Usuteaduslik Ajakiri 77/1 (2021) (in print)

The study focuses on the ironies in the opening of God’s first speech to Job (Job 38:2–3). The analysis is based on Edgar Lapp’s linguistic study, which defines irony as a simulation of insincerity. In 38:2, ironies are discernible in the peculiar shape of the rhetorical question and in the allusions to Job’s initial lament (Job 3). Similarly, 38:3 alludes to Job’s challenge in 13:22–23. The ironic tone comes to the fore by comparing the specific use of the words and locutions in 38:2–3 with their occurrence in the book and in the Hebrew Bible as a whole. These ironies have a mitigating effect as they partly hide the criticism of Job in the unsaid.

Old Testament Essays 33/2 (2020), 266—284

Research on the intertextual relations between Job 3 and Gen 1:1-2:4a (undertaken by Michael Fishbane, Leo Perdue, Samuel Balentine and others) has demonstrated the likely presence of conspicuous parallels between the two texts. However, the rhetorical function of these connections remains an unsolved problem.  This article’s reassessment of the lexical, motivic and structural parallels as well as the comparison of Job 3 with Jer 20:14-18 attempts to show that not only does Job’s soliloquy refer to the priestly creation hymn by means of allusive irony to facilitate a critical engagement with the Torah. Also, the same rhetorical device is used in Yhwh’s first speech (Job 38-39) which in turn alludes to Job 3 and is understood as ironically reversing Job’s allusive curse and lament. Based on these findings we may conclude that Job is ultimately defeated by Yhwh with his own arguments, yet not in a harsh, but rather in a soft and mitigative way.

Studia Biblica Slovaca 11 (2/2019), 87—102

Contrary to the usual translation as a rhetorical question, Job 1:10a is better understood as an ironic assertion. It may remain questionable whether הלא should be considered in some cases as a non-interrogative and non-negative particle in Classical Hebrew rather than as a combination of לא + ה. However, it is beyond doubt that not rarely הלא does not open up an interrogative clause but has an asseverative or presentative function. Among the criteria that have been suggested in recent research as indication of a non-interrogative use of הלא, two are of particular relevance: the fronting of the subject before the verb in verbal clauses and the sequence rhetorical question(s) – הלא-clause. Both criteria apply to Job 1:10a, which therefore is best translated as an assertion. By the use of repetitions, contrastive juxtaposition and exaggeration, the Satan subtly converts the statement on YHWH’s blessing for Job to an ironic critique of both God’s care and Job’s piety.

Protokolle zur Bibel 28.1 (2019), 25–40

In the Prologue (1–2), the figure of Job might appear as a plain paradigm of piety.
In a reader-oriented perspective, however, parallels and similarities to other passages in the
Hebrew Bible come into view, which bring to the fore subliminal ambiguities of the Joban
figure. On the one hand, correspondences to Abraham are discernable, but on the other hand
also subtle references to Balaam and Edom are discernable as well as reminiscences of the
Wisdom tradition. At the same time, exaggerations in 1:1–5 and ambiguities in 1:22 and 2:10
tend to undermine Job’s integrity. In conclusion, the ambiguity of the figure of Job is visible
not only in consideration of the book as a whole, but is prepared already in the Prologue.

Biblica 100.1 (2019), 34–49

Attached to the end of the book and separated from the foregoing text by introductory phrases, the additions in Old Greek Job 42,17a.b–e function as a final interpretation of the book, claiming authority by referring to other writings that were considered authoritative (namely, Genesis 36 LXX). By foretelling Job’s resurrection from the dead and identifying him as a descendant of Abraham, the supplements help to disambiguate equivocal passages in the book concerning resurrection and Job’s piety. Situated at the edge of canonization, 42,17a.b-e constitute a liminal phenomenon between interpretative textual growth and reception history.

Conference Papers