Copyright © 1986 by
Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
SEMEIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK
OF
JOB*
ELMER
B. SMICK
Modern redaction theory assumes that some parts
of the book of
job are less genuine than others. The job of the
Prolog is not the
job of the Dialog. Bruce Vawter
says in his Job and Jonah, "It
is the
poetic job and the poetic job alone who is of interest
to the sensitive
observer of religious experience." Then after quoting john L.
McKenzie
to the effect that the Prolog is so unrealistic that it becomes
revolting Vawter demurs
somewhat. For though the story is untrue
to life it is "not unfortunately untrue to
what is perceived as life by
the majority of our fellow beings."1
In other words the author is
using the prose story that he might parody that
conventional wisdom
in order to make a more profound theological
statement. Unfortu-
nately that conventional
wisdom includes Psalm 1, which is not false
though it has only one side of the truth when it
affirms that everything
a righteous man does prospers. Vawter at least considers job a
literary unit and not the work of a mindless
redactor. Terrien's
commentary in Interpreter's Bible is typical
old-school historicism. On
historico-critical grounds he determines
what is genuine and then
interprets the rest in terms of genre, setting, and
intention. To
Terrien the book is a "festal tragedy"
for celebration during a hy-
pothetical "New Year
Festival." For such historicism the date and
source are usually tied closely to the interpretation.
Some see the
book as a product of the Exile, even viewing it as a
parable of the
suffering nation. But J. J. M. Roberts maintains
one cannot use the
date of the book "to provide a ready-made
background for its inter-
*Studies in the Book of Job (Semeia 7; ed. Robert Polzin and
David Robertson;
meneutics (Semeia
19; ed. by john Dominic Crossan;
1981. 123).
1 Job
and Jonah: Questioning the Hidden God (New York: Paulist
Press, 1983)
43, 44.
135
136
pretation, and lacking this an
historical framework is hard to estab-
lish, since Job simply
ignores
Many
critics have lost interest in source criticism and other aspects
of historical criticism. They find other types of
literary criticism more
rewarding. Although most accept a redaction view
of the book's
origin they prefer to deal with it in its final
literary context in terms
of rhetoric and structure, and various new
hermeneutical approaches
including sociological, psychological, and semeiological emphases.
Comparative
linguistic research continues but with a chastened meth-
odology.3 Structural studies have
resulted in a tendency to look on
the book as a unified literary work rather than a
conglomeration of
vaguely related and sometimes unrelated or even
contradictory ma-
terial. As the quotation from
Bruce Vawter above shows, the incon-
gruities are now looked upon as
purposive and integral to the book's
meaning. In 1977 R. M. Polzin
devoted Part II of his book on biblical
structuralism to an attempt at
structural analysis of the book. His
synchronic analysis stands in contrast to the
diachronic interpreta-
tions of earlier literary- and
form-critical scholars.4
This article will examine some recent semeiological approaches
as presented in issues 7 and 19 of the
experimental journal Semeia.
In
keeping with the purpose of Semeia the approach is exploratory,
probing new and emerging areas and methods of
criticism and the
application of new hermeneutical principles. There
are eight con-
tributors to Semeia 7 and eleven to Semeia 19, each
with his own
viewpoint. Our purpose is not to deal with every
view and every
critique but to present those aspects of these
studies which reflect .
2 See J. J. M. Roberts "Job and the
Israelite Religious Tradition," ZAW
89
(1977) 110.
3 A. R. Ceresko's Job 29-31
in the Light of North-West Semitic (BibOr 36,
change.
4 Polzin
concludes with the statement, "The figures of the story, far from
being arbitrary, capricious, and mutually
contradictory, interrelate with one
another to help form a coherent message" (Biblical Structuralism, Method and
Subjectivity in the
Study of Ancient Texts [Semeia Supplements; ed. Wm. A.
