I've been repeatedly quite clear that I believe Job is the oldest book in the Bible, but other scholars make a case in other directions. I don't agree with them, but they have arguments and support for their positions. That's the fun of scholarly debate. I think the weight of evidence is in favor of the patriarchal period, as I have repeatedly mentioned.

But what does it really matter? Though I believe the book was written in 2000 BC, it doesn't matter if it wasn't. What's important in Job is the message of the book; it doesn't really matter when it was written.

> who is your authority?

I do my research. I read commentaries and scholarly journals. The book of Job itself doesn't claim a time it was written (like, "During the days of King...").

> Eusebius fixes it two ages before Moses

Yes, he does, but remember Eusebius is writing in AD 300. It's like us making a confident statement about who wrote something in 300 BC, 2300 years earlier than we live. It doesn't carry tons of weight, though in my opinion it's another piece of the puzzle that leads me to believe that Job was written in the days of the patriarchs.

> Sabeans about 1520 -1447 BC.

There's no evidence that the Sabeans existed in 1500 BC. Who is your authority for this stance?

> Job alludes only to the earliest form of idolatry

I agree. I think Job was written early, even though others don't.

> The Hebrew word translates a piece of money, ought rather to be rendered a lamb. Job 42.11

Not so. The Hebrew term in Job 42.11 is קְשִׂיטָה (qesita) and it mean "ingot; piece of silver." The word for lamb (ewe) is כִּבְשֹׂת (kibsot) or הַשֶּׂה (haseh).

> The language of Job is Hebrew, interspersed occasionally with Syriac and Arabic expressions.

Of course it is. We've been saying this all along.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I think Job was written in the patriarchal period. Other scholars do not. There are arguments in the 3 directions, but I think the weight of evidence is patriarchal, as it seems you do. As far as I can tell, you and I agree, though you seem to have a few things incorrect, as in my comments above.

It can't be 800 BC—the book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible Moses wrote Geneses in 1400 BCE there more than enough time markers—[b]who is your authority?[/b] Eusebius fixes it two ages before Moses and Job's length of life is patriarchal 200 years, and he lived among the Midianites, and the Sabeans about 1520 -1447 BC. Job alludes only to the earliest form of idolatry—viz the worship of the sun, moon, and heavenly hosts ([b]called Saba, whence arises the tiltle Lord of Sabaoth. as opposed to Sabeanism[/b]) (Job : 31:26-28). The Hebrew word translates a [b]piece of money[/b], ought rather to be rendered [b]a lamb[/b]. The language of Job is Hebrew, interspersed occasionally with Syriac and Arabic expressions.

I'm always doing more research, thank you, but if you have been following the thread, you have noticed several things:

The book has very few, and possible zero, time markers for us to go by. There are parts of the book that lead us to an early writing (such as that the Jewish laws and temple rituals are absent), there are parts of the book that lead us to a middle writing (mention of the Sabeans, who weren't in existence until after 1000 BC), and finally some parts that lead us to a late writing (some Aramaic phrases and terms).

So instead of just telling me I'm off the mark and need to do more research, how about if you show me evidence of the Sabeans and Chaldeans in 1447 or earlier. That would go further in the discussion than merely telling me I haven't done my homework (which I have). I'm always willing to learn more, but I need facts, not just rebukes.

Here are the factors suggesting the patriarchal period:

[list][*] The setting of the book seems to be from the patriarchal period
[*] The unit of money in Job 42.11
[*] Job's lifespan
[*] The literary style of the book are similar to other works from about 2000 BC
[*] There is no mention of priesthood, Jewish laws, or temple rituals
[*] Ezekiel 14.14, 20 associates Job with Noah and Danel.
[*] The mention of the Chaldeans, a tribal group from the Abrahamic era (Gn. 11.27)[/list]

To me the weight of evidence puts Job's writing in the patriarchal period, making it the oldest book in the OT.

The elements that suggest a writing date of about 900-800 are:

[list][*] the brief mention of the Sabeans, a group that doesn't exist in history until about 1000 BC.
[*] has some distinctive Israelite features (no symbiosis, interest in the judgment and righteousness of God, worship of celestial deities considered an offense, and the idea of the retribution principle) that could put the writing later than 1000 BC.[/list]

The elements that suggest a writing date of about 800-600 are the Aramaic phrases and terms.

There's my research in a nutshell that I laid out in previous posts. Add your research to these, and I can add your points to my data base here, and we can continue the discussion. Let's keep talking.

[b]It cannot be 900-800 BC[/b], Since the era of Job came before the era of Moses, 1447 BCE, [b]the priesthood, Jewish laws, and temple rituals were not in place.[/b] There were no official temples or consecrated altars for worship at the time of Job, so the family patriarchs built their own temple altar and performed the sacrifices of burnt offerings and blood sacrifices to Jehovah God. In a commentary by A. R. Fausset a respected scholar as Henry also has the date at 1520 BCE. And so, you have to do more research, because your off the mark on this account.

Uh, yeah, that's Henry's scholarly opinion. It's very difficult to pin down Job as to the date of writing. Being philosophical-wisdom literature, there are virtually no historical markers in it. It mentions the Sabeans and the Chaldeans in chapter 1, and that's about it.

The Sabeans (Job 1.15; the kingdom of Saba, the land of Sheba) are known to history only from possibly 1200-300 BC. It's in the area of present-day Yemen.

The Chaldeans (Job 1.17; Babylon) are known from about 1000 BC and are mentioned in Assyrian sources.

These two historical facts could place the writing of the book at about the 900-800 BC. (After 600ish, the Babylonians were a rising powerful empire, and would not be described as the small raiding parties of a nomadic tribe).

So that's all we have to go on besides the cultural context at about 2000 BC, the vocabulary, some of which puts the writing anywhere from 2000-600 BC, and external sources that put its date anywhere from 2000-600 BC.

In other words, it's simply unknown and unknowable. Guestimates and suggestions based on evidence are all over the map. It's just impossible to pin down.

And so we generally ignore the question of when it was written. Frankly, when it was written has no effect on what the book is about, so it's just not a major concern. Instead, it's only a curiosity that scholars enjoy researching and discussing, but it will probably never be resolved, and that's OK.

In Matthew Henry's commentary has the date of Job 1520 BCE. The languages of poetry set down in the book of Job mostly uses principles of versification essentially blank meter of un-rhymed iambic pentameter.

> this story does not take place in the Levant. It most likely takes place in Northern Arabia.

This comment of yours is an odd response to "back in the Patriarchal days, coinage didn't exist."

I have no quarrel with the idea that the story takes place in Northern Arabia. I have not been asserting otherwise. Actually, the location of the story hasn't been in our conversation at all, so this remark of yours is strange.

The story of Job takes place in Uz. The location of Uz is not precisely known, but it has been associated with Philistia, Edom, and Moab, in the region of the Levant. The Septuagint locates it northeast from Idumea, towards the Arabian Desert. Ptolomey says it was in the Arabian Desert west from Babylon, under the Caucabenes. The point is not where it is but more that Job is not an Israelite.

> It fits better the idea of rural Northern Arabia in most eras

This has not been a subject of our discussion. My conversation has been about the era, not about the location.

> But ultimately it's the final redactor who is the “author” of a received text.

I disagree with this. It depends on the amount of redaction. Updating a few dozen terms does't make one the author. If I were to go through Chaucer and update the terms to 21st-c. vocabulary, it wouldn't qualify me as the author.

> Back in the patriarchal days, coinage didn't exist.

Once again, this story does not take place in the Levant. It most likely takes place in Northern Arabia.

> My point was that the mention of herds and slaves as a measure of wealth fits the patriarchal era far more than the Persian era.

It fits better the idea of rural Northern Arabia in most eras.

> may possibly only show that some redactions happened later. It is no comment on the origin, date, or authorship of the book.

We're not talking about the authorship of each independent source of the book. Obviously the frame-story is quite ancient because of its very soft monotheism / divine council theology. But ultimately it's the final redactor who is the “author” of a received text.

> No it doesn't. Coinage is an urban, military, and temple practice in antiquity.

Yes it does. Coinage was a later addition to economic practice. Coins weren't invented until the middle 1st millennium BC. Back in the patriarchal days, coinage didn't exist.

> There were plenty of distant rural locations—even into modern times!—which did not use government, military, or temple currencies.

Correct. But no one used currency until the mid-1st millennium BC. My point was that the mention of herds and slaves as a measure of wealth fits the patriarchal era far more than the Persian era.

> A lack of coinage language tells us nothing about the date of a text, but rather the location of a text.

It actually gives a clue about the date of a text. It's one possible clue that Job was probably not written during the Persian or post-exilic era.

> This is some bad scholarship then

Obviously different scholars have different viewpoints. You say tomayto, he says tomahto. That doesn't make him the wrong one.

> The particular use of Aramaicisms betrays a time in which Hebrew and Aramaic were differentiating.

This is unconvincing. The particular use of Aramaicisms may possibly only show that some redactions happened later. It is no comment on the origin, date, or authorship of the book.

> They pertain to the era before widespread use of precious metals as currency or coinage, certainly.

No it doesn't. Coinage is an urban, military, and temple practice in antiquity. There were plenty of distant rural locations—even into modern times!—which did not use government, military, or temple currencies. A lack of coinage language tells us nothing about the date of a text, but rather the location of a text.

> The Mesopotamian parallels could suggest an early date

This is some bad scholarship then, because by this criteria many medieval works would be considered ancient due to parallelism. Bad Marvin Pope. Bad.

> we cannot use the language of the book to determine its date.

This is unconvincing. The particular use of Aramaicisms betrays a time in which Hebrew and Aramaic were differentiating. The fact that Walton ignores this is hugely concerning.