A New Interpretation of Job 19 : 26

Articles in JHS are being indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, RAMBI, and BiBIL. Their abstracts appear in Religious and Theological Abstracts. The journal is archived by Library and Archives Canada and is accessible for consultation and research at the Electronic Collection site maintained by Library and Archives Canada. ISSN 1203–1542 http://www.jhsonline.org and http://purl.org/jhs Volume 15, Article 2 DOI:10.5508/jhs.2015.v15.a2


INTRODUCTION
The unit consisting of Job 19:2528 reads: This unit is probably the most famous and obscure in the book of Job.The many different interpretations that have been offered for these verses attest to the challenges that the verses presented to the exegete.1 E.M. Good, for instance, states: This passage gives everyone fits, both of furious activity and blank despair.In 35 years of trying to perceive sense in these verses, I have found it only in the first line.I can read each of the words.Except for v. 25a, I cannot with an acceptable degree of confidence construe the words in sensible sentences. 2od's confession of frustration is both poignant and telling.The interest in vv.2527 has been fueled to some degree by the perception that these verses express a belief in future redemption and resurrection.Indeed, this notion might have led to some tempering with the Urtext.T.K. Cheyne is confident that "The passage has plainly been edited and re-edited to gratify the very natural longing of a later age for references to the resurrection in body." 3 Moreover, understanding of the passage has also been thwarted by the uncertainty of what is averred confidently and what represents wishful thinking.important theological conclusions regarding after-life.Finally, the phrase ָ ַ ‫לֹוה‬ ‫הָאֱ‬ ‫זֶ‬ ֱ ‫ח‬ ‫אֶ‬ ("I shall behold Eloah") is troublesome, because it is not clear how Job expects this to happen and the beholding of Eloah is not followed by any consequences.
No wonder that the thematic and textual difficulties of v. 26 convinced commentators that the verse is corrupt.Dhorme notes that "Moderns have not scrupled to correct the text, for it seems indeed that the 1st hemistich is hardly susceptible of a grammatical interpretation, whatever meaning is adopted for ‫".נקפו‬10Moreover, some commentators found it necessary to rearrange the words in the verse, or the order of the verses.In M.H. Pope's opinion "Various emendations have been proposed, but are scarcely worth discussing." 11his article proposes reading v. 26 (sans ָ ַ ‫לֹוה‬ ‫)אֱ‬ as the continuation of v. 25.It expresses Job's conviction that God would eventually vindicate him and would heal his skin and flesh.From this perspective, vv.2528 could be paraphrased: "Job is certain that God exists and would eventually manifest himself on earth.He knows also, that this God would heal his wounds and attach his skin to the flesh.This is the God that he holds on to and his eyes will see.His innards pine in his bosom to hear his friends say: 'Why do we persecute him?What evidence was found about him?' " It will be shown that this perspective can be obtained with minor emendations of the MT and that it thematically fits the gist of Job's reply and attitude.

ANALYSIS
Commentators usually consider v. 26 in the context of the preceding and following verses.With regard to vv. 2527, they focus on the following questions: a) who is the "redeemer" ( ָ ֹ ‫ג‬ ‫ל‬ ‫אֵ‬ ); b) what is the redeemer's function; and, c) when, during Job's existence, would the redeemer assume his role?Within this framework of concerns, most of the interpretations of v. 26 essentially fall into three categories.These are distinguished by the perception that Job encounters God being dead, alive, or resurrected.On these fundamental distinctions is superimposed a wide range of exegetical nuances.Indeed, the extensive exegetical literature on v. 26 shows that numerous interpretative approaches have been suggested, which introduced significant differences of meaning.Consequently, the following discussion should be considered a bare summary.12

THE VERSIONS
The ancient translations have obviously been baffled by v. 26.This is clear from the incoherent translation of the LXX, the incomplete rendition of the Peshitta, the paraphrase of the Targum, and the theological allusions of the Vulgate.
The LXX attaches three words of the preceding v. 25 and reads, "to rise up upon the earth my skin that endures these: for these things have been accomplished to me of the Lord" (ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναστῆσαι τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα παρὰ γὰρ Κυρίου τατά μοι συνετελέσθη). 13This reading a) attaches ‫עלָעפרָיקום‬ to the beginning of v. 26; b) omits ‫;ואחר‬ c) reads ‫ומשדי‬ instead of ‫;ומבשרי‬ d) reads ‫ה‬ ‫לֶ‬ ‫אֵ‬ instead of ‫;אלוה‬ and, e) it is not clear whether it read ‫נקפו‬ or ‫,אחזה‬ and if it did not read these words what it read instead.The LXX's emendations do not result in a cogent translation.Consequently, it is doubtful that it had a text which differed from MT.
