The Macrostructure of Job 28

Lingamish and I are having a contest to see who can write the most difficult prose. How many times can we send our readers to a dictionary or search engine in the course of reading a post? With this post, as originally written, I probably won hands down. I’ve now rewritten it in a less daunting style and have added links that explain technical language.

Almost all translations of the Hebrew Bible subdivide the text into verses according to the tradition preserved in masoretic texts, and into chapters according to a refinement of earlier efforts at macrodivision of the Vulgate by Stephen Langton.[1] The division of the text of the Bible into chapters and verses is not ancient - the hybrid system is first attested in a manuscript dated to 1519 of Isaac Nathan's concordance of the Hebrew Bible, the first ever, compiled in 1437-45 - but is still deserving of respect. I may discuss the origins of the system in greater detail at a future time. Much of what one reads in the manuals regarding these topics is misleading or outright false.

On occasion, the traditional division into verses or chapters seems off-base. Where translators feel that is the case, an alternative division thought to reflect the correct understanding of the text is instantiated by formatting of some kind. It is easy not to notice that a translation is going against the traditional chapter and verse divisions it normally follows. The fact is seldom if ever brought to the attention of the reader in a footnote.

Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible also divide the text into “open” and “closed” sections (pisqot or parashiyyot) marked by פ and ס, respectively. Open sections mark more important subdivisions than closed sections. The manuscripts do not always agree among themselves on section divisions. One authoritative codex may contain more sections than another; an “open” section in one may appear as a “closed” section in another. For example, Isaiah 1 is divided into 4 closed sections (after 1:9, 17, 20, and 31) and 1 open section (after 1:23) in Codex Leningradensis (L). It is divided into 3 closed (after 1:17, 23, and 31) and 2 open sections (after 1:9 and 20) in the Aleppo Codex (A). Division into sections (pisqot) is attested in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts dating before the current era. Not so the division into verses (pesuqim).

Traditionally, the Torah is divided into still larger units in accordance with communal practices of lectio continua: 53 or 54 lections (parashot) in the annual lectionary cycle with origins in late antique Babylonia; generally 154 but sometimes 141, 167, or even 175 lections (sedarim) in the triennial cycle that was current in antique Palestine. For example, Genesis 1:1-6:8 consists of 1 parasha-lection; 4 sedarim-lections (1:1-2:3; 2:4-3:21; 3:22-4:26; 5:1-6:8); 24 pisqot-sections (14 open and 10 closed sections); and 146 pesuqim-verses. Our chapter divisions do not always coincide with lection divisions or even with section divisions.

The Prophets and the Writings are also divided into sedarim in some manuscripts. Selections from the Prophets referred to as haftarot and read in conjunction with lections from the Torah attest to another set of traditional macrodivisions.

It is a shame that the traditional division of the text into pisqot, parashot, sedarim, and haftarot are not recorded in most editions of the Bible in translation. Even NJPSV fails to record the pisqot and the sedarim indications of its base (L). All four traditions of macrodivision are more ancient than the division of the text into verses and chapters. In the study Bible of my dreams, the Hebrew tradition of division into pisqot, parashot, sedarim, haftarot, and pesuqim, the Greek tradition of division into pericopes, and the Latin tradition of division into chapters would all be recorded.

In the case of Job 28, if they were, the macrostructure of the whole would be more readily transparent to readers of it.

Job 28 is subdivided in Codex L after verses 11 and 19. Codex A divides after verse 11 alone. On the other hand, neither L nor A subdivide between Job 27 and 28. As I indicate below, there are macrostructural clues within the text that suggest that the whole should be trisected at precisely the points suggested by the combined witness of Codex L + the division into chapters of the Vulgate tradition systematized by Langton.

