The book of Job

[Ruben]

Should the book of Job be considered a true event or is it simply a fictional story for educational purposes to teach us the principle of patience?

[JohnsonJones]

I'm not positive.

I read it more of a literal event from the viewpoint of the author, but tradition has it that it is more of a figurative legend.

Sometimes, myths and legends have basis on real events, so it is also possible that it is a bit of both.  It could be that some of the things that we read about the discussion between the Lord and the adversary are there to give us a framing device and to put us into a moral situation in which Job will find himself, but that the actual story of Job occurred (he lost everything, everyone left him or cursed him, and he still remained faithful for the most part), but that there were some embellishments or other literary facets that were added to help teach a moral of the story.

I tend to think that it is either real, or had a basis of reality as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 121:10 a reference that indicates that not only was Job a real prophet, but the situation he found himself in where his friends deserted and cursed him was a real even.

Quote

9 Thy friends do stand by thee, and they shall hail thee again with warm hearts and friendly hands.

10 Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job.

Regardless of which it is, or whether it is a mixing of these ideas, the moral of the story still stands, that no matter what trials and tribulations we have, we should strive to be faithful to the Lord, our covenants, and his commandments. 

[Carborendum]

Like most of the OT, there was an original story that was true (Job actually lived and had some experience similar to the narrative).  But the authors embroidered with poetic imagery to enlarge the story into an object lesson.  For instance, a prophet once said that there was never a "bet" between God and Satan about Job.  That was just imagery.

How much was real vs. metaphorical?  Only the Spirit can guide.

[zil2]

Bible Dictionary Entry on Job.  In D&C 121:10, is the Lord referencing a fictional story, or someone from history?  Heaven knows.

I suspect there was a Job and the story is pretty accurate, while also being designed to convey important truths (which would include both eliminating elements and emphasizing others).  IMO, the goal of the storytellers through history would have been to make its lessons as memorable as possible, by tweaking the telling in a way that made it easy to retell verbally, until eventually we became more obsessed with accuracy and maintaining a written record.

Better than asking about its historicity is asking what more can we learn from it - I think there's a depth of learning possible there and we barely begin to touch on it in Sunday School.

[Carborendum]

This movie had an interesting question about Job.

A Hallmark style rom-com about a widowed pastor and his late wife's sister getting together.  The sister is not too keen on religion.  She asks the question about Job:

Quote

So, he loses everything including his whole family and then gets remarried and "poof" everything is happy again?

This doesn't really seem like it is germane to the story until you realize how sad and incomplete the pastor has been.  He's kept a stiff upper lip (as they say).  And he tries to smile his way through the day.  But when he realizes he's in love again, he chases her down and they have a happy ending.

I'm not really doing it justice.  But at the end, everyone is happy that he found love again.

I think that we hear that "Job got another wife" and miss the fact that "he fell in love again."

Edited December 5, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Ruben said:

Should the book of Job be considered a true event or is it simply a fictional story for educational purposes to teach us the principle of patience?

The Book of Job contains a great deal of information that would be impossible for any mortal individual to know except that it be given by divine revelation.  It is obvious to me that there is much that can be learned from the Book of Job – especially concerning the Messiah and the means of both temptations (maledictions) of Satan and blessings (covenants of restoration) with that G-d (Jehovah) that reigns over all the exiled (fallen) from Heaven.

In his initial post of this thread, @Carborendum implies that only through the Holy Ghost is truth manifested.  Those that live by the covenantal gift of the Holy Ghost are promised to see and hear truths not available to those that do not seek to covenant with G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

13 hours ago, Ruben said:

Should the book of Job be considered a true event or is it simply a fictional story for educational purposes to teach us the principle of patience?

The fact that the Lord mentioned Job and his trials when counseling Joseph Smith (D&C 121:10) might suggest that Job was a historical figure. If not for that, I would assume that the story of Job was either an entirely fictional parable with some extended, rambling philosophy attached, or at least that it was a stylized and highly embroidered retelling of an actual kernel event with some extended, rambling philosophy attached.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Vort

[Vort]

As Elder McConkie once famously observed, "Job is for people who like the book of Job."

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

As Elder McConkie once famously observed, "Job is for people who like the book of Job."

Hey!  I like my job.

[LDSGator]

18 hours ago, Ruben said:

Should the book of Job be considered a true event or is it simply a fictional story for educational purposes to teach us the principle of patience?

I have no problem with either. While I’m a bit uncomfortable with taking the old testament 100% literally all the time, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it either. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I think a lot of times we miss the point of the Book of Job.  I suspect there was a real person named Job; but the story of Job is merely an envelope—a tortilla shell for the meaty taco that is the book’s philosophical meditations and arguments.

When you really dig into it—after the first chapter or two, Job is neither patient nor uncomplaining. Ironically, while He doesn’t question God’s righteousness (as he understands the term “righteousness”), Job sort of does suggest that maybe God isn’t quite omniscient—that God must have gotten His facts messed up to be punishing him, Job, for sins that Job is sure he didn’t commit.

