Bible Study Job

[OzSpen]

I agree Jim Parker. The meta data is not as important as some would have it to be. It has its place, but in my view, the text has much much more to offer.

The Sages have much to say about Iyov (Job) and there are many stories in Jewish circles that tell much about Job. Interestingly enough, there are ancient Hebrew words in the document that even Hebrew Scholars dont know the entire meaning, so they guess as best they can. In no other part of scripture are these to be found other than in Job.
Dating the book has enough of it's own problems, including the time Job was alive, if indeed he were a real person at all. This is why it is considered a Mashal. The details dont have to be accurate because the intent is where the weight is at.
The Jews have very different conversations about Job than we do. Such as, was Job greater than Abram? It would seem so in many ways I wont get into. However, they look at it in light of the rewards of the world to come. Job had his reward here, Abraham in the world to come.

SB,

In general, I agree with these sentiments. However, I am sceptical of, say, an Adventist Adventurer [who] Claimed to Have Found Ark of the Covenant Beneath Crucifixion Site.


See deathbed confession of Ron Wyatt on the Ark of the Covenant 'discovery'. There is a refutation of Wyatt's 'discovery' in Holy Relics or Revelation (Standish & Standish 1999).

Wyatt's discovery has been denied by Hebrew scholars and I understand the book has been requested to be withdrawn from the market. So credibility of the author is an important issue, where such authorship can be recovered.

Francis I Andersen's Tyndale OT Commentary on Job provides this info about the authorship of Job:

We do not know who wrote the book of Job or when he lived. Nor do we know where. If several persons were involved, we still know nothing about them. Unless the author was a professional Wisdom teacher, we have no idea of his place in society. And even then, as a member of the intelligentsia, we cannot discover any institutional setting for the composition of such a work, whether the royal court, a shrine whose officers could read and had books, or, later, the synagogue (Andersen 1976:61).​

The question of the date of composition is a 'vexed' question and 'a wide range of dates has been proposed' according to Andersen.

Other OT scholars such as Keil & Delitzsch consider that the dating of Job could belong in the time of the exile and be a pattern for the people of the exile. However, it may 'seem far more probable that the book of Job is older than that period of Israel's suffering' (Commentary on the Old Testament: Job, vol 4, p. 20) - Google the last phrase on this website if you want to know more about their understanding of the authorship of Job.

Oz

 

[Razeontherock]

I'm not sure why Ron Wyatt is relevant here, nor was I aware he was a seventh day Adventist?

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm not sure why Ron Wyatt is relevant here

Is Wyatt relevant anywhere?

 

[OzSpen]

Is Wyatt relevant anywhere?

Jim,

He was a simple example of an author for whom knowledge about him is important. I could have used knowledge of Jim Jones, Adolph Hitler, or some little known author as being important in dealing with the content of a narrative.

Would knowledge of the author of Job assist in our exegesis and exposition of Job?

I consider that our knowledge of Paul, the author, is a help in understanding his epistles written to various churches.

Oz

 

[Razeontherock]

Jim,

He was a simple example of an author for whom knowledge about him is important. I could have used knowledge of Jim Jones, Adolph Hitler, or some little known author as being important in dealing with the content of a narrative.

Would knowledge of the author of Job assist in our exegesis and exposition of Job?

I consider that our knowledge of Paul, the author, is a help in understanding his epistles written to various churches.

Oz

The idea of modern scholarship that Jews never wrote anything down before the Babylonian captivity is entirely short-sighted. Just because the oldest extant manuscripts may come from then by no means indicates they weren't themselves replacements of older texts. Neither does it yield any indication of when it first might have been written down.

 

[Jim Parker]

Would knowledge of the author of Job assist in our exegesis and exposition of Job?

Not a bit.

I consider that our knowledge of Paul, the author, is a help in understanding his epistles written to various churches.

Yes. That is because we have biographical information about Paul. We know when he lived; that he was a pharisee; that he was educated by Gamaliel; that he liven during the ministry of Jesus and the primitive church; that he spoke both Greek and Hebrew; (F.F. Bruce wrote that Paul corrected the LXX where it departed from the Hebrew) and more. All that contributes to our understanding of Paul's writings.


jim

 

[OzSpen]

Not a bit.

