19 GOD’S ANSWER AND JOB’S RESPONSE A radical reinterpretation of this verse was proposed by J.B. Cur- tis, who translates: “Therefore, I feel loathing, contempt and revul- sion [toward you, O God], and I am sorry for frail man” 60. Other interpreters imbue the verse with a hostile intention ironically hidden beneath the superficial penitence 61. Many have followed this ap- proach, with variations, and there is a strong consensus that Job does not actually show contrition 62. The correct translation of 42,6 is the one most common (with variations) among the interpreters until recently: “Therefore I am disgusted and repent / on dust and ashes”. This translation is philo- logically unproblematic: - sam is one of a number of verbs that are both transitive and intran- sitive 63. To be sure, even without a syntactic direct object, verbs of emotion have a contextual object, something at which the emo- tion is directed. In the present case, what Job feels disgust at is himself (LXX ἐφαύλισα ἐµαυτόν) or, more specifically, his words (thus Ibn Ezra), for he has spoken in a way he regrets, namely with- out knowledge. - ~xn in the niphal certainly can mean “repent”, “change one’s mind”. (God is usually the subject in this sense, but humans are the subject in Exod 13,17 and Jer 8,6). Although l[ ~xn can mean “be comforted for”, l[ is here serving as a preposition of location — not “for” but, literally, “on”. - rpaw rp[-l[. As indicated by the Masoretic dichotomy after the second verb, the action of both verbs takes place “on dust and ashes” which is where Job is sitting. This is the place where the wretched sit in Sir 40,3 and this is certainly the most natural construal in Esth 4,3 and Isa 58,5, which refer to acts of repentance, not mourning. “Dust and ashes” is at the same time an objective correlative of Job’s condition. The phrase, when Abraham (Gen 18,27) and Job (30,19b) use it of themselves, does not mean wretchedness but connotes it. CURTIS, “On Job’s Response”, 505. 60 K. FULLERTON, “The Original Conclusion to the Book of Job”, ZAW 42 61 (1924) 125, achieves the same effect as the ironic reading by the older expe- dient of eliminating 42,1-6 as a later gloss. Verse 6 does, he says, express re- pentance, but if Job were really to speak 42,1-6, “He would humble himself before power and would therefore be untrue to himself”. An exception is NEWELL, “Job”, 315, who argues that Job is contrite for 62 his verbal overreaching and speaking without understanding”. E.g. alm, ary, dxp, har, [dy. 63 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati