Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2007 The Rhetoric of Disablement and Repair in the Testament of Job Thomas Scott Cason
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
THE RHETORIC OF DISABLEMENT AND REPAIR IN
THE TESTAMENT OF JOB
By
THOMAS SCOTT CASON
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Religion in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2007
The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Thomas Scott Cason defended 8, June 2007.
______
Matthew Goff Professor Director Dissertation ______
John Marincola Outside Committee Member ______
Eibert Tigchelaar Committee Member ______
David Levenson Committee Member ______
Nicole Kelley Committee Member
Approved: ______John Corrigan, Chair, Department of Religion ______Joseph Travis, Dean, College of Arts of Sciences
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the named committee members.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people whom I wish to thank for making this dissertation possible. First and foremost is my dissertation advisor, Dr. Matthew Goff. Thank you for your willingness to direct a dissertation that involved a methodological interest outside of your own. Being that this was the first dissertation you have directed, I hope that the final product is something which you will be able to look back on with pride. Thank you also for your relentless proofreading. I appreciate that you pushed me to become a more careful reader of my own work. As far as other faculty go, I owe a special thanks to Dr. David Levenson. I would never have had the opportunity to complete this dissertation had he not given me the opportunity to enroll in the program five years ago. Dr. Nicole Kelley also deserves thanks. With our common interests in both rhetorical criticism and Disability Studies, I have not felt entirely like a „fish out of water‟ within the department. Thanks also to Dr. Eibert Tigchelaar, who, although came joined the committee late, has given me some very interesting ideas about where to take this project in the future. Finally, I need to also thank Dr. John Marincola from the Classics department. I knew after having taken your Lysias seminar during the Summer of 2004, that your masterful knowledge of the Greek language and insight into ancient rhetoric would only strengthen an already formidable dissertation committee. I have friends to thank also for assisting me in my journey. At FSU, Kevin Vaccarella, Jordan Smith, and Jim Lehman have proven the steadiest of allies over the past five years. Thanks to all three of you for giving this „single guy‟ a group with which to be apart. I will not soon forget the many nights of playing RISK, along with the thought-provoking conversations and the countless laughs that accompanied them. Hopefully we will make time for more games in the future—the „tank‟ still has one more game left in him. Thanks also to my friends back home in Jacksonville. Chris Howell and Scott Hull are lifetime compatriots with whom I have shared many memorable occasions over the past twenty years. Thank you for giving me a life outside of the ivory tower of academia. I have been quite fortunate in the fact that the University of Iowa has given me the opportunity to join their faculty as Instructor of Biblical Studies this coming fall. On that
iii point, let me give a special thanks to the head of the department at Iowa, Dr. Raymond Mentzer, for taking a chance on me as an ABD. There is a bit more motivation for finishing a dissertation on time when you know that there is a job waiting for you on the other side. And what a job that it is. To my Dad, I am grateful that we have had the chance to build a relationship over the past five years. I hope that we will continue to do so in the years to come. Finally, I wish to thank the person who has made my education possible: my mother. Thank you, mom for encouraging me to pursue my education and not give up on my dream. Thank you also for sticking by my side when it looked like I would never get done. The time has come that I started to give back to you and I start with this dissertation. Indeed, I dedicate this project especially to you.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………. Page vii
1. ENABLING JOB IN THE TESTAMENT OF JOB……….. Page 1
Introduction………………………………………………… Page 1 Synopsis of T. Job………………………………………….. Page 3 Manuscript Evidence…………………………………..……. Page 7 Date, Provenance, and Authorship………………………….. Page 9 Ascribing a Hellenistic Jewish Date and Authorship……….. Page 13 The Priority of the Female Body in T. Job Scholarship…….. Page 16 Shifting the Focus of Gender in T. Job Studies…………….. Page 24 Disability Theory………………………….………………… Page 25 From Conceptual to Textual………………………………… Page 35 Project Trajectory……………………………………….…… Page 38
2. MODES OF MASCULINITY IN ANTIQUITY………….. Page 40
Introduction………………………………………………… Page 40 Warfare as Domination…………………………………….. Page 41 Literary Replications of Royal Dominance………………… Page 46 Royal Benefaction as Domination…………………………. Page 53 Summary…………………………………………….…..…. Page 58 The Stoic Ideal: Domination of the Self……………………. Page 59 Conclusion…………………………………………………. Page 64
3. JOB‟S DOMINANCE OVER OTHERS…………….….… Page 66
Introduction………………………………………………… Page 66 The Motif of Kingship in T. Job…………………………… Page 68 Job‟s Mastery Over His Kingdom…………………………. Page 71 The Threat of the Doormaid……………………………….. Page 73 Job: The Ideal Royal Benefactor…………………………… Page 75 Job‟s Mastery Over His Social World……………………… Page 78 Conclusion………………………………………………….. Page 89
4. JOB‟S DOMINANCE OVER HIS SOUL………………... Page 91
Introduction………………………………………………… Page 91 Satan and His Insurgents Make Preparations for War….….. Page 91 Job, Silence, and Self-Control………………….…………... Page 93 The Anger of Satan in T. Job…………………….…………. Page 94 The Losses of Job…………………………………….…….. Page 96 The Decentering of Job………………………….………….. Page 101
v Job and Sitidos……………………………….……………… Page 107 Figuring the Body of Sitidos in T. Job……………………… Page 110 Job‟s Confrontation with Satan…………………………….. Page 118 Job Confronts His Friends………………………………….. Page 121 The Kings Endeavor to Master Job…………………………. Page 124 The Convergence of Elious and Satan in T. Job………….… Page 130 Conclusion………………………………………………….. Page 133
5. JOB‟S DOMINANCE OVER HIS SOUL AND OTHERS... Page 135
Introduction………………………………………………… Page 135 Job as Master Over Others Once Again……………………. Page 135 Job‟s Final Address to His Children……………………….. Page 136 Repairing the Joban Body in T. Job………………………… Page 136 Repairing the Daughters of Job in T. Job…………………… Page 142 Lamenting Job……………………………………………… Page 148 Conclusion………………………………………………….. Page 150
6. CONCLUSION……………….………………………….… Page 152
The Rhetoric of Male Disability in T. Job…………………... Page 152 Masculinity and T. Job Studies……………………………… Page 155 Conclusion…………………………………………………… Page 157
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………… Page 159
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH………………………………………… Page 169
vi ABSTRACT
The dissertation argues that the disablement and “repair” of Job‟s body in T. Job mark the transformations of his masculine identity over the course of the narrative. In the chapters leading up to his ordeal, Job represents the preeminent male figure in ancient society—an able-bodied king who realizes his masculinity through his mastery over the social world. With the onset of his ordeal, Job‟s authority quickly evaporates, as Satan destroys the system of brokerage through which Job once demonstrated his public dominance. Satan finally assails Job with a debilitating plague, signaling Job‟s loss of control over his own physical body; the final demise of his former masculine identity is complete. But the writer does not leave Job emasculated in a paralyzed and diseased body. Rather, Job turns inward to realize his masculinity by enduring the pains of his body through the practice of self-control. So valuable is his new masculine identity, that Job, in ironic fashion, not only resists the efforts of his able-bodied antagonists (i.e. Satan and the four kings) to take control of his docile body, but ultimately shames them in turn. With Job‟s physical restoration at the narrative‟s denouement, however, the narrative most clearly promotes its conception of what authentic masculinity entails. While Job can claim to his children that he is a man of endurance (1:3), his restoration both as a benefactor and an able-bodied man indicates that the hegemonic masculine ideal has not been entirely replaced. Rather, this final portrait of Job promotes a hybrid form of masculinity which necessitates mastery over both his soul and others. In so doing, T. Job reinforces to its readership that full-functionality really is a defining feature of authentic masculinity.
vii CHAPTER ONE ENABLING JOB IN THE TESTAMENT OF JOB1
Introduction “The bodies of men with disabilities serve as a continual reminder that they are at odds with the expectations of the dominant culture.”2 While Gerschick and Miller‟s assertion is in reference to disabled men living in the modern world,3 the modest research on representations of disabled men in antiquity suggests that it would have held true at that time as well.4 This project aims at enhancing our knowledge of how ancients conceived of male disability by looking at its representation in the pseudepigraphical Testament of Job. Within the history of scholarship, T. Job stands as one of the few ancient narratives where the women in the story have received arguably more attention than the men. This is for good reason. As Pieter van der Horst points out, of the 388 verses of the story, 107 of those, or just under one-third, deal with women.5 Whereas only Job‟s wife
1 Unless otherwise noted, any translations from the Greek and Hebrew languages are my own.
2 Tom Gershick and Adam Miller, “Coming to Terms. Masculinity and Physical Disability,” in Men‟s Health and Illness. Gender, Power, and the Body (eds. Donald Sabo and David Frederick Gordon; London: Sage Publications, 1995), 183.
3 On the literature related to masculinity and disability see Joanna Bourke, Dismembering the Male. Men‟s Bodies, Britain and the Great War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Anthony Enns, “The Spectacle of Disabled Masculinity in John Woo‟s „Heroic Bloodshed‟ Films” in Screening Disability. Essays on Cinema and Disability (eds. Christopher Smit and Anthony Enns; New York: University Press of America, 2001), 151-164; Paul McIlvenny, “The Disabled Male Body „Writes/Draws Back.‟ Graphic Fictions of Masculinity and the Body in the Autobiographical Comic The Spiral Cage,” in Revealing Male Bodies (ed. Nancy Tuana et al.; Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 2002), 101-124 ; Tom Shakespeare, “When is a man not a manς When he‟s disabled,” in Working with Men for Change (ed. Jim Wild; Philadelphia: UCL, Press, 1999), 46-57.
4 To date, Mikeal Parsons, “The Character of the Lame Man in Acts 3-4,” JBL 124 (2005): 295-312, is the only full-blown effort which deals with this topic explicitly. See also Jeremy Schipper, “Why Do You Still Speak of Your Affairs?”: Mephibosheth, Disability, and National Identity in the David Story (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2005), as his disability reading of the Mephibosheth narratives is in reference to a disabled male character in the biblical corpus.
5 Pieter van der Horst, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 95.
1 and his daughters account for 1 percent of the space in the biblical book of Job, and only a little more in the LXX, T. Job not only expands their roles but adds other female supporting characters such as a doormaid, widows, and female house servants.6 Even with this increased importance, however, the fact still remains that the narrative is first and foremost about men, and Job in particular. Despite this fact, only Kugler and Rohrbaugh can claim the lone literary treatment of Job in the story, but even their anthropological reading extends to no more than five pages.7 This, then, is where this present endeavor makes its most significant contribution to biblical scholarship. Turning its attention towards the „other‟ sex in the story, the project inverts the question of gender to ask how Job himself functions in T. Job. The fledgling discipline of Disability Studies supplies the theoretical underpinnings for this investigation. Indeed, the disablement and eventual repair of the Joban body provides the hermeneutical key for reading the narrative as a unified literary work. Of course, the language of impairment and deformity—both of which are a part of the “system of disability” about which I will say more about below—is in no way foreign to the Job legend. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan displays his authority over Job‟s body by afflicting it with “loathsome sores” ((r Nyx#; 2:7). The LXX also has Job suffer from a “loathsome wound” (e3lkei ponhrw|~) buts adds that Job‟s flesh not only leaks discharges but that it is also mixed with putrid worms (2:8; 7:5). As far as the Job Targum from Qumran goes, one need not look beyond column sixteen to find the language of disability. To be sure, the speech of Job here corresponds to one found in chapter thirty of the biblical book. In what is already a grueling account of misery, the biblical Job asserts, “And now my soul is poured out within me. The days of my affliction take hold of me. The night bores my bones and my pains do not rest” (30:16-17). As palpable as this imagery is, however, the language surrounding Job‟s physical suffering borders on the macabre in the targumic account.8 While Job asserts
6 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 95.
7 Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job,” JSP 14 (2004): 53-57.
8 The Aramaic translations from 11QtgJob that follow come from the reconstructed text of Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. 11Q2-18,
2 that“boils emerge” from his flesh, his claim that “under deterioration I am bent down”9 presumes a man who is severely impaired (11QtgJob XVI, 2-3). Further down the column, Job states that his soul is poured out from him just as in the biblical account (5- 6). As he goes on to describe his inward parts, however, the bodily imagery with which he couches his miserable state of affairs is augmented once again. More than just the night digging holes in his bones, now Job‟s “bones burn” within him (7). Moreover, it not just his “pains” that rob him of rest, but the very “veins” which course through his skin (7-8). Both the Septuagint and the Job Targum from Qumran establish a theme which recurs in later retellings of the Joban legend: the amplification of imagery detailing the degree of Job‟s bodily difference. The embellishment of Job‟s bodily suffering is also present in T. Job, only this time over the course of a full-length narrative. Not only is Job‟s skin “eaten with worms” (skwlhko/brwton) and made porous on account of its discharges (20:8), but Job himself takes on the attributes of an invalid man. Paralyzed and weakened by his ordeal (18:5), he is unable to stand without the assistance of others (40:2). These images make T. Job ideal for exploring how ancients perceived male disability, as Job‟s masculinity undergoes identifiable shifts depending on the physical state of his body.
Synopsis of the Testament of Job With its deathbed address and direct paraenesis in 45:1-5, the Testament of Job follows the testamentary genre of literature.10 While T. Job has its basis in the biblical tale of Job, the similarities between the two stories are superficial at best. Whereas the biblical story of Job is primarily all speech, the opposite holds true for T. Job. The book of Job devotes thirty-nine of its forty-two chapters to uninterrupted dialogue whereas the
11Q20-31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 117-119. 9 In reading tppkt) as “I am bent over,” here I follow the recommendation of Martinez et al., ibid., 119, that the verb can be read as a 1st sing. form (as opposed to a 3rd fem. sing.) in light of the Septuagint‟s use of the 1st sing. passive form pe/fermai.
10 Note the argument of John Collins, “Testaments,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 325, that T. Job does not fit testamentary genre entirely on account of its lack of eschatological material.
3 Testament represents a predominantly narrative retelling of the Joban story. In regards to plot and characterization, the two accounts essentially share the same characters but the Testament of Job deviates substantially from the biblical tale. To be sure, while the character of Job in the Hebrew Bible undergoes a period of suffering unaware that he is the object of a divine contest between YHWH and Satan, the Testament‟s Job willingly undergoes his trial experience at the promise of great wealth at the end. He is well aware that Satan is responsible for his diseased body and the loss of his family. As far as the structure of the narrative goes, I divide T. Job into three parts based on the transformations made to Job‟s masculinity throughout the story. The divisions are as follows: Job as Master Over Others (chaps. 1-15) Job as Master Over Self (chaps. 16-45) Job as Master Over Self and Others (chaps. 46-53)
Job as Master Over Others As the narrative opens, Job is on his deathbed preparing to recount his tale of endurance to his children. In retelling his story, Job transports his audience back to an earlier period in which he ruled as king over Egypt. Job recollects a time when the Lord revealed to him that Satan had erected a temple within his city. The depiction of Job in these early chapters speaks of a man who achieves his masculinity by dominating others, and the audience catches their first glimpse of this dynamic here. On learning that Satan has infiltrated his land, Job begs the Lord for the opportunity to destroy Satan‟s temple. The Lord grants Job permission but warns that Satan will retaliate should Job destroy his temple. He guarantees Job, however, that should he burn down the shrine and endure the ensuing assault, all of his property would be returned to him twofold (T. Job 4:1-11). Job accepts and what ensues is more of a contest than a story of suffering. After razing the temple, Job prepares himself for Satan‟s retaliation. Returning to his home and locking himself within his house, he tells his doormen to give no report of his presence should anyone seek him out (5:3-6:1). Satan appears shortly thereafter masqueraded as a pauper begging Job‟s doormaid for bread (7:1). Though the doormaid is blind to Satan‟s ruse, Job sees right through the disguise. The men exchange words directly, and the scene
4 ends with Satan threatening to make Job‟s body like wholly burnt bread when he returns (7:12). Chapters 9-15 serve as an interlude of sorts as Job recounts his generosity as a benefactor prior to his ordeal. Here again, the narrator depicts Job as a man who acquires honor through his ability to control others: he commands his servants to carry out his demands as a benefactor, manages the contemptuous speech of women in his household, makes sacrifices to the Lord to control the heart of his sons, demonstrates his dominance over creation through his ownership of livestock, and establishes a network of clientele through his generous patronage.
Job as Master Over Self Satan‟s retaliation against Job begins in chapter sixteen. In an effort to coerce Job to speak contemptuously against the Lord (cf. 16:4; 20:1), Satan attacks Job‟s capability to dominate others. In destroying Job‟s property (16:1-4), turning his constituency against him (16:3;17:1), bringing down Job‟s house upon his children (18:1), and gathering looters to pillage what is left of his dwelling (18:2-4), Satan effectively ensures that Job loses his reputation as benefactor. On witnessing the devastation done to both his possessions and family, Job transforms from a character who was once able-bodied and physically active to one emblematic of passivity and weakness. Helpless to stop the destruction around him, Job describes himself as one “weakened, as a woman paralyzed in her loins by the magnitude of birth pangs” (18:4). In chapter twenty, Satan comes to Job in the form of a hurricane and blows him off of his throne. Job reports to his reader that he remained trapped there for three hours, no doubt due to the feebleness of his body (20:6). Shortly thereafter, Satan afflicts Job with a severe plague. Job‟s body seeps fluid from its outer orifices while worm-infested sores cover his skin from head to toe. Job‟s loss of control over his physical universe is now complete. The writer does not leave Job without a masculine identity, however, as Job turns inward instead to endure the passions of his soul and the pains of his body. T. Job introduces Job‟s wife Sitidos to the reader in chapter twenty-one. Whereas Job‟s ordeal renders his body passive, Sitidos takes on an active role in the narrative, going to great lengths to take care of her husband‟s weakened form. Sitidos labors as a
5 maidservant to certain nobles in order to acquire bread for Job‟s body (21:1-4). The city leaders eventually withhold bread from her, yet she remains undeterred in providing sustenance for her husband (22:1). So innate is her concern for his survival that she divides her own portions of foods and gives them to Job (22:2). She even goes so far as to shear her hair as payment for three loaves of bread (23:1-11). As Sitidos‟ body slowly deteriorates on account of her labors, she becomes Satan‟s unwitting pawn as he tries to compel Job to speak contemptuously against the Lord. Sensitive to her bodily and the pain of her husband, Sitidos‟ earthly concerns permit Satan to take control of her reason. Indeed, Sitidos is unaware that it is Satan who has coaxed her into uttering those fateful words, “speak some word against the Lord and die” (25:9). Job, however, recognizes Satan‟s ploy and calls his enemy out from behind his wife. Satan steps forth weeping, conceding defeat and confessing that Job is the far superior athlete. Following his bout with Satan, Job squares off against his friends in chapters 28- 45 of the narrative. Job and his friends quarrel over Job‟s alleged knowledge of his promised throne in an otherworldly kingdom. In trying to convince Job that he has gone mad and is in need of hospitalization, they attempt to gain control over his body lest he continue his exercise in endurance. Sitidos reappears in this section as well. She begs Job‟s friends to dig up the house that has fallen on her children in order that they might receive a proper memorial (39:8-10). Job, however, stops them from doing so, insisting that their memorial is in heaven and not on earth (39:11-12). Demonstrating again his ability to see what others cannot, Job prays and his wife and friends see a vision of the children crowned in heaven (40:1-3). On learning that her children have a memorial before the Lord, Sitidos determines to find rest in a stable. While sleeping, Sitidos passes away “in good spirits” and the city along with its animals lament over the circumstances of her passing (40:4-14). The Lord reproves Job‟s friends for their suspicion of his reason. Whereas Job offers sacrifices on behalf of three of his fellow kings, the ringleader of the group, Elihu, is not as fortunate. His association with Satan signified by his anger precludes him from finding redemption in the narrative. There is no mention of Job‟s own physical restoration following his encounter with his friends. Job resumes once again his role as benefactor within the city, indicating that his ordeal has come to an end (44:1-2).
6 Job as Master Over Others and Self Chapters 46-53 deal with Job‟s inheritance to his children and most notably his daughters. Job also recounts how his body underwent repair following his trial. Speaking to his daughters on his deathbed, Job bequeaths to them magical cords given to him by the Lord. Whereas the cords restored Job‟s strength and caused him to forget the “pains of his heart,” the changes brought about in the daughters after donning their father‟s cords are altogether unique (47:6-9). Each daughter receives a changed heart (48:2; 49:1; 50:2). As a result, their minds are removed from “earthly things” and they each begin to speak in angelic languages (48:2; 49:2-3; 50:1-2). When read in light of the other women who appear in the narrative, it becomes clear that the cords are designed to bring about a demonstrable transformation to their female identities. Any earthly concerns they might have held as women are effectively erased with the donning of their father‟s cords. The narrator switches from Job to his brother Nereos in the final three chapters of the book (51:1). Nereos recounts to his reader the death and burial of Job. The book closes with the poor, widows, orphans and the disabled lamenting Job‟s death (53:1-4).
Manuscript Evidence T. Job lives on in four Greek manuscripts (Paris [P, P2]11, Messina, Sicily [S], and Vatican [V]), three Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, and one Coptic manuscript. As the story was likely originally composed in Greek, scholars have drawn primarily on the Greek manuscripts in reconstructing the basic text of T. Job.12 P is the earliest manuscript of all of the Greek texts (eleventh century). Sebastian Brock, who has transcribed the most accurate version of P thus far, considers P the “best witness” to the
11 Because P2 is a copy of P from the sixteenth century, it holds little text-critical value in reconstructing the basic text of T. Job.
12 The Greek printed editions of T. Job are as follows: Brock, “Testamentum Iobi” in Testamentum Iobi, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece (PVTG 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 19-59; M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota II (T&S 5.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), lxxii, 103-137; K. Kohler, “The Testament of Job. An Essene Midrash on the Book of Job,” Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander-Kohut (ed. G. A. Kohut; Berlin: Calvary, 1897), 264-338; A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus (vol. 7; Rome: Typis Vaticanis [in Collegio Urbano apud Burliaeum], 1833), cols 180-191; R. Kraft, The Testament of Job according to the SV Text (Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1974; A. Manici, “Per la critica del „Testamentum Job,‟” AAL(R) 20 (1911): 479-502.
7 basic text of T. Job.13 P, however, is not the first text within a single stream of documents, but its own textual tradition. Kraft argues that because S (1307/1308) and V (thirteenth century) have numerous similarities over against P, it is more likely that there are two streams of tradition.14 Kraft‟s printed edition is a reconstruction of the archetype of the S-V stream. Textual evidence which points to two different streams of tradition are as follows:15 The compound stems in P outnumber those found in the S-V material in the same passages. In several Greek passages, P uses the epithet “Father” to refer to the deity while both S and V use “God” and “Lord” (43:11; 52:6)16 Whereas P prefers the Greek tekni/a, both S and V prefer te/kna to refer to Job‟s children (5:1, 2; 6:1; 45:5; 47:11).17 In the lament in chapter 32, S and V read “Where now (nu/n)” throughout, while in 32:2, 3, 10, 11, P has “Where then (ou~n).” If we presume consistency in form, then P‟s reading seems secondary if not accidental.18 S bears fewer “recensional tendencies” than that of P.19 For instance, after the Divine gives Job permission to tear down Satan‟s temple, S includes the very awkward and seemingly unnecessary question “and why would he take action to rebuild itς” This is altogether absent from P.20
13 Brock, “Testamentum Iobi,” 6-7.
14 Kraft, The Testament of Job, 5-7.
15 The following examples are from Kraft, ibid., 6-7.
16 However, note that all three do use the epithet “Father” in 33.9. Kraft suggests that one possible reason for this congruency is that it points back to the reading of the original P-S-V archetype.
17 Kraft points out that there are points where all three texts use te/kna, indicating that either tekni/a is “secondary” here or the S-V stream emended the inconsistency found the P-S-V archetype.
18 Or, perhaps, P preserves the original reading and the S-V represents a correction. Both scenarios presume that P and S-V follow two distinct streams of tradition.
19 Kraft, The Testament of Job, 7.
20 V also omits this question which makes sense if it is editing S.
8 These examples notwithstanding, the two textual streams are not that different from one another. It will be possible to approximate the earliest form of T. Job once the Coptic manuscript has been fully published,21 as it is the oldest of all the manuscripts (fifth century).22 Until this is made available, it is left to the interpreter to decide whether to use the printed edition of Brock or Kraft. Note, however, that Ian Scott has recently published online a critical edition of the Greek witnesses of T. Job making it possible to compare not only P, S, and V but the editions of Brock and Kraft as well.23 In terms of the printed edition that I use in the project, I had already completed my exegesis of the narrative before Scott‟s critical edition became available online. With that said, the printed edition I follow here is that of Kraft‟s. I have elected to use his transcription for the simple reason that S bears less evidence of recensional work than P, making it likely closer to the original text of T. Job,24 a point which even Brock himself concedes.25
Date, Provenance, and Authorship Date T. Job‟s reliance upon the Septuagint makes it certain that the text arose sometime after the second century BCE.26 The fifth-century Coptic manuscript provides the
21 Note, however, that Berndt Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs (JSHRZ 3.3; Gütersloh Mohn, 1979), does provide variants from the Coptic text in the apparatus of his German translation.
22 Note that a German translation of chapters 30-32 from the Coptic fragments have been released. See Cornelia Römer and Heinz J. Thissen, “P. Köln Inv. Nr. 3221: Das Testament des Hiob Koptischer Sprache. Ein Vorbericht,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 33-45.
23 Ian Scott, “Testament of Job,” The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, n.p. Online: http://www.purl.org.net/ocp/TJob.html.
24 Kraft, The Testament of Job, 7.
25 Brock, “Testamenum Iobi,” 15
26 Mario Cimosa, “Comparing LXX Job 42:7-10 and T. Job 42:4-8,” in Yearbook 2004. Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 398. So, for example, note the correspondence between LXX Job 2:8-9 and T. Job 24:12:
LXX Job 2:8-9: kai\ e1laben o!strakon i3na to_n i0xw~ra cu&h| kai\ e0ka&qhto e0pi\ th~j kopri/aj e1cw th~j po&lewj....ka)gw_ planh~tij kai\ la&trij to&pon e0k to&pou perierxome/nh
9 terminus ad quem for the work. Outside of these parameters, no one is certain of the exact date of the document. Delcor insists that the depiction of Satan as the “king of the Persians” in T. Job 17:2 echoes the Parthian invasion of Palestine led by Pacorus in 40 BCE.27 Spittler argues that a “Montanist apologist” edited an earlier recension of the document in the second century CE.28 Some scholars place T. Job in the first century CE based on alleged allusions to the narrative in the Letter of James and Clement‟s letter to the Romans.29 Collins locates T. Job in the first century CE on the grounds that the story‟s emphasis on endurance would be best suited during a time when Jews living in Egypt suffered severe persecution.30 In the same vein as Collins, Kugler and Rohrbaugh insist that the dissolution of social and economic fortunes among Alexandrian Jews who
T. Job 24:1-2: Kai\ a3ma te h1ggisen pro/v me h9 gunh/ mou, a)nakra&casa meta_ klauqmou~ le/gei moi: 0Iw_b 0Iw&b, a!xri ti/noj kaqe/zh| e0pi\ th~j kopri/aj e1cwqen th~j po&lewj logizo&menoj e1ti mikro_n kai\ e0kdexo&menoj th_n e0lpi/da th~j swthri/aj sou; kai\ e0gw_ planh~tij kai\ la&trij to&pon e0k to&pou perierxome/nh.
The convergence between the two texts is so uncanny that it seems self-evident that the writer of T. Job has made direct use of the Septuagint in constructing the speech of Sitidos in chapter twenty-four. This is just one of many places in T. Job in which this sort of extensive borrowing from the LXX takes place. See, for example, the commentary by R. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983), 1:839-868, which italicizes those places where the writer of T. Job borrows directly from the LXX.
27 M. Delcor, “Le Testament de Job, la Prière de Nabonide et les Traditions Targoumiques,” in Bibel und Qumran (ed. S. Wagner; Berlin: Evangelische Hauptbibelgesellschaft, 1968), 72. John Collins, “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job,” 1974 SBL Seminar Papers (ed. G. W. MacRae; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974), 50, dispatched this thesis long ago, noting that Persian kings were the traditional adversaries of Egypt.
28 Spittler, “Testament of Job,” 1:834. As far as opponents to this thesis, Susan Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex‟ in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112/1 (1993): 70, for example, sees no reason to postulate two different authorships for T. Job given that the gender ideology in chapters 46-53 is consistent with what is found in the earlier chapters.
29 F. Spitta, “Das Testament Hiob und das Neue Testament,” Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1907), 3:170-177; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James (AB 37A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1995), 319. Scholars argue that James‟ and Clements‟ awareness of T. Job is based on their characterization of Job as a man of endurance (cf. Jas 5:11; 1 Clem. 26:3). For a critique of this argument, see Patrick Gray “Points and Lines: Thematic Parallelism in the Letter of James and the Testament of Job,” New Testament Studies 50 (2004): 406-424.
30 Collins, “Structure and Meaning,” 50.
10 had formerly prospered under Ptolemaic rule occasioned the text.31 Given the lack of consensus, the recent trend has been to date the text more broadly, locating it some time between 100 BCE and 200 CE.32 Provenance There is a bit more certainty surrounding the provenance of T. Job. Evidence seems to point to an Egyptian place of origin for this document. To be sure, the reference to Job as the “king of Egypt” (18:9),33 and perhaps the suggestion that he is a gem collector (28:4-7; 32:5),34 is the only literary evidence which support an Egyptian provenance. Those who assert a Therapeutic authorship for the document also use this same piece of evidence to affirm an Egyptian provenance of the text.35 This is a circular line of reasoning, however, that uses one hypothetical claim to support another. That our earliest attestation of T. Job is in Coptic may also lends some credence to the claim that T. Job has its origins in Egypt.36 At the same time, just because this is the earliest manuscript of T. Job that we have in our possession, by no means indicates that it was also the earliest manuscript that existed in antiquity. It is quite possible that other attestations of T. Job circulated elsewhere which were either lost or permanently destroyed.
31 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 50-52.
32 John Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 241; R. Spittler, “The Testament of Job,” ABD 3:870; Stephen Vicchio, Job in the Ancient World. The Image of the Biblical Job. Volume One (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2006), 1:125. Note, however, the recent contention by James Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, and Other (Boston: Brill, 2005), 199, that T. Job was likely composed in the fifth century CE. I will deal with his argument in the “Authorship” section below.
33 Collins, “Structure and Meaning,” 49.
34 With respect to Job‟s collecting of gems, Spittler, “Testament of Job,” 833, notes Theophrastus‟ remarks that gem collecting was an Egyptian royal pastime (De Lapidibus 24.55).
35 For example, Marc Philonenko, “Le Testament de Job,” 24, states “L‟ Égypte a toutes chances d‟être la patrie où le Testament de Job a vu le jour. Sans l‟imposer absolument, l‟hypothèse thérapeute le suggère de façon précise. Un ou deux passages du Testament de Job pourraient venir à l‟appui de cette localisation.”
36 Vicchio, Job, 1:125.
11 Authorship Just as with the date, determining the authorship of T. Job is a difficult matter. Most scholars presume, however, that T. Job is the product of a Hellenistic Jewish hand. Working with this hypothesis, a number of scholars have claimed that the Therapeutae are responsible for this document on account of the charismatic portrayal of women in chapters 46-53 of T. Job.37 This argument has lost support in recent years however.38 Other scholars argue that the theme of endurance in T. Job indicates that the document belongs to a Jewish community living in Alexandria experiencing persecution.39 This position is not without its problems either, as Job willingly experiences his suffering in T. Job while the Alexandrian Jews had no choice in the matter.40 Although the minority position, scholars as early as in the eighteenth century argued that T. Job was the product of a Christian hand.41 While few continue to take this position, there remains a handful of scholars who insist that the text is connected with
37 Philonenko, “Le Testament de Job,” 15, sees a direct parallel between the chanting and mystical nature of Philo‟s Therapeutae and the portrayal of Job‟s daughters in the final chapters of T. Job. Collins, “Structure and Meaning, 50, follows Philonenko‟s contention that it is within such a group that one might expect to find elements of Essene apocalyptic converted into personal mysticism. Spittler, “Testament of Job” 833, also sees the Testament‟s use of women as an indication that the Therapeutae were responsible for the document. Where a group such as the Essenes were “misogynists,” the Therapeutae, he argues, “allowed women a significant role” in their community (p. 833). Furthermore, Spittler remarks that the spontaneous hymns sung by Job‟s daughters in the final chapters of the narrative evokes Philo‟s description of the hymnic compositions that erupted during the gatherings of Therapeutae (ibid.).
38 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 115, finds the Therapeutic hypothesis untenable on the grounds that Philo‟s De Vita Contemplativa is of suspicious historical character. Gail Paterson Corrington echoes this point in “Philo, On the Contemplative Life: Or, On the Suppliants (The Fourth Book on the Virtues),” Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity. A Sourcebook (ed. Vincent Wimbush; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 135-136. Susan Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 70, determines that the not-so- positive-portrayal of Job‟s daughters is evidence enough that the group responsible for the Testament need not be comprised of female ecstatic mystics at all.
39 Collins, “Structure and Meaning,” 50; Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 46-51.
40 For an overview of the pogroms against the Jews living in Egypt in the first century, see John Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), 48-60.
41 For those who have postulated Christian authorship, see A. Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codicibus Edita (10 vols; Rome, 1833), 7:180-191.
12 Christianity in some way.42 James Davila has recently thrown his name into this camp. Due to the dearth of themes attributable to Judaism in T. Job, Davila argues that “if we start from the manuscript evidence and move backwards only as needed, no positive evidence compels us to move beyond a Greek work written in Christian, perhaps Egyptian circles by the early fifth century CE.”43 While an intriguing proposition, Davila‟s argument that T. Job is the product of Egyptian Christianity is, for now at least, an exploratory thesis.44 Testing this argument would require an examination of T. Job in the context of Egyptian Christian literature from the fifth century, which is beyond the purview of this study. The evidence as it now stands weighs in favor of a Hellenistic Jewish authorship. The most significant piece of evidence supporting this argument is the themes T. Job shares with other Greco-Roman and Jewish texts produced during the Hellenistic period.
Ascribing a Hellenistic Jewish Date and Authorship to T. Job: A Thematic Approach As I have indicated above, there is no firm evidence that locates T. Job in a specific time or place in antiquity. Neither can we be sure who was responsible for this document. Because this study is first and foremost a literary analysis of T. Job, resolving
42 Besides the Montanist position, others scholars argue that the Testament was a “pre-Christian” document formative to the conception of Jesus in the Gospels. D. Rahnenführer, “Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament,” ZNW 61-62 (1971) 68-93, and F. Spitta, “Das Testament Hiobs und das Neue Testament,” Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1907), 132-206, put forward this thesis. Cimosa, “Comparing LXX Job 42:7-10 and T. Job 42:4-8,” 404, has reiterated the argument as of late. Building on the prior work of Spitta, Cimosa claims that the similarities between Job and Jesus in the narrative indicates that the Testament‟s Job was a template for how early Christians conceptualized Jesus. “[B]oth Jesus and Job,” Cimosa states, “(1) are of royal lineage, (2) aid the poor, (3) are oppressed by Satan, who vainly attempts to cause their apostasy, (4) suffer ignomiously, (5) mediate forgiveness, (6) „werden aus νεκ οτη erlöst‟ (7) are buried, yet (8) are elevated to God‟s throne.” Whether the writers of the Gospels used the Testament of Job as a model for Jesus is indeterminable however. While the parallels between the two characters are striking, there is no indication whether such parallels are purposeful or if they exist only in the mind of the reader. With that said, it is probably best to conclude as Nicholls does in his dissertation. Regarding a possible correlation between Job in the Testament and Jesus in the Gospels, Nicholls, “Structure and Purpose,” 323, baldly asserts “T. Job makes no connection between the two.”
43 James Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha,, 199.
44 Ibid. That Davila groups T. Job alongside of other pseudepigraphical texts which he deems may or may not be Jewish indicates that even he is aware of the speculative nature of his thesis.
13 these otherwise important matters is not the primary focus here. Still, in order to make the case that Job‟s masculinity transforms over the course of the narrative along with the state of his body, some cultural work is required in order to reconstruct the kinds of “masculinities” known to the writer of T. Job. I adopt the majority position here which is that T. Job is a Hellenistic Jewish document, likely composed some time between 100 BCE and 200 CE.45 If we compare the themes found in T. Job with other Hellenistic Jewish and Greco-Roman literature we find plausible support for a common literary milieu. What I want to do here, then, is to introduce some of the more substantive shared themes which I will discuss in the coming chapters. Six themes stand out as important for comparative purposes: Endurance and Self-Control as Expressions of Masculinity Benefaction as a Greek Ideal for Hellenistic Kingship Warfare as a Greek Ideal for Hellenistic Kingship The Animalized Identity of the Angry Adversary The Worm-Infested Royal Body The Character of Satan in Hellenistic Jewish Literature
Endurance as a Masculine Ideal The theme of endurance in T. Job represents a decidedly male form of resistance made by, as Shaw asserts, “thinking, reasoning, and logical men.”46 The masculinization of this virtue takes place in the realm of metaphor, as the writer deploys athletic and martial language to couch Job‟s endurance in the narrative (cf. 4:1-9; 27:3-10). The masculinization of endurance is not unique to T. Job however. There were other writers who also advocated endurance as a suitable male response to suffering. Greco-Roman authors such as Seneca and Epictetus and Hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo and the
45 For definitional purposes, I use the term “Hellenistic Judaism” to connote a type of Judaism profoundly influenced by Greco-Roman ideas. These Jews, as Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 5, notes, were not adverse to Greek culture but ready to adapt to their ways. As Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean World, 103-124, reminds us, however, the degree of Hellenization was not entirely consistent. That is to say, some Jews were more willing to adopt Greek education, language, and philosophical constructs more than others.
46 I deal with this issue in greater detail in chapter four of this project. Brent Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs” JECS 4 (1997): 280-281.
14 writer of 4 Maccabees proposed that masculinity need not only be attained by simply dominating others; dominating one‟s own bodily pains and passions was also an appropriate means to perform masculinity. This conceptualization of endurance is strikingly similar to how the writer of T. Job formulates endurance in his text. It is this congruency in ideas which suggests that these texts arose from a common literary milieu.
Benefaction as a Greek Ideal for Hellenistic Kingship In his depiction of Job as king prior to his ordeal, the writer of T. Job goes to great lengths to portray him as a magnanimous benefactor. This depiction is important as it establishes Job‟s masculine identity in the opening chapters, as a man whose patronage grants him control over others. Job‟s depiction as a generous patron, I argue, mirrors cultural expectations of how the ideal Hellenistic king ought to treat his constituency. To make clear the extent to which Job reflects this cultural ideal, I look at texts such as Dio Chrysostom‟s First Discourse on Kingship and the Jewish Letter of Aristeas, which attest to the importance of the Hellenistic king who acted as a benefactor to his people.
Warfare as a Greek Ideal for Hellenistic Kingship Hellenistic kingship was also associated with warfare in antiquity. The writer of T. Job expresses the masculinity of Job‟s antagonists in the narrative--who themselves also happen to be kings--in light of this royal ideal. The dynamic creates a not so subtle narrative opposition in which Job gains control over others through the nonviolent route of benefaction and his royal antagonists through warfare and invective. I look at both ancient literature and portraiture to establish that warfare was a vital aspect of royal identity. Indeed, whether on the face of numismata or in the writings of Plutarch and Josephus, the image of the king as a warrior was deeply embedded in both Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish cultures.
The Animalized Identity of the Angry Adversary The two primary antagonists in T. Job are Satan and Elihu. Both characters are portrayed as figures of anger in the narrative and both are also compared to beasts and serpents. The animalization of angry men was a common motif in both Hellenistic Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. Plutarch uses this kind of language in an invective
15 against “angered tyrants” in On the Control of Anger. Philo does the same in Against Flaccus, in describing those who tortured the Jews living in Alexandria. To understand what the depiction of Satan and Elihu as animals says about their identities in T. Job, I look at how the motif functions in other Hellenistic Jewish and Greco-Roman texts.
The Worm-Infested Royal Body In T. Job 20:7-10, Satan afflicts Job‟s body with a plague that causes worms to pour out of his skin. While the tradition of Job‟s flesh being mixed with worms begins in the LXX, the writer of T. Job intensifies this imagery so that now his body is “eaten by worms” (20:8). The motif of the royal body being consumed by worms is a familiar one in the first and second century, utilized by Josephus, the writer of 2 Maccabees and the writer of Acts also. By viewing Job‟s affliction in light of other royal figures who suffered from this disease, the modern reader gains some insight regarding the literary implications of Job‟s own bout with flesh-eating worms in the narrative.
The Character of Satan in Hellenistic Jewish Literature There are other texts from the Hellenistic Jewish world which have motifs in common with T. Job. The Testament‟s depiction of Satan, for instance, is strikingly similar to the depiction we get in the Life of Adam and Eve. This is especially true with regard to how both narratives represent Satan‟s association with the serpent. Such parallels at the level of characterization suggest a shared literary milieu for both of these documents.47 Taken separately, these six literary strands do not say one way or another whether T. Job is Hellenistic Jewish or not. Taken together, however, we see that there is a preponderance of themes in T. Job that consistently point to the first and second century CE. Indeed, that T. Job bears witness to themes found in the writings of Philo (first century CE), Josephus (first century CE) and texts such as 4 Maccabees (first or second century CE), and reflects a decidedly Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish understanding of kingship, suggests that the document was likely composed by a Jewish hand sometime
47 Interestingly enough, M. D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983), 2:252, locates Life of Adam and Eve between 100 BCE and 200 CE.
16 during the first or second centuries CE.
The Priority of the Female Body in the History of T. Job Scholarship In this section I give an overview of what has been said regarding gender in the Testament of Job. Given the space female characters occupy in T. Job, it is no surprise that scholars have paid the greatest attention to them. After I have summarized their arguments--detailing how they are in conversation with one another along the way--I will then move to demonstrate how this project fits within the larger scholarly discussion.
John Collins Although the purpose of John Collins‟ article “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job” is to uncover the sense of T. Job based on an internal analysis of each of its sections, the article is no less significant as it is the first to discuss the role of women in the text. In Collins‟ estimation, knowledge is the theme around which many of Job‟s conflicts revolve. This certainly holds true with regard to Job‟s quarrels with the female characters in the story as well. Collins argues that the women in both halves of the book function to emphasize Job‟s insight into the heavenly realm.48 The female servant in chapter seven is the first of such women. Recognizing Satan‟s disguise as a pauper, Job tells his servant to give him a piece of burnt bread. Not seeing what Job sees however, she instead relies on her own judgment and gives him a good piece of bread instead. The text castigates the woman as an “evil servant,” although her fault extends beyond her disobedience to her master.49 The text also condemns her inability to recognize Satan in disguise. The inference of the text here, Collins asserts, is that “a woman should do what her master tells her and not trust her own judgment.”50 The second instance in which a woman appears in T. Job is in chapters 21-27. Like the door servant, Collins contends, the failure of Job‟s wife Sitidos is that she is unable to recognize the figure of Satan in the text. While Satan is able to tempt Sitidos
48 Collins, “Structure and Meaning,” 43.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
17 into telling Job to curse God, Job demonstrates his ability to see through Satan‟s ruse once again. Job censures his wife on account of her inability to do likewise, thus marking another instance in which the text places a female character in opposition with Job to highlight his ability to recognize the disguises of Satan. Sitidos appears once more in chapters 39-40 of T. Job, insisting that Job‟s friends provide a proper burial for her children. Sitidos again serves to highlight Job‟s insight, but as Collins notes, so also do Job‟s friends.51 “More clearly than the earlier incidents,” he states, “it shows that Job is set apart from his fellow mortals by his spiritual insight, but it is this same insight which enables him to conquer Satan in the first half of the book.”52 The final appearance of women in the Testament of Job takes place when Job bequeaths his cords to his daughters in chapters 46-50. That the daughters experience a changed heart and begin speaking in angelic languages after donning their father‟s cords leads Collins to reason that the status of women throughout the narrative is reversed at this point in the story. Whereas prior to these chapters women lacked insight into the heavenly realm, Job‟s mediation on behalf of his daughters puts an end to this dilemma. Because the women are now able to share in their father‟s knowledge, the opposition between Job and the women in the narrative is effectively resolved.53
Pieter van der Horst Whereas the matter of women‟s importance in T. Job is only of secondary concern for Collins, van der Horst brings it to the forefront of the conversation. He deals first with the figure of Sitidos in the text. His appraisal of her characterization is not so different from that of Collins. While the portrayal of Sitidos is of a woman who is both sympathetic and never-failing in her loyalty, van der Horst asserts that the text depicts her as lacking any perception.54 “In spite her good intentions,” van der Horst asserts, “she
51 Ibid., 44.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid., 48.
54 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 99.