The macrostructure of Job 28 is far from evident in the formatting found in most modern translations. RSV divides the text into five sections of unequal importance; after 28:8, 11, 19, and 22. NRSV follows suit. NIV and TNIV fail to subdivide the chapter at all. NAB is not directly comparable, since it radically rearranges the order of the verses: the less said about such an arbitrary procedure, the better. NJPSV trisects the text as the combined witness of codex L and Vulgate tradition of chapter division suggest, but fails to note L’s divisions per se, or that its division follows them.

The structural clues to the macrodivision of Job 28 are כי ‘although, whereas’ at the beginning of 28:1 and ו ‘and’ + fronted topic, החכמה ‘wisdom,’ at the beginning of both 28:12 and 21. The ki and the vav’s + fronted topic form a high-level discourse sequence. A natural way to translate the sequence in English is: “Now … But … And.” It is essential to note that there is no intervening verse-initial vav between ki in 28:1 and vav in 28:12. If there were, the high-level sequence would not obtain.

Sequences like this have been rarely noticed and, so far as I know, have not been subjected to systematic study. The problem is compounded by a current tendency to interpret ki’s that do not fit into preconceived pigeon-holes as “emphatic.” A word to the wise: whenever something is called “emphatic” by a philologist or a linguist, rest assured: the term almost always covers a multitude of sins. More precisely, it is symptomatic of incomplete or faulty analysis.

The traditional designation for the kind of ki with which Job 28 begins is “concessive.” “Although [the source of silver and gold is known and capable of human exploitation] … wisdom, on the other hand, where is it to be found? … as for wisdom, whence will it come?”[2]

If one pays close linguistic attention to the languages one knows well, one’s knowledge of language A will improve one’s understanding of language B. In my case, I began to understand the high-level discourse functions of ki’s, vav’s, and similar in ancient Hebrew after noting similar structures in Italian. Preposed clauses beginning with giacché “given that,” benché “though,” sicché “since,” checché “the following aside,” etc., are common in both literary and colloquial Italian. For example, at a Sicilian wedding it is customary to offer toasts to the bride and groom in improvised rhyme. Each toast begins with giacché = poiché “given that, since” and can continue for a whole paragraph or longer. After a couple of glasses of wine, the rhyme flows freely. And if ancient Hebrew is on your mind, it may improve your understanding of that, too. The wine giacché, I mean.

---

[1] Langton divided the Vulgate into chapters while a professor at the University of Paris in 1205 or thereabouts – he later became the archbishop of Canterbury. But he did not start from scratch. He refined earlier examples of capitulation in the text tradition of the Vulgate.

[2] On concessive ki and ki in general, see Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 105 (1986) 193-209. For a demonstration that most if not all putative examples of emphatic ki in clause-initial position are actually demonstrative, see Takamitsu Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill, 1986) 158-64, cited by Edward L. Greenstein, “The Poem on Wisdom in Job 28 in its Conceptual and Literary Contexts,” in Job 28: Cognition in Context (ed. Ellen van Wolde; BIS 64; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 253-280, 265. Greenstein goes on to suggest that something must have preceded ki-initiated Job 28; he proposes Job 37. Unavailable to me: Carl Martin Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle kî (Dallas: SIL International, 2001).

Comments

[dave b]

This is a great start to the series. I should note that my curiosity caused me to open my ESV and I found that they divide after vv. 11 and 19 but also for some reason after v. 6.

[Bob MacDonald]

lovely analysis. There is a verse anthem by William Boyce that I have sung years ago - a great introduction to Job for a choirboy. So much is learned through music and the brilliant rhythmic settings of even minor composers. My JB divides into 3 not quite as you suggest (1-12, 13-20, and 21-28). One day I will tackle Job. It is among my favorite books.

Isn't it curious that God had to search out the definition of wisdom?

PS did you see my cry for help re SBL - are you attending any sessions?

[Lingamish]

At least I don't use words like "prolixity." As you know, I'm very excited about this series on Job 28. Now, cool it with the teasers and start revealing secrets!

[Ros]

Oooh, I wrote an essay on Job 28 a couple of years ago in which I argued that all modern translations missed a key point. I shall be waiting to see whether you agree with me!!