Talk:Job (biblical figure)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Job (biblical figure). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Unencyclopedic section

The section "In the Hebrew Bible" currently has a few problems. The tone is unencyclopedic, and the complete play-by-play in this section for some reason precedes the short summary in the "In Christianity" section. If there's going to be a full retelling of the story, it should go after the short summary.

The section for some reason adopts the archaic sound of scripture with sentences like "Job rent his clothes and cut his hair, and fell down upon the ground..." The section needs a rewrite. --Mr. Billion 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"probus, virtuous, and religious"

Umm... "probus" isn't a word. Any idea what this is supposed to mean? --Pifactorial 06:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's a supposed adjectival form of "probity", but I don't think it can function as an adjective in proper English. Maybe "upright" would be a better word? --Pifactorial 06:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

IM SORRY but this paragraph starts out poorly worded:

"When Job's first three friends stop answering Job, Elihu becomes angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God, angry with the three friends for condemning Job but not being able to refute him. So, he takes a middle path, emphasizing the sovereignty of God ."

Can someone please reword that so I see exactly what it is trying to say?

22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)G2theF

Job's existence in Jewish scholarship

Quoting from the article: "Classical Torah scholarship has not doubted Job's existence." Anti-Wellhausen polemicizing aside, this is not the case. There is an opinion in the Talmud (Bava Batra p. 15) that Iyov never lived, and the story is a parable. Perhaps the article should be updated, with other information from the Talmud as to Iyov's possible period of living. 71.174.234.120 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Work Needed

This is a really lousy article. The introduction is dense and hard to follow unless one is well-acquainted with the topic already, and each following section reads like a partisan discussion of Job, rather than a look at a given viewpoint within a larger whole. I am going to try to reorganize it, and hopefully rewrite the intro.--Agbdavis (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Moromonism section biased

The section about Job under mormonism is biased, and speaks as if everything in that section is fact, whereas the rest of the article which talks about it in theory. 24.65.42.159 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Explain please...

"Satan, however, challenges Job's integrity, and so it is revealed to Satan by God that Job exceeded the protective hedge with the word "behold" in effect God is saying look he is outside his protective boundry, resulting in tragedy for Job: the loss of his children, wealth, and physical soundness"

Sorry, this is confusing. Can someone explain this a little? I think quotation marks should be in there somewhere, too. --70.19.133.192 (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was just going to challenge this phrase as well. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it myself and as someone with no formal education on this topic, I find that part very confusing. 81.105.61.96 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What??? To anyone but a scholar this is unclear and pedantic. Can anyone clean up this introduction? Confused...--Daddypants (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What I find in dispute here is the interpretation that G*d points out to Satan that Job has "exceeded the protective hedge..." Looking at my KJV it clearly relates this: that it is Satan who points out to G*d that He has placed a "hedge" around Job, protecting him and his family and possessions, whereat Satan challenges G*d to take "all that he has" from Job, stating that this will cause Job to curse G*d. G*d replies by removing the "hedge" of His protection from Job and allowing Satan to attack his household. The point being that prior to Satan's challenge, Job was fully within G*d's protection, rather than in a state of exceeding it that had to be pointed out to Satan. This is as I read in my KJV, but perhaps it reads differently in the Tenakh? Otherwise this sounds like some theologian's extracanonic interpretation, and if so should be noted as such - Druthulhu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.216.57 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Those sentences were bizarre. I have clarified them to the following:

Satan, however, challenges Job's integrity, arguing that Job serves God simply because of the "hedge" with which God protects him. God progressively removes that protection, allowing Satan to take his wealth, his children, and his physical health. Job remains loyal throughout, and does not curse God.

Any objections? Tirmie (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

my recent edit

not sure if this edit is quite right, but the phrase "in real life" is strange: either too strong or too conciliatory. many old testament book-writers may not be historically verifiied or verifiable, but let's say what we want to say here. "realness" vs "historicity"? I don't think the rabbinical scholars would object to "historical figure", but don't wanna downgrade him from "guy w/ word-of-god" status.

ppl ask the same questions about Jesus, of course, but find taking the answers in ANY CERTAIN direction to have serious implications. I'm gonn go back to watching Da Vinci Code now. K bai. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical Figure" should be removed

I want to remove it, however i'll put it in discussion for a while —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedbma (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact that Job appears in the Bible is enough to qualify him as a "Biblical figure". It's the same as saying that this article is about "a person named Job who appears in the Bible". Santamoly (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased point of view

Are not the Wikipedia articles supposed to be written from a neutral point of view? I find an utter example of bias in this article, when it says, "This translation, however, implies prediction of Christianity that are not necessarily present in the original Hebrew, which literally translated reads 'I know that my vindicator lives,' and uses the same legal language found throughout the rest of the Book of Job. Because this is the only place where Job is read to believe in a personal, bodily resurrection (he insists on answers in his life, not after death), this famous translation may be an example of Christians reading their own beliefs back into texts that do not necessarily share them.[4]" in the Job in Christianity section. The first sentence is moderately biased, while the second (and last) is horribly biased. Should we not change this? Besides, I do not think that this is appropriate. Maybe in an article about alleged mis-exegesis by Christians when they read the Tanakh, but not in an article about Job.Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Supposed islamic view of Job as a prophet

I think that the associated citation does not support it. It says "Job (Ayub) was a prosperous man, with faith in Allah". The conclusion that it is considered a prophet seems OR to me.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont have any citations to give but as a muslim I know that in Islam the character Ayyub (Job) is seen to be the most patient person who ever lived, and that it is not reasonable to compare your own torments to his, and that he was one of many profits sent by god to guide the people in the right direction. I was also told that he did not ever ask for any privileges from god that all other profits asked for, even in the direst of times.

A related question that needs to be asked is why an Islamic version of Job is included in an article on the Biblical (or Judeo-Christian) Job? Including the Islamic view of Job in this article distorts the Biblical version. The stories are separate and distinct and they deserve separate articles. Santamoly (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After a editorial request was made to expand the lede, I added material to the lede to briefly summarize the main idea of the story. Since this article is about the biblical (i.e. Judeo-Christian) Job, I have sent any Islamic references to the Job (disambiguation page where they're properly connected to the Job in Islam article, which describes Job as an Islamic prophet. Santamoly (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Recent edits

I thank Santamoly (talk · contribs) for expanding the lead in this edit. However I think anybody who takes a cursory glance at the next seven edits will see that they were not helpful. Much of the content was removed and either not replaced with anything (content was moved to Job in Islam and no link was given; which is a little suspect, as other edits seem to remove any mention of Islam), or content was rewritten, but a lot of sourced information was removed (interpretations from scholars - all sourced - were obliterated). The comparative perspectives from the different Abrahamic religions, which are standard on most articles about biblical figures, were removed.

I've reverted the article back to the edit I linked to (with of Santamoly's changes preserved). I think most editors will agree that the changes made were counter-productive and removed most of the content that was steadily added and changed by consensus over the years. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms of the three friends

Where the article says, " Job ultimately condemns all their counsel, beliefs and critiques of him as false", it seems it ought to summarize just what those counsels, belief and critiques are. However, this statement has no further follow up. Without this information, the article (and indeed, the whole point of the book of Job) is incomplete. Would someone be up to adding the information in? 172.10.238.180 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

248 is false

No where does it say Job lived to be 248, nor that he was 108 when his trials ended. If anything he lived 140 because he lived contemporary with Moses who knew him and wrote this book of Job to define God for us. Moses lived 120. His parents and grandparents had ages of 137, and the people who he took out of Egypt, the young like Caleb lived beyond 86 while those over 30 at the exodus had all died by 60. So there is no way Job lived 248, Peleg lived 239, and even if you accepted the altered 339, placing Job back before Abram doesn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elijah Michael (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Believe it or don't. A biblical literalist will have no problem believing the ages of Job and the various Patriarchs and Prophets as related in the Tenakh. One who demands scientifically verifiable proof, eschewing belief in the miraculous, will not. If you are willing to believe that Job lived, some 3000-4000 years ago, to an age of 140, an age beyond those of the oldest living modern homo sapiens, it is simply silly to reject the possibility that he could have lived to be 248. Certainly I would agree if your issue were the fact that Job's age at the time of the end of his trials is not given in the scriptures, and that thus the age of 248 at is death is unsupported. But your conclusion that his age at death would if anything have been 140 is not only unsupported but is unscriptural, since it clearly states that he lived for 140 years after his trials. Now as infered above, an arguement of unscripturalness is perfectly acceptable if you are not a biblical literalist, but again, if that is the case then an age at death of 140 carries just as much incredulity. You give an average lifespan of the Hebrews at the time of Moses of 60 years, quite generous by scientific standards in consideration of our knowledge of human lifespans over the past few centuries ... so if 80 years over that span, why not 188 years over? "For with G*d all things are possible." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druthulhu (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is that 248 is referenced nowhere in any of the texts. If it is, defend that the reference exists, if it isn't, then the number does not belong in the article. 172.10.238.180 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 10:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am confident that adding the section on Al-Joura being the place of trial for Job would not offend anyone or the truth for that matter. Having done that however I started to wonder if the land of UZ was in fact an ancient name for Gazza region. This would make a good research topic for a young scholar. Good Luck 68.165.19.176 07:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The question where the Land of Uz was (or whether it existed at all) is covered in Land_of_Uz, isn't it? Ceplm (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Job as a Christian / Jewish prophet?

There's a section above from a while back doubting the sources saying Job is a prophet in Islam, but the source for the section in the lead calling him "a prophet in the Abrahamic religions" is far weaker - a cite to the Jewish Encyclopedia, quoting someone saying "an opinion which is elsewhere expressed more fully, in that Job is said to have been a pious Gentile or one of the prophets of the Gentiles". In context I think it's clear they don't mean a biblical prophet (to the rabbis being quoted, "...of the gentiles" would clearly be a disclaimer there that changes the meaning of the term) but are using the term as an alternative way to say "pious gentile". Anyway, nothing in the rest of the article mentions Job as a prophet in Judaism and Christianity, and I'm fairly certain he isn't considered one - can anyone find better sources saying that he is? --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Job (biblical figure). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Job 30:30 - Does it refer to Job's race?

A new editor, @ElijahTheTishbite:, recently made some edits to the lede regarding Job 30:30: "My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat." The editor proposed that this raised the possibility that Job was "Black" and that such a representation is in "direct opposition to the many Eurocentric depictions of Job we see today."

The edits were reverted and I engaged with the editor, suggesting that the issue be raised here on the talk page to see if consensus can be reached.

So... I propose a small section, "Alternate interpretations of Job." In it, I propose the phrasing along the lines of the following:

Job 30:30 reads "My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat." Some have interpreted this as indicating that Job had dark skin, indicating he was racially black. This is in direct opposition to the more common Eurocentric depictions of Job seen today.

What is everyone's opinion on this?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems to me to be original research. It would need proper references to establish notability as a view. It seems these kind of interpretations mainly come from religious movements with a strong racial focus, particularly the Black Hebrew Israelites. And I'm sure ElijahTheTishbite means well, but this edit seems to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that James VI of England was black (see websites like this and this). I think these kind of views (unless mainstream sources can be found for these views) belong primarily on the BHI and related articles. - Lindert (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

So it seems to me that the minimum bar such an edit to pass notability on this article would be references to scholarly journals. Otherwise, an edit on Black Hebrew Israelites might be possible (although that article seems to have specific categorization of beliefs on individual verses). If an edit were put there, though, it should be taken up on that article's talk page first as well.

Does that seem like a good summary of the situation? --KNHaw ^(talk) 23:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sources are key. If an interpretation such as the one suggested on this article is notable, it should be possible to find a somewhat mainstream source that at least discusses it (it need not necessarily agree with it). Even on the BHI article we can't just put the opinions of us Wikipedia editors, there need to be sources as well, but those need not be mainstream sources. A book or article written by a proponent of BHI views would be an acceptable source, even if it is not a scholarly or mainstream publication (see WP:PARITY). - Lindert (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)