Comments on: The Book of Job http://heliologue.com/2009/04/26/the-book-of-job/ Let joy be unconfined. Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the parlor. Wed, 23 May 2012 05:37:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jim http://heliologue.com/2009/04/26/the-book-of-job/#comment-302634 Jim Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:59:11 +0000 http://heliologue.com/?p=3795#comment-302634 Thank you for the prompt and detailed response. I'm in a book group that reads only literature in translation. The Mitchell translation of Job is our next book and I came across your site while looking for reviews and commentary. I'm impressed by your erudition! Thank you for the prompt and detailed response. I’m in a book group that reads only literature in translation. The Mitchell translation of Job is our next book and I came across your site while looking for reviews and commentary. I’m impressed by your erudition!

]]> By: Ben http://heliologue.com/2009/04/26/the-book-of-job/#comment-302563 Ben Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:02:53 +0000 http://heliologue.com/?p=3795#comment-302563 Good question. It's a topic of some debate among biblical scholars, and not yet <em>entirely</em> settled. My calling Job a "Jew" is more an easy convention than a theological point (more on this in a moment). Job is described as a native of "Uz", or, as Mitchell points out, one of the "sons of the east" (1:3), or <i>b'nay qedem</i>. This distinction sets apart Israelite and non-Israelite tribes, this latter sense being known very generally as "Gentiles". Some of the problem, of course, as that opinions vary as to <em>when</em> the story of the Book of Job takes place. Some have it as pre-Abrahamic, in which case it occurs in a period of polytheism, before the preeminence of Yahweh, and the distinction between Jew and Gentile is moot. Others think that Job is the son of Issachar and grandson of Isaac (<em>the</em> Isaac), and therefore very definitely Hebrew (Gen. 46:13). This latter scenario is doubtful if only because it omits the possibility that there were two guys in history with the same name. In the strictest sense, then, Mitchell is probably more correct to label Job a Gentile. My own impression is that the story of Job (in some form) likely predates this period entirely, and is told by each successive generation through their own particular lens (Mitchell notes that there are Sumerian versions from 2000 BCE...). In the case of the Biblical version, though Job is described as coming from a land almost "certainly Gentile", he nonetheless seems like a faithful follower of Yahweh. One of two explanations is possible: Job was a polytheist, and dealt with the Hebrew god because he/it was the center of Job's misery, or Job was indeed a devotee of the Hebrew deity. I can't speak to what makes someone officially a "Jew" in that sense, but the Hebrew tradition clearly uses Job <em>as</em> a Jew, or at least tries very hard not to notice as he isn't. <b>tl;dr</b> Mitchell is more technically correct in calling Job a Gentile, but he is an accomplished translator and I'm a schmuck with a blog, so this surprises no one. I nonetheless maintain that for all intents and purposes, in this particular version of the story, Job is of the Hebrew tradition. Good question. It’s a topic of some debate among biblical scholars, and not yet entirely settled. My calling Job a “Jew” is more an easy convention than a theological point (more on this in a moment).

Job is described as a native of “Uz”, or, as Mitchell points out, one of the “sons of the east” (1:3), or b’nay qedem. This distinction sets apart Israelite and non-Israelite tribes, this latter sense being known very generally as “Gentiles”.

Some of the problem, of course, as that opinions vary as to when the story of the Book of Job takes place. Some have it as pre-Abrahamic, in which case it occurs in a period of polytheism, before the preeminence of Yahweh, and the distinction between Jew and Gentile is moot. Others think that Job is the son of Issachar and grandson of Isaac (the Isaac), and therefore very definitely Hebrew (Gen. 46:13). This latter scenario is doubtful if only because it omits the possibility that there were two guys in history with the same name.

In the strictest sense, then, Mitchell is probably more correct to label Job a Gentile. My own impression is that the story of Job (in some form) likely predates this period entirely, and is told by each successive generation through their own particular lens (Mitchell notes that there are Sumerian versions from 2000 BCE…). In the case of the Biblical version, though Job is described as coming from a land almost “certainly Gentile”, he nonetheless seems like a faithful follower of Yahweh. One of two explanations is possible: Job was a polytheist, and dealt with the Hebrew god because he/it was the center of Job’s misery, or Job was indeed a devotee of the Hebrew deity. I can’t speak to what makes someone officially a “Jew” in that sense, but the Hebrew tradition clearly uses Job as a Jew, or at least tries very hard not to notice as he isn’t.

tl;dr Mitchell is more technically correct in calling Job a Gentile, but he is an accomplished translator and I’m a schmuck with a blog, so this surprises no one. I nonetheless maintain that for all intents and purposes, in this particular version of the story, Job is of the Hebrew tradition.

]]> By: Jim http://heliologue.com/2009/04/26/the-book-of-job/#comment-302467 Jim Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:30:15 +0000 http://heliologue.com/?p=3795#comment-302467 Regarding your assertion that Job was a jew, in the very first sentence of his introduction, Mitchell asserts that Job was a gentile. I'm curious as to how you conclude that he was a jew (and how Mitchell concluded that he was a gentile). Regarding your assertion that Job was a jew, in the very first sentence of his introduction, Mitchell asserts that Job was a gentile. I’m curious as to how you conclude that he was a jew (and how Mitchell concluded that he was a gentile).

]]>