Professor Michel's conclusions are linguistically and theologically satisfying and contain great face validity. He has not been without detractors, however, who warn against an overdependence on the Northwest Semitic approach.[3] G. B. Caird wrote, "Words and symbols may at different times to the same people, and at the same time to different people, convey radically different meanings. Ideas and practices with a long history can be reborn into a new existence when taken up into a new and living system."[4] However, logic demands that if Professor Michel's conclusions are correct they may be derived from more than one method. I propose a structural analysis of the prologue and epilogue of the Book of Job. If Job repents at the end of the poem, then the epilogue must be similar to the prologue. After all, Job did not allegedly sin until he started questioning God in chapter 3; his repentance would return him to the righteousness of chapter 2.[5] If, on the other hand, Professor Michel is correct, then one would expect striking differences between the prologue and epilogue based upon the profound changes that the characters of the poem would have undergone. Therefore, this paper will first examine the relationship between the narrative and poetic portions of the Book of Job, discuss matters of translation of the prologue and epilogue, and conclude with observations concerning the similarities or differences found between the two narrative portions.

Relationship between the narrative and the poem.
One major criticism of this procedure is that the poem and the narrative were likely written by two different authors. Therefore, any differences found between the prologue and the epilogue are completely irrelevant to an understanding of the poem. Some scholars, like Tsevat, simply omit the epilogue.[6] They believe that the theological message of the poem is independent of the message of the narrative.[7] Many scholars, however, disagree.[8] They point out that the poem is unintelligible without the narrative and that it is unlikely that the poet started in medias res in 3:1.[9] Westermann says that "the narrative framework...must be there."[10] Assuming that the poem is written by a different author, it was not just dropped into a narrative framework that was not adapted to that purpose.[11] Scholars who hold this view insist that the prose story has been altered to supplement the poem and that, as it now stands, an understanding of the narrative is indispensable to understanding the poem.[12] Thus, I suggest that the poet rewrote the narrative for his own purposes, or a skillful redactor who thoroughly understood the poem rewrote both. Habel goes even further and suggests that a narrative framework can be found throughout the poetry.[13]

Early source critics disputed the unity of Job's narrative. It was conjectured that the scenes of the heavenly court were a later addition and that the implied polytheistic background was incompatible with the general monotheistic trend of the Bible. However, the scenes of the heavenly court emphasize the fact that Job is innocent; God declares as much to the court so that there can be no doubt. Furthermore, the heavenly court scene has at least one other parallel in the Bible. Modern critics tend to accept the unity of the prose account, but continue to dispute the degree to which the narrative and the poem are related.[14]

