Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
  • To: peterkirk AT qaya.org
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:12:50 -0400

Of course, K & D cite some good though not utterly compelling reasons for
considering it to be exilic. I see no reason for considering it to be
early. And why could it not be both exilic and based upon some Sumerian
original? I think there is no more reason to simply equate Daniel with
the Dan'el of Ugarit than there is to equate Job of the HB with a similar
character in Sumerian literature. Many times a figure in tradition is
used as a basis for a new composition which may differ in significant
ways from the tradition. Job was a part of the literary (perhaps only
oral) tradition as is evidenced by Ezekiel's reference to him (Ezek
14.14, 20).

gfsomsel
_________

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:43:01 -0700 Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
writes:
> On 11/06/2004 07:26, George F. Somsel wrote:
>
> >This has somewhat puzzled me. Why would one wish to place the
> >composition of Job at such an early date (assuming for the moment
> the
> >reality of the Exodus)? Even such conservatives as Keil &
> Delitzsch
> >thought the work was a product of the exilic period as a M$L
> LY&R)L. Is
> >this simply a general resistance which is to be met with in all
> cases?
> >No JEDP but Moses. No Maccabean apoclalyptist but Daniel. No
> wisdom
> >writer of Job during the Exile but Moses? What is the basis for
> wanting
> >to retroject this back to the time of the origins of Israel?
> Surely it
> >reflects a patriarchal scene, but this does not necessitate that it
> be
> >composed early.
> >
> >gfsomsel
> >
> >
>
> Nor does it necessitate that it was composed late. In fact we really
>
> don't know and have no way of knowing - except that there just might
> be
> some truth in old traditions like the one Tony cited from the
> Talmud.
>
> If any resistance is being shown in this thread, it is to David
> Kimbrough's unqualified assertion that "Job is a Hebrew rendition of
> a
> much older poem". David implied that it must be because it is
> similar to
> and later than the Sumerian text. I and others have replied that
> this
> argument from dating fails because there is no evidence that Job is
> in
> fact the later text, only an argument from silence that it is not
> provably earlier than the DSS or whatever. The argument from
> similarity
> also fails because this may be no more than superficial.
>
> So, Job may be exilic. Or it may be derived from a Sumerian original
>
> (but probably not both). Or it may be from the patriarchal era, or
> even
> older. Or something else - even Maccabean. We have no way of
> knowing, so
> anyone who says anything more definite is simply speculating, or
> repeating old speculations.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page