Tuesday, February 16, 2016

On the Soul

Below are my notes on the soul, life, the human, conception, ensoulment, abortion, Immaculate Conception, Adam, Eve and other concepts.

Originally I wanted to write a long article but I have too many notes. I would have to write a book to assume all these themes, but I don't have time. So I offer some condensed sections if you want. If you want a crash course in the Ontology see my article from another blog. I'm not a Thomist or a Scholastic. They failed to understand the two fundamental categories in the Ontology of Language as well as the broad scope of implications this entails in intellectual endeavors. However I do use some of their philosophical insights in my own way.

Please note I am not speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, only on behalf of myself.

* Soul refers to an object, to that which has form. This form stands out (exists), is 3D (could be measured in length, width and height although the act of measuring does not determine its existence), has location that is a set of static distances to all the objects of the Universe, including God, etc. Although the English word ‘soul’ is translated from a variety of words used in the Old Testament the soul Jesus referred to for example in Mathew 10:28 refers to an object, NOT a concept synonymous with life.
* The soul is a fundamental object in the form of a mature human body, i.e. a body developed past the time of ensoulment which following Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich I will assume is 4.5 months into pregnancy.(1) As the body develops, the soul, somehow assumes the form the body until death in Faith defined by the Roman Catholic Church as separation of soul and body, which usually occurs around the same time that the body stops naturally moving on its own against the gravitational pull of all atoms especially those originating in the Earth.

* The soul of a human has unique properties and behaviors. An example of a unique property is that it can superpose with the body. This is somewhat similar to the fundamental set of objects which mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms of the Universe, the same fundamental objects from which all atoms assume their form.

* Soul and body is a description of a human not a definition. Human refers to an object. Objects we point to and name, concepts we define. Object refers to that which has form. Form is the primary quality of all objects and is considered holistically. So regardless of when ensoulment occurs the new living object formed at conception (fusion of M & F gametes, sperm and ovum) could be called human and belongs to the human family and to God who miraculously created the bodies of the first father and mother, Adam and Eve: who was of Enos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God (Luke 3:38).

* Although the soul has form, the soul does not derive or assume its form from the same fundamental objects which atoms do. The soul, considered of itself, apart from the body, is not permanently connected to all the atoms of the Universe by an assumed mediator of light and of gravity, the same of which atoms assume their form. Thus the soul is not subject to gravitational relation or continuous light phenomenon as are all atoms. In other words the soul considered of itself is not woven into the network of matter. So this would seem to imply that the soul is comprised of that which is not found in all of Mother Nature. We will just call this soulium.

* The Council of Vienne (1312) (2) taught that the soul, of itself, assumes the form of the body. So in other words at the time some philosophers and perhaps theologians speculated that there was one universal soul fused to all humans which would imply that this one soul had vast boundaries including the location of all humans on Earth. The Council of Vienne checked this error by explicitly and infallibly teaching that the form of the soul which is synonymous with what is bound or contained res ipsa loquens is that of the body. So the limits or boundaries or what is bound, contained, demarcated, delineated, etc. of the soul is the same as the body. Soul and body perfectly superpose, interface, interpenetrate, or pass through one another and remain intimately bound until death, defined by the Church as the separation of soul and of body.

* A soul does not form naturally as does the body in the case of all ordinary humans (excluding Jesus, Mary, Adam, and Eve). God miraculously creates and forms the soul which he immediately fuses to the body. So the soul has a supernatural origin and the Divine event of a soul’s miraculous creation and infusion is sometimes called ensoulment. The time when ensoulment happens for ordinary immature humans is as far as I know an open question in the Roman Catholic Church. Some modern theologians and members of the Pro-Life movement have abandoned the idea that this special Divine act happens after conception. On the other hand, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich said this happens about 4.5 months into pregnancy.

* Because the soul does not derive or assume its form from the same fundamental object which atoms do, it is disconnected and detached from matter, defined as the set of atoms and the mediators which connect all atoms. However the caveat is that God miraculously formed the soul so as to superpose, interface, interpenetrate, infuse, inform, or relate with the body in a most thorough, intimate, perfect and to us a mystical manner. The soul dynamically relates with the body, especially major organs such as the brain and the heart in subtle modes from which arises the phenomena of reasoning and volition in humans. The soul-body relationship is perfect, thorough, seamless, somewhat mysterious, etc. However this relation as far as I understand is impossible to explain by physics and philosophy or even theology. Spiritual writers like Saint John of the Cross described the relations of the soul with God and the body, however they often employed figures of speech or analogies. Furthermore God did not reveal how this relation works throughout life. Jesus emphasized the excellence, beauty, God-like quality, immortality and grave importance of the soul, however he did not explain how it works with the body or even on its own when separated from the body for example in Heaven, Hell or Purgatory.

* The soul’s status of being detached from all atoms is one of the reasons why it is more God-like than the body. The soul is majestic in that it does not rely on the same common (assumed) fundamental entity for its existence than all atoms of the Universe do.

