Article 180 PDF
Article 180 PDF
Article 180 PDF
Volume 12,
Article 18 DOI:10.5508/jhs.2012.v12.a18
Articles in JHS are being indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, RAMBI, and BiBIL. Their abstracts appear in Religious and Theological
Abstracts. The journal is archived by Library and Archives Canada and is accessible for consultation and research at the Electronic Collection
site maintained by Library and Archives Canada. ISSN 1203–1542 http://www.jhsonline.org and http://purl.org/jhs
GOD AND THE SEA IN JOB 38
COLLIN R. CORNELL
PRINCETON, NJ
in Leo G. Perdue and W. Clark Gilpin (eds.), The Voice from the Whirlwind
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 39. Mettinger formulates the difference as
between monistic and dualistic readings, i.e., between a God who includes
both good and evil and a God who hypostatizes only the one and opposes
the other.
3 The use of the poetic term “stanza” is not justified by graphic
5 This article will consistently use the term “line” to refer to the
smallest poetic units within the poem. The Leningrad Codex separates the
stanza’s verses by making a gap in the middle of its column but it gives no
graphic recognition to line-divisions, wrapping verses around columnar
ends indiscriminately. However, excepting the last verse of the stanza that
puts ûpō yišbōt (textual emendation, see p 14; MT “ )וּפֹא־יָ ִשׂיתhere shall be
stopped,” 38:11b) together with �“( ֲה ִמיָּ ֶמיfrom your days,” 38:12a) on the
line succeeding from “( וְ לֹא ת ִֹסיףand no further,” 38:11a), the Aleppo
Codex lineates 38:8–11 as in BHS, dividing each half–verse with the
columnar gap. This graphemic evidence coincides with the syntactic
divisions of 38:8–11, as shown, for example, by the nearly-consistent use
of וat the start of each half-verse, thereby justifying my use of “line” for
these sentential groupings. Cf. F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “‘Verse, Properly So
Called’: The Line in Biblical Poetry” (in preparation).
6 Terminologically, “waw-consecutive” is not wholly satisfactory, since
this form does not always follow another verb sequentially. Some have
opted recently to call it simply the “wayyiqtol form” (Seow) or the
“consecutive preterite” (Hackett) instead of the more traditional (and
misleading) “converted imperfect.” It is now widely recognized that the
form derives from a *yaqtul preterite (Anson Rainey, “The Ancient
Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarna Canaanite,” Hebrew
Studies 27 [1986], 4–19). I have chosen “waw-consecutive” because of its
wide currency.
GOD AND THE SEA IN JOB 38 3
case, God’s control is the titular subject of the first line in the new
stanza: God shuts in the Sea with doors.
The thematic and grammatical continuity of 8a with the
preceding stanza also emboldens the concept of God’s control
over the Sea in this verse. Verses 4–7 directly before 8a address a
train of questions to Job, in fulfilment of YHWH’s programmatic
statement in 3b (�)וְ ֶא ְשׁ ָא ְל. The verbal actions of each clause follow
one another sequentially in describing God’s primordial building of
the world ( יסדin 4a, שׂים5a, נטהin 5b, ירהin 6b). The vocabulary
used for these deeds occurs together elsewhere, notably in Second
Isaiah, where it also celebrates YHWH’s unique power. 8 Here the 7F
with Job 38: Isa 48:13, 51:13, 16 all have forms of the paired roots
;יסד־ארץalso note the occurrence of verb + noun phrases for stretching
out or establishing “the heavens” ()שׁ ַמיִ ם ָ in each of these verses ( טפחin
Isa 48:13; נטהin 51:13; נטעin 51:16). The verb נטה, “to stretch out,” in
Job 38:5b also occurs in these places, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 51:13. Isa 44:13
features the conjunction of נטהwith קו,ַ “line,” as in Job 38:5b. Cf. also
Prov 3:19 when YHWH in “wisdom” (ח ְכ ָמה,ָ synonym of ִבינָ הas in Job
38:4b) “established the earth” (יָ ַסד־ ָא ֶרץ, also in 38:4a).
4 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
object in all the following lines until 12a. The semantic range of the
verbs shift from those of construction in vv 4–7 to restraint and birth
in vv 8–11. Also, both lines of verse 11 feature actions of cessation
(“ וְ לֹא ת ִֹסיףand no further”; “ וּפֹא־ יִ ְשׁבֹּתhere shall stop”), a closural
clue common in Job, e.g., 3:10, 5:16, 7:10, 39:4. 9 Nonetheless,
8F
original ִמיat the head of 8a was omitted by haplography with the מ
closing 7b (�הים ֱ The וof MT � וַ יָּ ֶסis then either a mistaken
ִ )א.
transcription of the יin ִמיor a compensatory addition made after
the מfrom the original ִמיhad already dropped out. This text-
critical reconstruction conforms 8a to the previous stanza’s pattern
of interrogative + perfect verb + adverbial clause (vv 4a, 5a, 5b, 6a,
6b).
Such grammatical echoing would reinforce the close
connection of 8a with the preceding stanza. But the relation of 8a
with vv 4–7 is even more direct than syntactic repetition: a better
solution to the problem of the 3ms verb leaves MT unchanged, and
understands � וַ יָּ ֶסas referring back to the interrogative 3ms subject
of 6b () ִמי־יָ ָרה. This hypothesis explains the presence of the simple
3ms verbs in RtgJob, which are difficult to derive given an original
9C.L. Seow, “Poetic Closure in Job: the First Cycle,” JSOT 34 (2010),
433–446.
10 E.g., Edouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans.
But the above proposals suffer from two major faults: the
evidence of the ancient versions and the principle of lectio difficilior.
The ancient translations all appear to read either Hebrew סוךor
( סכךsee above). Driver and Blommerde thus require that the
corruption in the text have occurred not only before the
consolidation of MT but before the development of the Hebrew
textual traditions underlying the versions. This claims too much on
the basis of only stylistic evidences. Secondly, the juxtaposition of
the Sea’s containment (8a) with its exit (8b) in the same verse is a
more complex reading than a verse whose two halves describe the
same event of the Sea’s proruption, especially given the poem’s
precedent of additive parallelism.
Other more specific problems discredit these emendations:
Driver leaves the corruption of � וַ יָּ ֶסat the head of the clause
unexplained. His substitution of ְבּ ֻה ֶלּ ֶדתor ֻבּ ֶלּ ֶדתfor ִבּ ְד ָל ַתיִם
requires metathesis as well as an implausible scribal deletion of הor
an unattested collapse of the causative הinto the בpreposition. 16 15F
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921), 299. Cf. also H. Bauer and P. Leander,
Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle an
der Saale: Niemeyer, 1922), 379.
14 A. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job (Rome: Pontifical
hiphil, hophal, and hithpael) do not syncopate after the בpreposition. Cf.
Lev 26:43 for the only (other) example in the Hebrew Bible of a hophal
infinitive construct with the בpreposition—where the הdoes not drop
out.
17 G. Fuchs, Mythos, 195.
18 Dennis Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,” UF 8 (1976), 215–
322.
GOD AND THE SEA IN JOB 38 7
all other biblical cases, the meaning of this preposition with this
noun is instrumental or locative (e.g., Deut 15:17; Judg 16:3; 2 Kgs
6:32, 12:9). On the other hand, the two verses in which ִמןoccurs
before the dual of doors ( ַ)דּ ְל ֵתיand in concert with the verb יצא
(Josh 2:19; Judg 11:31) show that the sense Blommerde proposes
for v. 8a (“went out from the doors”) was grammatically available
to the Joban poet in more conventional Hebrew. In the end, the
most plausible reading of 8a shows God shutting in the Sea and
not the Sea’s birth.
