Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

An International Journal of Nordic Theology

ISSN: 0901-8328 (Print) 1502-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

Divergence of the Book of Job from Deuteronomic/

Priestly Torah: Intertextual Reading between Job
and Torah

Jiseong James Kwon

To cite this article: Jiseong James Kwon (2018) Divergence of the Book of Job from
Deuteronomic/Priestly Torah: Intertextual Reading between Job and Torah, Scandinavian Journal
of the Old Testament, 32:1, 49-71, DOI: 10.1080/09018328.2017.1376522

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2017.1376522

Published online: 16 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sold20
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2018
Vol. 32, No. 1, 49-71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2017.1376522

Divergence of the Book of Job from Deuter-

onomic/Priestly Torah

Intertextual Reading between Job and Torah1

Jiseong James Kwon

Theologische Fakultät der Universität Zürich
Kirchgasse, 9
CH-8001 Zürich
jiseongjames.kwon@uzh.ch, camelkne@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: The book of Job prominently portrays the motif of the pious
sufferer and the confrontation between Job’s three friends who claim the ret-
ribution principle and Job who witnesses the undermined moral order in real-
ity, and indicates finally Yahweh’s speech which marginalises issues of jus-
tice and judgment which Job vehemently called for. On the one hand, these
distinct features to some extent may reflect a critical and belittling idea of
Deuteronomic Torah, although it does not deny the entire concept of Torah
and traditional laws about divine judgment. On the other hand, while it has
been argued that the book of Job reflects the Priestly context in the Penta-
teuch, in a closer examination the author of Job hardly has the creational or-
der, rituals, and ideology that priestly materials in general imply.

Key words: The Book of Job, Torah, Deuteronomitic, Priestly, Intertextual-

ity

I. Introduction
It has been suggested that the book of Job includes complicated literary forms
and genres such as prose-tale, dialogue, lawsuit, hymn, lament, parody, and
myth, and the motif of “a righteous sufferer” widespread in ancient Near
Eastern texts. It also has substantial links within the Hebrew Bible where
interpreters have provided exhaustive parallels with Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah,
and Lamentations in the prophetic literature, with Genesis and Deuteronomy
in the Pentateuch, and with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms in Hebrew
poetry.2 The book of Job furthermore not only includes diverse intra-biblical

1. Part of this paper was presented in the session “Wisdom in Israelite and Cognate
Traditions” of Annual SBL held in San Antonio, USA (22 November 2016).
2. M.A. Fishbane, “The Book of Job and Inner-Biblical Discourse,” in L.G. Perdue
and W.C. Gilpin (eds.), The Voice from the Whirlwind. Interpreting the book of Job

© 2018 The Editors of the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

50 Jiseong James Kwon

links, but also is presented as having many parallels and similarities with
ancient Near Eastern literatures such as the Sumerian Man and His God in
Sumerian literature; Dialogue between a Man and His God, The Babylonian
Job, The Babylonian Theodicy (or The Dialogue About Human Misery), A
Pessimistic Dialogue between Master and Servant in Babylonian literature;
The Epic of Keret in Ugaritic literature; The Debate between a Man and His
Soul, The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant, The Dialogue of Ipuur and the
Lord to the Limit in Egyptian literature.3 Because of those intra-canonical and
non-Israelite references, understanding, the historical background of the book
of Job has become quite intricate.

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), pp. 86-98; T.N.D. Mettinger, “Intertextuality: Allu-

sion and Vertical Context Systems in Some Job Passages,” in H.A. Mckay and
D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages. Essays in
Honour of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSup 162; Shef-
field: JSOT, 1993), pp. 257-80. For recent discussions about the intertextual study
of the book of Job, refer to T. Krüger et al., eds., Das Buch Hiob und seine Inter-
pretationen. Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.-19.
August 2005 (AThANT 88; Zürich: TVZ, 2007); K. Schmid, Hiob als biblisches
und antikes Buch. Historische und Intellektuelle Kontexte seiner Theologie (SB
219; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010); K.J. Dell and W. Kynes, eds., Rea-
ding Job Intertextually (LHB/OTS 574; New York: T&T Clark, 2013); J.J. Kwon,
Scribal Culture and Intertextuality. Literary and Historical Relationships between
Job and Deutero-Isaiah (FAT II/85; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), pp. 151-83.
For commentators’ works, see E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job
(trans. H. Knight; originally published in French; Paris 1926) (London: Nelson,
1967), pp. clii-clxxiv; N.H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job. A New Commentary (Jeru-
salem: Kiryath Sepher, 1957), pp. LXIV-LXXVI; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT
16; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1963), pp. 43-53; M.H. Pope,
Job (AB 15; New York: Doubleday, 1965), pp. L-LXVIII; J.E. Hartley, The Book
of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 6-15.
3. S.N. Kramer, “‘Man and His God’: A Sumerian Variation on ‘Job’ Motif,” in M.
Noth and D.W. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East
(VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1955), pp. 170-82; J. Gray, “Book of Job in the Context
of Near Eastern Literature,” ZAW 82 (1970), pp. 251-69; R.G. Albertson, “Job and
Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature,” in W.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), Scripture in
Context II (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 213-30; P.C. Craigie, “Job
and Ugaritic Studies,” in W.E. Aufrecht (ed.), Studies in the Book of Job (Water-
loo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1985), pp. 28-35; G.L. Mattingly, “The
Pious Sufferer: Mesopotamia’s Traditional Theodicy and Job’s Counselors,” Bible
in the Light of Cuneiform Literature (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1990), pp. 305-48;
D. Sitzler, Vorwurf gegen Gott. Ein religiöses Motiv im Alten Orient (Ägypten und
Mesopotamien) (SOR 32; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995); J.J.M. Roberts, “Job
and the Israelite Religious Tradition,” The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Col-
lected Essays (Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns, 2002), pp. 110-16. F. Sedlmeier,
“Ijob und die Ausseinandersetzungsliteratur im alten Mesopotamien,” in T. Seidl
and S. Ernst (eds.), Das Buch Ijob. Gesamtdeutungen - Einzeltexte - zentrale
Themen (ÖBS 31; Frankfurt am Main Bern: Peter Lang, 2007), pp. 85-136.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 51

From these parallels, scholars have claimed the theory of literary refer-
ence between Job and corresponding texts, based on the dating of biblical
materials generally agreed, and have frequently argued either the interrela-
tionship between any literary traditions and wisdom tradition or the interac-
tion between different professional groups in the history of Israel. Amongst
those complicated links, they have customarily showed how the author of Job
responded both to Deuteronomic materials4 and to priestly materials5 in To-
rah. By this, it has been argued wholly and partly that Torah is likely to play
an important role in shaping the book of Job. While some, supposing the
direct connection to Pentateuchal materials in Job, maintain that Torah’s
message is undoubtedly supported by Job’s authors, others in recent times
tend to claim that the author of Job to some degree undermines Deuteronomic
laws6 and covenantal ideologies, or differs from priestly laws.7 Interestingly,
recent research has given more attention in the theological range within wis-
dom books8 and have often criticized the long-standing supposition, that wis-

4. M. Oeming, “Hiob 31 Und Der Dekalog,” in W.A.M. Beuken (ed.), The Book of
Job (BETL; Louvain: Peeters, 1994), pp. 362-68; D. Wolfers, Deep Things out of
Darkness. The Book of Job: Essays and a New English Translation (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 111-8; G. Braulik, “Das Deuteronomium Und Die Bucher
Ijob, Sprichworter, Rut: Zur Frage Friiher Kanonizit’ait Des Deuteronomiums,” in
E. Zenger (ed.), Die Tora Als Kanon Für Juden Und Christen (HBS; Freiburg im
Br: Herder, 1996), pp. 61-90; M.W. Hamilton, “Critiquing the Sovereign: Perspec-
tives from Deuteronomy and Job,” RQ 47.4 (2005), pp. 237-49; M. Witte, “Job in
Conversation with the Torah,” in B.U. Schipper and D.A. Teeter (eds.), Wisdom
and Torah (JSJSup 163; Leiden: Brill 2013), pp. 81-100; C.B. Ansberry, “The
‘Revealed Things’: Deuteronomy and Teh Epistemology of Job,” in J.S. Derouchie
(ed.), For Our Good Always. Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteron-
omy in Honor of Daniel I. Block (Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns, 2013), pp. 307-
25; E.L. Greenstein, “Parody as a Challenge to Tradition: The Use of Deuteronomy
32 in the Book of Job,” Reading Job Intertextually (New York: T&T Clark, 2013),
pp. 66-78; J.L. Crenshaw, “Divine Discipline in Job 5:17-18, Proverbs 3:11-12,
Deuteronomy 32:39, and Beyond,” Reading Job Intertextually (New York: T&T
Clark, 2013), pp. 176-89; J.A. Grant, “When the Friendship of God Was upon My
Tent,” in R.J. Bautch and G.N. Knoppers (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period.
From Genesis to Chronicles (Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns, 2015), pp. 339-55.
5. S.E. Balentine, “Job as Priest to the Priests,” Ex Auditu 18 (2002), pp. 29-52;
W.S. Green, “Stretching the Covenant: Job and Judaism,” RE 99 (2002), pp. 569-
77; I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School
(IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 165-67; K. Schmid, “The Authors of Job and Their
Historical and Social Setting,” in L.G. Perdue (ed.), Scribes, Sages, and Seers
(FRLANT 219; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), pp. 149-51.
6. Witte, “Job in Conversation.”
7. Knohl, Sanctuary, pp. 165-67.
8. S. Weeks, An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature (London: T&T
Clark, 2010); D. Penchansky, Understanding Wisdom Literature. Conflict and
Dissonance in the Hebrew Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012).
52 Jiseong James Kwon