* The Church has always taught that the soul is immortal and I believe this however it seems to me that this teaching is not clear enough. If the soul is said to live then the definition of life would have to be specialized for a context of the soul since the soul is an object which of itself is not subject to gravity. So life in context to the soul I assume has to do with its close intimate relationship with God established at Baptism whether of water, blood or desire. At Baptism the soul (and body) or simply the human is infused with another object/form, namely God the Holy Spirit. As long as the soul is infused with the Spirit (a Divine object) the soul could said to be alive. The souls in Hell are said to suffer death since they are separated from God, the Mystical Body of Christ, are not infused with the Holy Spirit, etc. So there are different contexts here. But in terms of immortality I think the idea is that the soul cannot be dissolved as opposed to living objects comprised of atoms, molecules, chemical compounds, etc. can. In this it is similar to the fundamental object that mediates light and gravity between all atoms, the same from which all atoms derive their form. This fundamental object by definition cannot possibly dissolve, break into pieces, etc. unless God performed some miracle which there is no reason to believe he ever will. But the point is that the soul when considered of itself has a different definition of life and death than a human or a cellular organism. In context of Faith, the Church definition of death for a human is separation of soul and body. This usually happens at natural death when the body ceases to move on its own against gravity.
* Popes, Bishops, and theologians of the past have modified the word ‘soul’ with the words ‘rational’ or ‘intellectual’ so as to distinguish this referent with souls God may or may not form for plants and animals, etc. This seems to imply that the soul together with the body is a mediator in the dynamic concepts of intellection and volition (thinking, reasoning and choosing, desiring, etc.). But the modifier serves to distinguish from Greeks and others who speculated or adopted the idea that plants and animals had what they call vegetative (nutritive) and sensitive souls. It is not clear what the Church teaches on these matters, but what is clear is that a human has this object called a soul, that this soul is the form of the body, the soul is a greater object than that of the body, the soul is immortal, after death some souls go to Heaven maybe via Purgatory or Hell, all souls will be reunited with new bodies according to their Judgment at the Resurrection, etc.

* The Church and Science have been reckless with the word ‘life’. There is no clear and unambiguous definition used to resolve theological, philosophical and physical disputes in regards to life. Some modern theologians and members of the pro-life movement are biased toward the idea that human life is only possible with a soul superposing an object from its conception. But this leads to absurd and even ludicrous conclusions, for example every single bacterium or single celled organism would have to have a soul in order to enact independent self-propulsion in spite of gravity. Assuming Faith, there are also other substantial arguments against ensoulment occurring at conception for example the wisdom of God foreseeing how reckless humans are with their gametes or the idea that immature prenatal humans have not developed enough to even be fit for the reception and use of a soul (an object we know little about how it works). Why would God form and infuse a unique soul that personalizes a human if that same has not even developed working organs, including the formation of sexual organs? If the soul is not necessary for all living objects, and the soul is the form of the body why would God have to create a soul at conception? At conception and for days a human is just a ball of cells. Is God obliged to ensoul a ball of cells? Is He not in control and do we not live under His command and reign? Are we not supposed to live in his covenant? Must God obey every successful conception derived naturally or unnaturally by miraculously forming and infusing a soul?

* Life for the purposes of philosophy and physics could be defined as a natural object's ability to move on its own in spite of its inherent gravitational relationship with all the atoms of the Universe. This ability is built into the form of the natural object. Life refers to a dynamic concept, a verb. Life describes a natural object's ability to move on its own against the pull of all the atoms of the Earth and Universe. A living object has an ability to independently move radially opposite the net effect of gravity originating in the Earth. Life is independent anti-gravitational motion. In Faith we can assume God designed an object’s ability to independently self-propel, given the right set of circumstances, environment. The fundamental object of life is the cell. Before a living object performs such actions as respiration, reproduction, defecation, meosis, etc. it must have the ability to move on its own against the gravitational pull originating from all the atoms of the Earth as well as the Universe. Without this ability a living object would not be able to perform any of the many functions proper to it. From this definition we establish a context and then we can ask whether or not a soul is a necessary component for natural life. I just assume that a human from at conception has the ability to move on its own against gravity and naturally changes, matures and develops whether or not that human has a soul. Ensoulment defined as God miraculously forming and infusing a soul to the body of a human could serve as a substantial development in the course of a human in utero.

* Assume that the soul is not miraculously formed by God at natural conception in a woman or the many unnatural ways conception occurs in modern culture. The new living object formed at conception can still be named human since this form is from a living object of a man and a living object of a woman which in Faith can be traced back to Adam and ultimately God: the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:28). The third and new living object formed at fusion of sperm and ovum belongs to the human race even if it does not yet have a soul created and infused by God. In this context the word ‘man’ or ‘human’ refers to an object. If that object has not matured to the event of ensoulment it is still a living human and abortion is still gravely evil. The mediator or mediators of an abortion directly and voluntarily harm and deprive the target object in a severe manner, in this case an immature and innocent human. If ensoulment occurs half-way through pregnancy then an abortion to those prior to this event would also deprive some immature humans of a soul and a chance at salvation, everlasting life, a relationship with God and all the Angels and Saints, its parents, etc. So it would seem that if ensoulment occurred halfway through pregnancy then an act of abortion would be even a greater degree of evil than previously imagined, for an immature human mature does not reach the event of ensoulment. God through Jesus can confer a Baptism of blood on a dying prenatal human, but he would only do this if he had already ensouled the same. Furthermore ensoulment half-way through a pregnancy would teach the important role of the Mother in helping her baby develop to the event of ensoulment. The role a mother takes on a profound relation, and calls for the greatest care.

* On the other hand it seems to me that in light of all the recklessness humans have displayed with their bodies, sexual organs, gametes, and sexual acts, as well as the punishment of original sin that we suffer in the body, God in his eternal wisdom and foresight would do well to wait to enact the event of ensoulment. It would seem foolish and even ludicrous in my eyes for God to create and infuse a soul at every single human conception. And why would God create a soul at all those conceptions done in a petri-dish, in-vitro? And what about women who have something wrong with their wombs? Or what about the tough nature of the endometrium? It almost seems that the endometrium serves as a testing ground for the blastocyst. What if a blastocyst cannot implant in a woman’s uterus and this happens many times. Will that women find all these in Heaven?


But even if this ensoulment post conception were true: abortion, use of contraceptives and abortifacients, sexual sins and artificial procreation are still not justified since there is always direct and voluntary harm or deprivation on a target in these acts. But ensoulment post conception, I think rather adds to the gravity and I speculate that this is the reason Jesus never explicitly revealed when ensoulment occurs nor is this found in the Bible. This would just be another temptation for men and women to misuse their sexual organs, directly and voluntary harm innocent immature humans and offend God to a greater degree. Ignorance lessens the degree of guilt judged by God and opens a way of mercy, forgiveness and healing. But now at this juncture in history as we seem to move ever closer to the Return of Jesus and times are unimaginably evil perhaps some of these questions could be resolved at least by those who still have Faith so that the Faithful can live to a greater degree of enlightenment and holiness.

* Jesus, Adam and Eve were extraordinary and they are not customary examples of when ensoulment occurs for most immature humans. Consequently it would seem that to use Jesus as an argument in regards to when ensoulment occurs lacks wisdom. Incarnation is a different event than natural or unnatural conception (fusion of M & F gametes) even if in the Apostles creed we use the word ‘conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.’ The contexts are different. Saint Paul’s teaching that Jesus was like us in all things except for sin is sometimes misused and interpreted to an extreme. In addition the bodies of Adam and Eve were not naturally formed in utero. God miraculously formed both of them as fully grown mature humans with developed organs and so on. They were fit for immediate reception and use of a soul, without any sort of delay for example months as in the case of ordinary children in the womb. As described in the Sacred Scripts Adam was miraculously created from the clay of the Earth and Eve miraculously, God using a rib taken from Adam.

* When Adam and Eve were created they were infused with the Holy Spirit, both soul and body in an intimate relationship with God. After they sinned the Spirit left them for a time and they lost their close relationship with God until they repented, did penance, and so on. When ordinary children excepting Mary, have their souls created and infused these same are NOT infused with the Holy Spirit and not in an intimate relationship with God as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. This is remedied via Baptism when the human is literally infused with the Spirit, united to the Body of Jesus Christ, and all that the Church teaches. Jesus is God. When he miraculously became human in the womb of Mary his soul and body were created at the same time and of course he was filled with the Spirit. This was extraordinary. In regards to Mary, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich teaches that she had a virgin conception, meaning that she was conceived in Saint Anne in a miraculous manner unlike all other conceptions. Saints Joachim and Anne did not engage in a natural sexual encounter to conceive Mary ever Virgin, rather they simply hugged in a prayerful recollection, ecstatically, under the Golden Gate of the Temple in Jerusalem. This was inspired by God, and God miraculously fused their gametes in Saint Anne. (3) Mary’s conception was a supernatural event. Although she is a descendant of Adam and Eve, the generation of her body did not happen naturally as does with others. The way Saints Joachim and Anne conceived is similar to how all conceptions would have occurred had not Adam and Eve sinned. Anyone who says that Mary’s conception happened in a normal manner via a natural sexual encounter, states an error or a lie. Then according to Blessed Anne Mary’s event of ensoulment occurred 4.5 months less five days into Saint Anne’s pregnancy. Mary’s soul and then body united to soul, her person, was filled with the Spirit and in a perfect, intimate, singular, most highly privileged relationship with God always. Assuming Blessed Anne words are true, whether or not her living body was infused with the Spirit from its miraculous formation in the womb of Saint Anne prior to the event of her ensoulment I don’t know. Probably not since the Spirit was infused in Saint Anne, via an Old Testament baptism of desire. But her (Mary's) body and soul via body never suffered concupiscence or tendency toward sin, since she was conceived in a supernatural manner and quite simply because this was God's preconceived choice for her in her role of salvation.  God prevented her from concupiscence in a most thorough manner even so far as having her conceived in a miraculous and extraordinary manner. Note the reader at this point may have gleaned above: conception and ensoulment are two different events. Pope Pius IX taught that from the first instant of Mary’s conception she was preserved free from all stain of original sin which effects both body and soul, however in my humble opinion, this definition does not necessarily imply that she was ensouled at conception. I don’t think conception in this context is defined as fusion of soul and M & F gametes at the same instant, in other words conception to include ensoulment, rather just fusion of M & F gametes (which in the formation of Mary’s body happened miraculously, supernaturally, unlike any other conception ever completed in history). If I’m wrong then I request a clarification and correction from the Magisterium.

* In Jesus’ supernatural and miraculous Incarnation there was certainly no M gamete involved so this event cannot be described as a conception in the meaning used in these notes, i.e. fusion of M & F gametes or sperm and ovum. How Jesus assumed a human body from Mary and how the pregnancy progressed is really not any of my business. IMHO it’s enough to understand that the Son of God derived his body from the most pure and virginal body of Mary. At the same time he assumed his body he assumed his soul which he created, but to my understanding this was uncommon, extraordinary, an exception.