Yes. That is because we have biographical information about Paul. We know when he lived; that he was a pharisee; that he was educated by Gamaliel; that he liven during the ministry of Jesus and the primitive church; that he spoke both Greek and Hebrew; (F.F. Bruce wrote that Paul corrected the LXX where it departed from the Hebrew) and more. All that contributes to our understanding of Paul's writings.


jim

Jim,

I find those 2 statements to be in conflict.

You said knowledge of the author of the Book of Job would help 'not a bit' [in exegesis and exposition].

Then you state that 'biographical information about Paul', the author of his epistles, 'contributes to our understanding of Paul's writings'.

If these 2 statements are to be consistent, then we conclude with either:

1. Knowledge of the author of Job would help, just as knowledge of Paul 'contributes to our understanding of Paul's writings'. OR
2. Knowledge of Job's authorship is as useless as knowledge of Paul is for his writings.

I happen to consider that #1 is the better way to go, but God in His wisdom, has chosen to give us the God-breathed Book of Job without knowledge of the author - for God's reasons.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

I find those 2 statements to be in conflict.

Good point.
Also moot point.
We do not have any information on the "author" of Job and it is quite likely that the story of Job was widely known before it was written down and that the person who wrote it is not the originator of the story.
On the other hand, the information about Paul, as well as the culture and times in which he wrote, is readily accessible to us. And Paul's writings are not stories but letters containing clearly stated doctrines and praxis.
So when we speak of the "authorship" of Job and of Paul's letters, we are not speaking of the same kind of action.

jim

 

[JohnDB]

Authorship is an "interesting" idea, when it comes to works from antiquity. Modern scholarship likes to contest that nothing Jewish was written before the Babylonian captivity. I find the short-sightedness of this view to be oppressive. Language surely changed by that time, which was a good reason to write out new versions; plus the fact they were in captivity. So if the oldest known manuscripts seem to be from that time period, it means none of it had ever been written down previously?!? Oy vey.

Attributing authorship of Job to Moses does make a lot of sense from a Jewish perspective, I'm surprised this is the first I've heard of it.

Job was never attributed to or part of the Torah....but Moses' authorship is the best guess from internal evidence and structural writing style.

 

[Jim Parker]

Job was never attributed to or part of the Torah....but Moses' authorship is the best guess from internal evidence and structural writing style.

I would put the emphasis on the word "guess." Has it been compared to any other writings? I don't know.
But it is widely held that Job was not a contemporary of Moses but, rather, probably predates Moses by about 500 years.

I expect that "Job" fits right in with the standard writing style of time and place. It could have been anyone.

And, what parts of the scripture can one with a high level of certainty ascribe to Moses? Only:
Exo 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Num 33:2 Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the LORD. And these are their journeys according to their starting points:
Deu 31:9 So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.
Deu 31:22 Therefore Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the children of Israel.

Exo 24:4 "All the words of the Lord" is a recording someone else's words. (The Lord's)
Num 33:2: This is a travel log.
Deu 31:9: The Law is in the form of a, 5-part, Vassal/Suzerain treaty which was common throughout the Near East at that time. The style was dictated by the customs and protocols of the time, place and culture.
Deu 31:22: This song was given to Moses by God. It is in a form that would be recognized as "standard" for the time, place, and culture. It would be interesting to compare this bit of writing to the narrative of Job. Regretfully, it is way way beyond my abilities as I have zero training in ancient near eastern literature. (Other than Biblical)

But I might try an comparison of the LXX-to-English versions of the two. That could be interesting.

iakov the fool

 

[Northman]

but Moses' authorship is the best guess from internal evidence and structural writing style.

I thought it was the writing style and different words used that was evidence against it being Moses, not for.

 

[Winnie]

I always figure if the writing likes to repeat itself, as if you didnt hear some statement the first time, then it was written by Moses. Like one example: 'It was the same Moses and Aaron...' I think he says that like three times in one paragraph.

 

[Razeontherock]

Job was never attributed to or part of the Torah....but Moses' authorship is the best guess from internal evidence and structural writing style.

Again, using logic like this (I realize academia as a whole does) is "interesting" at best. As an example of this type of literature from this era, who do we have besides Moses?

Crickets.

Therefore we conclude "Moses wrote it!" Never stopping to notice this writing style may not tell us anything about Moses at all, but may merely reflect development of language at the time.

I think it makes a lot more sense to recognize God's chosen people preserved their own history in a unique way: as Paul said, the Jew has much advantage in every way, chiefly that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Therefore when it was first written down and by whom becomes moot.

It does make a lot of sense that Jews would attribute it to Moses though; he represents their founding as a Nation instead of just the Patriarchs and their clans. They don't exactly have the concept of separation of Church and State, and the Wisdom Job conveys is very much a part of their National identity. (Not speaking in modern terms)

 

[JohnDB]

Again, using logic like this (I realize academia as a whole does) is "interesting" at best. As an example of this type of literature from this era, who do we have besides Moses?

Crickets.

Therefore we conclude "Moses wrote it!" Never stopping to notice this writing style may not tell us anything about Moses at all, but may merely reflect development of language at the time.

I think it makes a lot more sense to recognize God's chosen people preserved their own history in a unique way: as Paul said, the Jew has much advantage in every way, chiefly that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Therefore when it was first written down and by whom becomes moot.

It does make a lot of sense that Jews would attribute it to Moses though; he represents their founding as a Nation instead of just the Patriarchs and their clans. They don't exactly have the concept of separation of Church and State, and the Wisdom Job conveys is very much a part of their National identity. (Not speaking in modern terms)

Hebrew is one of the few first written languages. Egyptian and (I'm drawing a blank at the moment) were the only other ones.
Languages, when alive and used, transform over time. Job is written pure Hebrew without any age to it at all.

Since Jewish customs allow for "underlings" to be anonymous Moses authorship is a given. but that doesn't mean that Moses actually penned the thing. It could have been Joshua or anyone else during the forty years in the desert. It may have even been Aaron...but again Moses' authorship would still be credited.

Paper and ink to make scrolls with was very expensive. (About a months wages) and a Torah was a year's wages.
Someone with a lot of rescourses, knowledge of Hebrew wrote the thing. Then the story was preserved as important by everyone in leadership over the years. (Look at the condition the Tabernacle got into)

For certain we don't know. But ascribing it to Moses is the easiest and allowable way.

 

[Northman]

Crickets.

Well not exactly crickets.
In that general area there were about six written languages that they know of for sure at the time of when the Job story was floating around. This was some 4500 years ago. The story, complete or partial, was never in just one language.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/MAGAZINE-who-really-wrote-the-book-of-job-1.5434183 is a pretty quick and simplistic summary with easy concepts to google for any confusion(that will probably create more confusion). I think important to note is that Jewry is NOT unified on the authorship. Even they don't consider what is called "rabbinic tradition" as pure evidence.

In general I agree with you though, the author isn't important, but I can see how it would be absolutely crucial to certain types of minds. God will communicate what he wants, no matter which culture carries it in whatever fashion.

On a side note, the time of Job probably has to be one of my favorite eras to wonder about. The flood was done, the world was vast and people were sparse. No Jew, no Gentile. A man could forge a kingdom and build cities. Remember the opening to Conan back in the day?

 

[Razeontherock]

Well that might prove interesting, to compare Job in the various languages that existed at the time. Some customs are going to be similar since they're all in the same region, and I imagine some distinctions are preserved.

Sounds like a lifetime of work.

What I was referring to though was literary examples from that time period, all in the same language. I should have been clear on that point, but I wasn't.

 

[Jim Parker]

Since Jewish customs allow for "underlings" to be anonymous Moses authorship is a given.

A "given"? That's not a logical conclusion.
Gen 1 through 11 had very likely been in the universally (among the Hebrews) known history of the Hebrews for centuries before Moses.

Exo 24:4, Num 33:2, and Deu 31:9 and 22 are the only portions of the "Book of Moses" which are stated to have been written by Moses. Moses is repeatedly referred to in the third person throughout Exodus through Deuteronomy indicating that another person was writing. It could be an amanuensis or an historian.

For example:
Deu 34:5-8 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day. Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. So the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended.
That was certainly not written by Moses.

I have emphasized the words "to this day" which are another indication that the Pentateuch was not his work but was composed some time after his death.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

A "given"? That's not a logical conclusion.
Gen 1 through 11 had very likely been in the universally (among the Hebrews) known history of the Hebrews for centuries before Moses.

Exo 24:4, Num 33:2, and Deu 31:9 and 22 are the only portions of the "Book of Moses" which are stated to have been written by Moses. Moses is repeatedly referred to in the third person throughout Exodus through Deuteronomy indicating that another person was writing. It could be an amanuensis or an historian.

For example:
Deu 34:5-8 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day. Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. So the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended.
That was certainly not written by Moses.

I have emphasized the words "to this day" which are another indication that the Pentateuch was not his work but was composed some time after his death.

iakov the fool

Jim,

If I am to believe your conclusion, it makes many OT writers AND Jesus liars as they attributed the writings to Moses.

I know you are a supporter of the JEDP theory (Documentary Hypothesis) of non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but I disagree. Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press has refuted this view. I'll quote him at length instead of summarising the material:

DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHO WROTE THE PENTATEUCH?​

To some, the question of whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch is a trivial matter—one of secondary importance. After all, we do not consider it an absolute necessity to know whom God inspired to write the book of Job or the epistle of Hebrews. We do not draw lines of fellowship over who wrote 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Why, then, should the discussion of who penned the first five books of the Bible be any different? The difference is that the Bible is filled with references attributing these books to Moses! Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.​

​

“Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah” (Exodus 24:4).​

​

“Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘Write thou these words...’ ” (Exodus 34:27).​

​

“Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah” (Numbers 33:2).​

​

“Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests...” (Deuteronomy 31:9).​

Bible writers throughout the Old Testament credited Moses with writing the Pentateuch (also known as the Torah or “the Law”). A plain statement of this commonly held conviction is expressed in Joshua 8:32: “There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he [Moses—EL] had written” (NIV, emp. added). Notice also that 2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the law of Jehovah given by Moses” (emp. added; cf. Ezra 3:2; 6:18, Nehemiah 13:1, and Malachi 4:4). As Josh McDowell noted in his book, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, these verses “refer to an actual written ‘law of Moses,’ not simply an oral tradition” (1975, pp. 93-94). [NOTE: The Hebrew Bible was not divided like our modern English Old Testament. It consisted of three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (cf. Luke 24:44). It contained the same “books” we have today; it was just divided differently. Genesis through Deuteronomy was considered one unit, and thus frequently was called “the Law” or “the Book” (2 Chronicles 25:4; cf. Mark 12:26). Even a casual perusal of its individual components will confirm that each book presupposes the one that precedes it. Without Genesis, Exodus reads like a book begun midway; without Exodus, Leviticus is a mystery; and so on. They were not intended to be five separate volumes in a common category, but rather, are five divisions of the same book. Hence, the singular references: “the Law” or “the Book.”]​

​

The New Testament writers also showed no hesitation in affirming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. John wrote: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17). Luke recorded of the resurrected Jesus: “And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them [His disciples—EL] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ‘ (Luke 24:27). Referring to the Jewish practice of publicly reading the Law, James affirmed Mosaic authorship: “For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). With this Paul concurred, saying, “For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” (Romans 10:5, NKJV, emp. added; cf. Leviticus 18:5). In 2 Corinthians 3:15, Paul also wrote: “Moses is read.” The phrase “Moses is read” is a clear example of the figure of speech known as metonymy (where one thing is put for another) [see Dungan, 1888, pp. 273-275]. Today, we may ask if someone has read Shakespeare, Homer, or Virgil, by which we mean to ask if he or she has read the writings of these men. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, one reads where Abraham spoke to the rich man concerning his five brothers saying, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16:29). Were Moses and the Old Testament prophets still on Earth in the first century? No. The meaning is that the rich man’s brothers had the writings of Moses and the prophets.​

​

Furthermore, both Jesus’ disciples and His enemies recognized and accepted the books of Moses. After Philip was called to follow Jesus, he found his brother Nathanael and said: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45, NKJV, emp. added). Notice also that New Testament Sadducees considered Moses as the author, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, if a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother” (Mark 12:19, emp. added; cf. Deuteronomy 25:5).​

​

A final reason that one must defend the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, instead of sitting by idly and claiming that “it doesn’t really matter who wrote it,” is because Jesus Himself acknowledged that “the Law” came from Moses. In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the words to Moses. Mark likewise recorded a conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees regarding what “Moses permitted” and “wrote” in Deuteronomy chapter 24 (Mark 10:3-5; cf. Matthew 19:8). Later, we see where Jesus asked the Sadducees, “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the bush, how God spake unto him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12:26, emp. added). But, perhaps the most convincing passage of all can be found in John 5:46-47, where Jesus stated: “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47, emp. added; cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-18). The truth is, by claiming that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch, one essentially is claiming that Jesus was mistaken. M.R. DeHaan expounded upon this problem in his book, Genesis and Evolution:​

​

Prove that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch and you prove that Jesus was totally mistaken and not the infallible Son of God he claimed to be. Upon your faith in Moses as the writer of the five books attributed to him rests also your faith in Jesus as the Son of God. You cannot believe in Jesus Christ without believing what Moses wrote. You see, there is much more involved in denying the books of Moses than most people suppose (1978, p. 41).​

Indeed, believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch is very important. It is not a trivial issue we should treat frivolously while suggesting that “it really doesn’t matter.” It matters because the deity of Christ and the integrity of the Bible writers are at stake!​

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

If I am to believe your conclusion, it makes many OT writers AND Jesus liars as they attributed the writings to Moses.

Calling the Pentateuch "The Book of Moses" does not require that Moses be the author.
That's akin to saying that a recent copy of Webster's Dictionary was written by Webster complete with definitions of things like nuclear fission which were not even conceived of during Noah Webster's lifetime.
Referring to what "Moses wrote" is referring primarily the Law which was not of Mosaic origin. God is the author of the "Law of Moses" with all 613 of its rules, regulations, etc.

I know you are a supporter of the JEDP theory (Documentary Hypothesis) of non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch,

That is incorrect. Gen. 1-11 are of one piece; expertly and beautifully compiled by a writer whose art exceeded Shakespeare.
The Documentary Hypothesis suggests a hodge-podge of stories jumbled together. I reject that notion.

The New Testament writers also showed no hesitation in affirming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. John wrote: “The law was given through Moses”

Note the word "Through". If it were meant to "affirm" Moses as author it would have said "BY."
God is the author of the Law. Moses wrote it down.
There is nothing to suggest that Moses wrote any part of Genesis.

Your position resembles that of the simplistic response of the fundamentalist in their reaction to the liberal (mostly German) theologians (like Albert Schweitzer) who rejected every miracle and even the resurrection. That was the result of attempting to impose a "scientific" approach to the literature of scripture while missing the fact that it is, indeed, literature.

It is not at all necessary that Moses personally wrote the entire Pentateuch for it to be the word of God. To insist upon it is to impose an opinion upon the scriptures that is unwarranted and unnecessary.

"Prove that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch and you prove that Jesus was totally mistaken and not the infallible Son of God he claimed to be."

That is 100% nonsense.

 

[OzSpen]

Calling the Pentateuch "The Book of Moses" does not require that Moses be the author.
That's akin to saying that a recent copy of Webster's Dictionary was written by Webster complete with definitions of things like nuclear fission which were not even conceived of during Noah Webster's lifetime.
Referring to what "Moses wrote" is referring primarily the Law which was not of Mosaic origin. God is the author of the "Law of Moses" with all 613 of its rules, regulations, etc.

That is incorrect. Gen. 1-11 are of one piece; expertly and beautifully compiled by a writer whose art exceeded Shakespeare.
The Documentary Hypothesis suggests a hodge-podge of stories jumbled together. I reject that notion.

Note the word "Through". If it were meant to "affirm" Moses as author it would have said "BY."
God is the author of the Law. Moses wrote it down.
There is nothing to suggest that Moses wrote any part of Genesis.

Your position resembles that of the simplistic response of the fundamentalist in their reaction to the liberal (mostly German) theologians (like Albert Schweitzer) who rejected every miracle and even the resurrection. That was the result of attempting to impose a "scientific" approach to the literature of scripture while missing the fact that it is, indeed, literature.

It is not at all necessary that Moses personally wrote the entire Pentateuch for it to be the word of God. To insist upon it is to impose an opinion upon the scriptures that is unwarranted and unnecessary.

That is 100% nonsense.

Jim,

You are flaming me with your statement that my 'position resembles that of the simplistic response of the fundamentalist.... that is 100% nonsense'.

I accept that 'the Book of Moses' may not refer to Moses as the author, but I can assure you that when I write a book (which I'm in the process of outlining) that will be 'the book of OzSpen', it will be a book with OzSpen as the author.

I'll refer to a few NT verses that refute your view. I don't have the time to go through a plethora of OT verses.

• 'If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me ' (Jn 5:46 NIV);
• 'Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them"' (Rom 10:5 NIV; from Lev 18:5);
• 'Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding”' (Rom 10:19 NIV; from Deut 32:21).
• 'Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts' (2 Cor 3:15 NIV).

Jim, please be courteous when you reply instead of engaging in an ad hominem attack on me.

Oz