Basically, Job & Co are coming from the mindset that “God always rewards the innocent and punishes the guilty; and if someone is having a hard time, it’s because they sinned”.  Job’s friends jump to the position that “you must have sinned”.  Job himself basically maintains that “yes, that’s how it’s supposed to work; but I’m quite sure I didn’t sin and I’m sure God’s motives are righteous; God has just made a factual mistake about my righteousness, and if He would just talk to me we could sort this all out”.  God basically comes in and says “Job is right that he hasn’t sinned and is right to stand by My righteousness.  But none of you drips know anything about how My punishment or My justice work, and your puny minds wouldn’t understand it if I explained it to you.”  

Scholars who accept a later date for the current text of Job often see it as a subversive book; pushing back against Deutero-Isaiah’s concept of God’s immediate and unvarying rewards for the righteous and punishment for the sinful.

Edited December 6, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

21 hours ago, Vort said:

As Elder McConkie once famously observed, "Job is for people who like the book of Job."

McConkie's full quote (one paragraph, not the whole talk). By the way, I found this talk to be especially inspiring when considering the place of the Book of Mormon in scripture. McConkie gives a view of the Bible as an incomplete compilation that will one day be completed and perfected. This is available somewhere in mp3, which is how I discovered it, but I don't have a link at hand. If you really want the mp3 and can't find it, PM me.

In the Old Testament, Genesis is the book of books—a divine account whose worth cannot be measured. Exodus and Deuteronomy are also of surpassing worth. Numbers, Joshua, Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles are all essential history, interwoven with deeds of faith and wonder that form a background for an understanding of the Christian faith. Leviticus has no special application to us and, except for a few passages, need not give us permanent concern. Ruth and Esther are lovely stories that are part of our heritage. The Psalms contain marvelous poetry, and the portions that are messianic and that speak of the last days and the Second Coming are of great import. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations are interesting books; Job is for people who like the book of Job; and the Song of Solomon is biblical trash—it is not inspired writing. Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Jonah are the least of the prophets; and all the rest of the prophets—Isaiah above them all—each in his place and order set forth the doctrinal and prophetic word that must be studied in depth.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Many Bible translations change Song of Solomon to Song of Songs.  They think it is doubtful that Solomon was the author of the book.  I agree with Bruce McConkie on many points of doctrine, but I disagree with his assessment of the Song of Songs book.  It is not an inspired book, but I believe it sanctions physical intimacy in marriage which is good.

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."  -- Genesis 2:25

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Many Bible translations change Song of Solomon to Song of Songs.  They think it is doubtful that Solomon was the author of the book.  I agree with Bruce McConkie on many points of doctrine, but I disagree with his assessment of the Song of Songs book.  It is not an inspired book, but I believe it sanctions physical intimacy in marriage which is good.

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."  -- Genesis 2:25

My thoughts completely 

[askandanswer]

 

The very first verse of Job raises questions about whether all of it can be taken literally as true.

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Some people suggest that there has only ever been one perfect person and I don't think they have Job in mind when they say that. 

And if he was perfect, he would certainly have lived in the land of Aus rather than Uz.  

[zil2]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

The very first verse of Job raises questions about whether all of it can be taken literally as true.

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Some people suggest that there has only ever been one perfect person and I don't think they have Job in mind when they say that. 

And if he was perfect, he would certainly have lived in the land of Aus rather than Uz.  

Please see the meaning of the Hebrew term here translated as "perfect" (link to blueletterbible.org page for the term).

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Please see the meaning of the Hebrew term here translated as "perfect" (link to blueletterbible.org page for the term).

"Perfect" in the linguistic sense of "complete", e.g. the past perfect tense.

[Carborendum]

I tend to think that we're taking this word too literally regardless of the Hebrew meanings.

When we say, "I had a perfect day today."  It's a figure of speech.

OTOH, "My wife is perfect" is literally true.  

[laronius]

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

 

The very first verse of Job raises questions about whether all of it can be taken literally as true.

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Some people suggest that there has only ever been one perfect person and I don't think they have Job in mind when they say that. 

And if he was perfect, he would certainly have lived in the land of Aus rather than Uz.  

Genesis 6:9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

There were actually a number of different words in the Bible that were all translated into the word perfect but each with different meanings. Even today the word "perfect" is often not used to mean literally flawless. Complete or thoroughly made is the original etymology of the word and remains a common use of the word.

This doesn't prove Job is to be taken literally but it also doesn't disprove it either.

[zil2]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

"Perfect" in the linguistic sense of "complete", e.g. the past perfect tense.

Plus two more possible meanings.

[askandanswer]

19 hours ago, zil2 said:

Please see the meaning of the Hebrew term here translated as "perfect" (link to blueletterbible.org page for the term).

An interesting and useful site - thanks @zil2

[DurangoUT01]

The Book of Job is the oldest text in the canon.  It even predates Genesis.  Job is an allegory and was written as a temple txt.  Let me outline it this way:

-Job lived in a near paradisiacal state.  He had everything he could want.

-Satan came into his world and caused heart ache and evil.

-His integrity was tested by three friends to see if he would retain his love and loyalty for God.

-special blessing were pronounced upon him for his righteousness

- Finally he was rewarded to a higher level than before when he fell into his world of pain.

Does that sound familiar?  Incidentally it’s one of my favorite books in the Bible.

Edited January 20 by DurangoUT01