This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature.

For more information on obtaining a

subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
RBL 02/2010

Whybray, Norman
Job
Readings, a New Biblical Commentary
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. Pp. viii + 207. Paper.
$25.00. ISBN 9781906055035.
F. Rachel Magdalene
Universitt Leipzig and Humboldt Universitt zu Berlin
Leipzig and Berlin, Germany
This volume is a reprint of Norman Whybrays Readings commentary on the book of Job,
which first appeared in 1998. That year was also the year of Norman Whybrays death.
Hence, this reprint volume is a tenth-anniversary remembrance of sorts, although
nothing but the dates would suggest that. It was an important volume on Job ten years
ago and remains one now. I would recommend it to all people interested in the book of
Job, whether one is first approaching the book or a long-experienced reader.
This commentary series is meant to be reader-friendly. Thus, Whybrays book has an easy-
to-read style, no notes, and little bibliography. Whybray used, for the most part, the NRSV
text, with its numbering of chapters 4041, noting those few places where he had a
significant disagreement with this translation. The NRSV text of Job is not, however,
included in the book. Whybray does not refer often to the Hebrew, and that to which he
must refer is all transliterated. The book consists of an introduction, forty-two chapters
(one for each chapter of the book of Job), a very short bibliography, and a complete index
of references. The book, therefore, is quite approachable, even where Whybray is dealing
with complex ideas. This is one of the books strengths and makes it especially useful in an
educational setting. It does not have a subject index and, thus, appears not to be meant as
a reference tool. The ideas are, however, deserving of such.
This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
As we know, many approaches to Job are possible. Whybray spent a great deal of his
academic life on the wisdom materials of the Hebrew Bible, and this book reflects his
broad knowledge of that subject. This commentary takes fundamentally a narratological
approach to reading and has a strong emphasis on the wisdom materials of the text.
Whybrays interaction with the wisdom materials is another one of the books strengths.
Some of its additional strengths include the subtlety of many of Whybrays narratological
readings and his creative solutions to some of the often-studied literary and theological
problems of Job.
For me, the main problem with the book is that Whybray did not go far enough in
moving away from certain aspects of more traditional readings. He often asserts a view
held by a minority of scholars, makes an approach to a still more radical idea, then softens
all this in his summaries. He pushes the envelope here, but with some hesitation. I suspect
that, had he lived another decade, he would have continued to innovate and with less
hesitation. Whybray was a highly knowledgeable and creative scholar who was often on
the forefront of biblical studies. Consequently, my remarks regarding this weakness must
be put in perspective.
I offer just a few examples of the strengths and weaknesses of the commentary from its
first three chapters. Whybray covers some of the usual ground in his introduction,
including the compositional history of Job. Whybray takes an atypical stand in this
regard. He reads synchronically and maintains that, although many good diachronic
arguments exist regarding the compositional history of the book, none of them are
absolutely necessary to understanding the book. Whybray is convinced that the wisdom
poem is consistent with the book as a whole. Of this, he avers:
These [diachronic] problems do not directly affect the assessment of ch. 28. The
argument against its originality is principally that it cannot be the original
continuation of ch. 27 because of its theme. The claim that ch. 28 as a treatise
on the nature of wisdom is irrelevant to the preceding debate betrays a
misunderstanding of the nature of that debate. The fact that the root h! km occurs
some 24 times in the book apart from ch. 28 is itself sufficient to suggest that
there is a connection between that chapter and the rest of the book; and this is
confirmed by an analysis of the contexts in which wisdom is mentioned in the
dialogue. Indeed, it may be claimed that in a real sense the question of wisdom is
the main issue of the dialogue. The dialogue is a dispute about who is in the right
that is, who among the disputants possesses wisdom. (13, emphasis original)
He also believes that the wisdom poem is in the correct location (1314). Whybray makes
a good argument that the Elihu speeches are original to the book but later suggests that
This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
they are the most suspect diachronically. He states in the end: The arguments for and
against the Elihu speeches as an integral part of the book each have their own plausibility;
but inasmuch as the onus of proof lies upon the proponents of a negative judgment, it
may be concluded that their case is not proven (18). In other words, all things being
equal, the case falls on the question of burden of proof! This is, disappointingly, the only
place he uses law in his argument. He might have been a bit more enthusiastic at the end
of his discussion of Elihu, because, I believe, he had the argument.
1
In taking these
positions on the wisdom poem and Elihu speeches, Whybray is in a small minority;
nonetheless, most of his source-critical arguments are clear and are not beyond scholarly
circles.
I can share Whybrays view of the compositional history of the text, except in regard to
the wisdom poem. He is correct that wisdom is one of the key themes of the book; the
wisdom poem is not in anyway antithetical to the book. The difficulty for me is that it
springs from Jobs mouth late in the storys events, as both Clines and Pope have also
noted.
2
This does not make sense to me in the development of the books narrative. Thus,
the wisdom poem seems to be, at a minimum, a part of the theologically driven
redaction/corruption of the third cycle of the book.
3

