Talk:Book of Job/Archive 1

Origin- Who is job?
There's some serious POV problems with this section... Just because the scripture says that "there was a man... whose name was Job..." does NOT leave us "in no doubt he was a very real person." Someone feel like fixing this? The whole thing feels like it was ripped right from Conservapedia. 67.169.28.140 (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have removed it.  The section actually ended with "The conclusion reached here . . ." ?!  If something is disagreed upon by many people and/or not known for certain, Wikipedia certainly should not be drawing a conclusion.  Also, something that leads me to believe that this was personal research (and not well researched) is that it kept referring to "Jews" when referencing times well before the Kingdom split.  Doesn't the term "Jew" refer to the descendants of Judah?  Before the Kingdoms split (for example, at the time of slavery in Eqypt) I'm pretty the twelve tribes were collectively known as "Israelites".  Heck, the term "Israelites" didn't even exist until after Jacob, a.k.a. Israel. --Bertrc (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This now reads (in part): Although Moses' authorship is accepted as definitive, other opinions in the Talmud ascribe it to the period of before the First Temple, the time of the patriarch Jacob, or King Ahaserus.


 * I don't understand what this means - surely if there are diverse opinions in the Talmud, no one of them is definitive? Some further explanation would be helpful.
 * Giford (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dated?
''Can't this book be dated by the style of the Hebrew? For example, the differences between J and D in the Torah are like the difference between Shakespearean English and Modern English — there are (by analogy) many "thee"s and "thou"s and "bobkins" in J, but "you" and "your" and "knife" in D. Can't this be applied to all the Bible books? Any comments??'' 24.143.68.244 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many differing opinions when it comes to dating books in Hebrew. The entire subject of dating Hebrew books has not yet reached any sort of consensus.  But it is often said that Job is the oldest book of the Bible.  As to the differences between J and D in the Torah, they are not so clear to all scholars.  There are many differing opinions as to the authorship of the Torah, and scholars today argue as to whether it had one, two, three, or even more authors. It may be best for this article to either avoid giving a date for the writing of Job, or to admit the difficulties in dating books.  Fontwords (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Job called Jobab in Genesis
The page claimed that Job is called Jobab in the LXX version of Genesis 36:33. The first problem is this person is called Jobab in all versions I looked at including the Hebrew. The next problem is how do we know it meant Job if all the versions say Jobab? I altered it but left it in for the tie in with the Testament of Job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.109.226 (talk)

"one of the greatest and sublimest poems in all literature"
one of the greatest and sublimest poems in all literature - is this acceptable POV? RickK 03:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It isn't really fair to say that "protestant, catholic, and orthdox christians" all feel Job was a historical individual. Notably, C.S. Lewis assumed Job was a fictional character (see his "Reflections on the Psalms"), while many critics from many different backgrounds have discussed the narrative feel, the ahistorical nature, and the literary form of the book as reasons to suppose it does not reflect a historical individual. Of course, this is not to say that there wasn't a backlog story or a kind of historical instance that turned into a story of this kind.


 * No. I'm on my way. UserGoogol 00:48, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Satan tempting God

 * And God succumbs to the temptation.

I was tempted to point out here that all the stuff about Satan tempting God is in the framing story alone, not in the central poem. It's hard to reconcile the God of the framing story with the God of the poem. Arkuat 23:43, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)


 * If that's not clear, you should make it so. Wetman 03:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Arkuat 00:28, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

God inflicting misery of Job
in the introductory section God decides to inflict misery on Job and his family as a result of a bet with Satan - This isn't strictly true, God does not directly inflict misery on Job and his family, he merely allows Satan to do so in order to disprove Satan's accusation that Job only fears God and abstains from evil because God has blessed him materially. In other words, Job is only a selfish person following the path of least resistance. --Jsnow 20:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess its a little late, but God does not initially inflict misery upon Job, but when his remaining family went to comfort him " ...they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him;..." (42:11, NRSV) Which, to me, seems to indicate that God was in fact inflicting some evil.  However this could also be explained as the family’s viewpoint, which, to some degree, does keep the hands of God clean.


 * Also, should we include more interpretations of theodicy derived from this book? Such as the idea that the normal "Why do bad things happen to good people?" question is not what this book is trying to address.  What some argue the book is trying to address is “Will humans continue to be believe in God even without a carrot/stick reward/punishment causality?”


 * I'll try and find out who has been saying this, so that we can have some names.
 * --Lain Helfrich 03:43 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Interpolations and "genuine" text
I've removed the "genuines" (check my recent edit), because though there is a basic text, and there are some additions, framing, interpolations, counter-interpretations, etc in the version we have, no one means to suggest that any of it is in some way "not genuine". I think everyone who reads Job agrees with that. So I changed "genuine" text to "base text." Use a better phrase if there is a standard English version of the original, basic, unedited urtext. Wetman 00:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From the New Scofield Reference Bible:

Author Unknown Date of writing unknown Although the book does not name it's author Ezekiel 14:14,21 and James 5:11 refer to Job as an historical person. That he may have lived in the patriarchal period is inferred from his great age,various geographical references, and the absence of mention of the law or Tabernacal.

Why the {} sign/s?
Why were one or more of these sign/s: signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Categories for deletion?) IZAK 07:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An "NPOV" tag
An "NPOV" tag was added 24 June 2005 by the vandal User:24.15.154.168 whose other eight edits, all in one day, have all been reverted by various editors as vandalism. I'm reverting it. --Wetman 07:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source?
Can some provide a source for this statment?
 * Yet a more accurate translation(from the original Hebrew) would have Job saying, "Therefore I despise, yet repent in dust and ashes." This makes him not despise himself, but dust and ashes, which refers to the thusly perceived absurdity of the universe.

--Heathcliff 13:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
Yes, the start of the authorship section is particularly bad. Someone said this and that.

I left an excellent citation, and thorough argument supporting the Talmud and the traditional interpretation of Moses as the author of Job, instead of all the 'someone said' secutions as a replacement.

If the statements are to be worthy of an encyclopedia, they should have backing from scholarly sources and evidence to support them.

Why the edit and the reversion?

This is the source and the argument that I feel ought to be added, as it is precisely what you are looking for a scholarly discussion of the authorship of Job.

Now if there are content errors, I would like whoever keeps shifting it back to state why it ought to be removed.

NOTE ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF JOB By Dr. E.W. Bullinger

A lengthened account of the discussion of these questions would be without profit.

But, if JOB was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), then we have a clue that may help us to a decision of both.

It is better to keep within the Bible itself for the settlement of its problems; and to treat the whole Book as the context of all its parts.

There is no reason why Job should not be the son of ISSACHAR, and no better evidence is forthcoming for a different view.

The three friends of Job were descendants of ESAU; they would therefore be contemporaries.

ELIPHAZ of TEMAN, in Idumea, was a son of ESAU, and had a son called TEMAN, from whom his country took its name (Gen 36:10-11). It was noted for its “wise men” (Jer 49:7); and is mentioned with EDOM (Amos 1:11-12). Compare (Jer 25:23) where both are connected with BUZ, the brother of UZ (Gen 22:21).

BILDAD the Shuhite. SHUAH was the sixth son of ABRAHAM by KETURAH (Gen 25:2); and is mentioned in connection with ESAU, EDOM, and TEMAN (Jer 49:8).

ZOPHAR the Naarnathite. NAAMAH (now Na’aneh, six miles south of Lod, in the lowlands of Judah).

If Job was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), he would have gone down to Egypt with his father.

ISSACHAR was forty at “the going down to Egypt “. (See Appendix 50, III, p. 52 Companion Bible).

If JOB was the third son (Gen 46:13), he would have been about twenty at that time (1706 BC).

We are told that he lived 140 years after his “double” blessing (Job 42:10). If that “double” blessing included length of years, then his age would have been 70 + 140 = 210 (i.e. three seventies of years). His lifetime would be from 1726-1516 BC.

According to this, he was born the year after JOSEPH was sold, and died 119 years after the death of JOSEPH (in 1635 BC). When JOSEPH died, Job was ninety-one. If his "double" blessing did include length of years, then his affliction took place twenty-one years previously, when he was seventy. His removal from EGYPT to UZ must therefore have taken place earlier still.

When Job died (1516 BC) Moses was fifty-five, and had been in MIDIAN fifteen years (twenty-five years before the Exodus).

This would account for Job being a worshipper of the God of ABRAHAM, and explains how Moses could have been the author of the book, and perhaps an eye- and ear-witness of the events it records in Midian. If so, the time has come (as Dr. Stier foretold and hoped*) when this book would be regarded as “the Porch of the Sanctuary”; and when this “fundamental wisdom of original revelation will cease to be ascribed, as it now is by some of the best, to a later poet in Israel. “


 * The Words of the Lord Jesus. Vol. iv, p. 406.

Benkenobi18 04:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"A great diversity of opinion exists as to the authorship of this book. From internal evidence, such as the similarity of sentiment and language to those in the Psalms and Proverbs (see Psalms 88 and 89), the prevalence of the idea of "wisdom," and the style and character of the composition, it is supposed BY SOME to have been written in the time of King David and King Solomon. SOME, however place it in around the time of the Babylonian exile; others have proposed various other theories, the most interesting being that Job is Tobias, Tobit's son.[citation needed]"

Is this original research or speculation? Where are these ideas coming from? I agree that these are excellent points the trouble is that they are not attested. The later sections are good, because they answer the questions of 'who', they list the sources by which these ideas have orginated.

Now I would like to see this section removed until a source can be found, and I would like that detailed discussion on the authorship I have provided to serve as the replacement, since it is attested in scholarly research and it agrees with the rest of the information in the article. The idea being that people who read the article should be able to find some answers to the question as to who wrote Job.

Benkenobi18 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All the "somes" are in the Talmud tractate Bava Batra, I would like to hear the source for Tobit's son as that sounds very unlikelyWolf2191 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've attempted some clean up and added a few sources.--Nowa (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal language
I was taught that one of the unusual things about the language in the Book of Job (and part of what makes it so difficult) is that it tends to use 'legal' language; the word used for the Adversary, for instance, literally means prosecuting attorney, while God says to Job "He who arraigns God must respond", using the Hebrew equivilent of the legal term. Is this true? If so, should it be mentioned somewhere in the article? Some parts touch on it, such as the bit about the Adversary at the end, but perhaps the issue of language should be addressed more specifically. --Aquillion 19:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

number of days Job was affiicted
how many days did Job actually suffer????? but then again who relly knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Other references
The book of Job is referenced in Cartmanland It would seem immaterial the number of days Job suffered. The fact that God allowed Satan to cause many innocent people and hundreds of animals to die to win a 'bet' seems preposterous. There is no reference to God restoring any of these people or animals although He allowed Job to gain great wealth again and have more children.

The death of his children, with God's blessing, seemed unnessary to find out if he would reject his faith in the Almighty.

Too much text hard to decipher
One section contained this : לדעת הרמב"ן ספר איוב מרמז לרעיון גלגול הנשמות שהוא הפיתרון האמיתי לבעיית השכר והעונש. אחרים הדגישו רמיזות לעולם הבא, אם כי הוא אינו מוזכר בשום מקום בספר בצורה מפורשת, ואיוב אף דוחה את הרעיון שיש תקווה לאדם לאחר מותו (בפרק יד, יא-יב למשל: "אָזְלוּ-מַיִם, מִנִּי-יָם; וְנָהָר, יֶחֱרַב וְיָבֵשׁ. וְאִישׁ שָׁכַב - וְלֹא-יָקוּם.")
 * Please translate David Betesh 19:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to put it in commentaries and bring the text in the talk page here. Few of us shall be able to read without translation ; but the request to translate must not appear on the article page. Thank you. --193.56.241.75 12:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Theodicy The term Theodicy, which the former text hintet to be ancient greek, i a term created (from greek terms) by Leibniz.

Perfect numbers?
This article lists 3,7, and 10 as perfect numbers, linking to the page describing the term. These numbers are not perfect numbers. These numbers have other symbolic meanings. The page should be changed to reflect this.

If he bet?
a result of a bet with Satan

wouldnt that make god a gambler, therefore a sinner, and if god knows all, then he already knew the outcome of the bet, so why would he torture Job. What happened to Jobs kids, did he get them back double? Where did the originals go? You should add this for the Problem of Evil because its a pretty good arguement for it.
 * If God is omnipotent, (s)he can be much more silly than you. The Book of Job is a true fable. Some may think it deals with the problems between man and God, between Good and Evil ... just read it along and see the beauty of the story :
 * 1. Then the Lord answered Job from the tempest and said,
 * 2. "Who is this who gives dark counsel, with words, without knowledge?
 * 3. Now gird your loins like a man, and I will ask you and [you] tell Me.
 * 4. Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell if you know understanding.
 * 5. Who placed its measures if you know, or who extended a line over it?
 * 6. On what were its sockets sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?
 * 7. When the morning stars sing together, and all the angels of God shout?
 * 8. And [who] shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth and issued out of the womb? ... --DLL 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or as Robin Williams once said, "Hey, I'm God... whaddaya you gonna do?". (Accompanied by "God" flipping Job the bird.)  The basic lesson of the Book of Job being that God, being God, is within his rights to screw over anyone at any time for no reason whatsoever.

The speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar
I'd like to give this article more detail, his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar speeches can be summarized in this way:

Eliphaz's speech You're suffering now because you are sinful (Job 4-5) Eliphaz basically asks Have you ever known a truly good and innocent person who was punished by God? (4:7-8)

Bildad's speech You're still suffering because you won't admit your guilt (Job 8) Bildad reacted strongly to Job's claim of innocence. He demanded to know if Job thought that God perverted judgement. (8:3) Bildad also assumed that Job's children had sinned and deserved to die (8:4) and that Job too had sinned and therefore deserved his sufferings. He urged Job to seek forgiveness to be restored to God and to blessing. Bildad cites history and the advice of past generations (8:8-10) to support his theory that Job had forgotten God (8:13-14). Bildad concludes that God is always fair, and people get exactly what they deserved in the end (8:20-22). So if Job suffered, it was obvious to Bildad that Job desered to suffer.

Zophar's speech Job's sin deserves even more suffering than he's now experiencing (Job 11:1-20) Zophar thought Job shouldn't get away with his claim of innocence (11:1-3). He said it was likely that Job truly believed he was innocent (11:4), but that didn't make him so. Zophar invites God to speak in the hopes that God will show Job just how sinful he is. Zophar concludes by telling Job to repent of his sins (11:14).

Let me know on this talk page what you think about inclusion in this article. Josh Clarkson 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. The entire tenor of the article is drifting away from the encyclopedic (WP:V) to the exegetic down the slippery slope to the eisegetic (WP:NOR). --Ziusudra 13:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources for these interpretations? --Shirahadasha 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs in Job?
Many Christians with a creationist viewpoint believe that the book of Job is one of the earliest books of the Bible ever written for the apparent account of unknown large animals that are possibly dinosaurs like we see in the fossil record. This presupposes a young earth form of creationism

The passages of Job that are commonly cited are:

(Job 40:15-19) (KJV) ''Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.''

(Job 41:1-8) (KJV)   ''Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. ''

(Job 41:14-33) (KJV)  ''Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. ''
 * Strongly Oppose.


 * WP:V
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:NPOV
 * Unnecessarily verbose.
 * --Ziusudra 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ziusudra 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You've claimed that "many Christians" with a Creationist viewpoint have these views and they are "commonly cited". Do you have any sources to support these claims? Agree this material needs to pass WP:NOR and WP:V and if it passes it would need to be summarized. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree.

