Did Job proof read a first draught of Genesis 1-3?

[Eoghan]

I struggle with the idea that Job predates Genesis as a circulating scroll. Yet Job 31 v 33 shows he knew all about the fall of Adam. I can only conclude that he had a first edition cuniform tablet in his library or he had heard all about it orally.

Job 31 v33 blows my mind with it's implications

 

[Eoghan]

The title is deliberately a little tongue in cheek before anyone takes it upon themselves to correct as scholarship what is merely humour

 

[iainduguid]

I think I've mentioned before that translation is a tricky thing; that's particularly true with words that have a wide semantic domain like 'adam, which can mean "Adam", "man" or "human being". The word occurs about 27 times in Job; this is the only time when the KJV translates it with the proper name, Adam (as does NASB). Most modern translations render it (as they do the other occurrences of 'adam in Job) as "men" or more colloquially, "others" (usually putting "Adam" as an option in the footnote). If we look at the collocation ka'adam ("like Adam/humans"), it shows up in a couple of other places in the OT: Hosea 6:7 (where the same discussion occurs in the commentaries) and Ps 82:7, where everyone (including the KJV) goes with "like men/humans". Both translations are therefore easily defensible from a grammatical perspective: "Have I concealed my transgressions like men do?" or "Have I concealed my transgressions like Adam did?" As a result, it can't be used as a slam dunk argument for Job knowing about the Genesis creation account (even in general terms, let alone having seen a written copy).

Having said all of that, 'adam does at times carry what we might call "creational overtones"; that is, Biblical writers sometimes exploit the potential double meaning and associations of this particular word for humans. That's why in the CSB we went with "sons of Adam" for bene-'adam in Ecclesiastes, which is replete with creational allusions. I think a case can be made in Job 31:33 that something like this may be going on: after all, when humans conceal our transgressions we are imitating our first father because we have inherited his sinful nature.

In this case, the argument is strengthened by a couple of other places where the writer of Job seems to allude to the events of Genesis 1-3 (there may be others as well; these are just the ones associated with 'adam). Job 20:4 speaks of the time when man ('adam) was placed (sim) upon the earth ('al ha'arets), which seems to echo the language of Gen 2:8, and thus 'adam could also be translated there as "Adam". In addition, Job 38:26 talks about "bringing rain" (hamtir) upon the land ('erets) where there is no 'adam, which sounds a lot like an echo of the situation in Genesis 2:5. In this case, you can't translate adam as "Adam", so the connection may easily be missed.

It does seem plausible, therefore, that the writer of Job was familiar with a creation account that closely mirrors Genesis 1-3. Whether Job himself had the same knowledge depends somewhat on whether we take the book as a verbatim account of the conversations or an inspired and accurate retelling in other (poetic) words. (What language did Job and his friends speak? Was it Classical Biblical Hebrew, albeit with an Aramaic flavor?) There are of course similar questions that arise with the pre-Mosaic transmission of Pentateuchal events; were these purely oral or were there written records passed down from an earlier time and incorporated into the Mosic account? The arguments of P.J. Wiseman about earlier cuneiform accounts behind Genesis, while attractive, don't stand up well to scholarly scrutiny, but it's hard to know what sources might have existed Or was all of that earlier history revealed to Moses by direct revelation? The Scriptures are silent on such things, and so we should probably not be insistent on our own views either.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think Job is very early, maybe earlier than Genesis, but we have no evidence that Job proof-read Genesis.

 

[Eoghan]

The term used here is H121 which is 9/10 Adam and 1/10 is the name of a town. I think the confusion comes because H120 is similar and more wide in it's meaning. In addition liberals would probably ascribe a late date for Genesis (i.e. after Job)

 

[iainduguid]

The term used here is H121 which is 9/10 Adam and 1/10 is the name of a town. I think the confusion comes because H120 is similar and more wide in it's meaning. In addition liberals would probably ascribe a late date for Genesis (i.e. after Job)

Hi there,
I presume you are referring to Strong's numbering? Both H120 and 121 refer to the same Hebrew word, so the semantic range would cover both. You can see this from the Blueletterbible.org page which includes below the Strong's the text of Gesenius' Hebrew lexicon; H120 covers meanings 1-3 for 'adam in Gesenius, while H121 is meaning 4. Translators have to decide from the entire range which is the best English translation in each context. In addition liberals would be all over the map as to the relative dating of Genesis 2 (commonly assigned to J, for fairly obvious reasons) and Job. There's no presuppositional reason from their perspective why one needs to predate the other. Both could easily be late, and parts of each could be building on older traditions.

By the way, I came upon another possible allusion to Genesis 2 in Job not long after the one you mention.
In Job 33:4, where Elihu is declaring himself a man of like constitution to Job he says "The breath of the Almighty (nishmat Shaddai) gives me life (techayyeni)", which seems likely to allude to Genesis 2:7, where the Lord breathed into the nostrils of Adam "the breath of life" (nishmat chayyim). "Pinched off a piece of clay" in 33:6 could also allude to Adam being formed from dust, though the verbal parallels are far looser.

On the other hand, in terms of the dating of the Book of Job, here's a different perspective (from the teacher's guide for my Adult Sunday School material through the whole Bible, The Quarterly):
"The reference to iron mining and smelting [in Job 28] is interesting, since that technology only developed in the second half of the Second Millennium BC. The “Iron Age” is generally reckoned to begin in 1200 B.C., though the technology begins to be seen in some places slightly earlier – Pharaoh Merneptah had an iron sword and battle-axe in the thirteenth century B.C., while the Hittites in central Anatolia had iron weaponry at least a hundred years earlier. But the references to iron in this chapter suggest that Job lived no earlier than Moses, at the very earliest." [This assumes that Job 28 is a speech by Job, rather than an authorial insertion].

 

[JOwen]

I struggle with the idea that Job predates Genesis as a circulating scroll. Yet Job 31 v 33 shows he knew all about the fall of Adam. I can only conclude that he had a first edition cuniform tablet in his library or he had heard all about it orally.

Job 31 v33 blows my mind with it's implications

The understanding of Adam's sin was not only a central story in human history but also theologically pivotal in understanding man's sinfulness and the need for redemption. It is entirely reasonable to posit that this story would have been among the first to be recounted through the generations. The oral transmission of such stories was considered a sacred duty, and they were often conveyed with the utmost care for detail and accuracy, particularly when they carried theological or moral import. The book "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains" by Nicholas Carr, outlines the history of communication, arguing that oral communication was as accurate as written back in the day. I think he says it even more accurate. That part I don't get.

If we believe in the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, which we must, then we can trust that the Holy Spirit was at work in preserving and conveying these critical events accurately until they were committed to writing.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yet Job 31 v 33 shows he knew all about the fall of Adam. I can only conclude that he had a first edition cuniform tablet in his library or he had heard all about it orally.

That assumes the knowledge of Adam's sin only comes from a cuneiform tablet or scroll in his library (which in itself, having a library back then, is a big assumption nowhere found in the text).