David Clines (Job 38-42, WBC): The little phrase of the narrator’s, “for all the misfortune that Yahweh had brought on him,” lets slip the fact that neither Job nor his friends ever get to know anything of the events in heaven that precipitated his woes, or anything of the role played by the Satan. On the other hand, if they had known what readers know about the origins of Job’s sufferings, they may still have been inclined to refer to them as “the misfortune that Yahweh had brought on him,” since it was Yahweh who had no doubt been morally responsible for all that had transpired—despite the fact that the Satan was their immediate cause.
John Hartley (The Book of Job, page 541): Like the dialogue, this scene attributes the cause of Job's misfortune to Yahweh. There is no discussion of intermediate causes, for it was believed that Yahweh was the cause of all that takes place.
Norman Habel (The Book of Job, OTL, page 585): Job is now approachable like other mortals; he is no longer the isolated hero challenging heaven with his lawsuits. The misfortunes which Job experienced are here identified as "all the evil" (ra'a) inflicted by Yahweh. The agency of the Satan is now irrelevant. The "evil" Job experienced is indeed the "evil" he acknowledged from Yahweh's hands (2:10; cf. 30:26). God does indeed cause the innocent to suffer evil; such things are part of his cosmic "design."
Robert Fyall (Now My Eyes Have Seen You): Two important expressions crystallize the events as they have unfolded and are yet to happen. Verse 11 speaks of ‘all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him’, and verse 12 says that ‘The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first.’ The Lord is the sole cause of all that has happened and will happen. Verses 11–12 raise a number of questions that bear especially on the relationship of God and evil.
Robert Alden (Job, NAC): The first to welcome Job to his restored state were his siblings and friends, presumably the ones who shunned him during the height of his trial (19:13-15). They did what the friends had originally come to do, “comfort and console/sympathize with him” (2:11). “Trouble” is rendered “evil” in the older translations, but the Hebrew word is also the opposite of “prosperity/peace/well-being” as Isa 45:7 indicates.
Greg Welty (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-problem-of-evil/): It is one thing to acknowledge God’s sovereign and purposeful providence
over the moral and natural evils mentioned in the Job, Joseph, and
Jesus narratives. It is quite another to claim that God is sovereign
over all moral and natural evils. But this is what the Bible
repeatedly teaches. This takes us a considerable way towards licensing
the GGT [greater good theodicy] as a general approach to the problem of evil. The Bible
presents multitudes of examples of God intentionally bringing about
natural evils – famine, drought, rampaging wild animals, disease, birth
defects such as blindness and deafness, and even death itself – rather
than being someone who merely permits nature to ‘do its thing’ on its
own.
Monday, April 17, 2023
How Some Commentators View Job 42:11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Genesis ch.18:25"Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”"
Job ch.42:5,6NIV"My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”
Those who know him best know that JEHOVAH will always see to it that Justice is both done and appears to be done.
In harmony with those thoughts, we can trust Deuteronomy 32:4.
Romans 9:14 (ESV): What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
Job 34:10 (CSB): Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding. It is impossible for God to do wrong, and for the Almighty to act unjustly.
Psalm 92:15 (ASV): To show that Jehovah is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
James 5:11 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English): For behold, we give a blessing to those who have endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the result which THE LORD JEHOVAH made for him, because THE LORD JEHOVAH is merciful and caring.
No one around Job, nor Job himself, ever found out what the cause of his sufferings were. Jehovah never really explains it, the way I read Jehovah's reply is basically to remind Job of his extremely limited point of view, and that there are much larger, and mysterious factors at play, so it is foolish for him to think he can get a grasp on the whole picture. Zizek (I know, not a biblical scholar, and not really a theologian, but still sometimes interesting) reads it as Jehovah saying "you think you have it bad, look at the chaos of this whole creation."
For all intents and purposes it may have been the case that his family and friends still thought this whole thing came from Jehovah.
I think it's fascinating that the explanation is given at the beginning, but never resolved for Job or any of the other people in the story, and that those who attempt to justify God by means of the normal kind of theodicies that are often still used today, are the one's that are wrong.