18 does not have awareness of and insight into the invisible background of the things that happen.”55 Because it is Job who must continually disclose knowledge to Sitidos, van der Horst determines that her purpose can only be that of a literary foil in the narrative. Still, in contrast to Collins, van der Horst does not see the depiction of Sitidos as entirely negative. He concedes that the author must have held an “open mind for the excellent qualities women can have as spouses and mothers,” based on the maternal images of Sitidos in the story.56 Whereas van der Horst is in agreement with Collins‟ assessment of the characterization of Sitidos in the Testament of Job, his consideration of the role Job‟s daughters play in the narrative stakes out a position in direct opposition to that of Collins. Collins‟ argument that all of the women in the Testament of Job are portrayed as lacking insight until Job points the way for them is far too general of a claim for van der Horst‟s liking. “The agreement or similarity between the [women who appear before chapter forty-five and those who appear after],” he asserts, “goes no further than the motif that Job‟s intervention is needed in order to help the women to gain insight.”57 Van der Horst contends that the enlightenment experienced by Sitidos and the female servant is distinct from that which Job‟s daughters receive in the concluding chapters of the story.58 Although Sitidos and the servant receive their insight only momentarily, the insight acquired by Job‟s daughters is permanent. Van der Horst points out that the “changed hearts” experienced by Job‟s daughters after donning the girdles of their father marks a lasting change in their bodies.59 Not only are their bodies transformed into that of heavenly beings but they acquire the speech of angels as well. Whereas Collins does grant that the portrayal of Job‟s daughters as spiritual beings “resolves the opposition
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid., 101.
57 Ibid., 104.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid., 105.
19 between Job and the women in the testament proper,”60 van der Horst goes a step further in assessing their transformation in the story. He asserts “In chs. 46-53 women play an extraordinarily positive role [emphasis mine]; in fact they play the leading part instead of Job.”61 Van der Horst reminds his reader that it is Job‟s daughters who acquire permanent insight into the heavenly realm through their father‟s girdles, not Job‟s sons. Such a portrayal of Job‟s daughters leaves van der Horst to conclude, that “this is an image of women that is extremely unusual in early Jewish literature.”62 Susan Garrett Susan Garrett‟s article “The „Weaker Sex‟ in the Testament of Job” is a direct rebuttal to Van der Horst‟s assertion that the depiction of Job‟s daughters in chapters 46- 53 is “extraordinarily positive.”63 Indeed, from the outset of her writing, Garrett aligns herself with Collins‟ negative assessment of the women in the text over the revaluation offered by van der Horst. For her, any differences between the women in chapters 1-45 and 46-53 are superficial at best. She asserts, a “fundamentally negative view of females as preoccupied with that which is earthly and corruptible underlies the document from beginning to end.”64 In the case of Job‟s doorkeeper, while it is tempting to see her refusal to give bread to the beggar (who happens to be Satan in disguise) as an indication of her charitable compassion, Garrett contends that early interpreters of the text would have thought otherwise. For Garrett, the doorkeeper serves as a literary foil to Job in the text as she is emblematic of a figure who does not obey the words of her master. Whereas Job willingly submits to his master (i.e. God), the doorkeeper refuses to heed Job‟s words to give the beggar burnt bread rather than a good loaf. It is for this reason that after Satan reveals himself to the doorkeeper, he castigates her as an “evil servant.” As Garrett argues, ancient Jewish and Christian audiences would have seen Satan‟s description as
60 Collins, “Structure and Meaning,” 48.
61 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 106.
62 Ibid.
63 Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 56.
64 Ibid., 57.
20 accurate, as the servant‟s failure to listen to Job‟s command is the very thing that makes her vulnerable to his deception. That the doorkeeper herself concurs with Satan‟s assessment only lends viability to this interpretation (7:8). In this way then, the doorkeeper‟s compassion and charity ultimately prove to be detrimental virtues as they prevent her from being obedient to her master. As Garrett contends, had the servant submitted to Job‟s orders, she would have turned Satan away at the door and avoided his attack.65 As far as Sitidos goes, Garrett disagrees with van der Horst that ancient audiences would have seen her selfless acts as a mother and wife as positive portrayals of womanhood in the narrative. Garrett points out that early readers would have seen Sitidos‟ willingness to have her own head shorn to feed her husband “as a shameless forfeiture of the dignity and sexual modesty appropriate to one of Sitidos‟ station.”66 Garrett‟s most substantial proof comes from her literary analysis of the word “heart” in T. Job. Tracing out how the word is used in relation to Sitidos in the story, Garrett demonstrates that Sitidos‟ compassion is the very attribute which leaves her vulnerable to Satan‟s attack. Contra van der Horst, Garrett is doubtful that ancient audiences would have seen Sitidos‟ preoccupation with ordinary matters as a positive attribute. It is far more likely that they would have interpreted Sitidos‟ maternal qualities as “the very essence of her ignorance.”67 In the final section Garrett addresses the portrayal of Job‟s daughters in the narrative. Whereas both Collins and van der Horst see Job‟s daughters as a positive representation of women in the text, Garrett‟s reading suggests that their portrayal is not as encouraging as some might suppose. Garrett points out that the magical cords which Job gives his daughters not only enable them to engage in ecstasy but also serve to remove any concern which they may have regarding “earthly things.”68 What are these
65 Ibid., 60.
66 Ibid., 63.
67 Ibid., 63.
68 Ibid., 65.
21 “earthly things” of which the text speaksς Garrett remarks that “earthly things” here are not a reference to material goods, but feminine concerns which would otherwise preoccupy the attention of the daughters away from the heavenly realm. The “changed” hearts which the daughters receive after donning their father‟s girdles, therefore, implies a complete abandonment of interests constitutive of the female identity.69 The disagreement between Garrett and her predecessors hinges on the perspective from which one looks at the text. If one considers how ancient audiences would have received Job‟s daughters, as Collins and van der Horst do, then clearly their portrayal as spiritual leaders is more positive than negative. If, however, one looks at the portrayal from the standpoint of modern gender criticism as Garrett does, one arrives at a different conclusion: that Job‟s daughters must forsake their very selfhood as females before they can participate in the heavenly realities suggests that this later representation of women in the Testament of Job is no less misogynistic than earlier portrayals of females in the text.
Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh Kugler and Rohrbaugh offer the most recent treatment of the role of women in T. Job. Responding to Garrett, Kugler and Rohrbaugh assert that her gender reading of T. Job is anachronistic in its approach. Whereas she presumes that ancient audiences would have taken note of the degrading depictions of women in the document, they assert that such depictions of women were quite commonplace in antiquity.70 Consequently, they argue that ancient audiences would not have seen T. Job as a story which features women prominently, but as a text that provides the proper response to the loss of wealth and honor.71 For Kugler and Rohrbaugh, the Testament places in opposition the impermanence of acquired honor and the durability of ascribed honor from God. The women in the narrative symbolize these two fields. The maidservant and Sitidos seek to maintain their acquired honor while the daughters of Job let go of this desire in return for
69 Ibid., 69-70.
70 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 43-44.
71 Ibid., 46.
22 honor ascribed by God.72 Kugler and Rohrbaugh‟s exegesis begins with an honor and shame reading of the character of Job in the narrative. Their analysis suggests that Job goes from a man who loses acquired honor at the start of the story only to gain ascribed honor from God by the story‟s denouement. The characterization of Job in the opening chapters as father of many children (T. Job 1:1), man of wealth (28:6-7), provider to the poor (chs. 9-12), and patron (chs. 11-12) indicates that he is a character of tremendous honor. With the onset of his ordeal however, all of this is lost. Kugler and Rohrbaugh contend that the depiction of Job becomes one of shame as he loses his reputation (7:1-13), wealth (8:1- 16:4), family (18:1-19:4), the capability to defend the honor of his wife (25:2), and the recognition of his peers (31:2; 32:8; 34:4). The end result is that Job‟s honor reaches an “abysmal nadir” in the text, at least until God intervenes and reveals that Job was correct in his actions all along (42:1-6).73 Job returns again to the former honorific role he enjoyed prior to his trial. After dealing with Job, Kugler and Rohrbaugh turn their attention to the depiction of women in the narrative. Analyzing the roles of Job‟s doormaid and wife, Sitidos, they contend that these women exemplify characters who stubbornly cling to vanquished honor. In regards to the doormaid, she initially tries to protect Job‟s honor by troubling him when Satan comes disguised as a beggar at the door. After Job tells the servant to give the beggar a burnt loaf of bread, she looks to uphold her own honor instead. Satan‟s shaming of the doormaid as an “evil servant” thwarts her efforts to detach herself from Job‟s honor.74 Sitidos too seeks initially to preserve Job‟s honor by laboring as a maidservant in order to take care of his body. When she realizes that he has no intention of preserving his former honor, Sitidos despises Job‟s capacity to act as her patron and urges him to “say some word against the Lord and die” (25:10). For Kugler and Rohrbaugh, Sitidos‟ efforts to establish a memorial for her children in chapter 39 represent a veiled attempt to recoup what remains of her former honor. They deem the
72 Ibid., 46.
73 Ibid., 57.
74 Ibid., 59.
23 attempt unsuccessful as “the nature of Sitidos‟ death and burial poignantly reveals that her efforts to preserve her transient acquired honor were also defeated.”75 Whereas the acquired honor desired by the doormaid and Sitidos proves ephemeral, the honor God ascribes to Job‟s daughters endures. Like the women who appear prior in the narrative, the initial characterization of Job‟s daughters is “like the „typical‟ women of their era, overweening in their desire for possessions and profligate in their use of them.”76 Kugler and Rohrbaugh cite their grumbling after failing to receive an inheritance from their father as illustrative of their yearning for material goods. By putting on Job‟s cords however, they are released from their economic concerns. Moreover, the spiritual gifts they receive suggest that they now possess ascribed honor from God, just as their father did before them.
Shifting the Focus of Gender in T. Job Studies With the history of scholarship of gender in T. Job laid out, it is safe to say that the primary focus for scholars has been the portrayal of women in the narrative. Indeed, while the question lay implicit in Collins, van der Horst brought it to the forefront of the discussion and it has remained there ever since. All but van der Horst agree that the female characters who appear prior to chapter forty-six receive negative portrayals. The real battleground lies over the depiction of Job‟s daughters in chapters 46-53. Garrett‟s feminist interpretation contends that they are not positively portrayed, but Kugler and Rohrbaugh‟s criticism that her reading is anachronistic suggests otherwise. Their argument that ancient audiences would have interpreted the honoring of Job‟s daughters in light of the larger theme of acquired honor vs. ascribed honor in the narrative leaves one to question whether ancient audiences would have even seen the preponderance of women in the story as more important than the narrative‟s overall meaning. But Kugler and Rohrbaugh need not have the last word on the matter. For one, as I demonstrate in chapter four, the tension that they perceive between acquired honor vs. ascribed honor in the narrative is not as evident as their reading suggests. This damages their argument for
75 Ibid., 60.
76 Ibid., 61.
24 how they allege ancients would have read this text. Second, it is somewhat ironic that Kugler and Rohrbaugh play down prior gender readings of T. Job, when their own reading of the narrative weighs so heavily on the gendered values of honor and shame.77 Finally, the matter of ancient interpretations of T. Job is itself a moot one as we have no sources that express how ancient audiences received this document. With that said, perhaps it would be more beneficial to ask how the writer of T. Job conceptualizes the gender of his characters and not his audience. To be sure, the problem of Garrett‟s reading, as Kugler and Rohrbaugh point out, is that her conclusions presume that the ancient audience held the same convictions about women that she holds.78 By looking at the narrative from the standpoint of the text, however, the question now becomes one of rhetoric and not reception. Indeed, because T. Job represents an artifact of an author‟s ideological beliefs, it is possible to determine how the narrative tries to persuade its reader to accept the ideas put forward within its pages. What I am advocating, therefore, is a rereading of T. Job through the lens of ideological criticism. Garrett‟s article--now ten years old—represents the only ideological reading of the narrative to date, so to say that T. Job deserves a fuller application of this method is an understatement. Of course, the perspective through which I read T. Job is not all that distinguishes my reading from that of Garrett. I also diverge on the matter of gender. To date, only Kugler and Rohrbaugh have asked how masculinity functions in the narrative.79 But their interpretation extends no more than four pages. A more sustained reading of how masculinity functions is now required and this is what I plan to do in the proceeding chapters. To be clear, however, the objective in looking at masculinity in T. Job is not simply to swing the pendulum away from the discussion of women altogether. Quite the
77 Bruce Malina, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 51, states “when honor is viewed as an exclusive prerogative of one of the genders, then honor is always male, and shame is always female. Thus in the area of individual, concrete behavior (and apart from considerations of the group), honor and shame are gender-specific (emphasis mine).”
78 And Garrett does read the narrative from the standpoint of the ancient reader (“The „Weaker Sex,‟” 60).
79 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 55.
25 contrary, one thing gender theorists have taught us is just how interrelated the male and female character types truly are. Indeed, the female gender is almost always constructed over against the male gender in society and this is reflected in narrative contexts as well. My hope, therefore, is that by inverting the question to look at how the writer constructs masculinity in the story, I might contribute to the conversation regarding whether women function positively or negatively in T. Job.
Disability Theory: Defining Disability and the Entwinement of Masculinity and Disability The primary focus of this project is the character of Job himself. He is, after all, the lead character in the story. What makes this study of Job unique is not simply the attention it gives to his masculinity in the narrative. More often than not, the literary study of bodily constellations such as class, gender and race is done within a vacuum. Rarely are they juxtaposed with one another to determine the ways in which they intersect. Even rarer still is how disability is brought to bear on these other aspects of bodily identity. Lennard Davis makes clear the extent to which disability is entwined with these other bodily spheres. He asserts: What is being missed in multicultural discussions is the way that race and gender connect with disability. The point is not that disability is a subcategory of discrimination involving relatively few people….Rather than being marginal, the issues around disability are central to the construction of normalcy: disability is tied to a process that defines us all….People in the lower classes tend to be born with more disabilities and to acquire more disabilities than middle- and upper-class people, and people of color tend to make up a disproportionate share of those who develop disabilities in midlife. Women make up a disproportionate share of those who develop disabilities in midlife.80 I would argue, as Rosalind Garland-Thomson does in Extraordinary Bodies, that only by treating these aspects of bodily identity as part of a complex bodily matrix, can we fully
80 Lennard Davis, Enforcing Normalcy. Disability, Deafness, and the Body (New York: Verso, 1995), 160.
26 comprehend just how deeply interwoven these constellations are.81 On that point, this study draws on the burgeoning literature in the field of Disability Studies in its investigation of masculine identity in the Testament of Job. Before proceeding to my thesis, an introduction to Disability Studies is necessary, especially given the infancy of the field.82 In the first part of this section I trace out how scholars have defined the terms “disability” and “impairment” and establish how I use these terms in my project. In the second part of this section I discuss the entwinement of masculinity and disability as it relates to gender theory. It is this theory that informs my reading of masculinity in the Testament of Job.
Defining Disability: The Ancient, Medical, Social, and Cultural Models Defining disability is a delicate matter. Four models have governed how society delineates what disability entails and who belongs in this category: the “ancient model,” “medical model,” the “social model” and the “cultural model.” The oldest of the four paradigms is the ancient model of disability. The disabled and/or deformed in antiquity
81 See specifically Garland-Thomson‟s chapter “Theorizing Disability” in Extraordinary Bodies. Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 19-51.
82 For a general overview of the field of disability studies see Joanna Bourke, Dismembering the Male. Men‟s Bodies, Britain and the Great War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Alan Gartner and Tom Joe, eds., Images of the Disabled , Disabling Images (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1987); Lennard Davis, Enforcing Normalcy; idem, ed. The Disabilities Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 1997); David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis. Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2000); Mark Rapley, The Social Construction of Intellectual Disability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Christopher Smit and Anthony Enns, eds. Screening Disability. Essays on Cinema and Disability (Boston: University Press of America, 2001); Sharon Snyder et al., Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities (New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002); Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies; Shelley Tremain, ed. Foucault and the Government of Disability (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005); Susan Wendell, The Rejected Body. Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability (New York: Routledge, 1996); James C. Wilson and Cynthia Leweicki-Wilson, eds. Embodied Rhetorics. Disability in Language and Culture (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001). For the literature related to disability and biblical studies see Judith Abrams, Judaism and Disability. Portrayals in Ancient Texts from the Tanach through the Bavli (Washington: Gallaudet University Press, 1998); Ely Elshout (facilitator), “Roundtable Discussion: Women with Disabilities--A Challenge to Feminist Theology,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (ed. Alice Bach; New York: Routledge, 1999), 428-458; Lynn Holden, Forms of Deformity (JSOTSS 131; JSOT Press: Sheffield, 1991); Mikeal Parsons, “The Character of the Lame Man in Acts 3-4,” JBL 124 (2005): 295-312; Jeremy Schipper, “Why Do You Still Speak of Your Affairs?”: Mephibosheth, Disability, and National Identity in the David Story (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2005).
27 were largely seen as morphological abnormalities.83 Greeks used te/rav (“wonder”, “marvel”) while Romans used monstrum (“monster”) to refer to humans and animals who exhibited “gross malformations.”84 While there are no comparable pejorative terms in either the Hebrew Bible and New Testament to refer to the disabled, the language of disability is used to illustrate Divine punishment (cf. Isa 59:10) and represent intrinsic moral defects (cf. Deut 32:5; Ps 101:4; Prov 2:15; 8:8; 22:5; Luke 6:39; 2 Pet 1:9; Heb 12:12-14; T. Reuben 2:9; T. Judah 19:4), suggests that the physically-impaired were also regarded as irregularities within ancient Israelite and early Christian cultures.85 The lot of the disabled did not improve much in Early Jewish writings either, as the disabled were limited in how much they could participate in cultic activities on account of their bodily difference (cf. Josephus, J.A. 14.366; 4QMMT 52-54). What most distinguishes the ancient model of disability from modern models of disability is how it rationalized the incidence of bodily difference within society. Whereas moderns rely on genetic explanations to explain physical abnormality, religion was influential in shaping how ancients understood disability. The occurrence of disability was explained as the result of a parent‟s sin (cf. Herodotus, Histories 1.105), the consequence of divine prejudice (cf. Hesiod, Theogony 927), as a birth omen (cf. Herodotus, Histories 7.57), as divine retribution (T. Simeon 2:13), or demon possession (cf. Matt 9:32, 12:2).86 Not surprisingly, religion was a viable means of healthcare in antiquity as well. The treatment for disability oftentimes involved either beseeching the gods to provide a cure, or finding a miracle worker who could cure on the gods‟ behalf.87 T. Job is right at home
83 When I use the term disability from here forward I will use it as Garland-Thomson does (see below) to include deformity as well. To be sure, in the strictest of definitional standards, disability and deformity are not the same. Whereas a disability causes malfunction, a deformity is a deviation from standard appearance which may indirectly cause a disability.
84 Robert Garland, The Eye of the Beholder. Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (New York: Cornell University Press, 1995), 4.
85 For a fuller treatment on the pejorative view of disability in the Hebrew Bible, see the excellent discussion in Schipper, Mephibosheth, 87-98.
86 Most of these examples come from Garland, Eye of the Beholder, 59-86.
87 For a discussion on religion and healthcare in antiquity see John Pilch, “Sickness and Healing in Luke- Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody,
28 in this ancient understanding of disability as not only is Job‟s deformity caused by his spiritual antagonist Satan (20:2), but Job‟s healing is made possible through magical cords given to him by the Lord (47:7). With the Enlightenment period, scientific explanations of cultural phenomenon began to take precedence over religious explanations. As a result of this shift, the hospital became the primary locus for regulating the disabled body and not the religious institution. This occasioned what scholars term “medical model” of disability. The medical model makes no distinction between disability and physical impairment. Neither society nor the gods are responsible for disabling persons; rather, disability is innate to the human body itself. By locating disability at the site of the body, the individual is subjected to the authority of the larger matrix of societal structures, which Barnes et al. calls the “therapeutic state.”88 The military, medical, industrial, governmental, educational, and psychiatric institutions work as a disciplinary network rooting out the unusual body, passing a “normalizing judgment” on it, and rehabilitating it in order that it might appear ordinary.89 The third paradigm termed the “social model” is the product of the British disability movement in the 1970‟s.90 Put forward to challenge public policy makers to see the disabled not as persons in need of help but as an oppressed group in society, the social model made a distinction between “impairment” and “disability.” A statement issued by the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) in 1976 states Impairment lacking part or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism or mechanism of the body Disability the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary
MASS.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 181-210.
88 Barnes et al., Exploring Disability, 19.
89 Ibid., 20.
90 For an overview of the social model, see Tom Shakespeare and Nicholas Watson, “The Social Model of Disability: an Outdated Ideologyς” in Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go (eds. Sharon Barnett and Barbara Altman; RSSD vol. 2; New York: Elsevier Science, 2001), 9-28.
29 social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from mainstream activities.91 The social model is concerned with the removal of external forces that place limitations or restrictions on the bodies of impaired individuals.92 This includes anything from disabling barriers within the workplace which prevent disabled persons from finding jobs or obstacles within the physical environment that hinder their ability to operate as if “normal.” In this line of reasoning, a body is not disabled because it is unable to climb stairs, hear sounds from the television, or read the words on the printed page. Rather it is made disabled by a physical environment built for bodies with fully-functional legs, ears and eyes. The challenge here, then, is to force architects and other designers to consider how structures perfectly suited for the normative body may disable persons who are physically impaired. By making a distinction between disability and impairment, the social model of disability proved invaluable on the political front. It allowed academics and political activists to make their case that the disabled population was a marginalized group, not on account of their bodies, but because of society itself. Yet, the social model has not been without its detractors. Adherents of the medical model argue that the social model treats disability as if it were entirely divorced from impairment.93 In light of this disconnect some scholars question whether one can know where impairment ends and disability begins. While social factors may produce or aggravate the pain caused the disabled body, no doubt some of the nuisance is a result of the impairment itself. In this line of reasoning, the physiological, psychological, and social-cultural are not readily compartmentalized in terms of their impact on the body.94 All three work together to disable the body living with impairment. The move in recent years to modify the social model has led to a more
91 Barnes et al., Exploring Disability, 28.
92 Ibid., 30.
93 Schipper, Mephibosheth, 26-27.
94 Ibid., 27.
30 comprehensive approach to disability called the “cultural model.”95 Unlike the social model, the cultural model does not bifurcate the social from the corporeal, but treats disability as a dialectical phenomenon. The biological, socio-political, literary, medical, cultural are all entangled in an intricate matrix, each working in unison to disable the impaired body within society.96 Pointing to one factor as holding more responsibility than another is problematic as these aspects “cannot be extricated with imprecision.”97 Lennard Davis‟ observation that the disabled body is a “set of social relations” captures the essence of the cultural model.98 Whereas the social model determines that disability is the product of a “social organization,” this approach understands the problem as inherent within the social organization itself.99 To be sure, the cultural ideal is regulated and controlled through an elaborate network of social forces which shape and influence how persons understand “normal” functionality and appearance. Disability is deployed at the systemic level of culture to reinforce the cultural image of what normalcy entails. External forces alone are not responsible for the disablement of bodies alone. Rather, disability is as Garland-Thomson states, a “culturally fabricated narrative of the body,” constructed at the level of societal discourse just as gender and race.100 By casting disability in terms of normalcy, the term has become a catchall for discussing other ideological categories related to bodily standards such as “deformed,” “crazed,” “old,” “ugly,” “fat,” “maimed,” “mad,” “abnormal,” and “afflicted.”101 The rationale here is that, like disability, these other terms reify the normative image in society by delineating that which is ordinary from that which is unusual. This system of
95 Ibid., 28-29.
96 Ibid.
97 Shakespeare, “The Social Model of Disability,” 22.
98 Davis, Enforcing Normalcy, 11.
99 Schipper, Mephibosheth, 29.
100 Garland-Thomson, “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory,” Gendering Disability (eds. Bonnie Smith and Beth Hutchison; New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 77.
101 Ibid.
31 disability, Garland-Thomson asserts, functions to preserve and validate such privileged designations as beautiful, healthy, normal, fit, competent, intelligent—all of which provide cultural capital to those who can claim status, who can reside within these subject positions. It is, then, the various interactions between bodies and world that materialize disability from the stuff of human variation and precariousness.102 This broad-ranging definition of disability will prove beneficial for talking about the Testament‟s Job, as he will not only be rendered paralyzed and mute (i.e. disabled) following the losses of his property and children (18:4-5), but his worm-disease will leave his appearance deformed (20:8-10). By locating the construction of disability at the discursive level of culture, the cultural model draws upon a number of interdisciplinary methodologies to decode unstated assumptions about disability that underlie depictions of the impaired and unimpaired body in literature, art, and film.103 It should be acknowledged also, that it is a multifaceted approach towards disability that gave rise to the field of Disability Studies. An interdisciplinary field of study, Disability Studies marshals the resources of anthropology, cultural studies, literary criticism, psychology, religion, and sociology to expose cultural discourses related to bodily appearance and functionality. Because T. Job is an ancient text it makes sense to interpret its images of deformity and disability in light of other ancient writings. In arguing that representations of disabled masculinity/able-bodied masculinity in T. Job ultimately bolsters hegemonic claims that authentic masculinity entails full-functionality, however, this project follows the cultural model of disability.104 Indeed, while T. Job is only a single literary artifact, it promotes a conviction about the ideal body echoed in the larger cultural, political, and architectural arrangements of Greco-Roman culture. The able-bodied bias buttressing T.
102 Ibid.
103 Pfeiffer, “The Conceptualization of Disability,” 38.
104 Much of what I am alluding to here will be made more clear in the upcoming section and in the next chapter. For now what is important to know is that when I use the term “hegemonic” in this project I am referring to the claims made by the dominant culture which promote their understanding of what authentic masculinity entails.
32 Job‟s plotline is disabling in its own right, as it communicates to its reader that the bodies of those that do not cohere to its standards of masculinity are physically deficient.
The Interplay of Disability and Masculinity as Bodily Constellations The human body does not come inscribed with the classifications that define its identity. Rather, terms such as “able-bodied” and “disabled” are delineations made at the level of societal discourse. These markers of difference arise from a conviction that there are “normal” recurring bodies that appear and perform in certain ways. Bodies identified as disabled are not signs of physical diversity within the human gene pool, but accidental occurrences that exist outside of the norm.105 For those whose bodies do not meet the cultural criteria of standard bodily appearance, they must conform to the demands of the „normals‟ or risk stigmatization.106 It goes without saying that the notion of a recurring body which coheres to society‟s standard of normalcy is unrealistic as most people possess some trait that carries with it a stigma. That only a small percentage of the population actually meets the criteria of what the idealized body entails (and that often due to the assistance of artificial measures) suggests that the norm is anything but ordinary. Yet, the perception that there is uniformity in terms of how bodies appear and perform compels individuals to conform their distinctive bodily appearance to this illusory image.107 What makes the cultural ideal so impossible to extricate from the human imagination is that it is reinforced at the institutional and architectural levels of society. From the standpoint of architecture, for instance, building designs have in mind bodies that are able to climb a flight of stairs or open doors. While these designs communicate to those confined to wheelchairs that bodies unable to walk are inferior to those that can climb stairs, the same can be said for pregnant women and women with strollers.108 For
105 Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies, 46.
106 Ibid., 30-32; idem, “Integrating Disability,” 80-88.
107 Ibid., 83.
108 Wendell, The Rejected Body, 40.
33 Susan Wendell, this is not accidental. “Much architecture,” she states “has been planned with a young adult, non-disabled male paradigm of humanity in mind.”109 Wendell‟s observation that the public world is built for the male body should come as little surprise. After all, when the various stigmata are peeled away from the prototypical ideal in Western society, the image which remains is that of the strong, able-bodied male. Just as society draws distinctions based on physical capability, so also does it erect sex roles for the genders based on their biological differences.110 Because the body is the axis at which society and the self collide, performance plays a critical role in sustaining gender identity in the public eye. Judith Butler argues that by enacting the features characteristic of one‟s sex, he or she “constitutes the illusion of an abiding gendered self.”111 In this line of reasoning, gender is not a naturalized aspect of the body. Rather, it is something that persons become through the “repetitive social performances” of the behaviors deemed normative for his or her sex role.112 In terms of the female body, society‟s conception of the ideal female figure is one that stands in opposition to the male figure. Whereas his body is to be one that is strong and rugged, the normative female is one that should be soft, passive, weak, hairless, and petite.113 Whereas the normative female identity is associated with practices that depict the body as passive and deferent, the opposite holds true for hegemonic masculinity. Robert Connell asserts that “true masculinity is almost always thought to proceed from men‟s bodies--to be inherent in a male body or to express something about a male body.”114 Indeed, society has identified authentic masculinity with those characteristics that represent an outward
109 Ibid., 40.
110 Connell, Masculinities, 26, 70.
111 Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,” in Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory (eds. Katie Conboy et al.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 402.
112 Russell Shuttleworth, “Disabled Masculinity. Expanding the Masculine Repertoire,” in Gendering Disability (eds. Bonnie Smith and Beth Hutchison; New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 167.
113 Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies, 28.
114 Connell, Masculinities, 45.
34 expression of the self. The degree to which a male exhibits strength, aggression, physical activity, and potency, for instance, is quite often the litmus test of his masculinity.115 While direct action and physicality are so crucial in establishing the aura of strength emblematic of the hegemonic masculine identity, a man‟s ability to control that which proceeds from his body also sustains the public appearance of strength. Whereas the female body is one traditionally associated with the seeping of fluids, as a symbol of permeability and resistance, the male body properly managed is one that is tightly sealed and clenched.116 Crying, for example, is a behavior condoned, if not expected of the female body. A man‟s ability to contain his tears to the confines of his body however, is often a barometer of his manliness in the public eye. It goes without saying that impairment threatens the degree to which disabled men can achieve cultural standards of masculinity. Indeed, whereas performance represents an essential criterion of masculine identity, the man whose body limits his execution of physical tasks is made vulnerable on account of debilitation.117 Being both disabled and male, they become a “contradiction in terms,” so to speak.118 While clearly a sexist notion, the societal perception of the disabled male body is that it is less than masculine.119 Their biology identifies them as male, while the physical limitations brought about by impairment align them closer to the sex role of the female character type.120 As long as those representative of hegemonic masculinity have the power to dictate what constitutes authentic masculinity, it is up to disabled men to find ways to negotiate their physical limitations with this ideal.121 Often, however, the negotiation of
115 Tom Shakespeare, “When is a man not a manς When he‟s disabled,” in Working with Men for Change (ed. Jim Wild; Philadelphia: UCL Press, 1999), 49.
116 Christina Jarvis, The Male Body at War, 89.
117 Shakespeare, “The Social Model of Disability,” 22.
118 Adrienne Asch and Michelle Fine, “Nurturance, Sexuality, and Reproduction,” 249.
119 Wendell, The Rejected Body, 144-151.
120 Shakespeare, “When is a man not a man,” 48.
121 Shuttleworth, “Disabled Masculinity,” 175.
35 men‟s masculinity in relation to hegemonic maleness spawns new configurations of masculinity that exist in a subordinate position to the normative type. A reformulation of gender ideals, these men take on new practices altogether in order to establish a masculine identity over against the hegemonic archetype.122
From the Conceptual to the Textual: Applying Disability Theory to T. Job A narrative represents a written artifact that puts forward, rather explicitly or implicitly, certain ideological claims before its reader. To ask how the narrative tries to persuade its audience to accept as “truth” whatever norms are put forward within the narratival framework is to determine how the text functions rhetorically.123 Uncovering a narrative‟s ideology makes it possible to expose its rhetorical strategy. The mode of ideology that concerns us here is that of gender, and the disabled male body more specifically. While the narrative world of T. Job is itself a fictional one, how the writer conceptualizes Job‟s masculinity both as an able-bodied and disabled man reflects the assumptions the writer has about what authentic masculinity entails. Gender and disability theory informs us that disablement (or even limited physical mobility or awkwardness) can have drastic consequences for how men realize their gender. What I want to do now is ask how this dynamic unfolds within the world of T. Job. Several questions guide this endeavor to extrapolate how disability affects the construction of masculine identity in the narrative. Are the same gendered terms used for Job prior to his disablement the same ones that appear afterwards, or does the narrative introduce a new set of terms with which to perceive this character‟s masculinityς Does disability in any way feminize Job in the narrative? Do characters within the world of the narrative interact with Job differently on account of his bodily debilitation? What does it mean that Job undergoes restoration by the narrative‟s conclusionς By getting at these sorts of questions, we can then move to the realm of rhetoric to ask how the narrative
122 Gerschick and Miller, “Coming to Terms,” 171.
123 Patricia K. Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” To Each Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application (eds. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Hayes; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 160.
36 tries to convince its readership to accept as authentic one mode of masculinity over another. The important point here is that, just as narratival constructions of gender have helped men gain positions of social, political, and economic dominance over women, the same can be said about able-bodied men and disabled men.124 Narratives that promulgate one form of masculinity as dominant over another based on physical appearance and/or functionality have the power to influence how readers perceive disabled men within the real world. By exposing how such narratives make their claims, we not only call into question the conviction that physical activity is a fixed aspect of authentic masculinity, but make room for the existence of alternative masculinities not strictly defined by bodily appearance or performance.
Narrative Prosthesis and the Joban Body in the Testament of Job The literary-critical approach set out in David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder‟s volume Narrative Prosthesis provides the theoretical underpinnings for uncovering the ideological representation of male disability in T. Job. Mitchell and Snyder argue that the disabled body in narrative often receives some form of “repair” by a story‟s denouement.125 Repair comes in many forms, be it the “obliteration of the difference through a „cure,‟ the rescue of the despised object from social censure, the extermination of the deviant as a purification of the social body, or the revaluation of an alternative mode of being.”126 According to Mitchell and Snyder, the endeavor to repair the disabled body betrays the able-bodied bias which underlies a number of narrative plotlines. The disabled body must appear as close to the culture‟s standard of physical normalcy as possible or the story has failed to achieve complete resolution.127 Because gender and disability are inextricably linked at the site of the bodily sphere, it is possible to push Mitchell and Snyder‟s argument one step further to ask whether gender identities
124 Danna Nolan Fewell, “Reading the Bible Ideologically: Feminist Criticism,” To Each Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application (eds. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Hayes; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 268-269.
125 Mitchell and Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis, 53.
126 Ibid., 53-54.
127 Ibid., 53.
37 ruptured by impairment also find restoration in narrative. I do that very thing here as I argue that the disablement and eventual “repair” of Job‟s body in T. Job mark the transformations of his masculine identity over the course of the narrative. In the chapters leading up to his ordeal, Job represents the preeminent male figure in ancient society—an able-bodied king who realizes his masculinity through his mastery over the social world. With the onset of his ordeal, Job‟s authority quickly evaporates, as Satan destroys the system of brokerage through which Job once demonstrated his public dominance. Satan finally assails Job with a debilitating plague, signaling Job‟s loss of control over his own physical body; the final demise of his former masculine identity is complete. But the writer does not leave Job emasculated in a weakened and diseased body. Rather, Job turns inward to realize his masculinity by enduring the pains of his body through the practice of self-control. So valuable is his new masculine identity, that Job, in ironic fashion, not only resists the efforts of his able- bodied antagonists (i.e. Satan and the four kings) to take control of his docile body, but ultimately shames them in turn. With Job‟s final restoration at the narrative‟s denouement, however, the narrative most clearly promotes its conception of what authentic masculinity entails. While Job can claim to his children that he is a man of endurance (1:3), his restoration both as a benefactor and an able-bodied man indicates that the hegemonic masculine ideal has not been entirely replaced. Rather, this final portrait of Job promotes a hybrid form of masculinity which necessitates mastery over both self and others. In so doing, T. Job reinforces to its readership that full-functionality really is a defining feature of authentic masculinity.
The Project Trajectory Chapter one has set out how gender and disability interrelate as bodily constellations. Chapter two looks more closely at different modes of masculinity in antiquity. Using Moore and Anderson‟s work on masculinity in 4 Maccabees to frame my discussion, I juxtapose the king‟s masculinity in the Greco-Roman world with the masculinity promoted within popular philosophical thought of the period. What I argue is that, whereas the king signified hegemonic masculinity within culture with his ability to dominate others, the influence of Stoicism on philosophy created an alternative form of
38 masculinity that emphasized domination over the self. The establishment of these two spheres of masculinity will inform my exegesis of the Testament of Job in the subsequent chapters. Chapter three commences my exegesis of T. Job. This chapter looks at the depiction of Job prior to his ordeal in chapters 1-15 of T. Job. What I argue is that Job as the king of Egypt realizes his masculinity through his ability to dominate others. Not only does he exhibit his authority through his mastery over his servants, but he gains the loyalty of the poor through his benefactions, establishes his rule in his region through military force, successfully manages any contemptuous voices in his household, and manages the interiority of his sons through his sacrificial offerings. These early chapters also portray Job as active and able-bodied in his pursuits, making clear that bodily functionality and the ability to master others go hand in hand as masculine ideals. Chapter four continues my exegesis of T. Job. The chapter analyzes the depiction of Job from the start of his ordeal in chapter 16 to its conclusion in chapter 45. Paying close attention to the language of gender in the narrative, what I show is that, with the disintegration of Job‟s property and the physical debilitation of his body, the writer salvages Job‟s reputation as a man by supplying him with a new masculine identity. His body weakened, immobile, and diseased, Job turns inward to realize his masculinity. To demonstrate the value of Job‟s new masculine identity, Job defeats his adversaries who happen to signify the hegemonic masculine ideal. In chapters 16-27, Job conquers a warring Satan by passively resisting his enemy‟s attempts to cause him to speak contemptuously against the Lord. Similarly, against his fellow kings in chapters 28-44, Job resists their attempts to gain dominance over his body through his willingness to remain in his diseased state. An important part of this chapter is its reevaluation of the character of Sitidos in the narrative. Placed in narrative opposition to Job, I argue that the devaluing of her gender ultimately aids in the maintenance of his new masculine identity. Chapter five is the final exegetical chapter in the dissertation. This chapter looks at what consequences Job‟s cords have not only for his body but the bodies of his daughters as well. Here I argue that, while the cords bolster the reputation of Job‟s daughters over that of their brothers, the cords have an ironic function as well. They ultimately benefit the men in the narrative by precluding the women from speaking
39 contemptuous utterances against them. Finally, the chapter examines the rhetorical implications that Job‟s restoration has on what the narrative promotes as authentic masculinity. Chapter six represents the final part of this project. In this chapter I make some concluding remarks about disabled masculinity in T. Job, and lay out how this project contributes to T. Job studies in general.
40 CHAPTER TWO MODES OF MASCULINITY IN ANTIQUITY
Introduction Masculinity in the ancient Mediterranean world can be summed up along the lines of domination or mastery. As Moore and Anderson write, “Mastery—of others and/or of oneself—is the definitive masculine trait of the Greek and Latin literary and philosophical texts that survive from antiquity.”128 In negotiating what it meant to dominate self and others a myriad of masculinities were developed in antiquity.129 The two most pertinent for this study are the masculinity of the Hellenistic king and the masculinity popularized within Stoic writings. Both represent the two ends of the domination spectrum, and both are present in the Testament of Job. On the one side of the spectrum stands the masculinity of the Hellenistic king. A number of scholars have pointed out that the masculinity of the king was linked to his proficiency as a warrior and benefactor. Implicit in both of these roles is that it was the king‟s duty to master others by defeating his opponents in battle and by gaining the loyalty of his constituency through patronage. In addition to this, portraiture and literature attest that the ruler‟s ability to dominate others necessitated owning a body that was fully-functional. In short, the king needed to look as though he had the ability to dominate others. The opening chapters of T. Job go through great lengths to portray Job along the lines of the ideal Hellenistic king. Not only does he make war against his adversary‟s temple, but he takes an active role in establishing an elaborate system of benefaction as well. On the other
128 Stephen Moore and Janice Capel Anderson, “Taking it Like a Man: Masculinity in 4 Maccabees,” JBL 117/2 (1998): 250.
129 For general discussions of masculinity within the classical world, see When Men were Men (eds. Lin Foxhall and John Salmon, New York: Routledge, 1998); Maud Gleason, Making Men. Sophists and Self- Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995); Brent Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs,” JECS 4 (Fall 1997): 269-312. On the diversity of masculinities within early Christianity, see David Aune, “Mastery of the Passions: Philo, 4 Maccabees and Earliest Christianity,” in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within a Greco-Roman World (ed. Wendy Helleman; Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1994); Stephen Moore and Janice Capel Anderson, eds., New Testament Masculinities (Semeia Studies 45; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002);
41 side of the equation stands the masculinity popularized within Stoic writings of the first century CE. In contrast to the king‟s ability to dominate others, this way of life encouraged men to dominate their inner passions, making mastery of the self the goal to be attained. This masculine ideal takes center stage in T. Job following the loss of Job‟s property and bodily-functionality. No longer the active and able-body king he once was, Job looks inward instead, electing to endure the pain caused by his debilitating worm- disease. Before looking in subsequent chapters at how Job goes from being a man who realizes his masculinity by dominating others to one who does so by dominating his pain, I want to look more closely at these two modes of masculinity within the context of the Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish cultures. This will allow us to not only define more precisely what these two ideals entailed, but gain a more accurate indication of just how much they differed from one another as well.
Warfare as Domination
Scholarship has already established that warfare and benefaction were markers of ideal kingship throughout most of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman worlds.130 The
130 Klaus Bringmann, “The King as Benefactor. Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism,” in Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic World (ed. Anthony Bulloch et al.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 9; Susan Fischler, “Imperial Cult: Engendering the Cosmos,” in When Men were Men (eds. Lin Foxhall and John Salmon, New York: Routledge, 1998),165- 183; Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, “Patronal Power Relations,” in Paul and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. Richard Horsely; Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 96-103; Richard Gordon, “The Veil of Power,” in Paul and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. Richard Horsely; Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 126-137; Helen S. Lund, Lysimachus. A Study in Hellenistic Kingship (Routledge: London, 1992), 153-183; Jim Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” in When Men were Men, 111-135; A. E. Samuel, “The Ptolemies and Ideology of Kingship,” in Hellenistic History & Culture (ed. Peter Green; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 168-192; R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 46-53. Note that these three aspects of kingship were well-attested throughout ancient Israel and the ancient Near East as well. For discussions of kingship and his relationship with the gods, see Nicolas Wyatt, “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in West Semitic Royal Ideology,” in There‟s such Divinity doth Hedge a King. Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (Burlington, VT.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005), 31-38; also in the same volume and by the same author, “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship,” 191-220. For the characterization of the king as an able-bodied man of war, see also in the same volume by the same author, “Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and their Implications for their Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions,” 151-189; For a discussion of benefaction and kingship in the Hebrew Bible, see Cristiano Grottanilli, “The King‟s Grace and the Helpless Woman: Ruth, Charila, Sita,” in Kings & Power. Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership & Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 11-30.
42 objective here, therefore, is to show how these two aspects of kingship furthered the masculinity of the king. As the premier male figure in society, the king represented the one person who had the power and resources to master all persons. Indeed, victory in battle made it possible for the king to literally dominate the bodies of others in an agonistic context. A more subtle approach to establishing his authority, benefaction furthered the king‟s sovereignty also as public displays of munificence increased his reputation among his constituency. In both instances, the king‟s ability to master others depended on the efforts of those who labored on his behalf. The military helped further his dominance in warfare, while prefects, client kings, and servants made sure that his patronage was carried out at the local level of government. In this respect, one might talk about the body of the king in two different respects. On the one hand, there was the social body of the king made up of those authorized by the crown to secure the king‟s power. On the other hand, there was the literal body of the king, thoroughly idealized in order to propagandize whatever public image he wished to convey to his constituency.
The King at War Erich Gruen remarks that monarchy was an unattractive option for Greeks prior to the conquests of Alexander.131 With the establishment of his kingdom however, Hellenistic kingship came to be defined as something achieved through military victory. This became especially true following Alexander‟s death, as none of his successors held a hereditary claim to his throne.132 Whereas scholars at one time believed that warfare defined the Seleucid kingdom more so than the Ptolemaic kingdom, A. E. Samuel has recently shown that military leadership remained a vital aspect of Ptolemaic kingship up through the first century BCE.133 Samuels points to the Karnak ostrakon of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (ca. 250 BCE) in which the Ptolemaic ruler is said to have defeated the philo-Persian king and participated in the first or second Syrian wars.134 Diana Della
131 Erich Gruen, “Introduction,” 3.
132 Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits, 49.