dom corpus has in agreement with consistent themes in the Hebrew Bible.9
However, they did not go far enough. Many still are used to explain specific
linguistic similarities between Job and Genesis-Deuteronomy by the literary
dependence of Deuteronomic or Priestly sources and to maintain that the
theology of Job was under Torah’s religious influence.
In this article, I briefly discuss the problem and limit of literary depend-
ence between Deuteronomic/Priestly Torah10 and Job. Then using Deuter-
onomic materials I attempt to compare the theology of Job with the divine-
human relationship in the Deuteronmic covenant11 and laws, and the relation-
ship between Priestly Torah and Job will be examined in three ways; the
creation account, the patriarchal story, and Leviticus. On these grounds, the
main part of this essay will concentrate on the diversity of the book of Job
from what texts of Torah state. How is the book of Job different from Mo-
saic/Deuteronomic laws and covenant, and from Priestly materials and ideol-
ogy? Through these comparisons, I put forward the claim that the book of Job
has a wide range of diversity with perceptions that differ from the Torah on
God, humans, and divine-human relations.
II. Problems of Literary Reference
Scholarly claims for the literary dependence/influence of Job on Torah here
lead us to examine many parallels and resemblances between the two literary
works. Did the author of Job know and intentionally/unintentionally employ
specific texts of Torah? Here I will neither deal with whether there was liter-
ary quotation, allusion, or echo between corresponding texts. The decision on

9. For recent discussions for wisdom tradition, refer to M.R. Sneed, ed., Was There
a Wisdom Tradition?. New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies (Ancient Israel
and Its Literature 23; Atlanta: SBL, 2015).
10. For the sake of convenience of this essay, I make use of scholarly terminol-
ogies that are widely agreed among a majority of interpreters; however, this does
not mean that I support the assumptions of the documentary hypothesis and redac-
tional criticism in whole. The consensus view seems to be that the book of Deuter-
onomy and the Priestly Wrting existed as “two distinct literary strata within the
Pentateuch”; R.G. Kratz, “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and
Debate,” in K. Schmid et al. (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on
Current Research (FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), p. 34. Firstly, “Deu-
teronomic Torah” here refers to the book of Deuteronomy and to passages from
Tetrateuch (Genesis-Numbers) that are associated with Deuteronomy; H. Ausloos,
The Deuteronomist’s History. The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical
Research into Genesis-Numbers (OTS 67; Leiden: Brill, 2015), p. IX. Secondly,
this essay employs the term “Priestly Torah” that is limited to the “Priestly writers”
in Genesis-Numbers.
11. Deuteronomic theologies can be differently defined and evaluated in many
redactional layers of the Pentateuch and in the history of the ancient Israel. It is
little possible to tell a single theology in the Pentateuch as well as in Deuteronomic
Torah. However, this paper highlights Mosaic covenant as a conditional treaty
between Israel and God in its form and content.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 53

the direction of literary dependence or influence in many cases is far from my

intention of this essay. Yet, what we know is that the book of Job shares a
substantial language with the Pentateuch, but this wide range of textual corre-
lation in Job, as mentioned above, makes it difficult to appreciate the Deuter-
onomic or Priestly influence on Job. For instance, if all the ideas and terms of
legal expressions, laws, treaty in divine-human relationships cannot be Deu-
teronomic, we need to be cautious of levelling the message of Job to Deuter-
onomic sources;12 probably we might say that the writer of Job reflects the
retributive principle or the conventional relation of a human deed-
consequence in ancient religion. At the same time, unless all the linguistic
elements of creation narrative, temple, and sacrificial system in the Penta-
teuch are attributed to priests or a priestly group, it should not be concluded
that Job supports priestly ideology or used priestly materials.13 Here, let us
see two examples related to the dependence of Job on Torah.
Firstly, Georg Braulik explores specific expressions of Job 24,1-17, 14
where Job complains of the social injustice and the delay of judgment (‫;עתים‬
24,1) in the world where the wealthy exploit the poor and the powerful op-
press the weak, but God does not punish them. Braulik argues that Job 24
intentionally uses many words from the book of Deuteronomy, and from the
Decalogue in Exodus 20.15 However, paralleled words and themes between
Job 24,1-17 and Deuteronomy (Deut 5, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27-28, 32) are
commonplace in Hebrew Bible16 and more or less appear to be widely scat-

12. R. Coggins, “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?,” in J. Davies et al. (eds.),

Words Remembered, Texts Renewed. Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
(JSOTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), p. 144 notes that
“writers on Job and Ecclesiastes are cautious about defining what precisely is being
rejected; instead, they concentrate rather on the viewpoint being expressed by their
books, and only speak in more general terms about the Deuteronomistic character
of Israel’s understanding of its position before God”.
13. Just as we observed the limit of literary reference between Job and Deuter-
onomic Torah, it likewise is difficult to tell the literary connection with Priestly
materials.
14. Most commentators doubts the integrity of Chapter 24 and in general rearrange
its verses. Though there is no consensus here, I follow the division of Pope and
Clines; 24:1-17 as Job’s speech and 24:18-24 as belonging to Zophar. Pope, Job,
pp. 158-62; D.J.A. Clines, Job 21-37 (WBC 18A; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2006), pp. 589-90.
15. Braulik, “Das Deuteronomium”, pp. 66-90 maintains that Job 24,14-16 is corre-
lated with the Decalogue (Deut 5,17-19; 22,22.26; Exod 20,13-15). However, this
passage is not well matched with the order of Ten Commandments.
16. The theme about removing others’ landmarks in Job 24,2 and Deut 19,14;
27,17 occurs in other places of the Hebrew Bible (Prov 22,28; 23,10; Hos 5,10).
Also Job’s cry for social justice and God’s indifference is quite common in Egyp-
tian literature; such as The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant;16 there is a similar
expression, “for you are father to the orphan, Husband to the widow, Brother to the
54 Jiseong James Kwon

tered in many verses of Deuteronmy. For example, while three words—‫ערום‬

(“naked”), ‫“( ורעבים‬hunger”), and ‫“( ויצמאו‬thirst”)—appearing in Job’s accu-
sation in 24,10-11 can be found in Deuteronomy 28,48—‫ברעב ובצמא ובעירם‬
(“in hunger and in thirst and in nakedness”)—and 24,19—‫“( עמר‬sheaf)”—(cf.
Deut 24,20-21; 23,25-26; 28,38-40), what they indicate in its own context is
different. While these common words describe the harsh oppression on the
poor exploited by upper class, they in Deuteronomy 28,48 are related to the
punishment who will come to law-breakers.17 In Job 24,12, seeing that the
desparate prayer of the dying and the wounded is rejected by God, Job even-
tually calls into question God’s right judgment and its veracity which pro-
duce criminal activities; his major point of criticism is not on the law-breaker.
It therefore is hard to think that the author of Job 24,1-17 is directed to Deu-
teronomic laws, but complains about the absence and indifference of God
himself (24,1.25).18
Secondly, it has been claimed that Job’s speech taking literary forms of
legal proceeding (Job 23,4; 13,8; 31,35; 13,26) and “self-maledictory oath” in
Job 31 creates a firm underpinning with a Deuteronomic context.19 Does the
climax of Job’s defence in Job 31 wholly correspond with commandments in
Moses’ Decalogue? It does not so, however. Such a legal form in Job 31 as
“oath of innocence” indeed is quite frequently used in other biblical texts in 1
Sam 24,10-16.18 and Gen 44,3-12, and prophetic texts as well as in Mesopo-
tamian legal documents,20 and further the negative confession of sins in Job
31 is often compared to the Egyptian Book of the Dead.21 In addition, the

