0

The Septuagint's Genesis 36:8-19 and Job 42:17 offer convincing evidence that:

  1. Jobab and Job are the same person.
  2. Job was the second king of Edom.
  3. Job was the great-nephew of his friend Eliphaz.
  4. Job was 5 generations descended from Abraham.
  5. Job and his friends were all Edomites.
Larry Morris
  • 19
  • 2
  • 3
    It would help if the question included explicit quotations of the mentioned verses (including English translation). As it currently stands, all we know is that they "offer convincing evidence", but we have no idea what that evidence is. And in particular it should show how the LXX differs from other versions in this respect. – Ray Butterworth Jun 11 '23 at 02:24
  • 1
    Please see the Tour and the Help (below, bottom left) as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. At the present moment this contribution is unsupported speculation. Welcome to SE-BH. Job 42:17 reads (in literal, YLT, from the Hebrew) and Job dieth, aged and satisfied `with' days. Job 42:17. – Nigel J Jun 11 '23 at 03:40

2 Answers2

1

The Septuagint Book of Job includes scribe's report that Job and Jobab were the same person, with Jobab being a name Job used earlier in life. According to Emil Hirsch in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

In the Greek version of the Book of Job, at the end, there is the following addition: "This man (Job) is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumæa and Arabia; and his name before was Jobab; and he, having taken an Arabian wife, begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of Zare, who was one of the sons of Esau, and Bosorrha; so that he was the fifth in descent from Abraham. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first Balak, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba; and after Balak Jobab."

This is convincing evidence for those who accept the Septuagint as inspired scripture even when it departs from the Hebrew version in a major way. However, for those who see the above as a scribal insertion, the proof is not convincing. The Syriac version of Job available at Biblehub.com does not contain the above quotation. The report does exist in the Septuagint but it is clearly the work of a scribe, who states: Οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου - "This is interpreted from the Syriac Bible."

The quote does show that the identity of Job and Jobab was a credible enough idea among to be included in the Septuagint version of the Jewish Bible. Those who accept the Septuagint as authoritative will find this convincing. Later Jewish theories about Job's identity from the rabbinic period are discussed here.

Dan Fefferman
  • 15,919
  • 2
  • 12
  • 62
0

The first Jobab mentioned was the son of Joktan:

And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan. (Genesis 10:29, KJV)

Another Jobab was the son of Zerah:

And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. (Genesis 36:33, KJV)

Job, however, was the son of Issachar:

And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron. (Genesis 46:13, KJV)

That should be sufficient to answer this question. But for more about who Job and his friends really were, please see THIS ANSWER.

Biblasia
  • 4,923
  • 6
  • 25
  • What is your evidence that the Job mentioned in Gen 46:13 is the same as the Job mentioned in the book of Job ? Or are you not stating that ? – Nigel J Jun 11 '23 at 06:42
  • @NigelJ I would invite you to follow the link I provided and consider that evidence for yourself. – Biblasia Jun 11 '23 at 07:09
  • I agree that Job may well be the first written book of the bible, possibly written in cuneiform or the like and possibly translated into Hebrew by Moses. The rest of that answer is faulty, not being properly researched, in particular with regard to Elihu whers suppositions are being made. My own understanding is that Job was contemporary with Abraham's grandfather. See The Patience of Job Appendix. – Nigel J Jun 11 '23 at 09:54
  • 1
    @NigelJ "The rest of that answer is faulty, not being properly researched". You seem to conflate exogenous matters with the strictly biblical narrative. The OP asked only about the latter, and the answer stayed within scope of the question by pointing out the genealogy as depicted in Genesis. Whether or not a biblical narrative survives a test of historicity, of linguistics, or of other nature is a different question which certainly warrants consideration of external factors, but that is not the OP's inquiry here. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 21 '23 at 20:09
  • @IñakiViggers My comment was in regard to the answerer's link to an inaccurate answer elsewhere. – Nigel J Jun 21 '23 at 21:57
  • 1
    @NigelJ I know you cited the other answer, but that makes no difference. The link to the other answer was provided explicitly for further details regarding the question made here. Therefore, posting here your criticism of that answer suggests that your criticism is in the context of this post. Rebuttal of this answer entails citing biblical passages that supersede or contradict any of the ones mentioned here or the ones incorporated by reference (i.e., via the link) apropos of the question. We risk exceeding the scope of this question as soon as we resort to, or ponder, exogenous elements. – Iñaki Viggers Jun 21 '23 at 23:27
  • @IñakiViggers I disagree with your point of view but I shall comment no further. Regards. – Nigel J Jun 22 '23 at 09:38