked in 40:11–13 where he challenges Job to
Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on all who are proud, and
abase them. . . . [T]read down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in
the dust together; bind their faces in the world below.
In addition, in chapter 38 God asks
Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the
dawn to know its place, so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it? . . . Light is withheld from the wicked,
and their uplifted arm is broken. (38:12–13, 15)
It is, therefore, obvious that God knows about the existence of a people
collectively categorized as ‘the wicked.’
Yet, it seems significant that God does not also speak about the group
‘the righteous.’ Perhaps this is simply because his addressee, Job, is one
of the righteous, so that when he says ‘you’ he is automatically talking about
the righteous. This, though, seems somewhat unlikely, as a central point
of his speeches is that Job has been completely wrong about the nature
of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. God calls Job one who “darkens counsel by
words without knowledge” (38:2), accusing him of “put[ting] me in the
wrong . . . [and] condemn[ing] me that you may be justified” (40:8), and,
although these accusations do not necessarily impugn Job’s righteousness,
they do cast something of a pall over it, making it seem unlikely that God
is using Job as his example of ‘the righteous man’ simply as a matter of
course. Job’s righteousness—let alone his quintessential righteousness—is
not, at this point in the book, the shining beacon it is at other points! For
Job and his friends, by contrast, the righteous and the wicked are con-
stantly being referred to as points of opposition. They do not speak about
the wicked alone, because to do so would miss the point of the contrast
they are setting up. Despite the fact that they consider themselves righ-
teous, and might, therefore, speak of ‘us’ instead of ‘the righteous,’ they do
speak of ‘the righteous,’ for the opposition between the two groups is so
essential that they must set it forth in the most obvious terms.
God, though, speaks only of ‘the wicked.’ Whatever can this mean?
Its meaning must depend on how God intends the questions he asks to
be answered. When he asks Job whether he has done certain things, is
he implying that these are things he himself has done and which Job,
by contrast, does not have the power to do? Or is the implied answer
something different? It seems possible that God’s mention of the wicked

has more to do with the fact that he is responding to the speeches made
by Job and his friends than with anything foundational to the world as
he has made it. Perhaps it is their focus on wickedness and righteousness
that drives God’s words about the wicked, a topic which he might not
otherwise have raised. In the sections below I will discuss options for the
implied responses to God’s questions and potential interpretations of his
words about the wicked. Here, I simply wish to point out that, for God, the
world does not seem to be divided into righteous and wicked groups, with
the lives of the righteous revealing the way the world ought to be, and
the lives of the wicked revealing the way the world ought not to be. God’s
speeches, then, cannot be approached in the same way as those of Job and
the friends. Indeed, God is not concerned to present opposing pictures
of the way the world ought and ought not to be. Instead, he presents the
world as it is, the world as he has created it to be, and does not seem to
recognize any other kind of world. His words about the wicked, whatever
they may mean, do not serve to illustrate any kind of anti-world which
exists in opposition to the created world. Furthermore, although it might
be argued that God’s presentation of the world as he created it can also be
understood as a depiction of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, this designation
loses significance in the absence of an oppositional world-as-it-ought-not-
to-be. For God, there is only the world, which is his world, and this is the
world he describes to Job in chapters 38–41.
God’s Speeches as a Response to Job’s Claims about the

World-as-It-Ought-to-be
There is, of course, a problem with the argument made in the last few
sentences above. When he responds to Job, God counters Job’s own claims
about the world-as-it-ought- and ought-not-to-be. It is not strictly correct,
then, to say that God’s world-as-it-is does not exist in opposition to any
other world. It does. God, though, in his speeches does not address this
opposition outright or in detail, but only by his claims that Job has spo-
ken “words without knowledge” (38:2b), and by the fact that the world
he describes is utterly different from the world Job has supposed God
intended to create. That is, in his speeches, God does not hold up aspects
of the world-as-it-ought-to-be and of the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be
in order to illuminate the points of contrast between them, as Job and
his friends do. Still, tension does exist between God’s apparent denial of
74 chapter two
the existence of the world-as-it-ought-to-be over against the-world-as-it-

ought-not-to-be and his insistence that the world Job has described is not
the-world-as-it-ought-to-be, as will be discussed in more detail in chapter
5. Here, I want to proceed as if this tension does not exist. I want to take
God at his word, even if, with more prodding, that word may show itself
to be not entirely reliable. After all, at this point in our ‘forwards’ reading
of the book, God still retains the authority that inheres in his name, and
we should assume that what he says goes.
God begins by asking Job,
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you
have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid
its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly
beings shouted for joy? (38:4–7)
Four things are established in this passage. First, the question format and
God’s sarcastic tone—“surely you know!”—show that God is going to say
something different from what Job has said so far. This, in fact, is what
has already been established in God’s opening challenge of 38:2, “Who is
this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” In Hebrew, the
“words without knowledge” which God accuses Job of having spoken are
‫מלין בלי־דעת‬. The word ‫ מלין‬is a plural form of ‫מלה‬, the same word used
by Job in 29:22 to describe his utterance for which his community waits
with bated breath. What is implied, it seems, is not just that Job’s railings
against God have been “words without knowledge,” but that the words he
has spoken about the nature of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, which he has
detailed in chapter 29, have also been without knowledge. In addition,
God’s sarcastic “surely you know!” (‫ )כי תדע‬echoes his opening “you shall
declare to me,” in which the verb is the Hiphil of ‫ידע‬, which instructs Job
not just to answer God but to make something known to him. Job is being
challenged to teach God something he doesn’t already know. Whether
this demand is meant to be heard as fully sarcastic or whether it does
contain an element of God’s really wanting to know what Job has to say
is somewhat open to debate.34 Although I think it is possible to read the
book as making the claim that Job does have things to say to God which
34 Janzen, for example, writes, “Throughout the divine speeches, images and motifs and
themes from earlier in the book are taken up and re-presented in such a way as to engen-
der the suspicion that these apparently rhetorical questions are to be taken . . . as veiling
genuine existential questions posed to Job.” Janzen, Job, 225.
God does not already know, here God’s challenges seem to be sarcastic:
Job does not know the answers to the questions God will pose about the
creation of the world and so cannot be called upon to be God’s teacher.
Or, at least, that is what God believes the situation to be.
Second, the subject of the passage indicates that what God has to say
will be about the nature of the created world. Together, the tone and the
subject reveal that if Job has insisted that he knows what the world ought
to be like, God has some surprises in store for him. Third, in his descrip-
tion of his founding of the world, God claims that the world has been
intentionally created to be as it is; the world which God will describe in
his speeches is the world he intended to make. Finally, as a related point,
God characterizes this world as good, as is shown by the joy experienced
by the heavenly beings at its creation. Although some scholars view God’s
speeches as non-sequiturs which fail to answer Job’s complaints,35 this
opening passage, with its focus on the creation of the world, announces
that the speeches are intended to answer Job’s claims about the world—
the way it is, the way it ought to be, and the way it ought not to be.
The Attention of the Animals
What, then, is this world like, specifically with respect to relationships

between persons? First off, it must be said this question can hardly be
asked of God’s speeches, for, with the exception of the wicked mentioned
in 38:13,15 and in 40:11–13 and a few other possible oblique references, ‘per-
sons,’ as in ‘human persons’ do not figure at all in God’s description of his
world. Instead, God is concerned with animals. These are the ‘persons’
who inhabit his world. Is it, then, impossible to actually compare God’s
description of the world with the world-as-it-ought-to-be described by Job
and his friends? Are they so fundamentally different that it is useless to try
to inquire into more nuanced differences? That is, instead of examining
35 Daniel O’Connor lists 8 issues brought up in the prologue and dialogues which God
does not address. Daniel O’Connor, “The Futility of Myth-Making in Theodicy: Job 38–41,”
Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985): 84. Luis Alonso-Schökel, however, cau-
tions against viewing the Yahweh speeches as failing to address the issues at stake in the
book, writing, “The fact is that the commentator’s judgment depends on his expectation of
what will happen when God intervenes.” He goes on to list 5 ways in which God’s words do
address Job’s questions and the claims of the friends. Luis Alonso-Schökel, “God’s Answer
to Job,” in Job and the Silence of God, ed. C. Duquoc and C. Floristán (New York: Seabury
Press, 1983), 45.
76 chapter two
the nature of relationships between persons as described by Job and his

friends and by God, is the most we can say that Job and his friends are
concerned with what goes on between people, whereas God is concerned
with what goes on between animals? I do not think we are limited in
this way. God’s depiction of animal relationships is intended to apply
to humans as well. Both share the same status as God’s creatures, in the
light of which the human/animal distinction is minimized. For this rea-
son, what God says about animals can be compared and contrasted with
what Job and his friends say about humans. They are providing models
for relationship that are different from each other, and not talking about
completely different subjects.
Where Job has described himself as the central figure in the world-as-it-
ought-to-be, around whom all others are organized, God’s world is diffuse.
There is no central point on which the animals fix their gaze, even though
it might be tempting to claim that, in the world described by God, God
himself is the one who matters, the one upon whom all eyes are focused.
If this were the case, God’s depiction of the world would be no different
from Job’s. The central figure would be different—God instead of Job—
but the overall configuration would be the same.36
Yet, although it is true that God presents himself as the creator of the
world, he does not present a world in which all eyes are on him and him
alone. Although some of the animals acknowledge him as the one but for
whose sustaining care they would be unable to survive, most direct their
attention elsewhere. God begins his animal discourse by asking Job,
Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
when they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in their covert? Who provides
for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about
for lack of food? (38:39–41)
Here, the young ravens look to God to provide food for them, just as, it
might be said, the righteous poor in chapter 29 look to Job to provide sus-
tenance for them and to act as their defender. Yet, if the ravens’ attention
36 Schifferdecker, in her reading of the divine speeches, claims that God presents this
kind of world. She writes, “God’s description of creation reveals to Job that the world does
not exist for the sake of humanity, but rather that humanity plays only a part in creation.
The world exists for the sake of its Creator. The divine speeches, in other words, are radi-
cally theocentric.” Schifferdecker, Whirlwind, 111. Although I agree that God presents his
creation as ‘nonanthropocentric,’ I disagree that the alternative is a “radically theocentric”
world. As will be seen below, it seems to me that the world God describes does away with
centricity altogether.
is focused on God, the lions, for whose feeding God depicts himself as
equally responsible, do not seem to have God in their gaze, or, indeed,
on their mind. It may be God who provides for them, but the lions have
their eye on their prey as they crouch in their covert and wait for it to
draw near. In fact, with the exception of the ravens, none of the animals
named by God are looking at him. The wild ass has its eyes on the ground
as “it ranges the mountains as its pasture, and it searches after every green
thing” (39:8). The ostrich, which ought, perhaps, to be looking at its eggs
or its offspring if it isn’t going to look at God, is instead watching the horse
and its rider (39:18b). As for the horse, it is completely focused on the
battle (39:21). It is not only the horse’s eyes that are fixed on the fight, but
its ears and nose as well: “[I]t cannot stand still at the sound of the trum-
pet. When the trumpet sounds, it says, ‘Aha!’ From a distance it smells
the battle” (39:24b–25a). The eagle watches the battlefield and spies its
prey, the dead who have fallen there (39:29–30). Leviathan, the final beast
in God’s litany “surveys everything that is lofty” (41:34a), which might be
taken as an indication that Leviathan is looking at God, given that God
can certainly be considered as ‘lofty.’ However, if Leviathan does include
God in its gaze when it “surveys everything that is lofty,” it cannot be said
that this gaze designates God as the world’s central figure, to whom Levia-
than surrenders its own reality. The verb translated ‘survey’ in the NRSV is
plain old ‫ראה‬, which does not tell us much about the quality or direction
of Leviathan’s gaze. The word ‘survey,’ however, connotes a looking down.
The translators’ choice of this word instead of ‘looks at’ draws support
from the second half of the verse: “[I]t is king over all that are proud”
(41:34b). One who is king over the proud naturally looks down upon the
lofty. If anyone is confirmed as the most important figure by Leviathan’s
gaze, it is Leviathan and not God. Everything Leviathan surveys is below
it and belongs to it.
This, though, does not mean that Leviathan occupies the central posi-
tion in God’s world. God directs Job’s attention to Leviathan, but not to
Leviathan alone. Neither do the other animals focus on Leviathan; Levia-
than may survey them, but their gaze is elsewhere. Instead of focusing
Job’s attention on one central figure, God’s questions direct Job’s attention
out to the multiplicity of animals which inhabit the complex, diversely
populated world.
78 chapter two
The Aloneness of the Animals
The loneliness of the wicked is a central feature of the friends’ discourse.

If the creatures inhabiting the world God has created are not organized
around a central figure, are they alone as Job and his friends suppose the
wicked to be alone? The question is difficult to answer. God does not dwell
on the loneliness—or lack thereof—of the animals he describes. On the
one hand, God’s description of the young deer which leave their parents
once they are strong enough to fend for themselves “and do not return to
them” (39:4b) and of the ostrich which abandons its eggs and the young
born from them, caring little whether they survive or not (39:14–16), is not
unlike the friends’ description of the wicked who are unable to provide
for their children and whose offspring do not remember them. Bildad, for
example, has said of the wicked, “They have no offspring or descendant
among their people, and no survivor where they used to live” (18:19), and
Zophar has said that the children of the wicked are forced to “seek the
favor of the poor” (20:10a), because their parents are unable to care for
them as they should. Are the deer-parents alone like the wicked whose
children forget them, and are the ostrich-children alone like the children
of the wicked who are not cared for by their parents? The answer might
be yes, except that God does not assign any stigma to the kind of behavior
practiced by the young deer and the mother ostrich, nor does abandon-
ment by children or parents seem to negatively affect the ones abandoned.
Rather, the abandonment of parents and children is presented as a natu-
ral occurrence and not as a sign of any kind of particularly wicked behav-
ior on the part of those doing the leaving or those left. Granted, God does
describe the ostrich, in its lack of care for its eggs and offspring, as a fool,
and the friends have equated fools with the wicked. (“I have seen fools
taking root, but suddenly I cursed their dwelling,” Eliphaz has boasted in
his first speech [5:3].) The foolish ostrich, however, is not censured for its
foolishness; rather, its foolishness is part of its God-given nature. Although
deer and ostriches are left by children and parents respectively, this does
not seem to render them alone in the sense that the friends mean.
In general, the animals in God’s speeches are not described as interact-
ing with other members of their species or with members of other spe-
cies. Some animals feed their young—like the eagle, which searches out
the battlefield, so that its young ones may suck up the blood that has
been spilled there (39:30)—but others are not depicted as doing so. The
wild ass and wild ox are specifically described as spurning the company of
humans. The wild ass eschews the “tumult of the city” (39:7), preferring to
range the mountains alone. The wild ox will not stay on the farm, becom-
ing one of the farmer’s possessions (39:9–12) and contributing to his great-
ness. Whether or not these animals are alone does not seem to be part of
God’s consideration in his designation of them as valued members of the
creation. Moreover, what constitutes ‘aloneness’ is called into question
in God’s speeches. When God describes the wild ass which “ranges the
mountains as its pasture” (39:8), the word translated ‘pasture’ is ‫רעה‬, a
word which also means ‘intimate friend.’ Job has used it with this mean-
ing in 6:14 to lament his friends’ treatment of him: “Those who withhold
kindness from a friend (‫ )מרעהו‬forsake the fear of the Almighty.” It seems
possible, then, that God is describing the mountains not only as the pas-
ture of the wild ass, but as its friend. Nature provides companionship
even for those who seem companionless, a companionship which Job
and his friends have failed to perceive as a possibility. Moreover, when
he reveals his care for the animals he names, God shows that he does not
leave them alone, but is present with them in their wild and (potentially)
lonely habitations. This is surely an indication that these animals are not
alone, for the aloneness of the wicked, as presumed by Job and the friends,
was primarily evidence of their abandonment by God. In God’s speeches,
then, two things happen to the concept of aloneness as described by Job
and his friends. First, God denies the claim that aloneness is a sign that
something has gone wrong, either for the creatures involved or the world
they inhabit. Lone creatures are not, of necessity, wicked, nor is the world
they inhabit an anti-world. Second, God calls into question Job’s and his
friends’ ability to assess the aloneness of their fellow creatures, revealing
himself and his world as providing companionship for those who might
appear to be alone. This, though, does not mean that God re-stigmatizes
aloneness. Instead, he seems to be saying that, although it is possible to
be alone in the world he has created, this aloneness does not look the
way Job and his friends have supposed it must. In a world where even a
mountain pasture provides companionship, the lone are not lonely.
God’s Centrality: The Question of Power
In the last section but one I argued that God does not present a world
in which he is at the center, and cited the diffuse attention of the ani-
mals as proving this point. Yet, despite the fact that, in God’s description,
the animals are not looking at him, it is still possible to argue that God
is presenting himself as occupying the central place in the world of his
80 chapter two
c reation. Such an argument inheres in the claim, first advanced by Henry

Rowold, that the implied answer to all of the questions asked by God “is
not merely, ‘No, I can/did not,’ but rather, ‘No I can/did not, but you (Yah-
weh) can/did,’ ”37 a view shared by Habel,38 and by Whybray, who writes,
“[T]he answer to the questions ‘Can you . . .?’ . . . and ‘Who can . . .?’ . . . can
only be ‘Only Yahweh can!’ ”39 Coming to the same conclusion, Michael
V. Fox explains the way in which God’s questions can be understood as
rhetorical. He writes,
One asks a question so obvious that the answer is inevitable . . . because it
asks something which both the questioner and his auditor know, and which
the questioner knows that his auditor knows, and which the auditor knows
that the questioner knows he knows. . . . God asks almost exclusively rhetori-
cal questions in this unit. Most of the questions ask “who?”, the inevitable
but unspoken answer being “you, God.”40
If these scholars are right, it might be correct to say that God’s focus is not
on the diverse multitude of creatures his world contains, but on his own
creative activity. God’s speeches, then, would not be intended to direct
Job’s gaze out in a variety of directions to take in the great multiplicity of
the world, but to direct his gaze to God as the power responsible for every-
thing Job sees, the only real ‘person’ in a world whose existence emanates
from his own and which, without him, would cease to be.
Some of God’s questions surely imply the answer that these scholars
suggest. For example, God does not ask, “Where is the way to the dwell-
ing of the light?” because he wants Job to give him directions. Likewise,
when God asks Job to tell him who it was determined the measurements
of the earth, the implied answer is certainly, “you alone did.” Habel argues
that God’s questions and their implied answer are “intended to focus on
God as the only possible power who could perform the action described
in the question.”41 Indeed, a great number of scholars seem to interpret
God’s words from the whirlwind as serving primarily to demonstrate his
power over against Job’s comparative weakness, even if they disagree over
whether this demonstration of power is good or bad.
37 Henry Rowold, “Yahweh’s Challenge to Rival: The Form and Function of the Yahweh-
Speeches in Job 38–39,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 no. 2 (1985): 201.
38 Habel, Job, 529.
39 Norman Whybray, Job (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 169.
40 Michael V. Fox, “Job 38 and God’s Rhetoric,” Semeia 19 (1981): 58.
41 Habel, Job, 529.
Among those who view God’s display of power positively is Walter

Brueggemann, who writes,
[I]t is evident that the ground of Yahweh’s response is in power. . . . These
doxological verses strain for words to articulate the massiveness and awe-
someness of this God.42
About the issues at stake in the Book of Job, Roland Murphy asks, “Is the
whole question at bottom an issue of power . . . and not of justice?” and
answers, “God . . . is redefining the problem . . . shifting the focus from jus-
tice to the broader notion of sovereignty over the universe.”43 Pope con-
curs, writing,
God assails [ Job] with questions he cannot answer. . . . The purpose is to
bring home to Job his ignorance and his folly in impugning God’s wisdom
and justice. . . . Since man has not God’s power, he has no right to question
God’s justice.44
Those who judge God’s display of power negatively include Jack Miles,
John Briggs Curtis and Carl Jung. Miles declares,
Few speeches in all of literature can more properly be called overpowering
than the Lord’s speeches to Job from the whirlwind. . . . But therein lies all
their difficulty. The Lord refers to absolutely nothing about himself except
his power.45
As Miles sees it, it is because God has subjected Job to unjust torture and,
therefore, “has something to hide,” that he puts on such a show of power;
the fireworks are intended to obscure God’s culpability.46 In the same
way, Curtis observes, “The tenor of the entirety of the Yahweh speeches is
that of the overwhelming power and majesty of God as compared with the
frailty and ignorance of Job,” and concludes, “A god so remote, so unfeeling,
so unjust is worse than no god,” a conclusion he believes is shared by Job,
as shown by his final response to God’s words.47 Finally, Jung condemns
42 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg For-

tress, 1997), 390.
43 Roland Murphy, The Book of Job: A Short Reading (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press, 1999), 96.
44 Pope, Job, 250, 267.
45 Jack Miles, God: A Biography (London: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 314.
46 Ibid., 316.
47 Curtis, “Job’s Response,” 497, 510.
82 chapter two
the god who “comes riding along on the tempest of his almightiness and
thunders reproaches at the half-crushed human worm.”48
Yet, I wonder whether these scholars are right that the issue of who
holds the power is really what is at stake in God’s speeches. Although
some of God’s questions may be intended to highlight Job’s ignorance
and powerlessness in relation to his own knowledge and power, it cannot
be assumed that everything about which God asks Job he already knows
and has already done. Although it might be possible for God to do all
the things he challenges Job to do, this does not mean that he actually
chooses to do them, or that he views them as things that must be done if
the world is to be as it ought. Still, if the issue is who holds the power and
the implied answer is “God,” I wonder whether that power is of a differ-
ent sort and serves a different purpose than some of the above scholars
suppose. For example, is it power that permits God to know where the
mountain goats give birth (39:1)? Is it power that has allowed God to “let
the wild ass go free” (39:5)? These do not seem like questions calculated
to convince the hearer of the speaker’s power. It may be a demonstration
of omniscience to show that one knows where the deer calve, but it is not
a terribly compelling one. A more likely response from Job, instead of a
cowering “O omniscient God, you alone know,” might be an incredulous
“Who cares?” What does it matter to Job where these animals give birth?
And what about letting the wild ass go free? What kind of power does
that show? God has done no better than human beings with respect to the
wild ass. He has not managed to tame it; it is not pulling his cart, any more
than it is pulling Job’s.49 So God let the wild ass go free? Everyone has to,
because the wild ass cannot be domesticated. And if God’s point is that he
is responsible for the un-domesticability of the wild ass and ox, which, in
fact, does seem to be what these questions are intended to convey, then
his power is of quite a different sort.
48 Carl G. Jung, Answer to Job, trans. R.F.C. Hull (London and New York: Routledge,
1954), 16–17.
49 Some interpreters assume that what these animals will not do for Job they will do for
Yahweh. Milton Horne, for example, writes, “The deity asks Job about whether the wild ox
‘consents,’ . . . to serve Job. The implication of this question is that the wild ox does indeed
consent to serve Yahweh, but also, that he is free not to do so.” Milton Horne, “From
Ethics to Aesthetics: The Animals in Job 38:39–39:30,” Review & Expositor 102 no. 1 (2005),
139. Yet, it is not at all clear that the wild ox, if it is as free to choose to serve Yahweh as it
is free to choose to serve Job, does choose servitude. It is the freedom of the animals which
is emphasized and not their servitude, whether freely chosen or not.
Power is generally understood as power over something, not as let-

ting something go free, which is, properly speaking, a relinquishing of
power. These questions do not seem to demonstrate God’s omniscience
or omnipotence as much as they demonstrate his care for what is insig-
nificant from human perspectives. God indicates that he knows where
the deer calve not to prove his omniscience but to show that this kind
of knowledge matters to him. He cares about the deer and the mountain
goats. Perhaps the more likely implied answer, then, is not “you alone
know,” but “you know because you care enough to know.” The implica-
tion, if this is the case, is not that it is impossible for Job to know because
Job lacks God’s power, but that if Job thought it was worthwhile to know
such a detail, he too could know it.50 It is knowledge, though, that is of
no material benefit to him, so if he is to care enough to know, it must be
for another reason, namely that he cares about the deer and the mountain
goats, that he recognizes their importance in and of themselves, instead
of viewing them either as too insignificant to warrant his attention or as
beings whose only value is in their potential to contribute their meager
share to his greatness.
Leviathan and God’s Power
Just as the questions about the animals in chapters 39 and 40 do not have
the demonstration of God’s power as their primary goal, neither, I would
argue, do the questions about Leviathan in chapter 41. Some scholars argue
that, when God speaks about Leviathan, he is speaking of a chaos monster
defeated as the necessary prelude to the creation of the world, against
which he must be constantly vigilant in order to ensure the maintenance
of his creation. They understand that God’s history and relationship with
Leviathan are similar to those of Marduk and Tiamat in the Babylonian
myth Enuma elish. Tryggve Mettinger points out that
Behemoth and Leviathan are not Hebrew’s appellatives for the hippopota-
mus and the crocodile; and what is more they occur without the definite
50 Dale Patrick points out that today, “We can, at one level, answer those questions
thundered at Job.” This, though, does not exhaust the import of God’s whirlwind speeches.
Patrick continues, “The voice from the whirlwind censures us and invites us to take our
place as a community of beings empowered by a creator who delights in the flourishing
of life.” Dale Patrick, “Divine Creative Power and the Decentering of Creation: The Subtext
of the Lord’s Address to Job,” in The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions, ed. N.C. Habel and
S. Wurst (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 113.
84 chapter two
article, as proper names. . . . Thus, the names . . . have unmistakable mythical

overtones. One gets the idea that these animals stand as symbols of the dark,
chaotic side of existence.51
About Leviathan, God says,
Any hope of capturing it will be disappointed; were not even the gods over-
whelmed at the sight of it? No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who
can stand before it? Who can confront it and be safe?—under the whole
heaven, who? (41:9–11).52
If the interpretation held by Rowold and others is correct, then the ques-
tions asked here must be understood as implying that, although Job can-
not stand before Leviathan, God can and has done so; although Job cannot
hope to capture Leviathan, that is precisely what God has done. God asks
Job who there is “under the whole heaven” who is capable of confronting
Leviathan with impunity, and answers, if Rowold is right, “God alone.”
If Leviathan is viewed as a chaos monster, then the implication is that
only God has the strength to bind chaos and keep it at bay, a feat which
Job cannot perform and which, therefore, disqualifies Job from calling God
to account for what he perceives as a breakdown in the order of the world.
John Day endorses this view, writing, “It is clearly implied that Job, and,
by implication, humans generally, are unable to overcome these creatures
and that only Yahweh has control over them.”53 Similarly, John Hartley
maintains that in the Leviathan and Behemoth pericopes,
Yahweh challenges Job to demonstrate his prowess by defeating in mor-
tal combat the ominous creatures Behemoth and Leviathan. If he cannot
master these symbols of cosmic powers, he will have to abandon his com-
plaint. . . . Yahweh is arguing that he masters every force in the world.54
51 Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, “The Enigma of Job: The Deconstruction of God in Intertex-
tual Perspective,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23 no 2 (1997): 12.
52 This translation is based on the emendation of the Hebrew ‫לי־הוא‬, “to me” or “mine”
to ‫מי־הוא‬, “who is he?” an emendation supported by Pope. Gordis, Dhorme, and Habel
read ‫לא הוא‬, “no one,” which has a similar force. In general, these lines (9–11; Hebrew 1–3)
are difficult and scholars offer a variety of translations.
53 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 2002), 103.
54 John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 518. The list of schol-
ars who interpret the Leviathan and Behemoth passages in this way is long. As the posi-
tion has already been explicated by the scholars quoted above, however, I will not quote
from the rest. Additional scholars who are of this persuasion include Tur-Sinai, Gordon,
Murphy, Habel, Whybray, Cox, and Ash.
Furthermore, even if Leviathan is not understood to be a mythological

chaos monster on the order of Tiamat, this interpretation still views Levia-
than as something that must be bound if God’s creation is to be upheld.
Whatever Leviathan is—whether uncreated chaos monster or chaotic
creature—it needs to be controlled if the world is to be as it ought to be,
and God is the only one with the power to control the beast.
Against this interpretation, though, it must be noticed that the first
nine verses of the Leviathan chapter have certain things in common with
the verses about the wild ox in chapter 39. There, God asks:
Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will it spend the night at your crib? Can
you tie it in the furrow with ropes, or will it harrow the valleys after you?
Will you depend on it because its strength is great, and will you hand over
your labor to it? Do you have faith in it that it will return, and bring your
grain to your threshing floor? (39:9–12)
Is the answer, “The wild ox will not serve you, Job, but the wild ox will
serve me, God. Your lack of control over the wild ox is indicative of your
weakness relative to my power”? I do not think it is. The passage does not
seem to be making the case that God has managed to domesticate the
wild ox for his own purposes, while Job has failed in the same endeavor.
Rather, God seems to be saying that the wild ox has no obligation to serve
anyone—neither Job nor God—and this is how it has been created. Com-
pare this passage with the beginning of the Leviathan chapter:
Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down its tongue
with a cord? Can you put a rope in its nose, or pierce its jaw with a hook?
Will it make many supplications to you? Will it speak soft words to you? Will
it make a covenant with you or be taken as your servant forever? Will you
play with it as with a bird, or will you put it on a leash for your girls? Will
traders bargain over it? Will they divide it up among the merchants? Can
you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears? Lay hands on
it; think of the battle; you will not do it again! Any hope of capturing it will
be disappointed. (41:1–9a)
The two passages are not dissimilar. In both, God asks Job questions about
his ability to control wild beasts so that he can depend upon them for
his livelihood. God claims that, just as the wild ox cannot be tied in the
furrow with ropes to pull the plow, so Leviathan cannot be led about on
a leash. The wild ox will not feed at any person’s manger—he will not
exchange his services for the goods that belong to human beings—so
Leviathan will not make a covenant with any person, will not enter into a
give-and-take arrangement and be bound to human control. The wild ox
86 chapter two
will not bring the farmer’s grain to the threshing floor, thereby contribut-
ing to the farmer’s livelihood, nor can Leviathan be captured and killed,
turned into meat that can be sold in the market. The farmer and the fish-
erman cannot use these animals for their own benefit.
But if Job cannot use Leviathan for his own purposes, can God? If Levia-
than will not make a covenant with Job, is the implication of God’s ques-
tions that Leviathan will make a covenant with God? Or that although Job
cannot harpoon Leviathan and put his flesh on sale in the market, God
can? Although a number of scholars have seen this passage as demonstrat-
ing God’s power over Leviathan, when we compare the Leviathan passage
with the passage about the wild ox, such an assumption seems mistaken.
The similarities between the passages seem to argue for a similar interpre-
tation of both. The point is not that God can conquer Leviathan, but that
Leviathan has been created as an unconquerable beast, allowed to live
its own life apart from humanity and also apart from God. Whatever the
intended answers to God’s questions, their purpose is not to focus atten-
tion on God’s power and to contrast it with Job’s weakness. Nor is their
purpose to demonstrate God’s central position in a world which, without
his presence there, would deteriorate into chaos. Rather, their purpose
is to focus Job’s attention on the diverse multiplicity of creatures which
inhabit God’s world. Where God’s power is revealed is in his creation
of this complex world, but, in creating such creatures, God relinquishes
power rather than hoarding it for himself and steps to the side instead of
entrenching himself at the center of the world.
The Place of Human Beings in God’s World
Although God’s speeches contain a multitude of animals, they are notice-

ably short on humans, who appear only in oblique references. When God
speaks of rain, asking “[W]ho can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when
the dust runs into a mass and the clods cling together?” (38:37b–38), it is
possible that the human form appears in that massed earth, echoing the
Genesis 2 creation story.55 In the next chapter humans are laughed at by
55 “The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth . . . but a stream would rise
from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed man
from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man
became a living being” (Genesis 2:5b, 6–7). This link was suggested by Professor Diane
Jacobson in an unpublished lecture at Luther Seminary in 2003.
ostriches and carried into battle by horses (38:18–25), but in both cases the
focus is on the animals, not the humans. The prey, spied on the battlefield
by the eagle certainly includes what was human, before it met its bloody
end (39:26–30). Finally, the speeches are addressed to a human being.
That it is Job to whom God speaks about this world in which humans
appear to be on the sidelines surely boosts the importance of humans
which the content of the speeches denies.
Some interpreters make much of this last detail. Balentine is convinced
that God’s speeches are intended to function “as a radical summons to a
new understanding of what it means for humankind to be created in the
image of God.”56 In his speeches, God models for Job what it means “to
participate in the governance of the world with power and glory that is
only slightly less than God’s.”57 Similarly, Janzen writes, “To be a human
being is to be a creature who is yet God’s addressee and whom God con-
fronts with the rest of creation vocationally.”58 In the readings proposed
by Balentine and Janzen, God’s treatment of the animals serves as a model
for how Job ought to behave in his relations with other creatures. If God
does not include human beings in his picture of the world, it is because
God himself stands in for human beings. That is, it is not that the human
presence is implied in God’s description of the animals, but that the
human presence is implied in God’s description of himself. In this way,
far from being absent from the speeches, humans are well represented.
This interpretation is attractive. There is much to be said for a reinter-
pretation of what it means to have power and for a reevaluation of how
human power should be exercised. If it is the case that God reveals his
own creative activity as involving a relinquishing of power and a move-
ment away from the center, perhaps this is a model Job and his fellow
humans are meant to adopt. At the same time, I am not convinced that
the fact that God addresses Job means that Job’s place in the world is in
some way equivalent to God’s. This interpretation keeps humans at the
center of God’s world, elevating their status above that of other creatures,
in a way that is at odds with the minimal reference God makes to them.
It seems to me that although God’s address to Job serves to keep Job ‘in
56 Samuel E. Balentine, “What Are Human Beings, That you should Make so Much of
Them?’ Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth,’ ” in God in the Fray:
A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. T. Linafelt and T.K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1998), 260.
57 Ibid., 269.
58 Janzen, Job, 229.
88 chapter two
the picture’ of creation, it does not grant him special status in the world.
Rather, humans are part of the creation and contribute to its diversity, but
they are deliberately slighted in God’s speeches due to their tendency to
claim more importance for themselves than is warranted.
There is one additional reference to humans in God’s speeches. In
38:13–15 and 40:10–14 God speaks of a particular human group, the wicked.
God does not seem to rate the wicked as positively as he rates the ani-
mals he describes, yet neither does he call for their eradication. If Job and
his friends have supposed that the wicked cannot inhabit the world-as-it-
ought-to-be, but live, instead, in an anti-world where punishment, rather
than blessing, is the order of the day, God seems to allow the wicked to
remain in his world, as a part of that world, albeit one that is constrained.
God asks,
Have you commanded the morning since your days began . . . so that it
might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of
it?. . . . Light is withheld from the wicked, and their uplifted arm is broken.
(38:12a, 13, 15)
Later, he challenges,
Deck yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splen-
dor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on all who are proud,
and abase them. . . . [T]read down the wicked where they stand. Hide them
all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then I will also
acknowledge to you that your own right hand can give you victory. (40:10–11,
12b–14)
It is tempting to assume that what God challenges Job to do is what he
himself does. If Job is strong enough to bind the wicked in the world
below, God will acknowledge that Job has the right to be God and will
surrender his position to Job. Interpreters who read these speeches as a
battle between God and Job, in which God is asserting his power over
Job, see in these verses the pronouncement that only if Job can crush the
wicked as God does will Job be deemed worthy to question the validity
of God’s actions.
It is, however, not entirely clear that what God challenges Job to do
here is something he does himself. In addition to the fact that throughout
his own speeches Job has repeatedly accused God of allowing the proud
and the wicked to flourish, God’s own words cast doubt on this claim.
God’s description of the wicked in chapter 38 presents a different picture
of God’s dealings with them. Those verses seem to show that the projects
of the wicked are limited by natural processes that God has set in place,
and not by God’s direct intervention. Most scholars seem to agree with
this interpretation. Hartley, for example, writes of this passage,
Yahweh counters Job’s complaint with the position that his own command
of the light confines the work of the wicked. He has contained the wicked
within limits just as he has stayed the encroachment of the sea against the
land.59
In addition, God speaks only of placing a limit on the activities of the
wicked—breaking their “uplifted arm”—and not of eradicating them alto-
gether, which is what he suggests that Job try to do. These verses call the
interpretation of 40:10–14 as a summons to Job to try to do what God does
into question. God’s subsequent description of Leviathan as “king over all
that are proud” (41:34b) further problematizes this interpretation.60 God’s
chapter-long description of Leviathan is not a rant against an enemy which
must be defeated, but a paean to the mighty beast by a creator rejoicing
in his handiwork.61 If God himself routinely abases the proud, he ought to
abase Leviathan first of all, but this is not what he describes himself doing.
Those who interpret God’s questions in chapter 41, “Can you draw out
Leviathan with a fish-hook, or press down its tongue with a cord?” (41:1)
etc., as evidence that God himself has bound Leviathan and is challenging
Job to the same test of strength, are surely wrong, as discussed above.
59 Hartley, Job, 497.

60 The word translated ‘proud’ in 40:11b-12 is ‫גאה‬, whereas in 41:34, ‘proud’ translates
‫בני־ׁשתץ‬. That different words are used may, admittedly, indicate that the proud whom
God challenges Job to abase are not the same proud over whom Leviathan is king. Yet, at
the same time, it is possible that pride is pride and that the two groups are the same—or
at least have the same prideful attribute—even though different terms are used.
61 Those scholars who insist that Leviathan is God’s enemy are relying too fully on
preconceived understandings of what Leviathan is and not on God’s words themselves.
Perdue attempts to explain God’s praise of Leviathan (and Behemoth) as like the song
of “a heroic warrior of romantic epic, in the prelude to deadly battle” which “praises the
enchanting beauty and fearsome power of these two mythical beasts who must again be
subdued to ensure the ongoing of the good creation.” Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt:
Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1991), 262. That is,
as Perdue sees it, God’s praise of Leviathan is a way of praising himself as the conqueror
of this mighty foe. Although this interpretation provides a way of making sense of God’s
praise of Leviathan while still viewing Leviathan as God’s enemy, I do not find it convinc-
ing. It depends too much on the idea that Leviathan must be the evil chaos monster, even
though God does not actually speak of Leviathan in this way. Perdue has, in effect, asked,
“How can we understand God’s praise of Leviathan, given that Leviathan is evil?” and has
come up with an explanation. There is nothing in the passage itself, however, that sup-
ports the claim that Leviathan is evil in the first place. Perdue’s (hypothetical) question
could just as easily be answered, “God praises Leviathan because God is awed by Levia-
than,” an answer that is supported by the text.
90 chapter two
But if God does not abase the proud and tread down the wicked, why
does he instruct Job to try to do so? What God challenges Job to do is to
remake the world as Job thinks it ought to be. Job has insisted that, in
order for the world to be as it ought to be, the wicked must be punished
and the proud brought low, activities which consign them to the anti-
world which exists as the flip-side of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Time
and again, Job has castigated God for failing to uphold this order. What
God dares Job to do is not to beat him at his own game—to do what God
already does—but to exhibit enough power to change the rules. Some
scholars see God’s challenge to Job as an admission of his own failure to
make the world how he wishes it to be. Athalya Brenner argues that “the
passage [is] a straightforward, although partial, admittance of divine fail-
ure. . . . God is . . . conceding that he cannot dispose of the wicked and of
evil.”62 Gordis concurs, writing,
Were Job able to destroy evil in the world, even God would be prepared to
relinquish His throne to him—a moving acknowledgment by God Himself
that the world order is not perfect!”63
These scholars, though, do not see God as challenging Job to ‘change the
rules,’ but, rather, to make the world how both he and God agree it ought
to be but which God, in his ineptitude, has failed to create, an interpreta-
tion with which I do not agree. It is, after all, Job and not God, who has
shown himself to be preoccupied with the fate of the wicked.
If Job is able to structure the world as he sees fit, that world will come
into existence. If not, it will not, for the world God has created is not
a world in which the wicked are routinely snuffed out by God’s direct
intervention. It is here that the issue of power is brought to bear on God’s
speeches. God is not saying, “I alone have the power to crush the wicked
and defeat Leviathan,” and, by demonstrating Job’s inability to do these
things, denying Job’s right to question him. Rather, what God is saying is
that he has the power to have created the world as a world in which a
great multiplicity of creatures, including Leviathan and the wicked, live.
Patrick describes this world:
62 Athalya Brenner, “God’s Answer to Job,” Vetus Testamentum 31 no 2 (1981): 133.

63 Gordis, God and Man, 12. Janzen raises an important objection to this kind of interpre
tation, writing, “[Gordis’] comment . . . presupposes that ‘perfection’ of ‘world order’ would
involve the coercive crushing of evil and wickedness. This in turn involves the presupposi-
tion that the perfect reign . . . of order and justice would exemplify irresistible exercise of
unilateral power, imposed ‘from the top down,’ a vision the totalitarian character of which
should not be less odious for being projected upon God.” Janzen, Job, 244.
There is ordering, but no suppression of counter-power. . . . The order

includes violence and catastrophe, but these are not a struggle . . . of all with
each; the aim is the flourishing of each species within a niche in the com-
munity of life.64
If Job has enough power, Job can create a different world, one from which
Leviathan and the wicked are banned and consigned to the anti-world,
and which is organized around Job as the only person who matters. But
Job does not have that kind of power, at least God doesn’t think he does.65
The world described by God in his speeches is a world characterized by
complexity and inhabited by a diverse multitude of creatures, some of
whom live alone and some of whom do not, and whose attention is dif-
fuse, rather than focused on one central figure. God may impose con-
straints on these creatures, but he does so in the service of the flourishing
of the many. His power is not a power which conquers, but a power which
sets free. In consequence, it is not God who is gadol, but the world of his
creation.
64 Patrick, “Creative Power,” 113.

65 The prose epilogue casts doubt on this assumption, as will be discussed in chapter 5.
Chapter Three
Time in the World-as-it-Ought-and-Ought-not-to-be:

Stasis, Change, and Death
Nothing Ever Happens: Stasis in Job’s World-as-It-Ought-to-Be
When we describe a place as ‘untouched by time,’ we mean that it has

not experienced the changes that have affected other places, those which
have, presumably, been ‘touched by time.’ Time is bound up with change.
Change is how we tell that time exists, and, if there is no change, there is
no time, at least insofar as we can perceive it. For Job—and also for his
friends, as will be discussed below—the world-as-it-ought-to-be is a place
where nothing ever happens, which is to say, it is a world that exists out-
side of time. It is not, however, a ‘land untouched by time,’ according to its
usual usage, for this phrase presumes that change is happening all around
the unchanging enclave: change is the norm and stasis is the exception.
Rather, for Job and his friends, timelessness is the norm, and change is the
exception. Those who are affected by time and its attendant ravages are
the wicked who inhabit the anti-world, a world that ought not to exist at
all, whereas the righteous, who inhabit the world-as-it-ought-to-be, have
no truck with time. This is perfectly understandable. If the world is as it
ought to be, positive change is an oxymoron. The world-as-it-ought-to-be
cannot become more as-it-ought-to-be, unless it was not really as-it-ought-
to-be to begin with. The same is true of a person who is as-he-or-she-
ought-to-be. Change, therefore, can only be for the worse, resulting in a
lessening of the existent perfection. If change is to happen in the world-
as-it-ought-to-be, it must be change in the service of stasis; that is, change
which happens in order to bring about a more stable incarnation of the
world which already exists. It is pseudo-change.
This is the kind of change that happens in the prose tale, if the prologue
and epilogue are (re)united.1 Although there is a kind of ‘blip’ of change in
the middle of the tale—where Job is reduced from being “the greatest man
in the east” to being a pauper afflicted with horrible sores—the end of the
1 See my discussion of the relation between prose and poetry in the previous chapter,
footnote 5.
stasis, change, and death 93
tale brings a resolution that is, arguably, a return to its beginning. That is,
whatever happens in the middle of the story, its beginning and end are
essentially the same and, in their sameness, they render the intervening
difference insignificant. Job begins and ends the tale as the “greatest of all
the people of the east.” He begins and ends as the tale’s central figure, sur-
rounded by a multitude of others whose focus is on him. There is, it is true,
one difference between the Job of the prologue and the Job of the epilogue.
What is different is that, at the end, Job’s fear of God has been proven to
be unmotivated by external factors. At the beginning, hassatan is able to
advance the possibility that Job may not fear God “for nothing,” but at the
end this is no longer available as a possibility. Job is proven to act in one
way and not in another. How significant we consider this change depends
on how much value we accord the proof. In fact, it is equally true of Job at
the beginning of the tale as at the end that he fears God for nothing. Job
himself has not changed. What has changed is how we are able to view Job;
previously, it was possible to surmise that Job feared God for something
instead of nothing, but now Job bears a special seal, informing us that he
has been tested and is guaranteed to fear God for nothing. What is required
of Job in his passing of the test is not that he change, but that he stay the
same, exhibiting the same behavior during the test as he exhibited before
the test began. This is a crucial detail. At one level, change happens, in that
Job, who was great, is for a time brought low. At another, more fundamen-
tal level, change is what does not happen. Change is what Job successfully
avoids, even as he is assailed by changes from without.
Job, though beset by changes in his circumstances, does not himself
change. If he appears different at the end of the tale, it is only because our
perception of him has changed and not because he himself has changed.
What’s more, if our perception of him has changed, it is precisely because
he himself has not changed, allowing us to view him, now, as a stable
entity instead of as a being capable of change. If Job does not change in
the tale, and if the only thing that changes is that we now understand that
Job is incapable of change, it seems fair to say that the story is static. Noth-
ing happens, and the whole point of the story is that nothing happens.
The apparent change in Job’s status is only superficial. His real status—as
the righteous man who fears God for nothing—remains unchanged and
intact. Job, as the central character of the tale is able to guarantee the
stability of the world in which he lives. What matters is not what others
do—even if they are powers on the level of God or hassatan—but what
Job does. He is confident of his ability to stand firm, and his static pose
supports the unchanging order of the world.
94 chapter three
The fundamental stasis of Job’s character in the tale allows us to per-

ceive that Job views the world-as-it-ought-to-be as similarly static. It is
true that Job does not speak the prose tale, but that the world depicted in
these chapters corresponds to Job’s world-as-it-ought-to-be is evidenced
by the similarity between this world and that of chapter 29, as discussed
in the previous chapter. When Job says “Oh, that I were as in the months
of old” (29:2a), he is referring to the months described in the prose tale.
Of course, to speak of the “months of old” is to assume the existence of
time. Something has changed to differentiate the present moment from
the past. In the poetic section of the book, Job laments the change that
has befallen him, thrusting him into an anti-world beset by time, and he
wishes for a return to the time before time existed. I have argued above
that the prose tale in its entirety—taking prologue and epilogue as halves
of the same story—presents a static world, for the reasons discussed
above. It must be asked, though, why, when Job is afflicted with change
in the prologue, this does not indicate that the world-as-it-ought-to-be has
been replaced by the anti-world, whereas in the poetry this does seem to
be the case. In both sections Job clings to his integrity and eschews those
behaviors which would indicate that he has himself changed in response
to the changes in his circumstances. What makes the change evidenced in
the prose pseudo-change, and that in the poetry real change?
The difference has to do with Job’s perception of what is happening to
him. In the prose tale, he may suffer, but he experiences his suffering as
happening within a fixed system. He knows that the world he inhabits is
stable, and so understands that the apparent change in his circumstances
cannot be real or lasting. He anticipates that the end of his story will
be a return to its beginning, and this is, in fact, what happens when he
finds himself swiftly restored to his former position in the epilogue. Why,
though, does he not perceive his situation in the same way in the poetic
section? The answer, it seems to me, lies in the seven days of silence in
2:13. These seven days mark a transition for Job, in which the world-as-it-
ought-to-be slowly ceases to exist and is replaced by the anti-world. Dur-
ing those days, Job waits for the restoration which is his due and which
would indicate that the change he has experienced is only apparent and
not actual. He fully expects this return. When, after seven days, it does not
happen, he opens his mouth and, instead of speaking the blessings with
which he had greeted the onset of his suffering, now curses the day of his
birth, wishing that he had never been born. The change in his speech is
indicative of his perception of the change in his circumstances. That is,
Job’s situation is changed not when God and hassatan begin to afflict him
in 1:13, instead it is changed sometime over the course of 2:13, as he sits

in silence waiting for the stability of his world to manifest itself, an event
which does not happen.2
Job’s initial response to his perception that the world has changed—
his wish that he had not been born—gives way to an insistence that God
return the world to its former status. Although these desires are clearly
different from one another, it is telling that what they have in common
is a backwards movement, rather than a forwards one. What Job wants is
not to move through his present situation and emerge on the other side
of it. Rather, what he wants is to be returned to a previous position, either
the one he occupied before he was born (his mother’s womb) or the one
he occupied before his suffering began. Job does not call for change, but
for un-change. When Job speaks his oath of innocence in chapter 31, he
does so not to effect his transformation but his restoration. He does not
even expect to learn anything new from an encounter with God. Rather,
he expects that if God consents to meet him it will be to go over the
accounts of his behavior which will give Job the opportunity to show that,
despite the changes in his circumstances, he has remained the same as
he always was and that, therefore, his circumstances, too, ought to have
remained unchanged. Job views his ordeal not as a journey but as a mis-
take, a disruption of the static order of the world.
God as Agent of Change: Creator of the Anti-world
One of the major accusations Job brings against God is that he acts as
an agent of change in the world, in fact as the solitary agent of change.
In chapter 9 Job describes the changes—both creative and destructive—
wrought upon the earth by God. He says,
If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him in a thousand.
He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength—who has resisted him, and
succeeded?—he who removes mountains, and they do not know it, when
he overturns them in his anger; who shakes the earth out of its place, and
its pillars tremble; who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals
up the stars; who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves
of the Sea . . . How then can I answer him, choosing my words with him? . . . If
it is a contest of strength, he is the strong one! (9:3–8, 14, 19a)
2 See my article, “Job’s Crisis of Language: Power and Powerlessness in Job’s Oaths,” Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 36. 3 (2012: 333–54), for further discussion of this point.
96 chapter three
On its surface, this passage would seem to be about the discrepancy in

strength between God and Job. Because God is strong enough to build and
tear down on the grand scale, Job has no way of levying a claim against
him. Job cannot prove his innocence because God has declared him
guilty, and what God says goes, as is evidenced by his powerful control
of the elements of earth, sea, and sky. If God decides that what was once
a mountain shall be a flat plain, then the mountain becomes a flat plain.
It is no good for the mountain to argue against God, saying, “But I am a
mountain and not a plain.” God’s activity has made the mountain’s point
moot; because God has willed it, the mountain is not a mountain but a
plain. Job sees that the same goes for him. Although he is a righteous man,
Job has been declared guilty by God and the power of God’s declaration
has made him guilty, just as the mountain, subject to God’s shaping force,
has been made into a plain. Job describes his situation, saying, “Though I
am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless,
he would prove me perverse” (9:20).
Although Job is speaking about God’s power, it should be evident that
his emphasis is on God’s use of his power to effect change. In the speech
to which Job is directly responding, Bildad has admonished Job to “make
supplication to the Almighty” (8:5b), who, if Job is indeed blameless as
he claims, will “restore you to your rightful place” (8:6b). Bildad’s advice
rests on his belief that God uses his power to support the static stability
of the world. God will not bring about a change in Job’s circumstances if
Job prays but will “restore [him] to [his] rightful place.” God will rewind
the tape, so to speak, so that the present upheaval, which should never
have occurred, ceases to exist. Job, after his restoration, will dwell per-
petually ‘in the beginning,’ in one single moment of being that is eternally
renewed, untouched by change. In chapter 29, Job, too, wishes for such a
return to the way things were, a restoration of his rightful place. In chap-
ter 9, though, Job dismisses the possibility of such a return. He asserts that
God is not interested in the maintenance of stasis, but only in propagating
upheaval.
Later in the same chapter Job accuses, “It is all one; therefore I say, he
destroys both the blameless and the wicked” (9:22). What concerns God,
according to Job, is not justice—that is, building up those who deserve
to be built up and destroying those who deserve to be destroyed—but
creation and destruction engaged in for their own sakes. God is not a
just judge, but a force, like a rolling glacier, which changes whatever it
touches, making mountains into plains, plains into ravines, and the inno-
cent into the guilty. It is not, then, simply God’s strength that makes him
inaccessible to Job—a strong, just judge would be able to restore Job to

his rightful circumstances—but the nature of that strength. It is because
God is a force of change that Job cannot contend with him. Job cannot
ask the rolling glacier to unmake the lake it has gouged out of what used
to be a flat plain, so he has no means of asking God to unmake the guilty
man into which he has made Job.
In a later passage, Job is even more explicit about God’s role as the
world’s solitary agent of change. He says, “In his hand is the life of every
living thing and the breath of every human being” (12:10) before going on
to describe what God does with these lives over which he has control:
With God are wisdom and strength; he has counsel and understanding. If
he tears down, no one can rebuild; if he shuts someone in, no one can open
up. If he withholds the waters, they dry up; if he sends them out, they over-
whelm the land. . . . He leads counselors away stripped, and makes fools of
judges. He looses the sash of kings, and binds a waistcloth on their loins.
He leads priests away stripped, and overthrows the mighty. He deprives of
speech those who are trusted, and takes away the discernment of the elders.
He pours contempt on princes, and looses the belt of the strong. He uncov-
ers the deeps out of darkness, and brings deep darkness to light. He makes
nations great, then destroys them; he enlarges nations, then leads them
away. He strips understanding from the leaders of the earth, and makes
them wander in a pathless waste. (12:13–15, 17–24)
Just as God stretches out the heavens and establishes the earth and then
seals up the stars and overturns the mountains, so God makes people and
nations mighty and important and then strips them of their power and
status. The word translated ‘mighty’ in 12:19 is the plural of ‫איתן‬, which
literally means “continuous (one) . . . perennial (one), eternal (one) . . . reli-
able (one).”3 Those who are overthrown by God are not just strong, they
are established, fixed, seemingly immovable. Yet, defying their apparent
stability, God brings them low. As God behaves in the natural world, so
he acts with regard to human affairs. In neither one is there any stability.
God exercises his agency willy-nilly and with great frequency, so that the
only constant is the constancy of change. If the world-as-it-ought-to-be is
a place characterized by stability, the workings of God, as described here
by Job, must be understood as creating the anti-world. God may have orig-
inally made the world-as-it-ought-to-be, but his activity since has been
only to disrupt that world, making it into what it ought-not-to-be.
3 David J.A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 1993), 237.
98 chapter three
Excursus: God’s ‘Wisdom’ as God’s Whim
A word should be said about Job’s attribution of wisdom to God in both

passages (9:3–18; 12:13–24). One would expect that if Job views God as pos-
sessing wisdom and acting according to its precepts, he would necessarily
view God as acting rightly. Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible does not describe
mere knowledge but the ability to discern the right way to act and the
undertaking of that right behavior. If Job views God as “wise in heart”
(9:4a), it would seem that Job views God’s random creative and destruc-
tive behavior as the appropriate behavior for the situation. This, however,
does not jibe with the descriptions that follow, especially in the second
passage (chapter 12). Although God’s creative activity is often described as
informed by wisdom (see Job 28 and Proverbs 8, for example), what Job is
describing is primarily destruction. God may stretch out the heavens, but
he then goes on to shake the earth out of its place (9:6). God may create a
great nation, but he goes on to bring that nation low (12:23) for no appar-
ent reason, or, at least, no reason for which the nation itself is respon-
sible. In addition, it is hard to imagine Job praising God’s wisdom with
regard to his own circumstances, which mirror those of the important
men and nations detailed in chapter 12 and the high mountains described
in chapter 9. Indeed, throughout his speeches Job accuses God of treat-
ing him wrongly—of having brought about an unwarranted change in his
circumstances—so surely he would not simultaneously ascribe wisdom to
the God who has behaved in this way. Rather, though he speaks of God’s
wisdom in these passages, he seems to do so in order to undermine the
idea that God’s actions are governed by wisdom.
Job takes the pious stance that God is wise in heart, while at the same
time striking a blow at the idea of God’s goodness, which, traditionally,
would go hand-in-hand with wisdom, but here is severed from it. In his
speech which precedes Job’s chapter 12 response, Zophar has spoken of
God’s possession of “the secrets of wisdom” (11:6a), which, if God would
only divulge them to Job, would convince him of the justness of his suf-
fering. Job’s use of the term ‘wisdom’ in his description of God plays with
Zophar’s insistence on God’s superior knowledge and the just action which
ensues. Job’s apparent praise would seem to be euphemistic, partaking of
that flipside of meaning which allows bless to mean curse.4 Perdue identi-
fies this passage as a parody of a hymn of praise, noting that, although Job
4 See footnote 8 in the previous chapter.

attributes wisdom and strength to God, his presentation of what God does
with his wisdom and strength is wholly negative. Perdue writes,
God uses wisdom and might, not to create and sustain life and nations, but
to destroy them. . . . God does not tear down the structures of life and society
in order to rebuild them, but to prohibit their being restored. And instead of
allowing humans to participate in divine wisdom and power to create social
spheres in which justice and life flourish, God limits, constrains, and even
denies them to human leaders.5
In chapters 9 and 12 it is significant that wisdom is paired with strength in
Job’s description of God. In chapter 9, Job says, “He is wise in heart, and
mighty in strength—who has resisted him and succeeded?” (9:4) and in
chapter 12 he says first “With God are wisdom and strength; he has coun-
sel and understanding” (12:13), and then echoes, “With him are strength
and wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are his” (12:16). In chapter 9,
it is as a result of God’s combined wisdom and strength that the havoc
wrought by God cannot be resisted. In chapter 12, it is as a result of God’s
combined strength and wisdom that God acts with impunity against both
deceived and deceiver, rewarding and punishing, founding and destroying
as his fancy takes him. In both chapters, strength would seem to be all
God needs in order to effect his purposes. Supremely powerful, God can
both raise mountains and flatten them with no recourse to wisdom, if
wisdom is understood as the discernment of right behavior and the imple-
mentation of that behavior in its appropriate situation.
Job is explicit that God’s activities are not based on any appraisal of the
correct behavior for the situation but happen according to God’s whim.
Why, then, does Job bother speaking of wisdom at all? He does so because
wisdom is already part of the discussion. The friends who assert that God
is behaving rightly assume that God’s behavior is grounded in wisdom
and that Job’s suffering is, therefore, a sign of the wisdom of God. Job
responds, in effect, “God may be wise, but if he is, wisdom doesn’t mean
what you think it means.” In 12:16’s repetition of verse 13’s praise of God’s
wisdom and strength, a subtle reversal takes place. Where in 12:13 Job says,
“With God are wisdom and strength” (‫)עמו חכמה וגבורה‬, in verse 16
he says, “with him are strength and wisdom” (‫)עמו עז ותוׁשיה‬, exchang-
ing the placement of the words meaning ‘wisdom’ and ‘strength.’ If we
read the two verses as parallels of each other, the effect is that wisdom
and strength are seen to be being used as interchangeable terms. What
5 Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt, 155.

100 chapter three
is the nature of God’s wisdom? Its nature is God’s strength. If what Job
means by God’s wisdom can be at all differentiated from what he means
by God’s strength, then wisdom must be defined as the ability to choose
to do something, while strength must be seen as the ability to carry out
that decision. In fact, the word used for wisdom in 12:16 is not ‫חכמה‬, as
it is in 12:13, but ‫תוׁשיה‬, a word which can also be translated as “success”
or “(good) results.”6 In Job 5:12 it is used this way by Eliphaz who says,
“He frustrates the devices of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no
success (‫)תוׁשיה‬.” This alternate meaning of the word reinforces the idea
that when Job attributes wisdom to God, he is really only acknowledging
his strength.
Job’s ‘praise,’ then, can be read as merely a statement of his belief that
God has both the power to decide what to do and the power to carry out
what he has decided to do. What Zophar means by God’s wisdom in chap-
ter 11 is a thoroughly just apprehension of and interaction with the world,
but Job’s description of God’s wisdom has no room for justice. God simply
does things, does everything, in fact, and this doing seems to be motivated
only by God’s desire to do whatever it is he wants to do. This is hardly
praise, given that Job perceives himself as the victim of God’s decision and
ability to inflict suffering randomly and without cause. In chapters 9 and 12,
then, Job describes God’s wisdom as the desire to cause random and con-
tinuous change and God’s strength as the effects of this desire as they are
felt in the world. As Job perceives it, God’s wisdom and strength work
together to topple the stable world-as-it-ought-to-be, replacing it with an
anti-world beset by continuous, random change.
The Friends on the Static Life of the Righteous Man
For the friends, as for Job, the world-as-it-ought-to-be is stable and unchang-
ing with everyone occupying his or her appointed place from which he or
she does not move. The only change condoned by the friends is a change
that restores a disturbed stasis. When, in chapter 8, Bildad urges Job to
pray to God, it is not so that God will change his circumstances but so that
God will restore him to that situation from which he never should have
been moved in the first place. It is a movement back to a time before the
change-that-should-not-have-happened happened and not a movement
6 Holladay, Concise Lexicon, 388.

forward to a new place on the other side of change. Against this interpre-
tation, however, Newsom argues that the friends privilege future time in
their speeches. She writes,
The friends offer Job the narrative schema of the good person who endures
suffering, is delivered by God, and enjoys a peaceful and prosperous life after
deliverance. They offer several variations of the schema (5:19–26; 8:8–20;
11:13–19), but in each the crucial element of time is to be found in the happy
ending. The outcome of the narrative does not so much serve to integrate
and give meaning to all that has come before as to enable it to be voided of
significance—to be forgotten.7
Newsom’s observation that the friends focus on the happy ending and view
it as obliterating, or at least obscuring, the prior suffering is correct, yet
it seems to me that the conclusion drawn from this observation, namely,
that the friends privilege the future as the time of real significance, is not
quite right. In Newsom’s analysis, Job, too, although he begins by privileg-
ing the present moment of his suffering, comes to privilege the future, as
he develops the idea of meeting with God in a court of law, as the time
at which his innocence will be proved and his fortunes restored. Newsom
asserts that “For both the friends and Job the end of the story is what truly
matters.”8
I would argue, however, that the time that matters most to Job and his
friends is not the future but the past. For all of them, the end of the story is
marked by a return to the beginning, and this return occasions not another
telling of the story, but an erasing of the story itself. Newsom is right that
the outcome of the friends’ narrative is that the story is voided of meaning
and is forgotten, and, of course, she is also right that this is something that
happens in the future. Both the friends and Job must know that there is
no such thing as a real return to the past; what has happened cannot be
undone. But what has happened can be forgotten to such a degree that it
is as if it never happened. This forgetting happens in the future, but when
it happens it makes the future so like the past that it might as well be the
past. What the friends envision for Job is a future that is exactly like the
past, but even more so, so much more so, in fact, that the prospect of any
future is eradicated. They offer him a ‘futureless present.’
Eliphaz, in his first speech, describes this futureless present, saying,

8 Idem.
102 chapter three
[God] will deliver you from six troubles; in seven no harm shall touch you.
In famine he will redeem you from death, and in war from the power of
the sword. You shall be hidden from the scourge of the tongue, and shall
not fear destruction when it comes. At destruction and famine you shall
laugh, and shall not fear the wild animals of the earth. For you shall be in
league with the stones of the field, and the wild animals shall be at peace
with you. You shall know that your tent is safe, you shall inspect your fold
and miss nothing. You shall know that your descendants will be many, and
your offspring like the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in
ripe old age, as a shock of grain comes up to the threshing floor in its season.
(5:19–26)
Although it will be necessary for Job’s circumstances to undergo a change
before he can find himself living the life described by Eliphaz, the change
serves the prospect of stasis. What Eliphaz promises Job if he repents (5:8),
is a life unthreatened by change. Though wars may rage around him, his
protection will be guaranteed. Wild animals may stalk the earth, but they
will not touch him. He will be preserved no matter what dangers threaten.
Even death, which must eventually come to Job as a condition of his mor-
tality, is robbed of its sting. It comes not suddenly and without warning,
but when Job is ready for it. Nor does death cause the kind of change in
Job’s circumstances that it causes for the wicked, who, dying, are wiped
from the face of the earth and lost to memory.9 Rather, when Job comes to
die, he will know that his tent is safe (5:24) and that his descendants will
be many (5:25). What he has established will continue to exist as he estab-
lished it, even though he is no longer present. For Job, the final change of
death will not signal change so much as the continuation ad infinitum of
his well-ordered life.
In this passage Eliphaz makes clear that, in his view, the world-as-it-
ought-to-be is static. Any change which occurs within this world must
serve to bring about increased stability. Earlier in this speech, Eliphaz
has spoken about changes wrought by God who “does great things and
unsearchable, marvelous things without number” (5:9), such as, “he sets
on high those who are lowly, and those who mourn are lifted to safety”
(5:11) and “he wounds, but he binds up; he strikes, but his hands heal”
(5:18). Verse 18 may sound similar to Job’s claim of chapter 12 that God
“makes nations great, then destroys them” (12:23a), but it has one impor-
tant difference. In Eliphaz’s depiction, the wounding comes first, followed
by the binding up of the wound, whereas for Job it is the binding up that
9 See the discussion in the previous chapter, pages 62–64.

comes first, followed by the wounding. The sequence of God’s actions in

Job’s speech gives a sense of continuous upheaval. In Eliphaz’s speech, by
contrast, an elevated end follows a lowly beginning, and once a person
is lifted up, he stays where he is. Eliphaz’s description of the static life
Job will lead after he has sought and been recognized by God follows his
claim that God “wounds, but he binds up,” indicating that he is not talk-
ing about a vicious cycle of wounding and healing energized by a God
who is a force of constant change, but about change that leads to stasis.
In Eliphaz’s view, God’s goal for the world is stability, and those who are
righteous are enabled to inhabit God’s stable world, where nothing causes
change, not even death.
Zophar, in his first speech, presents a view of stasis and change that is
consonant with that held by Eliphaz. Zophar says to Job,
If you direct your heart rightly, you will stretch out your hands toward
him. . . . Surely then . . . you will be secure, and will not fear. You will forget
your misery; you will remember it as waters that have passed away. And
your life will be brighter than the noonday; its darkness will be like morning.
And you will have confidence, because there is hope; you will be protected
and take your rest in safety. You will lie down, and no one will make you
afraid. (11:13, 15–19a)
For Zophar, as for Eliphaz, change can happen within the ordered world,
but only if it serves to institute stasis. Job will undergo change of a sort as
he leaves behind his time of trouble, but he will emerge to occupy a space
of absolute stasis, and, with his troubles behind him, it will be as if both
they and the change required to deliver him from them never happened.
Just as Eliphaz envisions a life in which Job has nothing to fear from wars
or wild animals, so Zophar claims that Job will be protected from danger.
In addition, Job will be continuously surrounded by the light of noonday,
even when he is sleeping. Even a natural change, like the change from the
light of day to the darkness of night will be eternally suspended. Job, the
once-again righteous man, will have nothing to fear when he lies down,
because there is no prospect of change. The world he leaves when he goes
to sleep will be the world he finds when he wakes.
Zophar’s emphasis on the sleep of the righteous man inhabiting a sta-
ble cosmos recalls Job’s complaint of a few chapters earlier that even sleep
fails to grant him respite from his suffering. There, Job says,
When I say, “My bed will comfort me, my couch will ease my complaint,”
then you scare me with dreams and terrify me with visions, so that I would
choose strangling and death rather than this body. (7:13–15)
104 chapter three
Now, when Job lies down to sleep he does not know what the night will
bring; he hopes for comfort but often enough finds himself assailed by
nightmares. After his repentance, Zophar promises that the nights will
be predictable. They, like the days, will bring nothing Job does not expect
and welcome. Change may afflict others—those who dwell in the anti-
world—but Job, as a righteous man, will experience the world as static
and secure, as it ought to be.
Bildad, though he does not flesh out a vision of what the world will be
like after Job repents to the degree that Eliphaz and Zophar do, would
seem to agree with them that the world-as-it-ought-to-be is a static world.
As already noted above, he tells Job to “seek God and make supplication
to the Almighty” (8:5), just as Eliphaz and Zophar advise, an action that
will result in his restoration to his rightful place (8:6b), a reversal of what
has happened to him, not a change but an undoing of change. Bildad’s
agreement with Eliphaz and Zophar about the stasis of the ordered world
is most fully evidenced by his description of the world of the wicked as
fundamentally changeable, as will be seen below.
The Changeability of the Anti-world of the Wicked
All three friends present the lives of the wicked as marked by instability
and change. Eliphaz initiates this theme, saying,
I have seen fools taking root, but suddenly I cursed their dwelling. Their
children are far from safety, they are crushed in the gate, and there is no
one to deliver them. (5:3–4)
Here, Eliphaz describes himself as ensuring that the undeserving do not
benefit from stability. He is quick to curse a fool who seems to be ‘taking
root,’ that is, building for himself a stable life, and, because it is the lot
of fools and the wicked to lack stability, Eliphaz’s curse is immediately
effective. The change that affects the lives of fools and the wicked is in
marked contrast to the stability available to the righteous. Whereas the
righteous man, even after death, can be certain of the security of his tent
and his family, the fool has no control over what happens to his children
even during his lifetime.
In his first speech, Bildad confirms Eliphaz’s assessment of the instabil-
ity of the world as experienced by the wicked. He says,
Their confidence is gossamer, a spider’s house their trust. If one leans against
its house, it will not stand; if one lays hold of it, it will not endure. The
wicked thrive before the sun, and their shoots spread over the garden. . . . If
they are destroyed from their place, then it will deny them, saying, “I have
never seen you.” (8:15–16, 18)
Just as Eliphaz’s curse is effective against the ‘taking root’ of the fool, so
Bildad claims that any gentle pressure is enough to topple the seeming
security of the wicked. Moreover, the change in their circumstances is so
extreme that it is as if they never existed. Zophar, too, in his first speech,
after detailing the protection from change that is available to the righ-
teous man, offers the contrast of the changeable fate of the wicked man,
saying, “But the eyes of the wicked will fail; all way of escape will be lost
to them, and their last hope is to breathe their last” (11:20). Unlike the
righteous, the wicked have no way of planning or knowing what to expect
from a life which assaults them with random change.
Death as the Mark of the Supreme Changeability of the

Lives of the Wicked
In this verse (11:20), Zophar asserts that, for the wicked, death is the only
potential escape from the instability of life as they experience it. If the
wicked cannot count on life to provide a stable environment, they must
turn to death as the only realm of stability to which they have access. Yet,
although Zophar here presents death as a potentially stabilizing occur-
rence, for the most part the friends view death, as it comes to the wicked,
as evidence of the fundamental changeability of their lives. We have
already seen, in Eliphaz’s first speech, the depiction of the death of the
righteous man as a continuation of the stasis in which he has lived his life;
death does not disrupt the stability of his tent, for his line is guaranteed
to continue exactly as he left it, on into eternity. For the wicked, however,
death is a disruption, a final mark of change and changeability upon a life
lived in continuous flux.
Eliphaz, in his second speech, describes the ultimate change of death
that stalks the lives of the wicked, saying,
In prosperity the destroyer will come upon them. They despair of returning
from darkness, and they are destined for the sword. . . . They know that a day
of darkness is ready at hand; distress and anguish terrify them; they prevail
against them, like a king prepared for battle. . . . They will not be rich, and
their wealth will not endure, nor will they strike root in the earth; they will
not escape from darkness; the flame will dry up their shoots, and their blos-
som will be swept away by the wind. (15:21b–22, 24, 29–30)
106 chapter three
Eliphaz does not deny that the wicked may seem to prosper, just as they
may seem to be taking root and enjoying stable lives, but he insists that
this prosperity is fleeting. For the wicked man, death stands at the end of
life and, like the vortex of a whirlpool, sucks him toward its center so that
he cannot get his footing but can only grab at the rocky shore and hold on
for dear life until the pull overwhelms him and he is forced to let go.
Bildad’s second speech echoes Eliphaz’s words, but he describes the
changeability of the lives of the wicked as marked by the ultimate change
of death with even more fervor. His speech is a narration of continual
change: their “light . . . is put out” (18:5), “their strong steps are shortened”
(18:7), “they are thrust into a net” (18:8), “their strength is consumed by
hunger” (18:12), “they are torn from the tent in which they trusted” (18:14),
“they are thrust from light into darkness, and driven out of the world”
(18:18). As Bildad explains it, it is not that the wicked live continuously in a
state of darkness or weakness, but that they are caught in a downward spi-
ral, moving from light to darkness, from strength to weakness, from health
to disease, from freedom to captivity, and, finally, from life to death. In
this way, their lives are characterized by unending upheaval.
When it is again his turn to speak, Zophar concurs with his two friends,
describing at once the heights to which the wicked may climb and the
depths to which they are destined to fall. He says,
Even though they mount up high as the heavens, and their head reaches the
clouds, they will perish forever like their own dung. . . . Their bodies, once
full of youth, will lie down in the dust with them. . . . They swallow down
riches and vomit them up again. . . . Utter darkness is laid up for their trea-
sures. . . . The possessions of their house will be carried away, dragged off in
the day of God’s wrath. (20:6–7a, 11, 15a, 26a, 28)
The lives of the wicked as described by the friends are supremely change-
able, leading toward the final change of death, but there is, at the same
time, a constancy to this change that might be seen to lend it some sta-
bility. Can it be said that because the wicked can count on their lives
to change and can count on death to meet them in the end, their lives
may be conceptualized as static and not as fundamentally changeable? It
would be possible to make this argument. It would also be possible to say
that because in the end the wicked achieve stasis in death (which Zophar
hints at in his first speech), all the changes that beset them in life can be
seen as change in the service of stasis. I do not, however, think that this is
how the friends see it. Their intention is to contrast, in the most striking
terms possible, the changeability of the lives of the wicked with the stabil-
ity which characterizes the life of the righteous man.
Their point is that the world-as-it-ought-to-be is static. The righteous

man, who is man-as-he-ought-to-be both supports and benefits from the
stability of this world. The wicked man, who is man-as-he-ought-not-to-be
must necessarily live in the world-as-it-ought-not-to-be, which is a world
beset by instability and continuous change. The wicked man, as the friends
depict him, is like a man falling off a high cliff. There is nowhere for him to
go but down, and it is certain that he will eventually hit the bottom. Yet,
while he is falling, each moment brings a change from what came before.
His fall is inexorable and his death inevitable, but, at the same time, he
is in a state of profound change, especially when compared with the man
who is standing, not only on solid ground, but far from the edge of any
cliff and the potential for change it represents.
Of course, it is not only the wicked who die. Righteous men, too, must
meet death. The inevitability of death for righteous men might be seen to
give the lie to the friends’ claims that the righteous live in a world that is
static. In a sense, the righteous, no less than the wicked, are falling inexo-
rably from a cliff toward the inevitability of hitting bottom. Eliphaz, as we
have seen, does his best to distinguish the death of the righteous from the
death of the wicked. He claims that death comes to the righteous man only
when he is fully ready for it, and does not strike him down before his time,
as happens to the wicked man. He also claims that death does not annihi-
late the righteous man, who lives on in the continuation of his household,
as it does the wicked man, who, having died, is forgotten. At the same time,
however, Eliphaz is troubled by the mortality of the righteous man, recog-
nizing that his ability to live a stable life is compromised by his inability
to escape the change wrought by death. Mortality prevents even the most
righteous from participating fully in the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
The Spirit’s Message: Mortality as Unrighteousness
In his first speech, Eliphaz expresses this recognition by recounting it as

a message he has received in a nocturnal visitation from a spirit. Accord-
ing to the spirit messenger, the fact that all human beings die is proof of
their collective and unavoidable guilt. The spirit begins by asking, “Can
mortals be righteous before God?” (4:17). The word translated ‘mortals’ is
‫אנוׁש‬, which, though its plainest meaning is simply ‘human being,’ does
denote humans in their frailty and mortality. The spirit pairs ‫אנוׁש‬, ‘mor-
tals’ with ‫גבר‬, translated ‘human beings’ in the next line. ‫גבר‬, in its rela-
tion to the verb ‫גבר‬, meaning ‘to be mighty,’ connotes a mighty man. Yet,
108 chapter three
by beginning with the term ‘mortals,’ the spirit places the emphasis on
the mortality of human beings, robbing the ‫ גבר‬of any power he might
want to claim. The fact of their mortality is what marks human beings as
incapable of true righteousness. The spirit continues, telling Eliphaz that
if even the angels are capable of erring (4:18),
how much more so those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in
the dust, who are crushed like a moth. Between the morning and evening
they are destroyed; they perish forever without any regarding it. (4:19–20)
The spirit presents a scenario in which the changeability of the human
being, evidenced primarily by mortality, is reason enough for God’s disap-
proval. Human beings are not stable: they may be righteous one moment,
but they are dead and gone the next.
Not all scholars recognize that mortality is the issue here. Hartley, for
example, claims that the disparity between God and humans is based on
God’s absolute justice and purity, compared with which humans must
always be found lacking. He writes, “God being just and pure by nature,
wins every dispute, and each person, no matter how upright on earth, is
found guilty by comparison.”10 Other scholars, however, agree with the
assessment that it is mortality which distinguishes humans from God. Ter-
rien writes that Eliphaz “implies, consciously or not, that finiteness is con-
tiguous with moral corruption (vs. 19).11 Samuel Driver and George Gray,
too, see that the emphasis of the passage is on humanity’s
frailty and, hyperbolically, the brevity of human life: man is the creature of a
day, dying more quickly and easily than such a fragile insect as the moth.12
Eliphaz’s inclusion of the spirit’s message in his own speech is curious.
The spirit’s claim that humans have no access to righteousness because of
their mortality plainly contradicts the views Eliphaz expresses in the rest
of his first speech. Both before and after his recounting of the spirit’s mes-
sage, Eliphaz insists that humans, by being righteous, can access a degree
of stability that deprives even death of its ability to act as a force of change.
(“Think now, who that was innocent ever perished?” [4:7a] he asks Job.)
As Eliphaz sees it, humans can be righteous, and, by being righteous, can
10 Hartley, Job, 113.

11 Samuel Terrien, Job: Poet of Existence (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, 1957), 75.
12 Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, The Book of Job (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1921), 47.
participate in and inhabit a world that is static. According to the spirit,

however, humans cannot be righteous in the first place, precisely because
they are not so constituted as to be able to participate in stability. Instead
of righteousness leading to stability, as Eliphaz contends, the spirit insists
that humans’ lack of stability leads to their inability to be righteous.
Strangely, although the spirit’s words contradict Eliphaz’s own, Elip-
haz does not argue against them, but, instead, pretends that they support
his position. There are a number of reasons why he may have chosen to
do this. Perhaps Eliphaz’s contradictory words mean nothing more than
that he does not know his own position. Janzen suggests this possibility,
writing, “The fact is that persons often do entertain logically incompatible
views, which arise from the multifarious character of human experience.”13
It is possible, however, to view Eliphaz’s contradictory words as spoken
more deliberately. That Eliphaz has received such a visitation serves to
bolster his position as one competent to speak on God’s behalf. If Eliphaz
were to acknowledge that the spirit’s message challenges his own claims,
the benefit he is able to derive from having been visited by the spirit
would be annulled. Eliphaz cannot say, “I received a message from the
divine realm, which confers on me the status of one who has access to
divine wisdom” and follow it up with, “but I disagree with what the spirit
messenger told me.”
Another reason for including the spirit’s message and pretending that it
does not contradict his own speech is that it provides a kind of ‘safety net’
for Eliphaz’s argument against Job. Vawter describes Eliphaz’s repetition
of the spirit’s words as providing him with an “escape clause,” explaining,
“If there is a contradiction here, it is intentional. . . . [T]he built-in safe-
guard to the logic of Eliphaz is its inconsistency.”14 Eliphaz believes that
Job has sinned and that by repenting he will be restored to the position
rightfully enjoyed by the righteous. If, however, it turns out that Job has
not actually sinned, Eliphaz can fall back on the argument presented by
the spirit that humans are inherently unrighteous because they are mortal.
The one who is protected by this ‘safety net’ is God. In Eliphaz’s view, God
is justified in punishing a Job who has sinned, but if by chance Job has not
sinned, God’s actions must still be justified, and the spirit’s message allows
for this eventuality. Indeed, as the book continues, and Job continues to
insist upon his innocence, Eliphaz will make the spirit’s message his own,
13 Janzen, Job, 75.

14 Vawter, Job & Jonah, 53.
110 chapter three
relaying it not as reported speech but as his own belief about human life,
even as he simultaneously continues to claim that stability is accessible
to the righteous.
In his second speech, Eliphaz incorporates the spirit’s message into his
own, asking, “What are mortals [‫ ]אנושׁ‬that they can be clean? Or those
born of woman, that they can be righteous?” (15:14). At this point, though,
Eliphaz modifies the spirit’s message, continuing,
God puts no trust even in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his
sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, one who drinks
iniquity like water! (15:15–16)
In this formulation, it is not mortality that brands humans as unclean, but
their penchant for iniquity. The remainder of the speech is taken up with
Eliphaz’s description of the fate of the wicked, which is to be subject to
change and bound toward the ultimate change of death. Still, that Eliphaz
echoes the spirit’s language shows that he has not dismissed the spirit’s
position. He continues to use human mortality as the ‘safety net’ for his
accusations against Job. In his third speech, Eliphaz again references the
spirit’s message, asking,
Can a mortal be of use to God? Can even the wisest be of service to him?
Is it any pleasure to the Almighty if you are righteous, or is it gain to him if
you make your ways blameless? (22:2–3)
Once again, the gulf of mortality is what separates human beings from
God and prevents them from being truly righteous; humans’ best efforts
at righteousness mean nothing to God because they can only ever be
approximations.
Having said this, however, Eliphaz goes on to deny the implications of
these claims. He follows these questions, almost in the same breath, with
questions that presuppose an entirely different view of the human capac-
ity for righteousness. He asks,
Is it for your piety that he reproves you, and enters into judgment with you?
Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities. (22:4–5)
Job is punished, Eliphaz contends, not for the general sin of being mortal,
something over which he has no control, but for the commission of spe-
cific sins, which Eliphaz details in verses 6–9. Although Eliphaz makes use
of the spirit’s message, he never sits completely easy with it. He acknowl-
edges that death is problematic for all humans, but is quick to temper and
obscure this acknowledgment. Although the mark of change may be on
everyone, it is more evident on the brow of the wicked, whereas, on the
brow of the righteous man it is so faint as to be almost invisible. In his

third speech as in his first, Eliphaz urges Job to repent and promises that
if he does so he will find himself living in a world unthreatened by change
and over which he has control: “You will decide on a matter, and it will be
established for you, and light will shine on your ways” (22:28).
It is, in fact, Bildad, in his final speech, who most fully embraces the
idea that mortality is the sign that humans are hopelessly changeable.
Bildad’s third speech is short and Zophar’s third speech, which ought to
follow it to complete the cycle, is absent. It is as if Bildad, finding that Job
has continued to reject the friends’ admonitions to repent, preferring to
insist on his innocence, has pulled the safety brake. He cuts the discus-
sion short by calling in the spirit’s message without qualification, in the
light of which Job’s argument that he has not sinned is made irrelevant.
Bildad says,
How then can a mortal [‫ ]אנוׁש‬be righteous before God? How can one born
of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure
in his sight, how much less a mortal [‫ ]אנוׁש‬who is a maggot, and a human
being [‫ ]בן אדם‬who is a worm! (25:4–6)
Although the dichotomy drawn between humans and God here seems to
be based on size and not on life-expectancy, Bildad’s initial identification
of human beings as ‘mortal’ and his repetition of this designation shows
that human mortality is as much at stake as human smallness. For Bildad,
God is as justified in crushing a human as a human is in crushing a worm.
Humans have the right to crush worms not just because they are relatively
small in size, but because their natural lives are so short as to be hardly
worth considering. The same goes for God who crushes a human being.
In the scheme of time as it appears from God’s perspective, the human’s
life has hardly been cut short at all. Of course, Bildad’s description of how
humans appear to God is concerned not only with human smallness and
mortality, but also with human impurity. The human is described not as
some kind of noble insect, like the industrious ant, for example, but as the
most ignoble, a maggot and a worm. This impurity, though, can be seen
to stem from human mortality, because this is how the spirit presents it
in his nocturnal visitation and Bildad is clearly picking up on what the
spirit has been reported to say. Moreover, Bildad chooses to liken human
beings to maggots and worms because these are creatures associated with
the grave and, therefore, with mortality. The human, like the maggot, is
a creature of the grave. Both humans and worms have life for only the
briefest moment, and it is on this basis that humans share the worms’
112 chapter three
impurity. For Eliphaz, as he reports the spirit’s message and tempers it

to incorporate it into his own, and for Bildad, as he accepts the spirit’s
message wholeheartedly and speaks it as his own word, it is their mortal-
ity which prevents humans from participating in or contributing to the
world-as-it-ought-to-be, which is a stable, static world. As such, God is
fully justified when he chooses to punish them, regardless of how they
have behaved.
I have written above that Eliphaz’s inclusion of the spirit’s message in
his own speech should be seen as serving deliberate aims and not merely
as an indication of confusion or uncertainty on his part. I want to modify
this claim somewhat. I do not doubt that Eliphaz’s appropriation of the
spirit’s message is deliberate. He must know that the spirit’s claims con-
tradict his own deeply held convictions. He must also know, therefore, at
least at some level, that his use of the spirit’s message is not entirely hon-
est. Despite this, he reports the spirit’s message and adopts it, to a degree,
as his own, because it serves his purposes to do so. How, though, has he
come to have such purposes? What has happened to Eliphaz to make him
adopt such a dishonest stance? Job’s suffering has happened to him. It is
not usual for scholars to comment on the effect of Job’s suffering on his
friends, beyond their initial response in 2:12–13,15 unless to say, as Donal
O’Connor does, “It was only when they broke their silence that they failed
as comforters,”16 assessing the friends’ response in the rest of the book as
evidencing their failure as friends. This failure, though, is not caused by
a lack of compassion. The friends have compassion in spades in 2:11–13.
If they lack something, for the lack of which they can be blamed, it must
be imagination. They cannot make sense of Job’s suffering except within
a certain paradigm, and so they make it fit that paradigm—by hook or by
crook—even if it does not really fit, and, in so doing, prove false to Job,
choosing ideals over the individual.
This, though, is still not entirely correct. Can we really accuse Eliphaz,
in his use of the spirit’s message, of demonstrating a lack of imagination?
Surely, we must see that this a bold, imaginative move. Almost from the
outset, Eliphaz is conceding that he cannot make sense of Job’s suffering
using the usual paradigm. He continues to try, because he really believes it
to be true, but, at the same time, he introduces a completely contradictory
15 See pages 57–59 of this book.

16 Donal O’Connor, Job: his wife, his friends, and his God (Dublin: The Columba Press,
1995), 130.
possible cause. Does he believe this alternate possibility to be true? How

could he, when it so completely contradicts the other beliefs to which he
clings? At the same time, he does acknowledge it as a possibility. Job’s
suffering throws Eliphaz into a state of deep confusion. He has reasons
for adopting the spirit’s message, but those reasons are rooted in an inner
turmoil. Eliphaz cannot make sense of Job’s suffering. The fact of it over-
whelms him. Nevertheless, he tries to cope with it. He has to cope with it,
just as Job must. Job responds, in chapter 3, with a curse and the impos-
sible wish to have never been born.17 Eliphaz responds by trying to affirm
contradictory claims. Under normal circumstances, Eliphaz has a neat
way of reconciling the change brought upon all mortals by death with
the fact that the world-as-it-ought-to-be is static and stable: the righteous
man dies only when he is ready, that is, when he has arranged his house
and his line to continue bearing his presence in the world into the future.
Faced with Job’s imminent death, however, death is unmasked for Elip-
haz in all its destabilizing power. Job is not ready. His house has been
destroyed, his line wiped out. This would be acceptable if he were one of
the wicked, but, as discussed in the previous chapter, Job is not one of the
wicked, whatever he may have done. For Eliphaz, Job is ‘one of us,’ and his
impending death can only mean that the world is not as-it-ought-to-be.
If this is the case, we might wonder why Eliphaz does not join with Job
in calling God to reinstate the world-as-it-ought-to-be, instead of accus-
ing Job of wickedness. If Eliphaz experiences the world-as-it-ought-to-be
as undone by Job’s suffering, in the same way that Job does, Eliphaz, too,
has a complaint to bring against God, who has caused this calamity. Here,
though, is the crux of the matter: Eliphaz does not view God as respon-
sible for Job’s suffering and the breakdown of the world-as-it-ought-to-be
evidenced by Job’s imminent death; he sees Job as the guilty party. Job, by
sinning—for he must have sinned—has brought suffering upon himself.
And yet, Job is one of the righteous. Sinning, he calls down the penalty of
sin upon himself, which is to inhabit the anti-world, the world-as-it-ought-
not-to-be, but, as one of the righteous, he cannot inhabit that world, for
he belongs in the world-as-it-ought-to-be. As such, his sin turns the world-
as-it-ought-to-be into the anti-world, making what ought to be static and
stable unstable and fraught with change. This is why it is so essential
for Job to repent. Only by repenting can Job, who has turned the world
upside-down, make things right again. The onus is on Job, not God.
17 I will discuss Job’s chapter 3 ‘birthday curse’ in chapter 5 of this book.
114 chapter three
Does Eliphaz suspect from the beginning that Job will refuse to do
what is required—that is, to repent? He must, otherwise why introduce
the spirit’s message, with its obvious contradiction to the repentance
option? Job’s suffering is, in fact, doubly problematic for the friends. If
he has sinned and thereby incurred the related punishment, the world
is not as-it-ought-to-be, for Job is one of the righteous. If, however, Job is
innocent, the world is also not as-it-ought-to-be, for innocence does not
merit punishment. The spirit’s message solves this problem, for it renders
Job’s suffering irrelevant to his innocence or guilt. He suffers because he
is mortal; to be mortal is to merit suffering, however else one may be
characterized. At the same time, however, the spirit’s message, even as it
seems to solve the problem of Job’s suffering, is itself problematic. For, if
the spirit’s message is true, the world is most emphatically not as-it-ought-
to-be; all of the friends’ beliefs about that world are struck down and they
find themselves inhabiting a different world altogether, one which they
can hardly accept.
Eliphaz’s belief in the stability of the world-as-it-ought-to-be is troubled
by Job’s suffering, which brings death home to him as a force of inexorable
change that acts on righteous and wicked alike. Eliphaz is sent into a tail-
spin by this recognition, and he makes incompatible claims in order to
try to deal with it. His self-contradiction indicates that he does not really
know what to say in response to Job’s suffering and impending death.
The same can be said of the other friends. Moreover, if Bildad, in fully
embracing the spirit’s claims (ch. 25) has pulled the emergency cord, hop-
ing to put an end to Job’s arguments against God, he has failed. Job is
not silenced by Bildad’s last-ditch argument, but launches into his longest
speech yet. The ones who are silenced by Bildad’s emergency speech are,
in fact, the friends. Zophar does not give a third speech, nor does Eliphaz
begin a new cycle. Eliphaz has toyed with the view of the relationship
between humans and God presented by the spirit, but when Bildad claims
those views as his own and, by extension, those of his friends, all three are
reduced to silence.18 Not only are Job’s claims of innocence invalidated by
the spirit, but the friends’ own beliefs about the importance of righteous-
18 Some scholars attempt to make sense of the incompleteness of the third cycle of
speeches by arguing that the text has become disarranged. Clines, for example, identifies
Job’s chapter 27 speech as Zophar’s missing third speech. Clines, Job 1–20, 629. It seems
to me, though, that my explanation above makes better sense. Zophar is prevented from
speaking, not because the text has been corrupted, but because Bildad has effectively
ended the discussion before Zophar has had a chance to make his third response.
ness are negated. Job can go on speaking because he has ceased to put
any stock in what the friends say. The friends themselves, however, are
struck dumb by their espousal of the spirit’s pronouncements; they may
not believe in the spirit’s claims, but they cannot argue against them if
they hope to use them to convince Job—and themselves—of the justice
of his suffering.
Job and the Problem(s) of Human Mortality
Job, too, although he never adopts the spirit’s message, is deeply distressed
by his mortality, recognizing that it constrains his ability to interact with
God. Although in his speeches he sometimes wishes for death as an escape
from his suffering, most of the time he sees death as problematic for one
who desires to prove his righteousness. In chapter 9, he laments,
My days are swifter than a runner; they flee away, they see no good. They go
by like skiffs of reed, like an eagle swooping on the prey. If I say, “I will forget
my complaint; I will put off my sad countenance and be of good cheer,” I
become afraid of all my suffering, for I know you will not hold me inno-
cent. . . . For he is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we
should come to trial together. . . . If he would take his rod away from me,
and not let dread of him terrify me, then I would speak without fear of him.
(9:25–28, 32, 34–35a)
Here, although it is ostensibly God’s overwhelming power which prevents
Job from addressing him as an equal, that power is linked to God’s immor-
tality, as contrasted with Job’s mortality. Job does not agree with the spirit
that mortality equals guilt, but he does agree that his mortality prevents
God from seeing his innocence, not because there is anything inherently
wrong with being mortal, but because of the gap that exists between God’s
experience of temporal existence (or lack thereof ) and how humans, as
mortals, experience time.
In chapter 7, Job has already spoken of his mortality with regard to
God’s immortality, saying, “Remember that my life is a breath. . . . [W]hile
your eyes are upon me, I shall be gone” (7:7a, 8b), and “What are human
beings that you make so much of them . . . ? . . . For now I shall lie in the
earth; you will seek me, but I shall not be” (7:17a, 21b). In this same chapter,
Job cites his mortality as the reason for his unwillingness to restrain his
complaint against God. Having reminded God that his life is a breath, Job
goes on to say, “Therefore I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the
anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul” (7:11). Job
116 chapter three
has no patience because, as a mortal, he is subject to the ultimate change

brought on by death. In making this assertion, Job inadvertently confirms
what the spirit has said about human beings. Job’s mortality makes him
unreliable; he changes before the eyes of those who behold him, and it
is his knowledge of his inherent instability that loosens his tongue. After
all, what does he have to lose by speaking out against God when in the
end he will lose everything, no matter what he does? Although in this
way, Job confirms the spirit’s assertion about the link between mortality
and unrighteousness, he also uses the fact of his mortality as the grounds
by which to bring his accusation against God. The spirit messenger has
claimed that no human being, as a condition of mortality, can be righ-
teous before God, giving God the right to bring calamity upon any human
being he chooses. Job, though, asks why God should concern himself with
such lowly creatures. Human beings live a short while and then they die.
Because of this, Job contends, God ought to let them be. Mortality, far
from singling human beings out for punishment, ought to absolve them,
in Job’s view. What does it matter to the eternal God what a creature who
is here today and gone tomorrow does? Whatever that creature is doing
will swiftly be cut short, without any need for God to intervene. As Job
sees it, then, human mortality does not give God carte blanche in his deal-
ings with human beings, as the spirit asserts, but, rather ought to block
God from any mistreatment of them.
In chapters 7 and 9 Job approaches the problem of his mortality in
different ways. In chapter 7 he presents his mortality to God as a kind of
‘pass,’ which ought to excuse him from God’s scrutiny: God has no right
to torment one whose days are so brief and fleeting. Here, Job also uses
his mortality as his justification for speaking out against God; his impend-
ing and unavoidable death gives him the power to condemn God, for the
worst that God can do to him is already his certain end. In chapter 9, by
contrast, it is his mortality that Job cites as preventing him from attract-
ing God’s attention in the way he would like to attract it. He does not
contradict what he has said in chapter 7, but reflects on his situation from
another angle. If, in chapter 7, he claimed that his mortality empowered
him to speak out against God, in chapter 9 he recognizes that his mor-
tality prevents him from being heard by God. He may speak out all he
wants, but God will not hear because he does not view Job as an equal.
In neither chapter does Job view mortality as a boon, or even as a neutral
human characteristic. Even when he is being empowered by the thought
of the unavoidability of death, Job views his mortality negatively. If he
were not mortal, it would not be necessary for him to make accusations
against God, for he would be able to bear God’s punishment in the knowl-
edge that he will live to see better days. It is his mortality that makes it
necessary for him to turn against the God who has turned against him; it
is his mortality that necessitates a change in his attitude toward God and
prevents him from remaining the same as he always was.
In chapter 10, Job again brings up the issue of human mortality, but
this time instead of wishing that he and God were on an equal footing,
which would be possible if they had mortality in common, as he has done
in chapter 9, here Job accuses God of behaving toward him as a mortal
would behave. Job asks,
Are your days like the days of mortals, or your years like human years, that
you seek out my iniquity and search for my sin, although you know that I
am not guilty . . . ? (10:5–7a)
Here, as in chapter 7, Job criticizes God for his watching of human beings,
but, whereas in that chapter God was depicted as looking down from the
lofty heights of his immortality, Job now accuses God of engaging in a
kind of game of macabre make-believe, in which he pretends that he is
mortal and subject to the limits that characterize the lives of mortals. “Do
you have eyes of flesh?” Job asks. “Do you see as humans see?” (10:4). God
has access to full knowledge in ways that humans, because of their mor-
tality, do not. For him to seek out Job’s iniquity and declare him guilty is a
piece of playacting. God made Job, as Job goes on to detail, and so knows
him through and through, and has no business making the kind of mis-
taken judgment a mortal human might make; to pretend that he knows
no better is a lie. Although previously Job has affirmed certain aspects
of the spirit’s message that it is the gap between God’s immortality and
human mortality that makes all humans sinners, here he contradicts that
claim. If God views him as sinful, it is because God isn’t acting like God,
like the immortal one who created Job with his own hands, but is behav-
ing like a mortal. Here, as elsewhere in Job’s speeches, to be mortal is to
be compromised, unable to participate in the stability that marks true
order. By abandoning his rightful stability for the changeable position of
the mortal, God undermines the order of the world-as-it-ought-to-be and
creates the anti-world in its place.
In chapter 14 Job returns to the problem of human mortality, repeat-
ing his claim of chapters 7 and 10 that God has no right to watch one
whose life is as brief as Job’s own. Here, though, Job’s tone seems mourn-
ful, where previously it had been sharply accusatory. Job says,
118 chapter three
A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble, comes up like a
flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last. Do you fix your
eyes on such a one? Do you bring me into judgment with you? . . . Since their
days are determined, and the number of their months is known to you, and
you have appointed the bounds that they cannot pass, look away from them
and desist. (14:1–3, 5–6a)
Because of their mortality, Job insists, humans must live by different terms
than God does and must be subject to a different judgment. In the middle
of this speech, Job asks, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”
and answers, “No one can” (14:4). Here he is agreeing with the spirit that
humans, because of their mortality, are inherently unclean. Mortality
is a deep flaw in the human makeup and renders humans incapable of
true righteousness. Yet, where the spirit accords God the right to punish
humans because of this inherent flaw, Job once again cites this unavoid-
able imperfection as the reason why God should “look away . . . and desist,”
going so far as to point out that it is God who is responsible for creat-
ing humans as they are in the first place. Job reminds God that if he has
appointed the bounds beyond which humans cannot pass, he has no right
to blame them for their inability to transcend those boundaries.
Continuing his speech, although Job has previously compared the brev-
ity of human life to that of a plant, which grows and withers in quick
succession (14:2), Job now contrasts human mortality with the relative
immortality of a tree which,
though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground . . . at
the scent of water . . . will bud and put forth branches like a young plant.
(14:8–9)
If Job regards the world-as-it-ought-to-be as unchanging, we might be
surprised to find that he favors the life-cycle of a tree, which dies and
is reborn, over that of a human being, who lives and then dies and is no
more. The tree would seem to have the more changeable existence, as it
moves back and forth between life and death. Yet, the tree which dies
does not experience death as a complete change in its circumstances; its
death possesses the promise of possible future life, making death into a
phase of life. The tree continues to exist and is not eradicated by death,
and, therefore, does participate in the stasis of the rightly-ordered world.
Humans, by contrast, experience death as the ultimate change; their death
is wholly different from life because there is no spark of future life in it.
Craving a more stable existence, Job wishes that human life were like
plant life, saying to God,
O that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your
wrath is past, and that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!
If mortals die, will they live again? All the days of my service I would wait
until my release should come. You would call, and I would answer you; you
would long for the work of your hands. (14:13–15)
The desire Job expresses here kills two birds with one stone. First, Job
envisions a time when God will have changed his mind about how to treat
him, when “my transgressions would be sealed up in a bag, and you would
cover over my iniquity” (14:17). Despite his reference to “my transgressions”
and “my iniquity,” Job believes that it is not he who needs to repent, but
God. Hidden in Sheol, Job would be able to wait out the time of God’s
wrath, and would reemerge after God had realized that his affliction of
Job was misguided. Secondly, the ability to move between the world of the
dead and the world of the living, like a plant does, would remove from Job
the stigma of mortality. Job would no longer be guilty simply because he is
a human being whose life is bounded by death. Emerging from Sheol, Job
would find God waiting to befriend him, not only because his misguided
anger has been appeased, but because the one thing that could possibly
mark Job as guilty has been removed. Immortal, Job would be cleared of
whatever guilt inheres in mortality.
As the chapter continues, however, Job rejects the possibility of an
incubation period in Sheol. For him, death remains the mark of the fun-
damental changeability of human life. Job compares human changeability
to that of a mountain, saying,
But the mountain falls and crumbles away, and the rock is removed from
its place; the waters wear away the stones; the torrents wash away the soil
of the earth, so you destroy the hope of mortals. You prevail forever against
them, and they pass away. (14:18–20a)
The comparison is somewhat odd. Previously, Job has compared human
life to that of a plant, pointing out the fleeting existence of both (14:1–2).
A mountain does not share this ephemerality. In fact, compared with the
life spans of humans and flowers, mountains would seem to be immor-
tal; any given mountain ‘lives’ far longer than any human or any plant.
Yet, as we have seen, Job has changed his mind about the lives of plants.
They may seem brief and fleeting, but because of the plant’s potential
for regeneration, are not. The plant only seems to die, but really goes on
living. The mountain, whose ‘life’ cannot be considered fleeting is, never-
theless, similar to a human being: both experience real change. The plant
does not actually cease to exist, but both mountains and human beings
120 chapter three
e xperience irreversible change, leading up to the final change that wipes

them from the face of the earth, either through death or erosion. Nei-
ther mountains nor human beings have any claim to stability; both are
thoroughly changeable. Although this means that humans and mountains
cannot participate fully in the world-as-it-ought-to-be, Job continues to lay
the blame for this with God—“You prevail forever against them, and they
pass away” (14:20a). It is through no fault of their own that humans and
mountains are changeable entities. If there is a fault—and Job believes
there is—then it is God who is responsible, for, in creating humans and
mountains and the forces that act upon them in the way that he has, God
has introduced change into what ought to be a stable cosmos.
The World According to God: The Stable Foundation of the Earth
When God speaks from the whirlwind, his initial questions to Job depict
his creation as a stable place. God asks,
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? . . . Who deter-
mined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon
it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morn-
ing stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? Or who
shut in the sea with doors . . . and set bars and doors, and said, “Thus far shall
you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped”?
Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the
dawn to know its place . . . ? (38:4a, 5–8a, 10b–12)
Contrary to Job’s accusations that God has acted as an agent of change in
the world, God here presents himself as the establisher of stability. Where
Job has brought the charge against God that he “shakes the earth out of
its place, and its pillars tremble; [he] commands the sun, and it does not
rise; [he] seals up the stars” (9:6–7), God counters by insisting that he is,
instead, responsible for setting the earth in its place and for commanding
the sun to rise on a daily basis. God does mention change in this first sec-
tion of his speech, but it is change that occurs as part of a regularly recur-
ring cycle. With each dawn, the earth “is changed like clay under the seal,
and it is dyed like a garment” (38:14), but, presumably, every evening the
earth changes back to its old color, only to change again with the dawn
to the color it was the previous dawn. This is not the kind of change that
Job has accused God of instigating; instead, this is change which happens
within stasis, and which, indeed, is a mark that stability prevails.
The rest of God’s words do not primarily address the question of
whether the world is or ought to be static or changeable, but instead focus
on presenting the world as a complex place, filled with a multiplicity of