rejected woman, Apron to the motherless”. See W.W. Hallo, ed., The Context of
Scripture I (New York: Brill, 1997), p. 100, line 62ff.
17. The law in Deuteronomy 24,19 tells that Israelites need to forget a sheaf in
harvest time and should not return to the field, but leave it for the needy. In Job
24,10, the sheaves are carried only by field workers, not distributed to them.
18. E.M. Good, In Turns of Tempest. Reading of Job with a Translation (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 278.
19. M. Rogland, “The Covenant in the Book of Job,” CTR 7 (2009), p. 55 argues:
“The root of Job’s ‘complaint’ then, is that the views himself as one who appa r-
ently has not been treated f airly by God, according to the terms of the covenant”.
Also, see Oeming, “Hiob 31”; “Hiob Monolog-Der Weg Nach Innen,” in M.
Oeming and K. Schmid (eds.), Hiobs Weg. Stationen von Menschen Im Leid (Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), pp. 57-75; M. Oeming and K.
Schmid, Job’s Journey. Stations of Suffering (CSHB 7; Winona Lake, ID: Eisen-
brauns, 2015).
20. M.B. Dick, “Legal Metaphor in Job 31,” CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 37-50; similarly,
refer to F.R. Magdalene, On the Scales of Righteousness Neo-Babylonian Trial
Law and the Book of Job (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Judaic Studies, 2007).
21. Refer to J. Murtagh, “The Book of Job and the Book of the Dead,” ITQ 35.2
(1968), pp. 166-73; J.G. Griffiths, “The Idea of Posthumous Judgement in Israel
and Egypt,” Fontes Atque Pontes (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), pp. 186-
204.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 55

obligation list and ethical view of Job 31 are even more associated with wis-
dom teachings than with precepts and ordinances in Torah.22 The simple use
of these forms therefore cannot reveal any direct connection with Mosaic law.
What the oath of Job 31 achieves is different from the emphasis of Mosaic
laws. Job in his oath of innocence asserts that he is an innocent sufferer, and
maybe even a morally perfect person, but because he has not been treated as
much as he deserved, he seems to suppose that there must be a crucial prob-
lem in the entire moral system in which God mistakenly looks on without
doing anything (cf. 31,35-37). The tone is very compelling and aggressive. In
this sense, the author of Job 31 presents the figure of Job as a overconfident
flawless man who approaches God like ‫“( נגיד‬a prince”, v. 37) as demanding
his justice, so much so that Job finally is rebuked in Yahweh’s speech, since
Job makes himself out to be righteous (40,2).23 More significantly, the con-
fession of innocence in Job 31 more relate to the inner motivation of wrong-
doings,24 which does not accord with the way in which Decalogue instructs to
Israelites. For instance, Job 31,9-12 deals with the crime of adultery, where
Job swears that he was not “enticed toward a woman” and did not “lay in
wait at his neighbour’s door” (v. 9). Different to the crime of adultery com-
manded in Israelite law (Lev 20,10; Deut 22,22; cf. Job 5,18), where the
adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death, Job 31,9 only speaks of
Job’s internal disposition and motivation of crime, not of an external criminal
offense structured in Mosaic covenant. Even startlingly in Job 31,10, the
expected consequence of a husband’s adultery is only harshly to fall upon his
wife; she experiences the degradation of social class (31,10a) and even be-
comes a kind of a prostitute for other men.25
From these cases above, the literary reference of Job on Torah cannot be
easily established; the possibility that Job could have echoed them, of course,

22. G. Fohrer, “The Righteous Man in Job 31,” Essays in Old Testament Ethics
(New York: Ktav, 1974), pp. 1-22.
23. Ibid., 19 says: “On the one hand, Job is the righteous, pure, and perfect man
who can maintain that he is without sin. One the other hand, he appears s a Prome-
thean and Titanic man from whom God had torn away prosperity and happiness,
who confronts God boldly with the conviction that he is perfect in order to triumph
over Him, and who wants to force Him to acknowledge his innocence by means of
his undisputed rightousness”. Some might read Yahweh’s reply to Job as the genre
of comedy having much sense of humor. However, though there is irony in its
poetic ambiguity, the agony of Job cannot be played in the context of comedy. See
W. William, “Comedy of Job,” Semeia 7 (1977), pp. 1-39; L.A. Schökel and J.L.
Sicre, Job (Comentario teológico y literario; Madrid: Cristiandad, 2002).
24. Hartley, Job, p. 407 says: “Because Job is focusing on his attitudes toward
others he mentions only two sins that are found in the Decalogue, adultery (vv. 9 -
12) and covetousness (vv. 7-8)”.
25. E.M. Good, “Job 31,” in R.B. Zuck (ed.), Sitting with Job. Selected Studies on
the Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), pp. 335-44; Clines, Job 21-37,
pp. 1008-9.
56 Jiseong James Kwon

cannot be entirely ruled out, so here let us leave this issue open. In addition,
this could be applied in the same way to claims of the dependence of Job’s
texts on Priestly mateirals. Some might constrainedly look up the literary
reference between the pattern of Genesis creation and the cosmology of the
physical world in Job 38-39.26 Here does Yahweh’s speech intentionally re-
spond to the anthrocentrical aspect in Genesis 1? Probably not. If there are
any connections, how can we elucidate the mythological background of
Yahweh’s first speech derived from Canaaite and Mesopotamian creation
texts27 and how can we explain more precise affinities between the illustra-
tion in Job 38-39 and the Egyptian work like the Onomasticon of Amenope
than those between the Yahweh’s first speech and Genesis 1?28
Then the question is how we can understand affinities and similarities be-
tween two literary units in vocabulary and form/genre? Perhaps all we could
say is that Hebrew scribes substantially shared certain knowledge of Jewish
writings and were familiar with prevalent concepts of God and divine-human
relationship. Furthermore, based on these linguistic similarities, to assume the
existence of two separate schools, or professional groups between Wisdom
and Torah would be unnecessary. Perhaps, from recent studies about scribal
culture in the Second Temple period,29 we might say that scribes or literati
lived in the Second Temple period shared those specific terms and ideology
and could produce diverse Jewish writings.
III. The Book of Job and Deuteronomic Torah
1. Differences between Job and Deuteronomic Torah
The question is how the theology of Job differs from the general concepts
presented in Torah. Can what is happening to the pious Job be described with
references to the Deuteronomic covenant or be resolved by the nexus of sin-
punishment?As a way of understanding the divine-human relationship the
book of Job differs substantially from the covenantal relationship in Deuter-
onomy and Deuteronomistic History that underscores “divine commitments
and human obligations” 30 (Exod 20,1-23,19; 32-34; Deut 28,1-68); though

26. D.T. Stewart, “Leviticus as Mini-Torah,” in R.E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen

(eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature. The Legacy of Jacob
Milgrom and Beyond (RBS 82; Atlanta: SBL, 2015), pp. 318-9.
27. H.R. Page, The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion. A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic
and Biblical Literature (VTSup 65; Leiden: Brill 1996), pp. 164-91; Pope, Job, p.
247ff.
28. He also compares the book of Job with Ben Sira 44-49, Psalm 148, and Song of
Three Children vv. 35-68. See G. von Rad, “Hiob xxxviii and die altägyptische
Weisheit,” in M. Noth and D.W. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the An-
cient Near East (VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1955), pp. 293-301.
29. e.g., K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
(MA: Harvard University Press, 2009); J.J. KWON, “Shared Ideas in Job and Deu-
tero-Isaiah”, ZAW (2017) Forthcoming.
30- S.L. Mckenzie, Covenant (UBT; St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000), p. 37.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 57

such a traditional ideology was continually and in different forms renewed in

the history of Israel (e.g., 2 Kgs 23,1-3). In order to make Yahweh grant
blessings and to fulfill the aim of entering the promised land, Israel has to
remain loyal to laws and obligations (Deut 12-26). Namely, human faithful-
ness to obeying rules incorporated with covenant is a prerequisite for Yah-
weh’s act for their blessings, whereas breaking stipulations results in prompt-
ing condemnation, and even a national destruction necessarily arises. The
human-divine relationship, which Deuteronomists portray, definitely cannot
be reduced to a simple retributive principle, and there is the idea of divine
election, that the people of Yahweh were chosen (e.g., Deut 7:6-7).31 How-
ever, the Deuternomistic covenant, where the righteous who obey God’s
commands are rewarded and the wicked who disobey are cursed, has com-
mon characteristics in its scheme with ancient Assyrian legal treaties that
underline bilateral obligations between a suzerain and vassals, and Mosaic
covenant and following covenants of Israel are much closer to the exertion of
justice based on the nexus of act-consequence.
By contrast, the book of Job lacks terms such as torah and berit related to
covenanting process, 32 and deals with the problem of suffering “without
cause” (‫ ;חנם‬Job 2,3) which is a subject absent in the Torah. Job’s story be-
gins with the narrator’s description about the prosperity of his offspring and
possession alongside the fourfold description of Job’s piety (1,1) and religi-
osity (1,5). Some have pointed out that the phrases of Job’s physical dam-
age—“awful sores” (‫)בׁשחין רע‬, “from the sole of your foot to the top of your
head” (‫ )מכף רגלו עד קדקדו‬in 2,7—alludes to the penalty of disobeying Mosaic
laws in Deut 28,35.33 The epilogue, in which the suffering of the righteous
person finally results in the restoration of his fortune (42,10) as an indicator
of divine acceptance, might be equal to the principle in Deuteronomic bless-
ing and cursing (Deut 28). However, Job’s pain and catastrophe is not caused