133 Ibid., 50.
134 Samuel, “The Ptolemies and Ideology of Kingship,” 168-192.
43 echoes Samuel‟s sentiment, noting that the Ptolemaic kings often commemorated their victories on architectural structures, by figuring themselves along the lines of pharaonic imagery.135 No doubt a means to further the perception of the king as warrior, the Ptolemaic ruler is shown grasping the hair of his enemy with one hand, and striking him down with the other.136 The effort by the Ptolemaic kings to display publicly their success in war says a great deal about gender and kingship during the Hellenistic era. The masculinity of the Hellenistic king was thoroughly intertwined with his participation and success in battle. Asia Minor, during the time of Alexander and his successors, was known as “spear-won land,” a term which, as Roy suggests, at least implies the masculine character of ancient warfare.137 Plutarch makes clear that the king‟s masculinity was tied to his achievement in battle. He says of Alexander, that after overrunning the territories of the barbarians to quell any possible disturbances throughout his kingdom, he besieged the city of Thebes because “he wished to show the walls of Athens he was a man” (Alexander 11.3-4).138 The battlefield provided the chief agonistic context in which a man could exhibit his a0ndrei/a, or “manly courage,” and the king‟s own exhibition of courage served as a catalyst for the bravery of his troops who fought alongside him. This idea carried over into Hellenistic Jewish texts as well. One sees this, for example, in Josephus‟ closing remarks of King David‟s reign in Jewish Antiquities. Josephus says of David that “there was no one like him in manliness, but he was the first on behalf of his subjects to go into danger, spurring his soldiers on with his labor and exhorting (them) to fight against the battle lines and not by ordering them as a ruler” (J.A. 7.390).139
135 Diana Delia, “Response [to Klaus Bringmann and Frank Walbank],” Hellenistic History & Culture (ed. Peter Green; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 201.
136 Ibid., 201.
137 Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits, 50; Jim Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 113.
138 Bou/letai pro/v toi~v A0qhnai/wn tei/xesin a)nh/r fanh~nai.
139 a0ndrei~ov ga\r h]n w9v ou0k a1llov tiv, e0n de\ toi~v u9pe\r tw~n u9phko/wn a0gw~si prw~tov e0pi\ tou\v kindu\nouv w4rma tw~| ponei~n kai\ ma/xesqai parakeleuo/menov tou\v stratiw/tav e0pi\ ta\v parata/ceiv a0ll 0 ou0xi\ tw|~ prosta/ttein w9v despo/thv.
44
The Warrior-King in Portraiture Portraitures provided kings a public venue with which to propagate their masculine image to the public. Representations of Hellenistic kings are clearly propagandized as they all by and large appear as strong, beardless, and youthful (aged twenty to thirty years of age).140 Very few portraits from the era represent the king according to his real age, echoing a cultural perception that vitality and kingship go hand in hand. While the most common royal statue is that of the king standing upright, Roy notes that “kings were sometimes portrayed wearing armour--royal statues in civilian dress are not found--and sometimes on horseback.”141 Coins provided another venue for kings to deploy a masculine image to the public sphere. The Diadochs adopted Alexander‟s strong-jawed image on their coinage in order to depict themselves as strong and capable leaders. Ptolemy I (305-282 BCE) and Seleukos I (311-281 BCE) propagandized the strong-jawed look of Alexander in elephant scalp on the face of their coinage.142 Smith suggests that the elephant skin is militarily symbolic, pointing back to either Alexander‟s conquest of India or the eastern conquests of the god Dionysos. In either case, Smith insists, for the ruler borrowing the image, it came to signify his own “eastern victories, real or imagined.”143 Especially interesting are numismata from the reigns of Kleopatra VII (51-31 BCE). Like the image one finds with the early Diadochs, the representation of Kleopatra is remarkably masculine in
140 Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 114.
141 Ibid.
142 For images of the coins, see plate 74 numbers 1-2 in Smith‟s appendix. Again, coinage provided the king with another venue with which to propagate a masculine image to the public, and thereby legitimize their right to rule. So, for instance, Robert Fleischer notes that, like Ptolemy I and Selecus I, the other Diadochs also portrayed themselves as strong, energetic image, able to conquer lions and wild boars with their bare hands (“Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins,” Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship [eds. Per Bilde et al.; Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 30-31). What is interesting here, is that while the militaristic image remained an essential image for the Bactrian kings, the portraiture of the Tryphe-kings in Egypt and Syria takes on a more fleshy and unattractive appearance (pgs. 31, 36). “These portraits,” Fleischer asserts, “convey...a good life of pleasure for the king and for his people ... The associations were wealth, happiness and peace, just the things the people wanted and needed” (p. 36 ). See as examples, plate 75. 9-10 of Ptolemy III and IV in Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits, 60.
143 Ibid.
45 appearance. Smith includes four coins from her reign.144 In all three she is depicted with a strong jawed and pointed nose, suggesting that she has adopted a typically masculine image in order to validate her own authority as ruler.145
The Royal Hunt For the king not at war, the hunt provided a comparable activity to project his courageousness. Indeed, Carney points out that the “[c]onquest of beasts can relate to conquest of men,” and this was certainly true for Hellenistic kings.146 Of course, Alexander‟s reputation as a hunter lives on in later Greco-Roman tradition. Plutarch, for instance, describes Alexander as hunting for exercise and to rouse the valor of his soldiers (Alexander. 40.3-41.1).147 Lysimachus, one of Alexander‟s successors, is said to have tailored himself after Alexander in creating his own lion-slayer identity.148 The hunt continued to play an important role for later Hellenistic kings. Carney notes that the Ptolemaic kings were admired for their hunting, while Ptolemy II actually included gilded hunting spears and four hundred hunting dogs in his royal procession.149 Hunting was not lost as a prescribed activity for kings during the Greco-Roman period either. In his Third Discourse on Kingship, Dio Chrysostom claims that the good king prepares his body for military activity by means of recreational hunting. Hunting, Chrysostom asserts, “makes the body strong, the soul manly (a0ndreiote/ra), and it provides a field to practice all things military. For, in order to ride and race it is necessary to engage many of the formidable game and withstand heat and survive cold, and oftentimes be tried by famine and thirst, so that he becomes eagerly accustomed to endure (karterei~n) all with
144 See plate 75 numbers 21-24 in Smith, Hellenistic Portraits.
145 Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 124, observes a similar masculinization of Kleopatra VII in busts of the queen.
146 Elizabeth Carney, “Hunting and the Macedonian Elite: Sharing the Rivalry of the Chase,” The Hellenistic World (ed. Daniel Ogden; London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.; The Classical Press of Wales, 2002), 62.
147 Carney, “Hunting and the Macedonian Elite,” 62
148 Lund, Lysimachus, 160.
149 Carney, “Hunting and the Macedonian Elite,” 67.
46 pleasure” ( 3.135-136).150 Literary Replications of Royal Dominance What should not be overlooked here is what ancient portraiture conveys about the king‟s royal body. Representations of the king beheading his enemy, besieging walls, leading his troops into battle, slaying lions, or hunting game, all presume that the paradigmatic royal figure is also able-bodied. The endeavor to portray the king as able- bodied carries over into ancient literature as well. One does not need to look very hard to find examples of this from antiquity. Demetrios In the opening chapters of his biography of Demetrios Poliorketes (306-283 BCE), Plutarch provides a description of the Seleucid king that coheres to the matrix of able-bodiedness/warfare/kingship. Plutarch describes Demetrios as having “an admirable and uncommon appearance, so that the painters and sculptors were unable to reach the same likeness” (Lives. Demetrios. 2.3).151 The failure of artists to properly render Demetrios‟ body on canvas or stone does not prevent Plutarch from attempting a sketch of Demetrios‟ inimitable appearance. Employing the conventional adjectives attributable to ideal kingship, Plutarch states that Demetrios‟ physical features exhibited “grace, strength, terror, and beauty” (2.3).152 Fittingly, Plutarch is sure to mention that these characteristics did not manifest themselves in an elderly body. Rather, they were “brought together in youth and in eagerness a certain heroic appearance and kingly majesty hard to imitate” (2.3).153 Portraitures hold that the historical Demetrios as a man of war,154 and his
150 di 0 ou[ to\ me\n sw~ma gi/gnetai r(wmalew/teron, h9 yuxh\ de\ a0ndreiote/ra, ta\ polemika\ de\ a3panta a0skei~tai. kai\ ga\r i9ppeu~sai kai\ dramei~n a0nagkai~on kai\ u9fi/stasqai polla\ tw~n a0lki/mwn qhri/wn kai\ kau~ma a0se/xesqai kai\ yu~xov u9pome/nein, polla/kiv de\ kai\ limou~ kai\ di/youv peiraqh~nai, dia\ de\ th\n e0piqumi/an e0qi/zetai pa/nta karterei~n meq 0 h9donh~v.
151 kai/per w2n me/gav, i0de/a| de\ kai\ ka/llei pro/swpou qaumasto\v kai\ peritto/v, w3ste tw~n platto/ntwn kai\ grafo/ntwn mhqe/na th~v o9moi/othtov e0fike/sqai.
152 to\ ga\r au0to\ xa/rin kai\ ba/rov kai\ fo/bon kai\ w3ran ei]xe.
153 kai\ suneke/krato tw~| nearw|~ kai\ i0tarw~| dusmi/mhtov h9ri"wkh/ tiv e0pifa/neia kai\ basilikh\ semno/thv.
154 Plutarch says that Demetrius imitated the god Dionysius for his warlike qualities, and certainly
47 reputation in battle is not forgotten in Plutarch‟s biography of the Seleucid king. Plutarch identifies Demetrios as the “Besieger of Cities” (Poliorkhth/v) indicating that his “heroic appearance” was fully representative of his achievements in battle (1.7). Later, Plutarch says that Demetrios “was most active and vehement in actions and he had perpetual vigor. Wherefore he strove after Dionysius more than other gods, as the god was most terrible in making war” (2.3).155 The adjectives e0nergo/taton (most active), sfodro/taton (most vehement), and drasth/rion (vigor), provide the rationale for Demetrios‟ participation in warfare. That Plutarch seems to prop up these qualities as positive attributes, suggests that he sees them as ideal characteristics for kingship and masculinity in general. The build up of superlative adjectives makes clear that the paradigmatic king is not one who passively involves himself in his affairs. Rather, he has the vigor and physicality to throw himself into the dealings of the state. Overall then, Plutarch lets on to his reader what the paradigmatic royal body entails: it is strong, dextrous, and full of youth. Clearly, one can read between the lines of Plutarch‟s idealized portrait of Demetrios and establish a picture of what he considers a defective royal body. The concepts that stand in binary opposition to the description of Demetrios in the passage--awkward, weak, elderly, lethargic, passive, and frail--represent everything that the ideal royal body is not.
Idealizing the Not-So-Ideal Royal Body Perhaps the best way to demonstrate that the ideal royal body was able-bodied, is to look at how ancient writers dealt with bodies that were not able-bodied. In his survey of royal bodies throughout the ancient Near East and Egypt, Jeremy Schipper demonstrates that while ancient rulers were not free of injury or illness, physical debilitations remained by and large absent from iconographic representations.156 “In
portraitures of the Seleucid king allude to this legend. Smith, for instance, includes a bust of Demetrios (Plate 5, cat. no 4) in which the king has two bull horns protruding from his forehead, imitating the appearance of the warrior deity (Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits, 64).
155 e0nergo/taton au] pa/lin kai\ sfodro/taton to\ peri\ ta\v pra/ceiv e0ndelexe\v ei]xe kai\ drasth/rion: h[| kai\ ma/lista tw~n qew~n e0zh/lou to\n Dio/nuson, w9v pole/mw| te xrh~sqai deino/taton.
156 Jeremy Schipper, “Why Do You Still Speak of Your Affairs?”: Mephibosheth, Disability, and National Identity in the David Story (Ph.D. diss.: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2005), 83-116.
48 fact,” Schipper states, “royal iconography and literature tried to encode the king‟s body with attributes of leadership expected of an ancient Near Eastern ruler, even if this meant passing over the idiosyncrasies of the king‟s body. The iconography and literature helped convince others that this person had a body fit for king.”157 In terms of portraiture from the Hellenistic period, we have already noted how portraitures tended to idealize the body of the king as well. Literature from the time period makes clear that not only were the actual bodies of kings less than ideal, but sometimes they were even disabled. Depictions of royal disability often took on symbolic meaning in ancient writings. Some authors deployed royal disability/deformity in a physiognomic fashion, using bodily deviance as an outward expression of a malevolent disposition (e.g. the madness of king Herod in Josephus‟ Jewish Antiquities [cf. 16.253-240, 257-260]). Others imbued the king‟s disability with symbolic value, to signal a problem within larger society (e.g. Oedipus‟ clubfoot signifies political overreaching).158 When ancient writers sought to augment the reputation of a historically disabled king, however, it was often to their benefit to “repair” through writing the bodily difference of the ruler. While the complete erasure of the actual impairment or deformity was an available option, this was just one solution among many. To demonstrate how ancient writers manipulated language to conceal a king‟s impairment, I turn to Plutarch‟s biographies of Agesilaos and Julius Caesar. Both stories represent excellent examples of how a skilled writer could manipulate language to bolster the masculine image of the disabled ruler.
Agesilaos Plutarch does not disguise the congenital lameness of Agesilaos in his biography of the Spartan king. Rather, Plutarch deploys a series of literary contrivances to persuade his readership to see Agesilaos as not so far removed from the able-bodied ideal, despite his considerable bodily difference. Whereas descriptions of kings in antiquity normally commence with his physical appearance, Plutarch starts his sketch of Agesilaos by
157 Schipper, Mephibosheth, 115.
158 This example comes via Tobin Siebers, “Tender Organs, Narcissism, and Identity Politics,” in Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities (ed. Sharon Snyder et al.; New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002), 50.
49 focusing more on the ruler‟s deportment. Plutarch reports that Agesilaos‟ “natural decency” made him attractive to Lysander, his lover (Agesilaos. 2.1). Plutarch goes on to illustrate the decorum of Agesilaos. He, Plutarch reports, “was gentle with always a readiness to obey, not at all out of fear, but he was ruled by a sense of honor, even more distressed by censure than by the oppression of hard work.”159 Agesilaos is no pushover however. His fiery competitiveness tempers his moderate demeanor. Plutarch states that Agesilaos “was more contentious and hot-tempered than his friends wishing to be first in all things, having an unconquerable and unmovable fury.”160 Up to this point, there is nothing in Plutarch‟s description of Agesilaos that would lead the reader to believe that the Spartan king is anything other than able-bodied. He is found attractive in the eyes of another (although, not on account of his appearance).161 His aggressive spirit drives him to finish ahead of his friends (note that Plutarch leaves ambiguous as to what they compete in). Physical labors are less of a concern for Agesilaos than the prospects of shame. Plutarch even couches Agesilaos‟ anger along the lines of an able-bodied warrior, calling it “unconquerable” and “unmovable”--terms normally reserved for successful performance in battle. In 2.2 the audience learns of Agesilaos‟ disability for the first time. It is here that Plutarch acknowledges that the Spartan king had “lame legs” (ske/louv ph/rwsin). Plutarch undertakes damage control immediately, attempting to disguise the degree of physical difference of Agesilaos‟ body. We might recall that youthfulness was a key
159 eu0peiqei/a pa/lin au] kai\ pra|o/thti toiou~tov h]n oi[ov fo/bw| mhde/n, ai0sxu/nh| de\ pa/nta poiei~n ta\ prostatto/mena, kai\ toi~v yo/goiv a0lgu/nesqai ma~llon h2 tou\v po/nouv baru/nesqai.
160 filoneiko/tatov ga\r w2n kai\ qumoeide/statov e0n toi~v ne/oiv kai\ pa/nta prwteu/nein boulo/menov, kai\ to\ sfodro\n e1xwn kai\ r9agdai~on a1maxon kai\ dusekbi/aton.
161 Several studies have report that disabled men and women feel as if their impairment makes them unattractive--even “asexual”--to the gaze of the other. See, for example, Adrienne Asch and Michelle Fine, “Nurturance, Sexuality and Women with Disabilities. The Example of Women and Literature,” The Disability Studies Reader (ed. Lennard Davis; New York: Routledge, 1997), 241-259; Martha Stoddard Holmes, “The Twin Structure: Disabled Women in Victorian Courtship Plots,” Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities (New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002) 222-233; Russell Shuttleworth, “Disabled Masculinity. Expanding the Masculine Repertoire,” in Gendering Disability (eds. Bonnie Smith and Beth Hutchison; New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 166-178; Tom Shakespeare, “When is a Man not a Manς When He‟s Disabled,” in Working with Men for Change (ed. Jim Wild; Philadelphia: UCL, Press, 1999), 46-57. That Plutarch mentions upfront that Agesilaos has a lover who finds him appealing, therefore, is one effort among many that Plutarch uses to try and normalize this character before the purview of the reader.
50 feature of ideal kingship in the Hellenistic world. In continuing his physical sketch of Agesilaos, Plutarch apparently draws upon this familiar topos, insisting that Agesilaos‟ body was so “youthful” in appearance that it “concealed” his disability from the sight of onlookers (2.2). The literary contrivance is an effective one as Plutarch gives his audience the point of view of those who actually witnessed Agesilaos‟ form in person. The biographer‟s rhetorical motivation for situating his reader alongside these spectators is quite clear: by seeing Agesilaos through the eyes of those who found the king‟s youthful appearance more striking than his disability, Plutarch‟s audience has no other choice but to be distracted as well. By bringing Agesilaos‟ youthful appearance into the conversation, it functions to offset any negative reaction his reader might have had upon learning that the king was disabled. The feature that most defines Agesilaos‟ public identity, interestingly enough, is not his disability. Plutarch continues his characterization of Agesilaos, reporting that the king carried himself with “ease and joy--being the first to joke and kid about himself” (2.2). Garland-Thomson notes that self-deprecating humor is a common strategy employed by the disabled. It functions not only to relieve the anxiety that able-bodied persons have about the disabled, but also to help the disabled adjust to a culture in which able- bodiedness is considered ideal.162 The same holds true for Agesilaos. Plutarch reports that Agesilaos‟ self-deprecation “went far in correcting his plight” (2.2). The language of correction here should not be missed as it represents another attempt to rehabilitate Agesilaos‟ image before the reader. To be sure, this is the second occasion in the passage in which Plutarch employs vocabulary intended to diminish the conspicuousness of the king‟s disability. Indeed, just as Agesilaos‟ youthful appearance “concealed” his lameness, now the audience learns the king‟s jocularity “corrects” it. Although both occurrences represent metaphorical deployments of these terms (i.e. youthfulness cannot really disguise one‟s overall appearance just as humor cannot really mend the body), metaphors often find their power in their ability to create reality where there otherwise is none. This is particularly true in the world of narrative. By linking Agesilaos‟ disabled form with language that otherwise implies “repair,” Plutarch prompts his readership to
162 Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies. Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 13.
51 make the same connection in their minds as well. While Agesilaos may never find true restoration in the story, by insisting that he has found some alternative means of repair through these other avenues, Plutarch makes it all the more persuasive to the reader that the degree of difference of his body is negligible at best.163 It is not unusual for disability to symbolize or represent a character‟s personality trait in narrative, and Plutarch makes that very insinuation in his next statement.164 Spinning Agesilaos‟ disablement as something that proved advantageous to the king, Plutarch argues that “his lameness made his ambition quite plain, never giving up in either labor (po/non) or enterprise” (pra~cin; 2.2). In Plutarch‟s line of reasoning, the source of Agesilaos‟ determination is the very debilitation which characterizes his body; without it, the king would be without the competitiveness that defines his personality. Plutarch‟s employment of po/non and pra~cin are also notable considering their usual connotations. While po/non and pra~cin hold the general sense of business work, these terms also hold the connotation of physical labor. While Agesilaos‟ lameness seems to rule out the possibility of interpreting these terms according to the latter sense, one should not dismiss the possibility that po/non and pra~cin are “double-voiced” in their intent.165 Indeed, Plutarch has already demonstrated a considerable effort to standardize Agesilaos‟ image elsewhere in the passage. By associating Agesilaos with terms otherwise linked to able-bodied characters, Plutarch raises the possibility in the reader‟s mind that this character was capable of doing more than just business transactions. In so doing, Plutarch effectively blurs the extent to which Agesilaos‟ disability limits his physical performance. What emerges is a man who is not so far removed from the ideal
163 As a side note, that Agesilaos needed to “correct” himself, suggests that an able-bodied norm was in place in ancient society. Indeed, in order for Agesiloas to fully assimilate, it was not that his peers had to make jokes about their own appearance. Agesiloas had to denigrate his own body in order to fit in. What is ironic, of course, is the upshot of Agesiloas‟ self-deprecating humor. By joking about his own body in order to fully assimilate, he ultimately reinforces his peers‟ belief (as well as that of Plutarch‟s audience) that their able-bodies are superior to his disabled form.
164 Mitchell and Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis, 119-139.
165 The term “double-voiced” is originally a Bakhtinian term. It is an ironic form of speech meaning language that is articulated in two different directions. In many ways, my use of the term is indebted to Robert Polzin‟s employment of the term in Samuel and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Two. I Samuel (Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1989), especially page 23 of his book.
52 image of kingship. Plutarch‟s final remarks about Agesilaos underscore just how much his deportment overshadowed his appearance. As a jovial man of “good spirit,” as well as one whose “word or look never offended or distressed,” Agesilaos, despite his “old age,” was more loved than “the beautiful and the young” (2.3). The argument here signifies another endeavor by Plutarch to eclipse Agesilaos‟ disability with the alleged jocular conduct of the king. The line of reasoning is ironic at best: Plutarch props up an aspect of Agesilaos‟ character that has nothing to do with appearances in order to claim that the personality of the Spartan ruler made him more attractive than those who had good appearances! In any case, what is clear from only these three verses is that Plutarch had a sizeable rhetorical toolbox from which to draw from in rehabilitating the image of the disabled king.166 He will open this toolbox once more when dealing with the character of Julius Caesar in book twenty of Lives.
Julius Caesar In his biography of Julius Caesar we see Plutarch framing the Roman ruler‟s poor health as a necessary aspect of his identity, just as he did with Agesilaos.167 In almost apologetic fashion, Plutarch ensures his reader that Caesar‟s “feeble health” (th\n a0rrwsti/on) did not lead him into a life of “effeminacy” (malaki/av; 17: 2-3). Instead, military activity, according to Plutarch, was the cure through which Caesar “fought off the passions and kept his body out of reach of sufferings” (Plutarch, Caesar.17.2-3).168 Two things are noteworthy about Plutarch‟s statements here. First is Plutarch‟s argument that warfare was a cure for Caesar‟s body. By configuring warfare metaphorically as a kind of medicine, the underlying implication is that Caesar had no other choice but to
166 Note that Plutarch also says that there is no portraiture of Agesilaos because he would not permit one to be made (2.2). One might imply from this, that Agesilaos hid his “despicable appearance” (o1yin eu0katafro/ntov), because he did not fit the ideal image of the king as an able-bodied figure.
167 Although Caesar refused to wear a crown for political reasons (cf. Plutarch, Caesar.60.1-5; 61.1-5), taking the title “dictator for life,” his rule transforms the Roman government into a permanent monarchy (Plutarch, Caesar. 57.1). Therefore, while Caesar is not a king per se, his position as an autocrat makes him no less suitable for this study.
168 apomaxo/menov tw|~ pa/qei kai9 to9 sw~ma thrw~n dusa/lwton.
53 remain physically active if he wished to stave off sickness. The second thing that is noteworthy is Plutarch‟s use of a0pomaxo/mai (to fight off) in the passage. By configuring the autocrat‟s illness as a type of warfare Plutarch effectively bolsters the masculine image of Caesar to almost superhuman levels. Indeed, the image of Caesar “fighting” against the passions presumes that he does not simply battle external foes. He is engaged in a battle with internal ones as well. Caesar‟s identity is defined by warfare through and through. The upshot of this metaphor for Plutarch‟s reader is quite plain: instead of appearing less than masculine on account of a condition that might otherwise limit his participation in battle, Caesar‟s reputation is actually enhanced thanks to Plutarch‟s subtle literary ploy. To conclude then, portraiture and literary evidence suggest that warfare was a marker of royal identity in the Hellenistic world. Moreover, later authors such as Josephus, Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom indicate that the conviction remained prevalent in the Greco-Roman period, and in the Greek East in particular. Closely associated with the depiction of the king as warrior was the belief that the ideal king was able-bodied as well. Be it in battle or on the hunt, the masculinity of the king was tied to the vigor and fitness of his body. This idealized image of kingship is best thought of, therefore, as a culturally constructed persona; one which bound together ancient society‟s most admired convictions about masculinity in the locus of one very public body.169 The ruler was expected to cohere to this image, as he was the symbol of the empire and the preeminent man in his kingdom. That the king in reality always cohered to these standards is doubtful. It is more likely that the king projected this image of himself to his constituency, in order to validate his right to rule.170 When it was not possible to hide the less-than-ideal body, portraiture and literature used other types of propaganda to bolster a masculine identity otherwise weakened by physical debilitation.
169 In commenting on a 1st century BCE inscription about the reign of Augustus, Susan Fischler suggests that the attributes of military dominance and benefaction were characteristic of “the outstanding male authority figure.” Fulfilling these tasks effectively during his reign, “Augustus,” Fischler writes, “had become the ultimate father and the ultimate citizen of every city” (see “Imperial Cult,” 169).
170 Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 111.
54 Royal Benefaction as Domination
In addition to warfare, the ideal king also needed to represent himself as a generous benefactor to his constituency.171 To be sure, warfare was not entirely divorced from benefaction. Much of the king‟s military activity was also a result of benefaction.172 Rulers in the Hellenistic world and later Greek East, earned the title of “Savior” and “Protector” for their ability to defend against barbarian invaders and preserve peace throughout their kingdoms.173
Defining Benefaction In the Hellenistic world, benefaction (eu0ergesi/a) was, as Bringmann notes, “the underlying principle upon which the monarchy should be based.”174 As a gendered ideal, benefaction was a defining element of the king‟s masculinity in antiquity.175 His mastery over others depended on his ability to build and sustain a network of clientele through his public acts of munificence. In theory, the practice of benefaction was designed to profit both patron and clientele alike. Structured as a network of social relationships based on an inequality of power, clientele found in the wealthier patron a resource by which to procure otherwise inaccessible goods or services. The benefactor, in turn, established a network of social relationships based on obligation and debt.176 For
171 Helen S. Lund, Lysimachus, 165-166.
172 Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 113. See, for example, Aristotle, Politics. 3.9.7, where he explicitly links benefaction with warfare.
173 Klaus Bringmann, “The King as Benefactor,” 9; John Chow, “Patronage in Roman Corinth,” Paul and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. Richard Horsely; Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 105; Rodney Werline, “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of Rule,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism (eds. Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 75-77.
174 Bringmann, “The King as Benefactor,” 8. Echoing this sentiment, Diana Delia, “Response,” 120, writes “the benefaction/gratitude complex of actions and reactions is one which extends beyond the Greek cities and must be regarded as a basic constituent of Hellenistic sovereignty wherever it is found.”
175 See for instance, Richard Horsley, “Introduction,” 93.
176 Halvor Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models of Interpretation (ed. Jerome Neyrey; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 248.
55 the king especially, public demonstrations of patronage such as festivals, sacrifices, and distribution of food were of great importance as it helped ensure loyalty from his constituency. Payment, in this case, would be whatever honor the king received for his expression of generosity to his people.177 It goes without saying that wealth played a prominent role in helping the king maintain his image as generous patron.178 Without access to sufficient resources, a king was unable to perform the necessary duties which would allow him to project a munificent image before the public eye.
The Institution of Benefaction During the Hellenistic Age Alexander‟s reputation as a magnanimous king lives on in later tradition.179 Plutarch, for instance, writes that Alexander was “naturally munificent. He gave still more gifts as his affairs increased. And his friendliness was a surplus, which only, to tell the truth, the ones who give offer willingly” (Alexander 39:1).180 For those who criticized his military campaigns, Plutarch says that Alexander remained “exceedingly gentle” (pa/nu pra/wv) towards them, continuing to express “great marks of goodwill and honor” to his acquaintances despite their disparagements (shmei~a mega/lhv u9ph~rxen eu0noi/av kai\ timh~v; 41:2). The second-century historian Arrian echoes these sentiments about the Alexander in his Anabasis of Alexander. “As for money,” Arrian states, Alexander “was very sparing for his own pleasure, but most plentiful with respect to the benefit (eu0poii"/an) of his neighbor” (7.28.3).181 Benefaction was certainly a defining element of Ptolemaic kingship. With names such as Philadelphus, Philopater, Philometor, and, of course, Euergetes, the Ptolemaic royal administrations projected the ideals of generosity and humanitarianism through the identity of their kings. Indeed an important aspect of the ideology of Ptolemaic kingship
177 Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations,” 249.
178 Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 111.
179 Samuel, “The Ptolemies and Ideology of Kingship,” 181.
180 Fu/sei de\ w2n megalodwpo/tatov e1ti ma~llon e0pe/dwken ei0v tou~to tw~n pragma/twn au0come/nwn: kai\ prosh~n h9 filofrosu/nh, meq 0 h[v mo/nhv w9v a0lhqw~v oi9 dido/ntev xari/zontai.
181 xrhma/twn te ei0v me\n h9dona\v ta\v au9tou~ feidwlo/tatov, e0v de\ eu0poii/"an tw~n pe/lav a0fqonw/tatov.
56 was filanqrwpi/a. A concept synonymous with eu)erghsi/a A. E. Samuel argues that filanqrwpi/a was the notion that the king was the benevolent protector of his constituency.182 Samuel notes that the Ptolemaic rulers continued the policy of filanqrwpi/a throughout the extent of their dynasty.183 Della asserts that they expressed this ideal in diverse ways, such as “the promotion of peace, the bestowal of liberal benefits on priests and temples, grants of asylum or amnesty, relief from famine, tax exemption, and protection against abuses.”184 Just as coins were used to project the king‟s strength as warrior, numismata were also used to propagate his identity as benefactor as well. Moving away from the prototypical strong-jawed look, several Ptolemaic kings adopted a corpulent appearance to convey the image of prosperity before the public.185 In the early Ptolemaic period, Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246-222 BCE), Ptolemy IV Philopater (222-205 BCE), and Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-180 BCE) project a corpulent appearance on their coins. Later on, Ptolemies VIII-X (ca. 145-88 BCE) also adopted a more stout appearance,186 even earning the nicknames “Physkon” or “fat.”187 As for the Seleucid royal administration, Amélie Kuhrt has shown that evidence of imperial patronage from the Seleucids is discernable not only throughout the Mediterranean but the region of Babylonia as well.188 Numismatic evidence also attests to the importance of benefaction to the Seleucid dynasty. This is especially true near the end of the Seleucid kingdom. Smith notes that as the Seleucid kingdom began facing political and economic turmoil in its later years, the monarchs adopted a more youthful,
182 Samuel, “The Ptolemies and Ideology of Kingship,” 190.
183 Ibid., 191.
184 Della, “Response,” 201.
185 Robert Fleischer, “Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins,” in Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Oakville, CONN.:Aarhus University Press, 1996), 36.
186 See plate 75 number 17-20 in Smith, Hellenistic Portraits.
187 Quoting Athenaios, Garland remarks that “Ptolemy Alexander of Egypt was so obese that „he could not relieve himself unless he left the room supported by two men‟” (Deipn. 12/549-550B).
188 Amélie Kuhrt, “The Seleucid Kings and Babylonia,” in The Hellenistic World (ed. Daniel Ogden; London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.; The Classical Press of Wales, 2002), 41-54.
57 divinized, appearance on the face of their coinage to offset negative public opinion that they were ineffectual as “divine-benefactors.”189 Benefaction continued to be a defining aspect of kingship in the first century. From a political standpoint, a network of benefaction allowed Rome to maintain its authority in the Greek East. The Roman government established client kings in its Greek provinces who acted as “friends” to the Emperor.190 While Rome conferred on these men the authority of king, they in turn had to supply aid and military assistance to the Roman army, maintain security, and pay taxes to Rome.191 Kingship treatises from the period make certain that the king was expected to act as a benefactor towards his constituency. In his First Discourse on Kingship, Dio Chrysostom asserts that the good king “finds greater pleasure bestowing benefits (eu0rgetw~n) than the ones benefited (eu0ergetoume/nwn) and in this pleasure alone he is insatiable. For all the other necessities of kingship he regards as customary, but benefaction (eu0ergesi/av) alone he considers voluntary and blessed. And he is unsparing with the good things as though never running dry, but he is as accustomed at producing bad things as the sun is at producing darkness” (1.24-25).192 Benefaction in Hellenistic Jewish Texts Given the influence of Greek culture on Jewish culture, it should not come as any surprise that the association of benefaction and kingship is a prominent theme in many Hellenistic Jewish writings. In many of these texts as well, the king employs benefaction for the express means of controlling the actions of another. In the Letter of Aristeas, the writer portrays Ptolemy II as a magnanimous king who readily confers benefits to the Jews. The king‟s benefactions are well-received by the Jews, and it proves the very reason why Eliezer the High Priest agrees to transcribe
189 Smith, Hellenistic Portraits, 122.
190 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 45.
191 Ibid.
192 Kai\ toi/nun eu0ergetw~n h3detai plei/w tw~n eu0ergetoume/nwn kai\ mo/nhv tau/thv e0sti\ th~v h9donh~v a0ko/restov. ta\ me\n ga\r a1lla th~v Basilei/av a0nagkai~a neno/miken, to\ de\ th~v eu0ergesi/av mo/non e9kou/sio/n te kai\ eu1daimon. kai\ tw~n me\n a0gaqw~n a0feide/statov e0stin, w9v ou0de/pote e0pileiyo/ntwn, kakou~ de\ h[tton ai1tiov gi/gnesqai pe/fuken h1per o9 h3liov tou~ sko/touv.
58 the Jewish texts from Hebrew to Greek (38). Eliezer even frames his agreement using the language of benefaction. Reasoning that the king had “benefited” his own people in “many ways” (pollou_j tro&pouj eu)hrge/thkaj), Eliezer determines to repay the king‟s kindness with an act of “friendship and love” (fili/aj kai\ a)gaph&sewj; 44-45). The association of benefaction with kingship appears in 4 Maccabees also, as Antiochus Epiphanes tries to persuade the seven brothers to adopt the Greek way of living by promising them gifts in exchange for their loyalty. He asserts, “Just as I am able to punish those who disobey my commands, so I can be a benefactor (eu)ergetei=n) to those who obey me” (4 Mac 8:6). As far as Josephus‟ writings go, one sees the link between benefaction and kingship in his retelling of the story of Mephibosheth. Following the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, Josephus reports that David asked whether there was anyone belonging to Jonathan “capable of receiving the kindness of benefactions” (ta_j tw~n eu)ergesiw~n xa&ritaj duna&menon) on account of the benefits shown to him by Jonathan. Just like the example from 4 Maccabees, the scene exemplifies how a king could use benefactions to gain an advantage over another person, as David‟s gifts are no doubt intended to secure Mephibosheth‟s allegiance to his throne. Finally, Philo‟s depiction of Moses in Life of Moses exemplifies a king whose virtuous image is the direct result of his benefactions. Philo asserts that “[Moses] set before himself one necessary objective, to profit his subjects and to exert himself on their behalf, being of service in both deed and word” (1.27.151). Moses did not look to increase his riches through taxes or dispossession of property because he did not prize material wealth (1.27.152). Rather, he “trained himself to be prudent and content, but extravagant with the royal expenditure which the ruler may claim more than his due” (1.27.153).193 The “royal expenditure” (basilikh\n) that Moses bestowed on his people was not material wealth but the inner virtues which he had in abundance: “self control, endurance, temperance, sagacity, intelligence, skill in sufferings and distresses, disdain for pleasures, justice, censure and chastening according to the law (for missing the mark),
193 eu)te/leian kai\ eu)koli/an e0peth&deuen i0diw&tou, polute/leian de\ tw|~ o!nti basilikh_n e0n oi[j kalo_n h}n pleonektei=n to_n a!rxonta.
59 praise and honor for successfully accomplishing the law” (1.27.154).194
Summary I have argued in this first section that the Hellenistic king realized his masculinity through his ability to dominate others. Domination included not only his ability to defeat his foes in battle, but also his skill in establishing a network of loyal clientele based on his deeds of benefaction. The king needed to (at least appear to be) fully-functional as well, symbolizing in his body the authority he held over the social realm. But this was only one expression of masculinity in antiquity. Existing at the opposite end of the spectrum was the Stoic notion that men did not need to be active in order to realize their masculinity. In the face of suffering especially, men could resist—not by fighting back— but by enduring whatever pain their adversaries afflicted upon them. In doing so, their aim was not the mastering of others but the mastering of their own selves. And as a masculine ideal, it stood diametrically opposed to how the king was supposed to act in antiquity.
The Stoic Ideal: Dominating the Self
During the classical age of philosophy, rejection of the passions was configured along the lines of warfare.195 As early as the writings of Aristotle however, discussions of self-control began to incorporate language from the agonistic setting of the gymnasium.196 The idea did not become fully developed until the first century CE however, when the Stoics utilized the athletic metaphor to create the image of the athletic-enduring sage.197 To be sure, military imagery continued to appear in their writings, but athletic language provided a good supplement for framing the philosopher‟s
194 tau~ta di 0 h}san e0gkra&teiai, karteri/ai, swfrosu&nai, a)gxi/noiai, sune/seij, e0pisth~mai, po&noi, kakopa&qeiai, h(donw~n u(peroyi/ai, dikaiosu&nai, protropai\ pro_j ta_ be/ltista, yo&goi kai\ kola&seij a(martano&ntwn no&mimoi, e1painoi kai\ timai\ katorqou&ntwn pa&lin su_n no&mw|.
195 Themistocles Anthony Adamopoulo, Endurance, Greek and Early Christian. The Moral Transformation of the Greek Idea of Endurance, from the Homeric Battlefield to the Apostle Paul (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1996), 196-203.
196 Ibid., 186.
197 Ibid.
60 control over the passions.198 Because terms such as “exercise” (a1skhsiv), “pain” (po/nov), and “endurance” (u9pomonh/) had their roots in military training, their redeployment as identity markers for the enduring sage was a readymade fit.199 Both Greek and Roman Stoics maintained that the soul trained to resist the lure of the passions possessed patient endurance. Patient endurance, or u0pomonh/, was a Greek concept that had its origins on the battlefield and early athletic competition. The same was true for its synonym karteri/a.200 By the first century BCE, this notion of patient endurance had so thoroughly permeated Roman culture, Seneca‟s understanding of patientia could be used to identify u9pomonh/.201 A person who had truly achieved patient endurance found a sense of contentment even in the midst of suffering. Epictetus, for instance, reprimanded his interlocutor for not being grateful that Zeus had given him the “patient endurance” (u9pomonh/) to suffer his personal tragedies and to do so with happiness (3.8.5-6). Similarly, Seneca tells his friend Lucillus, that one is more able to “endure” (patiuntur) the threat of suffering when he has “trained” (adsuescit) himself for “future trouble” (Ep. 76.35). Elsewhere, he asserts that the reason persons unaccustomed to pain are impatient with their suffering is because “they have not trained themselves to be content in spirit” (Ep. 78.10). Represented as an athletic contest, the act of enduring the passions became comparable to that of a struggle, in which one needed to conquer vices such as anger, boastfulness, and envy in order to achieve victory. While the moralists repeatedly drew on wrestling bouts and boxing-matches to construct their agonistic metaphors, they saved their praise for those men who concerned themselves with training their minds instead of their bodies.202 One sees this in Seneca, for instance, who says of athletes, “how weak is
198 Ibid., 165-203.
199 Ibid., 182.
200 There is no reason for me to rehearse the history of these two terms as it has been accomplished more than adequately elsewhere: Adamopoulo, Endurance, Greek and Early Christian, 165-195; Cees Haas “Job‟s Perseverance in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 118-128.
201 Brent Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs,” JECS 4 (Fall 1997): 291.
202 Quam inbecilli animo sint, quorum lacertos umersosque miramur.
61 the mind of those whose muscles and shoulders we admire” (On Worldly Deceptions. 80.2). The man able to withstand and conquer both the inner and outer opponents of his soul became the “true athlete in training” (Epictetus. 2.18.27).203 Pleasure had always stood among the opponents of the sage, but a noticeable shift transpired in the first century CE. Writers like Seneca insisted that reason had the power to conquer bodily pain and suffering as well.204 The move was a substantial one, as its repercussions were even felt within Hellenistic Judaism as we shall see below. For the sage who endured his ordeal, a prize lay in wait. Whereas the athlete of the gymnasium acquired a garland for his victory, the one who endured the inner blows of the passions won virtue as his “reward.” Epictetus, for instance, maintained that freedom was among the prizes for the man who exercised (gumna/zwn) himself against external impressions such as fear of death (2.18.27-30). Seneca asserted that “virtue, strength of soul, and peace for all” were the rewards for the one who displaced fear of pain from his mind and “despised death” in the face of torture (Ep. 78.6,14-16). Perhaps Seneca‟s most significant contribution was fusing courage with the endurance of pain. Like endurance, courageous was another virtue that had its roots in an agonistic context. In Seneca‟s philosophy however, the sage who endured his battle with suffering was no less courageous than the warrior who went boldly into battle. The upshot here was that one no longer needed the agonistic context to exhibit courage; public displays of suffering were also representative for manly displays of courage. Seneca‟s reaction after hearing that Lucillus is no longer capable of performing his regular duties due to illness, illustrates the appropriation of bravery into his system of thought. Seneca inquires of his friend, What is next? Do you think you are doing nothing if you are self-controlled (temperans) in your illness? You will be showing that disease is able to be conquered or at least endured (sustineri). There is, I believe, also a place of virtue in a bed. It is not only the sword and battle that provides proof of a spirit unconquered by fear; even in bed-clothes a man can appear brave
203 Adamopoulo, Endurance, Greek and Early Christian, 182.
204 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 277.
62 (fortis). You have something to do; wrestle well with the disease (Ep. 78.20-21).205 Here, Seneca interweaves imagery from the arena, battlefield and gymnasium to illustrate the courage of struggling with disease. Lucillus can win virtue even on his sickbed, just as a gladiator, warrior, and wrestler can achieve their rewards in the arena. Seneca contends that the absence of spectators with which Lucillus can prove his courage is no problem either. He commands Lucillus, “Be your own spectator, praise yourself” (Ep. 78.21)!206 Seneca‟s correlation of endurance with bravery has gender ramifications also, as the sage‟s ability to endure suffering becomes a marker of his masculine identity.207 Earlier in the same Epistle Seneca tells Lucillius that if he withdraws from his suffering it pursues and presses hard, because it will tighten, weigh heavily, and push forward. But if you stand against it, willing to prevail, it will be repulsed. How many athletes receive blows on their faces and all over their bodies? Nevertheless, they endure every torture with glorious desire not only because they fight, but also they suffer such so that they are able to fight. Their training is torture ... You say, „I feel severe pain.‟ Do you feel it if you endure it as a woman (muliebriter)?...„But it is serious.‟ Whatς Are we strong for this purpose, so that we might carry lighter burdens (emphasis mine; Ep. 78,15-19)?208 The problem with arguing for patience as a masculine virtue was that it demanded the sufferer to remain passive in his response. Because the ancient imagination equated
205 Quid porro? Nihil agere te credis, si temperans aeger sis? Ostendes morbum posses superari vel certe sustineri. Es, mihi crede, virtuti etiam in lectulo locus. Non tantum arma et acies dant argumenta alacris animi indomitique terroribus; et in vestimentis vir fortis apparet. Habes, quod agas: bene luctare cum morbo.
206 Ipse te specta, ipse te lauda.
207 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 279-280.
208 Istud quod premit inpendet, quod urget, si subducere to coeperis, sequeter et gravius incumbent; si contra steteris et obnitit volueris repelletur. Athletai quantum plagarum ore, quantum toto corpore excipiunt? Ferunt tamen omne tormentum gloriae cupiditate nec tantum quia pugnant, ista patiunutur, sed ut pugnent.... “Dolorem gravem sentio.” Quid ergoς Non sentis, si illum muliebriter tulerisς... “Sed grave estς” Quidς Nos ad hoc fortes sumus, ut levia portemusς
63 passivity with femininity, the notion that one could show himself a man by enduring suffering was a seemingly incongruous idea.209 To achieve this cooptation of an otherwise feminine characteristic, the philosopher had to portray patient endurance as an active response to one‟s ordeal.210 Seneca describes as an example of bravery, men who purposefully smile during their persecution in order to infuriate their torturers (Ep. 78.18). The Middle Platonist Philo contrasts the responses of slaves and athletes to suffering in order to make his case that submission can be a masculine exercise. The illustration comes in the midst of a larger discussion in which Philo distinguishes those who dwell on the “grief” of their circumstances and those whose reason permits them to retain pleasure during their suffering. The slave (i.e. those who cannot escape their grief), Philo argues, submits to his master‟s blows without resistance, while the athlete (i.e. those who rise above grief) maneuvers his body in order to oppose the blows inflicted on his body. By reciprocating his body in response to his opponent, the athlete shows himself actively engaged in the struggle (Alleg. Interp. 71.201). The endorsement of passive endurance as a “legitimized male quality” was most fully advocated within resistance literature.211 The phenomenon was especially prominent in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, in which struggles against foreign authorities and foreign influences were pressing concerns.212 In 4 Maccabees, for instance, the writer likens the Jews‟ standoff against Antiochus Epiphanes as a contest in which a prize of virtue lies in wait for enduring (u(pomonh/) torture (9:8). Of Eleazer, the
209 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 277.