Job ch.20NIV"He replied, “You are talking like a foolish b woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said."
I Suspect that Job had a far better grasp of the issue than many give him credit for it is we who are in debt to JEHOVAH not the other way around loyalty is the tribute owed to our Lord JEHOVAH. Job would also have been aware of the existence of wicked spirits surely the flood survivors would have put their children on guard re:the danger presented by them. But whether it was simply a run of misfortune or these malignant superhuman forces availing themselves of a decrease in divine protection,Job understood that he owed JEHOVAH a debt that the could never fully repay. Trust is the coin of the realm in JEHOVAH'S kingdom.
Thanks for the feedback. One other thing I noticed in the secondary literture on Job is that many people focus on the absence of Satan in the narrative's latter portions. There could be various reasons for his absence, but I'm sure that Jehovah didn't want Satan being the main character in the account.
Getting back to the point I was making with this thread, it still doesn't make sense to me that Jehovah brought these calamities on Job. It militates against divine justice and love. As Thomas Aquinas writes, God is not the source of evil.
Job ch.34:10-12NIV"“So listen to me, you men of understanding.
Far be it from God to do evil,
from the Almighty to do wrong.
11He repays everyone for what they have done;
he brings on them what their conduct deserves.
12It is unthinkable that God would do wrong,
that the Almighty would pervert justice."
CF. Job 18:6
In a tent of the period the lamp is much more likely to be beside than over.
Of course, the mention of a lamp in Job 18:6 appears to be figurative and it refers to the wicked man's "lamp." But I get your point about the historical context of the usage.
See 2 Samuel 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; Job 18:19; Psalm 18:28; Proverbs 13:9; 20:20; 24:20.
NET Bible: The light in his tent grows dark; his lamp above him is extinguished
I feel that some bibles translate certain verses to bolster the interpretation of others and artificially remove doubt. The NET is no exception.
The NIV in this instance is more sensible in its approach - 6 The light in his tent becomes dark; the lamp beside him goes out.
IMO this is correct for this verse, but it may also have implications for others.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from alah
Definition
upon, above, over
Strong's Concordance
al: upon, above, over
Job ch.18:6 NASB"“The light in his tent is darkened,
And his lamp goes out above him."
I don't have a strong view on this verse, but here is what David Clines writes in Job 1-20 (WBC). He translates "above" for the verse. Sorry for the parts that are not readable.
6.a. Taking [
literally as ―above him.‖ NIV makes it into a table-lamp (―the lamp beside him‖; so also
RV mg). NAB has ―in spite of him,‖ a very doubtful sense of [
(BDB, 754 § II.f.(f) recognizes only two occurrences; and see Comment on 10:7, one ofthe supposed occurrences). NEB ―his lamp dies down and fails him‖ and NJPS ―his lamp fails
him‖
Robert Alter: Light goes dark in his tent, and his lamp gutters before him
Near eastern and Egyptian tents are not much different to early Greek. I own a replica of a Greek oil lamp circa 570BCE. NIV certainly does NOT turn it into a "Table Lamp", and Clines is showing his ignorance of the history & culture.
"gutters before him" is acceptable, but on the floor. NIV is not the only example - https://biblehub.com/text/job/18-6.htm
Servant, see - https://biblehub.com/hebrew/alav_5921.htm
There seems to be a little debate on the translation of the verse. John Hartley writes (The Book of Job, page 274): "The preposition with a pronominal suffix •iiliiyw is difficult with the suffix on lamp (nero), It could mean 'against him' as in Mic. 3:6 (cf. Job 14:22; Hakam) or it could mean 'above him,' i.e., the lamp hung from the roof of his tent (Rowley; cf. 29:3)."
JPS Tanakh 1917: "The light shall be dark in his tent, And his lamp over him shall be put out."
From The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery:
Life. “The light is dark in their tent and the lamp above
them is put out” (Job 18:6 NRSV [NRSV NRSV. New Revised Standard Version]).
The extinguished lamp signifies the declining vitality of those who do evil; though they are still alive, their light has become darkness, the symbol of death. The lamp, by contrast, is the symbol of life, prosperity and
blessing that Job had once experienced and longed to have restored (Job 29:2–3)
Light above, sure why not.
Lamp above, sorry no.
One has to start withe the period culture before wording about how the analogy is supposed to work.
Duncan, in principle, I agree with you. Culture is important and there is no replacement for learning ancient culture. When learning ancient Latin or Greek, it's common to learn about Graeco-Roman culture. Howver, we have lexical semantics too. So I'm not saying "beside" is wrong or inferior to "above," in this case, but what's behind the "beside" translation besides culture?
"besides culture" ??? We are talking about a tent, right?
https://www.ariel.ac.il/wp/archaeology-and-text/
Unfortunately the material evidence side of things seem to be lacking.
https://archaeologytext.cas.lehigh.edu/sites/archaeology-text.cas2.lehigh.edu/files/pavelwithheffron.pdf
Ok thanks. To clarify, what I meant is that Clones and some others I've consulted say that a literal translation of Job 18:6 would be above or against. So, is "beside" part of the word's lexical range or is translating the Hebrew "beside," based on cultural factors alone? I.e., tents and lamps.
Genesis 28:13 - stood above it, stood against it or stood beside it?
Look at the range of translation https://www.biblestudytools.com/job/18-6-compare.html
Including not even using the term lamp - "6 The light is dark in his tent, and the light shining over him is put out."
I think because they recognize the problem & they are trying to smooth out tradition - not the text within its culture.
Consider the "lamp to my >>feet<< and the light to my roadway". No lenses or reflectors to focus light. A lamp would really not do much if not held near the ground - unless it means a large torch.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714245 there is this, but the imagery is Yehovah in the tent with Job.
Duncan, I agree with you that there is a range of translation for Job 18:6. I've seen pictures of ancient lamps and we have some knowledge of tents from antiquity, but I notice that older commentators (even Jewish writers) were inclined to translate Job 18:6 with "above" and they talked about the lamp being placed in that position. However, knowledge could have advanced since then, so I'm open to seeing the matter differently. Nevertheless, see the commentaries at biblehub if you want to observe men explaining why it should be "above."
Barnes Notes on the Bible: And his candle - Margin, lamp. The reference is to a lamp that was suspended from the ceiling. The Arabians are fond of this image. Thus, they say, "Bad fortune has extinguished my lamp." Of a man whose hopes are remarkably blasted, they say, "He is like a lamp which is immediately extinguished if you let it sink in the oil." See Schultens.
JFB makes simlar remarks; compare Job 29:3.
A caution about interpretations based exclusively on archaeology ( many have not aged well) would not be out of place.
I have seen ancient lamps that are ceiling suspended, but nothing anywhere near as old as the Job period. This is the problem where later accounts get superimposed on older ones.
If a suspension lamp suitable for a tent can be demonstrated for this period, that may change my mind.
Job 29:3 has possibilities, but I am inclined to think that https://biblehub.com/text/job/29-4.htm is better translated "in", and this is not the only place that it would work, possibly better.
I'm not dogmatic about this subject. Archaeology is helpful, but I don't place all of my eggs in that basket. I'm more into lexical semantics anyway.
Servant,
Who is interpreting from archaeology alone?
The TEXT we are trying to interpret has many difficulties of its own. Baked clay objects like pots and lamps are some of our oldest witnesses & some of the oldest inscriptions are actually written on broken pot.
You in no way negate my posts or point.
I have no strong feelings either way re: whether the lamp is beside or above but the fact of the matter is that archaeology can be a treacherous witness the existence of entire cities were denied based on the contemporary absence of archaeological testimony only to have the deniers embarrassed by what they taught was their star witness.
A lack of evidence is not evidence. We have mounds of pottery all over the place.
"Lack of evidence is not evidence" agreed
Post a Comment