BIBLIOTHECA SACRA
156 (January-March 1999): 28-41
Copyright © 1999
by
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
ELIHU SPEECHES IN JOB 32-37
Larry J. Waters
A
unique perspective on the dilemma and suffering of Job
is presented in Job 32-37 by a man named Elihu.1 These six
chapters, covering five separate speeches2
attributed to this young
"wise man," seem to hold an exceptionally important
position in
the overall argument of the book, specifically in
understanding ~
Job's struggle with undeserved suffering. If the speeches in
these
six chapters are not deemed authentic, their
contribution to the
subject of Job's suffering and the overall
argument of the book is
in question.
However, if it can be demonstrated that Elihu's speeches are
genuine and that their place in the Book of Job
is integral, then the
reader may confidently conclude that the message Elihu offered
is applicable to the purpose and argument of the
book. It is impor-
tant to deal with the
question of the genuineness of Elihu's -
speeches
because of (a) the extent of the textual material that is ")
Larry
J. Waters is Professor of Bible Exposition,
International School of Theology-
Asia,
1 The proper name xUhylix< means "He is my
God" or "My God is He." The latter is
adopted by E. W. Bullinger
(The Book of Job [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990], 161).
Elihu is similar to the name Elijah, "Yahweh is
my God." Elihu's name bears wit-
ness to lxe as the highest God. Elihu's name may even be "an expression of his theo-
logical program": It is Yahweh who speaks through his speeches.
Wisdom says that
as it turned out, "the message epitomized in
his name became an integral part of
Elihu's message to Job (e.g., 33:12-13;
34:18-19, 23,31-32; 35:2-11; 36:26; 37:22-24)"
(Thurman
Wisdom, "The Message of Elihu: Job 32-37," Biblical Viewpoint 21 [1987]:
29).
Elihu's identity is also connected with three other
names, Barachel, Buz, and
Ram. Elihu is therefore
the only character in the book with a recorded genealogy,
which "may point to his aristocratic
heritage" (Robert L. Alden, Job, New
American
Commentary [
McKenna,
Job [
2 Job 32:6-22; 33:1-33;
34:2-37; 35:2-16; 36:2-37:24. Scholars differ in their opinion
on the division of the speeches. For a detailed
representation of this five-part divi-
sion see David Allen Diewert, "The Composition of the Elihu
Speeches: A Poetic
and Structural Analysis" (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1991), 576-79.
The
Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37 29
allotted to Elihu (in
comparison to the four chapters assigned to
Eliphaz, the three to Bildad,
and the two to Zophar), (b) the
placement of the Elihu
speeches in the book, and (c) the reaction
the speeches have drawn from critical circles on
the question of
authenticity.
OPPONENTS
OF ELIHU'S AUTHENTICITY
Before
the nineteenth century both Jewish and Christian scholars
held a number of differing opinions on the Elihu speeches.3 The
negative opinions suggested that Elihu was a figure inspired by
Satan,4 or that he was a false prophet like Balaam.5
By the end of
the eighteenth century the structure and
authenticity of the Elihu
speeches were still the focus of diverse
opinions. Elihu, his
speeches, and his importance suffered severely at
the hands of
critics.6 In the nineteenth
century Stuhlmann, whose evaluation
was based on the sudden appearance and subsequent
disappear-
ance of Elihu
in the book, was the first to suggest that the speeches
of Elihu were a later
addition.7 He was followed by Ewald in
1836
and a considerable number of scholars after him.8 Stuhlmann,
however, set the stage for research that
culminated with a thor-
ough and influential
critical analysis by Nichols in 1911.
Nichols approached the Elihu
speeches largely from the
standpoint of authenticity. She cited over forty
authors from
Stuhlmann to Peake, who
considered them secondary additions,
and twenty-seven others from Jahn
to Posselt, who defended the
3
Although a full examination of this question cannot be presented beyond the
needs of the topic here, three thorough investigations
have been made: Robert V.
McCabe
Jr., "The Significance of the Elihu Speeches in
the Context of the Book of
Job"
(Th.D. diss., Grace
Theological Seminary, 1985), 1-36; David Arvid Johns,
"The
Literary
and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the
Book of Job" (Ph.D.
diss.,
.Elihu Speeches: A
Poetic and Structural Analysis," 1-23). Also see Helen Hawley
Nichols,
"The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job
Chaps. 32-37)," American
Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 27 (January 1911): 97-186.
4 Testament of Job 41:5;
42:2; 43:4-17. See R. P. Spittler, "Testament of
Job," in The
at Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
ed. James H. Charlesworth (
of Doubleday, 1983), 1:861-63.
5 Otto Zockler, "The Book of Job," in Commentary on the Holy Scrcptures,
ed.
John
Peter Lange (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 562-63.
6
For example J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte
Testament (
Rosenbusch, 1780-1783), 3:630.
7 Matthias H. Stuhlmann, Hiob, ein religioses Gedicht aus dem
Hebraischen
neu ubersetzt, gepruft
und erlautert (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes,
1804),14-24, 40-
44.
8
Heinrich
Ewald, Commentary
on the Book of Job, trans. J. Smith (
Williams and Norgate,
1882).
30
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
January-March 1999
speeches as part of the original work.9
Even Nichols, who did not
accept the Elihu speeches as
original to the poem, admitted that
"those who have defended Elihu in
the critical debate have
usually found in his words the positive solution
of the problem [of
Job's
suffering], which the poem without them fails to give, and a
preparation for the Theophany."10 In
regard to recent investiga-
tions "it would be fair
to say that the studies of Job 32-37 since
Nichols
have also been chiefly dominated by this issue of their re-
lationship to the rest of the
book."11
Janzen lists four objections
to the authenticity of the speeches.
"(1)
Elihu is mentioned nowhere else, not even in the
epilogue, his
long speeches interrupt the continuity between
chapters 31 and 38,
and he contributes little if anything to the
content or dramatic
movement of the book; (2) the literary style is
diffuse and preten-
tious, inferior to that of
the rest of the book; (3) the linguistic usage
differs from that in the rest of the poetry; and
(4) the speeches offer
an alternative resolution to Job's problem from
that of the
(baffling) divine speeches."12
Although Janzen views
the speeches of Elihu as taxing on the
reader, he states that "the Elihu
speeches present no critical prob-
lem," and he sees
"no cogent reason to view them as other than
integral to the book."13 In
addition to the objections summarized
9 Nichols, "The
Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps.
32-37)," 99-103.
Also
see Arthur s. Peake, Job: Introduction, Revised Version with Notes and In-
dex, Century Bible
(Edinburgh: Clark and Jack, 1904); Johann Jahn, Einleitung in
das Alte Testament (n.p.,
n.d., cited in Nichols, "The Composition of the Elihu
Speeches
(Job Chaps. 32-37)," 99; and Wenzel Posse It, "Der
Verfasser der Elihu-
Reden," Biblische Studien (FreiburgJ 14 (1909):
1-111.
10 Nichols, "The
Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32-37)," 101.
11 Diewert,
"The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic
and Structural
Analysis," 4. Also see McCabe,
"The Significance of the Elihu Speeches in the
Con-
text of the Book of Job," 1-36; Nonnan C. Habel, "The Role
of Elihu in the Design of
the Book of Job," in In the Shelter of Elyon, ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R.
Spencer
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1984); and Johns, "The Literary and Theological Function
of the Elihu Speeches in
the Book of Job," 7-9.
12 J. Gerald Janzen, Job,
Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching (Atlanta: Knox, 1985),
217-18.
Cf. Johns, "The Literary and Theological
Function
of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job," 2.
William T. Davidson gives
three similar reasons why many commentators reject
Job 32-37 as original to the
text of Job and he also states that the Elihu speeches confuse rather than clarify
the poem (The
Wisdom-Literature of the Old Testament [London: Kelly, 1900],52).
Also
see John Briggs Curtis, "Why Were the Elihu
Speeches Added to the Book of
Job?' Proceedings
8 (1988): 93-99; and Robert Gordis, "Elihu the Intruder," in Bibli-
cal and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann
(
sity Press, 1963),60-78. Zockler, after citing nine different arguments, which he
at-
tempted to refute, finally accepted the Elihu speeches as secondary, describing the
linguistic argument as "the most weighty of
all" ("The Book of Job," 272).
13 Janzen,
Job, 218.
The
Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37 31
by Janzen, other
scholars maintain an intermediate position by
holding to one original author who made an
addition to his book
in later life.14 Others do not reject
the authenticity of the Elihu
speeches but simply maintain either that they are
a later addition
by an unknown author,15 or that they
are a compilation by a later
author, editor, or series of editors.16
Once the authenticity or position of the
speeches of Elihu was
doubted, it seemed only logical that the next
critical step was to
dissect them,17 rearrange their
position, 18 or reject all or portions
14 Diewert,
"The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic
and Structural
Analysis," 4. This intermediate
position has been recently advocated by Norman H.
Snaith (The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose,
Studies in Biblical Theology
[
gests that the original author/poet added Elihu and his insight on moral discipline
as one solution to the problem of suffering (The Book of God and Man: A Study of
Job [
[
15 See comments by Johns,
"The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu
Speeches
in the Book of Job," 4-5.
16 Rowley sees the Book of
Job as canonical without the Elihu speeches (H. H.
Rowley,
The Book of Job, New Century Bible
Commentary [
mans,
1976], 13:206). Nichols says two authors were involved in the Elihu speeches
("The Composition of the Elihu Speeches [Job Chaps. 32-37],"
116-22). Nichols's in-
quiry into the
"composition" of the Elihu speeches is
primarily a source-critical
analysis, and in this she stands in the tradition
of Julius Wellhausen. According to
Diewert, Nichols's main theory is that the
speeches, as they presently exist, are two
different works, each constituting reactions to
Job and his theology. Nichols's faith
in the testimony of the Septuagint is the basis
for her theory (Diewert, "The
Composition of the Elihu
Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis," 19). Jastrow
and Irwin see four authors at work in the Book of
Job (Morris Jastrow, The Book of
Job: Its Origin, Growth
and Interpretation
[
William
A. Irwin, "The Elihu Speeches in the Criticism
of the Book of Job," Jour-
nal of Religion 17 [January 1937]: 37-47). Samuel Terrien holds that the Elihu sec-
tion was written by a
different author. But unlike those above, Terrien
says Elihu
is essential to the book and is beneficial as a
contribution to an understanding of
Job's
suffering; he says it is an "educational and revelatory process." He
also sees
Elihu as preparatory to the Yahweh speeches (Job: Poet of Existence [
Bobbs-Merrill,
1957], 189-90).
See also Westermann, The Structure of the Book of
Job: A Form-Critical
Analysis
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 139.
17 Moses Buttenwieser, The Book of Job
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1922),
77-86, 162-67,347-57.
For instance Buttenwieser reduced the Elihu speeches from
165 to 72 verses, half of which contain Elihu's self-introduction.
18
David
Noel Freedman suggests that Elihu's speeches were
added to "refute or
counterbalance a speech or assertion
of Job, and to be placed in juxaposition with
it” ("The Elihu
Speeches m the Book of Job: A Hypothetical Episode m the Literary
History
of the Work," Harvard Theological
Review 61 [January 1968]: 52-59). In
other words Freedman proposes that the speeches of Elihu were originally in-
tended to be inserted at various points in the earlier
dialogue to refute a specific
discourse or assertion of Job, but somehow failed
to be inserted. Gary W. Martin,
who accepts Freedman's basic thesis, gives a
"Table of Proposed Reconstruction of
Elihu's Responses to the Three Cycles of
Discourse" and says the speeches need to
32
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
January-March 1999
of the speeches outright.19
Form-critical studies often involve a
reorganization of the text to conform
to a particular subjective and
reasonably consistent structural pattern. The
result is that insuf-
ficient attention is given to
the uniqueness of Elihu's individual
speeches and their importance to the theological
argument of the
book especially in regard to suffering. In fact, the
critical ap-
proach seems to neglect the
positive contributions of stylistic and
poetic analysis in marking structural patterns within Elihu's
speeches.20 For instance
Buttenwieser,21 Pope,22 Stier ,23
and
Nairne24
hold that the speeches are identical or similar to the
views of the three antagonists, adding little or
nothing to the ar-
gument regarding Job's
suffering. Nichols and Rowley suggest
that Elihu offered a
solution for suffering that is irrelevant to
Job's
relationship with God and that does not address the initial
cause for Job's suffering.25
be rearranged ("Elihu
and the Third Cycle in the Book of Job" [Ph.D. diss.,
Prince-
various proposals for dissecting and rearranging
the first thirty-one chapters of
the Book of Job. Most of his efforts focus on
placing thirteen "fragments" from
chapters 24-27 into chapters 32-37 and seeking to
determine the original order of
the speeches. Smick
points out that Pope holds to a theory that the author deliber-
ately scrambled the material
to confuse the picture (Elmer B. Smick,
"Job," in The
Expositor's Bible
Commentary
[
Pope,
Job, Anchor Bible [
19 Some writers simply
regard Job 32-37 as insignificant and counterfeit and do
not accept them as part of the original text.
Examples include Archibald MacLeish,-
J.
B. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986); Stephen Mitchell, The Book of Job (New
ing of the Book of
Job," Semeia
7 (1977): 45-61. Schokel eliminates the Elihu section
completely.
20 Diewert
observes that "inevitably the monologue is reduced to or at least lim-
ited to those passages where
Elihu seems to be saying something novel, while the
majority of the discourse is passed over as a
virtual restatement of the position of
the friends. There have been very few serious
students of these speeches which
treat them as a whole and deal with their content
evenly throughout, paying atten-
tion to the argument in its
entirety. Judgments concerning the contribution of ES
[Elihu's Speeches] to the Joban poem can only carry weight
when they take into ac-
count every element of Elihu's
monologue and the function of each part in the ar-
gument as a whole" (Diewert, "The Composition of the Elihu
Speeches: A Poetic and
Structural Analysis," 18).
21 Buttenwieser,
The Book of Job, 85.
22 Pope, Job, xxvi.
23 Fridolin
Stier, Das Buch [job hebriiisch und deutsch (Munich: Kosel, 1954),
240--41.
24 Alexander Nairne, The Book of Job, Edited with an Introduction (
Cambridge University Press, 1935), xv.
25 See Nichols, "The
Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps.
32-37)," 108;
and Rowley, The Book of Job, 206.
The
Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37 33
ADVOCATES OF ELIHU'S AUTHENTICITY
A
number of scholars defend the speeches of Elihu as an
original
part of the composition of the Book of Job. Early
positive opinions
considered Elihu as
exalted above Job and his friends, or the rep-
resentative of the authentic Jewish
view of providence,26 or as an
antitype of Christ.27 Early church
historians and the Reformers
generally accepted the authenticity of Elihu's speeches.28 John
Calvin
was extremely complimentary toward Elihu for
"there are
few people in the Bible Calvin admires more."29
In reaction to the
early nineteenth century opposition, Rosenmtiller and Umbreit,
as well as other early conservatives like Stickel30
and Deutsch,31
were among the first to maintain Elihu's
authenticity.32 Cornill
refers to the Elihu speeches
as "the summit and crown of the Book
of Job, and says they provide the only solution to
the problem of
suffering.33 Godet
calls the speeches "an indispensable feature"
26 Moses Maimonides, Guide to
the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (
the view of Abraham ibn
Ezra. Also see a similar view in Jacob S. Lavinger,
"Maimonides' Exegesis of the Book of Job," in Creative
Biblical Exegesis: Chris-
tian and Jewish Hermeneutics
through the Centuries, ed. Benjamin Uffenheimer
and Henning G. Reventlow,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series
59 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988),81-88. See also Israel J.
Gerber, Job on Trial: A
Book
for Our Time (Gastonia, NC: E. P. Press, 1982), 104-39; Diewert,
"The Composi-
tion of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis," 3;
and Shimon
Bakon, "The Enigma of Elihu,"
Dor le Dor 12 (1984): 221.
27
Diewert simply states this as
one view ("The Composition of the Elihu
Speeches: A Poetic and Structural
Analysis," 3).
28 Although they accepted
his authenticity, they were not always complimentary
to Elihu. Gregory, for
instance, argued that Elihu was orthodox in his
teaching but
guilty of pride. Thomas Aquinas believed that Elihu's knowledge was superior to
the opinion of the other friends but that he was
moved by "vainglory" so that he mis-
interpreted Job's words and did not express the
whole truth. Calvin, on the other
hand, would not accept this criticism (Susan E.
Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom
Be
Found? Calvin's Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives
[
29
Ibid., 131. For Calvin, Elihu's teaching was essentially the same truth declared
nd in God's whirlwind
speeches.
30 Johann Gustav Stickel, Das Buch Hiob rhythmisch
gegliedert und ubersetzt
mit exegetischen und kritischen Bemerkungen (
handlung, 1842), 195-219.
31 Cited in Nichols,
"The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job
Chaps. 32-37),"
54),
99.
32 Earnest Rosenmtiller, Iobus latine vertit et
annotatione perpetua,
765, quoted
in Rowley, Job, 13; and Friedrich Carl Umbreit, Das Buch Hiob: Uebersetzung und
Auslegung (Heidelberg: Mohr, 1832), xxvi-xxvii.
33 Carl Cornill, Introduction
to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, trans.
108;
G. H. Box, Theological Translation Library, vol. 23 (New York: Putnam's Sons,
1907),
428.
34
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
January-March 1999
of the book,34 and
higher plane than the dialogue."35
More recent conservative ad-
vocates of the authenticity of
the Elihu speeches include Young,36
Harrison,37 Bullock,38 Archer ,39
and Zuck.40 These are joined by
other scholars who defend Elihu's
authenticity, viewing his
speeches as primary to the Book of Job and to a
proper understand-
ing of the problem of
suffering.41 These scholars also include
34
F. Godet, "The Book of Job," in Biblical Studies on
the Old Testament (
Parker,
1875),217.
35
John
T. Marshall, Job and His Comforters:
Studies in Theology of the Book of
Job (London: Kingsgate, 1905), 6.
36 Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (
mans, 1964), 329-30.
37 R. K. Harrison, An Introduction to the Old Testament (
mans, 1969), 1034-35.
38 C. Hassell
Bullock, An
Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books: The
Wisdom and Songs of
39 Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament: Introduction,
rev. ed.
(Chicago:
Moody, 1994),513-14.
40 luck offers four answers to the major critical
objections stated above. "(1) Elihu
need not have been mentioned earlier in the book
since he was a silent onlooker not
yet involved in the disputation. And Elihu was not condemned by God in 42:7-8
along with Eliphaz and his
two companions probably because Elihu was closer to
the truth than were the three. (2) Admittedly Elihu's style differed from that of the
other four debaters. He used 'el for God more than
did the others (his 19 uses of 'el
compare with Job's 17, Eliphaz's
8, Bildad's 6, and Zophar's
2). . . . Elihu also used a
number of Aramaic words more than the three counselors
did. . . .These differ-
ences, however, simply point
to his distinctive character. (3) Elihu's view of
suffer-
ing differed from that of
the three. They had claimed that Job was suffering because
he was sinning (in an attitude of pride) but Elihu said Job was sinning because he
was suffering. Elihu
pointed out that God can use suffering to benefit people (33:17,
28,
30; 36:16). Elihu put his finger on Job's wrong
attitude of complaining against
God
(33:13; 34:17) and suggested that Job humble himself before God (33:27; 36:21;
37:24).
(4) True, Job did not answer Elihu. But this may be
because Elihu silenced
him. . . . Elihu's
orations provided a bridge from Job's insistence for vindication
(chap. 31) to God's speeches. If the Elihu portion is not original, then God re-
sponded immediately to Job's
demand, an action which is inconsistent with God.
Also
the Elihu speeches create an added element of
suspense, as the reader awaits
God's
answer" (Roy B. Zuck, "Job," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Tes-
tament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. luck [
Zuck points to Dhorme in support of his second point (Edouard
Dhorme, A
Commentary on the Book
of Job
[
Aramaic
words used by Elihu in relation to the three
counselors originates from a
study done by Samuel Rolles
Driver and George Buchanan Gray (A
Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Job,
International Critical Commentary
[
words were contested by Snaith,
who concludes that the numbers are not convinc-
ing enough to warrant two
authors.
41 For instance see Dhonne, A Commentary on the Book of Job, liv-lvii; ciii, who
treats the Elihu speeches as
genuine, but sees a later hand in the writing. This is
also the basic stance of Tate, who argues that the
normal critical objections are not
The
Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37 35
McKay
who sees the Elihu speeches as pivotal to the other
chapters
of the Book of Job, providing a bridge between
Job's conversations
and God's speeches.42 As noted earlier,
both Diewert43 and
Bakon44
hold to the importance and integrity of the speeches.
Beeby argues for authenticity and sees Elihu as a mediator whose
main function was prophetic, much like that of
Moses, Joshua,
Samuel,
Jeremiah, and Isaiah.45 Carstensen also
argues that
Elihu is important in that he exercised a mediatorial function in
his approach to Job (33:23; cf. 33:7, 31-33; 36:2).46
Johns has made
convincing (Marvin Tate, "The Speeches of Elihu," Review and Expositor [Fall
1971]:
487-95). Also see Robert L. Alden, who simply assumes the genuineness of
the Elihu chapters (Job, 23-24,
314-15). Budde, Snaith, and
Gordis consider the
speeches to be from a later author or period, but
argue for their authenticity (Karl
Budde, Das Buch Hiob, Handbuch
zum Alten Testament [
&
Ruprecht, 1896]; Snaith, The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose,
72-91; and
Gordis, The Book of God and
Man, 104-16). Snaith carefully compared the
alleged
differences in vocabulary between the Elihu speeches and the other major sections
of the book. He did not find the variations
significant and he concluded that it is
not necessary to postulate that another author
wrote the section (The Book of Job:
Its Origin and Purpose, 77). Zuck
argues for the authenticity, originality, and
placement in the text ("Job," 140-42),
as does Hartley (John E. Hartley, The Book of
Job,
New International Commentary on the Old Testament [
mans,
1988],28-30). Answers to the four objections
summarized by Janzen are ar-
gued by Hartley, who
concludes that "the Elihu speeches are an
integral part of the
final edition of the work. It is improper to judge
them as a clumsy later addition or
a sanctification of the heretical ideas that Job
has entertained" (ibid., 29). Still,
Hartley
struggles with the speeches being a part of the original composition and
speculates that the author of Job could have added
them later to the final. edition or
that one of his students, possibly a redactor, inserted
them where his teacher
a might have suggested they belonged.
42 John W. McKay, "Elihu: A Proto-Charismatic?" Expository Times 90 (March 1979): 167-71.
43
Diewert, "The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,"
1-23.
44
Bakon says Elihu offered a
unique contribution to the problem of suffering
ed ("The Enigma of Elihu,"
217-28).
45 H. D. Beeby, "Elihu-Job's Mediator?" Southeast Asian Journal
of Theology 7
(October
1969): 33-54. Beeby mentions five objections to the
authenticity of Elihu's
speeches and answers each one satisfactorily
(ibid., 48-50). He concludes that
"there is a unity throughout the book as we have it now, no
matter when the various
parts originated or when they were assembled. Second,
that within this unity the
figure of Elihu plays a
necessary part, justifying Job's earlier faith in an 'umpire'
and being the instrument of Job's eventual
justification by heralding the 'theo-
phany.' Finally, that after
an examination of Elihu's contribution and in the
light of
the similarities with earlier covenantal
formulations, we conclude that Elihu was a
man with divine gifts, who can only be described as
a covenant mediator, trans-
formed to accord with the Wisdom literature and the
book's dominant question of
'how the good non-Israelite can stand before
berg presents his arguments in the form of a
dramatic play and identifies Elihu as
an "advocate" ("Elihu
the Theologian," in The Dimensions
of Job: A Study and Se-
lected Readings, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer
[
46 Roger N. Carstensen, "The Persistence of the 'Elihu' Tradition in Later Jewish
Writings,"
36