Thanks for explaining. I find this explanation remarkably disturbing, however. It offers absolutely zero reason for discounting the plain meaning of the text other than a supposed "literary pattern" (which I doubt any orthodox interpreter would deny it is in poetic format). What about the form being "literary" or poetic is incongruous with the actual historicity which is also asserted? Or what about its poetic/literary form would even suggest such an idea or possibility? This is an extremely dangerous way to handle the Bible, brother. You rightly acknowledge the historicity of Job, his wife, his children (obviously God and Satan). As you point out, the friends are given actual names and geographic locations. God speaks about them as individuals at the end of the book. They are introduced in the opening narrative portion of the book just like everyone else, and not in the poetic section. And yet, inexplicably, for no other apparent reason than a "literary pattern" you suggest that it is possible they may have not been historical individuals but "composite characters"? I find that seriously concerning.
I think the strongest part of your position is found in reference to God's direct address to Eliphaz in Job.42:7. My response goes back to my statement making a distinction between "true to life" and "true to the drama." Obviously, if these perfectly coincide, there isn't even a single issue here. At question is whether the book of Job is a
drama, a biographical staged presentation (biopic) based on actual events; or is the book of Job even more than a documentary, is it a photorealistic play-by-play of actual verbal interchanges in sequential order? Is it something in between? The dramatized God could address the dramatized Eliphaz in Job.42:7, and this be 100% true to the drama. The events of history would be both true of themselves, and truthfully correlative to the dramatic event. God rebuked the errorists in history, no less than in the play; but as in the scenes of heaven at the play's outset, the description is accommodated to the audience' capability, and the limits of the form.
I have adopted the view that Job is a drama, and by that assumption I'm led to weigh the details presented in the text in light of it. I hold in highest regard "the plain meaning" of the text, but that plainness is inseparable from the literature that embeds it. The "plain meaning" e.g. of portions of the book of Revelation (and biblical apocalyptic lit generally) has often been wrested out of context to prove nonsense. My position in regard to the book of Job is that due to nature of drama, including the occasional need to restrict the number of characters for the sake of the audience following along, it is no prejudice to truth if true-to-life Job had more than three friends who came to him with misplaced advice; in which case those all were condensed to three true-to-the-drama. The whole work is the drama, including the prose sections; the prologue and epilogue are conditioned by the dialogues.
I did offer specific
reasons for proposing that dogmatism on every particular respecting Job's friends in the drama need not be united in perfection with the historic reality of his friends in real life. Here they are again:
1) Genre: poetry
2) Form/pattern: drama.
a) limitations/demands of the form
b) artistic license
The "literary pattern" of the majority of Job, including the parts assigned to the three friends, is that of ancient drama. It isn't simply
poetry, though it is that too, in the most general assignment of genre; and poetry in the nature of the case is
not interpreted in literalist (hence historical) manner. Poetry may teach
truth, but is so in a different way than reportage. It is figurative, fired with imagination, contains metaphor and countless other literary devices in profusion (poetry's indirectness is its primary characteristic), and aims at a person's emotional core. It gets to the truth less by a straight logical or propositional appeal, but roundabout through the heart and relational experience.
And, the form in which the poetry of Job is found is ancient drama. Even so, the inherent qualities of dramatic creations may not be swept aside because allegedly and
a priori: an inspired biopic would never use artistic license; or, inspired biopics don't exist. Authors of drama
put words in the mouths of their characters, and sometimes even
create characters in order to further the purpose of the drama. The verbal interaction of Job and his three friends shows a high degree of stylized rhetoric. I am not afraid to assert that these men
of history did not converse with one another using spontaneous or written lines of poetry. Job lay in ashes! Theirs was not a formal exchange happening
in real life. But composed
in a drama, their stylized rhetoric heightens the experience of the audience as they enter into Job's experience--his bodily, emotional, and spiritual suffering.
Therefore, since I think Job is ancient drama, and it's inspired; I thence think it could include artistic license, without prejudicing the accurate reports and truth-value of numerous other true-to-life historic accounts in the Bible that are not ancient drama. Being
true to the drama is as important to that kind of creation as being
true to life is important to historical reportage. Just because truth is in the Bible doesn't mean that only the latter is acceptable for any and all accounts, assuming there is a drama in the Bible. I claim: here in Job is the one drama; and according to that genre and form it powerfully expresses sacred truth. Whether the Eliphaz of history and the Eliphaz of drama are identical or analogous, it hardly affects accurate interpretation and understanding of Job, or calls God's veracity into doubt--no more than do arguments over whether Hosea actually married a prostitute named Gomer.
I think you must deal with the foundational issue of genre followed by form. Admit that poetry introduces
intentional elasticity into literary interpretation with which even a faithful student of the Bible must cope, even if he insists afterward on the most strict historicity in detail, due to other overriding factors in his mind. I'm sorry that you are disturbed and concerned. I'm afraid you may be retreating into a parsimonious literalism, in the face of abuses you know come from the critics.
Try to understand what I'm affirming literarily, and the limit of where it takes me. Be at peace.