Talk:Book of Job/Archive 2

Dissenting Wisdom
I would like to add a small blurb to this about it being part of the dissenting wisdom classification as part of the wisdom narratives in the hebrew text. Sources are from Michael Coogen and a G Brook Lester lecture. I'm sort of new editing on Wikipedia, so any helpful guidance and discussion would be great. Thanks. Mattstump13 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Matt Stump

Use of Language
Is it just me, or does the article seem to revert to archaic structuring and word choice at times? I'll try to clean it up if i have the time, but I may accidentally screw a few things up. Ex: "Three friends of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, come to console him. And the three of Job's friends heard all this evil that came on him, and they came every man from his place" I'm assuming this sentence is basically a paraphrased version of an older copy, and the use of potentially confusing structure just seems pointless when it could be rephrased for much greater clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not you. Job, a Book of Wisdom, is set in drama-form, to play-out the struggle of evil. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The elaborate language you experienced is the drama in play, but also to display the opinions of the schools of thought; "from their place". The victim, Job, gives his answer from his bed-of-pain: Ch 19 vs. 23-29. This is from Job's belief not his reasoning. The others answer from their reasoning: that Job must have done evil to merit this calamity. In the end God answers. {I do not have my Commentaries at hand, however, if you need precise references, I can find}. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exegesis
The Exegesis section should, and largely does, present the various viewpoints. It falls from this under "Christianity" within "Messianic anticipation in the book". It becomes a one-sided argument against Christian interpretation, playing the role of a Jewish commentary without a Christian counter-argument. This is not appropriate for the purposes here. Wogletree (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then do present other viewpoints, but simply deleting cited text isn't the way to fix the problem. I've restored it. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a commentary. The passage deleted does not belong under the context of Christian exegesis, and I fail to see how it belongs to the article at all.  The other sides have their point of view presented, uncontested.  What you ask for is to devolve the article into a series of debates over who is right.  The policy of Wikipedia is for articles to remain neutral.  Here it has failed to follow policy.  The section is inappropriate and should be removed. Wogletree (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our policy is not for articles to be neutral, it is for them to have a neutral point of view, representing all significant viewpoints in proportion to their significance. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm attempting a rewrite the will preserve the intent of the material in question while solving the problems discussed. Wogletree (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made my best effort to edit the passage to flow better with the existing material, and present its argument professionally and with a neutral point-of-view.Wogletree (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

1st Paragraph of Christian Section
Whilst correcting missing paragraphs spacing and other problems, I noted the bad state in which the first paragraph of the "In Christianity" section is in. It is more-or-less a long list of verse comparisons between the christian testament and the Book of Job. It is pretty much unreadable. While I was making the changes, I decided to split each list item in that paragraph into separate lines so that someone behind me who knows how to better format it won't have to drudge through and figure out where one item ends and another begins (I thought I'd make their life a little easier). Note, however, this doesn't change how the paragraph appears to the reader.

If someone can come up with a good way of formatting this on the reader's side (perhaps as a table?) this would be good. However, at the same time, I wonder if we really need this long list of comparisons/parallels in the main part of the article. Can this long list be instead included as a single reference (id est, the reference at the bottom would have the long list, but within the article it would just be a bracketed reference tag)? I'm sure it might be useful information for someone out there, but not sure it needs to be in the main part of the article. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed some uncited original research from the article. I am always concerned when this sort of verse comparison is done by editors rather an sourced to a reliable source. I don't think we really need this at all. And the paragraph about Christian themes is again one editor's opinion with no source, it should go or be replaced with a sourced paragraph. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed that list. Made a note in the edit summary that if the list can be found in a book somewhere, that it would be better to add a reference to that book and its page number. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Job's wife
In the article page in the section; Job's wife, a citation is requested to indicate a blessing for the request of Job's wife to Job to "..Curse God, and die." Job 2.9. However, the response of Job is: ""That is how foolish women talk" Job replied." Job 2.10. In Biblical hermeneutics we find a study to aid our understanding of interpitation of Scripture. The reaction of the people at the time is perhaps one of the best keys to interpitation. If Job's wife had said something good, it would hardly have evoked this reaction. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mac: I am lost. What are you trying to say? Lawblogger18 (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The point above seems to be an argument against Job's wife making a blessing instead of a curse. The breakdown of the Hebrew word is correct, however, and does need a reference. While I agree with Mac's interpretation, the presentation of both ideas is still valid within the purposes of this article. Wogletree (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What I mainly miss in all the discussion about this, is a note whether ברך is anywere (else) in the bible used as curse, or if this translation is unique to this place and therefore guessed from the response. SumedokiN (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The interpretation of ברך as curse is not unique to this passage. Most notably, in the previous chapter, it is said that Job offered burnt offerings on account of his children:


 * Job 1:5 for Job said: "Perhaps my sons have sinned and 'cursed' (ברכו) God in their hearts."
 * It appears here that 'blessing' (ברך) God is called a sin, and hence many translations (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASV) render it 'cursed'. Again Satan tells God about Job (1:11): "But stretch out your hand and( touch all that he has, and he will curse (ברך) you to your face." Satan says about the same in chapter 2:5. Another example (outside Job) is 1 Kings 21:


 * 1 Kings 21:13 Then two scoundrels came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying, “Naboth has 'cursed' (ברך) both God and the king.” So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death.
 * I think these passages suffice to show that ברך can be used as a euphemism for 'curse', but if this is the meaning in this particular instance, I'll leave that to the scholars. It's interesting that in Job 3:1 no euphemism is used when Job curses (קלל) the day he was born. All aforementioned instances speak about 'cursing' God, which was apparently too offensive to mention. Lindert (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"the"

 * "Naked I came out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return: Lord has given, and Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of Lord."

Why is this line written as if "Lord" is a proper name? The usual way of rendering the name of God in English is "the Lord", with the definite article. Marnanel (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV & WP:NOR
May I simply remind editors that Wikipedia has a defined editorial standard for a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The debate I see above is BRIMMING with opinions, theological expositions, and so on. And this has filtered into the article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a wide range of views, perspectives and discussions on the subject matter from third party sources, NOT to interject personal opinions into a selective range of quotations. 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:D42A:86AA:2A7C:D2E7 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To what exactly are you referring because I'm having a tough time figuring it out and/or how this page is "brimming" with OR and non-NPOV..? Ckruschke (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

God, Yehwh or Yahweh?
Yesterday an IP change some of the instances of 'God' to 'Yehweh'. I reverted him - Yehweh? And only some on a paragraph? Now he's posted to my talk page saying: "The Book of Job page violates the Wiki rules in that id misquotes the text. The article uses the word God when referring to the word 'LORD' in the Book of Job.  This is original research as best, as it is unverifiable in the Book of Job.  I plan to accurately change the page to reflect the Bible itself.  Whenever I apply the name Yahweh I'll cite the Bible verse in the Book of Job as well. You wouldn't allow anyone to misrepresent an encyclopedia article this way.  Yet when it comes to the Bible, popular opinion seems to triumph over the text itself.

I'll be back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.125.197 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "
 * Ironically the IP's latest edit, which I've also reverted, cited which again doesn't say Yahweh - so he isn't reflecting what the text says. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me respond to the rant of by 99.104.125.197 from the authority of being a former Seminarian...
 * "God" should be sufficient for this article's purposes as it is generally understood. It would also be more in accordance with WP:UCN. MOS and guidelines asks that we use the most accurate name which would be "God", per WP:UCN: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. For instance, if YHWH were a premier usage for the Judeo-Christian deity, it wouldn't redirect to Tetragrammaton. If "Yahweh" were the sole usage for the Christian and Jewish diety, the article Yahweh wouldn't just be an article about an Iron age Israelite/Judean deity, and then refer you in a hatnote to God in Abrahamic religions, and in a later hatnote below to God in Judaism, God in Christianity, God in Islam, and God in the Bahá'í Faith. Also, there are several other biblical names for God--including in the Book of Job--none of them are as ubiquitous as "God"--so for every argument you want to put forward about changing the ubiquitous God with the less-frequently used "Yahweh", I can make a similar argument for any of the other Names of God in Judaism. Further, "God" is the more common usage in most theological or exegetic texts (although more observant Jews will say G-d because of the mitzvah about not uttering or engraving the name of God). Only fundamentalist Christians (i.e. Sacred Name Movement, not mainstream/conventional) and Jehovah's Witnesses place a primacy toward referring to God by the tetragrammaton theonym or its permutations, and that is an entirely minority position within Christianity.
 * Lastly, if you want to be intellectually honest and accurate, the name of God in Job isn't "Yahweh"...it's El. Job was originally written in Ugaritic, not Hebrew.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Exodus 6:3, God's name is Jehovah. (AKJV, ASV, NWT, DBT, ERV, WBT, YLT, KJB) Therefore, "God" cannot be a personal name anymore than "man" or "woman" are personal names. Maxximiliann (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exodus 6:3, or other passages regarding various Names of God in Judaism has nothing to do with the ultimate arbiter on this (i.e. WP:UCN), that God is the easiest-comprehended word for the topic and doesn't require further explanation, and it doesn't really apply for discussing the Book of Job, which wasn't originally a biblical Jewish story, but a pre-biblical Mesopotamian one added into the canon later. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you say so? That the very author of the work in question clearly identifies himself throughout makes your argument quite fatuous. —Maxximiliann   talk  15:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Appealing to any particular translation has no bearing on ancient alphabets that don't even have a letter "J". Yahweh is more prevalent than Jehovah in scholarly literature, but it is sufficient to use God in the context of this article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, argumentum assertio. Since you continually commit this gross fallacy, I invite you to review a detailed expatiation of it so that, hopefully, can elevate the quality of your contributions here :) —Maxximiliann   talk  01:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're clearly incapable of discussing a topic without resorting to tired misdirection.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Please do try and stay on topic. Aut disce aut discede. —Maxximiliann   talk  02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your tedious (and incorrect) references to formal fallacies are irrelevant. The topic is an original text that uses El, which best translates to God. There is no textual basis for using Jehovah, which isn't the term usually used in scholarly literature anyway.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How does this change the fact that the Tetragrammaton appears hundreds of times in Job? —Maxximiliann   talk  03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a case for the article using Yahweh, which is a more scholarly term than Jehovah. However, refer also to comments above by User:ColonelHenry.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maxximiliann, every mention of the tetragrammaton in Job is a direct translation of the Ugaritic "El." Job's source text is Ugaritic and was for several centuries before the story was translated in to Hebrew, where "El" became YHWH--in fact, the Hebrew translation of the work was rather late in the timeline of how the Old Testament was compiled.  If your argument were carried through, why not call it "Book of Iob" or "Book of cHol" since "Job" is from English translations in the late Middle Ages and not the original text (despite that everyone today, and WP:UCN would demand "Job" over the original names)...and since Ugaritic (named "cHol"), Hebrew ("Yob"), Greek (Iob) and Latin (Iob) didn't have a affricative J in its contemporary forms (the affricative J was a late Latin development) and Job is just the main character's English name (The German has it as a rather harsh Hiob with a guttural velar fricative ch than an affricative or palatal approximant j).  In terms of word frequency, there are more mentions of God as merely "him" in Job then there are references to El or YHWH. When it comes to issues of translation and transliteration, Job is a horrible example of it...the current English is distorted because of mistranslations from the source text in Ugaritic, then later Hebrew and Aramaic into the Greek of the Septuagint (from the Hebrew) and later Kione (influenced from Hebrew and Aramaic), then the Latin Vulgate (compiled from both Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic sources).  Even the Hebrew differs on how to translate "God" between the Masoretic texts and the Targum texts. So your argument is inherently POV in that it is bolstering a Hebrew and minority-Christian name at the expense of the ubiquitous and more common name (i.e. GOD). It is much easier for people to understand the usage of "God" in this context than to get into a protracted and confusing discussion on philology and method, and another discussion on the use of names of previously pagan gods, various non-Judeo-Christian mythological expressions, and their transition into the Judeo-Christian canon (Yahweh and El both were Pagan in origins at the time when the story of Job was written).  Having such a discussion would be a violation of WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARY.  As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we use common names that are easily understood--that is the policy (WP:UCN).  Usage of the term "God" in English as opposed to the source-text alternatives and its ancillary nuances is the path of least resistance and quite frankly doesn't undermine the article's accuracy.  You are arguing a non-existent problem--everyone knows who "God" is in the Judeo-Christian context, whereas the alternatives require edifying the reader. So Maxx, let me make you a deal...if you can explain how m'rotatp'tanim (just one word used three times in Job from the original Ugaritic source text) has been mistranslated over 3000 years, we'll give a second thought to your argumentum ad bullshit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Of related interest etymologically, we get an alternative name for God in Hebrew Elohim (which is often translated in the KJV as "The Lord") from ilhm in Ugaritic -- the sons of El.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ColonelHenry, can you provide reliable sources supporting your assertion that Job was originally written in Ugaritic? That does not seem to be a mainstream scholarly view. Most scholars nowadays consider it an originally Hebrew composition, see e.g. Yair Hoffman (1996), J. P. Fokkelman (2012), J. H. Eaton (2004), C. Hassell Bullock (2007) and David Clines (1993). - Lindert (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @ColonelHenry Which, btw, makes your entire argument a fatuous argumentum assertio. —Maxximiliann   talk  00:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

summary
From the proverbs of Solomon:"the fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledge."he raises his hand in the first chapter. A tale about a righteous man in a certain land with 3 daughters, 7 sons and 11000 farm animals.Three angels went to the master of the land and told the good news about the righteous man's life.An adversary complained and said you raise your right hand against him and he will curse if you take everything he has. 4 messengers went to the righteous man and told him the 4 judgements done to him and had nothing.After the 4 judgements the adversary cursed him with a disease and boils broke out in the righteous man body.4 of his friends(including the servant) argued with him why this judgement happened to him and with all the wisdom he has, no one heard him. So in the end the master of the land appeared to him and asked him questions to see if he knows, if knowledge was with the righteous man.The prophet said you only know, from dust I was created to dust I will return and I have heard of you and now mine eyes have seen you.The master heard what he said and blessed him.And the prophet was blessed with 3 daughters,7 sons and 22000 domestic animals and saw his children's children up until the 4th generations.174.91.33.152 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC) God&#39;s sphere (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And your point would be...? Ckruschke (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Satan
[quote]The term "Satan" appears in the prose prologue of the Book of Job, with his usual connotation of "the adversary", as a distinct being. He is shown as one of the celestial beings before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job 1:7), perhaps implying total ownership, Which brings God to mention Job.

The dialogue that ensues characterizes Satan as a member of the divine council who observes human activity, but with the purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. [/quote]

Is it possible to elaborate on who this character is suppose to be; his he the same as the fallen angel or a completly seperate entity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a little bit on this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :-] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Hebrew bible, "Satan" is used a descriptor for various beings who challenge others faith. In Christianity, the "fallen star" (lucifer) in Isaih 14:12 was identified with "the accuser", and therefore Satan, from some point in the 4th century, which is where the Satan as a fallen angel idea comes from. In fact, this interpretation was erroneous; "the morning star" referred to a Babylonian king, and not an angel who had fallen from heaven and become the ultimate opponent of God. Also, there's not a reference to a fallen angel elsewhere in the Hebrew bible (in the New Testament, Jude 1:6 is a possible reference to fallen angels; there are references to a war in heaven in Revelations, but the Devil is never specifically identified as an angel). Therefore, it's highly unlikely that the original authors of the Book of Job meant Satan as the fallen angel. According to Judaic beliefs, at least, the satan(s) referenced in the old testament have nothing to do with the devil in the new testament.24.179.56.142 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mrawlinson (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Greetings, I have a question about this sentence in the first paragraph of the article: "It relates the story of Job, his trials at the hands of Satan..." Is this accurate, are Job's trials at the hands of Satan or of God? I am new to editing and discussing in Wikipedia, so please correct my question or format or anything! Thanks.

Scripture students have mused over this one and continue to do so. This follows Job 1 vs. 6-12, and Job 2 1-13. No ready answers, just plenty to read! MacOfJesus (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this section has been allowed to stand. I would have thought Wikipedia's editorial commitment to lack of bias (WP:NPOV), and given this topic is subject to debate, I would have thought this section would have been rewritten. May I point out, that it is NOT for Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, to come down on one side of this debate as though Coogan's view is the definitive statement of The Accuser's identity. Since when did we, as editors, take positions?? This is in violation of Wikipedia's rules, and I would commend to the wider editorship that this be forthwith rectified. (And I cannot believe it has taken two years for anyone to say this.) User:Aragond (talk) 15 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:D42A:86AA:2A7C:D2E7 (talk)

Satan is the opposer of God, the original serpent from Eden, the Devil (rev 12:9). While before the event in revelation 12:9 he had access to heaven, he is not in anyway an ally of God and God does not cooperate with him. In revelation 12:10 -12 makes it clear that his presence before God is not positive and his being thrown out is positive for the inhabitants of heaven. Quite clearly he is an unwelcome character. It is not his job to accuse righteous people as if God were his boss commissioning him to do so, but he does it because he is against God for personal reasons. No matter who initiates the coversation, Satan accuses Job of only obeying God because of the benefits thereof and suggests that if these were removed, Job would not worship God.. This is a serious challenge to God that can only be settled in one way, to allow Satan to do what he proposes, and see if what he says is true. Allowing something to happen and causing it to happen are two different things. God did not cause Job's suffering, but under the situation, allowing it was the only way to settle the matter. See James 1:13 that clearly shows that God does not tempt or try people with evil. What can be learned from the Book of Job is that when being tried by various sufferings, it may be because of chance, mistakes, other people, or Satan, but never God. Therefore many things in this article, especialy the subheading Themes paragraph 3 is widely inaccurate according to what is clearly written in the Bible. If that information should be kept, then it should at least be written to be understood as being a common but false misunderstanding when considering what the Bible really says. If only people paid attention, the whole Theodicy problem is essentially resolved after only three chapters in the Bible, and the Book of Job only gives a deeper understanding of it. 223.198.79.146 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

General Neutrality
"...it has been suggested that this interesting statement may have been symbolic of a "younger" (that is to say, later and interpolating) writer, who has written Elihu's sermon to respond to what he views as morally and theologically scandalous statements being made within the book of Job, and creating the literary device of Elihu to provide what seemed to be a much-needed faith-based response to further refute heresy and provide a satisfying counter-argument, a need partially provided by God's ambiguous and unspecific response to Job at the end of the book."

I was just wondering whether I am the only person to find the 'Book of Job' section on the whole rather subjective. Perhaps it's just a personal thing but when reading through, I couldn't help but find some of the phrasing, as with the section noted, questionable. The use of the word 'interesting', whilst personally supported, is certainly rather emphatic. And what determines whether a faith-based response is "much-needed"? Similarly, it seems very speculative indeed to state that the potential later and interpolating writer found the book in its previous state "morally and theologically scandalous" - how will we ever know if this was their opinion or whether he felt like he just wanted to extend the story? The need for sources and citations has already been placed within the article at this section, but I feel like it could be reworded to sound less hypothetical and slightly more objective. Almost all of the noted section, in particular, seems to represent a currently unsupported viewpoint (a need partially provided? God's ambiguous and unspecific response? This is debatable). I certainly don't intend to change the article myself, but I thought I should mention something because while I would agree with much of the phrasing, it's certainly factually questionable, and indeed, contestable. Weirdtheory (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It was introduced into the article by an IP, their only major edit anywhere, see . A quick GBooks search shows that it's clear that a number of people see it as an interpolation but it does need a rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Elihu actually does seem to come out of nowhere in the larger structure of the book: he has not been mentioned before and doesn't really add anything new to the discussion between Job and his friends, nor does God acknowledge him when He makes His entrance. This has also been noted by exegetes and writers discussing the work. It's been pointed out by some that Elihu's speeches even show a degree of stylistic clumsiness and overbearing attitude, making him unfitting as "the voice of reasoned truth" against Job's passionate accusations. This really leaves two options: either those speeches are an interpolation by somebody who thought he had figured it out and had found the failsafe arguments against Job, but who overstretches himself - or they are a deliberate spoof of the puffy "right-minded people" ('pharisaeans' as they would be called much later), introduced as a break, before God delivers the real response (although God doesn't really address Job's grievances either). 83.251.170.27 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Elon Gilad on the composition of Job
Interesting article by ELon Gilad, a writer at Haaretz. It says much what we have in our article, but with much detail.PiCo (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Narrative
The narrative section is unclear about how exactly the story ends. Doesn't god show up and talk to him or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.123.192 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And what happens to Job's dead children? JohnnieLittleShoes (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Date/composition is overly simplistic
Book of Job neglects the fact that many (most?) scholars date the prose frame narrative earlier than the middle poetic section, partly due to similarities to early biblical, as well as Canaanite, narratives like those of Noah and Danel. (I'm getting this info from the JSB and NOASB's introductions, as well as my memory of Hayes's lecture on the book.) I don't have time to fix the problem just now, but I'm leaving this note here in case anyone else wants to beat me to it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll find a detailed discussion in Seow, p.39 onward (ignore the first page or so which deals with tradition history).PiCo (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

New Image
Admit it, the only reason you are reverting is because your brain has become used to the info box being at the top.The New Classic (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not really a great way to start building consensus, but whatever. As the person who wants to add the image, the onus is on you to explain why it belongs there. Both why any image, and why this particular image. There is a reason infoboxes go at the top of the article. What does this image add to the article? Looking at your talk page, you have been warned previously by other editors for "spamming" William Blake images in articles so perhaps the better question is, what is your agenda in adding it? As you've said, there is already one later in the article. Without a clear reason for adding this, I would oppose its addition. And if a reason can be given, it still wouldn't belong at the top of an article that is about the book of Job, not one artist's rendition of one part of the story contained within that book. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations
In accordance with Wikipedia's policy for copyright violations:

"Copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

Please consider cleaning up the section below. The references numbered 24-26 fit the criteria for close paraphrasing.

3.2	Job and the wisdom tradition

pdredsox5 12:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Ir)relevance of Pihlström
I'm sorry, but I simply can't see the relevance of this to our article. It's an article about the Book of Job, not about theodicy. It looks, no doubt unintentionally, like an attempt to "push" a particular paper - something we dan't do. Even in the article on Theodicy it would need to be used in a way that buttressed the article, rather than drawing attention to itself. PiCo (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi PiCo, are you Australian? Be careful, because in your links to Google Books the URL is not international (books.google.com) but from your nation (books.google.com.au). Apart from this, online I find and read that such contribution of Pihlström is relevant for its connection between the Book of Job with that specific verse 2:3 and the problem of theodicy. In the docx version that I added, the paragraph in question is immediately identifiable because I highlighted it in color. Now it would be up to us WP editors to decide and judge whether or not we agree on its "positive reputation", I insisted on proposing it not because I already had the answer, but because I was looking for your opinions on the matter. My most sincere greetings. Mauro. 82.84.30.160 (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, Philström uses the phrase "without any reason" in a philosophy article about the book of Job. Philström puts the phrase in quotes, and adds a footnote which seems to indicate that he is quoting van Inwagen on this point. I share PiCo's feeling that trying to shoehorn this into the article is a bit much, although given the editing history on this page I think the citation of Philström here is not an attempt to "push" a particular paper, but an attempt to "push" a particular phrase ("without any reason", as discussed previously in the section above). The normal way to edit an article like this is to read articles and books about Job and then use the fact found there to build the article. This alternate procedure of taking a phrase and then finding sources that use the phrase is unnatural, and produces odd wording. Alephb (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The analytical/continental distinction concerns not only philosophy but also theology. As far as the 1900s, theology has rarely spoken English (Newman, Whitehead, Lonergan the only exceptions?), and millennia of theological literature have never been translated into Anglophone language, while in continental Europe it has been a continuous dialogue among Greek, Latin, Romance languages, German, Rhenish-Flemish, etc. For en.WP this is an unbridgeable hole, also because most of the continental publishers have refused the agreement for digitalization on Google Books, but also for continental WPs that can often use only paper sources. Specifically, there is an exterminated literature in non-English language on the importance of those 3 verses of the Book of Job for the theodicy, but I cannot quote it to you. I'll get over it (an identical problem arose with all the articles on topics that your tradition has come to treat only recently). 82.84.28.151 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the article by Pihlström is about theodicy, not about the Book of Job. In fact it doesn't even mention the book, let alone explicate it. We need to explain to readers what the author of Job, not Pihlström, thinks about this.
 * Here's full para from the article:
 * "God’s having reasons to allow evil – especially instrumental reasons that may outweigh some other considerations – makes God a calculating monster, as has been acknowledged by theodicists and anti-theodicists alike.24 It is, however, not primarily the argumentative structure carefully canvassed by van Inwagen that the anti-theodicist should be opposed to; it is, much more fundamentally, the picture he offers of the divinity and human beings’ relations to both God and history that we should find simply ethically unacceptable. Van Inwagen points out that his account does explain why God might allow, and might have a reason to allow, evils happening to people “without any reason”, because “being separated from God” means to be “the playthings of chance”.25 Therefore people, including children, suffer and die horribly “for no reason at all”.26 Yet, God has, according to van Inwagen’s defense, reasons – and even good, ethically sound reasons – to allow this to be the case. The appeal to reasons at such a meta-level is as problematic as the first-order appeal. It still invokes God’s “reasons”." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that with the neophitism of your idiom and of its analytical approach ("tradition"?!) nothing can be found on lots of plurisecular debates. I didn't think I had expressed such a difficult concept to understand. 82.84.17.101 (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no good reason to include the link to Pihlström in this article when he is not being cited for any information directly relevant to the Book of Job. If there was information in his article about the Book of Job that was encyclopedically noteworthy, then I would suggest that we include that information and cite Pihlström for it, but I do not think that the way Pihlström is referenced here for no apparent reason adds any value to the article. (It is also worth noting that most scholars do not regard the Book of Job as actually being about theodicy at all; instead it is usually interpreted as a rebuttal to the theology of the Deuteronomistic History, which held that bad things always happen as punishment for sins. The purpose of the Book of Job is not to explain why bad things happen to good people, but rather merely to prove that they do.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

time of composition
I have no particular agenda about mentioning the "conservative" early date for the composition of Job, but I have it seen it said, not a few times, that Job is of early date. I recognize that the reference that I gave is not the best of of support for the early date, but it is support for the acceptance of an early date in certain circles. Here is yet another, this one saying that the Book of Job is the earliest book: Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine #019, September, 2005 Ancient Hebrew Research Center. I just thought that it is worth mentioning that there is that opinion out there, provided that it is made clear that this is not a scholarly opinion. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * After surfing the web, where there are some mentions of the Book of Job being the oldest book of the Bible, and various other suggestion, I came across this which might be Wikipedia-citable: "The Talmud ascribed it to Moses …" "Traditionally, Job has been dated to the time of the patriarchs" Quartz Hill School of Theology: The Book of Job TomS TDotO (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I notice that the Quartz Hill School of Theology is cited in several other articles in Wikipedia.  TomS TDotO (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Date of Composition: Possibly during the time of the Patriarchs (Second Millennium B.C.)" An Introduction to the Book of Job Bible.org TomS TDotO (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The subject of the book's date is covered quite exhaustively in the first subsection of the Composition section, which also notes the consensus of scholars regarding a 7th-4th century timeframe. Bible.org is not a relaible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.224 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Bible.org is one of the reliable sources for what I am saying: "There are conservative Christians who believe that the Book of Job is one of the earliest books in the Bible." I am not saying that the scholarly consensus is wrong, dubious or debatable. The only question is whether that information about conservative Christians is "encyclopedic".  TomS TDotO (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you think we really need to record the view of non-scholars? The article tries to reflect the broad views of scholarship at the moment. If we start into other views there's no end to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.134.254 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is the opinion of a substantial number of people, including some teachers in Bible colleges and seminaries. It is not an endorsement to have a brief notice of the existence of the idea. I was surprised when someone mentioned it to be, and I wondered whether this was a personal opinion or something widely held. It is, I admit, an odd idea. If there is no one other than me with that kind of interest in it, I will let it pass.  TomS TDotO (talk)


 * I think that is a good point you make @TomS. The definition of scholar should not be limited to belief. The Christian viewpoint if well referenced should also be displayed. Awerey1 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * While an Old Job may be the viewpoint of some Christians, it's certainly not the Christian viewpoint. Alephb (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Job foreign words
Hello @Alephb. First is that Young's point is that the book of Job is EHB not LHB.
 * First, even within Hurvitz’s system and using his own carefully thought out methodology,
 * the Prose Tale of Job turns out to ﬁt the proﬁle of “Early Biblical Hebrew” (EBH), not LBH
 * page 607 Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?

This means that Young is accepting the book of Job as EBH. Of course this invalidates the idea that the EBH in the book of Job is to lend authenticity. So it is in fact true that Young disagrees with this idea. In the page 621 he refers to Hurvits conclusion that the EBH in the book of Job present was to "mark his story with ‘Patriarchal colouring’" and refutes it.

Second point is that along with the possiblity of 'Patriarchal colouring' Hurvits gives other possibilities as for example:
 * Other scholars get around the problem by arguing that although Hurvitz is correct, the current form of the Prose Tale with its late language represents a late reworking of an old :tradition, a possibility which Hurvitz himself raised

page 607 Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew?

So they are in fact not sure. Even with the academic bias of the Wikipedia I don't think we can claim facts from studies who do not follow the scientific method and are based on interpretation.

Third point is just a question. Who is considered a biblical scholar? Because according to rabbinic tradition the book of Job is authored by Moses. They were by their own rights scholars with deeper hebrew knowledge and they were a lot closer to the events. If we want to point out bias then a case has been made for many of the biblical scholars and archeologists from Israel Finklestein to Eliat Mazar by other archeologists and biblical scholars and we are still citing them in the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awerey1 (talk • Awerey1 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The WP:RS/AC is that Moses did not author anything from the Bible&mdash;that is, if he ever existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Rabbinic tradition" just isn't treated as WP:RS on Wikipedia. We can find in rabbinical sources that Moses wrote Job, but we can just as surely find in rabbinical sources that Moses was fifteen feet tall, among many other curiosities. None of this is to denigrate rabbinical sources -- I enjoy Rashi more than any modern commentator, and find him quite insightful. But Wikipedia can't be expected to use those kinds of sources on matters of fact, even if you are impressed by their "deeper hebrew knowledge". Alephb (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand, but what about the other points I raised?


 * Awerey1 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, if you'd like to add material, you'll want to make sure that the material you add is supported by the citation you add with it. So in this case, for example, you'd want to make sure that the citation you add includes the page number (621) and then that the material you add is supported directly by the material on the page you cite. On that page, I don't think Ian Young directly disagrees with the idea that there are foreign-sounding words written into Job for literary affect, although Young does disagree with Hurvitz on all sorts of other things, like whether the EBH/LBH distinction can usefully be applied to dating biblical writings at all. It's important to keep in mind that Young does not believe the style of Job actually does argue for an early date. So it's important to keep the Wikipedia content to what is specifically found in the sources cited. Alephb (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See also Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

opinion not impartiality
I was scanning through this article last night and came across this sentence:

"The three books share attitudes and assumptions but differ in their conclusions: Proverbs makes confident statements about the world and its workings that are flatly contradicted by Job and Ecclesiastes."

This is an opinion, not an impartial fact. The author insists the Bible contradicts itself, but offers no examples (indeed, that would go beyond the scope of the article). I'm sure there are theologians and philosophers out there who would love to debate any examples the author can give. And in stating this as a fact, the author leaves no room for anyone to argue with them or take them to task for such a bold declaration.

It should not be taken upon by Wikipedia to attempt to prove or disprove any religion. Leave that for other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.112.38 (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)