Beardslee;
chronic analyses appeared in Studia Biblica 1978: 1 (JSOT Supplement Series
II;
by J. A. Baker (pp. 17-26), and "The Authorship
and Structure of the Book
of Job," by J. F. A. Sawyer (pp. 253-57).
Also see C. Westermann's The
Structure of the Book of
job: A Form-Critical Analysis (
1981)
SEMEIOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF JOB 137
most clearly a hermeneutic which tends to reverse
the traditional
approach to the book. Because the traditional
approach may not
always be the correct approach we will also try to
remain open to
any perspective that does not violate the principle
of the analogy of
Scripture.
In Semeia 7 (pp. 1-39) William Whedbee
interprets the book of
Job as comedy. Comic staples are said
to be there-incongruity,
repetition, U-shaped plot and the presence of
archetypal characters.
For
example Elihu, a comic character who speaks banal
words, ap-
pears with precise timing. God is expected following
Job's challenge
at the end of his peroration (31 :35-37) but Elihu appears instead,
a Johnny-come-lately, from nowhere. The author
creates a brilliant
caricature of the friends as wise counselors. As
for Job, his discursive
rambling has no orderly progression but he is a
master of parodies.
In
chapters 3, 9, and 14 he is said to parody the complaint formula
and 9:2-10 is thought to be an ironic parody of Eliphaz's doxological
hymn in 5:9-16 which Job uses to twist Eliphaz's intention and
convey the opposite meaning. As Whedbee
puts it on page 16, Job
quotes Eliphaz verbatim in
sardonic song to a God of chaos."
Whedbee's idea is provocative but is Job sarcastic about
God's
power and wisdom so that the statement, "His
wisdom is profound,
his power is vast" is irony? There is no
contextual signal that the
meaning should be reversed in 9:4-13. To Job the
question is not
whether God is all powerful but how he uses his
power, God's justice
not his power is Job's problem. Job is not using
irony when he asks,
"Who
can say to him, 'What are you doing?'” (
have had no dilemma had he only believed God was
less than
sovereign. Believing in God's sovereignty his
imagination construct-
ed a phantom god who was unjust (
logical way out of the dilemma. As he says in
then who is it?" But Job inconsistently still
believes God is just by
whom he can swear (27:2) and by whom he will be
vindicated (
Our
main explanation of this is that Job is a sufferer whose reason
and experience conflict and as a result so do his
words. He argues
God against God. Refusal to accept this
incongruity at face value
led the tidy minds of earlier critics to rearrange
the text.
This irony approach which reverses the meaning
of a text has
merit but must be contextually controlled. Whedbee's view is a con-
siderable improvement over David
Robertson's extreme and un con-
138
trolled use of irony in his article, "The
Book of Job: A Literary
Study."5 Robertson believes the
irony in the book is pervasive. When-
ever Job speaks positively of God it is
tongue-in-cheek. As in chapter
9
Job says in
and understanding are his." Instead of
extolling God's wisdom and
power Robertson also sees this as a criticism of God
for not being
very wise or powerful. A wise man destroys in order
to rebuild, but
when God does, it is impossible to rebuild.
"What he tears down
cannot be rebuilt" (
good but God "holds back the waters and there
is drought and when
he lets them loose they devastate the land" (
God
mismanages the universe; he uses his power unwisely. Again,
if this is the correct interpretation then Job has
no basis for his
theodicy dilemma. A more restrained view sees here
a parody not
of God but of the counselor's lopsided and
simplistic understanding
of God's relationship to the world. Job is
attempting to answer
Zophar's question, "Can you fathom the
mysteries of God?" (11:70).
He
is saying that God's actions are indeed mysterious and strange.
The
mystery is profound but he knows as much about it as they do.
In
an often overlooked use of irony in
ment that they who are sages
are so shallow: "Is not wisdom found
among the aged? Does not long life bring
understanding?" That
sarcastic question leads into the poem on God's
wisdom and power
in 12:13-25 which is a powerful statement of the
sovereign freedom
of God. He cannot be made to act in ways suitable
to man. God's
mysterious acts in the history of man only serve to
prove the case .
