In an earlier post I wrote:
A messenger tells Job that all his children have been killed, yet later Job refers to his sons as though they are still alive: “I am loathsome to my children” (19:17 JPS). While some translations interpret this as “the children of my own mother” (ESV) or “my brothers” (NIV), the Hebrew (לבני בתני) literally reads “sons of my belly” and the JPS Tanakh translates this literally as a reference to Job’s actual physical children. Elsewhere in Job בתני is ambiguous, being used in reference to a man’s belly as well as a womb. Moreover, as it is in the first person (my belly/womb) then it is more likely to be a reference to his own children who came “from his loins” rather than his mother’s womb. In the prologue it doesn’t say Job’s children died, only that a messenger said his children had died (1:18-19), and if the literal meaning of לבני בתני is correct then it suggests that Job’s children were still alive later in the story.
In support of my assertion that Job referred to his livingchildren in 19:17 here is a comment by David Wolfers (Deep Things Out of Darkness [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 135f):
Job 19:17 ‘unmistakeably refers to the children as still living … The phrase פרי בטנך, the fruit of your body, occurs repeatedly in Deuteronomy, addressed to the community of Israel, with the force of the sense of “womb” attenuated as here to refer simply to the power of generation, without regard to gender e.g Deut 28:11”.
Wolfer refers to several other references in the speeches to Job’s “descendants” and allusions to his living children. Some translations attempt to resolve this apparent ‘contradiction’ by translating לבני בתני as “my brothers”, or similar, although the expression “the sons of my womb/belly”, is never used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to brothers. Trying to resolve a difficulty by mistranslating simply won’t do. Job has already referred to his brothers in verse 13, as well as his wife, servants and other relatives, and goes on to speak of the reactions of friends and young children. The most natural reading would be that Job is listing all those with whom he has regular contact, including his children. To speak a second time of his brothers would be unnatural.
So what happened to his children? The best explanation, in my opinion, is that the poetry parts of Job were composed separately to the narrative prose in the ‘frame’ story. The poetry was written first and the prose was added later to give the debate a ‘setting’. It is not an historical record. This means that there are some conflicts between the poetry and the prose, but this was certainly of no concern to the writer (otherwise he could easily have corrected it) or to his audience. Consistency is probably more important to the modern reader than it was to an ancient one, and this may very well be because of our preconceived theological notions about what ‘inspiration’ means or demands of the text.
מִקְרָא Mikra: Biblical studies 
Since no one called it out, I will.
In the Septuagint version of Job 19:17 he talks about the sons of his concubines. We can safely assume the kids that got killed were those of his wife, as she bemoans the death of the children in the prologue.
Clasina, the Hebrew in the first half of the verse in Job 19:17 is the regular word for “wife” (אִשָּׁה ishah which is the same as the regular word for “woman”) and the LXX follows this with the Greek equivalent (γυναῖκά gunaika – the regular word for both “wife” and “woman”). In Hebrew there is a different word for “concubine” ( פִֽילַגְשׁ pilagsh which is a non-Semitic word and may come from the Greek παλλακὴ pallake, although it is possible that the Greek word derives from the Hebrew, or both languages borrowed from a third source). I don’t know why the LXX uses παλλακὴ=concubine in the second half of Job 19:17 because this wouldn’t be a natural translation of the Hebrew לִבְנֵ֥י בִטְנִֽי which would quite literally be “to the sons of my belly” probably in the same sense of “from my loins” (although “loins” would be a different word in Hebrew). It is possible that the LXX translators were trying to make sense of a difficult phrase in the Hebrew (and Job is full of difficult phrases!) or they were translating from a different Vorlage. It would be odd though for this speech in Job to refer to sons of a concubine when no previous mention has been made of these sons, or of a concubine, but it wouldn’t be the only odd thing in Job.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Well the fact that concubines are not mentioned elsewhere is not a real problem for this instance. If this was the originally intended meaning it would solve a lot of problems, because I have no doubt in my mind the 10 legal children were crushed to death during an orgy in the house of the elder brother. The fact that Job’s typecasting as the richest man of the country, his best friends are all kings so we might even think he is like a king himself, we might rightly assume that such a powerful virile man with 10 legal children by his legal wife in his midlife would not be averse to a little bit on the side and it would certainly fit his status. His phantasies about infidelity with virgins, neighbour’s wives, and maidservants in chapter 31 make me think it’s also not above his character, I even think that is all ironic play to suggest it is just his cup o tea there.
The questions and problems about hypothetical Vorlages to the Septuagint or MT are not easy to answer or solve, but as long as anything was possible during the long flow of time between the probable composition-date and the first actual manuscripts we can take as proof or provenance, we will not be sure what the mutual translational relationships of our versions of the story are. I don’t know enough to take a position on that yet, but my preliminary gut-feeling is the Septuagint storyline might be a closer fit to the original composition in whatever language it was written first.
I’m fully in favour of using one’s imagination when reading the text but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to go from אֹֽכְלִים֙ וְשֹׁתִ֣ים יַ֔יִן “eating and drinking wine” or the LXX’s ἐσθιόντων καὶ πινόντων “eating and drinking” (Job 1:18) to “crushed to death during an orgy”.
Mmm, if it were only my imagination…
Job is so worried about what is going on at those daily parties that he deems it necessary to atone with daily sacrifices to an amount that his whole herd wouldn’t suffice if it went on for a whole year and what would stop it other than Job reigning them in instead of indulging them? He didn’t think it was lemonade and cupcakes for refreshment and a harmless party-clown as entertainment I assume. He was genuinely worried there was some debauchery going on, but he facilitated it nonetheless. He is your stereotypical rich dad buying of the authorities or hiring expensive lawyers when his spoilt brats don’t behave according to society’s rules or laws.
Then the really damning accusation comes from Eliphaz in chapter 4:8-9:
8. καθ᾿ ὃν τρόπον εἶδον τοὺς ἀροτριῶντας τὰ ἄτοπα, οἱ δὲ σπείροντες αὐτὰ ὀδύνας θεριοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς.
I don’t think this is about stupid farmers who plough and sow in the wrong place resulting in a bad harvest or do you? It is a clear euphemism for the youngsters of Job performing sexual depravities as the next line tells us what happened next so we know it is about them:
9. ἀπὸ προστάγματος κυρίου ἀπολοῦνται, ἀπὸ δὲ πνεύματος ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ ἀφανισθήσονται.
I think that is a perfect description of what happened to the children when a storm flattened the house where they were partying. Now my imagination is supported by that of Eliphaz, though he could not know it was all a result of the agreement between God and Satan. There are more references to the more shameful character and behaviour of the children but they are cloaked by metaphors of vultures, ravens, serpents and lions and their respective offspring, they are nasty characters all along, but you can read that all yourself only if you want to see it of course.
Whoa, must have overlooked this one:
Job 5:3:
ἐγὼ δὲ ἑώρακα ἄφρονας ῥίζαν βάλλονταςἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως ἐβρώθη αὐτῶν ἡ δίαιτα.: “I saw them planting roots foolishly, but immediately their dwelling was devoured”, another euphemism for the incestuous goings on, and again connected with the destruction of Job’s children.
And this one:
Job 39:30
νεοσσοὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ φύρονται ἐν αἵματι, οὗ δ᾽ ἂν ὦσι τεθνεῶτες παραχρῆμα εὑρίσκονται.
“And his young defiling themselves in blood and wherever the corpses may be, immediately they are found.”
Maybe I should perhaps abundantly note that LSL lexicon has even as metaphorical meaning, to be mutually befouled by abuse.
So even the Lord seems to be aware of the heinous hanky panky going on among Job’s offspring.
Clasina,
I was meditating on the righteousness of God, when the thought of Job and his loss entered my mind, then I heard a small but firm whisper that I should find out about the children of Job that they were committing shameful things that were worthy of death and Job knew about it. I started to search online and found your response. They were doomed to die because they were committing abominations which they did not repent of, but job’s sacrifices could not replace the role of a preacher and reformer that he should have played in the life of his children. Thanks so much for your response, meditation led me here and I am glad
Ok, I have been known to ask a lot of questions, I thank you for the responses.
@Jen I agree the poetic form of the Book of Job does not reduce the authority or message that the story is meant to convey, if your understanding is that Job is poetic writing based on historical events. If it is not based the events of an actual person, then the message and power are greatly reduced. To take this idea to an extreme, what if Christ never really existed, but was merely a story meant to teach moral principle?
@Stephen I agree with you that a reference to a fictional character does not mean that one must believe they actually existed. It seems strange to me that Ezekiel would reference two real people alongside a fictional character “these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job”, to me it seems as if Ezekiel believes Job to be a real person.