* My understanding is that the act of adopting and implanting a frozen embryo, considered conceptually is moral since the mediators are potentially helping and providing even saving the target object in a direct and voluntary manner. The target object in this act, i.e. the immature human, is given a womb, has a chance to mature, to reach the event of ensoulment, birth, a relationship with adoptive parents, God, other humans, life, etc. There is no harm or deprivation voluntarily directed toward the target object in this dynamic relation. Intention and circumstances must be good. Note that this opinion does not exonerate, support or justify the horrific and gravely evil behaviors that lead to the conception of a human in a dish and then frozen in slavery, or to any sort of artificial procreation practices or any sort of contraceptive practices. I believe in the Roman Catholic teaching that the a moral sexual act is a consensual natural sexual act between a married man and woman that is open toward a possible formation of a new living object named human, one that has unitive, marital and procreative relations between the mediators of the act and done with good intentions and good consequences outweighing bad consequences.


(1) Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich: “Four and one-half months less three days after St. Anne had conceived under the Golden Gate, I saw the soul of Mary, formed by the Most Holy Trinity, in movement. I saw the Divine Persons interpenetrating one another. It became a great shining mountain, and still like the figure of a man. I saw something from the midst of the Three Divine Persons rising toward the mouth and issuing from it like a beam of light. This beam hovered before the face of God and assumed a human shape, or rather it was formed to such. As it took the human form, I saw it, as if by the command of God, most beautifully fashioned. I saw God showing the beauty of this soul to the angels, and from it they experienced unspeakable joy. . . I saw that soul united to the living body of Mary in Anne’s womb. Anne lay asleep upon her couch. I saw a light hovering over her and from it a beam descending toward the middle of her side. I saw that beam enter into her in the form of a small, luminous, human figure. At the same instant Anne sat up. She was entirely surrounded by light, and she had a vision. She saw her own person, open as it were and in it, as if in a tabernacle, a holy, luminous virgin from whom proceeded all salvation. I saw, too, that this was the instant that Mary first moved in her mother’s womb . . . Anne arose and announced to Joachim what had taken place. Then she went out to pray under the tree beneath which a child had been promised to her. I learned that Mary’s soul animated her body five days earlier than is customary with ordinary children, and that she was born twelve days sooner.” (Mysteries of the Old Testament or Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary)


(2) Council of Vienne: We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.


(3) Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich: “I saw Joachim and Anne embrace each other in ecstasy. They were surrounded by hosts of angels, some floating over them carrying a luminous tower like that which we see in the pictures of the Litany of Loretto. The tower vanished between Joachim and Anne, both of whom were encompassed by brilliant light and glory. At the same moment the heavens above them opened, and I saw the joy of the Most Holy Trinity and of the angels over the Conception of Mary. Both Joachim and Anne were in a supernatural state. I learned that, at the moment in which they embraced and the light shone around them, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was accomplished. I was also told that Mary was conceived just as conception would have been effected, were it not for the fall of man” (Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary) . . . Blessed Anne describing Adam before the Fall: “The glittering beams on Adams head denoted his abundant fruitfulness, his glory, his connection with other radiations. And all this shining beauty is restored to glorified souls and bodies. Our hair is the ruined, the extinct glory; and as is this hair of ours to rays of light, so is our present flesh to that of Adam before the Fall. The sunbeams around Adams mouth bore reference to a holy posterity from God, which, had it not been for the Fall, would have been effectuated by the spoken word.” (Mysteries of the Old Testament) [She even goes on to say that if Adam and Eve had been taught by God and understood how the Blessing of posterity was to enact in this holy manner between them, before their sin, Redemption would have been impossible. So indeed these are very grave concepts.]

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

The Life of Job and the Evolution of the Book of Job

Sit back and enjoy my extended article on the life of Job and evolution of the Sacred Book of Job.*

Job Was Not an Edomite

Edom refers to Esau son of Isaac; the descendants of Esau; and the land where Esau's descendants settled (also called Idumea). This land extended south of the Dead Sea toward Egypt. Job did not descend from Esau nor did Job ever live in the ancient region called Edom or Idumea.

A simple critical thinking can resolve that Job was not an Edomite. Edomites were enemies of Israel. There is no conceivable way that the Israelites would be interested in an Edomite or in preserving an Edomitic script. The Edomites had their own deities that they supposedly worshiped, and not the One God, the Lord. It is irrational, inconceivable and impossible that Job could have been an Edomite.

The confusion with the history of Job arises from the evolution of the Book of Job and the fact that Job was an ancient---lost to memory. The history of Job, his sayings and his dialogues were originally written on bark. They were copied and words were added, removed and rearranged first in the time of Moses and the Israelite's passage through the wilderness, and second in the time of Solomon. Solomon rearranged the scripts of Job into a wisdom literature. Over the generations people forgot about Job and did not understand that Moses and Solomon reformed the scripts that came to be known as the Book of Job.

The dispute over Job's existence has been a topic of debate since the time of Jesus. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich relates an episode of Jesus teaching in a Jewish boy's school:

At the moment of Jesus' entrance into this school, the boys were making some calculation connected with Job . . . He explained much of the Book of Job. Some of the rabbis at this period attacked the truth of the history therein contained, since the Edomites, to which race Herod belonged, bantered and ridiculed the Jews for accepting as true the history of a man of the land of Edom, although in that land no such man was ever known to exist. They looked upon the whole story as a mere fable, gotten up to encourage the Israelites under their afflictions in the desert. Jesus related Job's history to the boys as if it had really happened. He did so in the manner of a Prophet and Catechist, as if He saw all passing before Him, as if it were His own history, as if He heard and saw everything connected with it, or as if Job himself had told it to Him. His hearers knew not what to think. Who was this Man that now addressed them? Was He one of Job's contemporaries? Or was He an angel of God? Or was He God Himself? (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The rabbis described by Blessed Anne in this episode remind me of some modern scholars. Their brains cannot conceive of ancient concepts or their limited sensory systems cannot find evidences of a story written in the Sacred Script thus they write it ALL off as fiction. They cannot unlock the mystery of the Sacred Script thus they assume the Sacred Script is wrong. This is the way of some. Man are they in for a surprise!

Job Was Not

Clearly, Job is a nickname of Jobab. In the Bible there is Jobab, an Edomite King:
These were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites:  Bela son of Beor; the name of his city was Dinhabah.  When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah, succeeded him. (1 Chr 1:43-44)

Job was not this Edomite king nor was he from Bozrah. Job lived an ancient patriarchal-pastoral way of life. In Job's time there was no such concept as Edom or Israel since Esau and Jacob had not yet to be born.

There was another Jobab, King of Madon:
When King Jabin of Hazor heard the news, he organized a coalition, including King Jobab of Madon, the king of Shimron, the king of Acshaph, (Judges 11:1)

Obviously, our Job was not this King of Madon. Madon was a city in Canaan. Joshua and the Israelites defeated this Jobab with God's help.

Two other Jobabs are listed in the Book of Chronicles as descendants of Benjamin son of Jacob.

I assume that these above were named after THE Jobab who in his time was the greatest among all the ancient sons of the East; not the Israelites or Edomites. A comparison of naming a child Jobab could be Saint Nicholas. I am named after Saint Nicholas as are many others. Once upon a time Nicholas of Myra was a renown and holy man who lived in Asia Minor. He performed a lot of great deeds. Today many are named after him but not everyone knows all the details of his life. He has become something of a legend. Similar with Jobab. He was famous and some were named after him but the details of his life eventually were forgotten since he lived long before the Jews.

Job's Lineage

Job was not a Jew, but perhaps he could be called a Hebrew if the word Hebrew is defined as a descendant of Heber, son of Shelah in Shem's line.

Job was a holy ancient patriarch, a grand uncle of Abraham. Job lived not long after the confusion of tongues at the Tower Babel. Job lived around the time Babylon was first founded by Nimrod using the stones of the halted Tower Babel project. He lived at the time the morphemes and alphabet of the holy and ancient Hebrew language were first traced by the patriarch Heber. Job was a descendant of Heber.

Job descended from Noah via Shem. Shem was the father of Arphaxad. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Heber. Heber had two sons: Phaleg and Joktan. Job was the thirteenth and youngest son of Joktan. In the 10th chapter of Genesis all thirteen sons are listed and Job's full first name is given as Jobab:

Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

The first concept I'd like to convey about this specific verse is that these names first and foremost refer to real sons of Joktan and not simply to nations or regions. Real fathers established families, settled in lands, had jurisdiction over the lands and cultivated them. Joktan was a great leader of nations. From him sprung up various peoples via his sons who migrated and settled throughout the East. For the purposes of this article, East is defined as the lands extending from the Levant to India.

The last son of Joktan was Jobab. This Jobab of Joktan IS one and the same as the Job whose story and sayings are traced in the Book of Job. The next verse from Genesis describes the lands of the sons of Joktan and perhaps other children of Shem:
Their dwelling place was from Mesha all the way to Sephar in the eastern hills.

Mesha and Sephar are unidentified by modern scholarship. They assume that these names refer to places of Arabia. I was not able to figure out their exact location. These names could have been conceived prior to the confusion of tongues at Babel and the establishment of the ancient proto-Hebrew via Heber. I assume that Mesha refers to a land, probably somewhere in the Caucasus. Sephar, I assume, is a highland far into the East, perhaps even Pakistan or India. In Genesis Sephar is referred to as in the 'eastern hills' or a 'mount of the east'.

I do not doubt that some of Joktan son's and descendants migrated down to Yemen but I also think that other sons migrated far into the East. I am biased toward the idea posited by modern scholars that Ophir was a kingdom in the East, on the shores of Pakistan or India. I assume that Ophir, son of Joktan migrated far into the East perhaps to Pakistan or India and eventually a kingdom perhaps took its name in memory of him. Later Solomon would acquire primary goods from Ophir (see 1 Kings 9:26-28). They sailed the navy around the southern tip of Arabia and up to the shores of modern day Pakistan or India. In the Sacred Script under Job's dialogue the gold of Ophir is used to relate the value of wisdom:
It cannot be measured out for purchase with the gold of Ophir, ​​​​​​with precious onyx or sapphires. (28:16)

After the Flood, Noah landed somewhere in the Armenian Highlands and settled nearby, perhaps down in the plains toward Lebanon. From there his descendants migrated in all directions. Not all of his descendants migrated to the Tigris-Euphrates river system to work on the Tower. These were mostly families of Ham and a few families of Japheth. Other families migrated north and east to what we would call the Caucasus. These were some families of Shem and Japheth. Shem's descendants took no part in the Tower Babel project.