I fully agree with what this section of the book of Job says. Through the language and wording used, it is obvious to me that dinosaurs were being referred to. Also, the text that has been bolded has no other forseeable meaning other than the fact that the leviathan was an aquatic dinosaur that breathed fire. (And yes, I am a christian.)    -24.23.157.212 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with this view, the question is whether there are reliable sources for it, including claims that it is a commonly held belief. Wikipedia prohibits original reseach, and sources have to be supplied to prove that an editor didn't simply make something up. Can we identify a publication in which this viewpoint is published? Best, --Shirahadasha 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

- yeah but isn't this a discusion page? at least this has to do with JOb as opposed to the alein bit a few topics down.


 * Behemoth is almost certainly an elephant. leviathan is more likely to be megalodon than a dinosaur. an animal as large and active as megalodon probably generated a great deal of heat. hence the smoke/steam rising from its mouth.  See Gigantothermy.  of course this is speculation and would be inappropriate for the article. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Behemoth and Leviathan are sagacious creatures. Behemoth might also match rhinoceros or hippopotamus, but it doesn't matter, the sagas are told and retold myths that might or might not be based on a far reality. That crazed dinosaur discussion above needs external sources, as well as any other proposed identification of those mythological beings. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article currently puts all its sources at the bottom. Given the controversial nature of Biblical topics, strongly suggest using footnote-type sourcing, putting the sources for each point or paragraph immediately after the relevant text in the manner of a research article. Also suggest, including page numbers and other very specific citations where possible. This enables verifying whether a particular controversial section is sourced or not and whether the claimed sources actually support it. In the article's current format, it is essentially impossible to verify sources. Without footnoting, a reviewer can't realistically go through all the references as a whole see whether or not a particular controversial statement is supportable. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Job's Wife
Removed claim that "of course" Job's wife could not have had ten more children. One can easily conceive of a set of facts in which it would be possible by fairly ordinary means, possibly including triplets or quadruplets per birth. Moreover, Wikipedia should not take an editorial position on issues such as whether miracles are possible, a matter of religious belief which is anything but a matter "of course". Best, --Shirahadasha 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation needed from Babylonian Talmud is to find in Baba Bathra 15b. "Some say that Job lived in the time of Jacob and married Dinah the daughter of Jacob." Best regards --No User 14 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.41.180 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Satan
Note: "The adversary, or "the Accuser," Heb "ha-satan," is one of the divine beings. He functions as a kind of prosecuting attorney, and should not be confused with the character of Satan as it developed in the late biblical andespecially the postbiblical period, that is, the source of evil and rebllion against God.(Heb "ha-" is the definite article, which cannot precede a proper noune, "Satan")" (Jewish Study Bible,1506)

Although the concept of Satan as the devil developed later in biblical history, these associations were not existing at the time Job was written. Thus, mention of ha-satan is not by no means considered Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.200.19 (talk) 15 January 2007


 * Although the role the figure plays in the narrative should be accurately described, ones contemporary interpretation will likely vary depending on ones religious beliefs. If Christians consider the figure to be Satan in the Christian sense, it is not for Wikipedia to claim that this is incorrect or a confusion. --Shirahadasha 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * References to Satan in the article seem confusing. A rough count reveals about 15 instances of "Satan" (capitalized and without the definite article) and only about 3 instances of "the Satan".


 * I stumbled over and was distracted by this statement early in the article:
 * God permits "the Satan," ...
 * Use of the definite article looked like a mistake to me. That "Satan" appears more frequently in the article than "the Satan" reinforced my perception that it was a typo. And I wondered why the adversary's proper name was given prominence with the definite article.  That is, the sentence quoted above did not use the definite article for God: "_The_ God permits 'the Satan,'..."  So why did it say "_the_ Satan" for His enemy?


 * Unlike "adversary", the word "Satan" has few other uses. The capitalization in "the Satan" may satisfy spell-checking software, but it gives the wrong impression to humans. We wouldn't capitalize a functionary in context of Job 1:6 by writing, "... and the Bureaucrat came also among them."  We need not defer to spell-checkers when composing text for other humans to understand.


 * Reading that "the satan" may not be one and the same as "Satan" was new to me. I have never heard it mentioned in church.  As one who was surprised to become aware of the notion for the first time here, I don't agree with this statement:
 * If Christians consider the figure to be Satan in the Christian sense, it is not for Wikipedia to claim that this is incorrect or a confusion.
 * If someone believes that the earth is flat, I think it would be a disservice for Wikipedia to encourage the erroneous belief. The Book of Job is a Hebrew document.  It was adopted by Christians, but we need not be patronized in addition to being misinformed by an oft-repeated translation.


 * The section Satan in the Book of Job seems intended to counter the view that "the satan" is Satan in the Christian sense. Such frequent use of capitalized "Satan" elsewhere in the article suggests otherwise.


 * The notion that "the satan" in the Book of Job is not "Satan in the Christian sense" seems to have much support from what I have found on the internet, including here:
 * http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2008/03/26/the-mysterious-appearance-of-satan-in-english-translations-of-the-book-of-job/


 * Maybe less confusion would result from using the term "the adversary" or "the satan" (lower case) more often in this article – not capitalizing "Satan" unless it is used to refer to that particular named being. -Ac44ck (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish and Christian views of who 'the adversary' are and who he is the adversary of are not identical. I've tried to shed some light on these differing views. --Ryan Wise (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of Job has been missed completely.
The point of Job is to show the relationship between God, as the almighty and omnipotent creator of the universe and mankind.