31. “The idea of the holiness of Israel to God is closely associated with that of his
loving and electing activity on its behalf (7:6ff).” See J.G. Mcconville, Law and
Theology in Deuteronomy (JSOTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), p. 18; A.C.
Hagedorn, “Covenant, Election, and War in Deuteronomy 7,” in N. Macdonald
(ed.), Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (FAT II/79; Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), pp. 49-62.
32. J.C. de Moor, “Ugarit and the Origin of Job,” Ugarit and the Bible (Münster:
Ugarit-Vorlag, 1994), pp. 239-40 notes that “in none of the longer books of the Old
Testament is the number of terms connected with the covenant as low as in the
poetic part of the Book of Job”. J.J.M. Roberts, “Job and the Israelite Religious
Tradition,” ZAW 89.1 (1977), p. 108 says: “One would be hard pressed to find a
single textual reference to the covenant in the whole book of Job.”
33. R. Heckl, Hiob -- Vom Gottesfürchtigen Zum Repräsentanten Israels. Studien
zur Buchwerdung des Hiobbuches und zu seinen Quellen (FAT 70; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 263-72; K. Schmid, “Innerbiblische Schriftdiskussion im
Hiobbuch,” Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen (AThANT 88; Zürich:
TVZ, 2007), p. 250.
58 Jiseong James Kwon

by his behaviour before God, but by Yahweh who was challenged by the
Adversary. Though Job’s deity finally replaces what Job lost in the beginning
by doubling his possessions (42,10) and gives him seven sons and three
daughters in his later years, it is hard to tell that this evokes a kind of restora-
tion in line with Deuteronomic theology. In fact, we can see neither the resto-
ration of Job’s health nor the reference of Job’s wife, and furthermore the
latter life of Job only gives a picture of how Job returned back to his normal
life and finished his own life surrounded by a large family, after withdrawing
the confrontation against his God (42,17). More importantly, the major issue
of moral order is not resolved, and however we understand Job’s message, its
retributive principle, that the righteous should not suffer without any reasons,
as David Clines notes, is “partially defective”.34
In dialogue, Job’s friends are regarded as advocates of retributive dogma,
and their discernment regarding the reason of Job’s suffering is much closer
to traditional wisdom teachings. God will never “pervert” judgment and
justice which denote flawlessly invariant and ethical punishment to the
wicked (Job 4,7; 8,3). In particualr, Eliphaz advices Job to receive “torah”
and God’s “words”, to internalise wisdom’s teachings (22,21-22; cf. Prov 2,1;
4,2, 10; 8,10; 13,14), where God is portrayed as a heavenly teacher.35 Eliphaz
assures that if Job follows those instructions, God will shortly return to Job
(22,23-25), will be the One who responds to Job’s prayer, and will act on
what He has promised (22,27-28). Yet, while Deuteronomic covenants are in
play through the friends’ words, they, who failed to speak “what is right”
(Job 42,7-8), are condemned by Yahweh in the end. Then the question is:
“Does Job plead to his deity who is faithful to his pious servant and keeps his
Deuteronomic covenant?” Perhaps, some could say that Job’s speech in
dialogue accords with and confirms instructions and rules shown in the
Deuteronomic covenant.36 However, the answer as I argue here is: “No”. The
understanding of Job about God’s nature, since the weeping of Job in chapter
3, was dramatically changed and is rooted on his trauma, how God can betray

34. D.J.A. Clines, Job 1-20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. xlvii.
35. Job 22,21-22 entirely shares same vocaburaries with Proverbs, and the torah
here is not Pentateuchal laws. N.C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL;
London: SCM, 1985), p. 342 notes that the covenant in Job 22:21 is “not the berit
established between Yahweh and his people (Ex. 24:1-8), but the individual’s
commitment or agreement to follow wisdom” and that tora in 22,22 “is not the
Israelite law, but wisdom teaching (Prov 4:2; 13:14)”. According to Dahood, the
expression “from his mouth” in Job 22,22 has a linkage with Proverbs 3,3; 7,3 and
Jeremiah 36,17-18. See Clines, Job 21-37, p. 563; M.J. Dahood, “Metaphor in Job
22:22,” Biblica 47.1 (1966), pp. 108-9.
36. Grant, “When the Friendship of God Was upon My Tent”, p. 352 comments:
“We must acknowledge that covenant ideology is firmly ‘in play’ in the books of
the sages”. Ansberry, “Deuteronomy and The Epistemology of Job”, p. 324 says:
Job’s author “shaped specific principles in accordance with the rhetoric and ethos
of the deuteronomic torah”.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 59

his religious belief and bond (Job 29). This is obviously stated in the debate
with the friends. Job strongly advocates that his suffering is in no way the
consequence of his wrongdoing (6,29-30), and realises that behind all these
disasters, there is the hidden hand of God, even though his integrity still
stands (10,8-9; 27,1-6). God’s protection and blessings are not given to the
righteous in this world, and God actually works in the other way round. Job
says:

‫ׂשימה־נא ערבני עמך מי הוא לידי יתקע‬

Set my pledge with you. Who else will accept a surety for me? (17,3)37
By “setting a pledge” with God, Job would repay debts—if there are any
as the friends say—, but in fact Job is distressed since there is no one in his
sight who can provide a guarantee for him.38 This is far from pleading with
God for a commitment relation, but the intention behind the demand of this
pledge is that Job simply proves his innocence (cf. 13,19; 27,2-6; 31,35-37).
Then, his deity whom Job experiences is portrayed no less than as dishonour-
ing the contractual obligations.
What makes Job disappointed is the elusiveness and unpredictability of
God whose dwelling place is by no means found in Job’s sight (Job 23,8-9;
28; cf. 11,13-19), and this reverses the Psalmist’s belief as to the impossibil-
ity of avoding God’s presence even when a person is covered with darkness
(Ps 139,7-12).39 In some sense, Job possibly supposes that the moral system
of the world is at stake and the existence of an ideal morality is no more than
illusion (Job 9,22-24; 12,6; 21,7-34; 24,1-17). Indeed, throughout Job’s own
acknowledgment, divine punishment has little discrimination both to the
blameless and to the wicked (9,22-23). Regardless of keeping “the com-
mandment of his lips” and “the words of his mouth”, humans cannot change
irrevocable divine purposes accomodating many injustices (23,13-14; 9,12-
13). God is unmovable by human piety and does not act on what is expected
by keeping requests of justice and rules, but on his own discretion. What Job
desired was the encounter with his deity in the heavenly court (16,19, 21;
19,25-26), and there he might approve his innocence and might get vindica-

37. MT writes ‫ ערבני‬as an imperative (“stand surety for me”), but in general this is
read as a noun (“my pledge”), functioning as a object of verb ‫( ׂשימה‬e.g., Dhorme,
Fohrer, Seow, Clines).
The expression ‫ מי הוא לידי יתקע‬is rendered literally as “who will allow to be struck
by my hand” or “who will shake my hand” (Pope). “Striking a hand”, according to
Clines, involves “a ratification of an agreement to stand surety” (Clines, Job 1-20,
p. 373). Seow comments that “to grasp or take hands” in Akkadian and Babylonian
expressions is rendered as “to guarantee” the same as the Hebrew verb ‫ עתק‬means
(Seow, Job 1-21, p. 762). Here the gesture of ‫“( יתקע‬being struck”) is likely to
associate the active acceptance from others.
38. Clines, Job 1-20, pp. 393-4.
39. Habel, Job, p. 318.
60 Jiseong James Kwon

tion from God (10,2; 13,22-23; 31,35-36), but his hope is always shattered by
the mighty power of the hidden God (9,14-20; 23,8-10; 13,24-25). After a
series of catastrophies in the Prologue, God whom Job is perceiving is not the
deity who keeps a treaty, but who does what he wishes, and this pious man is
experiencing the mysterious God beyond his fixed thoughts, asking why God
should act in that way.
In Yahweh’s speech, God’s appearance in the storm differs from that of
the theophany in Mount Sinai (Exod 19-24) where Israelites received Mosaic
laws. Yahweh’s description of the universe does not accompany the issue of
divine judgment which is considerably marginalised in the interest of God’s
control over the elements of the world. There is the noteworthy usage of tyrb
in Yahweh’s second speech where Leviathan is portrayed as a boastful
creature and humans are unable to rule over this utmost and imaginary being.
Yahweh says:

‫היכרת ברית עמך תקחנו לעבד עולם‬

Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as your servant forever? (40,28 [Eng. 41,4])

Eliphaz in Job 5,22-23 addressed Job that if he does not despise the disci-
pline of Almighty, a blessed hope and protection will be waiting for him, and
furthermore he will make ‫ ברית‬with “the stones of the field” and wil be at
peace with the wild beast without fear. Eliphaz’s optimistic theory, however,
rings hollow in the illustration of Leviathan. However any powerful indi-
viduals are able to employ ‫“( לעבד עולם‬a servant of eternity”) who voluntarily
relinquishes his/her liberty (Deut 15,17; cf. Exod 21,6; 1 Sam 27,12),40 it is
impossible for them to bind Leviathan with such a legal treaty. The question,
whether Leviathan may serve Job through covenantal relationship, is not only
meant to highlight the powerlessness of humans and their inability to manage
Leviathan, but also to emphasise that just as humans cannot approach the
beast, they should not even attempt to do business with Yahweh and to bene-
fit through rules and laws.41 Then such a human contract probably is not only
a proper manner to make a relationship with Job’s deity, but also could bring
a serious blow to humans.
In this sense, Markus Witte perhaps is quite right in construing from the
uncaring response of Yahweh to Job’s demand that “this can only mean a
relativizing of the Torah, its theology” and that Yahweh’s speech “is set in
opposition to the divine revelation to Moses at Horeb”.42 Of course, this does
not mean the author of Job entirely denies a Torah-centered worldview, but
this shows that a sort of moral rules and system is at risk from the unexpected
and untamed act of God. This, if the book of Job possibly has any broad rele-

40. Dhorme, Job, p. 627.

41. In Job 31,1, Job talks about a covenant with his eyes.
42. Witte, “Job in Conversation”, p. 93.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 61

vance with Deuteronomic Torah, might reflect the dwindling influence of

Deuteronomic theology based on Mosaic laws and covenant.
2. Elihu’s Speech in the Torah
There is one missing part which is not mentioned above. According to Witte
and some interpreters who are intersted in redactional layers of the book of
Job, Elihu’s speech (Job 32-37) is considered as a late addition after the first
edition of the book and before the final redaction, and is frequenctly under-
stood as affirming Deuteronomic-oriented theology and making a balance
with the youngest redactional layer (e.g., Job 28).43 Witte claims that the
name of Elihu (‫“ ;אליהוא‬My God is He[Yahweh]”) signifies “an interpretation
of the Shema Israel” (cf. Deut 32,29) and the name of Elihu’s father (‫;ברכאל‬
“God has blessed”) implies “a central concept of Deuteronomy” (Deut 28),
and that the Elihu’s critic about Job’s self-righteousness alludes to God’s
rightousness in Deut 9,4-6.44 He further presents three fundamental aspects in
terms of the confirmation of Deuteronomic theology in Elihu’s speech; (1)
“God educates a person through suffering” (Job 33,16; Deut 8,5); (2) “God is
an incomparable teacher” (Job 36,22; Deut 6,1); (3) “God is incomprehensi-
ble magnitude and justice” (Job 37,23; Deut 10,17),45 and considers that since
Elihu is not denounced by Yahweh with Job’s three friends in 42,7, the editor
of Job 32-37 intentionally creates Elihu’s figure as “a legitimate prophetic
successor to the deuteronomistic Moses” 46 who is speaking both a proper
theology, and justice.
We cannot see all the detailed arguments in this limited space. However,
first of all we have several reasons not to see Elihu’s speech as a secondary
addition. Norman Snaith, for example, maintains in his book published in
1968 that although Elihu’s speeches were not formed with the dialogue be-
tween Job and the three friends, “they are the creation of the original author

43. Witte, “Job in Conversation” changes his initial view, that the Elihu speeches
belong to “the oldest redactional stratum”, and places it after “Niedrigkeitsredak-
tion” (“lowliness-redaction”) and the first book redaction before the stage of the
final redaction (Majestätsredacktion, Gerechtigkeitsredaktion). For his initial view,
refer to M. Witte, Vom Leiden zur Lehre. Der dritte Redegang (Hiob 21-27) und
die Redaktionsgeschichte des Hiobbuches (BZAW 230; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1994), pp. 190-2. For the recent discussion about the literary development of Job
32-37, see T. Pilger, Erziehung im Leide. Komposition und Theologie der Elihure-
den in Hiob 32-37 (FAT II/49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); S. Lauber, Weis-
heit im Widerspruch. Studien zu den Elihu-Reden in Ijob 32-37 (BZAW 454; Ber-
lin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013); J. Vermeylen, Metamorphoses. Les Rédactions
Successives du Livre de Job (BETL 276; Leuven: Peeters, 2015).
44. Witte, “Job in Conversation,” pp. 95-6.
45. Witte, “Job in Conversation,” p. 96.
46. Witte, “Job in Conversation,” p. 96.
62 Jiseong James Kwon

of the Hebrew”. 47 With regard to the objection that Elihu does not speak
something new and simply repeats what Yahweh will say afterwards, Snaith
comments that Elihu “is the young man out against the old orthodoxy, and
this is why he feels free to criticize Job as well as the three friends”.48 Of
course, the name Elihu does not appear in the prose-tale and dialogue, and
there seems to be stylistic irruption and the pompous character of Elihu
which contrasts with that of the wise friends. However, Elihu’s speech still
has its literary purpose, summarizing and interacting with Job’s three friends
and criticizing Job’s blame for God’s judgment.49 The claim that Elihu was
not mentioned in Yahweh’s final instruction against the friends cannot fully
explain why Yahweh did not announce that Elihu said a right thing about
God. More importantly, although Elihu criticised the arguments of Job and
the three friends (Job 32,1-10), Elihu’s view about the origin of Job’s suffer-
ing is not fundamentally different from what the friends already claimed, and
in this sense Elihu’s theology is, say, bound to the limit of retributive theol-
ogy (e.g., 34,35-37; 37,23).
Furthermore, those connections between Elihu’s identity or role and To-
rah—e.g., presenting Elihu as a successor of Moses—suggestd by Witte are
indeed overstated and would be somewhat misleading for reading Elihu’s
speech in the entire dialogue of Job. Also, the idea of divine discipline where
God communicates/reveals with dreams in Job 33,16 is already mentioned by
Eliphaz in 4,12-21; 5,17 (cf. 7,14), and also appears in texts in Gen 20,3.6,
Num 12,6, 1 Kgs 3,5, 1 Sam 9,15, 2 Sam 7,27.50 The concept of God as a
incomparable teacher and as having incomarable power and justice in Job
36,22 (also v. 23) and 37,23 is found in Isaianic text (e.g., Isa 40,12-26) and
in the motif of the divine counselor from the ancient Near Eastern source,51
and the idea of divine teacher is more common and widespread in early wis-
dom literature.52
Therefore, Elihu’s speech is more likely to be part of the original speech
with dialogue, giving a summary speech of the advocator who defends the