Joktan was given jurisdiction over lands situated in what we call the Caucasus. The Caucasus, or Caucasia is a region that extends up from northern Iran, eastern Turkey, and Armenia between the Black and Caspian Seas, includes the Caucasus Mountains and ends north of the Black Sea in modern day Russia. Some of Abraham's close forbears eventually migrated down to Mesopotamia from southeastern ring of the Black Sea. Abraham a descendant of Phaleg migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan (roughly modern Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, West Jordan, Southwest Syria). But Joktan, son of Heber ended up in the Caucasus. The Caucasus is from where Job hailed at least for the first developments of his life.

Job was born somewhere in the Caucasus perhaps off the North Eastern shores. Job was Ophir's little brother. So now rounding off the thought from the Job verse cited above, I would assume that either Jobab knew that his brother Ophir found gold or that this verse was added by Solomon for it refers to wisdom and understanding. I’m inclined to think the latter.


The Caucasus is a region extending between the Red Sea and Caspian Sea. There is a mountain range extending across from Sea to Sea called the Caucasus Mountains. I assume the Black Sea and Caspian Sea formed in the Flood of Noah.

Interesting Corollary: Of all the Christian Churches the one that holds a calendar feast day in honor of the astonishingly holy Jobab is the Armenian Apostolic Church. Armenia is a country located in South Caucasus.


The Land of Uz

In the Book of Job it is said that Job was in the land of Uz:

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

I assume that the land of Uz refers to a region due east of Jericho, perhaps in the land that would later be occupied by the Ammonites and Moabites, and then divided to the two and a half tribes of Israel (half Manasseh, Reuben and Gad). So this would correspond to modern day Jordan, or in more past days, Northern Arabia, Southern Syria, or classical Transjordan. I assume that this land was under the jurisdiction of Uz or his descendants. Uz was a grandson of Shem via Aram, and brother of Arphaxad. Some of Shem's descendants migrated to these lands north and east of Canaan. Various families close to Shem were spread out around the Caucasus, the Levant, and Northern Arabia, Mesopotamia and perhaps other lands.


Job began his life in the Caucasus and ended his life in Uz [a land east of Jericho and the River Jordan] because of his misfortunes. After each of his afflictions he had to start over which, of course, was difficult to do in ancient times let alone our times. After his second affliction he moved south from the Caucasus down to Uz, a land under the jurisdiction of Uz's descendants which would have been Job's cousins. It was in the land of Uz where Job built a tent city founded on stone over a fertile plateau. Job was not a nomad. He lived a pastoral way of life that in the its last phase was centered around his tent castle/city. Prior to his final residence in Uz his moves were because of his misfortunes.

It was there in the land of Uz that he prospered and yet suffered his final affliction which was the loss of his camels to the Chaldeans (Babylonian raiders), his children, leprosy and a grievous temper. Only after was he given more than he ever had including three daughters who were the most beautiful women in the world. Job gave them the names transliterated roughly Jemimah, Kezia, and Keren-Happuch translated in English via the the Septuagint and Jerome's Vulgate as Daylight, Cinnamon, and Horn of Cosmetics.

Jobab's Appearance


Job was a redhead! Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich relates Job's appearance:
Job was a large, powerful man of agreeable appearance; he had a yellowish-brown complexion and reddish hair. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Red hair can still be found in the Caucasus and the nations surrounding the Black Sea. It is interesting that Job's ancient parents must have carried the gene for red hair.


Jobab's Character

Blessed Anne also relates his character:

Job was unspeakably gentle, affable, just, and benevolent. He assisted all in need. He was, too, exceedingly pure and very familiar with God, who communicated with him through an angel, or "a white man," as the people of that period expressed it.

Without prejudice Job helped everyone in need using his store of wisdom and goods. In the grievous temper Job underwent, he relates how he helped everyone around him and this was a source of confusion for him during his sufferings. Here are some examples taken from the Book of Job:

​​​​​​​for I rescued the poor who cried out for help, ​​​​​​and the orphan who had no one to assist him; (29:12)
​​I was a father to the needy, ​​​​​​and I investigated the case of the person I did not know; (29:16)
​​​​​​​If I have seen anyone about to perish for lack of clothing, ​​​​​​or a poor man without a coat, if his sides have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; (31:19)

Of course Sacred Scripture also bestows upon Job rare accolades as in the first verse of the Book of Job or in the Prophecy of Ezekiel where God honors him aside Noah and Daniel. And the Apostle Saint James holds the person Job up as an example of patience.


Job was certainly a Saint and he had followers. He had an intimate relationship with the Lord God, helped those in need and even was stimulated to understand coming of Jesus and Mary in some Divine prophetic manner.

The Misfortunes of Jobab

The misfortunes of Job, described in the Book of Job did not all happen at once. They fell upon him in sets, at different times and in three different abodes. After each set of affliction was some period of time, maybe even a decade. And in between Job moved, and started over. The words used in the first chapter of the Book of Job: 'While this one was still speaking. . ." refers to a general figurative expression meaning "And while this was still the talk of men, etc.' I assume Job was fairly young when he suffered his first affliction. Maybe in his late twenties or thirties.

In our version of the Book of Job the afflictions are traced in an abbreviated manner. Why? The ancients were terse with their words even if they enjoyed figures. In addition this particular book was originally traced into bark. They were not effusive with their words nor did they have the luxury of Microsoft Word.

After Blessed Anne's words I have Job's afflictions imagined in three different abodes.

1. A marshy region of the Caucasus
2. Higher up a mount in the Caucasus
3. Land of Uz

Job suffered his first affliction in a marshy region of the Caucasus which he moved too after deciding to separate from his parents. There are some circumstantial descriptions of his first land in the Caucasus in the Sacred Script:

​​​​​​​By the brush they would gather herbs from the salt marshes, and the root of the broom tree was their food. (30:4)
In connection to this verse Blessed Anne relates that
"No grain was cultivated in those marshy districts; but they raised a large sedge, which grows also in water, and whose pith was eaten either boiled or roasted. . . They planted many species of gourds for food." (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Eventually he found himself prospering with children, and followers who he originally helped out of charity. They cultivated the land and dwelt in tents. But Sheba stole his animals and killed some of his followers. This Sheba refers to a raiding party that consisted of members from the tribe of Sheba, great grandson of Ham, son of Cush, son of Raamah. The raiders were descendants of Sheba. At that time just like in other times certain bands got together and raided across nations. These impious raiders probably heard of Job's prosperity and holiness. They discovered his location, attacked, killed, stole, etc. Job did not have warriors to protect his goods.

After this first affliction Job moved somewhere higher up in the Caucasus Mountains. There he struggled to recover with his remaining family and followers. And there again he eventually prospered.

After Blessed Anne I assume that about a decade passed between his first affliction and second affliction. In that interim he was sent on a mission to Egypt in order to deliver one of his relatives as bride to some shepherd kings originally from the Caucasus. The shepherd kings assigned to him a land which incidentally was the same place where Jesus, Mary and Joseph would later flee to from Herod's persecution. There he had visions about man's salvation and even was shown a well that later Mary, the Mother of God would use when she lived in Egypt. In Egypt, Job fought against the sacrifices of living children. Those beastly ancient Egyptians would burn children alive on the apparatus of idols shaped (but smaller) as a sphinx. This is something they don't tell you in the museum exhibits. Job vehemently spoke out against those who practiced this and I think he was able to stop the practice at least for a time. This is hinted at in the Sacred Script under Job's dialogues:
I broke the fangs of the wicked, ​​​​​​and made him drop his prey from his teeth. (29:17)

The prey figuratively refer to the innocent children killed in sacrifice to idols or demons.


Eventually, Job returned to his native land in the Caucasus and suffered his second misfortune where the fire of God, perhaps lightning or a meteor, fell from the sky and burned his herds and some of his servants. After this he moved to the land of Uz and eventually suffered his final set of afflictions:

When Job had returned to his native country, his second misfortune overtook him; and when, after twelve years of peace, the third came upon him, he was living more toward the south and directly eastward from Jericho. I think this country had been given to him after his second calamity, because he was everywhere greatly revered and loved for his admirable justice, his knowledge, and his fear of God. This country was a level plain, and here Job began anew. On a height, which was very fertile, noble animals of various kinds were running around, also wild camels. They caught them in the same way as we do the wild horses on the heath. Job settled on this height. Here he prospered, became very rich, and built a city. The foundations were of stone; the dwellings were tents. It was during this period of great prosperity that his third calamity, his grievous distemper, overtook him. After enduring this affliction with great wisdom and patience, he entirely recovered, and again became the father of many sons and daughters. I think Job did not die till long after, when another nation intruded itself into the country. (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Renown Descendants of Jobab


Abraham was a descendant of Job. Via Blessed Anne, Abraham's mother was a great grand daughter of Job. In the last verse of the Book of Job it is written that Job lived to see his children to the fourth generation. So for example Job's beautiful daughter Daylight (first generation) could have married and had a daughter (second generation) who got married and had another daughter (third generation) who married Terah and together they had Abraham (fourth generation). Job may have still been alive when Abraham was born.

At least one of the Three Kings who visited Jesus after his birth descended from Job. His name was Mensor. The names of the other two were Seir and Theokeno. The names of the Three Kings that some Christians are familiar with today are symbolic. I do not know if all three descended from Job, but the three did descend from Shem via Arphaxad. Mensor was from northern Arabia. He lived in a tent castle and tent city founded on stone. Seir was from the South Caucasus. Theokeno was from the north and east of the Caspian Sea, perhaps modern day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan. The Three Kings inherited the prophecy of the Star from their forebears. The prophecy of the Star was given to ancients descended from Arphaxad even long before Abraham.

Jesus visited the tent city of Mensor not long prior to his Death. By that time Seir had passed away but Jesus taught Mensor that Seir had the baptism of desire. Later Mensor and Theokeno were baptized by the Apostle Saint Thomas who later traveled to India. The events of Jesus visiting Mensor's tent city are not written in the Gospels since Jesus decided not to take the future Apostles and Disciples with him for this journey. No one knew of what Jesus did there hence no script.

Prophecies of Job

Job was close with God and underwent prophetic experiences. He alludes to this in the Script:
​​O that I could be as I was in the months now gone,in the days when God watched over me, ​​​​​​​when he caused his lamp to shine upon my head,and by his light I walked through darkness; ​​​​​​​just as I was in my most productive time, when God’s intimate friendship was experienced in my tent . . . (29:2-4)
   
Job himself knew of the coming of the Savior, Resurrection and perhaps even a proto-concept of the Beatific Vision:

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,and that as the lasthe will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God, ​​​whom I will see for myself, and whom my own eyes will behold, and not another.  (19:25)
Job also knew that he would gather with others after death:
I know that you are bringing me to death, ​​​​​​to the meeting place for all the living. (30:23)

Job was very wise and understood the nature of the Universe and secrets about Earth's history that not even the modern scientists have been able to figure out due to his intimacy with God recorded in the dialogues of Job. I get the feeling we moderns tend to think that ancients such as Job were naive and excluded. They were not. Job understood the coming of the Redeemer. Enoch knew of primal concepts of the Second Coming. Adam knew of the promised Virgin who thankfully turned out to be Mary. The problem was that concepts got confused, misunderstood, or forgotten over many generations. But of course God revealed much more to the Jews via the prophets and wise men.