210 Ibid., 277, states “The act of passivity became a wholly deliberative action for men, a choice they could make; for women it remained, as it had always been, a constant role. They always had to practice endurance as a simple on-going role embedded in the experience of daily life, including the not inconsequential aspect of having to meet domestic and social violence.”
211 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 280.
212 The exception here would be Philo taught that suffering—and suffering of the passions especially — was an everyday aspect of lived experience (cf. Worse.45; Planting.170; Migr.208; Flight.194). Regarding the need to endure these everyday struggles, Philo says, that “the special property of the created being is to suffer ... for he ought rather to have endured with patience; still, however, resisting and striving against calamity, strengthening his mind, and raising a bulwark against sorrow by his own patience and fortitude, which are the most powerful of virtues (o$ prolabw_n me/n tij w(j oi0kei=on kai\ a)nagkai=o&n e0sti.…tlh~nai ga_r e1dei kai\ a)ntita&casqai kai\ a)nterei/sasqai gnw&mhn o)xurwsa&menon kai\ a)nafraca&menon th|~ e9autou~ karteri/a| kai\ u(pomonh|~, dunatwta&taij a)retai=j; Cher 78).
64 text says that “the old man conquered the tortures just as a noble athlete enduring blows” (6:10). Elsewhere, the writer interweaves martial language into the sixth son‟s speech, signifying that his refusal to submit is akin to that of a warrior unassailable in battle. The son declares to Antiochus that because his religious knowledge is “unconquerable” he is “fully armed with nobleness” to die alongside of his brothers (11:21-23). The figuring of these men as athletes and warriors is ironic to say the least, as it is their ability to passively endure their tortures which ultimately grants them victory over their adversary. The narrator asserts, “All people, even their tormenters, marveled at their manly courage and endurance (u(pomonh~|) and they became the cause of the downfall of tyranny over their nation. By their endurance (u(pomonh~|) they conquered the tyrant, and thus their native land was purified through them” (1:11).213 The writer of the Testament of Joseph214 also interweaves this Stoicized notion of endurance into his retelling of the Joseph story.215 While Joseph‟s perseverance is mostly related to his ability to resist the advances of Pharaoh‟ wife, the narrative also makes clear that his ability to bear up under beatings, humiliation and imprisonment is an expression of his endurance as well (T. Jos. 2:1-7). It is in the face of all of these difficulties that he asserts, “perseverance (makroqumi/a) is a powerful medicine and endurance (u9pomonh/) provides many good things” (T. Jos. 2:7).
Conclusion While there were many different types of masculinities in antiquity, this chapter has introduced the two most pertinent for this particular study: the masculinity of the Hellenistic king and the masculinity popularized by Stoic writers. Both represent opposite ends of the spectrum, as the king‟s masculinity was realized by his ability to
213 qaumasqe/ntej ga_r ou) mo&non u(po_ pa&ntwn a)nqrw&pwn e0pi\ th~| a)ndrei/a| kai\ u(pomonh~| a)lla_ kai\ u(po_ tw~n ai0kisame/nwn ai1tioi kate/sthsan tou~ kataluqh~nai th_n kata_ tou~ e1qnouj turanni/da nikh&santej to_n tu&rannon th~| u(pomonh~| w#ste kaqarisqh~nai di 0 au)tw~n th_n patri/da.
214 To be sure, however, there is some debate over whether the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs are more Christian than Jewish. For an overview of these arguments see John Collins, “Testaments,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 342-343; Robert Kugler, “Testaments,” Justification and Variegated Nomism 1 (2001): 207-208.
215 For discussions on endurance in T. Jos. see Brent Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 280-281; Adamapolou, “Endurance, Greek and Early Christian,” 242 n. 97.
65 master others through warfare and benefaction while the Stoic ideal necessitated that the sage look inward and become master over his passion and pain. Knowledge of these two cultural ideals is important for this study as the author of T. Job draws on both to construct Job‟s gender throughout the narrative, as I will demonstrate in subsequent chapters. Indeed, prior to his ordeal, the writer portrays Job as the paradigmatic Hellenistic king who exhibits his control over his social world by leading an incursion against Satan‟s temple and establishing an elaborate system of benefaction for those in need. As we shall see in chapter four, however, with the loss of his property and bodily functionality, Job is left without the means to realize his masculinity as he once did. His body physically weakened and diseased, the leading character‟s gender is salvaged by having him turn inward to attain his masculinity. Following the Stoic paradigm of masculinity, Job (rather ironically) shows himself a man by overcoming Satan and his fellow kings by enduring his struggle. In having him prevail over men who realize their gender as he once did, the writer of T. Job seemingly offers a resounding endorsement of passive endurance as a legitimate expression of masculine identity. With Job‟s restoration following his ordeal, however, the narrative will challenge the extent to which a man can realize his masculinity through endurance alone.
66 CHAPTER THREE JOB‟S DOMINANCE OVER OTHERS
Introduction The opening chapters of the Testament of Job go through great pains to depict Job as an assiduous benefactor: Job sets aside 130,000 sheep to be sheared in order to clothe the poor (T. Job 9:2), he loads his camels with “good things” which go towards the helpless and widows (10:4), he has a regular apportionment of donkeys that he provides to the needy (10:5), he sets apart produce from the field to feed the needy at his table (10:5), and establishes bakeries to feed the indigent (10:6). It is not just that Job aids the poor because it is expected of him as a man of wealth. The portrait of Job is of a man who works zealously on behalf of the poor. So infectious is his zeal that he attracts the help of others who wish to aid him in his cause (11:1-7). His eagerness is unmatched in the narrative, and at times is a detriment, as his extensive demands create some strife among his workers (13:1-14:5). Job does not allow himself to become indebted to others, but faithfully repays the servants and outsiders who assist him with the poor (cf. 12:1- 6; 13:6; 14:4). While Job has his servants carry out many of his demands (cf. 9:2,5; 10:5), the portrayal of Job is far from that of a character whose body is physically impaired. Among other things, Job destroys the temple dedicated to Satan (5:2), hobbles the feet of camels (8:4), and plays both the lyre and the psaltery (14:1-5). Job offers sacrifices on behalf of his sons every morning, lest they had spoken improperly or embraced evil thoughts against the Lord (15:7, 10). Any remains of this sacrifice also go to the poor (15:6). While it is true that many of these philanthropic images have their origins in statements
67 made by the biblical Job in his dialogue with his friends (cf. Job 31:13-22), the Testament of Job goes far beyond what even the biblical text asserts.216 From the standpoint of gender therefore, the question is rather straightforward: what does the elaborate presentation of Job as a tireless benefactor communicate about his masculinity to the reader? There have only been a few efforts to identify the basis of this philanthropic imagery, and even fewer attempts to understand how this imagery relates to his masculinity. In an endeavor to read the Testament of Job as an Essene Midrash, Kohler called Job a “Bedouin prince of hospitality” on account of his treatment of the less fortunate.217 Kohler‟s Bedouin argument aside, his attempt to understand this imagery in light of Job‟s royal status is not without warrant. The narrative, as I will demonstrate below, most certainly has in mind a character who is more than simply a wealthy benefactor; Job is also king. Kugler and Rohrbaugh have recently made the link between Job‟s extraordinary wealth and his kingship in the narrative.218 While they do not make explicit how his portrayal as benefactor points back to his role as king, their argument lays the groundwork for such a reading. The primary objective of this chapter, therefore, is to set out how the Testament of Job conceives of Job‟s masculinity prior to his ordeal. I argue that the portrayal of Job as a royal benefactor is part of the writer‟s larger agenda to portray Job as the one man in society who has absolute mastery over all those within his custodianship, i.e. a king. Not only does he exhibit his authority over his servants, but he gains the loyalty of the
216 K. Kohler, “The Testament of Job. An Essene Midrash on the Book of Job,” Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander-Kohut (ed. G. A. Kohut; Berlin: Calvary, 1897), 275.
217 As part of his larger effort to read the T. Job as an Essene Midrash of the book of Job, Kohler, “The Testament of Job,” 275-276, provides an alternate explanation for Job‟s philanthropy in the narrative. He states “Now this fantastic description of [Job‟s] charity is far from being a mere invention of our author....Every feature of the picture is present in our book is suggested in the Bible. In, fact where our text is somewhat obscure or corrupt, there the Bible with the Midrashic comments helps to elucidate it, to an extent as to make us feel certain that the portraiture of Job‟s philanthropy is only an idealized copy of real Essene life as carried out by the brotherhood in the those hospices on the borders of the desert.... In all probability Job became the type of philanthropic receiver of strangers, the pattern of a Bedouin prince of hospitality in the popular tradition, long before Abraham was rendered such.”
218 Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job,” JSP 14.1 (2004): 54.
68 disenfranchised through his benefactions, establishes his rule in his region through military force, successfully manages any contemptuous voices in his household, and manages the interiority of his sons through his sacrificial offerings. Job is also physically idealized here, as he is both active and able-bodied in his pursuits as benefactor. From the standpoint of gender, the depiction of Job as one who successfully masters others stands in narrative opposition to that which we will see during his ordeal. Job‟s masculinity, as we shall witness, will go from one that is defined by dominance over others to one that is defined by dominance over his self.
The Motif of Kingship in the Testament of Job While the Hebrew Bible depicts Job as a man of extensive wealth, it does not depict him as a king.219 This same portrait of Job continues in the Septuagint, but a
219 Nevertheless, the biblical story of Job still has a great deal to say about his masculinity before his ordeal. David J. Clines, n.p. Loingirding and Other Male Activities in the Book of Job. Online: htttp://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurres/PlayMan.html, looks at a number of masculine themes in the book of Job, but more work is needed here. In terms of the book‟s prologue, consideration of the repetitive texture of the first two chapters makes certain that Job‟s masculinity is entwined with his virtuous character. At the very outset of the story, the narrator establishes for his reader the extent of Job‟s integrity. According the storyteller, “that man” Job, “was blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” ((rm rsw Myhl) )ryw r#$yw Mt )whh #$y)h hyhw; Job 1:2). The narrator follows this statement in verses two through five with an encomium of Job‟s life to further augment Job‟s reputation before the reader. Among the list of honors, the narrator reports that Job has sired ten children (that Job fathered twice as many sons as he did daughters would have brought even more honor to his name), holds extensive wealth, and offers a cautionary sacrifice on his children‟s behalf every morning. Wealth and progeny (and particularly male progeny) were often the measure of man‟s worth in antiquity. The narrator almost certainly has in mind a world that operates within the rules of retributive justice (at least up to this point), so it seems clear that he intends for his reader to see these status symbols as a byproduct of Job‟s reputation as an upright and blameless man. One might say that Job‟s integrity has afforded him the necessary spiritual capital through which to increase his gender capital in the public eye. The entwinement of Job‟s virtue and masculinity continues in the pericopes that ensue. In 1:8 and 2:3, the narrator utilizes concealed reported speech to make this point to his reader. Placing his previously spoken words into the mouth of the Divine, YHWH boasts to Satan that Job is a man who is “blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.” Besides binding the narrator and YHWH along ideological lines, that the Divine himself acknowledges the impressiveness of Job‟s integrity, lends credibility to the narrator‟s earlier claim. Perhaps YHWH‟s most striking words however, are those which precede the instance of concealed reported speech. Where the narrator leaves it for the reader to presume that Job‟s reputation as a man is great in the public eye, YHWH states it rather baldly. He tells Satan, “there is no man like [Job] on the earth” ( #$y) Cr)b whmk Ny); 1:8). The statement is significant because it makes plain the extent of Job‟s reputation. It is not simply that there is no man like Job in the land of Uz; there is no one like him in the earth altogether. So impressive is Job‟s manliness, in fact, that even those in the heavenly realm have taken note of it. Examined through the lens of masculinity, Job‟s response after Satan destroys Job‟s servants, wealth, and children is also quite interesting. Having learned that his possessions have been wiped out, Job cries out “naked I was formed within the womb of my mother, and naked I shall return there. The Lord
69 noticeable shift takes place as it relates to his friends. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar take on the role of kings in Greek Job (cf. LXX Job 2:11; 42:17), signaling that interpreters were beginning to expand the life of Job in a similar direction.220 Rabbinic tradition locates Job in the court of Pharaoh (y. Sotah 20c).221 The postscript in LXX Job 42:17 insinuates Job‟s kingship by identifying him as the Edomite king Jobab from Genesis 36:33, as does Aristeas the Exegete (cf. Aris. Ex. 3). It is the writer of the Testament of Job, however, who makes the most substantial link between Job and kingship. Whereas the Septuagint only associates Job‟s friends as kings,222 in what amounts to one- upmanship, the Testament identifies Job as a king whose eminence rivaled even that of his friends. In T. Job 28:8, the audience learns that Job “rules over all of Egypt.” Job reports just how much his wealth exceeded that of his friends before his ordeal. Job tells his reader that at no point could his fellow kings match his wealth (28:5). To make his claim all the more convincing, Job reports that his friends would even acknowledge that his wealth surpassed their own. When he would offer them precious stones, the kings would clap their hands and say “whenever the property of the three kings is brought together at the same place, they by no means match the honorable stones of your kingdom. For you are more generous than those from the east” (28:6-7). Royal themes continue to crop up in the discussion between Job and his friends. Job‟s friends undertake a lengthy interrogation of him, questioning whether he is their “fellow-king” or gives and the Lord takes away, May the name of the Lord be Blessed” (Krbm hwhy M#$ yhy xql hwhyw Ntn hwhy hm#$ bw#$) Mr(w ym) N+bm [yt)cy] ytcy Mr( rm)yw; 1:21). Whereas words sometimes fail the human imagination in the process of meaning-making, metaphors can prove beneficial in bridging the gap between the limitations of human language and unexplainable tragedy. In reconceptualizing his orientation within time and space following the collapse of his individual universe, Job looks to the womb to understand the loss of his possessions. Implicit in Job‟s metaphor is that the boundary differentiating man and fetus is the ownership of property. With the sudden loss of all of his possessions—i.e. the very symbols of his masculinity--this boundary is now dissolved. Job now regards his status as no different than that of a fetus. “Naked,” or with nothing left with which to rationalize his identity as man, he can only look forward to the time when he can return once again to his mother‟s womb.
220 Kohler, “The Testament of Job,” 268.
221 For a discussion on rabbinic traditions about Job‟s role in Pharaoh‟s court see Judith Baskin, Pharaoh‟s Counsellors. Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Exegesis (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 11.
222 That the writer of the Testament of Job used Greek Job is well-established. See, for example, Mario Cimosa, “Comparing LXX Job 42:7-10 and T. Job 42:4-8,” in Yearbook 2004. Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 389-409.
70 not (cf. 29:3; 31:3). The antiphonal stanza of Elihu‟s lament begs the question of Job, “Where now is the glory of your throne” (pou~ nu~n tugxa/nei h9 do/ca tou~ qro/nou sou; 32:1-12)? Finally, as Job‟s wife stands before the three kings in a tattered garment, begging them to bury her sons for her sake, Eliphaz throws his purple robe over her shoulder, signifying that he still sees her as a queen (39:4). As the examples suggest above, the greatest attestation of kingship imagery in T. Job occurs in chapters 28-45. This may not be accidental as source critics argue that these chapters represent one of four blocks of material interwoven together by the final editor of T. Job.223 With such a high incidence of kingship themes in one section, source critics may find it tempting to ask whether the depiction of Job as benefactor in chapters 8-15 is necessarily linked to his responsibilities as king. Nicholls, for instance, asserts that the author “has not bothered to harmonize minor details,” leaving open the possibility that some themes do not run continuously throughout the narrative.224 Such arguments make it necessary to demonstrate that themes such as kingship are prevalent throughout the entire work; in doing so it will become clear that the writer intends for his reader to identify Job as a ruler throughout his narrative. If we follow Nicholls‟ source critical argument, he contends that T. Job consists of four primary blocks of material: J (1-27); K (28-45); E (31-32, 41-43); D (46-52). My analysis above has already shown that kingship is a prominent theme in what Nicholls identifies as “sources” K and E. Kingship imagery occurs in at least three occasions in his “source” J, or chapters 1-27, as well. In T. Job 3:5, Job invokes his authority as ruler after learning that the temple in his city belongs to Satan. Begging the Lord for the
223 The most thorough source critical analysis of T. Job comes from Peter Nicholls, “The Structure and Purpose of the Testament of Job” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1982). Nicholls argues that T. Job is comprised of four major sources (see above). Relying on Nicholls‟ four sources as his starting point, Bradford A. Kirkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job. A Literary Analysis,” in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture. Later Versions and Traditions (ed. Craig A. Evans; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 2:4-19, traces out the divergent depictions of Satan in each source, thereby corroborating Nicholls‟ source hypothesis. Nicholls‟ four source hypothesis of T. Job has not been without its critics however. For a grammatical assessment of Nicholls‟ four source divisions (whom Kirkegaard happens to ignore interestingly enough) see Berndt Schaller, “Zur Komposition und Konzeption des Testaments Hiob,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 46-92.
224 Nicholls, “Structure and Purpose,” 130.
71 permission to destroy the shrine, Job poses the question to the Lord, “Who is the one forbidding me since I rule this regionς” Later in the story, the citizenry that revolts against Job‟s rule makes the implicit link between Job‟s children and royal power. The men fear Job‟s children may flee to other territories and “converse against us as tyrants” (17:6). Two chapters later, Job reports that Satan blows Job off of his throne (20:6). As elsewhere, thrones signify kingship and suggest Job‟s royal status in the narrative. The only source in which kingship imagery does not feature prominently is chapters 46-52. Even so, as I will demonstrate in chapter five, there is other evidence in this section which demonstrates that the editor has carefully interwoven this material in with his earlier chapters. This connotes that the writer intends for his audience to see his work as a unified literary work and not as a compilation of sources. It also suggests that the writer wants his reader to see Job as a king throughout the entirety of the work.
Job‟s Mastery Over His Kingdom As the narrative opens, Job is on his deathbed about to recount his tale of endurance to his children. The figure of Job serves as the narrator of the story, while the reader is assigned the point of view of one of his children. Job begins reporting the chain of events that led to his ordeal in chapter two. The story begins with Job contemplating whether a venerated idol in his city truly belongs to God or not (T. Job 2:1-3). While asleep, a voice comes to Job exposing the true identity of the one to whom regular offerings are made (3:1). The voice asserts that the “power of the devil” has deceived “human nature” into making sacrifices and pouring out libations to him (3:4).225 Job‟s response is by no means passive. Job “begs” the voice for permission to tear down the temple (3:5). Job seems aware that this action will not go unchallenged. Invoking his authority as king, he questions the intermediary, “And who is the one who impedes me since I rule this country” (3:6)ς The Lord responds that Satan himself will retaliate
225 John Collins, “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1974 Seminar Papers (ed. George MacRae; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), 44, argues that Job‟s knowledge of spiritual realities allows him to rescue his friends and female characters from Satanic deception. What Collins does not point out however is that the narrative establishes the precedent even before his trial episode. In T. Job 3:1-5:3, a night vision leads Job to destroy the idol of Satan which deceives his constituency, foreshadowing how Job‟s special knowledge will function throughout the remainder of the story.
72 against him. T. Job interweaves martial language into the narrative to figure Satan‟s retaliation as an act of war. The Lord tells Job that Satan will rise up against him in “battle” (po&lemon), he will inflict on him “many blows” (polla\v plhga\v), “destroy” (a)fairei~tai) all of his children, and “carry away” (a)nairei~) all of his property. There are rewards for withstanding Satan‟s assault however. If Job should “endure” (u9pomei/nh|v), the Lord promises that he will make Job‟s name renowned, restore all of his possessions with a double payment, and raise him up in the resurrection (4:6-8; cf. LXX 42:17). With the conflict signified as warfare, one would expect the Lord to characterize Job as a conquering warrior for his perseverance. Instead, the Lord says that Job will be “like an athlete who spars and endures hardship and wins the crown.”226 Job agrees to the Lord‟s demands, asserting, “Until death I will endure and I will not retreat” (5:1). The language of combat that pervaded the Lord‟s speech now fills Job‟s. His promise to “endure” (u9pomenw~) and not “retreat” (a0napodi/sw) makes certain that he is well aware that conflict is inevitable should he destroy Satan‟s temple. Acting covertly, Job and his servants make their assault on the temple at night (5:2). Demolishing it to the ground, Job “withdraws” (a0naxwre/w) back to his house and orders that his doors “be fortified” (a0sfali&zw; 5:2-3). The language here certainly evokes military activity, and that makes sense given Job‟s responsibility as a king. Still, Job‟s action merely prefigures the larger conflict that is to come. The words spoken by the Lord presume that the actual war commences with Satan‟s retaliation against Job (3:4), a sentiment Job will himself echo later on (17:5). Finally, Job‟s assault against
226 Stephen Vicchio, Job in the Ancient World. The Image of the Biblical Job: A History (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2006), 1:124, has recently acknowledged the need for more work on the Athlete/Warrior imagery in T. Job. As far as previous work on the subject goes, Cees Haas, in “Job‟s Perseverance in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 127, made the first serious contribution, arguing that the two themes are so closely connected in the narrative that they must be viewed as “variations of the theme of the suffering for the Lord‟s sake as a combat with Satan.” Similarly, Themistocles Anthony Adamopoulo, “Endurance, Greek and Early Christian. The Moral Transformation of the Greek Idea of Endurance, from the Homeric Battlefield to the Apostle Paul” (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1996), 249, sees the two themes as interchangeable motifs associated with martyrological endurance. More recently, Bradford A. Kirkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job,” 2:4-19, has read T. Job through the lens of the athletic motif exclusively, leaving the door open for a reading of the narrative as battle. This is the route I take in this project. While I agree with both Haas and Adamopoulo that the themes of warfare and athleticism are at moments interchangeable in T. Job, attention to the language of warfare in the narrative makes clear the extent to which it defines the conflict between Job and Satan. For this reason, I will pay special attention to these moments as they appear in the narrative.
73 Satan‟s temple is in keeping with his portrayal throughout these early chapters. The scene makes clear that Job‟s masculinity is defined by his ability to act upon others and not be acted upon. In Job‟s own words, he “rules this region” (3:6), and he expresses his dominance by ridding the interloper from his land.
The Threat of the Doormaid Expecting a swift retaliation, Job returns home and locks himself inside. Having secured his doors, he orders his doormen “If anyone seeks me today, do not inform me but say that „He has no time; he is inside concerned with a necessary matter‟” (16:2). Shortly thereafter, Satan knocks at Job‟s door disguised as a beggar. Believing the man to be a beggar, a female doormaid--unaware of Job‟s earlier command--does not hesitate to answer.227 The doormaid reports to Job that the man wishes to meet with him, but Job sees through the guise and sends the man away (6:3-4). Satan returns in 7:1, however, once more disguised as a beggar. The female servant again answers the door, and again she is unaware that it is Satan who stands before her. Satan has the doormaid tell Job to give him a loaf of bread in order that he might eat (7:2). Job gives the doormaid a “burnt loaf” to present to Satan, and has her report to him, “Do not expect to eat of my bread, because I have become a stranger to you” (7:4). Job‟s words never reach their destination, however and neither does the burnt loaf of bread. “Ashamed” (ai0desqei~sa) to give a burnt loaf to the stranger at her door, the doormaid gives Satan a good loaf from her own stock (7:5). Kugler and Rohrbaugh
227 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 58, presume that the female servant is trying to protect the honor of herself and Job at this point, but this is clearly not the case. Job has only reported his words to the male doormen (toi~v proqu/moiv), making it unlikely that she even knew what his command entailed. Lack of knowledge continues to plague her even after she relays Satan‟s message however. After speaking to Job, the female servant is told that he has no time now (nu~n), and she departs with the message (7:1). What is of note here is that the scene leaves it ambiguous as to how the doormaid receives this news (6:4). What one would have liked for Job to have said is “I told her to say.” Instead what Job tells his reader is, “she heard issued from me to say” (h1kousen par0 e0mou~ dhlw~sai). The construction makes it sound as if she receives this message second hand, perhaps from one of the male servants of the house. What is important to recognize is what is not reported to her. Whereas Job is sure to tell his male servants that he does not have time for anyone (tiv) who comes to his door, the doormaid is never made privy of this detail. Moreover, Job‟s wish to avoid all the visitors who came to his door “today” (sh/mron; 6:2) is also not communicated to the doormaid. Whoever reports Job‟s words to the female servant simply tells her Job is not able to see anyone now (nu~n; 6:4b). As far as she is aware, Job may very well have time for visitors at a later time.
74 are correct that the doormaid is trying to uphold the honor of Job in the scene.228 Because she thinks the man to be a beggar, Job appears to endanger his reputation as a generous man by offering a burnt loaf of bread instead of a good one. This also has repercussions for her own reputation.229 Because evaluations of honor and shame are diffuse, the status of the doormaid is tied to the honor of her master Job.230 It is to her benefit to salvage his honor, as it protects her reputation as well. But the attempt to preserve the honor of her master fails, as Satan is aware that the good bread is not the one provided to her by Job. Satan castigates the doormaid as an “evil servant” on account of her insubordination and then tells her to bring the loaf Job gave to her (7:6). When she returns with the burnt loaf, the doormaid reports the speech given to her earlier by Job. She states, You shall not eat from my loaves any further, for I have become a stranger to you. But I have just given you this one so that I may not be accused of providing nothing to a begging enemy. The doormaid extends Job‟s earlier words, suggesting that the second part of the utterance is exclusively hers. The expansion indicates, as Kugler and Rohrbaugh suggest, that the doormaid is now looking out for her own honor here and not Job‟s.231 From a literary perspective, the doormaid‟s effort to preserve her own honor introduces an important theme that appears throughout T. Job: the women in the narrative will look out for their own self-preservation even at the expense of Job‟s. Satan sends the doormaid back to Job with a message of his own. He informs Job that he is going to make his body like the burnt loaf of bread (7:10). The language of warfare resonates in Satan‟s utterance, as he promises to “lay waste” (e0rhmw/sw) to Job when he returns (7:11). Satan‟s words begin to fill out his “character zone” for the
228 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 58.
229 Ibid.
230 John Davis, “Family and State in the Mediterranean,” in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (ed. David Gilmore; Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 23.
231 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 58, write “The doormaid is ashamed (ai0desqei~sa) of the treatment Job uncharacteristically offers the beggar and takes matters into her hands by delivering her own good loaf to Satan (7.5-6). Doing so she sets out to preserve the honor of her patron, but as the ensuing dialogue reveals, she does so for her own sake, not his” (emphasis mine).
75 reader,232 as the martial language that infuses his speech indicates that warfare is the means through which he dominates others.233 Rejoining Satan, Job declares “Do what you must do, whatever you want to bring about, for I am prepared to undergo whatever you bring against me” (7:13). The reporting of Job‟s riposte is peculiar in that there is no indication that he speaks through his maidservant. If we take into consideration that the doormaid‟s efforts to preserve Job‟s honor almost cost him the opportunity to exhibit endurance,234 then Job‟s direct address makes sense. Job wants nothing to prevent him from undertaking his trial so that he might receive his reward.
Job: the Ideal Royal Benefactor In terms of Job‟s benefaction, the extent to which Job helps the less fortunate is almost hyperbolic in tone.235 Whereas the biblical Job only owned 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 oxen, and 500 donkeys, the wealth of the Testament‟s Job is so great that he is able to set aside this amount of livestock for the poor. Job also boasts that he left the four doors of his house open in order that the deprived could enter and take whatever they needed (9:6-8), kept tables spread at all hours just for strangers and widows (10:1-4), set apart the produce of his oxen for the poor (10:5), and established fifty bakeries for the service of the unfortunate (10:6). Job‟s extensive food distribution network establishes
232 Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part II: I Samuel (Indianapolis, In.: Indiana University Press, 1989), 22, notes that character zone is a Bakhtinian term referring to the emotive accents which emanate from a character‟s speech.
233 While Kirkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job,” 2:8 n.19, interprets the taunts in this scene as a precursor to the pancratian imagery, even he must admit that “the taunts would also be appropriate just prior to battle, but I have not emphasized the battle imagery in this paper.” One of my sub-arguments here is that the text is first and foremost concerned with depicting the conflict between Job and Satan as a battle. For this reason, I have elected to emphasize that imagery over against Kirkegaard.
234 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 59.
235 The events that transpire from chapter two to chapter eight of the Testament of Job serve as a precursor to Job‟s ordeal. In 8:2, Job‟s first aorist use of e1rxomai and ai3rew conveys that Satan has already acted on the authority he has from the Lord and taken away Job‟s wealth. Job‟s recitation of his former wealth in 9:1-15:10 serves as an interlude in the story, but the events disclosed here do not fall outside the chronological framework of the story. When the narrative returns to the storyline in chapter sixteen, Job informs his reader that between the time he spoke with the angel (3:1-4:9) and the time in which Satan received the authority to strip him of his wealth, seven years had passed (16:1). Job‟s opening statement in chapter sixteen points his reader back to the numerous acts of patronage he performed during this seven year span, thereby establishing chronological continuity within the narrative.
76 his identity as a wealthy benefactor (eu0erge/thv) before the reader. That the audience is supposed to see him as such is solidified later in the narrative. With the onset of his ordeal, Job is stunned that his fellow citizens would turn against him after he claims to have “treated them exceedingly well” (eu0ergethqe/ntwn sfodrw~v; 16:3). What makes Job‟s role as benefactor impressive is his management of debt. While Job will later collect payment from his fellow kings (cf. 44:1-7), he does not use the system of patronage to take advantage of the needy. In boasting of his service to the poor, for example, Job reports that he forgave the debt of certain traders who were robbed of the resources they had borrowed from him (11:1-11). Moreover, the only payment he seeks from the needy is their prayers on behalf of his children (15:6).236 Of course, the poor, widows, and orphans will reward Job with their honor when they pay tribute to his generosity at his burial (53:1-4). Job also does not allow himself to be indebted to others. The perception of being stingy was detrimental to the reputation of a wealthy individual, and especially a king.237 In a similar vein, Job is far from stingy as he is sure to repay his clients the dues they have coming to them. In 12:1-6 Job maintains that if a needy wage earner ever came to his house to serve the poor, he compelled the man to take his pay and not leave it behind. To the male servants who criticize Job for not providing them with enough meat, Job shows himself “exceedingly kind” to them (li/an xrhstou~), by playing the lyre on their behalf (13:6-14:2). Job also claims to have played the psaltery as a “fee of repayment” whenever his maidservants whispered about him contemptuously (14:1-5; cf. 13:5-6). Each display of kindness establishes Job‟s identity as a generous benefactor before the reader. As a wealthy patron, he is not one who is tightfisted when it comes to repaying his debts.238 At the same time, he does not allow himself to become indebted to another,
236 Job claims that whatever sacrificial portions remained from that which he offered on behalf of his children, he left for the needy. He reports that he would say to them “Take the things that remain after the portion so that you might pray on behalf of my children” (15:6).
237 This is why Xenophon‟s Cyrus made it his duty to never let his friends surpass him in the conferral of benefits (Anabasis 1.9.24), and Josephus‟ David makes sure to repay Berzelos the Galadite as a reimbursement for their father‟s service (J.A. 7.387).
238 For a discussion on reciprocity in the patronage system see Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, “Patronal Power Relations,” Paul and Empire. Religion in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, International, 1997), 96-97.
77 and therefore mastered by some else. While reputation is a factor in Job‟s treatment of his clientele, the text goes to great lengths to portray Job‟s benefaction as the natural outcome of his generous demeanor. Job tells his reader that his eagerness (proqumei/an) to serve the poor proved so infectious that it made others desirous (e)piqume/w) to work with him (11:1-2). That he “would rejoice exceedingly” (h)galli/wmhn) when traders asked to use his resources on behalf of the poor (11:6), and accept their financial demands with “zeal” (proqu/mov), only reinforces the sincerity of his motives (11:6).239 The portrayal of Job as a zealous benefactor was a common motif within kingship treatises in antiquity. Dio Chrysostom, for instance, inquires whether there is a greater pleasure than a king “who desires to bring about prosperity” (eu } poiei~n e)piqumou~ntov; First Discourse on Kingship. 1.34). One finds the motif in Jewish discussions of kingship as well. In the Letter of Aristeas, not only does Ptolemy “zealously” (proqumi/a) perform his acts of cultural patronage toward the Jews (20), but one of his dinner guests claims that the king who finds honor is one who “zealously” (proqumi/a) treats others with munificence and liberality (226). With the prominence of the motif of the zealous benefactor in antiquity, it seems certain that the ancient reader would have recognized Job‟s eagerness as an indication of his
239 As we shall see later in the narrative, patient endurance will define Job‟s masculinity during his trial episode. Prior to his ordeal however, the narrative goes through great lengths to show that it is zeal that typifies Job‟s emotive register in these early chapters and not patience. The reader catches their first glimpse of Job‟s eagerness in chapter three, as he falls down on his bed, begging the Lord to tear down Satan‟s temple (T. Job 3:5). Chapter eleven makes this trait all the more obvious, as his “zeal” (pro/qumov) for aiding the poor attracts the help of total strangers (11:1, 6). Job recounts that there were instances when traders who borrowed money from him to help the poor, were robbed of their resources. Destitute, they would return to Job and urge him saying, “We beg you, be patient (makroqu/mhsan) with us so that we may see how we can repay what is yours” (11:9). Job, as is fitting of his demeanor as a generous man, would forgive the men of their debt, and take nothing from then in return (11:9-10). He would do this because he had trusted them in their service to the poor (11:10). The pleading of the traders for Job to exhibit patience should not be overlooked here. The verb makroqume/w is the same one used to describe Job‟s patience during his trial (cf. 21:4; 26:6; 27:10). Again, while the scene is in no way an indictment of Job‟s character, his response is certainly ironic. In a narrative in which the end goal is patience, Job is anything but in his reply to the traders. Rather than waiting for the men to repay him, Job forgives their debt and does so “without delay” (a0nuperqe/twv)! Job‟s earnestness stands in stark contrast to a patient demeanor, and I would argue that it does so purposefully. The depiction of Job as a character who acts with zeal and immediacy only heightens the shift in characterization later in the narrative when his impoverishment and poor health leaves him with no other choice but to wait for the conclusion of his trial. From a literary point of view then, the narrative signifies Job‟s transformation through the use of the root word qu/mov: with the commencement of Job‟s ordeal, he moves from a person whose exemplifies pro/qumov to one who embodies makro/qumov.
78 idealized status. The portrayal of Job as a king who eagerly makes provisions for the marginalized will have repercussions later on in the text. To signify the turmoil of Job‟s ordeal, the world in which he dwells will become upset and misaligned. Job‟s government of benevolence will be overturned entirely, replaced with a tyrannical regime by his city‟s rulers. With the image of Job as an ideal royal benefactor established, I turn to how his patronage bolsters his reputation as a man in the narrative. I will argue that the portrayal of Job mastering the destitute, his servants, and earth‟s creatures is part of the writer‟s larger effort to portray Job as a king who has complete mastery over others.
Job‟s Mastery Over His Social World The Literary Deployment of the Poor and Disabled If the masculinity of the king is realized through his ability to dominate others, then the characterization of Job in these early chapters is of a very manly king. Because appearance and performance went hand and hand, however, the masculine ruler needed to (at least appear to) be able-bodied as well. The buildup of first person verb forms throughout these early chapters cements Job‟s identity as an able-bodied king. At various points in the narrative, Job claims “I brought down” (kath/negka; 5:2)....“I retreated” (a)nexw/rhsa; 5:3)....“I set aside” (a)fw/risa; 9:1)....“I tied the feet” (e)podisa/mhn; 9:4)....“and having loaded...I sent” (gomw/sav...a)pe/stellon)....“I marked off” (a)fw/rison; 10:6)....“I took the lyre and I plucked” (e)la/mbanon th/n kiqa/ron kai/ e!yallon; 14:2)....“I took the psaltery and...played” ( e)la/mbanon to/ yalth/rion kai/...e!yallon; 14:5)....“I offered up sacrifices” (a0ne/feron...qusi/av; 15:4). Job‟s statement in chapter forty-seven that his strength returned to him “as if [he] had suffered nothing at all” (w9v o3ti ou0de\ o3lwv pepo/nqa ti) also insinuates that he was able-bodied prior to his ordeal (47:8). In short, throughout much of the narrative Job is a king whose body is fully functional and mobile. At the semiotic level of the text,240 the writer sets in narrative opposition to this
240 Umberto Eco‟s discussion on the semiotics of metaphor provides the theoretical underpinnings of this discussion (see The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts [Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1979], 67-89).
79 active portrait of Job a collection of individuals representative of society‟s destitute. Among them are included the orphan (o)rfano/v), the widow (xh/ra), the poor (ptwxo/v) and the unable (a)du/natov). While on one level they are characters in the narrative, on another level they stand as metaphors pointing the reader back to a more abstract field of meaning. As words on a page, these characters have metonymic value as they symbolize everything that Job is not. Job is active and acts upon others. These characters are passive and are acted upon. Job is powerful and has the resources to remain self- sufficient. These characters represent the powerless of society who must rely on the system of patronage in order to survive. Job is able-bodied. For the blind (tuflo/v) and lame (xwlo/v) later on, they are disabled. From a literary critical perspective, this litany of destitute individuals represent “marginalized foils” in the narrative. David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder argue that the implementation of disabled characters to accentuate the healthy, able body is not at all new. They state, Visible degeneracy, impotency, congenital deformity, festering ulcerations and bleeding wounds...provide the contrastive bodily coordinates to the muscular, aesthetic, and symmetrical bodies of the healthy citizenry. One cannot narrate the story of a healthy body or national reform movement without the contrastive device of disability to bear out the symbolic potency of the message. The materiality of metaphor via disabled bodies gives all bodies a tangible essence in that the „healthy‟ corporeal surface fails to achieve its symbolic effect without its disabled counterpart.241 The same can be said for the representation of the poor in narrative as well. The depiction of the poor as destitute, powerless, penniless, and insolvent can also provide a contrastive device with which to underscore the reputation of a wealthy character in story. Certainly in the T. Job the passivity of the poor and disabled stand over against the figure of Job as the tireless benefactor. The physical and economic limitations that restrict their agency draws the reader‟s attention to Job‟s ability to provide assistance on their behalf. The writer reduces these characters to their physical or social disadvantages
241 David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis. Disabilities and the Dependencies of Discourse (Ann Arbor, Mi.: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), 63-64.
80 in order to create counterparts to the portrayal of Job in the narrative.242 Indeed, the depiction of Job as a master of others is only possible if there are characters whose bodies render them helpless without his aid. Stated another way, Job can only realize his masculinity if the destitute are seen as powerless within the world of the text.
Metaphors of Dominance: Job‟s Mastery Over the Destitute As a system of reciprocity, benefaction was a means of gaining dominance over the less fortunate as the generosity of the king guaranteed the loyalty of the beneficiary. That the writer of the Testament of Job conceives of Job‟s benefaction as a demonstration of his superiority is made clear by the metaphors he chooses to conceptualize it. In chapter thirty-two, Elious recollects the time in which Job would “marshal/draw out in battle order” (e0kta/cav) sheep, camels, and cattle to aid the poor (32:2, 3). The use of e0kta/ssw is striking as it is a term normally reserved for the arrangement of soldiers for battle. The use of martial language to describe patronage implies that domination lies implicit in Job‟s preparation of his benefactions. The writer also uses guardian metaphors to conceptualize patronage. At the narrative‟s conclusion, the destitute remember Job as the “strength” (du/namiv) of the unable and the “protector” (u9peraspi/sthv) of the widows (53:1, 4). Both metaphors presume Job‟s superiority over the disenfranchised as they are defenseless without his aid. The writer of T. Job also masculinizes Job‟s benefaction through familial metaphors. This strategy was not unique to him however. Ben Sira, for instance, urges his audience to be a “father” to the orphans and a “husband” to the orphan‟s mother (4:10). In the same vein, the destitute in T. Job remember Job as a caretaker for the fatherless. Identifying him as the “father of the orphans” (o9 path\r tw~n o0rfanw~n) they suggest that Job acted as head of household over all of constituency and not simply his own family (52:1). Represented as a father- figure of sorts, Job stands in hierarchical position over the fatherless because they lack the means to take care of themselves.
242 Lennard Davis, Enforcing Normalcy. Disability, Deafness, and the Body (New York: Verso, 1995),10, asserts that the erasure of other character attributes “occurs because stereotyping requires that a person be categorized in terms of one exclusive trait. Disabled people are thought of primarily in terms of the disability, just as sexual preference, gender, or ethnicity becomes the defining factor in perceiving another person.”
81
The Hired Hand: Job‟s Mastery Over His Servants Job‟s role as benefactor demonstrates his superiority not only over the destitute, but also over the many servants whom he commands to prepare his aid. Indeed, the narrative makes clear that Job‟s servants function as an extension of his own body. Job takes fifty servants with him to tear down Satan‟s temple (5:2). Job sets aside 7000 sheep “to be sheared” (e1ndusin 9:2). Job loads his camels with goods and “commands” (e0ntello/menov) that they be distributed to the poor within the city (8:4). He gives a standing order that the offspring of his she-asses are “to be sold and given” (pipra/skesqai kai\ dido/nai) to the destitute (9:5). He “commands” (e0ke/leuon) his servants to leave the four doors of his house open (9:8). He has thirty tables “reserved” (i9drume/nai) for strangers who may enter his house (10:1). He assigns fifty bakeries to the “service” (u9phresi/an) of the poor (10:6). Job‟s male and female servants attend to his sons and daughters (15:3). The point here is that the repeated image of Job ordering his servants to carry out his wishes demonstrates Job‟s ability to dominate others. Besides his domination over the destitute and his servants, Job also achieves his masculinity through his domination over earth‟s creatures.
The Dominated Ecosystem: Job‟s Mastery Over Earth‟s Creatures If we think about these opening chapters from the standpoint of an ecological hermeneutic, the text betrays its anthropocentric worldview since its Job‟s mastery over creation that allows him to dominate other persons through his benefactions.243 Indeed, not to be overlooked in the process of benefaction is that Job must first have authority over earth‟s creatures in order to use them in his system of patronage. To say that creation plays a substantial role in Job‟s food distribution network is an understatement. Whereas the biblical tale spends its initial five verses introducing its reader to the
243 For readings in ecological hermeneutics see Norman C. Habel, Readings from the Perspectives of Earth (ed. Norman C. Habel; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Julie Galambush, “God‟s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel‟s Hierarchical World. Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (eds. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton; SBLSymS 31; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 91-108; Phyllis Trible, “A Tempest in a Text: Ecological Soundings in the Book of Jonah,” in On the Way to Ninevah. Studies in Honor of George M. Landis (eds. Stephen L. Cook and S. C. Winter; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999), 187-200.
82 livestock owned by Job, T. Job elaborates extensively on this portrayal. King Job proves to be a man of inordinate wealth, owning 130,000 sheep, 80 dogs, 9000 camels, 140,000 grazing she-asses (T. Job 8:1-5).244 These animals serve as more than food provisions for the poor; they also help with the upkeep of Job‟s household and kingdom. Job‟s dogs guard his flocks and house (9:3). Job‟s camels transport aid to every city (9:4). Job‟s oxen plough his field to generate produce from the ground (10:5). Job‟s doves, goats, and sheep serve as sacrificial victims in Job‟s daily sacrifice on behalf of his sons (15:4). If we think of humans and non-humans as equal participants in Earth‟s ecosystem, then Job‟s ability to master other persons through his benefactions depends directly upon his possession of non-humans. 245 Stated another way, Job could not realize his masculinity if not for his exploitation of and control over earth‟s creatures.
