6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”
31 if the members of my household have never said, ‘If only there were someone who has not been satisfied from Job’s meat!’— 32 but no stranger had to spend the night outside, for I opened my doors to the traveler— 33 if I have covered my transgressions as men do, by hiding iniquity in my heart, 34 because I was terrified of the great multitude, and the contempt of families terrified me, so that I remained silent and would not go outdoors— 35 “If only I had someone to hear me! Here is my signature— let the Almighty answer me! If only I had an indictment that my accuser had written.
Notes and References
"... A few have observed references in the book of Job to the non-P creation account (Oeming, 2013; Habel, 1985: pp. 127&129; Meier, 1989; Perdue, 1991: pp. 117–120; Balentine, 2006: pp. 114–116 and Shepherd 2008: pp. 81-97.). Noteworthy among them is Manfred Oeming (2013), who discusses the relationship between the book of Job and Gen. 2–3 based on the usage of the term םדא. He focuses on three texts, Job 15.7, 20.4, and 31.33, and views them as references to the historical Adam. Oeming concludes that the debate between Job and his friends revolves around the themes of the ‘prelapsarian’ and the ‘postlapsarian’ Adam. Job’s friends view him as a ‘postlapsarian’ Adam and declare to him that his status is far from that of the original Adam. In turn, Job maintains that he is better than Adam, as he, Job, lived an upright life despite ‘the knowledge of the “postlapsarian Adam”’ (p. 28). Oeming’s argument assumes that the authors of the book of Job referred to the figure of ‘Adam’ based upon an intertextual reading of םדא—a term widely used in the Hebrew Bible. I aim to contribute to Oeming’s argument by demonstrating that indeed the authors of the book of Job probably did construct their arguments through an intertextual dialogue with Gen. 2–3 ..."
Saleem, Yasir ‘For a Man Is Born to Suffer’: Intertextuality between Job 4–5 and Gen. 2.4b–3.24 (pp. 388-407) Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2022
Thank you for your submission!