update from sparkleup

writing/3/unknown-things/iyov/3-interpolations.tex

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ In Job we have a man striving to be heard by God Himself, and in Ecclesiastes, w
 
 % ((More\ldots))
 
-The second of these interpolations is the Elihu's speech --- and, indeed, the entire character of Elihu, who is never mentioned outside his own chapters\footnote{I think we all must have one, an Elihu. One of those people who enters our lives seemingly at random, sticks around for a while, speaking a little too loud and a little too long, and then leaves again, leaving nothing but a sour taste in the mouth and a sense of bafflement. I know that I have one, though they're back in my past. They slipped in sometime around 2011 or so, perhaps 2010, a friend of a friend at first, and then perhaps a friend, and then disappeared in a huff sometime early on in 2012. Said huff took the form of a few sanctimonious statements that left me so in doubt of my identity that my transition was delayed by at least a year, easy. All that came before my intercalary years, and doubtless contributed to the death of Matthew.} --- in chapters 32--37. Alter holds a particularly dim view of Elihu, stating, ``At this point, in the original text, the Lord would have spoken out from the whirlwind, but a lapse in judgment by an ancient editor postponed that brilliant consummation for six chapters in which the tedious Elihu is allowed to hold forth.'' \parencite[460]{alter} Few seem convinced that the character and his speeches are from the original text. The NOAB, notably bearish on the whole Bible, agrees that this may indeed be the case, though it does so with a sigh and a tone of resignation, adding, ``In any case, the Elihu speeches are part of the book we now have'', \parencite[767]{noab} with Edward L. Greenstein echoing that sigh: ``Even if, as most scholars think today, the Elihu chapters were added belatedly, they form part of the biblical book.'' \parencite[22]{greenstein}
+The second of these interpolations is the Elihu's speech --- and, indeed, the entire character of Elihu, who is never mentioned outside his own chapters\footnote{I think we all must have one, an Elihu. One of those people who enters our lives seemingly at random, sticks around for a while, speaking a little too loud and a little too long, and then leaves again, leaving nothing but a sour taste in the mouth and a sense of bafflement. I know that I have one, though they're back in my past. They slipped in sometime around 2011 or so, perhaps 2010, a friend of a friend at first, and then perhaps a friend, and then disappeared in a huff sometime early on in 2012. Said huff took the form of a few sanctimonious statements that left me so in doubt of my identity that my transition was delayed by at least a year, easy. All that came before my intercalary years, and doubtless contributed to the death of Matthew.} --- in chapters 32--37. Alter holds a particularly dim view of Elihu, stating, ``At this point, in the original text, the Lord would have spoken out from the whirlwind, but a lapse in judgment by an ancient editor postponed that brilliant consummation for six chapters in which the tedious Elihu is allowed to hold forth.'' \parencite[460]{alter} Few seem convinced that the character and his speeches are from the original text. The NOAB, notably bearish on the whole Bible, agrees that this may indeed be the case, though it does so with a sigh and a tone of resignation, adding, ``In any case, the Elihu speeches are part of the book we now have'', \parencite[767]{noab} with Greenstein echoing that sigh: ``Even if, as most scholars think today, the Elihu chapters were added belatedly, they form part of the biblical book.'' \parencite[22]{greenstein}
 
 The editors of the NOAB offer additional insight, that Elihu's speeches may have simply been shuffled out of order (a problem elsewhere in the text) and that his speeches may have originally come after the final of Job's three friends' speeches after chapter 27. This both lends credence to the Hymn to Wisdom in chapter 28 being the conclusion of his own speech and ensures that God replies to Job immediately after \emph{his} final speech rather than after Elihu's, which would better fit the structure of the book. There is no reason it cannot be both, of course; the two additions could have been both interpolations and inserted out of order through some mix-up or whim in an early editor's haste.
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Job and his friends have three rounds of arguments, which shall be covered soon,
 
 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.
 
-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, where as 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? 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.}
 
 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)