47. N.H. Snaith, The Book of Job. Its Origin and Purpose (SBT 11; London: SCM,
1968), p. 73 says that “if we omit the last three verses of the prologue and the first
three verses of the epilogue plus the curious phrases in 42.10, we can say the same
of the three friends”.
48. Ibid., pp. 75-85. He provides five types of styles: (1) “prepositions”, (2) “divine
names”, (3) “the two first person singular personal pronouns”, (4) “Aramaisms”,
and (5) “rare words”.
49. Clines, Job 1-20, pp. lviii-lix; Weeks, Introduction, p. 65 proposes there were
“two versions of Job available to us, with and without Elihu”.
50. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, 458; H.H. Rowley, Job (London: Eerdmans, 1980), p.
271.
51. R.N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah Xl 13-14. A Study of the
Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1971).
52. Habel, Job, p. 510.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 63

ordodox dogmas which Job protested and which the unexhausted argument of
the three friends did not finish. If the Elihu material is understood as part of
the original dialogue rather than a late redacted layer, it is unnecessary to
suppose that its author imposed a Torah-centered late view.
IV. The Book of Job and Priestly Torah
Next, the relationship between Job and Priestly Torah should not be missed
in our discussion. Scholars in fact did not give a full range of relationships
between Job and the priestly documents, but Job’s association with Priestly
Torah still has support from some interpreters, though not as much as that
with Deuteronomic Torah. For this, interpreters largely argue the engagement
with priestly sources in three ways; (1) the creation account in Genesis 1,1-
2,3; (2) the ending of patriarch narrative; (3) the book of Leviticus. Let us
examine each case.
1. Genesis 1,1-2,3a
Firstly, the creation account in Genesis 1,1-2,3a has been often regarded as
inspiring the peculiar theology in the book of Job. 53 For instance, Samuel
Balentine claims that “the land of Uz” (Job 1,1), as in the illustration of the
prologue before Job’s agony, refers to the “very good world” (Gen 1,31)
created by God before the disturbance of evil, and that six scenes set on earth
and in heaven in Job’s prologue (Job 1,1-5; 1,6-12; 1,13-22; 2,1-7a; 2,7b-10;
2,11-13) are compared to the six-day account of “the heaven and earth” crea-
tion in Gen 1,1-2,3a. 54 Even though the second creation account (Genesis
2,3b-3,24) in general does not belong to the Priestly source, Balentine goes
so far as to assert that “Job’s world of Uz” is alluding to “the Garden of Eden”
(Gen 2,8) and figures of Job and the Adversary accordingly are reminiscent
of second Adam and the serpent.55
However, any connections and parallels between the P creation account
(also Gen 2-3) and Job’s prologue is substantially exaggerated. Two words,
“Uz” (v. 1) and “all the people of east” (v. 3), and the literary structure of

53. e.g., L.G. Perdue, Wisdom & Creation. The Theology of Wisdom Literature
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1994); “Creation in the Dialogues between Job and His
Opponents,” Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen (AThANT 88; Zürich:
TVZ, 2007), pp. 197-216.
54. S.E. Balentine, “Job and the Priests: ‘He Leads Priests Away Stripped’ (Job
12:19),” Reading Job Intertextually (New York: T&T Clark, 2013), pp. 45-46.
55. Balentine does not apparently distinguish Priestly materials from non-Priestly
materials. Balentine, “Job and the Priests,” p. 45. Also refer to S.E. Balentine, Job
(SHBC 10; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), pp. 42-71. In addition, S. Meier,
“Job 1-2: A Reflection of Genesis 1-3,” VT 39 (1989), p. 193 argues that two crea-
tion accounts in Genesis 1-3 (P and J) are exploited by the author of Job's prologue
“as background to create a new narrative” and says that “the author of Job prologue
seeks to answer questions which the Genesis accounts have unsolved”.
64 Jiseong James Kwon

Job’s prologue does not hint at anythning about the beginning of the world.56
Of course, it is true that the creation activity in Genesis 1,1-2,3a can be linked
with the form of the creation hymn in Job’s dialogue (e.g., Job 9,4-10). Nev-
ertheless, while God in Genesis’ cosmology, similar to creation narratives in
ancient Near Eastern literature, establishes the order of the cosmos and builds
up purposeful organizations from chaos and the absence of matter,57 the au-
thor of Job has little interest in confirming the creational order and God’s
blessings in Genesis. In the creation account, a human being, distinctively
having a divine image (Gen 1,26-27), is the climax of God’s creation activi-
ties and functions as a priest of a temple and a king in partnership with God,
who commissions them to rule the world (Gen 1,28-30).
In contrast, neither does God in Job assign any prieslty roles to humans
nor God approaches an individual in order to have an intimate relationship,
although Yahweh calls Job ‫“( עבדי‬my servant”; Job 1,8; 2,3; 42,7-8) and Job
gives offerings for his children and the friends.58 While the whole universe
throughout the book of Job is under God’s control, the perception of Job in
terms of God’s managemant is different from what the typical hymn of praise
shows in its purpose and nuance. For instance, although hymns (9,5-10;
10,10-12) in Job’s reply seem to adopt the theme of creation, they are not
concerned with the order of creation. Rather the worldly order in Job’s view
is out of the original picture, because of the Creator’s unpredictable power
which interrupts the right order. This is well expressed in Job’s monologue of
Job 3, where the righteous man curses the day and night of his birth and
states his longing for death and Sheol over life and light (3,16-26).59 Humans

56. Likewise the land of Uz tells nothing about the geographical location of the
paradise; although some might argue that Uz historically refers to the land of
Edom. J. Day, “How Could Job Be an Edomite?,” Book of Job (Peeters: Leuven
University Press, 1994), pp. 392-99; V. Sasson, “An Edomite Joban Text: With a
Biblical Joban Parallel,” ZAW 117.4 (2005), pp. 601-15; By contrary, refer to B.L.
Crowell, “A Reevaluation of the Edomite Wisdom Hypothesis,” ZAW 120.3
(2008), pp. 404-16.
57. J.H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns,
2011), pp. 122-92.
58. An unpublished paper presented at a day-conference in honour of Professor
John Day at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University, 24th July 2014. S. Weeks,
“Divine and Human in Genesis and the Wisdom Literature,” p. 3.
59 It is noteworthy of Fishbane’s intertextual study between Job 3:1-13, Jeremiah
4:23-26, and Genesis 1:1-2:4a, that the six-day arrangement of creation in Job 3:1-
13 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 reverts the cosmogonic pattern in Genesis 1. However,
Job’s text does not match a clear-cut pattern of the six-day creation. M.A.
Fishbane, “Jeremiah IV 23-26 and Job III 3-13: A Recovered Use of the Creation
Pattern,” VT 21 (1971), pp. 151-67.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 65

in Yahweh’s speech, even so, do not appear as being the apex of creatures,60
rather is marginalized from Yahweh’s central concern.

2. Blessings and Deaths of Patriarchal Figures

Secondly, Job’s death—‫“( וימת איוב זקן וׂשבע ימים‬Then Job died, old and full of
days”; Job 42,17)—could remind readers of the great blessing of longevity,
given to the patriarchal figures like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Konrad
Schmid argues that giving parallels of Job’s ending in 42,17 with Abraham
(“Abraham breathed his last and died (‫ )וימת‬in a good old age, in an old and
full age (‫)זקן וׂשבע‬, and was gathered to his people”; Gen 25,8) and Isaac
( “Issac breathed his last and died (‫ )וימת‬and was gathered to his people, old
and full of days (‫ ;”)זקן וׂשבע ימים‬Gen 35,29) the book of Job does not reject
“the Priestly theology, but rather takes an ambivalent position towards its
fundamental percepts”.61 Ellen Davis maintains, based on the common use of
‫“( תם‬integrity”) in both texts, that “the histories of Job and Jacob are linked
by themes of integrity, blessing, and transformative vision.62 She then says
that the whole story is designed for proving the principle of causality in the
world,63 but the integrity of Job is not identical with the anxious and wily
man Jacob, in fact, as discussed above, and the belief which every matter has
a cause is not a main theme of the book of Job.
The blessed ending in Job’s story attempts to sketch the character of Job
as a righteous sufferer whose damaged fame in his society is restored (42,7-
9.11), whose materialistic loss was recompensed by doubling his estate
alongside the blessing of his children (vv. 10.12-16), and who at his last were
sated (v. 17). Job’s long life span and the scene of family/freind gathering,
perhaps allude to the happy ending of death and burial in the cycle about
Abraham (Gen 25,7-10) and Jacob (35,27-29), which is ascribed to P,64 and
this is perhaps presented as the consequence of Job’s blameless obedience.65
Yet, those phrases ‫ וימת‬and ‫ זקן וׂשבע ימים‬are likely to be something more
conventional, and are also used in examples of David—“Then he died (‫)וימת‬
in a good age, full of days (‫ ;”)ׂשבע ימים‬1 Chr 29,28a—and Jehoiada—“Then
Jehoiada grew old (‫ )ויזקו‬and full of days (‫)וׂשבע ימים‬, and died (‫ ;)וימת‬2 Chr
24,15. 66 More importantly, the question is: “Does this phrase affirm that
during Job’s latter days he was at last satisfied by what he got and that there

60. Refer to I. Knohl, Sanctuary, pp. 165-7; The Divine Symphony. The Bible’s
Many Voices (Philadelphia: JPS, 2003), pp. 115-22.
61. Schmid, “Innerbiblische,” pp. 247-8; “The Authors of Job,” p. 151.
62. E.F. Davis, “Job and Jacob: The Integrity of Faith,” The Whirlwind (JSOT 336;
London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), p. 112.
63. Ibid., p. 120.
64. G.J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), pp. 157,
323.
65. Hartley, Job, pp. 543-4.
66. Dhorme, Job, p. 653.
66 Jiseong James Kwon

were no questions from his former experience of underserved sufferings?”