Peshitta translates v. 26, "Although devouring worms have covered my skin and my flesh." 14This reading a) relegates ‫אלוה‬ ‫אחזה‬ to the following verse; b) takes ‫אחר‬ = "although"; c) apparently understands ‫נקפו‬ as being derived from ‫נקף‬ II ("go around"); d) assumes ‫זאת‬ = "devouring worms"; and, e) adds details that are not available in MT.The emendation results in an incomplete verse. 15argum has for v. 26, "and after my skin has swollen, that will come to pass, and from my flesh I will see again God" (

‫בתרָדאתפחָמשכיָתהיָדאָומבסריָאחמיָתובָ‬ ‫אלהא‬
).This reading a) assumes that ‫נקפו‬ = "that will be" ‫;)תהיָדא(‬ b) takes ‫זאת‬ = "swollen" ‫;)דאתפח(‬ and, adds "again" ‫.)תוב(‬The meanings assigned to ‫נקפו‬ and ‫זאת‬ are not attested in the Tanakh or Hebrew language.It is not clear why swelling of Job's skin will make him see God again, since nothing so far stated that he has seen God. Vulgate renders v. 26, "And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God" (et rursum circumdabor pelle mea et in carne mea videbo deum meum).This reading a) takes ‫ואחר‬ = "and again" (et rursum); b) apparently understands ‫נקפו‬ as being derived from ‫נקף‬ II ("go around") in the sense of "surround with flesh"; c) takes "in my flesh" in the sense of "bodily form"; and, d) adds "my" (meum).The plural of ‫נקפו‬ is, however, problematic.Driver and Gray note that "Hontheim has recently defended this interpretation; but he can account for the plural only by the very forced suggestion that its subject is ‫זאת‬ used collectively of the bones of the body with the sense of I-at the last day I shall be (prophetic perfect) surrounded with my skin!"

LATER EXEGESIS
Dhorme felt that most of the translations of v. 26 can be reduced in the final analysis to just two.These are "that from the skeleton covered with its skin, that from my flesh, I shall see God" and "when this skin will have fallen into shreds, divested of my flesh, I shall see God." 17 In what follows, I present an overview of these two views, and for completeness sake, I include also attempts to view the verse as indication for resurrection.
The resurrection view persisted in both the Catholic and Evangelical churches till the seventeenth century, where it was included in the Formula concordiae, catechisms, and church songs. 21M. Witte noted recently, "As for Job 19,2526, an explicitly theological interpretation of resurrection can be found solely among Christian writers in late antiquity.This gives rise to the conclusion that it is a Christian gloss." 22. Ante mortem view: The verse expresses the conviction that Job will see God while he is still alive.This view is based on the belief that hope for personal resurrection is not evident in at least the rest of the book, and that despite Job's death-wishes he still expects to be vindicated in his life.It seems to echo what actually happens in the book, and suggests restoration of Job's relation with God.Kissane observes It is very difficult to reconcile this view with the view attributed to Job in the rest of the book.In the early speeches he was still hopeful of a respite from suffering before death; but in his recent speeches, nothing stands out so prominently as the hopelessness of his case . . .Job's wish that his words were written on a scroll or engraved on a rock has no meaning if he expected to be alive for his vindication. 23hrer remarks on the ante mortem view Daher hat man häufig angenommen, daß Hiob das Eingreifen Gottes noch zu Lebzeiten erwarte.Aber in welcher Weise und mit welchem Ziel erwartet er es? Man hat im Text die Hoffnung ausgesprochen gefunden, daß Gott den Hiob auf Erden wieder gesund machen und von neuem beglücken werde.Doch gerade diese Hoffnung hat Hiob längst aufgegeben (7,6; 9,25; 17,15f.; 30,23). 24i/l/luther/luther-idx?type=citation&book=DAS+BUCH+HIOB +%28IJOB%29&chapno=19&startverse=25&endverse=27). 21  2 Kissane, Job, 120. 24Fohrer, Hiob, 320.Cf. also C.J. Lindblom, " 'Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt.' Zum Verständnis der Stelle Hi 19,2527," Studia Theo-Moreover, it is also difficult to anchor this view in the MT.For instance, Dhorme renders v. 26, "And that, behind my skin, I shall stand up, and from my flesh I shall see Eloah." 25 This translation assumes that ‫נקפו-זא‬ ‫ת‬ is a corruption of ‫ּתי‬ ‫פְ‬ ַ ‫ק‬ ‫זְ‬ ‫,נִ‬ the Niphal form of ‫זקף‬ "to be erect, raise up."However, the root ‫זקף‬ occurs only twice in the Tanakh (Ps 145:14 and 146:8), never in the Niphal, and always as the opposite of ‫כפף‬ ("to be bent, bend down").The verb ‫ּתי‬ ‫פְ‬ ַ ‫ק‬ ‫זְ‬ ‫נִ‬ does not convey the same notion as "I shall stand up" ‫קּום(‬ ‫.)א‬ Furthermore, the translation assumes that there is some significance to "behind my skin."However, the image of standing behind one's skin makes little sense.Finally, the relevance of Job's "stand[ing] up" is not clear.
