20 MICHAEL V. FOX Nor is it an epithet of humanity, as if you could say “dust and ashes” and everyone would know that you are alluding to humans. Nor does it refer to symbols of mourning for his children, as Clines proposes 64 (similarly the Targum). One would not “be consoled” for mourning or its symbols, but only for the loss itself 65. Apart from the philological unlikelihood of Curtis’s parsing and its variants, I find it peculiar that the proud, outspoken Job, who was convinced that God demanded honesty, would suddenly be- come shifty and evasive, whether by concealing his real meaning beneath an acceptable one, or by speaking “tongue-in-cheek” 66. Either way he would be lying. Nor does it help matters if we assert, with Clines, that Job’s reply (however translated) was “not insin- cere; but it is a crafty and subtle speech that means more than it says” 67. If so, it means less than it says, for God is not supposed to extract its full meaning. It is still evasive and more craven than straightforward repentance would be 68. CLINES, Job 38-42, 175. 64 When l[ ~xn means “be comforted for”, the indirect object is not the 65 mourning itself but a deceased person (2 Sam 13,39; Jer 16,7) or a personified city (Jer 31,15; Ezek 14,22; 32,31) or (in the piel) the misfortune itself (Job 42,11). With humans as the subject, ~xn means “repent”, “show contrition” (Jer 8,6 and 31,19). With God as the subject, it means “change [his] mind” (Gen 6,6-7; Exod 32,12.14; Judg 2,18, and often). This is usually, and correctly, trans- lated “repent” or “regret”, for while God would not be said to feel contrition for a misdeed, he does change his mind and regret earlier decisions. As ROBERTSON, “Book of Job”, 466, puts it. 66 CLINES, Job 38-42, 177. 67 According to ROBERTSON, “Book of Job”, 466, Job’s ironic confession 68 shows that he has been forced “to entreat his opponent; in order to calm God’s whirlwinds he has to declare his guilt by his own mouth”. In fact, Job in no way “entreats” God, nor is he terrified by the whirlwind, which is a concomitant of Theophany (Ezek 1,4; Nah 1,3; Zech 9,14, etc.) and, in that setting, not devas- tating to its recipients. Tsevat does not find 42,6 problematic. Job, it seems, is repenting of his misconception that the world is run by retribution (TSEVAT, “Meaning”, 93, 100). But Job’s contrition seems exaggerated if it is merely for his having shared the nearly universal belief in divine morality. W.S. MORROW, “Consolation, Rejection, and Repentance in Job 42,6”, JBL 105 (1986) 225, ex- amines three different and incompatible interpretations of 42,6 and decides that since none can be disproved, all are intended. The author, he concludes, “created a situation that can be interpreted in several ways according to the theological inclinations of the reader. The vague and ambiguous language of 42,6 is a re- © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati