Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Job

[Weevil]

while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God† shouted for joy?

Stuck on this verse today. Cross-referenced the Hebrew, and that was no help. Is it literal? Is it allegory?

[jimwalton]

It's not literal, but poetic. Morning stars don't sing, and there is only one Son of God. God, in chapter 38, is showing Job that Job doesn't have enough information to prosecute God (v. 2)—Job wasn't there at creation and doesn't understand how creation works (vv. 4ff.). Verse 7 is a poetic rendering of creation. The "morning stars" are usually descriptors of Mars and Venus, and He is poetically saying that creation was a grand celebration filled with joy. The "sons of God" (elohim) is a term used elsewhere in the Bible to describe angels. It's saying that all creation rejoiced in the presence of their Creator God.

[West Virginia]

> Morning stars don't sing, and there is only one Son of God.

This is a theological interpretation that clashes with the cultural context of the original text. Please don't spread disinformation, or at least point out that you are providing an out-of-context understanding of the underlying text.

[jimwalton]

I am neither spreading misinformation nor an out-of context understanding of the underlying text.

We barely know the cultural context. We don't know when Job was written, though guesses are that it was about 2000 BC—the oldest writing of the Bible. It's historical setting is pretty much absent, and its geographical setting is minimal (the land of Uz). The only significance of Uz is that it indicates Job is not an Israelite. That fact explains the absence of many key theological elements in the book, including law, covenant, temple, and references to YHWH. Even so, the book seems written from a theological perspective.

The context of the verse is fairly close to the beginning of God's lengthy reply to the court case Job and the friends have brought against Him. This opening poem is about the ancient perspective that the cosmos is YHWH's temple, and creation is likened to the construction of a building. Those who were "witnesses" at the outset (poetically speaking, the planets and the angels) are able to rejoice at the work of God. The point, of course, is that Job was NOT there and is not in a position to sit in judgment of God.

[West Virginia]

> though guesses are that it was about 2000 BC

Can you source this claim? Here's Robert Alter in his commentary on Job:

The style of the frame-story gives the general impression of early First Commonwealth Hebrew prose, but here and there a trait of Late Biblical Hebrew shows through—for example, the use of the verb qabel in 2:10 for “accept,” a verb that occurs in late texts such as Esther and Chronicles but not in earlier biblical writing. Other late usages, such as a couple of the prepositions that follow verbs there, have been detected by Avi Hurvitz, a historian of biblical Hebrew.

The poetry incorporates a noticeably higher proportion of terms borrowed from the Aramaic than does other biblical poetry. In some cases, even Aramaic grammatical suffixes are used, something that a translator from Aramaic would have avoided. To cite one recurrent example: the Aramaic milin, “words,” which would replace early biblical devarim in later Hebrew, appears thirty-four times in Job out of a total of thirty-eight biblical occurrences, and the Aramaic plural ending -in, instead of the Hebrew -im, is used several times.) All this suggests a historical moment when Aramaic was in the process of beginning to replace Hebrew as the vernacular of the Judahite population. That would place the Job poet in the fifth century or perhaps as early as the later sixth century B.C.E., though it is impossible to be more precise, and one cannot exclude an early fourth-century setting.

What do you say in response?

[jimwalton]

The setting of the book is traditionally placed in the patriarchal period. Job's wealth is in cattle and slaves. Religious belief and practice are simple. There is no reference to law or covenant. Two facts support the conclusion that it was written before the time of Moses: (1) Job's service as the family priest fits the patriarchal era, and (2) the lack of any reference to the sanctuary. There is no priesthood or central shrine mentioned.

The historical tidbits in the text (Sabeans in 1.15, Chaldeans in 1.17) suggest an old date. Here they are just nomadic raiders, suggesting an early period. There is no hint of later political and economic importance.

The unit of money suggests an old date (Job 42.11; Gn. 25.7).

Job's long life suggests the lifespans of those before the flood.

Marvin Pope (Anchor Bible series) says that "The Prologue-Epilogue also presents a number of literary features and motifs which are characteristic of Semitic epic, as known from Akkadian literature and ore recently from the Ugaritic texts. These epic literary features appear as a sort of substratum which may well deserve from a very ancient Job epic."

Ezekiel 14.14, 20 associates Job with Noah and Danel.

Eusebius suggested a pre-Mosaic date.

Analysis of the terminology doesn't help much. The term qesitah (42.11) betrays an old source (cf. Gn. 33.19; Josh. 24.32). The appearance of Aramaic terms is not helpful, either. The Hebrew of the text is quite complex, but Hebrew didn't evolve as a language until around 1100-1000 BC, so it was obviously actually written down in Hebrew later than that; there's no surprise it's been edited along the way. Until we have more to go on, we cannot use the language of the book to determine its date.

There are very ancient texts with similarities to Job: A Man and His God (Sumerian); Dialogue between a Man and His God (Akkadian), Sufferer's Salvation (Akkadian from Ugarit), Ludlul bel nemeq (Akkadian), and Babylonian Theodicy (Akkadian). These somewhat parallel works (though with many differences) put Job in about 2000 in a cultural pocket of these kinds of works, just as apocalyptic writing was popular during a particular era. his is not conclusive, either, but it does lend itself to viewing the writing as earlier rather than later.

At the same time, the book does have 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.

Rabbinic opinion was all over the map. They range from 2000 BC to the Persian period.

As you mentioned, Alter puts it 6th-4th c. BC. William Albright also.

It can't be certain. I said "guesses " are that it was about 2000 BC, and that's true. I think a half-reasonable case could be made for that date, but it's still an open question. We don't really know when it was written; we don't have enough information.

[West Virginia]

> Job's wealth is in cattle and slaves. Religious belief and practice are simple. There is no reference to law or covenant.

This has nothing to do with time period and everything to do with location. Don't conflate the patriarchal period of the 10th century with the later Northern Arabian milieu.

> The unit of money suggests an old date (Job 42.11; Gn. 25.7).

I don't understand why you're using Genesis as a comparison for “oldness” when you should know the Yahwist source is typically dated from either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.

> Eusebius suggested a pre-Mosaic date.

Eusebius was living in 300 CE, way too late to have any accurate report of historicity and way too early for modern archaeological and philological analyses of the text!

> Marvin Pope (Anchor Bible series) says that

Yeah, that's what Alter says too, that the frame-story clearly has its origins in ancient folktales preserved through oral tradition. This says nothing about the composition of the Book of Job as it has come to us, via the hand of a final redactor, much less of the other later sources, such as the dialogues and the Hymn to Wisdom section.

> There are very ancient texts with similarities to Job

So you're saying this story is actually co-opted from the general ANE wisdom milieu? How progressive of you.

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

Says who? Is this your opinion or is there scholarly consensus on this point? Is your position that the entire field of philology is a fraud?

[jimwalton]

>>Job's wealth in cattle and slaves

> This has nothing to do with time period and everything to do with location.

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

> Don't conflate the patriarchal period of the 10th century with the later Northern Arabian milieu.

I'm not. The patriarchal period to which I'm referring is of the 20th c. BC.

> I don't understand why you're using Genesis as a comparison for “oldness” when you should know the Yahwist source is typically dated from either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC

I have different views than you on when Genesis was written, but regardless of its date of writing, its period is of the 21st-17th centuries BC, and the culture it describes, along with some of its terminology, date to the early 2nd millennium BC.

> Eusebius was living in 300 CE,

Correct, but it's just another source that suggests the Abrahamic era rather than the Persian one. He must have had some source unavailable to us to write what he did.

> the frame-story clearly has its origins in ancient folktales preserved through oral tradition.

I don't take Job to be an historical account, nor do I take Job to be an historical personage. It's a philosophical/theological wisdom treatise. I think, though, based on the quality of Hebrew and poetry, that the writing far exceeds as mere folktale. It's a serious piece of quality literature and a deep theodicy.

> This says nothing about the composition of the Book of Job as it has come to us, via the hand of a final redactor, much less of the other later sources, such as the dialogues and the Hymn to Wisdom section.

I was not really making a claim to that effect, either. I mentioned that there are guesses that it was composed in about 2000 BC, must have been written down sometime after 1000 BC, and was obviously edited after that.

> So you're saying this story is actually co-opted from the general ANE wisdom milieu? How progressive of you.

Actually I didn't say that at all. What I suggested is that its literary genre of similarity to other ancient works possibly puts it in that era. I didn't make a claim about derivation or co-opting from other sources.

> Says who?

Dr. John Walton, The NIV Application Commentary, "Job" p. 24: "We should also note that the language of the book has been the subject of much discussion. The book is uncontested for the complexity of its Hebrew. Scholars have attempted to identify it as a dialect or even as a translation, but no such suggestions have been substantiated are widely excepted. All of this is to say that until we have more to go on, we cannot use the language of the book to determine its date."

Marvin Pope says (p. XXXII) that the historic and monetary terms could suggest an early date. The literary features and motifs could suggest an early date (p. XXXII). The Mesopotamian parallels could suggest an early date (p. XXXIII). Albright favors the 6th-4th c. (p. XXXIV). The Rabbins are widespread in their opinions. On p. XL, Pope, with regard to the date it was written, concludes, "The fact that dates proposed by authorities, ancient and modern, span more than a millennium is eloquent testimony that the evidence is equivocal and inconclusive."

> Is this your opinion or is there scholarly consensus on this point? Is your position that the entire field of philology is a fraud?

Of course that is not my position. Philology is a very valid field.

[West Virginia]

> 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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.