TwoPutt, on Apr 28 2007, 05:19 AM, said:
Steven, on Apr 27 2007, 10:57 PM, said:
That it's deliberately making itself look older than it is --- though the refs to Shabeans [not Sabeans]
Are you referring to this....
'NET Bible' said:
tn The LXX has "the spoilers spoiled them" instead of "the Sabeans swooped down." The translators might have connected the word to שְָׁבָה (shavah, "to take captive") rather than שְׁבָא (sh˙va', "Sabeans"), or they may have understood the name as general reference to all types of Bedouin invaders from southern Arabia (HALOT 1381 s.v. שְׁבָא 2.c).
I wasn't aware that this was what may have happened, was just going by the other Massoretic use of Shabean.
Chaldeans and Uz are a bit of a giveaway.
Could you elaborate this point a little? What's the connection between a late dating and the mention of the Chaldeans and Uz?
Again, aren't they, like Shabean, Jeremiah-era people and place?
There's other issues related to the astrological/scientific terminology that lead commentaries to go for a late date. I can't really say I care greatly ... it's a wisdom book, a drama. Dating it is like dating Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes. Interesting, but unlike say a book of prophecy not essential.
And of course the theatre of a supernatural Adversary would place it nearer the theatre of 1Kings22:22 than the history of Numbers22:22
Edited by Steven, 28 April 2007 - 06:41 AM.