Near the beginning of the Joban Dialogues, Job's friend Eliphaz is attributed a remarkably subversive vision (Job 4:12-21). Laced with images of divine judgment and deception, this vision undermines the very foundation of the friends' theology, and closely conforms to Job's. In particular, the vision's distinctive corporeal imagery and its conclusion that anyone can suddenly perish reflect Job's characteristic style, and form the basis for his accusations of divine injustice. In this study, Ken Brown argues that the tensions between the vision's present attribution to Eliphaz and its role in the dialogue run much deeper than is generally perceived, and can only be resolved through a reassessment of the book's development, both synchronic and diachronic. Brown suggests that the present order of Job 3-4 and 25-27 is neither original nor accidental, but reflects an intentional reframing of the dialogue, and anticipates similar moves across the earliest reception of the book. This work was awarded the Manfred Lautenschlaeger Award for Theological Promise 2016.

Born 1982; 2010 MA in Biblical Studies; 2014 Dr. theol. at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; currently teaching at Whitworth University (Spokane, WA, USA).

Autorentext

Born 1982; 2010 MA in Biblical Studies; 2014 Dr. theol. at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen; currently teaching at Whitworth University (Spokane, WA, USA).

Klappentext

Near the beginning of the Joban Dialogues, Job's friend Eliphaz is attributed a remarkably subversive vision (Job 4:12-21). Laced with images of divine judgment and deception, this vision undermines the very foundation of the friends' theology, and closely conforms to Job's. In particular, the vision's distinctive corporeal imagery and its conclusion that anyone can suddenly perish reflect Job's characteristic style, and form the basis for his accusations of divine injustice. In this study, Ken Brown argues that the tensions between the vision's present attribution to Eliphaz and its role in the dialogue run much deeper than is generally perceived, and can only be resolved through a reassessment of the book's development, both synchronic and diachronic. Brown suggests that the present order of Job 3-4 and 25-27 is neither original nor accidental, but reflects an intentional reframing of the dialogue, and anticipates similar moves across the earliest reception of the book.
This work was awarded the Manfred Lautenschlaeger Award for Theological Promise 2016.

Zusammenfassung
Am Anfang des Hiobdialogs wird Hiobs Freund Eliphas eine beunruhigende Vision (Hi 4,12-21) zugeschrieben, welche die Theologie der Freunde herausfordert. Vor allem ihre besondere körperliche Darstellungsform und die Folgerung, dass jeder jederzeit sterben kann, spiegeln Hiobs charakteristischen Stil wider und bilden die Basis seiner Vorwürfe gegen die göttliche Gerechtigkeit. Ken Brown zeigt, dass die Vision ursprünglich Hiob zugeschrieben wurde und erst später in die erste Eliphasrede integriert worden ist. Diese Veränderung wurde absichtlich vorgenommen und steht in Zusammenhang mit ähnlichen Umstellungen im dritten Redegang (Hi 22-27). Gegen die klare Tendenz in der jüngsten englischsprachigen Forschung, sich auf die Endgestalt des Hiobbuches zu konzentrieren, legt Brown dar, dass Hiobs Redaktion und Rezeption eng verbunden sind und nur in gegenseitiger Wahrnehmung das Verständnis des Hiobbuches fördern.
Diese Arbeit wurde mit dem Manfred Lautenschlaeger Award for Theological Promise 2016 ausgezeichnet.