creatures, as discussed in the previous chapter. Yet, when God shows Job
that each creature has its appointed place in the world, he does seem to
be describing a stable, static world. The wild ass, for example, has been
“given the steppe for its home” (39:6a), and the eagle “lives on the rock
and makes its home in the fastness of the rocky crag” (39:28). God cau-
tions against trying to make any creature live where it does not belong.
The wild ass cannot be made to live in the city or to pull a cart for a driver
(39:7), neither can the wild ox be made to live on a farm and pull the plow
(39:9–12); efforts to force a creature to occupy a place other than that
ordained for it by God will be futile.
The world is, therefore, like a kind of zoo19 (created, perhaps, for God’s
viewing pleasure), in which a great variety of creatures live in pens or
cages (albeit invisible ones), separate from each other and never cross-
ing boundaries in such a way as to affect any change. The wild ass’s cage
is the steppe, and the boundary which it will not cross is marked by the
borders of the town. Likewise, the sea is contained by the shore, which
acts as the boundary which it cannot cross. Things happen in this world,
of course, but they happen within set boundaries which their happening
does not disrupt. Deer give birth (39:1–4), the wild ass “ranges the moun-
tains . . . and searches after every green thing” (39:8), “the hawk soars, and
spreads its wings towards the south” (39:26). To this list, we might add,
from Job’s own vision of the static world-as-it-ought-to-be, Job “sits as
chief and . . . lives like a king among his troops” (29:25).
Yet, the fact is that Job does not currently occupy this position. Instead,
“Terrors are turned upon me; my honor is pursued as by the wind, and
my prosperity has passed away like a cloud” (30:15). Job has undergone
profound changes in his circumstances, even though he himself has
not changed and has sworn that whatever befalls him in life he will not
change. If God is presenting the world-as-it-ought-to-be as static, then Job
is in agreement with him. If, however, God is presenting the world as it
is as static, then Job must beg to differ. Since there is nothing in God’s
speeches to indicate that the world he is describing is not the world as
19 Terence Fretheim writes that, answering Job, “God does not take Job into the temple
or into the depths of his own soul. . . . God takes him to the zoo, or better, out to ‘where
the wild things are.’ ” Terence E. Fretheim, “God in the Book of Job,” Currents in Theology
and Mission 26 no 2 (1999): 89. Yet, there is a great difference between animals in a zoo
and animals in their natural habitat; ‘zoo’ and ‘where the wild things are’ do not describe
the same thing, even different degrees of the same thing. As I will show below, ‘zoo’ is the
wrong term altogether for what God shows Job.
122 chapter three
it currently is, it seems clear that God’s depiction encompasses both the
world-as-it-ought-to-be and the world as it is, and that, indeed, God does
not draw a distinction between the two, but speaks only of one world: the
world that he created.
Is God’s message to Job, then, something like, “You’re wrong in suppos-
ing that you’re beset by change, because the world I created is static”?—
as it seems to be when he recalls the founding of the earth—or, if we go
deeper into God’s speeches, do we find him to say, “The world-as-it-ought-
to-be is not static but changeable”? It seems to me that this latter alterna-
tive is what we find. If this is the case, then God can be seen to recognize
the changes that have affected Job, instead of denying the existence of
change in his creation, while at the same time insisting that these changes
are not indicative of the breakdown of the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
God’s Changeable World
We have a hint that God is describing the world as changeable when he

asks Job,
Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunder-
bolt, to bring rain on a land where no one lives, on the desert, which is
empty of human life, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the
ground put forth grass? (38:25–27)
Though stated in terms of fructifying, rather than its reverse, what God is
describing is essentially the same kind of change that Job accuses him of
causing when he claims that God “removes mountains, and . . . shakes the
earth out of its place” (9:5a, 6a) and “makes nations great, then destroys
them” (12:23a). Job accuses God of both building up and tearing down,
though his emphasis is certainly on the tearing down. It is the changes
wrought by destruction, not creation, of which Job accuses God. Still, in
the topsy-turvy world that Job describes as reality, albeit one that should
not be, God is the agent of change who both raises up and casts down,
and for God to admit to one side of the equation is certainly significant.
Due to God’s action, the land that was a desert is changed into fertile
grassland. The use of the term ‘waste’ further links this passage to Job’s
chapter 12 accusation, and serves as an answer of sorts.20 Those who were
20 Admittedly, the Hebrew words translated ‘waste’ are not the same in both passages.
In 12:24, the word is ‫תהו‬, while in 38:27 it is ‫שׁאה‬. Whereas ‫ תהו‬has overtones which link
once great have been made to wander in a pathless waste, Job charges.
God does not deny that this is so, but does show that in the world as he
has created it the wasteland can put forth grass; it need not necessarily
remain a wasteland, but can change into fertile ground. That is to say,
something else might happen.
Job, despite accusing God of being an agent of change, has viewed that
change as cyclical to the degree that it becomes static, though Job does not
seem to recognize that this is the case. He says, essentially, “God builds up,
then God tears down, then God builds up, then tears down, and on and on
ad infinitum.” In these verses, read as a response to Job’s accusation, God
does not deny that change happens or that he is responsible for its hap-
pening, but he does reject Job’s pronouncement that all change is cyclical
and, therefore, predictable. These verses present a world that is, actually,
more changeable, than the world presented by Job in chapter 12. What
happens is what is not foreseen. Those who have entered the wasteland
may not find their way out of it, but the wasteland may change in such a
way that they are able to survive there.
Of course, it is easy to read these verses (38:25–27) as a positive assess-
ment of the changeability of creation as that which allows for hope. We
might react quite differently if this passage were slanted the same way
as Job’s accusations of chapters 9 and 12. If God had said, instead, “Who
has withheld the rain from the fertile ground where all the people live
so the land becomes a desert which can no longer support them?” we
might find ourselves exclaiming, along with Job, that God ruins everything
that seems established for good. Yet, even though the passage describes
a positive change and not a negative one, its view of the world is not
that of the Disneyland happy ending. The new fertility of the desolate
land does not preclude once fertile land from becoming desolate; that is,
it does not prevent other changes from happening, even negative ones.
More significant to the import of the passage, though, is that it talks about
God bestowing the gift of fertilizing rain “on a land where no one lives,
on the desert, which is empty of human life” (38:26). From the immediate
it to the pre-creation void, ‫ שׁאה‬connotes land upon which disaster has come and which,
consequently, has been laid waste. It is used in Isaiah 47:11, for example, and translated
‘ruin’ in the NRSV: “ruin shall come on you suddenly.” It might be argued that the ‫ שׁאה‬of
38:27 is a more thoroughly wasted land than is the ‫ תהו‬of 12:24, but it is hard to say. What
can be stated more definitively is that ‫ ׁשאה‬is a more concrete term. It relates to actual,
physical land. ‫תהו‬, on the other hand, has a more metaphorical ring. God is speaking
about actual land, whereas Job is speaking metaphorically.
124 chapter three
human perspective, the change that occurs in the desert, though it may
be positive, is of no benefit to anyone. God does not depict himself fer-
tilizing the land where humans live, but the place from which they are
absent. This is certainly jarring. It is a Disney movie gone askew, in which
it is not Cinderella who weds the prince, indicating that all is right with
the world, nor one of her sisters, indicating that all is wrong, but another
person altogether, someone we have never even seen, indicating that all
is neither right nor wrong, but weird. In the same way, God does not tell
Job that he improves the lot of the righteous, nor that he improves the lot
of the wicked, but that he improves the lot of the land where no one lives,
some land Job has never even seen.
Is this passage, then, only about multiplicity and not about change? Is
its only message that, like the wild ox, who is valued by God despite his
unwillingness to serve humans, so the wasteland is valued, despite the fact
that no human lives there. I do not think so. A change is clearly described:
the land is first desolate and then it becomes fertile. What needs to be
asked is what happens to the desolate wasteland after it has been rained
on and has put forth grass. Does it change once, and afterwards stay the
same? Is this a case of change which occurs in the service of stasis, the sort
of change of which Job and his friends approve? Having been rained upon,
does the land remain as it was with the exception that, where once it was
barren, now it is covered with vegetation? Does it remain a place empty of
human—and other—life, or do creatures which did not live there before
start finding their way in? Do humans find their way there, so that the
place can no longer be described as “a land where no one (‫ )לא איׁש‬lives”?
It seems possible and, given the fact that human civilization tends to go
where the water is, likely. Is this what God intends? Does God foresee this
occurrence? It should not, of course, be said that God sends the rain on
the desolate ground so that humans can move in and inhabit it. To make
this claim would change the whole import of the passage, making the rain
on the desolate ground not a sign of God’s valuation of what is other-than-
human, but of what is only human. That the passage should not be read
this way is shown by the worth God accords the other-than-human in the
rest of his speeches.
At the same time, I do not think it should be claimed that God, hav-
ing bestowed fertility on the desert, would view the incursion of humans
and other animals as an invasion of beings who should have stayed in
their own places. For God to view the movement of humans and others
in this way is for him to take a static view of the created world, to view it
as a kind of zoo. If the world is a zoo, then I have been wrong to identify
this passage as evidence of the changeability of the world. The rain in

the desert must be viewed, instead, as something that happens within
established boundaries which are not transgressed, just like the deer giv-
ing birth in the wild or the wild ass roaming the steppe. It is change, but
so limited that it does not reveal the world as changeable and God as open
to change. I do think, though, that the passage is about the changeability
of the world and God’s approval of such a world. The desolate ground
bringing forth grass is not the same kind of happening as a mountain goat
giving birth or a hawk soaring towards the south. Such things are happen-
ings, but they are not changes. The desert becoming fertile ground is a
change, and that this change is approved by God is indicated by his claim
of responsibility for it. If God has created a world where change is pos-
sible it cannot be that God is open to one change but would view others
as marring his creation.21 Rather, if it is good for desolate land to become
21 This logic is somewhat flawed. Of course it is possible to be open to one change and
not to another. I may welcome the change involved in winning the lottery while ruing the
change that comes from breaking my leg. Yet, in the case discussed above, it does seem to
me that God’s openness to changing the desert to fertile ground indicates his openness to
other changes, such as empty land becoming populated. But what support is there for this
claim? Is it anything more than a hunch? I base my claim on the nature of the change and
the context in which it is described. If God were speaking of change in the service of stasis,
his words would not surprise Job. Making the desert into fertile, habitable land, which
will remain fertile and habitable ever after, is what is expected of God. Robert Leal points
out that “Several of the prophetic books, notably Isaiah and Ezekiel, contain extended
visions of an ideal situation to follow the judgment, reconciliation and salvation of God’s
people. . . . [These visions] tend to exclude the natural aspects of wilderness and transform
them into features that are more conducive to human (and divine) comfort.” Robert Barry
Leal, “Negativity Towards Wilderness in the Biblical Record,” Ecotheology 10 no 3 (2005):
372. In Isaiah 40:3–4, for example, the prophet presents a vision of the future making-right
of the world which involves the transformation of the wilderness into land easily traversed
by humans. Indeed, it is possible to read God’s question in Job 38:25–27 as making the
same kind of claim. God is telling Job that he is the one who makes the chaotic wasteland
into ordered land that can be used by humans. Leal reads the verse this way, writing, “This
view of wilderness as essentially chaotic is pursued further in Job through the depiction of
God as being victorious in his battle against chaos. God alone is able ‘to satisfy the waste
and desolate land, and to make the ground put forth grass’ (Job 38.27). In this sense God’s
victory over chaos is associated in Job, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, with the com-
ing of rain and fertility.” Ibid., 374. Yet, the fact is that God does not present the wilder-
ness in a negative light in his Joban speeches. Rather, the wilderness and the ‘wild things’
which live there are depicted as the recipients of his special care. God’s sending rain on
the desolate land is described not as a battle against chaos, but as God’s care for the land
itself. The land is not conquered by God’s activity, but satisfied. That this is God’s attitude
is what surprises Job. But how does this lead to the idea that God is open to change in the
world? If God quenches the thirst of the desolate ground and does not do so for the sake
of humans, so that they may find the desert a more hospitable environment, wouldn’t it
follow that God would want to keep the wilderness free from human life? Having achieved
126 chapter three
fertile, it must also be good for human beings and other creatures to move
into land that was once unoccupied. The first change begets the second,
and so on. Here, the possibility of further change is dependent upon the
multiplicity of created beings.
It is because creation is inhabited by a great variety of creatures that
the created world is not static. Creatures move from one place to another.
They encroach on each other’s territory. Their interaction causes change.
Indeed, the accusation hassatan brings against God in the prologue is
based on his assumption that the world is not structured like a zoo. He
says to God regarding Job, “Have you not put a fence around him and his
house and all that he has, on every side?” (1:10a). If the world were struc-
tured like a zoo, with each creature occupying its own place and never
coming up against the threat of encounter with another creature, then
God would have been able to answer hassatan, “Of course I have put a
fence around him. I have put a fence around everything. That’s the way
the world works. Now go do something useful for a change.” Instead, God
is cowed by hassatan’s claim, precisely because it suggests that he has
been tampering with the way the world ought to work. God has been
maintaining Job in a static situation, preventing anything that might
induce change from touching him. Job and his friends, as has been seen,
assume that stasis is the goal of creation. God’s revelation in his speeches
that the world was not created to be a changeless place shatters Job’s illu-
sions, but, if the prologue is to be believed, these are illusions for which
God, in his fencing in of Job, is responsible.
his goal of satisfying the desolate ground, wouldn’t he want to keep the now-fertile ground
in its current state, stable and eternally undisturbed? Perhaps. Perhaps I am thrust back
upon my hunch, insisting, “No, that just doesn’t seem right,” but unable to explain why.
But let me continue to try. If God has a static goal in mind for the desolate ground, the
stasis he envisions is utterly different from the stasis envisioned as desirable by Job: the
wilderness becomes fertile ground, but humans are barred from entering it, instead of
the wilderness becoming fertile ground so that humans can enter it and make their dwell-
ing there. “I agree with you that the world shouldn’t change,” God might be understood to
say, “But what it shouldn’t change from is something different from what you imagine.” But
this cannot be right. Somehow, although it seems paradoxical, it is the fact that the ground
does not become fertile so that it may be taken over by human civilization (as in Isaiah
and Ezekiel) which, simultaneously, opens it up to the migration of humans and keeps it
open to further change. Humans who move into the now-fertile land cannot insist that it
remain fertile, because it was not made fertile for their benefit in the first place. This is
not land which has been transformed, once and for all, by an apocalyptic occurrence. Rain
may come for a time, and then it may go, meaning that the land may be fertile for a time
and then may turn, once again, to desert. The change to the wilderness depicted in Isaiah
and Ezekiel is change which establishes a stable world; in God’s speeches in Job, however,
this is not presented as being the case.
The Purpose of Death in God’s Speeches
In the course of his depiction of his creation, God addresses the presence
of death. It is particularly important to look at how God deals with death,
given the problems human mortality poses for the stability of the cosmos,
as identified by Job, his friends, and the spirit messenger. God, though,
never addresses the issue of human mortality head on. His first reference
to the existence of death in the world comes in relation to the necessity
of being fed. He asks Job,
Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
when they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in their covert? Who provides
for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about
for lack of food? (38:39–41)
These verses seem to answer the question of why death exists in the ani-
mal kingdom, “Because it is necessary for animals to eat in order to live.”
Death exists to support the multiplicity of life. Indeed, God follows these
references to death with questions about birth, asking, “Do you know
when the mountain goats give birth? Do you observe the calving of the
deer?” (30:1). The animals God names here are animals that might fall prey
to lions, but he is not saying that some animals exist solely to support the
lives of other animals through dying and being eaten. The attention he
gives to the calving of the deer rules out this claim.
It is not only the need to eat that necessitates death. Death also hap-
pens when creatures ‘bump into each other,’ so to speak. God describes
the ostrich which “leaves its eggs on the earth . . . forgetting that a foot may
crush them, and that a wild animal may trample them” (39:14a, 15a). The
ostrich’s young may perish simply because of where the ostrich leaves its
eggs. Of course, God admits this is foolish behavior. A wiser ostrich might
leave its eggs elsewhere. Yet, God says, “[T]hough its labor should be in
vain . . . it has no fear.” (39:16b). Despite the danger into which it puts its
young, the ostrich is unconcerned. After, all, the species does survive in
spite of its danger-incurring foolishness. Moreover, although the ostrich
acts unwisely in leaving its eggs on the ground and might expose them to
less danger by storing them elsewhere, there is, in reality, nowhere that
is entirely safe. A safe place would be a place wholly apart from other
creatures, and there is no such place. God’s description of the ostrich,
whose eggs could be inadvertently crushed by other animals, serves as a
larger statement about the danger that is inherently present in a varied
creation. Death happens because one happens to be where one happens
128 chapter three
to be; change happens because creatures interact. There is nothing sinis-

ter about it; it is simply a function of sharing space.
God’s description of the ostrich which “laughs at the horse and its rider”
(38:18b) transitions into a description of the horse whose nature makes
it eager for battle. Of the horse God says, “With fierceness and rage it
swallows the ground; it cannot stand still at the sound of the trumpet”
(39:24). Although the ostrich is pictured laughing at horse and rider, God
describes only the horse. Although we would normally assume that horses
go into battle at the bidding of humans, here it is not because humans
control it that the horse charges into the fray; instead, it is because of
the horse’s love of a fight that humans are carried into battle. The horse
gallops toward its potential death because it has an adventurous nature.
Like the ostrich, the horse also laughs: “It laughs at fear, and is not dis-
mayed; it does not turn back from the sword” (39:22). The horse laughs
because it is not afraid of death; its love of adventure cancels out any fear
it might otherwise feel. Why, though, does the ostrich laugh? Perhaps it
laughs because it sees that the horse and rider are also fools: the rider
because he thinks he is in control, when really the battle is instigated by
the horse’s love of a good fight; the horse because its apparently noble
attributes—its “majestic snorting” (v. 20b) and its fearlessness—indicate,
in reality, a recklessness that rivals the ostrich’s own. The ostrich may
be a less than conscientious parent, but such foolhardy behavior pales in
comparison with the horse’s battle-lust. The horse laughs at battle and
exposes its breast to the thrust of the sword, while the ostrich laughs at
the horse and leaves its young to fend for themselves, reasoning perhaps
that surely they have a better chance at survival than the horse does, and
if not . . . well . . . somehow the species still manages to go on, and horses,
too, continue to exist. The ostrich, though undoubtedly something of a
fool, is also a philosopher.
In his speech so far, God has said that death exists in the animal kingdom
for several reasons. First, animals have to eat, and what they eat, at least
in some cases, is other animals. Second, death exists because the world
is a crowded place and animals cannot help but bump into each other,
sometimes causing harm. Third, death exists because some animals—like
the ostrich—cannot be bothered to try to avoid it, and others—like the
horse—are blinded to its threat by the thrill of adventure. These animals
risk death because something in their nature compels them to live in a
particular way. In each of these examples, death is a consequence of life
in an inhabited world. If lions did not exist, deer might not die. If other
animals did not exist, the ostrich could be as lazy as it liked about its eggs
and do so with impunity. If humans did not exist, horses might not find
themselves pierced with arrows, but might gallop to their hearts’ content
in empty fields. If horses did not exist, humans might not be carried into
battle, but might sit at home tending their fires and grilling vegetables
on the coals. In the world as God describes it, stasis can only be main-
tained at the cost of the multifarious creation; if complexity is to exist,
then change must be a feature of the world.
Although God does not address human mortality outright, humans
are present on the periphery of God’s discourse about death. The ostrich
laughs not only at the horse but at its rider, and it is human beings who
brandish the spears toward which the horse, in its impetuous lust for
adventure, rushes. Humans are present in the battle, and perhaps it can
only facetiously be said that they are there because of the horse’s desire
for a fight. Where humans are most notably and jarringly present is as
the slain, lying on the battlefield after the conflict is over. This depiction
occurs after God has ostensibly left the subject of battle behind, moving
on to a description of the birds of prey which live “on the rock and make
[their] home[s] in the fastness of the rocky crag” (39:28), seemingly mak-
ing the same point he has already made about the wild ass and the wild
ox, namely, that these animals are part of God’s good creation and have
sanctioned places within it, set apart from human control. Once again,
though, God is not describing the creation as a kind of zoo, with enforced
and uncrossable boundaries between each creature.
This point is brought home, when at the end of his description of the
great birds, God returns to the battlefield, this time through the eagle’s
eyes, saying,
From there [the high, rocky crag] it spies the prey; its eyes see it from far
away. Its young ones suck up blood; and where the slain are, there it is.
(39:29–30)
We are reminded of God’s initial foray into the subject of mortality, where
he asked, “Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry
to God, and wander about for lack of food?” (38:41), and we can now see
that the question was a kind of trick and has a double answer. Previously
we might have answered, “God provides food for the raven and its young,”
acknowledging that God has created the world in such a way that his crea-
tures can be nourished, even if the nourishment of one depends on the
death of another. Now, though, we see that the question “Who provides
for the raven its prey” can be answered “Human beings do,” in that human
beings, dead on the field of battle, become prey for scavenging birds. The
130 chapter three
question, “Why are human beings mortal?” is answered here, “Because

ravens and eagles have to eat.” This is God’s answer to the claims Job
and the friends have made about the problem of human mortality. Both
Job and the friends have seen human mortality as something that should
not be, as a blot on human perfectibility. God’s response is at once flip-
pant and serious. Death is not something that humans ought to be able
to avoid, nor does it mark them as unable to participate in the world-as-
it-ought-to-be. Rather, death is the means by which humans participate in
this world. The world-as-it-ought-to-be is inhabited by a multiplicity of
creatures, and from this multiplicity stems change and also change at its
most extreme, which is death.
Job’s response to God’s claim that humans are mortal so that scaven-
gers can have something to eat is, understandably, bitter:
See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my
mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed
no further. (40:4–5)
It is one thing to accept that one’s mortality designates one as unable
to fully participate in the order of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, and quite
another to swallow the idea that the world is ordered in such a way that
one dies in order to feed dirty, scavenging birds. Both Job and Eliphaz
have envisioned a way in which the problem of human mortality can be
overcome, even if not through the literal avoidance of death (5:20–26;
29:18). For both, in the world-as-it-ought-to-be, humans can get the better
of death by ensuring, through their own righteousness, that their fam-
ily line will continue after they are dead. God, though, presents no such
option. In God’s world, death feeds life, for humans and animals alike.
God Challenges Job to Afflict the Wicked with Change
God begins his second speech by challenging Job to

look on all who are proud, and abase them. Look on all who are proud, and
bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them in the
dust together; bind their faces in the world below. (40:11b–13)
If Job can successfully do this, God promises, “Then I will also acknowledge
to you that your own right hand can give you victory” (40:14). Although
these verses are often read as proclaiming that only if he can crush the
wicked as God does is Job justified in finding fault with God, I do not think
we are meant to understand them in this way, as discussed in chapter 2.
As already argued, God challenges Job not to beat him at his own game,
but to make the world as he believes it ought to be, which is not the world
God ever intended to make.22 In his speeches, Job has accused God of
acting as the primary agent of change in the world, who brings humans
to power and then topples them (12:13–25), and who founds the earth
and then shakes it from its foundations (9:5–8). The changes wrought by
God, Job has accused, are disruptions to the stability of the world-as-it-
ought-to-be. At the same time, both he and the friends have insisted that
the wicked, who inhabit the anti-world, ought to experience changeable
lives, culminating in the ultimate change of death. God’s words in 40:10–14
can be seen to address both Job’s accusations and the assumptions which
he and the friends share. The changeability that Job and the friends see
as inherent—or ideally inherent—in the lives of the wicked is denied
by God. Job is offered a go at making a world in which this is the case,
but God seems to know that he will not succeed. God’s world may be a
changeable place, but it is not a place in which change applies only to
one group, while other groups experience stability. In addition, the pas-
sage can be seen to address Job’s accusation that God manipulates people,
situations, and even the earth itself to suit his whim. If God does not act
directly upon the wicked in order to bring about changes in their circum-
stances, it seems unlikely that he acts as the source of change in the lives
of others. The world is changeable, yes, and God has created it to be so—
its changeability is a function of its complexity—but it is not changeable
because God intervenes to bring one person high and cast another low.
God may have established a world in which change is possible, but he
does not control its changes in the way that Job supposes.
Job and ‘The Beasts’: Survival in a Changeable World
After challenging Job to remake the world as a place where change hap-
pens only to the wicked, while the righteous experience stasis, God pro-
gresses to a description of the great beast, Behemoth. Directing Job to
“Look at Behemoth, which I made just as I made you” (40:15), God once
again binds the human condition to the animal condition. Where pre-
viously God has spoken (albeit indirectly) of human death, explaining
human mortality as that which allows the scavenging birds to be fed, now
22 See the discussion in chapter 2 of this book, pages 88–91.

132 chapter three
God speaks of human life, likening it to the life of an animal. There is,
of course, debate over just what kind of animal Behemoth is23 and over
whether Behemoth is even an animal at all, or whether it is, instead, a
mythic beast, along with Leviathan, a kind of ‘chaos monster.’24 The actual
identity of Behemoth is not, however, important to my reading of the text,
at this point. For my purposes, it makes sense to understand Behemoth—
which literally means ‘beasts,’ and is by extension, understood to mean
‘great beast,’ given that the singular pronoun is used to refer to it25—as
representative of the animal kingdom as a whole. Read this way, the pur-
port of God’s reference to Behemoth is not the comparison of Job to one
specific animal, but the comparison of Job to all animals. The animals that
inhabit the world were created by God to the same degree that human
beings were created by God. Animals and humans are, collectively and to
an equal degree, God’s creatures. In this section, God does not question
Job or urge him to try his strength to see if it can equal God’s own. The
passage, until its final verse where God asks, “Can one take it with hooks
or pierce its nose with a snare?” (40:24), is entirely descriptive. Even this
verse does not question Job directly—God asks, “Can one take it?” (‫)יקחנו‬
23 Most contemporary scholars agree that if Behemoth is a natural animal, it is the hip-
popotamus, though other identities have been proposed. B. Couroyer, for example, argues
that Behemoth is the wild buffalo, showing that of the nine traits which Behemoth is
described as possessing, only four match the hippopotamus, while all match the buffalo.
B. Couroyer, “Qui Est Béhémoth?” Revue Biblique 82 (1975): 443. For instance, Behemoth’s
tail, which is said to be “stiff like a cedar” does not accurately describe a hippopotamus’s
tail, which is short and stubby, and not at all tree-like. Scholars frequently make up for this
discrepancy by understanding ‘tail’ to be a euphemism for ‘penis,’ but this, too, is prob-
lematic. Rebecca Watson points out that “hippopotami have internal testes and a recurved
penis. This translation would therefore only work if the knowledge of ancient Israelites
about hippopotamus genitalia was as scant as that of most modern biblical scholars, which
of course may be so.” Rebecca S. Watson, Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of
‘Chaos’ in the Hebrew Bible. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter (2005), 340.
24 See the discussion of Leviathan as chaos monster in chapter 5 below.
25 Edouard Dhorme writes, “The form is nothing more than the plural of ‫( בהמה‬12:7),
and it makes of ‫ בהמות‬a designation of majesty, the brute beast par excellence.” Edouard
Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. H. Knight (London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons 1967), 619. Pope, too, explains that the name is “an apparent plural of the common
noun behemah, ‘beast, cattle.’ The verbs used with the noun in this passage are third mas-
culine singular thus indicating that a single beast is intended and that the plural form
here must be the so-called intensive plural or plural of majesty, The Beast, par excellence.”
Pope, Job, 268. At the same time, Pope argues that the name has mythic overtones, and
that Behemoth may be related to “the monstrous bullock of the Ugaritic myths and . . . the
Sumero-Akkadian ‘bull of heaven’ slain by Gilgamesh.” Ibid., 270.
not “Can you”—making the verse less about what Job can do and more a
continuation of the description of Behemoth.
What is the significance of the descriptive nature of this passage? I
agree with John Gammie’s suggestion that Job is meant to see himself in
Behemoth, particularly the potential that he shares with the beast(s) to
face whatever dangers may threaten. God says,
Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron. . . . Under the lotus
plants it lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. (40:18, 21)
The river in which Behemoth lives is not always calm, but, “Even if the
river is turbulent, it is not frightened; it is confident though Jordan rushes
against its mouth” (40:23). Gammie writes that the import of this passage
is that like Behemoth, Job too has “the defenses with which he may vig-
orously resist all attack,” as well as “the sexual strength to start again.”26
I would add to this interpretation the idea that Job has been given what
he needs to survive in a changeable world. Or, that is, at least to survive
for a time. It cannot really be said that Job has the strength to “resist all
attack.” He is not immortal, and neither is Behemoth.
God’s message, though, would seem to be that Job is stronger than
he thinks he is. Previously, while complaining of his situation Job had
asked,
What is my strength, that I should wait. . . . Is my strength the strength of
stones, or is my flesh bronze? In truth I have no help in me, and any resource
is driven from me. (6:11a, 12–13)
God’s answer is that Job’s strength is like the strength of stones and his
flesh is like bronze, just as Behemoth’s bones are (like) tubes of bronze
and its limbs bars of iron. Job is not without resources. The resources that
are available to the natural world are also available to him. Clearly, Job is
not literally made of stone and bronze, just as Behemoth is not actually
made of bronze and iron, but, as creatures of the God who also created
stone, bronze and iron, the link between their bodies and these materi-
als is a close one; there is strength in flesh and bone. God has endowed
Job, like Behemoth, with the resources to weather the changeability of the
world in which he lives.
26 John G. Gammie, “Behemoth and Leviathan: On the Didactic and Theological Signifi-
cance of Job 40:15–41:26,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of
Samuel Terrien, ed. J.G. Gammie et al. (New York: Scholars Press, 1978), 226.
134 chapter three
Leviathan as the Embodiment of Unpredictable and

Uncontrollable Change
Then God turns to speak of Leviathan. In the first part of this section,
God returns to the question format, asking Job whether he is capable of
capturing the mighty beast.
Can you draw out Leviathan with a fish-hook, or press down its tongue with
a cord? Can you put a rope in its nose, or pierce its jaw with a hook? Will
it make many supplications to you? Will it speak soft words to you? Will it
make a covenant with you to be taken as your servant for ever? (41:1–4)
The questions continue along the same lines for another three verses, and
then God answers the questions he has been putting to Job, saying,
Lay hands on it; think of the battle; you will not do it again! Any hope of
capturing it will be disappointed; were not even the gods overwhelmed at
the sight of it? No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who can stand
before it? Who can confront it and be safe?—under the whole heaven, who?
(41:8–11)
Those who read the chapter as a reenactment of the combat myth under-
stand that God is challenging Job to try to create the world by conquer-
ing the chaos monster. If Job cannot perform this most basic of God’s
tasks, how can he presume to know how the world should function and
how God should behave?27 As discussed in the previous chapter, I do not
27 Among those who read the passage in this way, Hartley writes, “Yahweh challenges
Job to demonstrate his prowess by defeating in mortal combat the ominous creatures
Behemoth and Leviathan. If he cannot master these symbols of cosmic powers, he will
have to abandon his complaint.” Hartley, Job, 518. Similarly, Batto remarks, “[T]he author
of Job 40:15–41:34 has Yahweh challenge Job to play the role of creator, if he can, by sub-
duing Behemoth and Leviathan, the traditional twin chaos monsters representing the dry
wasteland and the unformed ocean, respectively. Since Job obviously cannot subdue the
chaos monsters, Job has no right to challenge the Creator about he way he runs this world.”
Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville: West-
minster/John Knox (1992), 47–48. John Day, too, suggests that “the implication seems to
be that, just as Job cannot overcome the chaos monsters Behemoth and Leviathan, which
Yahweh defeated at creation, how much less can he . . . overcome the God who vanquished
them. His only appropriate response is therefore humble submission to God.” Day, Gods
and Goddesses, 103. Rowold concurs with these interpreters, writing, “Leviathan is the
fierce one who stands/stood against Yahweh. . . . Yahweh’s challenge is that Job begin his
moral governance with this primal beast. Of course, Job can no more master this task than
he can perform any of those tasks detailed in the first speech of Yahweh.” Henry Rowold,
“!‫ מי הוא? לי הוא‬Leviathan and Job in Job 41:2–3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 no 1
(1986): 108. See chapter 5 below for more discussion of the relation between the combat
myth and God’s description of Leviathan.
think the Leviathan questions should be interpreted in this way. 28 More-

over, it seems possible that God includes himself among those “under the
whole heaven” who cannot confront Leviathan and be safe. Good suggests
that “Job 41.17 [may be] an admission that Yahweh, like the other gods,
has his moments of terror before his astounding monster,” pointing out
that, “[t]he text does not say ‘the gods’ . . . or ‘other gods’ . . . but just, in
the abstract generality, ‘gods’. . . . Surely no claim is implied that Yahweh
is not a ‘god.’ ”29
If, in chapter 40, God has presented Job with Behemoth as a mirror
to show him that he does have the resources to survive in a changeable
and unsafe world, here, with his description of Leviathan, God acknowl-
edges that, in the world as he has created it, there are forces and beings
that pose the kind of threat that cannot be resisted. If the changeability
of the world stems from its multiplicity, then Leviathan, whose inclusion
in God’s world marks the extremes to which its multiplicity is taken, is
also the mark of its extreme changeability. In his description of Behe-
moth God has said that Job is equipped to survive some of the changes
life throws at him, but in his description of Leviathan he concedes that
Job is not equipped to survive all of them. And it is no use asking God to
take control by subduing or binding Leviathan, because God cannot con-
trol Leviathan. Or perhaps Leviathan is not, necessarily, the representative
of change that Job cannot survive, but only of change that he is powerless
to resist. He cannot stop Leviathan’s onslaught, nor can he be safe in its
presence, but who is to say what he might be capable of surviving? Behe-
moth survives the turbulent waters, so it is possible that Job, too, might
survive the turbulent waters stirred up by Leviathan who “makes the deep
boil like a pot” (41:31a). But then again, maybe not. Who can say? Job has
resources, but his resources have a limit to them, as do, it seems, God’s.
But if God can watch Leviathan recede, seeing the “shining wake” that it
leaves behind it (41:32) as it swims away, then perhaps Job can, too, at
least some of the time.
28 See my remarks in the previous chapter, likening God’s description of Leviathan to

his description of the wild ox, and drawing from this similarity the idea that God is not
presenting himself as the champion who has defeated Leviathan but as the one who has
created Leviathan to be free.
29 Good, Tempest, 363–64. In contrast to the great multitude of scholars who read the
Leviathan chapter as depicting God’s control of Leviathan, Good seems to be unique in
advancing the view that God himself may be overwhelmed by Leviathan’s power, a view
which seems plausible to me.
136 chapter three
After asking his final question, “Who can confront it and be safe?—
under the whole heaven, who?” to which the answer is, presumably, “No
one,” perhaps “Not even God,” God leaves off questioning Job and focuses
his attention fully on Leviathan, singing a hymn of praise to this “king over
all that are proud.” God’s description of Leviathan continues the theme
originated in the questions of the first part of the chapter, namely the
impossibility of conquering the beast. God enthuses,
I will not keep silence concerning its limbs, or its mighty strength, or its
splendid frame. Who can strip off its outer garment? Who can penetrate
its double coat of mail? Who can open the doors of its face? There is terror
all around its teeth. . . . The folds of its flesh cling together; it is firmly cast
and immovable. Its heart is as hard as stone, as hard as the lower millstone.
When it raises itself up the gods are afraid; at the crashing they are beside
themselves. Though the sword reaches it, it does not avail, nor does the
spear, the dart, or the javelin. It counts iron as straw and bronze as rotten
wood. (41:12–14, 23–27)
God has described Behemoth as having bones that are tubes of bronze
and limbs that are like bars of iron (40:18). Supporting the idea that, in
Leviathan, God is describing an agent of change that Behemoth, and by
extension Job, cannot resist, is the fact that the strong materials of which
Behemoth is made are as nothing to Leviathan. To Leviathan, iron is like
straw and bronze like rotten wood. Behemoth has no chance against this
beast, but Behemoth does have a chance against plenty of other threats.
Such is the nature of life in the world as God has created it.
It is significant that what God praises in Leviathan is its unconquer-
ability. The crowning achievement of God’s creation is this uncontrollable
beast. If Behemoth has held a mirror to Job, how does Leviathan function
with regard to Job? Clearly, God’s claim that Leviathan is “king over all that
are proud” serves to answer Job’s reminiscence about the world as it was
before and ought to be still, in which he says, “I lived like a king among his
troops” (29:25b). Job, who has seen himself as the crowning achievement
of creation, is unseated by Leviathan. The static world favored and upheld
by Job is toppled by the turbulent, changeable world ruled by Leviathan.
Job, though, would never have counted himself as king of the proud. His
subjects are meek and mild; they keep silence and draw back. The proud,
at least in God’s words of 40:11b-13, are synonymous with the wicked.
Are Leviathan and Job, then, kings of different realms, with Job ruling
the righteous and Leviathan the wicked? Is God’s claim that Leviathan is
“king over all that are proud” the equivalent of saying, “Leviathan is the
proudest of the proud, and also, therefore, the wickedest of the wicked”?
I do not think so. The chapter’s ebullient praise of Leviathan prohibits

this interpretation. Leviathan’s kingship is described by God as legitimate,
which means that Job cannot call for Leviathan to be overthrown and the
crown ceded to Job himself. In a sense, while Behemoth holds a mirror to
Job, Leviathan holds an anti-mirror. Leviathan stands for everything that
Job is not, and the world over which he is king is, in Job’s view, an anti-
world. God, though, insists that the world ruled by Leviathan is the world
ordered as it ought to be.
There is a sense, however, in which Leviathan, too, can be seen to hold a
mirror to Job. Job, too, is a powerful creature. He does not have the power
to completely remake the world according to his own vision, but he does
have the capability to act unpredictably and uncontrollably. Although Job
has assumed that God has complete control over human destiny and has
accused him of acting as the agent of random change in human life and
society, perhaps, in his description of Leviathan, God is arguing otherwise.
If Leviathan is not subject to God’s control and, for this reason, earns not
God’s enmity but God’s praise, then perhaps Job, too, has independence.
Perhaps it is not true that “In his hand is the life of every living thing and
the breath of every human being” (12:10), as Job has claimed. If the life
of the living thing called Leviathan is not in his hand, perhaps the life of
every human being is not under God’s thumb, for him to do with as he
pleases. If this is the case, God is not the agent of change in the world.
Rather, it is his uncontrollable creatures who shape and change the world,
Job included. God’s creation, then, is a world over which he has relin-
quished control, over which he is not king, in which creatures are free
to act independent of God’s direction. God has equipped his creatures to
survive in such a world, and yet death is also a reality, itself based on the
great multiplicity of creatures which possess full reality.
Chapter four
Inside and Outside: The Configuration of Space in the

World-as-it-Ought-and-Ought-not-to-be
Introduction
Just as for Job and his friends there are two kinds of people, the righteous
and the wicked, so there are two kinds of space, ‘inside space,’ located
within the boundaries of the town, and ‘outside space,’ which exists
beyond its boundaries. It is the righteous who occupy the inner space, and
it is here that the world-as-it-ought-to-be exists, whereas the outer space
is inhabited by the wicked and is the location of the anti-world.
That inside space and outside space are often perceived as qualitatively
different has been noted by a number of researchers, both those study-
ing the Bible and those investigating cultural phenomena. Of this inside/
outside distinction in ‘traditional societies,’ Mircea Eliade observes that a
group’s
inhabited territory . . . is the world . . . the cosmos; everything outside it is no
longer a cosmos but a sort of ‘other world,’ a foreign, chaotic space, peopled
by ghosts, demons, ‘foreigners.’1
The reason for this, Eliade explains, is that
every inhabited territory . . . is the work of the gods or is in communication
with the world of the gods. . . . The sacred . . . founds the world in the sense
that it fixes the limits and establishes the order of the world.2
That is, it is the contact of the divinity with the space in which a group
dwells that makes it cosmos and that designates them as insiders. Where
‘we’ are is where our god or gods have been and have created the world.
Conversely, where ‘we’ are not is where our god or gods have not been,
and where, therefore, no world has been created.
1 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, trans. W.R. Trask (New York: Harper &
Row, 1961), 29.
2 Ibid., 30.
inside and outside: the configuration of space 139
Mary Douglas, in her book Purity and Danger writes of the importance
of boundaries and boundary-making to the creation and maintenance of
social order. She says,
It is only by exaggerating the difference between within and without, above
and below, male and female, with and against, that a semblance of order is
created.3
Here, although Douglas suggests a connection between boundary-making
and order-making, she does not yet claim that inside the boundaries is
where order resides. She does this later when she writes,
The idea of society is a powerful image. It is potent in its own right to con-
trol or to stir men to action. This image has form; it has external boundaries,
margins, internal structure. Its outlines contain power to reward conformity
and repulse attack.4
Although using different terminology, Douglas, like Eliade, points to the
privileging of inside space over against outside space. Conformity to the
behaviors associated with being on the inside are rewarded at the same
time as attempts by whatever is outside to cross the boundaries and get in
are repulsed. To conform to certain accepted behaviors is to maintain the
boundary around the group—‘We are the ones who do this.’ Conversely,
to engage in deviant behavior is to open a breach in the boundary, allow-
ing something external to enter in, even if the behavior was instigated by
an insider. As observed by both Douglas and Eliade, the world-as-it-ought-
to-be is the world inside the boundaries of a given human community,
while the world beyond those boundaries represents what ought-not-to-
be and which, therefore, must be kept out.
Turning from anthropological assessments of cultures in general to the
Bible, we find the same inside/outside distinction frequently at work. In
his discussion of the disposal of impurity in the Bible, David Wright points
out that
All examples of the riddance of idolatrous impurities from Kings and Chron-
icles . . . explicitly state that the disposal occurred in the Kidron Valley. . . .
The mention of the Kidron as the disposal place and the locative phrases
[‘outside’ etc.] show that the concern was to remove the impurity from the
city’s boundaries.5
3 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1966), 15.
4 Ibid., 137.
5 David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite
and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 285–86.
140 chapter four
In this example, we see the existence of distinct inside and outside spaces,
with the inside space being the location of what-ought-to-be, and the
outside space the repository for what-ought-not-to-be (or, at least, what-
ought-not-to-be as part of the world-as-it-ought-to-be). Whereas Wright
speaks of what does not belong inside being put out, Benedikt Otzen
writes about what belongs outside trying to get in. Ozten claims that com-
mon to ancient Israel and its neighbors
is the idea that chaos . . . threatens the world of man. . . . The desert may force
its way into good arable land and make it uninhabitable by man; death
may ‘ease his tentacles’ into human existence in the forms of illness and
sin, which can wreck man’s existence; and death itself is the final reality
to which every man is subject. Moreover, at any moment the primordial
sea, which lies beneath the earth and above the firmament of heaven, may
break through and annihilate the cosmos, as in fact happens in the story of
the flood.6
According to Otzen, the main task of the Israelite cult was to maintain
the boundaries between inside and outside: “to reinforce the cosmos and
combat the destructive forces which assail it.”7
Robert Cohn, in his exploration of sacred space in the Bible, notices
this same inside/outside distinction at work. Corroborating the views
expressed by the scholars quoted above, he writes, “Salvation is being
within Yahweh’s land; exile is always catastrophe.”8 To be inside Yahweh’s
land is to be inside the world-as-it-ought-to-be, both because we are there
and because Yahweh is there and has put us there. However, Cohn’s sim-
ple sentence brings up a heretofore unnoted issue. If we are exiled from
our land, then are we no longer inside? Or if inside is where we are, then
does inside shift when we move, so that wherever we are is inside? As
Cohn presents it, the former is the case. He argues that the boundaries of
inside are defined primarily by the gods, in this case Yahweh. It is Yahweh
who designates a place as inside. It is, therefore, not quite correct to say
that where we are is the inside, ordered world and the boundary around
our community marks the boundary between the world-as-it-ought-to-be
and the anti-world, because it is possible for us to find ourselves in exile,
outside those boundaries. It must be said, instead, that inside, if it is not
6 Benedikt Otzen, “The Use of Myth in Genesis,” in Myths in the Old Testament, trans.
F. Cryer (London: SCM Press, 1980), 36–37.
7 Ibid., 59.
8 Robert L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies (California: Scholars
Press, 1981), 2.
where we are, is where we ought to be. When we find ourselves where

we ought not to be, then we inhabit the anti-world, and must concern
ourselves with finding our way inside, into the created world, the world-
as-it-ought-to-be.
Wilderness as the Anti-world
This is precisely how Cohn views the wilderness journey from Egypt to
Canaan. Even though the Israelites found themselves in the wilderness,
this did not transform the wilderness into an inside space. Rather, the
wilderness trek was a journey from the non-world outside into the inner
space of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. Cohn writes,
The Hebrew midbār, ‘wilderness,’ and related wilderness terminology are
not simply neutral geographical designations but occur with generally neg-
ative connotations in the Bible. . . . [M]idbār is . . . the undomesticated, the
uncivilized. . . . It is the dwelling place of wild and demonic creatures . . . and
the refuge of outlaws and fugitives. The Pentateuchal narrative views the
wilderness in light of these negative connotations. . . . The difficulty of life
in the wilderness is repeatedly contrasted with the security of life in the
promised land. The wilderness is desolate; the land is fertile (Deut. 8:1–10).
The wilderness is chaos; the land is rest.9
Cohn points out that the wilderness was viewed negatively by the Penta-
teuchal authors, despite the fact that the wilderness journey was a time
and location “of divine protection and favor.”10 God’s presence with the
traveling Israelites did not serve to transform the wilderness into inner
space, precisely because God, despite his presence, had proclaimed that
the true inside world—the one he has created for them—lies elsewhere.
Until they reach that land, the Israelites will be outsiders, by God’s
decree.
It seems possible that this may have to do with the strength of the
wilderness as a symbol for outsideness. The wilderness is constitutionally
outside and, as such, cannot be made into an inside world even if a com-
munity and its god finds itself there.11 This, at least, seems to be the case in
9 Ibid., 13–14.
10 Ibid., 20, 14.
11 Some scholars contend that a positive portrayal of wilderness does exist in the Bible
in the writings of the prophets who recall the wilderness journey as the time when Israel
was faithful to Yahweh, before the people’s apostasy in Canaan. In support of this position,
Andrew Louth writes, “[T]he period of the wandering in the wilderness, in contrast to the
142 chapter four
the Bible’s depiction of the Israelite experience. As Walter Brueggemann

writes,
Wilderness is not simply an in-between place which makes the journey lon-
ger. It is not simply a sandy place demanding more stamina. It is a space far
away from ordered land. . . . Wilderness is the historical form of chaos and is
Israel’s memory of how it was before it was created a people. Displacement,
in that time and our time, is experienced like the empty dread of primordial
chaos, and so Israel testifies about itself.12
Writing about more recent times, Roderick Nash in his Wilderness and the
American Mind notes that,
European discoverers and settlers of the New World were familiar with wil-
derness even before they crossed the Atlantic. Some of this acquaintance
period that followed when . . . the Israelites began to settle in Palestine, is often regarded
by the later prophetic tradition as a kind of golden age. Renewal of the covenant, so often
breached by Israel, is frequently seen in terms of a return to the desert.” Andrew Louth,
The Wilderness of God (London: Darton, Longman and Todd , 2003), 33. In the same way,
Roland de Vaux points out that in the Bible “[W]e do encounter what has been called
the ‘nomadic ideal’ of the Old Testament. The Prophets look back to the past, the time of
Israel’s youth in the desert, when she was betrothed to Yahweh (Jr 2:2; Os 13:5; Am 2:10).
They condemn the comfort and luxury of urban life in their own day (Am 3:15; 6:8, etc.),
and see salvation in a return, at some future date, to the life of the desert, envisaged as
a golden age (Is 2:16–17; 12:10).” Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions,
trans. J. McHugh (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 14. Yet, de Vaux also stresses
that “nomadism in itself is not the ideal. . . . If the Prophets speak of a return to the des-
ert, it is not because they recall any glory in the nomadic life of their ancestors, but as
a means of escape from the corrupting influence of their own urban civilization.” Idem.
Most scholars seem to concur with this caveat, and many of them take it still further.
Shemaryahu Talmon, for example, writes, “[T]he theme of ‘disobedience and punishment’
is of much greater impact on the subsequent formulation of the ‘desert motif ’ in Bibli-
cal literature than is the concept of the desert as the locale of Divine revelation and of
Yahweh’s love for Israel. The idealization of the desert, which scholars perceived in the
writings of some of the prophets, derives from an unwarranted isolation of the ‘revelation
in the desert’ theme from the preponderant ‘transgression and punishment’ theme, with
which it is closely welded in the Pentateuchal account of the desert trek. The widespread
opinion that ‘the pre-exilic prophets . . . interpreted the forty years as a period when God
was particularly close to Israel, when he loved his chosen people as the bridegroom his
bride’ (G.H. Williams, Wilderness and Paradise in Christian Thought [New York: Harper &
Brothers,1962], 15) . . . rests on the slender evidence of two passages, Hosea 2:17 and Jer-
emiah 2:2. . . . A closer analysis of this theme . . . indicates that it is of minor importance.”
Shemaryahu Talmon, “The ‘Desert Motif ’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature,” in Bibli-
cal Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press 1966), 48. Leal, too, contends, “Though several biblical commentators deny the pres-
ence in the prophetic books of negative attitudes towards the wilderness, they are there
to be found. . . . [W]ilderness and desert are frequently perceived as not only undesirable
through lack of comfort; they are also the haunt of wildlife inimical to humans and they
contain evil creatures.” Leal, “Negativity,” 371.
12 Walter Brueggemann, The Land (London: SPCK, 1978), 29.
was first-hand. . . . Far more important, however, was the deep resonance of

wilderness as a concept in Western thought. It was instinctively understood
as something alien to man—an insecure and uncomfortable environment
against which civilization waged an unceasing struggle. . . . Anyone with a
Bible had available an extended lesson in the meaning of wild land.13
It was not just for ancient Israel, then, that wilderness was associated with
the outer chaos of the anti-world, but those culturally much closer to us
also shared this view, partially because of the Bible’s depiction, but not
entirely.
Later in his book Nash makes an observation that is particularly rele-
vant to this discussion of the distinction between inside and outside space.
Nash points out that wilderness can only be defined over against civiliza-
tion, writing, “[W]ilderness is an entirely human concept, an invention of
civilized man.”14 Similarly, Ian Holder asserts,
[T]he wild and the natural are not themselves ‘natural’ categories. . . . [They]
are created as categories in order to form the domesticated and the cultural,
and vice versa. In the opposition and juxtaposition of the cultural and the
wild society is dialectically created out of its own negative image.15
These observations suggest that wilderness, by definition, is that which
is outside human community, for human communities are created by its
exclusion.
The Wicked as Outsiders and the Metaphor of the House as Inner Space
In their descriptions of the punishment that attends the wicked the