Key Verses:

38:1: Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 38:2: Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 38:3: Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Mankind must have an understanding of that which is spoken. Knowledge is the key.

38:18: Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Mankind has now perceived the breadth of the earth, but does not know it all.

38:33: Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

The ordinances of heaven are now partially understood and partial understanding of how they apply to earth are known.

38:35: Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Indeed we do.

All through the LORD’s litany are examples of knowledge which was unknown in Job’s time. Many such examples are now explicable. This is mankind’s purpose, to gain knowledge and understanding, and not leave salvation to God. Mankind’s purpose is to gain the understanding necessary to do all things. And then:

40:14: Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

What could be more obvious?

DasV 18:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the Attribution policy mentions that Wikipedia can't permit a user's own inference about the point of a book of a Bible based on a user's assembling and interpreting various quotes. Many theologians and scholars would disagree with your view, Some would argue that humanity's state of knowledge is not as fundamental a point of the book as you suggest. Others would argue that aditional scientific knowledge neither fundamentally alters the nature of the human condition, nor provides answers to fundamental problems of human existence, such as the problems raised in the Book of Job. --Shirahadasha 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those less-faithful among us maintain that the Book of Job is proof positive that if God does exist, he's not a being anyone wants anything to do with because he's arbitrary and cruel, not the "loving father" that modern Christianity wants him to be. If he were not, he wouldn't allow one of his most faithful followers to get beaten up like he did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By cherry-picking details out of the larger picture you can draw whatever conclusion you want, e.g. what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, bad things can happen to good people, God rewards those who remain faithful to him during adversity, etc. The better conclusions will be those that make more sense of the overall story, not just little facets of it.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . . . I believe wikipolicy makes this page a discussion about the article on Job, not a discussion of our own theological beliefs. If there are decent sources (ie. non personal blogs) for the ideas above, put them in the article and cite them.  --Bertrc (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page should not be held to the same standard of verifiability as the article itself. If someone notices a problem with an article but does not have a source for the correction, raising it on the talk page is perfectly reasonable.  If someone else can supply a source then the correction can be made.  If not then at least the concern is on record as having been raised.  If it's a non-problem for any reason this should be pointed out, as I did in objecting to 68.84.26.82's reasoning.  All these are legitimate contributions to talk pages.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary
Can we have a simple summary for ignoramouses like me who are too lazy to read the Book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

"Talmudic tradition maintains that the Book of Job was written by Moses, although the Sages dispute whether it was based on historical reality or intended as a parable. Although Moses' authorship is accepted as definitive[citation needed], other opinions in the Talmud ascribe it to the period of the First Temple. [citation needed]" The source is in tractate Bava Basra p. 15a-b. The other opinions ascribe it to the period of Jacob the patriarch, of Achashverush,etc. Wolf2191 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't quite a tradition, this is a funny example of the talmud using the so-called "modern" scientific methods. (comparison of words and styles,etc.)Wolf2191 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is JOB god himself????
Yes and no. Keep in mind JOB is spelled with the letters JA-O-VA, the verb I am.

The responder apparently has no Hebrew whatever, the name Job is pronounced Iyyov in Hebrew and begins with an ayin, so there is no resemblance between Job's name and the verb "to be" or the tetragrammaton YHWH

Sorry, but the Hebrew name Iyyov (איוב) begins with an aleph... otherwise I agree with the above (unsigned) paragraph.Dampinograaf (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The bible is a multi layered medium of comunication. In the book of JOB is told the story of gods pain with his children and his punishing them and himself. also is the story of punishment upon those who take gods name for gain, in other words using god name in vane. As JOB is asked if he can bring the water from the heavens, it would seem both demanding in a proff requirement fashion for whom JOB claims to be, similiar to some of christs "trials", yet at the same time consolitory for to remember whom god is at the reverence of the angels. as just one example.

Is JOB christ? well christ is a son of god but again very similair to the previous statment. After all the guys name was JOB people in one reading of the book you see that god is angry at someone for calling themselves I AM.

Hey by the way why do we call where we work our job?

Popular culture section
In light of the WP:TRIVIA guideline, removing the "Popular culture" section to this Talk page since it's a collection of facts that can't be integrated into the main text. According to the guideline, Wikipedia shouldn't have such sections. I'm not sure I agree with the guideline, but it's the rule for the time being. The section is below. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you're disagreeing with here is not the guideline itself but your misinterpretation of it. As the guideline points out, This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.  The problem with trivia sections is not with their content, which is the main point of Wikipedia, but with their organization.  The right way to deal with a trivia section is to integrate as much of it as possible into appropriate points in the article.  In this case this is not a trivia section per se but examples of the impact of the book on popular culture.  Simply reorganizing the list into three or four paragraphs by finding logical groupings for the items and tying them together with suitable prose, while leaving it under the heading of "In (or impact on) popular culture," would go a long way toward achieving the sort of smooth exposition that the guideline is trying to encourage. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

 * Joni Mitchell' 1994 song "The Sire of Sorrow (Job's Sad Song)" sets the story to music.
 * Far's song Job's Eyes, from their album Tin Cans with Strings to You, is based on Job's story although it subverts the moral of the biblical text; faced with the grieving families of the men God allows to be killed in order to test him, Job renounces God. The song's narrative ends with God himself standing alone in the 'storm' he created for Job and cursing the rain.
 * Bad Religion's song Sorrow, from their album The Process of Belief, references the story of Job "Just to settle a bet that could not be won/Between a prideful father and his son".
 * In South Park episode 506 Cartmanland, Kyle's parents use The Book of Job is used as an explanation to why bad things are happening to him, though they only tell Kyle Job 1-2, which depresses him further.
 * In Family Guy an episode features a priest reading the sermon from the Book of Job. God is then seen in the audience and he says 'Man I hate it when they tell this story'
 * In the novel "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, a tablet is discovered with "Job 38:11" written on it. Job 38:11 states "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further." It was used to mark a "dead end" in the trail of clues.
 * In the short story "Fahrenheit 451 " by Ray Bradbury, the protagonist, Montag, tries to memorize the Bible, starting with the Book of Job.
 * Jack Miles, God: A Biography. Chapter on God as Fiend in his role in the Book of Job.
 * In Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, chapter 3 verses 7 and 8 are paraphrased by Davy Jones when summoning the kraken.
 * In the movie The Lawnmower Man, Job is the name of the gardener on whom the main character, played by Pierce Brosnan, conducts his experiments.
 * In the film Manhattan, Woody Allen's character Issac compliments his girlfriend, Tracy, by saying, "You would have been God's answer to Job. You would have ended all argument between them by saying, 'I can do a lot of terrible things, but I can also create one of these' (Issac points at Tracy)."
 * In the first Mission: Impossible film, Job 3:14 is used by agent Hunt to open a dialog with an enemy arms dealer code-named Max.

Job as Christ or Messiah
This content is currently unsourced and will need to be removed unless sourced. It was listed as a "theme" of the book. I suspect this material, even if sourced, belongs in the "interpretations" subsection rather than the "theme" section because it appears to be the product of an allegorical or interpretive lens, as distinct from being a direct or literal subject of the book. Once again, if unsourced it will need to be removed entirely. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A key to understanding the book of Job
Hello,

I have never updated a wikipedia article before. However it seems misleading to have an article about the book of Job, and not reveal this.

The book of Job uses many different names for god. Reading the story of Job using a Bible that has restored the names of the gods (such as the sacred name Bible), will decipher an important aspect of the story. In the first chapter we are told that Job was the most perfect man on Earth, he feared and made sacrifices to the Elohiym. The god YHVH meets at a divine council and is influenced by evil to destroy Job and in the words of YHVH for no cause (Job 2:3).

The god YHVH then does not appear. Jobs friends all present their case using the gods Eloahh, El, and Elohiym. Their position is that Job must have done something to cause the wrath of the god Eloahh or El.

In the twelfth chapter Job recognizes YHVH as one who brings on death and destruction, however Job doesn’t curse YHVH, Job simply says he did nothing to bring on the ruin of YHVH. Job and his friends also mention the almighty, however the almighty is the disciplinarian in the book of Job (Job 5:17).

After all of Job’s friends present their case, Job is still in dire straights. In the 38th chapter YHVH reappears. Job then turns his worship from the gods Elohiym, El, and Eloahh to the worship of YHVH. The names of the gods do not refer to the same entity in the book of Job, as Job is only redeemed by the god YHVH.

Amenta4u 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC) amenta4u

I'm not sure what original research is, there are many undocumented opinions on this page. For example, "and the fact that there would have been no restoration without Job's humble repentant acknowledgement of mortality faced with divinity in all its majesty and glory." FACT???? This is a religious opinion, and it is not supported by the text as it's written in the Book of Job.

Wiki> Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).

Amenta4u> This is existing knowledge in a new form, NOT new knowledge.

Wiki> The boundary between original research and compilation may be blurred. For example, classification may be as non-original as simply putting things in alphabetical order. On the other hand, a new classification may provide further insights into the nature of the subject and lead to predictions and discovery. A classical example is Mendeleev's periodic table of chemical elements.

Amenta4u> How is listing the order of the names in a well published text original research? "classification may be as non-original as simply putting things in alphabetical order"

This is only a list of names that are published in both the Sacred Name Bible and the Strong’s Concordance. Anyone, at anytime, and anyplace in the universe, can pick up a Strong's Concordance or a Sacred Name Bible and make the same chart. Its data only, and it's as non-original as putting things in the order they appear. This is not original research as defined by the definition of original research on the Wikipedia page about original research.

I will re-submit this and remove all opinion.

-

Gods names as they appear in the Book of Job
The following chart shows the names of the Gods in the Book of Job as printed in Bibles that have restored the original Hebrew names. An example of this would be the Sacred Name Bible, another example would be the Strong's Concordance. Jobs four friends never use the name YHVH when they speak of God in the text.

_______________________________________

OK here it is again. I believe I have removed all personal bias. What is the real issue here? Is it because I use the word YHVH? Do I need to write something that fits with a preconcieved notion? There is no theory below, there is no preconcieved doctrine. The data presented below is superior to any opinion or tradition that deviates from the text itself.

The names used by Job's friends for God
The book of Job takes on new attributes when read in a Bible that restores the names of God that are in the manuscripts. An example of this would be the Sacred Name Bible, or any Bible Concordance such as the Strong's Concordance. The King James Version of the Bible translates the name YHVH as LORD. El, Elohiym, and Eloahh are all translated as God, and Shadday is translated as Almighty.

Anyone reading the Book of Job in an English Bible, will see that the LORD or YHVH is the name attributed to the entity that punished Job and Job’s friends never mention LORD or YHVH as they advise Job. In the last chapters Job is redeemed when the LORD or YHVH reappears.

In the Sacred Name Bible or any Bible concordance the names used by Job’s friends for God are El, Eloahh, Elohiym. The chart is a simple non-original list of the names used for God as they appear in the Book of Job. The chapter numbers appear on the far left column, in the next column are the names of Job or the friend that was speaking in that particular chapter. Clearly the data presented in the story itself is superior to any opinion or tradition that deviates from the actual text of the story.

Amenta4u 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Amenta4u 8-24-07

You need a source for this chart, so we can know that it is reliable and that using it is not a copyright violation. You also need a source for the claim that the names have the significance and meaning you say they do. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sadly, the Book of Job has been subjected to many errors in translation which actually ALTERED the entire meaning of the book. These unrequited mistranslations make the Book of Job perhaps the most confusing and diabolical book of the Bible. For instance, in Job 1:8 God allegedly said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job...?" This question would imply that God "abandoned" a good and decent man over to Satan for the express purpose of destroying him and for no other reason than to "see how he will act" under the immense psychological and physical strains. This translation of events, however, is false. God never asked Satan to "consider" Job. The original Hebrew text was..."Have you beaten down my servant Job...?" See Strong's Concordance Hebrew Word Number 7760. Strong's further amplification of "beaten down" means..."torn down, trampled on, set up, charged, marked, impuned". Therefore, the original Hebrew clearly shows that God DID NOT abandon Job to the destroyer, but rather, God ACCUSED Satan of his illegal activity! The English alteration dares to imply God's complicity to the murder of Job's ten children, egregious bodily injury and massive property damage, while the original and true version shows God PROTECTING the man and CONFRONTING Satan. It is because of this mistranslation that the Book of Job has never been satisfactorily reconciled by theologians."

This idea was first noticed by the Ibn Ezra who posits thta Job was translated from another language. If the author of this bit can't cite a source I will rewrite it as the Ibn Ezra. Also that there is a relation between Iyov and Oyov (heb. enemy) sounds very possible and I'm sure has been discussed by the classical commentarys. I will try to find moreWolf2191 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I misunderstood the above bit entirely. He is saying that the English translation is bad whereas the Ibn Ezra is saying the Hebrew was a tr5anslation.Wolf2191 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Ezra to Job 2:11Wolf2191 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

contested statements removed

 * 1) In lieu of the Talmud's discussion of Job's being a contemporary of figures in the Book of Genesis, Genesis, Rabbinic sources have also identified Dinah as a possibility for the identity of Job's wife.  #This would further identify 'Eliphaz the Temanite' in the Book of Job as an Edomite, of the descendants of Esau, Jacob's older brother.
 * 2) Source for Jewish Law (heading):Some of the laws and customs of mourning in Judaism are derived from the Book of Job's depiction of Job's mourning and the behavior of his companions. For example, according to, the behavior of Job's comforters, who kept silence until he spoke to them, is the source for a norm applicable to contemporary traditional Jewish practice, that visitors to a house of  mourning should not speak to the mourner until they are spoken to.
 * 3) Nachmanides offers a mystical commentary on the Book of Job.
 * 4) Specifically:Rev. 9:6 alludes to ; compare 2 Thes. 2:8 to ; 1 Cor. 3:19 quotes ; Heb. 12:5, Jas. 1:12, and Rev. 3:19 all parallel and ; compare Jas. 4:14 to ; compare Heb. 2:6 with ; compare Heb. 12:26 with ; Rom. 9:20 alludes to ; Rom. 11:33 parallels ; compare Acts 17:28 with ; compare 1 Cor. 4:5 with ; compare 1 Pet. 1:24 with ; compare Lk. 19:22 with ; Rom. 1:9 parallels ; compare 1 John 3:2 with ; Rev. 14:10, 19:15 parallel ; both Rom. 11:34 and 1 Cor. 2:16 quote Isa. 40:13, which parallels ; Mt. 25:42 alludes to ; Jas. 4:6 and 1 Pet. 5:5 both quote Prov. 3:34, which parallels ; compare Acts 1:7 with ; Heb. 4:13 parallels ; Mt. 16:26 alludes to ; compare Jas. 1:5 with ; 1 Jo. 1:9 alludes to ; Jas. 5:4 alludes to ; Rev. 16:21 alludes to ; Mt. 6:26 alludes to ; and finally, Rom. 11:35 quotes.
 * 5) Christian themes include God's mercy (not treating sinners as they truly deserve), grace (treating unworthy sinners as they do not deserve), compassion (toleration of much discrediting, inappropriate mortal speculation impugning the divine character and allegations of unrighteous/unfair dealings with men), restoration (where sin abounds, generosity superabounds) omnipotence, omnisapience, omnipresence, omniliberty, aseity, infinite love, and supreme majesty.
 * 6) Many Christians hold that Job is a historical prototype of Jesus: the Man of Sorrows who suffered the most of all, under the providence and watchful will of God.
 * 7) In Turkey, Job is known as Eyüp. It is believed that Job and Elias were buried at Eyyup Nebi, near Viranşehir.

Please do not return this information to the artilce without a citation or reaching consensus on the talk page. I would also note the #5 is really more an issue of original research rather than simple sourcing.-- Birgitte SB  17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical cross references appear in editions like the Good News Bible special edition.Andycjp (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

was/were
I see noting wrong with the use of "was" in the statement: "In order to test if Job would still be pious if he was stricken with poverty, ..."

This page: http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/vthruz.htm

suggests that "were" is used to refer to a hypothetical, impossible situation. Such as: "If I were you, ..."

It is not impossible for anyone to be stricken with poverty. And it's a matter of perception whether one is in poverty or not. At his low point, Job had much less than he had before. Whether hungry shepherds around him would have called Job's worst finiancial condition "poverty", I don't know.

But Job _was_ taken to a lower state of wealth. There is no impossibility about him being stricken with what was at least in the direction of poverty. I believe that "was" is the correct word in the sentence in question. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

South Park
Why should we mention this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernerd 10 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It deserves to be mentioned just as much as the other books, movies, writers, etc.24.0.171.189 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Job's Views about the Resurrection
I took the liberty of removing the two sentences "Another reason why Job can be viewed as a heretic is because he did not believe in resurrection. He believes that once a person dies, it is all over for him/her, without any mention of an afterlife." from the fisrt paragraph of the section "Mystical approach" because they are blatantly false. Job himself directly states in the text that man will be resurrected (Job 14:12-14).

Gigabyte-1 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mystical Approach
This section appears to be completely nonsensical. It is uncited, and has no internal logic. It appears to be completely composed of opinons and ridiculously uninformed opinons at that:

Paragraph one: We don't know what religion Job ascribes to, so how can we know he is a heretic?

Paragraph two: Which views of Aristotle does Job reflect? All of them? What does astrology have to do with Aristotle? Asrology existed for thousands of years before Aristotle was even born.

Paragarph three: This might be true, but what does it have to do with "the mystical approach" or mysticism in general? Does anything in this section have anything to do with mysticism? What is meant by the "mystical approach"?

If there are any objections to deleting this section, make sure you back them up with well documented sources. 24.160.242.185 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with criticisms from User 24.160.242.185 . I'm moving this piece of un-cited apparent WP:OR here to Talk for now. Please provide good cites for this before returning it to the main article."According to Job, who reflected the views of Aristotle, God gave the world over to astrology. This is evident in Job's lamentation, 'Curse the day I was born on' (3:2) Job cursed his birthday because he believed that his birthday was bad luck, in the astrological sense. Given the context of the passage, it is more likely that this phrase refers to Job wishing he'd never been born at all."-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mixing languages doesn't scan
Is there a reason for preferring "YHWH" over the more customary rendering "the LORD" in Job 1:21? The Book of Job is beautiful poetry, and it is a pity to have the scansion of "the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" interrupted by mixing languages in a way that destroys the scansion. By all means give the Hebrew counterpart as an integrated whole, but is it justifiable to take away from the poetry by jumping between languages in the middle? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Elihu
Who is Bill Cotton? From the looks of it, somebody just added the paragraph under Elihu randomly. Aznfanatic (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

who is this that darkens council with words without knowledge
when Yahweh said 'who is this that darkens council with words without knowledge' was he referring to Job or Elihu? I am beginning to suspect that it is deliberately ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

summary of the speeches seems a bit short
I wonder if we cant do a little better than a short one paragraph summary of 'The speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar'? It seems to gloss over a lot. Here is a breakdown as I see it. I am sure it would have to be modified greatly before everyone was comfortable with it. But surely we can agree on some parts at least. But anyway here it is for discussion:

Job (hated) Eliphaz (God of gold) the Temanite. (follower or descendant or occupant of Teman?) Bildad (uncertain derivation) the Shuhite. Zophar (departing) the Naamathite. Elihu (God of him)

introduction devil strikes everything Job has devil strikes Job with sores


 * (The long long notes were "compressed" by making expandable tables (click on '[show]' for viewing), for improving the ease of reading this talk page. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Some issues
In general the article seems pretty OK to me, but some issues are still lingering from older times, perhaps: Otherwise I think the article is pretty reliable, pretty neutral and useful for me: when reading Job after reading Esther, I immediatelly suspected that this story is not originally Jewish, it refers to myths and creatures that seem to be West Semitic but not Hebrew, and it might be astrologically inspired. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * section Identities of Job's friends uses the Bible as a fact source, while this is a typical case where secondary sources should be provided to provide analysis making the identifications plausible from a certain theological interpretation system/POV;
 * the heavily interpreting section Later interpolations and additions also need secondary sources,
 * same for section exegesis, an exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, so secondary sources must be provided as early as the reader starts to think "exe...", otherwise the article is WP:OR;
 * some sections are still missing citations (primary, secondary ... whatever),
 * some more citations will always be welcome, if they support the syntheses that are sometimes supported by one source only

Job's Wife correction
I am taking the liberty of changing the word "stipulation" to "uncertainty" in the following sentence:

"There is stipulation about her intentions when she tells Job to curse God (i.e. is it out of bitterness? or empathy for his suffering?), but it is clear that Job honors her by the way he talks about her in chapter 31."

While there may be a usage of stipulation that I am unfamiliar with where this makes sense, it is too uncommon to be mentioned in my dictionary and I felt this change would be to the less erudite such as myself.Shroomtune (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)shroomtune 05/12/2010