25 Dhorme, Job, 28485.Dhorme understands ‫מבשרי‬ as being "through my flesh."However, seeing "through my flesh" is a physiologically strange notion; rather unlike the beloved gazing through the window (Song 2:9) 26 A. Erickson, " 'Without My Flesh I Will See God': Job's Rhetoric of the Body," JBL 132/2 (2013), 295313.Erickson comments in this regard: "Many interpreters who translate 'in my flesh' do so because they assert that 'without flesh' does not make sense in the context.However, many such arguments are based on an overly literal interpretation of Job's words.They do not explore the metaphorical aspects of the expression" (ibid., 308) In Erickson's view Job's words in v. 26 allude to "an ironic fantasy that entails escaping the testimony he wears constantly: his flesh (as opposed to a robe of righteousness and a clock of justice as in Job 29:14" (ibid., 310).
27 H.H. Rowley (Job [Century Bible; Melbourne: Nelson, 1970], 174) states the following: In 14.21f.Job had spoken of the ignorance of the dead of all that transpires on earth.Here he is borne by the inner logic of his faith in God, despite the suffering he believes to come from the hand of God, to look for a break in that ignorance, and the immense relief of knowing that his innocence has been vindicated.Though there is no full grasping of a belief in a worthwhile Afterlife with God, this passage is a notable landmark in the progress toward such a belief.Support for the ante mortem view is Jub 23:3031, which is relatively late (100 BCE).One may well wonder why this notion would occur only in the much older Job.The belief of feeling after death, in particular that a person can still sense the pain of his deteriorating flesh and can mourn his fate, occurs in bBerachot 18b.biblical period. 28The particulars of such possibility are at best nebulous, since no allusion to it occurs in the Tanakh.Rowley states in this regard: Two things seem to be clear.Job is assured that his Vindicator will arise to vindicate his innocence, and that he himself will see God.If, as seems probable, the Vindicator is God, this means that he will be aware of his vindication.That this vindication is not expected until after Job's death is likely, since he has cried for his blood to demand satisfaction.But in what form Job will be conscious of vindication must remain obscure. 29wever, it is not only the form but the consciousness that is at doubt.It is very difficult to reconcile this view with the notion of Sheol in this book and other books of the Tanakh. 30ndeed, Job says explicitly that after he dies God would not be able to find him anymore (7:21). 31urthermore, it is also difficult to anchor this view in the MT.For instance, Pope understands v. 26 as saying: "Even after my skin is flayed, without my flesh I shall see God." 32 He adds "even"; takes ‫נקפו‬ = "is flayed," though Job was not flayed alive or was expecting to be flayed; does not account for the plural of ‫;נקפו‬ omits ‫;זאת‬ and understands ‫מבשרי‬ as "away from my flesh" (i.e., without my flesh).In Speer's view "Überall wohin man sich wende, verstoße die Unsterblichkeitslehre gegen die Ökonomie der Schrift und bringe Widerspruch und Zerstörung in sie." 33 This fundamental perspective is adopted by Welte, Schlottmann, Ewald, Dillman, Wellhausen, Duhm, Renan, Hitzig, Segond, Smend, Driver and Gray, Steurnagel, Koenig, Peake, Kraeling, Hölscher, Oesterley and Robinson, Kaminka, Barton, Fohrer, Pope, Rowley Typically, the emended readings present in awkward Hebrew notions that are harder to envision than those in MT.Driver and Gray observe, "but if the textual evidence is to be so largely disregarded, it would be easy to construct distichs in more exact parallelism," and it can be added, better Hebrew. 39.Emendation of particular words:  (Dahood).
5. Unique interpretations.I. B. Kennicott translates v. 26: "And after that my adversaries have mangled me thus, even in my flesh shall I see God." 42 He takes ‫אחר‬ = "after," ‫עורי‬ = "mine adversaries," ‫זאת‬ ‫נקפו‬ = "have mangled me thus," and ‫ומבשרי‬ = "even in my flesh."However, the book states that Job was afflicted only by Satan.Moreover, Job could not have possible construed his disease coming from a number of sources representing various adversaries.More likely Job's disease suggested to Job and ancient readers that he is being punished for sins committed.II.N.H.Tur-Sinai: Tur-Sinai renders v. 26: "After my body let them break it up!Out of my flesh I want to see (my) God."He believes that ‫זאת‬ ‫נקפו‬ refers to the inscription in stone (vv.2324), 43 and Job asks in v. 26a that it be smashed upon his death, and that in his lifetime he would see God. 44 Note that "after my body" is not a complete thought, and it is disconnected from the rest of the verse.Moreover, Driver and Gray mention Budde's observation that [W]hereas ‫בשר‬ by itself is often used for the entire body as contrasted with the ‫נפש‬ or ‫לב‬ (e.g. 14 22 , Ps. 16 9 63 2 ), ‫עור‬ is not, but is used strictly of the outside covering of the body, the skin (30 30 , La. 4 8 5 10 , Jer. 13 23 ), and combined with ‫בשר‬ requires the latter to be used in its specific sense of the flesh under the skin (75). 45I.Kissane has for v. 26, "And after my skin is stripped off, did I but see Him, without my flesh were I to behold God."He considers v. 26 a conditional clause; such sentences, without a conditional particle occur in the book of Job and elsewhere (5:24; 19:18; 23:10).Kissane says that Job "does not assert that he will see God, but that if he were to see God, he 41   150.Chaham also takes ‫זאת‬ ‫נקפו‬ as referring to the carving of his words.He explains that v. 26 expresses a change in Job's desire: he wants his words to be carved in the flesh under his skin, rather than in stone.The practicality of this request is questionable.
44 N.H.Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job (revised edition; Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1967), 306.Tur-Sinai's contention (ibid., 302) that vv.2324 are challenging questions does not fit the tenor of Job's argument and is contextually doubtful.would see Him as friendly and no longer hostile." 46However, the conditional does not resolve the problems with v. 26.One may well ask why seeing God resolves Job's complaint.Indeed, Job eventually sees God, still most commentators agree that he obtained no answer.Moreover, why would seeing God change his attitude toward God from hostile to friendly? 47issane's interpretation is obtained by a) taking ‫אחר‬ = "after"; b) emending ‫נקפוָזאתָ‬ to ‫ו‬ ִ ‫ת‬ ‫אִ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ף‬ ַ ‫ק‬ ‫;נִ‬ c) linking v. 26 to v. 27; and understanding "from my flesh" = "without my flesh," as a "disembodied spirit."His emendation consists of a revocalization, rearrangement of letters, and assumption of ‫ר/ו‬ and ‫ז/ו‬ confusions. 48The notion of a human becoming a "disembodied spirit" capable of seeing and feeling "friendliness" or "hostility" is inconceivable.In Kissane's own words "Such a thought would have been impossible to the writer considering his idea of Sheol." 49V. A. Kaminka paraphrases vv.2527, "After my suffering has already annihilated my skin and flesh, after my flesh is gone, when a redeemer of my righteousness and a recognizer of my innocence would arise, I will see God agree with him, as I see it now but no one else, and my innards waste from loneliness (in my bosom) because there is no empathy." 50This poignant paraphrase cannot be anchored in the MT.

Habel comments:
It seems best, especially in view of the literary design, to link v. 26a with the preceding verse and simply recognize that Job believes his defender will rise at the end to plead his cause even though his skin has peeled off in death. 46Kissane, Job, 114 and 121.Kissane finds support for taking v. 26 as a conditional clause Peshitta's "If my eyes were to see God, they would see light." 47C. Bruston, "Pour l'exégèse de Job 19,2529," ZAW 26 (1906), 14347.Bruston suggests that Job sees in a vision what God would do after his death.God would intervene only after Job's skin has been battered (26a).Still, in his flesh and while alive he would see this intervention.This view seems to be too artificial. 48The ‫ר/ו‬ confusion is attested, e.g., in 1 Sam 14:47 where we find ‫י‬ ‫רשיע‬ instead of ‫.יושיע‬ Neither of the two confusions is attested in the Ketib-Qere apparatus.
49 Kissane, Job, 120.Thus the two terms ‫אחרון‬ 'at the last' (v.25b), and the related preposition ‫,אחר‬ 'after' (v.26a), complement each other and point to a time 'after' death when Job's vindication happens (cf.14:13). 52bel's translation implies that: a) he reads ‫זאת‬ ‫;אחר‬ b) he takes ‫זאת‬ to mean "that is"; c) he does not account for the plural ‫;נקפו‬ and, d) does not explain the consequent triple repetition of seeing God.About five decades ago, H.H. Rowley said about vv.2527, "In fact this is one of the most cryptic passages in the book, and both text and interpretation are far from sure." 53 Most commentators would concur with this statement even today.In the following section a new interpretation of v. 26 is suggested, which exploits some likely scribal omissions for obtaining a coherent sense of this verse.

PROPOSED SOLUTION
The approach that is adopted in this study for understanding the difficult v. 26 rests on an appreciation of Job's immediate and concrete source of suffering-the grievous sores from the sole of his foot unto the crown of his head (2:7) and the blackened peeling skin (30:30).While identification of Job's affliction is disputed, it is obvious from the text that Job's body was covered with sores, the sores were visible to others, and that Job was in pain (2:13). 54In terms of disability studies, Job is afflicted with a disease ‫,)שחיןָרע(‬ he is impaired ‫,)חרשָלהתגרד(‬ and he is disabled ‫.)ישבָבתוךָהאפר(‬ 55 L.J.M. Classen says: We see, for instance, harrowing self-descriptions of his diseased and disabled body (30:1619), as well as the social and physical isolation Job is experiencing due to his disability (30:115).One text, Job 19:1320, is representative of Job's anguish.In this description, something of the 54 For a synopsis of specific identifications of the ‫ָרע‬ ‫שחין‬ see Rowley, "The Book of Job and Its Meaning," 16970 nn.34. 55R. Raphael, "Things Too Wonderful: A Disabled Reading of Job," Perspectives in Religious Studies 31/4 (2004), 399424.Raphael explains (399400) that "disability studies focus on the disabled body in its manifold locations in time and space: the history of disability, the metaphysics or theologies that attempt to place deviant bodies in a cosmic order, the social construction of disability by the ablebodied, and the lived experience of people with disabilities."S. Olyan (Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008], 3) defines human "disability" in the Tanakh as being "a physical or mental condition or state impacting negatively on affected categories of persons especially on account of the social meaning and significance attributed to the condition or state in the biblical context."dehuminisation and rejection that people living with disability may experience is evident. 56om Job's perspective, his physical affliction caused him constant suffering; he refers to his intense physical and emotional pain repeatedly in his speeches (e.g., 1:20a; 2:8, 13, 3:24; 6:24, 10; 7:20b; 9:17, 28a; 11:16a; 16:6a, 9bc, 1216a 20a; 17:7a; 19:1012, 22; 23:2; 30:16b, 18, 27b, 3031).It also continually manifested to him and any observer his obvious guilt.Thus, while he might have wanted to be considered and related to on a human level (i.e., that being human entails having diseases), he was acutely aware of the theological perspective. 57n antiquity, the causes for diseases of individuals were assumed to be personal sin, invasion of demons and evil spirits, witchcraft, inadequate diet and regime, or some combination of these. 58Usually illness was perceived as a punitive instrument for transgressions against or breached promises to one of the divinities. 59This attitude is also reflected in the Tanakh.Like their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, the authors of the Tanakh believed that physical and mental disabilities most often resulted from divine agency. 60For instance, non-obser-56 L.J.M. Classens, "Job, Theology and Disability: Moving Towards a New Kind of Speech," in L.J.M. Classens, L. Swartz and L. Hansen (eds.),Searching for Dignity: Conversations on Human Dignity, Theology, and Disability (Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, 2013), 5566.Classens sees in Job's sharing his experiences an attempt to challenge the efforts of his friends to "define Job and his experience of disability" (5758, emphasis added).Olyan (Disability, 3135) notes that in the Tanakh, "lasting social restrictions are placed on those with skin diseases." 57F.R. Magdalene, "The ANE Legal Origins of Impairment as Theological Disability and the Book of Job," Perspectives in Religious Studies, 34 (2007), 2259.Magdalene notes that, "Not all ancient Near Eastern religious materials understood disability, disease, and disaster as arising out of human sin.Suffering and physical difference are more complicated than that in the region . . .Nonetheless, an important line of this thinking exists in Mesopotamian religious texts of great antiquity" (ibid., 26 n. 7).
58 W.H.J. York, Wealth and Wellness in Antiquity through the Middle Ages (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2012), 1023.The literature on ancient Near Eastern medicine is growing rapidly.On the supernatural causes of illness, see J. Scurlock and B.R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine: Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 429528. 59G. Eknoyan, "The Kidneys in the Bible: What Happened?"JASN 16/12 (2005), 346471.Eknoyan notes that, "Only in later periods did a special group of healers who were not members of priesthood arise.Even then, sickness continued to be attributed to hostile spirits or the anger of a deity, so medications, no matter how powerful or effective, were expected only to alleviate symptoms.It was the incantations, spells, and prayers recited conjointly that could remove the cause of the disease and cure it." 60 Needless to say, while physical and mental disabilities were often seen in antiquity as resulting from divine agency, they were nonetheless part of societal constructs whereby social hierarchies and inequalities were created, negotiated and maintained.See Olyan, JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES vance of the commandments of the Torah would result in being hit by a slew of severe diseases (Ex 15:26; Deut 28:22, 2729, 35) one of which is ‫ָרע‬ ‫.שחין‬For instance, H. Avalos argues that Deut 28:15, 22 make clear that "Yahweh used illness to enforce covenants made with humans.Such covenants promised health and longevity to those who followed Yahweh's stipulations, but illness and death to those who did not."He adds that repeatedly "Yahweh employs illnesses to . . .punish evildoers in DtrH and in the Chronicler, and to test Job." 61J. Wilkinson extends this idea to include passages from Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea.
In Job's case, both he and any observer would consider the sudden affliction with a ‫שחיןָרע‬ to be punishment for some transgression.A. Erickson remarks, Job's language assumes a relationship between divine law and disease and disability, evident in numerous biblical and Mesopotamian texts.In the ancient Near East, suffering was often understood as evidence of divine judgment on sinful human behavior. 62Leprosy or a similar skin disease (garābu and saḫaršubbȗ) was 'one of the most unambiguous sanctions' for sin in the ancient world. 63Job's body, clothed in disintegrating skin (see 7:5), would likely have suggested to ancient readers divine sanction for sin. 64R. Magdalene argues that the thought pattern emerging from this worldview is as follows: "If the gods and their law are perfect, and, if disability, disease, and disaster are divine punishment for sin committed, then such traumas and tragedies must be the moral responsibility of those who experience them.The sufferer's punishment is always deserved."65 Job's dilemma is seeing obvious evidence of sin on his skin, but knowing in his mind that there could be no sin.66 Thus, the healing of Job's sores would have removed the stigma of being a sinner, and restored his position vis-à-vis God and society.Healing of Job's skin would be a clear and visible sign of his vindication.In v. 26 Job expresses the certainty that his redeemer would heal him.
This understanding is obtained by reading ‫ד‬ ֵ ‫ח‬ ‫אִ‬ ‫וְ‬ "and he would unite" instead MT ‫ר‬ ַ ‫ח‬ ‫אַ‬ ‫וְ‬ "and afterwards."Such reading assumes a ‫ד/ר‬ confusion and revocalization.The ‫ד/ר‬ confusion is, however, well attested in the Tanakh, and the vocalization of the text in the Tanakh is rather late, occurring after the original text was probably already corrupted. 67In particular, it is notable that in Isa 66:17 some read ‫אחד‬ ָ ‫אחד‬ instead of ‫אחרָ‬ ‫.אחד‬The verbal form of ‫אחד‬ is rare; it occurs only in Ezra 21:21. 68In later Hebrew, Jastrow mentions examples of the participle passive ‫ים‬ ִ ‫חּוד‬ ‫אֲ‬ in Yalkut Genesis 62 (in the sense closed up) and Genesis Rabba sec.38 (in the sense joined, united). 69The rarity of the verb might have been the cause of the ‫ד/ר‬ confusion in our verse.
The problematic phrase ‫נקפו-זאת‬ is taken as being an aside, directed to the friends and meaning "mark this, note this."The verb ‫פּו‬ ‫קְ‬ ‫נִ‬ is the 3d person masculine plural Piʿel perfect of ‫נקף‬ I.This verbal form occurs only here.Lexica mention only three instances of occurrences in the Tanakh (Isa 10:34; 24:13; Job 19:26).However, it is possible that Isa 29:1 and Lev 19:27 are also instances of ‫נקף‬ I, if they are understood to refer to marking off.Mandelkern observes that the root ‫נקף‬ I is kindred to ‫,נקב‬ which could have the meaning "mark, note" (Am 6:1), and it is notable that the Piʿel of ‫נקב‬ is associated of speech regarding disability and theology, particularly to what it means to be human." 67One finds in the Ketib-Qere apparatus this confusion in 2 Sam 13:37 ‫עמיחור‬ (Ketib) but ‫עמיחוד‬ (Qere); 2 Kgs 16:6 ‫וארומים‬ (K) but ‫ואדומים‬ (Q); Prov 19:19 ‫גרל‬ (K) but ‫גדל‬ (Q); Jer 2:2 ‫אעבוד‬ (K) but ‫אעבור‬ (Q); Jer 31:39 ‫השרמות‬ (K) but ‫השרמות‬ (Q); and Ezra 8:14 ‫וזבוד‬ (K) but ‫וזכור‬ (Q).In Hab 3:12 LXX reads "you will bring low" (ὀλιγώσεις), probably reading ‫תצער‬ instead of ‫;תצעד‬ in Hab 3:13 LXX translates ‫יסוד‬ as "bands or bonds" (δεσμούς), implying a reading ‫יסור‬ or ‫;אסור‬ and in Hab 3:16 LXX translates ‫יגודנו‬ as "of my sojourning" ‫.)יגורנו?(‬This may be a late interpretation, made in the Diaspora, based on the common ‫ר/ד‬ confusion.In his commentary on 1 Chr 1:7, Kimchi notes, "Since the ‫ד‬ and ‫ר‬ are similar in appearance, and among the readers of the genealogies which were written in ancient times, some read a ‫ד‬ and some read a ‫,ר‬ some names were preserved for posterity in two forms with either a ‫ד‬ or a ‫".ר‬Kimchi explains that the Tanakh preserved both traditions by recording these names one way in certain locations and the other way in others.[Qere], Isa 28:15 V. 27 has a demonstrative tenor.The demonstrative ‫זה‬ occurs thirteen times in Job and the phrase X + ‫,זה‬ where X a name of the deity, occurs frequently in the Tanakh (Ex 15:2; Isa 23:13; 25:9; Ps 24:810; 48:15; Neh 9:18; 1 Sam 6:20).Finally, in v. 27 the form ‫ל‬ + ‫אחז‬ is attested in 2 Sam 2:21.The suggested text critical approach essentially relies on the typical scribal error of haplography. 73However, it is possible that already in antiquity this typical scribal error served as rationalization for making tendentious changes that resulted in the MT.
In the interpretation proposed here, the emended v. 26 reads ‫ז‬ ֵ ‫ֹאח‬ ‫י‬ ‫ומבשרי‬ ‫)נקפו-זאת(‬ ‫עורי‬ ‫ד‬ ֵ ‫ח‬ ‫אִ‬ ‫וְ‬ "and he will unite my skin (note this) and from my flesh will it be held." 74This reading makes eminent sense.Job, expresses in v. 26 his certainty that his redeemer would heal his wounds and attach his hanging skin to his flesh.He wants his friends to note what he said, and perhaps bring about a change in their attitude, as will be shown in the following section.The proposed reading also explains a notable omission in the epilogue, which does not mention Job's restored health.If the proposed reading is correct, then the author did not have to mention the restoration of Job's health.Any ancient reader would have understood that God's manifestation to Job would have automatically included a full restoration of his health as Job describes in v. 26. 7573 E. Tov, The Textual Criticism of the Bible: An Introduction (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1989), 190. 74 In contrast to v. 20 where the skin hangs on the bones or flesh without skin sticks to the bones.Cf. 7:5. 75Ν.Ρ.Heeßel, "Diagnosis, Divination and Disease: Towards an Understanding of the Rationale Behind the Babylonian Diagnostic Handbook," in H.F.J. (M.) Hortmanshoff and M. Stol (eds.),Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Greaco-Roman Medicine (Studies in Ancient Medicine 27; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 97116.Heeßel (ibid., 98) observes that For the Babylonians the aetiology of disease and sickness was situated in the realm of the gods.Falling ill was seen as a sign that the patient had lost the equilibrium he ideally lived in.Either some god had turned against him and through physical contact had placed the sickness directly inside the human body, or the personal protective god had left the person open to attacks by demons or ill-wishing human beings . . .The reconciliation of the patient with the god is, therefore, essential for healing the patient . . .Chaham (Sepher ʾyob, 331 n. 108) notes that the phrase ‫בּות(‬ ְ ‫)ש‬ ‫שב‬ ‫,שבית‬ which is used several times with respect to nations that have been exiled and then returned to their homeland, indicates that Job was cured and able to return to his home.The phrase means literally "returned the captives," but could also mean in a more general sense "restore fortunes," which would logically also include his healing.reading of v. 28, ‫בו‬ instead of ‫,בי‬ contains the assumption of ‫ו/י‬ confusion, which occurs many times in the Tanakh and is well attested in the Ketib-Qere apparatus. 91he logical flow of vv.2128 is apparent.Job begins with a plea to his friends for compassion (vv.2122) and concludes with a similar reference to his friends (v.28), delineating by this inclusio the thematic unit.He would like his words to become a permanent record for humanity (vv.2324).What these words are is spelled out in vv.2526: ‫ואניָידעתיָגאליָ‬ ‫חיָואחרוןָעלָעפרָ‬ ‫ז‬ ֵ ‫ֹאח‬ ‫י‬ ‫ומבשרי‬ ‫עורי‬ ‫ד‬ ֵ ‫ח‬ ‫אִ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫.יקום‬The message is short, but says it all.Job expresses his steadfast belief in an involved ‫)חי(‬ God and his eventual personal vindication, manifested by being healed.This, he states to his friends, is the God that he holds on to.Job concludes by addressing his friends with his deep seated wish (v.28); that they ask themselves honestly "Why do we pursue him?Has any root of fault been found in him?"Job's speech ends with a warning to his friends (v.29), which is poignant in its skepticism.Since he is innocent, they are false accusers; and that is a crime deserving severe punishment (Deut 19:1621). 92They should know that there is a Judge and that they are not immune to judgment.ָ

Gordis notes that:
It is impossible to summarize, let alone discuss, the vast variety of emendations and interpretations of this passage [vv.2329].Virtually the only element of consensus among moderns, as against older exegetes, is that the passage does not refer to resurrection after death in view of Job's clear-cut rejection of the doctrine in 14:723. 93rhaps, another consensus can be detected in commentators' implicit or explicit indication that the original text is corrupt or to vv. 2829, Ehrlich states on the same page, "Diesem [v.28] und dem folgenden Verse vermag ich keinen auch nur halbwegs leidlichen Sinn abzugewinnen.Ich halte den Text dieser beiden Verse für hoffnungslos verderbt." 91Chaham, Sepher ʾyob, 151 n. 33.Chaham implicitly suggests that MT reading might be a scribe's interpretative correction.The reading ‫בֹו‬ is in accord with the Versions (except Peshitta) and about 100 MSS; it is also in harmony with the preceding ‫.לֹו‬There are at least 294 ‫ו/י‬ confusions in the Ketib-Qere apparatus. 92This understanding requires reading ‫ה‬ ‫מ‬ ‫הֵ‬ instead of ‫ה‬ ‫מ‬ ֵ ‫.ח‬In the early square script, ‫ה‬ and ‫ח‬ differed only in the extension of the top bar.The Ketib-Qere apparatus attests to the ‫ח/ה‬ confusion in 2 Sam 13:37 where ‫עמיחור‬ (Ketib) but ‫עמיהוד‬ (Qere); Prov 20:21 where ‫מבחלת‬ (K) but ‫מבהלת‬ (Q); Song 1:17 where ‫רחיטנו‬ (K) but ‫רהיטנו‬ (Q); Dan 9:29 where ‫ולחתם‬ (K) but ‫ולהתם‬ (Q); and, 2 Sam 23:25 which has ‫החרדי‬ but 1 Chr 11:27 has ‫.ההרורי‬ Also, Gen 2:14 MT has ‫חדקל‬ but the Samaritan Pentateuch has ‫;הדקל‬ Gen 25:9 MT has ‫צחר‬ but the Samaritan Pentateuch has ‫,צהר‬ etc. 93 Gordis, Job, 528.
has been tampered with, and that is why "to look for total logical consistency in these verses is unrealistic." 94his sentiment has guided the text-critical approach to the interpretation of v. 26 in the current study.The proposed reading ‫ז‬ ֵ ‫ֹאח‬ ‫י‬ ‫ומבשרי‬ ‫)נקפו-זאת(‬ ‫עורי‬ ‫ד‬ ֵ ‫ח‬ ‫אִ‬ ‫וְ‬ "and he will unite my skin (note this) and from my flesh will it be held," is obtained by making few minor consonantal emendations in the MT.These emendations can be easily rationalized as being omissions caused by haplography or confusions of similar letters, which occurred in the transcription of the text. 95he restored text gives an eminently good intra-verse sense and a solid contextual logic.Job's declaration would read: For you to say: "Why do we pursue him?

‫נמצא-‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫ושרש‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ֹו‬
This text can be paraphrased: "Job is certain that God exists and would eventually manifest himself on earth in his favor.This God would heal his wounds and attach his skin to the flesh.This is the God that he holds on to and his eyes will see (the healing).His innards pine in his bosom to hear his 94 Whybray, Job, 94. 95 It is possible that the minor changes, which can be rationalized as being scribal errors, have been intentionally introduced to obtain a text that supports a particular theological view.However, whether the changes that were made in the original text were accidental or tendentious they were obviously minimal from the text-critical perspective.friends say: 'Why do we persecute him?What evidence was found about him?' " Delitzsch felt that in vv.2528 Job's "faith is here on the direct road to the hope of a resurrection; we see it germinating and struggling towards the light." 96The emended unit (vv.2528), which is consonantally almost identical with MT, shows that no metaphysical connotations can be entertained. 97n this unit v. 26 plays a central role.Job expresses in this verse the conviction that God will manifest his vindication by healing him of his affliction. 98This position is in accord with the views that were current in antiquity. 96F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Job, (trans.F. Bolton; 2 vols; Clark's Foreign Theological Library, 11; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881), 1:362. 97Such as resurrection in flesh, seeing God in an instant before death, seeing God after death, etc. 98 Erickson (" 'Without My Flesh I Will See God,' " 296) argues that, Job overturns traditional images of the disintegrated body, known from the biblical laments, in order to distance his body's appearance of guilt from the testimony of innocence, In contrast to the psalmists, who petition God to restore them to health, Job uses images of disembodiment and bodily disintegration to separate his broken body from his contention that he is innocent.