Job as the Master of His Household As a general rule in antiquity, a critical component of preserving one‟s honor as a male was the ability to control one‟s household. This was true for king and male citizens alike.246 To be sure, gender in antiquity is perhaps best thought of along a sliding scale. On the top end were the elite male figures of society (ruler, aristocrat, patrons, heads of privileged households) who were fully capable of controlling the defining aspects of their life for the betterment of their own personal honor.247 These defining aspects, as Claudia Camp notes, “may be seen as socially determined signs of value and power: one‟s women, one‟s property (i.e. one‟s household in both personal and impersonal
244 Jim Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” 111, observes that wealth was integral to the image of the Hellenistic king‟s masculinity in the public eye. It is why, for example, at David‟s death, Josephus is sure to mention that “he left more wealth than any other Hebrew or Greek king” (kate/lipe de\ kai\ plou~ton o3son ou0k a2llov basileu\v ou1q 0 9EBrai/wn ou1t 0 a2llwn e0qnw~n; J.A. 7.391).
245 Habel, Readings from the Perspective of Earth, 33-37.
246 Susan Fischler, “Imperial Cult,” 169.
247 Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, “Matthew and Masculinity” in New Testament Masculinities (eds. Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson; Semeia Studies 45; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 69; Claudia V. Camp, “Honor and Shame in Ben Sira: Anthropological and Theological Reflections,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 173.
83 dimensions), one‟s political influence, one‟s body, one‟s reputation or name.”248 As one moves further down the scale, and the capability of controlling one‟s honor diminishes, there appears a cache of individuals Anderson and Moore term “unmen.”249 Here, such persons as barbarians, children, slaves, bandits, the disabled, sexually passive or “effeminate” men, eunuchs, and women appear.250 The objective for those men at the top of the scale therefore was to prevent tumbling down the ladder by allowing their honor to be compromised. As Camp‟s list implies, chief among a man‟s domestic responsibilities was his need to control the women within his care. “Those male citizens who could not control their women,” Fischler states, “risked losing their control of the state, i.e. they lose elements essential to their masculinity.”251 The perception in antiquity was that women left to their own devices would give into their passions without restraint. As Kugler and Rohrbaugh assert, a woman “had to be encouraged to devotion, frugality, and self- restraint because it was in her true nature to be loyal above all to herself, overweening in her desire for possessions and profligate in her use of them, and sinister in her sexual, corporeal expression.”252 This is echoed in the Testament of Reuben, for instance, when the patriarch reports women are evil, my sons, and on account of their lack of authority or power over men, they scheme treacherously how they might draw him to themselves. And whomever they are not able to bewitch through their schemes, they defeat these through pleasure. Because concerning them, the angel of the Lord told me, and instructed me, that women succumb to the spirit of evil more than men, and they devise in their heart against men,
248 Camp, “Honor and Shame,” 173.
249 Anderson and Moore, “Matthew and Masculinity,” 69. Note that they adopt the term from Jonathan Walters, “„Not More Than a Boy‟: The Shifting Construction of Masculinity from Ancient Greece to the Middle Ages,” Gender and History 5 (1991): 31.
250 Anderson and Moore, “Matthew and Masculinity,” 69.
251 Fischler, “Imperial Cult,” 169.
252 Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 52 (emphasis theirs).
84 and they lead their understanding astray through their adornments, and through they lead them astray through their look, and then they make them captive in the act itself (T. Reub. 5:1-3; emphasis mine).253 Conversely, ancients believed that men were less susceptible to the passions on account of a superior rationality.254 His higher reasoning gave him the ability to conquer the appeals of the passions to his soul. If he did succumb to the passions, he needed only to be restored to his natural temperament.255 In T. Job, for instance, the male characters in the narrative need only have Job offer sacrifices on their behalf in order to experience restoration (cf. 15:7; 42:1-8).256 Man‟s superior reasoning went a long way in justifying why it was his responsibility to act as caretaker over the women in his home. Because she was incapable of controlling her own passions, it was his duty to steer her away from her “true nature” lest she disrupt the harmony of his household (Sir 26:7-18; 42:9-14).257 Speech is the primary vehicle through which the women in T. Job express their
253 Ponhrai\ ga&r ei1sin ai9 gunai=kej, te/kna mou, kai\ e0n tw|~ mh_ e1xei au)ta_j e0cousi/an h@ du&namin e0pi\ to_n a!ndra, dolieu&ontai e0n sxh&masin o#pwj au)to_n pro_j e9auta_j e0pispa&sontai. kai\ o$n dia_ tou~ sxh&matoj ou)k i0sxu&ousin katagohteu&sasqai, tou~ton di0 a)pa&thj katagwni/zontai. o#ti kai/ge peri\ au)tw~n ei]pe/ moi o( a!ggeloj tou~ qeou~, kai\ e0di/dace/ me, o#ti ai9 gunai=kej h(ttw~ntai tw|~ pneu&mati th~j pornei/aj u(pe\r to_n a!ndra, kai\ e0n kardi/a| mhxanw~ntai kata_ tw~n a)nqrw&pwn, kai\ dia_ th~j kosmh&sewj planw~sin au)tw~n ta_j dianoi/aj, kai\ dia_ tou~ ble/mmatoj to_n i0o_n e0nspei/rousin, kai\ to&te tw|~ e1rgw| ai0xmalwti/zousin.
254 See, for instance, Jessica Devega‟s discussion on the self-control of Joseph in Josephus‟ Jewish Antiquities (“„A Man Who Fears God‟: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of Joseph” [Ph. D diss., The Florida State University, 2006], 31-56).
255 The ancient conviction that man‟s demeanor was thought to be predisposed to rationality is well attested. Aristotle, for instance, states “Consequently, there is much argument concerning the controlled man and the uncontrolled man. For having opposing urges, each one acts according to the conduct within him, so that the controlled man by force, so they say, drags himself away from the pleasures he desires (for dragging himself away, he feels pain against resisting the appetite), the uncontrolled man by force goes against his rationality (dio\ peri\ to\n e0gkrath~ kai\ to\n a0kpath~ plei/sth a0mfibh/thsi/v e0stin. e0nanti/av ga\r o9rm\av e2xwn au0tov e9ka/terov au9tw| pra/ttei, w3sq0 o3 t0 e0gkrath\v bi/a|, fasi/n a0fe/lkwn au9to\n a0po\ tw~n h9de/wn e0piqum~wn [algei gap afelkwn prov antiteivousan thn orecin], o3 t0 a0krath\v bi/a| para\ to\n logismo/n).
256 Conversely, at no point in the narrative are women afforded the chance at restoration via sacrifice.
257 Plutarch, states “For if [women] do neither receive the seed of trustworthy reason, nor share with their husband‟s education, they conceive many strange plans and desires” (Advice to Bride and Groom 145). a!n ga\r lo/gwn xrhstw~n spe/rmata mh\ de/xwntai mhde\ koinwnw~si paidei/av toi~v a0ndra/sin, au0tai\ kaq 0 au9ta\v a!topa polla\ kai\ fau~la bouleu/mata kai\ pa/qh kuou~si.
85 self-interested nature, and on at least three occasions, their speech threatens Job‟s ability to realize his masculine identity in the story.258 We have already seen how the doormaid‟s effort to preserve her own honor threatened Job‟s chance to exhibit his endurance. The second occasion takes place in chapter fourteen, as the contemptuous utterances of Job‟s female servants challenges his control over his own household. The scene itself is part of a larger chiasm stretching from 13:5-14:5.
A Male servants curse Job‟s name in contempt (presumably in the open; 13:5-6) B Job plays the lyre for the male servants (14:1-2) C Job plays the psalter for the widows in order that they will glorify God (14:3) B’ Job plays the psalter for the female servants (14:4) A’ Job makes the female servants stop murmuring against him in contempt (14:5)
To illustrate just how kindly he would treat the male servants who openly cursed him (cf. 13:4-6), Job reports that he used to play the lyre for them while the widows sang (14:1-2).259 The reader expects to hear how the male servants ceased their contemptuous speech after Job finished playing his lyre for them. The writer, however, tells his audience how the servants receive Job‟s act of kindness. In 14:2b, Job goes onto report how he used to play his psaltery for the widows. Through his psaltery playing, Job
258 Ross Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 207, writes “Many ancient sources evince a widely held belief that in women, silence is ideal....Even more interestingly, many ancient writers also connect women‟s speech with women‟s sexuality, drawing a clear analogy between the mouth and the vagina. The chaste woman had a closed mouth and a closed vagina (except, of course, to her licit husband); the unchaste woman opened her mouth to speech and her vagina to illicit intercourse. The mouths were seen to be so closely connected that some writers offer up the speech of a woman as de facto evidence of her unchastity.”
259 Pieter van der Horst, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 96, makes the astute observation that the writer of T.Job has altered LXX Job 31:31, seemingly in the favor of women. Whereas it is the female servants who ask “who will give us his meats to be filled,” in T. Job it is the male servants who make this complaint (oi9 dou~loi/; 13:4). As van der Horst mentions however, this is quickly neutralized by what proceeds in chapter fourteen, as Job silences his female slaves for their murmuring in his house.
86 claims “I would remind [the widows] of God so that they might honor the Lord” (14:3). The statement supports Kugler and Rohrbaugh‟s observation that women in the Greco- Roman world were thought to need motivation in order to remain devoted. Here, Job plays the psaltery for the sake of the widows‟ fidelity to the Deity. In “glorifying” the Lord, their words have no chance of proving toxic to Job as their female minds have been redirected toward things above and away from their plight as widows (14:3). Beginning in 14:3, Job tells his reader how he managed the maidservants who mumbled about him contemptuously. Within the larger chiastic schema this section directly parallels Job‟s handling of the male servants in 13:5-14:2a. Just as he did for the male servants who cursed Job in contempt, Job plays a stringed instrument (this time the psaltery) for his maidservants in response to their disapproval. Whereas Job is silent, however, as to how his male servants receive his lyre playing, he is sure to voice the outcome of performing for his maidservants. Job asserts to his reader, “I would make them stop murmuring in contempt” (14:5). Gender best explains Job‟s uneven reporting here in the narrative. As head of his household, Job must show himself capable of managing the women under his authority. Job‟s claim that he was able to quiet the maidservants who only whispered about him in contempt demonstrates the extent of his influence. Job has control over even the most surreptitious of female dissenters within his home.260
Gendered Domains in the Household of Job The Greco-Roman stereotype associated masculinity with the outside, open, and public spaces.261 Conversely, because a man‟s honor hinged on his ability to protect the chastity of his wife,262 women were relegated to the private sphere in order to conceal their bodies from the male gaze (cf. Jos. As. 2:7-9). Kramer states,
260 One might conjecture that what both the widow and the female servants have in common is that both groups represent women who might complain over perceived losses. Indeed, the widow has lost her husband while the female servants murmur because of underpayment (cf. 14:3).
261 Tat-siong Benn Liew, “Re-Markable Masculinities,” in New Testament Masculinities (eds. Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson; Semeia Studies 45; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 98- 104.
262 David Gilmore, “Introduction: The Shame of Dishonor” in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (ed. David Gilmore; Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 5.
87 In many ancient sources, there is an integral connection between physical space and women‟s sexuality. Domestic space was considered the proper physical sphere of women, especially virgins. Virginity and chastity were symbolized by enclosure, including walled cities and walled gardens. Respectably married women could venture into certain public spaces provided they were symbolically „housed,‟ either by being accompanied by a retinue of domestic slaves and/or by wearing clothing that signified their respectability (and concealed their bodies). 263 Job underscores his fulfillment of his masculine duty as a public man in 9:7-8, as he asserts not once but twice, how the four doors of his house remained open for easy access of the needy. Job is also sure to convey that he is not inside his home when they enter (9:8, 9), but sits at one of the doors where the poor can see him (9:7). Conversely, in chapter twenty-five, the audience learns of the conduct of Job‟s wife Sitidos prior to Job‟s ordeal. Before contending against her husband on account of her grinding servitude, Sitidos was once the portrait of the properly managed female by Greco-Roman standards. The description of Sitidos in 25:1-2 is of a woman whom few had the opportunity to lay eyes upon. The crowd asserts that Sitidos once had fourteen drapes and a door inside of doors “sheltering” her chamber (25:2). Only “a person who was really worthy to gain entrance to her” could have access to Sitidos (25:2). That Job does not introduce Sitidos to his audience prior to his ordeal is perhaps best explained literarily. She is protected from the gaze of the reader just as she is protected from the gaze of those within the world of the text. The absence of Sitidos in the narrative coupled with the portrayal of Job as a man of openness has consequences for Job‟s reputation as a man in the narrative. Just as Job manages the speech of women within his care, he makes sure that his household adheres to the prescribed gender domains of the larger culture as well.
Job as the Master of Stringed Instruments Job‟s skill in playing stringed instruments should not go unnoticed as a marker of his masculinity. J. David Clines argues that while musical ability is not exclusive to
263 Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 210.
88 either male or female characters in the biblical text, men and women do engage in different musical activities.264 Women are generally portrayed as singers in the biblical text, who accompany their performance with assorted types of membranophones (e.g. timbrels and tambourines; Ex 15:11; Ju 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6; Jer 31:4).265 Men, conversely, are most often associated with stringed instruments, probably to show their dexterity with their hands.266 Among the men who play stringed instruments in the Hebrew Bible, David plays the lyre to soothe Saul‟s mind (I Sam 16:16, 23; 18:10). David also sets aside the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman to prophecy by means of a lyre and harp (I Chr 25:1-8). In sum, of the 40 times that David‟s musical instrument of choice appears in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., rwnk, the lyre) only once does a woman play it (Isa 23:16). The association of stringed instruments with the male gender continues in the Septuagint and NT as well. Genesis 4:21, for instance, credits to Jubal the invention of the harp and lyre.267 Revelation 5:8 has the twenty-four elders who fall before the Lamb holding harps.268 Job is a man who is proficient in playing traditionally “male” instruments.
Job as Master Over His Son‟s Hearts We have already seen how Job masters the contemptuous female voices in his household. Job also manages the voices of his sons as well, only this time through sacrifice. Whereas the tradition of Job praying on his behalf of his children begins in the
264 J. David Clines, “David the Man: The Construction of Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible,” in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205; Gender, Culture, Theory 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 212-243. Cited 13 June 2006. Online: http://www.shef.ac.uk‟/bibs/DJACcurrres/David.html.
265 Gen. 4:21 kai\ o!noma tw~| a)delfw~| au)tou~ Ioubal ou{toj h}n o( katadei/caj yalth&rion kai\ kiqa&ran. Compare this with the Masoretic text which states that he was “father of all those who play the lyre and pipe” (bgw(w rwnk #&pt-lk yb) hyh )wh lbwy wyx) M#$w).
266 Clines, “David the Man,” 212.
267 Ibid.
268 Note that kiqa&ra only occurs twice in the NT and in neither instance are women expressly associated with it (cf. I Cor 14:7).
89 Hebrew Bible and continues in the LXX, the writer of the Testament of Job elaborates on this scene considerably. As in the biblical book of Job, the Testament‟s Job offers sacrifices on behalf of his sons lest they harbor evil thoughts in their hearts against God (15:10). The writer adds, however, that Job would also make sure that the destitute would pray on his children‟s behalf in case they had uttered in pride “We are the children of this wealthy man and these good riches are ours. Why then do we also serveς” (15:7). Whereas the book of Job depicts Job offering daily sacrifices in order to underscore his reputation as a righteous man, it has an alternative function in T. Job. The expanded material demonstrates Job‟s authority not only over the destitute but his children as well. On the one hand, the purpose clause in 15:7 makes clear that the poor are indebted to Job on account of his benefactions. Job‟s command that they “Take (lamba/nete) the things that remain from the ritual portion so that you may pray (i3na dehqh~te) on behalf my children,” suggests that their repayment for his patronage is their appeals to the Deity (15:6). On the other hand, Job‟s concern that his sons may question “Why then do we also serve (diakonou~men)ς” speaks volumes as well. The petitions Job makes to the Lord through his sacrifices and the prayers of the destitute function to control his sons lest they resist their responsibilities in Job‟s hierarchically-constructed world.
Conclusion In chapters 1-15 of T. Job, the writer portrays Job as a character who is master over the world in which he lives. Indeed, in recasting Job as the one figure in society who has absolute control over all others-- i.e. a king--Job epitomizes a man whose masculinity is defined by his dominance over others. He establishes his royal dominance over his region by destroying a temple dedicated to Satan. He commands his servants to carry out his demands as benefactor. He manages the women in his household by “protecting” his wife from the gaze of others and controlling the contemptuous utterances of the female servants in his care. He manages the kardi/a of his sons by making sacrifices to the Lord on their behalf. The considerable size of his domestic livestock signifies his mastery over creation also, as he uses animals not only to guard his home but as instruments to maintain his reputation as patron. He refuses to be mastered by others by repaying his debts. He also has full control over his own body evidenced by his own
90 participation in his deeds of benefaction. This presentation of Job as absolute master of his region contrasts greatly with the presentation that we see with the onset of his ordeal. The loss of his wealth and the debilitation of his body will force him to refashion his masculine identity by turning inward and mastering his reason. Even with this new mode of masculinity, self-interested female speech will continue to threaten Job‟s ability to realize his masculine identity in the narrative. Sitidos‟ plea for her husband to give up his quest to endure by speaking contemptuously against the Lord is motivated out of her own desire to find relief from her bodily pain. Finally, Job‟s handling of the widows‟ speech foreshadows the mechanism through which the self-interested natures of Job‟s daughters will experience transformation later in the narrative: by redirecting their minds toward things above and away from the self, their utterances will reflect anthropologies no longer concerned with earthly affairs, but heavenly ones instead.
91 CHAPTER FOUR JOB‟S DOMINANCE OVER HIS SOUL
Introduction Chapters sixteen through twenty of T. Job detail the collapse of Job‟s hierarchical world. One by one, Satan strips Job of his wealth, animals, loyalty of his clientele, family, and his control over his own body. Job, in other words, loses all of the visible expressions of his masculinity that once symbolized his mastery over others and the material realm in general. Despite the damage, however, Job‟s heart does not falter and he refuses to utter contemptuous words against the Lord. He ultimately finds a place of refuge on the dunghill outside the city. The site comes to symbolize a shift in Job‟s masculinity in the narrative, as his focus becomes mastering his interiority and not mastering others.
Satan and his Insurgents Make Preparation for War Following the interlude on Job‟s wealth in chapters nine through fifteen, the narrative picks up where chapter eight left off: the destruction of Job‟s property by Satan. Satan‟s first act is one that Job deems nothing short of pitiless (T. Job 16:1). The Lord gives Satan “authority” (e0cousi/an) over Job‟s possessions, signaling a transfer of control in the narrative. Satan acts “unmercifully” (a0nhlew~v) by burning up all of the livestock Job has set aside for the poor (16:1). Job‟s fellow citizens are the next to strike at Job‟s property. The scene is one of revolt as Job‟s countrymen “rise up in insurrection” (e0panistame/nwn) against him and take what remains of his animals (16:3). The absurdity here, as Job himself recognizes, is that they do this despite having been treated “exceedingly well” (eu0ergethqe/ntewn sfodrw~v) by their benefactor Job (16:3). Of course the language of coup is notable here, as it echoes the impending warfare between Satan and Job.269
269 Even Bradford A. Kirkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job. A Literary Analysis,” Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture. Later Versions and Traditions (ed. Craig A. Evans; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 2:8 n.19, who elects to read T. Job through the lens of the athletic metaphor, admits that battle best underlies the “political overthrow” in the narrative.
92 Job glorifies (e0do/casa) God after suffering his losses and does not “blaspheme” (e0blasfh/mhsa; 16:4). As a result, Satan recognizes Job‟s “heart” and constructs another plot against him (17:1).270 Satan disguises himself as the king of Persia and persuades “rogues” (panou/rgouv) to pillage Job‟s property (17:1). The language of warfare continues to reverberate in the text, as the writer couches Satan‟s ploy as an “assault” (e0pe/sth) against Job‟s city. Satan brings up charges against Job before the city scoundrels in order to win them over to his cause.271 Satan disparages Job on the grounds that he has used up all of the earth‟s “good things” in aiding the poor, blind, and lame (17:2).272 Satan‟s invective has direct repercussions on Job‟s masculinity. Between the coup already mounted by his countrymen and the turncoats now, it is clear that Job no longer has control over his constituency. Returning to the narrative, Satan promises the city‟s rogues to “repay” (a0podw/sw) Job for destroying the temple of the “great God” (17:3).273 Satan
270 The text equates Job‟s outward speech with the inner disposition of his “heart.” Of course, the Hebrew Bible leaves it ambiguous as to whether Job‟s speech reflects his inner disposition, stating that “Job did not sin with his lips” (wytp#&b bwy) )+x-)l; 2:10). Later interpreters read this verse as a not- so-subtle way of saying that Job‟s refusal to speak blasphemous words were incongruent with his private thoughts and feelings. The Greek translator clearly believed that Job carried ill-will towards the Divine, leaving open the possibility that Job did in fact sin with his lips. He adds that Job did not sin with his lips “in the direction of God” (e0nanti/on tou~ qeou~; 2:10). Rabbinic tradition reads this verse as an indication of Job sin inwardly with his mind. In Baba Batra 16a, for instance, Rava says that Job “did not sin with his lips, but in his heart he sinned” ()+x wblb rm) )+x )l wytp#&b). On that point, the reference to Job‟s heart in T. Job 17:1 represents not only a point of departure from the Septuagint but also the rabbis as well. For the writer of T. Job, Job is in no way insincere in his glorification of God in 16:4. By pointing out that Satan came to know Job‟s “heart” on account of Job‟s refusal to blaspheme against God indicates that Job is not simply giving “lip service” to the Divine.
271 Kirkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job,” 8, notes that the narrator couches Satan‟s message along the lines of “boastful promises” (a0peilh~v), calling to mind the hurling of taunts prior to battle.
272 Of course, the ironic part of Satan‟s argument here is that by destroying all that Job had set aside for the marginalized, Satan is in fact the one responsible for wasting much of the earth‟s resources (cf. 16:1-2)!
273 This is the third occasion in his utterance in which Satan makes reference to his decimated temple (cf. 17:2-3). His motivations for attacking Job fully crystallize for the reader with the repetition of this theme. The destruction of his temple, just as the Lord had foreshadowed (3:4-5), has precipitated Satan‟s attack against Job. Note how Satan manages to cover up his intentions with some deftness, emerging as a pious king before Job‟s countrymen. By ascribing to the deity the adjective “great,” Satan appears as a king who reveres the authority of the Divine. This depiction stands in stark contrast to Job, whose piety now stands in doubt thanks to the accusation of Satan. Of course, the reader can also construe the ascription of “great” as double-voiced. Satan may well be talking about himself here, boasting about his own reputation as a divine
93 commands the men to “Come and take as spoils (skuleu/sate) for yourselves all of [Job‟s] animals and as much as he has on earth” (17:4).274 The command here signifies a reversal of fortunes in the narrative. By giving these men the freedom to ransack Job‟s property, Satan has assumed Job‟s role as royal benefactor in the narrative. The move has direct repercussions on Job‟s reputation as a man, as the loss of property curtails his ability to maintain the system of brokerage which once brought him honor. The audience finally hears the voice of the city scoundrels in 17:5. Responding to Satan‟s statements, the men reply that Job‟s sons and daughters may flee to other countries, speak out against them “as tyrants” (w9v turannou/ntwn), “rise up in insurrection” (e0panasta/ntev), and ultimately kill them (17:6). The men‟s concern that Job‟s sons may one day return to overthrow them from rule is entirely ironic. Indeed, the rogues of the city are about to do to Job and his family the very thing they themselves fear! Satan allays the men‟s anxiety, reporting to them that he has already destroyed most of Job‟s flocks and that he will “destroy” (a0pole/sw) all of Job‟s children (17:7-8).
Job, Silence, and Self-Control Not to be missed is the way in which speech continues to be a gendered phenomenon in T. Job. Job manages the speech of the women in his household through his music in order to preclude any destructive utterances that might come from their mouths. Job‟s own ability to control his speech stands in direct contrast to these women however. Whereas their speech requires management, Job continues to speak holy utterances despite the losses he suffers (cf. 16:4). If we consider that contemptuous speech is a defining aspect of female identity in T. Job, then it stands to reason that Job‟s refusal to utter blasphemous words says something about his own gender. Job‟s refusal to speak contemptuously is a reflection of his superior “self-control” as a man. Going as being before an otherwise oblivious audience. On the importance of piety and kingship in the Hellenistic world, see Jim Roy, “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King,” in When Men were Men (eds. Lin Foxhall and John Salmon; New York: Routledge, 1998), 111-135; A.E. Samuel, “The Ptolemies and Ideology of Kingship,” Hellenistic History & Culture (ed. Peter Green; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 168-192.
274 The use of skuleu/w to signify the plundering of Job‟s property fits within the larger effort to frame Satan‟s conflict with Job as battle. A term that normally connotes the stripping of arms from one‟s slain enemy, Job‟s property now symbolizes the spoils of war.
94 far back as Plato and Aristotle, one of the most desirable of virtues for men to possess was that of swfrosu/nh, or self control (cf. Gorgias 491-493; Eudemian Ethics 2.4.5). DeVega notes that by the first century, this virtue was well-established both within Greek and Roman literature.275 Self-control prevented a man from wandering down the road of irrationality by assenting to his passions; it ensured that he would use his reason and not his emotions to direct his decision-making (4 Mac 1:3-4, 30-31, 35). While swfrosu/nh as a term does not appear in the narrative, the writer of T. Job no doubt had this theme in mind as Job continues to demonstrate mastery over the words that proceed from his mouth. 276 On that point, Satan‟s effort to induce Job to utter contemptuous words in the story (cf. 20:1), represents an attempt to emasculate his enemy by having him speak without restraint just as a woman might speak.
The Anger of Satan in the Testament of Job From a literary critical perspective, the merciless depiction of Satan stands in direct opposition to the figure of Job in the narrative. Whereas Job shows himself to be a generous benefactor, Satan‟s dealings with the needy are nothing short of heartless. Satan justifies the confiscation of Job‟s property on the grounds that he helped the poor (17: 2). Later in chapter twenty-three, Job‟s wife begs Satan to “show mercy” (e0leei~v e0le/hson) to her by giving her bread, which he promptly refuses (23:5). Whereas reason, as we shall see, guides Job throughout his ordeal, Satan is a character led entirely by his emotions. And not just any emotion, but anger. Regarded as one of the most violent of emotions in antiquity,277 anger motivates Satan‟s desire for revenge in the narrative. To
275 Jessica DeVega, “„A Man Who Fears God‟: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of Joseph‟ (Ph.D. diss., The Florida State University, 2006), 44.
276 Philo, for example, says of swfrosu/nh that when the soul “is often in danger of being pulled underwater by the flood of passions, it does not permit it to succeed, but it pulls it up and elevates it, it arouses it, drying and preserving it, and aims it in a certain direction towards immortality” (Philo, Virt. 14).
277 By the first century, certain vices were thought to be particularly detrimental to the soul. The writer of 4 Maccabees, for instance, identifies six vices that he deems the “most violent”: lust for power (filarxi/aj), vainglory (kenodoci/aj), boastfulness (a)lazonei/aj), arrogance (megalauxi/aj), and envy (baskani/aj) and anger (qu/mov; 2:15-16). Of these six, the writer gives special attention to anger, treating it as the deadliest of all the passions (2:16-23). This sentiment seems to have been shared throughout much of antiquity as well. Plutarch devotes an entire in treatise to anger in his Moral Essays. Structured as a dialogue between Sulla and Fundanus, Fundanus says of anger that it
95 be sure, anger is what compels Satan to seek revenge in the first place. The Lord tells Job as much before Job burns down Satan‟s temple. He states, “If you attempt to destroy and cleanse the place of Satan, he will rise up against you with anger (meta\ o0rgh~v) in battle” (T. Job 4:4). One can also detect vengeance in Satan‟s rebuttal to Job after receiving the burnt loaf of bread. Satan guarantees that “As this loaf is wholly burnt, so I will do the same to your body,” a statement which makes clear that he is driven by retaliation (7:11). Even in his speech to the city scoundrels, revenge continues to pervade Satan‟s words. His intrinsic desire to “repay” (a0podw/sw) Job for what he did to his temple cannot remain concealed by his outer disguise (17:3). While the language of warfare that permeates Satan‟s speech makes certain that his masculinity is defined by his ability to dominate others, the wrathful depiction of
removes (sense) completely and shuts it out, just like those who burn themselves in their houses, it makes everything full of trouble and smoke and noise, so that (the soul) can neither see, nor hear the ones who offer help....for anger is arrogant and stubborn and altogether difficult to move by another. Being just like a secure tyrant, it must have its destroyer born and raised within itself. And so, when anger continues and it strikes out again and again having introduced evil into the soul--which is called irascibility--these fits of rage result in passion and bitterness and discontent, (so that) whenever anger becomes ulcerated, offended, and censorious by misfortunes, it is like a weak and thin piece of iron always being scratched (On the Control of Anger 2-3.454).
a0ll 0 e0coiki/sav telei/wv kai\ a0poklei/sav, w3sper oi9 sunempipra/ntev e9autou\v tai~v oi0ki/aiv, pa/nta tarxh~v kai\ kapnou~ kai\ yo/fou mesta\ poiei~ ta\ e0nto/v, w3ste mh/t 0 i0dei~n mh/t0 a0kou~sai tw~n w0felou/ntwn....kai\ ga\r u9perh/fanov kai\ au0qa/dhv kai\ o3lwv u9f 0 e9te/rou o9 qumo\v duski/nhtov w1n, w3sper o0xura\ tupanni\v e0c e9auth~v e1xein o0fei/lei su/noikon kai\ suggene\v to\ katalu~on. 9H me\n ou]n sune/xeia th~v o0rgh~v kai\ to\ proskrou/ein polla/kiv e3cin e0mpoiei~ ponhra\n th~ yuxh~~|?, h3n o0rgilo/thta kalou~sin, ei0v a0kraxoli/an kai\ pikri/an kai\ duskoli/an teleutw~san, o3tan e9lkw/dhv kai\ mikro/lupov o9 qumo\v ge/nhtai kai\ filai/tiov u9po\ tw~n tuxo/ntwn w9v si/dhrov a0sqenh\v kai\ lepto\v anaxarasso/menov.
The idea that unbridled anger ultimately leads to an irascible temperament is also found in the writings of Plutarch‟s contemporary, the Stoic moralizer Epictetus. Epictetus writes, “when you are angry, you know that, not only has this evil befallen you, but that it has strengthened it and thrown fuel on the fire” (o3tan o0rgisqh|~v, gi/gnwske o3ti ou0 mo/mon soi tou~to ge/gonen kako/n, a0ll 0 o1ti kai\ th\n e3cin hu1chsav kai\ w9v puri\ fru/gana pare/balev; 2.18.5). Anger was regarded as the most dangerous of the passions because it did more than simply corrupt the soul of the one who allowed it to go unchecked. When unbridled, it had the potential to cause injury to others also. Fundanus asserts that anger, “proves the whole smallness and feebleness of the angry person‟s character. Not only when they mangle children and rage bitterly against women and think it necessary to punish dogs and horses and mules ... but also concerning tyrants who incur blood-guilt, the meanness of the their soul is made apparent in their cruelties and their state in their actions” (Plutarch, On the Control of Anger. 8.457). Similarly, the fourth century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus in describing the uninhibited anger of Emperor Valentinian, says that when Valentinian was unable to restrain the “savage forces” (potestate animi) lurking within his mind, “they gradually burst through unrestricted to the ruin of many men” (Histories 12.7.4).
96 Satan conveys something about his gender as well. Men unable to control their anger were thought of as “unmanly” (oud 0 a0ndrw/dhv) in antiquity.278 The gendering of anger as a female attribute remained a longstanding one in antiquity, observable in the writings of Plutarch in the first century and Ammianus Marcellinus in the fourth.279 Thus, the depiction of Satan as motivated by his emotions is designed to emasculate him in the narrative (cf. 27:3). The discrediting of Satan‟s masculinity through his lack of self- mastery stands in narrative opposition to that of Job, whose masculinity is characterized by an austere control over his mouth, passions, and bodily pain.
The Losses of Job Job Loses Control Over His Property In chapter eighteen, Satan and the city rogues unleash their assault against Job‟s household and property. Satan topples the house upon Job‟s children, killing Job‟s children in the process (18:1, 2). On witnessing this event, the traitors mount a direct offensive against Job himself. The men banish Job and divide the property among themselves (18:2). Job witnesses “cheap” and “dishonorable” men at his dinner table and couches, echoing the notion from chapter seventeen that the criminal element within Job‟s city are responsible for the coup. The toppling of Job‟s house as well as his ouster from it further diminishes his masculine identity in the narrative. Whereas Job once exhibited his mastery over others through managing his household and the souls of his children, with those aspects of his life destroyed, Job‟s ability to display his dominance has been seriously curtailed. It goes without saying that the regime these men establish stands diametrically opposed to Job‟s once merciful rule. Whereas Job was a pious king, the men who have ousted him from his throne are the “rogues” of his city (17:1). Whereas Job had tremendous wealth and tremendous honor, these men are “cheap and dishonorable” (18:3). Whereas Job once set aside his tables for feeding the stranger and widows (10:1- 4), his usurpers now sit at his tables and couches for their own profit (18:3). Whereas Job
278 Plutarch, On the Control of Anger 456.8: a0lla\ kai\ th\n a1llhn tou~ qumou~ katanoei~n fu/sin, w9v ou0k eu0genh\v ou0d 0 a0ndrw/dhv ou0d 0 e1xousa fro/nhma kai\ me/geqo/v e0stin.
279 Plutarch, On the Control of Anger 457.8; Ammianus Marcellinus, Histories 27.7.4.
97 was generous with the benefactions he bestowed on the indigent, the insurrectionists are oppressive (21:1-4), even confiscating the property of others (40:8-9). Whereas Job made sure to repay his servants for their labor (13:1-14:5), the city rulers barely feed the servants within their care (22:1). Compassion and mercy is a recurring theme throughout T. Job (cf. 23:6; 26:7), and they help create the narrative opposition here in the text as well. On the one hand, the terms signify not only Job‟s reign as a king but the Lord‟s demeanor in the story (26:7). On the other hand, the rule installed by the city scoundrels is not unlike their provocateur, Satan. Certainly, Satan is merciless in his treatment of the poor in the narrative (cf. 16:1; 23:5), and so also are those who oust Job from power.
Job: The Weakened Woman in Labor With his loss of control over the social world around him, Job begins to lose control over his body shortly after his expulsion from his home. While Job is able to see with his eyes the contemptible men in his home, he reports that he “was unable to utter a sound against them” (ou0k h9duna/mhmn fqe/gcasqai ti\ kat 0 au0tw~n). The experience has left Job‟s voice muted and thereby unable to protest their presence in his home. Job‟s own explanation as to why he is voiceless is because he is “paralyzed, as a woman weakened in her loins by the magnitude of birth pangs” (18:5). The statement is important because it marks the first time the audience sees a direct correlation between loss of physical ability and disruption of masculine identity in the narrative. To be sure, Brent Shaw has also noted that Job‟s utterance signifies a feminization of the Joban body in the narrative.280 Shaw, however, makes his comment in passing and within an essay that deals with the broader issue of martyrdom in the Hellenistic world. What requires further explanation, then, is how Job‟s utterance begins to align his gender identity closer to that of the female character type than that of the masculine character type. Job‟s portrayal of himself as “paralyzed” (h0tonhme/nov) and “weakened” (pareime/nh) indicates that his body is no longer as strong and able-bodied as it once was. In modern terms at least, he has been rendered physically disabled. That Job couches his physical weakness in terms of a woman exhausted by labor pains makes clear that
280 Brent Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs,” JECS 4 (1997): 282.
98 physical performance and gender are linked in his eyes. Certainly, had Job been able to resist his enemies from ravaging his property and pillaging, the author‟s choice of metaphor would not have been that of a woman in labor. As we saw in chapter two, however, passiveness was often conceived as a stereotypical feature of femininity in antiquity. For that reason, Job‟s weakened state leaves him no other choice but to associate his helplessness with the gender that most characterizes his current condition. One should also not overlook how Job‟s muteness further emasculates his character. Job‟s muteness makes him “unable” (h0duna/mhn) to rebuke the scoundrels who have bullied their way into his home. The disability proves damning to his masculine reputation because he is powerless to confront the intruders who have invaded his property. Indeed, that Job mentions that he was incapable of speaking out “against them” (kat 0 au0tw~n) implies that it was his masculine responsibility to do just that. Here again, the entwinement of disability and gender is made evident as it is the impairment of Job‟s speech that prevents him from carrying out his duty as the overseer and protector of his property. With the pillaging of his property, destruction of his family, and the invasion of his home, Job remembers the “battle” (pole/mou) mentioned by the angel of the Lord (18:5). But Job‟s troubles are not yet complete. Job‟s voice returns (19:1-4), but still he refuses to speak contemptuously against the Lord. The upshot here is that, while the rest of his body is failing him, Job has retained control over his mouth. With this knowledge, Satan asks the Lord for permission to inflict Job‟s body with a disease (20:1-2). The Lord gives Satan “authority” (e0cousi/an) over Job‟s body. The transfer of power signals that Job has lost complete control over his own body (20:3). The Lord does not give Satan control over Job‟s soul however (20:3). That Job still proves able to control the words that proceed from his lips (cf. 26:1), intimates that there is critical link between self-mastery and speech in the narrative.
The Emasculating Plague of Job Satan takes the form of a hurricane and blows Job off his throne (20:6).281 Job
281 This seems to reverse the biblical narrative where the Lord speaks to Job “through a hurricane and clouds” (dia\ lai/lapov kai\ nefw~n; LXX Job 38:1).
99 reports to his reader that he remained trapped underneath it for three hours. Job‟s immobility is likely due to the paralysis of his body (18:6), as is implied later when he requires assistance just to stand (40:2). Shortly thereafter, Satan afflicts Job with a “severe plague” (plhgh\n sklhra\n) which renders him deformed. Whereas biblical tradition has Job suffering from “harsh sores” (Job 2:7: (r Nyx#$), T. Job says nothing at all about skin ulcers.282 The writer excludes this information, however, as he takes from the Septuagint that the affliction causes “discharges” (i0xw~prev) to leak from Job‟s outer orifices (LXX Job 2:8). Worms also seep from Job‟s skin. The intensification of the tradition surrounding this bodily affliction is interesting to follow. The Hebrew Bible is ambiguous as to whether the worms are also a part of Job‟s body, asserting that they only “covered” his skin (#$bl; 7:5). The Septuagint is the first to exaggerate the imagery, as Job asserts that “my flesh is mixed with putrid worms” (fu/retai de/ mou to\ sw~ma e0n sapri/a| skwlh/kwn; 7:5). T. Job embellishes the imagery even more so, asserting that Job‟s body is “eaten with worms” (skwlhko/brwton; 20:8). The use of skwlhko/brwtov in T. Job becomes all the more interesting when it is situated within the context of Hellenistic Judaism. The motif of flesh-eating worms was a common literary topos that appears in the death-scenes of nefarious kings. The gruesome image occurs in the death-scenes of Antiochus Epiphanes in 2 Maccabees 9:9 and Herod the Great in Josephus‟ Jewish Antiquities 17.169.283 Moreover, in each instance the writer uses it as an instrument of derision to signal that the king has received his just deserts. That the writer of T. Job casts Job‟s affliction along the lines of skwlhko/brwtov makes sense in that Job is himself a king. What needs explanation is why Job is stricken with a disease reserved only for the most despicable of rulers. We seem to have here an inversion of a popular motif to go along with the other absurdities surrounding Job‟s sudden collapse. Not only have “cheap and worthless” men replaced Job‟s once ordered and benevolent rule, but now Job suffers the fate of the most reprehensible of kings. The discharges oozing from Job‟s body further signify the gender blurring taking
282 The Septuagint asserts that Job suffered from a “loathsome wound” (e#lkei ponhpw|~).
283 Herod Agrippa suffers from a similar affliction in Acts 12:23.
100 place at the site of the Joban body.284 Indeed, ancient medical practitioners contended that the male and female bodies differed in more ways than just their genitalia. They argued that the sexes also were distinct in terms of bodily temperature and degree of moisture, with the standard male body being dry and impermeable and the standard female body being leaky and moist. In his Regimen of Health, for instance, Hippocrates finds that this gender distinction extended to all species of animals and not just humans. He writes, But the males of all species are and warmer and drier while the females are moister and colder on account of such reasons: Because each sex was born in such things and grew according to such things, and on the one hand, after birth males made use of a more laborious regimen so that they are warmer and drier and females made use of a less strenuous regimen and they free warmth from their bodies each month (34.1-10). 285 The ancient reader, therefore, would have seen the sudden permeability of the Joban body as more than just a deformity of his physical appearance. The disease has ruptured a biological boundary that distinguished his body from that of the female body. Of course, the uncontrollable leakage of the Joban body is also ironic, especially given Job‟s previous identification of himself as a woman in labor (18:5). With Job‟s discharges “combining to drench” (sune/brexon) the ground on which he sits, his earlier words appear to have moved beyond the realm of metaphor, as his own body „breaks water‟ upon the dunghill. The infestation of worms in Job‟s skin also has consequences for Job‟s gender in
284 Even in modern times, leakiness is something to be avoided for the male body. Christina S. Jarvis, The Male Body at War. American Masculinity during World War II (Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004), 89, writes on the problems of maintaining the image of the impenetrable male body during WWII as “In addition to the corporeal damage caused by anti-personal weapons, combat also exposed the limits of the phallic body through fear-inspired wastes and fluids. Despite men‟s best efforts to „keep a tight asshole‟ and to behave bravely under fire, fear often overcame the will to maintain the perception of a sealed-up body; in the face of terrifying combat, bodily wastes such as feces, urine, and vomit provided visible signs of fear.”
285 Tw~n de\ pa/ntwn ta\ me\n a!rsena qermo/tera kai\ chro/tera, ta\ de\ qh/lea u(gro/tera kai\ yuxro/tera dia\ ta/de, o#ti te a0p ) a0rxh~v e0n toiou/stoisin e9ka/tera e0ge/neto kai\ u9po\ toiou/twn au1cetai, geno/mena te ta\ me\n a@rsena th~|si diathsin e0piponwte/rh|si xrh~tai, w#ste e0kqermai/nesqai kai\ a0pochpai/nesqai, ta\ de\ qh/lea u9grote/rh|si kai\ r9aqumoterh|si th~|si diai/th||si xre/ontai, kai\ ka/qarsin tou~ qermou~ e0k tou~ sw/matov e9ka/stou mhno\v poie/ontai.
101 the narrative. Job says that while he sat on the dunghill, there were many worms “in him” (e0n au0tw|~; 20:9). If a worm would fall off, he says that he would pick it up and “return it into the same place” (kath/ggizon ei0v to\ au0to/; 20:10). If we think of the worms from the standpoint of their penetration, then what we have here is further evidence of the gender-blurring taking place at the site of the Joban body. Chris Frilingos notes that in the Greco-Roman penetration grid, “„masculinity‟ corresponded to „activity‟ and could be demonstrated by penetrating the orifices of the body....the breached body, male or female, was „feminine‟ or „effeminate.‟”286 In this scene here, the plague of worms has breached Job‟s body destroying any masculine veneer of impenetrability. Whereas Job has already lost his strength, he has now lost his ability to control that which leaves and enters his body. The complete loss of bodily control marks the final demise of Job‟s former masculinity. But all is not lost. No longer master of either his body or the bodies of others, Job will soon turn inward to master his interiority instead.
The Decentering of Job It is tempting to see the destruction of Job‟s wealth, property, and family and the disablement of his body as signs that he has been completely emasculated in the narrative. Stated another way, with all of the losses that Job has incurred thus far the narrative, it makes sense why Kugler and Rohrbaugh can only interpret these images as indications that Job is utterly shamed throughout his ordeal. To be sure, Kugler and Rohrbaugh‟s honor and shame reading of the Testament of Job is the first to touch on Job‟s role as a male in the narrative. To their credit, they not only identify Job as an “honorable man,” but they also recognize that Job‟s ability to endure his struggle signifies that he possesses “one of the quintessential masculine virtues.”287 Kugler and Rohrbaugh are also the first to try to make sense of the devaluation of Job in the story, arguing that as the narrative progresses, Job gradually loses all aspects of his former
286 Chris Frilingos, “Sexing the Lamb,” New Testament Masculinities (eds. Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson; Semeia Studies 45; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 302.
287 Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job,” JSP 14.1 (2004), 55.