(12:16-25).
A major issue is the meaning and function of the
Yahweh speeches.
How
one resolves these speeches and Job's response to them is an
important key to a comprehensive interpretation of
the book. Von
Rad's view is traditional: The purpose of the
speeches is to glorify
God'sjustice towards his creatures,
to show that he is good but that
his justice cannot be comprehended by man, it can
only be adored.
But
to David Robertson the author's purpose in the speeches is to
prove that Yahweh is a charlatan god. What Job
suggested God would
do in
9:17.)
Is the author putting on the lips of Job irony as a parody of
Yahweh
who is presented as one who has the power and skill of a )
5 Soundings 56 (1973)
446-69.
SEMEIOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF JOB 139
god but who cannot govern with justice? Is Job's
repentance tongue-
in-cheek? Is Job mocking God when he predicted he
would knuckle
under--"my mouth would declare me guilty"
(9:20a, 13-15)? As
additional proof of the parody on Yahweh Robertson
offers the
thought that, m the EpIlog,
God approves of Job's sorry words. So
the poet like a medicine man has developed a
strategy for curing
man's fear by ridiculing the object feared.
In contrast, Whedbee
hears in the Yahweh speeches a playful
festive note. The irony is best interpreted as
elements in a comic
vision. E. M. Good was correct m noting that Yahweh
shuts the issue
from "justice" (Job's question) to
"order" when he says to Job,
"Would
you annul my mispat?"6
Whedbee thinks Robertson's tongue-
in-cheek repentance of Job might be compatible
with his comedy
view of the book but surmises it is too simple.
Job's repentance is
an authentic response of the hero because he has
now been given,
through the vision, a double view, that is, a
divine and human view
of himself and the world. He now sees the world
through God's
eyes. Also, the genuineness of Job's confession
following his re-
pentance becomes important to Whedbee for it is equivalent to the
recognition scene in a comic plot: "I talked of
things I did not know"
(42:3).
Many modern interpreters discount the Epilog but Whedbee
emphasizes it since such a happy ending confirms
his comic per-
spective. Though too
constrictive this approach is nearer the nerve
center of the book than Robertson's unbridled views.
Certainly in
the first Yahweh speech there is a twinkle in the
LORD'S eye as he
walks with Job through his creation, contemplating
with him by
means of ironic questions the marvels of nature. This
he does not
to humiliate Job but to prove to him that he, the
Almighty Creator,
is still his friend: The whimsical note comes through
clearly in the
ostnch passage m 39:13-18. Imagme a bIrd wIth
legs that can tear
open a lion, that has wings but can't fly yet can
run faster than a
horse. God's pointing out how his creatures appear
ridiculous has
a serious purpose. He is teaching Job something
of his sovereign
freedom.
L. Alonso Schokel
proposes a dramatic reading of Job in four
acts. Among the groups of actors Elihu
represents the audience who
eventually intrudes upon the stage. After the
Prolog, God as spec-
6 See Good's Irony in the Old Testament (London: Allenson,
1965) and S. H.
Scholnick, "The Meaning of mispat in the
Book of Job," JBL 101 (1982)
521-
29.
140
tator, who overhears but
cannot be seen, is addressed but does not
respond. One purpose is to transform the
audience into the cast,
for only by participating can the meaning be
understood. But to do
so puts one under the gaze of God. Like Job we all
discover the
chasm between us and God. We see ourselves in Job as
both villain
and hero. After such suspense in the drama, at long
last God, the
director of the strange play, leaves the
spectator role and assumes
the part of an actor. Job has complained that he
cannot see God,
but now out of the whirlwind God's mask vanishes
and Job sees him
for who he is.
James G. Williams correctly warns that the Scriptures
as a whole
will not fit easily into types or genres derived
from outside the biblical
tradition. For example, historically personages of
the comic type are
of inferior classes or of the nouveaux riches.
There is also the matter
of defining comedy. Is being funny or amusing a
necessary ingre-
dient? Williams thinks so. Is
the inevitability of "natural law" beyond
good and evil basic to comic perspective? If so that
excludes the
Bible, according to Williams. Alonso Schokel ignores the Epilog
probably because it was difficult to work into
his dramatic interpre-
tation. The happy ending
through Job's newly won twofold vision
fits the comic perspective better, though Whedbee fails to mention
Job's
daughters with their whimsical names and the implied marriage
festivities.
The information theories of language on which
this semeiological
approach is based call for signs and signals in
the text in order to I
detect a subtlety such as irony, but as Williams says,
"The ironic
manner of speaking is adverse to signals." The
hermeneutical test
of irony is whether it makes sense of the text; in
Williams' words,
"a sense that is faithful to the context and to that for
which the text
is the pretext." Williams sees the whole book
dominated by the image
of Job as intercessor in the Epilog. Hints
throughout the book point
to this. In the Prolog God puts great stakes in
Job as his servant.
He
is intercessor for his sons in the Prolog. And in the Epilog this
is expanded to the "friends" themselves,
of whom God says, "You
have not spoken the truth about me." Eliphaz unwittingly speaks of
Job's
happy ending when he says Job's repentance would be followed
by an ideal life (
(
the Epilog. The purpose of God's ironic rhetorical
questions to Job
is not to belittle him but to prove Job is
important to God. How
SEMEIOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF JOB 141
could a mere mortal establish justice on earth?
"Or could he?" asks
Williams.
"The irony of an ironic reading is that God's questions
may conceal the 'literal' truth." So Williams
sees the structure of
the book outlining Job's spiritual journey.' This
comes close to the
traditional view that sees God accomplishing a
higher purpose
through Job's suffering though one might
seriously question Wil-
liams' use of the divine
irony, as we shall see later.
Issue 19 (1981) of Semeia is entitled "The Book
of Job and
coeur's Hermeneutics." It
consists of a general essay by Loretta
Dornisch on that subject followed by four essays
on Paul Ricoeur
and Job 38. Part III is made up of six discussions
of the preceding
essays. According to Ricoeur
the historico-critical and semeiological
methods are not in conflict. Ricoeur
holds that writing detaches the
meaning from dependence on the writer, freeing
it for other times
and places. Because the original time and place no
longer exist the
writing is freed from the author's meaning.
Since we interpret out
of different traditions there are many possible
meanings but not an
infinite number. Different approaches should aim
for a logic of prob-
able interpretation, a convergence rather than a
conflict of inter-
pretations. Historical and
sociological tools are valid so long as one
avoids the illusions of source, author, audience,
etc., as end goals.
"A
text accomplishes its meaning only in personal appropriation.
The
moment of exegesis is not that of existential decision (Bultmann)
but that of meaning."8 But this
moment of meaning must be distin-
guished from the moment when
the reader grasps the meaning, when
it is actualized for the reader. This he calls the
moment of sig-
nification." The semantic must
precede the existential.
Ricoeur criticizes the standard
interpretations of the Book of Job
for systematization, which precludes the play of
symbolic meaning
on multiple levels. We let "histoncism, the genetic problem, aware-
ness of internal inconsistencies in the text to
interfere with our
understanding of the many levels of meaning,
the intended symbolic
or paradoxical incongruities, and even the
resistance to systemati-
zation, all of which are
precisely ways the author uses to communicate
the complexity and ambiguity of the human
condition."9
There are troublesome notions here. First of
all, how do we keep
the text from becoming absolute, totally divorced
from the author's
7 Semeia 7.140-41.
8 Semeia 19.12
9 Dornisch
quoting Ricoeur (Semeia
19.14).
142
intended meaning? M. W. Fox criticizes Ricoeur on this very point.