friends demonstrate their assumption that the world-as-it-ought-to-be is
located inside the boundaries of the human community, whereas the anti-
world lies outside those boundaries. When God punishes the wicked, in
the friends’ depiction, he either uproots them from within the bounds of
the community and casts them beyond the pale, or allows what it outside
to come in and claim them. Untimely death, which the friends claim is the
fate of the wicked, functions in both ways. When the wicked die, death
crosses the boundaries into the human community and then, snatching
its prey, carries them back to its domain beyond those borders. Both Job
13 Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd Edition (New Haven and Lon-
don: Yale University Press, 1982), 8.
14 Ibid., 270.
15 Ian Holder, The Domestication of Europe (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell,
1990), 11.
144 chapter four
and the friends use the image of the house as a symbol for inner space. To
have one’s house destroyed is to be claimed by what belongs outside and
transported beyond the boundaries of the community.
In his first speech, quoting the spirit messenger who insists that all
humans are unrighteous because of their shared mortality, Eliphaz says,
“Their tent-cord is plucked up within them, and they die devoid of wis-
dom” (4:21). Here, the destruction of the house (the uprooting of the tent
cord) is paired with untimely death.16 The inner space of the house is
collapsed, and what ought to have been kept outside by its walls comes
rushing in to claim its own. Eliphaz, despite the fact that he reports the
spirit’s message, does not really agree that all humans are unrighteous
simply by virtue of their mortality, as discussed in the previous chapter.
For him it is the wicked and fools, who are unable to remain inside, but
find their homes destroyed and themselves subject to the dangers of the
outside realm. He says,
I have seen fools taking root, but suddenly I cursed their dwelling. Their
children are far from safety, they are crushed in the gate, and there is no
one to deliver them. (5:3–4)
It is significant that it is the dwelling of such people that Eliphaz curses. In
doing so, he removes their ability to stay inside the protective boundaries
of the town. The destruction of the dwelling results, for Eliphaz as for the
spirit messenger, in death.
The children of those whose homes have been cursed and destroyed
are subsequently “crushed,” and that Eliphaz describes this as happening
“in the gate” is significant. The gate functions as an opening between the
inner world of the town and the outer world that exists beyond its bound-
aries. It is through the gate that things can come in from outside, and
through it that things can go out from inside. As such, it is a particularly
vulnerable place in the boundary between the two realms. It is no surprise
that the town’s elders chose to meet in the gate. Their presence there
would have protected the vulnerable place in the boundary.17 In addition,
16 For Eliphaz, to “die devoid of wisdom” is to die in an untimely fashion. The wise,
righteous man, by contrast, dies only when he is ready. See Job 5:19–27, as discussed in the
previous chapter of this book.
17 Frank Frick points out that the gate functioned as the meeting place for the city’s
elders for practical reasons. He writes, “[D]ue to the lack of extensive city planning there
was little if any open space within the typical Palestinian city. Consequently, the place of
assembly was around the city gate, to a limited extent inside, but usually outside, where
the converging tracks made a well-worn area which was the scene of much of the activity
it was in the gate that they would have passed judgment against those
accused of wrongdoing. Such judgement would have served to separate
the righteous from the wicked, that is, insiders from outsiders. This activ-
ity would have replicated the function of the gate itself, as the passageway
between inside and outside, the place through which what belongs outside
is cast out and what belongs inside is gathered in. When Eliphaz describes
the children of fools as being crushed in the gate, he is describing them
as being judged, found guilty, and punished by those whose job it is to
repulse what belongs outside and protect what belongs inside. Crushing,
here, is certainly synonymous with killing, and, as the kingdom of death
is a place outside the human community, being killed is synonymous with
being cast out through the gate into the anti-world beyond.
Although in chapter 3 Job imagines the world of death as an inner
space, in general he agrees with the friends that death’s place is an outer
realm. Whereas in chapter 3 Job longs to make his home inside the halls of
death, in chapter 7 he laments his mortality and the fact that all humans
must die. He says,
As the cloud fades and vanishes, so those who go down to Sheol do not
come up;18 they return no more to their houses, nor do their places know
them any more. (7:9–10)
Like Eliphaz, Job uses the house as a symbol for being inside. Those who
are dead cannot return to the inner space of home, but are doomed to
‘exist’ outside the human community. Job complains that the affliction
God has leveled against him is robbing him of his only opportunity to live
on the inside. His end will be in the outer realm of death, from which he
will not be able to return home.
In the same chapter Job asks God, “Am I the Sea, or the Dragon, that
you set a guard over me?” (7:12), perhaps referring to the combat myth of
creation in which the Sea and Dragon are the representatives of chaos that
of a public nature.” Frank S. Frick, The City in Ancient Israel (Missoula: Scholars Press 1977),
125. However, in addition to the practical reasons for assembling at the gate, Frick also
cites a religious reason, quoting Eliade who writes about the importance of thresholds as
the place where two worlds (the sacred and profane) are both separated and, paradoxi-
cally, joined. Ibid., 126.
18 Although Eliphaz would certainly agree with Job that those who go down to Sheol
do not come up (‫)עלה‬, in his depiction of the righteous man’s death in 5:26, he likens the
death of the righteous man to “a shock of grain [which] comes up (‫ )עלה‬. . . in its season.”
For Eliphaz, there is something regenerative in the righteous man’s death. Even though the
dead man goes down into the ground and into Sheol, there is a sense in which his death
is also a coming up. The movement is not entirely downwards.
146 chapter four
must be kept out so that the ordered world can exist (an interpretation
which may be supported by the lack of definite articles in the Hebrew).
Yet, whatever cosmic implications may or may not inhere in these names,
what is certain is that the Sea and the Dragon are menacing figures which
the boundaries of the town are in place to repulse. Even if Job’s question
is not directly related to a full-scale combat myth of creation, it is clearly
meant to demonstrate his belief that he is being kept out when he should
be allowed in. His suffering at the hands of God has made him into an
outsider. Job, though, insists that he is not a threat to the world inside the
boundaries, and, in a peculiar move, uses his mortality as evidence to sup-
port his claim; it is because he will ultimately be thrust out by death that
God need not trouble himself to keep him out. Yet, Job only makes this
argument because he believes himself to be innocent and, therefore, a true
insider. He would not question God’s casting out of the wicked, despite
the fact that they too are ultimately subject to death. His argument, then,
can be seen to respond to the spirit messenger’s claim that all humans
are constitutively unrighteous and therefore liable for punishment. If
Job is only being punished for being human, then God might as well not
bother, because death will do the trick in the end without any help from
God. Although, according to the spirit, it is mortality that marks humans
as deserving of punishment, Job makes the counter-argument that death
is punishment enough and ought to absolve otherwise innocent humans
from feeling the effects of God’s wrath.19 Although in this speech, Job does
not speak specifically of inside as the locus of the world-as-it-ought-to-be,
he makes clear his belief that this is the case, both through the opposition
he describes between the inner world of home and the outer world of
death and through his depiction of himself as kept outside by God’s fury,
while, by rights, he ought to be inside.
When it is Bildad’s turn to talk, he too uses the house as a symbol of
insideness, speaking not of exiling the wicked beyond the walls of the
community, but of causing the collapse of their houses so that, though still
inside, they are thrust out into the realm of death. He says,
The hope of the godless shall perish. Their confidence is gossamer, a spider’s
house their trust. If one leans against its house, it will not stand; if one lays
hold of it, it will not endure. . . . If they are destroyed from their place, then it
will deny them, saying, ‘I have never seen you.’ . . . and the tent of the wicked
will be no more. (8:13b–15, 18, 22b)
19 See the discussion of Job’s description of the problem of human mortality in the pre
vious chapter of this book, pages 115–20.
The walls that are meant to protect the wicked cave in upon them, admit-
ting that which they intended to repulse. It is no accident that Bildad
describes the wicked as driven out by being walled in. This language is a
direct comment on Job’s own situation. Bildad has begun his speech by
telling Job, “If your children sinned against [God], he delivered them into
the power of their transgression” and consoling, “If you will seek God and
make supplication to the Almighty . . . surely then he will rouse himself
for you and restore you to your rightful place” (8:4–5, 6b). Job’s children,
Bildad knows, were killed when the oldest brother’s house collapsed and
crushed them. The surviving servant reports, “[A] great wind came across
the desert, struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young
people, and they are dead” (1:19). That the tumbling of the house is occa-
sioned by the force of a great wind is also significant. In later depictions
of the casting out of the wicked, the friends and Job will describe it as
accomplished by a powerful wind sent from God for the purpose of pun-
ishing them. Although Job’s children were not literally driven out beyond
the boundaries of the town in recompense for their transgressions, they
were driven out by being crushed to death, their inner sanctuary of home
having become the outer domain of death. Job himself, following the
deaths of his children and the affliction of his own body has been literally
driven out of town.20 For Job’s children, cast out into the realm of death,
there is no possibility of return to the inside world of the human com-
munity. For Job, however, Bildad insists, there is the possibility of return.
If Job contends that he has been wrongfully driven out, he should present
himself to God who, if he judges that Job is indeed innocent, and, there-
fore, an insider and not an outsider, will restore him to his “rightful place”
(8:6), inside the community.
In his first speech, Zophar makes a similar point, but focuses on the
security of the righteous, instead of on the insecurity of the wicked.
Echoing Bildad’s words he images Job’s position after repentance, prom-
ising him,
20 Here, I am following the majority opinion that this is what has happened to Job.
Clines points out that it is not necessary to interpret the text in this way, writing, “It is
by no means clear from the text whether Job has performed this ritual [sitting among the
ashes] in his own house or has gone out to a public place to display his grief. But,” Clines
continues, “it is almost universally assumed by interpreters that the ashes in which Job
sits are in the public ash-heap outside the town, the resort of outcasts and persons with
infectious diseases, as well as, in cases like the present, those who psychically identify
themselves with the rejected and destitute. The Septuagint in fact explains ‘ashes’ by its
translation ‘the dungheap outside the city.’ ” Clines, Job 1–20, 50.
148 chapter four
[Y]ou will have confidence, because there is hope; you will be protected
and take your rest in safety. You will lie down, and no one will make you
afraid. (11:18–19a)
The righteous, unlike the wicked, are able to have confidence that the
walls protecting them will not cave in, that the boundaries of their houses
will not be breached. Although Zophar does not use the word ‘house,’ that
he envisages Job as being inside a house is shown by his description of Job
lying down and taking rest, an activity that would take place within the
house. That Zophar pictures this house as having strong, even impenetra-
ble walls, as opposed to the “gossamer” walls of the houses of the wicked,
is evidenced by his depiction of Job lying down without fear. The walls
of the houses of the righteous function as protective boundaries, keeping
what belongs outside out and what belongs inside in, while the walls of
the houses of the wicked are flimsy defenses, easily breached.
In his second speech, Zophar speaks of the lack of protection afforded
the wicked by their houses. He says,
[A] fire fanned by no one will devour them; what is left in their tent will be
consumed. . . . The possessions of their house will be carried away, dragged
off in the day of God’s wrath. (20:26b, 28)
Here, the focus is not so much on the claim that what ought to be kept out
by the walls of the house gets in, as on the claim that what ought to remain
inside—the possessions of the wicked, and indeed, they themselves—are
dragged out. Indeed, in this speech Zophar has already said that the wicked
“will fly away like a dream, and will not be found; they will be chased away
like a vision of the night” (20:8). The place to which the wicked will be
chased is the outer realm of death: “[T]hey will perish forever. . . . Their
bodies, once full of youth will lie down in the dust with them” (20:7a, 11).
For the wicked, borders and boundaries do not do the job for which they
are intended: what belongs out—death and destruction—comes crashing
in, and what belongs in—the wicked themselves and their possessions
(or, rather, what would belong in, if these people behaved as they ought
to, righteously instead of wickedly)—is dragged out.
Job as Outsider/Death as Inner Space
In general, Job sees as evidence of the anti-world’s power over the world-
as-it-ought-to-be the fact that the wicked are not dragged out beyond the
boundaries of their homes and the human community. He contrasts the
insider status of the wicked with his own outsider status. He, the righteous
man, is the one who has been forced out beyond the boundaries of the
town. He is the one whose house provided him with no protection from
affliction. He is the one whose possessions were carried away. He is the
one whose children were crushed by the collapsing walls of their own
home. Job responds to Zophar’s speech by asking, as regards the wicked,
“How often are they like straw before the wind, and like chaff that the
storm carries away?” (21:18). Job contends that the wicked are not, in
fact, forced beyond the boundaries of the community; the wicked are not
scattered outside of their tents, but, rather, reside securely within them.
Even death, which the friends have presented as that which carries the
wicked away to its outer space, is denied ‘outside-making’ power by Job.
He says,
When they are carried to the grave, a watch is kept over their tomb. The
clods of the valley are sweet to them; everyone will follow after, and those
who went before are innumerable. (21:32–33)
In death, Job claims here, the wicked are not exiled from the human com-
munity, for the community gathers around their graves, keeping watch
there. In this way, the dead remain inside. Additionally, the fact that the
number of those who have already died is “innumerable” and that “every-
one” who now lives will die means that the realm of death cannot really
be an outside space. It is not where the human community is not, but is
the place where the human community most fundamentally is. It is, there-
fore, no consolation to speak of the wicked as being cast out by death.
Death is no ousting, no matter what anyone says.
It seems significant that the word Job uses for tomb—‫—גדיׁש‬is a word
which also means ‘shock of grain.’ It is used with this meaning by Eliphaz
when he promises his hypothetically-repentant Job, “You shall come to
your grave in ripe old age, as a shock of grain (‫ )גדיׁש‬comes up to the
threshing-floor in its season” (5:26). Here, though, it is the wicked man’s
tomb that Job likens to ‫גדיׁש‬, denying Eliphaz’s claim that only the righ-
teous partake of a death that has been robbed of its power. At other times
in his speeches, of course, Job does view death as a casting-out. Here, he
is making the effort to respond to his friends’ claims about the lot of the
wicked, claims with which he disagrees because of his own situation. The
location in which he finds himself is the situation the friends reserve for
the wicked. His own outsider status gives the lie to the friends’ insistence
that, in the world as it currently is, only the wicked are cast out.
150 chapter four
Job’s Antithetical Comments on the Outsideness of the Wicked
There is, however, one place in his speeches where Job, somewhat bewil-
deringly, given what has come before, seems to agree with the friends’
assessment of the outsider status that is forced upon the wicked as pun-
ishment for their wickedness.21 In chapter 27 he says,
They build their houses like nests,22 like booths made by sentinels of the
vineyard. They go to bed with wealth, but will do so no more; they open
their eyes, and it is gone. Terrors overtake them like a flood; in the night a
whirlwind carries them off. The east wind lifts them up and they are gone; it
sweeps them out of their place. It hurls at them without pity; they flee from
its power in headlong flight. (27:18–22)
Zophar has spoken of the righteous man’s certainty that, when he goes to
sleep, he and his possessions will be protected by the walls of his house,
contrasting this with Bildad’s description of the gossamer walls of the
house of the wicked man. Here, Job affirms his friends’ claims. The houses
of the wicked are built “like nests” or like “booths” in a vineyard. Job surely
means to indicate that these structures are flimsy and provide only a false
security. Like Bildad’s picture of the confidence of the wicked as a “spi-
der’s house,” here Job describes the dwellings of the wicked as temporary
structures. A booth thrown up in a vineyard as a temporary dwelling to be
used during the harvest is not a real house with real walls that can keep
out what ought to be kept out. A nest, made of twigs and mud and spit,
perched precariously among the branches of a tree, is easily blown down
and carried away by a gust of wind. Job, like the friends, is not speaking
simply of destruction as the fate of the wicked. His emphasis, like theirs,
is on the casting out of the wicked, whether to the realm of death or to
the wilderness beyond the confines of the town.
Of course, it is uncertain how Job means his friends to hear these words
of apparent agreement. These claims seem so out of place in his mouth
21 Elsewhere in his speeches Job does envision ‘outside’ as the domain of the wicked.
His comments in chapters 29–30 are clearly based on the assumption that the wicked
belong outside and the righteous belong inside, as will be discussed in more detail below.
In general, however, Job insists that, although the wicked belong outside and the righteous
belong inside, this spatial arrangement is not being upheld in the world as Job has experi-
enced it since the beginning of his affliction. Chapter 27 is unique in that, in it, Job seems
to claim that in the world of his current experience the wicked are confined to outer space,
instead of presenting this as the way the world ought to be but, currently, is not.
22 ‫כעׁש‬, which might also be translated ‘like the moth,’ which would allow for a similar
interpretation to that I am proposing.
that it can hardly be assumed that he speaks them with a straight face and
means what he says. Some scholars suggest that Job’s words are the result
of a mix-up in the text. Clines attributes the antithetical passages in chap-
ter 27 to Zophar,23 while Habel gives them to Bildad.24 Offering another
possibility, Newsom reads chapter 27 as a nod to the wisdom dialogue
genre to which she believes the conversation between Job and the friends
belongs. Wisdom dialogues, she explains, typically end with the partici-
pants adopting aspects of each other’s views, signifying that they value
what their conversation partners have to say. Here, Job, or the Job-author,
follows the convention, but with quite different results. Job’s adoption of
the friends’ views does not serve to validate the discussion that has pre-
ceded, but to render it incomprehensible. Newsom writes,
Both perspectives from the dialogue remain present, but rather than being
represented in some mutual acknowledgment, they are present together
within Job’s own speech. Most perplexingly, however, Job’s speeches not
only remain polemical . . . but he also uses the friends’ arguments as though
they were a refutation of what the friends had just said. Though in one sense
this kind of mad writing brings closure (the friends are literally left with
nothing to say), it does not relieve tension but rather exacerbates it.25
Other scholars who retain chapter 27 as Job’s words include Good, Lo, and
Janzen. For Good, the chapter is spoken by Job as a parody of his friends’
position,26 but a parody which functions somewhat differently from News-
om’s idea. Good argues that Job’s words do not simply mock the friends’
position. Rather, finding that God has made him into his enemy, Job identi-
fies himself as one of the ‘godless’ who are cast out by God. The irony is that,
by all standards besides God’s, Job is righteous. Job declares himself to be
‘godless’ because he possesses integrity and righteousness, whereas God is
wicked. God punishes him, therefore, not because he is wicked, but because
he is righteous and, hence, ‘godless.’27 Although Good’s argument succeeds
in making sense of Job’s apparently antithetical words, I do not find it
entirely convincing. I find it hard to believe that Job would identify himself
as one of the godless, even if he identifies God, in his current manifestation,
23 Clines, Job 1–20, 629.

24 Habel, Job, 37.
26 Good rejects the reassignment of the speech, arguing that “The best index to its
success as parody is the way we moderns . . . have been hoodwinked into thinking that the
speech belongs to Zophar.” Good, Tempest, 289.
27 Ibid., 287–88.
152 chapter four
as acting like one of the wicked. Throughout the book, Job counts on God to
become, once again, who God ought to be, and, in so doing, to reorder the
world-as-it-ought-to-be. Job prides himself on remaining one of the godly,
even if God himself is behaving like one of the godless.28
In Alison Lo’s interpretation, Job’s words do not identify God as one of
the wicked and himself as, consequently, godless, but, instead, are aimed
at the friends. It is the friends whom Job designates as the wicked who will
reap God’s punishment. Lo writes,
The crucial thing is that, in the flow of the argument, Job uses his friends’
words against them. In so doing, he silences them, though we know that the
issues are not yet settled. Such a declaration of punishment has driven them
into total silence, a state Job requested of them in 13:5.29
Why, though, should the friends accept that Job’s words apply to them?
They do not consider themselves wicked, nor are they experiencing the
punishment that Job claims attends the wicked. If Job is indeed trying to
turn the tables on his friends, there is no reason to expect his success. It
does not make sense to reason backward from the fact of their silence to the
idea that Job has successfully convinced them of their own wickedness.
Janzen’s position is more convincing. He argues that, in chapter 27,
Job angrily interrupts Bildad, finishing his speech for him, and then pre-
empts Zophar’s speech by delivering the response Job already knows he
would give. The friends are silenced because they have exhausted their
arguments, as is demonstrated by Bildad who “adopts the structure of the
argument which Eliphaz had used in 4:17–19 and 15:14–16 (cf. 25:4–26).”30
Job already knows what Zophar will say and shows him that he does, thus
taking away Zophar’s ability to respond. Janzen writes,
More clearly than any other indication could give, the rhetorical device of
having Job finish his friends’ arguments for them signals the end of the dia-
logues. . . . The friends see that they have nothing more to say, or that there
is no point in trying to say it.31
I want to propose a related, but somewhat different possibility. Perhaps
Job’s adoption of the friends’ argument is related to Bildad’s wholesale
28 See, for example, 23:10–11, where Job says, “But he knows the way that I take; when he
has tested me, I shall come out like gold. My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his
way and have not turned aside.” The steps to which Job’s foot has held fast are still God’s,
even if God has temporarily abandoned his true way.
29 Alison Lo, Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22–31 (Leiden
and Boston: Brill, 2003), 193.
31 Ibid., 174.
adoption of the spirit messenger’s position about the impossibility of

human righteousness (as discussed in the previous chapter). Bildad pulls
the safety cord and shuts down the dialogue, and Job responds in kind,
taking up the friends’ position, but after it is too late for it to do them
any good, for it is a position they have already abandoned in favor of the
‘safety net’ argument by which they are able to condemn Job and defend
God once and for all. Job’s speech, therefore, becomes a taunt. The friends
cannot answer him because they have already given up the right to speak.
Job does not silence them. Rather, they have already silenced themselves,
and Job merely takes advantage of this. Although Job seems to agree with
the friends on the fate of the wicked, this agreement does not strike us as
sincere, and, therefore, reads as parody.
Yet, despite the problematic nature of Job’s words, I do not think they
can be read as pure parody. Although in earlier speeches Job has insisted
that the wicked are not cast out, as the friends contend, for which he
presents the evidence that he, a righteous man, is the one who has been
forced beyond the boundaries, in chapter 29 he will present a picture of
the world-as-it-ought-to-be, in which the righteous are inside and the
wicked outside, in the anti-world beyond its borders. If he sneers at the
friends’ claims about the world, he can only sneer to a limited degree. He
may sneer at their insistence that the world, in its current state, is func-
tioning as they describe it. However, he cannot sneer at their idea of the
way the world ought to function, for this is a view he shares.
At the beginning of chapter 27, Job makes an oath, saying,
As God lives, who has taken away my right . . . as long as my breath is in me
and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak falsehood, and
my tongue will not utter deceit. Far be it from me to say that you are right;
until I die I will not put away my integrity from me. (27:2a, 3–5)
Immediately following this oath Job launches into his puzzling depiction of
the fate of the wicked. However, if Job means this description to be heard as
a complete parody spoken with a sarcastic sneer, it is strange that he begins
with an oath in which he promises “my lips will not speak falsehood, and
my tongue will not utter deceit.” Those hearing him might very well charge
him with uttering deceit, speaking that which he does not believe to be true
with the intention of mocking and confounding his friends.32 Of course, the
32 Good avoids this conundrum by viewing Job’s words as having undergone “ironic
reversals” of their true meanings. Good, Tempest, 289. Job is speaking what he believes to
be true, but his words do not mean what his friends (and we) think they mean.
154 chapter four
friends themselves cannot charge Job with speaking falsehood, given that
the claims he makes are the very claims of which they have been trying to
convince him throughout their own speeches.
Job’s oath, though, is not made before his friends, but before God. Job
goes so far as to identify this God as the one “who has taken away my
right . . . the Almighty who has made my soul bitter” (27:2). If he is so
forthright in describing his perception of God’s behavior and links this
honesty to his unwillingness to relinquish his integrity, it seems strange
that he would equivocate in the rest of his speech, speaking what he does
not believe to be true simply for the purpose of ‘scoring off ’ his friends.
Quite a different preface ought to precede a speech spoken with such an
intention. Instead of saying, “I will not put away my integrity,” a Job about
to speak what he does not believe but which accords with the orthodox
view ought to say, “I will now say what you think I ought to say, in the
interest of appearing righteous, because there is no other way to convince
you—or the God who has done me wrong—of my integrity.” This, though,
is not what he says. Job’s opening oath combined with his depiction of
the world-as-it-ought-to-be in chapter 29 and as-it-ought-not-to-be in
chapter 30 reveals his depiction of the fate of the wicked in chapter 27
as something more than a parody that silences his friends. His claim that
the wicked are cast out by the hand of God represents his affirmation
that, though the world is not currently as-it-ought-to-be, in the world-as-
it-ought-to-be the wicked are cast out. In the same way, although God
is not currently behaving as he ought, God-as-he-ought-to-be does exist.
Job lays claim to these realities despite the fact that they to not currently
exist, in the hope that his words will bring them into being once again.
The Body as a Microcosm of the Human Community
Before turning to an investigation of the all-important chapters 29 and 30,

in which Job gives his clearest expression of his ideas about the spatial
arrangements of the world-as-it-ought-to-be and the anti-world, I want to
approach the depiction of the inside/outside distinction in the rest of the
book from another angle. Douglas advances the idea that the human body
can function as a microcosm of human society. She writes,
The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its boundar-
ies can represent any boundaries which are threatened or precarious. . . . We
cannot possibly interpret rituals concerning excreta, breast milk, saliva and
the rest unless we are prepared to see in a body a symbol of society, and to
see the powers and dangers credited to social structures reproduced in small
on the human body.33
That is, just as the boundaries of the town serve to separate what belongs
inside from what belongs outside, so the boundaries of the body protect
what is inside from what is outside. Orifices, which provide potential pas-
sageways between inside and outside must, therefore, be carefully guarded,
just as the town gate must be guarded. Although Douglas observes this
phenomenon as arising particularly among minority groups which would
have a special concern to protect their unique identity,34 it need not apply
only to groups of this kind, as Douglas recognizes. Ronald Simkins makes
a similar claim about the human body as an entity that partakes of inside/
outside distinctions. He writes,
[T]he body is a highly ordered and symmetrical entity with fixed bound-
aries that differentiate it from other entities. The body also has a number
of orifices in its boundaries that can be penetrated and that discharge
internal bodily fluids. These orifices make the body vulnerable to external
attack . . . and so must be protected.35
Simkins goes on to liken the body not to the human community, but to
the earth. Yet, his statements about the body, though they lead elsewhere,
do present the body as an inner space with boundaries which must be
protected from what lies outside, a description that allows us to see how
the body might function as a microcosm of the human community.
Elaine Scarry, although she does not write about the body and the town
as linked through their shared necessity of keeping inside what belongs
there and keeping out what belongs out, identifies the body as a micro-
cosm of civilization, arrived at through the house, which is both a pro-
jection of the body and a representation of civilization in miniature. She
writes,
[T]he room, the simplest form of shelter, expresses the most benign poten-
tial of human life. It is, on the one hand, an enlargement of the body: it keeps
33 Douglas, Purity and Danger, 138.

34 She writes, “When rituals express anxiety about the body’s orifices the sociological
counterpart of this anxiety is a care to protect the political and cultural unity of a minority
group. The Israelites were always in their history a hard-pressed minority. In their beliefs
all the bodily issues were polluting. . . . The threatened boundaries of their body politic
would be well mirrored in their care for the integrity, unity and purity of the physical
body.” Ibid., 148.
35 Ronald Simkins, Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 76.
156 chapter four
warm and safe the individual within; like the body, its walls put boundaries
around the self presenting undifferentiated contact with the world, yet in
its windows and doors, crude versions of the senses, it enables the self to
move out into the world and allows that world to enter. But while the room
is a magnification of the body, it is simultaneously a miniaturization of the
world, of civilization.36
For Scarry, the house (or room, the simplest form of house) stands for the
world because it is an artifact external to the body, and what the world is
is such external artifacts:
[O]bjects which stand apart from . . . the body, objects which realize the
human being’s impulse to project himself out into a space beyond the
boundaries of the body in acts of making, either physical or verbal, that
once multiplied, collected, and shared are called civilization.
Yet, at the same time, the external artifacts that constitute the world are
linked to the body in that they perform functions that, previously, the
body either performed itself or wished it were able to perform. Walls, for
example, function like the epidermis; they “mimic the body’s attempt to
secure for the individual a stable internal space,” but they do a better job
of it than the body does itself and permit the body to “suspend its rigid
and watchful postures; acting in these and other ways like the body so
that the body can act less like a wall.”37 Because of the link she perceives
between the world and the body, Scarry argues that the disintegration of
the body results in the disintegration of the world. If a body is in enough
pain, the world, which is a projection of the body and which, normally,
functions to relieve the body of the negative aspects of sentience—
(i.e. the trouble of having to be rigidly attentive at all times)—fails to
fulfill its purpose and is, consequently, unmade. Additionally, if pieces of
the world cause pain, whether that pain is purposefully inflicted, or inad-
vertently stumbled across, those pieces of the world cease to be part of
the world as it was intended to be. If the world revisits aversive sentience
upon the body, then it is no longer the world. Although Scarry does not
focus on inside/outside distinctions as regards the body and civilization,
they are assumed in her work. When things get into (or out of) the body
that should not be there, civilization falls apart.
36 Scarry, Body in Pain, 38.

37 Ibid., 39.
The Breaking of Job’s Body as Indication of His Outsider Status
Throughout the book, when Job describes the suffering inflicted upon him
by God, he describes it in terms of a breaching of the boundaries of his
body. In chapter 10, Job appeals to God for a release from his anguish on
the basis that God is the one who created him. He describes God’s work
in the womb, saying, “You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me
together with bones and sinews” (10:11). Here, Job presents God as respon-
sible for giving him an inside, and for separating his insides off—by means
of skin and flesh—from what is outside. God is the one who has created
the boundaries surrounding Job, and Job uses this fact to argue that God
should not, then, breach those boundaries. He accuses God,
Bold as a lion you hunt me; you repeat your exploits against me. You renew
your witnesses against me, and increase your vexation towards me; you
bring fresh troops against me. (10:16–17)
Although here he does not specifically speak of God’s attack as breaking
through the boundaries of his body, that this is implied is indicated by
the use he makes of breaching imagery later in the book, as will be seen
below. When God hunts Job and brings troops against him, what happens
is that Job’s bodily integrity is compromised. Although Job may insist that
he retains his moral integrity despite the affliction of his body, his friends
do not believe him, viewing his loss of bodily integrity as proof of his loss
of moral integrity, assuming that the two go hand in hand. Indeed, that
Job’s bodily affliction incites him to take himself out to the ash heap shows
that he, too, knows that a firmly defended body is a sign of insider status,
and, with his body’s defenses broken down, knows that he has become
an outsider, though he continues to argue that this state of affairs is an
indication of the breakdown of the world-as-it-ought-to-be.38
38 It might be argued that the breaching of Job’s bodily defenses results in a confusion in
the meanings associated with inside and outside. If Job’s body has become as-it-ought-not-
to-be, then that-which-ought-not-to-be can be seen to occupy an inside space. Yet, there
is never the sense that this arrangement is acceptable. The body’s boundaries ought to be
intact, and whatever is capable of breaching them—disease, the infliction of pain, etc.—
ought not to breach them, or ought not if the body is that of a righteous man. Job insists
that he is innocent, but, at the same time, recognizes that his broken body contradicts his
words. Clines writes, “Job is helpless against the criticism of his friends if his own physical
appearance is testimony of his wrongdoing. His . . . suffering and even his own body are
witnesses against him.” Clines, Job 1–20, 382. Yet, Job never tries to argue that his broken
body identifies him as anything but guilty, even as he protests that his body is not speaking
158 chapter four
After accusing God of bringing “fresh troops against me” to break

through the boundaries of his body, despite the fact that God erected
those boundaries in the first place, Job wishes, as he has wished in chap-
ter 3, to have never been born in the first place. He asks, “Why did you
bring me forth from the womb?” (10:18), a question in which the unspoken
accusation, “if you planned only to destroy me,” is implied. The womb
is an inside space; it exists within the boundaries of the mother’s body,
and the child who grows there is protected by those boundaries while its
own boundaries are constructed. Job, having discovered that the boundar-
ies of his own body cannot protect him from God’s attack, wishes to be
re-encompassed by the protective sphere of his mother’s body. His own
boundaries are useless, so he wishes to rely on the boundaries of another,
in the hopes that they will serve him better. However, knowing that it
would have been impossible to have survived indefinitely in the womb,
Job continues,
Would that I had died before any eye had seen me, and were as though I had
not been, carried from the womb to the grave. (10:18b–19)
Here, Job envisages the grave as another inside space, analogous to the
womb, but more accommodating. Whereas he could not remain forever
in the womb, he can remain forever in the tomb, surrounded by its pro-
tective boundaries.
What those boundaries protect him from is, of course, a good question.
If death has already claimed him, what is there that needs to be kept out-
side? It would seem that, for the dead person, the most formidable enemy
has already breached the boundaries; the walls of the body have collapsed
and cannot be resurrected. It seems that Job imagines the womb and the
tomb as protecting him from life, and, what he most needs to be protected
from in the world of the living is God. Womb and tomb, then, are loca-
tions in which boundaries exist between Job and God—womb because
it is the location of creation (and, therefore, not of the destruction Job is
experiencing in his life outside the womb), and tomb because it is beyond
God’s grasp. Later in the book, Job cries out to God, “O that you would
hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath is past”
(14:13a), indicating that he does conceive of the realm of the dead as, in
some way, protected space, surrounded by boundaries that God cannot
the truth. Job does not want to redefine the meaning of a broken body, but only to have
his body brought into alignment with his status as a righteous insider.
cross. Yet, although at one moment Job wishes for enclosure in the tomb,
in the next he laments the inevitability of his death, saying,
Are not the days of my life few? Let me alone, that I may find a little comfort
before I go, never to return, to the land of gloom and deep darkness, the land
of gloom and chaos,39 where darkness is like light. (10:20–22)
In these verses, Job ceases to envision the grave as inner space, seeing
it instead as that from which his life must be protected. Because God
did not allow Job to stay inside the womb and to go from there straight
into the tomb, Job asserts that God ought to leave him alone for the time
being. God should not pierce Job’s body, but should allow its boundaries
to continue intact, for, before long, Job will be claimed by the realm of
outer darkness, a realm that is physically outside the boundaries of the
human community and in which the boundaries of his body will be over-
run once and for all. Worms and the earth will do the job without any
help from God.
In chapter 16 Job embarks on his most vivid description of the ways in
which God has violated the boundaries of his body. He cries,
[God] has shriveled me up, which is a witness against me; my leanness has
risen up against me, and it testifies to my face. He has torn me in his wrath,
and hated me; he has gnashed his teeth at me. . . . I was at ease, and he broke
me in two; he seized me by the neck and dashed me to pieces; he set me
up as his target; his archers surround me. He slashes open my kidneys, and
shows no mercy; he pours out my gall on the ground. He bursts upon me
again and again; he rushes at me like a warrior. (16:8–9a, 12–14)
Job’s body is utterly broken by God, and what ought to remain inside—his
kidneys, and his gall within them—is pulled out into the open, deprived
of the protection of skin and flesh. Job identifies the brokenness of his
body as “a witness against me.” The state of his body identifies him as
one who is undeserving of the protection afforded by inclusion within
the human community. The link between the breaching of the body and
the breaching of the city’s defenses is shown by the fact that “the image
[of God’s attack on Job’s body] shades off into the breaching of a strong
city wall. Once sufficient openings appear, the enemy rushes in for the
39 The phrase translated “chaos” here is ‫לא סדרם‬. According to The Dictionary of
lassical Hebrew, ‫ סדר‬means “order, formation, arrangement, esp. of battle formations.”
C
David J.A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 6 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoe-
nix Press, 2007), 122. Here, then, Job envisions the grave as the domain of formlessness, a
place in which the boundaries of his body will cease to exist.
160 chapter four
kill.”40 Job, though, insists again as he has insisted all along, “[T]here is no
violence in my hands, and my prayer is pure” (16:17). He claims that he is
righteous and therefore deserving of insider status, despite the testimony
his afflicted body bears against him.
In chapter 19, Job again takes up this theme, this time accusing the
friends of contributing to the breaking of his body. He asks, “How long
will you torment me, and break me in pieces with words?” (19:2). Job is
responding directly to Bildad’s second speech, the subject of which has
been God’s punishment of the wicked. Bildad has said,
In their tents nothing remains; sulfur is scattered upon their habita-
tions. . . . Their memory perishes from the earth, and they have no name in
the street. They are thrust from light into darkness, and driven out of the
world. (18:15–18)
His depiction of the punishment of the wicked focuses on the breakdown
of that which ought to provide them with protective boundaries—that
is, the tent—and on their expulsion from the human community. After
describing the casting out of the wicked, Bildad concludes, “Surely such
are the dwellings of the ungodly, such is the place of those who do not
know God” (18:21). That is, their dwellings are flimsy and do not serve to
protect them from the threats that lie beyond the walls, and their right-
ful place is in the outer space beyond the boundaries of the town and its
righteous inhabitants.
It is no wonder that Job responds with incredulous accusations of
wrongdoing. Bildad has described the situation in which Job finds him-
self. Identifying Job as an outsider is commensurate with breaking Job’s
body in pieces. In this, though, Bildad breaks one who is already broken.
Bildad identifies Job as an outsider, but Job is already outside. With his
words, Bildad afflicts Job’s body, but Job’s body is already afflicted. Bildad
is simply calling it as he sees it. Later in the chapter, Job again names
God—and not the friends—as the one responsible for the breaking of his
body and its conferral of outsider status. He says,
He breaks me down on every side, and I am gone, he has uprooted my hope
like a tree. He has kindled his wrath against me, and counts me as his adver-
sary. His troops come together; they have thrown up siege-works against me,
and encamp around my tent. (19:10–12)
40 Crenshaw, Whirlpool, 68.

This description of God’s enmity and his breaking down the boundaries
of Job’s body is not as vivid as that given in chapter 16, but its sentiment
is the same. Here, the image of the tent functions as a symbol of insider
status both at the level of the town and the body. Job’s tent is both his
body and his position within the boundaries of the town. He finds the
tent of his insider status threatened, as he is surrounded by God’s troops,
who, having laid siege to it, are attempting to break through its defenses
so that they can drag Job out or, who, perhaps, plan to cause the tent to
collapse so that Job is crushed inside and exiled to the realm of death.
As the tent of his insider status is threatened, so the tent of his body is
assaulted by those who would pierce and break it, spilling its insides out
on the ground. These actions are one and the same: to breach the bound-
aries of his body is to identify Job as an outsider and to drag him beyond
the boundaries of the community.
As chapter 19 continues, Job speaks of the way in which he has been
deemed an outsider by the members of his household, those for whom
the tent still provides a protective boundary. He is ignored by relatives,
guests, and servants alike because, due to the affliction of his body, he has
become an outsider. In relation to this passage (19:13–19), Philippe Nemo
makes the link between outsider status and the breakdown of the body
explicit, writing that the members of Job’s household,
might have tried to overcome their moral repulsion . . . had Job’s physi-
cal existence remained intact and healthy. However, confronted with his
‘putrid’ body odor and ‘unbearable’ bad breath, even his wife recoils. . . .
The dissolution of the body automatically dissolves the convention of
communication.41
That is, the affliction of the body can only ever signal moral failure requir-
ing expulsion from the community, because the community cannot bear
the presence of the one whose body is in a state of disintegration. The
breakdown of the body cannot stand simply for itself, with no larger
meaning, for if it did it would not require the expulsion of the afflicted
one, but the expulsion of the afflicted one is necessary, at least in Nemo’s
view. He continues,
In their eyes, or rather in the eyes of their unconscious, Job is guiltier of
an illness for which, obviously, he can bear no real responsibility, than of
41 Philippe Nemo, Job and the Excess of Evil, trans. M. Kigel (Pittsburgh: Duquesne Uni-
versity Press, 1998), 32.
162 chapter four
a transgression which, presumably, he committed freely. They are ready to

discuss the latter; from the former they recoil in fear.
According to Nemo, Job’s household can hardly be blamed for their treat-
ment of Job, for, “This is not a defect in their personalities; it is a short-
coming in our nature.”42 His community’s physical repulsion and fear of
death make the afflicted one an outsider, even if he has done nothing else
to merit outsider status. Whether or not Nemo is correct that such behav-
ior is human nature, his observations highlight the essential tie between
the wholeness of the body and the integrity of the community. The com-
munity abhors a broken body and casts it out, even if it is necessary to
trump up alternative reasons (i.e. the sufferer’s unrighteousness) for doing
so.
In chapter 20 Zophar responds to Job first by describing the casting out
of the wicked (“They will fly away like a dream, and not be found; they
will be chased away like a vision of the night” [20:8]), and then by linking
this to the affliction of the body. He ends his speech by returning to his
report of the destruction of the tent of the wicked and the dispersal of
their possessions, symbolizing their banishment from the inside world of
the town and human community. For Zophar, as for Job, the destruction
of the body is synonymous with the destruction of the tent, both of which
indicate that the afflicted person is an outsider. As Zophar presents it, it
is precisely through the affliction of their bodies that the wicked are cast
out of the community. He says,
God will send his fierce anger into them, and rain it upon them as their food.
They will flee from an iron weapon; a bronze arrow will strike them through.
It is drawn forth and comes out of their body, and the glittering point comes
out of their gall. (20:23b–25a)
The similarity between Zophar’s claims about the piercing of the bod-
ies of the wicked and Job’s description of his body’s destruction by God
should not be overlooked. In chapter 16, Job has said that God’s archers
surround him and that God slashes open his kidneys and spills his gall on
the ground. Here, Zophar describes God’s arrow piercing the bodies of the
wicked, specifically their kidneys, spilling their gall.43 What happens to
42 Ibid., 33.
43 What is it about the piercing of the kidneys and the spilling of the gall that leads
both Job and Zophar to describe these as the actions taken by God against his enemies?
Perhaps it is as simple as Zophar picking up on the imagery already used by Job, in order
to include Job in his indictment of the wicked. I have not found any scholarly speculation
the wicked, according to Zophar, has happened to Job, by his own admis-
sion. The boundaries of their bodies are violated, their insides spilled out
on the ground, identifying them as outsiders who ought to be repulsed
beyond the boundaries of the town and denied its protection. Zophar
asserts that the spilling out of the insides of the wicked is based on their
having tried to assimilate that which should have remained external to
them. He declares,
They knew no quiet in their bellies; in their greed they let nothing escape.
There was nothing left after they had eaten; therefore their prosperity will
not endure. (20:20–21)
Because they have attempted to hoard within the boundaries of their bod-
ies that which ought rightfully to have belonged to others, their bodies
must be invaded, and the wrongfully appropriated wealth reclaimed. The
wicked man is like a city which, having stolen a treasure, is sacked when
that treasure is reclaimed by its rightful owners. By taking in more than
his share, the wicked man has, ironically, declared himself an outsider,
and, Zophar contends, his casting out is soon to follow. As can be seen, for
both Job and Zophar, the body functions as a microcosm of the town and
its human community. A broken body is synonymous with a town whose
walls have been breached and no longer serve their protective function. A
broken body is a body claimed by what is outside and, as such, declares its
possessor an outsider. If the anti-world is to be kept outside, the outsider
must be cast out, so that order of the world-as-it-ought-to-be can remain
inviolate within.
about the meaning of Job’s and Zophar’s shared use of this picture, but some scholars do
offer interpretations of Job’s choice of the kidneys as the specific locus of God’s attack.
Balentine suggests that the attack on the kidneys signifies an attack that is emotionally
overwhelming, writing, “At one level the expression signifies the overwhelming emotional
fatigue that drains Job’s passion for carrying on with the struggle, for the kidneys, like the
heart, are the symbolic center of intense affections and desires. At a more basic level the
kidneys are a vital and extremely sensitive part of the human anatomy. . . . Job of course
does not speak with the expertise of a medical internist. . . . He does know, however, what
it is like when the kidneys are under attack.” Balentine, “Job’s Redeemer,” 276. Offering an
alternate (but not contradictory) interpretation, Newsom writes, “In the symbolic anatomy
of Israelite thought, divine scrutiny is often represented as the searching of the kidneys
and the heart (e.g. Pss 7:10; 26:2; cf. 73:21). Though such scrutiny is represented by the
psalmist as legitimate and even welcome, Job insists on the close connection between
looking and harming.” Newsom, “Job and His Friends,” 247. If Job experiences himself as
wrongfully scrutinized and harmed by God, Zophar’s use of the same language might indi-
cate his belief that, for the wicked, scrutiny which results in punishment is legitimate:
God examines the kidneys (as we would say the heart) of righteous and wicked alike, and,
depending on what he finds, allocates reward or punishment as appropriate.
164 chapter four
Job’s Self-Identification as an Insider through His Preservation

of the Inside/Outside Distinction
Despite his location outside the boundaries of the community, Job con-
tinues to insist that he is actually an insider. In fact, the narrator’s early
designation of Job as ‫( תם‬1.1), may be an indication of an insider status
that goes beyond that secured by righteous behavior. Ellen Davis points
out that
There is one other place in the patriarchal narratives that this theme of integ-
rity appears. . . . I refer to the designation of Jacob as ’ish tam (Gen 25:27). As
with Job, the first thing we learn of the grown Jacob is that he is “a person
of integrity”; but the phrase poses a conundrum, for if indeed tam denotes
ethical integrity, then Jacob is not an obvious candidate for that accolade.
Here the word characterizes a disposition and lifestyle sharply distinct from
that of Esau, who is “a man experienced at hunting, a man of the open coun-
try.” . . . The best clue to the meaning of tam in this passage is the continua-
tion of the verse: tam marks the character of the tent-dweller, one who lives
with others and recognizes the demands of the social order.44
As an ’ish tam, Job is a civilized man. He belongs within the borders
which surround the town. For this reason, throughout his speeches, he
alternately begs and demands that God return him to his rightful place,
and, in chapter 29 presents a picture of what his rightful place looks like.
I have already discussed this chapter in detail in chapter 2 of this book.
The observations I made there about Job’s central position are applicable
here as well. Job, at the center of the town’s attention, is the insider par
excellence. It is important to notice that, in chapter 29, he bases his insider
status on his righteousness, and it is to this claim of righteousness that
he clings throughout his speeches, despite the affliction that has branded
him an outsider. He relies on his righteousness as the key that will open
the gates of city and community to him again. It is his righteousness that
Job lays before God in his oaths of chapters 13, 27, and 31, certain that if
God will only deign to look he will recognize Job as an insider and effect
his restoration.45
44 Ellen F. Davis, “Job and Jacob: The Integrity of Faith,” in Reading Between Texts, ed.
D.N. Fewell (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 211.
45 Newsom reads Job’s chapter 31 oath of innocence as spoken to a community which
shares his values and which, after hearing what he has said, must recognize him as an
insider. She writes, “As Job swears to different kinds of conduct, it allows Job to rehearse
with his audience the virtues and values they mutually endorse and so to present him-
self persuasively as ‘one of us.’ ” Newsom, Book of Job, 195. As Newsom sees it, it is the
This righteousness, as Job describes it in chapter 29, is of a specific sort.

Job is not simply ‘a good person’ in general. Rather, Job’s righteousness,
which he presents as the sign of his insider status, is based on his ability to
judge the righteousness and wickedness of others and to enforce insider/
outsider distinctions. Job ensures that those who belong inside, because
of their righteousness, remain inside, and casts out those who, because of
their wickedness, do not belong. He speaks of his saving work on behalf
of the poor, the orphan, the widow, the wretched, the blind, the lame,
the needy, and the stranger, all of whom bless him for what he has done,
turning their eyes heavenward and fixing them on Job who shines above,
surrounded by God’s holy light.46 He saves these righteous poor by break-
ing “the fangs of the unrighteous” and making “them drop their prey from
their teeth” (29:17).
It is this very act that occasions Job’s reflection, “Then I thought, ‘I shall
die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix’ ” (29:18).
Although Job uses the term ‘nest’ to describe his dwelling, a term that
he has used in chapter 27 to describe the insecurity of the homes of the
wicked and the lack of protection they afford, it is clear that here he is
not describing his own home as similarly insecure, or if he is, it is only
in the light of the affliction that has befallen him and does not reflect
how he perceived his security in the days when he was the consummate
insider.47 In those days, Job believed that his work on behalf of the righ-
teous poor and against the wicked guaranteed his own position as an
insider. He expected to remain within the protective walls of his house
and community throughout all the years of his life. Indeed, it is interesting
community that Job must convince of his insider status, and not primarily God, for God
as “the social and moral order writ large” will necessarily agree with the community’s
evaluation. Ibid., 196. It is, therefore, the community’s decision to allow Job to reenter its
boundaries that comes first, even though the community assumes that God has made the
first move to rehabilitate Job. The maintenance of boundaries between inside and outside
is here recognized as a function of society.
46 Of Job’s work on behalf of the righteous poor, Mark Hamilton writes, “[T]he author
pictures Job as mender of the very bodies of those who did not receive deference, the
lowest tier of society. . . . Indeed, his body merges with theirs, so that, in a brilliant lit-
erary maneuver, the text identifies the body of the ruler with the body politic itself . . .
[T]he emphasis on the ruler’s protection of the ruled . . . reinforces the elite’s status but
does so by seeming to distribute power and wealth more widely than before.” Mark Ham-
ilton, “Elite Lives: Job 29–31 and Traditional Authority,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 32 no 1 (2007): 78. Here, it is not just that any body is a microcosm of the human
community, but that the leader’s body is representative of the community.
47 The word translated ‘nest’ here is ‫קן‬. In 27:18 ‘nests’ is the translation of a different
word, ‫עׁש‬, which can also mean ‘moth.’
166 chapter four
that, although Job speaks of dying “in my nest,” in the second half of the
verse he speaks of multiplying “my days like the phoenix.” On the basis of
his differentiation between righteous and wicked, Job has confidence that
his life will be prolonged, allowing him to remain within the bosom of the
community for a long, long time. Even death, which would normally be
seen as a force that drags its victims outside the boundaries of the com-
munity, did not seem to function in this way for Job in the days before his
affliction, at least in his imagination. He planned to die in his “nest,” in
the security of his home, if he planned to die at all; his use of the image
of the phoenix, which is perpetually reborn from its ashes, seems to sug-
gest that, at least at some level, Job believed that he would continue to
live indefinitely, 48 for, given his position at the center of the community,
without him the distinctions between inside and outside would break
down and the world-as-it-ought-to-be would find itself overwhelmed by
the anti-world.
That Job understood his work on behalf of the righteous poor and
against the wicked as serving to maintain the boundaries between inside
and outside is supported by his description of the treatment of the poor
by the wicked in chapter 24. There, Job says,
The wicked remove landmarks; they seize flocks and pasture them. They
drive away the donkey of the orphan; they take the widow’s ox for a pledge.
They thrust the needy off the road; the poor of the earth all hide them-
selves. Like wild asses in the desert they go out to their toil, scavenging
in the wasteland food for their young. . . . They lie all night naked, without
clothing, and have no covering in the cold. They are wet with the rain of the
mountains, and cling to the rock for want of shelter. (24:2–5, 7–8)
It is significant that the wicked are described as “removing landmarks.” The
word translated ‘landmarks’ is ‫גבלת‬, meaning ‘borders’ or ‘boundaries.’
The wicked are guilty of removing the markers of separation and differ-
entiation, so that the boundaries between one person’s land and another’s
are made unclear, rendering the distinction between inside and outside
uncertain. They do this, presumably, with the intention of claiming for
themselves what rightfully belongs to another. The landmark, which
should have served to keep them out and to protect what was inside, fails
to do its job, and what is outside comes in and claims for its own what was
48 Because the Hebrew ‫ חול‬has both meanings, it is also possible to translate this verse
as saying that Job expected to multiply his days “like sand,” instead of “like the phoenix,”
which, though it does not connote endless life through continual rebirth, does indicate the
extreme prolongation of Job’s life.
formerly inside. By stealing from the poor any means they may have had
to support themselves within the human community, the wicked thrust
them “off the road” and out into the wilderness where they are forced
to live like animals. These needy people have done nothing wrong. They
belong within the boundaries of the town. They deserve to benefit from its
protection, as all righteous people do. The wicked, however, make them
into outsiders, and, by doing so, illicitly appropriate their insider status.49
It is the wicked who now live in town and own fields and flocks, donkeys
and oxen, slaves and olive groves and vineyards, when they ought to be
outside the boundaries of the human community. From this passage it is
clear that when Job helps the righteous poor and defends them against
the wicked by “breaking the fangs of the unrighteous” he is performing
that most important function of maintaining the correct boundaries
between inside and outside, preserving the world-as-it-ought-to-be from
the encroaching of the anti-world.
The “Senseless, Disreputable Brood”: Humans as Animals in the Outer

Space of the Wilderness
In chapter 24, Job has described what happens when correct boundaries
between inside and outside are not maintained. In the world as it cur-
rently is, those boundaries are in turmoil. Whereas previously Job took
responsibility for ensuring that those who belonged inside remained
inside and that those who belonged outside were repulsed, he no longer
has the power to do so. An outsider himself, he can no longer protect the
community’s boundaries through his righteous judgment, but can only
sit outside and demand that God let him back in so that he can get back
to work. Not only are the righteous poor in the situation he describes in
chapter 24, but he himself is among them. In chapter 30, he describes
49 Clines identifies the wicked described in chapter 24 as being “not professional thieves
or brigands,” but “the chieftains and ruling class” of the same community as the poor, bas-
ing his identification on the fact that these wicked people do not make off with what they
have stolen, but, instead enjoy their ill-gotten gains under the very noses of those who
have been robbed. Clines, “Quarter Days”, 247. They are insiders, not outsiders. According
to Clines, what Job is describing is a problem in the structure of his society itself—the rich
and powerful exploit the poor and no one does anything to stop them. Whereas, in chapter
29 Job describes himself as the one who, in his former glory, protected the poor from the
wicked, in chapter 24 Job blames God for allowing the wicked to prevail. This is because
Job now finds himself in the situation of the exploited poor, unable to carry out his former
duties, a circumstance for which he believes God is responsible.
168 chapter four
himself as “a brother of jackals, and a companion of ostriches” (v. 29), that

is, as a wild beast inhabiting the wilderness beyond the boundaries of the
town. He and the righteous poor alike must scavenge in the wasteland
(24:5b) and “cling to the rock for want of shelter” (24:8b).50 Here, again,
the image of ‘home’ is used as a symbol for insider status. Like animals,
Job and the righteous poor have no home; having been thrust beyond the
walls of the community, they must make do with the meager shelter of
rocks and bushes, which can provide no real protection.
In chapter 30, instead of describing how his position as an insider has
been usurped by the wicked, Job speaks of another group of animal-like
outsiders whose mockery shows how much of an outsider he has become.
He is mocked by
those who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to
set with the dogs of my flock. What could I gain from the strength of their
hands? All their vigor is gone. Through want and hard hunger they gnaw the
dry and desolate ground, they pick mallow and the leaves of bushes, and to
warm themselves the roots of broom. They are driven out from society; peo-
ple shout after them as after a thief. In the gullies of wadis they must live, in
holes in the ground, and in the rocks. Among the bushes they bray; under
the nettles they huddle together. A senseless, disreputable brood, they have
been whipped out of the land. (30:1b–8)
Job has gone from being the consummate insider, the one who secured
the boundary between inside and outside, to being considered an outsider
even by those who are themselves the most outside. Like the righteous
poor of chapter 24, this group’s members are described as living like ani-
mals, scratching out an existence in the wilderness outside the boundar-
ies of the town, trying to find dwellings for themselves by squeezing into
50 This language may be metaphorical. Clines argues that the poor do not literally inhabit
the wilderness. Instead, “What we have here . . . is . . . a metaphorical depiction of the hard
work required to earn an inadequate living as a farm laborer: it is no better . . . than scav-
enging for roots in the steppe.” David J.A. Clines, Job 21–37, Word Biblical Commentary 18A
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 605–06. Yet, even if the language is metaphorical, the
link between the poor and the animals of the wilderness is not lessened. William Brown
writes, “In his description of the needy, Job freely moves from the domain of harsh and
unforgiving nature to the brutal arena of human culture to describe the plight of the vul-
nerable. Abused by nature and society, the onager and the orphan share in common their
status as victims. The poor have been . . . exiled . . . to the margins to become kin with the
exploited class of asses.” William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral
Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 334. Even if they remain literally
within the human enclosure, these people have been made into animal-like outsiders.
g ullies and holes in the ground and gaps between rocks, but unable to
create the true inner space of a home.
Unlike the righteous poor, however, this group is described as deserv-
ing its wilderness habitation. These people have been “driven out from
society” and “whipped out of the land,” not by the wicked who would
wrongfully appropriate their place as insiders, but by the righteous who
are defending the integrity of their inner space. This group is described by
the epithet, ‫בני־נבל גם־בני בלי־ׁשם‬, ‘foolish ones and ones with no name,’
which is translated by the NRSV as, “a senseless, disreputable brood.” Jan-
zen explains the force of this appellation, writing,
How can one . . . make contact with anything personal or individual in a
nabal, a fool, much less give a personal name? The very namelessness of
such a brood is already their alienation from the community.51
The epithet conveys, in the strongest possible terms—(Janzen writes, “It
is difficult to find a translation adequate to the extreme lengths to which
the Hebrew terms here take the reader’s moral imagination.”)52—the out-
sideness of this group,53 seeming to imply that they do not possess the
characteristics necessary for participation in human community.
The animal descriptors applied to the “senseless, disreputable brood”
indicate Job’s belief that a boundary exists between humans and animals
which marks humans as insiders and animals as outsiders. Although the
righteous poor in chapter 24 are described as having been forced to live
like animals because of the oppression of the wicked, the “disreputable
brood” of chapter 30 is described in terms that are even more animalis-
tic. This group must not only scavenge for food like animals do, eating
whatever vegetation happens to be growing instead of cultivating grain
for themselves, nor must they only try to shelter themselves under bushes
and outcroppings of rock instead of building homes for themselves, but
when they open their mouths animal sounds come out. Job says, “Among
the bushes they bray” (30:7a). The verb here is ‫נהק‬, the same as is used

52 Idem.
53 In 18:17, describing the destruction of the wicked, Bildad has claimed, “Their memory
perishes from the earth, and they have no name in the street.” For Bildad, having no name
means that one has completely ceased to exist. A man whose name survives him still has
some claim on the world, but one whose name has been wiped out is an absolute nonen-
tity. Job’s “senseless, disreputable brood,” then, is made up of people who do not exist. And
yet, in his suffering, undergoing their scorn, Job discovers that their existence is reasserted
against him. In his suffering, he has become the nonentity.
170 chapter four
by Job in 6:5, “Does the wild ass bray over its grass . . . ?”, a noise that
is thoroughly animal. A person may live like an animal and, arguably,
remain human so long she retains the power of language, but this group
has crossed the line. That animal sounds come out when they open their
mouths is proof of how far outside the boundaries of the human com-
munity this group lives.54
That the members of the “senseless, disreputable brood” are consum-
mate outsiders is clearly established in Job’s description of them. What
is not so clearly established is what they have done to mark themselves
as such. Are they the wicked?—those whose fangs Job has broken in
defense of the vulnerable (29:17), and who are, therefore, his enemies? It
does not seem so. If they were, Job would surely call them by that name,
which he does not. Unlike the wicked of chapters 24 and 29, they are not
described as attempting to cast out the righteous poor. Rather, it is they
themselves who are cast out. Whereas those who force out the righteous
poor are wicked, those who have forced out the “senseless, disreputable
brood” are righteous. But why? What have the members of the second
group done to warrant their status as outsiders? If they are as destitute as
those whom Job makes it his business to defend, why does Job not fight
on their behalf ? Why are his words insulting instead of compassionate?
The answers to these questions have to do with the economic nature of
insider status.
The Economics of Insider Status
In chapter 29, Job has described his vision of the world-as-it-ought-to-be,

the salient feature of which is his position at the center of his community’s
54 Although it does seem to me that the members of the “senseless, disreputable brood”
are described in terms that are more animalistic than those applied to the poor of chapter
24, as is shown by the animal sounds that Job attributes to them, I should perhaps be
more careful not to underestimate the extent of the animal descriptors used in chapter 24.
When Job says that these people are forced to scavenge for food, he uses the term ‫טרף‬, the
same word translated ‘prey’ in 29:17: “I broke the fangs of the unrighteous and made them
drop their prey from their teeth.” The same word is used by God in 38:39: “Can you hunt
the prey for the lion . . . ?” Clearly, this term describes the hunt for food of a carnivorous
animal, and not the human search for food. In addition, Job dwells on the nakedness of the
poor who have been forced to inhabit the wilderness—“They lie all night naked, without
clothing, and have no covering in the cold” (24:7)—a detail which links them to animals.
These animal descriptors are tempered, however, by the assertion which runs through the
passage that this situation is at odds with how things ought to be. The members of the
“senseless, disreputable brood” are rightfully animalistic, whereas the righteous poor of
chapter 24 are not.
deferential attention. Essential to this depiction is Job’s insistence that

he has earned this deference. Why do the elders make way for Job and
the poor regard him with shy gratitude? They do so because he is their
defender. “I broke the fangs of the unrighteous, and made them drop their
prey from their teeth” (29:17), Job recalls. This arrangement is an economic
one, even if no money changes hands. Job engages in behaviors valued by
his community and, in exchange, they repay him with behavior he values,
namely the homage befitting a king.
When this behavior is contrasted with that of the “disreputable brood,”
what the members of that group have done to deserve their outsider sta-
tus becomes clear. They have refused to enter into economic agreements
with the members of their community, most specifically with Job. They
have rejected what Job has to sell and have refused to pay for his services.
Job does not ask much—only gratitude displayed in silent deference and
acknowledgment of his superior status, a fee well within their range. Oth-
ers as poor as they have paid it before and found the trade in their favor.
Not only does this group refuse to trade their deference for Job’s pro-
tection, but Job believes they have more to offer than their destitution
implies. His opening reference to their fathers is not accidental. These
people are not in the same position as the widows and orphans Job helps
in chapter 29. They ought to have adequate food and shelter, and would
have if they would enter into the necessary economic agreements and do
the requisite work. Job begins his description of them by claiming that
their fathers were worse than dogs. This is an insult, to be sure, but Job
does not employ it generically. He speaks specifically of “the dogs of my
flock,” dogs with which Job has an arrangement. These dogs herd Job’s
flocks, and in return, he gives them food and shelter. For Job to be unwill-
ing to set this group with his sheepdogs is an indication of their refusal to
uphold their end of any give-and-take arrangement he might make with
them. It is in this specific sense that they are worth less than “the dogs of
my flock,” and are equated, instead, with wild animals (30:6–7).
That this is the correct interpretation of this particular insult is con-
firmed by the next line of Job’s description, “What could I gain from the
strength of their hands?” a question he answers with the claim, “All their
vigor is gone” (30:2). 55 In other words, these are people from whom Job
55 The word translated ‘vigor’ is the same as that used by Eliphaz in his description of
the righteous man’s death in 5:26, ‫כלח‬. Eliphaz claims that the righteous man “shall come
to [his] grave in ripe old age (‫)כלח‬.” As Eliphaz sees it, the righteous man never loses his
vigor. That the members of this group lack vigor, despite presumably being young men
172 chapter four
has nothing to gain, not because they are truly incapable of giving him any
return on his investment—Job only requires what they can afford—but
because they refuse to do so. Furthermore, Job’s remarks should not be
taken as entirely hypothetical. Chances are he has first-hand experience of
their lack of vigor. He knows they are not powerless widows and orphans
but lazy, good-for-nothings who would rather sit around all day picking
their teeth than make any kind of honest effort. If they took the job Job
offered to help get them on their feet, they would show up late for work,
take a long lunch, and knock off early to play darts with their friends at
the local bar. Then, when Job was forced to fire them for their lack of ini-
tiative, they would shrug and say, “Didn’t want it anyway,” before shuffling
off to join the rest of their gang on the corner.
At the same time, although it is possible to identify this maligned group
as consisting of laborers who have failed to fulfill their contracts with Job,
it seems likely that the description is also metaphorical. Job identifies
those who mock him as the lowest of the low, but their status is based
on the way they treat him. What makes them so low is their failure to
be true to the economic agreements—whether commercial or moral—
they have made with Job. In fact, this is a description which applies to all
the members of Job’s community, God included. In chapter 29, Job has
described a world in which economic agreements are entered into and
kept, a situation which results in the correct functioning of the human
community. In the world of chapter 30, economic agreements have lost
their power and, as a result, the structures necessary to the maintenance
of the community are undermined.
Job’s Inability to Draw the Boundary Line
What is it that makes Job, who was the insider par excellence, into the out-
sider of all outsiders? It is, Job says, “Because God has loosed my bowstring
and humbled me” (30:11a). In this, Job identifies himself as the enemy of
God. The disreputable brood may have been whipped out of town by its
rightful inhabitants, but Job has been whipped out by God himself. A more
definite expulsion would not be possible. The word translated ‘bowstring’
is ‫יתר‬, the same word translated ‘tent-cord’ in 4:21 where Eliphaz claimed
(given that Job can remember their fathers), is not just a sign of their weakness but of
their moral turpitude.
of the wicked “Their tent-cord is plucked up within them, and they die
devoid of wisdom.” Here, the word does double-duty: Job’s bowstring has
been loosed, symbolizing his defeat by God, and his tent-cord has been
‘plucked up,’ casting him beyond the boundaries of the community.
God’s enmity, though, is not the whole reason for the brood’s mockery.
In chapter 29, Job has claimed, “[M]y glory was fresh with me, and my bow
ever new in my hand” (29:20). It was with this bow, presumably, that Job
“broke the fangs of the unrighteous, and made them drop their prey from
their teeth” (29:17). The bow was the means by which Job maintained the
boundaries of the world, protecting it against the ever-threatening incur-
sion of the anti-world from outside. If Job’s bowstring has been loosed, Job
no longer has the means by which to guarantee these boundaries. What
he has lost is, in effect, the privilege of defining the borders of the world-
as-it-ought-to-be. Are the members of the “disreputable brood” outsiders?
Job insists that they are, and yet he has no power to prove that they are
by separating himself from them. They can come close to him and poke
at him, and he can do nothing about it. The boundaries have been erased,
and because he has been stripped of boundary-making power, Job cannot
reestablish them. He, like the members of the disreputable brood, is a
powerless outsider, but unlike that group, he wants in, whereas they could
care less, a distinction which gives them power over him.
The Meaning of God’s Answer from the Whirlwind
God’s answer to Job is based on a different set of assumptions about the

organization of space than those held by Job and his friends. Whereas
for Job and his friends the world-as-it-ought-to-be is located inside the
bounds of the human community, meaning that whatever exists outside
those boundaries must be the anti-world, God takes a radically different
view. This is made most clear in God’s depictions of the wild animals, a
discourse which picks up on Job’s claims about the “senseless, disrepu-
table brood” and the economic agreements necessary to insider status.
What God has to say about the animals utterly undermines the distinction
between inside and outside, as described by Job and his friends. Before
he gets to that, though, God drops certain hints that suggest where he is
going. The first of these is his appearance in the whirlwind.
In his speeches, Job has used the wind as an image of that which blows
outsiders beyond the boundary of the community and which has, now,
blown him out into the wilderness. In chapter 27, describing the fate of
174 chapter four
the wicked, he has said, “Terrors overtake them like a flood; in the night
a whirlwind lifts them up and they are gone; it sweeps them out of their
place” (27:20–21). In chapter 30, describing the way in which God has made
an outsider of him, Job accuses, “You lift me up on the wind, you make me
ride on it, and you toss me about in the roar of the storm” (30:22). In these
depictions, the wind is the instrument used by God to cast out those who
do not belong inside, thereby protecting what is inside from the threat of
what needs to be kept out.56
God’s appearance in the whirlwind might, in fact, be read as perform-
ing the same function that Job has attributed to the wind throughout.
Perdue writes,
The storm with mighty winds most often occurs in the context of theophanic
judgment and the destruction of chaos in its various incarnations. . . . Yah-
weh has come to engage chaos in battle, reassert divine sovereignty, and
issue judgment leading to the ordering of the world.57
According to Perdue, Job is an outsider who must be repulsed, and God
appears in the whirlwind to effect that warding off. Robertson offers an
alternate interpretation of God’s whirlwind appearance, writing,
God comes in a storm in order to appear to Job . . . as awesome; but because
Job has already prophesied that he would come in a storm, he seems not
awesome but blustery.58
In Robertson’s reading, Job is not shown to be the one who must be
blown away by God, but, rather, God shows himself to be in the wrong.
The maintenance of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, then, depends not on the
repulsion of Job, but on the warding off of a God who fails to maintain the
correct boundaries. There is, in fact, something in Robertson’s construal,
as opposed to Perdue’s, that is consonant with the meaning I want to
propose for God’s whirlwind appearance, although I do not agree with
Robertson’s interpretation in its entirety.
Fretheim and Simkins offer explanations of God’s appearance in
the whirlwind that seem closer to the mark. They view the whirlwind
56 Job, of course, insists that he is an insider not an outsider, and that he has not
deserved to be blown away by the wind from God. This, though, does not change his
understanding of the wind as a tool God uses to maintain the boundaries between insid-
ers and outsiders.
58 Robertson, “Book of Job,” 463.
a ppearance as evidence of a link between God and the natural world.

According to Simkins,
There is a definite correspondence between God and the natural world.
The biblical theophanies function primarily to reveal God, and nature often
serves as the means by which God is revealed.59
In addition, God does not wear the storm as a kind of mask behind which
he conceals his true appearance, but, as Fretheim explains, “[N]atural met-
aphors for God are in some way descriptive of God . . . they reflect . . . the
reality which is God.”60 That is, there is something about the storm that is
consistent with who God is. Simkins points out that God’s appearance in a
natural form is apt, given the speeches that follow, in which God parades
his creation before Job, in all its wild splendor.61
Yet—and here is where I think Robertson’s interpretation is relevant—
the natural world depicted in God’s speeches is an outside space; from
Job’s perspective it is the anti-world. Shockingly, God appears to Job wear-
ing the garments of an outsider, and, if Fretheim is right, those garments
are actually accurately indicative of who God is. For Robertson this con-
firms Job’s accusation that God is not behaving as he ought, but, instead,
is acting to overthrow the order of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. I, however,
want to argue that God’s appearance in the whirlwind undermines the
distinction between inside and outside and, therefore, between the world-
as-it-ought-to-be and the anti-world.
If inside is where God is, and outside is where God is not, what must
it mean for God to reveal himself as present in that world which Job has
designated as outside, the world that exists beyond the boundaries of
the human community? God’s appearance in the whirlwind is a different
thing entirely from God’s use of the wind as a weapon against outsiders.
In that figuration, God is inside, hurling the wind out to repel those who
must not enter. When God appears to Job in the whirlwind, the wind is
where God is. God’s presence in the whirlwind reveals God’s presence in
the non-human world, a presence which must consecrate that world and
annul its outsider status.
59 Simkins, Creator and Creation, 130.

60 Terence E. Fretheim, “Creation’s Praise of God in the Psalms,” Ex Auditu 3
(1987): 22.
61 Simkins, Creator and Creation, 131.
176 chapter four
God’s Boundary-Making (or lack thereof ) in the Founding of the

Earth and the Birth of the Sea
Having appeared in the whirlwind, and thus, already made a statement to

Job about what constitutes inside and outside, God begins to speak, asking
Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (38:4). As
discussed above, the world that a given human community understands
as having been founded by God is the world of its own community, its
own inner space. What lies beyond the boundaries of the community is
not considered to have been founded; it is space into which God’s creative
activity has not extended. Yet, here, God does not distinguish between
inner space and outer space; he simply speaks about the earth in its
entirety having been established and rejoiced over by the morning stars
and the heavenly beings (38:7). If God has created the whole earth and the
heavenly beings have rejoiced over all of it, then the idea that one space is
desirable because blessed by God’s founding presence and another unde-
sirable because it is untouched by God is shown to be misguided. The
second kind of space simply does not exist.
God now directs Job’s attention to the sea, asking,
[W]ho shut in the sea with doors when it burst from the womb—when I
made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and
prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, “Thus far shall
you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped?”
(38:8–11)
These questions play with ideas of inner and outer space. The sea comes
from one inner space—the womb62—and is then enclosed in another
inner space—the place apportioned for it by God. But is the place of the
sea inside or outside? In combat mythology, to which this mention seems
to allude, the place of the sea would be designated outside space, in that
the sea is linked with chaos as the medium in which the chaos monster is
embodied. The sea would be out, not in. Here, though, the sea does seem
62 “Whose womb?” we might ask. Catherine Keller answers that the womb must be
God’s. She writes, “But then whose womb is this, that precedes all creatures? From the
perspective of the whirlwind circling like the very ruach that pulsed over the deep, how
can we avoid the inference that the rehem is God’s, from whose unfathomable Deep the
waters issue? Since goddesses had been a priori ruled out . . . the waters stir rather queerly.
We would have to say that ‘His’ womb belongs to ‘His’ fecund body.” Catherine Keller, Face
of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (London and New York: Routledge 2003), 131.
to inhabit an inner space consecrated for it by God and surrounded by

protective boundaries.
Interpreters have noticed that, if the sea is bursting forth from the
womb, the boundaries set for the sea must be the boundaries set by a
parent for a child, boundaries that are meant to protect the child and not
merely to constrain. Brown writes, “Yahweh as a caring mother or midwife
wraps chaos with a cumulus swaddling band (38:9b). . . . Caring sustenance
and firm restraint are woven together.”63 Similarly, Janzen comments,
[T]he Sea . . . is described in its birth with Yahweh as midwife. The images of
swaddling bands, bars and doors, and bounds or delimiting decrees . . . con-
note parental care and discipline.64
The parent, in restricting the child, has the child’s interests at heart. The
child is not restricted primarily so that he or she will not encroach on the
space of the ‘someone else’ who really matters. Rather, it is the child who
is at the center of the parent’s attention. So it is with God and the sea.
God wraps the sea in swaddling bands, so that it will be comfortable and
warm. God sets boundaries for the sea so that the sea will have a place in
which it can be at home. Hearing God begin to speak of the binding of the
sea, Job might expect to hear an account of how the sea has been kept out,
away from the boundaries that surround the human community. Instead,
what Job hears is an account of how protective boundaries have been
placed around the sea. The boundaries that surround the sea are the same
kinds of boundaries that Job imagines encircle the human community.
God presents the place of the sea not as outer space but as inner space.65
63 William P. Brown, Character in Crisis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 93–94.

64 J. Gerald Janzen, “On the Moral Nature of God’s Power: Yahweh and the Sea in Job
and Deutero-Isaiah,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 no 3 (1994): 468. Despite the birth imag-
ery and the parental care for the sea that it seems to connote, some scholars still see this
description of the sea as primarily evincing God’s power. Habel writes that God depicts
a world in which, due to his power, “The forces of chaos are harnessed and the threat-
ening sea confined like a baby to its playpen.” Habel, Job, 66. Brueggemann ignores the
birth story altogether, writing, “[I]t is evident that the ground of Yahweh’s response is
in power, the power of the Creator God who is genuinely originary, who can found the
earth, bound the sea, summon rain and snow, order the cosmic lights, and keep the food
chain functioning. . . . These doxological verses strain for words to articulate the massive-
ness and awesomeness of this God.” Brueggemann, Theology, 390. That is to say, that the
sea is described as a baby is not meant to demonstrate that God cares for the sea as if it
were his own child, but, instead, reveals God’s power as so awesome that the raging sea is
no more threatening than a newborn infant. I do not, however, think that this reading is
correct, as should be evident in my discussion above.
65 The verb translated ‘shut,’ in “who shut in the sea with doors,” is the same word used
3:23 , ‫סוך‬, and a similar word to that used in 1:10. In 1:10 hassatan questions God, “Have
178 chapter four
Questions about Place
God moves on to a series of questions about place. He asks, “Have

you . . . caused the dawn to know its place?” (38:12); “Where is the way to
the dwelling of light (‫)יׁשכן־אור‬, and where is the place (‫ )מקמו‬of dark-
ness, that you may take it to its territory (‫)גבולו‬66 and that you may dis-
cern the paths to its home (‫( ”?)ביתו‬38:19–20); “What is the way to the
place67 where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered
upon the earth?” (38:24). God presents a series of inner spaces which Job
might have classed as outer spaces. He uses the terms ‘dwelling,’ ‘terri-
tory,’ and ‘home,’ to refer to the places where light and darkness reside.
As we have seen, the idea of ‘home’ (‫ )בית‬has been used by Job and his
friends to refer to the inner space of the human community. Here, though,
God claims that light and darkness also have homes, as do snow, hail, and
the east wind (38:22–24). If these things have homes, those homes must
be inside and not outside, even though these homes may be located in the
farthest reaches of the earth or sky, in places nowhere near the boundary
walls of the human community.
God, though, in asking these questions, indicates that it is desirable to
have been to these places, to inhabit these locales, erasing the distinction
between inside and outside by presenting all places as part of his good
creation. God makes this explicit when he asks,
you not put a fence (‫ׂשכת‬, from ‫ׂשוך‬, a variant form of ‫ )סוך‬around him and his house
and all that he has . . . ?” In 3:23 Job laments, “Why is light given to one who cannot see the
way, whom God has fenced in (‫ ”?)יסך‬There is an interesting play of inside/outside here.
Hassatan assumes that to be fenced in is a boon, albeit an illegal one; it is preferential
treatment given to Job. In 3:23, Job experiences being fenced in as a curse; the boundaries
around him contain his suffering and make it impossible to escape. Then, in 38:8, God
describes himself putting a fence around the sea, an action which, based on the previous
two uses of the term, could be either a blessing or a curse. Additionally, because hassatan
assumes that the hedge makes Job an insider, which contrasts with Job’s assumption that
the hedge makes him an outsider, it is impossible to say whether the hedge around the sea
is intended to keep it in or to keep it out. In this way, the boundary, even though it is there,
becomes confused. It ceases hold a definite meaning. (See also Schifferdecker’s discussion
of the three uses of ‫סוך‬/‫שׂוך‬. Schifferdecker, Whirlwind, 74–75).
66 The primary meaning of this word is ‘border’ or ‘boundary,’ and it is used with this
meaning by Job in 24:2 (though translated ‘landmarks’ by the NRSV, indicating boundary-
markers). As a secondary definition BDB gives “territory (enclosed within a boundary)”
(Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968], 148), further indicating that what God is
talking about is inside space.
67 Technically, the word ‘place’ is absent from the Hebrew. However, it can be reason-
ably assumed to be implied.
Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunder-
bolt, to bring rain on a land where no one lives . . . to satisfy the waste and
desolate land, and to make the ground put forth grass? (38:25–26a, 27)
God’s blessing of rain is purposefully given to land outside the human
community, to the wilderness, inhabited only by outsider animals (and
perhaps those humans who live like them). God’s blessing on this land can
only mean that God does not regard this space as an anti-world, distinct
from the territory of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. It may be space ‘outside’
the inside world of human habitation and community, but outside does
not mean what Job thinks it means. To be outside is not to be condemned
as wicked, nor is it to be banished from the presence of God. God, it seems,
does not recognize inside/outside distinctions, or, he recognizes them
only in that he has prepared places for his many creatures to live. The sea
lives in the sea bed, the hail lives in the storehouses of the hail, the light
and the darkness have their place. None of these places can be classed as
inherently outside or inherently inside. They are inside to those who live
in them, but the world beyond is inside to those who live there. The world
is made up of a great variety of inside places, and though these may be
outside relative to each other, no space is inherently outside. There is no
space which exists in natural opposition to the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
Animals and the Economics of Insider/Outsider Status
Having begun his speech by giving glimpses of where he is going with

his discussion of space, God now begins his discourse on animals which
will carry his speeches to their conclusion. To those who insist that God’s
speeches fail to answer Job’s questions and greet him only with incompre-
hensible non-sequiturs, it must be pointed out that God’s consideration of
the animals, which makes up the bulk of his speeches, is a direct response
to Job’s claims of chapters 29 and 30. In those chapters, Job has presented
his most complete picture of the world-as-it-ought- and -ought-not-to-be,
and so it is fitting that God should choose to respond to the ideas set out
there. In them, Job shows God the world-as-it-ought-to-be and the anti-
world, and then, with his oath of innocence in chapter 31, orders God
to choose between the two, confident that God’s idea of what the world
ought to be like matches his own. In their direct response to Job’s con-
cluding arguments, God’s speeches address Job’s claims in their entirety.
Whereas, in chapter 30, Job has described the members of what he calls
the “senseless, disreputable brood” as the consummate outsiders, so far
180 chapter four
outside that they have become animals, who are, by reason of not being
human, inherently possessed of outsider status, God’s discourse, with its
focus on animals, indicates that, from his perspective, neither animals nor
the “senseless, disreputable brood” can be considered as outsiders. The
wilderness is not a place where God is not present. In fact, God dwells on
his presence in the wilderness and fails to describe himself as present at
all within the bounds of the town and the human community.
It is significant that when Job speaks of the members of the “senseless,
disreputable brood,” he speaks of them not only as animals, but as ani-
mals that are of no use to human beings, those which refuse to enter into
economic agreements with humans. That God disagrees with the world-
view that brands those who refuse to participate in economics as outsid-
ers is indicated by his focus on animals who are similarly noncooperative,
presenting them as recipients of care and devotion, for which he expects
nothing in return. Beginning his talk about animals with lions and ravens,
God asks, “Can you hunt the prey68 for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of
the young lions, when they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in their
covert? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to
God, and wander69 about for lack of food? (38:39–41). It is easy to answer
these questions “God can” and “God does,” and to view them as assertions
of God’s power. God is powerful enough to feed lions and ravens, tasks
that Job, with his limited abilities, cannot successfully undertake. But we
ought to pause to ask why it should be anyone’s responsibility to feed
lions and ravens. Shouldn’t lions and ravens take responsibility for their
own sustenance? Don’t they know that God helps those who help them-
selves? Of course, I know that these questions can be read as affirmations
of God’s creative power instead of intimations that God is literally out on
68 Prey here is Hebrew ‫טרף‬. It is the word used by Eliphaz in 4:11 to make his claim
that “The strong lion perishes for lack of prey,” a description which allies lions with the
wicked. God’s words in 38:39 clearly refute what Eliphaz believes to be true about the way
God relates to lions. More disturbingly, in 16:9, Job uses a verbal form of the same word to
describe his abuse at the hands of God: “He has torn (‫ )טרף‬me in his wrath.” Similarly, in
10:16 he accuses, “Bold as a lion you hunt me,” where the word ‘hunt’ is the same as that
used in 38:39, ‫צוד‬. Whereas Eliphaz imagines God to be the hunter of the lion, Job envi-
sions God as the hunter of the lion’s prey, an assertion which God confirms, although he
does not overtly confirm its corollary, that Job is that prey. Still, God’s depiction of dead
humans serving as prey for eagles in 39:30, as discussed in the previous chapter, should
give us pause.
69 The word translated ‘wander’—‫—תעה‬is the same as that used by Job to describe the
toppled leaders who “wander in a pathless waste” (12:24). For God, such wandering does
not seem negative, at least where ravens are concerned.
the prowl for prey which he carries back to the lions and ravens, as if they
have ordered take-away and God is the delivery man. At the same time,
though, even if all God means to claim is that he is the one who created
those animals that serve as prey, the focus is still on God as the active
party. God is the one doing all the work. The lions and ravens are pas-
sive. Nor is any sign given that the lions and ravens, if they are passive in
their acceptance of God’s care, are active in returning thanks and praise.
Feeding the lions and ravens, God has not arranged a situation which will
benefit him as well as them. Rather, these lazy creatures take what God
gives without returning anything to God. Like chapter 30’s outcasts they
are ingrates. But God doesn’t seem to expect gratitude.
When God moves on to his description of wild asses and oxen, his
response to Job’s assumptions about the economic nature of insider status
becomes more explicit. Like Job’s outcasts who “gnaw the dry and deso-
late ground . . . picking mallow and the leaves of bushes” (29:3–4a), the
wild ass is described as “ranging the mountains . . . searching after every
green thing” (39:8). And like Job’s outcasts, the reason for the wild ass’s
difficult search for food is its rejection of the economic agreements that
would guarantee it food in exchange for labor: “It scorns the tumult of the
city; it does not hear the shouts of the driver” (39:7). The wild ass will not
enter into mutually-beneficial agreements with the human community. It
will not render its services for payment. It would rather live as it wants to
live, whatever hardships such a life may entail, than bind itself to a life of
servitude in exchange for more reliable food and shelter. Yet, despite this,
the wild ass is not an outsider. Rather, it enjoys its freedom on the steppe
which God has given it for its home (39:6).
This point is made with even more force with regard to the wild ox
which will not “harrow the valleys after you” (39:10b) or “bring your grain
to the threshing floor ” (39:12b). “Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will
it spend the night at your crib?” (39:9), God asks. Here, God makes the
explicit claim that the wild ox will not enter into an agreement with Job,
exchanging its labor for the security which Job might offer, symbolized by
the crib. Like the outcasts of chapter 30, the wild ox and ass refuse to be
civically engaged, refuse to work hard to earn their keep, refuse to partici-
pate in the economic systems of the human community. Job’s condemna-
tion of the “senseless, disreputable brood’s” unwillingness to participate
in the economics of the town is undermined by God’s praise of the wild
ass and ox, both of which are described as shunning human society and
disdaining the economic agreements that Job sees as necessary to the
maintenance of the world-as-it-ought-to-be.
182 chapter four
The Economics of Leviathan
When God turns to his description of Leviathan which culminates his

speeches, he shows the limits of human power and perhaps even of divine
power. Neither humans nor gods can control Leviathan, the beast that
cannot be conquered or captured. In its supreme capacity to resist domes-
tication, Leviathan is the wild ox writ large; whereas humans may try to
domesticate the wild ox, Leviathan is completely beyond their reach.
Keller points out that
Much has been made of the ludicrousness of the trope of Leviathan as a pet
for giggling girls. Little, however, has been said of its economics. . . . Levia-
than makes a mockery of the whaling industry. . . . [T]he windy vortex mocks
the powers of global commercialization; it puts in question the assumption
of the exploitability of the wild life of the world—the “subdue and have
dominion” project.70
Keller’s focus is on humans’ inability to buy and sell what they cannot con-
trol, but there is an additional dimension to God’s depiction of Leviathan
as it relates to economics. As the wild ox writ large, Leviathan shares with
that animal the refusal to participate in human industry. It is not just that
these animals cannot be domesticated because their characteristics make
them unsuitable for the purpose. Rather, it is that these animals refuse to
enter into any kind of mutually beneficial agreement with humans.
Humans may have no power to capture Leviathan and press it into
service, but neither does Leviathan offer its services in exchange for
security. Leviathan will not “make a covenant with you and be taken as
your servant” (41:4).71 Leviathan will not trade on its abilities, in the way
that a sheepdog or a domestic ox is willing to trade, herding the sheep
or pulling the plow in exchange for food and shelter. Leviathan will not
70 Keller, Face of the Deep, 138. Habel, too, argues that God’s speeches challenge the
human mandate to dominate of Genesis 1:26–28. He writes, “Reading these texts . . . side by
side . . . enables us to hear God asking repeated questions that progressively narrow down
the interpretive options; gradually all sense of domination evaporates and the dogmatic
mandate is subverted.” Norman C. Habel, “ ‘Is the Wild Ox Willing to Serve You?’ Challeng-
ing the Mandate to Dominate,” in The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions, ed. N.C. Habel and
S. Wurst (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 184.
71 As part of the ideal life Job will live after he has repented Eliphaz promises, “[You]
shall not fear the wild animals of the earth. For you shall be in league with the stones of
the field, and the wild animals shall be at peace with you” (5:22b–23). The word translated
‘in league’ is ‫ברית‬, more frequently translated ‘covenant,’ which is how it is translated in
41:4 with regard to Leviathan. Eliphaz believes that the wild will make a covenant with the
righteous man, but here God denies that such a thing is possible.
be a status-symbol pet, taken to the park on a leash as a way of meeting

women—“What a darling animal! What is that—a Leviathan? What’s its
name? Flopsy? How adorable!”—in exchange for room and board. Keller
is right that the “‘subdue and have dominion’ project” is called into ques-
tion by the Leviathan pericope, but I think it is undermined more deeply
than even she asserts.
To “subdue and have dominion” requires a lot of hard work. It means
clearing land, plowing fields, planting, harvesting, processing, storing. It
means inventing machinery, building barns, domesticating animals. It
means earning your keep, not taking a hand-out from anybody. The food
that you eat is the food that you’ve labored to produce. What Leviathan,
as the culminating beast of the array described by God, represents is not
only the failure of the “ ‘subdue and dominion’ project” with respect to the
fact that it is impossible to subdue or have dominion over Leviathan, but
the negation of the idea that one must earn one’s keep, that one must,
in fact, participate in economics. It is not just that humans cannot sub-
due Leviathan by force, but that Leviathan will not agree to being subdued.
Leviathan will not trade its freedom for insider status, and, for this, God
praises it.
The Breakdown of the Distinction Between Inside and Outside Space
The group Job describes as a “senseless, disreputable brood” in chapter

30 shares characteristics with the animals God describes in his speeches.
Job describes these people as animals, scratching out a meager existence
from the wilderness, eating roots instead of cultivated grains and hud-
dling under bushes instead of sleeping in houses they have built. These
are the people whom Job classes as true outsiders; they are as outside as
it is possible to be. Their outsideness is based on their refusal to enter
into mutually-beneficial agreements with members of the community,
whether economic or moral. They will not do an honest day’s work for an
honest wage, but loaf around, shiftless. Neither will they gratefully accept
Job’s charity, acknowledging him as morally superior in return for what-
ever help he offers. What they steal—what makes the townspeople shout
after them “as after a thief ” (30:5b)—as long as they remain in town, is
the town’s ability to function as a community of insiders. The town holds
together because of the agreements its members make with each other
(and also with their God). Their covenants define the space they inhabit
as inner space and the space they do not inhabit as outer space. Without
184 chapter four
such agreements, the community fragments. It is not an ‘us’ inhabiting

a ‘here over against the ‘them’ and ‘there’ of outside space, but simply a
mixed group of people who happen to be in the same place but cannot
define that place as in any way inside because there are no links between
its people. The community is created and maintained by its economic
agreements. Those who refuse to participate in these agreements are, by
definition, outsiders, and must be expelled if the community is to be a
community of insiders.
God, though, praises animals that refuse to enter into economic agree-
ments with humans and who fail to earn their keep by cultivating the food
they will eat. He also praises animals who either abandon their parents,
in the case of the deer (39:4), or who abandon their children, in the case
of the ostrich (39:16). In doing so, he also praises the group that Job has
labeled “a senseless, disreputable brood.” He does not invite these outsid-
ers back into the town, but, rather, validates the outside space as valuable
in its own right and the outsider’s way of living as viable, perhaps more so
than that of the so-called insiders.
God’s speeches end with Leviathan, described as the supremely unsub-
duable beast. Leviathan is depicted as the supreme outsider. It will not
enter into economic agreements with humans, and there is no way for
humans to capture it and force it to work for them. Keller argues that
God’s depiction of Leviathan’s unconquerability marks the end of the
human “ ‘subdue and have dominion’ project.” The end of this project is
concurrent with the dissolution of the boundary between inside and out-
side space. If to be inside is to be within the human community, on land
and among animals that have been subdued and over which humans now
have dominion, then where Leviathan is there can be no inside space.
Faced with Leviathan, humans lose their ability to be insiders.
In his speeches, God dismantles the distinction between inside space
and outside space, causing the distinction between the two to become
hopelessly confused. Is the wild ox inside or outside? And what about
the sea? With their boundaries so confused, inside and outside lose their
meaning in relation (or opposition) to each other. God negates the claim
that inside is sole location of the world-as-it-ought-to-be and outside the
place of the anti-world. He denies the validity of the “ ‘subdue and have
dominion’ project,” both in terms of its possibility and, in his praise of
the ‘lazy’ animals, its desirability.72 Furthermore, God’s removal of the
72 I realize that animals are not humans. It would be possible for God to describe the
animals as not seeking to “subdue and have dominion” and for Job to still hold to his
d istinction between inside and outside as locations possessing fixed valu-

ations serves as a refutation of the idea that there are such things as the
world-as-it-ought-to-be and the anti-world. In God’s world, the world-as-
it-ought-to-be and the anti-world do not exist over against each other
in identifiable spheres. Rather, there is only the world-as-it-is, which is
quite a different proposition. The ‘world-as-it-ought-to-be’ is essentially
a defensive designation, defined by its need to defend itself against the
incursion of the anti-world. In God’s speeches, there is no anti-world that
threatens to break through its defenses, which means that the concept
of ‘the world-as-it-ought-to-be’ dissolves. God’s world is the world-as-it-is:
complex, changeable, and unbounded.
belief that humans ought to engage in that activity, given that, in Genesis, the command
was given specifically to humans and not to animals. Yet, the fact that Job has described
the members of the “senseless, disreputable brood” as animals, means that what God has
to say about animals also applies to humans. God praises animals in his speeches, and,
by extension, praises those humans who are most like animals, namely the “senseless dis-
reputable brood,” whose designation as animals has come about by way of their refusal to
“subdue and have dominion.” In this way, it can be seen that what God says about animals
applies to humans, too.
Chapter five
The Explosive Finale: Reading Backwards from

the Epilogue
Job Goes Back Inside
God finishes speaking. The silence which ensues echoes with the thunder
of his final words. The air is electric with the residue of the encounter.
We wait to see what will happen. Job, perceiving the expectant silence,
opens his mouth and responds. He says what he ought to say. He bows
before God’s majesty, and accepts that the world is as God has presented
it, acknowledging that he was formerly mistaken.1 He says,
I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be
thwarted. “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?” Therefore I
have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which
I did not know. “Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare
to me.” I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees
you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (42:2–6)
If, in the Hebrew, certain details of this response are not entirely clear—
if the object of ‫מאס‬, translated here as ‘despise’ is not specified, and
the meaning of the phrase ‫עפר ואפר‬, ‘dust and ashes,’ allows for some
ambiguity2—we can elucidate them easily enough. Job’s tone is repentant,
but grateful. God has answered him, and has shown him a world different
from anything he could have conceived: terrible in its nonanthropocen-
tricity, but, nevertheless, wildly beautiful and madly loved.
And then, something strange happens. The sky lightens. The whirl-
wind recedes, and, when it does, we discover that Job is living not in the
world God has just finished describing as the world of his creation—the
only world God acknowledges as existing—but, instead, in a world which
matches his old description of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, a world very
1 The New Oxford American Dictionary, under its entry for ‘mistake,’ gives the sample
sentence, “[B]ecause I was inexperienced, I mistook the nature of our relationship.” This
might well serve as a summation of Job’s response in 42:2–6. http://oxforddictionaries
.com/definition/mistake. Accessed September 14, 2011.
2 See the discussion of the difficulties inherent in this passage in chapter 1 of this
book.
reading backwards from the epilogue 187
like the one he inhabited in the book’s prologue. In his speeches, God
has erased the distinction between inside and outside, demonstrating that
inside does not exist, that, in his world, there is no such place. But, in the
epilogue, Job goes back inside.
The epilogue tells us,
And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job when he had prayed for his
friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then there
came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before,
and they ate bread with him in his house; they showed him sympathy and
comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him; and
each of them gave him a piece of money and a gold ring. The LORD blessed
the latter days of Job more than the beginning; and he had fourteen thou-
sand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand
donkeys. He also had seven sons and three daughters. . . . After this Job lived
one hundred and forty years, and saw his children, and his children’s chil-
dren, four generations. (42:10–13, 16)
This ending is absolutely at odds with everything God has been at pains
to show Job throughout his discourse on the animals. Job’s restoration
comes in exchange for his having prayed for his friends, as God has asked
him to do. That is to say, Job is shown to be righteous when he does God’s
bidding, and the evidence of his righteousness results in his being imme-
diately ushered inside. Job goes back into his house, that symbol of inside-
ness, and is met there by his community, which gathers around him and
affirms that he is one of them by sharing a meal with him. As a way of
comforting him for the wrongs God has done him, they give him money
and jewelry, as if in payment for his suffering, a kind of fine imposed
for their having colluded with God to treat him as an outsider when he
should have remained an insider. God, too, pays up, and the contents of
the settlement are detailed in verses 12–13. Scholars often notice that no
servants are included in the list of what Job gets as part of his restoration,
an interesting detail given the fact that in the prologue his wealth includes
“very many servants” (1:3). Few, however, comment on the much stranger
fact that God, who has just dazzled Job with his cavalcade of undomes-
ticated wildlife, praising the wild animals for their refusal to be anything
but wild, now gives Job a bevy of domesticated animals.3 God repays Job
3 Brown is the only scholar I have read who makes note of this detail, but he denies
its strangeness, writing, “Job’s status as patriarch seems only heightened with his property
doubled, including his draft animals (42:12; cf. 1:3). His beasts of burden are the coun-
terparts to the animals of the wild; but their appropriate domain is Job’s domicile, not
188 chapter five
for his righteousness with the currency of dominion. The thousand yoke
of oxen and the thousand donkeys stand out particularly, in that God has
just finished describing the unwillingness of the wild ox and wild ass to
serve humans. The term ‘yoke of oxen’ (‫ )צמד‬employed here itself des-
ignates oxen who are bound to human service, and contrasts with God’s
claim that the wild ox cannot be tied “in the furrow with ropes” and will
not “harrow the valleys after you” (39:10).
The contrast between the world of the wild animals described by God
and the world of the epilogue is furthered by its description of Job’s fam-
ily life. The community that surrounds Job, joining him in his house and
eating with him there, is referred to as Job’s “brothers and sisters” (42:11).
They are his relations, bound to him by the covenant of blood. The epi-
logue goes on to describe Job’s children, “seven sons and three daughters”
who are given to him by God as part of his restoration. Thwarting societal
convention by giving his daughters an inheritance along with his sons,
Job works to cement his familial bonds through mutual obligation to an
even greater degree than normal. Job pays his sons and daughters, and,
in turn, they stay close to home, so that he can see “his children, and
his children’s children, four generations” (42:16) until he finally dies “old
and full of days” (42:17). The information given in the epilogue about the
cohesion of Job’s family,4 can be contrasted with God’s descriptions of the
deer and the ostrich which shirk their parent-child obligations and which,
nevertheless, are shown as recipients of God’s life-giving rewards.
Just as God’s whirlwind speeches can be seen as a direct answer to Job’s
claims about the world-as-it-ought-to-be, an answer that refutes what Job
assumes to be true, so the epilogue can be read as a direct refutation of
what God has claimed about the world of his creation. God says that there
is no such place as inside to be contrasted with outside, but, in the epi-
logue, Job definitely goes inside. God has portrayed a world too complex
to be organized around a central figure, but Job takes his place at the
center of his community, surrounding himself with family who are bound
to him and to whom he is bound by treaties of economic exchange. God
has claimed that reward is not linked to righteousness, but Job inhabits
the space of righteousness and reaps its rewards. Additionally, the space
in which Job finds himself is the subdued space of the “ ‘subdue and have
the rugged mountains or bare heights. Their place remains with Job, servile and at home
within Job’s reestablished familial kingdom.” Brown, Character, 378.
4 Granted, the fact that Job’s wife is not mentioned in the epilogue may signal that Job’s
family is not as cohesive as the surface of the tale seems to indicate.
dominion’ project,” as is evidenced by his possession of domesticated ani-

mals over which he has dominion. In these ways, the epilogue reconstructs
the boundaries between the inside space of human community and the
outer space of wilderness, while at the same time affirming the “ ‘subdue
and have dominion’ project.” What’s more, Job’s life possesses a stability
that God’s world lacks. At the end of the book, Job dies “old and full of
days” (42:17), surrounded by four generations of family who will bear his
name into the future, robbing death of its destabilizing power.
What Just Happened?
The transition from poetry to prose does not happen smoothly. We

feel the disjunction, as the train we have been riding suddenly changes
tracks, and speeds past what we thought was its destination. Feeling the
car jerk and shudder, we eye each other nervously, as if to ask What just
happened? This question, though, does not imply that we cannot see for
ourselves what has happened. It is clear that we have crossed the border
from one world into another, quite different world. There is no whirlwind
here, no crackle of lightning or crash of thunder, no wild ass or ox, no
ostrich, no Behemoth, no Leviathan. We can see that our train is picking
up speed in a different direction, as the platform where we intended to
alight grows smaller in the distance. What we are really asking is not what
happened, but how what happened happened, and what it means. Where
are we going? Will we ever get back to that rapidly disappearing station?
Will we, perhaps, follow this track to an equally serviceable destination?
Or are we headed for a precipice?
These questions are answered differently by different readers. Greenberg
points out that different receptions of the epilogue have to do with how
a given reader expects the book to end. He writes, “Critics have deemed
this conclusion, yielding as it does to the instinct of natural justice, anti-
climactic and a vulgar capitulation to convention; the common reader,
on the other hand, has found this righting of a terribly disturbed balance
wholly appropriate.”5 ‘Critics’ and ‘common readers’6 alike notice the dis-
junctive effect of the appearance of the epilogue, but they appreciate it
5 Greenberg, “Job,” 300.

6 I will continue to use Greenberg’s appellatives in this section, with the understanding
that I am referring to critics and common readers, as defined by his description of their
expectations, but I will not continue to put them in quotation marks.
190 chapter five
differently. For the common reader, who values the prose prologue over
the poetry that has followed it, the return to the world of the prologue,
though disjunctive, seems wholly fitting. In the original shift from prose
to poetry, the book shook and rattled, like a train changing tracks; now,
in the return to prose, the rattling is no less violent, but it has the oppo-
site effect: the train is back on track. For the critics, who value the poetry
over the prose, however, the return to the world of the prose prologue
completely derails the trajectory of the book; just as it had reached its
destination—the climax of God’s speeches and Job’s response—it picks
up speed again, chugging off down a different track, to its passengers’ dis-
may and alarm. Crenshaw, one such critic, offers this solution:
The epilogue . . . can be dispensed with altogether, since the poem ends
appropriately with Job’s acquisition of first hand knowledge about God by
means of the divine self-manifestation for which Job risked everything.7
In other words, readers should simply exit the train where they expect it
to stop, even if it has not come to a complete standstill. This should be
easy enough to do since, after all, books are not really trains, and there is
no physical risk involved. The book may keep going, but readers, simply
by stopping reading, may choose not to go along.
How, though, is this legitimate? If the book is going somewhere else,
shouldn’t we go with it? Otherwise, we can hardly claim to have read
the book. In this regard, common readers would seem to have the more
acceptable strategy. They may discount the importance of the interven-
ing poetry—“a funny thing happened to me on the way the epilogue”—
but at least they go where the book is going, instead of getting off where
they’d rather it had stopped. Critics’ legitimation for getting off before the
train has stopped is that it has been hijacked, either by an enemy author
seeking to change the book’s destination, or by literary conventions and
the laziness of the author of the poetry. Curtis, who believes that the epi-
logue is an editorial addition to the ‘real’ Book of Job, claims that “The
most important purpose of the prose . . . is that of deliberately misleading
the reader” from the real import of the book.8 For Crenshaw, prologue
and epilogue are simply an unrelated “narrative framework” into which
“the poetic dialogue . . . has been inserted.”9 That is, the poet needed a
7 James Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (London: SCM Press,

1982), 100.
8 Curtis, “Job’s Response,” 510.
9 Crenshaw, Wisdom, 100.
f ramework so that his poem would have a beginning, for “otherwise it

begins in media res,”10 but he was not picky, and used whatever was clos-
est to hand, presumably being too lazy to seek out a more appropriate
narrative or to write one himself. Neither of these critical legitimations for
ignoring the epilogue is particularly convincing, though they do account
for the disjunction between the epilogue and the preceding poetry. The
existence of a saboteur, affixing the epilogue in order to change the mean-
ing of the book, is purely speculative, as is the pre-existence of a narrative
into which the real author of the real Book of Job inserted his manuscript
(a narrative which, though purportedly believed to be a necessary addi-
tion by the author of the poetry, readers must strip off if they are to get at
the real book). Moreover, one must wonder why whoever affixed the epi-
logue did it so clumsily, showing the joins, letting the reader feel the jolt
as the book changes tracks and speeds past its original destination. Surely
a saboteur would have wanted to disguise his sabotage. Surely the author
of the magnificent poem would have wanted to use more finesse. As it is,
we feel the disjunction acutely, whether we understand it as a return to
the book’s correct trajectory or a deviation from it.
There are some readers, however, who claim to perceive no disjunction
between the epilogue and what precedes it. Brown, for example, asserts
that God never intended Job to inhabit the wilderness world of the whirl-
wind. He writes,
It is crucial that Job does not remain in the wilderness, meditating upon
God’s awesome beneficence in creation. . . . Just as he was thrown into the
margins of life, where the periphery suddenly replaced the center, Job is
now thrown back into the community with a new sense of purpose and
moral vision.11
As Brown sees it, Job accepts God’s depiction of the world, but he lives
in that world by reentering his community, by being willing to reengage
despite the unpredictable changeability of the world as he now knows it
to be. For Brown, then, the epilogue represents the fulfillment of what
has come before in God’s speeches and Job’s response, and not any kind
of contradiction. Similarly, Schifferdecker writes,
Job participates in creation not by inhabiting the wild realm of the divine
speeches, but by joining again in human community. He . . . fathers more
children, this time delighting in their beauty and giving them the freedom
10 Ibid.
11 Brown, Character, 114.
192 chapter five
God gives his own creatures. In this way, the epilogue can be understood as
a response to the extraordinary vision of the divine speeches.12
I do agree with Brown and Schifferdecker that certain of the details of the
epilogue may be read as evidence of a changed perspective in Job—of
his acceptance of certain aspects of God’s world and his partial emula-
tion of God’s behavior13—but I to not share their certainty that what the
epilogue demonstrates is Job’s wholesale acceptance of the world God has
presented from the whirlwind. The world in which Job finds himself in the
epilogue is so different from the world presented in God’s speeches, that
to insist that nothing unexpected has happened is to ignore this very real
disjunction.
Schifferdecker’s claim that
Job’s reply to the divine speeches and his restoration in the epilogue confirm
the reader’s sense that the divine speeches have engendered a change in the
attitude and circumstances of the man from Uz14
is telling. She does not say that the epilogue demonstrates that the divine
speeches have changed Job, but only that it “confirms the reader’s sense”
that this is what has happened. Where, though, does the reader get this
sense, if it is only confirmed, and not created, by what happens in the epi-
logue? It must be, it seems to me, the reader’s own response to the divine
speeches. The reader, imaginatively entering into Job’s position through
the act of reading, knows how she would respond in Job’s place; indeed,
she knows how she does respond, because in the act of reading, she is in
Job’s place. And, after all, how could Job not have his ‘attitude’—indeed,
his entire conception of what the world is and ought to be like—infinitely
altered by his face-to-face (or face-to-funnel-cloud) encounter with the
divine? If he is not changed utterly, he must be an utter fool, somehow
missing the magnitude of what has happened to him.
As can be seen, how a reader answers the question What just happened?
and all it implies depends upon the reader’s expectation of what is sup-
posed to happen. I have used the metaphor of a train suddenly changing
tracks and speeding past its intended destination, but, in reality, this meta-
phor fits only those critics, like Curtis and Crenshaw, who expect the book
to end with God’s speeches and Job’s response. For Greenberg’s common
12 Schifferdecker, Whirlwind, 110.

13 I will discuss this possibility later in this chapter.
readers, the epilogue represents not a sharp turn away from an expected
destination, but the unexpected arrival at that destination by an alternate
route. These readers may be weak-kneed from their wild ride, but they
sigh with relief as their train lurches into the station and comes to a stop.
A third kind of reader, exemplified by Brown and Schifferdecker, denies
any kind of disjunction between poetry and prose epilogue; this train
glides smoothly into its destination station, having followed its expected
track through the book.15 Still another kind of reader, noticing the disjunc-
tion between poetry and prose, accepts this disjunction as integral to the
strategy of the book and proceeds to inquire into its purpose. In this group
are readers like Clines, Newsom, and Penchansky, and this is also the kind
of reader that I am.16
In the prologue to this book, I have already discussed the validity of
readers’ genuine interaction with the text. There, I quoted Janzen, who
argues that all reading is—and should be—shaped by readers’ “interpre-
tation of existence,” making all interpretations “irreducibly confessional”17
and Clines who claims that readers “would be . . . wrong to think that
it does not matter, in reading the Bible, what they themselves already
believe.”18 Perhaps, then, I should proceed by simply humbly acknowl-
edging my membership in ‘reader group number four,’ and going on to
show how the epilogue confirms my particular expectations, by which its
meaning is already governed. Hubristically, however, I want to try to make
a case for the superiority of my approach. Expectation, I want to argue,
may be permitted to govern interpretation, but only to a degree, and, it
seems to me, the readings of ‘reader group number four’ strike the best
balance between expectation and attention to the text.
Types of Readerly Expectation and Their Relative Value
Those readers who would excise the epilogue altogether have, I think, the
least defensible position, for they fail to deal with the book as it exists,
15 This is not to say that God does not say things that this kind of reader does not
expect, but that this reader expects God to speak authoritatively about the creation and
expects Job to accept God’s authority, which is what happens in the epilogue, as this kind
of reader understands it.
16 I have already discussed the details of these readers’ approaches to the epilogue in
chapter 1 of this book, in order to highlight both my similarities with and differences from
them.
18 Clines, Job 1–20, xlvii.
194 chapter five
preferring some nonexistent—through theoretically more authentic—

version over what we have.19 They give reasons for this, as noted above,
but these reasons are not convincing. The alleged saboteur, posited by
Curtis, seems too clumsy to be credible, and the idea that the prose frame
is merely a random piece of paper wrapped around the real book, as
argued by Crenshaw—as if the poetry were a piece of raw meat requiring
wrapping in newspaper so that it can be safely handed to the customer—
seems unlikely. Texts don’t work that way, do they? They’re not bloody;
they don’t attract flies. An irrelevant ‘wrapper’ is more likely to cause
confusion, compromising the text instead of protecting it. If his intention
was to make his text presentable—able to be handed over to readers—
the author would hardly have chosen this route. The ‘wrapper’ must be
relevant.
Above, I argued that readers who prefer the prose over the poetry have
a more defensible position than those who ignore the epilogue altogether,
for they, at least, acknowledge all parts of the book as legitimate, even if
they view one part—the poetry—as being of secondary importance. This,
in fact, makes sense within the trajectory of the book: Job experiences dif-
ficulties, but, in the end, all comes right again. Indeed, William Whedbee
identifies Job as a comedy, because it shares that genre’s
basic plot line that leads ultimately to the happiness of the hero and his
restoration to a serene and harmonious society.20
Yet, readers who value the prose over the poetry do not really have a
defensible position, either. The poetry, which makes up the bulk of the
19 I say this, and yet, at the same time, blithely choose to ignore Elihu in the discussion
of Job that fills these pages. Newsom, who also reads Job as a unified work written by one
author, makes an exception for Elihu’s speeches, treating them as the interpolations of a
reader who, hearing the debate between Job and his friends, could not help but join in.
Newsom, Book of Job, 16–17, 30. I find Newsom’s suggestion intriguing, but it does not pro-
vide me with a real defense for ignoring Elihu. Newsom herself does include discussion of
Elihu in her book from which the above quotation is taken; he may be secondary, but any
‘final form’ reading must take him into account. I ignore him because he does not seem
to contribute to the conversation about creation Job, his friends, and God are having, at
least as I am hearing it. The categories by which I am engaging with the speech of the
other characters do not fit Elihu. These categories may be artificial, but they allow certain
details within the book to be highlighted and explored. If Elihu is a reader who has writ-
ten himself into the book, it can make sense to bracket his speeches, to see what the book
says without his interruption, even if he cannot always be ignored. So, I ignore him here,
but I do not always ignore him. See, for example, my article Job as Comedy, Revisited, in
which Elihu plays a major role.
20 William Whedbee, “The Comedy of Job,” Semeia 7 (1977): 5.
book, cannot really be written off as ‘a funny thing that happened on the
way to the epilogue.’ It matters too much. If, for readers like Crenshaw,
the prologue and epilogue are the Wonderbread encasing the poet’s foie
gras with black truffles21—he felt like he had to spread it on something,
but, really, if one wants to do justice to the foie gras, one ought to scrape
it off and throw away the Wonderbread—these other readers smash the
prologue and epilogue back together so that the strange, smelly substance
that was between them squirts out and lands on the ground to be judi-
ciously stepped over. This results in a reading which summarizes the book
in this way: Because Job is righteous, satan tries to trick him, but Job isn’t
fooled, either by the ‘evil’ satan or by his ‘mean’ friends, and in the end
God rewards him for his faithfulness.22 These readers may follow the tra-
jectory of the book—they may take the train to the end of the line—but,
during its careening journey through the poetry they have had their eyes
closed, their knuckles whitely gripping the edges of their seats. They have
traveled through the poetry, but they have tried to see as little of the scen-
ery as possible, and so cannot really be said to have read the book in its
entirety, any more than those who jump off before the train has reached
its destination.
The third group of readers, which includes Brown and Schifferdecker,
has the advantage of attending to both poetry and prose and taking both
seriously. These readers, however, are no less governed by expectation
than the first two kinds of readers. Responding to Newsom’s Bakhtinian
reading of Job Schifferdecker contends
While the notion of a ‘polyphonic text’ may be attractive . . . in a modern con-
text, the ancient Israelite reader must have understood the divine speeches
to be the answer to Job’s situation. . . . The book does indeed have an ‘end,’
whether contemporary readers appreciate it or not.”23
Here, Schifferdecker disparages the expectations belonging to ‘contem-
porary readers,’ while allying her own expectations with those of ‘the
ancient Israelite.’ Because the ancient Israelite would have understood
God’s voice as authoritative, this kind of readerly expectation is justified,
she argues. By contrast, those readers who inhabit a ‘modern context’ do
not automatically attribute the same authority to God, and are, therefore,
21 Forgive this proliferation of metaphors. It’s how my brain works.

22 See Louis Ulmer, What’s the Matter with Job? Arch Books #11 (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1974).
196 chapter five
unequipped with the expectations which would allow them to read the
text correctly. Or, rather, those who claim that the Book of Job itself ques-
tions the authority of God’s words in chapters 38–41 are suffering from
their own misguided expectations, whereas those contemporary readers
who recognize God’s absolute authority do have the right expectations.
This, though, seems a very narrowing way of approaching the book.
The book can only say what the ancient Israelite would have expected it
to say, and the only way for contemporary readers to deal with the text is
to try to put themselves in the place of this somewhat hypothetical indi-
vidual. This is problematic.24 It means that there are very real limits on
what it is possible for the book to say; it may go so far, but no further. God
may respond to Job in an unexpected way. He may present a world very
different from the one Job—and perhaps we readers—have understood
as the world-as-it-ought-to-be, but once God speaks, that’s it. The buck
stops here. Only one kind of response is possible: one must bow before
God’s knowledge and power, acknowledge one’s lowliness and mistaken-
ness, and change one’s ways to bring them into line with God’s decrees.
This, then, is what Job does, regardless of what it seems like he might do,
regardless of any ambiguity inherent in his words and actions. He has no
other option.
And yet, this expectation, despite supposedly being the only one
available to the ancient Israelite, seems at odds with what happens in
the book, in which challenges to God abound. Throughout the book Job
accuses God of afflicting him unjustly. In chapter 16 Job laments, “He
bursts upon me again and again; he rushes at me like a warrior . . . though
there is no violence in my hands, and my prayer is pure” (16:14, 17), a com-
plaint the essence of which is repeated again and again. Scholars often
smugly remark that we readers know the real reason for Job’s suffering,
even though Job does not.25 Job thinks God is afflicting him because God
thinks he is guilty of wickedness. We, though, having read the prologue,
know that God is afflicting Job not because he is wicked, but because he is
supremely righteous, as a way of gauging how deep his righteousness runs.
24 I have already noted the problematic nature of the historical-critical search for the
author and his original reading community in the prologue to this book.
25 Dick Geeraerts, for example, writes, “If Job’s question is: ‘Why do you torment me so
[God] while I am innocent?’, we as readers know the answer, and we have known it from
the very start of the book. God is tormenting Job merely because God has been persuaded
by the satan to test Job.” Dick Geeraerts, “Caught in a Web of Irony: Job and His Embar-
rassed God,” in Job 28: Cognition in Context, ed. E. van Wolde (Leiden and Boston: Brill,
2003), 52.
Job may be somewhat misguided, it’s true, but our scholarly smugness
also fails to take in the full import of Job’s situation in relation to God.
God, himself, after the first round of the prologue’s test accuses hassatan,
“you incited me . . . to destroy him for no reason” (2:3b), indicating that
God views his own activity as not entirely justifiable.26 God may blame
hassatan for his role in the test, but he also acknowledges his own partici-
pation in a dubious enterprise.
So, the claim that for the ancient Israelite, God’s speeches could only
have been appreciated as appropriately answering Job’s complaint—
because God’s words and actions are always authoritative and above
reproach—is not supported by the rest of the book. Perhaps in general
God’s words and deeds were viewed in this way in ancient Israel, but we
have to allow for the possibility that the Book of Job was saying something
different, contesting this generally-held view. For this reason, the idea that
the expectations of the ancient Israelite are more reliable indicators of the
book’s meaning than our own readerly expectations is flawed. Moreover,
as regards the assumed authority of God’s voice, I do not know that the
contemporary reader’s expectations are significantly different from the
ancient Israelite’s.27 We may no longer, as a society, ascribe the same kind
26 See the discussion of this point in chapter 2 of this book.

27 Schifferdecker’s related claim that contemporary readers, unlike ancient ones, would
prefer the book not to have an ‘end’ also seems debatable. I do not think we are really so
opposed to closure in the books we read. Gabriel Josipovici comments that “A generation
which has experienced Ulysses and The Waste Land” should be able to accept the complex-
ity of the Bible. He continues, “[M]any modernist works might well be described as more
like . . . caves crammed with scrolls than like carefully plotted nineteenth-century novels
or even fairy stories and romances. But we should also realize that this is a feature they
have in common with a great deal of ancient literature.” Josipovici, Book of God, 49. The
point Josipovici is making has to do with the real unity of material that appears disunited,
a point well taken in relation to Job. I want to use his remarks to engage in a slightly differ-
ent argument. As contemporary readers we should not be too quick to insist on differences
between ancient literature and our own, simply as a matter of course. Josipovici argues
that surely, having been exposed to a book like Ulysses, we ought to be able to accept that
disjunctions within a text do not mean that we are dealing with a composite text which
was never meant to appear as a single document. For Josipovici, Ulysses ought to make
it easier for us to grasp the disjunctive unity of the Bible and of biblical texts. In truth,
though, I think it makes it harder. “Never in the history of humankind has anyone written
books like these contemporary works,” we tell ourselves. “Only now are we sophisticated
enough to understand such works, and, as such they are wholly original and unique to our
place in time. An ancient reader, coming across a book like Ulysses, would have been com-
pletely flummoxed; it is only we, now, who are capable of taking such works as a matter
of course, only we who are not bewildered by them.” This attitude, however, reveals some-
thing about these works and our appreciation of them. We may not be bewildered, but we
believe others would be, precisely because we view these works as inherently bewildering.
Works like Ulysses—if Ulysses is not, in fact, unique and in a category of its own—are the
198 chapter five
of authority to God in the world, but, when we read a text—particularly

when that text is in the Bible—we tend to assume, I think, that words
attributed to God are intended to be understood as authoritative. The
speaker’s name—‘God’—gives him authority, and this speaker, when he
speaks in chapters 38–41, claims authority for himself: “Where were you
when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (38:4; my italics). Moreover, that
Job has been calling on God to answer him throughout the book sets us up
to expect that God’s response will be authoritative and appropriate, at the
same time as God’s behavior in the prologue and Job’s accusations against
him warn us against taking the authority of God’s words for granted. This
push-pull exists throughout the book, as Job simultaneously calls on God-
as-he-ought-to-be to vindicate him and accuses the God who is afflicting
him of failing to live up to what is expected of him. This tension must be
evident to ancient and contemporary readers alike.
The fourth way of reading the epilogue seems less distorted by read-
ers’ expectations than the three ways discussed above, which either excise
the epilogue, discount the poetic section, or insist that the epilogue can-
not undermine God’s authority because God’s authority would not have
been questioned by ancient readers, despite the fact that God’s authority
is questioned by Job throughout the book. Like Schifferdecker, I acknowl-
edge God’s words as the book’s authoritative statement about the world,
recognizing that God’s depiction of the world as he has created it trumps
Job’s and his friends’ claims about the world-as-it-ought-to-be and shows
them to have been mistaken about the nature of the creation. Unlike
Schifferdecker and Brown, however, I also recognize the intensely disjunc-
tive effect of the epilogue, in which Job proceeds to inhabit a world God
has just finished telling him does not exist. The effect of this is explosive,
precisely because of the authority we assume God possesses.
The epilogue detonates; the book shoots into the air and rains down in
a torrent of questions: Has God decided that Job’s world-as-it-ought-to-be
has merit after all and decided to give that world a place in his creation?
Or has the epilogue world come into existence through an agency other
than God’s? If God is not responsible for creating the epilogue world, is
exception, not the norm. These are not the books most contemporary readers spend most
of their time reading. In fact, it is false to say that we, in contrast to what ancient readers
would be, are not bewildered by them. Most of us are fairly flummoxed. Perhaps, then,
Ulysses and Job should be grouped together, not separated according to whether they are
‘modern’ or ‘ancient,’ but, instead, categorized as bewildering books that defy the expecta-
tions of contemporary and ancient readers alike.
its existence still consonant with the world he describes himself as hav-
ing created, despite its differences from that world, or does God’s world
preclude the existence of the epilogue world? If God’s world precludes
the existence of such a world, how does it happen to exist? If God did not
create it, who did? If Job and/or his friends made it, how did they manage
to do so? If the book ends with a world made by humans, does this mean
that human beings, and not God, are the real creators? Or is the world
inhabited by Job in the epilogue nothing more than a fantasy, with no
basis in reality? If it is a fantasy with no basis in reality, does this mean
that it is impossible to live there or is it perfectly possible to live in such
a place? Is there, after all, nothing more to creating than imagining, or is
God’s creative activity of a different sort? Is there such thing as the ‘real
world’ or are all worlds imaginary? If Job can create and live in his own
world, what is his relationship to God? Is he a co-creator, endowed by God
with creative faculties so that he may share in God’s creativity? Or is he
an anti-creator who has set himself up as God’s rival? Or is he some third
thing, neither subordinate co-creator nor antagonistic rival-creator?
Job as the Creator of the World of the Epilogue
I do not propose to address all of these questions in a systematic fashion.

Nor do I plan to provide definitive answers, so that each question can be
answered and subsequently checked off the list. I want, rather, to raise
and explore possibilities, reading backwards into the book to do so, as
discussed in my introductory chapter, fully aware that this exploration
may yield contradictory evidence. I want to begin by offering the pos-
sibility that the world inhabited in the epilogue is a world created by Job
himself. At first blush, this suggestion seems rather more impossible than
possible. How in the world could Job have created the world of the epi-
logue? What kind of creative power could he possibly have? All of God’s
questions—“Where were you when I did X? Do you know Y? Can you do
Z?”—in chapters 38–41, serve to hammer home the fact that Job has no
creative power. God, not Job, is the creator of the world.
And yet, the shockingly disjunctive force of the epilogue stems from
the fact that it, in no way, resembles the world God has described himself
as creating. Rather, what it is like is the world Job and his friends have
described throughout the book, in overt and oblique statements, as the
world-as-it-ought-to-be. In the first section of this chapter I have already
noted the points of consonance between the world of the epilogue and
200 chapter five
Job’s world-as-it-ought-to-be. The epilogue world has its location inside

the confines of the town, where Job is the central figure of his commu-
nity. Moreover, this world is stable; Job lives out his days with no fear of
disruptive change. If we were not already convinced of Job’s incapacity
for creation, we would look at the epilogue and easily identify it as Job’s
world.
Why, though, are we so convinced that Job has no creative power?
How do we know that Job could not make a world? We know because
God has told us so: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the
earth? . . . Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice
like his?” (38:4a, 40:9), and so on. I wonder, though, whether God pro-
tests too much. “You are no creator, Job,” God says again and again, but
why should God be so insistent on this point? Job has never claimed to
have creative power. His urgent cry for God to answer him and restore his
disrupted life to its previous state is based on his belief that God alone
is the world’s creator. Only God can remake the world-as-it-ought-to-be,
for “In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every
human being” (12:10). Yet, when God appears, after asking Job about his
presence at the founding of the earth, he continues, “Who determined its
measurements—surely you know!” (38:5a), using sarcasm to imply that
Job is under some misapprehension about the identity of the creator. Job
was not there when the world was first made, and so he does not know
how it was done or even who did it. The first implication—that he does
now know how creation happened—makes sense. The second, however,
is puzzling. Of course Job knows who is responsible for the creation of the
world. He knows that God is the creator. This is precisely why he needs
God to respond to his complaint.
God insists that Job has no creative power, but this insistence implies
that Job needs to be disabused on this count. Since, however, as far as we
can tell from his speeches, Job has never claimed this kind of power, we
must wonder where God got the idea that this is what Job has done. Jon
Levenson answers this difficulty by suggesting that God’s speeches may
have originally been composed as part of quite a different story, writing,
[C]hapters 38–41 presuppose a . . . story . . . in which the protagonist was not
an innocent sufferer, but a Prometheus-like figure who challenged God’s
mastery of the world and claimed knowledge comparable to his.28
28 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 155.
That is to say, God didn’t get the idea from Job, as he appears in the book
as we have it, but from some other Joe(b) whose words and actions we
do not know, but whose broad outlines we can infer from the accusations
inherent in God’s questions. “Am I the Sea, or the Dragon, that you set a
guard over me?” (7:12) Job has asked, meaning to remind God that he is
no such threatening power. God, however, answers as if he is negating
this claim—Job is the Dragon—and the reason God answers in this way
is because he is answering some other Job who is, in fact, the Dragon. He
is not speaking to ‘our’ Job, but to someone else, nothing like the man
we know.
This manages to make sense of the puzzling nature of God’s questions,
while at the same time making a nonsense of the book as a whole. If God
seems to be speaking past Job, it is because he is not talking to him at
all. God has teleported into the wrong book, and is addressing the wrong
audience. How awkward. One of God’s aides had better whisper in his ear
and tell him the room he wants is down the hall.29 If, though, we want
to try to read the Book of Job as we have it, it seems necessary to accept
that God’s words are intended to address ‘our’ Job, even if they seem to
show that God believes Job to be different from the Job we have grown
acquainted with over the course of the book. As Peggy Day writes,
[I]f the theory is pursued to its logical conclusion, the book of Job in its
present form has . . . no meaning. . . . Thus it seems more profitable to posit a
basic integrity to the book of Job, and try to make sense of the component
parts in light of the overall composition.30
Actually, Levenson, despite his suspicion that God’s words were originally
meant for some other Job, does read God’s speeches as integral to the
meaning of the book at this point. He writes,
[I]n their present position chapters 38–41 attack Job not for his belief that
God can be sadistic . . . but for his insolence in expressing it. . . . The brunt of
[God’s] harangue is that creation . . . is not anthropocentric but theocentric.
Humanity must learn to adjust to a world not designed for their benefit
and to cease making claims (even just claims) upon its incomprehensible
designer and master.31
29 On second thought, though, his aides may decide that since there is no way for him
to make a graceful exit, dressed as he is in full whirlwind and having already knocked over
several water glasses and a floral centerpiece on his way to the podium, he had better just
stay and make the best of it.
30 Day, Adversary, 71.
31 Levenson, Creation, 155–56.
202 chapter five
There is something strange about this interpretation, though. Job may be

no Prometheus, the kind of character for whom God’s words were origi-
nally meant, but, here, Levenson does attribute Prometheus-like behavior
to Job and to humanity in general. Job has been insolent in his questioning
of God’s justice, and his complaint has revealed his underlying belief that
humanity, not God, is of central importance within the creation. God’s
speeches quash Job’s accusations by showing him that his assumptions
about himself and his place in the world are untenable. In Levenson’s
interpretation, Job has in fact acted and spoken like a kind of Prometheus.
Levenson does not put it this way, but what seems to be happening in his
interpretation is an original perception that God’s words do not match
Job’s character, followed by a new perception of what Job’s character
is like based on how God is addressing him. That is, Levenson’s initial
assumptions about who Job is are changed by how God speaks to Job;
readers do not recognize that Job is like Prometheus, until God addresses
him as such, and then, seeing him from God’s perspective, they realize
that this is what Job is.32
I think Levenson is right—or, rather, I think the implications of his
argument are right—that God’s speeches change our appreciation of Job.
How God addresses Job changes our understanding of what Job has said
and done. Of course, in Levenson’s reading, what God declares Job guilty
of is insolence and anthropocentrism, not of claiming to possess creative
power and trying to exercise it. Yet, in his focus on creation and on him-
self as creator, I do think this is an accusation God is leveling against
Job. As Levenson sees it, the epilogue does not represent an unsettling of
God’s authority, but, rather demonstrates Job’s “open and unconditional
submission to the God of creation,” which, in turn, “grants humanity a
reprieve from the cold inhumanity of the radically theocentric world.”33
As already noted, however, the world of the epilogue is so like Job’s world-
as-it-ought-to-be, and so different from the world of God’s speeches, that,
if we were not already convinced of Job’s inability to create, we would
easily identify him as its creator.
As far as we can tell, Job has not claimed to possess creative power, but
God, when he answers Job, speaks as if Job has done exactly this. Our first
32 I suppose this is not totally unlike those readers who claim that Job’s sin, for which
he was afflicted, is pride. Unable to accept that God would really punish Job for nothing,
such readers breathe a sigh of relief when Job’s hidden flaw is uncovered. In Levenson’s
interpretation, the flaw is not pride, an inflated sense of oneself, but anthropocentrism, an
inflated sense of one’s (human) species.
33 Idem.
response might be to think that God is talking to the wrong Joe(b), but, if
we accept that these are, in fact, the words God intended to speak to ‘our’
Job, then we have to wonder if there is, after all, something in the accusa-
tion. After that, we have to wonder whether God’s insistence that Job has
no creative power is actually true. On a first reading, we accept that the
book’s trajectory is leading up to God’s appearance, and, having waited
for God to speak the definitive words, we are convinced by God that Job
has no creative power. And yet, the epilogue is so much Job’s world. Job
cannot have made it. And yet. And yet. What if he did? To explore this sus-
picion, it seems worth inquiring into the basis for the accusations brought
against Job by God. What has made God think that Job claimed to have
creative power in the first place? The prologue, with its similarity to the
epilogue, seems a good place to look.
The Problem of the Prologue
As already discussed in the preceding chapters of this book, the world

depicted in the prologue fits Job’s ideal of the world-as-it-ought-to-be. In
general, scholars have less trouble with the prologue than with the epi-
logue, despite their depiction of closely similar worlds. This makes sense.
If the trajectory of the book is such that Job and his friends express erro-
neous opinions about the world, only to be set straight by God, the world’s
creator, at the end, the presence of the initial erroneous information is
explained. It is the book’s ‘straw man.’ The prologue describes the book’s
‘straw world.’ So, it is not that scholars accept the world of the prologue
but reject the same world when it appears in the epilogue, but that the
book itself is set up in such a way that the prologue is automatically
rejected. The offense of the epilogue lies in the fact that it represents the
resurgence of the ‘straw world’ that the book has already struck down.
Crenshaw who, as already noted, is in favor of lopping off the epilogue
altogether, since the book has already ended ‘appropriately’ at 42:6, per-
mits the prologue to remain, albeit somewhat grudgingly: “Unfortunately,
the poetry requires an introduction of some kind; otherwise it begins in
media res and readers are left to supply a proper beginning which would
illuminate the subsequent dialogue.”34 Despite Crenshaw’s description
of the necessity of an introduction as ‘unfortunate,’ he must, it seems,
regard the current prologue as serving to properly illuminate the sub-
34 Crenshaw, Wisdom, 100.

204 chapter five
sequent dialogue, since it is precisely this which he views as necessary.

Indeed, even if scholars find the prose prologue lacking in sophistica-
tion when compared with the poetry which follows,35 they tend to take
the information it presents at face value: Job is the most righteous man
in the east; God and hassatan have devised and implemented a test to
determine whether Job’s righteousness is disinterested; this test is the
source of Job’s suffering, meaning that he does not suffer because God
mistakenly thinks he is wicked, as he believes, but because God thinks
he is supremely righteous and wants to determine the limits of his—and,
by extension, human—righteousness. Without this prologue—if readers
were, in fact, “left to supply a proper beginning which would illuminate
the subsequent dialogue”—we would likely read the book quite differ-
ently. We might not, for example, believe Job’s claims of innocence. We
might find the friends’ arguments more convincing that Job’s own. We
might welcome Elihu’s intrusion as a fresh attempt to make the exasper-
atingly stubborn Job finally see sense. And instead of potentially viewing
the whirlwind God as “riding along on the tempest of his almightiness and
thunder[ing] reproaches at the half-crushed human worm,”36 we might
view such a display of power as merited, the only thing that will silence
Job’s annoyingly prolix complaint.
Readers have a complicated relationship with the prologue. Its world
is the book’s ‘straw world,’ and yet we accept everything about it as true.
We accept that Job really lived in such a world, that he really was singled
out by God as supremely righteous, and that the source of his affliction is
a test set by God and hassatan. If we do not accept these things, the book
loses much of its significance. If, for example, Job was not righteous—
as we might assume if we had only the poem without the prologue—it
would not address the conundrum of righteous suffering, but only of self-
delusion. The book needs the prologue—not just any prologue, but this
one in particular. Yet, the book, as it progresses, at once negates the pro-
logue, and draws meaning from it. So, it is not that readers have invented
35 Although most readers find the prologue less sophisticated than the poetry which fol‑
lows, as will be discussed in more detail below, not all do. Clines, for example, argues that
the prologue is “a well wrought narrative that plunges directly into issues of substances
that reach as deep as the fraught dialogues themselves,” and goes on to describe how the
events of the prologue prefigure the content of God’s speeches. David J.A. Clines, “False
Naivety in the Prologue to Job,” in On the Way to the Postmodern, vol. 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), 736, 744.
36 Jung, Answer to Job, 17.
their complicated relationship with the prologue; the prologue plays a

complicated role in the book.
Clines makes sense of the prologue’s role in the book by arguing that
the events of the prologue prefigure the content of God’s speeches. He
writes,
In Job’s case, says the prologue, his suffering is entirely for God’s bene-
fit. . . . In this crucial respect the prologue is in complete harmony with the
divine speeches. . . . As I read them, their concern is to affirm that the cre-
ated order exists for God’s purposes and benefit, not humankind’s, and that
therefore implicitly and by analogy, so does the moral order.37
That is, in the prologue, Job suffers not because of anything he has done,
but because God needs him to suffer:
From Job’s perspective it is gratuitous (hinnam), as God himself acknowl-
edges (2.3), but from God’s perspective it is necessary. . . . In a word, Job suf-
fers for God’s sake.
And, as God reveals in his speeches, this is why everything in the world
happens—because God wants or needs it to happen.38 I do not subscribe
to this ‘radically theocentric’ interpretation of God’s speeches, as expressed
by Levenson, Clines, Schifferdecker, Brown and others. As already dis-
cussed in chapter 2 of this book, it seems to me that God directs Job’s
attention out toward the diverse creation, rather than presenting him-
self as the central figure of his creation, upon whom all eyes should be
focused.
Moreover, when God says to hassatan, after the first round of the test,
“[Y]ou incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason [hinnam;
‫( ”]חנם‬2:3), he does not say, as Clines’ interpretation would have it, “Job
thinks it was hinnam, but I had my reasons, and so, for me, it was not
hinnam.” Rather, what is indicated here is that for God the test up to this
point has been hinnam, and, as discussed in chapter 2, what would make
it not hinnam is not Job’s passing the test—which is what he has already
done—but, rather, his failing of the test. If what God needs is to know that
he is worshiped unconditionally, as Clines’ reading supposes, then this
question has already been answered in chapter 1. In 2:3, God should not
be accusing hassatan of luring him into a test that was hinnam. Instead,
he should be gloating over the success of the test and his winning of the
37 Clines, “False Naivety,” 744.

38 Idem.
206 chapter five
bet. At this point, hassatan may bring up his second challenge, insisting
that the bet has been weighted against him because of the prohibition on
touching Job’s own body, and calling for a rematch, to which God may
agree, seeing hassatan’s point. But God should not, at the beginning of
chapter 2, be complaining that the test is no good, or that he has engaged
in it for no good reason.
God’s claim in 2:3 that the test has been hinnam seems to indicate that
what he needs is not for Job to demonstrate that he worships uncondi-
tionally, and therefore truly loves God, but, instead, to demonstrate that
he does not worship unconditionally, and only loves God for the blessings
God gives him. This is awfully strange. What God needs is not uncondi-
tional love, a need we can understand, and for which we might forgive
his affliction of Job—Clines writes, “If innocent suffering is for God’s
sake . . . then does not undeserved suffering acquire a fresh and startlingly
positive valuation . . . ?”39—but for Job to demonstrate that he does not
really love God, that what has existed between them has been purely eco-
nomic. Based on God’s statement in 2:3, it seems that this outcome would
be the one that would give the test meaning.
But what does God stand to gain from this kind of outcome? Why would
God prefer this outcome over the other? Moreover, why does hassatan
assume that this is not the outcome God desires? Why does hassatan bet
God that Job will not show himself disinterestedly righteous, if this is also
God’s position? God is in the bizarre situation of losing, whatever the out-
come. If Job demonstrates that his righteousness is based on expectation
of reward, God loses the argument with hassatan. If, however, Job dem-
onstrates that his righteousness is disinterested, God also loses, because
this is not the situation he truly desires, as is indicated by his description
of the test as hinnam in 2:3. Indeed, it would seem that, with this second
outcome, God loses more deeply than if he had lost the so-called bet. The
tribute paid to Job in the epilogue would seem to show that what God
has lost is his own righteousness. As Francis Anderson notes, “[T]he Lord,
like any thief who has been found out (Ex. 22:4), repays Job double what
he took away.”40
Is this, though, the God who speaks to Job from the whirlwind? Con-
trary to how Clines sees it, it seems to me that what God says in chapters
39 Idem.
40 Francis I. Anderson, Job: An Introduction and Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press: Lon-
don and Downers Grove, IL, 1976), 293.
38–41 is not, “Everything happens for my sake, even though it may seem
hinnam to you,” but “Everything happens for its own sake.” In this claim, an
even deeper kind of hinnam inheres. God doesn’t depict himself as receiv-
ing anything from any of the wild creatures he describes. The question,
“Does Job fear God for nothing?” means something different in the world
of God’s speeches. It becomes not a question of whether Job engages in
righteous behavior for a reward or not, with God insisting that the ‘no
reward’ brand of righteousness is purer/better/higher than the ‘reward’
kind. Instead, what God reveals is that the reward—which is life itself—is
given hinnam. Righteousness is beside the point. Is Job righteous hinnam?
Yes. There is no other way in which to be righteous, for what reward there
is precedes righteousness—just as it precedes other kinds of behavior—
instead of following it. In the divine speeches it is God who is good hin-
nam, creating the world without requiring worship in return. If Job can in
any way be said to suffer ‘for God’ as Clines suggests, it must be by living
in a world that is complex, in which suffering and death are related to the
multiplicity of creatures and their ability to effect change. Job’s suffering,
though, is not a special circumstance that, in itself “win[s] [God] some
unguessed at boon;”41 rather, the boon is the existence of the world as a
complex, changeable, and unbounded place, and Job’s suffering is simply
the result of a potential contained within this world.
Like the epilogue, the prologue presents a world very different from the
world described in God’s speeches. The bet between God and hassatan
over Job’s righteousness is based on a very different set of assumptions
about the relationship between righteousness and reward from those that
inhere in God’s speeches of chapters 38–41. Moreover, God’s response to
the results of the test in 2:3 shows an underlying problem with the bet:
God stands to lose however Job fares. The one who stands to win in the
encounter—and who, if the epilogue is the end of the story begun in the
prologue, does win—is Job. I have already discussed what Job has to win
from the bet in chapter 2 of this book. I wrote there that, based on this,
one had to wonder whether Job had masterminded the whole thing.42
What, though, would such ‘masterminding’ look like? How could Job pos-
sibly control the words and actions of God and hassatan in the heavenly
council? The way he could do this is if he had dreamed them up, if they
41 Idem.
42 See pages 53–56.
208 chapter five
were characters invented in a particularly vivid daydream to which we

readers are made privy.
The Prologue as Job’s Daydream
I want to argue that the bet between God and hassatan is best under-
stood as a fantasy concocted in Job’s mind, a daydream from which he
is rudely awakened by the intrusion of the poetic section. Imagine this:
In his mind’s eye, Job sees the heavenly council. There is God himself,
surrounded by his various functionaries. God speaks, and who should he
happen to speak of but Job? God says, “Have you considered my servant
Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man
who fears God and turns away from evil?” (1:8). A smile is visible on Job’s
face as he dreams these words. The smile remains when one of the func-
tionaries, hassatan, asks,
Does Job fear God for nothing? Have you not put a fence around him and his
house and all that he has, on every side? . . . But stretch out your hand now,
and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face. (1:10a, 11)
The smile remains even when God authorizes hassatan to strike at every-
thing Job possesses except his own body. Job’s smile fades, however, when
the scene shifts and shows first the theft and destruction of his livestock
and servants, followed by the death of his children in a freak accident. Job
holds back his tears, setting his jaw as he imagines himself assuming the
posture of mourning while uttering brave and dignified words:
Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there;
the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the
LORD. (1:21)
The scene returns to the heavenly council. God and hassatan appear
again, and, once again, they speak of Job. Job watches, now with squint-
ing, resolute eyes. Imagine he looks like George Clooney. He has a jaw that
can express determination.
In the second heavenly scene, God once again praises Job for being
blameless and upright, but hassatan challenges God to authorize the final
test. “Skin for skin!” (2:5) he whispers, and God, barely perceptibly, nods
his agreement, only catching hassatan’s sleeve to say, “only spare his life”
(2:6). (Imagine, by the way, that God looks like George Clooney, too. It is
fitting that Job and God should look alike in Job’s daydream.) Hassatan
nods. Turning on his heel, he strides from the room, his cloak billowing
behind him. Now Job sees his body covered with sores. This time, tears
do not threaten to fall. Job was ready for what was coming. He sits among
ashes, but the look on his face is not one of suffering or self-pity. It is the
look of a man who knows what he is about, a man who will not back down
no matter what. Suddenly Job’s wife appears in the dream. He is ready
for her. He knows what she will say, she and all the rest of them who do
not know what it is to be blameless and upright. “Curse God and die,” she
nags (2:9). He dismisses her outright, calling her a foolish woman.43 Then
he fixes her with his dark and brooding eyes and makes his Oscar-bid
speech: “Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive
the bad?” (2:10). He watches her face as he speaks. He can tell that his
words have sunk in despite her vapid foolishness. She has nothing to say
in response.
Job’s friends arrive to comfort him and, seeing himself through their
eyes, he does allow himself to indulge in self pity. His friends tear their
robes and put ashes on their heads and weep aloud. Job sees how bad he
has it. His eyes fill and a few tears trail down his cheeks. His friends sit on
the ground around him. He is on the ash heap, slightly above them. They
watch him, waiting to hear what he will say. But Job has already said what
he needs to say. He presses his lips together and waits. Their eyes are on
him, but his eyes are on the horizon.
Here, in the book as we have it, is where something unexpected hap-
pens: an interruption, a delay. Several interpreters speak of this shift as
a move from fantasy to reality. Indeed, although above I have only read
the bet and its consequences as the contents of a dream dreamed by Job,
the bet only makes sense in a certain kind of world, one which is entirely
different from God’s whirlwind world. It follows that the entire world
depicted in the prologue is the site of Job’s creative daydreaming. Stephen
Mitchell describes the shift from prose to poetry as signaling “a change in
reality.” He explains,
43 For Job to call his wife a fool is no small slight. In chapter 30, for example, Job calls
the group he thinks of as the lowest of the low ‫בני נבל‬. Although it might be argued that
Job does not actually consider his wife to be a fool, given that he accuses her of “speaking
as one of the foolish women would speak” (‫ )כדבר אחת הנבלות תדברי‬and not of being
a fool herself, it would be difficult to distinguish one who merely speaks like a fool from
one who is a fool. Urging Job to relinquish his integrity, Job’s wife can only be a fool, for to
be a fool is not only to be stupid but to be morally lacking. That she offers Job the cursing
of God as a viable possibility reveals her as one who, at least from Job’s perspective, has
failed to understand what integrity means.
210 chapter five
The world of the prologue is two-dimensional, and its divinities are very
small potatoes. It is like a puppet show. The author first brings out the
patient Job, his untrusting god, and the chief spy/prosecutor, and has the
figurines enact the . . . story in the puppet theater of his prose. Then, behind
them, the larger curtain rises, and flesh-and-blood actors begin to voice their
passions on a life-sized stage.44
Peggy Day presents a similar account of the transition, writing “[I]n chap-
ter three . . . [t]he cardboard character of Job all at once becomes animated,
and he rails against his misfortune.”45 Neither Mitchell nor Day views the
prologue as Job’s dream specifically, but instead as a portion of the book
which the author has written in a less realistic style than the poetry which
follows it, with the intention of convincing the reader that it depicts a
fantasy world. Meir Weiss, however, although he does not use the ter-
minology of dreams or fantasy, does see the prologue world as belong-
ing, in some way, to Job. Weiss sees a connection between the sound of
the word ‫עוץ‬, the land in which Job lives and the word ‫עצה‬, ‘council’ or
‘wisdom.’ At the beginning of the tale, Job lives in a world constructed by
his own wisdom and governed by the precepts of the wise man. Accord-
ing to Weiss, though, the bet between God and hassatan, instead of also
belonging to Job, has as its goal the shattering of this fantasy world and
the revelation to Job of what the world is really like. Weiss writes,
Satan, on God’s authority, destroys the logical, harmonious, ethical world of
‘the Land of Uz’, which being a speculative construction, the creation of the
‘wise’ over-sophisticated man in his own image, has no basis in reality.46
Yet, although none of these scholars reads the prologue exactly as I do,
we all agree that there is something about the prologue which allows it to
be identified as fantasy, and something about the irruption of the poetry
which feels like an awakening from a dream.47
44 Stephen Mitchell, The Book of Job (London: Kyle Cathie Limited, 1989), ix–x.
45 Day, Adversary, 83.
46 Meir Weiss, The Story of Job’s Beginning, Job 1–2: A Literary Analysis (Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, 1983), 82.
47 Clines, for his part, suggests that the entire book is the fantasy of the author, an
unconscious manifestation of his subconscious fears and desires. Clines writes, “The
author . . . has conceived or imagined his story . . . from much the same stuff . . . as he nightly
created his dreams. . . . What kind of dream is the book of Job? Obviously, it is a death-wish,
a dream in which the unconscious explores the possibility of ceasing to be. . . . In this fan-
tasy, however, the dreamer does not only give shape to the death-wish; he also wills the
overcoming of the death-wish . . . the restoration of what he has both feared and wished to
lose.” David J.A. Clines, “Why is there a Book of Job and What Does it do to You if You Read
it?” in The Book of Job, ed. W.A.M. Beuken (Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1994), 11–12.
Perhaps, though, all this is simply another way of saying, again, that the
prologue is the book’s ‘straw world,’ a rickety construction set up by the
author for the sole purpose of being torn down. In the poetry, Job gets a
taste, or rather, a mouthful—he is fairly choking on it—of the real world,
and he recognizes that his old world, with its ‘small potatoes’ God, was
a sham. Except, again, we come up against the problem of the epilogue,
which is what started this enquiry into the prologue in the first place.
Mitchell asks,
How could the author have returned to the reality of the prologue for an
answer to the hero of the poem? That would have meant ‘the Lord’ descend-
ing from the sky to say, Well, you see, Job, it all happened because I made
this bet . . .
He answers, “No, the god of the prologue is left behind as utterly as the
never-again-mentioned Accuser.”48 On the first count, Mitchell is right:
the idea of God talking about the bet in his answer to Job seems absurd.
But, nevertheless, it is not true that the god of the prologue never makes
a second appearance. He shows up in the epilogue. And, as I have been
arguing, this opens up a can of worms, transforming the prologue from a
‘straw world’ that is struck down over the course of the book, into some-
thing that survives, however flimsy its materials, however shoddy its com-
position.
In his speeches of chapters 38–41, God speaks to Job as if he has tried
to set himself up as a rival creator. For readers, this is confusing, for Job
does not seem to have done anything like this for as long as we have
known him. Levenson, as already discussed, explains this disjunction by
suggesting that God’s speeches were originally directed at a Prometheus-
like character, instead of at ‘our’ Job. The epilogue, however, in which Job
proceeds to inhabit a world completely different from the world God has
just described as the world of his creation, and which, instead, tallies with
Job’s picture of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, forces us to ask whether God’s
accusations have, in fact, been justified. Has Job, after all, set himself up as
a rival to God? The epilogue, though, comes after God has finished speak-
ing, so this cannot be what God means when he accuses Job of trying to
act as a rival creator. It is now that we remember the prologue, a world
very like the world of the epilogue. It must be the prologue to which God
In my view, however, the author is aware that the prologue—and perhaps the epilogue—
is a dream. It is a dream he has given his character, Job, to dream.
48 Mitchell, Book of Job, x.
212 chapter five
takes exception. If we think we have left that ‘cardboard puppet theater’

far behind, we should remind ourselves that Job, however immersed in
the ‘real world’ he has been, still hopes to return to that world. His entire
complaint is geared toward winning himself readmission to that place. It
is surely real to him. In his speeches, God tells Job in no uncertain terms
that he never made that world, and that Job has no power to make that
world, so it does not exist, and cannot have ever existed. And yet, the
fact is, Job once lived there, as far as he can tell. Moreover, it is the fact
that Job once lived there that seems to inform God’s address to Job as a
Prometheus-like figure, a rival creator.
Job, who has never thought of himself as any such thing, is suddenly
presented with both the accusation that he has tried to act as a rival cre-
ator and the information that success in such an endeavor is impossible.
But the accusation itself seems to have arisen from the fact that Job has
had success, even though God now insists that such success is impossi-
ble. When God denies creation of the prologue world, Job must begin to
realize that that world, where he once lived, and which he thought was
God’s creation, must have been a world he himself made, even if only by
imagining it into existence. It is this recognition that makes the epilogue
possible.
Job and the Chaos Monster
If, in retrospect, Job discovers that he may have set himself up as a rival
creator to God, a question worth asking is whether Job is a chaos monster.
Indeed, the Book of Job has a history of being read as a telling of the story
about the conflict between order and chaos.49 This is primarily because
of the book’s mention of Leviathan, generally understood to be a chaos
monster. It is Job who first names the monster when, in his first speech
of the poetic section, he calls for the eradication of the day of his birth,
proclaiming, “Let those curse it who curse the Sea, those who are skilled to
rouse up Leviathan” (3:8). Then, God devotes the entire second chapter of
his second speech to describing the power and glory of the water-dwelling
49 References to this kind of reading have popped up throughout this book, although
I have made an effort to avoid use of the terms ‘chaos’ and ‘order,’ to describe the differ-
ent worlds depicted in the book, preferring instead to use ‘the world-as-it-ought-to-be’
and ‘the anti-world.’ This is because of the loaded quality of the former terms, as will be
discussed below.
beast which “has no equal” on earth (41:33a). In this way, the central poetic
section of the book begins and ends with the splashing of Leviathan, lead-
ing some scholars to the certainty that chaos swims through its pages and
provides a key to understanding its meaning.
For most scholars who engage with this theme, the purpose of the pres-
ence of Leviathan in the book is to demonstrate that this is also Job’s
identity. John Day, for example, noticing that “The number of allusions to
the Chaoskampf in the book of Job is most striking,” asks, “How are we to
account for this fact?” He responds, “[T]he imagery is employed because
the conflict between the dragon and God provided an apt parallel to the
book’s theme of Job’s conflict with God.”50 Similarly, Michael Fishbane
sees in Job’s chapter 3 call for the rousing of Leviathan a clear indication
that Job himself is an agent of chaos. One who calls for the chaos monster
to subsume creation must himself become a chaos monster—this is the
logic of Fishbane’s argument. He writes,
Job, in the process of cursing the day of his birth (v. 1), binds spell to spell in
his articulation of an . . . unrestrained death wish for himself and the entire
creation.”51
It may be Leviathan who has the real chaotic power, but Job, casting a
spell with his speech, seeks to unleash that power from the bonds set for
it by God and harness it for his own destructive purposes.
For Habel, God chooses to speak about Leviathan precisely because
Job’s behavior has been characterized by a Leviathan-like chaos. Habel
writes,
As in a mirror, Job is shown Leviathan stirring up chaos. Yahweh is hinting
that Job has taken on heroic proportions and that like a chaos figure he has
roused Yahweh to appear in a whirlwind and challenge him.52
That is, although Job describes himself as allied with God, using his righ-
teous power to “break the fangs of the unrighteous” (29:17a), God’s descrip-
tion of Leviathan shows that Job is actually allied with chaos and must be
subdued if order is to be upheld. Perdue, too, identifies Job as a chaos
monster, claiming that in chapter 3, “Job has attempted to deconstruct
the metaphor of creation by word with his own linguistic assault, thereby
50 John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in
the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 49.
51 Michael Fishbane, “Jeremiah IV 23–26 and Job III 3–13: A Recovered Use of the Cre-
ation Pattern,” Vetus Testamentum 21 no 2 (1971): 153.
52 Habel, Book of Job, 574.
214 chapter five
returning the world to the darkness of night.”53 God’s naming of Leviathan

in chapter 41 serves as a combative response to the chaotic behavior and
speech in which Job has engaged throughout the book. God speaks about
Leviathan in order to reassert his control over Job, the most recent chaos
monster who has challenged his authority. Perdue writes,
Those who challenge Yahweh’s rule include Behemoth, Leviathan, the
wicked, and now Job. . . . Yahweh has come to engage chaos in battle, reas-
sert divine sovereignty, and issue judgment leading to the ordering of the
world.54
All of these scholars answer the question I posed at the beginning of this
section in the affirmative—Yes, Job is a chaos monster—and I agree that
this answer is plausible. They all, however, come at it from a different
angle from the one I am attempting. There are three main differences
between my approach and theirs. First, all the scholars quoted above
arrive at their understanding of Job as chaos via Leviathan. That is, it is
the mention of Leviathan that tips them off to the fact that something is
being said about the battle between chaos and order. For me, by contrast,
as should be evident from the discussion above, the question of whether
or not Job is a chaos monster was arrived at via the observation that Job
seems to have created the worlds depicted in the book’s prologue and
epilogue. Second, following from this first difference, these scholars view
chaos as purely destructive, instead of as potentially creative. Third, when
these scholars say that Job is being presented as a representative of chaos,
they are making reference to a story that has already been told and of
which the ending is fixed and known. That is to say, if God describes
Job as a chaos monster, he is depicting him as a destructive force which,
though apparently formidable, has already been subdued. Job may rail
against God, demonstrating his chaotic nature, but he cannot defeat God;
the story simply does not end that way.
Excursus: What is Chaos?
These differences arise from what I think is a mistaken understanding of

what chaos is on the part of these (and other) scholars. The idea of chaos,
as generally understood in biblical studies, comes from the comparison of

54 Ibid., 202.
biblical materials with other ancient Near Eastern myths, most specifically
the Babylonian creation narrative, Enuma elish. Hermann Gunkel, in his
1895 book Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, drew lines of com-
parison between certain biblical texts and the Babylonian epic Enuma
elish, claiming that the Bible had been influenced by the Babylonian
myth.55 Gunkel’s comparative reading of Genesis 1 links tehom, the entity
which is covered with darkness and over which a wind from God hovers
at the time of creation, with Tiamat, the monster defeated by Marduk as a
prelude to the creation of the world in Enuma elish. Believing that tehom
was a demythologized derivative of Tiamat, Gunkel applied the charac-
teristics of Tiamat to tehom, even though tehom does not exhibit those
characteristics outright, and concluded that Genesis 1 and Enuma elish
are telling the same story, even though, on the face of it, the accounts are
not the same.
In Enuma elish Tiamat is a pre-creation, watery being, existing before
any part of the known world has been brought into being. She is the
mother of the gods, who are conceived through her commingling with
her consort, Apsu, also a watery being. The young gods born from Tiamat
bother Apsu with their noise, and he hatches a plan to kill them. He tries to
enlist Tiamat’s help, but she refuses, citing the fact that it would be wrong
to destroy what they have created. Before Apsu can carry out his plan,
however, he himself is killed by one of his children, the god Ea. Later, the
gods turn against Tiamat, and she girds herself to do battle against them.
Seeing Tiamat arrayed for battle, the gods are afraid to face her. But Mar-
duk, the youngest of the gods, offers to fight her on the other gods’ behalf,
on the condition that the gods will proclaim him supreme god after the
battle. The gods agree to this proposal. Marduk fights Tiamat and wins,
after which he splits her body in two, using it to create earth and sky,
and establishes his temple in Babylon. This, in brief, is the story told by
Enuma elish. Tiamat figures as a central character throughout the epic,
the climax of which is her battle with Marduk and the resultant creation
of the ordered world, with Marduk’s temple city at its center. For this rea-
son, Enuma elish has been identified as a type of myth called the ‘combat
myth’ or Chaoskampf. In Genesis 1:1–2, by contrast, tehom does not figure
as a character, but as something which exists in the background. It has
55 Hermann Gunkel, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-
Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12, trans. K.W. Whitney Jr. (Grand Rapids and
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006).
216 chapter five
no role to play in any drama which results in the creation of the world.
It shares with Tiamat only the characteristic of being some sort of pre-
creation water. That, and a potentially etymologically-related name are
all the two seem to have in common.
In his study, though, Gunkel used these similarities to argue that what
lay behind the vague description of tehom in Genesis 1 was the sharp
description of Tiamat in Enuma elish. What exactly tehom is, though left
ambiguous in the biblical text, could be made clear by referring the reader
to Tiamat. Behind the single verse allotted to tehom in Genesis 1, lay a
complete backstory. In that story, tehom, like Tiamat, was the matrix out
of which the first acts of creation were born. More importantly, tehom,
like Tiamat, was the chaos monster which had to be defeated so that the
supreme god could create the world.56 Having made this link, Gunkel
went on to argue that the theme of combat between chaos and order is
present throughout the Bible, lying just below surface of the text. Having
discovered Tiamat in tehom, Gunkel opened the way for scholars to dis-
cover references to the combat myth in other biblical passages. That is,
wherever any aspect of the myth appeared in the Bible, Gunkel and oth-
ers were encouraged, by the link between tehom and Tiamat, to posit the
existence of the entire myth as a hidden backstory which could be used to
resolve any ambiguities in the surface text. This is how, in the Book of Job,
the water-dwelling Leviathan has come to be identified as the embodi-
ment of chaos and God’s mention of Leviathan has been understood to
refer to his order-creating battle with the monster, a battle which God
won at the time of creation, and which he continues to win whenever
chaos tries to reassert itself.
This approach and the understanding of chaos it yields, though foun-
dational within biblical studies, are problematic. For one, many scholars
have disputed the notion that the biblical authors would have had access
56 More recently, Bernard Batto has used other biblical texts to argue for the identifi
cation of tehom as a combative chaos monster. He writes, “Some scholars have tried to
downplay the presence of mythic themes in Genesis 1:1–2:3, saying that any hint of a battle
between the creator and primeval sea has been thoroughly suppressed in this biblical pas-
sage. It is true that the more blatant polytheistic notions have been suppressed, in keep-
ing with the norms of Israelite religion and its emphasis upon the exclusive worship of
Yahweh. But the image of creation as victory over an unruly primeval sea is still clearly
visible. Confirmation may be found in Psalm 8, which is generally acknowledged to have
close affinities with the P creation account. . . . Behind Genesis 1:1–2:3 lies the same concep-
tion of the victorious divine warrior who retires to his palace to a leisurely kingship after
subduing the foe.” Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 79.
to Enuma elish, positing instead a Canaanite origin for the Bible’s Cha-
oskampf material. John Day writes,
Since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts from 1929 onwards . . . it has become
clear that the immediate background of the Old Testament allusions to the
sea monster is not Babylonian but Canaanite.57
The Baal cycle, in which Baal fights and defeats Yam (Sea) and Mot (Death),
has, in particular, been pointed to as a likely source for the Bible’s Cha-
oskampf themes.58 This, though, does not strike me as the biggest problem
with this approach. What is most problematic is not which text has been
posited as containing the original, influential version of the myth, but,
rather, how that text has been used. The idea that any reference to an
element of a story must mean reference to the entire story seems suspect.
Rebecca Watson, voicing similar suspicions, writes
This [method] has resulted in an approach whereby a divine conflict with
the sea, characteristically resulting in creation, is often assumed in passages
where the presence of such allusions could hardly be supposed on the basis
57 Day, God’s Conflict, 4.

58 This, too, however, is somewhat problematic, for this myth is not a creation story, as
scholars have supposed Chaoskampf myths must be. What scholars want—and what they
do not have—is a Canaanite myth that tells the same story as is told in Enuma elish. Day
discusses the various ways in which biblical scholars have dealt with this mismatch on
pp. 10–18 of his 1985 book. He concludes, “[T]he fact that the Old Testament so frequently
uses the imagery of the divine conflict with the dragon and the sea in association with
creation, when this imagery is Canaanite, leads one to expect that the Canaanites like-
wise connected the two themes.” Day, God’s Conflict, 17. This conclusion, though, seems
suspect. To say that the chaos themes in the Bible must be based on Canaanite myths and
to explain the differences between them by reading back into the ‘original’ what is only
attested in the ‘copy’ is to engage in circular reasoning. Samuel Loewenstamm makes an
argument which can be seen to provide something of a corrective to the circularity of
this logic. He writes, “The Biblical passages make us aware of the cosmological element
in Ugaritic mythology which in the milieu of the Ugaritic court had so weakened that we
would not have been able to discern its roots were it not for the large number of allusions
to the cosmological mythology found in the Bible and in its parallels in Mesopotamian
literature and the Midrash. This forces us to the conclusion that we should not see in
Ugaritic mythology an immediate predecessor of its Biblical counterpart, but rather look
for the origin of the common elements in West-Semitic traditions which not only pre-date
the Bible, but also the Ugaritic texts.” Samuel E. Loewenstamm, Comparative Studies in
Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (Germany: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevalaer and
Neukirchener Verlab Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980), 359–60. Even so, the discovery of ‘cosmo-
logical elements’ in the Ugaritic texts which would not have been visible but for compari-
son with the Bible remains a somewhat circular argument, especially when we consider
that certain combative elements in biblical texts would not have been discovered except
for by comparison with Mesopotamian texts. Overall, it seems as if the existence of certain
similarities between the two has led to the assumption of the existence of other similari-
ties, which may not actually be there.
218 chapter five
of the biblical text itself. Thus, a picture is drawn, according to which there
are numerous references to Yahweh’s battling with the waters of chaos and
thereby bringing the cosmos into being, without there being any clear state-
ment or account of such an idea in the Hebrew corpus.59
Although Watson wants to purge biblical studies of any discussion of
chaos in the Bible, at least as defined by comparison with Enuma elish,
I want to take her caution to heart while trying to chart a less drastic
course. The biggest problem, as noted above, seems to me to be the way
in which Enuma elish has been mapped onto the Bible as a complete text,
so that any similar detail implies that entire story. It seems more useful
to me to think of overlapping details as arising from the existence of con-
ventional building blocks with which one can build a story. The stories
one tells with these blocks will have certain similarities, but one need not
always tell the same story. Rather, one can make use of them in differ-
ent ways, meaning that the reader or hearer must pay attention to each
individual telling, instead of letting her eyes glaze over as she envisages
the story she already knows, seeing it already played out in entirety in
her head, so that to see Leviathan (for instance) is to automatically see
Leviathan already bound.
I draw support for this way of thinking about the relation between the
Bible and Enuma elish from the fact that Leviathan, in God’s speech of
Job 41, is not described as crushed, bound, or subdued, but as freely swim-
ming, a supremely valued member of God’s creation. As Watson writes,
The critical issue is that Leviathan is a creature of God which . . . is pre-
sented as possessing a wild beauty . . . its role sanctioned and appointed by
God. . . . This is not compatible with the idea of this beast as some form of
pre-creation monster inimical to cosmic order and overcome . . . by God.60
Yet, as noted above, Watson wants to get rid of any discussion of chaos
and any reference to the themes of Enuma elish, insisting that they are
simply not present in Job or any other biblical text. Schifferdecker, while
presenting Leviathan in a similar light, does retain the term ‘chaos.’ She
writes,
Boundaries are set; the forces of chaos are not allowed free course over
the world. These boundaries, however, do not exclude all things wild and
59 Rebecca S. Watson, Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of ‘Chaos’ in the

Hebrew Bible (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 2.
60 Ibid., 348.
d angerous. The Sea, understood mythically as a force of chaos, is given a

place in creation, but it is also given limits.61
What, though, can it mean to say that, in the world God presents in his
speeches, chaos is part of order, a restrained and yet valued member of
God’s world? What is this thing called chaos? Is it, as Watson assumes a
“pre-creation monster inimical to cosmic order,” or is it, as Schifferdecker
implies, simply something very wild that must be controlled if other life
forms are to flourish as well?
Neither of these definitions seems quite right to me, though Schiffer-
decker’s seems less plausible than Watson’s. I agree with Schifferdecker
that, in God’s speeches, what is very wild is given a place within the cre-
ation, and described as supremely valuable. No doubt Watson would agree
with this assessment, as well, as is indicated by her description of Levia-
than quoted above. I do not, however, think that it makes sense to call this
wildness, embodied in Leviathan, chaos. What God’s praise of Leviathan
as his beloved creature seems to mean is that Leviathan, though very wild,
is not chaos, which is, after all, Watson’s point. Watson’s definition seems
closer to the mark. My problem is with its assumption that chaos is inher-
ently destructive. This seems like a case of valuing the end of the story and
the conclusions it asserts over what was taking place at the beginning and
in the middle. In Enuma elish, it is only when Marduk defeats Tiamat that
she becomes “inimical to cosmic order.” Cosmic order, in this case, means
Marduk’s order, which is also ‘ours,’ since ‘we’ inhabit his ordered world.
In and of herself, however, Tiamat is not a destructive force, but a cre-
ative one. As Janzen points out,
In Enuma elish . . . the present account of cosmic creation out of divine
conflict is preceded by an account of the generation of the deities by the
intermingling of Apsu and Tiamat. . . . At an earlier stage of the myth, these
deities were the fundamental powers of nature and society, and the narra-
tive of their birth would itself have provided an account of cosmic origins.62
Thorkild Jacobsen notices an ambiguity in the myth’s portrayal of Tiamat
that may reveal the author’s sense that he is laying blame where it does
not belong. Jacobsen writes,
61 Schifferdecker, Whirlwind, 74–75.

62 J. Gerald Janzen, “On the Moral Nature of God’s Power: Yahweh and the Sea in Job
and Deutero-Isaiah,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 no 3 (1994): 462.
220 chapter five
The onus of initiating hostility is consistently placed on the parents [Tia-

mat and Apsu]. . . . But . . . part of this effect is countered . . . by the stress on
Tiamat’s motherliness and by presenting her repeatedly in a sympathetic
light. . . . So odd is this sympathetic treatment of the archenemy, Tiamat, that
one can hardly escape feeling that the author is here in the grip of conflict-
ing emotions: love, fear, and a sense of guilt that requires palliation.63
Tiamat is not, then, a purely destructive force, intent on toppling what-
ever order has been set up. She is, rather, the source of a different order;
she is a rival creator. She is formidable not because she might destroy the
ordered world, causing a descent into disorder, but because she might
create her own world in its place, which would, in turn, earn the deposed
Marduk and his world the designation of chaos.
For better or for worse, in biblical studies, Tiamat is the model for what
we think of as chaos. If we inquire into what she is, we find that she is not
primarily a destroyer, but a rival creator. If we generalize from this, we
must say that this is what chaos is: a rival creator, not currently in power,
who threatens to usurp order for him- or herself and turn the reigning cre-
ator’s world into chaos. In fact, this is precisely the accusation God brings
against Job in his speeches: “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will
you condemn me that you may be justified?” (40:8). The answer, then,
to the question, “Is Job a chaos monster?” must be a resounding yes. God
does think Job has behaved as a force of chaos, and he tells him this, not
by comparing him with Leviathan, who is not chaos, but by describing
the world of his creation in such a way as to highlight its difference from
Job’s conception of the world-as-it-ought-to-be, which is, it turns out, a
rival world and not, as Job had thought, the world God intended to cre-
ate. Leviathan serves as the symbol of everything God’s world is that Job’s
world is not and God’s praise of Leviathan drives home the point that Job
has been very wrong, that he has allied himself with chaos, and not with
the true creator.
Job as Chaos, or Not
I wrote above that the answer to the question, “Is Job a chaos monster,”
if a chaos monster is defined as a rival creator, must be a resounding yes.
I want to rescind that adjective. The issue is more complicated than that.
63 Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness (New Haven and London: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1976), 187.
As noted above, throughout the book Job certainly betrays no sense that
he thinks of himself as a rival creator. Quite the contrary is the case. He
firmly believes that God is the world’s only creator, and he calls on God
to act and remake the world-as-it-ought-to-be, believing that he and God
share an understanding of what this world is like. Can one really be said
to be a rival creator if one does not realize that one’s idea of the world-
as-it-ought-to-be is not consonant with that held by the creator-in-power,
to whom one pledges complete allegiance? Moreover, when God appears
and speaks to Job, although he does appear in a whirlwind, which, as Per-
due points out “most often occurs in the context of theophanic judgment
and the destruction of chaos in its various incarnations,”64 he does not
actually engage Job in battle, as might be expected if Job were actually an
embodiment of chaos. “Gird up your loins like a man” (38:3a), God chal-
lenges, as if he were challenging Job to battle, but what ensues is a series
of questions engineered to demonstrate that Job is too weak and ignorant
to even join the fight, let alone have a chance at winning. The kind of
man God enjoins Job to be here is a ‫( גבר‬geber), a mighty, fighting man,
which might lead us to think that God really is inviting Job to fight. The
strength of ‫גבר‬, though, is misleading, for what kind of man, however
strong, is really a match for God? “Gird up your loins, as best you can,”
seems to be what God is really saying, which is to say, “Don’t even bother
trying to fight me.”
Tiamat was a formidable force, a real match for Marduk, who, through
scrappy ingenuity, managed to defeat her and seize control of the right to
create. Job, though, is no match for the God who speaks from the whirl-
wind. God doesn’t need to fight him. There’s simply no contest. What God
does instead is to scold him for his outspoken mistakenness and to show
him what the world of his creation is really like, after which Job is on cue
to say, “Thank you very much. I had no idea. But now I see what it’s like,
and, as always, I bow before your majesty.” Perhaps Job has acted a bit
chaotically, but only on the level of a child misbehaving when he doesn’t
know any better, for which reason it does not seem accurate to say that
Job is a full-fledged chaos monster—a genuine rival creator—or that God
thinks this is what Job is. So it turns out that the answer to the question,
“Is Job a chaos monster?” is not any kind of yes, but a measured, well-
reasoned, “Not really.”

222 chapter five
This, though, is still not quite right. The issue remains more compli-
cated than this answer admits. On the one hand, God seems to take Job’s
powerlessness for granted. There is no way Job, a human being, even if he
girds up his loins like a ‫גבר‬, can hope to compete with God. The battle
does not even begin, because it is over before it has begun. Job is not
defeated; he is simply told how things are. On the other hand, God does
come out swinging. He does not gently admonish Job, tenderly taking his
hand as he kneels down to Job’s level and lisps that “The world is really
too big for a little boy like Jobie to understand.” Rather, as Perdue points
out, God appears with his own loins girded for “theophanic judgment and
the destruction of chaos.” Although I stand by my claim that God does
not intend to engage Job in battle, at the same time there is something in
what Perdue has noticed.
God’s approach to Job is multivalent, to the point of containing con-
tradictory elements. God seems to take for granted that Job is too weak
to enter into any kind of competition with him, insisting throughout his
speeches that Job has no creative power, while at the same time the force
of his approach would seem to indicate that he believes Job actually capa-
ble of posing a threat to his position as creator-in-power. Moreover, if God
has arrived at the suspicion that Job has tried to act as a rival creator by
looking at the prologue world, a world which may have been created by
Job, then God’s insistence that Job has no creative power would seem to
be at least misguided, and at worst a deliberate lie. Is God bluffing? That
is, having seen that Job does have creative power, is God trying to con-
vince him that the opposite is true by making a display of his own prowess
and insisting that Job cannot compete? This seems possible.
Other scholars have argued that the force with which God answers
Job is indicative of God’s shame over his own wrongdoing—the bet with
hassatan and his affliction of Job for no good reason (hinnam)—and is a
deliberate attempt to mask this wrongdoing. Miles, for example, argues
that it is because God has subjected Job to unjust torture and, therefore,
“has something to hide,” that he puts on such a show of power; the fire-
works are intended to obscure God’s culpability.65 On a related note,
Geeraerts points out that
65 Miles, God, 316.

[T]here is an ironic discrepancy between the message of God’s indirect

speech act (“you’re in no position to ask”) and the message that we assume
God is trying to avoid (“I am in no position to answer”).66
I am not convinced, however, that God’s ‘double-talk’ is quite as deliberate
as these scholars contend. For one, if the God who speaks from the whirl-
wind is not, in fact, responsible for the bet with hassatan—if, instead, the
bet is a figment of Job’s imagination, and a transaction from which Job
stands to benefit, as argued above—then God does not have the thing to
hide which Miles, Geeraerts and others67 assume he is trying to conceal.
Although I do think it is possible that there is an element of ‘bluffing’ to
God’s speeches, it seems likely that the urge to bluff comes from a deeper
confusion within God. God is not simply trying to conceal a culpability of
which he is fully aware; he is not a cold-blooded villain brazenly lying so
that he can get away with murder (or torture, as the case may be).
Rather, it seems to me that God is genuinely perplexed by his encounter
with Job.68 God knows that Job’s creative power cannot rival his own, but
at the same time he sees that once-upon-a-time Job did inhabit a world of
his own creation, the world of the prologue. But what a flimsy world that
was! What a cardboard-and-paste affair! Hardly a world worth reckoning,
not much more than a daydream. Not much real about it, when compared
with the world of God’s creation. And yet, Job lived there, and still believes
that world to be the real world. That’s the world he is trying to get back
into. That’s the world he wants God to recreate. How God must shudder
at the thought. “You’re no creator, Job,” God says. “That world you lived
in was not my world. It wasn’t much of a world at all. Look at the world I
made. See how complex it is, how diverse its creatures, how changeable,
how vast. My world contains even Leviathan! By comparison, your world
is more like a painting. It’s just a picture of yourself. It doesn’t move and
breathe. It doesn’t change. It’s no world at all.” And yet, again, Job lived
there; that’s the world he wants. We can imagine God going back and
forth in his mind between these two facts: Job’s world is no world, and
yet, to Job it is a world. Job cannot create, and yet he did create, and yet
what he created hardly counts, and yet, there it is, nonetheless. How
66 Geeraerts, “Web of Irony,” 53.

67 See, for example, Robertson, “Book of Job,” 446–469 and Curtis, “Job’s Response,”
497–511.
68 Or, at least, this explanation is as plausible as the idea that God is deliberately trying
to conceal his guilt.
224 chapter five
can God manage such a situation? What kind of approach is best? Diplo-
macy? War? No reply? The contradictory multivalence of God’s response
matches the contradictory multivalence of the situation. Job is no creator,
and yet he has unwittingly set himself up as such. What Job has created
hardly counts in the scheme of things, but to Job it counts quite a bit. So,
God responds to Job as a rival creator, all the while insisting that he is no
creator and seeking to convince him that this is, indeed, the case, while
simultaneously aware that, however flimsy Job’s world, Job believes it to
be real. Does God view Job as a chaos monster? The answer is both yes
and no.
What is ironic is that Job, throughout the book, has no sense of him-
self as a rival creator to God, as already noted. He firmly believes that
his understanding of the way the world ought to be is shared by God.
He believes that the way the world used to be, as depicted in the pro-
logue and in his speech of chapter 29, is the world God intended to create,
whereas the world of his current experience is an aberration, evidence
that God has failed in his creatorly duties. “Pay attention, God!” he has
been crying. “Your world has turned upside-down. Things are not going as
you planned. Arise and re-create your world, the world-as-it-ought-to-be!”
In his speeches, God successfully disabuses Job of his mistaken belief that
his vision of the world-as-it-ought-to-be corresponds with God’s. Job sees
that the world God made is not the world he lived in before his affliction
began, but the world of his current experience. His current experience,
then, is not evidence of a mistake on God’s part, which God, once apprised
of the situation, will be eager to remedy. Rather, his current experience is
perfectly possible in the world God has created.
Where God fails is in his attempt to demonstrate to Job that he has no
creative power. Job has never thought of himself as a creator. He learns,
however, from God’s depiction of his world, that the world where he used
to live was not God’s world. Does he find God’s world infinitely better
than that world and consent to live there? I do not think that he does. It
seems to me that what God’s speeches show Job is that he is capable of
creating, despite God’s protestations to the contrary. Job would rather live
in his own world than in God’s, which, as is obvious from God’s descrip-
tion, is not particularly hospitable to humans. Job did not know that he
made the prologue world. He finds out that he was its creator in the same
moment that God informs him that he lacks creative power. This latter
fact, however, fails to convince him, contradicted as it is by the first piece
of information. How does he respond? By making the world of the epi-
logue, that is, remaking the world-as-it-ought-to-be that God refuses to
build. Is Job a chaos monster, a rival creator? He was not, but now he
is. Job renounces the God of the whirlwind, and lays hold of the God he
worshiped in the prologue, who pays him double what he stole,69 in rec-
ognition of his wrongdoing in afflicting Job hinnam.
Job’s Curse of Chapter 3
In this chapter so far, I have read ‘backwards’ into the prologue from
the starting point of God’s speeches and the epilogue, and have con-
cluded that, whereas Job was not a rival creator before the epilogue, in
the epilogue this is what he becomes. Moreover, reading backwards, the
prologue is shown to be the site of Job’s creative activity, and its world,
post-epilogue, can be claimed as such by Job. There is, however, another
passage where such ‘backwards reading’ might be fruitful: Job’s cursing of
the day of his birth in chapter 3, identified by some scholars as evidence
that Job is allied with chaos long before the epilogue. For these schol-
ars, such as Perdue and Fishbane, quoted above, what Job tries to do in
chapter 3 is to uncreate the world made by God, and, by calling up Levia-
than, reduce it to pre-creation chaos. Then, when God responds to Job he
speaks of Leviathan in order to demonstrate that Job has no chance of
controlling this mighty monster. God, not Job, has power over Leviathan/
chaos, so Job’s attempts to use Leviathan against God’s creation cannot
succeed. Is there anything in this?
This second claim—that God speaks of Leviathan to demonstrate his
control over chaos—has already been discussed and rejected above. In
God’s portrayal, Leviathan is not chaos, but a valued creature, which,
though very wild, has an appointed place within the creation. As Keller
points out,
The roaring two-monster finale . . . may be read as a recrudescence of the
divine hero myth, defeating Job’s existential defiance by a performance of
the power that created order out of chaos and continues to discipline the
chaos. . . . Yet contrary to these readings, the text implies no conflict of deity
with monster. On the contrary, God seems to delight in Leviathan’s fitness
to defend itself against all possible attacks. But Leviathan is not shown
attacking.70
69 On God as thief, see Anderson, Job, 293 and Melchert, “Job,” 19.
70 Keller, Face of the Deep, 133–34.
226 chapter five
That this second claim is not viable does not mean, however, that the
first cannot be true. Alter argues that Job’s attempt to rouse Leviathan in
chapter 3 makes reference to the cosmogonic combat myth—that is, Job
assumes that God’s act of creation involved the defeat and binding of the
chaos monster—even though God’s own language counters this assump-
tion in its failure to make use of the idiom of war.71 Job, in chapter 3 tries
to use Leviathan to plunge the world into chaos, but it does not work both
because Job has no power to control Leviathan, and because Leviathan
does not symbolize what Job thinks it does. Similarly, Janzen, comment-
ing on Job’s agonized query of chapter 7, “Am I the Sea, or the Dragon,
that you set a guard over me?” (7:12) points out that
The irony is not only that God is not treating Job like Yam-Tannin but that
that is not how the God who finally answers Job treats Yam-Tannin. For
when, near the beginning of the divine speeches, God takes up the figure
of Sea (38:8–11), it is not to describe the divine conquest of Sea . . . but the
latter’s birth.”72
Just because Leviathan (or the Sea) turns out not to be a chaotic figure,
however, does not mean that Job’s intent was not to rouse chaos and
uncreate God’s world. Job can be guilty of ‘attempted uncreation’ even if
the gun he thought was lethal turns out to shoot only blanks.
But is Job, in fact, guilty of ‘attempted uncreation’? Is this really what
he is trying to do in chapter 3? There, Job says,
Let the day perish in which I was born, and the night that said, “A man-child
is conceived.” Let that day be darkness! May God above not seek it, or light
shine on it. Let gloom and deep darkness claim it. Let clouds settle upon it;
let the blackness of the day terrify it. That night—let thick darkness seize it!
let it not rejoice among the days of the year; let it not come into the number
of the months. Yes, let that night be barren; let no joyful cry be heard in it.
Let those curse it who curse the Sea [or the day, depending on how ‫ ים‬is
pointed],73 those who are skilled to rouse up Leviathan. Let the stars of its
71 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 100.
72 J. Gerald Janzen, “Another Look at God’s Watch Over Job (7:12),” Journal of Biblical
Literature 108 no 1 (1989): 113.
73 It was Gunkel who first suggested amending yom to yam (Gunkel, Creation and Chaos,
37, 306), a change which has been picked up by many translators and commentators. The
NRSV, for example, translates ‫ ים‬as Sea (with a capital S, indicating reference to the sea as
chaos monster, which is paralleled with Leviathan in the second half of the verse) instead
of day. Pope, too, agrees with Gunkel’s emendation, writing, “Both this line [3:8a] and the
following are patent mythological allusions, as Gunkel demonstrated. . . . The cursing of an
enemy and use of magic and spells as an indispensable part of warfare is well nigh uni-
versal.” Pope, Job, 30. Gordis, while agreeing with Gunkel’s suggestion, proposes a second
dawn be dark; let it hope for light, but have none; may it not see the eyelids
of the morning—because it did not shut the doors of my mother’s womb,
and hide trouble from my eyes (3:3–10).
Job’s description of the effective curse as preventing light from shining
upon the days of his birth and conception has led Fishbane to identify
the words Job speaks as a “counter-cosmic incantation” which attempts to
undo the order set in place by God at creation. Fishbane writes,
The whole thrust of the text in Job iii 1–13 is to provide a systematic
boulversement, or reversal, of the cosmicizing acts of creation described in
Gen. i–ii 4a.74
Yet, against this argument, Clines points out that, at a textual level, the
apparent ‘undoing’ of the created world described in Job 3 does not actu-
ally match up with the pattern of creation in Genesis 1. Clines writes,
[A]lthough it is true that the darkening of day (v. 4a) reverses the act of the
first day of creation, there are few other genuine correspondences (e.g., the
reference to Leviathan in v 8 is not a reversal of the creation of sea-monsters
on the fifth day, and the rest Job longs for in the grave in v 13 is no kind of
parallel to God’s rest on the seventh day).75
That is, what Job allegedly attempts to speak into nonbeing is not exactly
what God speaks into being in Genesis 1, but only shares certain features
with it.
More importantly, the question of why Job should want to curse the
world in such a way that chaos overwhelms order begs to be asked in
response to Fishbane’s interpretation. Fishbane does offer an answer to
this question—Job’s certainty of his own centrality within the creation
means that, in order to remedy his personal situation, it must be rem-
edied at the level of creation itself 76—but this answer is not fully sat-
isfactory, because it fails to deal with what Job’s suffering must signify
in the first place. Job’s suffering does not serve as an indication that the
world’s order must be undone, but as proof that the world’s order has come
emendation to make the verse more comprehensible, rendering 3:8 as “Let them curse it
who rouse the Sea, those skilled in stirring up Leviathan” (instead of, as in the NRSV, “Let
those curse it who curse the Sea . . . ”). With this change “The verse thus receives a clear
and appropriate meaning. Job invokes the creatures of chaos to emerge and destroy his
‘day.’” Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies
(New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 35.
74 Fishbane, “Jeremiah,” 153.
75 Clines, Job 1–20, 81.
76 Fishbane, “Jeremiah,” 153.
228 chapter five
undone. Having lost his central position, Job can be sure that chaos has
already overwhelmed order; he has no need to call it up. What Job needs
is a reordering of the world, which suggests that his cursing of the day
of his birth has order, and not chaos as its goal. Brown agrees with Fish-
bane’s assessment of Job’s birthday curse and the motivation behind it,
writing, “As Job’s very life unravels, so must also the world. The dissolu-
tion of the cosmos is a punishment designed to fit the crime.” Yet, at the
same time, Brown recognizes that in “the pit of deep darkness,” into which
Job presumably wants to drag the world “exists a liberating new order.”
He continues,
The subversion of creation does not . . . result in anarchic ruin. . . . He imag-
ines a radically different form of existence, one without trouble and fear, as
inclusive as it is liberating. . . . Life, not death, is the limiting foil. Chaos is
the great liberator.77
If what Job is trying to achieve with his curse is “a liberating new order”
and “a radically different form of existence,” we should not think of him as
calling up chaos as much as speaking into being a new kind of order. He
does not need to demolish what has already been razed; rather, he calls
for the order of death as a reply to the disorder which has swallowed up
the world of the living.
Of course, here, even as we move away from being able to identify Job
as chaos, if chaos is defined as the destroyer of order, we veer toward the
definition of chaos as rival creator that I have posited as a more appro-
priate understanding of the chaos-defining myth. Does Job show himself
chaotic here, regardless of how chaos is defined, so that haggling over
definitions is beside the point? I do not think so. In fact, the argument
against the necessity of haggling over definitions would seem to arise from
the opposite situation: whichever definition of chaos is accepted, Job does
not show himself as chaotic. Job is no destroyer. As far as he can tell, the
world-as-it-ought-to-be has already been destroyed. Neither, though, is he
a would-be creator. The realm of the dead is not a place he hopes to cre-
ate, but only a place he hopes to go.
Thorkild Jacobsen and Kirsten Nielsen argue that the focus of Job’s
curse in chapter 3 is not the uncreation of the world but the striking of the
day of his birth from the register of days, because it is a bad day and ought
never to be allowed to appear again. They read the Leviathan reference as
77 Brown, Ethos, 322–23.

an indication of the vehemence with which Job curses the evil day; he, and
others like him who have also been the victims of bad days, are “prepared
to hurl their execrations at full throat even if they wake up Leviathan.”78
Job is not trying to rouse chaos but, rather, trying to curse the day of his
birth with as much force as he can muster. Clines offers a similar reading,79
as does Watson who writes,
The most plausible explanation of v. 8a is thus that it refers to the cursing of
a chosen day in order to make it ill-omened, probably in order to give rise
to an eclipse. . . . Consonant with this, reference to an eclipse-causing dragon
seems likely in v. 8b, as many have perceived.80
Leviathan, in this reading, is a dragon capable of swallowing the sun, who,
having swallowed the days of Job’s conception and/or birth will make his
having been born impossible. For these commentators, there is no need to
speak of chaos, but only of a suffering so severe that the sufferer must iden-
tify the day of his birth as evil and wish, in the strongest possible terms, that
it and he be struck from the register of life. As Watson puts it,
Job 3:3–10 constitutes not a systematic dismantling of creation but rather
expresses the much more limited wish never to have been born, uttered by
a man undergoing immense suffering.81
78 Thorkild Jacobsen and Kirsten Nielsen, “Cursing the Day,” Scandinavian Journal of
the Old Testament 6 no 2 (1992): 200. Hartley presents an interpretation which seems to
hover halfway between this reading and the reading that understands Job as plunging
the world into primordial chaos. For Hartley, it is not the entire world that Job hopes
to render chaotic, but only the day of his birth. He writes, “Job wishes that he had never
been born, but the only way that such a wish could be realized would be to have the day
of his birth removed from the calendar. As long as the day of his birth is recreated every
year, his existence continues until his death. But if that day had never been created, he
would never have existed. . . . A counter-cosmic incantation reverses the stages God took
in creating the world. It was believed that God created each day in the same way that he
created the world (Gen 1:1–2:4). Thus every day, being a new creation, bore witness to
God’s lordship and his creative powers. In contrast, chaos is an unorganized and lifeless
mass of water overshadowed by total darkness (cf. Gen 1:2). But since the day of Job’s
birth had already been created, the only way that Job might vanish would be to have
that day returned to the primordial chaos. If no light had shone on that day, there would
have been no life, no birth, particularly Job’s. With this spell, Job seeks to become totally
nonexistent.” Hartley, Job, 91. In this understanding, then, Job really does want to reverse
God’s creation and render it chaotic, but he intends his curse to apply only to a very small
part of the creation, the day of his birth. His goal is not the undoing of the entire world,
but only the undoing of himself.
79 See Clines, Job 1–20, 86. Clines, who is quoted in Watson, in turn quotes Driver and
identifies him as making a similar argument.
80 Watson, Chaos Uncreated, 324–25.
81 Ibid., 322.
230 chapter five
What’s more, even though Clines describes Job as uttering a curse which
he hopes will have a discernible outcome, Clines also acknowledges that
this curse has no real force, writing,
The point of this first stanza is to utter the vain wish that he had never been
born. It is a vain wish and the curses it includes are inconsequential and
ineffective because it is too late to do anything about it. . . . The language is
fierce, but the curse has no teeth and the wish is hopeless. . . . The form is the
form of a curse, but the function is to bewail his unhappy lot.82
Whybray concurs, writing,
[I]n realistic terms these verses simply express Job’s futile wish that he had
never been born. . . . Despite some of the language employed, there is no jus-
tification for interpreting these verses literally.83
Naphtali Tur-Sinai goes so far as to disavow that Job’s words can even
be considered a curse. He writes, “Job . . . does not curse but . . . expresses
wishes, idle wishes, of course: those of a man bemoaning his past.”84
“You Can Have It”: Job’s Rejection of God’s Blessing
I find these interpreters more convincing than those, like Fishbane and
Perdue, who read Job’s curse as an attempt to undo the order of cre-
ation, an interpretation which is problematic, as discussed above. I want,
though, to offer yet another possible way of reading chapter 3, one which
does not see Job as being as weak as Watson, Clines, Whybray, and Tur-
Sinai presume, nor as strong as Fishbane and Perdue suggest. He is nei-
ther simply passive nor simply aggressive, but ‘passive aggressive.’ What
82 Clines, Job 1–20, 79.

83 Whybray, Job, 37.
84 Naphtali Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher Ltd, 1957), 46–47.
Bruce Zuckerman takes a slightly different tack. He suggests that Job’s words may be seen
as belonging to the category of “lament-of-final-resort,” the purpose of which is to attract
the deity’s attention, not so that death will be granted, but so that the sufferer will be
restored to his former pre-suffering position. According to Zuckerman, this is how the
friends’ interpret Job’s ‘curse’ of chapter 3, as is evidenced by Eliphaz’s gentle opening
words, which do not condemn Job in the least (as they presumably would if he saw Job
as cursing creation). Yet, although Zuckerman presents this as a possible interpretation
of chapter 3, he later concludes that, in fact, Job does intend to utter a curse, and that he
has taken up the convention of “lament-of-final-resort” only to flout it, as is shown by the
accusations he will bring against God as his speeches continue. Bruce Zuckerman, Job the
Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint (NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991),
125–26.
Job retains and demonstrates in this passage are his wits. Although it is
common to see a complete break in Job’s attitude between the prologue
and the beginning of the poetic section—that is, between chapter 2 and
chapter 3—in that he closes his mouth insisting that he will not curse
God and opens it to curse God’s creation, in truth he does not burn his
bridges with the prologue so completely. Both of his refusals to curse God
in the prologue are linked to his belief that what has been taken from him
already belonged to God. He says, first, “Naked I came from my mother’s
womb, and naked shall I return there; the LORD gave, and the LORD has
taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (1:21), and second, “Shall
we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?” (2:10b).
What he says in chapter 3 is essentially, “God, you can have it.”85 Job does
not deny that God, who has given him everything, has a right to take
everything away. Rather, Job attempts to preempt that right by refusing
to take what is offered from the outset. He would rather go from womb
to tomb, than expose his nakedness to a clothing that can rightfully be
stripped from him. Job respectfully declines to participate in life, for if he
takes nothing from God, God cannot rightfully take anything from him.
Instead of cursing God, he cleverly rejects God’s blessing, which, experi-
ence has taught him, is a candy-coated poison pill. “You can have it. I
prefer to die before having been born.”
Yet, of course, as Clines and others have pointed out, Job can hardly
undo his existence at this point. He might kill himself, but he cannot go
back and make it so that he was never conceived and was never born.
He has already lived. He has already taken the candy-coated poison from
God, and he cannot give it back now that the sweet coating has dissolved,
without effectively changing his tune and saying, “The LORD gave and the
LORD has taken away; cursed be the name of the LORD.” The most he can
be saying, then, in chapter 3, is that if he knew then what he knows now,
he would not have taken what God offered him. Having taken it, though,
85 This interpretation was suggested to me by Philip Levine’s poem, “You Can Have It,”
which begins, “My brother comes home from work/ and climbs the stairs to our room./
I can hear the bed groan and his shoes drop/ one by one. You can have it, he says.” The
poem goes on to detail his and his brother’s hard labor in a factory in 1948, when they
were twenty, and ends, “Give me back my young brother, hard/ and furious, with wide
shoulders and a curse/ for God and burning eyes that look upon/ all creation and say, You
can have it.” http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/179090. Downloaded August 2, 2011.
Levine’s brother’s “You can have it” means, essentially, that the work is not worth what it
earns, and, by extension, whatever good there is in life is not worth the bad of his current
experience. He would, therefore, give back the good to avoid the bad. This is also Job’s
situation.
232 chapter five
he can only swallow it and wish he had known better than to accept it
when it was offered.
Yet, Job is not quite as powerless as this would suggest. It is precisely
in his implied claim that he would have refused life when it was offered
if he had known what was really in store that Job may have an actionable
case. For when, after all, was life offered? When was Job given the chance
to refuse? He was propelled from his mother’s womb into the dangerous
world without anyone ever asking how he felt about it. What’s more, it is
only now that he has all the facts before him. Even if anyone had both-
ered to ask whether he wanted to be born, if he had only been shown
the blessing and not the curse, his decision could hardly be considered
binding. “I would not have taken it if I had known what it really was,” Job
says, and, against the contention that he cannot un-take it now that he
has already taken it, Job’s curse of the days of his conception and birth
offer the counterargument that he cannot really be held responsible for
having taken life from God when God never asked him if he wanted to be
born and never disclosed to him what his life would be like. Job cannot be
unborn, it is true, but he can be absolved from having to bless God when
life’s good things are taken from him. He can have his right to curse rati-
fied. Or, better yet, he can force God to reinstate the blessing which God
had no real right to remove.
I began this section by saying that it seemed to me that Job, uttering
his chapter 3 curse, was neither as aggressive as those who view him as
trying to rouse chaos insist, nor as passive as those who see him as simply
a broken man longing for death claim. I wonder, though, whether the Job
I have presented is actually more aggressive than scholars like Fishbane
and Perdue see him as being. Their Job’s aggression is misguided. He is
powerless, really, trying to call up forces that he does not understand and
which he cannot control. He cuts as sorry a figure as the Job so crushed by
suffering that he asks only to die. In chapter 3 as I have interpreted it here,
however, Job actually has a case. His words may not get him anywhere,
but he does have the right to speak them, and he does have a valid point.
He has more wits and wiles than these other interpreters grant him. To
return to the question at hand, though, what does this mean for this inves-
tigation of Job’s creative ability and activity in relation to God? Has he,
here, set himself up as a rival creator to God, that is, as a force of chaos?
I do not think so—at least, not when we are reading the book forwards,
the first time through. Job does not seek to create a new world. He simply
acknowledges that God’s world, as it is, is no good, and, instead, attempts
to opt out, even if, making this attempt, Job is more actively critical of God
than passively resigned to his lot. Job is not a rival creator; he is, instead,
simply defining his right to criticize the world God has made.
When we come back to chapter 3, after reading the epilogue, it looks
somewhat different. Although it does not tell us unambiguously that Job
is, here, presenting himself as a rival creator, certain details do look more
suspicious than they might have the first time around. The aggressiveness
of Job’s argument with God, though evident in an initial reading, is high-
lighted. Although this aggression can be explained as the lashing out of a
man in desperate circumstances, it should not be explained away. God’s
question, “Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (40:8b) seems
particularly apt in relation to chapter 3, where Job has attempted to give
back everything God has given him in order to justify his right to utter
curses instead of blessings, as discussed above. The world God has created
is, fundamentally, not worth living in despite any seemingly good things it
may contain, Job claims, and, because it is not worth living in, Job cannot
be faulted for failing to appropriately worship the God who has forced
him to live there. The realm of the dead, Job insists, is preferable to the
world of the living, which God created.
When he ‘first’ speaks chapter 3, Job seems to assume that the world of
the dead is the only alternative world available to him. Indeed, this makes
sense in his attempt to preemptively reject God’s gift of life. Never having
been born, Job would enter a world that exists somehow prior to God’s
creation. When we return to chapter 3, however, it is with the knowl-
edge that the realm of the dead is not the only alternative world avail-
able to Job. The epilogue demonstrates that Job is capable of rejecting
God’s world in favor of a world much closer to his own preferences than
the world of the dead is. Indeed, even before the epilogue, Job’s ‘death
wish’ has become obsolete. In his subsequent speeches, and especially
in his final long speech of chapters 29–31, Job adopts the position that
the world of the living can be salvaged, if only God will take appropriate
action, expressing his belief that God’s vision of the world-as-it-ought-to-
be matches his own. Throughout his speeches, Job works to attract God’s
attention, insisting that once God sees the disorder into which his world
has fallen, God will be swift to enact a remedy, recreating the world-as-it-
ought-to-be. When God speaks from the whirlwind, however, and reveals
that his world does not match Job’s world-as-it-ought-to-be, Job, instead of
reverting to his wish to ‘live’ in the realm of the dead, takes up residence
in the world-as-it-ought-to-be, which, I have argued, must be a world of
his own creation.
234 chapter five
The difference between the world of the epilogue and the world of the
dead depicted in chapter 3 does seem to support the idea that, when he
spoke chapter 3, Job did not intend to act as a rival creator. The only
world he presents as a possible alternative to God’s is very different from
his own world-as-it-ought-to-be. When we look back at chapter 3 from
the perspective of the epilogue, however, we can see the seeds of Job’s
epilogue action there. In chapter 3, Job has already rejected God’s cre-
ation, and has argued for his right to do so, so that, although in the rest
of his speeches he points to God as the only possible creator of the world,
this acceptance of God’s creative authority is prefaced by a rejection of it.
When God reveals that the world of Job’s current experience is the world
as he created it to be, Job once again rejects this God and world. Why,
though, does he not again wish for death? Why are possibilities open to
him at the end of the book that were not there—or which he did not rec-
ognize as such—at the beginning of the book? The argument Job makes
in chapter 3 provides, I think, an answer to this question, though it is
somewhat complex to puzzle out.
Here is how I make sense of it: In chapter 3, Job says to God, “You can
have it,” and attempts to give back the life God has given him, preferring
instead to inhabit the realm of the dead as one who has never been born.
As Clines and others have pointed out, however, Job has already been
born and to give back what he has already experienced is an impossibility.
Job has already lived, and, although he might conceivably undo his life by
dying, he cannot undo it to the degree of never having lived; what Job tries
to do is nonsense. I have argued, however, that it is not nonsense. Even
if Job cannot really return his life to God ‘unused,’ his attempt to do so
can win him the right to curse God’s creation and reject God as creator.
For the sake of Job’s argument in chapter 3, the realm of the dead is the
only alternate world open to him. He cannot say, “I’ll make another world
within this world,” for that would mean that he had accepted God’s gift
of life, acceptance of which would require him to worship God no matter
whether God chose to bless or curse him. He can only say, “I’m choosing
to die before being born, God.” If God responds, “But that’s impossible,
Job. You have already lived,” Job can cite the facts that he was never asked
whether he wanted to be born, nor was he shown in advance what his life
would entail, as proof of his right to return his life to God. Job cannot be
unborn, but what he does is to earn himself the right to behave as one
who was never born, by showing that his birth happened against his will.
Having earned this right, Job pockets it. He does not mention it, but he
still has it when God answers him from the whirlwind. And, then, when
Job discovers that God’s world is actually the candy-coated poison pill
he thought it was when he spoke his chapter 3 speech, Job is at liberty
to make use of his right to reject God’s world. He has not taken anything
from God, because he was given no chance to reject it. As one never born,
Job is a free agent. He is free to create his own world-as-it-ought-to-be,
without being guilty of cursing God. He does curse God, but he does not
incur guilt for it.
In our rereading, we see the book double. Contradictory facts show
themselves to be true. Is Job a rival creator? No, not at first, but, in the
end, yes he is. If we look back we find that the seeds of this activity were
there all along. But a seed is not a plant. Just because a gun is present in
the first act of a play does not mean that it has to be fired, ‘Chekhov’s
gun’ notwithstanding. If God had answered Job differently—in the way
Job expected, for instance—Job would have reacted differently. The end
of the book pushes us back into its midst, and we see there what we did
not see before, or what we saw only as possibility and not as actualized
fact. In chapter 3, Job argues indirectly for the right to reject God’s world,
and his argument is, I think convincing. So, at the end of the book, when
he makes his own world, the world as he thinks it ought to be, we can
look to chapter 3 and see, there, his justification for doing so. If Job is a
chaos monster—a rival creator—he is one who has secured a ‘permit’ in
advance. He is no watery monster, blindly destroying whatever lies in his
path with a thwack of his mighty tail. He is something much cleverer: a
human being.
God’s Changeable World: An Alternate Reading of the Epilogue
In my reading of the meaning of the epilogue so far, I have claimed that

the fact that Job proceeds to inhabit a world completely different from
the one God has just described as the world of his creation identifies Job
as a rival creator—his world is set up in opposition to God’s—and I have
looked back into the book, to the prologue and Job’s chapter 3 cursing
of the day of his birth, to find the seeds of this behavior. I stand by these
observations. The epilogue world is a world made by Job. I want, though,
to explore another possibility for what this implies about his relationship
with God.
It seems possible that Job’s creation of this world might not be totally
at odds with God’s plans for his creation. In chapter 3 of this book, I dis-
cussed the ways in which God’s world, as presented in his speeches, is
236 chapter five
changeable, and identified Leviathan, in God’s depiction of the beast, as

the agent of uncontrollable and unpredictable change that is sanctioned—
indeed, loved—by God. I suggested that, perhaps, God’s presentation of
Leviathan was intended to hold a mirror to Job, not to show him that he
has behaved in a way inimical to God’s intentions for creation, and must,
therefore, be crushed, as some have argued, but to show him that he, like
Leviathan, is not entirely under God’s thumb. Job, too, is a powerful beast,
capable of taking matters into his own hands and surviving in a complex
world. If Leviathan is capable of effecting change, so is Job.
Newsom describes Job’s response to God in 42:2–6 and the epilogue as
functioning as a Bakhtinian ‘loophole,’ through which Job slips. Gary Saul
Morson explains Bakhtin’s concept of the loophole, writing,
Life in an artwork . . . possesses what Bakhtin calls ‘rhythm.’ . . . In under-
standing and planning a story, the author discovers the rhythm of the whole
from its beginning to its end, the patterning that ensures closure and dic-
tates the significance of everything along the way. In Bakhtin’s terminol-
ogy, rhythm therefore becomes the opposite of ‘loophole,’ the capacity for
genuine surprise.86
The epilogue as loophole, then, is evidence that even God cannot fully
comprehend the world he has created. Although God tells Job that the
world works one way, for Job, in the epilogue, it turns out to work in a
completely different way. God does not know everything after all and his
question, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?”
(38:2), which served to show Job that his own vision of the world was
limited and insufficient, now reflects back on God himself. Job’s vision is
partial, but, it turns out, so is God’s. Things can happen that God has not
envisaged. In Newsom’s reading, the loophole belongs to Job, who escapes
being pinned down or fully defined by God’s explanation of the world.
Yet, although it is true that Job finds that things turn out differently for
him than God has predicted, his escape need not be a ‘narrow’ one. That
is, if my reading of Leviathan as indicating God’s embrace of uncontrol-
lable change is correct, Job does not escape his suffering and reap reward
despite the way in which God has created the world, but because of it.
In his hymn to Leviathan, God reveals that he has created a world filled
with real creatures who are capable of surprising him, and to be thrilled
86 Gary Saul Morson, Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1994), 90.
that this is the case. If, in Leviathan, God rejoices over a creature that
exceeds his control, in the epilogue God must rejoice over a world that
exceeds his control. The surprise of the epilogue’s events must strike God
as happy evidence that the world is actually real, that it is not just his
personal fantasy. God has told Job that the righteous are not rewarded as
a matter of course; the workings of the world are far more complicated.
However, the workings of the world turn out to be so complicated that
Job, the righteous man, does end up reaping reward for his righteousness:
what was originally expected to happen happens, but only after it has
been shown to be unexpected.
If an essential feature of God’s world is that God’s creatures are free to
act unconstrained by God, then God cannot make the world he wants to
make without such free activity on the part of creatures. That is to say,
God cannot create on his own. If God is to be a creator, Job must also
be a creator. There is a fair amount of irony here: God cannot create his
world without Job’s free participation, but the world Job wants to live in
is not the world as God wants it to be. Job makes a world and genuinely
surprises God, which pleases God, but the world itself is one which tries to
exclude the capacity for surprise which God has built in. Yet, if God both
wins and loses, so does Job. Job gets his world-as-it-ought-to-be. He lives
there, even though this is not the world God describes himself as having
created. The way he gets there, however, is by initiating change, a thing
which does not exist in his stable world-as-it-ought-to-be. Experiencing
his restoration as change, Job can no longer insist that the world is not
changeable, nor can he disparage change as he once did, for it is change
which has permitted him to occupy his new position.
Moreover, his bestowing of an inheritance on his daughters may signal
that he has learned something, in this regard, from the God of the whirl-
wind. Instead of clinging to his restored wealth, Job is profligate with it,
bestowing it where it is not deserved or expected. In this, Job mirrors, in
a certain way, God’s creative activity. Just as God has let the wild ass go
free and given it the resources to live free from human (and also divine)
control, so Job gives his daughters the financial wherewithal to be free from
male control. This freedom from his and others’ control creates them as real
individuals. If Job’s bestowal of an inheritance is a surprise to them, they
themselves are now free to work their own changes, their own surprises.
The epilogue, which, in its current position, appears as a change in both
Job’s circumstances and in the world as God has described it, is a place in
which change generates change and surprise gives rise to surprise.
238 chapter five
So, Which Is It?
Above, I have engaged in two main readings of the effect of the epilogue.
In the first, Job shows himself to be a rival creator, making his own world
in opposition to God, a reading which is supported by the tone and con-
tent of God’s address to Job and, when the book is read backwards, by
the prologue and Job’s chapter 3 birthday curse. In the second, Job acts as
a creator, but his creativity does not indicate a rivalry with God; rather,
the fact that he creates a world different from the one God claims to have
created only proves that God’s world—in which creatures have been cre-
ated to be agents of change—is really real. The epilogue may surprise
God as much as it surprises readers, but, despite its surface differences
from God’s whirlwind world, Job’s epilogue world could not exist unless
God had laid the groundwork which makes its existence possible. More-
over, I have noted that Job’s bestowal of an inheritance on his daughters
may indicate that his prior idea of the-world-as-it-ought-to-be has been
changed by his encounter with God. Whereas he once hoarded power for
himself and insisted that he occupy the central position in an unchang-
ing world, now Job relinquishes at least some of the that power and cen-
trality, permitting his daughters to take control of their own lives, just as
God permits his creatures to live freely and for their own sakes instead of
simply for and by his own good pleasure. In this formulation, while the
epilogue world is not identical to the whirlwind word, neither is it identi-
cal to Job’s previous articulation of his world-as-it-ought-to-be.
So, which is it? Is Job a rival creator whose creation opposes God’s and
makes a definite break from God’s world, or is Job instead a co-creator,
whose world makes use of aspects of God’s world and whose creative
ability is granted by God’s authority? It seems to me that, despite their
appearance of mutual exclusivity, the book does portray Job as both these
things, or at least keeps both options open as real possibilities. There is
an unresolvable tension here. Both Job and God speak and act in ways
which are genuinely contradictory. God both accuses Job of acting as a
rival creator and insists that he has no creative power. The reason why
God leans so heavily on this last fact, however, is because Job has success-
fully created a world, the world of the prologue. Yet, at the same time, the
world God describes as the world of his creation should have room for Job
to act freely and creatively. In fact, this is one of the major ways in which
God’s world is distinguished from the world Job describes as the world-as-
it-ought-to-be, in which only one central figure—Job himself—is capable
of real speech and action, while all other members of the community
are ranged around him, listening in dependent, anticipatory silence. Per-

haps the problem here is that God has in mind a particular kind of free
and creative action that he intends Job to take—the kind of action that
maintains the world as God has created it to be. As Moore and Sherwood
point out, “In all democracies . . . freedom is circumscribed no less than it
is celebrated”87 That is, one may do anything, as long as that ‘anything’ fits
within certain predetermined parameters. Job is free, but only to a point.
For his part, throughout the book Job ascribes creative power only to God,
denying that he has any power to control his situation or to create the
world as he would have it be. In the end, however, Job does act creatively,
making the epilogue world, as, it turns out, he has also made the world of
the prologue. If the free creativity God has in mind for his creatures is cir-
cumscribed by God’s own plans for his creation, Job has other ideas about
the world-as-it-ought-to-be and other plans for maintaining that world.
In the list of questions inspired by the epilogue, as given in this chapter
and in the introduction, I asked whether it was possible that Job might be
neither an antagonistic rival creator nor a subservient co-creator, but some
third kind of thing. Above, I have indicated that the book portrays Job as
both rival creator and co-creator, and I find myself wondering whether
this does make him a third kind of thing, in which, somehow, these oppos-
ing characteristics are combined, albeit not without tension. I find myself
wondering, moreover, whether the proper name for this tension-ridden
third thing is ‘a human being.’ That is to say, it is not that Job has chosen
to act in this way, as opposed to in some other way, but that this is pre-
cisely what defines who he is in relation to God. As a human being, Job is
rival creator and co-creator, and his relationship to God, his creator, is in
a constant state of flux, negotiated and renegotiated between these two
opposing poles.
87 Moore and Sherwood, Invention, 106. Moore and Sherwood are writing, here, about
the discipline of Biblical Studies and not about the Book of Job, but their observation is
applicable nonetheless.
EPILOGUE
NEGOTIATING AND RENEGOTIATING THE WORLD
Terrence Malick’s recent film, Tree of Life,1 begins with a quotation from
God’s speeches in the Book of Job—“Where were you when I laid the
foundation of the earth? (38:4a)—which sets the context for what follows.
In the film, a mother’s young son dies, and, when she, in anguish, cries out
to God to tell her ‘why,’ the scene shifts to an extended montage of the ori-
gins of the world: lava erupting from volcanoes, bubbles skidding across
the surface of a tidal pool, a dinosaur emerging from the undergrowth in
a primeval forest. This montage does much to defamiliarize God’s whirl-
wind speeches, which, for the most part, present a natural world with
which present-day readers can be comfortable. “Do you know . . .?” asks
God. “Sure,” we answer, shrugging. “That’s easy. Ask me another one.”
Malick’s film, however, strives to recapture the strange, wild, dangerous
otherness of the world depicted in God’s speeches.
In this book, I have inquired into the world presented by Job and his
friends, and by God, looking at what they have to say about relationships
between individuals, the workings of time, and the configuration of space.
I have argued that the world described as the world-as-it-ought-to-be by
Job and his friends is a world organized around a central, influential figure,
in which stability and stasis reign, and in which borders and boundaries
perform the necessary work of separating what-ought-to-be from what-
ought-not-to-be. God’s world, I have argued, is this world’s opposite: no
central figure organizes its members’ attention, change is valued over sta-
bility, and ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ have no meaning, for the whole of the world
is the recipient of God’s blessing and care. God’s world is a better world
than that of Job and his friends. This assessment has, I think, been clear in
chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this book, in which I have ended with descriptions
of God’s world, letting that world have the last word, as the ‘straw world’
of Job and his friends is shown for what it is and struck down.
God’s world is wild and beautiful, whereas the world of Job and his
friends is cramped and narrow. Job and his friends are hung up on
hierarchies and overly dependent on economic agreements. They are
1 Terrence Malick, dir., Tree of Life (Fox Searchlight Pictures/EuropaCorp, 2011).

242 epilogue
overly concerned to differentiate the righteous from the wicked, and to

make sure that each group gets what it deserves. God, though, is free
with his blessings. He loves his creatures, be they ravens, lions, wild oxen,
eagles, Behemoths, or Leviathans. God’s speeches, I have argued, provide
a direct answer—or, rather, a direct retort—to the claims about the world
made by Job and his friends. He shows them what his world is like, and
what he shows them is so much better than what they have come up
with on their own. “Here is where you really live,” God tells Job. “You do
not live in that narrow world you thought you occupied. That’s not real.
That’s something you made up. Come out here and be free, as you were
meant to be.”
But Job doesn’t go there. Job chooses his own narrow world over God’s
wild freedom. He may change this world in some ways, taking elements
from God’s world, but it is still more his world than God’s. Those who
insist that, because God must speak authoritatively, the epilogue world
has to be God’s world, are selling the whirlwind world short, failing to
attend to its wild otherness. Moreover, we have become so accustomed
to thinking of the wild as something threatened, that it is counterintuitive
to see it, instead, as threatening. Malick’s montage helps to remedy this,
bringing home the wildness of the wild in a vivid, visceral way. Watch-
ing that world flicker across the screen, and seeing it as God’s answer to
Job, I immediately understood why Job goes ‘back inside.’ Job cannot live
out there. There is no place for him, and, consequently, it is no place for
him. God does not speak of humans for a reason: they do not belong in
the world as God has created it. Describing his world to Job, God may
want Job to belong there, but Job must instinctively know that he does
not belong.
“Look at Behemoth which I made just as I made you” (40:15), God says
to Job, and, although it is possible to read this directive as intended to
highlight both God’s power and the shared creatureliness of the human
and the animal, it is possible to read it another way. It is possible to see
in God’s desire for Job to look at Behemoth and recognize their shared
origins, a deep bewilderment on the part of the creator. Perhaps the direc-
tive is not even directed primarily at Job. Perhaps God is speaking half to
himself: “I made both of these creatures. How is it that I know one so com-
pletely, while the other is a mystery to me?” It is possible to see something
similar going on in God’s depiction of Leviathan. As already discussed,
many scholars read the Leviathan chapter as God’s demonstration of his
power over ‘chaos,’ or, at least, over what is very wild, and insist that what
God is saying is that, because Job cannot control Leviathan as God does,
negotiating and renegotiating the world 243
Job has no business questioning God about his governance of his creation.
Furthermore, some scholars read God’s words about Leviathan as words
that are also descriptive of Job: like Leviathan, Job is behaving ‘chaoti-
cally,’ and, just as God defeated Leviathan, so God will defeat Job, who is
no match for God’s ‘ordering’ power.
Although, in this book I have understood God’s words about Leviathan as
showing, instead, God’s commitment to a diverse, changeable, unbounded
world, it is also possible, to understand God’s words about Leviathan dif-
ferently. In Psalm 139, the psalmist sings of being known completely by
God, because God is his creator: “For it was you who formed my inward
parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). Job, too,
is aware of God as his creator: “Your hands fashioned and made me. . . .
You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and
sinews” (10:8a, 11). But when God speaks, the one he knows so intimately
would seem, instead, to be Leviathan. God describes Leviathan minutely,
dwelling on every feature of its form. What if God does indeed intend
his words about Leviathan to be words about Job, and his knowledge of
Leviathan to stand in for knowledge of Job? God speaks about the most
powerful creature he knows, and shows that he is intimately acquainted
with this beast. If he knows Leviathan, he must surely know Job. But what
if this is a kind of ruse? What if God speaks about Leviathan in the hope
of distracting Job from the fact that he does not actually speak about Job?
What if, moreover, the reason God speaks about Leviathan and not about
Job, is because for Leviathan, as for the rest of creation, creation is des-
tiny, whereas for Job, uniquely, it is not? “Here is what the world is like,”
says God. “I know, because I am its creator. Look how intimately I know
even so formidable a beast as Leviathan. You could not get close enough
to count this monster’s scales, but I know what Leviathan is like because
I made Leviathan.” Job, though, if I am right about the force of the epi-
logue, answers that he does not see himself in the world God has made,
and recognizing that he, alone of God’s creatures, is capable of creating
a world for himself different from the world made by God, does just that.
For Job, origins are not destiny. “Come out here and be free. I made you.
This is where you belong,” God says. But Job answers, “Are you kidding?
I would be eaten alive.”
In my introductory chapter, I wondered whether, if Job rejects God’s
world, we ought to reject it too, or whether, instead, we ought to ‘drop Job
like a hot potato.’ It seems to me that the Book of Job does not answer this
question outright, nor is the answer obvious. God’s world is better that
Job’s in many ways, but it is also true that, as it is presented, Job cannot
244 epilogue
really live there. Job makes his own world, but it, too, is flawed; the walls
surrounding him do protect him, but they also confine him. What the
Book of Job says about creation is, it seems to me, that our relation to the
world and to our creator is not a given, but must be constantly negotiated
and renegotiated. The Book of Job is a space where we can do this work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alonso-Schökel, Luis. “God’s Answer to Job.” In Job and the Silence of God. Edited by
C. Duquoc and C. Floristán, 45–51. New York: Seabury Press, 1983.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
——. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985.
Anderson, Francis I. Job: An Introduction and Commentary. London and Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976.
Ash, Christopher. Out of the Storm: Grappling with God in the Book of Job. Leiscester, Eng-
land: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and Translated by C. Emerson.
Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Bal, Mieke. Lethal Love: Feminist Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1987.
——. Death and Dissymetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges. Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Balentine, Samuel E. “ ‘What are human beings, that you should make so much of them?’
Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth.’ ” In God in the Fray: A Trib-
ute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T.K. Beal, 259–78. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1998.
——. “Who Will be Job’s Redeemer?” Perspectives in Religious Studies 26 no. 3 (1999):
269–289.
Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. London: SCM Press, 1992.
Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
Brenner, Athalya. “God’s Answer to Job.” Vetus Testamentum 31 no. 2 (1981): 129–37.
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Brown, William P. Character in Crisis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
——. The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999.
Brueggemann, Walter. The Land. London: SPCK, 1978.
——. Theology of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997.
Clines, David J.A. Job 1–20. Word Biblical Commentary 17. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
——. “Deconstructing the Book of Job.” In What Does Eve do to Help? and Other Readerly
Questions to the Old Testament, 106–123. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
——. “Why is there a Book of Job and What Does it do to You if You Read it?” In The Book
of Job. Edited by W.A.M. Beuken, 1–20. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1994.
——. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup
205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
——. “False Naivety in the Prologue to Job.” In On the Way to the Postmodern, vol. 2,
735–44. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
——. “Quarter Days Gone: Job 24 and the Absence of God.” In God in the Fray: A Tribute to
Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T.K. Beal, 242–58. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1998.
——. Job 21–37. Word Biblical Commentary 18A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.
——., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
1993.
——. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007.
246 bibliography
Cohn, Robert L. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. California: Scholars Press,
1981.
Collins, John J. The Bible After Babel :Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids
and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005.
Cooper, Alan. “Reading and Misreading the Prologue to Job.” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 15 (1990): 67–79.
Couroyer, B. “Qui Est Béhémoth?” Revue Biblique 82 (1975): 418–443.
Cox, Dermot. The Triumph of Impotence: Job and the Tradition of the Absurd. Rome: Uni-
versita Gregoriana Editrice, 1978.
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. London: SCM Press, 1982.
——. A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
——. “Job.” In The HarperCollins Study Bible, 749–96. New York: HarperCollins, 1989.
Curtis, John Briggs. “On Job’s Response to Yahweh.” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 no. 4
(1979): 497–511.
Davis, Ellen F. “Job and Jacob: The Integrity of Faith.” In Reading Between Texts. Edited by
D.N. Fewell, 203–224. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
Day, John. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old
Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
——. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2002.
Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by J. McHugh. London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961.
Dhorme, Edouard. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by H. Knight. London:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967.
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1966.
Driver, Samuel Rolles, and George Buchanan Gray. The Book of Job. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1921.
Edwards, Clifford W. “Greatest of All the People in the East: Venturing East of Uz.” Review &
Expositor 99 no. 4 (2002): 529–40.
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane. Translated by W.R. Trask. New York: Harper &
Row, 1961.
Fishbane, Michael. “Jeremiah IV 23–26 and Job III 3–13: A Recovered Use of the Creation
Pattern.” Vetus Testamentum 21 no. 2 (1971): 151–67.
Fox, Michael V. “Job 38 and God’s Rhetoric.” Semeia 19 (1981): 53–61.
Fretheim, Terence E. “Creation’s Praise of God in the Psalms.” Ex Auditu 3 (1987): 16–30.
——. “God in the Book of Job.” Currents in Theology and Mission 26 no. 2 (1999): 85–93.
Frick, Frank S. The City in Ancient Israel. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Gammie, John G. “Behemoth and Leviathan: On the Didactic and Theological Significance
of Job 40:15–41:26.” In Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Sam-
uel Terrien. Edited by J.G. Gammie et al., 217–31. New York: Scholars Press, 1978.
Geeraerts, Dick. “Caught in a Web of Irony: Job and His Embarrassed God” In Job 28: Cogni-
tion in Context. Edited by E. van Wolde, 37–56. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003.
Girard, René. Job: The Victim of his People. Translated by Y. Freccero. Stanford: Stanford
Good, Edwin M. Irony in the Old Testament. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1981.
——. In Turns of Tempest. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.
Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 1965.
——. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies. New York: The
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978.
Gordon, Cyrus H. “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil.” In Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transforma-
tions. Edited by A. Altmann, 1–9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.
bibliography 247
Greenberg, Moshe. “Job.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by R. Alter and F. Ker-
mode, 283–304. London: Collins, 1987.
Gunkel, Hermann. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-
Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K.W. Whitney, Jr. Grand
Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006.
Gutierrez, Gustavo. On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. Translated by
M.J. O’Connell. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987.
Habel, Norman C. “ ‘Only the Jackal is My Friend’ On Friends and Redeemers in Job,” Inter-
pretation 31 no. 3 (1977): 227–236.
——. The Book of Job, A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1985.
——. “ ‘Is the Wild Ox Willing to Serve You?’ Challenging the Mandate to Dominate.” In
The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions. Edited by N.C. Habel and S. Wurst, 179–189. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Hamilton, Mark. “Elite Lives: Job 29–31 and Traditional Authority.” Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament 32 no. 1 (2007): 69–89.
Harding, James E. “A Spirit of Deception in Job 4:15? Interpretive Indeterminacy and
Eliphaz’s Vision.” Biblical Interpretation 13 no. 2 (2005): 137–166.
Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Holder, Ian. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
Holladay, William L., ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon. Grand Rapids and Leiden:
Eerdmans and E.J. Brill, 1988.
Horne, Milton. “From Ethics to Aesthetics: The Animals in Job 38:39–39:30.” Review &
Expositor 102 no. 1 (2005): 127–42.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1976.
Jacobsen, Thorkild, and Kirsten Nielsen. “Cursing the Day.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament 6 no. 2 (1992): 187–204.
Janzen, J. Gerald. Job. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.
——. “Another Look at God’s Watch Over Job (7:12).” Journal of Biblical Literature 108
no. 1 (1989): 109–114.
——. “On the Moral Nature of God’s Power: Yahweh and the Sea in Job and Deutero-
Isaiah.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 no. 3 (1994): 458–78.
Josipovici, Gabriel. The Book of God: A Response to the Bible. New Haven and London: Yale
Jung, Carl G. Answer to Job. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. London and New York: Routledge,
1954.
Keller, Catherine. Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming. London and New York: Rout-
ledge, 2003.
Kelley, Page H. “Speeches of the Three Friends.” Review & Expositor 68 no. 4 (1971):
479–485.
Kermode, Frank. “The Uses of Error.” In The Uses of Error. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1991.
Kinet, Dirk. “The Ambiguity of the Concepts of God and Satan in the Book of Job.” In Job
and the Silence of God. Edited by C. Duquoc and C. Floristán, 30–35. New York: Seabury
Press, 1983.
Lawrie, Douglas. “How Critical is it to be Historically Critical? The Case of the Composition
of the Book of Job.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27 no. 1 (2001): 121–146.
Leal, Robert Barry. “Negativity Towards Wilderness in the Biblical Record.” Ecotheology 10
no. 3 (2005): 364–381.
Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipo-
tence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Linafelt, Tod. “The Undecidability of ‫ ברך‬in the Prologue to Job and Beyond.” Biblical
Interpretation 4 no. 2 (1996): 154–72.
248 bibliography
Lo, Alison. Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22–31. Leiden and
Boston: Brill, 2003.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E. Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures.
Germany: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevalaer and Neukirchener Verlab Neukirchen-
Vluyn, 1980.
Louth, Andrew. The Wilderness of God. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2003.
Malick, Terrence, dir. Tree of Life. Fox Searchlight Pictures/EuropaCorp, 2011.
Melchert, Charles. “The Book of Job: Education Through and By Diversity.” Religious Edu-
cation 92 no. 1 (1997): 9–23.
Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. “The Enigma of Job: The Deconstruction of God in Intertextual
Perspective.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23 no. 2 (1997): 1–19.
Miles, Jack. God: A Biography. London: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Mitchell, Stephen. The Book of Job. London: Kyle Cathie Limited, 1989.
Moore, Stephen D., and Yvonne Sherwood. The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical
Manifesto. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.
Morgan, Robert, with John Barton. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988.
Morson, Gary Saul. Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1994.
Murphy, Roland E. The Book of Job: A Short Reading. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press,
1999.
Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd Edition. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1982.
Nemo, Philippe. Job and the Excess of Evil. Translated by M. Kigel. Pittsburgh: Duquesne
Newsom, Carol A. “Cultural Politics and the Reading of Job.” Biblical Interpretation 1
no. 2 (1993): 119–138.
——. “The Moral Sense of Nature: Ethics in the Light of God’s Speech to Job.” Princeton
Seminary Bulletin 15 no. 1 (1994): 9–27.
——. “Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth.” Journal of Religion 76 (1996): 290–306.
——. “Job and His Friends: A Conflict of Moral Imaginations.” Interpretation 53 no. 3
(1999): 239–253.
______. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. New York: Oxford University Press,
2003.
O’Connor, Daniel. “The Futility of Myth-Making in Theodicy: Job 38–41.” Proceedings of the
Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985): 81–99.
O’Connor, Donal. Job: his wife, his friends, and his God. Dublin: The Columba Press, 1995.
Otzen, Benedikt. “The Use of Myth in Genesis.” In Myths in the Old Testament. By B. Otzen,
H. Gottlieb, and K. Jeppesen. Translated by F. Cryer. London: SCM Press, 1980.
Patrick, Dale. “Divine Creative Power and the Decentering of Creation: The Subtext of the
Lord’s Address to Job.” In The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions. Edited by N.C. Habel
and S. Wurst. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Pelham, Abigail. “Job’s Crisis of Language: Power and Powerlessness in Job’s Oaths.” Jour-
nal for the Study of the Old Testament 36 no. 3 (2012): 333–54.
——. “Job as Comedy, Revisited.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 no. 1 (2010):
89–110.
Penchansky, David. The Betrayal of God: Ideological Conflict in Job. Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox Press, 1990.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job. Sheffield: The
Almond Press, 1991.
Pope, Marvin H. Job. New York: Doubleday, 1965.
Pyper, Hugh S. An Unsuitable Book: The Bible as Scandalous Text. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoe-
nix Press, 2005.
Robertson, David. “The Book of Job: A Literary Study.” Soundings 56 (1973): 446–69.
bibliography 249
Rowland, Christopher. “Re-imagining Biblical Exegesis.” In Religion, Literature and the

Imagination. Edited by M. Knight and L. Lee, 140–149. London and New York: Con
tinuum International Publishing Group, 2009.
Rowley, H.H. Job. Great Britain: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1985.
Rowold, Henry. “Yahweh’s Challenge to Rival: The Form and Function of the Yahweh-
Speeches in Job 38–39.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 no. 2 (1985): 199–211.
——. “!‫ מי הוא?לי הוא‬Leviathan and Job in Job 41:2–3.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105
no. 1 (1986): 104–109.
Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Scheindlin, Raymond. The Book of Job. New York and London: Norton & Co., 1998.
Schifferdecker, Kathryn. Out of the Whirlwind: Creation Theology in the Book of Job. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Sherwood, Yvonne. A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western Cul-
ture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
——. Biblical Blaspheming: Trials of the Sacred for a Secular Age. Forthcoming, Cambridge
Simkins, Ronald. Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Structure and Message of the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum
46, no. 1 (1996): 85–100.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “ ‘The ‘Desert Motif ’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature.” In Bib-
lical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic
Studies, Brandeis University. Edited by A. Altmann, 31–63. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1966.
Terrien, Samuel. “The Book of Job.” In The Interpreter’s Bible vol. 3, 877–1198. New York and
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954.
——. Job: Poet of Existence. Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company,
1957.
Tur-Sinai, Naphtali. The Book of Job. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher Ltd., 1957.
Ulmer, Louis. What’s the Matter with Job? Arch Books #11. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1974.
Vawter, Bruce. Job & Jonah: Questioning the Hidden God. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Watson, Rebecca S. Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of ‘Chaos’ in the Hebrew
Bible. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005.
Weiss, Meir. The Story of Job’s Beginning, Job 1–2: A Literary Analysis. Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, 1983.
Westermann, Claus. The Structure of the Book of Job. Translated by C.A. Muenchow. Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1981.
Whedbee, William. “The Comedy of Job.” Semeia 7 (1977): 1–39.
Whybray, Norman. Job. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Williams, James G. “ ‘You have not Spoken Truth of Me’ Mystery and Irony in Job.” Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 no. 2 (1971): 231–53.
Wright, David P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and
Mesopotamian Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Zuckerman, Bruce. Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
index of names
Alonso-Schöckel, Luis 75n Fretheim, Terence E. 121n, 174, 175

Alter, Robert 4, 5n, 226 Frick, Frank S. 144n2, 145n1
Anderson, Francis I. 206, 225n1
Ash, Christopher 84n4 Gammie, John G. 133
Geeraerts, Dick 196n2, 222, 223
Bakhtin, Mikhail 28 Girard, René 63n1
Bal, Mieke 11, 12, 17, 20 Good, Edwin M. 11, 17, 25, 68n, 135, 151,
Balentine, Samuel E. 66, 87, 163n 153n
Barr, James 2, 5 Gordis, Robert 66, 84n2, 90, 226n3, 227n1
Batto, Bernard F. 134n, 216n Gordon, Cyrus H. 84n4
Brenner, Athalya 90 Greenberg, Moshe 27, 189, 192
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Gunkel, Hermann 215, 216, 226n3
Briggs 178n2 Gutierrez, Gustavo 66n3
Brown, William P. 168n, 177, 187n, 188n1,
191, 192, 193, 195, 198, 205, 228 Habel, Norman C. 58, 67, 80, 84n2, 84n4,
Brueggemann, Walter 81, 142, 177n2 151, 177n2, 182n1, 213
Hamilton, Mark 165n2
Clines, David J.A. 3, 4, 5n, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Harding, James E. 55
13, 18, 21, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38n1, 57n, Hartley, John E. 66n3, 84, 89, 108, 134n,
67, 97, 114n, 147n, 151, 157n, 159n, 167n, 229n1
168n, 193, 204n1, 205, 206, 207, 210n4, Holder, Ian 143
227, 229, 230, 231, 234 Holladay, William L., ed. 27n1, 66, 100
Cohn, Robert L. 140, 141 Horne, Milton 82n2
Collins, John J. 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 16n2
Cooper, Alan 22 Jacobsen, Thorkild 219, 220
Couroyer, B. 132n1 Jacobsen, Thorkild, and Kirsten
Cox, Dermot 66n3, 84n4 Nielsen 228, 229
Crenshaw, James L. 67n4, 68, 160, 190, Jacobson, Diane 86n
192, 194, 195, 203 Janzen, J. Gerald 9, 10, 51n1, 67, 68, 74n,
Curtis, John Briggs 27, 28, 38n2, 39, 81, 87, 90n2, 109, 151, 152, 169, 177, 193, 219,
190, 192, 194, 223n2 226
Josipovici, Gabriel 11, 197n2
Davis, Ellen F. 164 Jung, Carl 81, 82, 204
Day, John 84, 134n, 213, 217
Day, Peggy L. 18, 67n2, 201, 210 Keller, Catherine 176n, 182, 183, 184, 225
De Vaux, Roland 142n1 Kelley, Page H. 58
Dhorme, Edouard 66n3, 84n2, 132n3 Kermode, Frank 21, 22
Douglas, Mary 139, 154, 155 Kinet, Dirk 66n3
Driver, Samuel Rolles, and George
Buchanan Gray 66n3, 108, 229n2 Lawrie, Douglas 33n2
Leal, Robert Barry 125n, 142n1
Edwards, Clifford W. 52n Levenson, Jon D. 200, 201, 202, 205, 211
Eliade, Mircea 138, 139, 145n1 Levine, Philip 231n
Linafelt, Tod 53n2
Fishbane, Michael 213, 225, 227, 228, 230, Lo, Alison 151
232 Loewenstamm, Samuel E. 217n2
Fox, Michael V. 80 Louth, Andrew 141n3, 142n1
252 index of names
Malick, Terrence 241 Rowland, Christopher 15, 16

Melchert, Charles 55n2, 225n1 Rowley, H.H. 66n3
Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. 83, 84 Rowold, Henry 80, 84, 134n
Miles, Jack 81, 222, 223
Mitchell, Stephen 209, 210, 211 Scarry, Elaine 51n1, 155, 156
Moore, Stephen D., and Yvonne Scheindlin, Raymond 67
Sherwood 3, 4, 6, 13n1, 14, 15n1, 15n2, Schifferdecker, Kathryn 2, 5, 76n, 178n1,
239 191, 192, 193, 195, 197n2, 198, 205, 218, 219
Morgan, Robert, with John Barton 6, 7, 8, Sherwood, Yvonne 10, 19, 23
9, 11, 15, 16, 20 Simkins, Ronald 155, 174, 175
Morson, Gary Saul 236 Steinmann, Andrew E. 33n2
Murphy, Roland 81, 84n4
Talmon, Shemaryahu 142n1
Nash, Roderick 142, 143 Terrien, Samuel 67, 108
Nemo, Philippe 161, 162 Tur-Sinai, Naphtali 84n4, 230
Newsom, Carol A. 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 26, 28,
29n2, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 65n1, Ulmer, Louis 195n2
101, 151, 163n, 164n2, 193, 194n1, 195, 236
Vawter, Bruce 53n2, 67, 109
O’Connor Daniel 75n
O’Connor Donal 112 Watson, Rebecca S. 132n1, 217, 218, 219,
Otzen, Benedikt 140 229, 230
Weiss, Meir 210
Patrick, Dale 83n, 90, 91 Westermann, Claus 66n3
Pelham, Abigail 23n, 95n Whedbee, William 194
Penchansky, David 32n5, 193 Whybray, Norman 66n3, 80, 84n4, 230
Perdue, Leo G. 89n3, 98, 99, 174, 213, 214, Williams, G.H. 142n1
221, 222, 225, 230, 232 Williams, James G. 66n3, 68n
Pope, Marvin 67, 81, 84n2, 132n3, 226n3 Wright, David P. 139, 140
Pyper, Hugh S. 53, 56n1, 60
Robertson, David 27, 29n1, 174, 175, 223n2 Zuckerman, Bruce 230n3
index of subjects
ambiguity Bildad 43, 45, 62, 64, 78, 96, 104–06,

of Job’s Answer to God 26–30, 36, 39, 111–12, 114, 146–47, 150–53, 160, 169n3
186, 196 blessing as curse 21, 22, 53, 60, 98
of the Book of Job 18–23, 28, 30, 34, 40 boundary(ies) 37, 125, 129, 138–40,
animals 143–44, 146–49, 153–61, 163–69, 173–78,
domesticated 50–52, 102, 184, 187–189 185, 189, 218, 241, 244
dog(s) 168, 171, 182
horse(s) 77, 87, 128–29 change
ox(en) 50, 182 as evidence of time 92
wild 75–76, 79, 102, 128, 132, 142n1, as unavoidable human
167–71, 173, 179–83, 185n, 187, 207, characteristic 108, 110–11, 113–14,
219, 242 117–20
ass(es) 77–79, 82, 121, 125, 129, 166, see also human: mortality
168n, 170, 181, 188–89, 237 avoided by Job and the
deer 78, 82–83, 121, 125–26, 128, 184, righteous 93–95, 102–04, 107, 111, 113,
188 121, 200
eagle(s) 77–78, 87, 115, 121, 129–30, caused by multiplicity 124, 126, 128–29,
180n1, 242 133, 137, 207, 238
hawk(s) 121, 125 characteristic of the lives of the
jackal(s) 168 wicked 43, 104–07, 110, 113, 130–31
lion(s) 76–77, 126, 128, 157, 170n, God as agent/creator of 95–97, 100,
180–81, 242 103, 122–26, 137, 185, 191, 223, 235–36,
mountain goat(s) 82–83, 125–26 238, 241
ostrich(es) 77–78, 87, 126, 128–29, Leviathan as evidence of 134–37, 236
168, 184, 188–89 required by Job 237
ox(en) 78–79, 82, 85, 121, 124, 129, chaos 24n, 84, 86, 125n, 138, 140–43, 159,
181–82, 184, 188–89, 242 174, 176–77, 212, 212n, 213–14, 216, 217n2,
raven(s) 76, 126, 129–30, 180–81, 242 218–22, 225–29, 232, 242–43
anti-world see world-as-it-ought-not- chaos monster 83–85, 89, 132, 134, 176,
to-be 212–14, 216–17, 218, 220–21, 224–25, 235
Apsu 215, 219, 220 see also Apsu; combat myth; Job
see also combat myth; Enuma elish (character): as creator; Job (character):
ashes see dust and/or ashes wickedness of; Leviathan; Tiamat
attention 47–50, 76–79, 86, 91, 171, 193, ‘Chekhov’s Gun’ 235
205 civilization 143, 156, 164, 169
author(s) combat myth 134n, 140, 145–46, 176,
dead 1, 7, 8, 11 213–19, 225–26
identity 1–4, 7, 196n1 see also Apsu; battle; chaos monster;
implied 3–4, 13 Leviathan; Tiamat
intentions 4–8, 11–15, 18, 20, 22, 38, 211 complexity 11, 13, 18–20, 22, 34, 77, 86, 91,
121, 129, 131, 185, 188, 197n2, 207, 223, 236
Bakhtin(ian) 16, 20, 28, 31, 36–37, 195, 236 cosmos 103, 120, 127, 138, 140, 218, 228
battle 88, 125n, 128–29, 134, 140, 174, 214, covenant 27, 85–86, 134, 142n1, 182–83, 188
216, 218, 221–22 criticism
see also combat myth; God: as enemy historical 2–5, 13, 196n1
Behemoth 83–84, 89n3, 131–33, 134n, literary 3–6
135–37, 189, 214, 242 curse of Job’s ‘birthday’ 94, 113, 212–13,
bet 53, 55–56, 206–11, 222, 223 225–35, 238
254 index of subjects
darkness 47, 67, 84, 97, 103, 105, 106, of animals 127–29, 131–33, 136, 175,
159–60, 176, 178–79, 214, 215, 226–28, 181, 218–19, 236, 242–43
229n1 of Job 117–18, 120, 131–33, 136,
death 37, 45, 55, 62, 64–65, 68–69, 87, 157–58, 236–38, 242–43
92, 102–08, 110–11, 113–16, 118–20, 127–28, as enemy 46–48, 65, 67–69, 89n3, 96,
130–31, 137, 140, 143–50, 158–59, 161–62, 166, 98–99, 115–20, 131, 146, 151–52, 154,
171n, 189, 207, 210n4, 228, 230n3, 232–34 157–62, 163n, 167n, 172–73, 180n1, 187,
deconstruction 31–32, 34, 37, 213 196, 198, 201, 213
dialogic truth 16, 31n, 32, 34–35 centrality of 76, 79–80, 86, 87, 205
see also Bakhtin(ian) immortality of 115–117
dream(s) 62, 103–04, 107, 148, 162, 207–10, justice of 54, 88, 90, 96–97, 100,
211n1, 223 108–09, 112, 163n, 202, 237, 242
see also fantasy power of 25, 72, 79, 80–91, 95, 96,
dust and/or ashes 26–27, 57–59, 61, 72, 97–98, 100, 115, 132, 134n, 135, 177n2,
86, 88, 106, 108, 130, 147n, 148, 157, 166, 182, 200, 204, 222
186, 209 God’s speeches
definitiveness of 5, 25–26, 28–29, 32,
earth 25–26, 38, 45, 62–63, 68, 72, 74, 80, 34–37, 39–40, 74, 190, 193n1, 195–198,
86, 95–98, 102, 115, 119–22, 131, 155, 176, 202–203, 242
177n2, 178, 200, 215, 241 humans in 75–76, 84, 86–88, 129,
economics 85–86, 170–73, 179–84, 188, 131–33, 180, 201, 205, 224, 242
206, 241 relevance/irrelevance of 25, 27, 71–75,
Elihu 21, 23n, 33n2, 37, 194n1, 204 179
Eliphaz 43, 45, 61–63, 70, 78, 100–14, 130, rhetorical questions in 74–75, 80,
144–45, 149, 152, 171n, 172, 180n1, 182n2, 82–86, 88, 132, 134, 180
230n3 go’el (redeemer) 64–71
Enuma elish 83, 215–19 gossamer 104, 146, 148, 150
epilogue see Job (book): epilogue to grave 63, 102, 111, 149, 158–59, 171n, 227
‘epistemological decorum’ 6, 10, 14 see also tomb
exile 140, 149, 161, 168n
hassatan 48, 52–56, 61, 67n2, 93–94, 126,
fantasy 30, 199, 208–10, 212, 223, 237, 242 177n3, 178n1, 195, 196n2, 197, 204–08,
see also dream(s) 210–11, 222–23
fence 48, 54, 126, 177n1, 208 hinnam (‘for nothing’) 54–55, 93, 197,
fool(s) 23, 78, 104–05, 127–28, 144–45, 169, 202n1, 204–08, 222, 225
192, 195, 209 home see house
‘futureless present’ 101 house 59, 62–65, 70, 102, 104–06, 113,
121, 129, 143–50, 155–56, 160–62,
gadol (great[ness]) 50–56, 59, 60–61, 64, 164–66, 168–70, 172–73, 177–78, 181, 183,
69–71, 79, 83, 91–93, 97–98, 102, 122–23 187–88
gate 48, 144–45, 155 human
George Clooney 208 body 154–63, 165n2
God community 138–41, 143–44, 146–49,
as creator 154–56, 159–81, 183–84, 187–89, 191,
as acknowledged by Job 25, 39, 68, 200
198, 221, 231, 234 mortality 102, 107–119, 127, 129–31,
called into question 28, 30, 35–36, 144–46, 180n1
39, 95–98, 121, 188, 192, 199–200, relationships 24–25, 31, 42, 46–47,
203, 211–12, 233–35, 238, 242–43 61–62, 70–71, 75–76, 241
in contrast to Job 25–26, 38–39, 71,
73–76, 78–80, 86–87, 90–91, 122, ‘Identikit drawing’ 1–3
125–26, 131, 137, 176–79, 185–86, 192, insider status 138–39, 145–47, 149, 153,
198, 200–203, 220, 223–25, 229n1, 157, 160–61, 164–65, 167–70, 172–73,
235, 241, 243 174n1, 178n1, 179, 181, 183–84, 187
index of subjects 255
interpolations see Job (book): king 15, 49, 77, 89, 121, 136–37, 171
composition of
irony 151, 153n, 226, 237 land 62, 92, 122–26, 140–43, 168–69, 179,
183–84
Job (book) legal suit 55n2, 66, 69, 101
composition of 29n2, 33, 38, 51, 114n, Leviathan 77, 83–86, 89–91, 132, 134–37,
190–91, 194, 201 182–84, 189, 212–14, 216, 218–20, 223,
epilogue to 21, 29–41, 51, 55n2, 59–60, 225–29, 236–37, 242–43
91n2, 92–94, 186–95, 198–200, 202–03, see also chaos; chaos monster; combat
206–07, 211–12, 214, 224–25, 233–39, myth
242–43 light 47, 80, 89, 103, 106, 111, 159–60,
prologue to 21, 29n2, 30, 32n5, 33n2, 178–79, 226–27, 229n1
46, 48–53, 56–60, 69, 71, 92–94, 126, loneliness 61–62, 64–65, 68–71, 78–79, 91
187, 190, 195–98, 203–05, 207–12, 214, ‘loophole’ 28, 236
222–25, 231, 235, 238–39
Job (character) Marduk 83, 215, 219–21
as creator 30, 38–40, 131, 134n, see also combat myth; Enuma elish
199–203, 211–12, 214, 220–25, 228, microcosm 154, 155, 163, 165n2
232–35, 237–39, 242–44 monologic truth 31n
centrality of 47–50, 52, 55–61, 69–71, see also Bakhtin(ian)
76, 91, 93, 164, 166, 170–71, 188, 200, multiplicity 77, 80, 86, 90–91, 121, 124,
227–28, 238, 241 126–27, 129–30, 135, 137, 207
possessions of 50–52, 54–56, 59–60,
63n2, 64, 69, 149, 208 nest 150, 165–66
powerlessness of 72, 80–84, 86, 88,
90–91, 96, 133, 134n, 135, 173, 180, oath 95, 153–54, 164, 179
199–200, 202–03, 212, 214, 221–24, 226, order 24n, 55, 60, 84, 90–91, 102–04,
232, 238–39 117–18, 125n, 137–40, 142, 146, 155, 163–64,
repentance of 26–27, 36, 45, 111, 113–14, 165n1, 174–75, 205, 212, 212n, 213–20, 225,
147, 186, 196, 202 227–28, 230, 243
righteousness of 29, 35, 42, 44–46, ‘orpple’ 42
48–52, 55–56, 59, 67, 70, 72, 93, 96, outsider status 141, 143, 145–49, 150,
104, 109, 111, 113–14, 146–47, 149, 151, 153–54, 157, 160–63, 165, 167–75, 178n1,
153, 157, 160, 164–65, 187–88, 195–96, 179–81, 183–84, 187
204, 206–08, 237
suffering of 24, 44–46, 49, 51, 54–55, parody 98, 151, 153–54
58–61, 63, 65, 69, 71, 94–101, 103, ‘phantom greatness’ 51, 56, 60–61
112–13, 115, 145–46, 149, 150n, 157, 159, plant(s) 118–19
161, 164–66, 169n3, 178n1, 204–07, 209, poetry 29n2, 46, 51n2, 94, 189–91, 193–95,
222, 227, 229, 232, 236 198, 203–04, 208–12, 231
wickedness of 44–46, 63–65, 69–70, poison 231, 235
96, 109–10, 113–14, 147, 151, 160, 162n, poor 48, 69, 76, 78, 165–71
163, 196, 204, 213 potato(es)
Job’s children 48, 50–52, 57n, 63–64, 69, hot 29, 243
102, 147, 149, 187–88, 191, 208 small 210, 211
Job’s daughters 188, 237–38 prologue see Job (book): prologue to
Job’s friends 24, 42–46, 50, 56–61, 64, Prometheus 200, 202, 211–12
65n1, 69–72, 101, 112, 114, 131, 138, 143, prose 26n1, 29n2, 33n2, 38n2, 46, 49,
151–54, 195, 204, 209 51n2, 53, 56n1, 60–61, 92, 94, 189–90,
Job’s servants 50–52, 56n2, 57n, 69, 147, 193–95, 204, 209–10
187, 208 see also Job (book): epilogue to; Job
Job’s wife 21, 56n2, 57n, 188n2, 209 (book): prologue to
proud 77, 88–90, 130, 136, 202n1
kidneys 159, 162, 163n pseudo-change 92, 94
256 index of subjects
readers theocentric 76n, 201–02, 205

ancient 195–98 theophany 174–75, 221–22
as writers/interpreters 7, 9, 12–13, Tiamat 83, 85, 215–16, 219–21
15–20, 22–23, 34, 37–38, 41, 193 see also combat myth; Enuma elish
‘common’ 189–90 time 24–25, 31, 46, 92, 94, 100–01, 103, 107,
‘contemporary’ 2, 6, 195–96, 197n2, 198 111, 115, 119, 166, 241
‘critics’ 189–90, 192 tomb 149, 158–59, 231
expectations 6, 33, 189–93, 195–97, see also grave
202n1 town 48, 138, 144, 146–47, 149–50, 155,
ideal/implied 4, 6, 12 159–64, 167–68, 172, 180–81, 183–84, 200
identification with Job 28–29, 34, 39, train 189–90, 192–93, 195
57n, 192 Tree of Life 241
identity 3–4, 6, 10–11 tree(s) see plant(s)
reading forwards and backwards 24, 31,
38, 40–41, 74, 199, 225, 232, 238 waste 97, 122–24, 125n, 166, 168, 179,
righteous(ness) 33, 42–46, 49, 61–65, 180n2
70–73, 76, 92, 104–05, 107–08, 110, 114, whirlwind 39, 80–81, 83n, 120, 150,
124, 130–31, 138, 145, 148, 150, 153, 157n, 173–76, 186, 188–89, 191–92, 201n1, 204,
165–66, 168–70, 171n, 182n2, 237, 242 206, 209, 213, 221, 223, 225, 233–34,
see also Job (character): righteousness of 237–38, 241–42
wicked(ness) 42–46, 61–65, 69, 71–73,
‘safety net’ 109–11, 153 75, 78, 88–92, 102, 104–07, 110, 114, 124,
scapegoat 63n1 130–31, 136, 138, 143–50, 153–54, 160,
sea 89, 95, 120–21, 140, 145–46, 176–77, 162–63, 165–67, 169–70, 173–74, 179–80,
178n1, 179, 184, 201, 212, 216n, 217, 219, 242
226, 227n1 see also Job (character): wickedness of
“senseless, disreputable brood” 167–73, wilderness 79, 122–25, 126n, 141–43, 150,
179–81, 183–84, 185n 167–69, 170n, 173, 179–80, 183, 189, 191
Sheol 119, 145, 158 wind 147, 149–50, 173–75, 178, 215
space wisdom 97–100, 144n1, 151, 173, 210
configuration of persons in 47–53, womb 95, 157–59, 176–77, 227, 231–32,
56–60, 76, 100, 241 242
inside 138–41, 143–47, 150n, 155–59, Wonderbread 195
162, 166–67, 169, 173–79, 183–89, 200, world-as-it-is 24, 68, 73, 75, 121–22, 149,
241–42 167, 185, 192
outside 138–41, 143–46, 148–49, 150n, world-as-it-ought-not-to-be
155–57, 159–60, 166–67, 173–79, as created by God 97, 100, 117, 131, 137
183–85, 187–89, 241 as denied in God’s speeches 74–75, 91,
spirit messenger 45, 107–18, 127, 144, 146, 175, 179, 184–85
153 as depicted in chapter 30 60, 61, 154
stability 43, 92–97, 100, 102–08, 110, as habitation of the wicked 43–44, 61,
112–14, 117–18, 120–21, 126n, 127, 131, 189, 69, 71, 73, 88, 90–91, 92, 104, 107, 113,
200, 237, 241 131, 138, 145, 153
see also stasis as located ‘outside’ 138, 140–41, 143,
stasis 92–96, 100–07, 109, 111–13, 118, 145, 153, 163, 166–67, 173, 241
120–22, 124, 125n, 126, 129, 131, 136, 241 disruption of the world-as-it-ought-to-be
see also stability by 24, 46, 49, 68, 94, 113–14, 137, 148,
‘straw world’ 203–04, 211, 241 166, 212n
“ ‘subdue and have dominion’ world-as-it-ought-to-be
project” 182–84, 185n, 188–89 as depicted in chapters 29–30 46, 94,
179
tehom 215–16 as depicted in the prologue and
tent see house epilogue 30, 40, 46, 94, 199, 200,
test 52–55, 89, 93, 196n2, 197, 204–08 202–03, 211, 237–39
index of subjects 257
as described by God 25–26, 31, 72–75, 146, 152–54, 170, 173, 179, 181, 186, 192,
121–22, 130, 137, 179, 184–85, 188, 196, 220, 234–35, 241
198, 224, 233 disruption of 44, 46, 51, 69, 97, 100, 117,
as habitation of the righteous 42–45, 131, 157, 175, 228, 233
49, 61–62, 70, 88, 90, 107, 138, 153 maintenance of 166–67, 173–74, 181,
as inaccessible to mortals 107, 112–14, 120 221, 224
as located ‘inside’ 139–41, 143, 146, 150, worm(s) 111, 159, 204
153, 163, 166–67, 173, 241
as understood by Job and his zoo 121, 124, 126, 129
friends 24–26, 30–31, 43, 46–47, 49, Zophar 61–63, 78, 98, 100, 103–06, 111, 114,
60, 67–68, 71, 76, 92, 102, 104, 118, 143, 147–52, 162–63
index of scriptures
Genesis 3:3–10 227, 229

1 216, 227 3:4a 227
1:1–2 215 3:8 212, 226n3, 227
1:1–2:4 216n, 229n1 3:17–19 64n
1:26–28 182n1 3:23 177n3, 178n1
2:5b, 6–7 86n 4:7a 108
3 2 4:11 180n1
25:27 164 4:12–21 45
4:17 107
Exodus 4:17–19 152
22:4 206 4:18 108
4:21 62, 144, 172
Numbers 5:3 78
35:19 68 5:3–4 104, 144
5:8 102
Deuteronomy 5:9 102
8:1–0 141 5:11 102
19:6 68 5:12 100
5:17 70
Job 5:18 102
1:1 46, 50, 164 5:19–26 102
1:2–3 50, 52 5:19–27 144n1
1:3 187 5:20–26 130
1:6–12 52 5:21–22 105
1:8 42, 49 5:22b–23 182n2
1: 9 54 5:24–25 70, 102
1:10 126, 177n3, 208 5:25 105
1:11 52, 208 5:26 145n2, 149, 171n
1:11–12 48 5:29–30 105
1:13 95 6:4 79
1:19 147 6:5 170
1:21 131 6:11a 133
1–2 21 6:12–13 133
2 231 6:15–16 65n1
2:3 206, 207 7 116, 117
2:4 54 7:7a 115
2:5a 52 7:8b 115
2:5–6 48 7:9–10 145
2:6 208 7:11 115
2:9 57n, 209 7:12 145, 201, 226
2:10 209, 231 7:13–15 103
2:11–13 57, 112 7:17a 115
2:12 58 7:19–20a 47
2:13 95, 205 7:21b 115
3 113, 145, 213, 225, 228, 230, 231, 8 100
232, 233, 234, 235 8:4–5 147
3:3 63n4 8:5b 96, 104, 147
index of scriptures 259
8:6b 96, 104, 147 14:18–20a 119

8:13b–15 146 14:20a 120
8:15–16 105 15 117
8:18 62, 105, 146 15:14–16 110, 152
8:22b 146 16:8–9a 159
9 100, 116, 117, 123 16:9 180n1
9:3–8, 14, 19a 95 16:12–13 48
9:3–18 98 16:12–14 159
9:4 99 16:14 196
9:5a 122 16:17 160, 196
9:6a 122 18:5 106
9:6–7 120 18:7 106
9:20 96 18:8 106
9:22 96 18:12 106
9:25–28 115 18:14 106
9:32 115 18:15 62
9:34–35a 115 18:15–18 160
10:4 117 18:17 62, 169n3
10:5–7a 117 18:18 106
10:8a 242 18:19 62, 65, 78
10:11 157, 243 18:21 160
10:16 180n1 19:2 160
10:16–17 157 19:10–12 160
10:18b–19 158 19:13–19 161
10:20–22 159 19:25–27a 66
11 100 19:27a 69
11:6a 98 20:6–7a 106
11:13 103 20:7a 148
11:15–19a 103 20:8 148, 162
11:18–19a 148 20:10a 78
11:20 105 20:11 106, 148
12 100, 123 20:15a 106
12:9–10 25 20:16 62
12:10 97, 137, 200 20:20b 62
12:13 99 20:20–21 163
12:13–15 97 20:23b–25a 162
12:13–24 98 20:26 106, 148
12:13–25 131 20:28 106, 148
12:16 99 21:7–34 65n2
12:17–24 97 21:13 94
12:23a 102, 122 21:18 149
12:24 122n, 123n, 180n2 21:32–33 149
13 164 22:2–3 110
13:4 65n1 22:4–5 110
13:5 152 22:5 45, 63n4
14:1–2 119 22:16–23 45
14:1–3 118 22:20 62
14:2 118 22:28 111
14:4 118 23:10–11 152n1
14:5–6a 118 24 167, 168, 169, 170
14:8–9 118 24:2 178n2
14:13a 158 24:5b 168
14:13–15 119 24:7 170n
14:17 119 24:8b 168
260 index of scriptures
25 114 38:18–25 87
25:4–6 111 38:19–20 178
27 114n, 151, 152, 164, 165 38:24 178
27:2 153, 154 38:25–27 122, 123, 125n, 179
27:3–5 153 38:27 122n
27:18 165n3 38:37b–38 86
27:18–22 150 38:30 170n
27:20–21 174 38:39 221
28 21, 33n2, 98 38:39–41 76, 127, 180
29 58, 60, 69, 71, 76, 96, 150, 153, 154, 38:41 129
164, 167n, 170, 172, 179, 224 39 83
29:2a 46 39:1 82
29:2b–6 47 39:1–4 121
29:3–4a 181 39:4 78, 184, 241
29:5–10 48, 52 39:5 82
29:12–17 48 39:6 121, 181
29:17 165, 170, 171, 173, 213 39:7 78, 121, 181
29:18 130, 165 39:8 77, 79, 121, 181
29:20 173 39:9 181, 184
29:21–25a 49 39:9–12 79, 85, 121
29:22 61, 74 39:10 181, 188
29:25 121, 136 39:12b 181
29:29 94 39:14 127
29–31 233 39:14–16 78
30 47, 150, 154, 167, 172, 179, 181 39:15 127
30:1 127 39:16 127
30:1b–8 168 39:18b 77, 128
30:2 171 39:20 128
30:5b 183 39:21 77
30:6–7 171 39:22 128
30:7a 169 39:24 128
30:9–10 60 39:24b–25a 77
30:11a 171 39:26 121
30:15 121 39:28 121, 129
30:22 174 39:29–30 129
30:29 168 39:30 78, 180n1
31 164, 179 39:46 78
32–37 21, 33n2 40 83, 135
38–41 73, 199, 201, 207, 211 40:4–5 130
38:2 72, 73, 74, 236 40:8 72, 220, 233
38:4 25, 120, 176, 198, 200 40:9 200
38:4–7 74 40:10–11 89
38:5 38, 200 40:10–14 88, 131
38:5–8a 120 40:11–13 72, 75, 130, 136
38:7 176 40:14 130
38:8 178n1 40:15 131, 242
38:8–11 176, 226 40:18 133, 136
38:9b 177 40:21 133
38:10b–12 120 40:23 133
38:12 178 40:24 132
38:12–13 72, 75, 88 41 83, 214, 218
38:13–15 88 41:1 89
38:14 120 41:1–4 134
38:15 72, 75, 88 41:1–9a 85
index of scriptures 261
41:4 182 Proverbs

41:8 56n1 8 98
41:8–11 134
41:9–11 84 Isaiah
41:12–14 136 2:16–17 142n1
41:17 135 12:10 142n1
41:23–27 136 40:3–4 125n
41:31a 135 47:11 123n
41:32 135
41:33a 213 Jeremiah
41:34 77, 89 2:2 142n1
42:2–6 26, 39, 81, 186, 236
42:6 203 Hosea
42:7–17 21 2:17 142n1
42:10b–12a 59 13:5 142n1
43:10–13 187
42:16 187, 188 Amos
42:17 37, 188, 189 2:10 142n1
3:15 142n1
Psalms 6:8 142n1
7:10 163n
26:2 163n
73:21 163n
139:13 243

BINS 113 Pelham - Contested Creations in The Book of Job - The-World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be 2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BINS 113 Pelham - Contested Creations in The Book of Job - The-World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be 2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BINS 113 Pelham - Contested Creations in The Book of Job - The-World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be 2012 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about based on the document text?

What is the book about based on the document text?

What are some of the major topics/themes discussed in the text?

What are some of the major topics/themes discussed in the text?

Contested Creations in the Book of Job

Biblical Interpretation Series

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/bins

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Prologue: The Author, the Reader, and the Professional

1. Creation in the Book of Job: Reading Backwards and Forwards

2. Relationships Between Persons in the

The Wicked and the Righteous in God’s Speeches ........................... 71

3. Time in the World-as-It-Ought-and-Ought-Not-to-Be: Stasis,

4. Inside and Outside: The Configuration of Space in the

Job’s Self-Identification as an Insider through His Preservation

5. The Explosive Finale: Reading Backwards from the Epilogue ...... 186

Epilogue: Negotiating and Renegotiating the World ............................. 240

The Author, the Reader, and the Professional Not-Knower

Writing and Un-Writing

The Author in Biblical Studies

Even many so-called ‘literary’6—as opposed to mainstream historical

has tended to assimilate automatically with the discipline’s inbred obses-

it might be that because no individual is ever entirely the product of his

The Reader in Biblical Studies

12 Clines’ approach in Interested Parties, though technically a literary approach, might

13 Moore and Sherwood, Invention, 113.

To be truly academic . . . biblical studies has to be truly critical . . . about the

15 Clines, Interested Parties, 109–110.

intention, or (better) the grammatical meaning which is assumed to rep-

because they are their convictions.”21 In such a situation, how is scholar-

I am sympathetic toward this concern. It seems a legitimate worry. Of

To know what he means, the writer must himself become a reader. He

33 Bal, Death and Dissymetry, 238, 240.

‘Quod Scripsi, Scripsi’: The Reader as Writer

Collins, as noted above, is concerned that if the author’s intentions are

I have become convinced that what we have in many works of art is an

43 Christopher Rowland, “Re-imagining Biblical Exegesis” in Religion, Literature and the

What Newsom has in mind is an intra-biblical dialogue, which may be

The Will to Be Right and the Value of Being Wrong

can be said to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ ” Or, perhaps, what I balk at is my own

61 See, for comparison, my assessment of Elihu in Abigail Pelham, “Job as Comedy,

Creation in the Book of Job: Reading Backwards and

Questions and Answers about Creation

The Book of Job is an exploration of creation. It inquires into the nature

Two Problems: Job’s Response and the Epilogue

There are several difficulties which translators and interpreters face.

9 John Briggs Curtis, “O n Job’s Response to Yahweh,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98

responds to God makes a difference to the meaning of the book. Most

world and answering however he answers or perhaps making no unquali-

Reading Backwards and Forwards

In deconstructing, we are distinguishing between the surface and the hid-

14 Clines, “Deconstructing,” 107.

I began this account of the effect of the epilogue as perceived by Clines

reasons for suffering, and so he reads the epilogue as deconstructing the

20 Newsom, Book of Job, 24.

everything that has come before; instead, we are meant to read it as if it

24 Newsom, Book of Job, 29.

integrity, but with a different understanding of his place in the world.25

1. Creation in the Book of Job: Reading Backwards and Forwards

4. Inside and Outside: The Configuration of Space in the

i dentifies as a false indicator. Although he appears to be alone, he is not

c reation. Such an argument inheres in the claim, first advanced by Henry