8a highlights God’s power over and opposition to the Sea by
fronting a verb of containment, by linking thematically and
grammatically into the preceding stanza about God’s primordial
strength, and, lastly, by countering Job’s curse in chapter 3. A web
of lexemes holds Job 3 and 38 together, indicating that the first
divine speech should be read intentionally against the first unit of
the dialogues. Where Job calls for darkness (forms of חשׁךin 3:4, 5,
9) to seize the day of his birth, God accuses Job of causing
darkness himself ( חשׁךin 38:2). Where Job wishes that the “stars of
its morning” (כּוֹכ ֵבי נִ ְשׁפּוֹ,
ְ 3:9) would blacken out, God points to
their celebration over God’s work of establishing the cosmos
(כּוֹכ ֵבי ב ֶֹקר,
ְ 38:7). Where Job curses the night of his conception for
not shutting the doors of his womb ( ַ)דּ ְל ֵתי ִב ְטנִיbut releasing him to
trouble, God claims to have shut in the Sea with doors (בּ ְד ָל ַתיִם,ִ
38:8a). Job in ch 3 assumes the Sea as God’s foe: he calls for those
who curse the Sea to curse also this night (3:8a). 20 The Sea is, by
19F
38:8a, as in 3:10a, refer to the vulva from which the Sea emerged.
Blommerde then imagines that God responds to Job by saying, in effect,
“not only did I not shut the doors of your womb, but when my chaos-
opponent the Sea emerged from the doors of its womb, I was present to
care for it (v 9).” God does not reverse Job’s curse, but strangely confirms
Job’s request for the ascendancy of chaos by disclosing God’s collusion
with the wild, unholy powers that Job invokes. However, literary
considerations tell against this reading: introducing God’s solidarity with
the Sea so soon after God’s confrontative first address (38:2, 3) and
speech about establishing the ordered world (vv 4–7) would be both
sudden and radical. This article proposes a more graded and subtle
movement away from the conventional opposition of God and chaos.
8 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
translates with the same verb (συγκλείω) both in 3:10 and also in
3:23, which latter verse features the exact same Hebrew verb form
as in 38:8a (�)וַ יָּ ֶס. God in 38:8a thus rebuts Job by showing God’s
decisive power over the uncontrolled forces of chaos and death.
Though the stanza as a whole (and even the following line) will
subtly reframe God’s relation to chaos, at least for this first line the
poem upholds the conventional antagonism of God and Sea.
Verse 8b describes the Sea’s gushing forth from the womb.
This line is important for this article’s thesis about God’s control
(and care for) the Sea because it introduces the Sea’s birth: God’s
shutting in the Sea with doors (8a) occurs not in its adulthood but
at the time of its emergence from the womb (8b). This line
constitutes the beginning of the poem’s reimagination of God’s
relation to chaos and a radical reformulation of the Chaoskampf
tradition: the Sea is no powerful opponent and rival, but a newborn
infant, a quintessentially dependent and helpless being. By
introducing the Sea’s birth, 8b sets up for the next and even more
subversive event of verse 9 (God’s swaddling). However, casting
the Sea as an infant does not straightforwardly empty the Sea of its
usual dramatic or threatening ambience, because the Sea “gushes
forth” ()גיח, a verb implying sudden and aggressive expulsion, and
for which both natal and mythical parallels exist. 22 21F
22 Although Masora parva marks ְבּגִ יחוֹas a hapax legomenon, its meaning
as a qal infinitive construct + 3ms (subject) suffix from the verb גיח, to
“burst forth,” is clear (cf. hiphil in Judg 20:33 to describe ambush). The
same verb occurs in qal in Ezek 32:2, where its subject is compared with
ַתּנִּ ים, “dragons,” which burst forth �רוֹתי ֶ בּנַ ֲה,ְ “in your rivers.” Dan 7:2
also associate this verb with waters, and Ps 22:10 links it with birth: מ ָבּ ֶטן, ִ
“from the womb,” occurs directly after the verb.
