Job 3:14 and rebuilding ruined cities and building ruins and david tracy and fragments

When Job begins his mental "vacation" or journey in 3:11, to escape from the throbbing realities of psychic and physical pain expressed in 3:1-10, he imagines himself in another realm (which appears to be Sheol, even though he doesn't call it so here) in the company of two types of people: the small and the great (katon and gadol). At first he talks about the "great," the kings and princes of the earth (14-15). After another question (16), he talks about the small (17-19). He uses an interesting phrase in v.14 to describe the kings, a phrase which has, I fear, been misconstrued by most interpreters (including myself in an earlier essay on this subject). Instead of reading it, as the NRSV and most translations do, "who rebuild ruins for themselves," I think it ought to be translated literally, "who built ruins [i.e., ruined cities] thus."

What's in a "Re"?

What is the difference? Let's first take the "standard" interpretation, "who rebuild(t) ruins for themselves." This translation suggests that Job is commending or honoring these people for having restored their communities and empires. And, there is a real air of plausibility in this. In the ancient, as well as the modern, world people attain notoriety not simply for being the builders but for being the rebuilders. If the kings rebuilt the ruins, the text would suggest that the glory of kings lies in their ability to restore the glory of the past, to recapture a faded luster. In an age of exile, the vision of a king restoring destroyed ruins might be something that would fire the imagination and call forth admiration. This interpretation, then, stresses the glory of the kings. If the Book of Proverbs states that it is the glory of kings to search things out (Prov.25:2), Job would be saying that the glory of kings was in rebuidling the ancient ruins.

The only problem with this rendering is that it seems to founder on the literal language of the text. The Hebrew text reads habanot harabot lamo. The first word is a participial form of the verb "to build" (NOT rebuild). The second word is a noun that is formed off the verb "to ruin," but commentators have shown how in other places it refers to ruined cities (Is. 58:12; 61:4). The final word is a cipher. It is literally translated "thus" or "so" or "at" or "for" and is used four other times in Job (one time with "destroy") in this way (27:14; 29:21; 38:40; 40:4). "For themselves" is a defensible translation, but I don't know quite what to do with the final lamo.

When in Doubt, Read the Text

So, before we run to a translation that makes us feel comfortable, which "rebuild ruined cities" does, let's read the text literally and stay with it for a moment. Job wishes he was with kings and counselors of the earth who built ruins thus, who built ruined cities for themselves. There is a world of difference between those who REbuilt ruins, thereby restoring a lost glory, and those who BUILT ruins from the beginning. Of course, you might say, no one BUILDS ruins. Even people who engage in shoddy construction, ancient and modern, want their finished product at least to look good for a while. But if we render the words as they are literally given, who built ruins," we enter into an interesting conceptual realm. Job would not so much be commending or even envying the great accomplishments of departed worthies as showing the futility of human effort even by those seemingly most in control of their destinies and of history.

This notion of the futility of human effort, captured in who built ruins, might then be seen also in v.15. Rather than looking at the amassing of gold and silver by princes as something commendable and honorable, Job would be stressing also the vanity of that endeavor. Recall that when Job utters his final words of self-justification, his oath of innocence in ch.31, he wants to be judged negatively by God "if I have made gold my trust, or called fine gold my confidence" (31:24). If Job, though a rich man himself, never put confidence in gold, why would he envy princes whose only attribute he mentions about them is that they accumulated gold and silver? Read in this way, Job 3:14-15 function as an ironic comment on the futility of human endeavor. It is ironic because in v.13 Job has uttered his desire to be at rest with these people. One would think that he wants to join in his time of peace the people he admires. Well, maybe he admires them, but he admires them more for the futility of their efforts rather than their signal successes.

Fragments of a Life

Doesn't this interpretation have psychological verisimilitude and even psychological attraction? Job's world has come crumbling down. He has become aware of the vanity, futility and impermanence of all those things on which he rested his confidence. Wouldn't it make sense, now that his life is in fragments, to celebrate and want to be with other great people whose lives also manifested a tattered and fragmentary quality?

Which brings me to the subject of fragments. Prof. David Tracy, of the U of Chicago Divinity School, is doing work on fragments these days. Because of the demands of pluralism and the seeming impotence of progressive religion, our traditions are in tatters, he argues. All we have are "fragments" of the past. Philosophically, too, we are in the age of the fragment, as "totalizing" explanations of life no longer have their appeal. What Tracy is trying to do is not simply to recognize the reality of our fragmentary existence, and the little pieces of tradition that lie around us like shards that surround the archaeologist, but to argue that this is actually a hopeful sign. In the midst of ruins, life can be rebuilt. Fragments can often be put together in interesting ways to reconstitute life for us.

Seen from the perspective of fragments of a life, then, Job's words in 3:14 take on new weight for our postmodern world. Job would be recognizing in his three words that the glory of kings, rather than to rebuild and construct a new civilization is to deconstruct the world by building ruins. What a refreshingly and dauntingly modern notion. Not only are the actions of the "little people" in our world futile or often meaningless, but the great ones of the world are spending their time building ruins.

Conclusion

Are they conscious of it? Were the ancient kings aware that they were building ruins? Are their modern counterparts thus aware? Possibly not. But, then again, they haven't reflected deeply on the Book of Job and the futility of the effort of those who were considered great in the world. These three words tell us that one of the great minds of all time is right before our eyes.