For Brian–Since “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16) and in Job 38:31-32 God is speaking to Job, I would suggest that “the cluster of stars known as ‘Orion’” has been known…since God created them .

The heavens truly do declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1)!

Worship Him who made the heavens, the earth, and the sea (Rev 14:7, Ex 20:11).

Blessings in Christ,
Brother Wayne

how long has the cluster of stars known as “Orion” been known? Is Job late enough for that reading to not be an anachronism? Just wondering.

No, I never picked up a physical copy of the NET Bible – I’ve been using the online tools. Especially the comparisons with multiple translations to the Greek and Hebrew. I suppose I should give the NET a fair shake as a translation, but there are already so many choices…

Thanks for the feedback! Not sure that it gives you what you’re looking for, but in addition to Keightley, JewishEncyclopedia.com had this reference re Orion as a bound giant:

Of the ancient versions, the LXX. has “Orion” in Job and Isaiah, while Targum and Peshiṭta render by “Giant.” In this there is a reminiscence of an ancient, perhaps pre-Semitic, myth—also current in variants among the Greeks—concerning a giant bound to the sky, whom the Hebrews, with characteristic reflection upon his presumption to resist and defy heavenly power, labeled “Fool.” Nimrod was associated with this “Fool” by later folk-lore.

Regarding the Pleiades – yes, all I meant to convey is that the language “bind the chains” evoked the thought of gravity binding the stars together in a cluster. Supposedly in 250 million years, the Pleiades cluster will pass through Orion and be pulled apart… loosening the cords of Orion as well?!

Consider that the gender of ‘eth would not come into play for the gender of the pronoun modifying it.

Yes – you are correct. My comment was pointed to mazzarah and not ‘eth. I’ll annotate the text appropriately.

BTW, thanks for including pics!

A few quick comments:

“Binding the Pleiades” certainly seems to anticipate modern astronomy’s observations of the gravitational attractions within this group of stars.

Hmm…I’m not sure this follows at all. The unusually closeness and seeming permanance of the star’s grouping within the constellation noted through years of observation would seem to account for this verse. We have no reason to think that the author had some special revelation of Laplace’s celestial mechanics!

In Keightley’s Mythology of Ancient Greece and Italy, he notes that “the ancient Hebrews seem also to have regarded [Orion] as a huge giant bound with chains in the sky [...]”

Keep in mind that we only know what “the ancient Hebrews seem” to have thought based upon their sacred writings, including the Bible. In fact, it was probably this very verse that led to Keightley’s supposition; if there are other extrabiblical references (Midrashim, the Talmud, etc.) that source this view, I’d be very interested in seeing them.

It is interesting to note that the Heb. mazzarah (constellations) and the Heb. ‘eth (season) are feminine nouns and the former is plural – thus, the KJV’s use of “his” to describe “seasons” here seems doubly misplaced, while “their season” used by the other translations is generically appropriate.

Consider that the gender of ‘eth would not come into play for the gender of the pronoun modifying it. Also note that mazzaroth‘s morphological plurality doesn’t necessitate a plural pronoun especially in Hebrew, which utilized plurals for more than number (consider elohim, generally with singular pronouns). It appears that this particular noun was fossilized as a collective noun for the Zodiac (as an hapax legomenon, it is naturally a plurale tantum); this is borne out when one sees that the LXX transliterates the plural as a neuter singular μαζουρωθ and uses the singular neuter pronoun in the genitive (this pronoun is also masculine “his” but concord with μαζουρωθ implies neuter “its”). This appears to be an instance of LXX influence on the typical Masoretic source for the KJV; it also leads back to the question of how representative of earlier Hebrew thought the LXX actually is. None of this makes me claim that I know the best way to translate this verse! Your suggestion is still preferable for clarity, but since I prefer to read more cultural context in the text itself, I’d prefer Mazzaroth and “its”.

All in all, an interesting survey. Thanks for your work!