102 symbols of “acquired honor” until ultimately his shame is complete.288 In their reading, Job does not begin his recovery from his “abysmal nadir” until God intervenes and ascribes to Job rewards for his endurance.289 While there is much to commend an honor and shame reading of T. Job, Kugler and Rohrbaugh‟s interpretation ultimately proves problematic as it assumes that Job‟s transformation from a man of honor to one of shame is a fluid transition in the narrative. Literary evidence does not support this arrangement. They argue that Job‟s honor devalues as the narrative progresses, ultimately reaching its lowest point during Job‟s confrontation with his friends. If this is so, then it is difficult to explain why Job actually acquires honor over both Satan and his friends throughout his ordeal. In regards to Job‟s wrestling bout with Satan, Kugler and Rohrbaugh attempt to rectify this difficulty by discussing the scene outside of the order in which it falls in the narrative. They group the contest in chapter 27 with their discussion of Job‟s honor from chapters 1-11 rather than deal with the scene in its proper place, after Job‟s ordeal begins. The exchange gives their reader the impression that, with the start of Job‟s trial in chapters 16, Job‟s honor diminishes continually with no reprieve.290 I would like to offer a different way of conceptualizing Job‟s transformation as a man of honor during his ordeal. Lawrence Wills has recently argued that the Testament‟s Job owns a “decentered self” that permits him to perceive reality from two different points of view.291 Wills asserts that Job is both aware of “the earthly--the perspective of his friends, where there is no immortality--and the heavenly where his sufferings are a test that will result in eternal life at the right hand of God.”292 Job is, therefore, a figure caught between two worlds. Whereas his body remains in the earthly realm, he is now a citizen of an otherworldly
288 Ibid., 56.
289 Ibid., 56-57.
290 Ibid., 55-56.
291 Lawrence Wills, “Ascetic Theology Before Asceticismς Jewish Narratives and the Decentering of the Self,” JAAR 74 (2006): 912-915.
292 Ibid., 912.
103 kingdom. The honor codes of his former homeland and that of his new one are not one and the same. Job‟s honor as a man, therefore, is no longer based on his ability to live up to earthly standards of what masculinity entails but heavenly ones such as endurance and self-control.293 This is precisely where the disjuncture between Job and his friends takes place in the story. They do not see Job as a man whose athleticism is based on his ability to passively persevere. Without access to his heavenly knowledge, they are only able to judge him based on what they perceive to be reality—i.e. Job looks like a king who is suffering the kind of physical punishment which only the most shameful of rulers experience. The danger as readers is not to fall into the trap of seeing Job as his fellow kings do.294 If we adopt Job‟s decentered perspective and interpret his gender performance in light of his endurance and self-control, an alternative honor and shame reading of T. Job emerges. Contra Kugler and Rohrbaugh, it is not Job‟s reputation that suffers the greatest damage during his ordeal, but the antagonists who repeatedly fail in their efforts to take control of his body.
The “Decentering” of Job The shift in Job‟s gender from a king who realizes his masculinity based on his dominance over others to man who achieves his masculinity through endurance and self- control begins in chapter eighteen. Having lost his family and property and now as weakened as a woman in labor, the decentering of Job‟s self begins. Job turns his attention away from the losses of his worldly possessions, describing himself as a seafarer in the midst of waters who has thrown all of his cargo into the sea in order to reach his destination (18:6). Job exclaims, “I am willing for everything to be lost only to enter into this city so that I might obtain the baggage and the ship.” Of course, Job‟s comparison of himself to a man on a ship is one that commonly appears in Greek philosophical literature to illustrate the triumph of reason over the emotions. Plutarch writes that before his turn to virtue, Alexander‟s desire for fortune,
293 I say that endurance is a heavenly ideal here as it is what the Lord commands Job to perform if he wants to win his rewards (cf. 4:8). The narrative understands self-control, as I have argued above, as part and parcel of Job‟s ability to endure his struggle.
294 This is precisely what Kugler and Rohrbaugh do in arguing that there is gradual devaluation of Job‟s character throughout his ordeal.
104 honor, and power was “like a great ship of fortune being thrown by high winds and a tempest” (To An Uneducated Ruler 782).295 What he needed was a “heavy ballast and a great helmsman” which for Plutarch represented a more austere and moderate form of living (782). Hellenistic Jewish philosophical literature also attests the use of this literary topos. 4 Maccabees says of Eleazar before his execution, “for just as a most skillful helmsman, the reason of our father Eleazar steered the ship of religion in the sea of emotions. And though wounded severely by the boastful promises of a tyrant and flooded by the waves of torture, in no way did he turn the rudder of religion until he sailed into the harbor of immortal victory” (7:1-3).296 In the case of T. Job, the topos marks a transition in the narrative as Job puts away his desire for controlling worldly possessions and looks forward to the wealth of the heavenly city. As a man caught between two kingdoms, Job is the epitome of the decentered individual. Attention to the repetitive texture of chapters eighteen through twenty-one makes certain that Job is somewhere in-between this world and the next.297 How Job frames his own existence in relation to the earthly city and the heavenly one presumes as much: 18:6 I became as one who wishes to enter a certain city 18:7 I considered myself as nothing compared to the approaching city. 20:8 And in great distress and trouble I left the city. 21:1 And I spent forty-eight years sitting on the dunghill outside the city.
The Symbolic Value of the Dunghill The dunghill represents a space where Job‟s grotesque body is not out of place. Indeed, the loss of bodily control culminating in the worm-disease leaves Job in a state of chaos. Job says that the plague left him in “great disorder and distress” (mega/lh| taraxh~|
295 w9v pro\v tu/xhn mega/lhn polu\ pneu~ma kai\ sa/lon e2xousan.
296 w#sper ga_r a!ristoj kubernh&thj o( tou~ patro_j h(mw~n Eleazarou logismo_j phdaliouxw~n th_n th~j eu)sebei/aj nau~n e0n tw~| tw~n paqw~n pela&gei kai\ kataikizo&menoj tai=j tou~ tura&nnou a)peilai=j kai\ katantlou&menoj tai=j tw~n basa&nwn trikumi/aij. kat 0 ou)de/na tro&pon e1treye tou_j th~j eu)sebei/aj oi1akaj e3wj ou{ e1pleusen e0pi\ to_n th~j a)qana&tou ni/khj lime/na.
297 The term “repetitive texture” comes from Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts. A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 8-9.
105 kai\ a0dhmoni/a|) signaling the fragmentation of his identity in the narrative. Whereas the worms leave Job confused and disordered inside the city, Job seems to reconcile their presence in his body while on the dunghill. The audience catches their first glimpse of this strangely ordered existence shortly after Job arrives at his new residence. Job asserts that if one of the worms would ever fall off of his body, he would pick it up and return it to its former place (20:10). While the infestation of worms once brought Job to a point of disarray in the city, he now “submits” (u9fista/menov; 26:1) to their presence in his body. The ironic thing here is that earth‟s creatures now have control over Job and not vice versa. Still, these worms continue to help define Job‟s gender identity in the narrative. Besides decimating the penetrability of his once impenetrable masculine veneer, the worm disease that leaves Job in agony will assist him in carrying out his new masculine objective—i.e., the endurance of bodily pain (cf. 26:1).
Job, the Passionless Husband In chapter twenty-one, Job observes the harsh treatment of his wife from his location outside of the city. The narrator reports that Job‟s wife carried water into the house of a certain “disgraceful” (a0sxh/monov) person so that she could obtain bread for Job. The audience quickly learns that the man whom she serves is one of the city magistrates, and likely one of the men responsible for the insurrection. On seeing the treatment of his wife, Job states that he was “sorely pierced” (katanenugm/enov; 21:2). The reader cannot help but hear the irritation in Job‟s voice on account of the matter. He declares O the arrogance (a0lazonei/av) of these rulers of this city, whom I do not consider worthy of my roaming dogs. For how can they use my wife as a slave (21:2-3)? Rather abruptly, however, Job regains his composure and resumes once more his “patient reasoning” (logismo\n makro/qumon; 21:4). Whereas inside the city Job may have found justification for his anger, he prohibits himself from giving into his passion on the dunghill. Indeed, a man‟s ability to protect the honor of his wife was chief among the honor codes as the public perception of her chastity was a reflection of the man‟s
106 reputation.298 Whereas Job‟s wife was once the symbol of chastity, residing behind multiple chambers within Job‟s house and concealed from the naked eye (25:1-2), now she serves as a slave to a shameful man. But Job now resides outside of this system of honor and shame.299 His masculinity is now defined by his ability to put away his passionate concerns as a husband. Moreover, because Job‟s success in his ordeal necessitates the experience of pain, assenting to his anger and delivering his wife from her suffering would ruin their chances at otherworldly prosperity.300 Job therefore resumes his austere self-control over his mouth and brings his speech to an abrupt halt. Acting as a man who is no longer preoccupied with worldly concerns, Job acts out of reason instead, remaining dispassionate towards what goes on inside the city while he endures his pains outside. Not to be missed is the literary significance of having Job become “sorely pierced” after seeing his wife treated as a slave. Whereas penetration of the body (i.e. the worms) may not damage Job‟s realization of his gender, the penetration of the soul through the yielding of the passions can. Job‟s “patient reasoning,” therefore, is aimed at enduring the external forces that would have him yield to the emotions of his soul. As I discussed in chapter two, the notion of constructing a masculine identity through passivity and reason was not unheard of in antiquity (cf. Sen. Ep.66.12; 4 Macc 17:11-17; T. Jos. 2:7). In his study of endurance in Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian martyrdom accounts, Brent Shaw determines that by the first century CE passivity moved from being an explicitly female quality to one that could be practiced by reasonable and logical men for the express means of resistance.301 Job‟s refusal to defend his wife‟s
298 Malina, The New Testament World, 50.
299 Contra Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “Women and Honor,” 56, who assert that “the ultimate shame for Job is that he cannot protect his wife (25.2).”
300 As I will discuss further below.
301 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 280. Several scholars point out the affinities T. Job shares with the genre of martyrium. Cees Haas, “Job‟s Perseverance in the Testament of Job,” Studies in the Testament of Job (eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151-154, compares the vocabulary of perseverance in T. Job (u9pome/nw, makroqumi/a, karteri/a) with their uses in other Hellenistic Jewish writings to argue that T. Job resembles a martyrium. Themosticles Adamapolou, “Endurance, Greek and Early Christian. The Moral Transformation of the Greek Idea of Endurance, from the Homeric Battlefield to the Apostle Paul” (Ph.D. diss., Brown
107 honor on account of his reasoning indicates that the narrative conceives of Job‟s masculinity differently while he is on the dunghill. Job‟s dispassionate soul is now the source of his masculinization in the narrative and not his corporeality.
Job and Sitidos The Pains of Job and Sitidos Job‟s redefined masculinity is the source of many of his quarrels in the narrative. Almost immediately, the audience sees how it brings him into conflict with his wife, Sitidos. As Job‟s wife works as a slave in the city to earn bread for Job, it becomes apparent that the gender roles have reversed. She is now the active of the two partners while he remains passive and stationary. Her diatribe against Job in chapter twenty-four makes certain that Sitidos is aware of the discrepancy that exists between her labors and his. She exclaims to Job, “you sit in putrid worms passing the night in the open air and I, for my part, am most wretched, working (e0rgazome/nh) by day and laboring (o0dunwme/nh) by night until I can obtain a loaf of bread to bring to you” (24:4). Job‟s rebuttal in 26:1 that he has been “submitting” to the worms in his skin for sixteen years does not help matters much. It simply reaffirms the feminizing effect his disease has had on his physical appearance. In light of Sitidos‟ description of herself as an unremitting laborer, Job responds by calling his own diseases “labors” (po/nouv; 26:1). By couching his diseases along the lines of work, Job makes clear that while he is passive in body, he is not passive in spirit. The act of endurance is hard labor in its own right. The metaphorical language reinforces to the reader that Job is no less of man in performing this altogether novel inflection of masculinity.
Sitidos and Her Self-Centered Utterance Weary from working on her husband‟s behalf, Sitidos utters her infamous words at the conclusion of chapter twenty-five. Sitidos begs Job: “say some word against the Lord and die” (25:10). Job‟s rebuttal that her words “burden” his soul more than the labors of his diseases exemplifies the degree to which men regarded unchecked female
University, 1996), 244, 249, suggests that T. Job is a type of martyrium, as the athletic and martial imagery parallels what one finds in other Jewish stories of endurance. T. Job‟s legitimization of passive suffering as an appropriate male attribute leads Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 281-284, to group the narrative with other Jewish martyria as well.
108 speech as dangerous (26:1). The audience soon learns the impetus behind Sitidos‟ utterance. Exhibiting special insight, Job informs Sitidos that Satan has troubled her reasoning turning her into one of the “senseless women” (a0fro/nwn gunaikw~n; 26:7-8). Susan Garrett argues that Sitidos‟ wifely and maternal passions make her heart vulnerable to Satan‟s subterfuge.302 Garrett‟s argument must be qualified. If Sitidos‟ heart symbolizes her womanly passions in the narrative, it is her awareness of pain that best illustrates these passions. And it is her efforts to mitigate the suffering of both her and husband‟s pains that makes her such a dangerous pawn for Satan. Indeed, whereas Job‟s reasoning allows him to set aside his anger over seeing his wife treated as a slave (cf. 21:1-4), Sitidos‟ wifely emotions keep her fixated on alleviating his bodily pain (22:2; 24:5). From the first moment that Sitidos speaks in the narrative, it becomes clear just how fully aware she is of all of the suffering that surrounds her. In chapter twenty- two, Sitidos utters “with pain” (met 0 o0du/nhv) “Woe is me” (ou0ai/ moi/), because Job might go hungry (22:2). Later in twenty-four, she laments the futility of bearing ten children— the “pangs and pains” (w0di~nev kai\ po/noi) of her womb—only to watch them all die (24:3). In the same chapter, she thinks in her heart about the “pains” (po/noiv) that her husband has suffered and that he does not get enough to eat (24:5). Sitidos has her head shorn in the marketplace in order to purchase bread for her starving husband (23:1-13). Publicly disgraced over the loss of her hair, Sitidos turns her thoughts towards her own preservation as opposed to the preservation of her husband. At the conclusion of chapter twenty-five, she tells Job that her weakened heart “crushes” (sune/triye/n) her bones (25:8). She implores him to “speak some word against the Lord and die,” hoping that if he is gone, she can be free from the “pains” (po/nwn) she suffers because of his body (25:10). In uttering those fateful words, Satan‟s control over Sitidos‟ reason is made clear (cf. 24:7). As we saw above, Satan wants nothing more than to have Job lose his mastery over his mouth and speak contemptuously against the Lord. By encouraging Job to repeat her dangerous female utterance, therefore, Sitidos “instructs him to do the very thing that will permit Satan to gain control over Job‟s soul and thus to
302 Susan Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex‟ in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112/1 (1993): 63.
109 win the contest” (cf. 20:1; 27:7).303
The Significance of Refusing to Speak As an example of self-control, Job‟s refusal to alleviate the bodily pain of his wife by speaking contemptuously has much to do with conquering the passions. Brent Shaw reminds us that overcoming the passions developed a new inflection by the first century CE. Resistance to the inner emotions came to include not only hedonistic pleasure but feelings of bodily pain as well (cf. 4 Macc 3:17; T. Jos. 2.7).304 As Garrett suggests, texts such as Fourth Maccabees make clear that resistance to bodily pain did not include its alleviation.305 In order for pain to be rewarded, it needed to be “endured.” A stable reasoning--such as the kind that Job exhibits in the narrative--had the power to will the body to withstand even the worst sensations of pain. If we bear in mind that ancients came to regard this logical form of resistance as a “fully legitimized male quality,”306 then Sitidos‟ imploration to Job “to say some word against the Lord and die” does more than just endanger his life; it also threatens his ability to endure his pain like a man. Job‟s refusal to speak contemptuously not only ensures his victory but Sitidos‟ as well. The littering of first person plural verbs throughout his speech makes clear that it is Sitidos‟ trial to endure as much as it is his. Job asks Sitidos, “Would you wish that by us speaking (h9ma~v lalh~sai/) some word against the Lord we become alienated
303 Ibid., 65. There are obvious gender repercussions here as well. Indeed, had Job spoken Sitidos‟ words, his identity would have been thoroughly emasculated. Not only would he have relinquished his self-control over his mouth, but by speaking the words his wife commanded him to, Sitidos would have gained mastery over her husband in effect.
304 Shaw, “Body/Identity/Power,” 277.
305 Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 64. She writes, “The author of 4 Maccabees describes the work as an effort demonstrated that „pious reasoning‟...is master of the passions (1:1)....The author illustrates this thesis with the story of Eleazer, and a mother with her seven sons, all of whom conquered (nikh~sai) the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes by their „manliness and endurance‟ (h9 a0ndrei/a kai\ h9 u9pomonh/) when confronting the torturers. The author describes Eleazer‟s resoluteness in the midst of grotesque physical abuse. No amount of pain could convince the old man to forsake the Jewish law by eating a piece of pork, and so, physically ruined, he dies. Next the author considers the mother and her seven sons. the mother watches as each of her sons in turn submits to ghastly tortures. She does not beg them to give in to the command to eat pork, but rather urges them on in their resistance” (emphasis hers).
306 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 280.
110 (a0pallotriwqw~men) from great wealth? And why have you not remembered the great number of good things with which we once lived (u0ph/rxomen)? And so if we have received (e0deca/meqa) the good things from the hand of the Lord, shall we not endure (u9pome/nomen) the bad things” (26:4-5)ς Literarily, Job‟s remarks put on display his tremendous reasoning (at the expense of his wife‟s reasoning no less) as he exhibits the kind of encouragement that she ought to be giving to him.307 To be fair, however, it is hard to blame Sitidos for not being more supportive of Job in his struggle. Her marriage obligates her to take care of her husband, giving her little choice but to participate in his ordeal. Figuring the Body of Sitidos in the Testament of Job If we consider Sitidos from the standpoint of her gender in the narrative, what we witness throughout Job‟s ordeal is a character who gradually loses her gender identity just as her husband Job does. Whereas the narrative gives Job a new masculine identity lest his gender remain ambiguous throughout his ordeal, Sitidos is nowhere near as fortunate. As I put forward in the last chapter, before Job‟s ordeal Sitidos epitomized the feminine ideal. Indeed, representative of the properly managed wife in the narrative, she remained hidden and “protected” within her chamber behind multiple doors and draperies (25:1-2). With the onset of her husband‟s disease and sudden poverty, this all changes. She is suddenly thrust into the public eye, no longer a queen, but a servant of one of the city leaders instead. The audience sees the disintegration of her feminine identity right before their very eyes. Sitidos‟ body becomes increasingly masculinized as she diligently strives to feed her husband, Job. Whereas Job‟s shift towards a masculinity defined by interior resolve offsets the ruination of his body, similar “repair” does not come in Sitidos‟ direction. The degradation of Sitidos‟ body begins in chapter twenty-two. Seeing Job hungry, she ventures into the marketplace to acquire food. With no money in hand, she has her hair shorn in public, and she sells the tresses in exchange for three loaves of bread. The scene marks a violation of her feminine identity on multiple levels.
307 Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 65.
111 The Masculinization of Sitidos Besides stating the obvious that the shearing of Sitidos‟ hair represents a collapse of a physical boundary distinguishing her body from the male body,308 the loss of hair also points to a loss of her reproductive activity. Martin has recently shown the extent to which female sexuality was thought to be bound up in long feminine hair.309 To be sure, Martin demonstrates that in ancient conceptions of reproduction, medical practitioners believed that semen was produced and stored in both the male and female brains. Whereas the testicles, Martin asserts, drew the semen downward and outward, long feminine hair acted as a conduit which drew the semen upward and inward.310 In this model, the long hair of women served as the functional counterpart to the male testicle, drawing semen into the hollow uterus, thereby making reproduction possible.311 Read in this light, the shearing of Sitidos‟ hair results in more than simply a loss of beauty. By having her hair shorn, the crowd would have perceived Sitidos as having removed the force that pulled reproductive fluid towards her uterus. The consequence of her action is that she has lost more than just her hair; she has shorn off a part of her female genitalia as well.312 What is more, with the death of all ten of her children, Sitidos now represents a woman who has little to verify that she was ever a mother at all. Recognizing that she has labored “in vain” (ei0v to\ keno/n; 24:4), the proper memorial she wishes to establish on their behalf no doubt serves to verify her maternal identity for all to see (cf. 24:3; 39:7; 40:6).313 Sitidos‟ condition is made all the more ironic when situated over against
308 Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies. Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 28.
309 Troy Martin, “Paul‟s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering,” JBL 123/1 (2004): 75-84.
310 While the female body clearly has pubic hair just as the male body, Martin reminds his reader that the depilation of women‟s pubic hair was a common practice in antiquity (ibid., 81). In this way then, depilation nullified the power of the pubic hair to act as a “counterforce,” drawing reproductive fluid away from the genital area.
311 Ibid., 82.
312 Ibid., 83.
313 The implication here is similar to what Tina Pippin, Death and Desire. The Rhetoric of Gender in the Apocalypse of John (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1992), finds in the role of women in the book of
112 that of her husband Job. Where she has nothing to show for the labor pains she once endured, Job‟s condition has left him “as a woman weakened in the loins by the magnitude of birth pangs” (18:5). Job‟s ordeal has not only affected his gender identity but hers as well. While the worm-plague has left Job‟s physical appearance feminized, Sitidos is taking on masculine characteristics as his struggle persists.
Sitidos the Freak The loss of Sitidos‟ femininity is made complete by the crowd‟s reaction to her shearing. Sitidos reports to Job that the “crowd” stood by and “wondered” (qauma/zontev) while the breadseller (who is Satan) cuts her hair (24:1). Read in light of the crowd‟s assertion that Sitidos used to be a woman to whom only “worthy” (kataciwqh|~) persons could gain access (25:2), the significance of this public act is made clear. A paragon of chastity, Sitidos once dictated when others would see her, thereby shielding her from the male gaze.314 That she now walks “shamelessly” (a0naisxu/ntwv) into the marketplace, indicates that her virtuousness has long since disappeared. Malina notes that shameless women—that is, women not under the protection of a man—were more like men than women because they were viewed as being sexually predatory and aggressive.315 The childless widow and divorced female with no family ties fell into this group, as no doubt prostitutes did as well.316 Sitidos exhibits her shamelessness as she goes into the marketplace without the guidance of a man. That she “dares/has the courage” (tolmh~sai) to do so (24:6), implies her masculine characteristics in the scene. Her shamelessness continues as she treats her hair as an item of exchange, prostituting her body in exchange for loaves of bread.317 It should come as no surprise, therefore, that
Revelation. She states, “the message is that females are productive only when they are reproductive” (p.75).
314 On the gendered gaze as a means of establishing boundaries between the male and female bodies see Frilingos, “Sexing the Lamb,” 304-305.
315 Malina, The New Testament World, 50.
316 Ibid.
317 Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 62, notes that the loosening of hair was associated with adultery and sexual promiscuity in antiquity which would cohere with the image of Sitidos her prostituting her body
113 the gaze of those who watch the shearing of her hair is by no means sexual in nature. Indeed, their focalization is more akin to the stare as they gawk at the shocking spectacle that is Sitidos.318 Those who look at her in the marketplace do not look at her with desire, but in “wonder” over her aberrant appearance. Just as the American freak shows of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries transformed the extraordinary body into something entirely exaggerated and monstrous,319 so Sitidos stands passively by as her observers are “panic struck” (e0cepla/gh) over what they see.320 Garland-Thomson notes that the docility and passiveness of the freak leave it powerless to name itself; this right belongs to the spectator who stands outside of the staged and socially immobilized unusual body.321 In the same way, the crowd is responsible for naming Job‟s wife in the story.322 They call her Sitidos, or the “Giver of Bread,” an apparent paranomasia on her activity in the marketplace.323
Sullying the Feminine Soul of Sitidos Whereas Job finds success realizing his gender by turning inward, Sitidos is not nearly as fortunate. Unaware that her efforts to alleviate Job‟s pain jeopardize his prospects of an otherworldly reward, Sitidos‟ heart comes to symbolize her emotional
here.
318 Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies, 28. See also her discussion in “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory,” Gendering Disability (ed. Bonnie G. Smith and Beth Hutchison; New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 88-94.
319 Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies, 62-63.
320 On this theme of wondering at Sitidos‟ freakish appearance, Garland-Thomson notes that the American freak shows also objectified the unusual body as a type of “wonder” in order to establish distance between the audience and the visualized other (ibid., 58-63).
321 Ibid., 65.
322 Certainly, Job up until this point has only called her “his wife” (cf. 21:1; 24:1). He will not refer to her as Sitidos until 40:6.
323 The name Sitidos is most likely from the otherwise unattested third declension noun Sitis. As far as the meaning of Sitidos, I agree with van der Horst, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 97, that it may be related to si/tov (bread) and siti/zw (I give bread) in some way.
114 attachment to the earthly realm.324 In 24:5 she “thinks” (e0nnoume/nh) in her “heart” (kardi/a||) about the pains of Job‟s body, while in 25:8 she complains with reference to her grinding servitude that the “weakness of my heart crushes my bones” (h9 a0sqenei/a th~v kardi/av mou sune/triye/n mou ta\ o0sta~). In chapter twenty-four Sitidos reports to Job that on seeing him hungry, she ventured without shame into the marketplace. Keeping in mind that the narrator has already said that Sitidos used to beg for bread regularly, on this occasion, her begging proves unproductive. The breadseller (who again, is Satan in disguise) demands that she pay the price of the bread if she wants the loaves. In reporting her story to Job, Sitidos leaves out this part of the episode, stating simply “I was pierced (katanu/ghsasa) to my heart that it did not suffice to beg bread from the breadseller” (24:6). The use of katanu/ssomai in 24:6 is fascinating as it is the same verb used in Job‟s struggle with his passion in 21:1-4. The repetition suggests that the author has placed the two scenes in narrative opposition with one another, as her inability to overcome the “piercing” of her heart highlights his ability to do just that.325 At the same time, the language of penetration inherent in katanu/ssomai is crucial in establishing the gender identities of both Job and Sitidos in the narrative. Whereas the bodies of both characters are an ambiguous mess, the writer is sure to rescue Job‟s reputation as a man. In that episode, Job himself was “pierced” over seeing his wife treated as a servant of one of the city rulers. Instead of remaining angry, however, Job realizes his gender through his “patient reasoning” thereby establishing the manliness of his soul. If patient reasoning is the criterion for asserting one‟s masculinity in the narrative, then the penetration of Sitidos‟ heart makes clear that—unlike her exteriority—her interiority still remains feminized. Any hopes of attaining a masculine soul are lost as Satan has muddled her “reasoning” (dialogismou/v; 26:7). The irony here is that whereas the narrative rescues Job from his disordered state (taraxh|~) by masculinizing his interiority (19:1; 20:8), Sitidos is not as fortunate. While her once normative female appearance is in a state of chaos, her reasoning has also become “disordered” (tara/ssonta) with the sullying of her soul (26:7).
324 Garrett, “The „Weaker‟ Sex,” 63.
325 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 100-101.
115
Making Sense of Sitidos‟ Demise in the Testament of Job If we think about T. Job from a structural standpoint, the domains of the city (and later, distant regions as well) and the dunghill represent demarcated spaces of male power.326 As a gendered domain, the city signifies the masculine aim of mastering others. Job, of course, demonstrated this ideal not only through the agency of his servants but also through his management of the contemptuous female voices in his household. With the onset of his ordeal, Job‟s body becomes dominated in the city, as the city scoundrels break into his domestic space, take control of his possessions, and drive him away from his home. Satan too gains mastery of Job‟s body (although not his reasoning) as the Lord gives him the “authority” to strike Job down with a debilitating disease. The dunghill symbolizes an inversion of the city‟s gendered domain, as the emphasis here is not mastery over others but mastery over one‟s self. Job‟s sudden tolerance of the worm-disease that once left him disordered in the city signifies this shift from body to reason in the narrative, as does also his refusal to give in to his anger on account of his wife‟s servitude. Whereas Satan/the city rulers and Job have their male spheres of power, Sitidos‟ life is both itinerant and rootless as she wanders between the two in order to sate her husband‟s hunger. She is fully aware of her peripatetic existence, telling Job at one point that “I am a vagabond and a maidservant going around from place to place” (24:2). Job‟s ability to practice u9pomonh/ over such a long period of time depends on the preservation
326 For introduction to structuralist theory see Robert Polzin, Biblical Structuralism. Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press; Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1977). As post-structural criticism has made most apparent, the primary weaknesses of structural criticism is the subjectivity on which the methodology is built. Indeed, proponents of the interpreter approach claim that patterns--or “deep structures”-- exist within narrative that can be uncovered with attention to sentences, words, phrases, verbal structures, etc. The problem here, of course, is that the patterns that the exegete sees may or may not have been intended by the original author. Moreover, the method also has been criticized for its willingness to make generalizations about narrative arrangements that do not always cohere with the details of the text. One could level a similar criticism against my assertion that the areas “within the city” and “outside the city” signify two distinct spaces of male power in the narrative. Indeed, essentially Job‟s new mode of masculinity commences with his decision to put away worldly possessions in exchange for the heavenly kingdom. The problem here is that Job is still in the city when he makes this decision. Even so, as I suggested above, Job‟s words presume that while his body is still located within the earthly city, his reasoning no longer is. By relocating to the dunghill outside the city, Job merely signifies with his body what his mind had already determined. The dunghill remains his new site of power until the completion of his trial when he finally reenters the city and resumes his role as patron once again.
116 of his body; and the preservation of his body is made possible through the sustenance which Sitidos earns through her labors within the city. But even as her roving destitution helps Job attain his new masculine ideal, it winds up destroying her own gender identity as a consequence. Indeed, Sitidos‟ shamelessness and poverty decimate her reputation as queen within the city, while her wifely interest in her husband outside the city precludes her from understanding his rational masculinity. The result is that Satan is able to master not only Sitidos‟ body but her reason as well. The troubling aspect of Sitidos‟ demise is that once she has lost her gender identity in the narrative, the storyline never permits her to recoup it. If anything, the narrative only dehumanizes her further as she struggles to reestablish for herself some sense of selfhood in the story.327 As we saw earlier, when Sitidos “dares” to go into the marketplace like a man, her body is treated as an object of exchange by the breadseller. The stares of those who marvel as she is shorn only confirm that her body is more freakish than normative. Sitidos‟ effort to recover her lost feminine identity is seemingly just as fruitless. Kugler and Rohrbaugh are right that Sitidos‟ endeavors to memorialize her deceased children are a matter of honor (cf. 24:3; 39:7).328 By providing her progeny a proper burial, she publicly confirms that she was not always a childless woman. But Job refuses to let her do so, leaving her to question “Have I, like beasts, the womb of a wild animal, because my ten children have died and I have not buried them” (39:7)ς Sitidos‟ query makes clear just how dehumanizing her inability to give her children a proper burial is for her identity. To add injury to insult, by having her die shortly thereafter in a manger, the narrative sardonically answers her question, insinuating that her womb really is no different than that of cattle (40:8-9).329 With her demise coming in a stable, it is not surprising that most scholars see
327 Earlier I argued that the narrative masculinizes Sitidos‟ appearance as Job‟s ordeal persists. In other places however, as I am about to demonstrate, T. Job also seems to devalue her as a human altogether.
328 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 60.
329 I noted in the last chapter the necessity for an ecological reading of T. Job particularly as it relates to honor status in the narrative. Where creation was once important for sustaining not only Job‟s identity as benefactor but hers also (cf. 25:3), the text betrays its anthropocentric point of view as it uses cattle to demonize Sitidos‟ maternal identity.
117 Sitidos an utterly tragic figure in the narrative. In van der Horst‟s final assessment of her character, he writes “Sitidos does not see where evil powers lie in wait, nor does she see what God is doing; she is spiritually blind. Kind though she may be, she is dull, and it is only fitting that it is the cows that are the first to bewail her death.”330 Similarly, Garrett asserts, “Sitidos, unlike her husband and children, has no such heavenly memorial. Consumed by her labors for that which is earthly and corruptible....She symbolizes for the author of Testament of Job those who focus on the earthly and transient and so remain ignorant of the heavenly and eternal. At her own passing, she is mourned by animals--a symbol for the irrational.”331 More recently, Kugler and Rohrbaugh state “As with the servant girl, the recipient‟s last image of Sitidos is one of a woman mired in shame, the very opposite of what she sought for herself.”332 While there is little doubt that tragedy surrounds Sitidos‟ death in T. Job, we should not overlook what little redemption she does find at her demise. To be sure, one of the overarching questions framing this study is whether fragmented conceptions of gender brought about by the onset of disability find “repair” by the story‟s denouement.333 From a Disability Studies perspective, Sitidos, like her husband, experiences physical debilitation that affects her gender in the narrative. The shearing away of her hair leaves her appearance deformed and her female genitalia mutilated.334 Metaphorically speaking, the language of impairment also defines her interiority, as her kardi/a is not only “pierced” (e0nnoume/nh) but “weakened” (a0sqenei/a) on account of her wifely and maternal passions. In stereotypical physiognomic reasoning, the deterioration of Sitidos‟ soul has direct repercussions on her physical appearance as well, as her weakened heart “crushes [her] bones” (25:8). As far as
330 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 101.
331 Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 66.
332 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 60.
333 Again, the language of repair comes from David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse (Michigan: The University of Michigan, 2000).
334 Lynn Holden, Forms of Deformity (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 92.
118 Sitidos‟ interiority goes, Job opens her eyes to the heavenly realm, showing her that her children are now royalty in the otherworldly kingdom (40:4-5). On seeing her children situated in the heavens, Sitidos learns that the memorial of her children does exist (40:6).335 The moment marks a transition in the narrative, as Sitidos finds that her femaleness has not entirely vanished. The earthly realm may never recognize her maternal identity but the heavenly realm certainly does. Whereas Sitidos once ran from her servitude (39:1), she now determines that she can reenter the city and resume her duties (40:7). Her resolution is an important one, in that like her husband Job, Sitidos recognizes the transient nature of mundane labors. The moment marks the repair of her interiority albeit in a very subtle manner. The narrator reports that Sitidos died “without desire/no heart” (a0qumh/sasa), signaling her newfound detachment from earthly concerns (40:9). Sitidos‟ reason is now dispassionate—and therefore masculinized—like her husband Job. 336 Even so, one should not be too positive about the restoration of Sitidos‟ interiority in the narrative. She is allowed to recoup it only because she now corresponds to the storyteller‟s conceptualization of what the ideal female should be. Certainly, just as Job‟s daughters receive “changed” hearts to signal the loss of their corporeal interests as women,337 with the loss of Sitidos‟ heart, she too has relinquished the concerns associated with her female selfhood. To say that irony encircles Sitidos‟ transformation is an understatement: in order for her to realize her femininity in the heavenly realm she must become like a man in the earthly realm. “Repair” in this instance presumes that the female gender is itself a disability in need in restoration; a point that will be echoed once more with respect to Job‟s daughters in chapters 46-53.
335 This counters the reading of Garrett who asserts that Sitidos dies with no memorial whatsoever.
336 The consequence here is that now both Sitidos‟ exteriority and interiority bear masculine characteristics. Indeed, to go along with her sheared head and her barren womb, her soul is now passionless like a man. On a side note, the gender-blurring of Sitidos in the narrative may explain why the Greek manuscript S starts off by using the feminine noun Si/tida (25:1; 39:1) to refer to her, but ultimately settles on the masculine noun Si/tidov (40:4; 40:13). In short, the narrative marks the transformation of her gender identity by masculinizing her name in the process.
337 Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex,‟” 69.
119 Job‟s Confrontation with Satan Job‟s recognition that Satan has clouded the reasoning of his wife in order to induce him to speak contemptuously points to his special insight in the narrative. Writers often imbue disabled characters with supernatural attributes in order to obscure their physical deficiencies (e.g. the blind Teiresias in Sophocles‟ Oedipus Rex, who can also foretell the future). Job‟s ability to see what Sitidos cannot seems to eclipse his own weakened state. Job demands that Satan step out from hiding behind his wife (27:1). The depiction of Satan hiding behind Sitidos implies that he is craven. The image emasculates him as well as he shows himself as anything but courageous.338 Up until now, Satan has only appeared before Job in disguise (beggar, 7:1; whirlwind, 20:6; Sitidos, 26:7). On that account, Job begs his enemy “Does the lion show his strength in a cage? Is the fledgling able to take flight while in a basket” (27:2)ς The rhetorical questions challenge Satan to show what power he has outside of his costumes. Job even defies Satan to do to him what he does best: make war.339 He urges his enemy, “Come out and do battle with me” (27:2)! Satan proves to be a less than formidable adversary however. When he finally emerges, he appears weeping before Job, indicating once more his shamefulness and effeminacy in the narrative.340 Satan‟s admission of defeat to Job is influenced by Stoic thought. As we saw in chapter two, the Stoics asserted that the act of enduring the passions was comparable to that of a struggle. While these moralists repeatedly drew on wrestling bouts and boxing-matches to construct their agonistic metaphors, they saved their praise for those men who concerned themselves with training their mind over their body. For Epictetus, for instance, the man able to withstand and conquer both the inner and outer opponents of his soul was the “true athlete in training” (2.18.27). This Stoic notion of endurance influenced the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo as well. In Every Good Person is Free, for instance, Philo reconfigures the notion of athleticism as a
338 Adamapoulos, “Endurance, Greek and Early Christian,” 247.
339 As we have seen throughout, warfare is a defining aspect of Satan‟s identity as a male character in the narrative (cf. 4:4; 7:11; 17:8; 18:6).
340 Adamapoulos, “Endurance, Greek and Early Christian,” 247.
120 term denoting physical prowess to one that signifies endurance and fortitude. He states: I have seen before now during the contest of the pancratiasts, one man inflicting all of the blows with both his hands and feet with unerring aim and leaving nothing unattempted which might bring victory. But exhausted and drained, he leaves the stadium uncrowned, but the one who has received the blows, having been pressed and hardened of flesh, being rough and unyielding, filled with the spirit of an athlete being wholly made of sinews—which are rock hard and made of iron—never giving into the blows, but through endurance able to outlast his adversary and at last is made purified through patience to the point of complete victory (Good Person 26).341 In the same fashion, when Satan finally confronts Job he describes their conflict as a wrestling bout between two athletes. The interweaving of gender and disability permeates Satan‟s explanation of how the bout unfolded. Satan says that he was the active competitor “on top” and Job was the one “below” enduring all of his blows.342 Satan claims to have filled Job‟s mouth with sand and “having mangled” (sugkla/sav) all of Job‟s limbs at will, but Job continued to show “perseverance” (karteri/an).343 The final outcome of the wrestling bout is ironic to say the least. Despite being the more active of the two competitors, Satan is the one who reacts in the not-so-manly fashion by tearfully submitting before Job (27:7); in so doing, the narrative emasculates him once again as his tears signify his inability to control his emotions. Ultimately, Job and the athlete described by Philo appear one and the same. Both achieve victory, not by besting
341 h!dh pot 0 ei]don e0n a)gw~ni pagkratiastw~n to_n me\n e0pife/ronta ta_j plhga_j kai\ xersi\ kai\ posi\ kai\ pa&saj eu)sko&pwj kai\ mhde\n paraleloipo&ta tw~n ei0j to_ nika~n a)peirhko&ta kai\ pareime/non kai\ pe/raj a)stefa&nwton e0celqo&nta tou~ stadi/ou, to_n de\ tupto&menon, u(po_ pukno&thtoj sarkw~n pepilhme/non, strufno&n, nasto&n, o!ntwj ge/monta pneu&matoj a)qlhtikou~, di 0 o#lwn neneurwme/non, oi[a pe/tran h@ si/dhron, ou)de\n me\n pro_j ta_j plhga_j e0ndo&nta, th_n de\ tou~ a)ntipa&lou du&namin tw|~ karterikw|~ kai\ pagi/w| th~j u(pomonh~j kaqh|rhko&ta me/xri pantelou~j ni/khj.
342 Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity,” 283, deserves credit for recognizing that Satan‟s description of Job here is blatantly feminized.
343 Cees Haas, “Job‟s Perseverance in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 125-127, notes that as rarely as karteri/a appears in Hellenistic Jewish literature (appearing only in Philo and 4 Maccabees) it appears even less in Christian literature of the period.
121 their opponent through physical strength or skill but by outlasting them through determination and inner resolve. From the standpoint of gender, the scene of Job conquering Satan denotes a clash of competing masculinities in the narrative. On the one hand, Satan‟s masculinity closely resembles Job‟s prior to his ordeal. Indeed, the narrative couches Satan‟s efforts to take control of Job‟s speech as warfare, to signify that his masculinity is measured by his ability to dominate the bodies of others. As in the portrayal of Job prior to his ordeal, the ability to master others necessitates a body that is fully-functional. The verbs associated with Satan throughout the story make certain that he is physically unconstrained: the narrative reports that Satan “came down” (kath~lqen; 16:1), “burned up” (e0flo/gisen; 16:1), “destroyed” (a0nei~len; 16:2), “toppled the house” (kate/balen to\n oi1kon; 18:1), “overturned my throne” (to\n qro/non mou kate/streyen; 20:6), “followed her ... walking stealthily” (h0koulou/qei a0uth~| ... peripatw~n kekrumme/nov; 24:13). Even in the realm of metaphor Satan is characterized by verbs that connote his able-bodiedness: “he threw down” (kate/rrhcen; 27:6), “having filled” (plh/sav; 27:6), “having mangled” (sugkla/sav; 27:6). It is this able-bodied portrayal of Satan that makes Job‟s victory so ironic. Job conquers his warring adversary in a body that is passive, docile and weak. The rhetorical thrust of Job‟s ironic victory seems clear at least for now. By depicting Job as overcoming a male character who is able-bodied as he once was, the narrative seemingly offers a resounding endorsement of passive endurance as a legitimate expression of masculinity. The narrative appears to underscore the superiority of this practice once more as Job confronts his friends following his encounter with Satan.
Job Confronts His Friends In chapters twenty-eight through forty-three, Job confronts his four friends in the narrative. Whereas in biblical tradition Job‟s friends interrogate Job on the matter of retributive justice, their concern in T. Job is his decision to take up residence on the dunghill in expectation of an otherworldly city. Not counting the appearance of Sitidos in thirty-nine and forty, the order of appearance of the friends is as follows:
122 A Elious B Eliphaz, Bildad, Sophar A’ Elious
What is unique here is the expanded role of Elious in T. Job. Whereas the speeches of Elious seem almost as a secondary addition to the book of Job,344 the character takes on added significance here, acting as the ringleader of the four kings. As an agent of Satan, Elious is the most belligerent of the group. His interest is not in managing Job‟s unruly body but in ridiculing it. While the other three kings seem more concerned with the well- being of their friend, their efforts to diagnose and treat Job‟s body place in jeopardy his willingness to endure. In this respect, therefore, Job‟s confrontation with his friends is not unlike his previous confrontation with Satan: both episodes place in narrative opposition Job‟s self-control and their desire to take control of him. Also like Satan, all four men are depicted as kings in order to symbolize this masculine ideal. And while the confrontation between Job and his friends is not cast as warfare (as it is with Job‟s conflict with Satan), that the kings arrive at Job‟s dunghill with their troops in tow (30:1; 34:2, 6), signifies a clash in competing masculinities once again.
Setting the Stage Like the biblical story, the scene opens with the four kings having come from far off regions to console Job. The men lament Job‟s condition, stationing themselves with their friend for seven days and seven nights. Acting as narrator, Job reports that none of the kings spoke to him during this time. Peculiarly, Job adds that their silence was not on account of their patience (makroqumou~ntev), but because they remembered Job when his wealth surpassed even their own (28:5). The writer inserts an anecdotal story to demonstrate the disparity in wealth between the kings. Job asserts that when he would offer the kings precious stones from his kingdom, they would declare aloud that there was none more noble than he (28:6-7). From a rhetorical standpoint, the opening scene establishes upfront the gender identities of both Job and his friends. On the one hand, by having Job clarify that the silence of the four men is not an indication of “patience,” the
344 Carol Newsom, The Book of Job. A Contest of Moral Imaginations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 200-202.
123 writer makes clear that the logical self-control that defines Job‟s masculinity does not define theirs. On the other hand, the anecdotal tale detailing Job‟s once great wealth says something about his masculine identity as well. Indeed, the audience will soon witness Job dominate his friends through his superior reason. Even when Job‟s masculinity depended on his dominance of the material realm, however, Job was still a better man than his fellow kings.