Though
Ricoeur rejects "the fallacy of the absolute
text" Fox doesn't
see how he can do this along with his acceptance of
"semantic
autonomy." Inscription (writing) entails,
according to Ricoeur, "dis-
connection of the mental intention of the author
from the verbal
meaning of the text, of what the author meant
and what the text
means.
On this Fox observes: "The author's meaning
is reduced to a mere
historical datum with no more relevance to the
text's meaning than
does the interpretation of each and every
reader."10 If this criticism
is valid, which it appears to be, it fatally
damages the foundation of
Ricoeur's hermeneutic. But its superstructure is
also shaky. Ricoeur
thinks there can be a convergence of methodologies.
The historico-
critical and the semeiotic approaches can be
joined since to him the
history of the text remains a part of the text.
So there are many valid
methods for interpreting Job and many meanings
are the result. If
this sounds confusing it is because it is. The only
limitation on the
number of meanings a text can have is based on the
continuing
history of the text, the ongoing dialectic of
tradition and interpre-
tation. However, there still
remain some lessons to be learned from
Ricoeur's developing theory of interpretation. Dornisch lists five key
themes which when applied to the book of Job clearly
reveal Ricoeur's
theory as of 1981.
The first of these is "symbol."
Interpretation of symbols is not
the whole of hermeneutics but is the condensation
point. In symbol,
language is revealed in its strongest force and
with its greatest full-
ness. "The symbol is the privileged place of
the experience of the
surplus of meaning.”11
Is it ever valid to use this
principle of extended
meaning? All literary tropes are symbols but can
they convey an
extended message? I think this is possible only
when we can show
from the context that the author intended the symbol
to be used in
that way. Later I will attempt to show that the
second divine speech
in Job fits the context and the purpose of the
book when viewed
from this perspective. In contrast historico-critical opinion considers
the speech an irrelevant addition.
A second Ricoeurian
theme is what he has called "Explanation-
Understanding." "Explanation calls
on any human discipline that
10 Semeia 19.60.
11 Domisch
quoting Ricoeur (Semeia
19.17).
SEMEIOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF JOB 143
can legitimately research the text. Here the goal
of interpretation is
governed by the relationship of explanation and
understanding. Un-
derstanding begins as a guess, moves
through a complex set of
procedures involving a dialectic of explanation-and-continually-de-
veloping-understanding, and reaches a state of
conclusion at the
t lev~l of a~propriatio~. Such a pr?~ess moves fro.m a guess
to vali-
datIon usIng
the logIc of probabIlIty along
the lInes developed by
E.
D. Hirsch."12 Every exegete must ask, "What are my presuppo-
sitions and, what is my hermeneutical
theory?" Without accepting all
of Rlcoeur s phIlosophIcal baggage I find It very dIfficult
to find fault
with this procedure.
The rule of metaphor is Ricoeur's
next theme. Metaphor is more
than ornamental figure, It IS "the place of the
creatIon of new lan-
guage, new meaning, new
being." To Ricoeur metaphor permeates
the prose and poetry of Job and this is different
than merely seeing
many metaphors. Metaphor provides not an analogical
model but a
theoretical model which by means of "a language
of extravagance"
describes a new vision of reality. The
metaphorical twist in Job moves
through "complex processes of describing
and redescribing reality,
reaching a climax in Job 38, where the rhetorical
shift is so dramatic
as to bring about a new vision of reality."13
The importance of
metaphor can hardly be overemphasized but Ricoeur may be doing
just that when, on the basis of his rule of
metaphor, he asserts that
all interpretations partly miss the mark because
the text is irreducible.
Ricoeur thinks philology, history, etc., can
help us better understand
the metaphor but they can't translate the metaphor
or substitute
for it.
This leads us to the philosophical basis of Ricoeur's interpretation
theory, which is rooted in German idealism with its
suspicion of
propositional truth. This idealist tradition
has been criticized by
Buber and other philosophers for failing to recognize
the reality of
encounter and dialogue. For example, A. Lacocque views the Job
text as a grand metaphor where Yahweh is a
controlling symbol and
qualifier and the inexplicable suffering of man is
a limit-experience:4
He
makes a Ricoeurian case for claiming Job is about
"the impotence
of religion and philosophy." Religion (the
counselors) and philos-
12 Semeia 19.18.
13 Semeia 19.13.
14 See his article in Semeia
19, Part II, entitled "Job or the Impotence of
Religion and Philosophy."
144
ophy (job) give way to an
existential I-Thou relationship exhibited
in the divine speeches, where both parties are
affected by events
lived in common. What the text means goes beyond what
the author
meant. The surplus of meaning in the symbolic Job
speaks of a
powerless God who is nevertheless still God and
not a God of re-
tribution but one who suffers
with us. This view raises the question:
"What
God?" It is a view which many modern interpreters think
dominates the book. The answer is given in various
forms. To
Lacocque the Tetragram
is the key. The main point is Job in process
from "religion" to intimate relationship
(covenant) with that God
whose name is YHWH. Lacocque
sees a new ontology of God arising
with the divine discourses beginning in chapter 38.
In this new
relationship and understanding Job
moves to being "the suffering
servant" as in Isaiah 53. There are concepts
here that deserve more
study. It is far superior to the view that answers
the question, "What
God?"
with the reply that Job's appeal to a go'el is to a sympathetic
personal or patron God while rejecting the high
god YHWH with
his retributive justice.15
Another aspect of Ricoeur's
hermeneutic centers on his view of
narrative. The key here is to understand the
relationship between
history and fiction which requires that one
separate historical "truth
claims" from fictional "truth claims."
This is not surprising bearing
in mind that Ricoeur, as
a French Protestant during the 1930s, was
strongly influenced by Barth
and Kierkegaard. For him the biblical
text must communicate a kerygma
that calls for personal response
and must never become a dead letter. A theory of
metaphor and a
theory of narrative raises the problem of imagination
for Ricoeur.
That
is the power of forming images of things that are absent.
Imagination
frees itself from the confines of reality. It frees us from
the symbols history has created for us and gives us
power to recreate
that history to a new reality. Ricoeur
thinks the author of Job is using
bold imagination to teach a new theological reality.
The story projects
a world with a narrow ideology which because of
his suffering Job
questions. He pushes his questioning to a
boundary, a limit, a new
horizon where the questions cannot be denied
even though there is
no answer. To see is not to see. It is such
paradoxical incongruity
that leads to new levels of symbolic meaning in the
book. There are
elements of truth in this approach but with Ricoeur's presuppositions
15 See footnote
17.
SEMEIOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF JOB 145
the new meaning comes at the expense of the analogy
of Scripture.
The
God whom Job sees is "the inscrutable God of terror" and the
book of Job is a dramatic refutation of the theory
of retribution and
the ethical view of the world, a view both Job and
the counselors
were afflicted with. Since the publication in
English of Ricoeur's The
Symbolism of Evil (New York: Harper &
Row, 1967) a number of similar
hermeneutical treatments of the book
of Job have appeared.
A. Lacocque's
"Job and the Symbolism of Evil" represents a faith-
ful application of Ricoeur's hermeneutic while D. Robertson's ap-
proach uses only some of the
pnnaples.16 Some, like Robertson, see
God
caricatured as a god of power and skill but one who can't govern
with justice; others see in the book a god so
transcendent, so far
(removed from man, and so concerned with all the earth that
he has
no time to care or understand if one righteous
person suffers. The
latter is the view of J. B. Curtis, who believes the
book contains a
positive assertion of a personal god who thinks
like a human being
and can therefore be Job's advocate, witness, and
intercessor before
the unconcerned high god.17 Such a view
flies in the face of Job's
clear monotheistic assertion in chapter 31 where Job
denies alle-
giance to other gods (the sun
or the moon) under oath. He concludes,
“. . . for I would have been unfaithful to God
on high" (v 28).
Unfortunately the methods and the presuppositions of