update from sparkleup

This commit is contained in:
Madison Scott-Clary 2022-05-29 22:25:07 -07:00
parent 84294ad645
commit 5af337e786
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions

View File

@ -38,9 +38,9 @@ As the framing device draws to a close, we are introduced to three of Job's frie
Job and his friends have three rounds of arguments, which shall be covered soon, and then, beginning in chapter 32, Elihu is introduced out of nowhere. ``So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.''\footnote{Did they give up? Did they see that Job was starting to change, was starting to stand up for himself, and realize that hey, maybe this was for the best? It seems deeper than simply winning an argument.} (Job 32:1, NRSV) Job and his friends have three rounds of arguments, which shall be covered soon, and then, beginning in chapter 32, Elihu is introduced out of nowhere. ``So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.''\footnote{Did they give up? Did they see that Job was starting to change, was starting to stand up for himself, and realize that hey, maybe this was for the best? It seems deeper than simply winning an argument.} (Job 32:1, NRSV)
It is interesting to note the differences in tradition, here. Alter has ``because he was right in his own eyes'' but offers no note as to why, which is a little disappointing. JPS agrees with him (``for he considered himself right'' (Job 32:1, JPS)). Both of these are Jewish sources. It is interesting to note the differences in tradition, here. Alter has ``because he was right in his own eyes'' but offers no note as to why, which is a little disappointing. JPS (``for he considered himself right'' (Job 32:1, JPS)) and Greenstein (``since in his own eyes he was right and just'' (Job 32:1, Greenstein)) agree. All three of these are Jewish sources.
Christian sources, however, all lean on righteous, while the HCSB, NIV, and KJV having identical wording for that phrase. This colors the meaning, does it not? JPS and Alter describe Elihu as being angry because he is declaring himself more right than God, whereas the Christian sources all interpret the text as Job justifying himself \emph{rather than} God. Interestingly, the 2001 translation of the Septuagint has Elihu upset that Job is declaring himself righteous before God, a sense of uncolored plainness that is missing from the other translations. In this case, Elihu is seemingly upset at Job for being upset.\footnote{And here our very own Elihus return. They return and they roll their eyes and stand, arms akimbo, before us. Why are you angry? Why are you crying? Who cares if you're right? They are in the position of authority, are they not? Get it together.} Christian sources, however, all lean on righteous, while the HCSB, NIV, and KJV having identical wording for that phrase. This colors the meaning, does it not? Alter, JPS, and Greenstein describe Elihu as being angry because he is declaring himself more right than God, whereas the Christian sources all interpret the text as Job justifying himself \emph{rather than} God. Interestingly, the 2001 translation of the Septuagint has Elihu upset that Job is ``declaring himself righteous before God'', a sense of uncolored plainness that is missing from the other translations. \parencite{septuagint} In this case, Elihu is seemingly upset at Job for being upset.\footnote{And here our very own Elihus return. They return and they roll their eyes and stand, arms akimbo, before us. Why are you angry? Why are you crying? Who cares if you're right? They are in the position of authority, are they not? Get it together.}
If you will forgive further discursion, the next verse is all over the place in translation. KJV and NIV suggest that Elihu is upset at Job's friends because they couldn't find any fault in Job but still condemned him. JPS agrees, but uses `merely' before `condemn' which adds a value judgement. Alter has him upset because Job's friends couldn't show Job to be guilty. Though it is difficult to pin down why, Alter posits that Elihu is angry at Job's friends because they just couldn't actually find a way to condemn him: ``because they had not found an answer that showed Job guilty'' (Job 32:3, Alter) (a sentiment echoed in the footnotes for verse 13: ``In attributing this statement to the three reprovers, Elihu shows them admitting the failure of their own arguments.'' \parencite[548]{alter}), while the NRSV walks the middle path with ``because they had found no answer, though they had declared Job to be in the wrong.'' (Job 32:3, NRSV) If you will forgive further discursion, the next verse is all over the place in translation. KJV and NIV suggest that Elihu is upset at Job's friends because they couldn't find any fault in Job but still condemned him. JPS agrees, but uses `merely' before `condemn' which adds a value judgement. Alter has him upset because Job's friends couldn't show Job to be guilty. Though it is difficult to pin down why, Alter posits that Elihu is angry at Job's friends because they just couldn't actually find a way to condemn him: ``because they had not found an answer that showed Job guilty'' (Job 32:3, Alter) (a sentiment echoed in the footnotes for verse 13: ``In attributing this statement to the three reprovers, Elihu shows them admitting the failure of their own arguments.'' \parencite[548]{alter}), while the NRSV walks the middle path with ``because they had found no answer, though they had declared Job to be in the wrong.'' (Job 32:3, NRSV)