Narrative Opposition of Job and the Four Kings The superiority of Job‟s masculinity over that of the four kings intensifies as the plot unfolds. Whereas Job‟s condition should leave him shamed in their presence, narratival evidence suggests that this is not the case at all. To accentuate the superiority of Job‟s masculinity, the writer makes the four kings appear both weak and ineffectual while in Job‟s presence. Chapters twenty-nine and thirty indicate that Job‟s self-mastery makes him a better man than his friends. On seeing Job for the first time, the men are so dumbfounded by Job‟s appearance that they question whether or not he is even their fellow-king (29:1-3). Weeping and throwing dirt on his head, Job responds “I am” (29:1). The response of the four kings to Job‟s statement is quite remarkable. As one might expect, the men join Job in lamentation, but do so in an entirely hysterical and exaggerated manner. The narrator reports that on hearing Job‟s admission, they “collapsed” (katerrhme/nouv) to the ground “in a faint” (e0kluqe/ntev) for three hours “as if dead” (w9v nekrou/v; 30:1-3).345 The reaction of the kings‟ troops on seeing the men lament in such an over the top manner should not be overlooked.346 The narrator reports that the troops “were disturbed” (taraxqh/twn) on seeing the behavior of their kings (30:1).347 The reaction of the soldiers invites the reader to see the unrestrained mourning
345 Interestingly by falling to the ground “as if dead” (w9v nekrou/v) they symbolize with their actions their own thoughts on Job‟s condition. Indeed, in 30:4 they ask “How has this one now fallen into such a deathly state (nekro/thta).”
346 Note the difference between the mourning of the kings in 30:1 and 28:4-5 which follows the LXX. There, the men cry aloud, throw dirt on their head, and tear their garments on seeing Job for the first time. What is notable here, is that Job appears more restrained than the four kings here as well as there is no indication that Job laments in this scene whatsoever.
347 I am following Manuscript V here instead of Manuscript S. S states that the men “were hushed” (koimhqe/ntwn) instead of “were troubled” (taraxqh/twn). From a structural standpoint, the latter seems
124 of the kings as an embarrassment to onlookers. From a rhetorical standpoint, the writer has placed their reaction in narrative opposition to that of Job to demonstrate just how reserved Job‟s display of emotion is in the scene. While Job mourns his condition, he exhibits self-control just as he has throughout the remainder of the narrative. In contrast, the excessive mourning of the kings--a sure sign that they have failed to master their emotions--is intended to emasculate their characters. Not only has their immoderate display of lamentation troubled their troops but their mourning has surpassed the very one who is experiencing the suffering! The second instance in which the austere discipline of Job outshines the discipline of his friends comes in chapter thirty-one. Still not convinced that the man sitting before them is their friend, the kings decide to investigate the matter more intently (31:1). Somewhat farcically, the reek emanating from Job‟s body proves so great that the men have their soldiers perfume the area around him in order to make his body more manageable (31:2). Kugler and Rohrbaugh argue that the stench arising from Job‟s body occasioned by the twenty years he has spent on a dunghill is a sign of his shame.348 The language of the text indicates otherwise. In chapter thirty-five, his friends confess that they were not “strong enough” (i0sxu/samen) to approach Job‟s body despite being in good health (35:2). Masculinity and strength are often intertwined concepts and they are here as well. Their admission highlights Job‟s ability to endure his circumstances and their inability to bear his ordeal even for a short period of time.
The Kings Endeavor to Master Job Thus far, the narrative has portrayed Job‟s friends as incapable of exhibiting the same kind of self-mastery as Job. As men, they appear somewhat inadequate before the reader, especially given Job‟s own ability to exhibit such austere discipline. Beginning in chapter thirty-one, however, the four kings begin to flex their own muscles so to speak, in
the more accurate reading as it establishes a parallel between this scene and the scene of Job‟s downfall in chapter twenty. Indeed just as Job falls off of his throne for three hours and becomes “troubled” (taraxh?~; 20:4-8), these kings fall to the ground for three hours, troubling their troops in the process. I am not the only one who follows V over S for this reason. Marc Philonenko, “Le Testament de Job. Introduction, Traduction et Notes,” Semitica 18 (1968): 42, does as well, although he is not explicit in the ways in which the two scenes parallel.
348 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 56.
125 order to bring the Joban body under control. We have already witnessed their attempt to manage the scent of his body. With their failure to control his stench, they endeavor to dominate Job by stripping him of his honor, redefining his mental state and hospitalizing his body.
The Shame of Lamentation Of the four men, Elious‟ effort to master Job is not only the most derisive of the three, but also the most sly. On learning that the man who sits before him is in fact Job, Elious bemoans his friend‟s condition in a hymn of mourning. The narrator frames the mourning hymn as a royal lament intended to “disclose” (u9podeiknu/ntov) the wealth of Job, but the language of the hymn morphs into an invective as it reaches its culmination (32:1). To be sure, Elious bewails the loss of Job‟s possessions in the initial eight stanzas, each time ending with the antiphonal question “Where now is the glory of your throneς” With the ninth stanza, however, Elious‟ disclosure turns noticeably sarcastic as the ironic set of circumstances that surround Job‟s condition take center stage in his hymn. Elious states that where Job once led the song of the assembly he now sits in a stench (32:9). In stanza ten, Elious asserts that whereas Job once owned both silver and golden lamp stands he now awaits the moon‟s illumination (32:10). In the eleventh stanza, Elious declares that whereas Job once possessed the ointment of the frankincense tree he now is in a state of “embarrassment” (a0pori/a|; 32:11). The final stanza represents the crescendo of the lament, and fittingly it proves the most biting of all twelve verses. Elious asserts that whereas Job was the one who once laughed at the unjust and sinners, he now has become the “joke” (xleu/h|; 32:12). The hymn epitomizes Bakhtin‟s notion of double-voicededness, as the language of the song both mourns Job‟s condition while deriding him at the same time.349 Though he couches his terms within the framework of a lament, clearly Elious sees Job as a figure of shame, calling him an “embarrassment” and a “joke.” Much of the reason for Elious‟ outlook has to do with the fact that he does not share Job‟s decentered perspective;350 in
349 Barbara Green, Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship. An Introduction (SBLSS 38; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 35.
350 Again, Wills, “Ascetic Theology,” 903, states “In modern and postmodern thought, „decentering the
126 other words, he is only capable of seeing Job through the social conventions of this world because the social conventions of the heavenly realm (which rewards endurance) remain undisclosed to him.351 Equally true, however, is that the double-voicedness of Elious‟ hymn makes sense in light of later circumstances in the narrative. In chapter forty-one, the audience learns that it is Satan who speaks through the mouth of Elious (41:7). When we consider that duplicity is a defining characteristic of Satan‟s identity in T. Job the double-voiced nature of Elious‟ lamentation does not appear so strange (cf. 7:1; 22:1- 23:13; 26:7; 27:1). Elious‟ insincere utterance functions to foreshadow what the writer will reveal later in the narrative. His identity is closely aligned with Satan. The other three kings join Elious in weeping, seemingly unaware that his words represent an affront to Job‟s reputation (33:1). As for Job, his reasoning has allowed him to see through guises elsewhere in the narrative, and Elious‟ attempt to disgrace his reputation does not gone unrecognized here either (3:4; 7:1; 26:7). Indeed, Job retorts that while his kingdom is eternal, the kings who stand before him and the splendor are passing away (33:9). If we think about honor as situated hierarchically on a social ladder,352 Eliphaz‟s response to Job‟s utterance makes certain that Job has gotten the last laugh in this war of words. Eliphaz states that whereas Job “sits” (ka/qhtai) in worms and a stench, he has “raised himself up against us” (e0gei/retai kaq 0 h9mw~n) by declaring that their kingdoms are passing away (34:4). Conversely, Eliphaz asserts, Job‟s rejoinder has “put us down” (kate/lusen h9ma~v; 34:4). The honor-shame dynamic embedded in Eliphaz‟s language of ascent and descent is ironic to say the least. Job has claimed a higher honor status than that of his friends despite appearing physically disgraceful.353
self,‟ arises when the human being becomes aware that views of reality that place the self at the center of the plane of consciousness are socially constructed.”
351 On Elious‟ lack of knowledge in T. Job, see John Collins, “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1974 Seminar Papers (ed. George MacRae; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Ma: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), 45-46.
352 Malina, New Testament World, 31-33.
353 Job‟s claim to honor here has as much to do with his decentered perspective as anything else. Indeed, the earthly perpsective of the four kings leaves them no other choice but to see Job‟s reputation as shameful. Conversely, Job‟s heavenly knowledge informs him that the opposite is true, as his honor transcends theirs in the otherworldly realm.
127 That Job does so in the presence of their troops is also important (34:6). The failure of the four kings to counter Job‟s assertion presumes that Job has shamed them354 in the public arena of disputation.355
Imposing Madness on Job Unable to dominate Job through ridicule, Baldas attempts to bring Job under subjugation by imposing an identity of mental illness on his friend.356 Knowledge again establishes the narrative opposition in the scene, as Baldas‟ inability to see beyond the earthly realm leaves him no other choice but to diagnose his friend based on that which he sees with the naked eye.357 The audience shares Baldas‟ focalization as he compares the state of Job‟s body with the bodies of the four kings. Whereas Baldas sees Job as a man who is “living with many plagues,” the four kings appear “quite healthy” in his eyes (35:2). Baldas deems that Job‟s “condition” requires investigation (35: 4, 7; 37:8), but urges that he and his fellow kings must remain “patient” (makroqumh/swmen) in making their diagnosis (35:4). The use of makroqu/mew here is ironic, as Baldas‟ interrogation of Job is anything but. The scene makes clear once more that the four kings do not share Job‟s patience, as Baldas‟ speech escalates from questions to commands as he grows more and more frustrated by Job‟s responses. Baldas conjectures that Job‟s losses have left him “mentally deranged.” He questions whether Job‟s heart is in “stable condition,” to which Job retorts that it is no longer on earthly things. Baldas continues his cross-examination with two questions aimed at evaluating Job‟s mental health. If Job answers the one “sensibly” and the other
354 This, again, is contra Kugler and Rohrbaugh, On Women and Honor, 56, who miss how Job‟s retort shames his friends. They simply maintain that Job is publicly ridiculed after his assertion of an otherworldly throne.
355 Honor is a matter of public perception. Malina, New Testament World, 37, states “When the person challenged cannot or does not respond to the challenge posed by his equal, he loses his reputation in the eyes of the public. People will say he cannot or does not know how to defend his honor. He thus loses his honor to the challenger, who correspondingly gains honor.”
356 For a discussion on how loss of identity equates to loss of control during hospitalization, see Martin Sullivan, “Subjected Bodies. Paraplegia, Rehabilitation, and the Politics of Movement,” in Foucault and the Government of Disability (ed. Shelly Tremain; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005), 31-34.
357 Collins, “Structure and Meaning,” 42.
128 “calmly” Baldas asserts that he will know that his friend‟s “heart is not disordered” (36:8- 9). Job answer Baldas‟ first question correctly, acknowledging that it is God in whom he places his hope (37:1). Job stumbles—in Baldas‟ eyes at least—in his admission that God is also responsible for the plagues that afflict his body (38:3-4). On hearing Job‟s words, the interrogation becomes noticeably more heated. Baldas is losing his patience. One can almost hear the frustration in Baldas‟ voice as he cross-examines Job‟s views on divine justice.358 He inquires of his friend, “If you hope in God, then how does he act unjustly when he judges, inflicting on you these plagues or taking away your possessions” (37:5)ς Baldas commands Job to “Answer me concerning these matters,” but does not give Job the chance to respond. Instead, he presses Job even further. He asks his friend if he truly is in “stable condition” to explain the rise and fall of the sun (37:10). He finishes with yet another directive, ordering Job, “Advise me concerning these matters ... if you have your wits with you” (37:11). When Job finally responds he does so in the form of parody.359 Borrowing Baldas‟ own words, Job retorts in sarcastic fashion, “Advise me concerning these matters, if you have your wits. My wits are with me and there is understanding in my heart” (37:12-38:1).360 He then turns the table on Baldas by posing a question of his own. Job‟s query is paradoxical to say the least: Food through the mouth and then water is swallowed through the same throat. But when the two fall into the latrine, they are separated. Who, then, divides these things (38:4)? Job‟s question is ironic because it challenges Baldas in the one area where he claims expertise--i.e. the earthly realm. Indeed, whereas Baldas used his own health as grounds to assess Job‟s mental health, Job‟s question puts Baldas‟ knowledge of bodily processes
358 Collins, ibid., is right to note here that Baldas‟ “remarks on the impossibility of judging the ways of God indicate his own belief that heavenly knowledge is impossible.”
359 Green, Mikhail Bahtin and Biblical Scholarship, 51, points out that a parodic utterance is speech that has been redirected with hostility towards its target.
360 We saw during Job‟s confrontation with Satan that his ability to win his contest hinged on his ability to control his own speech. Job‟s ensuing statement makes certain that the same holds true during his confrontation with his friends also. Job inquires of Baldas, “Why should I not speak concerning the Lord‟s great things? Should my mouth completely stumble against the master” (28:2)ς
129 to the test. Baldas‟ response to Job‟s inquiry shows just how little he knows of human physiology. He retorts, “I don‟t know” (38:7). In pointing out the shortcomings of Baldas‟ earthly knowledge, Job makes Baldas appear hypocritical for questioning his special insight. Job‟s reply to his friend presumes as much. He inquires of Baldas, “if you do not comprehend the functions of the body, how can you comprehend heavenly matters” (38:8)ς Unable to respond to Job‟s challenge—and as result, shamed—Baldas disappears rather abruptly from the scene.361
Endeavoring to Hospitalize the Joban Body Whereas Baldas tries to take control of Job through his reason, Sophar attempts to take control of Job through his body. Sophar acknowledges that Job is in “stable condition” within himself (38:9). But Sophar‟s question to Job “What do you want us to do with youς” points to the effort of the kings to acquire control over their friend (38:11). Sophar informs Job that their physicians have come along for their journey (38:12). He offers Job their treatment if he would so like (38:12). While Sophar‟s offer of hospitalization appears harmless, read in the light of the patron-client relationship of the Greco-Roman world, it becomes clear how domination underlies his proposal.362 The patron-client relationship is a contract between parties of different social status, initiated by means of a positive confrontation, a positive gift, or request for assistance.363 The relationship is built on reciprocity as the party of lower status becomes obligated to the patron on account of the favor.364 In this instance, should Job accept Sophar‟s offer he would then be indebted to his fellow king; that is, Sophar would become Job‟s patron or benefactor. This is problematic as it would discontinue Job‟s patronage with the Divine. Instead of accepting his friend‟s offer to be hospitalized, therefore, Job elects to endure
361 See footnote 355.
362 For a fuller treatment on the patron-client relationship in antiquity, see my discussion on benefaction in chapter two of this project.
363 Malina, New Testament World, 101.
364 Ibid., 102.
130 his suffering.365 Persisting in his new mode of masculinity, Job refuses Sophar‟s offer on the grounds that his “healing and treatment are from the Lord, who created even the physicians” (38:13). Job‟s explanation for remaining the Lord‟s client follows a syllogistic line of reasoning.366 Implicit in his explanation is that, because the Lord made the physicians, he is a more capable physician than they are.367 With the offer rebuffed, the narrative provides an interlude in chapter thirty-nine with the return of Sitidos. Job‟s final confrontation with his friends will transpire in chapter forty-one, when Elihu attempts to damage Job‟s reputation once more.
The Convergence of Elious and Satan in the Testament of Job Job states that his friends continue to argue and make boasts against him for twenty-seven days (41:1). When they finally determine to return to their homelands, Elious binds them with an oath, obligating them to remain until he clarifies the situation to Job. Elihu accuses Job of speaking “grandiosely and excessively” about the throne he has awaiting him in the heavenly realm (41:5). Taking this as an affront, Elious determines to disclose Job‟s “non-existent portion” (meri/da au0tou~ ou0x u9pa/rxousan). Within the framework of honor and shame, Elious‟ aim here is to damage whatever reputation Job thinks his status in the heavenly realm affords him. Oddly, however, the narrative does not include Elious‟ tirade. The narrator glosses over Elious‟ speech, stating simply that, “filled with Satan, he uttered arrogant words against [Job]” (41:7).
365 Peter Nicholls, “The Structure and Purpose of the Testament of Job” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1982), 60, asserts that after chapter twenty seven the motif of endurance as it relates to Job disappears from the narrative. While the narrative neither u9pomonh/ nor makroqumei~n appear with respect to Job in these later chapters, I would argue that the concepts continue to underlie Job‟s interactions with his friends. First, as I have pointed out in my exegesis, the narrative uses makroqumei~n in relation to Job‟s friends in order to demonstrate that their patience in no way compares to Job‟s. Second, Job‟s endurance is implied in this particular scene, as he decides to wait until the Lord delivers him from his ordeal rather than accept Sophar‟s assistance.
366 For a discussion on syllogistic forms of argumentations in ancient texts, see Vernon Robbins, “Argumentative Textures in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts. Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference (eds. Anders Eriksson et al.; Emory Studies in Early Christianity; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), 27-65.
367 From the standpoint of sociology, the assertion that the Lord is a more capable healer than human physicians insinuates a tension between the healthcare system in the professional sector of ancient society and the popular sector (see John Pilch, “Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke- Acts. Models for Interpretation [ed. Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, MASS.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991], 192-197).
131 Animalization and Passion It is at this point in the narrative the Lord censures Elious and reveals that a beast speaks through him and not a man (42:2); the beast, of course, is figurative for Satan. The triangulation between Elious, Satan, and earth‟s creatures continues in the dirge in chapter forty-three. There, Elious is lamented as one who “loved the beauty of the serpent and the scales of the dragon, and its venom and its poison are his food.” What is more, just as Satan is figured as a character of anger (cf. 4:4; 7:11), the dirge states that “wrath” and “anger” belong to Elious (43:8). If the serpent imagery is a metaphor for Satan,368 then fittingly Elious has also taken on the attributes of a snake. The lament affirms that Elious had “the poison of an asp on his tongue,” calling to mind the harsh invective he leveled against Job. The animalization of passionate men such as Elious and Satan was a common trope in antiquity. To be sure, because yielding to one‟s intrinsic desires was deemed irrational in antiquity, men who did so invariably found their identity linked with that which was non-male. As gender was envisioned along a sliding scale in the Greco- Roman world,369 the gender of the unrestrained man was often conceived of in feminine terms; this primarily is because women were believed to be more prone to give in to their desires than men.370 But irrational men were not only figured as effeminate males. Whereas ancient writers conceded that women could be directed toward rational
368 In Christian exegesis Satan is often identified with serpent and dragon imagery (cf. Rev 12:9, 18), and that imagery seems implicit here as well (T. Job 43:6). But the narrative also understands Satan‟s relationship to the serpent in manner similar to what is found in the pseudepigraphical document, the Life of Adam of Eve. As John Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 247, has already noted that in both narratives Satan appears as a deceiver capable of leading women astray. What is also notable about the figure of Satan in Adam and Eve, is that the serpent and Satan are not one and the same. Rather, Satan merely speaks through the serpent, transforming it into his “vessel” (16:1-6). In a similar manner, Satan in T. Job does not take over the bodies of those whom he deceives in the narrative. As in the case of Elious here, Satan merely speaks through him--that is, his “serpent”--in order to ridicule Job‟s heavenly apportionment.
369 See my discussion in chapter three where I deal with this under the heading “Job as Master of His Household.”
370 Philo writes “For just as the character of a man is made by the virtues called wise or self-controlled or just or courageous, so from the vices he is called unjust and foolish and unmanly (a1nandrov) whenever he gestures to invite and welcome in the desires” (Allegorical Interpretation 2.18; w3sper ga\r a0po\ tw~n a0retw~n o9 kat 0 au0ta\v poio\v kalei~tai fro/nimov h1 sw/frwn h1 di/kaiov h1 a0ndrei~ov, ou3twv a0po\ tw~n kakiw~n a1dikov kai\ a1frwn kai\ a1nandrov, e0peida\n ta\v e3ceiv proskale/shtai kai\ deciw/shtai).
132 decision-making, aside from a few exceptions,371 most regarded animals as altogether incapable of controlling their passions. In what would have probably been considered a greater insult than being feminized in antiquity, writers sometimes depicted the uninhibited man with animalistic features. This was especially true as it relates to those persons who gave in to the more violent passions. Plutarch describes the cruelties enacted by angered tyrants as “the bites of serpents … they eject their fiery violence on those who have pained them” (On The Control of Anger 8.457).372 Philo, who explicitly distinguishes between the “raging passions” and the “beastlike evils,” also animalizes those who practice cruelty (Abraham 33). In Against Flaccus, Philo describes those who tortured the Jews as having been transformed into “the nature of wild beasts” on account of their “savagery” (66). Similarly, in Special Laws, Philo argues that those who continually commit crimes ought to be punished, because like “untamable wild beasts,” they “find all their pleasure and benefit from causing evil to all whom they are able” (Special Laws 18.103).373 In the Testament of Dan, the patriarch depicts himself along the lines of a beast because he tried to kill his own brother. Dan asserts that the spirit of anger persuaded him to act as a “leopard” (pa&rdalij) and “squeeze out” (e0kmuza) the blood of Joseph (T. Dan 1:8). From these examples we see that ancients regarded as less- than-human men who exhibited violent and uncontrollable rage. We can presume that the writer of T. Job has animalized both Elious and Satan for the very same reasons, as they too are portrayed as figures of wrath in the narrative. Their passions have not merely rendered them feminized in the scene but altogether sub-human. Indeed, even Sitidos can claim greater honor status than they can on account of her now dispassionate reason.
Animalization and False Accusation Physiognomy may provide another explanation for the characterization of Elious as a serpent here. Mikeal Parsons has demonstrated that a common trope in antiquity was
371 Plutarch‟s The Cleverness of Animals and Beasts are Rational is the exception and not the rule.
372 e1oike toi~v dh/gmai tw~n e9rpetw~n … th\n flegmonh\n pereidome/nwn sfodra\n toi~v leluphko/sin.
373 qhri/wn a0tiqa/swn … h9donh~| kai\ w0felei/a| th|~ pa/sh| tiqe/menoi to\ kakw~v poiei~n o3souv a1n du/nwntai.
133 to figure persons known for making false accusations along the lines of a viper or snake.374 Among the several examples Parsons uses to illustrate his argument, Demosthenes‟ recommendation for how to deal with persons who are like vipers is most beneficial here. Demosthenes states, “Perhaps none of you has ever been bitten by an adder or a tarantula, and I hope he never may be. All the same, whenever you see such creatures, you promptly kill them all. In just the same way, men of Athens, whenever you see a false accuser, a man with the venom of a viper in his nature, do not wait for him to bite one of you, but always let the man who comes across him exact punishment” (1 Aristog. 1.25.96).375 The association between the figure of the snake and false accusation is notable for this study as Elious, in essence, brings up false charges against Job by denying that Job has a portion in the heavenly realm. This also links the identities of Elious and Satan in yet another manner, as earlier in the narrative, Satan made bogus claims that Job had used up all of the good things from the land in helping the poor (17:1).
No Restoration for Elious Finally, the animalization of Elious also explains why the sacrifices Job makes on behalf of his friends fail to restore Elious‟ soul. As pointed out in the last chapter, whereas sacrifice is an ineffective measure for women in T. Job, for male characters who speak contemptuous utterances in the narrative, sacrifice functions to restore them to their true rational temperament (cf. 15:7). On account of his animalized status, however, Elious‟ soul is outside of the bounds of sacrificial repair. No longer human by nature, his identification with beasts and serpents prohibits him from experiencing interior restoration altogether.376
374 Mikeal Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts. The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Antiquity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2006), 73-76.
375 Ibid., 75. This is Parson‟s translation.
376 The Lord may also deny Elious restoration because he has instigated the confrontation between Job and his fellow kings. Indeed, the three kings assert that Elious “provoked to anger his honored ones,” suggesting that he is the one responsible for their passionate dispositions (43:7). On a side note, it is interesting that the kings recognize that their anger is uncharacteristic of men of honorable reputation. This further indicates that they were in a state of shame while confronting Job (although they did not recognize it at the time) as they let their emotions get the best of them.
134 Conclusion The losses of his property and the debilitation of his body transform Job‟s masculine identity. No longer exhibiting a gender defined by mastery over others, Job‟s new mode of masculinity is characterized by self-control and inner mastery. The narrative demonstrates the superiority of Job‟s reformulated gender through his conflicts with both Satan and his friends. Signifying the hegemonic masculinity that once characterized Job‟s masculine identity, they each fail to dominate Job‟s body despite his passiveness, docility and weakness. Sitidos‟ function in the narrative, as other scholars have pointed out, is that of a literary foil. Analysis of the structural and literary levels of the text demonstrates that Sitidos‟ servitude parallels Job‟s own ordeal in the narrative. Whereas the writer portrays Job as willingly submitting to his labors, Sitidos represents the antithetical figure whose desire to escape her toil proves her ultimate downfall. With the success that Job experiences with his new masculine identity, one would think that the writer would be content to conclude his narrative with Job remaining in his new state. Indeed, as it stands now, there is no mention of Job‟s bodily restoration in T. Job when the Lord breaks in and reprimands Job‟s friends for the contemptuous utterances (42:1-8). As we shall see in the next chapter, however, the narrative has not yet reached complete resolution in terms of Job‟s disabled body. The audience will soon discover that Job experiences physical repair after all, and that his masculine identity undergoes yet another shift in the process.
135 CHAPTER FIVE JOB‟S DOMINANCE OVER HIS SOUL AND OTHERS
Introduction Chapters forty-four and forty-five detail the restoration of Job‟s masculinity in the narrative. In this section, Job is transformed into a complete man: having shown his ability to master his interiority, the Lord grants him the economic means to master others once again. Whereas the narrative could seemingly end with Job‟s deathbed address in forty-five, unfinished business still remains. Beginning in chapter forty-six, Job‟s daughters take center stage in the story as Job confers to them magical cords given to him by the Lord. Most scholars have seen the cords as having a positive effect as they impart heavenly gifts to Job‟s daughters. If we ask what implications these cords have for their identities as women, however, we discover that these gifts ultimately undermine whatever positive value they might hold. Indeed, not only do the cords remove whatever womanly interests they might have, but they cover up the physical markers of their gender as well. The heavenly language also transforms the women‟s speech, thereby neutralizing the possibility that they might utter contemptuous words or voice their earthly concerns. By rendering the women silent, the heavenly cords transform their bodies into that which men can more easily manage.
Job as Master Over Others Once Again With the conclusion of his ordeal, Job enters his city and resumes his role as patron. Job‟s reentry into the city is a fitting one. Indeed, the city, as we saw in the last chapter, is a male space of power signifying mastery over others (T. Job 44:1). The sacrifice Job made on behalf of his fellow kings in 42:5-6 has placed them in his debt. Acting as their “benefactor” (eu0ergesi/av), Job obliges them to repay him for his services (44:3). In order to establish his reputation as patron of the poor, Job has his friends donate a lamb and a tetradrachma coin to support his cause (44:5-7). Job reports that the Lord doubled all of his possessions in the process (44:7), increasing his reputation in
136 turn.377
Job‟s Final Address to His Children Chapter forty-five transports the reader back to Job‟s deathbed. He concludes his address by making his final requests to his children. Gender becomes a prominent theme in the narrative once more as Job places different demands on his sons and daughters. To his seven sons, Job asks that they continue to work on behalf of the poor (45:3). Job divides all of his property among his seven heirs in order that they can carry out his wishes without difficulty (45:5; 46:4). Job‟s daughters become “distressed” (luphqei~sai) when they see that they did not receive the same gifts as their brothers (46:3). They ask of Job, “Our father sir, are we not also your childrenς Why did you not give us a portion of your possessions” (46:3)ς Job calms his daughters, urging them not to be “troubled” (taraxqh~te). He reassures them that the gift he has set aside for them as an inheritance surpasses that of their brothers (46:5). Job has his daughter Hemera bring three golden boxes from his chamber. After she returns with the boxes, Job opens them revealing three shimmering bands inexpressible in appearance (46:8). The narrator explains that the reason the bands transcend description is on account of their origins. The bands are not from earth but heaven (46:7). Job gives a band to each of his daughters, urging “Place them around your neck so that it will be well with you all of the days of your life” (46:9). The daughters doubt the efficacy of the bands at first, questioning Job whether they will truly be able to sustain life from them (47:3). It is at this juncture that Job recounts to his daughters how he himself acquired these heavenly bands. In doing so, the audience learns for the first time that Job‟s body did in fact experience “repair” following his ordeal.
Repairing the Joban Body in the Testament of Job One of the overarching questions of this project is whether gender identities ruptured by disability find repair in the narrative. As we saw last chapter, Sitidos experiences restoration of her gender once she has become like a man and relinquished
377 Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job,” JSP 14.1 (2004): 57, are right that the doubling of Job‟s possessions, while “seemingly acquired through endurance, in act is entirely ascribed honor from the Heavenly One.”
137 the desires of her heart. She represents the antithetical female in the narrative as the story devalues her body until she recognizes the importance of relinquishing her maternal and wifely interests in exchange for a passionless heart. Yet, while the narrative “repairs” Sitidos by making her interiority like that of a man, the writer still removes her from the story altogether. As for Job, he now represents the hypermasculine ideal. On the one hand, Job claims on his deathbed that he is a man who “exhibits (geno/menov) complete endurance” (1:3). On the other hand, by resuming his role as benefactor within the city, Job once again realizes his masculinity by controlling others through a system of patronage as well. Job‟s new masculine identity is a hybrid of who he was before his trial and who he was during it. What the narrative has not yet made plain, however, is the state of Job‟s body following his ordeal. If Job remains in a state of endurance, does this also mean that his body has not been restored to its former condition? Nothing could be further from the truth. In chapter one I introduced the theory of Mitchell and Snyder that narrative plotlines rarely achieve complete resolution until the disabled body appear as close to the culture‟s standard of physical normalcy as possible.378 While Mitchell and Snyder validate their thesis using modern literature primarily, if T. Job is any indication, their theory of repair extends to ancient literature as well. Indeed, in chapter forty-seven the narrative recounts the restoration of the Joban demonstrating just how closely intertwined the bodily constellations of masculinity and able-bodiedness are for the writer. The restoration of the Joban body takes place in chapter forty-seven. The scene is a reconfiguration of the Lord‟s confrontation with Job in the Hebrew Bible, so it will prove beneficial to revisit that scene first before looking at its retelling in T. Job. In the biblical story, Job dares the Lord to explain the grounds on which he allows an innocent man to suffer (31:35-37). When the Lord finally responds to Job‟s challenge in chapter thirty-eight, his retort is anything but conciliatory or apologetic in tone. Rather, the Lord interprets Job‟s challenge as an affront to his masculinity, and uses the opportunity to flex his muscles before Job. The Lord opens his speech asking, “Who is this who darkens my
378 David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis. Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), 53.
138 counsel” (38:2)ς The question sets the tone for what follows as the Deity‟s refusal to recognize Job by name makes clear just how insignificant he is in the eyes of the Lord. The discrediting of Job‟s status as a man continues in verse three. The Lord invokes his authority over Job, commanding him to “Gird up your loins like a man! I will question you and you will answer me” (38:3). As far as loin-girding goes in biblical tradition, it is a decidedly male act.379 The command “gird your loins” was an idiomatic expression in biblical tradition signifying a directive to marshal one‟s courage (cf. I Sam 2:4; 2 Ki 2:49, 9:1; Jer 1:17; Nah 2:1); in other words, it does not appear to have been a command to be taken literally. This seems to be what it means in the book of Job also, as there is no indication that Job actually girds himself following the Lord‟s command. On the heels of this command, the Lord bombards Job with a series of rhetorical questions designed to put Job in his place as a human being. The Lord defies his human challenger to exhibit his own handiwork in creation, but Job can not respond in a positive fashion. He only remains silent. With each passing question it becomes more and more clear that the Lord‟s command for Job to gird his loins is entirely ironic—there is simply no amount of courage which Job might muster that could make him a worthy opponent for the Divine. The episode proves an emasculating experience, as Job ultimately confesses to the Lord, “I am dishonored” 380 (ytlq; 40:4); this is a clear admission that his reputation is in a state of desecration. Shortly thereafter, Job stands down from his challenge, despising himself by sitting in the shame of dust and ashes (42:6).381
379 Heike Omerzu, “Women, Magic and Angels: On the Emancipation of Job‟s Daughters in the Apocryphal Testament of Job,” Bodies in Question. Gender, Religion, Text (eds. Darlene Bird and Yvonne Sherwood; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005), 92-94, has already done the footwork for all of the many instances in which loin-girding appears in biblical and extra-biblical tradition. All but one of the examples she pulls out are of men girding their loins, with the one exception being Aseneth in Joseph and Aseneth. But I would suggest that even there loin-girding is a masculinizing act. Indeed, at the behest of the angel, Aseneth girds her waist with the “twin girdle of her virginity” (Jos. As. 14:12). Almost immediately thereafter, the angel commands her to remove her veil because her head “is like that of a young man” (15:2). As an unpenetrated female, Aseneth‟s body remains more masculine than feminine making the act of loin-girding not so unusual in this instance.
380 Bruce Malina, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 41.
381 There are at least two ways to translate rp) rp(-l( ytmxnw s)m) Nk-l( in Job 42:6. One way to translate the phrase is “Therefore, I despise myself and I repent in dust and ashes.” In this case, Job
139 In T. Job the Lord‟s command for Job to gird his loins takes on a different meaning. Indeed, whereas the original utterance was intended to emasculate Job in the biblical narrative, the writer reconfigures the command, giving it restorative powers in its new setting. Job reports to his daughters that the Lord commanded him to “Arise, gird your loins like a man. I will question you and you answer me” (T. Job 47:5). Whereas the Lord shames Job into stepping down from his disputation in the biblical narrative, his command that Job “arise” signifies that he intends to honor Job. The act of loin-girding itself is also taken literally. The Lord gives Job actual bands which Job binds around his body. Loin-girding in the Hebrew Bible related to marshalling one‟s courage or inner resolve, but even this takes on more visible significance in T. Job. After Job girds himself, the cords actually augment Job‟s physical strength, restoring him to his former state. It is on this point that the link between able-bodiedness and masculinity is made most clear in the narrative. Job girds himself with the cords and immediately he is healed of his diseases. As a result, Job reports to his daughters that his body “grew strong as if it had not suffered anything at all” (46:7). But not only did the cords enhance Job‟s strength. Job also says that he forgot the “the pains of his heart” (46:8); as a consequence he no longer exhibits signs of suffering even while on his deathbed (52:1). By making Job strong once more, the cords make his body correspond to his masculine identity. The appearance of Job‟s body signifies to onlookers that he is a man who achieves his masculinity by means of mastering others. Moreover, that Job is now impervious to pain indicates that his body is more than simply repaired—it is also enhanced. Having proven he is strong in spirit, Job is now strong in body as well.
The Rhetorical Implications of Job‟s Repair in The Testament of Job In chapter two we saw that the ability to dominate others represented the hegemonic masculine ideal in antiquity. This ideal was exemplified in the person of the king, and his ability to manage his region through both warfare and benefaction. With the onset of Job‟s physical suffering, T. Job supplies an alternative masculine identity for is admitting his guilt for challenging the Divine. This is how I take it here. It is possible to translate the phrase more positively however. Translating s)m as “relent” (instead of “despise”) and Mxn as “comfort” (instead of “repent”) it could be that Job has found consolation in recognizing the limits of humankind (i.e. that they are ultimately no more than dust and ashes).
140 its hero, as he turns inward to prove himself a man. The victories that Job achieves against Satan and the four kings seem to go a long way in disparaging the so-called hegemonic masculine ideal. Indeed, by having Job „conquer‟ these royal figures not by physical might but through inward qualities such as endurance, resolve, and self-control, the writer of T. Job seemingly joins the chorus of other Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish contemporaries who advocated self-mastery as the indispensable masculine achievement and not mastery over others. With Job‟s restoration, however, we find that his old masculinity has not disappeared altogether. It has reemerged as part of a hybrid form of masculinity that signifies Job‟s gender as a man. Any notion that endurance alone is sufficient enough for realizing one‟s masculinity is entirely undercut. That Job‟s reward entails a return to dominating his friends via benefaction suggests that, for the writer of T. Job, being able to master others socially is the most appropriate means for establishing male identity. What reinforces this message to the reader is the dearth of vocabulary and themes associated with endurance following Job‟s ordeal. Even Job‟s assertion on his deathbed that he is a man who “exhibits complete endurance” comes off as paradoxical, as we later learn that the girdle which he wears prevents him from suffering “labors and pains” (po/nou kai o0dunw~n; 52:1). If we juxtapose the characters of Job and the Lord in the narrative, we soon discover another way in which the narrative promotes hegemonic masculinity. As a result of his restoration, Job now has the ability to dominate others just as the Divine himself does. To be sure, the Lord is figured as a king throughout the course of the narrative.382 Similarly, whereas the writer leaves it unstated as to whether Job resumes his role as king after he reenters the city, the narrative is quite plain that Job will inherit a kingdom once he enters the heavenly realm (cf. T. Job 33:3-9). Job, as we saw in chapter three, demonstrates his mastery over others through his benefactions. In the same way, the manner in which Job and Satan interact with the Lord implies the Lord‟s reputation as supreme patron. As the Lord‟s clients, Job and Satan appear handcuffed in terms of what
382 The Lord is called basileu/v in 39:9 and the language of royalty surrounds his character throughout the story. The Lord promises Job a crown should he endure his ordeal (4:9), Job‟s children stand crowned by the Lord (40:5), and “crowns of encomia” (tw~n stefa/nwn tw~n e0gkwmi/wn) are said to lead the way before the Lord (43:11). In addition to crowns, thrones are also tied closely to the Lord in the narrative. Job, for instance, tells his friends that his throne “is in the supernatural realm, and its glory and dignity are from the right hand of the Father in heaven” (33:1).
141 they can perform in the narrative. They must first receive the Lord‟s authority before they can act. Job begs the Lord for the e0cousi/a to destroy the venerated idol (3:5), and Satan implores the Lord for e0cousi/a to commence both of his attacks against Job and his family (8:1; 20:1-3). Regarding the physical attributes of the Divine, we saw in T. Job chapter four that the Lord has a surplus of strength to bestow on others. He tells Job that as a consequence of enduring Satan‟s assault he will know that the Lord is “strong ... giving strength to his elect ones” (i0sxuro\v ... e0nisxu/wn tou\v e0klektou\v au0tou~; v. 9). With Job‟s body restored, he now appears physically dominant just like his Divine Benefactor. By depicting the Deity‟s gender along the lines of kingship, the narrative finds another way to promote dominance over others as a vital aspect of masculine identity. From the standpoint of Disability Studies, that Job‟s body finds repair before entering the heavenly realm speaks volumes. By having the Lord‟s words transform Job‟s body into one that feels no pain and is physically strong, the narrative establishes to the reader that masculinity is just as much about appearance as it is about performance. Stated another way, being able to dominate others and looking the part go hand in hand. What is more, the transformation of Job‟s body from one that is fragmented to one that is physically able sends a clear message about what true masculinity entails in the sight of the Lord: even in the heavenly realm authentic masculinity entails full-functionality. It is here that the narrative betrays its able-bodied bias. Rhetorically speaking, the narrative insinuates that men who do not look like Job—that is strong and fully-functional—are in some way deficient as men. Of course, it is not Job‟s body that is ushered away into the heavens, but his soul (52:5). That his spiritual ascension does not transpire until after the restoration of his body, however, suggests that ownership of an able-body is a prerequisite for the soul‟s entrance into the heavenly kingdom. What is odd here is that the standards of bodily functionality in the heavenly realm are not unlike that of the earthly realm. 383 In order to rule in the otherworldly kingdom, Job‟s earthly body must
383 4 Maccabees also suggests that standard appearance entails able-bodiedness in the heavenly realm. To be sure, that disablement provides 4 Maccabees with its rhetorical power is an understatement. On the one hand, disablement provides the incentive for divine retribution in Fourth Maccabees, as “divine justice” (qei/a di/kh) is said to pursue after Antiochus for piercing the pupils of the son‟s eyes and cutting out their tongues (18:21-22). On the other hand, and more importantly for this paper, the narrative repeatedly renders grotesque the bodies of Eleazer and the seven sons in order to illustrate the extent one should
142 first look like that of the paradigmatic Greco-Roman king.
Repairing the Daughters of Job in the Testament of Job The recontextualization of the Lord‟s words from Job 38:3 in T. Job 47:5-7 has as much to do with the imminent transformation of Job‟s daughters as it does with the transformation of Job himself. To be sure, Job reports the Lord‟s words while in the process of bequeathing to them the magical cords that once girded his own body. Job promises his daughters that by donning the bands, not only will they free their minds from anxieties but they will have insight into the heavenly realm as well (47:11-12). As each daughter girds her body with one of her father‟s cords, the narrator states that she receives a “changed heart” (48:2; 49:1; 50:1). The narrator further reports that as a consequence of their interior transformations, the focus of the daughters is changed from earthly things to heavenly things (48:3; 49:2; 50:1). As an indication of this interior change, each daughter also receives an angelic language with which she chants heavenly hymns (48:4; 49:2-3; 50:2-3).
Masculinizing the Outward Appearances of Job‟s Daughters Susan Garrett is correct that the transformation of Job‟s daughters implies an
remain committed to following the Law. The first son has his limbs mangled and broken (9:13). The second son has his joints twisted and bodily extremities dissevered by torture machines (9:17-22). The fingers, arms, and legs of the third son are dislocated from their sockets and twisted. The fourth son is rendered mute having his tongue severed from his mouth (10:20). The fifth son is bent backwards “like a scorpion,” disjointing all of his limbs. Where the writer of 4 Maccabees exploits disablement in order to make the resolve of the martyrs all the more plain—even going so far as to masculinize their passivity and docility throughout their ordeal (cf. 6:10; 11: 21-23)—the reader ultimately discovers that being fully functional really does matter. While the narrative does not promise restoration of the martyrs‟ physical body (as in T. Job) it does guarantee that able-bodiedness of the soul is something to anticipate. To be sure, at the death of Eleazer the writer informs us that although his muscles and his nerves were afflicted, he became through reason “youthful in spirit” (a)nene/asen tw~| pneu&mati) and “made perfect” (e0telei/wsen) through his death (7:13-15). Similarly, at the death of the first son, the narrator reports that although his body was severed, the youth was “transformed into incorruptible” (metasxhmatizo&menoj ei0j a)fqarsi/an) by his ordeal (9:22). The clearest indication that the martyrs‟ are now fully-functional in spirit comes in the closing verses of chapter seventeen. The narrator states that “the tyrant and all his council marveled at their endurance, on account of which they now stand before the throne and live the life of eternal blessedness” (au)to&j ge/ toi o( tu&rannoj kai\ o#lon to_ sumbou&lion e0qau&masan au)tw~n th_n u(pomonh&n di0 h$n kai\ tw~| qei/w| nu~n paresth&kasin qro&nw| kai\ to_n maka&rion biou~sin ai0w~na; 17:17-18). The operative term in the sentence is paresth&kasin. Whereas the physical limbs of these men were once mangled and twisted, as spirits they now “stand” able-bodied before God.
143 inward transformation of their identities as women in the narrative.384 To be sure, we have seen throughout this study that T. Job often depicts women as being anxious over their own self-preservation.385 The doormaid‟s concern for her own honor compels her to go against her master‟s wishes and offer good bread to the pauper at her door. Sitidos begs her husband to curse God, so that she herself might find relief from her bodily pains. With respect to Job‟s daughters, however, Job‟s cords remove concern for earthly matters from their mind. Indeed, before donning Job‟s cords, the audience learns that their reasons are not unlike that of Sitidos throughout Job‟s ordeal. The narrator links the two scenes through the verb tara/ssw. Whereas Sitidos was “troubled” over concern for her own suffering (26:7), Job‟s daughters are “troubled” over how they will survive without an inheritance (46:4). The cords have a calming effect, however, as they relieve Job‟s daughters of the “anxieties” (e0nqumh/seiv) in their mind (47:11). No longer concerned for their earthly survival, they become not unlike Sitidos at her death, as they now exist without emotions. With the elimination of their earthly concerns, the dispassionate reasoning of Job‟s daughters now resembles the dispassionate reasoning of men. There are other indications beyond the transformed reasons of the daughters that suggest an alteration of their female identities in the narrative. The donning of their father‟s cords masculinizes not only the interiority of the women, but their outward appearance as well. Heike Omerzu asserts that “we get no indication of where or how Job actually wears [his girdles].”386 But the text does disclose this information to the reader. Job girds his loins “like a man!” To use Bakhtin‟s term, the phrase “gird your
384 Susan Garrett, “The „Weaker Sex‟ in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112/1 (1993): 68.
385 To their credit, Kugler and Rohrbuagh, “One Women and Honor,” 60-61, make the connection between Job‟s daughters and Sitidos and the maidservant, asserting “that at first Job‟s daughters appear to be more like Sitidos and the maidservant, like the „typical‟ women … overweening in their desire for possessions and profligate in their use of them. Their plaint that Job has neglected them in distributing his inheritance betrays them as consumed with concern for creature comforts, and thus for wealth-based honor” (46.2).
