Dating the Book of Job (PDF) - Ancient Hebrew Research Center

Dating the Book of Job 25
Table 6: Partial List of Explanatory Glosses in the Book of Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 1:1-5 Deuteronomy 3:13b-14
Deuteronomy 2:10-12 Deuteronomy 3:17 – “the Salt Sea”
Deuteronomy 2:20-23 Deuteronomy 4:41-49
Deuteronomy 3:9 Deuteronomy 10:6-9
Deuteronomy 3:11 – “Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?” Deuteronomy 34:10-12
As illustrated in Figure 3 above, fragments 3 and 5 appear to have been shuffled up in the
ordering and the text that is now Numbers 28 and 29 appears to have been appended to fragment 5.
It is left to the reader to read the verses in question in the hypothesized original order and judge for
him/her-self how much better the text flows. Seeing that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were notorious
for adding to the law, it should not be considered out of the question that such was done at earlier
times in history as well.
It is important to notice that the text of the book of Deuteronomy is riddled with several explanatory
glosses which were added to the text by later scribes. Because of the transition from third
person to first between verses 5 and 6 in the opening chapter of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 1:1-
5 should be considered one of the explanatory glosses which were written long after the events
transpired. A good translation will have most of the explanatory glosses of Deuteronomy clearly
marked as parenthetical inserts. Upon inspection, one should be easily convinced that these parenthetical
remarks were added at a much later date. Table 6 lists several of the explanatory glosses
that are scattered throughout the text of the book of Deuteronomy.
Note that because the fortieth year was an even year, the eleventh month and the fifth month
would be the same month depending upon whether one was using a twelve-month or six-month
calendar; so Deuteronomy 1:3 isn’t necessarily inaccurate – it is just using a different calendar
because it was written at a later date.
Because the story of Noah’s flood refers to months of higher ordinal value than six in a relativeoffset
context and not a absolute-date context, it does not contradict the six-month-year theory.
Because there is evidence that the texts which reference the festivals of the seventh month were
retroactively edited, they do not contradict the six-month-year theory. Because Deuteronomy 1:3
is part of an explanatory gloss and because the parallel accounts of the events leading up to the occasion
spoken of in Deuteronomy 1:3 which are given in Numbers 20:14-22:1 and Numbers 33:37-
49 suggest a shorter time frame than what the combination of Deuteronomy 1:3 with the parallel
accounts would indicate if a twelve-month calendar were being used in both accounts, Deuteronomy
1:3 does not conclusively contradict the six-month-year theory. Because there is strong support
for the six-month-year theory and no strong evidence against it, the six-month-year theory will
be used in deriving the dates and lengths of time for relevant events discussed henceforth.
Stephen Franklin also suspects that the ages of some of the more ancient biblical characters
have been multiplied by factors even greater than two. He introduces his theory as a “mathematical
extension” of the doubling that has been discussed thus far. While the doubling theory has a basis
in the structure of the Hebrew calendar and a great deal of corroborating evidence in the text of
the Bible itself, the theory that the ages of the patriarchs who lived prior to Abraham have been
inflated by factors larger than two appears to have considerably less support. Stephen Franklin