23 As such, the line also echoes the contrasting but paired movements
of Job 1:10, where the satan observes how God has Job “fenced in” (שׂ ְכ ָתּ, ַ
same verb as in 8a) but his wealth ()מ ְק ֵנ֖הוּ
ִ overflows ()פּ ַרץ.
ָ
GOD AND THE SEA IN JOB 38 9
Bible, their meaning here is clear and the versions translate the first
line consistently. 27 Similarly, ֲח ֻת ָלּהin 9b is a hapax legomenon, but its
26F
good evidence for this case. 32 Besides the late date of the Ginza
31F
27 11Q10 has בשות עננין לבושׁ, “when [I] set clouds for its clothing.”
Ziwa, who describes the birth of Ur, a Lord of Darkness, to his mother
Ruha. After Ur’s birth, Ruha swaddles Ur for three hundred and sixty
thousand years; afterwards, Ur falls into the (cosmic) dark waters. Hibil-
Ziwa sees that Ur will grow into a giant “more than the greatest of
giants,” and so contains him inside of seven golden walls. W. Brandt (ed.)
Ginzā, Mandäische Schriften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1893).
32 Both Pope and Fuchs draw on this text while discussing the motif
Mandaean scriptures for reading Job (Mythos, 49). The Right Ginza was
collected in the second half of the 7th c. BCE, though its traditions may
date from much longer before its literary codification. Sinasi Gunduz, The
Knowledge of Life: the Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and
their Relation to the Sabians of the Qur’ān and to the Harranians
GOD AND THE SEA IN JOB 38 11
Verse 9 gives a charged and ambivalent scene: God caring for the
newborn Sea by clothing it in numinous cloud.
über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), 92.
35 W. Brandt, Ginzā, 168.
36 T. Mettinger, “God,” 41.
37Cf. Ps 104:26 where Leviathan is portrayed as God’s plaything.
38 C. Newsom, Book of Job, 248.
12 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
placed a bar and doors (on it).” The meaning of the second line
also clearly comprises God’s direct address of the Sea to command
its limitation. The MT verb וָ ֶא ְשׁבֹּרat the head of v 10 has been
variously emended, because the usual denotation of שׁבר, “to
break,” does not make sense here. 41 Over against such text-critical
40F
overstate the effect of the line’s personal tonality and defy the
syntax of the stanza, which is not sequential: rather, after the
subordinate interlude of vv 8b–9 describing the time of the action
in 8a, vv 10, 11 by their finite verbs resume the main action of the
Sea’s restraint.
The second line (11b) of the stanza’s last verse commands
the Sea’s “proud waves” to stop. This “pride” language, as will be
seen, destabilizes the emphasis on God’s opposition to the Sea.
This line as it stands in MT is hardly coherent, though two versions
support the verb שׁית, ִ to place. One manuscript [ ]בof RtgJob
translates תשוי, “you will place,” 47 and Symmachus with τετάχθω
46F
τό ἔπαρμα “the height (of your waves) will be set” (cf. Symmachus
Job 24:25 and 37:15, translating the semantically similar )שׂים. ִ
Other versions indicate a different Vorlage: OG reads
συντριβήσεται “it will be broken,” and Vulgate confringes, “you will
break.” Some commentators propose prefixed or infixed forms of
שׁבר, “to break,” to accommodate the latter data, and then must
assert that the final רdropped out, perhaps because of its visual
similarity to the following בin Paleo-Hebrew script. But a simpler
hypothesis posits the qal or niphal of שׁבת, “to stop,” which OG
also renders with συντρίβω (Ezek 6:6). גָּ אוֹן, “pride,” is the subject
of niphal שׁבתin Ezek 30:18 (cf. also Ezek 7:24 and Isa 11:13). This
emendation assumes only a metathesis of final תand the initial ב
on גָּ אוֹן. 48
47F