386 Omerzu, “The Emancipation of Job‟s Daughters,” 87. She argues that the phrase “gird your loins” is a metaphorical expression. As I have demonstrated above, as far as biblical tradition goes, Omerzu is correct. In the Testament of Job, however, the command is no longer figurative as the Lord gives Job actual cords to wear.
144 loins like a man” is double-voiced in intent. In other words, Job passes on the Lord‟s command to his daughters in order that they might to do what was once commanded of their father. With respect to how the daughters wrap themselves with their father‟s cords, they follow his example.387 As in the book of Job, the writer uses a form perizw/nnumi (“to wrap”) to signify that the three women “wrap” their bodies just like their father (47:12; 48:1; 49:1; 50:1).388 By girding their own bodies with the cords once worn by Job, the daughters are wearing the clothes of their father. Stated differently, they are cross-dressing in a man‟s attire in order to cover their outer identity as females (cf. Gos. Thom. 114). Just as the Lord needed to restore Job as an able-bodied man before he would grant him access to the heavenly realm, the entrance of Job‟s daughters into the kingdom is contingent upon their abandonment of any markers of their female identity.389 The cross-dressing has significance from the standpoint of Disability Studies as well. We know from the writings of Aristotle that ancients often regarded the female body as a “mutilated male” (Generation of Animals 2.3.737). This notion that the female body is a disability in its own right appears in Hellenistic Jewish literature as well. One sees it, for example, in 4 Maccabees, where the writer describes women as “weak-spirited” (a0sqeno/yuxoi; 15:5).390 The cords that once “repaired” Job‟s body of his physical disability, now act as
387 The text is somewhat ambiguous over what Job gives his daughters. While the writer prefers to the term xo\rdh (“cords”; 46:9; 47:1, 3, 5), he also uses fulakth/rion in 47:11 to refer to these items. If one takes fulakth/rion literally here as meaning “phylactery,” than we have a possible conflict of interest with respect to what body part is being girded. (Phylacteries typically went around one‟s hand or forehead as opposed to the breast or genitalia.) While fulakth/rion can be read as a literal article of clothing, it can also be read more generally to mean “guardian” or “protection” (cf. Philo, Agriculture 15, 19; Planting 3). This is how I take it in my reading of T. Job.
388 Although note that the verb perizw/nnumi is not used with respect to Hemera in SP but a form of peri/eimi (periei/lhcen; “they put around”; 48:1). The V text replaces it with periezw/sato to correspond with the verb used with the other two daughters.
389 That the cords are meant to prepare Job‟s daughters for the heavenly realm is made clear in 47:3. There Job tells his daughters that his bands will “lead you into a better world to live in the heavens” (ei0sa/cousin u9ma~v ei0v to\n mei/zona ai0w~na
390 Or the “weaker sex,” as the NRSV translates it. Stephen Moore and Janet Capel Anderson, “Taking it Like a Man: Masculinity in 4 Maccabees,” JBL 117/2 (1998): 266, deserve credit here as they note that the designation of the mother in 4 Maccabees as the weaker sex presumes that her gender is itself an “innate disability.”
145 a prosthetic for “repairing” the female gender of his daughters.391 The bands conceal the female sexual organs of Job‟s daughters, erasing any evidence of their „deformity‟ so that they might assimilate into their new male roles in the narrative. Disabling the Voices of Job‟s Daughters What of the fact that the daughters speak in a heavenly language after donning Job‟s girdlesς A number of scholars have seen the angelic language of Job‟s daughters as evidence of their elevated status over men in the narrative. Van der Horst writes, Their heavenly status becomes still more evident by their newly acquired ability to speak in the languages of angels ... It is not the sons but the daughters who rise to an almost superhuman spiritual level by means of the God-given magic belts, and it is they and not the men who gain insight therefore, and a permanent one at that, into the heavenly reality that is the background of the early one. One must say that this is an image of women that is extremely unusual in early Jewish literature.392 In addition to van der Horst, Kugler and Rohrbaugh assert that the daughters‟ heavenly language is a sign of their “high honor status” in the narrative.393 Similarly, Heike Omerzu states, “Concerning the image of women in the Testament of Job it has to be stressed that there exists a clear contrast between the well-meaning but spiritually ignorant Sitidos on the one hand and the daughters of Job on the other hand. The latter attain ecstatic, maybe even prophetic, abilities while being positively portrayed as women throughout” (emphasis hers).394 If we consider the daughters‟ gifts from the standpoint of the heavenly realm, then the assessment of van der Horst, Kugler and Rohrbaugh, and Omerku, is an accurate one: the heavenly language conferred upon Job‟s daughters grants them a status above that of their brothers in the narrative (cf. 46:5). If we ask what
391 The idea that narratives “prostheticize” representations of disability in narrative comes from Mitchell and Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis, 53.
392 Pieter van der Horst, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 105-106.
393 Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 61.
394 Omerzu, “The Emancipation of Job‟s Daughters,” 95.
146 implications these gifts have for the identities of Job‟s daughters as women, however, we find that these spiritual gifts ultimately work to the advantage of the men in the narrative. Whereas women‟s concern for their own self-preservation proves their greatest hindrance in T. Job, their utterances prove to be the vehicle through which they articulate this concern. And as we have seen time and again throughout the narrative, these utterances repeatedly threaten Job‟s ability to realize his masculine identity both before and during his ordeal. Judging by the fact that Job hushes all of the women whom he comes in contact with throughout the story, we can easily ascertain how the ideal woman behaved for the writer of T. Job—that is, silent with no real voice of her own.395 On that point, one must wonder whether these heavenly tongues serve the larger purpose of muting the voices of Job‟s daughters more than emancipating them as women. To be sure, T. Job frequently uses holy speech to signify that a male character in the narrative has taken control of the mouth of a female character. Job silences the voices of the widows by coercing them to “glorify” (doca/swsin) the Lord daily through chants (14:3- 4). Shortly before her death, Sitidos falls to the ground “worshipping” (proskunou~sa) the Lord, signaling her dispassionate reasoning in the process (40:6-7). In the case of Job‟s daughters, the magical cords transform the women‟s language altogether, by granting them a heavenly “dialect” (dia/lektov; 49:2; 50:2). In light of the contemptuous speech of prior women who have appeared in T. Job, the transformation of the women‟s language seems to function as a preventative measure in the story: put bluntly, if Job‟s daughters cannot speak a human dialect, they are less likely to endanger men with their utterances. The writer, no doubt, saw this as a positive remedy, as the heavenly language both enhanced the physical capabilities of the female body (i.e. what was once a „disability‟ now has supernatural abilities) and eliminated the potential for female dissent in one fell swoop. The consequence is entirely ironic: the daughter‟s new orientation towards the heavenly world actually limits their status as women in the earthly realm. The story also averts the possibility that the women might utter contemptuous
395 To be sure, Job prevents the doormaid from delivering his final speech to Satan lest she manipulate his words once more (7:1-13), he plays music for the widows and female servants in his house lest they utter contemptuous words (14:1-5), and he refuses to repeat Sitidos‟ command to “speak some word against the Lord and die” (26:1-8).
147 words when they are not chanting their hymns (51:1). 396 The narrator reports that Job‟s daughters now communicate by “signing silently” (u9poshmeisoume/nhv) to one another. Here we have, then, T. Job‟s image of what ideal female speech entails: she is absolutely mute, unless edifying the ears of men with her “magnificent hymns” (ta\ megalei~a; 52:2, 3). Finally, Job‟s conferral of his cords on his daughters also coheres well with the narrative‟s characterization of masculinity in these final chapters. As a man who is once more defined by his ability to dominate others, it is only fitting that it is his cords which transform the language of his daughters. But Job is really only a broker for the change brought about in the narrative. That the cords ultimately belong to the Lord—and that it is a heavenly language which is also imposed on their mouths—presumes that God now has charge over of these women‟s bodies. It is at this point that the reader discovers just how closely aligned masculine achievement is in T. Job with the need for a submissive female body. Incapable of contesting male authority with their speech, the docility of Job‟s daughters affirms the ability of the Lord and Job to dominate others within the world of the narrative.
Masculinizing Job‟s Daughters through Musical Procession With their interiorities rendered dispassionate like men, their sexual organs concealed, and their language transformed, Job presents each daughter with her own musical instrument before his death. Job gives Hemera his kithara, his censer to Kassia, and his tambourine to Amaltheias-keras (52:1-2). What is notable about the instruments is that, at least for the kithara and censer, they are instruments associated primarily with men. As far as the kithara goes, I demonstrated in chapter three that stringed instruments are the male instrument of choice in biblical and extra-biblical tradition. While not a musical instrument, the censer also is a gendered tool associated exclusively with the (male!) priesthood (cf. 2 Ch 26:19; 4 Mac 7:11; Ez 8:11; see also Josephus, J. A. 3.147; 3.193; 3.198; 4.32; 4.57; 8.92). As far as the tambourine goes, while it is true that
396 Kevin Sullivan, “Sexuality and Gender of Angels,” in Paradise Now. Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (ed. April DeConick; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 222, is correct that the text leaves it unstated as to whether the daughter‟s change is a lasting one or is related to the putting on of Job‟s cords.
148 membranophones are instruments often associated with women (cf. Ex 15:20; Ju 11:30; I Sam 18:6), this is not always the case. Men also use tambourines in biblical tradition (cf. I Sam 10:5; 2 Sam 2:6; 1 Mac 9:39). More interesting is what Job‟s daughters do once they have these instruments in their possession. The daughters lead the funeral procession of their father Job, “blessing the ones who had come for his soul” (eu0logh/swsin tou\v e0lqo/ntav e0pi\ th\n yuxh\n au0tou~; T. Job 52:2).397 What is unusual here is that while men typically escorted funeral processions in antiquity,398 Job‟s daughters go ahead of Job‟s brother Nereos, the male children, and the city‟s destitute (53:1). Even Omerzu who argues that the gender of Job‟s daughters is in no way devalued in the narrative is forced to admit that “such a procession is unusual ... This sharp contrast between the children of Job could be a signal for a change of role between men and women.”399 Omerzu tries to make sense of this problem by noting that the text still regards Job‟s daughters as women despite their new occupation.400 Omerzu misses, however, that this is precisely where the gender bias is the most conspicuous. In order for a woman to ascend to a position over a man in the narrative, she must be extraordinary in every aspect of her life. Indeed, not only must her interior and exterior conform to the appearance of a man (the epitome of excellence in the world of the narrative) but she must sound like a heavenly being as well.
Lamenting Job: The Entwinement of Class and Disability in the Testament of Job At the burial of Job‟s body, the narrator‟s voice gives way to a lament sung by the poor, widows, orphans, and disabled over Job‟s body. The dirge is notable because it is laden with a host of stock terms that eulogize Job for his dominance as a man. To be sure, the lament honors Job as the “strength” of the unable, the “father” of the orphans,
397 Vicchio, Job, 1: 127, 146-152, makes the interesting observation that T. Job‟s conception of death could appeal to both Jews and Christians as it endorses both the Platonic immortality of the soul and the Hebraic resurrection of the body.
398 Omerzu, “The Emancipation of Job‟s Daughters,” 90.
399 Ibid.
400 Ibid.
149 the “defender” of the widows, and ultimately a “man” of God (53:1-4). Job is also remembered as the light of the blind (53:1), making this one of two occasions in which the narrative has linked destitution with disablement (cf. 17:2). If we consider that Job‟s own physical debilitation takes place while he is poor, it seems safe to assert that poverty and disability are thoroughly intertwined bodily constellations in the mind of the writer. To think about this question structurally, at no point in the narrative do characters with an elevated social status appear with physical limitations. With respect to characters who are kings (i.e. Job, Job‟s friends, Satan, and the Lord), for example—that is, characters figured as the most supreme example of hegemonic masculinity in antiquity—the narrative portrays them with able-bodied characteristics. For characters on the other end of the social scale however—that is, characters who are powerless to act on others and are themselves acted upon—disability acts as a physical trait to signify their helplessness. At the heart of this dichotomization between wealth/able-bodiedness and poverty/disability is the physiognomic principle that physical impairment and social class go hand in hand. This association emerges in other ancient texts as well: Tobit regains his prosperity only after he has recovered from his blindness (Tob 14:2); the linkage of Jesus‟ ministry in the Synoptic Gospels with the poor and the disabled (Matt 11:4-5; Luke 14:13); the lame man who asks for alms at the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:1-10). We know from our discussion of the lame Spartan King Agesilaos in chapter two, however, that no matter how skilled an author such as Plutarch may have been at writing over the impairment of the king, disablement affected all classes of people in antiquity. From a rhetorical standpoint, in dividing his able-bodied and disabled characters along the lines of class, the writer of T. Job produces/sustains a stereotype in which impairment and economic destitution are inextricably linked in the reader‟s mind. The deployment of such an image, as David Mitchell asserts, “establishes ... a critical bridge between concrete experience and abstract commentary.”401 With the merger of these two arenas, the barrier between fiction and reality collapses. As a consequence, the idea of the disabled figure as a dependent one takes hold in the material world, creating the perception that impairment and self-sufficiency are incongruent realities.
401 David Mitchell, “Narrative Prosthesis and the Materiality of Metaphor” in Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities (eds. Sharon Snyder, Brenda Jo Brueggeman, and Rosemarie Garland Thomson; New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002), 27.
150
Conclusion Had T. Job concluded with Job‟s final deathbed address to his children in chapter forty-five, the story would end as a clear triumph of self-mastery over mastery over others. But this is not at all what transpires. Chapters 46-53 appear to undercut the social vision of masculinity set forth during Job‟s ordeal. Indeed, in chapters 16-45 the narrative follows other contemporary Hellenistic Jewish writings such as 4 Maccabees in recommending the mastery of the self through endurance and self-control as a suitable expression of masculinity in the face of oppression. It is after Job‟s oppression has lifted, however, that T. Job makes clear what the most desired form of masculinity actually is. While Job can claim that he still “exhibits complete endurance,” his earthly reward for passing his ordeal is that he is able to dominate others once again. Indeed, not only does he hold over the heads of his friends the debt they owe him for his forgiveness, but it is his cords which are responsible for the (permanentς) transformation of his daughters‟ bodies. In the end, masculinity as the ability to dominate others both physically and socially has not been replaced at all. Quite the opposite, T. Job uplifts it as the ultimate prize for those who willfully choose to endure hardships for an extended period of time. In terms of the narrative‟s rhetoric of bodily “repair” the plotline does not reach its resolution until after Job resembles the able-bodied man he once was. In so doing, the narrative establishes that there exists a clear link between masculinity and able- bodiedness. The ability to dominate others in a body that does not look so dominant is an incongruent notion. The strength with which Job displays his control over others must be signified in the body he possesses. Indeed, within the world of the narrative, those who are weak in body represent those who are dominated within society—i.e. the poor, the disabled, the disenfranchised. In the structural imagination of the writer, therefore, Job cannot exist within both of these categories. He must be either able-bodied and wealthy or disabled and poor. The narrative also cannot end until it has offered a more permanent solution for repairing the female body as well. So important is the transformation of Job‟s daughters in these final chapters that one is left to wonder whether this is the climax of the narrative and not simply its downturn. Indeed, given the significance that women play throughout
151 the story, it does not seem too farfetched to suggest that the writer has retold the Joban tale in order to offer his remedy for managing the otherwise passionate women. For him, there was only one solution: women must become more like men, both internally and externally. Ironically, however, in becoming more like their father, Job‟s daughters do not assume his masculinity in the narrative. Quite the opposite, not only do they not acquire the ability to dominate others on their way to becoming like men, but by having their speech replaced with an angelic language, they actually lose control of their own bodies in the process! Is the final image of women we see in T. Job really as positive as van der Horst claims?402 While degrading to modern sensibilities, for the writer of T. Job the masculinization of the female characters in his narrative was his remedy for correcting a disabled body in need of “repair.” Indeed, if we keep in mind that ancients saw gender situated along a sliding scale, then the transformations of both Sitidos and Job‟s daughters moves them up this scale, increasing their reputation in the process. In this regard, these women were revolutionary for their time as they were more male than they were female. Of course, because the writer‟s solution to repair these women is more prosthetic than real, the writer ensures that men maintain their control over the female body; indeed, Job‟s daughters are silent, only speaking when her heavenly utterances gratify the male ear—in this case, either the Lord‟s, Nereos‟, or the angelic beings who come for Job‟s soul (51:1; 52:2-3). The social vision of gender set forth in T. Job, therefore, represents an ironic negotiation in power between the sexes. Their heavenly tongues give them unique access to the Divine, while it is these very gifts which allow men to maintain their control over their bodies.
402 Van der Horst, “Images of Women,” 106.
152 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION
The Rhetoric of Male Disability in the Testament of Job
I opened my Introduction with Gershick and Miller‟s assertion that the “bodies of men with disabilities serve as a continual reminder that they are at odds with the expectations of the dominant culture,” and this seems an appropriate way to end this thesis as well.403 Whereas Gershick and Miller‟s statement applies to the modern world, my goal here has been to explore how disablement affects masculine identity in antiquity. There has only been a handful of books and articles devoted to the question of how disabled masculinity is conceived in the modern world, and even less in antiquity. Within the context of biblical studies, for example, Mikeal Parsons‟ article on the subversion of ancient beliefs about male lameness in the book of Acts and Jeremy Schipper‟s Disability Studies reading of the characterization of Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel represent the only efforts to explore the topic of male disability in the field. This project has joined their endeavors to investigate male disability in biblical literature. Whereas both Parsons and Schipper are concerned with male disability in canonical literature, however, I have explored the topic within the pseudepigraphical document the Testament of Job. In looking at how the disablement of the Joban body affects his masculine identity in the narrative, what I have demonstrated is that Job‟s masculinity and the physical ability of his body are inextricably intertwined. When one experiences a shift so does the other. In chapter one I argued for a Hellenistic Jewish provenance for T. Job based on common themes shared with other Jewish and Greco-Roman texts from the period. In arguing that Job‟s masculinity transforms over the course of the narrative depending on the physical state of his body, chapter two looked at the two modes of masculinity found within the larger Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish cultures: the masculinity of the king in antiquity and the masculinity popularized within Stoic philosophy. What I
403 Tom Gershick and Adam Miller, “Coming to Terms. Masculinity and Physical Disability,” in Men‟s Health and Illness. Gender, Power, and the Body (eds. Donald Sabo and David Frederick Gordon; London: Sage Publications, 1995), 183.
153 showed was that these two conceptions of masculinity stood in opposition with one another, with the king‟s gender defined by his ability to dominate others and the Stoic ideal defined by the ability to regulate the soul. I began my exegesis of T. Job in chapter three, looking at the depiction of Job prior to his ordeal. Portrayed as the king of Egypt, the narrative characterizes Job as a man who has complete mastery over those within his social world. He establishes his royal dominance over his region by destroying a temple dedicated to Satan. He commands his servants to carry out his demands as benefactor. He manages the women in his household by “protecting” his wife from the gaze of others and controlling the contemptuous utterances of the female servants in his care. He manages the interiority of his sons by making sacrifices to the Lord on their behalf. The considerable size of his domestic livestock signifies his mastery over creation also, as he uses animals not only to guard his home but as instruments to maintain his reputation as patron. He refuses to be mastered by others by repaying his debts. To go along with his ability to master those within his social world, the text presumes that Job has an able-body as well. The verbs associated with Job in these early chapters make certain that he has a fully-functional body. Indeed, not only does he lead the charge to destroy Satan‟s temple, but he also physically participates in his deeds of benefaction. As we discovered in chapter four, however, Job‟s ordeal strips him of his former masculinity. With the loss of his property, children, and clientele Job loses his control over his social world. Satan strikes Job with a debilitating worm-disease, which causes Job to lose control of his already weakened body. Disabled men speak of the feminizing effect that their impairment has on the masculine identity and Job experiences a similar phenomenon as well.404 Already left as a “woman” in the throes of labor following the destruction of his property (18:5), Job‟s once impermeable skin now leaks worms and fluid without his control. But just as disabled men often find ways to reconfigure their masculine identity in light of their impairment, so the writer of T. Job supplies Job with a
404 Russell Shuttleworth, “Disabled Masculinity. Expanding the Masculine Repertoire,” in Gendering Disability (eds. Bonnie G. Smith and Beth Hutchison; New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 171; Tom Shakespeare, “When is a man not a manς When he‟s disabled,” in Working with Men for Change (ed. Jim Wild; Philadelphia: UCL Press, 1999), 50.
154 new mode of masculinity during his ordeal.405 Job looks inward to realize his identity as a man, proving his gender through his ability to master his self rather than master others. In so doing, T. Job joins a handful of other Hellenistic Jewish texts endorsing the value of practicing such passive virtues as endurance and self-control as suitable male responses to oppression. The narrative promotes the efficacy of self-mastery before the reader as Job successfully resists by means of perseverance the efforts of Satan and his four friends to take control of his body. We saw in chapter five, however, that Job‟s masculinity undergoes yet another shift after his ordeal. Following the Lord‟s pronouncement that Job‟s friends have spoken wrong about him (42:2), Job returns to his city and establishes himself as benefactor over his friends (44:1-7). Job once again is a man who realizes his masculinity through his dominance over others. The problem, as we discovered, is that Job does not look like someone who is capable of mastering others. In the imagination of the writer, appearance and performance go hand in hand. Thus, during his deathbed address to his children in chapter forty-seven, Job relays to his daughters how the Lord transformed his body following his ordeal. Bequeathing to Job heavenly cords, the Divine commands him to “Gird your loins like a man” (47:5). In the process of doing so, the narrative communicates what being “like a man” entails: Job reports that he became strong once again and was incapable of suffering pains in his heart (47:7-10). If we think about T. Job in light of the cultural model of disability, we can see how the plotline is itself a disabling entity within its own culture. By insinuating to its male readership that able-bodiedness and masculinity go hand-in-hand, the narrative ultimately suggests that those who do not look like Job are incomplete men. That the Lord himself is portrayed as an able-bodied character in the narrative further promulgates this message to the reader. Indeed, if able-bodiedness is the standard in heaven—and if Job must become able- bodied on earth before he can receive his spiritual reward—then earthly bodies that are not fully-functional are deemed unacceptable even in the eyes of the Divine. Finally, Job‟s restoration has as much to do with his renewed social standing as it does his masculinity. The narrative‟s not-so-subtle association of dominated characters
405 Gershick and Miller, “Coming to Terms,” 171.
155 with impairment and wealthy characters with able-bodiedness makes certain that class, gender, and disability are inextricably linked as aspects of human identity in the narrative. This also has a rhetorical impact at the cultural level as it promotes the idea that disability is a phenomenon that is exclusive to the disenfranchised in society.
Masculinity and Testament of Job Studies This dissertation is unique within the context of T. Job studies. Whereas scholars such as John Collins, Pieter van der Horst, Susan Garrett, and Robert Kugler and Richard Rohrbaugh have looked at the role of the female characters in the narrative, this project represents the first full-scale endeavor to look at constructions of masculinity in T. Job. Foregrounding masculinity proved beneficial for T. Job studies in several ways.
The Function of Women in the Testament of Job Working on the premise that the male and female genders are conceived in relation to the other, I asserted in the Introduction that a gender reading of T. Job that is attentive to the language of masculinity would further our knowledge of how the female characters function in the narrative. My reading has established several new insights pertaining to the women in T. Job. My literary analysis has uncovered the depth to which the author has placed Sitidos and Job in narrative opposition. Indeed, a Disability Studies reading of the chapters 18-27 makes certain that both characters undergo gender-blurring experiences on account of the “pains” of their body. While Job‟s body becomes increasingly feminized on account of his diseases, Sitidos‟ body grows increasingly masculine (and in some ways asexual) as she labors in the city to sustain her husband outside. Sitidos truly accents Job‟s masculinity with respect to his willingness to endure their ordeal (cf. 26:3-5). While Sitidos‟ passionate nature compels her to urge her husband to speak contemptuously against the Lord, Job remains dogged in his conviction that the Lord will reward them should they continue to persevere. But contra previous scholarly arguments, Sitidos does find some redemption at her death. On realizing that the memorial of her children is in heaven, she acquires a masculinized interiority by becoming “dispassionate” (a0qumh/sasa) like her husband (40:9).
156 Interpreting Job‟s conferral of his cords to his daughters in light of his own restoration experience makes all the more plain the extent to which the cords prostheticize the women‟s bodies so that they look like men. In so doing, T. Job aligns itself with other Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish authors who viewed the female body as a disability in need of permanent “repair.” By considering the heavenly gifts bequeathed to Job‟s daughters in light of the narrative‟s larger strategy to control the female voice, the ideological motivation behind the conferral of these gifts is also unearthed. While their heavenly tongues set Job‟s daughters apart from their brothers in the narrative, the transformation of their speech ultimately serves to silence their ability to utter contemptuous words or earthly concerns. Ironically, the conferral of their heavenly language also buttresses the view that masculinity is achieved through domination over the other; indeed, the transformation of the women‟s speech is a result of the heavenly realm taking control of their mouths via Job‟s cords, while their heavenly utterances serve the ultimate purpose of gratifying the male ear.
T. Job as a Unified Narrative Second, whereas historical critics have argued that the author of T. Job composed his narrative from several sources, attention to the language and conceptualization of masculinity in the narrative makes the unity of the text clear. The Lord claims that he gives strength to his elect in 4:9, of which Job becomes a recipient in 47:8. The management of the female voice through holy speech not only occurs with Job‟s daughters in chapters 46-53, but also with Job‟s widows in chapter 14. Indeed, whereas the heavenly tongues of Job‟s daughters preclude their ability to utter their earthly concerns, Job silences the voices of the widows in his household by coercing them to “glorify” (doca/swsin) the Lord daily through chants (14:3-4). While the vocabulary of endurance and self-control associated with Job is absent from chapters 27-45, our literary investigation demonstrates that these concepts remain implicit as Job resists his friends‟ efforts to take control of his body. Not
157 only does Job demonstrate his patience by refusing the hospitalization of his friends, but the writer portrays the four kings as impatient in order to promote Job‟s own endurance before the reader (cf. 28:5; 35:4). With respect to emasculating characteristics, anger and vengefulness are common vices associated with the narrative‟s antagonists from beginning to end. Both Satan and Elious stand in narrative opposition to Job in the story, as their passionate endeavors to destroy his reputation highlight his own dispassionate means of resistance (cf. 4:4; 7:11; 17:3; 43:7). In short, T. Job‟s conception of masculinity remains consistent throughout. This calls into question the argument that the narrative is a composite document made up of several different sources.
The Literary Structure of T. Job Finally, reading T. Job through the lens of disabled masculinity, the project sets forth a new way of understanding the structure of the narrative. Kugler and Rohrbaugh‟s social-scientific reading of the narrative argues for a tripartite structure in which Job goes from being honored to shamed to honored again. The problem with this structure, as I demonstrated in chapter four, is that it is not Job who is shamed during his ordeal, but Satan and the four kings. I propose a structure based on the shifts that occur to Job‟s masculinity over the course of his struggle therefore. The structure is as follows: Job as Master Over Others (chaps. 1-15): In these chapters Job‟s masculinity is defined by his control over the social and physical world around him. Depicted as an idealized king, Job uses an extensive network of patronage to master others and he is able-bodied in his pursuits. Job as Master Over His Soul (chaps. 16-45): In these chapters Job is forced to turn inward to realize his masculinity. Having lost control of his body and all of his possessions, Job passively endures his suffering in order to show that he is a man. Job as Master Over His Soul and Others (chaps. 46-53): In these chapters, Job represents the total man. Having demonstrated his ability to control his interiority, Job regains control of the physical and social world as well.
158
Conclusion In conclusion, whereas gender interpretations of pseudepigraphical literature are not unique—much like biblical studies in general—readings of ancient texts attentive to the ways in which several bodily constellations (i.e. disability, gender, class) intersect are rare. By approaching texts with an eye for how these constellations impact one another, my hope is that this project has demonstrated the value of looking at each of these aspects of human identity as inextricably intertwined. This, I think, is particularly true for the study of disability within the context of biblical studies. To ensure the continued flourishing of the field, we need to ask the sorts of questions that will attract scholars from other disciplines of study. By making it imperative that it is impossible to study gender and class without also thinking about disability, we can do just that. The upshot is clearly to our advantage as well. By thinking about the ancient understandings of disability from an interdisciplinary perspective, we can move beyond restating the obvious (i.e. that the disabled body was believed to be in a state of impurity, sinfulness, disobedience, etc.) and begin asking more intricate questions. Are there other instances besides T. Job in which men are able to reformulate their masculine identity following impairment? What about women? Do we have any examples in which a disabled woman is able to reformulate her gender or is Sitidos normative? Regarding the intersection of disability and class, do we have other examples in which able-bodied and disabled characters are divided along class lines? What is the relationship between disability and race in ancient narrativeς Are there moments when a writer will “repair” a character‟s disability and “repair” his or her ethnicity at the same timeς These sorts of questions require investigation because they demonstrate that it is not only moderns who perceive bodily difference as impacting the entire person—ancients saw impairment as having a similar consequence as well. Only by identifying and analyzing these beliefs can we begin to understand just how deeply such associations exist within our own cultural understandings of disability.
159 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, Judith. Judaism and Disability. Portrayals in Ancient Texts from the Tanach through the Bavli. Washington: Gallaudet University Press, 1998.
Adamopoulo, Themistocles Anthony. “Endurance, Greek and Early Christian. The Moral Transformation of the Greek Idea of Endurance, from the Homeric Battlefield to the Apostle Paul.” Ph. D. diss., Brown University, 1996.
Amit,Yairah. Reading Biblical Narrative. Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Anderson, Janice Capel and Stephen D. Moore. “Matthew and Masculinity.” Pages 67- 91 in New Testament Masculinities. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson. Semeia Studies 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Asch, Adrienne and Michelle Fine. “Nurturance, Sexuality and Women with Disabilities. The Example of Women and Literature.” Pages 241-259 in The Disability Studies Reader. Edited by Lennard Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Aune, David. “Mastery of the Passions: Philo, 4 Maccabees and Earliest Christianity.” Pages 125-158 in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within a Greco-Roman World. Edited by Wendy Helleman. Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1994.
Barclay, John. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996.
Baskin, Judith. Pharaoh‟s Counsellors. Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Exegesis. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983.
Bourke, Joanne Dismembering the Male. Men‟s Bodies, Britain and the Great War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Bringmann, Klaus. “The King as Benefactor. Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism.” Pages 7-25 in Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic World. Edited by Anthony Bulloch, Erich Gruen, A. A. Long, and Andrew Stewart. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Brock, Sebastian “Testamentum Iobi” Pages 19-59 in Testamentum Iobi, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 2. Leiden: Brill, 1967 .
Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Pages 207-282 in Writing on the Body:
160 Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory. Edited by Katie Conboy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Camp, Claudia V. “Honor and Shame in Ben Sira: Anthropological and Theological Reflections.” Pages 151-171 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
Carney, Elizabeth. “Hunting and the Macedonian Elite: Sharing the Rivalry of the Chase.” Pages 59-80 in The Hellenistic World. Edited by Daniel Ogden. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.; The Classical Press of Wales, 2002.
Chow, John. “Patronage in Roman Corinth.” Pages 104-125 in Paul and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by Richard Horsely. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Cimosa, Mario. “Comparing LXX Job 42:7-10 and T. Job 42:4-8.” Pages 389-409 in Yearbook 2004. Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Edited by Stephen Ryan. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
Clines, J. David. “David the Man: The Construction of Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 212-243 in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 205. Gender, Culture, Theory 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Cited 13 June 2006. Online: http://www.shef.ac.uk‟/bibs/DJACcurrres/David.html.
------. Loingirding and Other Male Activities in the Book of Job. No Pages. Online: htttp://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurres/PlayMan.html.
Collins, John. “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job.” Pages 35-52 in 1974 SBL Seminar Papers. Edited by G. W. MacRae; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974.
------. “Testaments.” Pages 325-355 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael Stone. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
------. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Corrington, Gail Patterson. “Philo, On the Contemplative Life: Or, On the Suppliants (The Fourth Book on the Virtues).” Pages 134-155 in Ascetic Behavior in Greco- Roman Antiquity. A Sourcebook. Edited by Vincent Wimbush. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990.
Davila, James. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, and Other. Boston: Brill, 2005.
161 Davis, John. “Family and State in the Mediterranean.” Pages 22-34 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Edited by David Gilmore. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987.
Davis, Lennard. Enforcing Normalcy. Disability, Deafness, and the Body. New York: Verso, 1995.
Delcor, M. “Le Testament de Job, la Prière de Nabonide et les Traditions Targoumiques.” Pages 57-74 in Bibel und Qumran. Edited by S. Wagner. Berlin: Evangelische Hauptbibelgesellschaft, 1968.
Della, Diana. “Response [to Klaus Bringmann and Frank Walbank].” Pages 117-120 in Hellenistic History & Culture. Edited by Peter Green; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.
Devega, Jessica. “„A Man Who Fears God‟: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of Joseph.” Ph.D diss., The Florida State University, 2006.
Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1979.
Elshout, Ely. “Roundtable Discussion: Women with Disabilities--A Challenge to Feminist Theology.” Pages 428-458 in Women in the Hebrew Bible:A Reader. Edited by Alice Bach. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Enns, Anthony. “The Spectacle of Disabled Masculinity in John Woo‟s „Heroic Bloodshed‟ Films.” Pages 151-164 in Screening Disability. Essays on Cinema and Disability. Edited by Christopher Smit and Anthony Enns. New York: University Press of America, 2001.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.
Fewell, Danna Nolan. “Reading the Bible Ideologically: Feminist Criticism.” Pages 268-282 in To Each Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Hayes. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Fischler, Susun Fischler. “Imperial Cult: Engendering the Cosmos.” Pages 165-183 in When Men were Men. Edited Lin Foxhall and John Salmon. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Fleischer, Robert. “Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins.” Pages 28-40 in Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship. Edited by Per Bilde et al. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
162 Foxhall, Lin and John Salmon, eds. When Men were Men. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Frilingos, Chris. “Sexing the Lamb.” Pages 297-317 in New Testament Masculinities. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson. Semeia Studies 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Galambush, Julie. “God‟s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 91-108 in Ezekiel‟s Hierarchical World. Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 31; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
Garland, Robert. The Eye of the Beholder. Deformity and Disability in the Graeco- Roman World. New York: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie Garland. Extraordinary Bodies. Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
------. “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory.” Pages 73-103 in Gendering Disability. Edited by Bonnie Smith and Beth Hutchison. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004.
Garnsey, Peter and Richard Saller. “Patronal Power Relations.” Pages 96-103 in Paul and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by Richard Horsely. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Garrett, Susan. “The „Weaker Sex‟ in the Testament of Job.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112/1 (1993): 55-70.
Gartner, Alan, and Tom Joe, eds. Images of the Disabled, Disabling Images. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1987.
Gershick, Tom and Adam Miller. “Coming to Terms. Masculinity and Physical Disability.” Pages 183-204 in Men‟s Health and Illness. Gender, Power, and the Body. Edited by Donald Sabo and David Frederick Gordon. London: Sage Publications, 1995.
Gilmore, David. “Introduction: The Shame of Dishonor.” Pages 2-21 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Edited by David Gilmore, Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987.
Gleason, Maud Making Men. Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Gordon, Richard. “The Veil of Power,” Pages 126-137 in Paul and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by Richard Horsely. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press
163 International, 1997.
Gray, Patrick. “Points and Lines: Thematic Parallelism in the Letter of James and the Testament of Job.” New Testament Studies 50 (2004): 406-424
Green, Barbara. Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship. An Introduction. SBLSS 38. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.
Grottanilli, Christiano. “The King‟s Grace and the Helpless Woman: Ruth, Charila, Sita.” Pages 11-30 in Kings & Power. Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership & Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Haas, Cees. “Job‟s Perseverance in the Testament of Job.” Pages 11-154 in Studies on the Testament of Job. Edited by Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Habel, Norman C. Readings from the Perspectives of Earth. Edited by Norman C. Habel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Holden, Lynn. Forms of Deformity. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 131. JSOT Press: Sheffield, 1991.
Holmes, Martha Stoddard. “The Twin Structure: Disabled Women in Victorian Courtship Plots.” Pages 222-233 in Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002.
James, M. R. Apocrypha Anecdota II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James. Anchor Bible 37A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1995.
Johnson, M. D. “Life of Adam and Eve.” Pages 249-295 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Vol. 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.
Kirkegaard, Bradford A. “Satan in the Testament of Job. A Literary Analysis.” Pages 4- 19 in Vol. 2 Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture. Later Versions and Traditions . Edited by Craig A. Evans; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004.
Kohler, K. “The Testament of Job. An Essene Midrash on the Book of Job.” Pages 264- 338 in Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander-Kohut. Edited by G. A. Kohut; Berlin: Calvary, 1897.
Kraemer, Ross, When Aseneth Met Joseph. A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical
164 Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kraft, Robert. The Testament of Job according to the SV Text. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1974.
Kugler, Robert and Richard Rohrbaugh. “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrpaha 14 (2004): 53-57.
Kuhrt, Amélie. “The Seleucid Kings and Babylonia.” Pages 41-54 in The Hellenistic World. Edited by Daniel Ogden. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. The Classical Press of Wales, 2002.
Liew, Tat-siong Benn. “Re-Markable Masculinities.” Pages 93-135 in New Testament Masculinities. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson. Semeia Studies 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Lund, Helen S. Lysimachus. A Study in Hellenistic Kingship. Routledge: London, 1992.
Mai, A. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus. Cols 180-191. Vol. 7. Rome: Typis Vaticanis [in Collegio Urbano apud Burliaeum], 1833.
Malina, Bruce. The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Manici, A. “Per la critica del „Testamentum Job,‟” Rendeiconti Della Reale Accademia Dei Lincei 20 (1911): 479-502.
Martin, Troy. “Paul‟s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123/1 (2004): 75-84.
Martínez, Florentino García, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, eds. Qumran Cave 11. 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 1998.
McIlvenny, Paul. “The Disabled Male Body „Writes/Draws Back.‟ Graphic Fictions of Masculinity and the Body in the Autobiographical Comic The Spiral Cage,” Pages 101-124 in Revealing Male Bodies. Edited by Nancy Tuana, William Cowling, Maurice Hamington, and Greg Johnson. Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 2002.
Mitchell, David and Sharon Snyder. Narrative Prosthesis. Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2000.
------. “Narrative Prosthesis and the Materiality of Metaphor.” Pages 15-30 in Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities. Edited by Sharon Snyder, Brenda Jo
165 Brueggeman, and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson; New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002.
Moore, Stephen and Janice Capel Anderson. “Taking it Like a Man: Masculinity in 4 Maccabees,” Journal of Biblical Literature 117/2 (1998): 249-273
------eds. New Testament Masculinities. Semeia Studies 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Moxnes, Halvor. “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts.” Pages 241-268 in The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models of Interpretation. Edited by Jerome Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Newsom, Carol. The Book of Job. A Contest of Moral Imaginations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Nicholls, Peter. “The Structure and Purpose of the Testament of Job.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1982.
Omerzu, Heike. “Women, Magic and Angels: On the Emancipation of Job‟s Daughters in the Apocryphal Testament of Job.” Pages 85-103 in Bodies in Question. Gender, Religion, Text. Edited by Darlene Bird and Yvonne Sherwood. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005.
Parsons, Mikeal. “The Character of the Lame Man in Acts 3-4.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 295-312
------. Body and Character in Luke and Acts. The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Antiquity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2006.
Philonenko, Marc. “Le Testament de Job. Introduction, Traduction et Notes.” Semitica 18 (1968): 1-75.
Pilch, John. “Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts.” Pages 181-209 in The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody, MASS: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Pippin, Tina. Death and Desire. The Rhetoric of Gender in the Apocalypse of John. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1992.
Polzin, Robert. Biblical Structuralism. Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press; Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1977.
------. Samuel and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Two. I Samuel. Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1989.
166 Rahnenführer, D. “Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament.” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (1971) 68-93.
Rapley, Mark. The Social Construction of Intellectual Disability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Robbins, Vernon K. Exploring the Texture of Texts. A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.
------. “Argumentative Textures in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation,” Pages 27-65 in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts. Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Ubelacker. Emory Studies in Early Christianity; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.
Römer, Cornelia and Heinz J. Thissen, “P. Köln Inv. Nr. 3221: Das Testament des Hiob Koptischer Sprache. Ein Vorbericht,” Pages 33-45 in Studies on the Testament of Job. Edited by Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Roy, Jim. “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King.” Pages 111-135 in When Men were Men. Edited by Lin Foxhall and John Salmon. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Samuel, A. E. “The Ptolemies and Ideology of Kingship.” Pages 168-192 in Hellenistic History & Culture. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.
Schaller, Berndt. Das Testament Hiobs. Jüdisiche Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Kairòs 3.3. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1979.
------. “Zur Komposition und Konzeption des Testaments Hiob.” Pages 46-92 in Studies on the Testament of Job. Edited by Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Schipper, Jeremy. “Why Do You Still Speak of Your Affairs?”: Mephibosheth, Disability, and National Identity in the David Story. Ph. D. diss. Princeton Theological Seminary, 2005.
Scott, Ian, “Testament of Job.” The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, Online: http://www.purl.org.net/ocp/TJob.html.
Shakespeare, Tom. “When is a man not a manς When he‟s disabled.” Pages 46-57 in Working with Men for Change. Edited by Jim Wild; Philadelphia: UCL, Press, 1999.
167 Shakespeare, Tom and Nicholas Watson. Pages 9-28 in “The Social Model of Disability: an Outdated Ideologyς” in Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go. Edited by Sharon Barnett and Barbara Altman; Research in Social Science and Disability. Vol. 2. New York: Elsevier Science, 2001.
Shaw, Brent. “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4 (1997): 269-312.
Shuttleworth, Russell. “Disabled Masculinity. Expanding the Masculine Repertoire.” Pages 166-178 in Gendering Disability. Edited by Bonnie Smith and Beth Hutchison. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004.
Siebers, Tom. “Tender Organs, Narcissism, and Identity Politics.” Pages 40-55 in Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities. Edited by Sharon Snyder, Brenda Jo Brueggemann, and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002.
Smit, Christopher and Anthony Enns, eds. Screening Disability. Essays on Cinema and Disability. Boston: University Press of America, 2001.
Smith, R. R. R. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Sharon Snyder, Brenda Jo Brueggemann, and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. Disability Studies. Enabling the Humanities. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2002.
Spitta, F., “Das Testament Hiobs und das Neue Testament,” Page 132-206 in Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1907.
Spittler, R. “Testament of Job.” Pages 839-868 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. Edited by James Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.
Sullivan, Kevin. “Sexuality and Gender of Angels.” Pages 211-228 in Paradise Now. Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism. Edited by April DeConick. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
Sullivan, Martin. “Subjected Bodies. Paraplegia, Rehabilitation, and the Politics of Movement.” Pages 27-44 in Foucault and the Government of Disability (ed. Shelly Tremain; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.
Trible, Phyllis. “A Tempest in a Text: Ecological Soundings in the Book of Jonah.” Pages 187-200 in On the Way to Ninevah. Studies in Honor of George M. Landis. Edited by Stephen L. Cook and S. C. Winter. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999.
168
Tull, Patricia K. “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality.” Pages 156-180 in To Each Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Hayes; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Van der Horst, Pieter. “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” Pages 93-116 in Studies on the Testament of Job. Edited by Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Vicchio, Stephen. Job in the Ancient World. The Image of the Biblical Job. Volume One. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2006.
Walters, Johnathan. “„Not More Than a Boy‟: The Shifting Construction of Masculinity from Ancient Greece to the Middle Ages” Gender and History 5 (1991): 20-33
Wendell, Susan. The Rejected Body. Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Werline, Rodney. “The Psalms of Solomon and the Ideology of Rule.” Pages 69-87 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright III and Lawrence M. Wills. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Wills, Lawrence. “Ascetic Theology Before Asceticism? Jewish Narratives and the Decentering of the Self,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74 (2006): 902-925
Wilson, James C. and Cynthia Leweicki-Wilson, eds. Embodied Rhetorics. Disability in Language and Culture. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001.
Wyatt, Nicolas. There‟s such Divinity doth Hedge a King. Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. Burlington, VT.: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005.
169 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Thomas Scott Cason is the son of Tom and Bonnie Cason. He was born on the 18th of November in 1973 in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1996 he earned a Bachelor‟s of science degree in Physical Education from Lee University in Cleveland, Tennessee. In 2001 he earned his Master‟s of Divinity from Candler School of Theology at Emory University. At the end of the summer of 2007, Scott will earn his Ph.D. from Florida State University. Following graduation, Scott will begin work at the University of Iowa as Lecturer in Biblical Studies. Outside of teaching, Scott‟s interests include playing basketball, going to the movies, rooting for the Jacksonville Jaguars, and reading ancient texts in their original language (of course).
170