PDA

View Full Version : Job



ConsumeMe
Sep 22nd 2010, 10:43 AM
I am doing yet another analysis of Job but have a couple of rather elementary questions to begin with-- mostly background.

1) When was Job (the man)?
2) When was Job written (the book)?
3) Who wrote Job (the book)?
4) Where was Uz?

Note: idk these answers.

please cite your source. comments welcome

miepie
Sep 22nd 2010, 11:36 AM
I have an answer to question number 4. :)


Location

Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, roughly in the area of modern-day southwestern Jordan and southern Israel.[3] Lamentations 4:21 reads, "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz."[4]

Other locations proposed for Uz include more probably southern Arabia most especially Dhofar home of the original Arabs [5] Bashan in modern-day southern Syria/western Jordan, Arabia east of Petra,[6] or even modern-day Uzbekistan . [7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Uz

Love you,
Mieke :kiss:

PS there is a map on the site too.......

notuptome
Sep 22nd 2010, 12:17 PM
I am doing yet another analysis of Job but have a couple of rather elementary questions to begin with-- mostly background.

1) When was Job (the man)?
2) When was Job written (the book)?
3) Who wrote Job (the book)?
4) Where was Uz?

Note: idk these answers.

please cite your source. comments welcome
The author is unknown. The date of writing is unknown. Ezek 14:14,20 and Jas 5:11 refer to Job as an historic person. It is inferred that he lived in the parriarchal period from his great age, various geographical references and lack of mention of the law, the tabernacle, or the temple. It is believed that Job is the earliest of the bible books ever written predating Genesis and the pentatuch.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

markedward
Sep 22nd 2010, 02:07 PM
1. Details in Job seem to place him before the Israelites entered into Egypt, but sometime after the flood. That is, of course, if you believe Job to be an actual historical figure. I believe the book of Job is strictly a theological parable.

2. It's almost impossible to know exactly when it was written, because the author says nothing about his own time period. He could have been writing anytime between the Patriarch era (beginning roughly 3000 BC) and the Pre-Exile era (ending roughly 600 BC). I believe, regardless of when it was originally written, certain additions were made sometime between 700-500 BC.

3. We don't know. See the above point.

4. Uz was a land to the northeast of Egypt, south of Israel, and northwest of Arabia. Basically, it's right there in the middle where those other three regions meet. Job himself seems to be placed on the side of Uz more familiar to Egypt, for he describes several animals that live along the Nile River region.

John146
Sep 22nd 2010, 08:53 PM
1. Details in Job seem to place him before the Israelites entered into Egypt, but sometime after the flood. That is, of course, if you believe Job to be an actual historical figure. I believe the book of Job is strictly a theological parable.It's not a theological parable. In the book of Job itself there is no indication whatsoever that it's anything but a historical account. Also, other parts of scripture speak of Job as a historical figure. If Job was a fictional person then Daniel and Noah would be, too.

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

James portrayed Job as a historical figure who showed patience in suffering just as the prophets did:

James 5:10Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. 11Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.


4. Uz was a land to the northeast of Egypt, south of Israel, and northwest of Arabia. Basically, it's right there in the middle where those other three regions meet. Job himself seems to be placed on the side of Uz more familiar to Egypt, for he describes several animals that live along the Nile River region.You acknowledge that Uz was a real place, so why would a real place like Uz be referenced in a supposedly fictional story? If Job is fictional why would the land of Uz not also be fictional? The book of Job is also very specific about the places where Job's friends were from, which also were real places. Again, why would it refer to real places if it's a parable? A parable is a fictional story meant to teach a specific lesson, so with that being the case isn't there a lot of unnecessary details included that would not be typically included in a parable, such as how long Job lived after all the trouble he went through (140 years) and that he "saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations" (Job 42:16). I don't believe a parable would include so much specific extraneous information, but I can easily see that being the case in a story about a real person.

markedward
Sep 23rd 2010, 03:27 AM
It's not a theologi-Let me cut you off right there.

We've been down this road before. I explicitly provided both the historical perspective and my personal perspective. (Nevermind the fact that believing that the book of Job is a theological parable doesn't detract one bit from the primary message of the book. You can't say it does, because I'm the one who believes it's a parable and I'm the one that believes it's primary message is the same as even if it is interpreted historically.) It's up to the OP to decide which he finds to be more plausible; this isn't the place to debate this sort of thing, and I'm not interested in doing so. Understand? Fantastic.


But if Job was a fictional person then Dani-Logical fallacy.


But you acknowledge that Uz was a real pla-I guess Samaritans are a fictional people since Jesus refers to them in a parable. Oh, right... that argument doesn't hold up when applied consistently.

/end debate. We have more important things to worry about than if the book of Job is historical or theological.

John146
Sep 23rd 2010, 03:52 PM
Let me cut you off right there.

We've been down this road before. I explicitly provided both the historical perspective and my personal perspective. (Nevermind the fact that believing that the book of Job is a theological parable doesn't detract one bit from the primary message of the book. You can't say it does, because I'm the one who believes it's a parable and I'm the one that believes it's primary message is the same as even if it is interpreted historically.) It's up to the OP to decide which he finds to be more plausible; this isn't the place to debate this sort of thing, and I'm not interested in doing so. Understand? Fantastic.And I provided evidence for the historical perspective. Why is that a problem? Are we not allowed to disagree with you?


Logical fallacy.How so? Ezekiel groups Noah, Daniel and Job together so they are either all fictional characters or all historical figures. I believe it is very logical to draw that conclusion.


I guess Samaritans are a fictional people since Jesus refers to them in a parable. Oh, right... that argument doesn't hold up when applied consistently.Which parable are you referring to?


/end debate. We have more important things to worry about than if the book of Job is historical or theological.You're not obligated to debate the issue but I have the right to share my opinion on it and there's no reason to be offended by that. The reason I believe it is important is because as soon as we start saying the book of Job is a fictional parable and the first part of the book of Genesis is figurative that can lead to someone questioning whether or not the entire Bible is fictional.

markedward
Sep 23rd 2010, 04:09 PM
Are we not allowed to disagree with you?Why was it necessary to disagree with me? Again, I expressed my personal opinion, but I also provided the historical perspective. Since you're essentially reiterating the historical perspective I provided, there's no reason to "disagree" with my post. You're free to disagree, but the situation simply didn't call for it.


How so? Ezekiel groups Noah, Daniel and Job together so they are either all fictional characters or all historical figures. I believe it is very logical to draw that conclusion.And I don't. From your perspective it works. Because you assume the entire Bible must be absolutely literal. From my perspective it doesn't work, because I don't require the entire Bible to be absolutely literal; I require it be true, but "true" doesn't equate to "historically literal". That's not hard to understand; your "logical conclusion" doesn't work when applied through the perspective of the other side.


Which parable are you referring to?The parable of (guess) the Samaritan. Maybe you don't believe it's a parable. I do. What a surprise, something else to disagree on despite the fact that interpreting it as a parable or an actual story doesn't detract from the theology it presents. Just like Job.


You're not obligated to debate the issue but I have the right to share my opinion on it and there's no reason to be offended by that.I'm not offended by your "sharing your opinion". I'm tired of the fact that anytime I make a point, you have to go right after me and debate it. Why can't you just address the OP with your opinion? Why did you have to specifically go through mine point-by-point? Because you're not merely interesting in "sharing your opinion", you just want to argue against any opposing interpretations. Using faulty arguments that don't flow, because, guess what, the other side doesn't look at it the same way you do, and hence, your arguments just don't work when applied from their perspective.


The reason I believe it is important is because as soon as we start saying the book of Job is a fictional parable and the first part of the book of Genesis is figurative that can lead to someone questioning whether or not the entire Bible is fictional.Another logical fallacy. Since you're not the one who believes X is parable, you don't have to right to tell me (or anyone else) that "that can lead to someone questioning whether or not the entire Bible is fictional". I believe Job is a parable. I don't believe the entire Bible is fiction. Hence, stop using this argument, because it just don't work in real-life application.

You can keep this up if you want, but I'm not going to.

notuptome
Sep 23rd 2010, 06:05 PM
For I know my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my heart be consumed within me. Job 19:25-27

Literal? Surely true. Interesting.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

John146
Sep 23rd 2010, 06:28 PM
For I know my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my heart be consumed within me. Job 19:25-27

Literal? Surely true. Interesting.

For the cause of Christ
RogerGood point. I really don't think that a supposed parable would describe a fictional character as looking forward to being resurrected from the dead and seeing God.

teddyv
Sep 23rd 2010, 06:36 PM
It's not a theological parable. In the book of Job itself there is no indication whatsoever that it's anything but a historical account. Also, other parts of scripture speak of Job as a historical figure. If Job was a fictional person then Daniel and Noah would be, too.The whole setup of the discussion between God and Satan makes this readily apparent to me that it is not a literal historical story. Most of the text is poetic in nature as well. I have read that it is much like a theodicy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

As MarkEdward points out, truth != fact

forum lurker
Sep 23rd 2010, 06:45 PM
The whole setup of the discussion between God and Satan makes this readily apparent to me that it is not a literal historical story. Most of the text is poetic in nature as well. I have read that it is much like a theodicy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

As MarkEdward points out, truth != fact

So God and Satan are having a chat with a fictional character? How does that work, in reality? :confused

If the book was merely a gigantic metaphor, it would still be a lie..

John146
Sep 23rd 2010, 06:50 PM
The whole setup of the discussion between God and Satan makes this readily apparent to me that it is not a literal historical story. Most of the text is poetic in nature as well. I have read that it is much like a theodicy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

As MarkEdward points out, truth != factYet other scripture such as Ezekiel 14:14,20 and James 5:11 refers to Job as a historical figure. What do you do with those passages? Also, it doesn't seem to me that a parable would include actual names of people as the book of Job does. If it was a parable why wouldn't it just refer to a man from Uz and his friends, the Temanite, the Shuhite and the Naamathite? Instead, it gives actual names which is strong evidence that it's referring to actual historical people.

Also, the amount of detail given in the book is not at all what would be typical of a parable. A parable is typically much shorter than the book of Job and includes only things that are relevant to the message of the story. If the book of Job was a parable then it would have by far the most extraneous information included in it of any parable ever told or written.

forum lurker
Sep 23rd 2010, 06:54 PM
Also, Job lived in the land of Uz which was not a fictional land: 21Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked. (Lam. 4:21)

Was he a fictional character living in a real, physical land?

teddyv
Sep 23rd 2010, 07:01 PM
Yet other scripture such as Ezekiel 14:14,20 and James 5:11 refers to Job as a historical figure. What do you do with those passages? Also, it doesn't seem to me that a parable would include actual names of people as the book of Job does. If it was a parable why wouldn't it just refer to a man from Uz and his friends, the Temanite, the Shuhite and the Naamathite? Instead, it gives actual names which is strong evidence that it's referring to actual historical people.
Why could one not refer to a character from a Charles Dickins novel to make a point? That person never existed, but the character of that person may offer an excellent example (and well known) of whatever the current writer may want to bring out (I'm not sure I worded that well).


Also, the amount of detail given in the book is not at all what would be typical of a parable. A parable is typically much shorter than the book of Job and includes only things that are relevant to the message of the story. If the book of Job was a parable then it would have by far the most extraneous information included in it of any parable ever told or written.We may end up bandying semantics, i.e. essay, short story, novel, treatise, whatever you want to call it. My point, and I think Mark's, is that the truths revealed through Job do not change whether or not the character(s) are real or not.

teddyv
Sep 23rd 2010, 07:01 PM
Also, Job lived in the land of Uz which was not a fictional land: 21Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked. (Lam. 4:21)

Was he a fictional character living in a real, physical land?Ebenezer Scrooge lived in England. Therefore he was a real man?

forum lurker
Sep 23rd 2010, 07:07 PM
Ebenezer Scrooge lived in England. Therefore he was a real man?

If Charles Dickens had made such a claim, I would have no reason to doubt it.

John146
Sep 23rd 2010, 07:31 PM
Why could one not refer to a character from a Charles Dickins novel to make a point? That person never existed, but the character of that person may offer an excellent example (and well known) of whatever the current writer may want to bring out (I'm not sure I worded that well).So, now the book of Job is a novel? Why would a novel be included in scripture? If it was a fictional story meant to teach moral and godly lessons don't you think it would be shorter and more to the point without all of the extraneous and trivial information that we find in it?


We may end up bandying semantics, i.e. essay, short story, novel, treatise, whatever you want to call it. My point, and I think Mark's, is that the truths revealed through Job do not change whether or not the character(s) are real or not.That may be true, but I mentioned earlier why it can potentially be a problem to see it as a fictional story. Many who see Job as a fictional story also see the first part of the book of Genesis (chapters 1-11 or so) as figurative and not a literal historical account. I find that to be a dangerous belief as I believe that could lead to someone going even further and deciding that much of the Bible is fictional or even all of it.

Also, I have to bring up Ezekiel 14:14,20 again because you didn't really address it.

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

If Job is fictional wouldn't it follow, since his name is used there in the same context with Noah and Daniel, that Noah and Daniel also would be fictional characters? Wouldn't you agree that the verses above imply that Noah, Daniel and Job are all the same type of person, whether that means they are all real historical people or all fictional characters? The context of Ezekiel 14 indicates that they are all historical people. I really think you'd be hardpressed to argue that those verses are referring to two real people and one historical figure as the text itself gives no such indication at all.

KingFisher
Sep 23rd 2010, 08:40 PM
I am doing yet another analysis of Job but have a couple of rather elementary questions to begin with-- mostly background.

1) When was Job (the man)?
2) When was Job written (the book)?
3) Who wrote Job (the book)?
4) Where was Uz?

Note: idk these answers.

please cite your source. comments welcome

Hi ConsumeMe,

You've been given good answers already...

To add, I've seen the book of Job given a date that is possibly
soon after the patriarchs.

It has been shown as this...

Job 2:11 When Job's three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite,
Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, heard about
all the troubles that had come upon him, they set out from
their homes and met together by agreement to go and
sympathize with him and comfort him.

Job's friend Eliphaz was a Temanite. The first mention
of the name Teman is found here...

Genesis 36:15 These were the chiefs among Esau's
descendants:
The sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau:
Chiefs Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz,

Hope this helps,
KingFisher

teddyv
Sep 24th 2010, 03:31 AM
That may be true, but I mentioned earlier why it can potentially be a problem to see it as a fictional story. Many who see Job as a fictional story also see the first part of the book of Genesis (chapters 1-11 or so) as figurative and not a literal historical account. I find that to be a dangerous belief as I believe that could lead to someone going even further and deciding that much of the Bible is fictional or even all of it.
And here we are at the usual crux of these matters. Well, then you might as well right me off, because I don't adhere to a literal reading of Genesis either. You might as well go the whole route and question my faith now. It's been done enough times now it doesn't really bother me.

BTW, did you check the wiki link on theodicy?

Athanasius
Sep 24th 2010, 12:19 PM
So God and Satan are having a chat with a fictional character? How does that work, in reality? :confused

If the book was merely a gigantic metaphor, it would still be a lie..

You remember 'Aesop's fables'? Those 'stories with a moral' written by that old Greek. Those fictional stories that expressed a true moral, applicable to our lives "in reality".

What people aren't suggesting is that God and Satan got together to have a chat with a fictional character. They are suggesting that a fable (if you will; normally I'd call it a myth, but Westerners aren't good with that word) has been written about God (while it's not actually something God did), about Satan (not actually something Satan did) and about a man named Job (who didn't actually exist, or experience the things described). Like Aesop's fables expressing a moral; 'Job' is a fictional story meant to express a deep theological truth (in my opinion, mostly about suffering). That doesn't make the book a lie, unless you're committed to a view which dictates that truth can't be found in myth (and you can thank your grandfather Francis Bacon if you adopt that view, you empiricist you). And even then the book isn't a lie, you just misunderstand it.

But what silliness. You see like Lewis, Tolkein and Bilbo, we often find ourselves out of our depth (that was for you, John). Erm, let's face it. Modern Westerners can't handle ancient myth.

Slug1
Sep 24th 2010, 12:42 PM
Also, I have to bring up Ezekiel 14:14,20 again because you didn't really address it.

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

If Job is fictional wouldn't it follow, since his name is used there in the same context with Noah and Daniel, that Noah and Daniel also would be fictional characters? Wouldn't you agree that the verses above imply that Noah, Daniel and Job are all the same type of person, whether that means they are all real historical people or all fictional characters? The context of Ezekiel 14 indicates that they are all historical people. I really think you'd be hardpressed to argue that those verses are referring to two real people and one historical figure as the text itself gives no such indication at all.I'll address it then... all three were real people.

I will add this as well...

James 5:11 Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord—that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.

By this scripture, we can hold onto the fact that another REAL person has gone through just about the worse of any struggle(s) that we can ever endure through and make it as long as we hold onto God and keep our focus on God. Yeah, we bitch and moan like Job but hey... we're human and based on Job, God pretty much expects us to bitch and moan but look at what happens by keeping our sights on God!!!

Also... in Job 40:15, we have God speaking to Job and the word He speaks is, "made"... not "made UP" :P

Unless the argument is that the behemoth is fictional also :rolleyes:

forum lurker
Sep 24th 2010, 03:45 PM
You remember 'Aesop's fables'? Those 'stories with a moral' written by that old Greek. Those fictional stories that expressed a true moral, applicable to our lives "in reality".


Yes, I assumed that Job was viewed as some sort of a moral story, but I don't think any logical explanation was given why that could be the case. For example, in the story of Fox and the sour grapes the fox can be viewed as a person who despised what he can't have. In the story of Job, the main characters are God, Satan and Job. It would seem to me a little blunt or crude that the author of the story couldn't come up with a personage for God and Satan, as in the parables of Jesus, for example in the parable where Jesus is represened by a thief, and Satan by a strong man.

Therefore considering the story of Job as a moral story sounds very silly to me, kindly put.

John146
Sep 24th 2010, 04:12 PM
And here we are at the usual crux of these matters. Well, then you might as well right me off, because I don't adhere to a literal reading of Genesis either. You might as well go the whole route and question my faith now. It's been done enough times now it doesn't really bother me.Again, I was speaking of it potentially being a problem and not for certain so there's no reason for you to act like I'm telling you that if you believe that way you must not have faith. That's not my place to say that. I'm certainly concerned that you view Genesis and Job the way you do but it doesn't mean you don't have faith.


BTW, did you check the wiki link on theodicy?Yes, and I found it to be quite boring.

Athanasius
Sep 24th 2010, 04:17 PM
Yes, I assumed that Job was viewed as some sort of a moral story, but I don't think any logical explanation was given why that could be the case. For example, in the story of Fox and the sour grapes the fox can be viewed as a person who despised what he can't have. In the story of Job, the main characters are God, Satan and Job. It would seem to me a little blunt or crude that the author of the story couldn't come up with a personage for God and Satan, as in the parables of Jesus, for example in the parable where Jesus is represened by a thief, and Satan by a strong man.

Therefore considering the story of Job as a moral story sounds very silly to me, kindly put.

You find it silly because you think the author of Job didn't use analogies when talking about God and Satan? Why do you think an ancient Hebrew author would have seen that as necessary?

forum lurker
Sep 24th 2010, 04:44 PM
You find it silly because you think the author of Job didn't use analogies when talking about God and Satan? Why do you think an ancient Hebrew author would have seen that as necessary?

No, only if Job was viewed as fictional that would be the case. I view Job as a book based on history, so no silliness is involved.

teddyv
Sep 24th 2010, 05:21 PM
Again, I was speaking of it potentially being a problem and not for certain so there's no reason for you to act like I'm telling you that if you believe that way you must not have faith. That's not my place to say that. I'm certainly concerned that you view Genesis and Job the way you do but it doesn't mean you don't have faith.I was being a bit facetious in this regard. I probably should have put smiley in there.

Athanasius
Sep 24th 2010, 05:27 PM
No, only if Job was viewed as fictional that would be the case. I view Job as a book based on history, so no silliness is involved.

That isn't an answer to the question I asked.

forum lurker
Sep 24th 2010, 05:50 PM
That isn't an answer to the question I asked.

I thought I explained why the lack of using an analogy when depicting God and Satan seemed unconvincing to me in my previous post and therefore assumed you meant to ask something else. Did what I said make no sense to you since you made no comment about it in your question?

forum lurker
Sep 24th 2010, 05:59 PM
You find it silly because you think the author of Job didn't use analogies when talking about God and Satan? Why do you think an ancient Hebrew author would have seen that as necessary?

To answer the questions:

Yes

To make the story thought-provoking and non-confusing.

Athanasius
Sep 24th 2010, 06:07 PM
To answer the questions:

Yes

To make the story thought-provoking and non-confusing.

Is there any reason to think an ancient Hebrew would have been confused, or not have had his thoughts provoked? Do you understand the problem inherent in judging the text by a 21st century standard?

forum lurker
Sep 24th 2010, 06:22 PM
Is there any reason to think an ancient Hebrew would have been confused, or not have had his thoughts provoked?

Not to my knowledge. I don't even know why you ask, Xel'Naga.


Do you understand the problem inherent in judging the text by a 21st century standard?I'm trying to make the point that I don't have such a problem.

Fenris
Sep 26th 2010, 02:24 PM
The Talmud says that Moses wrote the book of Job, and that it is a parable. FWIW.

forum lurker
Sep 26th 2010, 05:01 PM
The Talmud says that Moses wrote the book of Job, and that it is a parable. FWIW.

It seems there are various interpretations also in Judaism. According to the all-knowing Wikipedia:


..The Talmud occasionally discusses Job. Most traditional Torah scholarship has not doubted Job's existence. He was seen as a real and powerful figure. One Talmudic opinion has it that Job was in fact one of three advisors that Pharaoh consulted, prior to taking action against the increasingly multiplying "Children of Israel" mentioned in the Book of Exodus during the time of Moses' birth. ..

..There is a minority view among the rabbis of the Talmud, that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that Job never existed (Midrash Genesis Rabbah LXVII, Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 15a). In this view, Job was a literary creation by a prophet who used this form of writing to convey a divine message or parable. On the other hand, the Talmud (in Tractate Baba Batra 15a-16b) goes to great lengths trying to ascertain when Job actually lived, citing many opinions and interpretations by the leading sages...

..Two further Talmudic traditions hold that Job either lived in the time of Abraham or of Jacob. Levi ben Laḥma held that Job lived in the time of Moses, by whom the Book of Job was written. Others argue that it was written by Job himself (see Job 19:23-24), or by Elihu, or Isaiah..

Fenris
Sep 26th 2010, 05:30 PM
According to the all-knowing Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is the Oracle!

forum lurker
Sep 26th 2010, 05:52 PM
Wikipedia is the Oracle!

I'm always a little shamed when I turn to wikipedia to learn something. It's probably how an atheist would feel when someone says, "I know, I asked God".

Fenris
Sep 26th 2010, 06:32 PM
I'm always a little shamed when I turn to wikipedia to learn something. It's probably how an atheist would feel when someone says, "I know, I asked God".

Well, it's not all that bad...