Evolution of the Book of Job

Scholars have long thought the Book of Job underwent an evolution from the original tracings. I agree. In addition to translating and copying various persons added words and clauses, subtracted them, and rearranged them. Here is an excellent note from the NET Bible scholars:

Most of it is written in poetic parallelism. But it is often very cryptic, it is written with unusual grammatical constructions, and it makes use of a large number of very rare words. All this has led some scholars to question if it was originally written in Hebrew or some other related Semitic dialect or language first. There is no indication of who the author was. It is even possible that the work may have been refined over the years; but there is no evidence for this either. The book uses a variety of genres (laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles) in the various speeches of the participants. This all adds to the richness of the material. And while it is a poetic drama using cycles of speeches, there is no reason to doubt that the events represented here do not go back to a real situation and preserve the various arguments. Several indications in the book would place Job’s dates in the time of the patriarchs. (NET Notes)
Now compare this with what Blessed Anne says:
The history of Job, together with his dialogues with God, was circumstantially written down by two of his most trusty servants who seemed to be his stewards. They wrote upon bark, and from Jobs own dictation. These two servants were named respectively Hai and Uis, or Ois. These narratives were held very sacred by Jobs descendants. They passed from generation to generation down to Abraham. . . In the school of Rebecca, the Canaanites were instructed in them on account of the lessons of submission under trials from God that they inculcated. Through Jacob and Joseph, they descended to the children of Israel in Egypt. Moses collected and arranged them differently for the use of the Israelite's during their servitude in Egypt and their painful wanderings in the wilderness; for they contained many details that might not have been understood, and which would have been of no service in his time. But Solomon again entirely remodeled them, omitting many things and inserting many others of his own. And so, this once authentic history became a sacred book made up of the wisdom of Job, Moses, and Solomon. One can now only with difficulty trace the particular history of Job, for the names of cities and nations were assimilated to those of the land of Canaan, on which account Job came to be regarded as an Edomite. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The Book of Job is an excellent example of how the Spirit can inspire successive holy writers to complete a sacred book in an evolution. The script began by Job dictating to his followers who wrote on bark. Job had recorded his dialogues with God, his thoughts and words for the duration of his grievous temper and confusion. And he had recorded the words of his friends, relatives and surrounding people who visited him. They probably used a dialect of Job's grandfather Heber, a proto-Hebrew. So these scripts were able to be more or less understood by the Abraham and his descendants. The NET Bible notes say that the Job script uses strange grammatical constructions and rare words that perhaps only Job, his family and followers conceived of and understood.


Moses removed many details that would be of no service to the Jews who lived at a later time. And Moses may have added a few verses. For example:

​​​​​​​He will not look on the streams, ​​​​​​the rivers, which are the torrents ​​​​​​of honey and butter. (20:17)

This is a variation of "the land flowing with milk and honey" that God promised the Jews found in Exodus, Numbers, etc.

It is easy to imagine that Solomon worked on the Book of Job. Solomon omitted even more words because he and his people were more distant relative to ancient Job. For Solomon and his people the Job script would have been to them what the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, or the poem Beowulf are to us in the English speaking world. It is not always easy to understand all the words written by Shakespeare because he lived in a different world than ours. However one can readily identify his style and perhaps mimic it.

I can just imagine Solomon reading the exotic Job script with all these characters and thinking to himself:
There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them. (Ecclesiastes 1:11)

I assume Solomon gave the Book of Job its current structure so as to make the Book more of a cycle of dialogues between Job and his friends. He conceived the idea to organize the writings into a dialogue. I assume the scripts were disorganized into Job's dialogues, and that of various friends, family, etc. I assume that Eliphaz, Baldad, Zophar and Elihu's dialogues do not all strictly belong to them. They may have been a collection of quotes taken from various friends and relatives of Job and then new additions from Moses. Solomon may have added the family titles to Job's friends in order to help delineate the dialog and communicate some concepts relevant to the people of his time.


Solomon imitated the terse style of the ancient poetic parallelism so as to add some of his own wisdom as well as smooth out some sequences and put on some finishing touches thus revising the Text into a masterful and potent Wisdom literature retaining all that God desired to have traced.

It is easy to see that some verses from the Book of Job bear a resemblance to verses from the Proverbs of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes. Here are some examples from Job that may have been written by Solomon:

And the eye of the adulterer watches for the twilight, ​​​​​​thinking, ‘No eye can see me,’ ​​​​​​and covers his face with a mask. He passes through houses in the nighttime, just as they had agreed among themselves in the daytime; and they are ignorant of the light. (Job 24:15-16)

These verses are similar to the adultery themes in the early chapters of Proverbs.


Summary

Job was a real person, an ancient of the family of Heber via Joktan. He lived a long time ago not long after the Flood. His lineage is in the Bible and certain details about his life can be drawn from the Book of Job. The Book of Job underwent an evolution via the work of Moses and Solomon.
  




* Please note that for the most part I used the NET Bible version. The quotes from Blessed A.C. Emmerich are from her works published in English in the early 1900s. I'm not ashamed to say I relied heavily on Blessed Anne, but I also put some of my own work into this.