A New Look at the Drama of "Job"

A NEW LOOK AT THE DRAMA OF (JOB" "The chances are when there's so much pretense Of metaphysical profundity The obscurity's a fraud to cover nothing." (Robert Frost, A Masque of Reason) IN THE INTRODUCTION TO his remarkable little volume The Theatre of the Absurd) Esslin makes the tantalizing suggestion that our contemporary literature of the Absurd, all appearances nothwithstanding, might well be seen as a return to old, even archaic, traditions, traditions which "may at times have been submerged, but ... can be traced back to antiquity."! It certainly seems reasonable to assume that the excessive use of technical and stylistc innovations on the part of modern authors, and their unabashed propensity to unleash shock effects upon their audiences, have blinded us to the fact that the works themselves are basically much less novel than they appear. It is the purpose of this article to demonstrate how far back into our cultural past the roots of this contemporary movement really reach by the use of one supremely archaic example, namely, the Book of Job. I shall try to show that the Book of Job bears striking resemblances to the modern literature of protest and paradox, thematically as well as in treatment. The argument is not nearly as incongruous as it may sound. Byexamining works of the past in the light of significant new insights, we may well gain a deeper understanding of these earlier works than their own contemporaries, perhaps even their authors, were capable of attaining.2 As we would expect, the traditonaI approach to the Book ot Job has been mainly theological, rather than literary. By way of introduction , let us therefore cast a brief glance at the problems of interpretation encountered through the ages by theologians, whose efforts have traditionally been aimed at fitting the Book ot Job into the pre-established mold of religious-devotional literature. Generally speaking most such efforts have ended in frustration. Practically all the religious commentators, irrespective of their particular faith, bemoan the difficulties inherent in a satisfactory interpretation of the controversial text. In fact, so great are these difficulties that they have led to what may well be termed a case of theological schizophrenia among Bible scholars. The problem of interpretation is made even more acute because of the large number of serious difficulties of a strictly scholarly 1 Martin Esslin, The Theatre of the Absurd (New York, 1961), p. xxiii. 2 For an example of this method of criticism, cf. Jacques Scherer. "Marivaus and Pirandello," Modern Drama, I. 1 (May, 1958). 191 192 MODERN DRAMA September nature connected with the text itself: determining its ethnic and linguistic origin, date of composition, authorship, etc. Although these problems do not concern us here directly, we must bear in mind that they exist, and contribute to aggravate a situation which is already confused by its very nature. A few examples will suffice to explain what is meant by "theological schizophrenia," a symptom which spans the centuries. As early as the fifth century A.D." we find Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, baffied by the need to reconcile the traditional image of the godly patriarch with some of the more impious curses put into Job's mouth by the author of the Book. He solves the problem neatly, if not convincingly, by acusing the author of having wilfully distorted the image of the pious hero of legend and tradition. Similar examples of pious Job syndrome can be found through the ages, right up to and including the twentieth century. Roland Murphy, a contemporary Catholic scholar, finds Job's more rebellious speeches no less of a baffiement than did his predecessor Theodore some fifteen hundred years earlier. Referring to Job's violent outburst (31:35-37), in which he challenges his Maker in proud and arrogant fashion, Murphy can only comment lamely that "this proud challenge would be judged as blasphemy in the mouth of anyone else."s Blasphemous utterance is ruled out a priori, irregardless of textual fact! By means of astute manipulation, the interpreter then tries to make the text fit his devotional purpose, until the raging, cursing and desperate Job of the Book stands before us as a homiletic symbol of...