I recently read the Testament of Job. In my Charlesworth
Pseudepigrapha, the Testament of Job is dated from the first century
B.C.E. to the first century C.E.
I first heard of the Testament of Job when I was an undergraduate. I
was interested in Judaism, and I checked out from the college library an
anthology of Jewish works. The Testament of Job was among the earlier
works in the book, and the editorial introduction to that work
contrasted the Testament of Job with the biblical Book of Job. In the
biblical Book of Job, God permits the Satan to afflict Job as a test: to
determine if Job will curse God or not. But, in the biblical Book of
Job, there is a distraction from that story: the dialogues. Job’s three
friends allege that Job must have done something wrong for him to suffer
his misfortune, whereas Job affirms his innocence and even criticizes
God. The Testament of Job, however, depicts Job as one who is faithful
to God through all of his sufferings.
Years later, I am reading my Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha for my daily
quiet time, and I decide to read the Testament of Job. I notice in
thumbing through the book that Job’s dialogues with his three friends,
and also Elihu, are depicted in the Testament of Job. I wonder how
exactly the Testament of Job will present them, since, in that anthology
that I read years before, I read that the Testament of Job departs from
the biblical Book of Job by focusing on Job as one who is faithful to
God through his suffering, not as one who defends himself and questions
God.
Overall, in the dialogues as they are depicted in the Testament of
Job, Job’s friends are marveling at Job’s misfortune, whereas Job holds
fast to God. I thought of Colossians 3:2 in reading Job’s speeches: “Set
your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (KJV). Job
particularly focuses on the blissful afterlife that he will receive.
(And, on a side note, the Testament of Job is interesting in what it
says about the afterlife, as it presents the themes of future
resurrection, the bodily ascension of Job’s dead children to heaven, and
Job’s soul leaving the body to go to heaven).
A puzzling aspect of the dialogues in the Testament of Job, however,
is one of the dialogues between Job and Baldad (who is called Bildad in
the biblical Book of Job). This dialogue occurs in Testament of Job
37-38.
In Testament of Job 37, Baldad asks Job in whom Job hopes, and Job
answers that he hopes in God. Baldad then asks who is causing Job’s
suffering, and Job replies that God is. Baldad then says the following
(and I am quoting R.P. Spittler’s translation for all quotations of the
Testament of Job):
“Do you hope upon God? Then how do you reckon him to be unfair by
inflicting you with all these plagues or destroying your goods? If he
were to give and then take away, it would actually be better for him not
to have given anything. At no time does a king dishonor his own soldier
who bears arms well for him. Or who will ever understand the deep
things of the Lord and his wisdom? Who dares to ascribe to the Lord an
injustice?”
Baldad then asks Job a question: Why do we see the sun rise in the
east, set in the west, then rise in the east again? Baldad asks Job to
answer this, if Job is of sound mind and is God’s servant.
Job in Testament of Job 38 responds to Baldad. Job affirms that his
own mind is sound, and so he is justified to “speak out the magnificent
things of the Lord”. Job says that fleshly human beings have no business
meddling in heavenly matters. Job then asks Baldad a riddle about the
human digestive system: who separates the water and the food that enter
the mouth when they arrive at the latrine? Baldad responds that he does
not know, and Job retorts, “If you do not understand the functions of
the body, how can you understand heavenly matters?”
What I understand to be going on here is this: Baldad is questioning
whether Job is right to be faithful to God. That is why Baldad asks Job a
riddle to test Job’s sanity: Baldad thinks that Job is insane to follow
a God who is mistreating his own servant. Job responds, however, by
affirming that his mind is sound, that he is right to glorify God, and
that humans cannot judge God because they are limited in their
understanding. In the biblical Book of Job, God actually conveys to Job
the third lesson, saying that Job was wrong to judge God on account of
Job’s limited knowledge. In the Testament of Job, by contrast, Job does
not need for God to teach him that lesson, for Job already knows that
people should not judge God on account of their limitations in
knowledge.
My interpretation of Testament of Job 37-38 (though I probably am not
the first person to come up with it) runs into problems, though. For
one, Baldad in Testament of Job 37 asks Job, “Then how do you reckon
[God] to be unfair by inflicting you with all these plagues or
destroying your goods?” Second, Baldad states: “Or who will ever
understand the deep things of the Lord and his wisdom? Who dares to
ascribe to the Lord an injustice?” It seems from these statements that
Job is the one accusing God of injustice, whereas Baldad is the one who
is saying that we cannot judge God because our understanding is limited.
This is the opposite of what I am arguing.
I do not believe that these problems are insurmountable, however.
Regarding Baldad’s question of how Job can reckon God to be unfair, the
note in my Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha states that the “text is
corrupt.” The note refers to the Paris manuscript, which renders the
passage as “How then can he be unfair by inflicting…?” In this reading,
Baldad is not saying that Job is accusing God of injustice, but rather
that God himself is unjust. Baldad is wondering why Job trusts in a God
who would afflict him in this way. On Baldad’s statements about
understanding the deep things of the Lord and ascribing to God an
injustice, perhaps Baldad is being sarcastic. Baldad looks at the
situation and thinks that God is being unfair, and Baldad mocks the idea
that we cannot question or judge God because our understanding is
limited. But Job continues to hold on to his faith.