I also appreciate much about Whybrays reading of the prologue. A level of sensitivity to
the narrative exists that is not always displayed in other such readings. For instance, in
discussing the interaction between Yahweh and the Satan in ch. 1, Whybray states:
The Satan suggests that Jobs piety is not genuine but conditional on Yahwehs
continuing to confer worldly goods on him. So Yahweh allows himself to be
tempted by the Satan to permit him to make a test. But in fact it is obvious to the
reader that this is as much a test of Yahweh as of Job. If even the ostensibly perfect

1. Whybrays habit of softening his strong initial assertions also occurs in regard to the compositional
history overall. He seems to be arguing throughout this chapter that the book is the work of one hand and
late (6). Nevertheless, he concludes his introduction by stating: Whether or not its various parts were the
work of different writers, its composition cannot have been the result of chance. Those, who gave it its final
form know what they were doing; they perceived it as having a single theme, though one with many
facetsthe nature of God and his relationship to his human creatures (2223).
2. M. H. Pope, Job (3rd ed.; AB 15; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979), xxvii; and D. J. A. Clines, Job 120
(WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1989), lix. See also R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1948), 672.
3. I was, at one time, more convinced that the wisdom poem was a later addition than I am now. See F. R.
Magdalene, On the Scales of Righteousness: Neo-Babylonian Trial Law and the Book of Job (BJS 348;
Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2007), 10 n. 32. Arguments like that of Whybray have moved me in
this new direction.
This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Job fails the test, this means no true, disinterested fear of God exists in the world;
and if this is so, Yahwehs entire plan for humanity fails. ( 8)
Not many interpreters have suggested that Yahwehs fate stands with that of Job. This is
just one example of Whybrays innovative thinking, which I admire. Nonetheless, I have
a few objections to certain parts of his reading.
First, I expected Whybray to develop these introductory remarks to a much greater extent
that he does in his discussion of chapters 12. Whybray spends much more time arguing
that the satan is Gods duly authorized subordinate and cannot do anything that God does
not want him to do (2428; cf. 29). For example, Whybray states: Although he is
evidently permitted to speak his mind, the Satan cannot act without Yahwehs
permission; but he makes use of his privilege of speech to persuade Yahweh to change his
mind (26). This is somewhat inconsistent with his view that this is also a test of Yahweh.
In this, he backs off some his initial assertions, which seems to be a common habit in this
book.
4
I ponder why the satan cannot have powers beyond speech to exercise freely. I
understand the problem to monotheism and Gods omnipotence and sovereignty, if the
satan is on equal footing with God. It is possible, however, to hold firmly to the satans
free will without allowing him equality with God. I also wonder why Whybray is willing
to characterize Yahweh as omnipotent but without moral backbone. He says that the satan
can tempt Yahweh (8), persuade Yahweh to change his mind (26), easily persuade
him (26), and persuade him, apparently against his will (24). Further, he [Yahweh]
exhibits weakness in allowing himself to be seduced by the Satans cynicism (24). Once
again, Yahwehs omnipotence is bought with his omnibeneficence. He has the moral
development of a child.
Whybray is, however, onto something of utmost importance when he acknowledges that
The Satan further accuses God of fostering this attitude of Jobs by giving him special
protection (v. 10), and claims that if Jobs wealth were to be stripped from him God would
discover the fraud (26, emphasis added). This accusation is far more serious than
Whybray, or any other interpreter to date, allows. The satan is saying here that Job is bad,
yet God has favored him. In this, God has disrupted the very foundations of retributive
justice: good should beget good; bad should beget bad. While Whybray had gone much
further out on this limb than had any other interpreter, except Day and Good, in 1998,
5


4. See also n. 1, supra.
5. P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: t!n in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988),
76, 8081. Day states: I am suggesting that Yahweh is on trial, for his conduct of world order, from the
very beginning [of the dispute] (81; cf. 80). She indicates that F. M. Cross and P. Mosca first suggested this
idea to her (76 n. 18). E. M. Good agrees with Day (In Turns of the Tempest: A Reading of Job [Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990], 195, 411 n. 17).
This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
he did not either see or develop the implications of what he was asserting: that God is also
accused. Whybray is almost there when he says, Jobs acceptance of this [the removal of
his benefits without cursing God] would appear to exonerate God (8). The legal
ramifications of the satans allegation are two: that Job actually has a blasphemous
intention; and that Yahweh has protected him with blessings rather than giving him what
he deserves. These are profoundly important to understanding the story. If Job stands
legally accused by the satan, God cannot stop the trial without again favoring Job. If God
stands legally accused, he cannot stop the trial any more than any other defendant can do
so. To be a just God, God cannot interfere with the justice system that he established,
without undoing justice entirely. God does, in fact, become dependent on Job to
demonstrate that he is what God says he is, against the view of the satan. Jobs failure to
blaspheme God in the face of his disasters does, indeed, exonerate God from the satans
charge. I am less convinced that Job has to, or does, come to believe in Gods absolute
sovereign freedom to give and take as he pleases in the process (8).
This position and all traditional readings of the book of Job simply fail to take the issue of
Jobs potential blasphemy seriously. The prologue repeatedly addresses the issue of
cursing/blasphemy (1:5, 11; 2:5, 9). Yet, hardly any readings name what is at stake, that
is, whether or not Job has a blasphemous intention (for which he has not done ritual
atonement, as he has done for his children) (1:5). And why might that be true, according
to the satan? Because God has protected Job from his blasphemous intention by rewarding
him instead of punishing him. The satan alleges that, if these rewards should be
withdrawn, the guilty act would surely follow the guilty mind. If we understand this, the
whole book, including the Elihu passages, makes much more sense. Whybray, in ignoring
law completely, is unable to take the last step of the journey his is on. God is dependent
on Job to exonerate him. This has profound theological implications as to the idea of
Gods sovereign freedom. God cannot be wholly independent if he is dependent on Job
for anything. In truth, relationship always demands that one surrender a certain degree of
freedom. The balance between the independence and dependence of both parties in any
relationship is always something of a dance. Love is freely given, but it is a risk to give
because one must surrender some degree of freedom in order to account for the needs of
the other. Any mentally healthy spouse, lover, or parent can attest to this. I do not see
why it should be different for God as First Lover, Creator, and Parent.
My second objection to Whybrays analysis of the prologue is in his depiction of Jobs
wife. Her intervention in the story is characterized as stupid (4), and she is said to be
giving wicked advice (31). He offers additionally: Her advice, Curse God and die, is a
deliberate echo of the Satans predictions in 1:11 and 2:5; and though its intention was
probably to bring an end to her husbands suffering, it was a temptation to him to sin
(34). He supports other interpreters portrayal of her as the mouthpiece of the Satan (20;
This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
cf. 11).
6
Whybray is far from cutting-edge in this regard! All interpreters have been very
hard on her, from the ancient interpreters to present-dayeven feministinterpreters.
7
I
do not think that Jobs wife is stupid, wicked, or anything less than extremely wise.
8