Scholars have noted several discrepancies between the poem and the narrative, though none of them offer clear proof of theological disunity. In the prose account, Job uses the name Yahweh, but in the poem he and his friends do not. However, Job also uses Elohim in the narrative; Yahweh is only used in the blessing formula. There is no occurrence of the Hebrew blessing formula being used without Yahweh anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. In the narrative Job appears as a nomad, in the poem as settled in the city. However, semi-nomads were common in the east and would have lived in cities in the winter. In the narrative, all of Job's sons are killed; in the poem, 19:17 mentions, "sons of my womb," which is unclear but may refer to Job's brothers. The poem makes no mention of the heavenly trial which is so critical to the prologue; however, the characters in the poem are not supposed to know of the trial as that would eliminate the drama of the poem. The poem never mentions sacrifice as a means of approaching God; the narrative does. However, Job, if innocent, would have no reason to offer a sacrifice. In the narrative Job's innocence is stressed, whereas in the poem he repents. This discrepancy is answered by Michel. The epilogue depicts severe judgment on the friends; the poem treats them fairly. This does not take into account that in the epilogue the friends have lost the debate and now must be called to account; their treatment of Job was no mere game. Linguistic dissimilarities include the use in the prologue of l[ bl yc (Al[' B]li T;m]c'h}) in 1:8 whereas the poem uses bl la tyv ( B,li wyl;ae tyvit;A) in 7:17. The phrase ;T (whole) occurs in 1:1 as well as 8:20 and 9:20-22. This word occurs outside Job only in Genesis 25:27, Psalm 64:5 and Proverbs 29:10. "For nothing" ( nh) occurs in 1:9 and 2:3 as well as in 9:17 and 22:6. The word l;Waw" (but, indeed) occurs in 1:11, 11:5, 12:7, 13:4 and 14:8, but occurs only nine times outside the Book of Job. Furthermore, lwa alone occurs in 2:5, 5:8 and 13:3. The verb [gn followed by the preposition b is rare, but occurs in both 1:11, 19 and in 5:19 and 19:21. The expression ynpAl[ or ynpAla occurs in 1:11, 2:5, 6:28, 13:15 and 21:31. The use of the masculine and feminine gender for hwr occurs in 1:19 and 4:15. A form of the expression fbm axy (to come from the womb) occurs in 1:21, 3:11 and 38:29. The verb qzj in the Hiphil with the preposition b (remain firm) occurs in 2:3, 9; 8:15, 20 and 27:6. The verb [lb in the Piel meaning "to swallow up" as in "to destroy" is found in 2:3, 8:18 and 10:8. The noun y[r for "friends" occurs in 2:11 and 42:7 as well as 19:21. bak (pain) is found in 2:13 and 16:6. "Those knowing him" ( y[dy) occurs in 42:11 and 19:13. Finally, the expression tyvar...tyrja (ending...beginning) occurs in 42:12 and 19:13.[20] In addition, Habel points out that the themes introduced in the prologue are repeated in the speeches in such a way as to accent both thematic continuity and ironic discontinuity. He also stresses the close linguist links between the prologue and chapter 3[21] and argues that the prologue sets the stage for the entire book.[22] Moreover, while scholars have long recognized the similarities between 1:1-3 and 42:12-17, Habel sees evidence of another inclusio with 28:28, the so-called Hymn to Wisdom.[23] Furthermore, the dialogue between God and the satan prefigure the debates between Job and his friends.[24] Thus, it is clear that very close associations exist between the poetry and prose of Job.

Given the likelihood of two authors, the date of composition cannot be discerned with great reliability. Many critics propose that the Book of Job was put into its present form at the end of the sixth century BCE. Evidence to support this view is the use of the word f;C;h' (the satan). The definite article indicates a title rather than a name. The sixth century Book of Zechariah also uses f;c;h' with the article. In addition, social conditions of the sixth century (the time of the exile) would have given the story added relevance. However, critics of this theory point out that the heavenly court scenes in Job have nothing in common with the court scenes in Zechariah, but are similar to the ninth century vision of Micaiah ben Imlah reported in I Kings 22:19-23. They further point out that the style of the narrative is reminiscent of the nine or eighth century patriarchal narratives of J and the narratives preserved in Samuel and Kings.[25] The expressions hy;h; vyai and /Yh' yhiy"w' are used in II Samuel 12:1 and I Samuel 1:4 and 14:1, respectively, and are prominent in the Job narrative. Further, a story with an easterner as its hero would be unlikely in the sixth century. Such critics suggest that the story found its way into Hebrew folklore before the seventh century.[26] While the basic outline of the narrative may be very ancient, one may note the use of Deuteronomic law in the epilogue. This sets the earliest possible date of redaction.

The narrative portion of the Book of Job has parallels among other Ancient Near Eastern literature. The clearest parallel is the Akkadian "The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer," known as the "Babylonian Job." This poem is a monologue of thanksgiving to Marduk for healing and contains no dialogue. Other important parallels come from Egypt and include "The Complaints of the Eloquent Peasant" and "The Prophecy of Nefer-Rohu," both of which are notable in that the poetic portion of each is surrounded by a prose framework. Another parallel is the "Egyptian Dialogue of the Man Weary of Life with His Soul." Minor parallels include the "Hariscandra" from India and the story of a wager between Gabriel and Michael known among the Suahelis.[27]

Some matters of translation.
Verse 1 of chapter 1 describes Job. b/Yai is assumed to come from the root bya, meaning enmity or hostility. It corresponds to a Semitic nominal pattern indicating profession or identifying activity. If so, then the name "Job" indicates that Job is the enemy of God. Pope takes the name in the passive sense -- Job is the object of God's enmity.[28] The corresponding Arabic root means "to come back, to return, to repent." Thus, in the Koran (Sura 38:16, 44) Job is described as 'awwäbh, "repentant."[29] This name in some form is ancient. The name 'ybm , vocalized as Ay(y)abum , is found in Akkadian documents from the early second millennium BCE. The name is that of a Palestinian chief in the Egyptian Execration Texts of circa 2000 BCE. W. F. Albright believes this version of the name is a contraction from 'Ayya-'abu(m), meaning, "Where is (my) father?"[30] Another parallel is found in Amarna letter number 256, circa 1350 BCE, where the prince of Ashtareth is named 'Ayyäb . The Ugaritic version is ayab. Moreover, the mention of Job in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 along with Noah and the Ugaritic hero Danel suggests a character of great antiquity.[31] For this reason, Hartley believes that Job's name is not intended to give any specific meaning to the narrative, but is simply a common name for an early hero.[32] In fact, the narrative suggests the genre of patriarchal hero stories. Stylistic similarities with the patriarch stories include repetitive narrative patterns, profound psychological meaning under the cover of naiveté, and the use of hyperbole common to folklore.[33]

The words rv;y;w" T;, whole and upright, occur together in Psalm 25:21, Psalm 37:37 and Proverbs 29:10 and are used to describe Noah, Abraham and Jacob.[34] The word T;, used to describe Job in 1:1, 8 and 2:3 is from the same root as /tM;tuB] (in his integrity) also used in 2:3 and in 2:9. The translations of "wholeness" and "integrity" do not do justice to the connection between these two Hebrew words. As of yet, I have not found parallel English words that are equivalent to the Hebrew. T; is also used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a sacrificial animal as "spotless."[35] Moreover, Job is described as one who "fears God and turns aside from evil," foreshadowing 28:28 of the Hymn to Wisdom. Fearing God is accorded the highest standing in wisdom literature, being defined as the very foundation of wisdom.[36] Thus we see that not only is Job righteous in a patriarchal sense, he is also wise.

Verses 2 and 3 describe Job's family and property. The ratio 7:3 is ancient, seven indicating perfection and three emphasizing it.[37] Job has seven sons and three daughters as well as seven thousand sheep and three thousand camels.[38] The Hebrew Bible regards seven as the ideal number of sons. Ugaritic literature reveals that King Krt and the god Mot both had seven sons and that Baal had seven "boys" and three daughters. Moreover, names are recorded for the daughters of Baal, as they are for Job.[39] The sense of lwOdG: in verse 3 is that Job was wealthier than all the people of the East. The designation of where Job lives is deliberately vague. Semi-nomadic Semitic tribes lived in the East and Job's property is that of a semi-nomadic chieftain. Camels and donkeys alone, lacking sheep and oxen, would be the wealth of a pure nomad. Five hundred yoke of oxen, on the other hand, could plow a large farm.[40] Thus, as a semi-nomad, Job's assets are well diversified. Accordingly, he has a large staff of male and female slaves.[41] His large family and estate are likely to be viewed by the reader or listener as evidence of God's approval for Job's righteousness and wisdom.[42]

Verses 4 and 5 tell of life in Job's family. Job's daughters are included in the feasts of his sons, an unusual custom,[43] suggesting that great harmony existed among the whole family.[44] Job offers sacrifices on behalf of his children as the patriarchal head of the house. He is concerned even with sins that may (or may not) have taken place in the minds (bbl) of his children, indicating his conscientious assumption of his position of leadership.[45] Job is pictured as taking the possibility of cursing God very seriously. When the satan later claims that Job will curse God, he is suggesting the one thing Job has most carefully avoided.[46] No system of priesthood has been established in the setting of Job. Although the narrative does not tell us the content of Job's sacrifice, God commands Job's friends in 42:8 to offer seven bulls and seven rams. This is the sacrifice of Balaam, not the sacrifice of 1 bull, 1 ram and 7 male lambs as prescribed in Numbers 29:36.[47] Again, this may indicate that the author had a patriarchal setting in mind. As is common, the word "bless" ( rb) is used as a euphemism for "curse."[48]

The scene of the heavenly court then begins. The "sons of God" come "to station" themselves before Yahweh. The idea of a divine council is common in the ancient Near East.[49] There is reason to believe that the Hebrew expression "sons of God" ( yhiløa'h; yn'B]) simply means "gods" or "the gods," as the expression "sons of men" may simply mean "men" or "humans." This use, while confusing to us, would avoid confusion with yhiløa' when it refers to the singular "God." These gods or former gods, now demoted before Yahweh, come to station themselves before him. The root bxy means to take one's proper station, present oneself, or to take one's stand by being firm or constant. Pope believes the term is similar to the Akkadian manzaz päni, meaning "one who stands before the king," that is, a royal officer.[50] They come to report to Yahweh of their activities and to receive further instructions.[51] These sons of God have also been thought to share in the nature of Deity.[52] If so, this may be an ancient device which reflects the deliberation of God. That is, God does not act arbitrarily but considers various positions.

At any rate, f;C;h' now makes his appearance. Pope considers the satan to be one of the members of the divine court,[53] one of the sons of God. Scherer, however, maintains that the satan is not one of the sons of God, instead appearing "among them."[54] Unlike the other sons of God, he has no station assigned to him and must rove about.[55] On the basis of the very same word "among," Driver-Gray believes the satan to have been a son of God of high rank.[56] The definite article before "satan" indicates that the term is used as a title (as in Zechariah 3:1, 2), not as a proper name that would later be the case (as in I Chronicles 21:1).[57] Therefore, I have chosen not to capitalize it in my translation to remind the reader that the character is not the Christian devil. In fact, the word may be better translated as "the accuser" or "the adversary" (as the Jewish Publication Society does); this translation would be faithful to the Hebrew root.[58] In Numbers 22:22 we have the Messenger (Angel) of Yahweh acting as satan ( f;c;l]) toward Balaam. The function of the satan is apparently that of a prosecuting attorney, one who brings evidence of wrongdoing before the Judge in the heavenly court. The Arabic shatana means "to be remote."[59] Michel and Pope report that Tur-Sinai says that "satan" derives from the Persian secret police, called by Herodotus "the eyes and ears of the king." If the satan finds nothing to report, as in Job's case, he may become an agent provocateur, hence the satan takes on the role of an adversary or tempter.[60] For Hartley, it is critical that the satan appears in open court before Yahweh; the coming curse on Job cannot then be understood as a secret conspiracy between them.[61] Note that the satan is always in a reactive position with respect to God. The satan "answers and says" whereas God takes the initiative and "says." This is paralleled in the behavior of the friends in 42:9. After God commands them, the friends "went and did" what was commanded.

In verse 7, the satan has been "roving about in the land" and "walking back and forth in it." According to Pope, fWVmi, carries the idea of "looking for trouble." Moreover, the participle of the Akkadian root is applied to the evil eye and to evil spirits that rove about, looking to do harm.[62] Even today in the Middle East it is not uncommon for Moslems to wear a tiny blue stone for protection from the evil eye and to pronounce a blessing over people and plans for protection from evil spirits.

The satan tells Yahweh that Job will curse God to his face ( yn P;Al['); a similar formulation is part of the Decalogue; we find the expression ynP;Al[' in Exodus 20:3: "You shall not have other gods to my face," traditionally, "besides me." This cursing will take place, according to the satan, if God "touches" what is Job's. The word touch, [gn, also means "strike" with the connotation of being struck with a curse or a disease. Furthermore, the "touch" of God is associated with death.

Four disasters strike in rapid succession in verses 13-19. Although we know that the scenes in the heavenly court have made God and his agent responsible for them, the narrator nevertheless makes use of causal parallelism. The first and third disasters, from Job's perspective, are the result of human actions; the second and fourth are natural disasters,[63] the "fire of God" being lightening as thunder is the "voice of God."[64] The phrase, "While this one was speaking," has Ugaritic parallels, especially in the epic of Danel.[65] It is also been observed that Job's losses are listed in the reverse direction of his blessings; that is, he is blessed with sons and daughters, sheep and camels, oxen and donkeys. He then losses oxen and donkeys, sheep and camels, sons and daughters.[66] The disasters are the worst that can happen, even by modern standards. The American Psychiatric Association reserves the rating "catastrophic" (the highest rating on a six point scale) for this type of "psychosocial stress." Examples given for the highest rating are multiple family deaths and concentration or prisoner-of-war camp imprisonment.[67] In my translation I have retained the expression "mouth of the sword," which devours. Archeologists have uncovered sword hilt designs in the shape of a lion's head; the blade extends from the open mouth of the lion (note similar imagery in Revelation).[68]

The end of chapter 1, verses 20-22, picture Job's grief. First he tears his robe, shaves his head and prostrates himself. These were common mourning rituals, though prohibited by Leviticus 19:27-28 and Deuteronomy 14:1.[69] Of course, if Job is being pictured as part of the patriarchal age, then these regulations would not yet be in effect. Verse 21 is perhaps the most well known in the Book of Job: "Naked I came from my mothers womb and naked I shall return [to the tomb]." I have added [to the tomb] as an explanation for the Hebrew word hm;v;. The correct translation of the term is "There," used as a name for the underworld. It is set in parallel with "mother's womb" because the underworld, or the tomb, is understood as the "womb" of Mother Earth.[70] Job's famous piety formula is still used in northwestern Saudi Arabia. The survivors of a deceased person ritually say, "His Lord gave him; his Lord has taken him away."[71] At the end of chapter 1, the narrator reminds us that Job did not sin. Moreover, he did not ascribe wrongdoing to God. The word translated "wrongdoing" is hl;p]Ti, which means "tastelessness" and has the connotation of moral caprice.[72] According to Tur-Sinai, it is related to the Arabic word for spittle.[73] Moreover, this sentence has the ring of the formula "to ascribe _____ to God," where in I Samuel 6:5, Jeremiah 13:16 and Proverbs 26:8 the blank is filled with "glory." Here it is filled with the opposite.[74] The plans of the satan are thus foiled. Job does not curse God.

Chapter 2 opens with the second scene in the heavenly court. The dialogue between Yahweh and the satan is repeated word for word; variations to the text are introduced as a means of creating suspense.[75] God adds in verse 3 that "Job remained firm in his integrity." The word for "integrity" is the same as for "wholeness" in 1:1 (hM;Tu, T;) as previously mentioned. Moreover, God remarks that the satan had "instigated me against him to swallow him up without cause." The root tws means to incite, instigate, allure, or seduce. The phrase "to swallow up" means to destroy, even as the mouth of the sword has done. The god Mot also destroyed his victims by swallowing.[76]

As a result of the second meeting, the satan is given permission to try again. This time Job is struck with [r; yjiv]. The root jv occurs in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic and Arabic; the term generally denotes heat, fever and inflammation.[77] The Ugaritic Baal-Haddad had this affliction before his death.[78] Speculation has taken place on the exact disease the writer has in mind. Biblically, the term yjiv] is used for a symptom of a form of leprosy (Leviticus 13:18-23), the effect of one of the Egyptian plagues (Exodus 9:9-11) and the illness of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:3; Isaiah 38:21). Job is apparently struck with a "bad" case of it. The term found in Job, [r; yjiv], is listed among the curses in Deuteronomy 28:35 and described as Egyptian in Deuteronomy 28:27. Pliny refers to Elephantiasis as Egyptian.[79] The disease has also been associated with the Baghdad Button or the Jericho Rose, a boil which become ulcerous and which leaves a deep scar.[80] Hartley reminds us that any fatal disease would serve the satan's purpose because in the ancient mind death comes from God, not from a disease.[81] In verse 8, we find Job scraping himself with a potsherd. This might be an attempt to soothe his skin of itching or he may be cutting himself in mourning. This practice, like his other grieving rituals, is prohibited by Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 14. Note also the Akkadian term "Mound of Potsherds" as a name for the underworld.[82] Job is sitting in ashes. The implication is that he is sitting outside the town, perhaps where lepers were required to stay. Even today a pile of "dung-ashes" (mazbala ) exists outside some Arab towns. The Interpreter's Bible describes it thus: "...there he sat amid rubbish, rotting carcasses, playing urchins, homeless beggars, village idiots, and howling dogs."[83] Such is the place for the greatest of all the people of the East.

Job's wife makes her single appearance in verse 9 and encourages Job to be done with it. Her small line has received great commentary. Augustine called her the "adjunct of the devil."[84] Modern scholars generally see her as one who faced the situation with practicality: better to die quickly than slowly and in agony.[85] Could it be that the satan could not touch Job's wife because she was part of his life, that he would have died without her? Job's rebuke to her is not strong. He does not call her senseless but merely that she "speaks" as one of the senseless would. Senselessness, or foolishness, in the Hebrew Bible is commonly associated with wickedness.[86] The Koran (Sura 38:44, cf. Sura 21:83) recalls Job's rebuke of his wife: "We said to him, 'Take a bunch of twigs and beat your wife with it; do not break your oath.' We found him full of patience. He was a good and faithful man."[87] After this the Book of Job has a curiously ambiguous saying, "In all this, Job did not sin with his lips." This is not nearly as clear as the parallel statement in 1:22. Did Job sin in his mind? Surely not, for the whole premise of the story is that Job is righteous. Perhaps, though, we are permitted to see that Job retains the capacity to sin; his righteousness, lest we wonder, is not predestined. Nevertheless, the satan has once again lost the bet.[88]

Job's friends arrive in verse 11. Eliphaz means "God is fine gold." He is a Temanite, meaning from the right (south) wind. Bildad means "Baal has loved." Shuhite comes from the root meaning to sink down. The meaning of Zophar's name is unclear. Assuming the root rpx, it may mean "return" or "diamond point." Pope suggests "young bird."[89] Naamathite comes from the root meaning "pleasant" or "earthly prosperity." The Septuagint makes them kings,[90] as it does Job.[91] Thus we have Baal surrounded by gold and diamonds. They are sunk down with earthly prosperity, indeed.

Like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:3, Job's friends cannot recognize him. They express their grief by tearing their robes and throwing dust into the air, common Semitic rituals.[92] The seven days and seven nights of silence are devoted to mourning for the dead (I Samuel 31:13, Ecclesiastes 22:12). Thus, it must appear that Job has little hope of recovery. They do not speak for it is only the sufferer who is permitted to break the silence.[93]

The epilogue causes some discomfort on the part of commentators. It begins in 42:7 with a heading indicating that the story which follows takes place after the epiphany. The Interpreter's Bible is troubled that the narrative ignores Job's "confession" and that God supports the statements of which Job had apparently just repented.[94] Pope entitles his commentary on chapter 42 "Job Recants." He considers it a conservative addition designed to counteract the tone of the poem.[95] Some see a return to retributive justice,[96] or a modified form thereof.[97] Others offer only vague explanations.[98] Nevertheless, God does commend Job in front of his friends and demand that they offer a rather large sacrifice. The Septuagint notes that Job is required to make this sacrifice just as he used to sacrifice for his family.[99] The size of the sacrifice is the same as that commanded for all the people of Israel in Ezekiel 45:22-25.[100] It is still of patriarchal proportions, not the Torah command of Leviticus 4. The Septuagint adds a variation at the end of verse 9 which, according to Pope, may be originally from a Hebrew text, "And he loosed the sin for them through Job."[101]

In verse 10 Yahweh returns Job's fortunes. The phrase tYbv]Ata, bv; also means returned from captivity. Some argue that this is an intentional allusion to Israel's return from the Babylonian captivity, though an early expression may have been "returned the (ones/things) returning."[102] Of course, we must notice that twice as much is returned to Job. Hartley sees here only evidence that God is life-giving and not capricious;[103] however, we must cross reference the Torah (Exodus 22:7) to understand the full significance. In verse 11, Job's remaining family and friends return to his house and eat with him, implying he has come in off the ash heap and has food on the table. They finally grieve with him and give him some money, perhaps to help him rebuild. The hf;yciq] is mentioned only in patriarchal stories (Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32) and may have been a piece of uncoined silver.[104]

Although some suggest that verses 12-17 may be an addition to detail Job's recovery,[105] it is fully consistent with the narrative. All of Job's animals are doubled. His children, however, are not. People, of course, cannot be doubled; children lost cannot be replaced.[106] The word hn [;b]vi in verse 13 is irregular; the Targum translated it as a dual seven; that is, as fourteen sons.[107] Hartley suggests that the total number of children are doubled because Job's original children continue to live on in Sheol.[108] Pope argues that the number of daughters is unchanged because a large number of daughters would be seen as a burden under normal conditions.[109] The fact that Job treats his sons and daughters equally, giving his daughters a share of the inheritance, weakens that argument in Job's case. This inheritance is unusual; under Torah it would only be allowed if their were no sons.[110] Pope wonders if Job takes special care to provide for his daughters because he no longer trusts in God's provision.[111] Ben-Barak has found sporadic references to daughters receiving inheritances in Sumer, Old Babylon, Alalakh, Nuzi, Emar, Ugarit and Israel. At Nuzi and Emar, a father could adopt his daughter as a son if he had no sons. According to Ben-Barak, Job's action represents advanced social development.[112] Additionally, this act may be seen as a patriarchal prerogative. Job's daughters are the most beautiful in all the land. Strangely, they are also the only children named in the narrative: Dove, Cinnamon, and Horn of Eye-Shadow. Hartley sees this as counterbalancing the traditional importance placed on sons.[113] Finally, Job's life itself is doubled. He lives 140 years rather than the standard 70 (Psalm 90:10). The final ending, "old and full of days," is another patriarchal allusion. It was used for Abraham, Isaac, David and Jehoiada the priest.[114] Thus Job is accorded the same stature as the patriarchs, which also implies that he worshipped the same God and is the same type of hero.[115]

Observations from the narrative.
Let us begin by examining the character of God. God appears in the company of the divine council in the prologue, but alone in the epilogue. In fact, God is the only character to speak in the epilogue. God appears in the prologue as part of a pantheon, yet in the epilogue he is the single God of Israel. The first setting is legal, the second is religious and personal. In the prologue, God is influenced by the satan. The satan is absent in the epilogue; God is there influenced by Torah. Although the Torah is not specifically mentioned, it makes is presence known through the doubling of Job's property. The God of the epilogue places himself under the Torah requirement of a thief to return double what was stolen. The doubling does not, as some have suggested, indicated that the doctrine of retribution was correct all along.[116] Carson is correct in stating that no matter how happy the ending, nothing can remove the suffering Job underwent.[117] Rather what happens is full reconciliation between God and Job[118] once God places even himself under Torah.

The Torah, too, has undergone a change. The prologue introduces the friends of Job, who use the Torah to turn consolation into confrontation. God, however, uses the Torah in the epilogue not only to reconcile himself and Job, but to restore shalom between Job and his friends and between the friends and God.

The friends of the prologue do not yet speak, but we know that they will soon be the earthly satans of Job. Whereas the heavenly satan proposes that Job is righteous because of God's blessings, the earthly satans argue that God's blessings will be returned if Job becomes righteous once more. This view is condemned in the epilogue; God tells Eliphaz and his colleagues that they have not spoken "substantiated things" concerning him. Their "senselessness" may be understood as teaching that leads away from God.[119] This parallels the earlier characterizations of the speech of Job's wife. God demands a sacrifice from them, in keeping with the spirit of the Torah and the patriarchal setting, while putting Job in the place of their mediator. Thus, the accusers must come to the accused for forgiveness. Note that this is done even before Job's fortune is returned. The power imbalance between Job and his friends is set straight and shalom is restored. The behavior of the friends is rendered appropriate. The friends do what Yahweh tells them and Yahweh does what he promises in lifting up Job's face. Thus, a covenantal relationship is restored between God and the friends. The friends, who were close to the satan, are brought close to God through Job.

Job shows the smallest degree of chance. In the prologue he is righteous and wise; in the epilogue he remains righteous and wise. His religious behavior is unchanged as well; in the prologue he intercedes for his family, in the epilogue for his friends.[120] Not only is Job restored materially, but all his previous acquaintances return and finally give him the consolation and shared grieving which they owed him. Their meal with him parallels the meals that his sons used to have.[121] Perhaps their additional monetary gift is in recognition that they should not have deserted him and, in a sense, are attempting to double their consolation.

Conclusions.
This analysis of character development in the prologue and epilogue does not support the traditional interpretation of Job's repentance at the end of the poem. If Job's repentance is the message he wished to convey, it seems that the poet would have changed the narrative to fit his poem. Thus, Professor Michel's conclusions are supported. The tests of Job have brought about profound changes in God's relationship to Job and to Job's friends. The greatest degree of change is seen in God and the use of the Torah; the least change is seen in Job himself.

What then does the Book of Job mean? What does it tell us about God? One possibility is the God of the epiphany is not the God of Israel at all, but is the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon. This would make sense of the many mythological allusions in Job. Job, pictured as a non-Israelite, comes to realize that his view of the creator El is an insufficient view of God and he must turn away from this view if he is to maintain his integrity. Doing so leads him directly to the God of the Torah in the epilogue, that is, the God of Israel. One understanding of the change toward Torah and away from the divine council is that being in covenant with God destroys polytheism. Thus, the tale may be understood as an Israelite story illustrating the superiority of Yahweh over El and the Canaanite pantheon.

Another interpretation has to do with the relationship between God and Israel. This view takes into account the patriarchal picture of Job and the changes in the character of God. As the theologians after the exile, current theology is struggling to understand God after the Shoah. Current unsatisfactory attempts to deal with the problem include speculating that God is dead, absent, occasionally hidden, or punishing Israel for reasons unknown. According to Rabbi Herman Schaalman,[122] the Kabbalah suggests the alternative that God is vulnerable, not omnipotent, and was wounded in the Shoah along with Israel. God, therefore, depends as much on humanity for healing as humanity depends upon God. The message of the Book of Job may be similar. That is, the post-exilic theologians speculated that in some early stage of history, in patriarchal times, the creator God learned that creative power is insufficient to enter into relationship with humankind. God learned this from the righteousness of none other than a patriarch whom he had wounded. As God himself was wounded in the experience, God became dependent on humanity for fulfillment through covenant with humans. Thus, the exiles may have been reminded from the Book of Job that God struggled with the satan just as they did, but in the end it would be Torah that eliminated the satanic role and brought shalom.