Another question I have for you is, how poetic are the speeches in the Hebrew? What poetic elements are found in Job that makes it poetic rather than formal?
Thanks you both for the responses
Jason, I’m going to be offline for a few days but I hope to respond to your comment soon.
Jason,
I’m back from a short break and plan to start blogging again soon. But first, here is a brief answer to your questions about poetry in Job: “Another question I have for you is, how poetic are the speeches in the Hebrew? What poetic elements are found in Job that makes it poetic rather than formal?”
I don’t know how familiar you are with Hebrew poetry, so I apologise if I’m telling you stuff here which you already know. Hebrew poetry can be identified by parallelism, rhythm, acrostics, alliteration and occasionally rhyme (unlike English poetry, Hebrew poetry contains very little identifiable rhyme, although it is evident in a few texts; as pronunciation changed over time it is possible that it was also once present in places where it is no longer apparent as pronunciation has changed). While Hebrew poetry is metrical its rhythm is difficult to translate into English and is therefore usually lost. Not all of these poetical devices may be present at the same time. Medieval Jewish scribes made poetry more easily identifiable by the use of special accents and line divisions. The Aleppo codex, possibly one of the most important Hebrew manuscripts in existence, includes these identifying features. The dialogues in Job are written entirely in poetry.
Here are some helpful articles which may interest you:
Introduction to the Poetic and Wisdom Literature
Ancient Hebrew Poetry (an excellent blog with a lot of great information by John F. Hobbins)
@Jason: It seems doubtful that the entire passionate dialogue in real life would have happened in poetry. To say that it is recorded in a poetic rather than a historical way does not necessarily reduce the ‘authority’ of scripture, does it? For example, what if the Real Person’s name was George, but for the purpose of the book, he is given the name ‘Persecuted’ (Job); does that make the story any less powerful? I would say that the story is no less powerful (and perhaps no less accurate) for being recorded in such a way, and likely becomes more imbued with meaning to one who understands the poetic language.
In the same way, I think that most people who reference the ‘authority of scripture’ believe that what needed to be recorded was recorded, and the 100% technically-accurate is often irrelevant. Would you agree?
What would happen if someone made a really good point and then quoted from Shakespeare’s Macbeth to reinforce their point? Would it matter that they were quoting from a fictional character, or would it simply be an effective use of a story with which we might be familiar? Would a reference to a fictional character lessen the force of their point? If I referred to Macbeth or Hamlet or even Humpty Dumpty would that mean that I believe these people actually existed? I personally don’t think that a mention by Jesus or any of the NT writers means that they are confirming the person actually existed; it would simply be a reference to a character with whom they were familiar, whether historical or fictional.
I have a couple of things that I consider when reading and considering the book of Job that I would like to hear opinions on. The first is the fact that Job is referred to as an actual person, alongside Noah and Daniel in Ezekiel 14, and again in James 5. The other being, in the book of Job, Yahweh speaks and acts. If the book is not historical in some sense, then did the LORD not actually say and do the things in Job? Is then not the whole of scripture left open to personal opinion concerning the pronouncements, promises, and the truth of God? If “The LORD answered Job” doesn’t mean Yahweh actually spoke to an actual person named Job, then the authority of scripture seems to be greatly reduced.
Stephen, I suggest another way to resolve the apparent inconsistency: a closer look at 1:19. The text says that (the house) fell on the four corners of the house, and the ‘young men’ are dead. This is the same word “ne’ariym” translated ‘servants’ in the three earlier disasters (verse 15,16,17). The fate of the daughters is never specified, and it appears that the fate of any of the children is deliberately obscured: the reader (and apparently the friends) are led to *assume* that Iyov’s children are all crushed. As you mention, there are other allusions in the book that hint that this was not the case.
This idea helps to answer the issue of Job’s jarring silence on the topic of the loss of his own children; as he seems to mourn their estrangement from him rather than their absolute loss (see his emphasis on his expressed care for others in chapter 30 contrasting with his lack of voiced care for his children).
This idea also finds some support in many interesting echoes in other passages; intriguing connection to Isa 51 for example.
I suggest that the absence of his children throughout Iyov’s temptation period and their reappearance at the end of the book solves another problem: the apparent ineffectiveness of Job’s intercession for his children at the beginning of the book contrasting to the apparent effectiveness of Job’s intercession for his friends at the end of the book. Job’s intercessions *were* heard in both instances: and not one of his children were lost (though temporarily astray).