Several interpreters have noted that Job changes profoundly after her words.
9
We also
need to take that far more seriously than we have done before. Mrs. Job calls Job forward
into the struggle with God. She plays a critically important role in the book. If anyone in
the book is the mouthpiece of the Satan, it is surely Elihu, who actually accuses Job twice
of speaking derision (lg, a word within the realm of blasphemy), during his speeches.
10

This occurs first in 34:7: What mortal is like Job, who drinks up derision [lg] like water;
and a second time in 36:1718: You are full of a lawsuit of the wicked. Lawsuit and
litigation obsess you. Beware that wrath does not entice you into derision [lg], and do not
let a large bribe turn you aside. The satan says Job will do the guilty act. Elihu says Job
indeed did it. Importantly, Whybray states in his discussion of Elihus appearance and
disappearance from the text: Elihu is perhaps best seen as a transitional figure who quite
properly disappears once his role has been played outa counterpart to that other figure,
the Satan, for whom also there was no further role in the authors scheme (18). Whybray
observes the connection between the two characters but does take it much further. I
wouldto suggest that Elihu finishes what the satan began, which is why they come and
go from the narrative as they do.
I could continue in similar vein with the rest of Whybrays chapters, but I will not in
favor of bringing this review to a close. In sum, I believe that Whybray is one of the most
insightful and important of Joban interpreters, in that he explains simply some of the
standard but complex views of the book; advances some less well accepted ideas; and
articulates or begins to formulate some quite innovative ideas that are supported by the
text. This is not, however, a perfect work. I have my critiques; I read some texts

6. See, e.g., N. C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 96. He is,
however, hardly alone.
7. G. West states: [T]here is a long history of interpretation in which Jobs wife has been severely battered
(Hearing Jobs Wife: Towards a Feminist Reading of Job, Old Testament Essays 4 [1991]: 107). The
exceptions to this rule are I. Pardes, Counter-traditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992), 14554; and E. van Wolde, The Development of Job: Mrs. Job as
Catalyst, in Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature (ed. A. Brenner; FCB 9; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), 20121. D. Schweitzer also has a sympathetic reading of Mrs. Job, although it is not
quite as strong as those of Pardes and van Wolde ( Curse God and Die: Was Jobs Wife Completely
Wrong? Touchstone 14 [September 1996]: 3238).
8. For my full discussion of Mrs. Job, see Jobs Wife as Hero: A Feminist-Forensic Reading of the Book of
Job, BibInt 14 (2006): 374423.
9. R. D. Moore, The Integrity of Job, CBQ 45 (1983): 1731; van Wolde, Development of Job, 2046.
10. BDB states that the noun lg, as it is used in 34:7 and 36:18, nearly = blasphemy (514). R. L. Harris and
G. L. Archer agree that lg belongs in the constellation of roots meaning blasphemy and slander (TWOT
1:480).
This review was published by RBL !2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
differently. Thus, I am reminded of an old joke: It is said that doing biblical studies is a
lot like owning a house with ten windows and nine screens: no matter how you arrange
them, some flies get in! This is no truer than when reading the book of Job. Writing a
commentary on Jobeven a reader-friendly oneis a very demanding and intricate task,
one that will always allow some critic to find the flies that got in. What Whybray
accomplished here is both significant and difficult, yet he made it look effortless. All
scholars should be familiar with his reading of the text. It has the added advantage that it is
an easy and delightful reading experience. I recommend it highly.