One of the things I hoped to do at the recent Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature was pick up a copy of David Clines' volume two of his commentary on Job. Alas, they were out of copies before I arrived at the bookseller's booth.
The other commentary on Job we are all waiting for is that of Michael V. Fox. The wait may be a little long. In the meantime, Fox has published a programmatic essay entitled "Job the Pious" in ZAW 117 (2005) 351-366.
In this post, I take issue with a central thesis of the ZAW article. In what sense can it be said that Job is pious? In my view, the claim needs careful qualification. On many other matters Fox and I agree.
Another question I address is the sense in which Job is a theodicy. Not at all in the usual sense, I argue. The poetry of the book of Job is splendid, of course, and I will post a scansion of a chapter or two, with translation, in the upcoming year.
Go to: IntroJob.pdf
You'll be happy to know that the Clines volume arrived from the printer to Thomas Nelson Pub. today and should be shipped out to subscribers shortly.
I've been a subscriber to WBC since it began and must confess to being a bit disappointed that it has been at least 2 years since I received a volume.
I hope the production pace picks up.
Posted by: Jim | November 28, 2006 at 05:02 PM
You might be interested in this online commentary "Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job". (http://www.bookofjob.org) It is a legal and philosophical exploration of God's authorization of evil and Job's Oath of Innocence. It has been highly praised by Job scholars (Clines, Habel, Janzen) whose reviews are on the website.
Posted by: Robert Sutherland | July 22, 2007 at 03:52 PM
The commentary looks very interesting indeed, Robert. My post entitled "Theodicy Again" is also relevant to your theme.
I wonder how close our readings of Job are.
Posted by: John Hobbins | July 23, 2007 at 07:03 PM
I have serious issues with Sunderland's heavy use of E.A.W. Budge's work. Though a prolific documentarian of the ancient traditions that precede Christ, his work is often lacking in a clear distinction between what is fact supported evidence and mere conjecture and opinion.
The result of Budge's sloppy research has major repercussions as the film Zeitgeist borrows heavily from his work to try and "prove" that Yeshua is a mythological character designed to mirror the myths of Horus and Osiris.
I have found that movie most influential in the secular world, despite its lack of references and wild assertions based on the questionable readings of Plutarch and Budge, both of whom have been faulted for drawing parallels where there are none.
http://www.rostau.org.uk/aegyptian-l/faq/week108_budge.txt
Posted by: joshua e | February 04, 2009 at 08:10 AM
John
I am delighted to see that you have some posts on Job - too bad in my furious intensity I am already past the point where I would reference your notes on my first pass! (But that can change when I finish my initial reading). I have one cavil with your intro - you write that "even Elihu" is in the poet's eyes not privy to the frame of the tale. I think the invitation to Job to present himself (33:5) suggests that Elihu may have some relation to the divine assembly concerning the test in chapters 1 and 2.
Posted by: Bob MacDonald | June 26, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Hi Bob,
That's a very interesting observation. You might be on to something. Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by: JohnFH | June 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM