The WritingsJob–Sirach Brian J. Meldrum, Christopher T. Begg, Fred W. Guyette, John M. Halligan, Martin Nitsche, Mathias Winckler, and Thomas Hieke Brian J. Meldrum Catholic University of America Christopher T. Begg Catholic University of America Fred W. Guyette Erskine College and Seminary John M. Halligan St. John Fisher College Martin Nitsche Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main Mathias Winckler Universität Siegen Thomas Hieke Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz 1393. [Job in Jewish Tradition] Jehoschua Ahrens, "Vertrauen trotz alledem. Das Buch Ijob in der jüdischen Auslegungstradition," BK 75 (2020) 168-74. A. provides an overview of Jewish interpretation of the Book of Job. The Book of Job hardly plays a role in the Jewish liturgy. Nevertheless, over the centuries a rich inner-Jewish tradition of interpretation emerged. Traditionally, Moses is considered to be the author who wrote the book in order to comfort the Israelites in their sufferings on the way out of Egypt. Famous rabbis interpret the book especially in philosophical terms, in which it becomes clear that the text does not have to be understood literally, but rather allegorically and that Job is justified in the end. His life is restored; he gets back his children and possessions that Satan did not destroy, but just hid from him in order to test Job. In the end, we all can trust in God at any time—against all odds. [Adapted from published abstract.—T.H.] Google Scholar 1394. [Job] Lennart Bostrom, "Another Ending to the Book of Job," W&W 40 (3, 2020) 300-307. Let us consider the possibility that there are two different endings to the story of Job. (1) In one version, the Book of Job ends with the Elihu speeches, and (2) in the other version, the book ends with the speeches of Yhwh. These two ending are contradictory, but in a way typical of OT texts, both versions have been preserved next to each other. They stand in sharp tension with each other when it comes to the concept of God's transcendence or God's nearness to the suffering person. So, the conclusion concerning the function of the Elihu speeches is that they could well have been, in some version of Job, the end of the poetry section of the book that was followed only by the epilogue. Elihu's reasoning brings the arguments of the three friends further along and strongly emphasizes the transcendence of God and the impossibility for Job to expect any direct intervention from God. His only [End Page 510] hope is submissiveness and regret for his strong words. But if the Yhwh speeches follow Job's claim of innocence, it is the other way around. There the transcendent God breaks in and makes Job understand that he lacks a larger perspective on the ways of the world. In the final form of the book, as it has been preserved, these two contrasting endings of the poetry section follow one another, the first one ending with the assertion that God will not answer, and the next one opening with the statement that the Lord answered Job. The beginning of the Yhwh speeches is traditionally translated with the conjunction "then": "Then the Lord answered Job …" But in this final version of the book, following the Elihu speeches it would be more fitting to emphasize the contrast by translating it adversatively: "But Yhwh answered Job. …"—F.W.G. Google Scholar 1395. [Job] Dorothea Erbele-Küster, "Von Erschütterungen erzählen (Ijob 1,13-19). Zu einer zentralen Diskursform der biblischen Traumaliteratur," BK 75 (2020) 151-54. E.-K. interprets the Book of Job from the perspective of trauma theory. Disturbing and traumatic events can leave one speechless. The Bible offers various forms of discourse which react to such experiences and through which new perspectives can be opened up. Examples are the lamentation to God as well as a dialogical narration with a human counterpart. In the Book of Job both of these speech forms are encountered. Lamentation and dialogical narration enable Job to speak and act once again. [Adapted from published abstract—T.H.] Google Scholar 1396. [Metaphoric Chains in the...
Read full abstract