We in fact have no clear evidence about whether this final scene obviously
means the rehabilitation of Job. For example, God blesses Job by giving
seven sons and three daughters, just as Job has had before. However, the
difference between the prologue and the epilogue is about naming his three
daughters—Jemimah (“dove”), Keziah (“cassia”), and Keren-happuch (“horn
of eye-paint”) in 42,14 67 — which is unusual in the Hebrew Bible. Those
three names are all associated with their feminine attractiveness and devices
for their beauty art prominently, 68 but the Old Testament writers are not
renowned for referring to physical charms favorably (e.g., 2 Kgs 9,30),
except for the Song of Solomon that is read in the intimate relationship
between God of Israel and His people, and feminine names in ancient
Hebrew society are known “as profane names”.69 Indeed, Job’s death in Job
42,17 does by no means say whether his questions about God’s judgment and
justice truly are satisfied with Yahweh’s speech and ultimately resolved with
the last prosperity. All we can say perhaps is that Job’s latter days with
doubling property and a recovered family indicate the value of and the
enjoyment in the usual life, putting aside complicated debates of injustice in
God’s act (cf. Eccl 3,13; 8,15; 9,7).

3. Levitical Profiles
Thirdly, we might ask whether the emphasis of priestly documents on sacrifi-
cial systems and rituals have any connections with the book of Job.70 Balen-
tine brings the book of Job into priestly context, as if Job’s author was a
priest under the priestly heritage.71 He considers that there is a priestly profile
in the figure of Job, connecting the word ‫“( תם‬blameless”) into sacrificial
animals that are ‫“( תמים‬without blemish”) (Lev 22,19, 21; Num 19,2; Ezek
43,22-23), and that even ‫“( היום‬one day”) in Job 1,6 and 2,1 may have con-

67. Rowley, Job, p. 345.

68. Keziah means “a variety of cinnamon used as perfume and along with myrrh
and aloes as an ingredient of anointing oil” and Keren “powdered antimony” “used
as paint for the eyelashes, lids, and brows from very early times”. Pope, Job, p.
292.
69. M.D. Coogan, “Job’s Children,” in J. Huehnergard et al. (eds.), Lingering over
Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran
(HSS 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 144-6 “Nowhere in the Bible, how-
ever, do any females, other than Job’s daughters become heirs when there are ex-
tant males”. “Like many names in the Semitic onomasticon, these are ‘profane,’
that is, they are derived from ordinary realities rather than being a short prayer”.
70. Green, “Stretching,” p. 577 asserts that “the Book of Job makes the structure of
levitical religion better adaptive to the actual vagaries of life.”
71. Though he doubts that there is “any straight-line connection between Job and
Priestly literature”, he supposes that “the priestly images” in Job “should not be
dismissed as irrelevant or unimportant”. S.E. Balentine, “Job as Priest to the
Priests,” Ex Auditu 18 (2002), pp. 32-3.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 67

nections with “the priestly rituals of the Day of Atonement” and “the image
of the high priest”. 72 The expression ‫“( בׁשחין רע‬awful sores”) in Job 2,7,
which has a connection with the skin disease in Leviticus, makes Job look
like a person who expects “priestly rituals for relief and restoration”.73 In the
link of Job’s dialogue with Leviticus 13-14, the priestly Job is descirbed as
being afflicted in the ritual system, as Job’s friends are portrayed as poor
advocators of the Priestly theology (Job 15,22, 28).74 For the historical setting
of this priestly profile of Job, Balentine concludes from the expression— ‫מוליך‬
‫“( כהנים ׁשולל‬He leads priests away stripped”) in 12,19—that Job is challeng-
ing “God’s banishment of the priests from his world”, and that Job in the
prose-tale “seems resolutely committed to the efficacy of sacrifices, prayers,
and rituals” and in dialogue “seems equally resolute in rejecting” the advice
of “advocators for the cultic system”.75
The major criticism of Balentine’s overall claim, however, is its exagger-
ated assumption that “the Joban writer was dependent on and reacting to an
existent Priestly tradition”.76 The description in Job 12,19 certainly tells us
that “cultic office has lost its efficacy”,77 but this is no more than part of Job’s
speech in terms of the injustice of the world, and nothing about the situation
of prieslty group is implied. This might be an interesting approach if Job as a
skin deseased man in Leviticus 13-14 would have accepted a priest’s diagno-
sis after living “outside the camp” (Lev 13,46) and would have washed in
association with priestly rituals for his disease, and moreover if as a priest
Job would purify himself as well as his friends according to given regula-
tions of priestly laws. However, the priestly laws to Job anywhere do not
appear as an instrument to approach God and restore the relationship with his
God, still less Job as a priest attempts to offer sacrifices for his own sake.
The difficulty not least is that the priestly rituals and offerings were not
given to Job as the answer, asking why the innocent Job has to encounter
such an affliction. The sacrificial offerings in Leviticus 14 were presented to
Israelite as a mean to restore the holiness and purity in their community (Lev
11,44-45). 78 For example, although it is difficult to find a direct clue that
scale disease was caused by specific sins in Lev 14, there are several exam-
ples that the bodily impurity is the conseqence of personal sins and symbol-
izes “the forces of death” (Num 12,9ff; 2 Kgs 5,26-27; 2 Kgs 15,5; 2 Chr

72. Ibid., p. 35.

73. Ibid., p. 36.
74. Ibid., pp. 40-2.
75. Balentine, “Job and the Priests,” pp. 52-3.
76. Ibid., p. 44.
77. Balentine quotes Clines’s statement. Clines, Job 1-20, p. 301.
78. Of course, in Leviticus rituals themselves were neither a therapeutic nor a heal-
ing act. According to Milgrom, “both disease and healing stem from the one God.”
See J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 888.
68 Jiseong James Kwon

26,19ff.79 The purification procedure will make the divine presence remain in
their society, while the human imperfection and violation of cultic pratice
will make their deity depart from them, sometimes can bring about divine
anger (Lev 10). On the contrary, priestly rituals are not addressed by Job, nor
Job’s offerings are not related to ways of his restoration, and the righteous
Job indeed was not in the need of purification procedure to escape the isola-
tion from the holy community. Job in no ways contaminated anybody and did
not disturb his God in this world (Job 8,20-22; 27,2-6). Moreover, we may
ask: “Were Job’s friends enthusiastic proponents of priestly rituals and resto-
ration?” It is unlikely to confirm this. The only evidence, as we see, is that
Job’s friends were adherents of establishsed rituals is the use of ‫“( ממום‬with-
out blemish”) in Job 11,15, but the claim that this is “a distinctively Priestly
term”80 cannot be proved in the corresponding context. Finally, in Job 40,15-
41,26 the cosmos which Yahweh describes does not distinguish between holy
and common nor between clean and unclean, but rather the poet speaks of
grotesque monsters which disclose God’s beauty rather than requiring the
removal of impurity.
The prose-tale includes thespecific term ‫“( עלה‬burnt offering”), where Job
presents offerings according to the number of his children in Job 1,5 and
where a burn offering with his prayer for the three friends in 42,8-9 success-
fully works removing God’s anger against them. Nonetheless, Job’s ‫ עלה‬for
children is not for obvious sins that were already committed, but is likely to
be a preventative measure for the inadvertent sins that might happen in daily
life; refer to the expression, ‫“( אולי חטאו בני וברכו אלהים בלבבם‬perhaps my chil-
dren might sin and curse/bless81 God in their hearts” in 1,5). This exclusively
highlights the religiously heedful attitude in Job’s life, in order to exemplify
his piety as a wise man (1,1), but the general term ‫ עלה‬does not hints at Job’s
priestly profile.82 If considering Job a non-Israelite man living in a foreign
land and if regarding Job as a head of family in the patriarchal background in
1,1-5, the background of Job’s offerings fits more with patriarchal offerings
rather than levitical/presitly sacrifices. In the epilogue, Job’s role is much
closer to the intersessor whose only praying act (‫ )יתפלל‬is accepted (‫)פניו אׂשא‬
by Yahweh, than to a levitical priest who has professional knowledge of

79. G.J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979), pp. 212-3.
80. Balentine, “Priests,” p. 51.
81. Commentators point out the ambiguity in the use of the Hebrew word ‫ברך‬
(“curse”) which would confuse the nature of the disastors. See C.L. Seow, Job 1-
21. Interpretation and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) 255. Possibly
there was a “scribal euphemism” for “cursed” here. Pope, Job, p. 8; Clines, Job 1-
20, pp. 3-4.
82. Clines mentions that “no special technical term is used for sin-offering (like the
‫ חטאת‬of the prieslty legislation, e.g., Lev 4), but a general term ‫(‘ עלה‬ascending)
sacrifice’ (again not in the technical sense of ‘whole burnt offering,’ e.g., Lev)”.
Clines, Job 1-20, p. 16.
 Divergence of the Book of Job 69

priestly laws; Job’s prayer, not a sacrificial offering, is the cause of Yahweh’s
restoration act (42,8-9.10). The irony here is that there is no intercessor for
Job83 who eagaly desired to have an mediator (e.g., 19,25) .
Finally, in the book of Job, can we assume the change in the religious
faith to God, as if the Priestly Torah illustrate the shift of the faith
consicousness, after the name of Israel’s deity is progressively revealed from
patriarchs to Moses in Exodus (Exod 6,2-3)? According to Knohl, the
revelation of Yahweh to Job and consequently Job’s final reply (Job 42,5-6)
shows the dynamic change which definitely led the non-Israelite to the new
dimension of faith beyond the moral laws and beyond the principles of
reward and punishment, from the human-centered and elementary conviction
in Genesis 1.84 Knohl’s analysis substantially depends on the traditional way
of interpreting Job’s final confession in 42,1-6 , namely that Job comes to a
new religious enlightenment through repentance. However, an increasing
number of scholars have noticed that Job’s last words—especially related to
two verbs ‫ אמאס‬and ‫ ונחמתי‬in 42,4—include quite ambiguous in themselves.85
Clines gives more audacious understanding of Job’s conclusion:

What he does not say is that he is accepting consolation for his loss of standing
and dignity, and for the traducing of his character, for he has had no consola-
tion on that score. He is not ‘content’, he is not convinced, he is not now pos-
sessed of a totally new outlook on the world. He has submitted to the famous
omnipotence of Yahweh (as in v. 2), that is all. His eyes have been opened by
his encounter with God, to be sure, but what he has seen has not been his vindi-
cation but his ultimate humiliation.86
What did Job come to know through the encounter with God? Which
knowledge did Job gain through the jug-handled dialogue with God? All we
can observe is that Job probably reaches to a realisation that Yahweh is all-
powerful and his purpose will never be frustrated (Job 42,2), but this is what
Job has already perceived in his lament, and God’s mighty power indeed is
why Job has complained and protested against Yahweh, indifferent from

83. Good, Tempest, p. 382.

84. Knohl, Symphony, p. 119; Sanctuary, p. 165.
85. For the recent discussion, see T. Krüger, “Did Job Repent?,” Das Buch Hiob
und seine Interpretationen (AThANT 88; Zürich: TVZ, 2007), pp. 217-29; E. van
Wolde, “Job 42,1-6: The Reversal of Job,” in W.A.M. Beuken (ed.), The Book of
Job (BETL 114; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), p. 259 claims that “Job
42,1-6 portrays the reversal which takes place inside Job”. C.A. Newsom, “Job,”
The New Interpreter’s Bible: 1&2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms (NIB 4; Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1997), pp. 628-9.
86. D.J.A. Clines, “The Wisdom of Job’s Conclusion (Job 42:1-6),” in G.J. Brooke
and V. Hecke (eds.), Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam. Papers on Bibli-
cal and Related Wisdom Read at the Fifteenth Joint Meeting of the Society of Old
Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Amsterdam, July 2012
(OS 68; Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 41-2.
70 Jiseong James Kwon

minuscule Job’s justice (9,12-13.19; 32-34; 12,9.13; 23,13-14). Job may not
agree such a divine government in mystery and wonder, rather he cannot help
but accepting this reality and admitting human irresistability (42,3); Job is
repeating what Yahweh has already said (42,2-3a.4). Finally, in the last verse,
Job rather “submits” (‫ )אמאס‬to “the state” of his affairs which is not resolved
yet, and “accepts consolation” (‫ )ונחמתי‬rather than repents/regrets his sins.87
Thus, if considering that Job’s final reply does not correspond to the example
of the ideal sufferer, as we see it in prologue, much less shows that Job’s
relationship is restored and the dilema of theodicy is resolved by the
theophany of Yahweh, it would be hard to suppose that there is the
fundamental change in Job’s consciousness and belief. Job’s questions are in
a pending file, and Job is still affirming his innocence, although accepting the
cosmic design ({‫ ;עצה‬38,2) of Yahweh.

V. Implications
From these observations, we may draw two insights of the formation of the
book of Job. Firstly, we could cautiously conclude that if we agree that the
book of Job was shaped in the cultural environment of the Persian period, not
later than the Hellenistic period, and that the Deuteronomic and Priestly
sources existed before Job and were easily recognised to writers of Job, dis-
tinct ideas and interests in Job, as I suppose, attest that Torah in the Persian
period was not yet accepted as an authorized religious text, at least to the
author of Job. Furthermore, we might suppose that the book of Job was
moreover formed in the waning of Torah’s ideology and in the doubt of its
efficacy in their society, but instead in the novel recognition of divine sover-
eignty and freedom against the challenge of God’s justice.
Secondly, the question we may raise is why Hebrew scribes as biblical
writers embedded this provocative and unresolved tension between Job and
his friends. Does this imply that there was a sort of conflict structure between
two different socio-political groups in the Persian period? If any, can we trace
back to the historical setting behind the given text? Within our limited
knowledge, it is hardly possible to claim that there was a specific group of
writers who totally denied and protested Torah’s ideology and to say that
based on the persistent tension between Job and his friends, there were con-
flicting socio-political groups within the Judahite community after the end of
Exile. Any attempts to link the religious experience of Job with national dis-
asters in the history of Israel would not demonstrate its relevance, in that the
book of Job as an ahistorical and timeless composition does not fit in any
historical settings.88 Yet, a closer look at intertextual relationships between

87. D.J.A. Clines, Job 38-42 (WBC 18B; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011),
pp. 1218-21.
88. B.A. Strawn, “What Would (Or Should) Old Testament Theology Look Like If
Recent Reconstructions of Israelite Religion Were True?,” in R.D. Miller (ed.),
Between Israelite Religion and Old Testament Theology. Essays on Archaeology,
 Divergence of the Book of Job 71

two literary units, as I suppose, affirms at least that there were no integrated
and unified thoughts and views about divine-human relationship in early
Israelite religious traditions and that not all Jewish wisdom writings support
the theology of Torah.89
VI. Conclusion
Many voices in the book of Job, which are presented in the literary frame-
work of undeserved suffering, produce inconsistency and discrepancy with
traditional beliefs and dogmas, whether they are Torah, or possibly conven-
tional wisdom teachings of Proverbs as instructions and ordinances. On the
one hand, the author of Job would seem to doubt the efficacy of generalized
Deuteronomic laws and covenant, and in particular find fault with the tradi-
tional understanding of divine-human relationship, that humans are accessible
to divinity. On the other hand, the book of Job does not follow typical fea-
tures of the Priestly materials such as the creation account, patriarchal death
and blessings, and priestly profiles, and even does not show the new con-
sciousness of Israelite religious faith. That the book of Job does not support
these themes and ideas in Torah could be applied to other wisdom texts such
as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

History, and Hermeneutics (CBET 80; Leuven: Peeters, 2016), p. 152 comments:
In early Israeite religion “there’s no thought in that, and certainly no high thought
that would reflect profound wrestling with substantive theological problems—
‘existential experiences,’ that is, ‘of rejection, lament, and restoration’”.
89 The view of Qohelet about divine punishment and social justice is not identical
to the promise of Deuternomic covenants; S. Weeks, “‘Fear God and Keep His
Commandments’: Could Qohelet Have Said This?” Wisdom and Torah. The Recep-
tion of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSJSup
163; Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 101-18. Such a divergence of Job from Torah also
might be observed in late deuterocanonical wisdom texts such as Ben Sira, Tobit,
Wisdom of Solomon, and 4QInstruction in which Torah is in a new way absorbed
and sapientialized into Israelite wisdom tradition; J.T. Sanders, “When Sacred
Canopies Collide. the Reception of the Torah of Moses in the Wisdom Literature of
the Second-Temple Period,” JSS 32.1-4 (2001), pp. 121-36.